When a card effect says "at", such as the Upsilon with special deployment rules, or the Hyperwave Comm Scanner, does that mean "no farther than"? Which base edge of the "target" ship determines the range?

Rules Reference page 16 and FAQ page 5.

These documents can be downloaded from the X-wing main page if you don't have them.

16 minutes ago, Alekzanter said:

When a card effect says "at", such as the Upsilon with special deployment rules, or the Hyperwave Comm Scanner, does that mean "no farther than"? Which base edge of the "target" ship determines the range?

At is measured to the closest point, if it falls inside that range, then the ship is At that range.

Within checks the whole base, if the entirety of the base falls inside that range, then the ship is Within that range

So Lieutenant Dormitz and Hyperwave Comm Scanner only care about the closest point, that point must be "no farther than" but the rest of the base can extend beyond it.

3 hours ago, FireSpy said:

At is measured to the closest point, if it falls inside that range, then the ship is At that range.

Within checks the whole base, if the entirety of the base falls inside that range, then the ship is Within that range

So Lieutenant Dormitz and Hyperwave Comm Scanner only care about the closest point, that point must be "no farther than" but the rest of the base can extend beyond it.

If looking for simple descriptions "at" is only that closest range and is specifically looking at that range. I disagree with "within" means the ENTIRE ship needs to be inside of that range band but rather simplify it that some part of the ship needs to be inside of that range band. "Within R2" allows for use against a target that is at R1 but will also allow for a ship that is at R2 even if some of it isn't fully inside the zone.

9 minutes ago, StevenO said:

I disagree with "within" means the ENTIRE ship needs to be inside of that range band

"Within: A ship is within a specified range if the entirety of its base falls inside that range."

10 minutes ago, StevenO said:

If looking for simple descriptions "at" is only that closest range and is specifically looking at that range. I disagree with "within" means the ENTIRE ship needs to be inside of that range band but rather simplify it that some part of the ship needs to be inside of that range band. "Within R2" allows for use against a target that is at R1 but will also allow for a ship that is at R2 even if some of it isn't fully inside the zone.

The FAQ specifically states "wholly" within and the Rules Reference states that the entirety of the base in within that range. If any part falls outside, it is not "within."

12 minutes ago, StevenO said:

If looking for simple descriptions "at" is only that closest range and is specifically looking at that range. I disagree with "within" means the ENTIRE ship needs to be inside of that range band but rather simplify it that some part of the ship needs to be inside of that range band. "Within R2" allows for use against a target that is at R1 but will also allow for a ship that is at R2 even if some of it isn't fully inside the zone.

@skotothalamos quoted the exact wording. I've always assumed (and I could be wrong) that every range band is a full circle, and not a donut, meaning that a ship within range 1 will always be within range 2-3 as well.

2 minutes ago, skotothalamos said:

"Within: A ship is within a specified range if the entirety of its base falls inside that range."

Is there any ability that specifies "within?"

1 hour ago, USCGrad90 said:

Is there any ability that specifies "within?"

The only thing I know of is the asteroid setup of Epic...

and deployment

4 hours ago, USCGrad90 said:

Is there any ability that specifies "within?"

And that could be why I have trouble with "within" as it applies to so few things.

13 hours ago, StevenO said:

And that could be why I have trouble with "within" as it applies to so few things.

I guess if they ever come out with something that says you have to be "within" a certain range (like 2 or 3) it would be a point for discussion and would make that a very restrictive ability, based on the way it is currently defined.

Just like "Touching" does not necessarily mean physically touching, terms in the game do not necessarily mean what they do in the normal use of the words.

6 hours ago, USCGrad90 said:

I guess if they ever come out with something that says you have to be "within" a certain range (like 2 or 3) it would be a point for discussion and would make that a very restrictive ability, based on the way it is currently defined.

Just like "Touching" does not necessarily mean physically touching, terms in the game do not necessarily mean what they do in the normal use of the words.

No kidding. If you had to be "within" the R3 band I'm seeing that as being very restrictive when no part of the ship could be beyond R3 yet no part of a ship could be inside the R3 and thus at R2.

On 6/5/2017 at 0:37 PM, muribundi said:

The only thing I know of is the asteroid setup of Epic...

Looking around online, it doesn't look like anyone actually follows this rule for Epic play. Is this something that is just ignored or is it the case of a writer mixing up "at" and "within"?

50 minutes ago, joeshmoe554 said:

Looking around online, it doesn't look like anyone actually follows this rule for Epic play. Is this something that is just ignored or is it the case of a writer mixing up "at" and "within"?

Neither. I think it's mostly a case of players who haven't read the rules carefully enough to know the difference between "at" and "within" going with the form of measuring they're most familiar with.

1 hour ago, joeshmoe554 said:

Looking around online, it doesn't look like anyone actually follows this rule for Epic play. Is this something that is just ignored or is it the case of a writer mixing up "at" and "within"?

Well, epic play is mostly "casual" stuff, so people can probably do whatever they want... So even if people don't play two obstacles withing range one of each other is do big deal. It can also be really hard to do with the biggest obstacle...

Its not that we don't follow that specific rule, its that its not only impractical but also some debris are too large to consider following that rule, it has very little impact on a game.

But yes, Dormitz "at" range 2 is incredibly far-reaching in Epic.

I don't think there are actually any combinations of obstacles that can't be placed in accordance with that rule.

Keep in mind that you don't have to be able to fit the range one ruler all the way over both of them. Just all the way over one and touching the other.

I can't speak for X-Wing Specifically, but generally, in Armada, where "AT" and "WITHIN" are similarly defined, you'll find that "WITHIN" is not given at a standard single band, but the Band Ranges, such as "WITHIN DISTANCE 1-2" rather than "2", as it is overly restrictive.

8 hours ago, Drasnighta said:

I can't speak for X-Wing Specifically, but generally, in Armada, where "AT" and "WITHIN" are similarly defined, you'll find that "WITHIN" is not given at a standard single band, but the Band Ranges, such as "WITHIN DISTANCE 1-2" rather than "2", as it is overly restrictive.

Well in X-Wing they are not simiarly defined. They are clearly defined and not the same at all.

18 hours ago, muribundi said:

Well, epic play is mostly "casual" stuff, so people can probably do whatever they want... So even if people don't play two obstacles withing range one of each other is do big deal. It can also be really hard to do with the biggest obstacle...

I've never played Epic, so in reading the rules, I see some interesting things:

A) 2 Asteroids placed "within" range 1 of each other. Based on the definition - that should mean that the Asteroid fits completely within the range 1 band of your ruler touching the edge of one asteroid.

B) Not "within" Range 1-2 of a player edge. Based on the definition - If I were to place both asteroids inside the Range 1-2 distance, with the edge of one of the tokens outside - they are not technically "within" that Range because they are not completely within that band. I think the intent is to keep them outside of the Range 1-2 distance, but this is an instance where the way it is written leaves room for argument.

C) Opponent placed tokens not "within" range 1-2 of previously set asteroids. Again, this is an argument where I could place asteroids very close to the other sets, with one edge just outside of range 2, and technically not be "within" range 1-2.

I also find it interesting that under step 7 of deployment rules, that they state ships must be placed "fully within" range 1-2 of the edge. This has implications that they are using the term "within" differently in Epic rules versus normal 100 point dogfight Xwing rules.