28 minutes ago, MockingBird ME said:

Not at all what I'm saying.

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.

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.

Not at all, those three cards all, unlike Rhymer, specifically state you can make attacks at range zero.

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.

yup. that's exactly what you're saying.

it's what it means. you're claiming that an advanced proton torpedo that has is range requirement changed to range zero or a cluster missile that has its range requirement changed to zero-three cannot be used for an attack at range zero, since there was a rules update in the FFG forums that say you cannot perform attacks at range zero. in other words, you're disregarding the text on the card in favour of what the FAQ says. you're disregarding a golden rule.

in effect, major ryhmers card says you can attack at range zero if you change the required range of a missile or torpedo to range zero.

just like that, yes. the case where you could change the range of a weapon to zero and still not attack at range zero is absurd. the "0-3"-text is on his card. he cannot perform primary attacks at range zero like zeb, arvel or ouicunn, but he can change missiles and torpedoes required range down to zero.

it is absolutely 100% crystal clear that our beloved tie bomber major can perform missile and torpedo attacks at the ranges his ability changes the required range to.

i still haven't understood why you don't interpret the rules in the same manner, though. please explain your line of reasoning.

14 minutes ago, AramoroA said:

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.

First off, no reason to be rude. Secondly, the entire discussion is based around that FAQ ruling that's what we're talking about.

14 minutes ago, AramoroA said:

I mean they can attack at Range 0 just none of their weapons have a range 0, sad times for them.

"Can make primary attacks at range zero." on the card means they can regardless of any RR reason they normally wouldn't be able to make one at range zero, this overrides both the faq statement and the weapon's range.

11 minutes ago, muribundi said:

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

So sorry I didn't respond to a question I didn't see asked and has no current card stating it. If a card said, "You can perform special attacks at range 0." then you would be able to perform secondary attacks at range 0 regardless of the weapon's listed range.

7 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

What possibilities?

Anything that grants a ship the ability to "treat ships at range zero as if they were at range one for the purposes of your attacks."

7 minutes ago, muribundi said:

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

That would really depend on what the future card said. I can imagine a number of options that would allow you to ignore range and others that would not (see just above for an example).

6 minutes ago, MockingBird ME said:

That would really depend on what the future card said. I can imagine a number of options that would allow you to ignore range and others that would not (see just above for an example).

Your example just above do not need Rhymer to say range 0, so it fail to show that Rhymer needed to be futur proof.

And you make up rules, no where in the rule it say that because you have the right to attack at range 0, your weapon suddenly have this weapon range. You say so because you want your intent to win

4 minutes ago, meffo said:

in effect, major ryhmers card says you can attack at range zero if you change the required range of a missile or torpedo to range zero.

You have said this over and over but it is not what his card says. He can change the range to be or include zero but he does not state that he can attack at range zero, which means if the wording from the FAQ stays he still cannot attack at range zero because his card does not override that rule.

6 minutes ago, meffo said:

i still haven't understood why you don't interpret the rules in the same manner, though. please explain your line of reasoning.

The rules (with FAQ) states you cannot attack at range zero of another ship. Rhymer says he can change the weapon's range to be or include zero but not that he can make attacks at range zero. The golden rule says card effects can break the rules, it does not say that you can ignore rules a card does not say it breaks and Rhymer does not say he breaks the "cannot attack ships at range zero" rule.

Just now, muribundi said:

no where in the rule it say that because you have the right to attack at range 0, your weapon suddenly have this weapon range.

Your weapon doesn't have it's range updated, but the ability for all three of those cards say that you can make primary attacks at range zero. It's giving you explicit permission to make primary attacks at range zero, per golden rule you can now make them at range zero regardless of what the RR says to the effect.

3 minutes ago, MockingBird ME said:

Your weapon doesn't have it's range updated, but the ability for all three of those cards say that you can make primary attacks at range zero. It's giving you explicit permission to make primary attacks at range zero, per golden rule you can now make them at range zero regardless of what the RR says to the effect.

No, you can't, nowhere on the card it say you can break the rule about range requirement. It break only the rule that prevent attack against a ship at range 0. If the range of Rhymer break the rule of the range of the weapon but not the rule about permission to attack then these three break the rule of cannot attack but do not break the rule about range. If they are two different rules for Rhymer, they are also two different rules for these three.

