Can you check range/arc for FAA and then choose not to use it since it is a "may"?

Card: After you execute a maneuver, if you did not overlap a ship or obstacle and there are no enemy ships inside your firing arc at range 1-3, you may perform a free boost or barrel roll action.

From FAQ, ships may use the range ruler to check range and firing arc:

• When a player declares a ship’s ability that requires another ship (or ships) to be at a certain range, the player trying to resolve the ability can measure range from their ship to any valid ships before resolving the ability

And from the TFA rulebook:

• Unless a card ability uses the word “may” or has the “Action:” or “Attack:” headers, the ability is mandatory and must be resolved.

To me that means you can declare the ability, measure, and then do not have to resolve the ability because of the may clause, but wanted to see what others thought.

As long if you keep your range ruler inside the firing arc.... It aint beardy. If you take oppertunity to check all needed info for that check and measure all cheesy ranges for other purpose. It s beardy.

But you do not have to boost or barrel roll if you have no one inside range and firing arc. And you must check.

2 minutes ago, D34d guru said:

As long if you keep your range ruler inside the firing arc.... It aint beardy. If you take oppertunity to check all needed info for that check and measure all cheesy ranges for other purpose. It s beardy.

So I should shave the astromech?

Wax em while at it

Per the FAQ and how this card is written, yes you can measure before performing the action. The keyword being MAY, as you stated. You are measuring to even see if you can use the ability. Now, you might be careful how you declare what you are doing... if you were to see, "I am going to boost or roll...." then measure, your opponent can say you are locked into the action.

53 minutes ago, D34d guru said:

As long if you keep your range ruler inside the firing arc.... It aint beardy. If you take oppertunity to check all needed info for that check and measure all cheesy ranges for other purpose. It s beardy.

I don’t appreciate you using a form of the word beard in a derogatory fashion. Beards are practical and glorious.

As for the rules answer: The facts in your answer are muddled by the way you blended in your opinion.

Facts:

- Flight-Assist requires a measurement of range and arc to determine if the ability can resolve.

- The rules explicitly permit checking range to any ship for card abilities with a range requirement. (See “Measuring Range” on page 6 of FAQ)

Opinion:

- When using a card like Flight-Assist, checking range to a ship obviously outside of firing arc is gaming the system. Not technically illegal, but it might annoy your opponent.

18 minutes ago, jmswood said:

As for the rules answer: The facts in your answer are muddled by the way you blended in your opinion.

Facts:

- Flight-Assist requires a measurement of range and arc to determine if the ability can resolve.

- The rules explicitly permit checking range to any ship for card abilities with a range requirement. (See “Measuring Range” on page 6 of FAQ)

Opinion:

- When using a card like Flight-Assist, checking range to a ship obviously outside of firing arc is gaming the system. Not technically illegal, but it might annoy your opponent.

Players get annoyed by a lot of things, last night I had an opponent literally screaming at me because I had a TLT in my list. All I care about is what's legal and what's not.

Sounds like my case is air-tight and you all begrudgingly agree, awesome. Thanks guys, your expertise and insight is much appreciated.

All of the above seems legit. In a nutshell, every time after you move, you can put your range ruler in front of your ship and say "Checking for FAA." My take:

• Perfectly Acceptable
  • Checking range to see if a ship is in or out of R3.
  • Checking range to see if a ship is in or out of of arc.
• Cheesy but fair
  • Checking range to a ship that is CLEARLY in your arc and within Range 3 (i.e. jousting position)
  • Checking range when you clearly can't complete a barrel roll or boost (too much traffic and/or obstacles)
  • Checking range to a ship that seems to be in arc, but is CLEARLY out of your firing range (after all, a boost MIGHT put you at R3, right?)
• A little shady
  • Measuring before you say why (are you checking for FAA or Target Locking?)
• Dude, no, stop
  • Checking range to a ship that's CLEARLY out of your firing arc
  • Checking range/arc when you're stressed (without Primed Thrusters)

Because of the way the FAA is specifically worded, I'm quite certain that placing the range ruler anywhere outside of your firing arc is against the rules, and probably cheating if the player insists that its OK.

FAA measures a specific zone to see if there is anything within that zone, it does not allow you to measure to a ship that is outside of your arc to confirm its out of arc, a subtle but very important difference.

1 hour ago, emeraldbeacon said:

Cheesy but fair

Checking range to a ship that is CLEARLY in your arc and within Range 3 (i.e. jousting position)

Dude, no, stop

Checking range to a ship that's CLEARLY out of your firing arc

My objections to these points have to do with rules in general, not Flight-Assist Astro specifically.

