Hey there,

the rules seem contradictory to me. I'm pretty sure I know which part of them is wrong, but still, I'd like your input.
The relevant passages:

Quote

To target a ship, two conditions must be met:
• The target ship’s base must be in the attacker’s
firing arc.
• The target must be at range 1–3.
The attacker measures to the closest point of the target that is in the attacker’s firing arc; this measurement is called the attack range."

Okay, so we know we measure inside the firing range. That makes sense; that way I cannot attack a ship which is in range 3, but beyond attack range 3. The example on the same page (pg. 8 ) also says so, noting that the relevant range is the attack range of 2.
We now head over to page 13:

Quote

As mentioned in the “Performing an Attack” section, ships attack at range 1–3, which means a ship cannot attack a ship that it is touching because that ship is at range 0.

This callback makes no sense. Nowhere in the "Performing an Attack" section does it state a ship can only attack a ship at range 1-3. It explicitly calls out you have to measure the attack range. which is differnt to the range itself. If a ship touches my ship's side at a very sharp angle for example it is very possible that it is in range 0 to me, but in attack range 1. So by that logic I would be able to attack it - I measure only within my firing arc after all!

I assume this part of the rule book is meant to say "A ship cannot attack a ship that is in range 0" or something, or this is a change I missed.
This also does not change if the Rules Reference is...well, referenced; there it also explicitly states "The attack range is determined by measuring range from the closest point of the attacker to the closest point of the defender that is in the attack arc. (...) A primary weapon requires the attack range to be range 1–3."
Again, touching does not prevent that from happening. It's also not stated anywhere in the "Range" section that a ship cannot attack another ship at range 0. Quite the opposite, it only reaffirms that you have to measure the range within the firing range to determine whether the enemy ship is in range 1-3.

7 minutes ago, GermanBlackbot said:

• The target must be at range 1–3.

"Range 0 does not appear on the range ruler, but is used for describing the range of objects that are physically touching ." Rules Reference, RANGE section, pages 14-15.

Rules Reference:
"A primary weapon requires the attack range to be range 1–3. A primary weapon has no cost by default."
The reference doesn't mention that the target has to be in "normal" range 1-3 anywhere.
The rule book explicitly states in the example: "The closest point of the X-wing’s base that is in the [firing arc symbol] is at range 2, so the second requirement is satisfied .", suggesting pretty strongly that the second requirement means the attack range.

5 minutes ago, GermanBlackbot said:

Rules Reference:
"A primary weapon requires the attack range to be range 1–3. A primary weapon has no cost by default."
The reference doesn't mention that the target has to be in "normal" range 1-3 anywhere.
The rule book explicitly states in the example: "The closest point of the X-wing’s base that is in the [firing arc symbol] is at range 2, so the second requirement is satisfied .", suggesting pretty strongly that the second requirement means the attack range.

If the firing ship's base is touching the target ship's base they are at range 0.

I am not saying that they aren't at range 0.
I am saying that a ship at range 0 is not necessarily at attack range 0.

25 minutes ago, GermanBlackbot said:

I am not saying that they aren't at range 0.
I am saying that a ship at range 0 is not necessarily at attack range 0.

I would interpret the rules to mean that you are at attack range 0 of a ship you are touching, even if the point of contact is not in your attack arc and another part of the enemy ship is.

EDIT - this seems like it must be the case, otherwise it could be argued that you can bump with the corner of your ship and still get a shot due to the primary arc being slightly less than 90 degrees.

They probably need to add a rule like 'ships at Range 0 are always at attack range 0' if they want to keep the old rule that ships that are touching can't attack one another. Otherwise it kind of looks like ships that aren't touching on a portion of the base inside the firing arc could attack one another.

I expect that there will be a revised rules reference in a few months that cleans up wording.