Edit: If these three can break two rules in one shot, then Rhymer can also do so. The only reason why you want these three to break the two rules is because their card would make no sense without it, exactly like Rhymer that make no sense ever, because there will never be future card that will need this wording from Rhymer

10 minutes ago, MockingBird ME said:

Your weapon doesn't have it's range updated, but the ability for all three of those cards say that you can make primary attacks at range zero. It's giving you explicit permission to make primary attacks at range zero, per golden rule you can now make them at range zero regardless of what the RR says to the effect.

Does Occiun allow you to attack someone not in your arc then? He allows you to attack at range 0 so that overrides all other rules about targeting does it?

Seriously right now, it sound like people that were arguing at the beginning of V1 that card like Jake Farrell could not do a Barrel Roll without having it on it's action bar until they finally added it to the FAQ. "Hooo but this is for futur proof, if they ever get the action on the action bar"

1 minute ago, MockingBird ME said:

You have said this over and over but it is not what his card says. He can change the range to be or include zero but he does not state that he can attack at range zero, which means if the wording from the FAQ stays he still cannot attack at range zero because his card does not override that rule. 

The rules (with FAQ) states you cannot attack at range zero of another ship. Rhymer says he can change the weapon's range to be or include zero but not that he can make attacks at range zero. The golden rule says card effects can break the rules, it does not say that you can ignore rules a card does not say it breaks and Rhymer does not say he breaks the "cannot attack ships at range zero" rule.

i've said it over and over, because it doesn't seem you understand it. you're claiming an attack cannot be used at range zero, even if the required range of the attack is, or includes zero? that's just baffling - and so far fetched i refuse to believe it. i'm not even going to comment on it further, because i find it utterly and completely absurd. the card ability takes precedence, always.

i'm not going to argue about that there is a conflict between the rules as written and the ability on a card. that needs no clarification. the card ability takes precedence. it's in the golden rules. please stop ignoring the golden rules.

while i admire your hard work, your line of reasoning on this subject is non-existent, since it ignores fundamental principles of the rules reference.

i wonder if emeraldbeacon has any further input on this matter, perhaps?

26 minutes ago, MockingBird ME said:

Anything that grants a ship the ability to "treat ships at range zero as if they were at range one for the purposes of your attacks."

Such an upgrade wouldn't interact with the 0 on rhymer's card at all though. He wouldn't need his ordnance range reduced to 0 if he was retreating 0 as 1 anyway.

Try again.

8 minutes ago, meffo said:

you're claiming an attack cannot be used at range zero, even if the required range of the attack is, or includes zero?

Yes, and I get that you don't like it. but iff there is a rule that states you can not attack at range zero, and you don't have an ability that says you can then you can't no matter what the range on your weapon is.

I understand that's not satisfying based on Rhymers text, and I get that's not how you want him to work, and I get the confusion of why does his text state that if he can't make the attack. But neither satisfaction, nor desire, nor an unclear reason why they worded something in a way that has no current game effect does not let you break the rules.

5 minutes ago, MockingBird ME said:

Yes, and I get that you don't like it. but iff there is a rule that states you can not attack at range zero, and you don't have an ability that says you can then you can't no matter what the range on your weapon is.

I understand that's not satisfying based on Rhymers text, and I get that's not how you want him to work, and I get the confusion of why does his text state that if he can't make the attack. But neither satisfaction, nor desire, nor an unclear reason why they worded something in a way that has no current game effect does not let you break the rules.

rhymer is satisfying in all ways, the only thing not satisfying in this discussion is, quite frankly, your ignorance. "0-3" means zero to three, not zero-if-you-have-another-ability-that-lets-you-attack-at-range-zero, but a required range of zero.

your line of reasoning is still dependent on the rules text overruling the card text. that's not how the rules in this game works. it's on page one (well, technically, page two) of the rules reference.

if it was clearly in the rules that you cannot attack at range zero, then sure, i would have doubts about rhymers ability. but it's not, so to me it's crystal clear. the FAQ is not in the rules. it says in the FAQ that they will come back and clarify the rules about making attacks at range zero. i'm happy with that, but it seems to me you'd rather ignore it and keep asking for clarifications, even though it says right there that they are coming.

i'm at a loss. it seems to me, you refuse to understand the circumstances which the information from FFG has put us in.

