I think you'd find if the game started with round bases, the whole movement system would have been different, and possibly based on a hex grid or something similar. Battlefleet Gothic uses round bases and pin-to-pin measurement, but it does get clunky when you maneuver and a ship has a maximum turn of 45°. You hold the turning template over the model and guess from there. Not an ideal solution at all.

I've played several air warfare games (World War I to Modern jet combat) using a hex grid and they were really good. All the maneuvers were based around those hexes, so you could still barrel roll and loop and so on. And ranges were measured by counting the hexes between ships, which was a simple mechanic used by nearly all of them.

I know a hex based system would have completely eliminated things like the Autothrusters range drama.

And with a hex based system you'd lose the maneuvering element of X-Wing that I think draws a lot of people to the game. With a hex based system you would always know exactly where your manuevers end up.

And with a hex based system you'd lose the maneuvering element of X-Wing that I think draws a lot of people to the game. With a hex based system you would always know exactly where your manuevers end up.

Not necessarily. The games I played still had a lot of barrel rolling and side-slipping going on, so nothing was certain about where the opponent was going to end up. Plus aircraft were moving around 4-6 hexes each turn, and the jet combat was even more. And one big factor was altitude, which made it truly a 3-D dogfight. Some games had lots of levels, other just a few. So even with hexes, you still had to anticipate if the other guy was going to climb or dive. If you climbed when he dived, it didn't matter if you were right on his six, because you no longer had a shot.

X-wing could quite possibly have evolved like that if they hadn't used the flightpath system, and I don't think it would have been any less popular. West End Games Star Warriors was along those lines and still fun to play. It was just a shame they used card counters instead of models. I think the main attraction for X-wing has always been the quality of the pre-painted models. Straight out of the pack and onto the table and they look great. What more do you need?

And with a hex based system you'd lose the maneuvering element of X-Wing that I think draws a lot of people to the game. With a hex based system you would always know exactly where your manuevers end up.

Not necessarily. The games I played still had a lot of barrel rolling and side-slipping going on, so nothing was certain about where the opponent was going to end up. Plus aircraft were moving around 4-6 hexes each turn, and the jet combat was even more. And one big factor was altitude, which made it truly a 3-D dogfight. Some games had lots of levels, other just a few. So even with hexes, you still had to anticipate if the other guy was going to climb or dive. If you climbed when he dived, it didn't matter if you were right on his six, because you no longer had a shot.

X-wing could quite possibly have evolved like that if they hadn't used the flightpath system, and I don't think it would have been any less popular. West End Games Star Warriors was along those lines and still fun to play. It was just a shame they used card counters instead of models. I think the main attraction for X-wing has always been the quality of the pre-painted models. Straight out of the pack and onto the table and they look great. What more do you need?

It's the flight path system that drew me to this game. There's just something thrilling about not being sure that your maneuver will let you squeeze in between a ship and an asteroid and finding out that you landed it with a millimeter on either side that isn't present in a game that lets you count the hexes and know that you can pull it off (barring interference from your opponent).

The quality of the pre-painted miniatures closed the deal but I think I'd still be playing if it was just cardboard chits on plastic bases. Actually, I probably would have picked it up earlier as the cost of the game would have likely been lower.

I think you'd find if the game started with round bases, the whole movement system would have been different,

No reason it would need to be.

Note how I keep saying "round(ish)", not actually round. You'd need to flatten a little area and add nubs on each of the 4 sides to accommodate the movement templates, but the game would play exactly as it does now, just without the confusion about range because of corners and without the ability to slide a BR forward or back. If someone were so inclined they could replace their square bases with almost round ones and continue playing the game as is.

(Just occurred to me, all the times when a target is at 1 range in arc and another range out of arc are literally "corner cases".)

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.

So glad that this game did NOT use a hex based map/movement system. I'm not saying hex based games are bad. Many are great games, but Xwing is better for NOT having a fixed grid/hex play area. It really makes you stretch you spacial awareness. "Can I fit in that space?"

As for this topic, if Inquisitor now negates auto thrusters, he's will be a huge part of the meta. With all the talk of tractor beam, and the ghost.... Inquisitor might be the biggest deal in all of wave 8. The game changer of the wave. His chances of being in a top 4 list at worlds 2016 may be greater than seeing any other ace in the game.

I'm really not sure why the subject of hex grids has come up at all.

That's if Wave VIII is released in time.

I'm really not sure why the subject of hex grids has come up at all.

My fault I think.

