Hi All! After the recent update in the "X-wing official rulings" topic (below)

Q: Can a ship perform an attack against an enemy ship at range 0 (with bases touching) when the range from the firing arc is range 1?

A: You cannot attack a ship at range 0 of you. This was an omission from the rules reference that will be clarified in the next update

I would like to know: Can Major Rhymer shoot secondary weapons at range 0?

Reading the rules reference document, which states that secondary weapons are special weapons with fixed requirements (such as Target lock and range) not limited to range 1-3 like primary weapons, I think that it would be safe to say that M.R. ability is an exception to the rule above thus allowing him to perform secondary weapons attack at range 0.

For example, if i have lock on a ship that bumped on me, can i shoot my adv. proton torpedoes, if i reduce the range requirement from 1 to 0 with M.R. ability?

____________________________________

Another question related to M.R. ability: if the ship is equipped with cluster missiles, is the second bonus attack granted by the missiles influenced by the pilot ability, thus allowing a ship at range 0-2 to be targeted?
Providing that the ship is in my firing ark, i have charges to spend and is at range 0-3 from me, as per "bonus attack" rule reference.

Thank you!

Nothing about Rhymers ability specifically allows him to make his attacks at range zero even if the weapon includes that range the rule you cited above would prohibit you from making the attack. That said, one of my regular opponents is under the impression that the intent of the card is that he can shoot at range zero with the right ordinance and has already submitted the question directly to FFG's help form but has not received an answer yet.

The golden rule, cards override the rules where there is a conflict. The rules say you cannot make attacks at range 0, Major Rhymer explicitly says he can. So he can attack at range 0.

The ruling in that they made specifically pertains to weird geometry where a ship is at range 0 but attack range 1 which lead to some confusion.

2 minutes ago, AramoroA said:

The golden rule, cards override the rules where there is a conflict. The rules say you cannot make attacks at range 0, Major Rhymer explicitly says he can. So he can attack at range 0.

The ruling in that they made specifically pertains to weird geometry where a ship is at range 0 but attack range 1 which lead to some confusion.

There is currently no rule preventing an attack at range 0. Instead what we have is a rule that primary weapons are normally 1-3.

31 minutes ago, MockingBird ME said:

Nothing about Rhymers ability specifically allows him to make his attacks at range zero even if the weapon includes that range the rule you cited above would prohibit you from making the attack. That said, one of my regular opponents is under the impression that the intent of the card is that he can shoot at range zero with the right ordinance and has already submitted the question directly to FFG's help form but has not received an answer yet.

Rhymer can absolutely fire ordnance at range 0.

Per the Rules Reference, pg 17 (emphasis on relevant rule):

Quote

Special weapons have a combination of arc requirements, range requirements, attack value, and possibly other requirements. The arc icon indicates where the target needs to be in order to use this attack. The range requirement indicates the span of legal attack ranges.

Ordnance with a range of 0 explicitly includes 0 in the span of legal attack ranges.

EDIT for clarity: This means any special weapon can be fired at range 0 if it includes 0 in its range requirement. While currently this is restricted in practice to Rhymer's ordnance, in theory anyone could fire a range 0 special weapon if they had one. A general rule prohibiting range 0 attacks would be overruled by the specific allowance of 0 in the span of legal attack ranges for a special weapon.

3 minutes ago, Innese said:

There is currently no rule preventing an attack at range 0. Instead what we have is a rule that primary weapons are normally 1-3.

There effectively is after that ruling, they said they missed it out of the rules by mistake so it's fair to assume there's a default rule that you cannot attack at range 0.

Unless you have an ability such as Major Rhymers that allows you to.

1 minute ago, AramoroA said:

There effectively is after that ruling, they said they missed it out of the rules by mistake so it's fair to assume there's a default rule that you cannot attack at range 0.

Unless you have an ability such as Major Rhymers that allows you to.

Notice I said currently...

8 minutes ago, AramoroA said:

There effectively is after that ruling, they said they missed it out of the rules by mistake so it's fair to assume there's a default rule that you cannot attack at range 0.

Unless you have an ability such as Major Rhymers that allows you to.

I'm going with the official X-Wing rulings being in effect already but I don't think Rhymer allows you to make attacks at range zero just because the weapon range becomes zero with rules as written. I do think they may have intended him to be able to though and will hopefully write the official RR update in such a way as to make it clear maybe by specifying that you can not attack ships at range zero unless you have a weapon that specifically lists zero in it's range.

