I get that the squadron whose damage is being reduced must be at distance 1 of Biggs.

My question is: Does the new friendly squadron that is taking the damage need to be within distance 1 of Biggs, or can it be within distance 1 of the squadron whose damage is being reduced?

"You" in upgrade cards refers to "This Ship"

Its not a big stretch to say "You" refers to "This Squadron" in the place of a Squadron card. (one of those things you have to do, or the game breaks)\

In which case, its should be within distance 1 of you . as that is the measureable half. In order to break from the standard rule, it would have to tell you to be measuring from the first squadron. (Within distance 1 of that squadron)... Otherwise, you have to default to you.

You pick a point off within Distance 1 of you, and then plonk it down within distance 1 of you... Which of course, includes you.

"You" in upgrade cards refers to "This Ship"

Its not a big stretch to say "You" refers to "This Squadron" in the place of a Squadron card. (one of those things you have to do, or the game breaks)\

In which case, its should be within distance 1 of you . as that is the measureable half. In order to break from the standard rule, it would have to tell you to be measuring from the first squadron. (Within distance 1 of that squadron)... Otherwise, you have to default to you.

You pick a point off within Distance 1 of you, and then plonk it down within distance 1 of you... Which of course, includes you.

There is no doubt that "you" refers to Biggs.

Why doesn't the card say: "If you do, choose a friendly squadron with escort at distance one [of you]."

No, but you are keeping the same measurement in both instances.

The first instance of "Distance 1" doesn't Include "OF YOU" either.......

So if its assumed for the first, why is not assumed for the second?

Here's my point, spelled out....

The first line can only be read as:

"Before a friendly squadron at distance 1 _{(of you)} suffers damage from an attack, you may reduce the total damage by 1."

Because otherwise, you're asking... "Within Distance 1 of what? Of the Edge of the Table? of the Center of the Room?.. What?"

So if you are capable of doing that (and the English language lends you that assumption), in the absense of any other clarifying direction , then you assume the standard for the Second:

"If you do, choose a friendly squadron at distance 1 _{(of you.)} . That squadron suffers one damage."

Otherwise, you're interjecting words where none exist - and although that is what I have done above, what I have done is interject the only known point in the matter. I mean, In order to measure a Distance, you need a starting point. A point to measure from.

The only starting point that Biggs has... Is Biggs ... Because we're not told to get any other measurement at any other time.

No, but you are keeping the same measurement in both instances.

The first instance of "Distance 1" doesn't Include "OF YOU" either.......

So if its assumed for the first, why is not assumed for the second?

We can make that first assumption because he is the one with the ability and needs to be there to trigger it.

I'm still not convinced. I'm tending to agree with your conclusion Dras. Maybe some others can elaborate as well.

I wish they had just added "of you" to the second sentence for the sake of 100 percent clarity.

So if an escort squad takes dmg within 1 of the table edge I can pass 1 pt of dmg to an escort squad within 1 of the table edge!

No, but you are keeping the same measurement in both instances.

The first instance of "Distance 1" doesn't Include "OF YOU" either.......

So if its assumed for the first, why is not assumed for the second?

We can make that first assumption because he is the one with the ability and needs to be there to trigger it.

I'm still not convinced. I'm tending to agree with your conclusion Dras. Maybe some others can elaborate as well.

I wish they had just added "of you" to the second sentence for the sake of 100 percent clarity.

To turn your argument \

When did it STOP being Biggs' ablility?

So if an escort squad takes dmg within 1 of the table edge I can pass 1 pt of dmg to an escort squad within 1 of the table edge!

Could you elaborate on what the card means and why?

Biggs is taking the damage that would hit a friendly Escort squadron within Range 1 of himself to shift it instead to a different Escort squadron within range 1 of himself.

Stupid question from a newbie: Does this inherently mean Biggs can use the rule to shift incoming damage from himself onto a wingmate with Escort (or vice versa), because this is a situation where he would be "at range one of himself"?

Biggs is taking the damage that would hit a friendly Escort squadron within Range 1 of himself to shift it instead to a different Escort squadron within range 1 of himself.

Stupid question from a newbie: Does this inherently mean Biggs can use the rule to shift incoming damage from himself onto a wingmate with Escort (or vice versa), because this is a situation where he would be "at range one of himself"?

It should since it does not say "another" friendly squadron.

Don't quote me on it though.

Rules-Paranoid.

Because that is entirely it

You are considered to be within Distance 1 of yourself.

It does not specify another , so Biggs is a Valid Target in both cases.

Ok, cool. Not experienced enough quite yet to remember off-hand which instances exist where a ship/squad is considered in range of themselves (or not, like Toryn Farr).