1 hour ago, GeneralZod217 said:This is a valid point.
However there is a ship in the game that does specifically state an additional special rule so that they can attack at range zero but I can't remember the name.
Im sure it's something like Rajor Mhymer.
What about Ariel Crynyd, is his card ability invalid because of the rules clarification or does the card take priority?
Cards always win.
The whole point of cards is that they break rules.
29 minutes ago, nexttwelveexits said:Cards always win.
The whole point of cards is that they break rules.
My understanding of the debate is that, as written , Rhymer doesn't necessarily break the "can't attack a ship you're at Range 0 of" ruling (in the forums), in the same way that other ships like Arvel, Oicunn, and Zeb (crew) do. They explicitly allow the attack, specifically overriding that ruling. Rhymer simply makes the attack ranges on secondary cards 0-3. As things are worded right now, I can see the argument that his ability, to change range bands, doesn't actually say to ignore the "can't attack a ship you're at Range 0 of" rule.
Again, I think we all know the INTENT of Rhymer; I don't think anyone is arguing that he's not intended to work at Range 0, given his card text. Given only the rules reference, I would say yes, he works as written. Taking into account the Official Ruling in the forum, I think Rhymer is - for the moment - the unintended victim of flawed wording.
56 minutes ago, emeraldbeacon said:Again, I think we all know the INTENT of Rhymer
I'm sorry but I'm not with you here. I'm not saying you're wrong about the intent but that was not what I assumed when I first read his card and that's not how it seems RAW (based on the faq ruling) work. The concept of Rules as Intended is terrible to me, it's fine while you play with your friends but it does not make for a game that can be played by any two players from different local gaming shops or metas. Rules should be clear and when they're not they should be clarified.
i don't see how this is a debate, or how you can interpret major ryhmers card text any other way than it's written, MockinBird ME ?
the RR is about the difference in range between two ships vs attack range, or range in arc. it's possible to be bumped and thus at range zero, but still at range one in arc. it's clarified that you cannot attack a ship at range zero of you (touching), no matter what the range in arc is. this is simply the rules of the game.
how ever, there are to my knowledge at least three cards that lets you attack at range zero. arvel crynyd, zeb orrelios and major ryhmer. arvel and zeb are for primary attacks specifically. major ryhmer is for missiles and torpedoes only. since his card states that you can decrease the range down to range zero, there is no doubt that you can definitely use him to perform missile or torpedo attacks at range zero.
this is as clear as it gets - and so it shouldn't need further clarification for any reason. if you don't agree, please explain why this would be confusing in any way.
to me, this is both reasonable, clear and seems like intended. it's rules as written and rules as intended as far as i can tell. of course, you never know the intention, you can only guess by how something is written. the writing on this is very clear, though.
*silently waiting for FFG to errata the text on major ryhmer so that he can no longer perform missile or torpedo attacks at range zero*
2 hours ago, MockingBird ME said:I'm sorry but I'm not with you here. I'm not saying you're wrong about the intent but that was not what I assumed when I first read his card and that's not how it seems RAW (based on the faq ruling) work. The concept of Rules as Intended is terrible to me, it's fine while you play with your friends but it does not make for a game that can be played by any two players from different local gaming shops or metas. Rules should be clear and when they're not they should be clarified.
The fact that his card calls out for range increments to be extended to include Range 0 as an attack option, tells me that the INTENT is that he be able to perform attacks at Range 0. I agree that rules should be clear and precise; something that is absent in this situation (given the recent FAQ ruling that has yet to be published in the RR, which definitely can be construed as blocking his range 0 attack). I just can't see how his card could call out Range 0 as an option, if Range 0 was never intended to be a valid range for Rhymer (barring, of course, the condition of a glaring typo across the entire span of the game). THAT SAID...
1 hour ago, meffo said:this is as clear as it gets - and so it shouldn't need further clarification for any reason. if you don't agree, please explain why this would be confusing in any way.
...to me, this is NOT a clear situation. The forum FAQ response was regarding a different situation (attacking a ship you're touching, but have a non-zero range within arc), but it was worded clumsily... and that wording has, for me, cast some doubt in this situation. Word for word:
QuoteQ: 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.
