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

Dangit , I tried really, really hard to word it so I wouldn't use those Words!

Check yourself, sir, for actually USING THEM .....

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.

*shrug* It's not like the conversation was going places. Most, if not all, of the talk here is (very reasonably) about RAW, and I thought shedding some light on RAI, straight from the horse's mouth, might help reach a consensus on how this rule is to be interpreted in the absence of clear, official direction. But my apologies if you feel my contribution to the topic was insufficient to merit a post.

Anyway, there was a lot of talk about how the "must attack a squadron if possible rather than a ship" rule was to be read. The email suggests that the key operative term there is ship , and that in the absence of a ship an engaged squadron suffers no targeting restrictions whatsoever.

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.

*shrug* It's not like the conversation was going places. Most, if not all, of the talk here is (very reasonably) about RAW, and I thought shedding some light on RAI, straight from the horse's mouth, might help reach a consensus on how this rule is to be interpreted in the absence of clear, official direction. But my apologies if you feel my contribution to the topic was insufficient to merit a post.

Anyway, there was a lot of talk about how the "must attack a squadron if possible rather than a ship" rule was to be read. The email suggests that the key operative term there is ship , and that in the absence of a ship an engaged squadron suffers no targeting restrictions whatsoever.

I wasn't meaning to negate your post. I simply don't understand what you were trying to imply from the email. I'm very much a data and interpretation oriented person, and I see data without your interpretation to go along with it and I was confused. Hence my comment it would better serve in the Valen thread because it references squads protecting ships.

Sorry I was unclear about that.

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.

*shrug* It's not like the conversation was going places. Most, if not all, of the talk here is (very reasonably) about RAW, and I thought shedding some light on RAI, straight from the horse's mouth, might help reach a consensus on how this rule is to be interpreted in the absence of clear, official direction. But my apologies if you feel my contribution to the topic was insufficient to merit a post.

Anyway, there was a lot of talk about how the "must attack a squadron if possible rather than a ship" rule was to be read. The email suggests that the key operative term there is ship , and that in the absence of a ship an engaged squadron suffers no targeting restrictions whatsoever.

I agree. I thought it added value precisely for the fact the focus is clearly on the impact on a ship when it comes to engagement.

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

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

If people come to the Rules Questions forum looking for facts about the rules - then the written material from FFG is all that matters.

History has shown us, time and again, that consensus is not an assurance of truth.

For casual play, the rules are mostly irrelevant. We ignore or re-interpret rules all the time at our household tables.

History has shown us, time and again, that consensus is not an assurance of truth.

But it is significantly Better than Nothing.

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.

so i emailed FFG this morning and got a reply within 15 mins which never happens !! and this is what i was told. so looking forward to answers i hope around time the Corellian Conflict comes out.

History has shown us, time and again, that consensus is not an assurance of truth.

But it is significantly Better than Nothing.

Well, it has been worse than nothing on occasion as well.

The jist is that if you are looking for what the rules say - there's one source. Which is what one would come to the rules forum to discover.

If you are wondering what to do in casual play, the answer is "whatever you want". Because it's casual. I suppose this is where consensus has a place, as there is no consequence with casual play so long as both players are in agreement as to how things work.

Well, it has been worse than nothing on occasion as well.

An Example?

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.

Here's the thing.

The only speculation that's happening here is whether or not Snipe functions as written .

From what I've seen, the relevant text so far (excluding DA's email) includes:

Snipe 4 . (You can attack squadrons at distance 2 with an anti-squadron armament of 4 blue dice. This attack ignores the Counter keyword.)

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.

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

Nowhere here is it written that a squadron with Snipe may not use the ability. The only two bases I've seen for this claim are 1) it doesn't make sense in somebody's opinion, and 2) out-of-context references to that last excerpt from Engagement .

I don't care about whether it makes sense in-universe. This is a game: balanced engagements don't make sense in-universe, clouds of Firesprays and YT-2400s don't make sense in-universe, 3' x 6' border death zones don't make sense in-universe.