1. Range and Arc are separate principles measured separately.

2. When checking arc, there is never a requirement that an object be “clearly” in or out of arc before checking. The purpose of checking arc is to clearly determine if an object is in or out. You ask the question, then find the answer. You don’t guess an answer then ask a question.

Applying to Flight-Assist astromech specifically: The card uses both range and arc to establish a go/no-go prerequisite. Arc and range are still not measured at the same time, and they are not assumed prior to measuring.

1 hour ago, Mace Windu said:

Because of the way the FAA is specifically worded, I'm quite certain that placing the range ruler anywhere outside of your firing arc is against the rules, and probably cheating if the player insists that its OK.

FAA measures a specific zone to see if there is anything within that zone, it does not allow you to measure to a ship that is outside of your arc to confirm its out of arc, a subtle but very important difference.

This is well articulated.

If you do it in the order of wording on the card there is a logical sequence. By that logic, a player using Flight-Assist should determine if any ships are in firing arc, then determine if any of those ships are in range. That’s how I personally play it, and I recommend other players do the same.

1 hour ago, jmswood said:

If you do it in the order of wording on the card there is a logical sequence. By that logic, a player using Flight-Assist should determine if any ships are in firing arc, then determine if any of those ships are in range. That’s how I personally play it, and I recommend other players do the same.

Excellent point. First, a check for arc with a laser or range ruler (which would coincidentally give you some range information, oops ), then an explicit range measurement.

I have not looked to deep (yet).

But would this not be the same As a target lock? You declare you want to use faa you check range and arc and if nothing is in range or arc you have to do the boost/roll. Just like how target lock works.

The "may" means imo you don't have to do it. But as soon as you decide you want to and then start checking you are locked in. Bb-8 says you may preform a barrel roll but as soon as you put that template down to see if it's possible you are committed to doing the barrel roll.

4 hours ago, Icelom said:

But would this not be the same As a target lock? You declare you want to use faa you check range and arc and if nothing is in range or arc you have to do the boost/roll. Just like how target lock works.

The "may" means imo you don't have to do it. But as soon as you decide you want to and then start checking you are locked in. Bb-8 says you may preform a barrel roll but as soon as you put that template down to see if it's possible you are committed to doing the barrel roll.

There are some key differences. For Target Lock, you first declare you want to acquire it on ship X. Second , you measure to see if you're in viable range (given whatever other upgrades you might have, or shenanigans your opponent pulls). Finally , based on the results of the second step, one of two things happens: you're either in range, and acquire the lock; or the action fails, and you can choose anything else.

For FAA, you go through the same progression, but there's a key conditional clause at the beginning (if X, you may Y) : In this case, if "No enemy ships in your firing arc at Range 1-3," you may "boost/barrel roll" . If you don't meet that condition, you cannot use the rest of the card. To that end, you have to check to see if the card is active or not, by measuring range in arc. Based on the results of that measurement, you determine the functionality of the card (either it works or doesn't)... at which point, you have the option of following the rest of the card. If you choose to use the rest of FAA, the Boost or Barrel Roll action follows the same progression as target locks. Declare a direction, measure for a fit, then execute the move.

FAA is actually very similar to the way BB-8 operates... except for the fact that you already have perfect knowledge of whether or not the "if" statement (green maneuver) is fulfilled. FAA just requires that one extra step to check the "if" statement, before you may proceed to the "may" part of the card.

10 minutes ago, emeraldbeacon said:

There are some key differences. For Target Lock, you first declare you want to acquire it on ship X. Second , you measure to see if you're in viable range (given whatever other upgrades you might have, or shenanigans your opponent pulls). Finally , based on the results of the second step, one of two things happens: you're either in range, and acquire the lock; or the action fails, and you can choose anything else.

For FAA, you go through the same progression, but there's a key conditional clause at the beginning (if X, you may Y) : In this case, if "No enemy ships in your firing arc at Range 1-3," you may "boost/barrel roll" . If you don't meet that condition, you cannot use the rest of the card. To that end, you have to check to see if the card is active or not, by measuring range in arc. Based on the results of that measurement, you determine the functionality of the card (either it works or doesn't)... at which point, you have the option of following the rest of the card. If you choose to use the rest of FAA, the Boost or Barrel Roll action follows the same progression as target locks. Declare a direction, measure for a fit, then execute the move.

FAA is actually very similar to the way BB-8 operates... except for the fact that you already have perfect knowledge of whether or not the "if" statement (green maneuver) is fulfilled. FAA just requires that one extra step to check the "if" statement, before you may proceed to the "may" part of the card.

