I've read the FAQs but I still have some doubts. Let's say I have Scum Han Solo with Trick Shot and Qira sitting on an asteroid locked by the YT, what happens when I shoot and the firing line is obstructed by the asteroid? From what I read, I can shoot due to Qira, and roll 2 more attack dice for Han and Trick Shot, but is the shot actually obstructed? Also, what happens when the other ship shoots back? Is the attack obstructed?

Thanks

17 minutes ago, Nevetz said:

I've read the FAQs but I still have some doubts. Let's say I have Scum Han Solo with Trick Shot and Qira sitting on an asteroid locked by the YT, what happens when I shoot and the firing line is obstructed by the asteroid? From what I read, I can shoot due to Qira, and roll 2 more attack dice for Han and Trick Shot, but is the shot actually obstructed? Also, what happens when the other ship shoots back? Is the attack obstructed?

Thanks

It's a whole big nonsensical mess basically.

If you're actually on an asteroid you cannot attack, so that's simple enough.

But say you're just behind it, Qi'ra means you ignore the effects of being obstructed so the defender does not get an additional defence dice, but entirely inexplicably you're still obstructed so you get the bonus dice for Han and Trick Shot. When they shoot back the attack is obstructed as it's only you (As in the ship with Qi'ra) that ignores the effects.

3 hours ago, AramoroA said:

If you're actually on an asteroid you cannot attack, so that's simple enough.

If you are on an asteroid which is locked, don't you just ignore it thanks to Qira?

1 minute ago, Nevetz said:

If you are on an asteroid which is locked, don't you just ignore it thanks to Qira?

You ignore it whilst performing attacks, you cannot perform attacks in the first place so no you cannot.

4 hours ago, AramoroA said:

You ignore it whilst performing attacks, you cannot perform attacks in the first place so no you cannot.

There is still some debate as to whether Qi'ra does or does not allow you to attack. I'm in the same camp as @AramoroA, but I can see the arguments for the other side too.

I guess I'm on that other side. I just don't think FFG intended to create a Catch-22 here. "You can ignore it if you're attacking, but you can't begin to attack, so you can't ignore it" just seems like empty sophistry to me. Like folks are figuring out ways to break and twist the cards, just to prove it can be done. Does FFG need to hire better technical writers? Sure. But we also know that FFG is wicked cheap even by corporate standards. So the community has a choice: break everything and live among the ruins until FAQs which will usually just put things back to the plain understanding of the intent, or we can skip that step. In the case of Qi'ra in particular, FFG has already issued a rules ruling that "Qi'ra acts as intended" with her ignoring the obstacle no longer causing you to lose access to Han's ability or Trick Shot.

I mean Skornergy is a thing which exists, but that's just how I see it.

On 10/8/2018 at 3:36 PM, theBitterFig said:

I guess I'm on that other side. I just don't think FFG intended to create a Catch-22 here. "You can ignore it if you're attacking, but you can't begin to attack, so you can't ignore it" just seems like empty sophistry to me. Like folks are figuring out ways to break and twist the cards, just to prove it can be done. Does FFG need to hire better technical writers? Sure. But we also know that FFG is wicked cheap even by corporate standards. So the community has a choice: break everything and live among the ruins until FAQs which will usually just put things back to the plain understanding of the intent, or we can skip that step. In the case of Qi'ra in particular, FFG has already issued a rules ruling that "Qi'ra acts as intended" with her ignoring the obstacle no longer causing you to lose access to Han's ability or Trick Shot.

I mean Skornergy is a thing which exists, but that's just how I see it.

I tend to agree with you but using the "upgrade cards take precedence over rules" routine.

21 minutes ago, Stoneface said:

I tend to agree with you but using but using the "upgrade cards take precedence over rules" routine.

I mean, don't get me wrong. I think a plain reading of the text of Qi'ra indicates you can attack while on a rock. I think it takes some fancy reading and hair-splitting to get "you can only ignore the object when attacking after you've already started attacking."

8 hours ago, theBitterFig said:

I mean, don't get me wrong. I think a plain reading of the text of Qi'ra indicates you can attack while on a rock. I think it takes some fancy reading and hair-splitting to get "you can only ignore the object when attacking after you've already started attacking."

Plain reading of the card say you cannot attack whilst on a rock.

2 hours ago, AramoroA said:

Plain reading of the card say you cannot attack whilst on a rock.

And Qi'ra says ignore it.

1 hour ago, theBitterFig said:

And Qi'ra says ignore it.

She says ignore it whilst attacking, that means during the attack. If you cannot perform an attack are you ever during it?

Your reason seems to be that she cannot perform attacks, but IF she could perform attacks then she would ignore the thing stopping her performing attacks therefore she CAN perform attacks. Now that is some fancy reading as you put it.

18 hours ago, theBitterFig said:

In the case of Qi'ra in particular, FFG has already issued a rules ruling that "Qi'ra acts as intended" with her ignoring the obstacle no longer causing you to lose access to Han's ability or Trick Shot.

