Q: Does OL pretty much laugh his arse off at autoblaster turret + AC? Lot of ghost players will go this route. AC can cancel die, but wont be able to add die with OL. So they only have two naked red die basically?

Wade Piche clarified that maneuver reference sheets are fine on Facebook. So what are they banning with that outside material rule? Googled strategies? Texts from friends?

That's what I would enforce. Third party apps may be a gray area, too. I would say it's basically... if it's FFG released information it's fine. If it's forum posts, strategies, or written notes about how to counteract things, it's not.

Hopefully this does not apply to situations when your opponent is just barely slow-playing enough that so that you can check Facebook between dials.

I wouldn't go over and rip a cell phone out of a hand, or even ask someone to put their phone down. However, I do think if your opponent says "please put your phone away" it's within their right.

A completely reasonable request provided they don't spend 30% of the game fiddling with dials. As long as you're not in turn delaying the game by not bringing your attention back then your opponent has no right to tell you to "focus".

I mean eventually it becomes stalling and you're well within your right to call them out on it and tell them to cut it out. If you cannot come to a conclusion satisfactory of both parties then call a TO.

Rawlings, are you seriously still arguing over whether autothrusters work or not when they specifically state that they do not trigger against the Inquisitor's primary?

No, I expect the ruling that they never trigger against The Inquisitor’s primary weapon to take priority out of the current mess.

I just wish that wasn't prefaced with Autothrusters now reference the specific range of the attack, and therefore... because they don't...

Q: Does OL pretty much laugh his arse off at autoblaster turret + AC? Lot of ghost players will go this route. AC can cancel die, but wont be able to add die with OL. So they only have two naked red die basically?

Two naked red dice are plenty, when you're fighting a ship with 4 hit points that can't use [evade] results to cancel your [boom]s.

Rawlings, are you seriously still arguing over whether autothrusters work or not when they specifically state that they do not trigger against the Inquisitor's primary?

Now the discussion has changed to who was right before the debate was moot.

So, you know, a very mature and sensible use of time.

For a non-turret ship, what else is "in arc beyond Range 2" but the range of the attack?

Where does it say in the rules that the two are the same? The section on measuring range in arc makes no mention of the attack range.

In fact, two paragraphs or so below, the rules still say

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.

No mention of using attack range if the card says range inside arc.

I can't attack something with a non-turret if it's not in arc. So if something is in arc beyond Range 2, my attack is also beyond Range 2. It's common sense.

To be fair, while the intent may have been clear, they actually had to change the wording of ATs so it did work.

No, they didn't. They changed the wording so that people would stop being silly about it. Not because it didn't work otherwise.

As someone of my acquaintance once said, "There's an argument, so there has to be a FAQ." It's remarkably depressing how accurate that is.

And still no answer to Omega Leader v R7 astromech

It kind of hints at the answer with the phrasing about effects generating from the target locked ship, but it would nice to have a definitive answer.

Doesn't it modify Omega Leader's dice?

It makes Omega Leader modify his own dice.

RIght, so it doesn't need a FAQ since his card has nothing to do with his own dice. I mean, you can actually Juke Omega Leader so R7 works just fine, correct? Or am I also misreading GZ's post?

No you cannot Juke OL with a ship that is locked by OL. Juke says "When attacking, if you have an evade token, you may change 1 of the defender's results into a result." This would count as modifying dice and you can't do that.

R7 says "you may spend the target lock to choose any or all attack dice. The attacker must reroll the chosen dice." Note that the attacker (OL) does the rerolling. I would say that means R7 works.

To be fair, while the intent may have been clear, they actually had to change the wording of ATs so it did work.

No, they didn't. They changed the wording so that people would stop being silly about it. Not because it didn't work otherwise.

As someone of my acquaintance once said, "There's an argument, so there has to be a FAQ." It's remarkably depressing how accurate that is.

It wasn't just FAQ'd, it was errata'd. The actual wording of Autothrusters is different now.

To be fair, while the intent may have been clear, they actually had to change the wording of ATs so it did work.

No, they didn't. They changed the wording so that people would stop being silly about it. Not because it didn't work otherwise.

As someone of my acquaintance once said, "There's an argument, so there has to be a FAQ." It's remarkably depressing how accurate that is.

the new thruster wording is far more clear than the old

there was ambiguity here, not like the Tie Advance v TAPS which somehow got conflated with huge ships

I can't attack something with a non-turret if it's not in arc. So if something is in arc beyond Range 2, my attack is also beyond Range 2. It's common sense.

