I will change my opinion to the correct side of the argument and pretend I was never wrong if I see this in a faq somewhere though!

We're in total agreement on that, then.

Turns out that almost exactly a year ago I was making the same argument that you were Vulf.

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/132592-in-arc-but-shooting-out-of-arc/?p=1414533

I think that's why I started this thread when you called me out about it in that other thread. I couldn't remember what made me change my mind about Autothrusters.

When you've got Autothrusters, you measure to see if you are beyond range two when it is time to modify dice. Normally you only measure the part of the ship that is within firing arc and you would already know what range they are from measuring the attack.

This changes a little bit when using a turret, you first measure the closest point then see if any of the ship is sticking into the firing arcs at range 1-2.

...

You measure again when activating some abilities. I believe Autothrusters to be the same way, because it is worded differently than range 3 modifiers in the how to play instructions, that is all I am saying.

You disagree with the diagram I posted on whether or not Autothrusters should kick in on the first example (where the HLC) is being used to attack with, correct? If a defender is at range two of the attacker (closest point to closest point) but the attacker is making a range three attack (in-arc measurement) then you would contend that Autothrusters does not take effect?

The diagram illustrates some scenarios, but it does not account for the situation with the Inquisitor.

As for the first part, I could go either way. Ship itself is not beyond range 2, so if a player declared he was using Autothrusters he would find that out when he measured, though I could see in a tournament setting that he would want to measure along the attacker's firing arc so he doesn't take damage and lose!

You could be at range 2 but defend at range 3 because of the attacker's firing arc. That's the whole shtick with adding defense die.

But Autothrusters doesn't say when defending at range 3+ from an attack , it says when defending, if you are beyond range two .

And that reads as an ability with when defending as the timing when you measure for it.

It isn't mandatory either, you may choose to use or not use Autothrusters, so if you decide to use it you certainly should declare it so the attacker knows why you are just flipping dice over to evade results!

The 2nd part of the diagram is what the line in the faq is about.

It might be worth noting that Tactician's ability specifically states that it works against ships in arc at range 2 . Not ships that are in your firing arc and at range 2 .

The image in that diagram:

The defender is in arc at range 3.

He is also in arc, and at range 2 from the attacker's ship.

Having looked at both sides of the argument I am inclined to say that the intention from FFG is that Autothrusters wont work. That's not to say that is my opinion on the matter but I suspect it will be another RAI overruling RAW clarification.

The reason being that had they simply wanted you to roll 3 dice at all ranges they would have simply worded the ability:

"When attacking at ranges 2-3 roll 1 additional attack dice"

By wording it the way they have it seems that they intend for it to impact cards like Autothrusters. That is not to say that the the current wording clearly counteracts Autothrusters, for that to happen they should have worded it like:

"When attacking at range 2-3, treat the attack as if this ship was at range 1" it gets the intended affect and would clearly indicate that cards like Autothrusters would not trigger.

It would however create interesting instances like Scum Boba Fett getting shot at Range 3 from the Inquisitor but getting a reroll due to the inquisitor being at "R1".

As it stands there is some ambiguity as to whether Boba gets a re-roll should FFG rule in favor of Autothrusters not kicking in.

The way the Inquisitor's ability is worded still denies the ranged combat bonus to the defender for range 3 attacks.

Since ranged combat bonuses are not abilities that are activated requiring a separate measurement. Ranged bonuses are specifically tied to the range of the attack.

If they issue some kind of faq it may be to clear up how Autothrusters work and when you measure range for it other than the turret example they give.

And lets not put Carnor into this equation, then it really gets #$%ed up.

The way the Inquisitor's ability is worded still denies the ranged combat bonus to the defender for range 3 attacks.

Since ranged combat bonuses are not abilities that are activated requiring a separate measurement. Ranged bonuses are specifically tied to the range of the attack.

If they issue some kind of faq it may be to clear up how Autothrusters work and when you measure range for it other than the turret example they give.

Surely this line of logic would also mean Autothruster wouldn't work. The out-of-arc argument is never going to be an issue with the Inquisitor, so the only debate is the range-based one. But if the Inquisitor denies the range bonus to the defender, then surely the defender must be now treated as being at Range 1, and therefore not qualify for Autothrusters.

The way I see it is you can't deny the Range bonus but allow Autothrusters. It's got to be Range bonus AND Autothrusters are both allowed, or both of them aren't.

And lets not put Carnor into this equation, then it really gets #$%ed up.

He says, putting Carnor into the equation.

And lets not put Carnor into this equation, then it really gets #$%ed up.

He says, putting Carnor into the equation.

Huh.

​The Inquisitor doesn't get to use Focus tokens while attacking Carnor Jax with his primary.

Good to know.

And lets not put Carnor into this equation, then it really gets #$%ed up.

He says, putting Carnor into the equation.

Huh.

​The Inquisitor doesn't get to use Focus tokens while attacking Carnor Jax with his primary.

Good to know.