Exactly, they did that, and at the same time they did not find it necessary to change her wording, so for now they clearly agree with her wording.

And there is no "empty sophistry" to see "while attacking" as something that happen when you are actually attacking, not as something "while engaging". She is costed 2 points not 15... this would be totally bunker as a 2 points upgrade to ignore Asteroid while engaging...

7 minutes ago, muribundi said:

Exactly, they did that, and at the same time they did not find it necessary to change her wording, so for now they clearly agree with her wording.

And there is no "empty sophistry" to see "while attacking" as something that happen when you are actually attacking, not as something "while engaging". She is costed 2 points not 15... this would be totally bunker as a 2 points upgrade to ignore Asteroid while engaging...

FFG didn't need to change the wording, because the wording is FINE for attacking while on a stone.

And it's not crazy underpriced. 1e Dash crew had pretty much the same effect on every rock, without costing a lock, and that was the equivalent of 4 points. Half price for requiring an action spent and a target lock is pretty comparable.

1 hour ago, AramoroA said:

She says ignore it whilst attacking, that means during the attack. If you cannot perform an attack are you ever during it?

Your reason seems to be that she cannot perform attacks, but IF she could perform attacks then she would ignore the thing stopping her performing attacks therefore she CAN perform attacks. Now that is some fancy reading as you put it.



The ****? I have no idea what you're imputing my interpretation to be. My reasoning is pretty simple. Qi'ra says ignore the rock, so ignore it. That's it. Ignore the rock.

Plain. Simple. That's what the card says. Ignore the rock.

Feels like trying to argue with a Flat Earther.

16 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:

The ****? I have no idea what you're imputing my interpretation to be. My reasoning is pretty simple. Qi'ra says ignore the rock, so ignore it. That's it. Ignore the rock.

Plain. Simple. That's what the card says. Ignore the rock.

Feels like trying to argue with a Flat Earther.

The card does not say 'Ignore the rock'

It says 'Ignore the rock while you Perform Attacks'

Here's are 3 super simple questions for you,

Are you 'Performing an Attack' in the Engagement Phase?

Are you 'Performing an Attack' when you Engage?

Are you 'Performing an Attack' while you Perform an Attack?

Those might seem like trick questions but they are the heart of the question. Because those are the steps a ship goes through in the Engagement Phase.

21 minutes ago, AramoroA said:

The card does not say 'Ignore the rock'

It says 'Ignore the rock whilst Performing an Attack'

Here's are 3 super simple questions for you,

Are you 'Performing an Attack' in the Engagement Phase?

Are you 'Performing an Attack' when you Engage?

Are you 'Performing an Attack' while you Perform an Attack?

Those might seem like trick questions but they are the heart of the question.

They don't have Snap Shot in 2e, but if there was, I'd say if Qi'ra has the rock locked, you could ignore the rock if someone moved in front of you.

If Dengar has Qi'ra crew and gets attacked in the front arc, I'd say he can spend his charge to perform his bonus attack.

Bonus attacks might be an interesting way into this argument. If Qi'ra had been "Ignore the rock when you engage" the argument would be then that she couldn't ignore the rock for bonus attacks. But the card doesn't make a distinction between normal attacks when you engage, and bonus attacks--you simply ignore the rock for any of your attacks. *e* As such, the text of Qi'ra COULDN'T have been "while engaging."

I just don't see checking to see whether you are able to perform an attack as fundamentally separate from the process of performing an attack. I don't see them as two distinct and uninvolved steps, do A then do B, with Qi'ra only impacting B. I see it as A1, A2, etc. and Qi'ra works for all of A#.

14 minutes ago, AramoroA said:

The card does not say 'Ignore the rock'

It says 'Ignore the rock while Perform Attacks'

Here's are 3 super simple questions for you,

Are you 'Performing an Attack' in the Engagement Phase?

Are you 'Performing an Attack' when you Engage?

Are you 'Performing an Attack' while you Perform an Attack?

Those might seem like trick questions but they are the heart of the question. Because those are the steps a ship goes through in the Engagement Phase.

I mean, the timing issue is well understood. One side says that since you never begin the process of the attack, Qi'ra's ability never comes into play.

But my opinion is that they happen at the same time. A given timing window comes up in which Qi'ra may perform an attack. Concurrently, the asteroid says: while at range 0, you cannot perform an attack. Also concurrently, Qi'ra ignores the asteroid. The attack proceeds.

Quote

I just don't see checking to see whether you are able to perform an attack as fundamentally separate from the process of performing an attack.

This is the crux of the issue. In English while means during, if I do 'A' while I do 'B' then it's fair to assume that I'm doing A and B at the same time.

For your interpretation to work her ability would need to be ignoring the rock before you actually performed the attack, that's not what her ability says. You only get to ignore the rock while you perform the attack, not before hand.