That first sentence is what causes the problem. Given that, Rhymer would be disallowed from performing an attack with a legal range of zero, because the rules prohibit it. The three cards that we've been discussing, Zeb (crew), Arvel, and Oicunn, all contain
explicit
text, that
directly
overrides the "cannot attack at range 0" rule
on the card
in the FAQ. Since Rhymer lacks this text, he is
not
free of that restriction, even though his range band would otherwise seemingly allow it. Personally, I believe the
intent
of Rhymer is to be able to attack at Range 0; this recent ruling has simply interrupted that function of his card, until clarification can be had.
(cards linked for reference)
They all deal with performing primary weapon attacks. The rules for making legal attacks with secondary weapons are different.
QuoteThe range requirement indicates the span of legal attack ranges.
and then on the Attack rules
Quote
• A primary weapon requires the attack range to be range 1–3. A primary weapon has no cost by default.
• Special weapons have different requirements specified by the source of the attack.
Major Rhymer changes the range requirement of the special weapon to 0, that then becomes a legal attack range .
It's as clear as you're ever going to get really.
7 hours ago, emeraldbeacon said:That first sentence is what causes the problem. Given that, Rhymer would be disallowed from performing an attack with a legal range of zero, because the rules prohibit it. The three cards that we've been discussing, Zeb (crew), Arvel, and Oicunn, all contain explicit text, that directly overrides the "cannot attack at range 0" rule
on the cardin the FAQ. Since Rhymer lacks this text, he is not free of that restriction, even though his range band would otherwise seemingly allow it. Personally, I believe the intent of Rhymer is to be able to attack at Range 0; this recent ruling has simply interrupted that function of his card, until clarification can be had.
ok, so you're confused by the rules update. i 100% agree with you, rhymer is not free of the restriction of not being able to attack at range zero, when attacking with anything but missiles and torpedoes. but since his card states that he can change the range requirement on missiles or torpedoes down to zero, i think it's very clear that he can attack at range zero, as long as he's attacking with a missile or torpedo. that's what his card says, right?
if you really think that this is confusing, of course clarifications are always good, right?
because the make the rules more clear, right?
9 hours ago, meffo said:this is as clear as it gets - and so it shouldn't need further clarification for any reason. if you don't agree, please explain why this would be confusing in any way.
Please, if it was "as clear as it gets" we would not be three pages into a thread disagreeing on how it works. I hear your argument; maybe that's the intent and they'll word it to make that clear when the faq gets to the RR and maybe it's not. You can agree or disagree with me/us as much as you like but please don't suggest that a situation so obviously in contention between players doesn't need clarification, that's just dishonest.
52 minutes ago, meffo said:rhymer is not free of the restriction of not being able to attack at range zero, when attacking with anything but missiles and torpedoes.
And there's the bit where we disagree, specifically because of the wording in the FAQ (we all know it may be different when they get it into the RR). Rhymer allows for the range of the special weapon to potentially including range zero but if there is a blanket rule that says you "cannot attack ships at range zero" and nothing on Rymer's card, or explicitly in the RR though I understand it's a possible interpretation of the legal ranges clause, says you can attack at range zero then him reducing adding zero to the range weapons range does not allow him to attack at zero but some other card might.
So what does his ability to change the range of an attack to 0 do then?
4 minutes ago, MockingBird ME said:Please, if it was "as clear as it gets" we would not be three pages into a thread disagreeing on how it works. I hear your argument; maybe that's the intent and they'll word it to make that clear when the faq gets to the RR and maybe it's not. You can agree or disagree with me/us as much as you like but please don't suggest that a situation so obviously in contention between players doesn't need clarification, that's just dishonest.
And there's the bit where we disagree, specifically because of the wording in the FAQ (we all know it may be different when they get it into the RR). Rhymer allows for the range of the special weapon to potentially including range zero but if there is a blanket rule that says you "cannot attack ships at range zero" and nothing on Rymer's card, or explicitly in the RR though I understand it's a possible interpretation of the legal ranges clause, says you can attack at range zero then him reducing adding zero to the range weapons range does not allow him to attack at zero but some o ther card might.
i don't believe i'm being dishonest, i simply believe you're not following the golden rule of card text before rules text. his card clearly states that he can change the range to zero, thus, he can attack at range zero.
i still think it's very clear. i do think that this long a discussion warrants clarification, but also want to note that it's clarification that got us in this long a discussion in the first place.
you have read his card, right? you can see that range zero is included in the ranges that he can change missile and torpedo ranges to, right? how then, do you take a clarification regarding a different topic (ships at range zero, but at range one in arc), with a statement that says changes will be made in the future to make things clearer included, and demand clarifications for abilities that are already working and easy to understand?