1 minute ago, MockingBird ME said:

I'm going with the official X-Wing rulings being in effect already but I don't think Rhymer allows you to make attacks at range zero just because the weapon range becomes zero with rules as written. I do think they may have intended him to be able to though and will hopefully write the official RR update in such a way as to make it clear maybe by specifying that you can not attack ships at range zero unless you have a weapon that specifically lists zero in it's range.

I'm curious to know what you think Major Rhymer's ability does exactly if you don't think it's allow you to attack at range 0.

2 minutes ago, AramoroA said:

I'm curious to know what you think Major Rhymer's ability does exactly if you don't think it's allow you to attack at range 0. 

As printed he only changes the range of the weapon but no where do we get a statement that a weapon with a range of zero can be used to attack ships at range zero and the cards that do allow you to attack at range zero specify that "you may perform attacks at range zero" often with the limitation of primary attacks. The ruling they gave us was only " You cannot attack a ship at range 0 of you. " with nothing else to go on this would not allow a weapon with a printed range of zero from being used against a ship at range zero. I do suspect they'll be more clear when they actually release the RR update to avoid exactly this confusion.

14 minutes ago, MockingBird ME said:

I'm going with the official X-Wing rulings being in effect already but I don't think Rhymer allows you to make attacks at range zero just because the weapon range becomes zero with rules as written. I do think they may have intended him to be able to though and will hopefully write the official RR update in such a way as to make it clear maybe by specifying that you can not attack ships at range zero unless you have a weapon that specifically lists zero in it's range.

6 minutes ago, MockingBird ME said:

As printed he only changes the range of the weapon but no where do we get a statement that a weapon with a range of zero can be used to attack ships at range zero and the cards that do allow you to attack at range zero specify that "you may perform attacks at range zero" often with the limitation of primary attacks. The ruling they gave us was only " You cannot attack a ship at range 0 of you. " with nothing else to go on this would not allow a weapon with a printed range of zero from being used against a ship at range zero. I do suspect they'll be more clear when they actually release the RR update to avoid exactly this confusion.

Specific overrules general. The specific rule for special weapons is "the range requirement indicates the span of legal attack range," so special weapons can in fact include Range 0 as a legal attack range.

3 minutes ago, MockingBird ME said:

As printed he only changes the range of the weapon but no where do we get a statement that a weapon with a range of zero can be used to attack ships at range zero and the cards that do allow you to attack at range zero specify that "you may perform attacks at range zero" often with the limitation of primary attacks. The ruling they gave us was only " You cannot attack a ship at range 0 of you. " with nothing else to go on this would not allow a weapon with a printed range of zero from being used against a ship at range zero. I do suspect they'll be more clear when they actually release the RR update to avoid exactly this confusion.

Apart from the rule in the rulebook that says

Quote

The range requirement indicates the span of legal attack ranges.

He makes range 0 a legal attack range for his special weapon.

It was my understanding, though I may be wrong as I can't quickly find it, that "cannot" overrode "can" so the text from the ruling "you cannot attack ships at range zero" would take precedence over a special weapon rule stating it's a legal attack range.

Just now, MockingBird ME said:

It was my understanding, though I may be wrong as I can't quickly find it, that "cannot" overrode "can" so the text from the ruling "you cannot attack ships at range zero" would take precedence over a special weapon rule stating it's a legal attack range.

This is a Golden Rule and is specific to card abilities, not general rules:

Quote

If a card ability uses the word “cannot,” that effect is absolute and cannot be overridden by other effects.

(page 2 of rrg)

14 minutes ago, nexttwelveexits said:

This is a Golden Rule and is specific to card abilities, not general rules: 

Quote

In that case it seems we need either a rule on what to do when different rules collide or a different wording from what they gave us on their rules post.

*edit* got a confused response so wanted to clarify:

If two separate rules are going to explicitly contradict each other ie. "A special weapon with a range of zero can attack at range zero" (I know that's not actually what it says, this if just a demonstration) and "Ships may not attack another ship at range zero" we need a way of telling precedent. I had misread previously that the "cannot" overrules "can" as applying generally but if there is not general rule in this regard we need one in the event the RR gets updated in a way that causes this which will happen if they use the same language for their update as they did in their post.

Again, specific overrides general. Special weapons are explicitly set aside in the rules for attacking ("special weapons have different requirements based on the source of the attack"). Special weapons then tell you "the range requirement indicates the span of legal ranges." If the range requirement includes range 0, then range 0 is specifically a legal attack range for that special weapon, overriding a more general rule prohibiting attacks at range 0.

The amusing thing to me about this argument is that Major Rhymer explicitly calls out "Range 0-3" as the limits of his abilities. If his card says, directly, that he can attack at Range 0... is there a reason to assume that he instead can't?

