4 hours ago, Pooleman said:

You are simply following some of the same steps as a ranged attack for the purposes of resolving this effect.

See, this is ultimately the mistake you're making. Why are you only following some of the steps? Where does it tell you to do that, and which steps exactly does it tell you follow? (Those are rhetorical questions, just to be clear. It does not tell you to only perform some of the steps of an attack. It says to perform an attack. It does NOT say "perform steps 2-9 of an attack".)

Remember the two key principles of interpreting any rules:

A. Do what the rules/cards say.

B. Don't do what the rules/cards don't say.

If you are only performing some of the steps, you are violating principle B because you are doing something the rules did not tell you to do.

4 hours ago, Pooleman said:

You treat it as a ranged attack when it detonates for the purposes of applying cover, adding suppression, etc., but you aren’t performing a ranged attack when you detonate.

Again, why only for those purposes? Where does the rule tell you to do this? It literally says "Attacks made by an area weapon are ranged attacks." It does NOT say "Attacks made by an area weapon are ranged attacks for the purposes of [insert whatever you like here]." You are inserting a lot of information that just does not exist in the rules.

3 hours ago, nashjaee said:

See, this is ultimately the mistake you're making. Why are you only following some of the steps? Where does it tell you to do that, and which steps exactly does it tell you follow? (Those are rhetorical questions, just to be clear. It does not tell you to only perform some of the steps of an attack. It says to perform an attack. It does NOT say "perform steps 2-9 of an attack".)

Remember the two key principles of interpreting any rules:

A. Do what the rules/cards say.

B. Don't do what the rules/cards don't say.

If you are only performing some of the steps, you are violating principle B because you are doing something the rules did not tell you to do.

Again, why only for those purposes? Where does the rule tell you to do this? It literally says "Attacks made by an area weapon are ranged attacks." It does NOT say "Attacks made by an area weapon are ranged attacks for the purposes of [insert whatever you like here]." You are inserting a lot of information that just does not exist in the rules.

I am following the rules, and I am following them exactly from the book. The people who are saying you can’t detonate a charge around an engaged unit is the one making assumptions. Yes, they are ranged attacks, but a unit may not perform an “attack action” on an engaged unit. Detonating a charge is t an action. The rules describe detonate as an effect before they call it a charge. There really isn’t any ambiguity here.

2 hours ago, Pooleman said:

Yes, they are ranged attacks, but a unit may not perform an “attack action” on an engaged un  it

This is not correct. The exact rule is this, from the RRG, page 29:

"While a trooper unit is in a melee with another trooper unit, those units are engaged. A unit that is engaged cannot perform moves, cannot be displaced, cannot perform ranged attacks, and cannot be targeted by ranged attacks ."

It just say "attack", not "attack action".

3 hours ago, Lemmiwinks86 said:

This is not correct. The exact rule is this, from the RRG, page 29:

"While a trooper unit is in a melee with another trooper unit, those units are engaged. A unit that is engaged cannot perform moves, cannot be displaced, cannot perform ranged attacks, and cannot be targeted by ranged attacks ."

It just say "attack", not "attack action".

Symantics. Fine. But the charge doesn’t TARGET anything. It just goes off. A charge can be triggered by engaged units.

18 minutes ago, Pooleman said:

Symantics. Fine.

It's not just semantics. As you pointed out, "attacks" and "attack actions" are different things. They are not different words for the same thing.

19 minutes ago, Pooleman said:

But the charge doesn’t TARGET anything. 

Then what is it attacking?

1 hour ago, nashjaee said:

It's not just semantics. As you pointed out, "attacks" and "attack actions" are different things. They are not different words for the same thing.

Then what is it attacking?

It’s just dealing damage. This seems pretty simple to everyone I play with. You guys can play how ever you wish. Charges can be triggered after a friendly unit or enemy unit performs an action. If engaged units are in the blast radius they receive damage equal to the dice thrown as dictated by upgrade card associated with that charge. It’s really just that simple.