^^ This one was debated at length IIRC when the Inquisitor was first spoiled. I suggest searching for that thread instead of adding more confusion to this one.

The answer to this debate can be found in the FAQ for Autothrusters. The FAQ makes it clear that for non turreted attacks the card does not activate if the defender is attacked at Range 1-2. And Since the Inquisitors attack is treated as Range 1 you get no range 3 bonus and no Autothrusters.

Except that's not what the faq says.

It does not say "attacked at range 1-2."

Autothrusters is an ability you have to declare when you are defending. You measure when you declare you are using it. You don't treat your ship as range 1 to the Inquisitor when measuring for ship abilities, the Inquisitor only treats the attack range as range 1.

The Inquisitor only treats his attack as ranged 1, he doesn't treat his ship as being at range 1 of his target for anything else.

Range 1 attacks only effect ranged combat bonuses.

If Autothrusters said when defending against a range 3+ attack , then the Inquisitor would ignore it.

The FAQ for Autothrusters is not as crystal clear as it could have been. I'm of the opinion though that the intent seems to be that it is indeed the attack range the maters for triggering AT or not and not the range between the ships.

Since the second paragraf details how to measure when attacked by a ship with a turret, it can be asumed that a ship without a turret would behave diffrently, why else specify that it is for turret attacks?

And if we use the range between ships rather then the attack range when it is not a turret, then it becomes the exact same thing as with a turret.

There for my logic tells me the intent is to use attack range and nothing else.

I could ofcource be compleatly wrong...

Does the defender get to roll an extra agility die if the Inquisitor is at Range 3 because now it's defending? No, because the attack is considered to be at Range 1.

So why should Autothrusters be measured a different way?

Does the defender get to roll an extra agility die if the Inquisitor is at Range 3 because now it's defending? No, because the attack is considered to be at Range 1.

So why should Autothrusters be measured a different way?

Simply put, Autothrusters is a defence dice modification effect not a range modifier effect.

For in-arc shots Auto thrusters looks for 2 qualifiers, in this instance we have:

Are you defending: Yes

Are you beyond range 2 of the attacker: yes (Physically) and no (Attack range modifier from Inquisitor's ability)

So the 2 real questions are;

1. Does Autothrusters check for Physical range or Attack range? I'm of the opinion that it should be physical but that up to FFG to determine.

1. Does the inquisitors ability simply change the attack range or does a it treat the attack as if the Inquisitor is actually within range 1 of the defender? If the latter then there are several other issues with Carnor Jax and Scum Fett that need further clarification.

Until we get answers on those 2 questions there is no way of knowing what the actual ruling will be on the Inquisitor vs. Autothrusters will be.

Autothrusters only care about the attack Range. This is clear from the FAQ. As pointed out above.

Consider for a second that is is a generic TAP shooting at Range 3 but a corner of the defenders Base outside the firing arc is at Range 2. Does Autothrusters activate? I am pretty sure the defender would say yes because the attack Range is 3. Same scenario with the Inquisitor. Only difference is that the attack is treated as Range 1. This means +1 red die, no bonus green die and no Autothrusters.

This is corroborated by the card text and FAQ. If it had been based on the ship to ship Range, Autothrusters should have been worded along the lines of 'if the attacker is beyond range of you' which would make you measure from your ship to the attacker.

Autothrusters only care about the attack Range. This is clear from the FAQ. As pointed out above.

Consider for a second that is is a generic TAP shooting at Range 3 but a corner of the defenders Base outside the firing arc is at Range 2. Does Autothrusters activate? I am pretty sure the defender would say yes because the attack Range is 3. Same scenario with the Inquisitor. Only difference is that the attack is treated as Range 1. This means +1 red die, no bonus green die and no Autothrusters.

This is corroborated by the card text and FAQ. If it had been based on the ship to ship Range, Autothrusters should have been worded along the lines of 'if the attacker is beyond range of you' which would make you measure from your ship to the attacker.

I would like to point out that of the dozen or so cards in the FAQ that reference the word "range" only 1 (other than Autothrusters) is actually a combat related ability between the attacker and defender (tactician). All others refer to the Physical distance Range (not Attack Range) between the ship with the ability and the other ship that the ability is interacting with.

This tells me that it is far more likely that whenever the term "range" is used in an ability it is referencing the Physical Range. Autothrusters would therefore be referencing a Physical Range rather than the "Attack Range"

For reference the actual FAQ text for Autothrusters is:

Autothrusters does not trigger if the ship equipped with Autothrusters is inside the attacker’s primary or auxiliary firing arc at Range 1–2.

Assuming range is as I described above then Autothrusters ignores "Range of Attack" and simply looks for the Physical range as it's trigger condition.

Again I'm not saying that FFG's intent isn't to have Autothrusters turn off, but they have now created 2 distinct definitions of the word "Range" and in doing so have created this situation.

As I addressed in my previous post, until FFG clarify Attack Range vs. Physical Range (and which cards they apply to) there is simply no clarity on this issue.

