The Protector title and Fenn Rau's ability DO NOT use the same phrasing as each other. Yes they both say "when defending" and "in arc at range 1" but the part between those two is what matters most to this discussion:

Fenn Rau triggers from "if the enemy ship". This is the same as Jax, Fett(scum), and most other abilities that reference range during an attack. Inq will not trigger this ability because it's just the range of an enemy ship rather than the range of the attacker.

This is different from the Protector title that says "if the attacker". The only other card I can recall that uses "the attacker" and a reference to range is autothrusters. This is why the Protector title should work against Inq at range 2-3; both use the same trigger albeit at adifferen range conditions.

For this reason, any titled Fang jousting the Inquisitor should be enjoying a very desirable free evade result.

Inquisitor: [..] treat the range of the attack as range 1

Title: if you are inside the attack's firing arc at range 1

Seems pretty 1:1 to me!

You've missed the "and" in the title.

You can be inside the attacker's firing arc "and" at range 1, and the range of the attack could still be range 2.

Conversely, if you are inside the attacker's firing arc "and" at range 3, the Inquisitor changing the attack range to range 1 doesn't change the fact that you are at range 3, not range 1.

I didn't miss it, if you treated that condition like a program would, it would think like this:

1: Are you inside the attacker's firing arc and at range 1 (According to the attacker in this case, you are)

2: Is the attacker inside your firing arc? (No range requirement stipulated)

It's certainly natural to assume that "and" would require you to measure range for both steps of the condition, but that's not what the card's actually asking you to do. It's usually meaningless, but in this specific scenario it would enable the title to activate.

Sorry if I've not been clear. You've missed the FIRST "and" in the title.

"In arc at range 1" is not the same as "in arc AND at range 1".

The first has a very clear definition in the rules, and there is some precedent for the Inquisitor affecting it.

The second is two separate conditions, the first of which is independent of the Inquisitor and the second of which is explicitly stated in the FAQ not to be affected by the Inquisitor.

Oh, very true. I still don't think in this case that would invalidate the Inquisitor condition, however. Because the Inquisitor is attacking, with the way it's worded on his card, you treat the attack as range 1. Even looking at the more literal wording on the card operating on the same logic I applied above, "and at Range 1" doesn't specify if it wants you to measure using the range of the attack or the distance to the ship, but for lack of specificity it'd make more sense to be utilizing the declared attack range - it's just describing the conditions of a declared attack, not asking for you to measure anything.

Essentially, when the enemy gets a range combat bonus for attacking, it should also be giving the titled Fang a free evade result.

Ignoring the Inquisitor for the moment, it is possible for the attack to be at range 2 but the ships to be at range 1 (outside of arc). Would you expect it to trigger then?

If it's not the Inquisitor attacking in that situation, then the title wouldn't trigger but Fenn Rau would.

But... you are inside their firing arc and you are at range 1!

I see your logic, but you're measuring the range of the attack for the title, the range between the ships for Fenn's pilot ability. Plus the title requires you to have each other in arc

Oh, we're doing this again, are we?

Has this been solved?

Has this been solved?

No. Expect an FAQ or erratum shortly after release.

Has this been solved?

I mean technically yes but that doesn't mean people will agree with it. There was a long standing argument that the rear arc of the ghost would override torpedo range restrictions so people will argue anything they think is right.

This will probably also end up in the faq for simplicity but it's pretty clear when you follow the rules that already exist that fenn only works measuring distance between models and the title should follow a similar course due to the wording 'in arc AND at range 1' being two conditions and fundamentally different than 'in arc at range 1' which is a defined thing in the rules. The and breaking up the title's clauses points to it also measuring model to model.

Has this been solved?

I mean technically yes but that doesn't mean people will agree with it. There was a long standing argument that the rear arc of the ghost would override torpedo range restrictions so people will argue anything they think is right.

I think you'll find some people will argue anything when they know it's wrong, but want it to be right if it will be of any advantage to them. Sadly, I've played too many of those guys over the many years I've been gaming.

Sorry if I've not been clear. You've missed the FIRST "and" in the title.

"In arc at range 1" is not the same as "in arc AND at range 1".

