The rules state ships that are touching are at range 0, period.

10 minutes ago, Mep said:

The rules do say you can't attack at range zero most of the time. Most weapons have a range, like 1-3. Range 0 is not included in range 1-3. The design space does allow for range 0 weapons though.......

But range is measured in arc no? So you can be touching with side arc, but from the front arc still have range 1 and thus can fire.

That would be something to fix

4 minutes ago, Xeletor said:

But range is measured in arc no? So you can be touching with side arc, but from the front arc still have range 1 and thus can fire.

That would be something to fix

This for for "attack range", not just "range".

But yes, that's the issue with current rules. You can be "range 0" and "attack range 1" at the same time.

28 minutes ago, NerroSama said:

This for for "attack range", not just "range".

But yes, that's the issue with current rules. You can be "range 0" and "attack range 1" at the same time.

To summarize for others, "attack range" on page 15 rules reference refers to "range" regarding how to do it but adds "measure in arc". "Range" then states that touching ships are range zero. How do I apply "in arc" to that is the question in the end, and that needs an faq. I would go with attack range 0.

Also this is in the rules subforum already, just trying to summarize

1 hour ago, LordFajubi said:

Happy about target locks being very hard to fail and failed red actions giving stress. Both of those were on my wish list as common sense kinda things.

Do I get this right - if there are 2 enemy ships and I chose the first one and it was out of range 3, I may try to lock the second ship and if it's in range 0-3, I will get my target lock? I would fail TL action only, if both ship happens to be out of range?

47 minutes ago, Jedu said:

Do I get this right - if there are 2 enemy ships and I chose the first one and it was out of range 3, I may try to lock the second ship and if it's in range 0-3, I will get my target lock? I would fail TL action only, if both ship happens to be out of range?

The way I’m reading it is that you can only fail a target lock if absolutely nothing is in range. So yes your scenario is correct but it doesn’t state that enemy ships are a requirement it just says objects so asteroids and friendly ships would also count. In other words it’s near impossible to fail a lock unless you happen to be in some range 3 dead zone.

I could be wrong but it also seems to omit the changed my mind tactic for range finding. If you take a TL action and something, anything, is in range you are committed to locking something.

45 minutes ago, Jedu said:

Do I get this right - if there are 2 enemy ships and I chose the first one and it was out of range 3, I may try to lock the second ship and if it's in range 0-3, I will get my target lock? I would fail TL action only, if both ship happens to be out of range?

You measure everything before you pick an object, so you already know what's available in range when you choose.

13 minutes ago, LordFajubi said:

I could be wrong but it also seems to omit the changed my mind tactic for range finding. If you take a TL action and something, anything, is in range you are committed to locking something.

If there isn't anything, then the lock action fails.

Can devices be locked (for example cluster mines?)

2 minutes ago, flooze said:

If there isn't anything, then the lock action fails.

Can devices be locked (for example cluster mines?)

Devices are objects so yes.

1 minute ago, flooze said:

If there isn't anything, then the lock action fails.

Can devices be locked (for example cluster mines?)

Yes, all objects (ships, obstacles and devices) can be locked.

7 minutes ago, NerroSama said:

Yes, all objects (ships, obstacles and devices) can be locked.

Does debris count?

nm found the entry it does failing a lock truly is almost impossible till end game.

Since they made failing red actions stress you and "abusing" composure is out of the question, I think it unreasonable to keep locking an object mandatory.

16 minutes ago, eMeM said:

Since they made failing red actions stress you and "abusing" composure is out of the question, I think it unreasonable to keep locking an object mandatory.

Prevents people from getting a tactical advantage by mesuring range to a shitload of objects then choosing to fail the action (and still get a focus via composure).

Choosing not to take a lock is not the same as failing, nor should it be.

2 hours ago, Giledhil said:

Prevents people from getting a tactical advantage by mesuring range to a shitload of objects then choosing to fail the action (and still get a focus via composure).

But forcing them to lock a ship in range 1-3 would still do that.

If no ships are in range 3 then yes they could get a free focus via Composure, but there would be no combat that round so they wouldn't be able to use the focus token anyway. Sure, you could store it on the Moldy Crow, but Composure only works if you don't already have a focus token, so it's a total edge case. I really don't think that would be a powerful enough combo to be considered 'abuse'.

Having to lock an asteroid (because when are you ever not at range 3 of at least one?) unfairly ****s you over if you already had a lock on a ship and were taking a risk on a different ship being in arc at range 3.

No other game effect requires you to do something completely useless (unless you happen to have Qi'ra) for misjudging distance. There is nothing you can do with a lock on an asteroid. It's a pointless requirement.

6 minutes ago, GuacCousteau said:

But forcing them to lock a ship in range 1-3 would still do that.

If no ships are in range 3 then yes they could get a free focus via Composure, but there would be no combat that round so they wouldn't be able to use the focus token anyway. Sure, you could store it on the Moldy Crow, but Composure only works if you don't already have a focus token, so it's a total edge case. I really don't think that would be a powerful enough combo to be considered 'abuse'.

