7 minutes ago, hawk32 said:

You can't ignore something that didn't happen. Words have meaning. If you're going to try and play some ridiculous semantics game you should open up a dictionary.

"ignore

verb (used with object), ig·nored,ig·nor·ing.

1. to refrain from noticing or recognizing" - dictionary.com

So dash never noticed or recognized that the rock existed or that he moved through it. And outriders second part does not work.

1 minute ago, Icelom said:

"ignore

verb (used with object), ig·nored,ig·nor·ing.

1. to refrain from noticing or recognizing" - dictionary.com

So dash never noticed or recognized that the rock existed. And outriders second part does not work.

"refrain from noticing or recognizing" - refrain from noticing or recognizing what? Going over an obstacle. Does outrider say going over an obstacle he didn't ignore? No.

Dash works fine, some people have an extremely rigid 'understanding' of language it seems.#

If i decide to ignore my front door whilst leaving the house, after I've left the house is my glass door still intact?

The answer is no, and also I'm bleeding from my face. Send help.

6 minutes ago, nexttwelveexits said:

Then he's not overlapping or moving through the obstacle...

I mean, we're just going around in circles at this point. We are clearly not going to convince each other so it's probably time to just sit back and let other people talk about it for awhile, yeah?

That is incorrect. Moving is clearly defined in the Rules Reference. And the Rules Reference regarding obstacles clearly makes a distinction between moving while executing a maneuver and moving but not executing a maneuver. See page thirteen of the Rules Reference.

As I noted before the Rules Reference clearly allows for situations where a ship is barrel rolling or boosting involving an obstacle. The obstacle does not need to cease to exist to allow a barrel roll or boost as that circumstance is clearly allowed by the Rules Reference page thirteen:

Quote

While a ship is moving, but not executing a maneuver, if it moves through or overlaps an obstacle, it executes its move as normal but suffers an effect based on the type of obstacle

And boosting or barrel-rolling is a move also per page thirteen of the Rules Reference:

Quote

MOVE

A ship moves when it executes a maneuver or otherwise changes position using a template (such as barrel rolling or boosting).

While you drive, you ignore stop signs.

After you drive to the store, if you drove through a stop sign, get pulled over by the police.

"But officer I was ignoring stop signs so I clearly haven't broken the law"

4 minutes ago, hawk32 said:

You can't ignore something that didn't happen. Words have meaning. If you're going to try and play some ridiculous semantics game you should open up a dictionary.

I mean... your argument is that Dash can move through an obstacle without moving through it.

The obstacle doesn't say "I reject all barrel rolls." The barrel roll says "this doesn't work if you overlap or move through an object." So if Dash can barrel roll onto an object, then by the definition of a barrel roll, he must not be overlapping or moving through it, or else he wouldn't be able to perform the barrel roll.

1 minute ago, nexttwelveexits said:

I mean... your argument is that Dash can move through an obstacle without moving through it.

No, it isn't.

Is Dash can ignore an obstacle while moving through it but it doesn't change the fact he moved through it.

Is English a second language for you? Is that the problem?

Did this tie fighter ignore moving through an obstacle?

is the obstacle that it's upsidedown?

1 minute ago, Talonbane Cobra said:

is the obstacle that it's upsidedown?

Possibly... only pic I found that had templates on the table.

Well what we need is an faq on this, clearly neither side of this argument is going to change there view.

10 minutes ago, SOTL said:

Is Dash can ignore an obstacle while moving through it but it doesn't change the fact he moved through it.

Is English a second language for you? Is that the problem?

Jeez, dude. We disagree. I don't see the reason to get rude or personal.

it's pretty simple. Ignoring something doesn't mean it didn't happen. It just means you ignore it.

I tried to Ignore Trump being elected but it still happened, for example.

To be honest though i do think there's some ambiguity there, because if you ignore obstacles when taking actions with Dash then you must be still "moving" and the rule says you can't take actions while overlapping right?

Outrider says after you execute a maneuver (before taking actions) so by that logic you are still moving and so are ignoring obstacles still so that rule wouldn't trigger.

15 minutes ago, ArbitraryNerd said:

Oi, I'm on Dash works fine and everyone else is trying to create problems.

The clarification is FFG using consistent language with overlap and Range 0 not being mutually exclusive, which the poster I was responding to was arguing (or I thought they were, I can't be arsed to read back now that this thread has expanded).

? I see. I just think the language is consistent. "Range 0" is for things that are not moving. "Overlap" is for things that are moving. Per Rules Reference:

Page 14

Quote

Overlap

While a ship executes a maneuver or otherwise moves, it overlaps an object if the ship’s final position would physically be on top of an object.

Page 15

Quote

◊ An object is at range 0 of an obstacle or device if it is physically on top of it.

Until after the move it is not physically on top of it. Collison Detector is entirely consistent with the Rules Reference in my estimation.

I wonder if Dash doesn't have "ignore its effects" because that would then call into question the boost and barrel roll situation since the prohibitions against move through and overlap regarding the re-positions are not listed as effects of obstacles. "While you move" covers both boost and barrel roll as well as not having to roll for damage, gain stress, or lose actions. Dash with "ignore its effects" would be argued as not allowing boosts or barrel rolls.

31 minutes ago, Talonbane Cobra said:

Dash works fine, some people have an extremely rigid 'understanding' of language it seems.#

If i decide to ignore my front door whilst leaving the house, after I've left the house is my glass door still intact?

