Qi'ra lets you ignore obstacles while attacking, Trick Shot gives you an additional die while performing an obstructed attack. As both use the keyword "while", can i choose the order and gain both advantages?

No, the obstacle is ignored, hence she anti-combos with Solo.

1 hour ago, MasterShake2 said:

No, the obstacle is ignored, hence she anti-combos with Solo.

Correct. Compare Outrider, which removes the defence bonus for the obstructed shot, but still leaves it counting as obstructed - so trick shot still triggers.

So on their website in one of thier articles it states that you can gain the benifit of both han and qi'ra without giving the defense die

I say she works with Corellian Kid and Trick Shot granting an extra Red without granting an extra green.

The obstruction doesn't go away.

Trick Shot is not an effect of obstacles.

The additional defense die is an effect from the attacker's end and is an effect of obstacles.

No one knows atm. It needs a FAQ. I think i'm going to stay away from it until then, should be cleared up soon at least.

21 minutes ago, Frimmel said:

I say she works with Corellian Kid and Trick Shot granting an extra Red without granting an extra green.

The obstruction doesn't go away.

Trick Shot is not an effect of obstacles.

The additional defense die is an effect from the attacker's end and is an effect of obstacles.

If you ignore an obstacle, it does not obstruct your attack. Your attack has to be obstructed for Han's ability or trick shot to work.

5 minutes ago, MasterShake2 said:

If you ignore an obstacle, it does not obstruct your attack. Your attack has to be obstructed for Han's ability or trick shot to work.

This goes back to the thread on Dash/Outrider. Your attack is still obstructed. The obstacle doesn't go away. That's why this is a question at all. Ignoring things doesn't make them not exist.

You ignore the effect of the obstruction -defender gets an extra green. Not that you are obstructed - Corellian Kid and Trick shot grant extra red. See Cammando64's snippet from the article.

I agree that she is problematically phrased.

9 minutes ago, MasterShake2 said:

If you ignore an obstacle, it does not obstruct your attack. Your attack has to be obstructed for Han's ability or trick shot to work.

Incorrect. You ignore the obstructions effects. The attack is still obstructed.

4 minutes ago, nikk whyte said:

Incorrect. You ignore the obstructions effects. The attack is still obstructed.

"While you move and perform attacks, you ignore all obstacles that you are locking."

Unless we're reading different cards, she doesn't ignore effects, she ignores the obstacle itself.

7 minutes ago, Frimmel said:

This goes back to the thread on Dash/Outrider. Your attack is still obstructed. The obstacle doesn't go away. That's why this is a question at all. Ignoring things doesn't make them not exist.

You ignore the effect of the obstruction -defender gets an extra green. Not that you are obstructed - Corellian Kid and Trick shot grant extra red. See Cammando64's snippet from the article.

I agree that she is problematically phrased.

You're saying she ignores the effects, buts that not what the card says.

On 9/29/2018 at 4:45 PM, Cammando64 said:

So on their website in one of thier articles it states that you can gain the benifit of both han and qi'ra without giving the defense die

FFG's own post explains it.

This is probably better had over here:

where I've already said my piece. Here is the Dash thread with a similar question of "ignore X then X interacts with Y" rules questions.

25 minutes ago, Arc170Chris said:

FFG's own post explains it.

And FFG articles are never wrong right? The people who write them experts on the mechanics of the game? They have never misinterpreted a card or effect?

I have no idea which way they will rule this as sloppy wording has really backed them in a corner with this and Dash but articles are not official rulings and have been written several times by people who do not even understand the game. I see table arguments happening over this until it officially goes in RRG.

2 minutes ago, LordFajubi said:

And FFG articles are never wrong right? The people who write them experts on the mechanics of the game? They have never misinterpreted a card or effect?

I have no idea which way they will rule this as sloppy wording has really backed them in a corner with this and Dash but articles are not official rulings and have been written several times by people who do not even understand the game. I see table arguments happening over this until it officially goes in RRG.

Typically an upgrade in an expansion pack "works" with the pilots in the expansion pack.

until they clarify, that's the way it works. Yes they are the experts of their own creation. lol Doesn't mean they never get anything wrong, but this one was clearly used an example for a reason and it's clear what their intent was in combo-ing those two.

Just now, Frimmel said:

Typically an upgrade in an expansion pack "works" with the pilots in the expansion pack.

Qi'ra still works with Han, its just non-optimal. This is not a good rules argument.

1 minute ago, Arc170Chris said:

until they clarify, that's the way it works. Yes they are the experts of their own creation. lol Doesn't mean they never get anything wrong, but this one was clearly used an example for a reason and it's clear what their intent was in combo-ing those two.