The first has a very clear definition in the rules, and there is some precedent for the Inquisitor affecting it.

The second is two separate conditions, the first of which is independent of the Inquisitor and the second of which is explicitly stated in the FAQ not to be affected by the Inquisitor.

I'm not sure there's a distinction.

If it said "when defending at range 1" without mentioning arc, we would interpret this per the autothrusters example to mean the range of the shot is range 1? Would we not?

I get the compound phrase definition. But that's specifying abilities that trigger within arc at a given range. That doesn't really answer whether any given statement "at range X" means the shot or the physical distance because pretty much nothing actually makes that distinction on the cards other than the inquisitor.

I'm not sure there's a distinction.

If it said "when defending at range 1" without mentioning arc, we would interpret this per the autothrusters example to mean the range of the shot is range 1? Would we not?

I believe there is a distinction to make here. It could say "When defending at range 1, if you are inside the attacker's firing arc". It doesn't.

Sorry if I've not been clear. You've missed the FIRST "and" in the title.

"In arc at range 1" is not the same as "in arc AND at range 1".

The first has a very clear definition in the rules, and there is some precedent for the Inquisitor affecting it.

The second is two separate conditions, the first of which is independent of the Inquisitor and the second of which is explicitly stated in the FAQ not to be affected by the Inquisitor.

I'm not sure there's a distinction.

If it said "when defending at range 1" without mentioning arc, we would interpret this per the autothrusters example to mean the range of the shot is range 1? Would we not?

I get the compound phrase definition. But that's specifying abilities that trigger within arc at a given range. That doesn't really answer whether any given statement "at range X" means the shot or the physical distance because pretty much nothing actually makes that distinction on the cards other than the inquisitor.

If it said 'when defending at range 1' then it would be model to model like fenn rau. There's no real question there actually. 'At range X' always means model to model. We've only recently acquired a way to specify that something cares about 'attack range' and that is the phrase 'in arc at range x'. If and when we get some turret with an ability that cares about attack range we're going to have trouble under the current rules but right now unless it uses 'in arc at range x' it's model to model.

Sorry if I've not been clear. You've missed the FIRST "and" in the title.

"In arc at range 1" is not the same as "in arc AND at range 1".

The first has a very clear definition in the rules, and there is some precedent for the Inquisitor affecting it.

The second is two separate conditions, the first of which is independent of the Inquisitor and the second of which is explicitly stated in the FAQ not to be affected by the Inquisitor.

I agree on that reading, AND makes all the difference, I still would like to see an FAQ entry for that. Did someone already submitted the rules question for that?

I've not seen anything in terms of rules emails or FAQ on this, so I've just submitted a rules question asking about the case.

Can we please just let Quizzy have his bone? It's 1 extra attack die for Squishy Quizzy! Let him be the exception to the range rules. It's not like he has Queen like powers on the X-wing chess board.

In the 8 plus months I've been reading these forums I can't recall anything stirring up so much word lawyering as Quizzy and his Autothrusters busting extra red die.

I played a game one week ago in which I one shot Quizzy with, we'll Quizzy. And I did using a path blocker by the name of Captain Oincan. A tactical jamming Oincan. It was a game played straight outtar the 1985 Chicago Bears playbook. My William the Refrigerator Perry, Captain Oincan just pounded through the forward wall of the enemies defensive line!

And my Quizzy followed through the path of wreckage like Emmett Smith.

Oin can bumped, knocked off a shield. My Quizzy, with initiative, attacked first. Rolled crit, hit, blank. SPEND target lock. Reroll. Hit. Opponent rolls blank, eyeball, evade. No tokens, no target lock. One hit cancelled. SECOND hit takes remaining shield. Damage card flipped over, this card counts as two damage. Bye,bye Quizzy! Gimped by Quizzy! Thank you Captain Oincan. With your tactical jamming bad@$$ness(can I say that here?).

If you can't beat Quizzy. Don't join him. Gimp him, with himself!

Get himself a blocker and head for the endzone!

Fight fire with napalm!

Microphone drop?

There was a long standing argument that the rear arc of the ghost would override torpedo range restrictions so people will argue anything they think is right.

