3 minutes ago, Estarriol said:

Ah, concentrating more on the heading than the text might’ve helped with that one. Blonde moment.

We all have our share of those. No worries.

1 hour ago, Hiemfire said:

No they can because card abilities trump the Rules Reference. Cannot is only absolute when it is part of a card ability.

Tell it to the grand inquisitor trying to apply a range-1 bonus to a missile, which is only overruled by the "cannot" in the rulebook.

Consistency? From FFG? hahahahahahaha

28 minutes ago, skotothalamos said:

Tell it to the grand inquisitor trying to apply a range-1 bonus to a missile, which is only overruled by the "cannot" in the rulebook.

Consistency? From FFG? hahahahahahaha

I think their reasoning derives from the use of "are not applied" ("Cannot" is not used) in the rules for Ordinance Special Weapons. Ordinance Weapons don't grant or receive bonus dice at all so there is no Range 1 bonus die to be applied with the Grand Inquisitor's ability with a missile unlike with his Primary Weapon.

" Some special weapons have a small ordnance icon on them to indicate that range bonuses are not applied with attacks using those weapons."

57 minutes ago, skotothalamos said:

Tell it to the grand inquisitor trying to apply a range-1 bonus to a missile, which is only overruled by the "cannot" in the rulebook.

Consistency? From FFG? hahahahahahaha

the "cannot" in this instance comes from the ordnance icon on the card, and cards cant disrupt other cards cannots.

but please, continue to make fun of ffg's awful consistency and keyword usage in other areas of the game.

1 hour ago, Hiemfire said:

Yes

I want to disagree with you there, because the new rule states :

"A ship cannot attack a ship at range 0, even if the attack range would be range 1."

And Rhymer's ability is:

"While you perform a missile or torpedo attack, you may increase or decrease the range requirement by 1, to a limit of 0-3. "

It does not give him the ability to make an attack at Range 0, just that his missiles and torpedoes can now be range 0, Unlike Arvel and Oicunn who both have: "

You can perform primary attacks at range 0." As their abilities, which would supersede the new rule, unlike Rhymer's ability which just makes his ordinance (uselessly) range 0.

Accidental double post

Some burning questions still unanswered.... (had a long nightshift, but immediately in my tired mind: Tico <->Deathfire ruling, RAW Yushin not working as intended; there are others)

But at least more clear now on Remotes and Gas clouds.

(Apart from

"• Some devices cause damage to remotes, as described in their individual entries. If a devices does not state that it affects remotes, it does not affect remotes."

Did you really have to save space and words so much? As a non-native speaker I had to read the second sentence more than once in order to understand that it refers to "individual entry" from the sentence above).

Interesting, that remotes are immune to mines (Connor nets, Proximity)!

3 hours ago, Woorloog said:

I assume this refers to an edge case (no pun intended) where ships touch in a way that the target ship is in the attacker's arc but not technically within range 0 in the arc? If that makes sense...?

And i assume Rhymer's ability to adjust ordnance attack range to 0 or Crynyd's ability to do primary attacks at range zero naturally still work.

Arvel could, but Rhymer can't anymore under the new rule. Honestly saw this coming since the answer on the official rule query. Rhymer has a weapon with range 0, but no option to target a ship at range 0 (unlike oicunn, arvel, etc, who have a specific rule letting them attack at range 0)

2 hours ago, Hiemfire said:

Yes

Actually, after further review, the new rule addition does break Rhymer attacking at Range 0.

5 minutes ago, kris40k said:

Actually, after further review, the new rule addition does break Rhymer attacking at Range 0.

Rhymer works just fine. Per the rules reference entry for special weapons, a special weapon's range requirement defines its span of legal attack ranges. If a special weapon has a range of 0, then 0 is a legal attack range when using that weapon.

2 minutes ago, Maui. said:

Rhymer works just fine. Per the rules reference entry for special weapons, a special weapon's range requirement defines its span of legal attack ranges. If a special weapon has a range of 0, then 0 is a legal attack range when using that weapon.

Except that now you cannot attack a target at range 0 regardless of the attack range being legal.

Quote

A ship cannot attack a ship at range 0, even if the attack range would be range 1.

Bolded the important part.

Attack Range doesn't matter for this restriction, if the target is at range 0, you cannot attack it.

So the range is legal, but you can't make the attack because the range isn't legal? This is pretty clearly a direct contradiction--you can't attack at range 0, but Rhymer makes 0 a legal attack range for a special weapon. If this is the case, per the golden rules, then as a card Rhymer overrides the rules, and his ability can permit a range 0 attack.