You are probably right. I do not really like it but i cant see a fault in your argument.

Looked through the relevant stuff in the rules and your conclusion is the same as mine (even if i dont like it). Thanks for posting to help me through the logic.

When the NEXT faq comes out, I’m sure they will disallow this. I ruled at the MN regional that it wasn’t allowed. This card is just poorly worded and therefore you can find some wiggle room for gaming the system. Sometimes you just have to RAI instead of RAW.

3 hours ago, tortugatron said:

When the NEXT faq comes out, I’m sure they will disallow this. I ruled at the MN regional that it wasn’t allowed. This card is just poorly worded and therefore you can find some wiggle room for gaming the system. Sometimes you just have to RAI instead of RAW.

Why do you think the card is poorly worded? There are four restrictions on the use of the card. No shots out of arc, no overlap, no one in arc and at range three. The first two don't require a range or arc measurement but the last two do. How was the player to know if the boost or barrel roll from FAA was legal or not?

Plus, how is anyone to know what was intended? Granted, some cards are open for interpretation but this doesn't seem to be one of those.

Edit: Check the FAQ on page 6 under MEASURING RANGE. The prerequisites for using the FAA is one of the situations where it's allowed.

7 hours ago, Stoneface said:

Why do you think the card is poorly worded? There are four restrictions on the use of the card. No shots out of arc, no overlap, no one in arc and at range three. The first two don't require a range or arc measurement but the last two do. How was the player to know if the boost or barrel roll from FAA was legal or not?

Plus, how is anyone to know what was intended? Granted, some cards are open for interpretation but this doesn't seem to be one of those.

Edit: Check the FAQ on page 6 under MEASURING RANGE. The prerequisites for using the FAA is one of the situations where it's allowed.

Maybe poorly formatted then. There’s no way FFG intended for you to be able to check Range whenever the **** you want. If you check range for FAA and no one's in range, you should be forced to attempt a boost or barrel roll. I can see gaming the system by wanting to barrel roll but being unable to. If you clearly can’t fit a barrel roll in but you check for FAA, I guess that’s fine. It’s basicallt checking for a target lock that you know you aren’t in range for then.

1 hour ago, tortugatron said:

Maybe poorly formatted then. There’s no way FFG intended for you to be able to check Range whenever the **** you want. If you check range for FAA and no one's in range, you should be forced to attempt a boost or barrel roll. I can see gaming the system by wanting to barrel roll but being unable to. If you clearly can’t fit a barrel roll in but you check for FAA, I guess that’s fine. It’s basicallt checking for a target lock that you know you aren’t in range for then.

Poorly formatted I'll give you.

As someone mentioned above, clearly isn't defined anywhere in the rules. Some players have a much better sense for range and arc than others. I fall into the latter group. I'll bet that you've had games where, when range was measured, the difference between in and out of range was thousandths of an inch. Something that's impossible to eyeball. The same applies to arcs. When checked, arc barely hit or missed the back edge of the base. And to doing barrel rolls.

I'd like to think that most players are honest and don't "game the system" but I'm not naive to think all players are that honest. There are some that have to win for whatever reason and cheat consistently in little ways. Two ways to deal with them is not play them in casual environments or eject them in a tournament setting.

Until an FAQ is released, the wording on the card and in the rules is pretty clear. As a T.O. myself I can understand the frustration of not being able to do something about a player that legally games the system.

I don't think it's our job to interpret intent. Especially when the wording on the card falls within what's mentioned in the RRG.

6 minutes ago, Stoneface said:

Poorly formatted I'll give you.

As someone mentioned above, clearly isn't defined anywhere in the rules. Some players have a much better sense for range and arc than others. I fall into the latter group. I'll bet that you've had games where, when range was measured, the difference between in and out of range was thousandths of an inch. Something that's impossible to eyeball. The same applies to arcs. When checked, arc barely hit or missed the back edge of the base. And to doing barrel rolls.

I'd like to think that most players are honest and don't "game the system" but I'm not naive to think all players are that honest. There are some that have to win for whatever reason and cheat consistently in little ways. Two ways to deal with them is not play them in casual environments or eject them in a tournament setting.

Until an FAQ is released, the wording on the card and in the rules is pretty clear. As a T.O. myself I can understand the frustration of not being able to do something about a player that legally games the system.

I don't think it's our job to interpret intent. Especially when the wording on the card falls within what's mentioned in the RRG.