As for this topic, if Inquisitor now negates auto thrusters, he's will be a huge part of the meta. With all the talk of tractor beam, and the ghost.... Inquisitor might be the biggest deal in all of wave 8. The game changer of the wave. His chances of being in a top 4 list at worlds 2016 may be greater than seeing any other ace in the game.

This thread came up discussing whether or not he did. The ruling from Frank means that The Inquistor's ability has no effect on whether or not Autothrusters triggers. If had Autothrusters used the range of the attack instead of a second measurement then The Inquisitor's ability should negate Autothrusters.

Anyone want to speculate on how many pages the next FAQ is going to be? Post-Wave VIII?

It wouldn't take much to convert the whole game to even entirely circular bases. The templates could even have concave ends to accommodate for it. With evenly spaced nubs all the way around at 45° intervals the templates for maneuvering could all have a uniform shape and size. Even cooler then the base just looking neat and symmetrical the base then would have eight points around it that a template could be placed. Abilities like, when bidding you may use your pretty and starboard bow guides, is actually possible. And barrel rolls can still be done by using a straight off your side, or a bank off your bow or aft guides, ending in your side guides so you maintain a forward facing but still move laterally. Line of sight closest to closest is also always peg to peg. But for all that I'm not sure it would be 'better'. Cooler looking for me, but from a design perspective there's a lot of cool stuff that the awkward square based gone us. Ironically very easy to see angles being one of them.

I'm really not sure why the subject of hex grids has come up at all.

Hex ship bases would have been great, actually :C

As someone who really enjoyed Battletech.... no.

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.

This is literally the worst instance of rules fckery in the whole game. I've heard of this. I understand it. But I really do not like how FFG decided to make these parts work.

They should errata these cards to do only a single check.

Armada has a triple range/line of sight/arc check (plus like 2 special cases, going up to 5 checks) simply to ask if you have a shot. This is NOT the right way to make a game FFG.

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.

This too. No. We should not start having to use a double check for such a common game mechanic.

it hurts my brain.

especially the second, out-of-arc logics

So we get the bonuses from range

and they don't >_<

jeeesus, why not just speak about range of attack and attack originating from outside arc >_<

or is it a rebel bias to make AT not as cool against their prime foe? trollface.jpg

Special abilities always required a separate measurement.

Do you guys flip the table every time someone uses Biggs and you are required to measure 3 times?

Autothrusters

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."

Lets do some basic English lessons.

“When eating, if you’re full of food, you may leave the table. When eating, if you are out of food, you may leave the table."

This is NOT the proper structure.

“When you are full of food or out of food, you may leave the table”

This is not correct either.

The correct way is:

“When eating, if you’re full or out of food, you may leave the table.”

This is the exact same meaning as the two sentences above. Does this sentence confuse you? Do you look at it and say “full? full of what? full of bones? full of blood? What am I full of?”

No, you don’t think that way. Food is the subject.

Now lets look at Autothrusters and go in reverse:

First, the full card text:

"When defending, if you are beyond Range 2 or outside the attacker's firing arc, you may change 1 of your blank results to a evade result.”

Now, separate the card text into two sentences:

"When defending, if you’re beyond Range 2 of the attacker’s firing arc, you may change 1 of your blank results to a evade result.”

"When defending, if you’re outside the attacker’s firing arc, you may change 1 of your blank results to a evade result.”

Now, what are you beyond range 2 of? The attacker’s firing arc!

So the example of HLC would activate Autothrusters if it was a regular cannon because the firing arc is beyond range 2. But if the attacker attacks with a turret, you measure closest point ship to ship, and in that example, the closest point to point is “outside the firing arc” (even though its within Range 2) so Outrider with HLC would still activate defenders Autothrusters because its outside the attackers firing arc . Turrets may fire outside their firing arc. They do not have a 360 degree firing arc.

So either way, Autothrusters ability would be good to go in that example.

-------------------

Now onto the Inquisitor .

Treat the range of the attack as Range 1.

This is how I see it:

What is 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."

Inquisitor makes it easy, because every attack is range 1. It basically makes the range ruler and giant number 1 for the ATTACK. So now lets look at Autothrusters:

"When defending, if you are beyond Range 2 of the attacker's firing arc , you may change 1 of your blank results to a evade result.”

Is the defender beyond Range 2 of the attacker's firing arc ? No, because Inquisitor treats range of attacks as Range 1. The inquisitor (the attackers) firing arc is always Range 1 with his primary weapon.

Autothrusters ability will not work.

Maybe how you read it, but not how it's been ruled.

