I dont see why you cannot snipe a squad at range 2" if there is a squad within range 1". Nothing on the snipe keyword says you cannot.

No, but Engagement Rules, perhaps (Italic emphasis mine):

Engagement

While a squadron is at distance 1 of one or more enemy squadrons, it is engaged with all of those enemy squadrons.

• An engaged squadron cannot move.

• When a squadron attacks, it must attack an engaged squadron if possible rather than an enemy ship.

But snipe isnt attacking an enemy ship...... I get what they are trying to say, but the concept of snipe did not exist when they wrote that rule so its somewhat absent.

I dont see why you cannot snipe a squad at range 2" if there is a squad within range 1". Nothing on the snipe keyword says you cannot.

No, but Engagement Rules, perhaps (Italic emphasis mine):

Engagement

While a squadron is at distance 1 of one or more enemy squadrons, it is engaged with all of those enemy squadrons.

• An engaged squadron cannot move.

• When a squadron attacks, it must attack an engaged squadron if possible rather than an enemy ship.

But snipe isnt attacking an enemy ship...... I get what they are trying to say, but the concept of snipe did not exist when they wrote that rule so its somewhat absent.

Snipe allows you to do one thing: Attack at Range 2, instead of Range 1.

It does not give any other permissions, including ignoring the Engagement Rule.

And On top of that, even if your Range 2 Target is Escort, that matters not, as Escort is only applicable when engaged:

• H Escort: Squadrons you are engaged with cannot attack squadrons that lack escort unless performing a counter attack.

Escort squadrons at distance 2 do not lack the escort keyword, they just arent applying to you, so thats a rather empty argument.

And On top of that, even if your Range 2 Target is Escort, that matters not, as Escort is only applicable when engaged:

• H Escort: Squadrons you are engaged with cannot attack squadrons that lack escort unless performing a counter attack.

Escort squadrons at distance 2 do not lack the escort keyword, they just arent applying to you, so thats a rather empty argument.

Totally agree it was an empty argument.

I was trying to get in front of anyone trying to push said argument (And no, I didn't imply you with that, either )

Let me annotate some things here, because, Gink, you may be right - I'm just looking for the Reference

It was my belief, that as the rule is written right now (which did not account for Snipe at the time it was written), states that, if you are Engaged, then you must attack an Engaged Squadron if able, instead of a Ship...

But you know what, we have this bit:


Q: If a squadron is at distance 1 of two enemy squadrons, one that it is engaged with and one that it is not engaged with because it is separated by an obstacle, does the original squadron have to attack the engaged squadron?

A: No. A squadron can attack another squadron at distance 1 regardless of whether it is technically engaged with that squadron.

Snipe gives you permission to Shoot at Distance 2.

I see no reason why you could not shoot at a Squad at Distance 2, if there are squads at Distance 1... Unless one of the Squads at Distance 1 and Engagement with you, has Escort .

Mea Culpa, Ginkapo. On further reference, I believe you are Correct.

Edit: Cheers Dras

Well Snipe is OP, but at least it is controlled by Engaged escorts!

( A Block of Text that now has no relevancy)

Check me edits, me boy... I have changed my mind on yer Prodding, and me Findin' a Reference in your Favour in the FAQsies

Edit: Cheers Dras

Well Snipe is OP, but at least it is controlled by Engaged escorts!

As it stands, with our one example - being Saber Squadron.

I firmly believe that the Snipe value of E-Wings will be less than their standard Anti-Squadron battery... So it will be a more difficult choice in that scenario... Yes, you can Snipe across, but its less firepower than trashing the guy next to you...

Edit: Cheers Dras

Well Snipe is OP, but at least it is controlled by Engaged escorts!

As it stands, with our one example - being Saber Squadron.

I firmly believe that the Snipe value of E-Wings will be less than their standard Anti-Squadron battery... So it will be a more difficult choice in that scenario... Yes, you can Snipe across, but its less firepower than trashing the guy next to you...

Except when FC boosts it...