The rub here is the "may" part of the card.. per the rules (as a fellow TO you know this but just for reading's sake)...

"When a player declares a ship’s ability that requires another ship (or ships) to be at a certain range, the player trying to resolve the ability can measure range from their ship to any valid ships before resolving the ability."

I was about to say that once you declare FFA's ability you are locked into a Boost or BR, but since the card says "May," there is nothing stopping a player from measuring range and then saying they are not going to Boost or BR. The one thing we should look for is once they find that a ship IS in arc, then should not be able to check the other arcs.

10 hours ago, shaunmerritt said:

The one thing we should look for is once they find that a ship IS in arc, then should not be able to check the other arcs.

You're right. You can almost make book that someone will try to get a little extra info from legitimate measuring.

Unfortunately, that's life. You can almost always find the one guy that has just got to win.

MINOR THREAD NECROMANCY!

Has there ever been a consensus or official ruling on how Flight Assist Astromech had to be used? Really, I can see three main ways of handling it...

• CHECK FIRST : You may check for eligible range/arc before deciding whether or not to use your free reposition (boost or barrel roll) action.
  • The most open & powerful interpretation.
  • Gives ships with FAA an extra information-gathering step, after which they may choose any reposition they want.
• DECLARE FIRST : You have to declare that you're using FAA before checking, then you must execute either a boost or a barrel roll if you can (but you cannot choose not to).
  • The interpretation that introduces the most risk.
  • You have to commit to an FAA reposition before you know if you can, and then, you MUST adjust your position somehow - even if the end position is less ideal.
• SPECIFY FIRST : When you wish to use FAA, you must declare a specific reposition action (boost or barrel roll, and direction) before you may check for FAA. You must then attempt that reposition; if you cannot, you are free to choose a different action or direction.
  • The most limiting interpretation.
  • Since you have to choose a direction first, one could always select an impossible reposition action (barrel roll into a bump, boost onto a rock) to gain information, then decide what option/s to take.

Your thoughts?

No official position has been taken

Flight-Assist Astromech:

1) [easies part of the card - simple and to the point] "You cannot attack ships outside your firing arc..."

2) "...After you execute a maneuver, if you did not overlap a ship or obstacle..." [okay, also easy, clear trigger - no arguments]
3) "...and there are no enemy ships inside your firing arc at range 1-3..." [Okay, this is where the contention begins. To determine this trigger (if all others conditions have been met), you must now measure to ships that could prevent the triggering condition]
4) "...you may perform a free boost or barrel roll action." [here the player chooses, if all conditions have been met and the ability triggers, to perform the free Boost or Barrel Roll]

Can you "abuse" this card to gain extra information, yes. Not much different than measuring for target lock on ships you are certain are out of range and noting rocks, arcs, etc. There are no guess range weapons or abilities (yet) in X-Wing, so meh, cheese maybe but RAW, it operates in a clear fashion.

57 minutes ago, SkullNBones said:

Can you "abuse" this card to gain extra information, yes. Not much different than measuring for target lock on ships you are certain are out of range and noting rocks, arcs, etc. There are no guess range weapons or abilities (yet) in X-Wing, so meh, cheese maybe but RAW, it operates in a clear fashion.

The problem is, there is still some question as to what you have to declare before checking range/arc to enemy ships. Some camps (such as myself) think that there is no requirement to declare intent to use the card; rather, you simply have to state that you're checking to see if it triggers, before deciding what to do. Others think that, before you measure to check, you MUST declare an explicit intent to use the card if available. Still others think you have to fully declare the specific reposition action (boost/barrel roll/direction) before checking (range/arc) to see if you're allowed (boost/barrel roll fit) to attempt it.

1 minute ago, emeraldbeacon said:

The problem is, there is still some question as to what you have to declare before checking range/arc to enemy ships. Some camps (such as myself) think that there is no requirement to declare intent to use the card; rather, you simply have to state that you're checking to see if it triggers, before deciding what to do. Others think that, before you measure to check, you MUST declare an explicit intent to use the card if available. Still others think you have to fully declare the specific reposition action (boost/barrel roll/direction) before checking (range/arc) to see if you're allowed (boost/barrel roll fit) to attempt it.

My only answer to this is, I can declare I am using the card, check all conditions and then still not have to take the action because of the "may" distinction on the card (or more importantly where in the card text the "may" occurs.

IF the card said "You may execute a BR or Boost, if you did not overlap and there are no ships within arc then..." I would say you had to declare intent before measuring. Who knows, maybe if this continues to be a point of contention, it will be changed to this.