10 minutes ago, Ardaedhel said:

Pretty sure I did this on the original thread, but way too lazy to go back and find it now.

Not here at least so don't take away me the credit

But you put some wise examples.

I love the upgrade card's one.

The first question to you would be behind-the-scenes with who? Unless it's James AND Michael then you are getting either information 2nd hand at best or you are getting it one sided.
I'm sure there are some judgement calls being made. Also not knowing James or Michael personally there could be communication issues there. The designer / producer relationship is one that they will figure out. There is a fine line between managing a product and being responsible for its design. The two can cross over quite frequently and those two will figure out the internals of that relationship. Also producers and designer who haven't worked together before can sometimes go through a small power struggle unless the authority was clearly laid out to both.

3 minutes ago, Ardaedhel said:

Sooo... if you get two opposite answers from two different dudes representing the same organization, how do you decide which is right? As, say, a TO.

Michael himself laid it out. James' answers trump his. If you don't have an answer from James then Michael's decision stands until it is changed by James or clarified out in an FAQ.

1 minute ago, whiteferret76 said:

Michael himself laid it out. James' answers trump his. If you don't have an answer from James then Michael's decision stands until it is changed by James or clarified out in an FAQ.

So, you might say that James's answers take precedence?

As a screenwriter I won't argue about producers...

8 minutes ago, Ardaedhel said:

Sooo... if you get two opposite answers from two different dudes representing the same organization, how do you decide which is right? As, say, a TO.

You denounce the media as the enemy of the public.

Oh wait. Too real?

2 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

You denounce the media as the enemy of the public.

Oh wait. Too real?

The media has always been the enemy of the public. Just look at North Korea or China.

Media is nothing more than a soap box with the world's loudest loudspeaker. Doesn't mean anything that comes out of it should be believed. There is always another motive behind what is being delivered. Pure information is a myth unless you go looking for it yourself.

11 minutes ago, Ardaedhel said:

So, you might say that James's answers take precedence?

Nope, one could say that the last communication from the organization takes precedence which has always been the rule.

Just now, whiteferret76 said:

Nope, one could say that the last communication from the organization takes precedence which has always been the rule.

So in this case, James already gave an answer and Michael would overrule him? And then we would take James's answer because Michael retracted his comment.

What do we do?

So we have two rules for the attack on two targets with one engagement now? One with obstacles (ignores the RRG via FAQ) and one with Snipe (goes by the RRG)?

Will be really funny when they dont have a consistent line on what they they are doing.

Just because basicially it is the same. You have two targets, one is enganged with you the second is not. You could attack both. But Snipe does not work and forces you to attack the engaged one, obstacles gives you the choice who you want to attack.

28 minutes ago, Tokra said:

So we have two rules for the attack on two targets with one engagement now? One with obstacles (ignores the RRG via FAQ) and one with Snipe (goes by the RRG)?

Will be really funny when they dont have a consistent line on what they they are doing.

Just because basicially it is the same. You have two targets, one is enganged with you the second is not. You could attack both. But Snipe does not work and forces you to attack the engaged one, obstacles gives you the choice who you want to attack.

Yes. Now we have this funny situtation:

Corran engaged with Rhymer, with Boba ar distance 1 inside of a debris field, at distance 1 of Instigator and with Vader at distance 2.

Corran is engaged with 2 non heavy squadrons and 1 heavy squadron. He can attack Rhymer, Boba and Instigator but cannot attack Vader.

The fact that you could attack non engaged squadron at distance 1 even engaged would mean that a non engaged squadron at distance 1 should prevent you from sniping. A heavy squadrons does...

2 minutes ago, ovinomanc3r said:

Yes. Now we have this funny situtation:

Corran engaged with Rhymer, with Boba ar distance 1 inside of a debris field, at distance 1 of Instigator and with Vader at distance 2.

Corran is engaged with 2 non heavy squadrons and 1 heavy squadron. He can attack Rhymer, Boba and Instigator but cannot attack Vader.

The fact that you could attack non engaged squadron at distance 1 even engaged would mean that a non engaged squadron at distance 1 should prevent you from sniping. A heavy squadrons does...

I wouldn't go that far yet. This email provides some insight on how Snipe is supposed to work, but I still think you could Snipe when engaged to a Heavy squad. This is not the FAQ and doesn't answer all the questions I sent in.

3 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

I wouldn't go that far yet. This email provides some insight on how Snipe is supposed to work, but I still think you could Snipe when engaged to a Heavy squad. This is not the FAQ and doesn't answer all the questions I sent in.

Sorry I wanted write the last paragraph as a question. I did it in my mind but I didn't build it correctly. Sorry.

1 hour ago, Tokra said:

So we have two rules for the attack on two targets with one engagement now? One with obstacles (ignores the RRG via FAQ) and one with Snipe (goes by the RRG)?

Will be really funny when they dont have a consistent line on what they they are doing.

Just because basicially it is the same. You have two targets, one is enganged with you the second is not. You could attack both. But Snipe does not work and forces you to attack the engaged one, obstacles gives you the choice who you want to attack.

