I think the word 'range' is enough. There's just the range, and that's it.

I think the word 'range' is enough. There's just the range, and that's it.

But there isn't just 1 range. During an attack there is the range of the attack, in arc for arc locked ship vs. the range of the ships, physical range between them. Things like carnor, zertik, and sadly autothrusters use physical range.

I'm interested to see the official FAQ on this one (and I HATE relying on an FAQ for anything). It will be the determining factor for my playing the Inquisitor over Valen... And possibly the difference between me buying two TAPs or one.

I WANT it to cancel ATs, but it doesn't look likely that it will.

If the general consensus is that AT still work against inquisitor that's probably how we should proceed when these ships get released. It would be smart for FFG to have an FAQ answer on this ASAP as I'm sure they are aware of all the discussions that have been taking place on these forums already.

I think the word 'range' is enough. There's just the range, and that's it.

But there isn't just 1 range. During an attack there is the range of the attack, in arc for arc locked ship vs. the range of the ships, physical range between them. Things like carnor, zertik, and sadly autothrusters use physical range.

Perhaps, but I think the physical range issue only comes up when using turrets.

I could be wrong though: I'm not really trying to convince anyone. However, it does seem to me, as I said before, that the rules might require too much careful examination here to get them right. The first knee-jerk interpretation should usually be the correct one. That's why I'm giving my KISS-inspired reading of the relevant cards.

Given past examples, there is a good chance that ATs will, in fact, trigger against the Inquisitor.

Apparently, two totally opposite interpretations seem both completely sensible to those who hold them. Now if I were TO (which I am not) and had to rule on this, I'd say the Inquisitor makes it so that the range is treated as 1, and the autothrusters do not activate because they only activate if the defender is beyond range 2 - the bare cards seem to support this. But apparently that is because I look at the text from a certain 'gestalt'-like idea.

This is not the first time such issues have come up. If rules cause this kind of confusion, it is usually a sign of bad writing. Obviously one side is misunderstanding the rules here, but I don't think that side is to blame.

If the general consensus is that AT still work against inquisitor that's probably how we should proceed when these ships get released. It would be smart for FFG to have an FAQ answer on this ASAP as I'm sure they are aware of all the discussions that have been taking place on these forums already.

It'd actually be up to the TO's reading, if FFG doesn't officially support a consensus. Though I anticipate FFG will FAQ this one on day one.

I think the word 'range' is enough. There's just the range, and that's it.

But there isn't just 1 range. During an attack there is the range of the attack, in arc for arc locked ship vs. the range of the ships, physical range between them. Things like carnor, zertik, and sadly autothrusters use physical range.

Perhaps, but I think the physical range issue only comes up when using turrets.

I could be wrong though: I'm not really trying to convince anyone. However, it does seem to me, as I said before, that the rules might require too much careful examination here to get them right. The first knee-jerk interpretation should usually be the correct one. That's why I'm giving my KISS-inspired reading of the relevant cards.

Given past examples, there is a good chance that ATs will, in fact, trigger against the Inquisitor.

Nope. For example, you're in the situation where an arc-locked ship is nearby to Carnor Jax, and is shooting at him. The nearest point for the shot is at range 2, because only a small amount of his base is in arc. But the rest of his base is at range 1. He still blocks you from using focus tokens, because it's the physical position that he's in that matters, not the range of the attack.

Exactly the same is true of Autothrusters.

I think the word 'range' is enough. There's just the range, and that's it.

But there isn't just 1 range. During an attack there is the range of the attack, in arc for arc locked ship vs. the range of the ships, physical range between them. Things like carnor, zertik, and sadly autothrusters use physical range.

Perhaps, but I think the physical range issue only comes up when using turrets.

I could be wrong though: I'm not really trying to convince anyone. However, it does seem to me, as I said before, that the rules might require too much careful examination here to get them right. The first knee-jerk interpretation should usually be the correct one. That's why I'm giving my KISS-inspired reading of the relevant cards.

