If you put a tie advanced squadron (which has escort) with it you could fly past any fighters no problem

Actually I have to disagree with this part.

Escort does not stop fighters from engaging other squadrons, only that they must shoot the escort first.

ahh yes you are right, i rememberd the text wrong but you are correct sir

Yep, all "escort" will do is help keep your valuable bombers alive longer - hopefully until backup arrives

Always always ALWAYS use Occam's Razor. ALWAYS.

If you put a tie advanced squadron (which has escort) with it you could fly past any fighters no problem

Actually I have to disagree with this part.

Escort does not stop fighters from engaging other squadrons, only that they must shoot the escort first.

ahh yes you are right, i rememberd the text wrong but you are correct sir

Yep, all "escort" will do is help keep your valuable bombers alive longer - hopefully until backup arrives

Maverick is of course correct.

However, there are scenarios you could set up where this could occur:

Imperial player starts his squadrons near, but outside of range 1 of enemy fighters;

Moves his TIE advanced or other fighter squadron into range 1 of rebel fighters, engaging them;

Moves his Bomber squadron past the engaged rebel squadrons, so that they remain free to attack next turn, or immediately if activated by the squadron command.

This is all highly situational, but possible if you are canny and your opponent doesn't have his fighters set out in an effective screen.

Maverick is of course correct.

However, there are scenarios you could set up where this could occur:

Imperial player starts his squadrons near, but outside of range 1 of enemy fighters;

Moves his TIE advanced or other fighter squadron into range 1 of rebel fighters, engaging them;

Moves his Bomber squadron past the engaged rebel squadrons, so that they remain free to attack next turn, or immediately if activated by the squadron command.

This is all highly situational, but possible if you are canny and your opponent doesn't have his fighters set out in an effective screen.

If you want to "fly past" like you said then you would need to send your escort seperately ahead of your bombers and engage the fighers to pin them down, then "leapfrog" over the dogfight with your bombers avoiding it entirely. Once they enter the range 1 engagement the bombers cannot leave until it is resolved (or only heavy squadrons remain).

Hope that makes it a bit clearer.

Like that you mean?

Does Rhymers ability apply on Rhymer as well?

I am fairly certain that it does, because otherwise it would say OTHER SQUADRON S and he is. Onsidered at range 1 of himself (assuming x-wing ruling on the matter applys)

I think this is correct too, I remember seeing in the original demo video that Howlrunners ability affects her own squadron. I bet it's the same for Rhymer.

Maverick is of course correct.

However, there are scenarios you could set up where this could occur:

Imperial player starts his squadrons near, but outside of range 1 of enemy fighters;

Moves his TIE advanced or other fighter squadron into range 1 of rebel fighters, engaging them;

Moves his Bomber squadron past the engaged rebel squadrons, so that they remain free to attack next turn, or immediately if activated by the squadron command.

This is all highly situational, but possible if you are canny and your opponent doesn't have his fighters set out in an effective screen.

If you want to "fly past" like you said then you would need to send your escort seperately ahead of your bombers and engage the fighers to pin them down, then "leapfrog" over the dogfight with your bombers avoiding it entirely. Once they enter the range 1 engagement the bombers cannot leave until it is resolved (or only heavy squadrons remain).

Hope that makes it a bit clearer.

Like that you mean?

Ha, must have skimmed over that post, I would have to say exactly like that... Good call sir.

Let me reiterate, I AGREE that Rhymer's ability should just alter range. That does not, however, invalidate the core argument for the alternative which has not been addressed in Inksplat's responses (or others) yet.

If an ability simply says that you may do a thing, it is common to apply that as written and leave it alone. For example, from X-Wing (yes, different game I know but same designers and editors): Feedback Array says you may deal a damage to someone within range 1 instead of attacking. It does not spell out that you may do so even if you are otherwise ineligible to attack, neither does it spell out that you may do so even if the target is out of arc, yet the array works in both of those circumstances. It simply says what you may do and when, without caveat, which is what I am suggesting is possible with Rhymer as well.

I plan to play it in what I believe is the more logical and far more likely way (Rhymer affects range only), but I would like a clarification and/or for someone to point me at a paragraph somewhere that directly addresses this. My core reasoning is that Rhymer's ability is still considered an attack, so it should be treated as one, but I am making some assumptions there.

