Actually that last example doesn’t articulate my point at all, it only covers actions. Noted.

Just now, AramoroA said:

Can you explain why you think she allows you to attack whilst on an asteroid, because she really doesn't

And this isn't 1.0 logic, it's the words straight from the rules reference. If you're ignoring the Obstacle then you've ignored it, so you cannot trigger Han as you're no longer Obstructed by an Obstacle. I don't see how there can be any room for confusion in this at all.

I just did, we are ignoring the rock. What about her ability doesn’t allow me to shoot on a locked rock?

Just now, Kandiak said:

I just did, we are ignoring the rock. What about her ability doesn’t allow me to shoot on a locked rock?

You're misreading her ability. She lets you ignore the rock when Performing an attack. You are not allowed to perform attacks on a rock. You'll see Collision Detector is worded differently.

7 minutes ago, AramoroA said:

You're misreading her ability. She lets you ignore the rock when Performing an attack. You are not allowed to perform attacks on a rock. You'll see Collision Detector is worded differently.

Right which is why I’m saying she will be errata’d. I understand what you are saying regarding not being able to attack. She is poorly worded to begin with. But what you’re missing is that I ignored the rock moving onto it, therefore I ignored it being there and I am not on a rock. This dovetails with your explanation of how she doesn’t grant trick shot/Solo’s ability.

So we can’t ignore a rock such as to not grant Solo/trick benefits but not ignore us being parked on it. Meaning if we are ignoring it, then we aren’t on it, therefore we get to attack.

TL;DR we never landed on a rock

After rereading the obstacle and obstruction sections a bunch of times. If Qi’Ra said ignore effects of then all of this would be sorted. The defender getting a die, losing your attack on an asteroid, gaining a stress on debris and rolling die for damage are all effects very clearly and use such verbiage.

Obstruction is not an effect but a state of objects in the game relative to one another. So an obstacle obstructing an attack is just a geometric state as compared to an effect of obstruction.

I’m taking 2:1 on her errata citing such and a tournament getting ruled this way if the whispers from official judges are to be believed. Maybe we’ll find out at Coruscant since people won’t be bringing Boba pilot.

Until errata, clarification, or some other ruling arrives to "fix" Qi'ra, the simple facts are:

1. She makes you ignore locked obstacles while moving (which includes maneuvers and actions, and presumably even forced movement via tractor beams)
2. She makes you ignore locked obstacles while attacking (so that, when you're actually going through the motions of the attack, the obstacle is treated as if it weren't there - no obstruction exists).
3. She DOES NOT allow you to ignore locked obstacles at any other time - if you are not moving or attacking, the obstacle is not ignored.

The question becomes, based on the CURRENT RULES AND WORDING on Qi'ra, is "while... [you] perform [an] attack" equivalent to "while you engage"? I'm not asking what the rule should be, or what the intention of the card is. I'm asking what the actual rules are.

She might be good in the Game of Thrones LCG but in this game she is bad, as in Terminator Genisys bad. Not sure why everyone cares so much about her.

1 hour ago, emeraldbeacon said:

Until errata, clarification, or some other ruling arrives to "fix" Qi'ra, the simple facts are:

1. She makes you ignore locked obstacles while moving (which includes maneuvers and actions, and presumably even forced movement via tractor beams)
2. She makes you ignore locked obstacles while attacking (so that, when you're actually going through the motions of the attack, the obstacle is treated as if it weren't there - no obstruction exists).
3. She DOES NOT allow you to ignore locked obstacles at any other time - if you are not moving or attacking, the obstacle is not ignored.

The question becomes, based on the CURRENT RULES AND WORDING on Qi'ra, is "while... [you] perform [an] attack" equivalent to "while you engage"? I'm not asking what the rule should be, or what the intention of the card is. I'm asking what the actual rules are.

Yeah I hear ya and agree RAW. Deep in my heart I expect an errata, but that's the nature of spirit vs letter of the law.

8 hours ago, AramoroA said:

The Fang Expansion pack comes with the Afterburner Upgrade, am I to assume I can use it on my Fang Fighter?

Yup! Just use your handy dandy Quick Build Cards and off you go.

16 hours ago, emeraldbeacon said:

She makes you ignore locked obstacles while attacking (so that, when you're actually going through the motions of the attack, the obstacle is treated as if it weren't there  - no obstruction exists).

I totally disagree with that particularly the bolded section. That is at the heart of every confusion regarding use of the word "ignore." The obstacle is still there. It doesn't disappear. If it isn't there you don't have to ignore it. That's why this is a question at all. Qi'Ra doesn't make the obstacle go away.

