9 minutes ago, Talonbane Cobra said:

To clarify though, the people with an actual compelling argument are saying that the very first thing dash ignores is the fact that his template is on an obstacle, if he ignores that then there's nothing else to ignore going forward.

The rules have Moving Through in bold and have a definition for Moving Through, which specifies that the template must be on top of an obstacle. Technically the Moving Through condition in the rules isn't met because Dash is ignoring the obstacle, meaning there are no triggered effects.

So then when you read Outrider it says (paraphrased) "If you moved through.." this is where it becomes a problem because if you take that Moved Through to mean, 'if you triggered the Moving Through condition' then well he didn't, whereas people that are reading Outrider and using the plain English definition of 'moved through' are saying he did.

I mean technically rules wise you'd expect the Outrider to say "if you triggered the Moving Through Obstacles condition" or similar words. But the rules are quite sloppily worded and a bit too colloquial to really be able to say for sure what the intent is.

It's obvious from the fact that outrider is Dash's ship and both things have obstacles in their mechanics that they are intend to work together, but I do agree that an FAQ is needed to say "yes they together"

I don't think the rule-book is tight enough for them to be doing anything other than that, they could tryto define specifically WHY these interaction mean he does work, but i think the truth is they didn't go in to that much logical pulling apart of the rules for their fun space ship game and so it would be a missstep IMO to try and do that as it could just cause people to use that as precedent for other such ambiguous interactions.

Yup.

But that requires the assumption that 'ignores' means pretending that the template or Dash's ship base was not placed on an object. It also requires the assumption that Dash in some way is his maneuver template. Because that's taking this section of the rules reference "a ship moves through an object if the template is placed on that object when the ship moves" and pretending it didn't happen. It's not just a rules cascade that's being 'ignored', it's the physical reality of the board through a weird concoction of ship/pilot/maneuver template identity.

To my mind that is a much bigger stretch of the imagination than ignoring/not triggering the effects that simply stem from the board. For an upgrade that costs 14 pts. Where the other half of the card is worth ~1 pt (i.e. reverse Trick Shot). On a ship that he pilots in canon.

So I think I see what they're trying to say, but I just think the case is pretty lopsided.

5 minutes ago, nexttwelveexits said:

The interpretation is that failing a barrel roll due to overlapping/moving through an obstacle is a property of barrel rolls, not obstacles. Effectively, failing a barrel roll due to an overlap is not an effect of the obstacle; it is a stipulation of the barrel roll itself. Thus, merely ignoring the effects of obstacles is not enough to allow a ship to barrel roll onto an obstacle.

If this is the case, then it can be inferred that when Dash completes a barrel roll onto an obstacle, he has satisfied all the conditions for performing a barrel roll. A barrel roll requires you to not overlap or move through an obstacle, or else it fails. The barrel roll does not fail, therefore Dash did not move through or overlap an obstacle.

None of that follows at all for me. You are just pretty-ing up the idea that the obstacle isn't there.

The Rules Reference clearly allows for situations in which a ship moves through or overlaps an obstacle while boosting or barrel rolling. I don't see how getting around the obstacle restriction to perform a boost or barrel roll means the ship did not move through or overlap the obstacle in question.

5 minutes ago, Talonbane Cobra said:

The rules have Moving Through in bold and have a definition for Moving Through, which specifies that the template must be on top of an obstacle. Technically the Moving Through condition in the rules isn't met because Dash is ignoring the obstacle,

The obstacle is still there. The template still went on top of it. Moving Through is met because to Dash ignore is "it doesn't matter" not "it isn't there." As has been noted the argument is between ignore=it doesn't matter and ignore=isn't there.

No one argues how Dash works absent Outrider. Dash is only confusing in the presence of Outrider. Outrider with Dash is only unclear if your brain processes "ignore" as "it isn't there." If you can't hold "this does and doesn't matter" in your head at the same time.