Seems awfully straightforward to me. First you have to TARGET the ship, then you FIRE at the ship:

• Targetting Step:
  • Check that the ship is in your (relevant) firing arc.
  • Check that the ship is at Range 1-3, independent of arc . Notable here is that, if the ship is not at Range 1-3 (i.e. beyond range 3 or touching, aka Range 0), it cannot be targeted.
• Firing Step:
  • Measure range between the closest points in arc to determine range. A ship may be at Range 1 to your ship, but at Range 2 for the actual attack, because of an awkward base position. However, a ship at Range 0 cannot normally attack another Range 0 ship (Oicunn and Zeb notwithstanding).

7 hours ago, emeraldbeacon said:

Seems awfully straightforward to me. First you have to TARGET the ship, then you FIRE at the ship:

• Targetting Step:
  • Check that the ship is in your (relevant) firing arc.
  • Check that the ship is at Range 1-3, independent of arc . Notable here is that, if the ship is not at Range 1-3 (i.e. beyond range 3 or touching, aka Range 0), it cannot be targeted.
• Firing Step:
  • Measure range between the closest points in arc to determine range. A ship may be at Range 1 to your ship, but at Range 2 for the actual attack, because of an awkward base position. However, a ship at Range 0 cannot normally attack another Range 0 ship (Oicunn and Zeb notwithstanding).

I agree that this is how it should work. The rules reference (which overrules the rule book) doesn't say that, though: To declare a target you measure range (no restriction there) and then it goes on to say that the attack range has to be range 1-3. Look at this example. The interceptor shouldn't be able to shoot either the shuttle (as it is at firing range 1, but at range 0) nor the Firespray (as it is at range 3, but beyong firing range 3). So either we measure range independant of firing arc (in which case it would be able to shoot at the Firespray) or we only measure within the arc (in which case it would be able to shoot shoot the shuttle).
Nowhere does it state you have to measure range multiple times.

This reading can already be taken from the rule book; the example explicitly calls out that the TIE may shoot the X-Wing because it's at range 2 within its firing arc and then later states that its at range 1 for all other purposes.

The rules reference explicitly calls out the attack range to be range 1-3, meaning we measure within the firing arc. I am sure this is not intended and a direct effect of them trying to clean up the language, but overshooting here.
It's just missing one more bullet point, something like "A ship cannot attack a ship at range 0."

Also, I just noticed: Captain Oicunn states "You can perform primary attacks at range 0.", not "attack range 0". This suggests to me that somewhere in the development process there was a rule like "You cannot perform primary attacks at range 0." which Captain Oicunn overwrote. As it stands, he can perform primary attacks at range 0...which doesn't help him in most situations because this doesn't modify the firing range of his primary attack (which is still 1-3). Again, nobody in their right mind would believe this is how it is meant . No judge would rule it that way (I hope). But it is how it is written.
Same goes for Zeb - every other card calls out firing range, only our two range 0 friends only talk about range.

it doesnt need "a ship cannot attack a ship at range 0" because since range 0 is a defined range and all weapons (including primary) are minimum 1 w/o some pilot ability affecting it that means its too close, just like being in R1 with a R2-3 weapon.

I don't think this is FFG overshooting, per se. The fact that attacks can be made at range 0, but no standard weapons have 0 included in their range is, to me, one of the best innovations of 2e. However, some folks will always try to break the game.

So. We're talking about a situation where one ship has bumped into each other, but they aren't touching within the firing arc of one ship. An extension of a lot of well-noted situations where two ships might have been at Range 1 of each other, but at angles in some way, and so the closest point in arc is at Range 2. It's relevant for Scum Fenn Rau, for example.

I like @kraedin 's solution: the best revision to the rules would be that ships at range 0 are treated as attack range 0 as well. This allows all the clean stuff with how Arvel and Major Rhymer were revised to work as written. Any solution which forces a revision of a lot of cards and not just the rules reference would be unfortunate.

To that end, I'd be totally fine with TOs and Judges just doing this on their own. Treat ships at range 0 as attack range 0 regardless of arc.

10 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:

the best revision to the rules would be that ships at range 0 are treated as attack range 0 as well  . This allows all the clean stuff with how Arvel and Major Rhymer were revised to work as written.

