Does the new RR prevent Major Rhymer in the TIE Bomber from attacking at R0 with an appropriate munition?

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

It doesnt. That ruling is meant to clearly that if you are touching another ship, and at range 0, Even if your firing arc is not the part touching the ship, but the ship is still in that arc, you are still AT range 0 of that ship, and thus, cannot (normally) attack, even if the ship's closest point IN ARC is at range 1.

Also, Rhymer's ability is a card ability, which overrides the rules reference as per the golden rules.

50 minutes ago, Lyianx said:

It doesnt. That ruling is meant to clearly that if you are touching another ship, and at range 0, Even if your firing arc is not the part touching the ship, but the ship is still in that arc, you are still AT range 0 of that ship, and thus, cannot (normally) attack, even if the ship's closest point IN ARC is at range 1.

Also, Rhymer's ability is a card ability, which overrides the rules reference as per the golden rules.

Funny but we'll have to disagree. In my opinion he obviously can't. His card makes no mention of overruling the ''can't attack a ship at range 0 '' rule, so he can't just choose to ignore it. Like he can't just choose to ignore the bulleyes requirement of a proton rocket just because he extends the range.

You’re wrong. Harsh I know, but always remember I love you. His card specifically says range 0-3.

36 minutes ago, DarthSempai said:

Funny but we'll have to disagree. In my opinion he obviously can't. His card makes no mention of overruling the ''can't attack a ship at range 0 '' rule, so he can't just choose to ignore it. Like he can't just choose to ignore the bulleyes requirement of a proton rocket just because he extends the range.

I get what you are saying. Granted that ruling is poorly worded (people asking about it is proof of that), but i see no other reason why Rhymer's card would include the range 0 possibility if that were truly the intended case. If this rules reference ruling does prevent him from attacking at range 0, then wtf is the point of him being able to reduce the range requirement to 0?

Bottom line, its a poorly written rule, but im confident what ive said was their intent behind it. But strictly as written, i suppose you are correct.

17 minutes ago, Lyianx said:

I get what you are saying. Granted that ruling is poorly worded (people asking about it is proof of that), but i see no other reason why Rhymer's card would include the range 0 possibility if that were truly the intended case. If this rules reference ruling does prevent him from attacking at range 0, then wtf is the point of him being able to reduce the range requirement to 0?

Bottom line, its a poorly written rule, but im confident what ive said was their intent behind it. But strictly as written, i suppose you are correct.

I see where you're coming from with the logic of 0 being on the card, but I play a lot of other boardgame where the rules are written poorly, so I guess i'm used to having rules not doing what the writers (probably!) intended. The problem is that it's hard to determine what is intended, and what is not. Especially in x-wing 2.0.

For example, would you say that deathfire can launch a proximity mine as per the wording of his card, or was that future proofing for a future device?

Is rhymer supposed to be able to attack at range 0 with a advanced proton torpedo, or is his wording a future proofing for a missile that could theorically be launched only at range 0 (with a card that specifically let him attack at range 0.)

Following that train of logic can be confusing and, honestly, is miffed by personal expectation. The safest way is always to take the Word As Written as being right and following them. It's the best way to have a *fair* ruleset where everyone can understand what's going on.

20 minutes ago, DarthSempai said:

or is his wording a future proofing for a missile that could theorically be launched only at range 0

If it already has a minimum range of 0, then Rhymer's ability would only be able to increase it to 1, meaning the 0 minimum on his ability is again, pointless. So while its possible its just future proofing, with the rules reference ruling in place that you cannot attack at 0, im failing to imagine a weapon that would override that ruling, that wouldn't also have a range 0 minimum range built into it. Because i very much doubt FFG would create a weapon that would have an override to that rule, still have a minimum of range 1, that only Rhymer's ability would be able to allow him to take advantage of that weapons range 0 override, while no other ship in the game could.

20 minutes ago, DarthSempai said:

would you say that deathfire  can launch a proximity mine as per the wording of his card, or was that future proofing for a future device?

Since he cannot currently launch Any device on his own, i mark it up to future proofing. His ability doesn't inherently allow him to launch anything. The device itself must say that it can be launched. Its not limited to prox mine. Seismic Charge, Proton Bombs, he cant launch any of that even normally. He would have to equip a device (or upgrade) that specifically tells him he can launch it (like Trajectory Simulator, which he cannot equip).

1 minute ago, Lyianx said:

If it already has a minimum range of 0, then Rhymer's ability would only be able to increase it to 1, meaning the 0 minimum on his ability is again, pointless. So while its possible its just future proofing, with the rules reference ruling in place that you cannot attack at 0, im failing to imagine a weapon that would override that ruling, that wouldn't also have a range 0 minimum range built into it. Because i very much doubt FFG would create a weapon that would have an override to that rule, still have a minimum of range 1, that only Rhymer's ability would be able to allow him to take advantage of that weapons range 0 override, while no other ship in the game could.