I think you'll find some people will argue anything when they know it's wrong, but want it to be right if it will be of any advantage to them.

In my defense, I sincerely thought that might be what made that arc "Special" and that it was intended to make all torpedoes range 1-3. I was never really planning to ever put one on the table but it would have been kind of cool if it ended up working that way.

I've not seen anything in terms of rules emails or FAQ on this, so I've just submitted a rules question asking about the case.

Thank you.

I think if they didn't want the range to matter (i.e. ignore CDP) they would have done the errata to Inquisitor with something like, "When attacking at range 2-3, roll an additional attack die."

The way his ability reads now, if ATs don't work, then CDP should work.

Can we please just let Quizzy...

snip

Your constant referral to the Inquisitor as "Quizzy" makes me want to take the opposite side of any argument to you(regardless of which side is correct), and do so belligerently and with a lot of personal insults thrown in. I won't, but I do feel it's important you know that at least one person finds that really, really annoying. (I'm not saying you should stop, you be you.)

I look forward to the FAQ/Email entry on the original question, personally I would say that the Concord Dawn Protector title and Fenn Raus ability should trigger if Autothrusters does not trigger against the Inquisitor at range 3 (as it's being counted as range 1). Once again however, I appreciate there are some wording issues, so yeah, be interesting to see what happens.

Also of note is that the original posts on this were back in the summer, long before the latest FAQ (which, admittedly does not seem to have any further updates on this particular subject).

Relevant section remains:

The Inquisitor

Only the range of the attack is treated as Range 1. Any abilities that reference the range of ships, such as Carnor Jax or Scum & Villainy Boba Fett, are not affected by The Inquisitor’s ability. Autothrusters does not trigger against The Inquisitor’s primary weapon attack.

This issue here is this very specifically says that Autothrusters does not trigger against The Inquisitor, but otherwise says that any abilites referencing the range of ships are not affected. This to me seems to be a case of them having a rule that says Autothrusters SHOULD work against The Inquisitor, but then go ahead and say that it does not.

So, to go against my gut instinct (and what I, as a British person consider to be fair), it would seem that the title and Fenn Rau do not currently trigger against the Inquisitor - but, they bloody well should if autothrusters does not.

Can we please just let Quizzy...

snip

Your constant referral to the Inquisitor as "Quizzy" makes me want to take the opposite side of any argument to you(regardless of which side is correct), and do so belligerently and with a lot of personal insults thrown in. I won't, but I do feel it's important you know that at least one person finds that really, really annoying. (I'm not saying you should stop, you be you.)

I look forward to the FAQ/Email entry on the original question, personally I would say that the Concord Dawn Protector title and Fenn Raus ability should trigger if Autothrusters does not trigger against the Inquisitor at range 3 (as it's being counted as range 1). Once again however, I appreciate there are some wording issues, so yeah, be interesting to see what happens.

Also of note is that the original posts on this were back in the summer, long before the latest FAQ (which, admittedly does not seem to have any further updates on this particular subject).

Relevant section remains:

The Inquisitor

Only the range of the attack is treated as Range 1. Any abilities that reference the range of ships, such as Carnor Jax or Scum & Villainy Boba Fett, are not affected by The Inquisitor’s ability. Autothrusters does not trigger against The Inquisitor’s primary weapon attack.

This issue here is this very specifically says that Autothrusters does not trigger against The Inquisitor, but otherwise says that any abilites referencing the range of ships are not affected. This to me seems to be a case of them having a rule that says Autothrusters SHOULD work against The Inquisitor, but then go ahead and say that it does not.

So, to go against my gut instinct (and what I, as a British person consider to be fair), it would seem that the title and Fenn Rau do not currently trigger against the Inquisitor - but, they bloody well should if autothrusters does not.

That's my feeling as well.

I'd also strongly argue that CDP and Fenn's ability ARE referencing the range of the attack, not the range of ships - Fenn's ability is only checked when an attack is happening, so's CDP, and the Inq/ATs ruling implies that when an attack is happening, the range *of the attack* is the only range that's relevant.

I've not received an answer though. I'm hoping there's another FAQ in the offing soon, since HotCoP is a minefield of unclear rulings right now.