You're wrong again. Feedback Array is incredibly specific in how it works. It is not itself an attack, as it says instead of making any attacks. It says an enemy in range 1, meaning arc doesn't matter since it isn't an attack, merely a method of measure. All of that is addressed in the wording of the card.

Cards override rules that they specifically say something different than. Cards do not override rules they do not mention. That is pretty much spelled out in all rule books when they say "if a card states something different than the rules, the card wins." The card says nothing about engagemt, so it cannot override the engagement rules.

You're wrong again.

I have a friendly suggestion "I disagree" would get to the same point with significantly more tact. We are a community of players all excited about what is looking to be an excellent game, no need to offend each other unduly when a little extra effort put into the way we say things could make the discussion significantly more friendly and less argumentative.

There is really no backing to assert that Rhymes effects the engagement rules. A card can't override a rule it doesn't even address.

You're wrong again.

I have a friendly suggestion "I disagree" would get to the same point with significantly more tact. We are a community of players all excited about what is looking to be an excellent game, no need to offend each other unduly when a little extra effort put into the way we say things could make the discussion significantly more friendly and less argumentative.

Telling someone they're wrong is not an insult, especially when they are, in fact, wrong. "Disagree" implies there is opinion involved. There isn't here. There is nothing to agree about--there isright and wrong regarding facts. He's wrong regarding Feedback Array--there's no exception there that supports his claim about Rhymer. Everything Feedback Array does is stated right on the card. It effects no rules it doesn't mention.

I'm all for being civil, which I was. You don't tell someone you disagree when they say 2+2=7. You tell them they're wrong and correct them.

You're wrong again. Feedback Array is incredibly specific in how it works. It is not itself an attack, as it says instead of making any attacks. It says an enemy in range 1, meaning arc doesn't matter since it isn't an attack, merely a method of measure. All of that is addressed in the wording of the card.

Cards override rules that they specifically say something different than. Cards do not override rules they do not mention. That is pretty much spelled out in all rule books when they say "if a card states something different than the rules, the card wins." The card says nothing about engagemt, so it cannot override the engagement rules.

Let me be blunt, your claims of righteousness are rude and wrong on their face, regardless of the specifics of this question. I'm trying to keep this civil and looking for specific rules citations, you fail to provide any. All of nothing is addressed in the card, either Feedback or Rhymer. Feedback could quite reasonably be assumed to require a legal attack be possible for it to be used, because the wording is that it is used "instead of attacking". I know perfectly well that was an issue, because I was there when it was written and it was left this way only because of space restrictions on the card with the plan for an FAQ to address the issue if it became necessary.

There are multiple ways to read the card, and I was looking for some specifics to substantiate the position that Rhymer modifies the range of a normal battery attack, rather than providing a special attack via his ability whose restrictions are "within Distance 1 of Rhymer and at close or medium range". This is similar to the Mon Mothma thread, where it "seems obvious" that the card replaces the normal action without further modification rather than stacking on top of it, but that depends heavily on your starting assumptions. It is amusing to me that the assumptions in the two instances are opposite. In this case, the assumption is that Rhymer is modifying those mechanics specifically mentioned for the existing attack but leaving all other mechanics in place. In Mon Mothma's case the assumption is that the effect replaces the normal action completely rather than leaving the other mechanics in place. In both cases the cards do not provide enough data, and because the game is new we don't yet have precedents in an FAQ.

The fact that you apparently lack the mental agility to alter your starting assumptions, or even to recognize that you have them, is not compensated for by attempts to speak with an authority you simply do not have.

Edit: The better way to word the question I am asking. Is this a modification of the normal battery attack, or is it a special attack unique to Rhymer?

Except that you're wrong yet again! The wording for Feedback Array is "instead of performing any attacks" which is not ambiguous. let's look at Magic. "Instead of paying the cost of a creature, you may sacrifice a land to summon it." Would you assume you had to have the correct mana available still? Of course not, because you're sacrificing the land instead. This is why grammar is important. Instead of performing any attacks at all, you can do this completely different thing. Why would the requirements of attack matter when what you're doing is not an attack? Only the fact that you DON'T attack matters, not whether you CAN or not.