Since he cannot currently launch Any device on his own, i mark it up to future proofing. His ability doesn't inherently allow him to launch anything. The device itself must say that it can be launched. Its not limited to prox mine. Seismic Charge, Proton Bombs, he cant launch any of that even normally. He would have to equip a device (or upgrade) that specifically tells him he can launch it (like Trajectory Simulator, which he cannot equip).

I know that in the end, we probably won't manage to agree on this, but I don't see the difference between the two case here, that you see. Anyway, the fact is that, the best course of action is going to be to ask FFG to clarify this, and tell us what they mean. I agree that there is a huge chance that they meant for Rhymer to be able to attack at range 0, it's just that the rules don't support this right now (again, this is IMO. Feel free to disagree with that part of my statement :P)

1 minute ago, DarthSempai said:

I know that in the end, we probably won't manage to agree on this, but I don't see the difference between the two case here, that you see. Anyway, the fact is that, the best course of action is going to be to ask FFG to clarify this, and tell us what they mean. I agree that there is a huge chance that they meant for Rhymer to be able to attack at range 0, it's just that the rules don't support this right now (again, this is IMO. Feel free to disagree with that part of my statement :P)

Oh i don't disagree that the ruling is written like crap and creates its own conflict. I'm more or less just stating what i feel the intent is, but if most TO are only going to go by what is written, and say Rhymer Cant attack at 0, i wont fight against it or anything or even be really disappointed by it, because i can totally see that reasoning, especially in a competitive environment. Even with that said, it doesn't necessarily ruin Rhymer's ability as he arguably wants to adjust the range to be within 1-3 for anything he fires anyway. With everything as written, his reduction to 0 is utterly pointless. (and i dont see how it can not be so with the current rule in place, no matter what missile/torp comes out).

I think it's pretty safe to state, with confidence, that Major Rhymer is intended to be able to fire Range 1 ordnance at Range 0; otherwise, the Range 0 stipulation would not exist on his card.

However, I tend to fall into the "Rules as Written" crowd, that Rhymer cannot use his ability at Range 0. Given that the "Ships cannot perform attacks at Range 0" statement is now solidly in the Rules Reference, and following the Golden Rule that game rules are only overridden by card rules when the card STATES that the rule is overridden... Rhymer is not exempt from the Range 0 issue. Other ships CAN override the game rule, because they have card text which clearly overrides the game rules (see Zeb (Crew), Captain Oicunn, Arvel Crynyd).

12 minutes ago, emeraldbeacon said:

game rules are only overridden by card rules when the card STATES that the rule is overridden

..you know.. except for Paige and Deathfire.

I think specifying the values of range 0-3 does count as a direct override.

57 minutes ago, JBFancourt said:

I think specifying the values of range 0-3 does count as a direct override.

The issue is stemming from his ability being a "may" ability instead of a "can" ability. "May" is unless otherwise restricted, "can" is able to unless another card says it cannot.

16 hours ago, RedSquadBW said:

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

this statement has no inpact on major rhymers ability what so ever. he's attacking at range 0 and the attack range is 0, not 1.

the attack range statement here is concerning a ship that is at range 0 of another ship while still having that ship in arc at range 1.

if an ability changes the required range of a weapon to range 0, that weapon can be used to attack at range 0.

also, please note the golden rules for the magnitude of card abilities in relation to rules text.

12 hours ago, emeraldbeacon said:

Given that the "Ships cannot perform attacks at Range 0" statement is now solidly in the Rules Reference

You are aware that this is absolutely not in any of the RR. There is in fact no rules in XWing 2.0 that state you can't attack at range 0. It just so happen that no weapon have range 0 except Rhymer. The only difference now in the RR, is that if you are range 0 but attack range 1, you still can't attack. And the reason why this came is exactly because there is NO RULE THAT SAY YOU CAN'T ATTACK AT RANGE 0

8 minutes ago, muribundi said:

You are aware that this is absolutely not in any of the RR. There is in fact no rules in XWing 2.0 that state you can't attack at range 0. It just so happen that no weapon have range 0 except Rhymer. The only difference now in the RR, is that if you are range 0 but attack range 1, you still can't attack. And the reason why this came is exactly because there is NO RULE THAT SAY YOU CAN'T ATTACK AT RANGE 0

While I'm firmly in the camp that Rhymer can attack with ordnance at range 0, the rule is at the bottom of page 4 of the new rules reference, under 'attack,' and it says: "A ship cannot attack a ship at range 0"

1 hour ago, Maui. said:

While I'm firmly in the camp that Rhymer can attack with ordnance at range 0, the rule is at the bottom of page 4 of the new rules reference, under 'attack,' and it says: "A ship cannot attack a ship at range 0"

No, you decide to drop some part of the rule just to prove your point. The rule does not say that, it say: "A ship cannot attack a ship at range 0, even if the attack range would be range 1. "

Seriously if this is meant to mean even if you have range 0 weapon you can't attack. Then we are going full circle because Oicunn text does not give him a range 0 weapon, it just give him the right to bypass the supposed rule that prevent ship from ever attacking at range 0. And then if Rhymer is just future proofing, then Oicunn is also just future proofing in case he ever get a range 0 primary weapon.