28 minutes ago, meffo said:his card clearly states that he can change the range to zero
Yes, it does.
28 minutes ago, meffo said:thus, he can attack at range zero.
No, not based on the FAQ ruling of attacking at range zero. His card does not say "He can make attacks at range zero."
29 minutes ago, meffo said:how then, do you take a clarification regarding a different topic (ships at range zero, but at range one in arc) , with a statement that says changes will be made in the future to make things clearer included, and demand clarifications for abilities that are already working and easy to understand?
The clarification was made because of a different point of confusion but the topic is still "Can you attack ships that you are at range zero of even if you have an appropriate range in your attack arc for your attack." They clarified and said "No, you can not attack ships at range zero." and they did not say it's a change they intend to make they specifically called it out as having been omitted from the current version of the RR in error.
41 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:So what does his ability to change the range of an attack to 0 do then?
Unless they specify that munitions ignore the "cannot attack at range zero" rule then Rhymer making a munition have a range of zero doesn't do anything by itself but it does open up all kinds of possibilities for synergy with future content.
Just some food for thought:
1. In 1.0 there is specifically a rule that prevents attacks at range 0.
2. When 2.0 launched there was no such rule. Instead, we had a rule stating primary weapons are 1-3, and secondary weapons depended on the card.
3. There is mention of an ommision in the rules clarrification of a different question.
I don’t think this ‘ommision’ was a blanket statement preventing attacks at range 0. Why would that not have been carried over from 1.0? Why include the rules defining specifically how ranges in 2.0 work?
My feeling is that this ‘omission’ was a specific rule regarding ships in contact (but arcs at r1-x) counting as range 0 for the purpose of measuring range, and, in a haste to get an answer out, the response was worded poorly.
Just my two cents. Fly safe o7
2 minutes ago, MockingBird ME said:Yes, it does.
No, not based on the FAQ ruling of attacking at range zero. His card does not say "He can make attacks at range zero."
The clarification was made because of a different point of confusion but the topic is still "Can you attack ships that you are at range zero of even if you have an appropriate range in your attack arc for your attack." They clarified and said "No, you can not attack ships at range zero." and they did not say it's a change they intend to make they specifically called it out as having been omitted from the current ver sion of the RR in error.
Unless they specify that munitions ignore the "cannot attack at range zero" rule then Rhymer making a munition have a range of zero doesn't do anything by itself but it does open up all kinds of possibilities for synergy with future content.
well, the FAQ ruling is a general rule. your argument is that general rules go before rules on cards, which the general rules say they don't. his card says he can make missile and torpedo attacks at range zero. not in those exact words, but it's what it says. if you change the required range of an attack to zero, clearly you are able to attack at range zero. why wouldn't you?
"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." - this means they left it out and will clarify it in a future update. it still doesn't say cards that let you attack at range zero don't let you attack at range zero, which is what you are claiming. it has nothing to do with major ryhmer in the first place, but you're claiming it disallows him part of his ability, which is very far fetched indeed.
according to your reasoning, you are unable to perform attacks at range zero with oicunn, arvel and zeb as well.
since attacking at range zero will already be clarified and it's already crystal clear that card text goes before rules texts, major ryhmer can attack at range zero with a missile or torpedo he changes the range requirement down to zero with. please, explain to me why this would not be the case.
why would he need extra text? because of a statement in a later ruling? it's already all there, on the card. it's already all there, in the golden rules.
34 minutes ago, meffo said:your argument is that general rules go before rules on cards, which the general rules say they don't
Not at all what I'm saying.
34 minutes ago, meffo said:his card says he can make missile and torpedo attacks at range zero.
It does not say that, if it did we would agree. It says can modify the range by one to a limit of 0-3, it does not say can attack at range 0.
35 minutes ago, meffo said:it still doesn't say cards that let you attack at range zero don't let you attack at range zero, which is what you are claiming
still not what I'm claiming. I'm claiming cards that do not state you can break the rule of not attacking at range zero cannot attack at range zero.
36 minutes ago, meffo said:according to your reasoning, you are unable to perform attacks at range zero with oicunn, arvel and zeb as well.
Not at all, those three cards all, un like Rhymer , specifically state you can make attacks at range zero.
38 minutes ago, meffo said:since attacking at range zero will already be clarified and it's already crystal clear that card text goes before rules texts, major ryhmer can attack at range zero with a missile or torpedo he changes the range requirement down to zero with. please, explain to me why this would not be the case.