This is why we don't have any particular question involving Instinctive Aim. We don't have anything that triggers off having fired a weapon requiring a target lock. It doesn't matter if ignore=it doesn't matter or ignore=isn't there. There is nothing else that cares about the answer to that. As soon as the value of ignore being one or the other does matter we'll find Instinctive Aim's "ignore" is a point of contention because now for some the target lock isn't there.

This argument comes up anytime there is an ignore X then interaction with X causes Y effect in a game. You'd think game designers would have learned by now.

Firstly I agree with you but I'm trying to say there's no right or wrong.

Quote

But that requires the assumption that 'ignores' means pretending that the template or Dash's ship base was not placed on an object.

It doesn't at all, what happens is that dash's template goes on the asteroid and when it does you just don't do anything about it because you are ignoring it. The Rulsey logic way of seeing this is that the "Moves Through" rule doesn't happen because he's not taking the obstacle in to account. Look at it like this:

"a ship bananas an object if the template is placed on that object"

So I move dash and i put his template on an asteroid and I think "I am ignoring that obstacle while moving so my ship isn't on an object, so I haven't bananerd anything"

then look at outrider

After you fully execute a maneuver, if you bananerd or appled an obstacle, you may remove 1 of your red or orange tokens.

in this scenario it's still a little ambiguous if you bananerd or you didn't but there's an argument for both sides, if you are ignoring the asteroid then really you haven't bananerd an asteroid, you can't banana something you are ignoring can you?

This is the logic from the point of view of the rulesey people, they aren't treating moved through as a plain English phase with other connotations or meaning put on it, but simply as some rules key word that has only the meaning that the rule book gives it.

1 minute ago, Frimmel said:

The Rules Reference clearly allows for situations in which a ship moves through or overlaps an obstacle while boosting or barrel rolling.

Where does it do this? Every place I have seen this (e.g. tractor beam) seems to be clarifying that you can do this because you wouldn't be able to if they didn't clarify it as such.

2 minutes ago, nexttwelveexits said:

Where does it do this? Every place I have seen this (e.g. tractor beam) seems to be clarifying that you can do this because you wouldn't be able to if they didn't clarify it as such.

On page thirteen of the rules reference. Under move it clearly says boosting and barrel rolling are moving.

Quote

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

A ship moves through an object if the template is placed on that object when the ship moves.

And also on page thirteen under Obstacles it says:

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:

Ships boosting or barrel rolling and interacting with obstacles while doing so is a clearly anticipated occurrence in the Rules Reference.

1 minute ago, Frimmel said:

On page thirteen of the rules reference. Under move it clearly says boosting and barrel rolling are moving.

And also on page thirteen under Obstacles it says:

Ships boosting or barrel rolling and interacting with obstacles while doing so is a clearly anticipated occurrence in the Rules Reference.

Yeah agree that is probably the purpose of the rules being clear like this. To allow for damage to still be put on a ship if it is moved on to a rock by some means other than performing a manuever.

5 minutes ago, Frimmel said:

On page thirteen of the rules reference. Under move it clearly says boosting and barrel rolling are moving.

And also on page thirteen under Obstacles it says:

Ships boosting or barrel rolling and interacting with obstacles while doing so is a clearly anticipated occurrence in the Rules Reference.

Right, but such an interaction explicitly causes the barrel roll to fail:

Quote

While attempting to place a ship to complete a barrel roll, the action can fail if any of the following occurs:

• All three positions would cause the ship to overlap or move through an obstacle.

EDIT - to clarify my position, my point is that a successful barrel roll requires that there was no move through/overlap, so if Dash can barrel roll onto an obstacle, he is by the definition of a barrel roll not overlapping or moving through the obstacle in question. That is the conflict: does "ignore" mean you are still moving through/overlapping? If no, Outrider needs clarification. If yes, barrel rolling needs clarification, because if you're moving through/overlapping anyway, then the barrel roll should fail by rule.

