Hi all,

So there's a situation that turret ship is shooting at ship equipped with auto thrusters. Bases are in range 2 - outside the arc. But the defender is in arc at range 3. What is ruling on this one? Can I use AT ability?

You measure closest point to closest point, and as he is using a turret (or ship that can fire outside it's arc) it means it doesn't really matter about the arc's distance. You are in range 2 out of his arc and he is firing at you that way, so you get to use AT.

Thanks

if you are beyond Range 2 or outside the attacker's firing arc

You are in the arc, and you are at Range 2. Neither condition quoted above is true, so Autothrusters shouldn't trigger.

Measuring range and determining whether in arc or not are completely separate processes.

If any part of the target is within the firing arc, the target is in arc. Period. There is nothing that changes that.

Range is a bit trickier because of turrets. Normally range is measured exclusively within the firing arc, but turrets have special rules and so when measuring range from a turret, you use closest point to closest point irrespective of the firing arc.

So, in the case of the OP. Is any part of the target's base inside the attacker's firing arc? Yes, therefore the target is in arc. Full stop. Next step, determine range. What us the range to the target measured from closest point to closest point (ignoring arc because it is a turret)? Range 2. Therefore the target is at range 2.

The attack is at range 2 and in arc. Do those conditions allow Autothrusters to fire? No.

As counter-intuitive it may seem, you check for "range" and "in-arc" states separately.

Thus, for this shot, the target is at range 2, and in-arc of the attacker.

Autothrusters won't apply.

I strongly believe that that "counter intuitiveness" is in opposition to AT card designers idea of empowering small ships against turreted ships. Sadly till FAQ will state otherwise I believe that this counter intuitive interpretation is valid...

Thanks to Michał:

http://m.imgur.com/bUichLb

I don't get this "counter intuitive" complaint. This ruling is exactly what the rules say. I don't really understand why people have argued otherwise or where the confusion comes in. The only thing counter intuitive in this scenario is the fact that turrets even HAVE a firing arc to be out of. Once you accept that there is an 87* arc for turrets that doesn't matter to anything except these situations then this is the only way that makes sense.

Unless you're a psychic, you don't know what the designers were thinking. All we have to go on are the rules as written, which has been explained clearly. Range and Arc are two different things.

@Forgottenlore, @Slugrage - I do agree with you guys, rules are rules.

In my opinion AT card was designed to counter turreted ships (Deci, YTs) - those ships do fire with somewhat OP weapon. If they do use it all the bonuses should be measured on the closest line - it'd be simplest. And not like "hey lets use turret" and deny the defender the bonus from AT card since it's in the arc @ range 3... That'd be simplest and best for game mechanics. Using triangles, set of compasses than an calculator will not help the game. Look at 40k... Thankfully X is still a simple game (in ruling) and it should be kept like that for the sake of the game.

Thanks to Michał:

http://m.imgur.com/bUichLb

Autothrusters will no activate.

I don't get this "counter intuitive" complaint. This ruling is exactly what the rules say. I don't really understand why people have argued otherwise or where the confusion comes in.

1. The rough intent behind Autothrusters appears to be that they make a ship harder to hit if you have a turret than if you don't. But the ruling creates this corner case where it's the other way around.

2. The card refers to your ship being "beyond Range 2 or out of arc", which implies that what matters are the range and arc-ness of your whole ship. The ruling is that you use the range of the shot but the arc-ness of your whole ship. IMO there is some merit to the argument that the ruling contradicts card text rather than clarifying it. Regardless, it also would have been less confusing if it only used the attributes of either just the base or just the shot rather than mixing and matching.

3. The first half of the FAQ entry simply restates the card with the grammar inverted. It says the same thing, only in a harder-to-parse structure. If the card's meaning wasn't clear to you before, reading the FAQ makes things worse before it makes them better.

Unless you add a diagram, I don't see how things can be much more clear than the FAQ entry for Autothrusters is:

"If a ship with a turret weapon attacks a ship equipped with Autothrusters, first measure closest point to closest point to determine range, then use the printed firing arc on the attacker to determine whether the defender is in the attacker’s firing arc."

As for whether this is working as intended by the designers, I think the fact that they added a FAQ entry for the card in question that instructs people to measure arc and range independently is a pretty clear sign that it's exactly how the designers intended for it to work.