And here, the reality, why would they use specific timing if in fact she would ignore obstacle everytime. Because, if she can attack, she is in fact ignoring them for everything they do and it would have been way simpler to just say: You ignore obstacle you have locked
And yes we can't be in a world were she can attack and Poe can't chain Gambit
In other words, if you need Q'ira's ability to actually perform an attack but you need to attack to trigger Q'ira's ability - you broke the game, this is an infinite logical loop.
One of these two events would have to take place triggered by something else than the other effect to make this interaction happen.
Outer Rim Pioner is a good example mentioned a couple of times already in here! Allows to break the loop, enables the attack without the dependency on an attack being actually performed.
3 hours ago, muribundi said:And here, the reality, why would they use specific timing if in fact she would ignore obstacle everytime. Because, if she can attack, she is in fact ignoring them for everything they do and it would have been way simpler to just say: You ignore obstacle you have locked
And yes we can't be in a world were she can attack and Poe can't chain Gambit
Pretty much. I'm in the camp of RAW, Qi'ra doesn't allow attacks on rocks, but the 'clarification' in the official rules thread indicates that she was intended to, and they're going to go down the bad 1e road of 'clarifying' cards to work contrary to RAW, rather than errating them.
29 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:Pretty much. I'm in the camp of RAW, Qi'ra doesn't allow attacks on rocks, but the 'clarification' in the official rules thread indicates that she was intended to, and they're going to go down the bad 1e road of 'clarifying' cards to work contrary to RAW, rather than errating them.
The biggest bollocks of this FAQ is ruling that bonus green dice comes from the attacker performing an obstructed attack, not the defender performing an obstructed defence.
"Listen up out there, imma shoot at you out there but there's this piece'o'rock in-between so I don't know, I guess that'll be hard one. You better dodge that one harder than usual, cause I'm really not sure how to pull of this one, alrighty?"
Thought it makes some gameplay-fluff sense, I give them that...
Still, one of the hardest, most unintuitive bits to explain to to new players.
Edited by ryfterekIt make sense real life too, why would YOU dodge better with a rock in between... You don't dodge better, it is the attacker that see less of you, so it have a harder time hitting you. Should it have been -1 red dice, maybe, but this is clearly the attacker that have hindrance not the defender that defend better.
So in that sense, it totally make sense to ignore the rock. But what is bollock is this same rock suddenly helping you (Trick Shot) but also not hindering you...
9 minutes ago, muribundi said:why would YOU dodge better with a rock in between...
I'd imagine just clutching next to it, hiding behind, block critical angles? That's what I do in Battlefront II at least, hide my vector so it can't be targeted.
But yeah, would make all the intuitive sense in the world with -1 red, right? The greens are, well... They belong to the defender, right? Doesn't click right in, what's going on there with obstruction.
Edited by ryfterek
Qi'ra, according to the Official Rules reply, at the top of this forum, ignores the effects of Obstacles. Not their presence.
Could the card have been worded better? Sure.
However, seeing as the card has already been clarified, this entire thread is still somewhat pointless, as is the assertation that she can't allow a ship to ignore the effects of Obstacles.
1 hour ago, Damo1701 said:Qi'ra, according to the Official Rules reply, at the top of this forum, ignores the effects of Obstacle s . Not their presenc e .
Yup. Specifically speaking:
QuoteA ship that is “ignoring obstacles” does not apply the effects of overlapping or moving through them. (...) However, the obstacles are still treated as being present for effects that check for their presence or absence.
The attack-prevention is not an effect inherited by either moving or overlapping an obstacle. Per RR, p.13:
QuoteWhile a ship is at range 0 of an obstacle it may suffer different effects.
• Asteroid: The ship cannot perform attacks.
This is an "presence/absence (at range 0)" effect. One of the kind specifically mentioned not to be bypassed.
Now, let's remember that 2.0 wise, overlapping and being at R0 of something are two separately understood situations. Per RR, p.14 range measurements isn't even part of the definition of an overlap:
QuoteOVERLAP
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.
Neither, per RR, p.15 is being at Range 0 defined with the use of overlapping.
QuoteRange 0 does not appear on the range ruler, but is used for describing the
range of objects that are physically touching.
◊ After a ship partially executes a maneuver, it is at range 0 of the last
ship it overlapped.
◊ An object is at range 0 of an obstacle or device if it is physically on top
of it.
◊ A ship is at range 0 of another ship if it is physically touching another
ship.
◊ If two ships are at range 0 of each other, they remain at range 0 until
one of the ships moves in a way that results in their bases no longer
being in physical contact.
◊ Although rare, it is possible for a ship to move in such a way that it is
at range 0 of another ship (in physical contact with it) without having
overlapped it.
The last point, I took freedom of putting in bold, is the most crucial one. RR itself admits in here that Range 0 and overlapping are not equivalent and one can happen without the other. Now, I know what everyone knows, the rock you sat on is both at range 0 and being overlapped by you. But that only means two sets of effect, one caused by overlapping, the other by presence of an obstacle at Range 0 are applied to you. Again, RR, p.15 above is clear that being at Range 0 doesn't imply overlapping. The other-way-around is not explicitly given, but would be reasonable to assume, I suppose?
