4 minutes ago, AramoroA said:

I will state what you think, the situation as I see it from the Rhymer Deniers, correct me if I'm wrong, is

Rhymer has a weapon capable of attacking at range 0, the legal attack range is 0-3 in the case of cluster missiles, but there's a general rule preventing him from using it so he can't.

But with Oicunn, he has a rule allowing him to attack at Range 0, which for some reason also changes the legal attack range for his weapon to 0-3.

Do you not see the problem with this? Oicunn does not not have a weapon with a legal attack range of 0, if he did have one he could totally use it is surely just the corollary of Rhymer in this explanation.

I do see where you think the problem is, yes. But I don't think there's actually a problem there. Oicunn's ability, as worded, does both things. It changes the range requirement (by stating a new range for primary attacks) and overrules the separate "you cannot attack at range 0" rule. So, his ability DOES give him a weapon to use at range 0 and gives him the ability to attack at range 0.

The Rhymer Deniers (great name, I love it) argue that his ability lacks the second part. It changes the range of the weapon, but lacks the necessary wording to also let you attack at that range.

4 minutes ago, jftanner said:

I do see where you think the problem is, yes. But I don't think there's actually a problem there. Oicunn's ability, as worded, does both things. It changes the range requirement (by stating a new range for primary attacks) and overrules the separate "you cannot attack at range 0" rule. So, his ability DOES give him a weapon to use at range 0 and gives him the ability to attack at range 0.

The Rhymer Deniers (great name, I love it) argue that his ability lacks the second part. It changes the range of the weapon, but lacks the necessary wording to also let you attack at that range.

So range 0 is explicitly a 'Legal Attack Range' for Rhymer but he simply cannot use it? That right?

So with Oicunn overriding 2 rules, one on being able to perform the attack and another on picking a legal target. The Attack Range rules also include the Attack Arc, but Oicunn doesn't care about the Attack Arc, he just cares about being at Range 0. It's the bit where you're saying he gets to ignore part of the targeting restriction but not the other that is confusing here.

1 minute ago, AramoroA said:

So range 0 is explicitly a 'Legal Attack Range' for Rhymer but he simply cannot use it? That right?

Yes, precisely. Because that official ruling added a new rule explicitly stating you cannot attack at range zero. In the context of the question, it's explicitly stating that you can't make an attack at attack range 1 (which you can normally do), while at regular (for lack of a better word) range 0. So the assertion from the Rhymer Deniers is that it doesn't matter that he changes his legal attack range to, that new rule still applies.

6 minutes ago, AramoroA said:

So with Oicunn overriding 2 rules, one on being able to perform the attack and another on picking a legal target. The Attack Range rules also include the Attack Arc, but Oicunn doesn't care about the Attack Arc, he just cares about being at Range 0. It's the bit where you're saying he gets to ignore part of the targeting restriction but not the other that is confusing here.

The argument here is that cards override exactly, and exclusively, the parts of rules they directly mention. His ability addresses range, and so overrides the range requirements. But it does not mention arc, so it doesn't override the arc requirements. That scope limitation is also the problem with Rhymer: he addresses the attack range, but does not address being able to attack at range zero (regardless of attack range).

I also want to clarify again that I personally think it's obvious that this is not the intention. I think it's clear that Rhymer should be able to attack with range 1 missiles at range 0. It's kind of absurd otherwise. So, I have almost no doubt that the wording of the official ruling is an error and will be corrected. But trying to play with rules-as-intended is inconsistent and unfair. If we all want to play the same game, we have to play rules-as-written. And, as written, I think they broke Rhymer and made him absurd.

(See also: Lando's Millenium Falcon and the lose/spend shield problem. Absurd? Yes, absolutely. A mistake? Almost certainly. But, rules as written... currently broken. FFG kinda sucks at this.)

4 minutes ago, jftanner said:

His ability addresses range, and so overrides the range requirements.

Except no, it addresse range between ship, not attack range.

It does not say: you can attack a ship at attack range 0.

It say: you can attack ship at range 0.

That is the big subtle difference...

The new rule broke everyone one. Because of the wording they choose for the ruling, they break everything. The new ruling care about range instead of attaco range, and Oicunn use the same wording that do not care about attack range

5 minutes ago, muribundi said:

Except no, it addresse range between ship, not attack range.

It does not say: you can attack a ship at attack range 0.

It say: you can attack ship at range 0.

That is the big subtle difference...

The new rule broke everyone one. Because of the wording they choose for the ruling, they break everything. Th  e new ruling care about range instead of attaco range, and Oicunn use the same wording that do not care about attack range

I'd argue that the attack range is the range measured while making an attack. So, the wording of his ability does, by definition, cover attack range.

That said, it's not all that cut-and-dry and I can see reasonable arguments to the contrary.

So, yeah... that ruling really, really sucked. I hope they fix it when they make the promised changes to the rules reference. I also hope they do so soon. My favorite squad includes Rhymer and this question makes it frustrating to play him. I've personally opted to only equip him with range 2+ munitions, just to avoid the problem.

100% bet that if we ever get a special weapon that has 0 printed on it it will not specify you can attack at R0.

Why? Because of the rule that has been quoted so many bloody times in this thread ive lost count: special weapon ranges are dictated on the card !!!

All the other attack at R0 are primary weapons, which are normally 1-3, hence why they are actually worded to flatout tell you you can do it.

On 10/22/2018 at 6:25 PM, muribundi said:

Except no, it addresse range between ship, not attack range.

