So if Sabre is at distance 1 of Instigator but not engaged with any physical squadrons and at distance 2 of an enemy squadron can Sabre snipe at said enemy squadron or is the only legal target Instigator?

Don't ask us. ask the man who is answering the questions

3 hours ago, ovinomanc3r said:

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.

Does the wording of Most Wanted, say except squadrons? no it doesn't, and yet they changed the way the card works.

This is no different.

Its different by virtue of the fact that Most Wanted was not an Email telling us how to apply the Rules we have.

It was an Errata that changed the wording.

What we have here, is an Email Telling us to to apply the Rules we have. Not to Change the Rules.

It is different.

And it's not possible that we will see as such when they release the next FAQ/Errata?

And Dras there are no comprehensive rules for Snipe, except you can make an attack at range 2, now he just clarified some more of the rules for Snipe.

I mean it's not like they don't change their minds on things.

It's also entirely possible that he has made a mistake, but he is a FFG/Asmodee employee who is allowed to answer questions of this nature, and as such until we hear differently, Snipe works how he told us it does.

And its certainly not the first time I've seen a response that I thought was an error.

No, but it does put in question wether Snipe is an Attack or not. Or wether there is some sub-category of "Special Attack" that is not enumerated.

Because we can make attacks against targets that are in range (distance 1) and not engaging us. Even if were Engaged.

There are no "Comprehensive Rules" for Snipe? Then what are the Rules for Snipe, if not Comprehensive? I mean, they were given to us, as the sum total of the rules in question... You can't argue that "You can't seen everything yet. But here you go, play it." is the way Rules are Written. Marketing, yes. But not rules.

Errata is different, inso much that it states - literally - add to and/or replace with original text with this.

Rules interpretations don't do anything to the original text. They tell us how to interpret it.

IF this is how it is to be interpreted, then yes, there is indeed behind-the-scenes rules that we are not privvy to - such as a distinction between a Regular attack and a "Special" attack such as Snipe. The question is thus asked, does that extend to th e"Other" somewhat "Non-regular and thus special" attacks we have, such as Counter. Do Counter attacks actually count as attacks, or as special attacks? What other rulesa re modified by special attacks.

This is my can of worms statement. When I say "if you do this, you open other cans of worms" - this is a telling nature of it.

I'm not saying its wrong. Fundamentally, until we get more information either direction, we have to take it as right... But its a right that invites us to ask more questions and ignore previous precedences - or at the very least, hold our breaths until more information is given, which really, makes it only half an answer at best.

23 minutes ago, TheEasternKing said:

Does the wording of Most Wanted, say except squadrons? no it doesn't, and yet they changed the way the card works.

This is no different.

Somehow your compares are a off today .

IF they errata snipe and change the text to: "Snipe X. (unless you are engaged you may attack squadrons at distance 2....)".
Than your compare to most wanted is fitting.

IF the text would have been from begin: "Snipe X. (unless you are engaged you may attack squadrons at distance 2....)".
Than your compare with Ackbar would fit.

But right now they just say snipe does not work, because there is a rule (the one we had to change/fix in the FAQ to fix the problem with obstacles...).
And now we have two cases that are ruled different from each other even when they the similar.
This is what cause confusion.

Boo to the ruling. Boo and hiss.

I think that Michael maybe answered this without giving it the thought needed, to take another mail out and advance with some other work. What gives me this thought is this:

When a squadron attacks, it must attack an engaged squadron if possible rather than an enemy ship (Rules Reference, p6, Engagement). So, setting aside Escort, Sabre Squadron can still only attack the squadron that it is engaged with while it is engaged. If Sabre Squadron is unengaged, it can perform a Snipe attack.

In the part I set in yellow he seems to be saying: "what you're asking is already in the RRG, please re-read this sentence"
And we all know that that sentence as it is doesn't answer the question at all.
My point is that I see highly possible that this answer would be rectified in the FAQ.

In any case, I submitted this:

In light of the recent ruling on Snipe and Engagement:

When a squadron attacks, it must attack an engaged squadron if possible rather than an enemy ship (Rules Reference, p6, Engagement). So, setting aside Escort, Sabre Squadron can still only attack the squadron that it is engaged with while it is engaged. If Sabre Squadron is unengaged, it can perform a Snipe attack.

--

Previously, we had an Email (And FAQ) answer that stated that, if a Squadron had 2 Enemies at Distance 1, say both were A-Wings, but one was Obscured by an Asteroid - and thus, not Engaging you, you *COULD* still attack the Squadron that was behind the Asteroid (as it was a Legal Target at Distance one), even though there was another Squadron Engaging You.

--
My Question is thus clarification - does this mean that Snipe is "Special" somewhat in the fact that you must not be Engaged (And thus, not even Intel/HEAVY would help), or is this just a matter of the other Rule should also be overturned by this ruling?

Apologies for being the Trouble...

.......

So we'll see, with any luck.

What did you sign it as?

That depends.

How much would you share for me from the Guess Drasnighta's Real name pool?

At least half.

12 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

That depends.