So should we just ignore the clear rules regarding this? Because a different team within the company contradicts said rules? A department that is not paid to understand these rules?

4 minutes ago, Arc170Chris said:

until they clarify, that's the way it works. Yes they are the experts of their own creation. lol Doesn't mean they never get anything wrong, but this one was clearly used an example for a reason and it's clear what their intent was in combo-ing those two.

Chris and Alex are experts, the people who write the articles have proven with most certainty they are not. I agree with you on what the intent was but I also know until it is officially answered it will cause discord.

The rules nowhere support that ignoring something equals to 'not being there/not existing'.

Other instances where 'ignoring' appears in the rules are referred to 'ignoring the EFFECTS of something'. So by analogy, even if it not explicitly said so, 'ignoring' will be always nearer to the 'ignoring the effects' meaning, than to the 'not existing' one.

The latter is just a mental construct by part of the community that in fact, doesn't follow even the dictionary meaning of 'ignore' which implies that in order to being able to ignore something (which is a intentional act), that something must exist in first place.

Summarizing, currently you can interpret and play 'ignore' as you wish, of course. But the RAI is so strong with this one that don't delude yourself into thinking that it will make it to the FAQ as 'not existing'.

really guys? FFG past articles are a mess.

how about Miranda, droping a bomb befoer slaming?

39 minutes ago, Jehan Menasis said:

The rules nowhere support that ignoring something equals to 'not being there/not existing'.

Other instances where 'ignoring' appears in the rules are referred to 'ignoring the EFFECTS of something'. So by analogy, even if it not explicitly said so, 'ignoring' will be always nearer to the 'ignoring the effects' meaning, than to the 'not existing' one.

The latter is just a mental construct by part of the community that in fact, doesn't follow even the dictionary meaning of 'ignore' which implies that in order to being able to ignore something (which is a intentional act), that something must exist in first place.

Summarizing, currently you can interpret and play 'ignore' as you wish, of course. But the RAI is so strong with this one that don't delude yourself into thinking that it will make it to the FAQ as 'not existing'.

This is a misunderstanding, you assume the interpretation of "Ignore" = does not exist. For me, Ignore means whatever you're ignoring is not factored in. If an obstacle is not factored in to an attack, that attack cannot be obstructed by that obstacle. This is the problem with using a non-defined term in your game. Ignore is never clearly delineated anywhere. Rules as Written, it's a hard sell that an obstacle you're "ignoring" is also providing you with a benefit and if you're ignoring it, but it still obstructs the attack, then why isn't the defender benefiting from it as well? I'm fine if they errata Q'ira into a language that does facilitate this interaction, but I'm never a fan of the "because I said so" ruling, which is what this would be.

8 minutes ago, MasterShake2 said:

This is a misunderstanding, you assume the interpretation of "Ignore" = does not exist. For me, Ignore means whatever you're ignoring is not factored in. If an obstacle is not factored in to an attack, that attack cannot be obstructed by that obstacle. This is the problem with using a non-defined term in your game. Ignore is never clearly delineated anywhere. Rules as Written, it's a hard sell that an obstacle you're "ignoring" is also providing you with a benefit and if you're ignoring it, but it still obstructs the attack, then why isn't the defender benefiting from it as well? I'm fine if they errata Q'ira into a language that does facilitate this interaction, but I'm never a fan of the "because I said so" ruling, which is what this would be.

Exactly. The argument for Qi'ra right now has not basis in rules or logic. She does not function with part of scum Han's ability. If you want her to work with Han in casual games, agree with your opponent and do so. For tournaments however, please follow the written rules and interactions as are clear within the rules.

The guys who wrote the article, whilst not pro's by any means, didn't come up with Han and Qi'Ra off the top of their head. They were given that info by someone, most likely one of the dev's. It undeniably shows their intent for the cards to work together, its just Qi'Ra's wording is quite loose and will need clarification to get everyone on board. The word 'ignore' seems to need an in-game definition as well.

13 hours ago, Jehan Menasis said:

RAI is so strong with this one

Absolutely not.

Preview articles doesn't give any clue about RAI, and it wouldn't be the first time they are completely wrong (K-wing bomb-slaming !? ).

But RAW, clearly, the interaction between Han and Qi’ra is only partial. You can't get a bonus from something you are ignoring.

Han would better not trust Qi'ra... like in the movie, maybe that's a clue on RAI

Han and Qira can be useful together because Qira allows you to overlap obstacles. That‘s pretty valuable for a large ship, isn‘t it? It also introduces good choices: do you really want to lock and ignore, or do you want to use Han instead?

Choice, not synergy, is more in line with the 2.0 design. If we really want to admit their intent as an argument...