Whenever "ignore X" appears there are two ways it is taken either "X ceases to exist" or "X doesn't matter." These are very different things.

9 minutes ago, Frimmel said:

I totally disagree with that particularly the bolded section. That is at the heart of every confusion regarding use of the word "ignore." The obstacle is still there. It doesn't disappear. If it isn't there you don't have to ignore it. That's why this is a question at all. Qi'Ra doesn't make the obstacle go away.

Whenever "ignore X" appears there are two ways it is taken either "X ceases to exist" or "X doesn't matter." These are very different things.

Sure but now that you’be made those points. What would you say ignore actually means then?

1 hour ago, Kandiak said:

Sure but now that you’be made those points. What would you say ignore actually means then?

I think you ignore the effects of obstacles. They are still there. They don't disappear. This allows the defender's abilities and effects in relation to obstacles to still count. The obstacle can't be "not there" on one end and "there" on the other. If Corellian Kid with Qi'Ra is shooting at Corellian Kid, the defending Corellian Kid would need clarified as still processing the defense bonus if we're going to treat the obstacle as "not there."

I'd say with a Han Solo: The Corellian Kid with Qi'Ra crew or Qi'Ra Crew on a ship with Trick Shot:

1. You can execute a maneuver moving through or overlapping a locked obstacle without losing your action, rolling for damage, or taking a stress token.
2. You can complete a boost or barrel roll moving through or overlapping a locked obstacle without losing your action, rolling for damage, or taking a stress token.
3. You can not be at range zero of a locked asteroid obstacle and perform an attack. The lose of attack effect is not determined when moving and Qi'Ra is "move or perform."
4. The attack is obstructed but defender does not get an extra defense dice from the obstacle. That extra die is determined by the attacker.
5. Any of the defenders effects from being obstructed or at a particular range of an obstacle would still process or be in effect.
6. Obstacles have no consequences or modifications or effect to attack dice. The obstacle is still there so you would still be obstructed and thus get the extra dice for Corellian Kid and/or Trick Shot.

I think this satisfies both RAW and RAI. You only get into conflict with RAW and RAI when you take "ignore X" to mean some form of "X ceases to exist."

I point out we don't have any questions about "ignore" with regard to Instinctive Aim because we don't have anything that interacts or triggers off firing a weapon that requires a target lock. If we did have such an effect there would be an argument because for some using Instinctive Aim would be making the requirement cease to exist and thus nothing could trigger. Every rules disagreement relating to some sort of "ignore X and then X interacts with Y" centers around some seeing "ignore X" as "X ceases to exist."

Nothing to see here

But you ignored it moving onto it, so then you either ignored its existence or its effect. Either way you're shooting.

36 minutes ago, Kandiak said:

But you ignored it moving onto it, so then you either ignored its existence or its effect. Either way you're shooting.

What.

Not being able to shoot is not an effect of moving onto an asteroid, it's an effect of being on an asteroid. Please try reading the rules before going on these flights of fancy.

40 minutes ago, Kandiak said:

But you ignored it moving onto it, so then you either ignored its existence or its effect. Either way you're shooting.

Not being able to shoot while on an asteroid is determined by Range 0. Range 0 is not determined while executing a maneuver or while moving but not executing a maneuver. So you get to the point where the ship with Qi'Ra determines if it can be an attacker which is after movement. The ship checks and finds itself at Range Zero of an asteroid and thus can not perform an attack.

The rules do not care under what circumstance the ship came to be at Range Zero of an asteroid or what consequences the ship did or did not face for overlapping the asteroid during movement. The rules care whether the answer to "Is the ship at Range Zero of an asteroid obstacle?" is yes or no. When the answer is "yes" an attack can not be performed and thus Qi'Ra can not allow you to ignore obstacles while performing an attack.

Perhaps the only thing utterly clear about Qi'Ra is that she does not allow you to shoot while on an asteroid. Even Dash doesn't allow you to shoot while on an asteroid. A two point out of two hundred points crew upgrade certainly isn't going to.

Qi'ra should allow you attack if you are on an asteroid that you have a target lock on. My reasonning:

#1 - Engagement phase, rules reference page 10: "During this phase, ships engage, one at a time, starting with the ship with the higest initiative and continues in descending order. When a ship engages, it may perform an attack.

(Note that the step that I placed in bold is actually in bold in the rules reference to illustrate that it is a key word)

#2- Rules reference page 4: "Attack: ships can perform attacks..."

(attacking means performing an attack, they are not seperate key words)

#3 - Obstacles, rules reference page 13: "While a ship is at range 0 of an obstacle, it may suffer different effects. Asteroid: the ship cannot perform attacks.

