40 minutes ago, thanosazlin said:

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.

I'd prefer if Heavy did not prevent Snipe. I'm fine with normal engagement, but the entire point of Heavy was to allow enemy squads to do whatever they want.

20 hours ago, Megatronrex said:

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?

I would go with "Yes it can." You are not required to attack Instigator's phantom squadrons.

7 minutes ago, Frimmel said:

I would go with "Yes it can." You are not required to attack Instigator's phantom squadrons.

However you are never required to attack Instigators phantom squadrons because you can't at anytime.

I would say no because you can't Snipe while engaged regardless if you are engaged with real or imaginary squadrons.

14 minutes ago, Frimmel said:

I would go with "Yes it can." You are not required to attack Instigator's phantom squadrons.

3 minutes ago, Vetnor said:

However you are never required to attack Instigators phantom squadrons because you can't at anytime.

I would say no because you can't Snipe while engaged regardless if you are engaged with real or imaginary squadrons.

I think Vetnor is right but I wish Frimmel was. Seems very similar to being engaged with Rudor and at distance one of Instigator so I would assume just like that situation that my only legal target would be Instigator.

21 hours ago, Megatronrex said:

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?

Since there's really no rules basis for why engagement should prevent Snipe in the first place... It's pretty much impossible to say.

5 minutes ago, Vetnor said:

However you are never required to attack Instigators phantom squadrons because you can't at anytime.

I would say no because you can't Snipe while engaged regardless if you are engaged with real or imaginary squadrons.

I would also say no, but for other reasons.
Mainly because of the mail from Michael Gernes.

Quote

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.

And if you check the FAQ for the Instigator, it says:

Quote

Squadrons can attack this ship if they are not engaged by an actual enemy squadron without heavy in the play area.

There is no word that allows him to attack with snipe on other squadrons. And related to Michaels ruling, you cannot snipe when engaged.

Like many said: The ruling was stupid not so smart and cause way more problems.
Now you need to change the Instigator text in the faq as well (if sniping is ok when at distance 1 to the Instigator). And all other ruling that solved engagement. Instead of just saying that snipe is just a normal attack and follow all the rules for it they messed it up with this "simple" cannot snipe when engaged.
And with the next keyword that allow an attack you will have to do the same again and again.

I think the best thing to do is to wait until the FAQ comes out. I'd be surprised if there are no entries regarding Snipe in it, and we clearly don't know what the intent of how Snipe is supposed to be used.

Plus, this is just an email and no one is obliged to follow it.

And the rule quoted makes no sense in the context of squad engagement because it refers to attacking ships.

There are too many inconsistencies with the entire thing to make any sense of it.

i think it makes perfect sense. the whole concept is around squad engagement, maybe they should have worded the original RR line differently When a squadron attacks, it must attack an engaged squadron if possible rather than an enemy ship (Rules Reference, p6, Engagement). i think the Meta of Armada is revolves around squads that are engaged must attack. but i give them benefit of the doubt, as they likely didn't have snipe in mind back then. yep i can't wait for the FAQ either

48 minutes ago, thanosazlin said:

i think it makes perfect sense. the whole concept is around squad engagement, maybe they should have worded the original RR line differently When a squadron attacks, it must attack an engaged squadron if possible rather than an enemy ship (Rules Reference, p6, Engagement). i think the Meta of Armada is revolves around squads that are engaged must attack. but i give them benefit of the doubt, as they likely didn't have snipe in mind back then. yep i can't wait for the FAQ either

The problem is that James Kniffen, who wrote the actual RRG, explicitly indicated that the only purpose of that rule is to protect ships (and therefore it does not apply if there are no ships present).

The rule doesn't say "it must attack an engaged squadron if possible." or "it must attack an engaged squadron if possible rather than any other target", it says "...rather than an enemy ship."

In other words: "If there is an engaged squadron, and it is a valid target for attack, then you cannot attack a ship". That's it, there are no other limitations implied. This was clarified by James.

But now Mr Gernes has taken the rule and used it out of context and in direct contradiction to its original intent which, I insist, has been explicitly identified by the person who wote it.

2 minutes ago, DiabloAzul said:

The problem is that James Kniffen, who wrote the actual RRG, explicitly indicated that the only purpose of that rule is to protect ships (and therefore it does not apply if there are no ships present).

The rule doesn't say "it must attack an engaged squadron if possible." or "it must attack an engaged squadron if possible rather than any other target", it says "...rather than an enemy ship."

In other words: "If there is an engaged squadron, and it is a valid target for attack, then you cannot attack a ship". That's it, there are no other limitations implied. This was clarified by James.

But now Mr Gernes has taken the rule and used it out of context and in direct contradiction to its original intent which, I insist, has been explicitly identified by the person who wote it.

Dejavu

19 hours 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.

This is what worries me. Attack Wing went to **** for two reasons, and one of them was "Inability to interpret the card text" as two identical situations would resolve differently, because the developers said so. Here, bonuses stacked. Here, using exactly the same words, card type, action, they didn't stack. Why? Because the developers said so. It was impossible to do anything without reading through the 70-pages of questions on BGG. (no official FAQ)

Please, FFG. Don't do this. I don't really care about Snipe, nor Instigator, but make words mean things. Currently, I can parse either ruling, but not both together, without "because they said so."