The answer is no, and also I'm bleeding from my face. Send help.

Ok then dash suffers all negative effects from going through the rock, he just never noticed he was doing it.

Done it's decided dashes ability does functional nothing

*Sarcasm.

9 minutes ago, Icelom said:

Ok then dash suffers all negative effects from going through the rock, he just never noticed he was doing it.

Done it's decided dashes ability does functional nothing

*Sarcasm.

No, you've got it wrong. If you break your nose because you ran into a door you ignored, you get to ignore your broken nose but also sue the building owner for damages.

In all earnest, I can see a reasonable argument made on either side, but as long as "ignore" remains such a poorly-defined game mechanic, I don't understand how someone can believe it's clear either way.

29 minutes ago, hargleblarg said:

In all earnest, I can see a reasonable argument made on either side, but as long as "ignore" remains such a poorly-defined game mechanic, I don't understand how someone can believe it's clear either way.

Because RAI is pretty clear here, and it takes additional wording to make it wrong.

Dash ignores obstacles when moving (per ability), but he still moves through them (for Outrider). It's not actually unclear at all. But, because "Ignore" doesn't have a rules entry (despite FFG using it in multiple areas), folks are adding their own interpretations. I assume because they enjoyed all the drama that came with every new release during 1.0, and they can't imagine X-Wing without it.

Well, that and FFG does have a spotty track record.

There's no confusion about 'ignore' because the two effects happen at different times and are in no way related or impact on each other.

TBH you get this when games tighten up the wording but people who used to trying to interpret cards continue to try and interpret them instead of just doing what they say.

32 minutes ago, SOTL said:

There's no confusion about 'ignore' because the two effects happen at different times and are in no way related or impact on each other.

TBH you get this when games tighten up the wording but people who used to trying to interpret cards continue to try and interpret them instead of just doing what they say.

I completely disagree. There's a ton of confusion to be had.

Here's the rules text for moving through an object

"While executing a maneuver, if only the template was placed on top of
another object, the ship has moved through the object."

While executing a maneuver, i.e. while you were ignoring the obstacle. If we're just doing what the cards say, as you propose, then we ignore the obstacle and outrider doesn't fire. Badly-written card rules are still the rules we have to follow until we get clarification otherwise.

6 minutes ago, hargleblarg said:

I completely disagree. There's a ton of confusion to be had.

Here's the rules text for moving through an object

"While executing a maneuver, if only the template was placed on top of
another object, the ship has moved through the object."

While executing a maneuver, i.e. while you were ignoring the obstacle. If we're just doing what the cards say, as you propose, then we ignore the obstacle and outrider doesn't fire. Badly-written card rules are still the rules we have to follow until we get clarification otherwise.

Dash ignores the obstacle. Outrider doesn't.

EDIT:
1. Dash moves over asteroid.
2. Asteroid effect would trigger, but Dash ignores it.
3. Dash completes his maneuver.
4. Outrider checks if he moved through an obstacle. Sure did.
5. Profit.

EDIT 2:
As we've been saying repeatedly, just because Dash ignores something, doesn't mean it wasn't there. Maybe if the timing window was the same, we'd have an issue. Maybe. But it isn't and we don't.

22 minutes ago, ArbitraryNerd said:

Dash ignores the obstacle. Outrider doesn't.

EDIT:
1. Dash moves over asteroid.
2. Asteroid effect would trigger, but Dash ignores it.
3. Dash completes his maneuver.
4. Outrider checks if he moved through an obstacle. Sure did.
5. Profit.

Technically both cards say "you" which means the ship that is being flown.

"While you move, you ignore obstacles"

"After you fully execute a maneuver, if you moved through or overlapped an obstacle, you may remove 1 of your red or orange tokens"

I still personally agree with your outcome, but in the mechanics of the game thinking of Dash and the Outrider as separate entities is wrong which is part of why this is an ambiguous case. I just don't thing "Ignore" means "it didn't happen".

I would rewrite the steps above to this:

1. You go to perform a move over asteroid.

2. Asteroid is ignored by Dash card, no effect is triggered.

3. You complete the maneuver.

4. You check if you moved through an obstacle. You did.

5. Still Profit!

Every rules argument I've had in any game involving some sort "ignore X" effect is because someone wants to say X stops existing when it is ignored.

26 minutes ago, ArbitraryNerd said:

Dash ignores the obstacle. Outrider doesn't.

EDIT:
1. Dash moves over asteroid.
2. Asteroid effect would trigger, but Dash ignores it.
3. Dash completes his maneuver.
4. Outrider checks if he moved through an obstacle. Sure did.
5. Profit.

EDIT 2:
As we've been saying repeatedly, just because Dash ignores something, doesn't mean it wasn't there. Maybe if the timing window was the same, we'd have an issue. Maybe. But it isn't and we don't.

According to the rrg, you determine if you overlapped an obstacle during the movement while executing a maneuver. Which is when Dash is ignoring obstacles. After the maneuver, Outrider effectively asks the gamestate if Dash overlapped an obstacle. Does the gamestate say yes because obviously the maneuver template overlapped an obstacle, or does it say no because we were ignoring the obstacle at that time?

How much are we ignoring? That's some pretty significant ambiguity there if you follow the rules strictly. If you think that's a cut and dry case, you're either not looking with a critical eye or you're content with your interpretation of ambiguous rules.