#4 - Qi'ra: "While you move and perform attacks, you ignore all obstacles that you are locking."

So if I put all of this together: Han with Qi'ra lands on an asteroid that they have a target lock on.

1 - Ships engage by reverse order of initiative.

2 - When it's Han's turn, he engages. Engaging leads to performing an attack and asteroids prevent the latter. Every ship engages whether they are on an asteroid or not. At no point does being an asteroid skip that step.

3 - While it engages, Han wants to perform an attack. An asteroid would normally prevent him from doing it, but Qi'ra specifically says that while performing an attack, she ignores the asteroid.

So if someone can spot a fault in there please do so, I'm pretty sure that this logic holds well.

Yes but remember we are ignoring the obstacle. So we are either ignoring it’s existence or the effects of being at range 0 of said obstacle.

Thanks for the pro tip about the rules reference, it’s a pretty good read. Good lookin’ out homie!

@AramoroA btw since you are an avid reader of the reference. Here is a section I’m sure you have memorized:

”While a ship is at range 0 of an obstacle it may suffer different effects. • Asteroid: The ship cannot perform attacks.”

but we ignored the obstacle, so we ignored it existence or its effects. In either case the effect of being at range 0 is the lack of being able to attack.

Page 13 (I know you know)

13 minutes ago, Kandiak said:

Yes but remember we are ignoring the obstacle. So we are either ignoring it’s existence or the effects of being at range 0 of said obstacle.

Thanks for the pro tip about the rules reference, it’s a pretty good read. Good lookin’ out homie!

But we also have to look at the times when the obstacle is being ignored. When moving, and when attacking. Moves are clearly defined: maneuvers, boosts and barrel rolls, or other (as-yet unspecified) means of repositioning your ship on the table. Attacking, though, is a little more nebulous. Does "attacking" happen as soon as you engage? Do you have to engage first, then choose whether to attack or use other abilities? That's the crux of the discussion right now: Qi'ra works WHILE you are attacking, but if you haven't started the attack yet (starting with checking for and choosing a target), does Qi'ra have a chance to take effect? Do you have to be ignoring the obstacle before, during, and after the attack, or does Qi'ra's "while" statement encompass all of that?

Notable, you decidedly do NOT ignore the obstacle when you are NOT moving or attacking. So if neither is happening - say, if you're defending - the rock is still there. (Of course, it's the attacker that determines line of sight and obstruction, so an enemy Scum Han would deny the obstruction bonus for you on defense.)

(I don't think anyone here would deny that the RAI for Qi'ra is that you can shoot from asteroids... but for some of us, the RAW seems to be getting in the way of that right now)

1 minute ago, emeraldbeacon said:

I don't think anyone here would deny that the RAI for Qi'ra is that you can shoot from asteroids

For only two points and a target lock I am most certainly denying that Qi'Ra can allow you to shoot from asteroids. Has anything in either edition allowed shooting from on an asteroid?

18 minutes ago, Frimmel said:

For only two points and a target lock I am most certainly denying that Qi'Ra can allow you to shoot from asteroids. Has anything in either edition allowed shooting from on an asteroid?

Dash Rendar crew in first edition allowed it for 2 points with no lock required. In second edition the Outer Rim Pioneer allows himself, the ship is docked to, and any friendly ship at range 0-1 to attack while at range 0 of obstacles.

14 minutes ago, joeshmoe554 said:

In second edition the Outer Rim Pioneer allows himself, the ship is docked to, and any friendly ship at range 0-1 to attack while at range 0 of obstacles.

And Dash crew would be what four points in 2nd? And 1E Dash crew doesn't grant any immunity from various movement restrictions.

Outer Rim Pioneer is twenty-four points in 2nd Edition. 30 points (6 move for Lando Falcon title) if you want to dock it with The Corellian Kid. We can back it down to 22 for this discussion if we consider it two shield upgrades to The Corellian Kid though you can't have two shield upgrades.

I suppose though given the general Grrrrrlllllll POWER!!!! theme that has been running though this IP of late turning her into something you'd consider stapling to everything isn't an unreasonable conclusion.

lol that's hilarious. She costs you an action (which you have to take a round in advance unless you have AS) and thus your mods for that round, and works on a single rock at a time. SHe's SO much worse than 1e Dash crew.

19 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

lol that's hilarious. She costs you an action (which you have to take a round in advance unless you have AS) and thus your mods for that round, and works on a single rock at a time. SHe's SO much worse than 1e Dash crew.

And note that, in a game where positioning has once more become extremely important, locking that rock pretty clearly telegraphs your future moves (unless you're just taking the lock as a convenient action before the first combat encounter).