With the qi’ra debacle, I was wondering if a droid with grappling struts open at range 0 of an asteroid is allowed to shoot off of it?

Here's the card:

Looks pretty cut and dry to me. As long as this side is up you ignore obstacles at range 0. Since no timing or phase is given it applies at all times, I don't see room for an argument against shooting with this.

2 minutes ago, nitrobenz said:

Here's the card:

Looks pretty cut and dry to me. As long as this side is up you ignore obstacles at range 0. Since no timing or phase is given it applies at all times, I don't see room for an argument against shooting with this.

It was being mentioned in another thread and wanted to get clarification since their reasoning was that qi’ra can’t. Considering hers says ignore when performing attacks that makes sense as to why hers would not be allowed.

10 hours ago, kingofpain97 said:

With  the  qi’ra deb  ac  l    e

Compare the above example with Qi'ra:

The problem people had with this is that the card does call out only specific timings of when her ability applies, that being "when you move" and "when you perform attacks". There was a vocal camp of rules lawyers who argued that you could not reach the "when you perform attacks" trigger while on a rock because the asteroid restriction is in effect before you perform an attack and skips the entire attack process.

T̶h̶e̶ ̶r̶e̶c̶e̶n̶t̶ ̶r̶u̶l̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶h̶a̶s̶ ̶s̶e̶t̶t̶l̶e̶d̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶s̶p̶e̶c̶i̶f̶i̶c̶ ̶d̶e̶b̶a̶t̶e̶ ̶(̶a̶t̶ ̶l̶e̶a̶s̶t̶ ̶f̶r̶o̶m̶ ̶a̶n̶ ̶o̶f̶f̶i̶c̶i̶a̶l̶ ̶p̶o̶i̶n̶t̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶v̶i̶e̶w̶)̶ {I may have confused last week's Magva ruling with the old Qi'ra one, my apologies. The Qi'ra debate appears to remain at a stalemate on the forums}

2 hours ago, nitrobenz said:

The recent ruling has settled that specific debate (at least from an official point of view)

What recent ruling are you refering to and what was the outcome of the debate? Can you fire with Qi'ra crew if you are on a rock/obstacle?

Sorry but I'm on on the forums regularly so have missed the latest on this. Thx.

9 hours ago, nitrobenz said:

The recent ruling has settled that specific debate (at least from an official point of view)

In what way? That you can or cannot perform attacks while at Range 0 of an obstacle?

Here is the ruling in question..

Quote

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.

The only mention of attack is when its obstructed, but they dont mention while being at range 0. I've always played it as you can attack while at range 0 of an obstacle you are locking, but now you have me questioning it lol.

10 hours ago, nitrobenz said:

The problem people had with this is that the card does call out only specific timings of when her ability applies, that being "when you move" and "when you perform attacks". There was a vocal camp of rules lawyers who argued that you could not reach the "when you perform attacks" trigger while on a rock because the asteroid restriction is in effect before you perform an attack and skips the entire attack process.

Really ⁉️

Honestly, that concerns me! WHY would anyone start such an argument?? It’s a f...abulous GAME! Selfproclaimed rules "lawyers".... OMG

Some things are indeed unclear. But I fear that the bigger the community becomes – the more weird things emerge.

I wish we would stay in a more positive and playful state. X-Wing and the community is great....

@Lyianx , that is the ruling on Han+Qi'ra... But it doesn't really clear things up for the attacking question, and it's not even recent (it's the first ruling they posted!)

@Slade , I misspoke. It looks like you haven't missed anything new on that debate.

I'm afraid I got confused and was thinking of the Magva vs Han ruling from last week, which does address that conflict, but has nothing to do with the Qi'ra one 😕

26 minutes ago, Tellonius said:

Really ⁉️

Honestly, that concerns me! WHY would anyone start such an argument?? It’s a f...abulous GAME! Selfproclaimed rules "lawyers".... OMG

Some things are indeed unclear. But I fear that the bigger the community becomes – the more weird things emerge.

I wish we would stay in a more positive and playful state. X-Wing and the community is great....

Some people really like to nitpick and argue instead of playing the game. Some people want to exploit loopholes to their own advantage.

I'd like to think on some level it's the community's way of trying to hold FFG accountable to making a consistent rule set for us (that is my personal motivation when I try to raise the profile of a rules conflict) But that might just be my inner optimist assuming the best in people.

I watched a gold squadron video on qu’ra. - I don’t think the defender gets an extra defense die when the vulture attacks