while it might be grammatically possible to write it with or without the and, FFG consistently used 'in arc at Range' when discussing attack range, So they most definetly have different meanings in this discussion.

Look at E'tahn Abatt:

"When an enemy ship inside your firing arc at Range 1-3 is defending, the attacker may change 1 of its [HIT] results to a [CRIT] result."

That ability uses the phrase you claim has special meaning in a way that has nothing to do with attack range.

I really wish they had used round(ish) bases or measured all ranges to and from the flight peg.

while it might be grammatically possible to write it with or without the and, FFG consistently used 'in arc at Range' when discussing attack range, So they most definetly have different meanings in this discussion.

Look at E'tahn Abatt:

"When an enemy ship inside your firing arc at Range 1-3 is defending, the attacker may change 1 of its [HIT] results to a [CRIT] result."

That ability uses the phrase you claim has special meaning in a way that has nothing to do with attack range.

This is even better. If I instead of attack Range say Range measured only inside the firing arc, then it covers both in arc attacks and E'tahn Abatt.

I think everyone knows that to benefit from his ability the defender has to be at Range 1-3 measured inside the firing arc. The defender can't be at Range 3 measured outside the firing arc, but beyond Range 3 measured inside the firing arc, and benefit from his ability. The wording is the same in the Autothrusters FAQ.

I think we just need a ruling on the intent of the ability. Then the rules craziness is irrelevant. Until then, I think we are just screwed.

It doesn't matter what the intent of the ability is, FFG shouldn't be ruling on intent if the intent is contrary to the rules. The ruling we have is consistent with the rules. Rulings should do their best to be consistent with the rules. If the rules don't match the intent of the ability then we need an errata or an update to the rules.

If there is an errata or rules tweak that make Autothrusters use the range of the attack instead of the range between ships, then I would expect the ruling that we have on Autothrusters to change as well.

And 7 pages of arguing how it works states yes they need to clarify the card as to what there intent was.

I think we just need a ruling on the intent of the ability. Then the rules craziness is irrelevant. Until then, I think we are just screwed.

It doesn't matter what the intent of the ability is, FFG shouldn't be ruling on intent if the intent is contrary to the rules. The ruling we have is consistent with the rules. Rulings should do their best to be consistent with the rules. If the rules don't match the intent of the ability then we need an errata or an update to the rules.

If there is an errata or rules tweak that make Autothrusters use the range of the attack instead of the range between ships, then I would expect the ruling that we have on Autothrusters to change as well.

First off there is no ruling, that's an e-mail and it's not even about this question (similar yes).

And 7 pages of arguing how it works states yes they need to clarify the card as to what there intent was.

I'm not sure exactly how you are expecting rulings to be delivered. If you go to the support page and submit a rules question you will get an email with a ruling on your question. These emails generally come from either Frank or Alex (thought it seems like Frank has been the one giving answers lately).

The question that was asked received a clear answer to the question of whether or not The Inquisitor negates Autothrusters. The ruling established that the range of the attack being made is irrelevant to Autothrusters. With that being established, there is no longer any question of whether The Inquisitor's ability, which sets the range of an attack, would negate Autothrusters.

What good does clarifying the intent of a card do if the rules prevent it from working that way? It just creates more confusion because now you've got people arguing that the intent of the card should override rules.

Frank's ruling does have some language in it that has me expecting an errata or tweak to the rules that may affect how Autothrusters work. Until something like that drops, we've got a workable ruling that is consistent with the rules.

while it might be grammatically possible to write it with or without the and, FFG consistently used 'in arc at Range' when discussing attack range, So they most definetly have different meanings in this discussion.

Look at E'tahn Abatt:

"When an enemy ship inside your firing arc at Range 1-3 is defending, the attacker may change 1 of its [HIT] results to a [CRIT] result."

That ability uses the phrase you claim has special meaning in a way that has nothing to do with attack range.

This is even better. If I instead of attack Range say Range measured only inside the firing arc, then it covers both in arc attacks and E'tahn Abatt.

I think everyone knows that to benefit from his ability the defender has to be at Range 1-3 measured inside the firing arc. The defender can't be at Range 3 measured outside the firing arc, but beyond Range 3 measured inside the firing arc, and benefit from his ability. The wording is the same in the Autothrusters FAQ.

Your point has been that Autothrusters uses the range of the attack. You argued that wording like "inside your arc at range X" was only ever used when talking about attack range and that was evidence that Autothrusters used the range of the attack instead of a second measurement. E'tahn is proof that this phrase isn't reserved for discussing attack range.

We've got a ruling, you don't agree with it. Nothing anyone says seems to convince you that the ruling makes sense. I'm checking out of this conversation. It's sucked up too much of my time today.

The rules forum is exact for us discussing our different views.

I am well aware of Frank ruling. I am not blindly refuting it. I am arguing that we in fact have 2 rulings (Frank and FAQ) and that I think they are contradicting.