You're wrong again.

I have a friendly suggestion "I disagree" would get to the same point with significantly more tact. We are a community of players all excited about what is looking to be an excellent game, no need to offend each other unduly when a little extra effort put into the way we say things could make the discussion significantly more friendly and less argumentative.

Telling someone they're wrong is not an insult, especially when they are, in fact, wrong. "Disagree" implies there is opinion involved. There isn't here. There is nothing to agree about--there isright and wrong regarding facts. He's wrong regarding Feedback Array--there's no exception there that supports his claim about Rhymer. Everything Feedback Array does is stated right on the card. It effects no rules it doesn't mention.

I'm all for being civil, which I was. You don't tell someone you disagree when they say 2+2=7. You tell them they're wrong and correct them.

I get that, and you are completely correct in you usage of wrong versus disagree. I just think that we can afford to go a little out of our way even to not offend anyone. I think KineticOperator has had sufficient example and feedback to understand the "correct" usage of the card in question. If I were in his shoes, I might still be arguing my case, not because I was offended by the rule, but because I didn't feel like anyone had considered my point of view, even though they may have done so. As a third party, I think due consideration was given to the question, and that sufficient explanation was even given, but that we as a community responding to an individual with a question could have been more inclusive rather than confrontational about it. Even saying "that's not correct" addresses the fact in question, not the person. To say "you are wrong" feels to the person receiving it as though a personal affront has been given, even if that is not the intent, because you are addressing them, not the fact that was actually wrong. To say "you are dumb" is different then saying "that was dumb", since we all have stupid moments, but those moments of themselves don't inherently make us stupid. That, in a more verbose way than I intended, is all I was trying to say earlier

Thanks again for the question Kinetic. Hopefully you asking these sorts of questions will help others in the community understand the cards better. Anyone willing to get on the forum and even attempt to help other posters or put themselves out there by asking questions has contributed to the game in my book.

Thanks cobalt

Edit: The better way to word the question I am asking. Is this a modification of the normal battery attack, or is it a special attack unique to Rhymer?

If I properly understand first your question and then the rules, this is a modification of the normal attack for squadrons within range 1 of Rhymer. First the text of his card that is in question:

"Friendly Squadrons at distance 1 can attack enemy ships at close-medium range using all dice in their battery armament"

Squadrons and ships is already fairly well defined, and I checked the rules reference to make sure "battery armament" means the dice a squadron would normally attack a ship with, which is the case. I don't think I could make a strong case for implying that Rhymer has any sort of unique attack at this point. Where I do think some clarification could be helpful is the fact that the steps for an attack say nothing about checking to make sure a squadron is engaged, and we have to go the section on engagement to get anything useful regarding it. In reading that section however, there is no point where it says "cannot" (the unbreakable description according to pg1) in regards to attacking ships thanks to a "can" ability, only that an engaged squadron "must attack an engaged squadron if possible rather than an enemy ship". I admit myself, the language could be clearer. I do feel however that it is just barely clear enough to say that the "can" statement in Rhymers ability doesn't override any of the important engagement rules as we know them.

One thing this careful reading of the engagement rules has done for me is get me thinking on clever ways to break engagement. I was thinking after reading that an obstruction blocks line of site, which between squadrons is the two closest points, that I could plop a fighter between one of my fighters and one of my opponents to break line of site between them and my first fighter which got me fairly excited. After rereading line of sight however, I was disappointed to find that squadrons in no way count as an obstruction. I think however that careful use of obstacle tokens and ship corners could trip up a careless opponent who moves to range 1 and "engages" your squadron, only to have you move away because line of sight barely doesn't exist between them. May not be the right thread for this observation, but I had fun with it and discovered it while investigating your question more thoroughly.

I feel a lot of people confuse themselves reading wording on cards by either questioning their basic assumptions about game rules, mechanics, grammar, etc, or by trying to layer their own assumption on top of them.

Rhymer says squadrons can attack at medium range with all of their battery armaments. This is clearly modifying the rules regarding range, and regarding which dice are rolled. It states nothing about modifying any other rules, and indeed specifically uses the word "attack", which assumes that otherwise the regular rules for attacking are being followed.