20 minutes ago, Maui. said:

So the range is legal, but you can't make the attack because the range isn't legal? This is pretty clearly a direct contradiction--you can't attack at range 0, but Rhymer makes 0 a legal attack range for a special weapon. If this is the case, per the golden rules, then as a card Rhymer overrides the rules, and his ability can permit a range 0 attack.

It's not the range that not legal, it's the targeting restriction. You can't attack at range 0, is the same as saying you cannot attack out of arc. Unless something on your card specifically calls it out, you can't ignore it.

48 minutes ago, Maui. said:

So the range is legal, but you can't make the attack because the range isn't legal? This is pretty clearly a direct contradiction--you can't attack at range 0, but Rhymer makes 0 a legal attack range for a special weapon. If this is the case, per the golden rules, then as a card Rhymer overrides the rules, and his ability can permit a range 0 attack.

Range and Attack Range are two different concepts. You can be at Range 0 of a target and Attack Range 1 of the same target, for instance. Rhymer can set the Attack Range requirement of Missile and Torpedo Special Attacks to 0.

The new rule they just added states that you cannot attack a ship at Range 0. This is independent of the Attack Range of the weapon used.

Now, it doesn't matter. It breaks Rhymer's ability to attack a target at Range 0.

Quote

During the Declare Target step, the attack arc is the arc that corresponds to the chosen weapon. The attack range is determined by measuring range from the closest point of the attacker to the closest point of the defender that is in the attack arc.

• 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.

• A ship cannot attack a ship at range 0, even if the attack range would be range 1.

Another important concept to keep in mind with this interaction is that what Rhymer is actually doing is changing the Range Requirement of the two Special Attack types. This is something that the target must meet to be declared the defender during step 1c of the Attack rules. Meeting the range requirement to select the defender does not get around the rule that "a ship cannot attack a ship at range 0" just as meeting the special attack requirement by having a Lock on the target does not avoid that rule.

Arvel, Oicunn, and Zeb (crew) do specifically get around the new rule with their existing wording.

Quote

You can perform primary attacks at range 0.

Quote

While you perform a [torpedo icon] or [missile icon] attack, you may increase or decrease the range requirement by 1, to a limit of 0-3.

Look, I respect the people who dissect the rules to bring greater clarity to these issues, but the Rhymer deal is a red herring. This is all they're trying to say:

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. (Emphasis added)

That's it. End of story. Rhymer works as his card would seem to allow. He's not broken - he overrides the "cannot attack at range 0" clause in the rules reference. The only reason that new phrase has been added to the Rules Reference is because there was a loophole that allowed this scenario:

The B-wing is not at range 0 of the TIE bomber's Attack Arc, so one would think that the B-wing was a legal target. And indeed, in the original Rules Reference, the B-wing would be a legal target - except that they said, "Hold up, there's one tiny but important rule we forgot to put in there: you cannot attack a ship at range 0 of you." [EDIT: in the picture above, you can see clearly how the B-wing is at range 0 of the bomber, but attack range 1 of the bomber, which is the sole reason the clarification was added. We always knew the rule was you can't attack a ship that's touching you. That hasn't changed, except that it's now called 'range 0'. They're just clarifying for this edge case. And of course, the Golden Rule still applies, allowing Rhymer to bypass that rule about not attacking ships at range 0.] Hence the FAQ, which has now shown up in the new Rules Reference, as they promised.

But without the context of the Q that sparked the A, it's easy to come up with all sorts of strange interpretations. Can't say I blame anybody, but hopefully this puts it to rest.

Rhymer still works.

And now that I've written it all out, I can finally see where @kris40k and others are coming from. Shoot. I guess we now need a specific FAQ errata about Rhymer. Sometimes I really hate this game's ruleset.

6 minutes ago, Parakitor said:

And now that I've written it all out, I can finally see where @kris40k and others are coming from. Shoot. I guess we now need a specific FAQ errata about Rhymer. Sometimes I really hate this game's ruleset.

don't get me started. overlapping is still not defined unless you are moving, yet they keep dropping the overlap keyword like that answers the question.

22 minutes ago, Parakitor said:

And now that I've written it all out, I can finally see where @kris40k and others are coming from. Shoot. I guess we now need a specific FAQ errata about Rhymer. Sometimes I really hate this game's ruleset.

