Hi all.

I have noticed an important difference in the way that marshals apply the rulling for barrel roll (and boost) after a Vulture or Hienna Droid use its grappling/landing struts. This also affects to Qi’ra, for example.

We have seen in US Opens and the Worlds, that a droid can use barrel roll after using grappling struts, regardless the movement template used for the barrel overlaps the obstacle or not.

Nevertheless, in Europe (European Championships, Spanish Open, ...) the ruling is: if the template overlaps the obstacle, the barrel fails, and it cannot be executed, though you are ignoring that obstacle.

The ruling applied in Europe is: ignoring the obstacle means you are ignoring the effect of the obstacle, but, the obstacle is still there. So, the rule of barrel roll says that fails if the template or the ship base overlaps an obstacle, and, you don’t ignore that rule of barrel roll. The only way of overlapping while barrel rolling is using “Collision Detector”. Because the text of CD specifically says “While you boost or barrel roll, you can move through and overlap obstacles” moreover ignoring its effects (shooting over a rock, avoid the defender to add the extra defense dice while obstructed, etc…).

I don’t want to argue with anybody which of the ways is the “correct”.

I’m asking FFG to make a specific entry in the post " X-Wing Official Rulings " clarifying which is the correct ruling. As simple as that.

This is not a small matter in a small shop. This is a huge difference between how this rule is interpreted in Grand Championships in USA and Europe.

I beg for an official clarification for this, because for most of the Droid lists, is a big difference. And, as a community, we expect to be able to play everywhere with the same ruling.

Thanks in advance

31 minutes ago, Metalbag said:

I’m asking FFG to make a specific entry in the post " X-Wing Official Rulings " clarifying which is the correct ruling. As simple as that.

You wont likely get that here. Here we discuss our interpretations if its questionable and our reasons behind it, or answer questions with clear references.

If you are wanting to pose this to FFG directly, you should post it here.

https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/contact/rules/

"You ignore obstacles at range 0 and while you move through them."

don't think i've ever seen it be ruled that you cannot barrel roll through and obstacle while your struts are open, but i suppose it's a valid interpretation. it has support in the rules, since barrel rolls and boosts fail if the ship would overlap or move through an obstacle while performing the action.

the fact that you ignore obstacles at range 0 and while you move through them should let you do it, but it's definitely not 100% clear.

would certainly like a clarification from FFG on this one as well.

35 minutes ago, meffo said:

"You ignore obstacles at range 0 and while you move through them."

Seems 100% clear to me. I have zero doubt about how it should be ruled.

How it WILL be ruled OTOH, who knows?!

15 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

Seems 100% clear to me. I have zero doubt about how it should be ruled.

How it WILL be ruled OTOH, who knows?!

It does seem to be the intent, but the argument seems to be that, the ignoring of the obstacle only apply to effects of the obstacle itself, while failing a BR/Boost by overlapping is an effect of the movement/action itself, and not an effect of the obstacle.


Personally, i think thats really stretching it to make it not work, but then again, competitive players do love to do that

It’ more a question on marshals/judges ruling diferent in several big tournaments, and FFG doing nothing to solve this strange situation

17 minutes ago, Lyianx said:

It does seem to be the intent, but the argument seems to be that, the ignoring of the obstacle only apply to effects of the obstacle itself, while failing a BR/Boost by overlapping is an effect of the movement/action itself, and not an effect of the obstacle.


Personally, i think thats really stretching it to make it not work, but then again, competitive players do love to do that

It's a stretch considering dash is worded the same way and is explicitly per word of devs intended to be able to roll freely over rocks.

I mean, it's the same language as Dash and Qi'ra and Mining Guild TIEs.

But like, if there's an opportunity to blow up the rules of the game, I guess we've got to take it. *eyeroll*

4 hours ago, theBitterFig said:

I mean, it's the same language as Dash and Qi'ra and Mining Guild TIEs.

But like, if there's an opportunity to blow up the rules of the game, I guess we've got to take it. *eyeroll*

Yeah, in Europe Dash, Quira and Mining Guild suffer the same ruling. They share the same text as grappling.

1 hour ago, Metalbag said:

Yeah, in Europe Dash, Quira and Mining Guild suffer the same ruling. They share the same text as grappling.

this is interesting to me. can you please be more specific? which tournaments in europe are you referring to?

1 hour ago, Metalbag said:

Yeah, in Europe Dash, Quira and Mining Guild suffer the same ruling. They share the same text as grappling.

