5 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

Whaaaaat! I was told otherwise by a very good german player and believed him without checking. Haha I've passed this bs on and was burnt by it quite often. ****

Meh, don't stress too much on it. Mistakes happen, and even good people can be mistaken about something.

for attack range, you have to measure from cardboard, since you have to meassure range in arc. you don't ever measure to cardboard on a ship, though, just from.

11 minutes ago, meffo said:

for attack range, you have to measure from cardboard, since you have to meassure range in arc. you don't ever measure to cardboard on a ship, though, just from.

Whaaaaaaat! I was told otherwise by ....

Which brings me back if it's true: does that mean there is never an actual range 0?

40 minutes ago, meffo said:

for attack range, you have to measure from cardboard, since you have to meassure range in arc. you don't ever measure to cardboard on a ship, though, just from.

That is not what it says. Firing arc is used to assess the defenders position, not the initial point of measurement.

RR page 5

"ATTACK RANGE
During an attack, 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."

To supplement (Rule book page 4, Measuring Range, second paragraph, Underlined directly pertinent, bolded specific emphasis)

"To measure range between two objects, place the
range ruler over the point of the first object that is
closest to the second object, then aim the other end
of the ruler toward the point of the second object
that is closest to the first object. While measuring
range from ships, measure from the plastic base , not
from the miniature. An object is at the range that
corresponds to the range band that falls over the
closest point of the second object."

5 hours ago, GreenDragoon said:

Whaaaaat! I was told otherwise by a very good german player and believed him without checking. Haha I've passed this bs on and was burnt by it quite often. ****

The confusion comes from the corner of the base because the arc line on the cardboard is short of the left and right edges of the plastic. This means that if a front corner of your ship is touching the middle of the front edge of an enemy then they are range 1 in your arc while you are range 0 in theirs, but both ships are at range zero of each other.

16 hours ago, Hiemfire said:

@nitrobenz a couple of questions.

1. If a special weapon states its permitted ranges are 0-X do you think that contradicts the "no attacks at range 0" rule in the RR?

It is not contradictory, it's just functionally no different than a R1-X weapon unless it also includes an exclusion to the existing 'no attacks while at range 0' rule.

16 hours ago, Hiemfire said:

2. Do you consider a special weapon's attack characteristics (the arc, range bracket and # of dice rolled) part of that weapon's ability?

With the Official Ruling that gave us some examples of what counts as an ability, I'm inclined to say yes, broadly speaking there is 'text from a card a player controls' on weapon upgrades. I think I see where you are going with this... If the text on a weapon says it has a range of 0-X it can select a target at range zero during Attack step 1c Declare Defender. If it wasn't for the unilateral declaration in the additional bullet points I would agree that the attack can continue with that target selection, but because there is an 'additional info' bullet point that clearly states "• A ship cannot attack a ship at range 0" (RR1.1.0 p5) I come down on the side that you need an exemption to that rule to continue the attack against a selected target at range zero.

14 hours ago, GreenDragoon said:

Also, to those who say Rhymer can't, what would be necessary? An additional, explicit "You may perform special attacks at range 0" errata?

Getting into the 'rules theory' side of the discussion I would suggest a change to the rule rather than pilot errata because it would open up the design space for weapon upgrades with a stated range of 0-X, maybe even just range zero weapons like a return of Anti-Pursuit Lasers maybe?

Here's my off the cuff stab at hypothetically rewriting the rule:

• A ship cannot choose a defender at range 0 of it unless it has chosen a weapon with an attack range that includes 0.

I would also move this bullet point to sit under the 1c Declare Defender sub-step (or fully integrate it into the sub-step) where it is directly relevant rather than the being one of more general 'additional info' bullets following the complete Declare Target step of the Attack process.

11 minutes ago, nitrobenz said:

It is not contradictory, it's just functionally no different than a R1-X weapon unless it also includes an exclusion to the existing 'no attacks while at range 0' rule.