7 minutes ago, Pooleman said:

It’s just dealing damage. This seems pretty simple to everyone I play with. You guys can play how ever you wish. Charges can be triggered after a friendly unit or enemy unit performs an action. If engaged units are in the blast radius they receive damage equal to the dice thrown as dictated by upgrade card associated with that charge. It’s really just that simple.

Wait, just to be clear, are you saying you don't roll defense dice?

16 minutes ago, Pooleman said:

This seems pretty simple to everyone I play with.

I agree that it's more logical from a reality perspective and maybe because of that everyone you play with understands it that way, but it's not what the rules actually say.
Per the rules, when the charge detonates it performs a ranged attack against every unit at range 1 and in line of sight, but as engaged units cannot be targeted by ranged attacks, those attacks can't be made against them.

24 minutes ago, nashjaee said:

Wait, just to be clear, are you saying you don't roll defense dice?

What's clear is that he doesn't know or care what the rules are, he just plays how he and his friends feel things should work. That's not a problem, and obviously he's free to play the game however he wishes if his opponent goes along with it, but he shouldn't come here and try to tell us what the rules say when he, as I've already said, doesn't really know or care what they say.

15 minutes ago, arnoldrew said:

What's clear is that he doesn't know or care what the rules are, he just plays how he and his friends feel things should work. That's not a problem, and obviously he's free to play the game however he wishes if his opponent goes along with it, but he shouldn't come here and try to tell us what the rules say when he, as I've already said, doesn't really know or care what they say.

We just try to play logically. If two people or groups are within the blast radius of something it’s going to inflict damage, or effect everything within that blast radius, despite what those people or groups are doing. Getting hung up and arguing every jot and tittle in the rule book sucks the fun and joy out of a game. I’m not going to be that guy.

My question on this is: with the thickness of the mine token, you actually have over range 2 to hit someone with the mine. You part of the mine within range 1 of your commander. Then, you have range 1 from the token so in theory it’s beyond range 2. And if you make custom mine tokens you can extend it even further, which is cheesy. Maybe there’s something in the rules that you have to use the given token for the mine so you can’t do this part. Correct me if I’m wrong?

Never mind I think someone already said the entire token must be placed within range 1, which makes game mechanic sense I suppose

3 minutes ago, lukecook said:

My question on this is: with the thickness of the mine token, you actually have over range 2 to hit someone with the mine. You part of the mine within range 1 of your commander. Then, you have range 1 from the token so in theory it’s beyond range 2. And if you make custom mine tokens you can extend it even further, which is cheesy. Maybe there’s something in the rules that you have to use the given token for the mine so you can’t do this part. Correct me if I’m wrong?

You have to place it “within” not “at” range 1. So the entirety of the mine must be inside 1. Meaning you can’t hit anything beyond 2 of your leader.

Edit: lol, you beat me to it.

Just now, nashjaee said:

You have to place it “within” not “at” range 1. So the entirety of the mine must be inside 1. Meaning you can’t hit anything beyond 2 of your leader.

Yes, thanks. Just re-read that in the first reply you had. I’m glad it’s this way otherwise custom tokens would be a way of extending your range.

10 minutes ago, lukecook said:

Maybe there’s something in the rules that you have to use the given token for the mine so you can’t do this part.

There is. The cards indicate you to use Condition Tokens, so if you want to follow the rules you must use those tokens.
Of course you can use anything you want for your casual games.

6 minutes ago, Lemmiwinks86 said:

There is. The cards indicate you to use Condition Tokens, so if you want to follow the rules you must use those tokens.
Of course you can use anything you want for your casual games.

No I play this game competitively so need the correct rulings. But thanks!

53 minutes ago, lukecook said:

No I play this game competitively so need the correct rulings. But thanks!

You should use the condition tokens from the game, but if you want to use something else, you can as long as your opponent and the marshal from the tournament are OK with that.

The official ruling is this:

DUDES!

I sent the question again and got an answer:

Quote

Ranged attacks made by area weapons can and do target engaged units. This information was an accidental omission and will be added to the Rules Reference ASAP.

Woohoo!

Sweet