Currently, the FAQ has stated that if you are engaged you can attack another squadron at distance 1.

yes, but that is "specific" to obstructions and at distance 1, hard to apply it to Snipe , but i get where you are going for sure . i guess we going to have to wait a few months for FAQ i hope FFG addresses Snipe.

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.

Answered in such a way, as squadrons (at that time) could only attack at distance 1.

What is the mostimportant part to take from that:

That

1) You don't have to shoot someone you're engaged with.

or

2) You can only ever shoot at distance 1.

Currently, the FAQ has stated that if you are engaged you can attack another squadron at distance 1.

yes, but that is "specific" to obstructions and at distance 1, hard to apply it to Snipe , but i get where you are going for sure . i guess we going to have to wait a few months for FAQ i hope FFG addresses Snipe.

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.

Answered in such a way, as squadrons (at that time) could only attack at distance 1.

What is the mostimportant part to take from that:

That

1) You don't have to shoot someone you're engaged with.

or

2) You can only ever shoot at distance 1.

The way it is written in the current FAQ: both.

The way I will play it at my casual tables: 1

Awesome.

Because if you rigidly take #2, Snipe doesn't work at all.

Currently, the FAQ has stated that if you are engaged you can attack another squadron at distance 1.

yes, but that is "specific" to obstructions and at distance 1, hard to apply it to Snipe , but i get where you are going for sure . i guess we going to have to wait a few months for FAQ i hope FFG addresses Snipe.

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.

Answered in such a way, as squadrons (at that time) could only attack at distance 1.

What is the mostimportant part to take from that:

That

1) You don't have to shoot someone you're engaged with.

or

2) You can only ever shoot at distance 1.

i never said squads can ONLY attack at distance 1. they are "engaged" if another enemy squad is distance 1. for me again, it's " When a squadron attacks, it must attack an engaged

squadron " Snipe negates that but at the same time Snipe can be defeated IMO like in the pic i posted, well we just going to have to wait until it's FAQ LOL.

i will leave with this, if we take the FAQ for it's TRUE WORDING , ok, then it says

No. A squadron can attack another squadron at distance 1

Don't wait, email them about it

And spam mail them with all the other unanswered rulings that are not covered so they know that they need to update their FAQ more frequently or word their upgrades/rulings more succinctly/future-minded.

Though emails are not the be-all-end-all they are at least an official form of answer.

Isn't the rule that cards overwrite the rulebook?

I don't understand why people are taking any reference to must/can/whatever attack at distance 1, when snipe overrules it to distance 2.

Personally I agree with Green Knight's summary.

Isn't the rule that cards overwrite the rulebook?

This isn't from the rulebook. It's from the FAQ.

Isn't the rule that cards overwrite the rulebook?

This isn't from the rulebook. It's from the FAQ.

The Second Paragraph of the Golden Rules is as Such:

Effects on components such as cards sometimes contradict rules found in the Learn to Play or Rules Reference booklets.

In these situations, the component’s effect takes precedence.

There is no statement of legal precedence for the FAQ - other than the Errata overwriting the original card wording in totality .

But as the FAQ can quite likely contradict the Rulebook and the Cards in question, while giving their clarification - the best thing (I believe) is to take it as such:

- If the FAQ Question is written specifically for the situation - it should be considered binding.

- If the FAQ Question is not written specifically , and accounting, for the situation - it should be considered guidance .

Of course in this case there is no contradiction.

Snipe allows you to attack at range 2 unless you are engaged. If engaged, the FAQ ruling kicks in and states you can attack any squadron at range 1.

Of course in this case there is no contradiction.

Snipe allows you to attack at range 2 unless you are engaged. If engaged, the FAQ ruling kicks in and states you can attack any squadron at range 1.

That's still misleading.

Snipe allows you to attack at range 2.

Full stop. End of Story, as it comes to Snipe.

Anything else, you're adding as a Rule from elsewhere.

And yes, what you have is a legitimate set of rules - but that hardly makes it true .

It can't be quoted as part of one finial statement, when its demonstratably unclear - as I've been trying for days to do so... And failed...

Indeed. I would play the game allowing Snipe to work at range 2 even while engaged.

But the FAQ statement stands on its own when it says that if you are engaged you can attack another squadron at distance 1.

Since an FAQ is allowed to completely contradict the rules and the card text, it acts as a final arbiter.

Here's hoping they clear this up soon after selling CC or wave 5!

Indeed. I would play the game allowing Snipe to work at range 2 even while engaged.

But the FAQ statement stands on its own when it says that if you are engaged you can attack another squadron at distance 1.