56 minutes ago, meffo said:

if it was clearly in the rules that you cannot attack at range zero, then sure, i would have doubts about rhymers ability.

The debate is about the FAQ ruling, if we're ignoring that then I agree with you; I'm only stating with the FAQ ruling he doesn't work the way you claim.

57 minutes ago, meffo said:

the FAQ is not in the rules. it says in the FAQ that they will come back and clarify the rules about making attacks at range zero.

The FAQ says, and I quote, "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 read that as saying the rule "You cannot attack a ship at range 0 of you." was intended to be in but was omitted from the rules and that in the next RR they're adding it in as was previously intended. I have also stated numerous times in this thread that I hope that's not how they word it but as that is the wording they've supplied so far that's the wording I'm looking at. That wording says Rhymer cannot attack at range zero. If somehow you've missed every time I've said that my stance is based on the wording of the FAQ that's on you. If you'd like to ignore the FAQ until the next RR update you're welcome to with your playgroup as long as they agree with you. I'm not telling you how to play, I'm asserting that if the change they make to the RR has the same wording as the FAQ statement then Rhymer cannot make attacks at range zero based just on his card ability.

I think the problem in this entire situation is POOR LANGUAGE ON THE PART OF FFG. This confusion is not based upon interpreting the existing rules one way or another, it's looking at the rules that are in effect, and applying them appropriately. The PROBLEM is that there are conflicting rules sets right now!

The fact is, there are two ways of interpreting this situation:

1. Using only the Rules Reference Guide (RRG). This is called for in the official Tournament regulations.
   1. There is no explicit restriction from attacking at Range 0, anywhere in the RRG.
   2. Primary Weapons have an explicit range of 1-3. Special weapons are based off of their printed range values.
   3. Rhymer changes printed range values; therefore, Rhymer CAN attack at Range 0 (if the original weapon allowed Range 1).
2. Using the RRG and the Official Rulings thread on the forum. The Forum entry does state that it counts as a legal rules document for the purposes of the game.
   1. The ruling in the forums state, clearly, "You cannot attack a ship at range 0 of you." This is an absolute statement without conditions or exceptions.
   2. Per the "golden rule" which roughly states "card effects can override game effects," some cards (like Arvel, Oicunn, and Zeb (crew)) explicitly override the Range 0 attack rule.
   3. Because he does not have an explicit exception to the Range 0 attack rule, Rhymer CANNOT attack at Range 0.

My personal opinion is, this entire situation is due to an oversight on the part of FFG and their rules department.

Their "Official Rules" forum post created a blanket situation that unintentionally harmed Rhymer's ability, which (prior to the ruling) did work, adhering to the guidelines of the RRG. The Official Rulings post, instead, inadvertently created a situation where Rhymer's ability was unable to operate as originally printed. I don't think this was their intent; but it's a result of (as usual) inefficient, unclear, and sloppy rules writing. When addressing the question (talking about a situation where a ship at Range 0 could be at Range 1 within your arc), they created a blanket statement which covered ALL attacks - I believe this was in error.

5 minutes ago, MockingBird ME said:

The debate is about the FAQ ruling, if we're ignoring that then I agree with you; I'm only stating with the FAQ ruling he doesn't work the way you claim.

The FAQ says, and I quote, "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 read that as saying the rule "You cannot attack a ship at range 0 of you." was intended to be in but was omitted from the rules and that in the next RR they're adding it in as was previously intended. I have also stated numerous times in this thread that I hope that's not how they word it but as that is the wording they've supplied so far that's the wording I'm looking at. That wording says Rhymer cannot attack at range zero. If somehow you've missed every time I've said that my stance is based on the wording of the FAQ that's on you. If you'd like to ignore the FAQ until the next RR update you're welcome to with your playgroup as long as they agree with you. I'm not telling you how to play, I'm asserting that if the change they make to the RR has the same wording as the FAQ statement then Rhymer cannot make attacks at range zero based just on his card ability.

Still curious if you think Oicunn can attack someone outside of his arc at range 0. It's on his card after all.