Doesn’t it depend whether the “check to see if you’re overlapping, if you are the barrel roll has failed” step is part of “moving” or not? If it is then you can do it as you’re still ignoring the obstacle. If it’s not, then you are no longer ignoring the obstacle, so the barrel roll fails.

36 minutes ago, Talonbane Cobra said:

Firstly I agree with you but I'm trying to say there's no right or wrong.

It doesn't at all, what happens is that dash's template goes on the asteroid and when it does you just don't do anything about it because you are ignoring it. The Rulsey logic way of seeing this is that the "Moves Through" rule doesn't happen because he's not taking the obstacle in to account. Look at it like this:

"a ship bananas an object if the template is placed on that object"

So I move dash and i put his template on an asteroid and I think "I am ignoring that obstacle while moving so my ship isn't on an object, so I haven't bananerd anything"

then look at outrider

After you fully execute a maneuver, if you bananerd or appled an obstacle, you may remove 1 of your red or orange tokens.

in this scenario it's still a little ambiguous if you bananerd or you didn't but there's an argument for both sides, if you are ignoring the asteroid then really you haven't bananerd an asteroid, you can't banana something you are ignoring can you?

This is the logic from the point of view of the rulesey people, they aren't treating moved through as a plain English phase with other connotations or meaning put on it, but simply as some rules key word that has only the meaning that the rule book gives it.

I'm not being absolute about this, but I am saying it's not strictly relative. The words do matter and we can at least attempt to approximate reality/intent/truth/etc., otherwise what's the point right?

I'm also being as rulesy as I can on this. The situation you've outlined makes some sense, but a problem to my mind is that it's treating the Moves/Moves Through keywords as binary possibilities. As in a ship either did or did not. Right? But I think it's pretty clear Dash is the exception to this rule. I'd say Dash did but ignored. At the very least, a rulesy person can't say Dash did not because that is not defined in the rulebook (for obvious reasons haha).

So there isn't a case that Dash strictly did or did not in the RRG. I think the last 6 pages or so can attest to that haha. So we kinda have to come back to common sense understandings of ignored and what that means instead. And most people would agree that you can't ignore something that did not happen. Ignoring something is necessarily reactionary.

48 minutes ago, nexttwelveexits said:

Right, but such an interaction explicitly causes the barrel roll to fail:

While attempting to place a ship to complete a barrel roll, the action can fail if any of the following occurs:

• All three positions would cause the ship to overlap or move through an obstacle.

And? Dash doesn't fail his boosts or barrel rolls when they involve an obstacle does he?

? I think you've missed your chance make the obstacle disappear. You might have argued that Dash sees that entry as "all three positions cause him to overlap or move through an." ? Dash doesn't fail though. Is it because this is not true, "all three positions cause him to overlap or move through an obstacle?" Or is it because obstacle is intentionally disregarded?

34 minutes ago, mazz0 said:

Doesn’t it depend whether the “check to see if you’re overlapping, if you are the barrel roll has failed” step is part of “moving” or not? If it is then you can do it as you’re still ignoring the obstacle. If it’s not, then you are no longer ignoring the obstacle, so the barrel roll fails.

The check is part of moving. You can't check if the template is on a rock until you have declared and are doing the barrel roll or boost which I have shown are considered moving.

37 minutes ago, YourHucklebrry said:

I'm not being absolute about this, but I am saying it's not strictly relative. The words do matter and we can at least attempt to approximate reality/intent/truth/etc., otherwise what's the point right?