Given past examples, there is a good chance that ATs will, in fact, trigger against the Inquisitor.

Nope. For example, you're in the situation where an arc-locked ship is nearby to Carnor Jax, and is shooting at him. The nearest point for the shot is at range 2, because only a small amount of his base is in arc. But the rest of his base is at range 1. He still blocks you from using focus tokens, because it's the physical position that he's in that matters, not the range of the attack.

Exactly the same is true of Autothrusters.

If I want to resolve an issue with the Inquisitor and Autothrusters, I look at those cards, not Carnor Jax.

The consenus so far is that his ability does NOT cancel AT due to the wording on AT

Not sure how people are getting to this consensus. The relevant texts:

• The Inquisitor - When attacking with your primary weapon at Range 2-3, treat the range of the attack as Range 1.
• Autothrusters - When defending, if you are beyond Range 2, or outside the attacker's firing arc, you may change 1 of your blank results to an [Evade] result.

If an attack is treated as Range 1, then it can't be beyond Range 2.

Not sure how you are getting to yours. It doesn't say "When defending at range 3 or greater" it says "if you are beyond Range 2." Your physical position never changes, It seems obvious that attacking at range one and physically being at range 3 are different things entirely. I guess we'll wait for the FAQ though.

You only measure once, when attacking. With the Inquisitor, really you're only checking to see if you're at least Range 3, then say "Range 1 attack." It is then a range one attack for everything having to do with that combat.

Pedantry aside, I feel like for most players, it is clear what they wanted to do with the Inquisitor, and that is "range 1 attacks, period." If they wanted him to simply throw 3 red dice, then they would've printed the card that way (and there is precedence for this, see the YT-1300). Or, the text might have said "When attacking, always use three attack dice" so that you wouldn't be throwing 4 at a "real" range 1. But because they specify combat range, the card text absolutely has everything to do with range bonuses and modifiers. To me, the card clearly prevents extra defense dice at range 3, and shuts down autothrusters beyond range 2, because it is a range 1 attack, always.

I think the word 'range' is enough. There's just the range, and that's it.

But there isn't just 1 range. During an attack there is the range of the attack, in arc for arc locked ship vs. the range of the ships, physical range between them. Things like carnor, zertik, and sadly autothrusters use physical range.

Perhaps, but I think the physical range issue only comes up when using turrets.

I could be wrong though: I'm not really trying to convince anyone. However, it does seem to me, as I said before, that the rules might require too much careful examination here to get them right. The first knee-jerk interpretation should usually be the correct one. That's why I'm giving my KISS-inspired reading of the relevant cards.

Given past examples, there is a good chance that ATs will, in fact, trigger against the Inquisitor.

Nope. For example, you're in the situation where an arc-locked ship is nearby to Carnor Jax, and is shooting at him. The nearest point for the shot is at range 2, because only a small amount of his base is in arc. But the rest of his base is at range 1. He still blocks you from using focus tokens, because it's the physical position that he's in that matters, not the range of the attack.

Exactly the same is true of Autothrusters.

If I want to resolve an issue with the Inquisitor and Autothrusters, I look at those cards, not Carnor Jax.

"The physical range issue only comes up with turrets."

"Here is an analogous, illustrative example which does not use turrets."

Before I was on the fence as I saw the merits in both arguments but I'm coming down on the side that say you get to keep at vs inquisitor.

The Inquisitor - When attacking with your primary weapon at Range 2-3, treat the range of the attack as Range 1.

With the words in bold, if the range of the attack is range 2 or 3 you "TREAT" it as if it was a range 1 attack. The ability doesn't actually change the range. It is still range 2 or 3 when measured, you are just only applying range 1 bonuses (or penalties) at those ranges.

Autothrusters - When defending, if you are beyond Range 2, or outside the attacker's firing arc, you may change 1 of your blank results to an [Evade] result.

This only applies to the defender when defending, the ACTUAL range never changed with the Inquisitor's ability.