10 minutes ago, emeraldbeacon said:

I think the problem in this entire situation is POOR LANGUAGE ON THE PART OF FFG. This confusion is not based upon interpreting the existing rules one way or another, it's looking at the rules that are in effect, and applying them appropriately. The PROBLEM is that there are conflicting rules sets right now!

The fact is, there are two ways of interpreting this situation:

1. Using only the Rules Reference Guide (RRG). This is called for in the official Tournament regulations.
   1. There is no explicit restriction from attacking at Range 0, anywhere in the RRG.
   2. Primary Weapons have an explicit range of 1-3. Special weapons are based off of their printed range values.
   3. Rhymer changes printed range values; therefore, Rhymer CAN attack at Range 0 (if the original weapon allowed Range 1).
2. Using the RRG and the Official Rulings thread on the forum. The Forum entry does state that it counts as a legal rules document for the purposes of the game.
   1. The ruling in the forums state, clearly, "You cannot attack a ship at range 0 of you." This is an absolute statement without conditions or exceptions.
   2. Per the "golden rule" which roughly states "card effects can override game effects," some cards (like Arvel, Oicunn, and Zeb (crew)) explicitly override the Range 0 attack rule.
   3. Because he does not have an explicit exception to the Range 0 attack rule, Rhymer CANNOT attack at Range 0.

My personal opinion is, this entire situation is due to an oversight on the part of FFG and their rules department.

Their "Official Rules" forum post created a blanket situation that unintentionally harmed Rhymer's ability, which (prior to the ruling) did work, adhering to the guidelines of the RRG. The Official Rulings post, instead, inadvertently created a situation where Rhymer's ability was unable to operate as originally printed. I don't think this was their intent; but it's a result of (as usual) inefficient, unclear, and sloppy rules writing. When addressing the question (talking about a situation where a ship at Range 0 could be at Range 1 within your arc), they created a blanket statement which covered ALL attacks - I believe this was in error.

I agree with everything in this post. And, hopefully, they'll correctly update the RR soon so we can put this debate to rest.

I really wish they were better at being consistent and precise with their wording.

2 hours ago, MockingBird ME said:

He can change the range to be or include zero but he does not state that he can attack at range zero

Okay, so I had said pretty much my last word on this topic a couple pages back but I'm going to come back in one last time.

When people talk about how much they hate rules lawyering. THIS is exactly what they are talking about. Because at the end of the day Bird, I'm pretty sure even you agree that Rhymer is in fact supposed to be able to attack at 0, you're just being obstinate because you want to be right.

So Bird I'm going to grant you a point here: by the absolute strict letter of the law and the very precise exact words printed on Rhymer and official clarifications thread you are right. He wouldn't be able to attack at 0.

I think most everyone would probably technically agree with me on that as well. HOWEVER, the fact that he can change the range to 0 makes it implicitly clear that he is allowed to actually fire at range 0. Otherwise what's the point? Why would a card have an ability that's non functional? It would be like having a card that said "Your ship mat perform a barrel roll that overlaps an obstacle. If your ship does overlap an obstacle immediately return it to its starting position before the barrel roll." That doesn't actually do anything.

We have almost 100 replies arguing back and forth on a topic that we don't actually disagree on. We all know, we KNOW, every single one of us, that when FFG gets around to the actual RR update rather than a hastily typed out clarification on the rules forum, that Rhymer will be able to attack at 0. Even you Bird I feel confident think so. You've practically said as much more than once.

So can we all just try and take a step back and let this drop?

1 hour ago, sharrrp said:

When people talk about how much they hate rules lawyering.

Keep seeing this hate for rules lawyers; where I come from rules lawyers are an important part of a competitive game community to ensure everyone is playing the same game.

1 hour ago, sharrrp said:

So Bird I'm going to grant you a point here: by the absolute strict letter of the law and the very precise exact words printed on Rhymer and official clarifications thread you are right. He wouldn't be able to attack at 0.

Please, my Bird is my father; my friends call me Mock :p. But more seriously this is what I've been saying for 4 pages, thanks for putting it so concisely.

1 hour ago, sharrrp said:

HOWEVER, the fact that he can change the range to 0 makes it implicitly clear that he is allowed to actually fire at range 0.