Edit:

Perhaps FFG have clarified it, from the Rules reference conveniently under the section "Range" the first line reads:

RANGE

Range is the distance between two ships as measured by the range ruler

the section then goes on in a separate sentence to specifically describe Attack range:

"When measuring range for an attack, the attacker measures to the closest point of the target ship that is inside the attacker’s firing arc."

so that actually seems pretty clear that "Range" and "Attack Range" are actually 2 separate (distinctly different) entities that have already been described.

Edit:

Perhaps FFG have clarified it, from the Rules reference conveniently under the section "Range" the first line reads:

RANGE

Range is the distance between two ships as measured by the range ruler

the section then goes on in a separate sentence to specifically describe Attack range:

"When measuring range for an attack, the attacker measures to the closest point of the target ship that is inside the attacker’s firing arc."

so that actually seems pretty clear that "Range" and "Attack Range" are actually 2 separate (distinctly different) entities that have already been described.

Then you have this in the same section:

When measuring range to a token, measure to the point of that token that is closest to the ship’s base.

So if we would use the "definition", this would gives:

When measuring [the distance between two ships as measured by the range ruler] to a token, measure to the point of that token that is closest to the ship’s base.

This make no sense at all.

It get even worst when you read the Setup section and they use Range with the obstacle.

So clearly, they messed up the Range section of the Reference Rules.

Edit:

Perhaps FFG have clarified it, from the Rules reference conveniently under the section "Range" the first line reads:

RANGE

Range is the distance between two ships as measured by the range ruler

the section then goes on in a separate sentence to specifically describe Attack range:

"When measuring range for an attack, the attacker measures to the closest point of the target ship that is inside the attacker’s firing arc."

so that actually seems pretty clear that "Range" and "Attack Range" are actually 2 separate (distinctly different) entities that have already been described.

Then you have this in the same section:

When measuring range to a token, measure to the point of that token that is closest to the ship’s base.

So if we would use the "definition", this would gives:

When measuring [the distance between two ships as measured by the range ruler] to a token, measure to the point of that token that is closest to the ship’s base.

This make no sense at all.

It get even worst when you read the Setup section and they use Range with the obstacle.

So clearly, they messed up the Range section of the Reference Rules.

Though I rarely like to talk in absolutes, I believe the the section you are referencing is talking about ship tokens, i.e. the Senators shuttle that comes in the core set, not focus or evade tokens which I assume you are implying.

I am not implying focus tokens. I am talking about bomb, mission or whatever tokens.

Mace Windu, you are making a bad assumption. No matter how many cards are worded as ship to ship Range, does not make it more likely the card means something other than it states. The first two words on Autothrusters make is quite clear that this is 'When defending' which is further supported by the FAQ that clearly states that Autothrusters does not trigger if you are inside the firing arc at Range 1-2.

Mace Windu, you are making a bad assumption. No matter how many cards are worded as ship to ship Range, does not make it more likely the card means something other than it states. The first two words on Autothrusters make is quite clear that this is 'When defending' which is further supported by the FAQ that clearly states that Autothrusters does not trigger if you are inside the firing arc at Range 1-2.

I fail to see how I'm making a bad assumption when the actual Rules Reference text is what I am following, I hate to post the same text but it seems necessary:

From the FFG Rules Reference document:

RANGE

"Range is the distance between two ships as measured by the range ruler"

Autothrusters refers to Range, thats it.

The next part of the Range section SPECIFICALLY describe Attack range:

"When measuring range for an attack, the attacker measures to the closest point of the target ship that is inside the attacker’s firing arc."

The Inquisitor specifically refers to the "Range of the Attack" quite clearly referring to this sentence in the rules reference.

They are actually 2 separate (distinctly different) entities.

It seems that neither of us will change our views on this issue, and to be perfectly honest that's actually OK, at the end of the day FFG will most likely rule in favor of Inquisitor winning the battle because that's how they want it to work, rather than how the rules say it will work, and I'm sure they are loathe to repeat another instance of the SLAM Bomb drop bungle that left a lot of sour tastes for those that bough K-wings before they finally ruled on it.

From the FFG Rules Reference document:

RANGE

"Range is the distance between two ships as measured by the range ruler"

Autothrusters refers to Range, thats it.

Obstacle placement in the setup also refers to Range. So, tell me where are the 2 ships you measure distance between when you place your asteroids?

From the FFG Rules Reference document:

RANGE

"Range is the distance between two ships as measured by the range ruler"

Autothrusters refers to Range, thats it.

Obstacle placement in the setup also refers to Range. So, tell me where are the 2 ships you measure distance between when you place your asteroids?

Whilst I understand the reasoning behind the question you are asking (being that it specifically refers to the words ships) you could just as easily replace the word "ships" in the opening sentence of the range section with a broad generically inclusive term (such as "in game element" for example covering ships, asteroids, debris, bombs, mines etc.) which would solve your question but it would not change the original debate, simply because "Range for an Attack" is specifically separated as its own definition.