With Advanced Sensors she's quite neat though. It goes from 'blocked K turn' to 'fantastic K turn'.

1 hour ago, Kandiak said:

@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)

You know me well. So carry on your reasoning a little there, you ignored the rock in your movement, as per her card text. Its now the engagement phase, are you at range 0 of a rock? Why yes you are, no attacking for you. The key there is 'while you are at range 0', its a continuous check, not simply just when you moved onto it.

XWing doesn't really have state as such, you should be able to look at the board at any time and know what's happening. Your argument is based on this really really wrong premise that since you ignored something in one phase it can never affect you again which it patently absurd.

Ok.

26 minutes ago, AramoroA said:

...Its now the engagement phase, are you at range 0 of a rock? Why yes you are, no attacking for you. The key there is 'while you are at range 0', its a continuous check, not simply just when you moved onto it.

So the question remains, "is "while attacking" functionally equivalent to "while engaging." The answer appears to be no, but I don't think there's a clear point where attacking starts, that isn't effectively the same as engaging.

I can see both arguments.

The intent is pretty obvious, even if the wording is a little wonky.

If she literally only stopped you being obstructed by rocks, she would say that.

3 hours ago, emeraldbeacon said:

So the question remains, "is "while attacking" functionally equivalent to "while engaging." The answer appears to be no, but I don't think there's a clear point where attacking starts, that isn't effectively the same as engaging.

I can see both arguments.

RAW you can perform an attack when you engage in the engagement phase. If you're at range 0 of an Asteroid then you cannot perform an attack. So her ability to ignore the asteroid doesn't kick in because she doesn't get the opportunity to be in the state of performing an attack. You're right its unclear exactly when 'performing an attack' starts, sometime after you engage I guess.

If that's what they meant is a different story entirely but I don't think it's that ambiguous in terms of RAW.

7 hours 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!

Err... if it does not exist then how can it have an effect?

There are multiple similar areas in the rules reference that are not questionned, such as Obtacles, page 13: "For the purpose of overlapping obstacles, if a ship partially executes a maneuver, only the portion of the template that is between the starting and final positions of the ship is counted. Ignore the portion of the template that the ship moved backward along to resolve the overlap."

They don't specify the effect of a template, the overlapping of a template, the effet of a template overlapping an asteroid; it just did not happen, your ship is not there. No effect took place. Despite the fact that physically the template is there and that is where the ship should be, circumstances make it so that it is not the case.

So while performing the attack, the asteroid and everything associated with it is simply not there.

I'm a newbie. My head is reeling after 3 pages of reading. And I note that many of you have daunting reputations and posts in the thousands.

What am I going to make of using Qi'ra? And more to the point, whatever I think or believe won't matter to the TO/referee.

However to interpret the text "While you move and perform attacks, you ignore obstacles that you are locking. " more easily, I break it down into two statements.

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

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

I think the first is easy to interpret; any (harmful or beneficial) effects attributable to movement (i.e. while you move), through and/or onto obstacles you have locked, do not take place .

However (and it seems this discussion is mostly about this) , what happens when you stop moving? IMHO, normal rules would kick in.

The second statement seems to say that the obstacle will not affect the number of attack dice; but neither will it affect the number of defence dice, as the obstruction is ignored while you are attacking. Sorry scummy Han , you lose out on rolling 1 extra attack die for the defender's extra defence die. (Although I like Han, scummy or not, I guess Qi'ra didn't whenever he was being scummy.)

Speaking for myself, it seems a pretty nice and inexpensive ability to be able to fly through obstacles and shoot through them as if they weren't there.

6 hours ago, dotswarlock said:

Err... if it does not exist then how can it have an effect?

There are multiple similar areas in the rules reference that are not questionned, such as Obtacles, page 13: "For the purpose of overlapping obstacles, if a ship partially executes a maneuver, only the portion of the template that is between the starting and final positions of the ship is counted. Ignore the portion of the template that the ship moved backward along to resolve the overlap."

They don't specify the effect of a template, the overlapping of a template, the effet of a template overlapping an asteroid; it just did not happen, your ship is not there. No effect took place. Despite the fact that physically the template is there and that is where the ship should be, circumstances make it so that it is not the case.

So while performing the attack, the asteroid and everything associated with it is simply not there.

Being on an Asteroid is not an effect of movement, if moving over an Asteroid gave you a disarm token that you would be right but that's no what it does. In the engagement phase, when you engage you see if you are at range 0 of an Asteroid, if you are you cannot perform attacks. It doesn't matter how you got there, what happened in previous phases or turns is irrelevant, all that matters is the current state. If you could perform attacks you would ignore it, but you can't so you don't.

Well, this has an easy solution.

IGNORE the posts that say Qi'ra doesn't stack with Han or Trick Shot. They cease to exist.