The absolute most logical approach to understanding the rule set of x-wing is to completely detach all meanings and interactions from any real world equivalent. A legal document will often start with lengthy unambiguous definitions of the terms it will use through the document. For instance it might define "a party" as a group or individual with a steak in the proceeding. You know so people don't think it means a shindig or a hootenanny for instance.

some people's purpose is to be precise, to logic out everything and detach themselves from connotation or inference, there's many roles in this world that require people to do exactly that, and people have those sorts of brains. And when it comes to rules there should be an absolute definition. There's not in this case and that's the problem, because RULES should be absolute. Of course many people are happy to just interpret something loosely and go have fun, others are not happy with that (obviously)

Quote

I'm also being as rulesy as I can on this. The situation you've outlined makes some sense, but a problem to my mind is that it's treating the Moves/Moves Through keywords as binary possibilities. As in a ship either did or did not. Right? But I think it's pretty clear Dash is the exception to this rule. I'd say Dash did but ignored. At the very least, a rulesy person can't say Dash did not because that is not defined in the rulebook (for obvious reasons haha).

i think here the rules people are having to invent a definition in game for the term Ignore, again replace the word Ignore with something else like "Midichlorian" "and then try and define it.

Midichlorian X- Treat X as if it were not there

That seems a pretty good definition to me? So in the setting of X-wing if we treat "Moved Through" as some sort of condition / key word that is triggered when a template is placed on an obstacle, and the rules say Midichlorian Obstacles (Treat Obstacles as if they were not there), then Moved Through isn't triggered. According to the rules of the game the template is not on an obstacle, the obstacle is not there, the rules say it's not there, and if it's not there you haven't Moved Through it.

In the real world you've moved your YT-2400 model over the asteroid token on the table. But in the detached rules world of the game the ship has not Moved Through an obstacle, so then when you read the outrider card and it asks if you've Moved Through and obstacle, you haven't according to the rules.

I think that logic holds up assuming you assign that particular definition to Midichlorian. Question is what definition (rules wise) would you give to Midichlorian such that the Moved Through condition is still triggered yet Dash doesn't suffer the consequences of moving through?

I am not sure such a definition exists.

If you call a tail a leg how many legs does a dog have?

25 minutes ago, Frimmel said:

And? Dash doesn't fail his boosts or barrel rolls when they involve an obstacle does he?

? I think you've missed your chance make the obstacle disappear. You might have argued that Dash sees that entry as "all three positions cause him to overlap or move through an." ? Dash doesn't fail though. Is it because this is not true, "all three positions cause him to overlap or move through an obstacle?" Or is it because obstacle is intentionally disregarded?

This is genuinely text backwards logic. I love it.

Regular Logic goes like this:

IF Dash Can Barrel Roll on to an Obstacle then:

The Barrel Roll does not fail.
Barrel Rolls fail if a ship Moves Through or Overlaps an Obstacle
Therefore if the Barrel Roll Succeeds Dash did not Move Through or Overlap an Obstacle.
Therefore Dash's 'Ignore' ability means that he does not Move Through or Overlap Obstacles even though his template or base is placed on them.
Therefore the Outriders ability is not triggered, Dash did not Move Through an Obstacle, he can't have possibly done that because the Barrel Roll action would have failed.

IF the Outrider Ability Does trigger when Dash's template or base is placed on an obstacle THEN

The ship counts as having Moved Through or Overlapped an obstacle.
Barrel Rolls fail if a ship Moves Through or Overlaps an Obstacle
Therefore Dash cannot Barrel Roll or Boost on to or through an Obstacle.

52 minutes ago, Talonbane Cobra said:

i think here the rules people are having to invent a definition in game for the term Ignore, again replace the word Ignore with something else like "Midichlorian" "and then try and define it.

Midichlorian X- Treat X as if it were not there

...

I think that logic holds up assuming you assign that particular definition to Midichlorian.

So again, there's nothing particularly rulesy about it. It's just the imposition of a series of definitions and their logical consequences. It's got an internal logic, for sure, but I don't think it fairs well in reality. You take the training wheels off, open up the definitions and assumptions to questions, and things don't go smoothly.

If I were to boil it down with my local group, I'd say we must pick which part of the Moves section Dash 'ignores'/Midichlorians/bananas/alsdkf:

Quote

A ship moves through an object if the template is placed on that object when the ship moves.

• If a ship moves through an obstacle, it suffers the effects of that obstacle.

