I agree with you. It's just that the rules imply one thing and say another... easy to fix.

Which is what I disagree with.

The Rules both State and Imply what I said.

Only in adding an interpretation, do you get otherwise.

I agree with you. It's just that the rules imply one thing and say another... easy to fix.

Which is what I disagree with.

The Rules both State and Imply what I said.

Only in adding an interpretation, do you get otherwise.

Fair enough. I've misinterpreted enough stuff that it wouldn't surprise me =)

But I don't know that I can agree that the rules "state" anything either way.

What rule makes them exclusive?

I think the intent might be to make them exclusive - things like squadron activation say "close-medium" range, implying that it must list both.

But that's not a defined item.

Actually, it is... As a MIN-MAX term.

Exactly. The implication though of having a min-max term is that if something doesn't call out a minimum, there isn't one.

That's not illogical. It's just not correct in this case.

At long range you can Evade to cancel a die. At medium range you can Evade to reroll one die.

But since "at medium" is "at long" then just go ahead and cancel the die wherever you are in medium range, because you are still "at long" too.

That's where it leaves speculation for me, because the above is obviously not correct.

Like I mentioned before, Evade is a poor example because it specifies each band and provides a rule for that band (that would override the other band).

Evade is a fine choice. At Distance X, you may resolve Y effect.

Snipe says that at Distance 2 you may attack.

Evade doesn't specify that at medium range you can't use the long range effect, it does mention close range, but again, if the argument were sound, you should always be able to Evade to cancel a die at medium or long range, yet you clearly cannot.

From the RRG:

"Evade D: At long range, the defender cancels one attack die of its choice. At medium range, it chooses one attack die to be rerolled. At close range or distance 1, this token has no effect."

The wording is pretty clear - At a given range do a certain thing.

From the RRG:

"Evade D: At long range, the defender cancels one attack die of its choice. At medium range, it chooses one attack die to be rerolled. At close range or distance 1, this token has no effect."

The wording is pretty clear - At a given range do a certain thing.

This is the perfect example. You made the statement "... if you are AT or WITHIN range 1, you are also both for range 2." Therefore, if I am at close range, I am also long range. Let me substitute your words to show you. "... if you are AT or WITHIN [close range], you are also both for [long range]." Since I am both close and long range, I can choose to use my Evade to cancel your die.

This is the problem we are having with your argument. You cannot be at 2 distinct distances at the same time. Long range effects and dice can work at close range, unless otherwise stated, which Evade does say, " At close range or distance 1, this token has no effect." At distance 1, by your rules, I am also at distance 2, and thus could use the Evade, since you claim "... if you are AT or WITHIN range 1, you are also both for range 2."

Except nothing lets you attack a ship with an evade token at range 2...

Except nothing lets you attack a ship with an evade token at range 2...

That doesn't even matter, but it actually reinforces my argument. Why would FFG imply you can use Evade at range 2 when clearly nothing uses that range to attack ships? The text says you can't use Evade at range 1, and by your argument, range 1 is also range 2. This is your argument you are making, and I am applying it to other cards and rules that already exist.

Except nothing lets you attack a ship with an evade token at range 2...

What is "Range 2". ?

Do you mean Distance 2, or Medium Range , or Close-Medium Range ?

Yes, this whole point was to be a pedantic arse, to point out that, indeed, we are all pedantic arses, here... Anyone who says they're not is either a liar or trying to sell you their point of view... by lying...

Now I'm confused.

My initial argument was evade was a poor example because it specifically calls out rules for each distance. So it can be argued either way.

Haven't seen anything that convinces me otherwise on that point.

I also don't see anything that explicitly states that distances or ranges are discrete.

I completely understand the logic for the intent being that it is. There just isn't a statement that specifically makes that the case. Which I think we need.

Because (obviously) I can see a valid arguement that you can snipe at range 1... doesn't mean I actually agree with it, but based on how the rules are written.......

Except nothing lets you attack a ship with an evade token at range 2...

What is "Range 2". ?

Do you mean Distance 2, or Medium Range , or Close-Medium Range ?

Yes, this whole point was to be a pedantic arse, to point out that, indeed, we are all pedantic arses, here... Anyone who says they're not is either a liar or trying to sell you their point of view... by lying...

I love intellectual combat and creating and destroying arguments. It is incredibly fun but I always feel bad when my opponent doesn't want to engage or a lot of people start to go after them, kind of like Thanosalzin. Kinda feel bad for all the flak he caught.

I try to be objective when I argue, but my passion makes me seem overly aggressive...

I also don't see anything that explicitly states that distances or ranges are discrete.