I'm not sure on that, you may well be right but that's not what I've ever thought his ability did; admittedly part of that is I had in my mind that you couldn't attack at range 0 when I first read him, not sure why I thought that at the time as it was clearly wrong pre FAQ.

1 hour ago, sharrrp said:

Otherwise what's the point? Why would a card have an ability that's non functional?

I wondered that too, hence my future proofing/planning hypotheses.

1 hour ago, sharrrp said:

We all know, we KNOW, every single one of us, that when FFG gets around to the actual RR update rather than a hastily typed out clarification on the rules forum, that Rhymer will be able to attack at 0.

We do not KNOW, we are guessing and I refuse to suggest we should play one way or another based on how we suspect FFG will later rule on it. I do hope they do it that way because it seems like it will make a lot of you guys happy but it being the way I want it to go isn't a good reason to assume it will. Let's just all hope that they give us the update soon.

X-Wing has a rather long history if we include 1.0. Was there ever a card released with "future profing" any where near what Rhymer would be if he can not attack at range 0?

I find it highly unlikely and unlike FFG to be so forward thinking with theire wording on cards. So regardless of the technicaly correct interpretation (which I normaly strive for over any guess to intent), in this case I would say Rhymer can indeed attack at range 0 with a special weapon with a printed range of 1-x.

No. Literally the only card which has any text solely for future proofing, for first OR second ed, is 2e Maul.

There's a bunch of future proofing in the 2e *rules* but very little on the cards, presumably because they wanted them to... well, work. On release.

And that's the core of my argument.

If there's a part of an ability that has two possible interpretations, one of which does *nothing*, and one of which does *something*, the latter is correct. Every time. Because writing a rule that does nothing, on purpose, is just not something any designer does.

@MockingBird ME why do you all skip the second part of the faq-question: ".. when the range from the firing arc is range 1."?
if the answer "You cannot attack a ship at range 0 of you." is a general rule, then you just could have omitted the second part of the question.
the faq-question describes a very special case, when you bump a ship (so range 0) in a way that the attack range IN ARC is range 1. in this special case you cannot attack a ship at range 0 of you.
but this case has nothing to do with rhymers ability which explicitly states "you may decrease the range requirement to 0".
not sure where the confusion comes from.. if your weapons range requirement is 0, well then you fulfill the requirement if you are at range 0 to the defender.

17 hours ago, MockingBird ME said:

Keep seeing this hate for rules lawyers; where I come from rules lawyers are an important part of a competitive game community to ensure everyone is playing the same game.

I have the complete opposite experience. Everyone is playing by the same rules except the rules lawyers that play with different rules. And no two rules lawyers ever play by the same rules because they all have different pet rules they decide to read differently than everyone else

1 hour ago, mcgreag said:

I have the complete opposite experience. Everyone is playing by the same rules except the rules lawyers that play with different rules. And no two rules lawyers ever play by the same rules because they all have different pet rules they decide to read differently than everyone else

Sounds like that term means different things in different places, I would never have guessed that.

5 hours ago, Cassan said:

@MockingBird ME why do you all skip the second part of the faq-question: ".. when the range from the firing arc is range 1."?

The entire discussion is because they responded to a specific question with what appeared to be a blanket rule. Until they acutely update the RR we won't know for sure.

You still failed to explain why these three let you bypass the range in addition to the "preventing of attack". Your argument that it also grant them the range to their weapon signify that it would bypass every attack restriction, so you end up also being able to attack outside of your arc ?

What you fail to see is that these three get a primary weapon range of 0-3, they never got the right to bypass "can't attack". There wording was always to have range 0 and the rules was already setup to let ship attack when they can at range 0.

We already know that FFG are bad at wording, "If this attack hits" and "After this attack hits" mean the exact same thing. And we have that here, Your Secondary Weapon have range 0 mean the same thing as You can perform primary attacks at range 0

At this point you are as stubborn as the people that were saying Jake Farrel was not able to Barrel Roll in V1

1 hour ago, muribundi said:

What you fail to see is that these three get a primary weapon range of 0-3, they never got the right to bypass "can't attack". There wording was always to have range 0 and the rules was already setup to let ship attack when they can at range 0.

That's a lot of conjecture right there.