34 minutes ago, nexttwelveexits said:

specific overrides general

If that was in the golden rules section I would agree with you! I'd love to have it work that way but I'm not sure where you're getting that it does. In general the rules don't contradict and have explicit call outs if they do..

6 minutes ago, emeraldbeacon said:

If his card says, directly, that he can attack at Range 0... is there a reason to assume that he instead can't?

If the card said "you can perform special weapon attacks with weapons that have a range allowance (not the right term I think) of zero" i'd completely agree with you here too but it doesn't.

23 minutes ago, MockingBird ME said:

If that was in the golden rules section I would agree with you! I'd love to have it work that way but I'm not sure where you're getting that it does. In general the rules don't contradict and have explicit call outs if they do..

If the card said "you can perform special weapon attacks with weapons that have a range allowance (not the right term I think) of zero" i'd completely agree with you here too but it doesn't.

So your serious contention is that Major Rhymers ability does nothing at range 0 despite being what's printed on his card?

26 minutes ago, MockingBird ME said:

If that was in the golden rules section I would agree with you! I'd love to have it work that way but I'm not sure where you're getting that it does. In general the rules don't contradict and have explicit call outs if they do..

...I mean this is really just how rules work

if there is a general rule saying you can't do something (attack at range 0), and a specific rule saying you can do something (a weapon gives range 0 as a legal attack range), the specific rule takes precedence and you can do it

I'm not saying I'd be upset if they clarified it. Clarity's always good. Just that as written, special weapons can be used against ships you're touching so long as they include range 0 in their range restriction

I am kind of baffled here myself. Is there really a debate on this extremely clear worded card? We as a community need to understand that this (and I apologize for my rant... again...) is a highly contributing factor to why FFG struggles to word things "properly". Their job would be so much easier if we as a community simply read the card and then did what it said without twisting and turning and manipulating and .....

Is there really a discussion with this one? His card says that he can reduce the range requirement to 0. Is there going to be a follow up debate as to wether VT-49 Captain Oicunn can attack at range 0?

So confused...

Just now, nexttwelveexits said:

...I mean this is really just how rules work

if there is a general rule saying you can't do something (attack at range 0), and a specific rule saying you can do something (a particular thing gives range 0 as a legal attack range), the specific rule takes precedence and you can do it

I'm not saying I'd be upset if they clarified it. Clarity's always good. Just that as written, special weapons can be used against ships you're touching so long as they include range 0 in their range restriction

I have to respectfully disagree. Clarity is not always good. The more FFG adds "clarity" to extremely clear worded cards, it creates an environment where more cards can be questioned. If it is clear (and someone simply wants it to mean something else) then it should not be clarified, such is the path to the Dark Side where the Rules Reference becomes 189 pages long... again...

I am not saying "everything is clear", simply saying Major Rhymer is.

Quote

So your serious contention is that Major Rhymers ability does nothing at range 0 despite being what's printed on his card?

When first reading this card I assumed the inclusion of zero was to future proof him to allow him to shoot at zero should something else provide that ability, I'm not convinced by the arguments above stating he can shoot at range zero but I do understand why many think that's the intent. If that is indeed the intent they will hopefully will make that clear with how they update the RR for the no shots at range zero rule they have stated was omitted in error.

Quote

Is there really a debate o  n this extremely clear worded ca  rd? 

If there is confusion it's clearly not "extremely clearly worded"

3 minutes ago, drazen90909 said:

Is there going to be a follow up debate as to wether VT-49 Captain Oicunn  can attack at range 0  ?

I hope not, his card says "You can perform primary attacks at range 0." and the golden rule states cards can, and do, overrule the RR.

32 minutes ago, MockingBird ME said:

If the card said "you can perform special weapon attacks with weapons that have a range allowance (not the right term I think) of zero" i'd completely agree with you here too but it doesn't.

Please explain the purpose of range 0 being on his card in an ability related to the range requirement of special weapons if not to allow him to make special weapon attacks using the range requirement after he changes it? EDIT: I see you think it's future-proofing as you ninja'd me but I'm not agreeing on that.

thank you all for the answers! as i thought the pilot can attack at range 0 and that's because of the secondary weapons rules.
about the other question btw? Do you think M.R. ability could influence the 0-1 range of the second attack made by cluster missiles?

5 hours ago, Browork said:

Another question related to M.R. ability: if the ship is equipped with cluster missiles, is the second bonus attack granted by the missiles influenced by the pilot ability, thus allowing a ship at range 0-2 to be targeted?
Providing that the ship is in my firing ark, i have charges to spend and is at range 0-3 from me, as per "bonus attack" rule reference. 

Thank you!