STAW has an official FAQ and rules forum. It is also coming out with a digital rules book to incorporate needed updates. It did go to crap when the Borg arrived and it took about 6 months for them to make serious changes to tournament/listbuilding rules and to nerf the Borg. The serious issues were addressed. It is certainly far from perfect though.

Armada can can take some lessons from STAW and from XWMG though. They haven't messed up balance anywhere near as badly as XWMG or STAW were at different periods

Michael Gernes is overworked. Dras for official rules guru.

Except on rapid launch. Team Orange baby.

33 minutes ago, Madaghmire said:

Michael Gernes is overworked. Dras for official rules guru.

Except on rapid launch. Team Orange baby.

I thought Dras was Team Orange too?

15 minutes ago, Truthiness said:

I thought Dras was Team Orange too?

I thought Dras was carefully avoiding espousing one side over the other, hence the ambivalent coloring scheme?

He definitely made a ruling for the Vassal World Cup though...

2 hours ago, Church14 said:

It did go to crap when the Borg arrived and it took about 6 months for them to make serious changes to tournament/listbuilding rules and to nerf the Borg.

Would you like to guess how many months it took for my FLGS to go from regular monthly tournaments to zero purchases of ships? The fact that I was unaware they had finally released an FAQ should give you a hint.

2 hours ago, CaribbeanNinja said:

He definitely made a ruling for the Vassal World Cup though...

Under Duress.

1 hour ago, Drasnighta said:

Under Duress.

I love getting under the duress.

Wait, I thought squadrons were not ships, and rules that specify ships do not include squadrons.... so if the new snipe rule throws that out, how does that now affect Ackbar or sw-7s? How does that affect bomber?

Snipe and squadron engagement rules seem pretty clear as written.. this isn't a ruling on ambiguous wording, it's a question that was asked by someone who did not follow RAW, resulting in an unofficial response that completely reversed the RAW.

I would say until it's errata'd or FAQ'ed snipe can shoot a target at range 2 unless engaged by escort... unofficial email ruling that doesn't take into account it's breaking core basic terminology and rules should be suspect.

Well, its an Official email ruling. In the case that they're as about as official as it gets - You ask the question formally, and that's how its replied to.

Its just wether you care for that sort of thing or not, because the only thing that would be any more official is an FAQ.

And you would expect that, unless there is some new information between now and then, Michael Gerns would put the Email Ruling he made into the FAQ.

I didn't read the answer. I won't read the answer.

Please, don't post the answer anymore.

I'm OK with the answer, like I said before, engagement means your squadrons are in a dogfight. They're too busy evading, jinking and manoeuvring to avoid being shot to take the time to line up a shot on a 15m-20m target which is at extreme range.

This answer brings Snipe in line with the FAQ which states that when you are engaged you must attack an squadron at range 1.

Allowing to Snipe while engaged would be very "gamey" and not make sense unless they allowed you too double your attack die against them with they snipe while engaged.

If you are bringing RPG aspects for explanation of rules, you need to see the whole picture .

Snipe Pilotes are trained to be able to attack even on long range. It is a normal attack for them. They are able to shot an eye of a Bantha while they are distracted. They are trained for it.
Such a lousy pilot that is flying around does not block a sniper pilot from doing his shot on long distance.

Or the other way:
Just look at Dengar. He is so good, that he can distract everyone else this well, that they do not hinder enemy pilots from attacking ships. Just with him in the fight, does mean that the pilots suddenly does not have to be busy with evading?
So why should sniper pilots not be able to ignore what happens around them and just do their special as well.

Rules and RPG aspects do not mix so well.
RPG mode on: My pilot is so well trained, he was best in the academy. He should get one dice more for all attacks, and at least 2 hull more. As drawback he has two points less charisma, just because he is a bit selfish and arrogant (the pilot, not me).
And when you check the novel, he is even a pilot of the rogue squadron, so he should have a scatter and brace token (at least). They are the best of the best, so they deserve it.

50 minutes ago, Tokra said:

If you are bringing RPG aspects for explanation of rules, you need to see the whole picture .

Snipe Pilotes are trained to be able to attack even on long range. It is a normal attack for them. They are able to shot an eye of a Bantha while they are distracted. They are trained for it.
Such a lousy pilot that is flying around does not block a sniper pilot from doing his shot on long distance.

Or the other way:
Just look at Dengar. He is so good, that he can distract everyone else this well, that they do not hinder enemy pilots from attacking ships. Just with him in the fight, does mean that the pilots suddenly does not have to be busy with evading?
So why should sniper pilots not be able to ignore what happens around them and just do their special as well.

Rules and RPG aspects do not mix so well.
RPG mode on: My pilot is so well trained, he was best in the academy. He should get one dice more for all attacks, and at least 2 hull more. As drawback he has two points less charisma, just because he is a bit selfish and arrogant (the pilot, not me).
And when you check the novel, he is even a pilot of the rogue squadron, so he should have a scatter and brace token (at least). They are the best of the best, so they deserve it.

This has nothing to do with what I said, I wasn't referencing RPG.

The counter argument you could say is -

Even if they are engaged Bomber Pilots are trained to be able to target ships that are 800m to 1.5km long that is right in front of their nose. It is a normal attack for them. They are trained for it so why can't they do it while engaged?

Because they're too busy evading, jinking and manoeuvring to avoid being shot.