The first sentence is not a trigger, it is a definition of 'moves through'. I think it would be silly for Dash to ignore a definition. I don't think that is an easy thing to argue for compared to the second option.

The second is a cause and effect statement using the definition previously provided. If X, then Y. In my mind it makes much more sense to ignore this. When Dash instead ignores this part, he doesn't make definitions or obstacles stop existing, he doesn't stop the effects of obstacles from existing. He simply executes maneuvers and BRs without the cause and effect consequences otherwise laid out while moving through obstacles. Naturally, any cause and effect consequences relating to before or after moving through obstacles remain.

8 minutes ago, YourHucklebrry said:

The first sentence is not a trigger, it is a definition of 'moves through'. I think it would be silly for Dash to ignore a definition. I don't think that is an easy thing to argue for compared to the second option.

So he cannot Barrel Roll on to Obstacles then?

6 minutes ago, Talonbane Cobra said:

So he cannot Barrel Roll on to Obstacles then?

Sure he can if he ignores the normal effects relating to obstacles and movement.

(Picture didn’t work)

1 minute ago, YourHucklebrry said:

Sure he can if he ignores the normal effects relating to obstacles and movement.

But what?

Barrel rolls fail if you move through or overlap an obstacle. You just said he doesn't ignore those things.

2 minutes ago, Talonbane Cobra said:

But what?

Barrel rolls fail if you move through or overlap an obstacle. You just said he doesn't ignore those things.

Where?

I said he doesn't ignore what moving through or overlapping an obstacle means. I'm saying he instead ignores the cause and effect relations that stem from him moving through or overlapping an obstacle.

But how can you possibly logically come to that conclusion. That is bending things around to suit you impression of the intent. It a constant loop.

It doesn't say pick and choose what you ignore. Or ignore negative effects of obstacles. Just ignore them.

8 minutes ago, Talonbane Cobra said:

But how can you possibly logically come to that conclusion. That is bending things around to suit you impression of the intent. It a constant loop.

It doesn't say pick and choose what you ignore. Or ignore negative effects of obstacles. Just ignore them.

I dunno, re-read what I said?

We have to pick what we are ignoring, particularly as it relates to the RRG. The answer to both 'are we ignoring what moving through or overlapping an obstacle means' and 'are we ignoring what happens when we move through or overlap an obstacle', isn't arbitrarily 'yes'. That would be contradictory, or at least unnecessary. Why would you bother ignoring effects from moving through obstacles if moving through obstacles suddenly has no meaning?

The answer to any question we ask in relation to what Dash means by ignoring obstacles isn't automatically yes.

I feel like trying to wedge barrel rolling into the discussion just obfuscates things. Barrel rolling is a movement, Dash isn't affected by obstacles while moving, so he can barrel roll on obstacles.

I feel like 'ignore' should just be defined as, 'you aren't affected by the thing you are ignoring.' Instinctive Aim makes you unaffected by the target lock requirement on your ordinance has.

Dash is unaffected by obstacles he moves through, but he's still overlapping and flying through them. Outrider still triggers regardless.

That isn't how it works though. Barrel Roll fails if you move through or overlap an obstacle. Those are the rules.

If outrider says you moved through an obstacle then you either did or you didn't. You can't do both.

10 minutes ago, Talonbane Cobra said:

That isn't how it works though. Barrel Roll fails if you move through or overlap an obstacle. Those are the rules.

If outrider says you moved through an obstacle then you either did or you didn't. You can't do both.

So you just ignore the rule that causes the action to fail, that's how Dash's ability makes the most sense. You don't ignore the definition of overlapping or moving over an object.

But the rule that cases the action to fail is not at all what you are told to ignore. You are told to ignore obstacles. So the only way you can successfully perform a barrel roll is if you haven't overlapped or moved through an obstacle. And you haven't because you've ignored them. So it's fine. But Outrider has the exact same rule on it. You either have moved through or you haven't. It's one or the other.