I've heard of this. I understand it.

Autothrusters

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."

Lets do some basic English lessons.

“When eating, if you’re full of food, you may leave the table. When eating, if you are out of food, you may leave the table."

This is NOT the proper structure.

“When you are full of food or out of food, you may leave the table”

This is not correct either.

The correct way is:

“When eating, if you’re full or out of food, you may leave the table.”

This is the exact same meaning as the two sentences above. Does this sentence confuse you? Do you look at it and say “full? full of what? full of bones? full of blood? What am I full of?”

No, you don’t think that way. Food is the subject.

Now lets look at Autothrusters and go in reverse:

First, the full card text:

"When defending, if you are beyond Range 2 or outside the attacker's firing arc, you may change 1 of your blank results to a evade result.”

Now, separate the card text into two sentences:

"When defending, if you’re beyond Range 2 of the attacker’s firing arc, you may change 1 of your blank results to a evade result.”

"When defending, if you’re outside the attacker’s firing arc, you may change 1 of your blank results to a evade result.”

Now, what are you beyond range 2 of? The attacker’s firing arc!

So the example of HLC would activate Autothrusters if it was a regular cannon because the firing arc is beyond range 2. But if the attacker attacks with a turret, you measure closest point ship to ship, and in that example, the closest point to point is “outside the firing arc” (even though its within Range 2) so Outrider with HLC would still activate defenders Autothrusters because its outside the attackers firing arc . Turrets may fire outside their firing arc. They do not have a 360 degree firing arc.

So either way, Autothrusters ability would be good to go in that example.

-------------------

Now onto the Inquisitor .

Treat the range of the attack as Range 1.

This is how I see it:

What is 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."

Inquisitor makes it easy, because every attack is range 1. It basically makes the range ruler and giant number 1 for the ATTACK. So now lets look at Autothrusters:

"When defending, if you are beyond Range 2 of the attacker's firing arc , you may change 1 of your blank results to a evade result.”

Is the defender beyond Range 2 of the attacker's firing arc ? No, because Inquisitor treats range of attacks as Range 1. The inquisitor (the attackers) firing arc is always Range 1 with his primary weapon.

Autothrusters ability will not work.

You are completely changing the meaning of Autothrusters when you insert extra words into the sentence. That's probably the issue.

When you declare you are using your ship's Autothruster ability after you roll your defense dice, you measure range between the two ships. Autothrusters doesn't care what range you are being attacked at, it only cares about the range between ships.

Autothrusters is like every other ability with a range condition. You declare you are using it then you measure range.

If you were to measure a second time the card would hace been worded so that you measured from the ship with Autothrusters to the attacker. Autothrusters is clearly worded so it is you that must be beyond Range 2 of the attack.

Let's try another exercise. We have a boolean texpression. First and condition is 'outside firing arc'. Let's call this A.

Second condition is 'beyond Range 2'. Let's call that B.

Trigger = A or B

Applying boolean logic, this can also be expressed as

Not trigger = Not A AND NOT B

Not A = Not outside firing arc = inside firing arc.

Not B = Not beyond Range 2 of attack = At Range 1-2 of attack

So Not trigger = inside firing arc and at Range 1-2 of attack.

This is exactly what the FAQ for Autothrusters tells you. It even goes on to explicitly state that for turrets you use the attack distance, not distance inside the firing arc.

Unfortunately we now have a mail from Frank where he is disputing his own ruling in the FAQ.

Okay. A lot of you are new.

Some of you are also really aspiring rules lawyers clutching your newly minted rules lawyer bar pass from I-don't-give-a-rats-***-exam.

Here's the PRECEDENT(!!!!) of what you're stepping into. (Yes that capitalized word should be extremely significant to you).

1. FFG's rules writing has a lot of holes and in general sucks. They also have a very very very bad time with commas. See: Bossk and Autothrusters. < This is very important to remember.

2. Much of the rules language is borrowed from Magic rules. See: the interpretation of "cost" in Armada for Devastator. < caveat: Xwing has interrupts unlike Magic.

3. Before an FAQ is given out, an email from Frank is the most official ruling, and you should take it as such . <- regardless if you disagree or not.

If no ruling, in general, the consensus of the rules forum lurkers with detailed explanation serves as the next best ruling.

If you and your opponent refuse to use either of these, your recourse is to roll a die.

4. Rulings usually are reasoned based on previous rulings and intent of the game. See instance: Conner net timing.

5. This means that rulings and word interpretations are not based on proper English wording/grammar, Boolean logic, logical deduction.