We're talking game rules. You can't appeal to common sense.

Nowhere in the brand new section showing you how to measure inside arc at range X does it say oh, by the way, if you are measuring range in arc during an attack (but not an attack from a PWT ship), don't actually perform this measurement, use the range of the attack instead.

When you attack, you measure the range inside arc. That does not mean that when you measure range inside arc you use the range of an attack.

I sometimes wonder if threads like this, in which it's basically coming down to arguing over who was the most-right before the FAQ was released, make Alex and Frank either just want to punch most of us in the nose, or just give up designing games altogether.

Srsly.

I can't attack something with a non-turret if it's not in arc. So if something is in arc beyond Range 2, my attack is also beyond Range 2. It's common sense.

We're talking game rules. You can't appeal to common sense.

Nowhere in the brand new section showing you how to measure inside arc at range X does it say oh, by the way, if you are measuring range in arc during an attack (but not an attack from a PWT ship), don't actually perform this measurement, use the range of the attack instead.

When you attack, you measure the range inside arc. That does not mean that when you measure range inside arc you use the range of an attack.

I'm saying range inside the arc IS the range of attack for a ship that's not attacking outside its arc. If it's attacking outside its arc, Autothrusters clearly triggers and you don't need to worry about range.

there was ambiguity here, not like the Tie Advance v TAPS which somehow got conflated with huge ships

There was ambiguity. There was not ambiguity that was unresolvable through a closer, more reasonable, examination.

But "reasonable examination" is too much to ask.

There are still people here arguing that because there's a line about "you may measure from your ship to resolve abilities," that Autothrusters is still wrong. These people still do not understand that Autothrusters never measured from the ship to which it was equipped. It never did. It always measured from the attacker, during an attack.

For people like this, there will always be ambiguity. In everything. Period.

IMO, aiming everything for the lowest common denominator is both a mistake, and futile. But FFG has succeeded waaaaay beyond anything I've done, and they use the "lowest common denominator" approach, so ...

I sometimes wonder if threads like this, in which it's basically coming down to arguing over who was the most-right before the FAQ was released, make Alex and Frank either just want to punch most of us in the nose, or just give up designing games altogether.

Srsly.

I don't know, someone stating that Frank "needs remedial help" because he had trouble comprehending clearly written rules was kind of the highlight of this thread for me.

And still no answer to Omega Leader v R7 astromech

It kind of hints at the answer with the phrasing about effects generating from the target locked ship, but it would nice to have a definitive answer.

Doesn't it modify Omega Leader's dice?

It makes Omega Leader modify his own dice.

RIght, so it doesn't need a FAQ since his card has nothing to do with his own dice. I mean, you can actually Juke Omega Leader so R7 works just fine, correct? Or am I also misreading GZ's post?

I think you are misreading my post.

First, unless I've gone mad, you can't Juke OL if he has you locked. You can't modify ANY dice when attacking or defending against his attacks.

Second, my point is that R7 does NOT bypass Omega Leader. The defender (with R7) is only given the opportunity to trigger cards that allow HIM to modify dice, per the modify attack dice step rules. There is no step where he (the defender) can activate cards that make the attacker modify dice.

So either:

A) R7 is the defender modifying dice. If so, R7 can be triggered in the Modify Attack Dice step, because "The defender can resolve any card abilities that allow HIM to modify the attack dice." (Emphasis mine). Since it is the defender modifying, OL prevents it.

Or

B) R7 forces the attacker to modify dice. If so, R7 cannot be triggered in the Modify Attack Dice step, against any target, because it is not a "card abilitity that allows HIM to modify dice", it is now a "card ability that forces opponent to modify dice". The good news is, Omega Leader wouldn't prevent R7 if this is the case. The bad news is, there isn't a provisional n to activate such a card in the rules, so you couldn't activate it against OL or ANY target, EVER.

I'm saying range inside the arc IS the range of attack for a ship that's not attacking outside its arc.

You're saying that, but the rules don't back it up. There's a section on measuring range inside arc, and it does not say that anywhere.

And still no answer to Omega Leader v R7 astromech

It kind of hints at the answer with the phrasing about effects generating from the target locked ship, but it would nice to have a definitive answer.

Doesn't it modify Omega Leader's dice?

It makes Omega Leader modify his own dice.

RIght, so it doesn't need a FAQ since his card has nothing to do with his own dice. I mean, you can actually Juke Omega Leader so R7 works just fine, correct? Or am I also misreading GZ's post?

