Biophysical

I'm pretty sure x7 Defenders get to take the free Evade action after running through an asteroid

52 posts in this topic

https://images-cdn.fantasyflightgames.com/filer_public/a5/ce/a5ce1973-22a8-46ed-a75d-60fd775716da/tiex7_new_web.png

1.)  "You" always refer to the ship an upgrade is equipped to.

2.) "Overlapping" refers to an object landing on another object (typically ship or obastacle).

3.)  A ship's movement template is not that ship.

Result:  The TIE/x7 gets a free Evade action after moving speed 3+, even if its movement template crosses and asteroid (or a debris if you can get rid of the stress in time).  It only fails to get the free action if stress, or if it's base lands on another ship or an obstacle. 

So PTL Defenders (Ryad) get to move across an asteroid, roll for damage, get a free action, and PTL off of that action to get another action.

 

Am I wrong here?  I think I'm not, but I'm open to alternative arguments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, you're not wrong.  Like overlapping, maneuver-template (only) overlapping an obstacle forces you to skip your Perform Action step.  The free action from the Defender's speed isn't in that step.

In fact, the only thing keeping you from getting it when landing on an obstacle or overlapping a ship is that the TIE/x7 card itself says you don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

6 minutes ago, Celez said:

Very cool find, good job Biophysical!

Sadly the way the faq is worded i think a lot of casual players will miss it. Heck the entire ffg forum missed it if not for you.

I think this got called out in one of the FAQ threads the day the FAQ came out.

 

Actually, it was this thread I was thinking of.

Edited by WWHSD
Biophysical and Celez like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, WWHSD said:

I think this got called out in one of the FAQ threads the day the FAQ came out.

So youre saying its just me? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, WWHSD said:

I think this got called out in one of the FAQ threads the day the FAQ came out.

Please forgive the repeat, then.  I must have missed that, and haven't seen it discussed yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

No, you're not wrong.  Like overlapping, maneuver-template (only) overlapping an obstacle forces you to skip your Perform Action step.  The free action from the Defender's speed isn't in that step.

In fact, the only thing keeping you from getting it when landing on an obstacle or overlapping a ship is that the TIE/x7 card itself says you don't.

How does what you say conflict with what I say?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Biophysical said:

Please forgive the repeat, then.  I must have missed that, and haven't seen it discussed yet.

Lots of people don't read anything but the general forum, even then stuff gets knocked off the front page quickly. 

Punning Pundit likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, WWHSD said:

Lots of people don't read anything but the general forum, even then stuff gets knocked off the front page quickly. 

I looked back about 4 days on the rules forum, but didn't see a likely thread.  I was probably too lazy in my search.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Biophysical said:

Derp, I totally read "no, you're wrong", even when I quoted you.

To be fair, I probably do say "you're wrong" 10 times more often that I say "you're not wrong."  No worries.

AlexW, Rodafowa, haslo and 1 other like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The wording on this card is atrocious. I have read both this thread and the other one linked, and FFG's post about the FAQ, and whatever they were trying to accomplish with this nerf, the only thing that's clear is that they have made a hash of explaining their intent.

IMHO, if they meant it to only apply in the case of an overlap at the end of movement, then the wording should be "if you do not..."

By phrasing it "if you did not", the the implication is that any overlap of a ship or obstacle by the maneuver template OR the final position of the ship will preclude the free action. Which seems to be the opposite of the interpretation proposed in this thread.

I'm not saying which is right or wrong - I'm saying the revised card text has done a bad job of unambiguously conveying FFG's intent.

Edited by surfimp
infyrana likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but

The rules reference actually has two separate definitions for overlapping ships and overlapping obstacles:

Ships: only the end state is considered, the template overlapping other ship bases does not count for purposes of determining whether a ship overlapped another ship.

Obstacles: both the end state of the ship base as well as the maneuver template count when determining whether a ship has overlapped an obstacle* when performing a maneuver.

Edited by nicholasyt
Budgernaut likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, you get the evade, just like Snap can actually land on a rock, and boost off of it with his free action as long as the template never touches the rock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, nicholasyt said:

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but

The rules reference actually has two separate definitions for overlapping ships and overlapping obstacles:

Ships: only the end state is considered, the template overlapping other ship bases does not count for purposes of determining whether a ship overlapped another ship.

Obstacles: both the end state of the ship base as well as the maneuver template count when determining whether a ship has overlapped an obstacle* when performing a maneuver.

I like where you're going with this thought, but in the rules reference, it mentions "moving through" something being distinct from overlapping an obstacle. As mentioned above, the key word is "you" did not overlap. That refers the the ship, including the base; it does not refer to the template.

VanderLegion, Biophysical and WWHSD like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, nicholasyt said:

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but

The rules reference actually has two separate definitions for overlapping ships and overlapping obstacles:

Ships: only the end state is considered, the template overlapping other ship bases does not count for purposes of determining whether a ship overlapped another ship.

Obstacles: both the end state of the ship base as well as the maneuver template count when determining whether a ship has overlapped an obstacle* when performing a maneuver.

If you look through the rules for everything that cares about the template overlapping they always use language like "when a ship or a ship's maneuver template would overlap". The maneuver template overlapping is separate from a  ship overlapping.

DR4CO, Biophysical and VanderLegion like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

18 minutes ago, WWHSD said:

If you look through the rules for everything that cares about the template overlapping they always use language like "when a ship or a ship's maneuver template would overlap". The maneuver template overlapping is separate from a  ship overlapping.

EDIT: Ah, Biophysical is right, looks like Advanced SLAM clarifies this, though only in the card FAQ area...

Edited by ArbitraryNerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, WWHSD said:

I think this got called out in one of the FAQ threads the day the FAQ came out.

 

Actually, it was this thread I was thinking of.

The reference in this thread to the Advanced SLAM clarification, which has similar wording to the x7 title, and disallows the free action after A-SLAM, strongly suggests that I am wrong.  Yay for me not doing due dulligence (sarcasm).  Boo for FFG's different definitions of overlapping for ships and obastacles.

Edited by Biophysical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Biophysical said:

The reference in this thread to the Advanced SLAM clarification, which has similar wording to the x7 title, and disallows the free action after A-SLAM, strongly suggests that I am wrong.  Yay for me not doing due dulligence (sarcasm).  Boo for FFG's different definitions of overlapping for ships and obastacles.

Waiting for x7 FAQ to say the opposite

Biophysical likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now