Snipe is range 2, so you couldn't Snipe in your example.

What I do find interesting is the view that Escort only works if you are engaged with your target, and not if your outside engagement range.

Edited to add, Heavy says, you are not prevented from attacking SHIPS or moving, it does not say you can ignore them as targets if there are no ships around and no escorts.

Just now, TheEasternKing said:

Snipe is range 2, so you couldn't Snipe in your example.

Example 1: You have one squad in range 1, you are engaged with it. And one in range 1 that is hidding in an obstacle (not engaged, but in range for an attack).
RRG says: You have to attack the one you are engaged with. FAQ change this rule to: you can choose who you want to attack.

Example 2: You have one squad in range 1, you are engaged with it. And you have one in range 2. You ship has snipe (not engaged, but in range for an attack).
RRG says: You have to attack the one you are engaged with. FAQ says nothing, because there was no snipe when the FAQ came out.

Now explain me the difference between the two examples.
Changing the rule to: Obstacle =! snipe is messing it all up. These are basically the same cases, but they are ruled different.

3 minutes ago, TheEasternKing said:

Edited to add, Heavy says, you are not prevented from attacking SHIPS or moving, it does not say you can ignore them as targets if there are no ships around and no escorts.

Right, which is why we ask, does this mean that engaged Heavy squadrons can prevent Snipe shots? Which sounds ridiculous and counterintuitive, but if this ruling stands, it is the case.

5 minutes ago, Ardaedhel said:

Right, which is why we ask, does this mean that engaged Heavy squadrons can prevent Snipe shots? Which sounds ridiculous and counterintuitive, but if this ruling stands, it is the case.

Why would it not prevent Snipe? heavy does not exclude you from shooting squadrons, just Ships, you have always been engaged by a Heavy squadron, you can just move away from it if you so wish, or ignore it to shoot at a ship.

Nothing to stop you moving away from a Heavy squadron and then Sniping.

10 minutes ago, Tokra said:

Example 1: You have one squad in range 1, you are engaged with it. And one in range 1 that is hidding in an obstacle (not engaged, but in range for an attack).
RRG says: You have to attack the one you are engaged with. FAQ change this rule to: you can choose who you want to attack.

Example 2: You have one squad in range 1, you are engaged with it. And you have one in range 2. You ship has snipe (not engaged, but in range for an attack).
RRG says: You have to attack the one you are engaged with. FAQ says nothing, because there was no snipe when the FAQ came out.

Now explain me the difference between the two examples.
Changing the rule to: Obstacle =! snipe is messing it all up. These are basically the same cases, but they are ruled different.

No it is not messing anything up.

They have said Snipe cannot be used if the squadron is engaged. Snipe is not a standard attack by a squadron, it is a special ability and they have made a ruling that the special ability is not the same as a standard attack, and thus does not follow the standard rules for squadron attacks.

2 minutes ago, TheEasternKing said:

Nothing to stop you moving away from a Heavy squadron and then Sniping.

There is. The squadron activations rule during the squadron phase.

Now heavy doesn't prevent from shooting ships but it does from snipping. What looks weird.

And an engaged squadron prevent from sniping but doesn't prevent from shooting at distance 1 even when the target is not engaged with you.

And the key concept here is engagement not distance so... yep, weird.

*Valen's grin regarding Heavy intensifies*

6 minutes ago, ovinomanc3r said:

There is. The squadron activations rule during the squadron phase.

Now heavy doesn't prevent from shooting ships but it does from snipping. What looks weird.

And an engaged squadron prevent from sniping but doesn't prevent from shooting at distance 1 even when the target is not engaged with you.

And the key concept here is engagement not distance so... yep, weird.

The game has many abilities that ignore or change or supersede the rules in the RRG.

Limiting Snipe to be only when not engaged is no different than Ackbar limiting a ship to firing out of side arcs only, and I can list many many more abilities that are exactly the same.

16 minutes ago, TheEasternKing said:

Why would it not prevent Snipe? heavy does not exclude you from shooting squadrons, just Ships, you have always been engaged by a Heavy squadron, you can just move away from it if you so wish, or ignore it to shoot at a ship.

Nothing to stop you moving away from a Heavy squadron and then Sniping.

Assuming you're not activating in the squadron phase, the target isn't surrounded by heavy, you're not engaged by Instigator, the other possible positions aren't unpalatable for other reasons like strong AA threats, or any of the host of other positioning-dependent considerations that Snipe is specifically designed to overcome.

Nobody is saying that Heavy's interaction with this rule breaks the game. I'm just saying it's unintuitive and dumb.

1 minute ago, TheEasternKing said:

The game has many abilities that ignore or change or supersede the rules in the RRG.

Limiting Snipe to be only when not engaged is no different than Ackbar limiting a ship to firing out of side arcs only, and I can list many many more abilities that are exactly the same.

Yes but is not the wording of snipe.

I don't say that the answer given is wrong. Just that is weird considering the faq to engagement and heavy rule.

Well it looks like I was right again but after having played snipe I'm not too sure I'm happy that I was right.