Captain Oicunn and "Zeb" Orrelios would still need an errata ("You can perform primary attacks at range 0." to " You can perform primary attacks at attack range 0.") and it should also be noted that you have to have the enemy ship in your firing arc. "Ships which are both at range 0 and within your firing arc are treated as attack range 0." or something maybe.

My solution would be to add "You cannot attack ships at range 0." and change the firing range of a primary attack to 0-3. Otherwise I could argue "Well yeah, Oicunn can attack at range 0...but his weapon still has a firing range of 1-3!"
(You would probably get beaten up by a judge for that, but still.)

21 minutes ago, Vineheart01 said:

it doesnt need "a ship cannot attack a ship at range 0" because since range 0 is a defined range and all weapons (including primary) are minimum 1 w/o some pilot ability affecting it that means its too close, just like being in R1 with a R2-3 weapon. 

Sorry for the double post, the quite system in this forum drives me nuts.
You are wrong here. All weapons are minimum 1 firing range , not range .
These are seperate and where this whole problem is coming from - a ship can be at range 0 and at firing range 1 at the same time. See attached picture for an example: If the Interceptor shoots the Lambda shuttle it is at range 0, but at firing range 1.

And if you seriously think that's going to be legal you are one of the reasons the 1.0 faq was HUGE and full of "well no duh" comments.

If you are just coming here to troll, please leave this thread.
I have stated multiple times that this is not a "Ha! Gotcha!" thread or that I actually think this is how it is supposed to work, but pointing out a problem with the way the rules are phrased.

Just to lay this discussion to rest:
I stumbled upon a clear rule.
"Although the range bonus applies at range 0, a ship cannot normally perform a primary attack at range 0 ."

I just missed it time and time again because I kept looking at "Attack", "Attack Range", "Range" and all that...and not at "Range Bonus".
Because of course I would look up what kind of bonus I get when I want to determine whether I can attack in the first place.
That's like putting "A ship cannot perform actions while stressed." only into the "Stress" section and not in "Actions".

This changes the problem from "I can't believe they forgot to include it!" to "I can't believe they'd put it THERE!"

Rules state that ships that are touching are at range 0, period.

13 minutes ago, Mep said:

Rules state that ships that are touching are at range 0, period.

And rules state that range does not matter when you attack. Only attack range is taken into account.

With curent rules you can be range 0 and attack range 1 at the same time

Exactly.
I used the rules question form to tell them they might want to move that sentence (and change "primary attack" to "primary attack (or any other attack)" while they're at it).
To me their intent is clear (You can't attack a ship at range 0 and Captain Oicunn can attack ships at attack range 0), enough so that most people will grasp what they mean intuitively.

The funny thing, is that this still works with special weapon.

I can't find any rules forbidding to fire a special weapon at range 0.

17 minutes ago, NerroSama said:

I can't find any rules forbidding to fire a special weapon at range 0.

Noticed the same thing, already included it in the question form

47 minutes ago, NerroSama said:

The funny thing, is that this still works with special weapon.

I can't find any rules forbidding to fire a special weapon at range 0.

Special weapons already have specific range restrictions printed on the card. Why would they need an extra rule?

24 minutes ago, nexttwelveexits said:

Special weapons already have specific range restrictions printed on the card. Why would they need an extra rule? 

5 hours ago, NerroSama said:

With curent rules you can be range 0 and attack range 1 at the same time

Just now, GermanBlackbot said:

On 9/16/2018 at 7:52 PM, nexttwelveexits said:

I would interpret the rules to mean that you are at attack range 0 of a ship you are touching, even if the point of contact is not in your attack arc and another part of the enemy ship is.

EDIT - this seems like it must be the case, otherwise it could be argued that you can bump with the corner of your ship and still get a shot due to the primary arc being slightly less than 90 degrees.

Nobody is saying that your interpretation isn't what they intended. In fact it's probably the easiest way to fix this (as the enemy still has to be in your firing arc to make him a legal target).

We're saying that it's not anywhere in the rules and the stuff that is there is in weird places. Every judge would beat you up with a newspaper should you attempt to argue that you can shoot missiles at range 0. That doesn't change the fact that it should be stated somewhere.