With the Official Ruling that gave us some examples of what counts as an ability, I'm inclined to say yes, broadly speaking there is 'text from a card a player controls' on weapon upgrades. I think I see where you are going with this... If the text on a weapon says it has a range of 0-X it can select a target at range zero during Attack step 1c Declare Defender. If it wasn't for the unilateral declaration in the additional bullet points I would agree that the attack can continue with that target selection, but because there is an 'additional info' bullet point that clearly states "• A ship cannot attack a ship at range 0" (RR1.1.0 p5) I come down on the side that you need an exemption to that rule to continue the attack against a selected target at range zero.

The only form of cannot that the rules reference outlines as absolute is when the cannot is part of a card ability though (per the golden rules on page 2). If a card ability contradicts the rr or the rulebook the card ability overules them. Ryhmer alters the range on a missile or torpedo upgrade by 1 to a minimum of 0 or a maximum of 3. That altered range for the weapon is what is contradicting the rr by saying "this weapon can attack targets at range 0".

44 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:

The only form of cannot that the rules reference outlines as absolute is when the cannot is part of a card ability though (per the golden rules on page 2). If a card ability contradicts the rr or the rulebook the card ability overules them. Ryhmer alters the range on a missile or torpedo upgrade by 1 to a minimum of 0 or a maximum of 3. That altered range for the weapon is what is contradicting the rr by saying "this weapon can attack targets at range 0".

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree. I see it as 'this weapon can select targets at range 0' (that being distinct from the ability to perform a complete attack) then it bumps into the 'cannot attack at range 0' which then leads into 'choose a different weapon/target'

If I didn't know any better I might think that the bullet point was added, with the wording it has, to nerf Rhymer specifically. It is community consensus that the rule was added to clear up confusion around the 'corner case' that I outlined to GreenDragoon a few posts up, but do we know that nerfing Rhymer was not intended collateral? At the time that rule was added TIE/sa was overrepresented in the meta due to low chassis cost and Barrage Rockets, and Rhymer in particular was able to block aces without his squad losing an attack (the typical downside to blocking). It does stand to some reason that prohibiting attacks while at range zero unless specifically exempted could have been an intended nerf to Rhymer lists.

I rather doubt it myself, but that's an extreme example of where interpreting 'Rules As Intended' could logically go.

As I said before, I won't raise more than a passing objection to R0 Rhymer if I see him on the table as long as it's made clear during setup. I just want the rules to be tight enough that there is no room for debate. In the past I would have added a rant here about 'how FFG never addresses fringe cases' but the last update gives me hope since they did address the Hardpoint v Jonus debate so I'll do what's in my meager power to raise the profile of this in hope that it gets tightened up in a future update 😀

6 hours ago, nitrobenz said:

Getting into the 'rules theory' side of the discussion I would suggest a change to the rule rather than pilot errata because it would open up the design space for weapon upgrades with a stated range of 0-X, maybe even just range zero weapons like a return of Anti-Pursuit Lasers maybe?

Here's my off the cuff stab at hypothetically rewriting the rule:

• A ship cannot choose a defender at range 0 of it unless it has chosen a weapon with an attack range that includes 0.

I would also move this bullet point to sit under the 1c Declare Defender sub-step (or fully integrate it into the sub-step) where it is directly relevant rather than the being one of more general 'additional info' bullets following the complete Declare Target step of the Attack process.

Honestly, i dont like the idea of changing a rule governing an entire inventory of ships, just to clarify a singular pilot ability. It just feels like using a sledge hammer instead of a scalpel and leaves alot of room to break other ships currently working "as intended". As much as they dont like to do it, i really think Rymer himself just needs an Errata.

You may perform or attacks at range 0.

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

They dont want to do it, but if thats how they want him to work, and not create more confusion for other ships, thats what needs to be done.

4 hours ago, Lyianx said:

You may perform or attacks at range 0.

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

They dont want to do it, but if thats how they want him to work, and not create more confusion for other ships, thats what needs to be done.

I wouldn't object to card errata, I just like the idea of R0 special weapons, but those can more easily be enabled by including the R0 exception on the new cards. The last update gives me just as much hope for an errata solution since they literally doubled the number of card errata in that section and half of new errata weren't even for new ships! Even a couple conversion kit cards that got changes 😀

12 hours ago, nitrobenz said:

I just like the idea of R0 special weapons, but those can more easily be enabled by including the R0 exception on the new cards

I agree. A R0 should be very specialized and intentional. I honestly feel that, if they do make such a weapon (especially as a missile or torpedo) that it should Also damage the attacker. Firing that kind of weapon when you are practically touching the ship usually has detrimental effects to yourself (tho thematically, range 0 likely just means point blank, who knows). I can see this being better to pull off using a Cannon or Turret weapon with no ill side effects though, but then you get into being 'too' inside of its arg to being outside of its arc again, so maybe Bullseye only weapons?

It would be an interesting mechanic, but you'd have to be careful what ships would get it. Low level blockers would become an entirely new threat than what they already are (especially when you add in Intimidation)

On 6/19/2020 at 3:22 PM, nitrobenz said:

Getting into the 'rules theory' side of the discussion I would suggest a change to the rule rather than pilot errata because it would open up the design space for weapon upgrades with a stated range of 0-X, maybe even just range zero weapons like a return of Anti-Pursuit Lasers maybe?

I like the idea of expanding that gamespace that way.

It would be simple to adjust the one rule, and add a second, to solve the whole mess (bold indicates recommended new information):

• A ship cannot attack a ship at range 0, even if the attack range would be range 1 , unless the selected weapon has a range requirement that includes range 0.
• If a ship selects a weapon with a range requirement that includes range 0, it may perform that attack against a ship at range 0.

I'm all in favor of a simple errata or clarification for Rhymer, just to finally be able to close this thread.

<looks at the Golden Rules>, <looks at the effect Rhymer has on a special weapon upgrade as specified by his ability>, <looks back at the Golden Rules>, </facepalms>….

19 hours ago, Hiemfire said:

<looks at the Golden Rules>, <looks at the effect Rhymer has on a special weapon upgrade as specified by his ability>, <looks back at the Golden Rules>, </facepalms>….

Again, he isn't specifically overriding the rule book. In fact, that rule was added later, so he did work like that before, and now he doesn't. Isn't the first time thats happened to abilities, probably wont be the last either.

On 6/19/2020 at 9:51 PM, nitrobenz said:

The confusion comes from the corner of the base because the arc line on the cardboard is short of the left and right edges of the plastic. This means that if a front corner of your ship is touching the middle of the front edge of an enemy then they are range 1 in your arc while you are range 0 in theirs, but both ships are at range zero of each other.

I thought it was because the guides... A parallel overlap is range 0 because the rules (p. 15) but range 1 when measuring.

I think the best solution is to rewrite the rule in the RR saying "A ship cannot perform a primary weapon attack against a ship at range 0, even if the attack range would be range 1"

6 hours ago, S4ul0 said:

I thought it was because the guides... A parallel overlap is range 0 because the rules (p. 15) but range 1 when measuring.

I think the best solution is to rewrite the rule in the RR saying "A ship cannot perform a primary weapon attack against a ship at range 0, even if the attack range would be range 1"

That rule is just horrible to read anyway. It’s the sort of thing that CAUSES headaches, rather than fixes them.

I would give my starboard engine to have a proper rules team and a couple of badass proofreaders assigned to X-Wing and Armada.

On 6/26/2020 at 9:07 AM, Cpt ObVus said:

I would give my starboard engine to have a proper rules team and a couple of badass proofreaders assigned to X-Wing and Armada.

Legion probably needs it as well. That said (and ive mentioned this before), While that might work in the beginning, the longer they work with FFG, I would think they would develop tunnel vision toward FFG's intent in their writing and no longer see conflicting text. Which sucks because you'd need proofreaders who know the mechanics of the game to be able to determine if the phrasing such is correct.