Edit: And no, there is no golden rule thing in Oicunn, because if it remove range restriction, then it should also remove every other attack restriction like arc

1 hour ago, muribundi said:

No, you decide to drop some part of the rule just to prove your point. The rule does not say that, it say: "A ship cannot attack a ship at range 0, even if the attack range would be range 1. "

Seriously if this is meant to mean even if you have range 0 weapon you can't attack. Then we are going full circle because Oicunn text does not give him a range 0 weapon, it just give him the right to bypass the supposed rule that prevent ship from ever attacking at range 0. And then if Rhymer is just future proofing, then Oicunn is also just future proofing in case he ever get a range 0 primary weapon.

Edit: And no, there is no golden rule thing in Oicunn, because if it remove range restriction, then it should also remove every other attack restriction like arc

Again, I think Rhymer can definitely shoot at range 0 with ordnance; but grammatically speaking, the first clause is independent of the second clause; the second clause begins with 'even if' and so is providing clarification.

However (and this is my opinion which is certainly not universally accepted), a special weapon with a range of 0 can attack at range 0 regardless of this rule, because special weapons define their own legal attack range.

the post so nice i made it twice

1-Rhymer's ability is to change the range requirement of missiles and torpedoes.

2-So his ability act on what is written on the missile/torpedoes cards

3-Card text wins versus rule reference.

4-If rimer shoot missiles or torpedoes he ignore the range restriction.

5-He can shoot at range 0

I'll ask the same question I asked last time this came up: would a putative special weapon with a range of 0 work for anyone other than Arvel and Oicunn?

Muribundi is absolutely right. There is no rule in the RRG that says you can't attack at Range 0.

Every weapon can attack at the Attack Range indicated on the card. Primary Weapons have a Attack Range og 1-3.

Any card that makes the minimum Attack Range 0, can attack a ship at Range 0.

Arvel Crynyd, Major Rhymer and Zeb Orrelios, are both examples of such cards.

The rules for Range Bonuses even states that you get the bonus die at Range 0-1, and only states that you can not normally attack at Ragnge 0 (since primary weapons have range 1-3)

The only place that says anything about not being able to attack something at Range 0 is the new line added in the RRG. So it looks like someone at FFG figured out that you could attack someone at Range 0 in very special circumstances without having a card effect that overrode the rules, and decided to change that.

Personally I think FFG should hurry up and remove it again, because it will only cause more confusion. The rules were fine before, and handle very well how attacks work at range 0. The only Range that should matter is the Attack Range

1 hour ago, StephenEsven said:

So it looks like someone at FFG figured out that you could attack someone at Range 0 in very special circumstances without having a card effect that overrode the rules, and decided to change that.

What they discovered is that it's possible to be touching a ship but have a Range 1 attack in arc to it, and thus a legal attack even though you're Range 0 to the ship . So they closed that loophole. Sloppily.

What they should have done was written that if the ship-to-ship range to a target is 0, then the attack range to it is also 0 regardless of arcs. Then everything would have worked automatically. Instead they wrote an extra "You can't shoot a ship if you're touching it." rule, which ships like Rhymer weren't phrased to account for.

Regardless of what the rules say you can or can’t do in this case, it makes no sense whatsoever for Ordnance to ever be fired at range 0 - it would explode in its launch tube and do as much damage (if not more) to the ship firing it.

Therefore, I would suggest that FFG should also add the following rule;

”While performing a [missile icon] attack at range 0, all uncancelled [hit/crit] results are suffered by both the attacker AND the defender.”

That should solve the problem...

43 minutes ago, DexterOnone said:

Regardless of what the rules say you can or can’t do in this case, it makes no sense whatsoever for Ordnance to ever be fired at range 0 - it would explode in its launch tube and do as much damage (if not more) to the ship firing it.

Therefore, I would suggest that FFG should also add the following rule;

”While performing a [missile icon] attack at range 0, all uncancelled [hit/crit] results are suffered by both the attacker AND the defender.”

That should solve the problem...

You have a pretty interesting supposition about the distances involved with range 0...