On 9/27/2018 at 10:07 PM, player3290500 said:

Speaking for myself, it seems a pretty nice and inexpensive ability to be able to fly through obstacles and shoot through them as if they weren't there.

Something everyone seems to forget is that you loose your possibility to re-roll dice with a Lock. Except if you have a way to have a second Lock (is it even possible with Qi'Ra?)

And you must have choosen the proper obstacle...

5 hours ago, muribundi said:

Something everyone seems to forget is that you loose your possibility to re-roll dice with a Lock. Except if you have a way to have a second Lock (is it even possible with Qi'Ra?)

And you must have choosen the proper obstacle...

If you play your cards right, you could always lock an asteroid, fly over (and clear) it, then perform a lock action onto your chosen target.

I was answering someone that said she was too good. I never said she was useless... I just said that preventing obstruction was worst then just using your Lock as normal.

Sure on a turret ship, you can use her as a pseudo Dash... You cruise over obstacle and put them between you and the enemy and then ignore the defense bonus for them

@AramoroA *cough* told you so *cough*

“ When an effect says a ship “ignores obstacles,” it means that ship “ignores the effects of obstacles. ”

Further (also told you so)

” However, the obstacles are still treated as being present for effects that check for their presence or absence. Additionally, an attack is obstructed by an obstacle even while the effects of the obstacle are ignored. This applies to cards such as Outrider , Han Solo [Pilot, Customized YT-1300], and Trick Shot (Talent). ”

1 hour ago, Kandiak said:

@AramoroA *cough* told you so *cough*

“ When an effect says a ship “ignores obstacles,” it means that ship “ignores the effects of obstacles. ”

You didn't tell me anything? This is an effective errata to the rules. The rules are different now so things work differently. You were trying to say the obstacle stopped existing which was and still is nonsense.

Personally I think this is a pretty confusing ruling as it's ignoring some of effects of the obstacle but not others. But FFG gonna FFG.

She still doesn't let you shoot whilst you're on a rock.

On 9/27/2018 at 11:19 AM, AramoroA said:

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.

I didn't? Maybe I was chatting about how Qi'ra will be confirmed to work with a different AramoroA who claimed my assertion was a flight of fancy. Apologies, I'll track down the real one.

2 hours ago, AramoroA said:

You didn't tell me anything? This is an effective errata to the rules.

No, it's not. It's a rule clarification. nothing has been errataed.

5 hours ago, AramoroA said:

You didn't tell me anything? This is an effective errata to the rules. The rules are different now so things work differently. You were trying to say the obstacle stopped existing which was and still is nonsense.

Perso  nally  I think this is a pretty confusing ruling as it's ignoring some of effects of the obstacle but not others. But FFG gonna FFG.

She sti  ll does  n't let you shoot whilst you're on a rock.

It's not really an errata to the rules as much as it is a clarification of (and an excuse for) their own muddy language. "Ignore X" doesn't really mean the same thing as "Ignore the effects of X" in the real world... but in FFG's mind, they say the two terms are functionally equivalent, so... yay team?

I do believe that you could be correct about not being able to attack while ON an asteroid, however... we didn't get a clear answer on that one. From the recent rules post:

Quote

Q: What does “ignores obstacles” mean? Do Han Solo [Pilot, Customized YT-1300] and Qi’ra [Crew] work together? What about Dash Rendar [YT-2400] and Outrider [Title]?

A: When an effect says a ship “ignores obstacles,” it means that ship “ignores the effects of obstacles.” A ship that is “ignoring obstacles” does not apply the effects of overlapping or moving through them. When that ship performs an attack that is obstructed by an obstacle it ignores the effects of the obstruction, so the defender does not roll 1 additional defense die being obstructed by the obstacles the attacker is ignoring.

However, the obstacles are still treated as being present for effects that check for their presence or absence. [clipped for length, colored for emphasis]

The question remains, what is the definition of "While Attacking"? Is Attacking a type of engaging (like a square is a type of a rectangle), or is it an element , a part of engaging (like four 90-degree angles are a part of a rectangle)? I can see arguments going either way, and I'm not sure which one I support. I think that the intention is that Qi'ra allows you to attack while on an asteroid, but as written , it's still vague.

...

Regardless... after all is said and done, this is a game people. Personal attacks are not cool. Let's all play nice?

They key here is this:

” A ship that is “ignoring obstacles” does not apply the effects of overlapping or moving through them. ”

Not being able to attack due to overlapping an obstacle is an effect of said obstacle, so it seems that you would be able to attack while on an asteroid.

1 hour ago, Kandiak said:

Not being able to attack due to overlapping an obstacle is an effect of said obstacle, so it seems that you would be able to attack while on an asteroid.