I do care about context. I can ignore context and make the RRG say anything I want it to. Did you know that you don't get points for upgrade cards? It's right there in the RRG, pg 9 under scoring:

Discarded upgrade cards do not count toward a player's score unless they are equipped to a destroyed ship.

Well, it has been worse than nothing on occasion as well.

An Example?

Medical bloodletting in order to balance the humors, resulting in patients bleeding to death.

Well, it has been worse than nothing on occasion as well.

An Example?

Medical bloodletting in order to balance the humors, resulting in patients bleeding to death.

If you can provide an example of that happening on the Rules Forum, then, by all means, I will stand corrected.

I stated that history has shown that consensus is not a measure of truth. Then provided an example.

It was in response to your statement that "some measure of consensus can be found".

Consensus isn't any guarantee of correctness. It just means several people think the same thing - wrong or right.

Do I have to go back and clarify all of my statements? Because I will.

In the context of the Rules Forum , and its discussions , I believe it is infinitely better to attempt to form an informed consensus on questions, so people are able to browse the questions and get an answer - in doing so, enabling them to move forward.

It is all well and good to say "do what you want" in your Home Games, but that does not solve everything for everyone. For one, it negates the entire point of the Rules Forum , if it were as simple as that, we would not have them. If the default answer worked for people, then there would be no need.

I firmly believe that it is better to work towards Consensus on Rules Discussions (even if said consensus is unattainable), in a manner that befits respect to those who are willing to discuss it.

I am fully aware that there is no "official legitimacy" to concensus, or even an agreed upon definition of what would imply a concensus (a consensus on consensus, as it may)...

But that should not stop us from attempting it... Nor should we simply "give up" and relate statements as such:

"The only thing that matters is an FAQ. Anything else is irrelevant."

Now, that I have the respectful part of it out of the way, I guess, I should be respectful to myself, and say what I have been wanting to say, right? And no, this is not directed to anyone in particular. Just something I want to get off my chest, which is my personal opinion, and not sanctioned by anyone - not even anyone who ticks this with a 'like', sends a support email, or even abuses me in messages...

If the only thing of any worth to you is an FAQ, then I firmly believe you should leave us debaters alone - because you are only being obnoxious for obnoxious sake, and you will get your **** FAQ in time.

If you want to be involved in an actual debate on the manner, then do so, by all means. We will never make an FAQ, but the point is to hear reasoned and applicable debates involving evidence and related rules. To discuss rules precedence and associations. To consider follow-on points and points of discussion from other people.

To attempt to be educated. Not ignorant.

I stated that history has shown that consensus is not a measure of truth. Then provided an example.

It was in response to your statement that "some measure of consensus can be found".

Consensus isn't any guarantee of correctness. It just means several people think the same thing - wrong or right.

It's pretty obvious that a group of people can be wrong. X17 vs AP is an example I can think, but there was a lot of grey area in how the interaction can work.

Consensus may not guarantee having the correct answer, but it drastically increases it. Multiple view points and devil's advocates, which we see a lot on the rules forum, help us create concrete arguments using the RRG. As of right now, there are 2 groups who have a consensus on how Snipe works, and another 2 groups on the interaction between Valen vs Instigator. So one of those consensus groups will HAVE to be wrong, which proves and disproves your point.

You can argue semantics all you want, but this is a rules forum for Armada. Blood letting doesn't have anything to do with this, and surprise surprise, it is still used in modern medicine because it does help patients. Ever hear about someone getting a hole drilled in their skull to drain the blood to decrease the pressure so they won't die?

Consensus can give you "how most people play". And that is very useful for casual play. I've stated before that at my table I would allow Snipe to work while engaged.

However, when discussing the rules the only valid source is the rules. And this is the rules sub-forum. I feel it is obligated to stick to the FFG source texts.

A "how do you play?" sub forum would be perfect for consensus house-rules.

Awesome.

I am glad you are always able to unequivocally and immediately understand every Rule in Star Wars: Armada, without question.