Yeah, when I first came into the thread, I was all, "Of course Rhymer still works..." then I started to poke around into it, and realized that their "fix" broke that part of him.

Before they didn't have the rule (the devs'own omission) that you couldn't attack a target at range 0, but it didn't really come up because primary and special weapons were typically attack range 1+, but then the corner case (pun intended) came up where you could be at Range 0 and Attack Range 1 of a target.

So, I get what they were trying to do, and I think the rule is a needed addition, and I would like that Rhymer works to shoot a missile or torp at range 0, but...RAW... yeah, it breaks him.

I can't believe nobody is talking about the new upgrade available for Force users... It's called Heightened Reflexes! (see the faq where they explain the Han/Roark interaction).

5 minutes ago, RoockieBoy said:

I can't believe nobody is talking about the new upgrade available for Force users... It's called Heightened Reflexes! (see the faq where they explain the Han/Roark interaction).

Bleh, why is there no "thinking emoji reaction".

🤔

Think FFG needs to vet their rules references a bit more carefully...

23 minutes ago, RoockieBoy said:

I can't believe nobody is talking about the new upgrade available for Force users... It's called Heightened Reflexes! (see the faq where they explain the Han/Roark interaction).

spend a force to.... do a barrel roll at ps7?

37 minutes ago, kris40k said:

Yeah, when I first came into the thread, I was all, "Of course Rhymer still works..." then I started to poke around into it, and realized that their "fix" broke that part of him.

Before they didn't have the rule (the devs'own omission) that you couldn't attack a target at range 0, but it didn't really come up because primary and special weapons were typically attack range 1+, but then the corner case (pun intended) came up where you could be at Range 0 and Attack  Range 1 of a target.

So, I get what they were trying to do, and I think the rule is a needed addition, and I would like that Rhymer works to shoot a missile or torp at range 0, but...RAW... yeah, it breaks him.

Additionally it seems to me unlikely that they _intend_ this, although I agree RAW seem problematic now.

(My reasoning is that why would Rhymer say "increase or decrease the range requirement by 1, to a limit of 0-3" if you can never attack at 0)

If they _do_ intend it, Rhymer should just be errata'd to say "to a limit of 1-3". (Unless there's some case I'm missing where having the range at 0 helps even though you can't attack?)

16 minutes ago, wildcrdj said:

Additionally it seems to me unlikely that they _intend_ this, although I agree RAW seem problematic now.

(My reasoning is that why would Rhymer say "increase or decrease the range requirement by 1, to a limit of 0-3" if you can never attack at 0)

If they _do_ intend it, Rhymer should just be errata'd to say "to a limit of 1-3". (Unless there's some case I'm missing where having the range at 0 helps even though you can't attack?)

I expect a FAQ entry for Rhymer to clarify that he can attack a target at range 0 if he can modify an equipped missile/torp down to range 0. Some wording like that. They don't want to fix him by just adding " You can perform [torpedo icon] and [missile icon] attacks at range 0." like the other pilots that still work, because then people would be using proton torpedoes at range 0 and that's not what they are intending. RAI he should work with appropriate weapons he can lower to 0, he just needs a RAW tweak since they closed that loophole.

28 minutes ago, kris40k said:

I expect a FAQ entry for Rhymer to clarify that he can attack a target at range 0 if he can modify an equipped missile/torp down to range 0. Some wording like that. They don't want to fix him by just adding " You can perform [torpedo icon] and [missile icon] attacks at range 0." like the other pilots that still work, because then people would be using proton torpedoes at range 0 and that's not what they are intending. RAI he should work with appropriate weapons he can lower to 0, he just needs a RAW tweak since they closed that loophole.

Yeah, I have already submitted a rules question about Rhymer. Still, I'm not going to wait around for the next FAQ. If an opponent brings Rhymer and wants to blast me at Range 0 with Advanced Proton Torpedoes, he's welcome to do so because I think we can all agree that was the intent of this pilot ability.

4 hours ago, Woorloog said:

Think  FFG needs to vet their rules references a bit more carefully...  

No kidding. There's a couple glaring errors in the entry for the DRK-1 Probe Droid entry as well

Starting with the title of it's entry: "Dark Eye Probe Droid" does not appear on any of the reference text or anywhere on the associated upgrade cards. Then there's a little something missing from this line: " Other Rules : While a ship locks an object or jams an enemy ship, it may measure range from a friendly DRK-1 probe droid."

Fortunately the golden rules means the cards still work in spite of the "reference" entry. Here's texts for reference: