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. 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).

Additionally, other ships do not ignore the obstacle when resolving effects that interact with a ship that is ignoring obstacles. For instance, 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.

So, it ignores the effects of the obstruction, but then it doesn't ignore them. This makes no logical sense as to why it works, then doesn't work for the SAME CHECK.

1. Ignoring ship ignores obstruction, so defender does not get bonus die

2. Ignoring ship ignores obstruction, but still gets a bonus die (trick shot) from the obstruction... even tho its ignoring it, and the defender doesnt get a die.

3. Ignoring ship ignores obstruction, but still gets bonus defense die from the obstruction.

So basically, what they are (or should have) said, is you ignore all NEGATIVE effects of the obstacle, no matter what they are, but you still gain the Positive effects from it. Which, isnt really 'ignoring' at that point, and logically doesnt make sanes for game mechanics. But their wording on this Q/A is crap in explaining it. Personally, I think it should either be 100% ignoring it, or not. This cherry picking is stupid.


I guess what im saying is, i really hope if this makes it to the Rule Reference, its worded alot better than it is here, even if i dont agree with the mixed ruling of it.

Welcome to FFG. they write broken rules and then issue rulings like this. They don't want a card that comes with Han Solo infringing on Han Solo's gimmick.

The distinction that they're drawing that you ignore the effects of the obstruction, not the obstruction itself. So you're still obstructed, it just doesn't do anything. Trick Shot and Han still trigger because you're still obstructed. You get the dice from them because they're effects of Trick Shot/Han, not the obstruction.

You get the defensive die at range 3 because range/obstruction is measured by the attacker, not the defender.

The change to "ignore effects of" from "ignore" is effectively just an errata. But everything else comes logically from that change.

55 minutes ago, jftanner said:

The distinction that they're drawing that you ignore the effects of the obstruction, not the obstruction itself. So you're still obstructed, it just doesn't do anything. Trick Shot and Han still trigger because you're still obstructed. You get the dice from them because they're effects of Trick Shot/Han, not the obstruction.

You get the defensive die at range 3 because range/obstruction is measured by the attacker, not the defender.

The change to "ignore effects of" from "ignore" is effectively just an errata. But everything else comes logically from that change.

That, is a MUCH better explanation than the official one. Thanks. That also does make more logical sense.

"Ignore" as a game term only becomes confusing when something else still interacts or triggers with the object of "ignore." "Ignore X then Y interacts with X" always creates an argument.

We haven't had any arguments about "Instinctive Aim" have we? Because there isn't anything that triggers off having attacking with a weapon requiring a target lock. As soon as there is suddenly Instinctive Aim will need a clarification or the card triggering will need clarified.

As a hypothetical to illustrate what I'm getting at suppose we had Luke Skywalker with Proton torpedoes and Instinctive Aim. No question about how that works right? Luke uses a force charge and shoots his torpedoes without a lock.

Now suppose we have a hypothetical card we'll call "Frimmel's Example Targeting Computer" that we've equipped to Luke. This card says, "When you attack with a torpedo upgrade requiring a target lock you may re-roll one die." Luke attacks with his torpedoes without a lock by using Instinctive Aim. Does Luke get to re-roll a die for "Frimmel's Example Targeting Computer?"

Now we've got an argument don't we? Because someone is going to take Instinctive Aim as having made the target lock requirement disappear/vanish/cease to exist and thus say Luke did not attack with a torpedo requiring a target lock. Other folks will say he can re-roll a die because he attacked with the torpedoes and the torpedoes require a lock thus Luke gets a re-roll.

The source of disagreement is the same as with Qi-Ra and Han isn't it? Intentionally disregard and make non-existent aren't the same are they? When Luke in our hypothetical used "Instinctive Aim" did "Attack (TL)" disappear/vanish/cease to exist on the Proton Torpedoes or was it still there but it didn't matter?

To toot my own horn and be an insufferable bore I point out that I had an interpretation of Han/Qi'Ra/Trick Shot consistent with the ruling that came down before it came down:

Yes ignoring does not make it cease to exist. But ignoring obstacle could logically make it so you are not obstructed, because being obstructed is an effect of having this obstacle in your line of sight. Seriously, we are in The Inquisitor V1 territory where all positive for him were still up and all negative were down... Like turning Autothruster off and also Fenn / Title off.