But honestly, 1 less die against an ace isn't that bad because they can mitigate it with brace, or they scatter your less optimal attack which is a win/win in my books.

guys/gals we are over complicating the @#$% out of this . right now Awings and Interceptors both get howl runner with Counter , you can't use flight controllers with Counter as you only use Counter when you are attacked... So read Counter it also says the anti-squadron armament is 2 blue dice which then gets +1 blue die from Howlrunner. same wording is on Saber, except you get 4 blue dice in your anti squadron armament.

FACT: when you activate Sabre using flight controllers it is going to get an extra blue die from flight controllers whether it uses Snipe or not, as they (standard attacke or Snipe) both still use the anti-squadron armament.

you all are starting to sound like Trump rationalizing how he is going to win nov. 8th LOL

My thoughts on it, from a game balance view:

FC would work with Snipe. As of now (assuming the TIE Advanced or anything else from CC don't have Snipe), there is only Saber Squadron that has snipe for the Imperials, and Corran and the E-Wings for the Rebels. To me, that kind of says that its a one trick pony, where it's a nice buff, but not over-powered for the game. If you could have and Alpha strike of 5 FC'ed Interceptors and Howlrunner that can shoot 6 dice at you while you can't even so much as counter them back or be within range to shoot, then I think it would be an issue. But as it is, the one Saber Squad isn't game breaking for the Imperials, and without defense tokens or anything and 3 hull, it probably won't survive all that long (Like Fighters or other Interceptors).

It's tough to tell with the E-Wings coming in to play, particularly with Jan, but my guess is there will be a balance for them having Snipe 3. Probably like 4 hull and maybe a red bomber anti-ship, but there's not really much value in putting conjecture in to it until we know for certain.

Anyway, from a game balance perspective, my guess is it would be fine.

E wings have snipe 3 and speed 4 and 5 hull.

Corran has snipe 4.

guys/gals we are over complicating the @#$% out of this . right now Awings and Interceptors both get howl runner with Counter , you can't use flight controllers with Counter as you only use Counter when you are attacked... So read Counter it also says the anti-squadron armament is 2 blue dice which then gets +1 blue die from Howlrunner. same wording is on Saber, except you get 4 blue dice in your anti squadron armament.

FACT: when you activate Sabre using flight controllers it is going to get an extra blue die from flight controllers whether it uses Snipe or not, as they (standard attacke or Snipe) both still use the anti-squadron armament.

you all are starting to sound like Trump rationalizing how he is going to win nov. 8th LOL

I already said all of this but used the language of Armada. So I don't understand who you are aiming your Trump statement at.

I gotta disagree with the bizarre consensus that was reached about whether or not one can Snipe at distance 1.

◊ At: If any portion of a hull zone, base, or token is

inside a specified band, that component is at that band.

So, if you are at distance 1, you're also at distance 2. Not sure why you can't Snipe while within, or at distance 1. It doesn't seem to exclude distance 1 that I can see.

I gotta disagree with the bizarre consensus that was reached about whether or not one can Snipe at distance 1.

◊ At: If any portion of a hull zone, base, or token is

inside a specified band, that component is at that band.

So, if you are at distance 1, you're also at distance 2. Not sure why you can't Snipe while within, or at distance 1. It doesn't seem to exclude distance 1 that I can see.

Except, you're Measuring Attack Range .

And range is a Point

And a Point cannot be at 2 places at once.

Unless, of course, you consider Snipe a "non-attack measurement"....

Nope, my interpretation isn't based on that at all.

A single point can't be two places, but we're also not talking about "two places" at all, so that comparison is meaningless.

but we're also not talking about "two places" at all, so that comparison is meaningless.

You said:

So, if you are at distance 1, you're also at distance 2.

That sounds like being at two places.

Yes, you can have an Item - a Base, a Token, a Hull Zone, be in both Range Bands at the same time... Totally possible, if what you are doing is not a Range or Distance measurement between Squadrons.

Between Squadrons, when measuring range (which you are want to do when you are attacking, after all...) you have specific points that you measure From, and To.

RRG, Page 7, Measuring Firing Arc and Range:

"... To measure attack range to or from a squadron, measure to or from the closest point of the squadron’s base."

You do not look anywhere else.

Those points , are all you care about.

It is the position of those points . And because it is a point measurement, it cannot be in two places - it cannot simultaniously be at Distance 1 and Distance 2. it is one or the other...