It does not say: you can attack a ship at attack range 0.

It say: you can attack ship at range 0.

That is the big subtle difference...

The new rule broke everyone one. Because of the wording they choose for the ruling, they break everything. The new ruling care about range instead of attaco range, and Oicunn use the same wording that do not care about attack range

imho that is just wrong: in the rule references it states under Special Weapons "The range requirement indicates the span of legal attack ranges.". This number is printed on the card (i.e. 1-2). So if Rhymer can change the range of an special attack (i.e. 1-2), then this means the attack range is modified. Therefore the attack range can be reduced to 0, thus overruling the rules.

KR

TheDruid

On 10/19/2018 at 7:26 PM, emeraldbeacon said:

Oicunn is a special case, as his card explicitly overrides the "No Shot At Range 0" restriction that was installed via the forum "Official Rulings" post. Now, his ability only overrides the range limitations on attacks; it doesn't override the requirement to have the target in-arc... so if the target ship is not in-arc for Oicunn, he can't attack it.

I think that the "Official Ruling" meant, that if you bump a ship with your arc (front side), then you can shoot at it with the 4 mentioned ships (in R0 and in arc). But if you bump it outside your arc, but the ship is in R1 in arc, then you can not have an attack.

This would make sense, so that you can not attack a ship which bumps you i.e. from behind.

On 10/10/2018 at 5:20 PM, emeraldbeacon said:

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?

Reading can be so hard sometimes. Imagine translating it to IT- slang to make a vast croud reading the forum here happy.

You scored da bullzeye

Occam's razor stipulates that, instead of thinking they didn't want Rhymer, Oicunn, Arvel and Zeb to allow what they were printed for (do 0-range attacks) by adding a rule that prevents all 0-range attacks and their effect doesn't add the range as legal, they could have simply said that. They could remove Zeb and make Oicunn non-limited altogether then, also.

You just interpreted the official ruling answer slightly wrong.

Quote

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 think it is safe to assume here the ship in question ( You ) only has range 1-3 (or less) weapons, or else the question would not have needed an answer at all. I mean, range 0 is legal, but because in-arc it is range 1, you can't ? Is this a range-0-only weapon ?

So the phrase "You cannot attack a ship at range 0 of you" is ambiguous in context. Out of context it's clear, but an answer to a question cannot be taken by itself without the question.

I think the omission from the rules reference this answer hints at is "Whatever the range in-arc, if the defender is at range 0, the attack is considered at range 0."

Summarized, for a quick answer to this specific question, by: "[A ship with only range 1-X weapons] cannot attack a ship at range 0 of [itself].'

The conciseness was already at work for Arvel, Oicunn and Zeb. Instead of adding "Range 0 is a legal attack range for primary and special weapons," they added "You can attack at range 0."

I must agree with Doctor Janus con this one , if the especial attack At rage 0 wasn't possible, they would have stated it in the text as "To a limit of 1-3" instead of "0-3"

Special attacks (page 17 ref) "special weapons have a combination of arc requirements, range requirements, attack value... The range requirements indicares The span of legal attack ranges"

Page 4: "A primary weapon requires the attack range to be range 1-3"" Special attacks have different requirements specified by the source of the attack"

Page 15: "Range bonus: ...For attack range 0-1 ...1 additional attack die... Although... A ship cannot normally perform a primary attack At range 0"

How is this a question that stretches across many pages?

Only PRIMARY weapons are normally limited to 1-3 as per the RRG.

Special weapons have their range requirements printed on the cards (also RRG).

Rhymer SPECIFICALLY allows special weapons (torps and missiles) to get the 0 range.

An unwisely phrased FAQ answer in the official rules thread.

Basically.

The ruling at the heart of this discussion, as a refresher:

Hopefully when this ruling makes its way to the rules reference it will be cleaned up as a directive like "another ship at range 0 is treated as being range 0 in the attack arc" added under Attack Range on page 5.

Either that, OR they enter it as written in the ruling I linked and add an FAQ entry for Rhymer saying that his ability does not allow r0 attacks without a way to circumvent that rule.

One way or the other I hope we get something official ?

This has got to be the longest thread for the easiest question ever. Which around here is saying something. Even RAW Rhymer clearly works at zero for reasons already explainrd both by myself and others a dozen times over. Those of you argung otherwise really are just being silly.

I seriously can't believe this is still at the top of the page, I wouldn't bump it buy it's already #1 so what does it matter?

3 hours ago, nitrobenz said:

The ruling at the heart of this discussion, as a refresher:

Hopefully when this ruling makes its way to the rules reference it will be cleaned up as a directive like "another ship at range 0 is treated as being range 0 in the attack arc" added under Attack Range on page 5.

Either that, OR they enter it as written in the ruling I linked and add an FAQ entry for Rhymer saying that his ability does not allow r0 attacks without a way to circumvent that rule.

One way or the other I hope we get something official ?

The you even took the time to read the thread?!? This exact ruling is what created all the debate in this thread...

15 minutes ago, muribundi said:

The   you even took the time to read the thread?!? This exact ruling is what created all the debate in this thread... 

Hence why I said:

4 hours ago, nitrobenz said:

The  ruling  at the heart of this discuss  io  n  ,  a  s a  refresher

I hadn't read it in a while (like a week) so I linked it in case anyone else wanted to read it word for word. I followed that with a brief summary of two courses ffg could take to confirm this one way or the other: affirming/dismissing RAI/RAW.