Quote

A given timing window comes up in which Qi'ra may perform an attack. Concurrently, the asteroid says: while at range 0, you cannot perform an attack. Also concurrently, Qi'ra ignores the asteroid. The attack proceeds.

I don't see how a plain reading of the card could reasonably come up with this answer though. As you say there's a timing window when you can perform an attack after you engage, but you've not actually performed an attack yet so why would her ability work? You are explicitly not yet performing an attack.

I mean I fully expect they'll rule that she can because FFG love intent based rulings, but right now, RAW, that's not how she works.

When intent and what the card says both align, that ought to be the ruling.

I've really never had so little respect for the opposite side in an X-Wing rules argument.

I hope they further clarify this kind of effect because I am certain this will not be the last time we need this kind of clarification.

I think the correct change that FFG should make to clarify this is either: 1) Just say it works (which I think is the intent based on the FAQ thread) or 2) Say it's part of the Declare Target sub-step, which is a reasonable place to put it. EDIT: 3) Change Qi'ra's text to state "When engaging." (This might allow for some weird corner cases but I can't think of any since the wording of Feedback Array doesn't care about you being able to attack.)

8 minutes ago, CaptainIxidor said:

I hope they further clarify this kind of effect because I am certain this will not be the last time we need this kind of clarification.

I think the correct change that FFG should make to clarify this is either: 1) Just say it works (which I think is the intent based on the FAQ thread) or 2) Say it's part of the Declare Target sub-step, which is a reasonable place to put it. EDIT: 3) Change Qi'ra's text to state "When engaging." (This might allow for some weird corner cases but I can't think of any since the wording of Feedback Array doesn't care about you being able to attack.)

"When engaging" language means that Qi'ra wouldn't apply to bonus attacks. You could fire one Cluster Missile, but not the second, which would be more absurd than this already is. Qi'ra's language is as good as it could be to be both brief and clear.

i'm sure the intent is for ships with Qi'Ra equipped to be able to perform attacks. how ever, the language on Qi'Ras card is not perfect.

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

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

"If the ability of a card conflicts with the rules in this guide, the card ability takes precedence."

the golden rules does clear it up nicely, but still...

i'm sorry to say that Qi'Ras card could definitely be better written, such as:
You may perform attacks at range 0 of obstacles that you are locking and you may ignore them while moving.

the "may" would actually potentially be good, if in some weird circumstance you would like the stress from debris or the potential damage from an asteroid.

well, at least i'm sure how i interpret it. would be nice to be sure everyone else is on the same page, though. oh, never mind!

1 hour ago, meffo said:

i'm sorry to say that Qi'Ras card could definitely be better written, such as:
You may perform attacks at range 0 of obstacles that you are locking and you may ignore them while moving.

the "may" would actually potentially be good, if in some weird circumstance you would like the stress from debris or the potential damage from an asteroid.

well, at least i'm sure how i interpret it. would be nice to be sure everyone else is on the same page, though. oh, never mind!

Again it would require more language, because ignoring the obstacle does more than simply allow her to attack.

1 minute ago, nexttwelveexits said:

Again it would require more language, because ignoring the obstacle does more than simply allow her to attack.

agreed, more language is not necessarily worse, though. as long as it's good language.

Regardless of what FFG intended Qi'ra's effect to be (which we could argue indefinitely until they put out an official ruling), it seems that a Rules as Written determination comes down to just one question: is the initial act of making an attack itself considered "while attacking".

Rules reference states "While a ship is at range 0 of an obstacle [...] The ship cannot perform attacks." From here, there seems to be two sides:
- "While performing an attack" includes the ability to make an attack in the first place, thus she ignores the rock and can fire anwyay.
- "While performing an attack" is true only after the attack has been started, and therefore her ability is never triggered.
While I'd like to see a clarification from FFG to settle it either way, I personally think the latter is more accurate.

Let's look at the rules:
- Under "Engagement Phase": "When a ship engages, it may perform an attack."
- Under "Attack": "If a ship performs an attack, it becomes the attacker then follows these steps: [...]"

Since Qi'ra's ability specifies "while performing an attack", I'd argue that it is only in effect during the attack steps and not before. Since the "may perform an attack" part of the engagement phase is overridden by the effect of the asteroid, the ship never has the ability to enter the attack steps and, therefore, is never performing an attack.

3 hours ago, theBitterFig said:

When intent and what the card says both align, that ought to be the ruling.

I've really never had so little respect for the opposite side in an X-Wing rules argument.

You think the intent is that. There is absolutely no way to know their intent. Their intent may as well be that your are not able to attack because they did not literally say: You can perform attack while at range 0 of an obstacle. (Like your Dash example, and everything was under costed in 1e, so can't be a basis. All other upgrade of cost 2 or less in 2.0 are mostly bad)

And I have no respect for your side right now, so we are equal. You act like a flat earther. The language do not support your claim, so you bent it because you want the intent to be so.