I honestly dont really blame FFG for this, as im pretty sure *Every* living game has this issue (MTG has it BAAD, to where ive seen heated arguments over wording. Not debates, arguments). The best way i can think of is basically what they are doing. Release it, address the questions, adjust the wording of rules to better clarify. The only thing id like to see form them on this is faster response on it, but im not sure that can be helped (especially since FFG laid off a bunch of people recently).

I know this is rehash...

But I just CANNOT even see the other side of this argument. Rhymer is absolutely a direct card text override, just like Arvel, Zeb, Oicunn.... etc.

It is worded differently, because he’s a different ship using a non-primary weapon. Yes, he could have been worded more specifically...

IF, IF... he only only said increase decrease by 1, MAYBE I’d see the argument, but even then it would require a clarification.

Frankly, the fact that it STIPULATES range 0.... my mind just can’t get over that...

Clear RAI and RAW... 🤯

This reminds me of the BB8 has a white boost 😂 😂

On 6/27/2020 at 9:02 PM, JBFancourt said:

I know this is rehash...

But I just CANNOT even see the other side of this argument. Rhymer is absolutely a direct card text override, just like Arvel, Zeb, Oicunn.... etc.

It is worded differently, because he’s a different ship using a non-primary weapon. Yes, he could have been worded more specifically...

IF, IF... he only only said increase decrease by 1, MAYBE I’d see the argument, but even then it would require a clarification.

Frankly, the fact that it STIPULATES range 0.... my mind just can’t get over that...

Clear RAI and RAW... 🤯

This reminds me of the BB8 has a white boost 😂 😂

🙄

Not sure if it's been mentioned and I know it's only a thought but the quick build for Rhymer comes with adv proton torps/ cluster missiles & intimidation (perhaps implying that he can fire at range 0)

5 hours ago, pitchfork06 said:

Not sure if it's been mentioned and I know it's only a thought but the quick build for Rhymer comes with adv proton torps/ cluster missiles & intimidation (perhaps implying that he can fire at range 0)

Quickbuild Zari Bangel comes with Outmaneuver and Proton Rockets, but Outmaneuver only works with front arc attacks, which the RZ-2 A-Wing does not have natively because of the turret arc. You could get a front arc attack with a missile, but Proton Rockets won't work for that as they are a bullseye arc attack. So Zari has no use for Outmaneuver.

I am not convinced either way whether Rhymer works or doesn't work, but I don't think quick builds should be an indicator on rulings.

6 hours ago, pitchfork06 said:

Not sure if it's been mentioned and I know it's only a thought but the quick build for Rhymer comes with adv proton torps/ cluster missiles & intimidation (perhaps implying that he can fire at range 0)

They also add an ion turret to a U-wing, which normally cannot support it.

Quickbuilds are by design, rule breaking and by no means a way to gauge if something in standard builds should work or not.

Alright, I had some time to cool off. Here's one more go 😁

On 6/27/2020 at 6:02 PM, JBFancourt said:

But I just CANNOT even see the other side of this argument. Rhymer is absolutely a direct card text override, just like Arvel, Zeb, Oicunn.... etc.

The rule is 'no attacking while at range 0' with a reminder that the attack range is irrelevant. The way I see it even if the attack range is 0 you cannot perform an attack against that target because you are at range 0.

On 6/27/2020 at 6:02 PM, JBFancourt said:

Clear RAI and RAW... 🤯

Original RAI and RAW at the time of release (v1.0.0 fall 2018) were clear and were in alignment. At that time there was no prohibition against attacking a ship while at range 0 of it. That 'no attacking while at R0' rule was introduced more recently to close a loophole, but we don't know irrefutably that Rhymer was not an intended casualty of the rule change. He (and the TIE/SA in general) was more common in the opening days of 2e than now and it is conceivable that the intent changed since original release.

Current (v1.1.0 first half of 2020) RAI has consensus (yes, it was meant to work) but it's not irrefutable as I noted above. Current RAW is clear: No attacks while at R0 regardless of the actual range of the attack.