The interaction as many of you here would love it to work would happen if only the attack-prevention clause was part of the list of obstacle overlapping penalties from RR, p.13:
QuoteWhile a ship executes a maneuver, if it moves through or overlaps an
obstacle, it executes its maneuver as normal but suffers an effect based on
the type of obstacle:
• Asteroid: After executing the maneuver, it rolls one attack die. On a [hit]
result, the ship suffers one [hit] damage; on a [crit] result, it suffers one [crit]
damage. Then the ship skips its Perform Action step this round.
But it is not, it's defined independently, RR, p.13 (quoted before).
Moreover, the FAQ goes in some length in explaining that even while the obstacle is ignored, attack will still be obstructed by it:
QuoteHowever, 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).
At the same time, the definition of obstruction is where some range-measurement related concept begin to show up, per RR, p.13:
QuoteOBSTRUCTED
An attack is obstructed if the attacker measures range through an object.
And again, attack-prevention itself is not connected with movement, neither with overlapping of an obstacle, but rather it's caused by it's presence at specific range. RR, p.13 (quoted before).
Please, do what cards and RR says and what FAQ explains, don't do what cards and RR don't say and FAQ doesn't explain.
Also, Merry Christmas y'all!
Edited by ryfterek
Sorry, but, that's a lot of writing to say:
"Ignore what FFG ruled in the Official Rules Thread, and do it the way I say."
That's why the Official Rules Thread is there. For things that haven't made it into the RRG yet.
So, I'll do EXACTLY what the card says, or even allow my opponent to do EXACTLY what the card says, which is a ship with Qi'ra on board ignores the effects of Obstacles at the appropriate times.
Peace out and Merry Christmas.
36 minutes ago, Damo1701 said:Sorry, but, that's a lot of writing to say:
"Ignore what FFG ruled in the Official Rules Thread, and do it the way I say."That's why the Official Rules Thread is there. For things that haven't made it into the RRG yet.
So, I'll do EXACTLY what the card says, or even allow my opponent to do EXACTLY what the card says, which is a ship with Qi'ra on board ignores the effects of Obstacles at the appropriate times.
Peace out and Merry Christmas.
I'm sorry-not-sorry to come off rude but have you had enough time to actually read my post on this Christmas morning, or have you just noticed that it's (1) Long, (2) Against your agenda?
I took all the caution to only base my analysis on official sources, quoting them and passing the "link back" to them at each and every occasion.
Unless you're able to point out exact points in which my analysis misses the points and where conclusions I draw actually misinterpret the rules quoted, I'm afraid the one showing "do it the way I say" attitude is you, @Damo1701 .
For now, please enjoy your Christmas time the way you see fit, but in some time, provided you truly are right and it is me misinterpreting the rules and FAQ, I hope you'll find time to point out specific flaws to my analysis, in a post not focused on the conclusion I came to, but on the steps that took me to it.
Btw, if you take a look at the sticky thread of the subforum you'll find in the initial post that it doesn't say these rulings overwrite what's written in the other documents. It is given the same level of authority, but neither FAQ nor RR state one or the other as superior. While it is true that RR mentions that any misalignment between the RR and the in-box rulebook should be judged in RR's favour.
Edited by ryfterekEDIT : I dismiss my case given in this exact post due to the clause I've missed out on while thinking about this example (RR, p.13):
QuoteBefore a ship moves, if it is at range 0 of an obstacle, it does not suffer the effects of that obstacle unless it moves through or overlaps that obstacle again.
Causing YV not to suffer any of the effects in the engineered scenario. Greying text out, not removing it to maintain continuity of discussion.
Still, this was an attempt at overexaggerating the scenario. Awaiting other users' input, feel free to invalidate conclusions of my previous post in a constructive manner.
-----------------------------------------------------
Also, I've come to an example highlighting how a ship can be prevented from shooting by an obstacle ensuring that it is not caused by any movement nor overlap related game effect.
What you'll need is: YV-666 with Boba Fett [Crew] and Q'ira [Crew], Escape Craft (or two), and a Fang Fighter. Such a selection of pilots that the activation order I'll present will be maintained.
Now, let's say this Scum squadron is facing a Resistance player with Han Solo pilot in the YT-1300. Han has been placed just out of range of YV-666 and now have moved in range. We begin the engagement phase.
At the YV's initiative order, it engages. Now, being at Range 0 of an asteroid, per RR, p.13 it should be prevented from attacking in this turn. Is there anything we can do about it? Q'ira is ignoring the obstacle in question, so per X-Wing Official Rulings :
Quoteit 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.
The YV did not move, neither overlap the obstacle in question, however. Moreover, by the same X-Wing Official Rulings entry:
Quote(...) the obstacles are still treated as being present for effects that check for their presence or absence.
So why should the effect from RR, p.13:
QuoteWhile a ship is at range 0 of an obstacle it may suffer different effects.
- Asteroid : The ship cannot perform attacks.
Be ignored? It has not been caused by any movement or overlap effect (that are ignored). It is based on the presence of an obstacle (at Range 0), not on overlapping it.
Edited by ryfterek