You're missing something key here: Overlapping may be an effect of Moving, but it is only a condition that exists during a ship's Activation.

RRG, "Overlap," p.14 [emphasis mine]:
" 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."

Once a ship has finished Activating, it is no longer in the state of Overlapping, because the window of "while executing a maneuver[/]mov[ing]" has ended. The rules for an asteroid preventing a ship from Attacking are separate from the rules of Overlapping.

RRG, "Obstacles," p.13 [emphasis again mine]:
" While a ship is at range 0 of an obstacle it may suffer different effects.
• Asteroid: The ship cannot perform attacks."

Checking range is a constant effect; everything is always at a given range of everything else, period. Note that while Overlapping an asteroid generally means you are at range 0 of it, the two are not the same concept . Overlapping is a game event that can lead to being at range 0, but "range 0" does not mean "Overlapping." [Nearly] Everything in 2.0 is keyworded for a reason.

Thus, when a ship with Qi'ra activates, it can safely ignore the effects of whatever it is locking. However, when the same ship Engages, because she is no longer Moving, she may no longer ignore those effects.

Additionally (and this may help others in this forum), remember that Attacking is optional , but Engaging is mandatory . Thus, Attacking is a thing that may happen while Engaging, but the two are not equivalent. Because Qi'ra only states that you ignore the effects while Attacking, and being at range 0 of an asteroid prevents you from entering that state, you cannot attack while at range 0 of an asteroid you are locking, period.

—————————————

6 hours ago, emeraldbeacon said:

The question remains, what is the definition of "While Attacking"?

You are Attacking when you decide to resolve the ability to perform an Attack, and you cease Attacking after the Attack ends at the end of Step 5 "Deal Damage" (The reason an attack ends after Step 5 is that Step 6 "Aftermath" consists solely of abilities that trigger after Attacking or after Defending, so by definition you must have finished Attacking/Defending by the time you reach Step 6.) Keep in mind that Attacking is a thing that may happen while you Engage, but the two are not synonymous.

In general, this means that, during the Engagement Phase, when your ship is given the opportunity to Attack and you declare that you are doing so you are now Attacking, until you finishing dealing damage. Sometimes you might get a Bonus Attack, and these might even happen outside of your ship's Engagement, or even outside of the Engagement Phase itself (note that the game's structure does not deny the ability to attack outside the Engagement Phase, just that no card I can think of at the moment would allow you to do so).

2 hours ago, Kandiak said:

They key here is this:

” A ship that is “ignoring obstacles” does not apply the effects of overlapping or moving through them. ”

Not being able to attack due to overlapping an obstacle is an effect of said obstacle, so it seems that you would be able to attack while on an asteroid.

Not being able to attack is a function of being at range 0 of an Asteroid, it's nothing to do with your movement at all.

When your ship engages at it's step you get the opportunity to perform an attack as part of that. If you're at range 0 of an asteroid you cannot perform attacks so you never get into the window where her ability works. The only way around this is if they rule that her ability works like actions you can perform whilst stressed. Say like Afterburners which normally you could not even attempt to perform an action but the action you're trying to perform gives you an exception to say you can. They may say she works the same way, whilst you cannot perform attacks, if you could you ignore the rock so therefore you can.

I understand your arguments and why you feel this is true. But I am certain that you can attack on an asteroid you have locked with Qi’ra. Guess we’ll find out at Coruscant.

I’m also going to say that this verbiage in the rules clarification seems to imply that a ship can attack because the effects of overlapping and moving through only differ in the case of an asteroid and overlapping said asteroid where the effect would be that a ship cannot attack. So because overlapping or moving are cited here, while not explicit, says to me that the intention is such that a ship can indeed attack while overlapping an asteroid.

If you disagree I would be curious to ask what other differences apply between overlapping and moving through an obstacle such that the two would need to be separated out?

“ A ship that is “ignoring obstacles” does not apply the effects of overlapping or moving through them. ”

I understand the wording and ruling is not crystal here. But I think the clarification has shown clear intent. I filed a request for clarification with FFG to get it written explicitly. But in the interim the consensus around the two shops I play at is that you can attack both because of the clarification and also the attack phase being called out in Qi’ra’s wording highlight that phase.

15 minutes ago, Kandiak said:

If you disagree I would be curious to ask what other differences apply between overlapping and moving through an obstacle such that the two would need to be separated out?

It has nothing to do with the rules for ignoring obstacles, or the rules for overlapping vs moving through them. It has to do with the timing of her ability. Qi'ra's ability to ignore an obstacle triggers "While you ... perform attacks". If you are at range 0 of an obstacle you cannot perform attacks and therefore cannot trigger her ability.

I agree that the intention is to allow attacks while at range 0 of an obstacle, but ruling based on intentions involves making assumptions about what the designers were thinking and sets a bad precedent for running events.