Wait, what? 😮 You're saying that the common consensus across Europe is that Dash and MG TIEs are not allowed to barrel roll over/onto/off obstacles?

******* EU/UK rulings need to be tossed in a bonfire... Their judges' inability to read is getting disgusting...

I've sent this specific question to FFG before to clarify the ruling, because what seems obvious isn't apparently. I never received anything back.

14 minutes ago, dsul413 said:

I've sent this specific question to FFG before to clarify the ruling, because what seems obvious isn't apparently. I never received anything back.

They probably think it's so obvious they're mad they have to answer it.

I keep thinking about how PO'ed the devs always seemed when they kept having to answer questions about Rigged Cargo Chute and a debris token being dropped on you.

7 hours ago, meffo said:

this is interesting to me. can you please be more specific? which tournaments in europe are you referring to?

At least, i know for sure: European Championship, Spanish Open, and coming now Spanish Grand Championsip.

I'm surprised no-one has quoted this yet. From the Rules Reference. Starts page 13, ends page 14 of the current 1.0.6:

MOVE
A ship moves when it executes a maneuver or otherwise changes position using a
template (such as barrel rolling or boosting).
A ship moves through an object if the template is placed on that object when
the ship moves.
• If a ship moves through an obstacle, it suffers the effects of that obstacle.
• If a ship moves through a device, it can suffer effects based on the device.

• If a ship moves through another ship, there is no inherent effect. Due to the
physical miniature being in the way, players should mark the positions of any
intervening ships and temporarily remove them. To mark an intervening ship’s
position, players can either use the position markers provided in the core set
or place templates in the ships’ guides or along the side of the base. Then
those ships are physically removed to complete the move. After the move is
complete, the removed ships are returned to their original positions.

Open Struts:

You ignore obstacles at range 0 and while you move through them. After you reveal your dial, if you reveal a maneuver other than a [2 ] and are at range 0 of an asteroid or debris cloud, skip your Execute Maneuver step and remove 1 stress token; if you revealed a right or left maneuver, rotate your ship 90º in that direction. After you execute a maneuver, flip this card.

MGT:

Notched Stabilizers: While you move, you ignore asteroids.

Dash:

While you move , you ignore obstacles.

Qi'ra:

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

The argument against is, in effect, that stopping a boost/barrel roll is not an effect of the obstacle itself, but rather an effect that checks for the presence/absence of an obstacle.

I don't agree with this interpretation, and also the point of this thread was not to debate the merits of the ruling, but... even though it has some RAW support (in that the effect of stopping a reposition is written into the rules of boosts/barrel rolls and not written into the rules of obstacles) I don't think it works that way and I do think you can 100% move through/overlap an obstacle that you are ignoring because of course you can.

the side saying that you cannot barrel roll through obstacles with open struts does have a very substantial argument indeed.

this is from the FAQ:

Quote

OBJECTS
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]?

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 [title], Han Solo [Pilot, Customized YT1300], 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.

from the rules reference on barrel rolling (upper left on page 6 of the RR):

Quote

• While attempting to place a ship to complete a barrel roll, the barrel roll can fail if any of the following occurs:
◊ All three positions would cause the ship to overlap another ship.
◊ All three positions would cause the ship to overlap or move through an obstacle.
◊ All three positions would cause the ship to be outside the play area (and therefore would cause that ship to flee).

even if i think barrel rolling (or boosting for that matter) over obstacles should be fine as long as you're ignoring them, it's not sufficiently clear and should be addressed asap.

please help flood https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/contact/rules/

7 hours ago, meffo said:

the side saying that you cannot barrel roll through obstacles with open struts does have a very substantial argument indeed.

...[ruling and RR quotes]...

even if i think barrel rolling (or boosting for that matter) over obstacles should be fine as long as you're ignoring them, it's not sufficiently clear and should be addressed asap.

please help flood https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/contact/rules/

Keeping the question straightforward to hopefully get a straight answer, here's what I sent:

" If a ship or card ability says "you ignore obstacles while moving," does that allow the ship to barrel roll or boost with the template moving through an obstacle? "

12 hours ago, nitrobenz said:

Keeping the question straightforward to hopefully get a straight answer, here's what I sent:

" If a ship or card ability says "you ignore obstacles while moving," does that allow the ship to barrel roll or boost with the template moving through an obstacle? "

Well, i would pose the question to you, "What would be considered a move, outside of a maneuver, boost or barrel roll, that Things like Dash, Struts and Qi'ra would be referring to?"

