Looks like they're doing official rules clarifications over here:

"So, you see, you ignore the obstacle but you still know it's there right? So you ignore its effect but not its existence, meaning the effect of obstructing stuff still happens but not the other effects, and I guess attacking through an obstacle is part way an effect for you but also for the attacker so it's all very quite simple you see...."

Glad we got an official ruling fixing all the han, q'ira, outrider etc. in the way they were obviously meant to work. I just wish the words on the cards agreed with the ruling too

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

I almost used this exact wording myself. There's a world of difference between ignoring the effects of obstacles and ignoring the existence of obstacles, but it was hard to know where the rules are supposed to land within that gap without more specific wording. Just a case of accidentally using a little more general English when more game language is required I guess.

When an effect says a ship “ignores obstacles,” it means that ship “does whatever it wants.” A ship that is “doing whatever it wants” does not apply the effects of anything whatsoever. When that ship does something that would normally have consequences, it does whatever it wants, so the defender does not do what it wants.

Quote

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.

While a ship that is ignoring obstacles defends, if the attack is obstructed, it still rolls 1 additional defense die because the attacker is not ignoring the effects of obstacles.

If attacker is ignoring obstacles during an obstructed attack,

Then defender does not get his bonus.

If defender is ignoring obstacles during an obstructed attack,

Then defender still gets his bonus.

So does the attacking grant the bonus to the defender? Or does defending from an attack grant the bonus to the defender?

The problem is the answer is neither/both because it changes each time but the Rules As Intended is clearly to have it both ways.

Han solo I7 doubletap is legal! Didn't expect that

5 minutes ago, mcintma said:

Han solo I7 doubletap is legal! Didn't expect that

What was the issue with this one? They defined it as a bonus attack in the last RRG released. Was there something else causing issues?

39 minutes ago, HammerGibbens said:

So does the attacking grant the bonus to the defender? Or does defending from an attack grant the bonus to the defender?

I believe it's the attacking, because that's who is engaged at the time, and their effects are active?

To look at it another way, we're seeing things from that ship's perspective. Imagine a pilot who is really good about fighting around asteroids. They can take a shot from near an asteroid and it really doesn't interfere with their shot, so the defender doesn't get any bonuses. On the other hand, when the other ship shoots back, they don't know anything special about fighting around asteroids, so the first ship gets the normal advantage from hiding behind it.

3 minutes ago, Jokubas said:

I believe it's the attacking, because that's who is engaged at the time, and thus we're seeing things from that ship's perspective.

To look at it another way, imagine a pilot who is really good about fighting around asteroids. They can take a shot from near an asteroid and it really doesn't interfere with their shot, so the defender doesn't get any bonuses. On the other hand, when the other ship shoots back, they don't know anything special about fighting around asteroids, so the first ship gets the normal advantage from hiding behind it.

I has to be based on who's attacking for their logic to work. The obstacle section that talks about this does say, "While a ship performs an attack," and the section on obstruction is started, "An attack is obstructed if the attacker measures range through an object," etc. It definitely feels like they mean the impetus of attacks to be on the attacker. But I'm speculating now. Either way, we've been given a ruling that works so we can mostly move on.

I was in the admin's thread when they were adding comments and I kept refreshing for something new and now I'm sad that refreshing doesn't give me a new clarification.

So this means Dash is affected by Stunned Pilot now?

I'm just happy that Kavils bonus attack die works from a turret shot from the front arc.

4 minutes ago, Tvboy said:

So this means Dash is affected by Stunned Pilot now?

However, the obstacles are still treated as being present for effects that check for their presence or absence.

I'd say yep.

Couldn’t they have just worded it “you ignore the effects of obstacles while you move” instead and just avoided the whole debate altogether?

8 minutes ago, Tvboy said:

Couldn’t they have just worded it “you ignore the effects of obstacles while you move” instead and just avoided the whole debate altogether?

There's a few different wordings that would have improved Dash, Outrider, Qi'ra, and Han but we have what we have.

So...the ruling for loose cargo doesn't really matter, right? Per the rules reference, you only suffer the effect for debris cloud if you are moving or performing a maneuver in some fashion and move through it or overlap it at the end of the movement.

43 minutes ago, dsul413 said:

So...the ruling for loose cargo doesn't really matter, right? Per the rules reference, you only suffer the effect for debris cloud if you are moving or performing a maneuver in some fashion and move through it or overlap it at the end of the movement.

It might matter for other effects at some point. Right now, it doesn't matter. If anything, the fact that they didn't say anything about the effects of the obstacle indicates that nothing happens other than that you are now in a state called "overlapping."

Agreed.

This seems like a problematic ruling. Cannot overrides everything else which means pilot abilities that allow you to attack are range 0 does no longer work?

Obviously the intent isn't that. I would assume these are to be in the RR FAQ section eventually, and if so, individual cards override rules in RR (right?), so things like Zeb would still work.

46 minutes ago, mcgreag said:

Q: Can a ship perform an attack against an enemy ship at range 0 (with bases touching) when the range from the firing arc is range 1?

A: You cannot attack a ship at range 0 of you. This was an omission from the rules reference that will be clarified in the next update.

This seems like a problematic ruling. Cannot overrides everything else which means pilot abilities that allow you to attack are range 0 does no longer work?

No.... Abilities almost always break the rules that's the game.

"If a card ability uses the word “cannot,” that effect is absolute and cannot be
overridden by other effects." -page 2 of the rules reference.

Card ability, not rules. Cannot in the rules can be overruled. Cannot on an ability cannot be.

Jake is stressed. Ap5 coordinates a boost. Is Jake able to take the free focus action?