It has not been clarified and it is not crystal clear, if that was the case we would not be discussing it here. With the FAQ and RR RAW say Rhymer cannot attack at range zero without another ability that grants him that option.
Fun Fact: The only rules documents called out in the official Tournament Regulations is the most-recent version of the Rules Reference. No mention of the forum posts.
Edited by Innese3 minutes ago, Innese said:Fun Fact: The only rules documents called out in the official Tournament Regulations is the most-recent version of the Rules Reference. No mention of the forum posts.
Indeed the posts on this forum are not official until they're in the FAQ and the wording of them should not be relied on.
It is funny, if we follow the logic of Rhymer not saying he can attack at range 0 even with his weapon stating 0-3, then Arvel, Zeb and Oicunn can't attack at range 0.
Yes they have the permission to do so, but their weapon range is still 1-3, nowhere on their card it say they now have a weapon range of 0-3. You see, that is the stupidity of the argument. If according to you, you need the permission to attack and the range on weapon, then none of these pilote have what it take.
Edit: And if you say, only the permission matter and it override the range of the weapon, then it means at some point, someone could get a thing like: You can attack at range 0 with special weapon, and then do a range 0 Proton Torpedo attack even if the range is still 2-3
5 minutes ago, Innese said:Fun Fact: The only rules documents called out in the official Tournament Regulations is the most-recent version of the Rules Reference. No mention of the forum posts.
I have yet to see an official tournament regulation for second edition, can you provide a link?
2 minutes ago, muribundi said:It is funny, if we follow the logic of Rhymer not saying he can attack at range 0 even with his weapon stating 0-3, then Arvel, Zeb and Oicunn can't attack at range 0.
Yes they have the permission to do so, but their weapon range is still 1-3, no where on their card it say they now have a weapon range of 0-3.
A card saying you can do something overrules any RR statements stopping you from doing that thing so no those three can clearly make their primary attacks at range zero. Rhymer doesn't say you can attack at range zero like the other three do and as such does not get to ignore the rules for range zero attacking.
Edited by Innese5 minutes ago, MockingBird ME said:I have yet to see an official tournament regulation for second edition, can you provide a link?
Odd that that's not linked from the primary X-Wing product page. But yes it looks like according to that any tournaments that take place before the FAQ update is added to the RR would be played without that line and therefore without this disagreement. That in no way changes this disagreement around how the text they explicitly said was left out of the RR in error affects Rhymer.
1 minute ago, MockingBird ME said:Odd that that's not linked from the primary X-Wing product page. But yes it looks like according to that any tournaments that take place before the FAQ update is added to the RR would be played without that line and therefore without this disagreement. That in no way changes this disagreement around how the text they explicitly said was left out of the RR in error affects Rhymer.
If you've got a such a hardon for RAW then without the ruling posted on this forum, which you have to agree is not a ruling yet then I don't see how you could still think Rhymer cannot attack at range 0, a perfectly valid attack range for a weapon.
QuoteA card saying you can do something overrules any RR statements stopping you from doing that thing so no those three can clearly make their primary attacks at range zero. Rhymer doesn't say you can attack at range zero like the other three do and as such does not get to ignore the rules for range zero attacking.
They're future proofing the card in case something gives them a range 0 primary weapon, that's your argument against Rhymer isn't it? I mean they can attack at Range 0 just none of their weapons have a range 0, sad times for them.
15 minutes ago, MockingBird ME said:A card saying you can do something overrules any RR statements stopping you from doing that thing so no those three can clearly make their primary attacks at range zero. Rhymer doesn't say you can attack at range zero like the other three do and as such does not get to ignore the rules for range zero attacking.
Yes, they overrule the: You cannot attack ship at range 0 of you. They never get the range 0 on primary weapon. Again you fail to point out what would happen with a range 2-3 special weapon and a ship saying: You can perform special attacks at range 0
1 hour ago, MockingBird ME said:Unless they specify that munitions ignore the "cannot attack at range zero" rule then Rhymer making a munition have a range of zero doesn't do anything by itself but it does open up all kinds of possibilities for synergy with future content.
What possibilities?
And all this future proof is void. Because even if they ever release something that say, example: Friendly ship can perform special attacks at range 0, it would imply that the weapon range now include 0, so the Rhymer bit would be useless. And if it does not imply the weapon range 0, then it would work only on Rhymer, equally stupid. It was not future proofing, because it did not need it. Any future card WOULD ALSO CHANGE WEAPON RANGE ANYWAY