I also don't see anything that explicitly states that distances or ranges are all-inclusive, either. And in the fact that they had to be called out to be so as MIN-MAX as a rule, should show that they are discrete, as if they were inclusive, it would be irrelevent...

OR, at the very least, we would see Min-Max utilised as a situatuoin where they ere is a hole - Such as: 2-5, 3-4, 4-5, as such... NEVER as 1-5, because 1-5 would be as Redundant as saying '5'...

Does the rulebook explicitly say that Range bands are Discrete? No.

Does the rulebook explicitly say that Range bands are inclusive? No.

Does the rulebook require us to infer a lot of common sense based on their own rulings? Sure do.

Because otherwise, there's Chaos:

But I don't have a dog... =p

Page 7 and no one has posted the definitions of at and within.

Page 7 and no one has posted the definitions of at and within.

I was sure I did. But here it is again

• The following terms are used when discussing range and distance:

◊ At : If any portion of a hull zone, base, or token is inside a specified band, that component is at that band.

◊ Beyond: If no portion of a hull zone, base, or token is inside a specified band or a band closer to the bottom of the ruler, that component is beyond the specified band.

◊ Within : If the entirety of a base or token is inside a specified band, that component is within that band

Maybe you had, but most arguing that the rules arent clear havent read the definitions

Page 7 and no one has posted the definitions of at and within.

I did post the definition of At:

" To further refute your point, Snipe reads: "You can attack squadrons at range 2..." At is defined as: "If any portion of a hull zone, base, or token is inside a specified band, that component is at that band." ..."

At the time, I did have the definition of Within but deleted it because I thought I had made my point.

After reading a few more upgrades and other rules, I'm convinced that it appears consistent that any time a rule or card intentionally mentions multiple ranges/distances, it spells out x-y...

I still don't like evade as an example =) and I still think this should be FAQ'd - but they are definitely consistent with language that supports discrete ranges.

Evade is worded as a perfect example when you consider medium range.

It spells out that you can't use it at close range, you're right about that, but at medium range it doesn't explicitly say you can't use the long range function.

That's why Evade is a perfect example of this, and the single best reason (in my opinion) to demonstrate the concreteness of the non-inclusive argument.

If range bands were inclusive, than you could cancel a die at medium range, and the Evade wording would support that.

Page 7 and no one has posted the definitions of at and within.

I also posted the definition of At.

Page 7 and no one has posted the definitions of at and within.

I did post the definition of At:

" To further refute your point, Snipe reads: "You can attack squadrons at range 2..." At is defined as: "If any portion of a hull zone, base, or token is inside a specified band, that component is at that band." ..."

At the time, I did have the definition of Within but deleted it because I thought I had made my point.

This is also where I'm pitching my tent. The definition of "at" makes very little sense if the "closest point" measurement is the only one that matters.

Page 7 and no one has posted the definitions of at and within.

I did post the definition of At:

" To further refute your point, Snipe reads: "You can attack squadrons at range 2..." At is defined as: "If any portion of a hull zone, base, or token is inside a specified band, that component is at that band." ..."

At the time, I did have the definition of Within but deleted it because I thought I had made my point.

This is also where I'm pitching my tent. The definition of "at" makes very little sense if the "closest point" measurement is the only one that matters.

I think it is to distinguish what Within does not apply to. Also, for the sake of engagement, At isn't really necessary, but it is for other things like attacking with ships.

I believe I have figured out the correct interaction between FC and snipe. As others have stated, there are different ships with different snipe values.

A ship's snipe's anti squadron armament value can be different than its anti squadron value that is displayed on the bar below the picture. This fact is key.

If the anti squadron value of an E-wing's snipe is 3, then it becomes 4 with FC.

If the non snipe anti squadron value of an E wing is say 4 (too lazy to find right now), then FC will allow you to throw 5 die BUT you cannot use snipe.

This makes snipe more balanced because on the one hand you can sometimes sacrifice firepower for defense, or you can some times improve firepower at the expense of defense.

The point is:

Both the "regular" anti-squadron and the snipe a-s ar worded exactly the same.

If FC applies to one, it applies to both.

The point is:

Both the "regular" anti-squadron and the snipe a-s ar worded exactly the same.

If FC applies to one, it applies to both.

The point is:

Both the "regular" anti-squadron and the snipe a-s ar worded exactly the same.

If FC applies to one, it applies to both.

For the record, not everyone agrees. But, well, I've given my reasons and I don't need to repeat them. I guess FFG will eventually clarify this one way or the other; in the meantime I don't much mind playing according to the "consensus".

Not everyone agrees that they are worded exactly the same?

Or not everyone agrees that equally worded rules should be treated equally?