The reason the ability is worded that particular way as opposed to something like "+1 combat die at ranges 2 and 3" is because of flow of text and possible further upgrade cards interacting with the ability in the future.

note, there is no "you" in the inq's text

it is simply "treat the attack"

"you" in X-wing = the ship using the ability/sporting the upgrade; use of it in the text would imply only the inquisitor treated the attack as range 1

When attacking with your primary weapon at Range 2-3, treat the range of the attack as Range 1.

there is also the fact that FFG could've just written (when attacking with your primary weapon at range 2-3, roll an additional attack die) if Inq didn't want to cancel range bonuses

note: not necessarily auto-thrusters, but definitely range bonus which is explicitly based on the range of the attack

I think the word 'range' is enough. There's just the range, and that's it.

But there isn't just 1 range. During an attack there is the range of the attack, in arc for arc locked ship vs. the range of the ships, physical range between them. Things like carnor, zertik, and sadly autothrusters use physical range.

Perhaps, but I think the physical range issue only comes up when using turrets.

I could be wrong though: I'm not really trying to convince anyone. However, it does seem to me, as I said before, that the rules might require too much careful examination here to get them right. The first knee-jerk interpretation should usually be the correct one. That's why I'm giving my KISS-inspired reading of the relevant cards.

Given past examples, there is a good chance that ATs will, in fact, trigger against the Inquisitor.

Nope. For example, you're in the situation where an arc-locked ship is nearby to Carnor Jax, and is shooting at him. The nearest point for the shot is at range 2, because only a small amount of his base is in arc. But the rest of his base is at range 1. He still blocks you from using focus tokens, because it's the physical position that he's in that matters, not the range of the attack.

Exactly the same is true of Autothrusters.

If I want to resolve an issue with the Inquisitor and Autothrusters, I look at those cards, not Carnor Jax.

"The physical range issue only comes up with turrets."

"Here is an analogous, illustrative example which does not use turrets."

It's important to remember that there is more than one way to measure range, depending on context:

• Measuring range for an attack is done from your firing arc to closest point on the opposing ship's base.
• Measuring range for an ability is done from closest point on your base to the closest point on the opposing ship's base.

Now let's look at the text of the two cards:

• The Inquisitor - When attacking with your primary weapon at Range 2-3, treat the range of the attack as Range 1.
• Autothrusters - When defending, if you are beyond Range 2, or outside the attacker's firing arc, you may change 1 of your blank results to an [Evade] result.

And let's look at the following rule:

• Pg. 5 FAQ: When a player declares a ship’s ability that requires another ship (or ships) to be at a certain range, the player trying to resolve the ability can measure range from their ship to any valid ships before resolving the ability

Based on the way the rules work for measuring range, the Inquisitor's text requires measuring using the rules for "range of attack", whereas the autothrusters require measuring for "range of ship". These are separate measurements. I argue an attack with the Inquisitor would then look like this:

1. Inquisitor declares attack.
2. The range of the attack is considered range 1, which attacker +1, defender no bonus.
3. Attacker and defender roll dice.
4. Defender decides if he can use his autothrusters ability. The use of autothruster has nothing to do with the range of the attack, which is still considered to be range 1 due to the Inquisitor (arc to base), but must instead be determined using the rules for checking range on an ability (base to base). This second measurement allows him to use autothrusters if he is "beyond range 2", even though the attack range modifier is considered range 1.
   
   tl;dr: Inquisitor gets an extra dice, defender gets no extra dice, but can use autothrusters.

Ffg needs to FAQ this fast.

Ffg needs to FAQ this fast.

Along with a laundry list of other stuff from this wave and from the Gozanti, T70 and f/o

Ffg needs to FAQ this fast.

Along with a laundry list of other stuff from this wave and from the Gozanti, T70 and f/o

business as usual, then

and actually, there's nothing nearly as bumf*ck mind-boggling as the conner net ruling