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.

You can't use the definition for the stuff you agree with and change it for the stuff you do not agree with. You either use it for everything as written or you conclude the definition is wrong.

You can't use the definition for the stuff you agree with and change it for the stuff you do not agree with. You either use it for everything as written or you conclude the definition is wrong.

I was not changing the definition to suit my argument I was merely demonstrating that were FFG to change the term "Ships" to "in game element" etc. it would not actually affect the OP's question.

Now if I follow your line of thinking, because there is no specific description/definition of how to determine range during the setup phase the pertains directly to obstacles they are somehow void from the game? Are you simply playing devil's advocate or are you genuinely trying to take obstacles out of the game?

In an effort to provide an answer for you from the actual written rules I present this:

From the Rules Reference:

4. Place Obstacles: Starting with the player

with initiative, each player chooses one obstacle

token from the obstacles available and places it

in the play area. The players place a total of six

obstacle tokens. Obstacles cannot be placed at

Range 1 of each other, or at Range 1–2 of an

edge of the play area. After the sixth obstacle is

placed, the player who does not have initiative

chooses an edge of the play area to be his own;

his opponent’s edge is the opposite side of the

play area.

Now the terms Range 1 & Range 1-2 actually have a specific definition, again from the Rules Reference:

• The following terms are used concerning range:

◊ Range #–#: The range includes all of

the range bands from the minimum to the

maximum specified.

So when placing obstacles during setup obstacles cannot be place in the noted "Range Bands"

Range bands (coming full circle) are defined in the beginning sentence of the range section:

RANGE

Range is the distance between two ships as

measured by the range ruler, which is divided into

three range bands

Now to be perfectly honest, I have never come across anyone arguing that obstacles shouldn’t be in the game because their range spacing definition is not explicitly spelled out. If this is not enough evidence from the game rules as provided by FFG to at the very least get some form of recognition from you I do not think any amount discussion will sway you from your current position.

I am not saying obstacles should not be part of the game.

I am saying they slacked on their writing of the Range section.

[erasing this in light of recent confirmation emails, to avoid confusion]

So really the questions we have are

What is the difference between the range of the attack and the range between 2 ships.

Can these ranges ever be different?

If so, what extra rules do we need to clarify how we parse the rules

If not, what range takes precedence and how do we handle the timing of range changes.

So really the questions we have are

What is the difference between the range of the attack and the range between 2 ships.

Can these ranges ever be different?

If so, what extra rules do we need to clarify how we parse the rules

If not, what range takes precedence and how do we handle the timing of range changes.

Does Autothrusters use the range of the attack being defended against or the range of the attacker measured from the defender to determine if it triggers?

I think the it's really just a single question:

Does Autothrusters use the range of the attack being defended against or the range of the attacker measured from the defender to determine if it triggers?

I emailed this one to Frank when I realized the argument was boiling down to this. Here's the response:

Hello [-],

In response to your rules question:

Rules Question:

Autothrusters uses a condition, "if you are beyond Range 2" to trigger. It's possible for a ship with Autothrusters to be defending against an in-arc attack which takes place at Range 3, but the attacker and defender ships are at Range 2 using closest-point measurement. My question is, does Autothrusters use the range of the attack or the range of the ships to determine whether it can take effect?

As the current rules are stated, yes, a ship can be inside of arc and defending against a Range 3 attack (when measured inside of arc) although the ship itself is Range 2 when measured closest-point-to-closest-point. Autothrusters does not trigger in this instance. As worded, it does not use the range of the attack, but instead uses the range of the ships for the sake of this effect.

Thanks for playing,

Frank Brooks

Associate Creative Content Developer

Fantasy Flight Games

So, it's a ship-to-ship measurement according to Frank.

Implications:

1. Inquisitor won't stop Autothrusters.

2. Everyone needs to use closest-point measurements, if they haven't been already, for even arc-restricted attacks before they use AT.

And given the way Frank phrased his response, I wonder if it's not about to get errata'd to be "range of the attack" in the next FAQ.

So by this ruling I can attack a ship that is in my arc beyond Range 3 with a primary weapon as long as the ship is at Range 3 closest point to closest point? Because it is in arc and at Range 3.

Not to mention that this answer contradicts the current FAQ.