Awesome.

I am glad you are always able to unequivocally and immediately understand every Rule in Star Wars: Armada, without question.

Well that was useful.

I do know that when I read something unequivocal from FFG it is the last word, until they change it via errata or FAQ.

We have a printed FAQ statement that says engaged squadrons can attack other squadrons at range 1. Thus engaged squadrons can attack other squadrons at range 1.

We house-rule it at my table that an engaged squadron with Sniper can attack at range 2. But this is against the RAW/FAQ and so I would not give it as an answer in a rules sub-forum.

But this is against the RAW/FAQ

But... but it's not.

But this is against the RAW/FAQ

But... but it's not.

Well there you go, then. Problem solved!

I do know that when I read something unequivocal from FFG it is the last word, until they change it via errata or FAQ.

We have a printed FAQ statement that says engaged squadrons can attack other squadrons at range 1. Thus engaged squadrons can attack other squadrons at range 1.

We house-rule it at my table that an engaged squadron with Sniper can attack at range 2. But this is against the RAW/FAQ.

The FAQ says "engaged squadrons can attack other squadrons at range 1". But it most definitely does not say any of the following:

-Engaged squadrons can attack other squadrons only at range 1.

-Engaged squadrons cannot attack squadrons beyond range 1.

-Engaged squadrons must attack squadrons at range 1 if possible rather than a ship or a squadron beyond range 1.

I really dont see why there is a problem at all (and i didnt read all 4 pages because you went a little bit offtopic...).

The rules are clear for this.

Under Engagement on page 6 of the rules ref:

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

Check. A squadron is engaged if there is at least one enemy squadron in distance 1.

• If line of sight between two squadrons is obstructed, those squadrons are not engaged even if at distance 1 of each other, though they can still attack each other.

Check. If the LOS is obstructed there is no engagement.

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

An engagement only prevent me from attacking ships.

This means if there are two squadrons in distance 1 to my squadron (one direct LOS and one obstructed by an asteroid), i can still choose what squadron i have to attack. I am not forced to attack the one were i have a free LOS. I can as well attack the one hidding in the asteroid.

And it does not force me to attack anyone on distance 1 (unless escort) when the squadron has snipe. Same as attacking a squadron hidding in an asteroid while there is another with a free LOS.

Next part: Attack on page 2 of the rules ref:

1. Declare target:

◊ If the attacker is a squadron, the defending squadron or hull zone must be at distance 1.

This rules is negated by the keyword Snipe. the snipe squadron can attack on distance 1 or distance 2 with snipe.

So: Even if engaged, the squadron can attack any squadron that he want (unless any effects or keywords rule it otherwise). But it is forbidden to attack a ship (unless any effects or keywords rule it otherwise).

UNLESS the FAQ (that will come out after the new cards are out) will rule it in a different way.

Is there anything wrong in my description (spelling and grammar does not count)?

No, there is nothing wrong - except grammar and spelling

I would like to se an actual errata to the egagement rules as the current FAQ (and e-mail ruling) clearly goes against what the RRG says. It's not just a clearification, it's a compleate change of the rule.

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

A change like above would make it clear how to handle both snipe and obstruction without having to add an other FAQ-entry for yet an other special case (unless ofcource they don't want Snipe to work that way).

I would like to se an actual errata to the egagement rules as the current FAQ (and e-mail ruling) clearly goes against what the RRG says. It's not just a clearification, it's a compleate change of the rule.

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

A change like above would make it clear how to handle both snipe and obstruction without having to add an other FAQ-entry for yet an other special case (unless ofcource they don't want Snipe to work that way).

Adding an errata is still adding another FAQ-entry for this special case. And that won't happen for another 5 and a half months, which would be the same time they could simply FAQ this card saying you can Snipe at distance 2, not at distance 1 and regardless if you are engaged, unless the squad has Escort. An errata would change how the entire squad game works whether it is your example or something FFG comes up with. An FAQ is an easier way to deal with it, and has less impact on the game.