I will not argue anymore, FFG said so, but saying that the obstacle is not affecting your shot at all had nothing to do with the obstacle not existing anymore. And you can't use your instinctive aim example, in your example, your upgrade ask if there is something written on the upgrade.

Trick Shot do not say, "is there an obstacle at range 0-1 of you during your attack", it ask, "Is your attack obstructed". And yes the obstruction, as I said previously, could be seen as an effect of.

You want an upgrade that would be confusing with instinctive aim: "If you satisfied the condition of an Ordnance weapon, you can reroll 1 attack die" That would cause confusion, because did instinctive aim satisfy the condition...

The point that is tripping people up on the explanation is about the shot still being obstructed. Probably partially due to the term having baggage from 1e. Do your best to forget all that. I'm not even going to mention what the 1e rule was because we shouldn't even be thinking about it, it doesn't apply anymore.

In 2e obstruction works like this: if the atracker measures range through any object (obstacles, ships, and devices are all objects) then the attack is obstructed. This is NOT an effect, it's just a description of the game state. It's a fact which cannot be changed. If the obstructing object also happens to be an obstacle then there is an additional effect. That effect is the defender rolls one additional die.

The FFG clarification says ignore means "ignore the effects of". So that means Qi'ra ignores the EFFECT of "defender rolls an additional die' but she does not and cannot ignore the FACT that the shot is still obstructed. Remember, 2e obstructed only means the range is being measured through an object. So Han and trick shot still work because they only require the shot be obstructed and it still is. The effect (attacker rolls an additional die) comes from Han not from the object, that's why it still works. It checks for the trigger (shot obstructed by an obstacle, again not an effect and thus cannot be ignored) and then provides its ability if that condition is met.

So we're not quite in Inquisitor territory where it just works because FFG says so. The ruling is actually consistent and fully internally logical. It's highly unintuitive and absent FFG's clarification I would have firmly said Qi'ra does not work with Han or trick shot, but it doesn't actually violate the rules as written. If that's how they wanted to make Qi'ra work with Han that's not how I would have written it but that's what we got and it does technically work.

Then you enter into the territory of, trick shot adding an attack dice is a game effect, like adding a dice in defense, and this effect come from being obstructed by an obstacle that you are supposed to ignore.

Defense die effect rule:
If at least one asteroid or debris cloud obstructs an attack, the defender rolls one additional defense die during the Roll Defense Dice step.

Trick shot effect rule:
While you perform an attack that is obstructed by an obstacle, roll 1 additional attack die.

The two care about an effect that happen when your attack is obstructed by an obstacle, we are in The Inquisitor territory. Stop defending lazy FFG wording...

The error you are making @muribundi is attrbuting the extra attack die to the asteroid. That's not where it comes from, it comes from Trick Shot. You're conflating causes and effects and the clarification is very specific that "ignore" means "ignore the effects of" (which I agree is unclear, they should have out that verbiage in the first place rather than just "ignore").

Asteroid

CAUSE: Your attack is obstricted by this obstacle. (This part applies no matter what, even when ignoring the effect the attack is still obstructed)

EFFECT: Defender rolls an additional die (This part is nullified by the "ignore" ability)

Trick Shot

CAUSE: Your attack is obstructed by an obstacle (again this ALWAYS applies)

EFFECT: Attacker rolls an additional die. ("Ignore obstacles" has no interaction with this because ignore applies ONLY to effects. The additional attack die is an effect of TRICK SHOT, not the asteroid. The asteroid is a cause that allows us to activate Trick Shots effect and it is not ignored.)

Yes, it is weird and confusing, I don't dispute that and poorly worded if that's how they wanted it to work. What it is not though, is logically inconsistent. But it's like a logic puzzle that's designed to be confusing desoite being accurate.

2 minutes ago, sharrrp said:

But it's like a logic puzzle that's designed to be confusing desoite being accurate.

What a great description of some rules! (Looking at you, ability queue.)