There has been a lot of questions about some of the cards. A lot will be cleared up once we can actually play the game. Hopefully most of the rest once FFG release a FAQ. I agree with the Grand Admiral though that people are reading /adding too much to the cards at this point.

There is a concept from Advanced Squad Leader, a far more intricate and older game system than this: "Concentrate on what the rules *allow*". Not on what they don't forbid.

"But it doesn't say that I can't" is a bad way of reading rules.

The Armada Rhymer sounds pretty decent - unlike the X-Wing one.

Thank you CobaltWraith for answering the question posed, rather than setting up a series of strawmen to attack. I have repeatedly stated that I agree with the common understanding that Rhymer only affects the range at which friendly squadrons may attack ships. I have been asking for substantive citations from the rules that support that view. The fact that I understand and can verbalize the contrary position is not a failure on my part. If you don't know an argument well enough to state the other side, you don't know enough to have an opinion in the first place. I stated the counter argument only so that we could be more specific when countering it.

I agree with the assessment that you need to stick to what is said. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence as it were. This is the reason I am asking for something that provides evidence FOR this point of view, rather than simply relying on the absence of evidence AGAINST it. The purpose to all of this is that there are follow up questions for this ability, and implications for other abilities (Mon Mothma), and having a positive supporting statement would help create the contextual framework for answering all of them. Major Rhymer clearly allows friendly squadrons at distance 1 to ignore the restriction of being at distance 1 from an enemy ship before attacking it, but does it lift any other restrictions? The prevailing opinion is no, but that is inferred rather than rigorously supported.

For example: Darth Vader and Soontir Fel are both at distance 1 from Rhymer, but medium range from an enemy ship (unengaged for the purposes of this example). Major Rhymer is at close range from that same ship but outside distance 1. What attack dice does each squadron roll? Rhymer clearly rolls one black die (his battery). Soontir Fel clearly rolls one blue die (his battery). Does Darth Vader roll one black die (his battery) or no dice at all? While Major Rhymer would allow him to attack at this range, the rules also state that black dice are not used beyond close range. My assumption is that Rhymers ability would allow Vader to roll one black die, but there is a logical argument to be made that although Vader is allowed to attack with all of his dice, black dice are not rolled at medium range. So Vader is able to attack with "all" of his dice, but only rolls those dice that are appropriate for this range. If his battery were one black and one blue (like a B-Wing) it is entirely possible that he would roll only the blue, but also possible that he would roll both.

Once again, I am looking for specific rules that state WHAT is done, and WHY, not an absence of rules to the contrary.

Well, Kinetic, I shall bite, then.

Concentrating on what the rules allow, it seems to me that Rhymer mentions, and thus affects, two things. Firstly, it gives squadrons the ability to attack at medium range. And secondly, they can do so using *all the dice* in their battery armament. Not "their battery armament" which would have been enough, but *all the dice* in said armament

Also, since no other mechanics are mentioned, this is *all* he does. His friendly fighters now have the ability to attack at short and medium range, like they before had the ability to attack at short range. And "all the dice" means that they can attack at medium range with black dice, as well as blue and red if they have them. Nothing else has changed, and we can safely assume that all other restrictions to attacking are still in place.

It *is* possible, for someone from a general warhammer background, to still argue that this card says other things, but taking FFG at face value here seems to be enough for a clear understanding of the card.

This is getting absurd and I am really concerned at the manner in which Kinetic is approaching the interpretation of the game rules.

Then I will drop it. It really doesn't affect anything yet, but if asking for specifics is threatening it isn't worth my time or yours.

Mnemosyne: I think you are spot on, and hit upon what I believed was the logic in the first place. The specific wording of "all dice" overrides the normal range restrictions.

Then I will drop it. It really doesn't affect anything yet, but if asking for specifics is threatening it isn't worth my time or yours.

Mnemosyne: I think you are spot on, and hit upon what I believed was the logic in the first place. The specific wording of "all dice" overrides the normal range restrictions.

Well caught, I would agree that Vader would still be able to use his black dice at Medium range.