We all agree that the FAQ needs updating.

You have presented arguments to try and prove that the wording I use to prove that the FAQ talks about Range measured in arc, is wrong.

I have used this information to change my arguments because I think that the new information brought to light further proves my arguments about specific wording.

But I can't seem to make you see what I am saying.

I am well aware of Frank ruling. I am not blindly refuting it.

You are, though.

But I can't seem to make you see what I am saying.

We see what you're saying: that Autothrusters is measured using the range of the attack. The problem is that you're the only person here who thinks that's unambiguously true.

I am well aware of Frank ruling. I am not blindly refuting it. I am arguing that we in fact have 2 rulings (Frank and FAQ) and that I think they are contradicting.

I have used this information to change my arguments because I think that the new information brought to light further proves my arguments about specific wording.

So let's look at the first bit of the Autothrusters FAQ entry:

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

We'll assume for argument's sake that this measurement must be constrained to a firing arc. We'll also assume that "range" is a distance measurement and not the range of the attack being made.

Using those two assumptions, can you find a case where this actually contradicts with Frank's ruling? I don't think there is one.

I really wish they had used round(ish) bases or measured all ranges to and from the flight peg.

That still wouldn't solve questions about range and "in arc" because you can put part of a circle inside of a specific angle and still not get to the circle's center.

When looking at something that isn't even out yet you any ruling is at best a guess. I'd say follow the FAQ because sometimes you'll got premature answers that turn out to be incorrect. Besides, I'd say it is much easier to alter a supposed email on a rules question than it is to alter a pdf document that everyone can access and which makes discrepancies much easier to use.

When it comes to Inquisitor vs. Autothrusters I really believe one should just wait for the FAQ to come out and cover it. If your pants are on fire so you can't wait that long I'd say you can have it both ways.

I really wish they had used round(ish) bases or measured all ranges to and from the flight peg.

We see what you're saying: that Autothrusters is measured using the range of the attack. The problem is that you're the only person here who thinks that's unambiguously true.

Actually, he's not. (Mostly.) Autothrusters unambiguously measures using the range of the Inquisitor's attack.

"When defending" is a timing sub-part of "when attacking." (You cannot possibly be defending unless someone else is attacking. It's impossible.) Autothrusters is clearly measuring during the attack, and it's clearly measured from the attacker. The Inquisitor unambiguously says what the range is for that measurement.

Frank simply made a mistake. It happens.

We see what you're saying: that Autothrusters is measured using the range of the attack. The problem is that you're the only person here who thinks that's unambiguously true.

Actually, he's not. (Mostly.) Autothrusters unambiguously measures using the range of the Inquisitor's attack.

"When defending" is a timing sub-part of "when attacking." (You cannot possibly be defending unless someone else is attacking. It's impossible.) Autothrusters is clearly measuring during the attack, and it's clearly measured from the attacker. The Inquisitor unambiguously says what the range is for that measurement.

Frank simply made a mistake. It happens.

No one is disputing the timing. The timing doesn't dictate what measurement is used.

With all of those "clearlys" and "unambigouslys" you've used, it's hard to see how anyone could possibly have come up with another interpretation or how Frank could have made a mistake.

With all of those "clearlys" and "unambigouslys" you've used, it's hard to see how anyone could possibly have come up with another interpretation or how Frank could have made a mistake.

Not at all.

People take clear and unambiguous premises, and arrive at the wrong conclusions, routinely. It happens all the time. For a huge number of reasons.

The main thing taught in law school, in fact, is un-learning doing that.

For example, you said, "No one is disputing the timing. The timing doesn't dictate what measurement is used."

Which ignores the entirety of my argument -- which depends on the interaction of timing -- "during an attack" -- where the measurement is originating -- "from the attacker" -- and who the attacker is -- "the Inquisitor."

(1) The Inquisitor says "when attacking" and "the range of the attack," (2) the first value is true, and (3) the second value is set by the Inquisitor to be Range 1. Autothrusters measures "when defending," which is a sub-part of "when attacking" for the Inquisitor (and you're measuring from the attacker). The range Autothrusters is measuring is therefore 1.

I understand the argument the other way. (And, for example, I understand how that argument makes, e.g., Carnor Jax not apply, because I understand the distinction between Carnor Jax -- whose card does not specifify it is during an attack and does not specificy that it measures from the attacker -- and Autothrusters.) It's simply an incorrect argument. It can (obviously) still be presented ... but that doesn't change that it's wrong.

Sometimes it's helpful to step back and look at things in a more holistic way. Not as a dispositive argument in and of itself, but just to sort of center and gain perspective.

In this case, if one assumes that the developers and playtesters had a reason for wording the Inquisitor's text the way it is, it might be helpful to ask, "Why was it done that way?" Again, not as any sort of conclusive proof, just as a way of forcing oneself to back off an entrenched position.