So by this ruling I can attack a ship that is in my arc beyond Range 3 with a primary weapon as long as the ship is at Range 3 closest point to closest point? Because it is in arc and at Range 3.

Not to mention that this answer contradicts the current FAQ.

No. That's not what it says at all.

All that this says is that the measurement used to determine attack range and the measurement used to determine if an ability worded like Autothrusters is are different measurements. Autothrusters doesn't care what range the attack it is defending against is. It only cares about the distance between the ships.

Frank's replay is pretty much in line with the turret ruling for Autothrusters in the FAQ. It also sounds like the Inquisitor gets a range bonus +1 regardless of the range, but nothing else. Did we establish if he successfully negates a range 3 bonus for the defender?

Frank's replay is pretty much in line with the turret ruling for Autothrusters in the FAQ. It also sounds like the Inquisitor gets a range bonus +1 regardless of the range, but nothing else. Did we establish if he successfully negates a range 3 bonus for the defender?

Range 3 bonus is very specific in that is is a bonus from a ranged 3 attack. It doesn't matter what range the closest point of the ships are. Completely different from special abilities.

So The Inquisitor denies the range 3 bonus, because you treat the range of the attack as 1.

And holy **** my friends, the rules are online!

I think the it's really just a single question:

Does Autothrusters use the range of the attack being defended against or the range of the attacker measured from the defender to determine if it triggers?

I emailed this one to Frank when I realized the argument was boiling down to this. Here's the response:

Hello [-],

In response to your rules question:

Rules Question:

Autothrusters uses a condition, "if you are beyond Range 2" to trigger. It's possible for a ship with Autothrusters to be defending against an in-arc attack which takes place at Range 3, but the attacker and defender ships are at Range 2 using closest-point measurement. My question is, does Autothrusters use the range of the attack or the range of the ships to determine whether it can take effect?

As the current rules are stated, yes, a ship can be inside of arc and defending against a Range 3 attack (when measured inside of arc) although the ship itself is Range 2 when measured closest-point-to-closest-point. Autothrusters does not trigger in this instance. As worded, it does not use the range of the attack, but instead uses the range of the ships for the sake of this effect.

Thanks for playing,

Frank Brooks

Associate Creative Content Developer

Fantasy Flight Games

So, it's a ship-to-ship measurement according to Frank.

Implications:

1. Inquisitor won't stop Autothrusters.

2. Everyone needs to use closest-point measurements, if they haven't been already, for even arc-restricted attacks before they use AT.

And given the way Frank phrased his response, I wonder if it's not about to get errata'd to be "range of the attack" in the next FAQ.

Now it's even more complicated

aside from the "my Falcon sees the distant corner of your ship base, but closest point is outside arc, does AT trigger"

question

we now have attack range getting separated from range to target >_>

Nooo, FFG, Y U SHOOT YOURSELF IN THE LEG?

It was always that way though. It's not like anything really changes.

In the situation with the Falcon, that's already covered in the FAQ.

No it was never that way and the ruling g contradicts the FAQ.

It occurs to me, that the card is actually missing a word or phrase to be properly worded. There's no 'who' linkage to the effect part of the ability, just the condition to cause it. I think it got lost with the implication that the ability already is attached to a object with the line '...*your* primary...' which works but leaves this huge hole that were roting in now. So I think we actually just have an incomplete/improper wording accidentally. Not like it's a first time for it.

And I have a hunch, that FFG will FAQ/reword the Inquisitor to read:

"When attacking with your primary weapon, ((you may) OR (you and the defender)) treat the attack as range one."

That would make it very clear who uses the modified range for anything that would be involved. Allow it's card text to over rule other cards like AT I would have to hope, not sure which would take priority honestly. I imagine it would skirt that by being procedurally one before the other. Allow it to clearly work with other existing abilities and future cards. And if they select the 'you may' form it becomes properly user friendly, removing it's potential to back fire, at the cost of nerfing the abilities potential. If they want to do that with the second version here, they would have to start the sentence 'YOU MAY, when attacking with your...' Which is also doable here.

Seems pretty simple once I stepped outside the box a bit. Had me stumped thoroughly before that.