Having to lock an asteroid (because when are you ever not at range 3 of at least one?) unfairly ****s you over if you already had a lock on a ship and were taking a risk on a different ship being in arc at range 3.

No other game effect requires you to do something completely useless (unless you happen to have Qi'ra) for misjudging distance. There is nothing you can do with a lock on an asteroid. It's a pointless requirement.

Frankly, I think lock action is still too permissive. If if was my call, I would have changed it to : "Choose one target, measure, loose action if target is not on range".

1 minute ago, Giledhil said:

Frankly, I think lock action is still too permissive. If if was my call, I would have changed it to : "Choose one target, measure, loose action if target is not on range".

I'd be totally cool with that. When they first said you could fail target lock actions, this is exactly what I thought they meant.

I'd much rather only get one chance and get to keep an existing target lock on another ship if I guess my range wrong than have to move a perfectly good lock uselessly onto an asteroid.

That does potentially make Composure more valuable again, though. If you know you're being shot range 2 from a ship out of your arc, you'd have much less fear trying to target lock the one ship that is in your arc, because you know if it ends up out of range you get a defensive focus instead.

44 minutes ago, Giledhil said:

Frankly, I think lock action is still too permissive. If if was my call, I would have changed it to : "Choose one target, measure, loose action if target is not on range".

This is the perfect solution IMO, I don't get why they didn't keep it like it was just plugging the exploit with fail action rules.

37 minutes ago, GuacCousteau said:

I'd be totally cool with that. When they first said you could fail target lock actions, this is exactly what I thought they meant.

I'd much rather only get one chance and get to keep an existing target lock on another ship if I guess my range wrong than have to move a perfectly good lock uselessly onto an asteroid.

That does potentially make Composure more valuable again, though. If you know you're being shot range 2 from a ship out of your arc, you'd have much less fear trying to target lock the one ship that is in your arc, because you know if it ends up out of range you get a defensive focus instead.

There is nothing wrong with composure being not useless, especially in cases where it works exactly as intended - insurance in case you misjudged the distance. It costs points and a slot.

Too bad they didn't get to the Han / Qi'ra / Dash "ignore obstacles" issues. Guess they came up too late.

14 minutes ago, knute said:

Too bad they didn't get to the Han / Qi'ra / Dash "ignore obstacles" issues. Guess they came up too late.

If by 'too late' you mean 'were pointed out less than an hour after the preview article went live several months ago'.

8 hours ago, Mep said:

The rules do say you can't attack at range zero most of the time. Most weapons have a range, like 1-3. Range 0 is not included in range 1-3. The design space does allow for range 0 weapons though.......

It is for Oicun, Arvil and Zeb crew - they can attack at range 0

3 hours ago, Giledhil said:

Frankly, I think lock action is still too permissive. If if was my call, I would have changed it to : "Choose one target, measure, loose action if target is not on range".

At least there is “some” risk to a lock action now. Just like every other action. You don’t get to take a focus action and chess rule it, my finger never left the piece!, to take it back. I like if you TL then that is exactly what you are doing.

8 hours ago, Xeletor said:

To summarize for others, "attack range" on page 15 rules reference refers to "range" regarding how to do it but adds "measure in arc". "Range" then states that touching ships are range zero. How do I apply "in arc" to that is the question in the end, and that needs an faq. I would go with attack range 0.

Also this is in the rules subforum already, just trying to summarize

Sure, it's possible to have something in arc at R1 and be at R0 (touching). In every instance of this case, the * may not * of "may not shoot at targets at range 0 overrides the * may * shoot of being at R1 in arc. May not always trumps may when they're both rules. When a card grants a specific exception (ex: Oicunn), the exception takes precedent over the normal rule.

Remember that range is measured in a 360* arc (target locks, mine detonation, game effects, etc). Your attack is set at the range that exists within the relevant arc, but other ranges can exist simultaneously (being in primary range 2, but range 3 of a mobile turret arc, if you shoot w/ the turret, it's range 3, if you shoot w/ a primary arc attack, its R2).

Range 0 is not on the range ruler and therefore isn't measured. To tell if a ship is at range 0 you check to see if the ships are touching. If they touch they are at range 0. PEROID! There is nothing else to measure. Trying to rules lawyer by saying but from this arc it is 1 is exactly that, rules lawyering, and you need to stop it.

While I (and I am pretty sure everyone else in the thread) certainly agree with you as to what is intended, the discussion isn’t about what you can get away with, but the clarity of the rules.

“Range” and “Attack Range” are both specific, defined rules terms

The rules for attacking say that the “Attack Range” must be legal for the weapon, there is no mention of the range (not the attack range)

No one thus far has found anywhere that says range 0 prevents attacks even if the attack range isn’t 0.

Again, the point here isn’t to find a way to twist the rules, but to arm ourselves with knowledge about the rules for when some a-hole does; and maybe get FFG to plug the loophole before that happens.