No you cannot Juke OL with a ship that is locked by OL. Juke says "When attacking, if you have an evade token, you may change 1 of the defender's results into a result." This would count as modifying dice and you can't do that.

R7 says "you may spend the target lock to choose any or all attack dice. The attacker must reroll the chosen dice." Note that the attacker (OL) does the rerolling. I would say that means R7 works.

I would say it doesn't work. The owner of R7 is modifying OL's dice. Regardless of who touches the dice to roll them, it's R7's ship causing the modification and OL forbids that action.

I don't know, someone stating that Frank "needs remedial help" because he had trouble comprehending clearly written rules was kind of the highlight of this thread for me.

Frank didn't have the advantage of an ad nauseum discussion on the issue before sending out his email. He simply made a mistake in a one-off ruling that was unfortunately immortalized in email.

Presumably, once the arguments were presented to Frank, he recognized their validity and -- oh, my God -- addressed the mistake. Because that's what reasonable people do.

Folks like Frank are certainly not the problem.

I enjoy that they revised feedback array, can no longer use it while on an asteroid. Also feel somewhat vindicated about being right on the inquisitors' ability.

If you thought that The Inquisitor canceled Autothrusters before 4/2/2016 then you were wrong and have nothing to feel vindicated about.

Bitter, eh? Sorry to sink your ship, but I never took part of the rants on the boards here to avoid the flame baiting. I took a side and kept quiet. I am happy to see I choose the correct side.

There are still people here arguing that because there's a line about "you may measure from your ship to resolve abilities," that Autothrusters is still wrong. These people still do not understand that Autothrusters never measured from the ship to which it was equipped. It never did. It always measured from the attacker, during an attack.

Speaking for myself, I'm just disappointed that they created an errata and added a section of rules that don't actually say what the The Inquisitor FAQ entry states that they do.

The FAQ entry for The Inquisitor clearly states that Autothrusters uses the range of the attack. The errata reworded Autothrusters in such a way that the new rules block applies. That new rules block then gives an example (using Tactician) of an attack that uses a different range value for the attack than it uses for the Tactician ability.

Aaaaaaanyway...

Isn't Valen Rudor cool now. Makes a great TLT hunter. Save your boost for after defending and get in range 1 to avoid the second shot. And maybe (depending on the defender) attack from your new range 1 position!

I don't know, someone stating that Frank "needs remedial help" because he had trouble comprehending clearly written rules was kind of the highlight of this thread for me.

Frank didn't have the advantage of an ad nauseum discussion on the issue before sending out his email. He simply made a mistake in a one-off ruling that was unfortunately immortalized in email.

Presumably, once the arguments were presented to Frank, he recognized their validity and -- oh, my God -- addressed the mistake. Because that's what reasonable people do.

Folks like Frank are certainly not the problem.

Frank's response essentially telegraphed that there would likely be a change forthcoming based on the way the current rules worked. I don't think that's a mistake on his part at all, unless the mistake was not getting things squared away so that rules matched intent when Autothrusters were first released.

There are still people here arguing that because there's a line about "you may measure from your ship to resolve abilities," that Autothrusters is still wrong. These people still do not understand that Autothrusters never measured from the ship to which it was equipped. It never did. It always measured from the attacker, during an attack.

Speaking for myself, I'm just disappointed that they created an errata and added a section of rules that don't actually say what the The Inquisitor FAQ entry states that they do.

The FAQ entry for The Inquisitor clearly states that Autothrusters uses the range of the attack. The errata reworded Autothrusters in such a way that the new rules block applies. That new rules block then gives an example (using Tactician) of an attack that uses a different range value for the attack than it uses for the Tactician ability.

That was a turret and primary arc situation. The attack is range one of the turret but tacticion use primary arc And that's at range 2.

This is confusing because it's a turret. The range on the attack is closest point because it's a turret. Tacticion works in the primary arc so it's range of attack is in the primary.

I think this all clearly shows that range, and range of attack ate the same thing. The example they have just has multiple ranges of attack due to it having a turret and things that need to be in primary arc.

I enjoy that they revised feedback array, can no longer use it while on an asteroid. Also feel somewhat vindicated about being right on the inquisitors' ability.

If you thought that The Inquisitor canceled Autothrusters before 4/2/2016 then you were wrong and have nothing to feel vindicated about.

Bitter, eh? Sorry to sink your ship, but I never took part of the rants on the boards here to avoid the flame baiting. I took a side and kept quiet. I am happy to see I choose the correct side.

I'm not bitter at all. I prefer The Inquisitor negating Autothrusters. I'm just glad that the rules will permit it now.