As I have said:

"Sure, the Majority of the Enemy Squadron's Base is at Distance 2... but the closest point is at Distance one. For the purposes of my attack, as I am measuring attack range, this Enemy Squadron is at Distance 1 ."

There's no "I'm going to measure to the back to make sure he's in Distance 2, here..."

The Range of the Attack, Measured between the only two points I can measure while Attacking , is Distance 1.

Yep, and if you are within distance 1, you should still qualify as at distance 2.

Nothing about two places at once, and no one anywhere has said that in this topic.

It's kind of like how you can shoot red dice while being at medium, or close range. You aren't simultaneously everywhere in the universe, but being at close range is also being at long range.

You are also wrong about noting only exactly the closest point to closest point. "At" quite specifically says that any part of the base can be used to apply that. We'll see how the ruling actually shapes up. FFG might modify the rules to make you ex post facto correct, so there's that possibility.

And I contend that you're superimposing rules...

I mean, let us actually put it on the table.

You take your Range Ruler out, and you measure the distance. Its an attack distance. You are measuring to the closest point.... If that point is 'at' distance 1, then it can't be at distance 2...

Where are you measuring that says the range of this attack is Distance 2?

It is the position of those points . And because it is a point measurement, it cannot be in two places - it cannot simultaniously be at Distance 1 and Distance 2. it is one or the other...

Mabye if you do not insist on measuring the distance you would realice the point is indeed at two different places simultaneusly. In fact, I think you are changeing the distance by measuring it... and probobly killing a few cats as well...

And I contend that you're superimposing rules...

I mean, let us actually put it on the table.

You take your Range Ruler out, and you measure the distance. Its an attack distance. You are measuring to the closest point.... If that point is 'at' distance 1, then it can't be at distance 2...

Where are you measuring that says the range of this attack is Distance 2?

A point located within range 1 is within the range 2 band. That qualifies for the "at" definition, but only if you read the rules.

A point located within range 1 is within the range 2 band.

I think this is the disconnect. This does not appear to be accurate.

I was totally on your side until I went to support it in the rules. By all appearances, the distance 1 band is not a subset of the distance 2 band, but an adjacent region. If you look at all of the references to "distance 2" or greater, they pretty much all refer to "distance 1-2", suggesting that they are separate. This is distinct from the range bands, of which "close" seems to be a subset of "medium" and "long" (I may be wrong about the ranges, been looking at the distance piece right now).

I think Dras is right, even though he's arguing the wrong point with you.

A point located within range 1 is within the range 2 band.

I think this is the disconnect. This does not appear to be accurate.

I was totally on your side until I went to support it in the rules. By all appearances, the distance 1 band is not a subset of the distance 2 band, but an adjacent region. If you look at all of the references to "distance 2" or greater, they pretty much all refer to "distance 1-2", suggesting that they are separate. This is distinct from the range bands, of which "close" seems to be a subset of "medium" and "long" (I may be wrong about the ranges, been looking at the distance piece right now).

I think Dras is right, even though he's arguing the wrong point with you.

I noticed that, and concede that's possible, but I don't see anything that definitively states this is the case.

A point located within range 1 is within the range 2 band.

I think this is the disconnect. This does not appear to be accurate.

I was totally on your side until I went to support it in the rules. By all appearances, the distance 1 band is not a subset of the distance 2 band, but an adjacent region. If you look at all of the references to "distance 2" or greater, they pretty much all refer to "distance 1-2", suggesting that they are separate. This is distinct from the range bands, of which "close" seems to be a subset of "medium" and "long" (I may be wrong about the ranges, been looking at the distance piece right now).

I think Dras is right, even though he's arguing the wrong point with you.

I noticed that, and concede that's possible, but I don't see anything that definitively states this is the case.

Neither can I. It's one of those assumptions you don't really realize you're making until you run into a possible exception.

Assumption by Deduction.

If Distance 1 was a Subset of Distance 2, or in fact, if Distances did include all of the distances below them...

... What is the point of 1-2, or 1-4, or 1-5, or any of the measurements we have? Why is that even a rule? Wouldn't you just say Distance 5 ?