Typically, if an ability wants to restrict it to only maneuvers, they say "maneuver" and not the broader term "move". To my knowledge, a 'move' usually means a boost or barrel roll, in some form or fashion. If that is not what is meant by 'move', then what is it referring to? This is why im confident when you "ignore obstacles while you move", that means you can Boost/BR though them.

43 minutes ago, Lyianx said:

Well, i would pose the question to you, "What would be considered a move, outside of a maneuver, boost or barrel roll, that Things like Dash, Struts and Qi'ra would be referring to?"

Typically, if an ability wants to restrict it to only maneuvers, they say "maneuver" and not the broader term "move". To my knowledge, a 'move' usually means a boost or barrel roll, in some form or fashion. If that is not what is meant by 'move', then what is it referring to? This is why im confident when you "ignore obstacles while you move", that means you can Boost/BR though them.

while i 100% agree, even if you ignore obstacles, the rules reference still states that a barrel roll fails if it makes the ship move through or overlap an obstacle. that's what makes it unclear - and i feel there should be an entry in the rules reference addressing ignoring obstacles.

ruling that you cannot boost or barrel roll over obstacles that you're ignoring may seem like a ridiculous and silly ruling to you or me, but the other side of the argument has some merit as well.

Let's be clear overall: the only reason there is any room for doubt here is because FFG went with a "ignore doesn't really mean ignore" ruling for all these sorts of things. I'm mostly fine with FFG wanting to have their cake and eat it too, with a bunch of "because we said so" rulings. But they gotta get quicker, because the X-Wing rules community cannot handle any uncertainty and will break anything rather than use common sense.

The way I'd treat "ignore" is that it means ignore fully all the "normal stuff" that happens due to obstacles, unless there's some "secondary effect" which tells you not to ignore them. Dash ignores rocks, except for Outrider. Qi'ra does, except for Stunned Pilot or Trick Shot. Failing boosts/barrel rolls is one of the normal effects of obstacles, so they'd get ignored.

That's not super rigorous. It's trying to read between the lines of what FFG has done with stuff. There's no clean text-based way of splitting effects into primary/normal effects, and secondary effects from upgrades and damage cards and conditions and such, but it strikes me as a "simplified" description of what FFG seems like they're trying to do. I'll spare the thread any more woolly philosophising.

1 hour ago, meffo said:

while i 100% agree, even if you ignore obstacles, the rules reference still states that a barrel roll fails if it makes the ship move through or overlap an obstacle. that's what makes it unclear - and i feel there should be an entry in the rules reference addressing ignoring obstacles.

ruling that you cannot boost or barrel roll over obstacles that you're ignoring may seem like a ridiculous and silly ruling to you or me, but the other side of the argument has some merit as well.

Yeah, i get that.

11 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:

the only reason there is any room for doubt here is because FFG went with a "ignore doesn't really mean ignore" ruling for all these sorts of things.

Na, they went with "ignore doesn't mean it doesn't exist"

Quote

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

So the down to the bones question is "is boost/barrel roll checking for presence, or merely checking for any overlap of an object, not caring what that object is?"

1 minute ago, Lyianx said:

Na, they went with "ignore doesn't mean it doesn't exist"

That transposes into the same thing. Why does it matter if the obstacle exists if your ignoring it? Because there's some other effect where you don't ignore it.

9 hours ago, Lyianx said:

Well, i would pose the question to you, "What would be considered a move, outside of a maneuver, boost or barrel roll, that Things like Dash, Struts and Qi'ra would be referring to?"

I would consider all of those things,̶ ̶p̶l̶u̶s̶ ̶d̶e̶c̶l̶o̶a̶k̶,̶{edit: Lyianx reminded me that decloak technically is boost/roll, just with a different template} to fall under "while you move". To be clear, I'm in the of-course-it-works camp. The question I quoted is copy-pasted from the rules question form I submitted to FFG. It's posed as a simple yes or no question because I only want a yes or no answer to this issue.

Whenever FFG tries to explain 'cuz we said so rulings they tend toward either not answering the part of the question I thought was most important, or the answer is so convoluted it raises more questions, or the explanation runs against existing written rules. (I'm sure we all remember the Paige+Deathfire "clarification" 🙄 )