Quote

When one of the second player's ships or unique squadrons overlaps an asteroid field, that obstacle has no effect and that ship or squadron may recover 1 of its non- defense tokens or may ready 1 of its defense tokens.

1) I read this that the second player is also not obstructed while attacking, correct?

2) How is it treated when you‘re defending? Do you get the bonus of being obstructed so the attacker rolls one die less?

There was an everlasting discussion about a similar problem in X-Wing about what exactly „ignoring obstacles“ means and it finally got a ruling that while ignoring obstacles you get all the benefit but the other player not. Is it the same here?

Edit: How is „engaged“ treated when the second player is on an asteroid?

1) the asteroids don't hurt 2nd player ships. It still obstructs as normal for both players.

2) if line of sight crosses over an obstacle when attacking. It is obstructed.

No, armada and xwing share very little in terms of rules.

Mostly because the obstruction in shots is not an effect of overlapping the obstacle

15 hours ago, KaLeu said:

1) I read this that the second player is also not obstructed while attacking, correct?

2) How is it treated when you‘re defending? Do you get the bonus of being obstructed so the attacker rolls one die less?

There was an everlasting discussion about a similar problem in X-Wing about what exactly „ignoring obstacles“ means and it finally got a ruling that while ignoring obstacles you get all the benefit but the other player not. Is it the same here?

Edit: How is „engaged“ treated when the second player is on an asteroid?

The wording on the objective is not " obstacles have no effect ". It is: " when ... overlaps an asteroid field .. has no effect ". This " has no effect " only count for the part of the overlapping.
This means the asteroid fields are not dealing damage to the second players ships. But the debris fields still do. And they still do obstruct attacks.

Question on the wording of the obstacles used. It says use all obstacles excluding the station. Does this include the gravity rift and dust fields or just the core obstacles minus the station?

Thanks

9 minutes ago, Jukey said:

Question on the wording of the obstacles used. It says use all obstacles excluding the station. Does this include the gravity rift and dust fields or just the core obstacles minus the station?

Thanks

Core obstacles minus the station. Otherwise it would be worded similar to Rift Ambush ("The second player places all obstacles, adding the gravity rift and 2 dust fields and excluding the station.")

On 11/12/2019 at 6:16 PM, Karneck said:

2) if line of sight crosses over an obstacle when attacking. It is obstructed.

There is an exception relating to Asteroid Tactics, when an exogorth is attacking:

RitR, page 5: "Attacks that draw line of sight through the exogorth itself or through an obstacle that the exogorth is touching are not obstructed."

39 minutes ago, Bertie Wooster said:

There is an exception relating to Asteroid Tactics:

RitR, page 5: "Attacks that draw line of sight through the exogorth itself or through an obstacle that the exogorth is touching are not obstructed."

Although, to avoid confusion, it would be good to clarify that the rule you're quoting applies only for when an exogorth is attacking.

5 minutes ago, Lemmiwinks86 said:

Although, to avoid confusion, it would be good to clarify that the rule you're quoting applies only for when an exogorth is attacking.

Correct.

What if a ship overlaps more than one asteroid, can it recover more than 1 defense token?

13 minutes ago, spike2109 said:

What if a ship overlaps more than one asteroid, can it recover more than 1 defense token?

Yes