How much would you share for me from the Guess Drasnighta's Real name pool?

Spoilers: it's hidden in plain sight. I just stumbled across it the other day and smacked myself for not thinking of it earlier.

2 hours ago, TheEasternKing said:

Does the wording of Most Wanted, say except squadrons? no it doesn't, and yet they changed the way the card works.

This is no different.

I know what the answer says. I just said that is curious that a heavy squadron prevents from sniping but doesn't prevent from attacking ship.

It is curiously too that while Corran is engaged he can attack a squadron at distance 1 inside of an obstacle (not engaged with) but cannot snipe when the answer based its point on engagement, not on distance.

I am curious if Corran will be able to snipe a squadron inside of an obstacle while engaged (he couldn'y right now) or if he will be able to snipe while is at distance 1 of a squadron but not engaged (he could right now).

With the rule as written had no problem and even the faq about squadron obstructed follow the actual rule as the only thing you cannot attack while engaged were ships.

Now we have something like:

When a (engaged) squadron attacks, it must attack an engaged
squadron or at distance 1 if possible rather than an enemy ship or sniping.

Cause now you can shoot non engaged squadron as long as they are at distance 1 but you cannot snipe. And I don't want to know what could happen if some genius give us a character that give friendly squadron distance 2 while attacking squadrons.

1 hour ago, Madaghmire said:

At least half.

I'll give you half his name for half.

Paul H...

And here's Cninj, ruining the party by giving stuff away for free.

... That was for the World Cup Garm Ruling Crack, wasn't it?

2 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

... That was for the World Cup Garm Ruling Crack, wasn't it?

That is how "I know..."

Your secret is safe with me...

4 hours ago, Drasnighta said:

No, but it does put in question wether Snipe is an Attack or not. Or wether there is some sub-category of "Special Attack" that is not enumerated.

Because we can make attacks against targets that are in range (distance 1) and not engaging us. Even if were Engaged.

There are no "Comprehensive Rules" for Snipe? Then what are the Rules for Snipe, if not Comprehensive? I mean, they were given to us, as the sum total of the rules in question... You can't argue that "You can't seen everything yet. But here you go, play it." is the way Rules are Written. Marketing, yes. But not rules.

Errata is different, inso much that it states - literally - add to and/or replace with original text with this.

Rules interpretations don't do anything to the original text. They tell us how to interpret it.

IF this is how it is to be interpreted, then yes, there is indeed behind-the-scenes rules that we are not privvy to - such as a distinction between a Regular attack and a "Special" attack such as Snipe. The question is thus asked, does that extend to th e"Other" somewhat "Non-regular and thus special" attacks we have, such as Counter. Do Counter attacks actually count as attacks, or as special attacks? What other rulesa re modified by special attacks.

This is my can of worms statement. When I say "if you do this, you open other cans of worms" - this is a telling nature of it.

I'm not saying its wrong. Fundamentally, until we get more information either direction, we have to take it as right... But its a right that invites us to ask more questions and ignore previous precedences - or at the very least, hold our breaths until more information is given, which really, makes it only half an answer at best.

I agree with everything you say, hopefully they will clarify it properly in the FAQ/Errata.

All I was saying was I don't find it terrible to accept that they have decided that if you are engaged, you cannot Snipe.

Just now, TheEasternKing said:

I agree with everything you say, hopefully they will clarify it properly in the FAQ/Errata.it is no different to not being able to fire at a ship if you are engaged with no heavy squadrons

All I was saying was I don't find it terrible to accept that they have decided that if you are engaged, you cannot Snipe.

My biggest issue with it is just the big can of worms it opens by being inconsistent with RAW and comparable prior rulings. I don't use it much (and will carry on not using it even more if this isn't reversed), so it doesn't impact me too much one way or the other, so assuming all of the far-reaching effects are addressed in the FAQ if this does make it that far, I don't care either.

But as it stands right now, it's a bad ruling.

3 minutes ago, Ardaedhel said:

My biggest issue with it is just the big can of worms it opens by being inconsistent with RAW and comparable prior rulings. I don't use it much (and will carry on not using it even more if this isn't reversed), so it doesn't impact me too much one way or the other, so assuming all of the far-reaching effects are addressed in the FAQ if this does make it that far, I don't care either.

But as it stands right now, it's a bad ruling.

Yes and I can see why it is.

I was trying to look at it as a whole, and hope it is clarified. But it can just as easily be overturned aka X-17 vrs Adv Proj.

For me the best solution would be you cannot Snipe if engaged, but Heavy does not prevent Snipe, and again with a but, I can see why maybe the powers that be won't include that exclusion because Intel can make anyone Heavy.

nvm I reread Snipe! and do not need what I asked answering. lol

22 hours ago, TheEasternKing said:

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.

i like that, i think that balances out snipe... your engaged with someone and want to snipe someone else? then drop in a hawk and then move out of engagement and snipe away.. then as you mentioned if you are not engaged with anyone and have 2 squads in your snipe scope in range 2, if one of them has escort guess what escort won't work... i like the balance, it compliments Armada game meta.