My $.02 anyway. I'm probably on so many ignore lists lately though few will read it LOL! And anymore I usually just get overly forceful retorts on principal for having heretical opinions. I really have to patch my forum reputation back up. Ha ha

No it was never that way and the ruling g contradicts the FAQ.

Technically not.

And I stress technically , because I wouldn't have written this before we got these emails.

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

This does not stop there being other situations where Autothrusters does not trigger - such as if the ship is inside arc at range 3, but outside arc at range 2.

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.

This does not stop the procedure being the same for non-turret ships.

Klutz posted this image awhile back in this thread . Using the HLC side of the diagram would seem to be the most applicable to the Inquisitor. Autothrusters is using the range of the attack, and not separate "closest point to closest points" range measurement in each example.

Proving that AT is using attack range, not ships to ships range. Thank you buddy.

There's no such thing as "attack range", there range in-arc and range out of arc. If the attacker is using a weapon that fires in-arc only, the range is measured in-arc to see if AT triggers. If the attacker is using a weapon that can fire out of arc and the out of arc portion of the defender is closer than the in-arc portion, the range is measured to the closest point (out of arc). Both ranges are measured from the attacker's ship to the defender, the difference is that you measure from a different point on the defender's base.

Now it's even more complicated

aside from the "my Falcon sees the distant corner of your ship base, but closest point is outside arc, does AT trigger"

question

we now have attack range getting separated from range to target >_>

Nooo, FFG, Y U SHOOT YOURSELF IN THE LEG?

Reading the latest FAQ, if your Falcon is firing its turret, AT does not trigger if the closest point is within range 2 (since the target is within range 2 AND in arc, even if those two requirements are filled by different parts of the defender's base). If the closest point of the defender's base is at range 3, AT does trigger. Seems pretty logical, if slightly convoluted.

The idea, as I read it, is that the range to the target is always dependent on the weapon used. If it's a weapon that fires in-arc, measure in-arc. If the weapon can fire out of arc, measure from the closest point, regardless of arc.

Klutz posted this image awhile back in this thread . Using the HLC side of the diagram would seem to be the most applicable to the Inquisitor. Autothrusters is using the range of the attack, and not separate "closest point to closest points" range measurement in each example.

Proving that AT is using attack range, not ships to ships range. Thank you buddy.

There's no such thing as "attack range", there range in-arc and range out of arc. If the attacker is using a weapon that fires in-arc only, the range is measured in-arc to see if AT triggers. If the attacker is using a weapon that can fire out of arc and the out of arc portion of the defender is closer than the in-arc portion, the range is measured to the closest point (out of arc). Both ranges are measured from the attacker's ship to the defender, the difference is that you measure from a different point on the defender's base.

There's the range of the attack and then there is the range between ships that is used by abilities.

The ruling says that Autothrusters doesn't care about the range the attack is being made from. It only cares about the distance from the defender to the attacker and that's a measurement between closest points of both ships.

You know, all this confusion would never have happened if FFG had used the flight peg instead of the entire base as a reference point for measurements.

Even just (mostly) round bases would have solved a lot of the problems.

You know, all this confusion would never have happened if FFG had used the flight peg instead of the entire base as a reference point for measurements.

Even just (mostly) round bases would have solved a lot of the problems.

Wouldn't that have made it very unlikely that two large ships would ever have a range one shot at each other.

You know, all this confusion would never have happened if FFG had used the flight peg instead of the entire base as a reference point for measurements.

Even just (mostly) round bases would have solved a lot of the problems.

Wouldn't that have made it very unlikely that two large ships would ever have a range one shot at each other.

So it's a stealth nerf for large ships too? Sweet.

Presumably, if the game had been designed that way from the beginning, the range increments would also be different...

Today during my breaks I actually sat down and sketches out a round base version, after being inspired by the topic. Only to come home and read that's where all your mind went to! I only have a concern with how to design the space for the cardboard chit, and how to do Barrel Rolls off a round base. The concept art had an extra set of nubs on each side, but that doesn't allow you to perform a true Barrel Roll since you can't have your final position be further back than your selected move. Unless you... Or... Crap I'm at it again. Freaking brain.

Yeah, round bases would preclude the front/back sliding of barrel rolls. I don't think it would be that big a deal even now, and it certainly would never have been noticed if the game had been designed with round(ish) bases to begin with.