How does the argument of timing and range measurement stand against Zertik Strom? Seems weak when considered there. The word 'when attacking' there does nothing to the fact that you measure ship to ship for that ability.

"When attacking" for Zertik Strom is in there to distinguish "adding a red" from "adding a red OR a green" for affected ships. It otherwise certainly matters for timing. I can't think of a current case where the text isn't redundant (aside from above), but it's theoretically possible.

In terms of interaction with the Inquisitor, it would cancel his red die (but not change that the Inquisitor ignores Autothrusters). It doesn't otherwise matter, because you measure Zertik Strom's ability from Zertik Strom.

We see what you're saying: that Autothrusters is measured using the range of the attack. The problem is that you're the only person here who thinks that's unambiguously true.

Actually, he's not. (Mostly.) Autothrusters unambiguously measures using the range of the Inquisitor's attack.

"When defending" is a timing sub-part of "when attacking." (You cannot possibly be defending unless someone else is attacking. It's impossible.) Autothrusters is clearly measuring during the attack, and it's clearly measured from the attacker. The Inquisitor unambiguously says what the range is for that measurement.

Frank simply made a mistake. It happens.

The timing doesn't dictate the kind of range measurement used. There are a large number of abilities that can trigger during the combat phase (or even only during the combat phase) but clearly use closest-to-closest measurement. It doesn't matter that you're measuring during the attack, or that you're measuring from the attacker to the defender.

I'm repeating myself at this point, but Frank could easily have ruled that Autothrusters is triggered (or not) based on the range of the attack. In fact, whether in the next version of the FAQ or some future version, it's entirely possible that he'll have changed his mind and ruled it that way (there are some interactions that will be simpler in play if it was).

But unless and until that happens, it's Word of God that of the available, reasonable interpretations of Autothrusters , the one FFG is using is that Autothrusters depends on the distance between two ships.

Also, you and I have been over this before, and--as politely as possible--I'd like to suggest there's very little to be gained from engaging each other again. And I think the same is true of StephenEsven, at this point, so I'll be bowing out of this discussion.

In fact, whether in the next version of the FAQ or some future version, it's entirely possible that he'll have changed his mind and ruled it that way (there are some interactions that will be simpler in play if it was).

Sure, we can agree to disagree until the new FAQ (or other ruling) is released. But calling it a "change of mind" is, while not technically inaccurate, disingenuous. (I've never understood why "recognizing a mistake" is so radioactive a concept. It happens. It's not such a huge deal that it needs to be danced around.)

But calling it a "change of mind" is, while not technically inaccurate, disingenuous. (I've never understood why "recognizing a mistake" is so radioactive a concept. It happens. It's not such a huge deal that it needs to be danced around.)

A "mistake" would be making a ruling based on what you thought a card or rule said and then finding out that you were looking at an old version or just working off what you remembered it saying. A "mistake" is something that going back to check your work for accuracy would uncover.

"Change of mind" seems like a more accurate way to describe what happens when you change your opinion on a subjective matter and that causes you to arrive at a different conclusion.

I completely agree. My point is exactly that it's not a subjective opinion ... it's an objective statement of how objective rules work, and the wrong conclusion was arrived at ... mistakenly.

Thank God, I prefer this new ruling on the subject. Much simpler and intuitive.

I'm glad we have something in the FAQ, and that The Inquisitor works the way that I wanted him to.

I'm disappointed that the errata for The Inquisitor calls out that Autohrusters is negated because Autothrusters received errata to make it now use the range of the attack but the errata and the new section on "In Arc/Beyond Range" don't clearly state that the range of the attack is being used.

I'm glad we have something in the FAQ, and that The Inquisitor works the way that I wanted him to.

I'm disappointed that the errata for The Inquisitor calls out that Autohrusters is negated because Autothrusters received errata to make it now use the range of the attack but the errata and the new section on "In Arc/Beyond Range" don't clearly state that the range of the attack is being used.

If you don't have a turret (or you do but you're firing at a ship in your arc), "in arc beyond Range 2" IS the range of your attack.

If you have a turret and you're firing out of arc, the second part of Autothrusters kicks in, so you don't need the first.

I don't know why this is confusing.

I'm glad we have something in the FAQ, and that The Inquisitor works the way that I wanted him to.

I'm disappointed that the errata for The Inquisitor calls out that Autohrusters is negated because Autothrusters received errata to make it now use the range of the attack but the errata and the new section on "In Arc/Beyond Range" don't clearly state that the range of the attack is being used.

If you don't have a turret (or you do but you're firing at a ship in your arc), "in arc beyond Range 2" IS the range of your attack.

If you have a turret and you're firing out of arc, the second part of Autothrusters kicks in, so you don't need the first.

I don't know why this is confusing.

Just because you end up with the same value for "closest point in arc between two ships" and "range of the attack being made" it doesn't make them the same thing. When The Inquisitor is attacking, those numbers will frequently be different.