Since an FAQ is allowed to completely contradict the rules and the card text, it acts as a final arbiter.

Here's hoping they clear this up soon after selling CC or wave 5!

Next FAQ isn't due until April.

If so, it's going to be an interesting 6 months!

I don't understand the confusion?

If you're unengaged you can "Snipe" a target at range 2. i.e. You're a sniper.

If you're engaged you can attack at range 1. i.e. You're dogfighting.

I don't understand the confusion?

If you're unengaged you can "Snipe" a target at range 2. i.e. You're a sniper.

If you're engaged you can attack at range 1. i.e. You're dogfighting.

Yes, both of those things are true. Neither answers the question.

If I'm engaged and have snipe, can I still use Snipe to shoot at something at range 2?

I don't understand the confusion?

If you're unengaged you can "Snipe" a target at range 2. i.e. You're a sniper.

If you're engaged you can attack at range 1. i.e. You're dogfighting.

Yes, both of those things are true. Neither answers the question.

If I'm engaged and have snipe, can I still use Snipe to shoot at something at range 2?

Yes, unless the squadron at range 1 has escort.

I don't understand the confusion?

If you're unengaged you can "Snipe" a target at range 2. i.e. You're a sniper.

If you're engaged you can attack at range 1. i.e. You're dogfighting.

Yes, both of those things are true. Neither answers the question.

If I'm engaged and have snipe, can I still use Snipe to shoot at something at range 2?

Yes, unless the squadron at range 1 has escort.

I agree. Engagement prevents you from attacking ships not other squadrons, as has been amply demonstrated in this thread already.

I don't understand the confusion?

If you're unengaged you can "Snipe" a target at range 2. i.e. You're a sniper.

If you're engaged you can attack at range 1. i.e. You're dogfighting.

Yes, both of those things are true. Neither answers the question.

If I'm engaged and have snipe, can I still use Snipe to shoot at something at range 2?

I would so no because you're too busy evading the squad that has engaged you to Sniper someone at range 2.

I.e. You're now involved in a knife fight with someone right next to you to spend the time lining up on a target that is further away.

I would so no because you're too busy evading the squad that has engaged you to Sniper someone at range 2.

I.e. You're now involved in a knife fight with someone right next to you to spend the time lining up on a target that is further away.

But we've already covered that you can go and shoot someone on the other side of an Asteroid Field, who Doesn't Threaten or Engage You, when you've got someone Engaging you up front, and that's perfectly legal - so what's the difference there?

I don't understand the confusion?

If you're unengaged you can "Snipe" a target at range 2. i.e. You're a sniper.

If you're engaged you can attack at range 1. i.e. You're dogfighting.

Yes, both of those things are true. Neither answers the question.

If I'm engaged and have snipe, can I still use Snipe to shoot at something at range 2?

I would so no because you're too busy evading the squad that has engaged you to Sniper someone at range 2.

I.e. You're now involved in a knife fight with someone right next to you to spend the time lining up on a target that is further away.

I mean... That sounds nice, but do you have any kind of rules support for that opinion, or do you just think it sounds good?

This is the rules forum, man. House ruling is all well and good, and there are threads out there for it, but this isn't the place for that. Unless the rules say I can't attack somebody when my card says I can, I'm gonna be attacking them.

FWIW, an old email from James Kniffen (emphasis mine):

The only official ruling we have is the FAQ which states that you can attack squadrons at range 1 if you are engaged.

Everything else is applying speculation. Reasonable speculation, to be sure.

I don't get what the email is supposed to add to this topic. I feel it should be in the Valen Instigator thread and even then it doesn't really add much to the conversation.

Everything else is applying speculation. Reasonable speculation, to be sure.

And being that FFG expects here, the Rules Forum, to be a place where people can come to for Answers ... BEFORE asking FFG the question themselves...

Is that really a bad thing?

Do arguments always have to end with The FAQ is all that Matters. Everything else is non-official. ... ?

Because that gets really tiresome, really quickly.

Can't we at least accept that there is some measure of consensus that can be found, based on rational rulings and evidence?

Everything else is applying speculation. Reasonable speculation, to be sure.

And being that FFG expects here, the Rules Forum, to be a place where people can come to for Answers ... BEFORE asking FFG the question themselves...

Is that really a bad thing?

Do arguments always have to end with The FAQ is all that Matters. Everything else is non-official. ... ?

Because that gets really tiresome, really quickly.

Can't we at least accept that there is some measure of consensus that can be found, based on rational rulings and evidence?

This is dangerously close to advocacy for common sense. Check yourself, sir.