47 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:

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

It’s kind of implied in the description; if it wasn’t 0, they’d be at range 1 and we wouldn’t be having this discussion!

We’re talking about ships being in the process of bouncing off each other, or at least clipping each other, during a dogfight.

If those ships are equipped with parking sensors, they’re getting solid tone...

An Ordnance explosion at that point is definitely damaging both of them!

Or it's going past and exploding on the other side or it's going through without arming and dealing damage that way or etc.

You can find flavour justifications for anything. The rules are what are at issue.

5 hours ago, DexterOnone said:

it makes no sense whatsoever for Ordnance to ever be fired at range 0

it also makes no sense that we cant just slide our ships sideways while keeping targets in firing arcs, but thats the way the game is played. For that matter it makes far more sense that some ships would easily be able to fire at range 0. Any ship with its lasers near or at the center of their ship. But for balance reasons, they cant and only a select few ability's allow it. Maybe Rhymer has some special training or a special upgrade to his ship to where he doesnt take splash damage.

Speaking of which, if your comment about range 0 held true, then any time any ordnance was fired at a ship, any other ship at range 0 of that target would also take damage, but they dont.

Why cant i delete this post?

Why cant i delete this post?

the ships are in space, which is a three dimensional (at least) evironment. the two dimensional game we play is just a representation. therefore, your arguments are not valid and have no place in a rules forum.

1 hour ago, meffo said:

the ships are in space, which is a three dimensional (at least) evironment. the two dimensional game we play is just a representation. therefore, your arguments are not valid and have no place in a rules forum.

Maybe... but then I personally think it would be good for the game if FFG were to create fluff rules to counter some of the gimmicks that people are determined to “rules lawyer” into legality.

After all, the likelihood is that people are only trying to get these gimmicks through because they can’t win with a standard list and need some sort of trick to give them an advantage over their opponents...

2 minutes ago, DexterOnone said:

Maybe... but then I personally think it would be good for the game if FFG were to create fluff rules to counter some of the gimmicks that people are determined to “rules lawyer” into legality.

After all, the likelihood is that people are only trying to get these gimmicks through because they can’t win with a standard list and need some sort of trick to give them an advantage over their opponents...

i think we're pretty much free of gimmicks like that - or do you consider major ryhmer firing advanced proton torpedoes at range 0 to be one of them?

5 minutes ago, meffo said:

i think we're pretty much free of gimmicks like that - or do you consider major ryhmer firing advanced proton torpedoes at range 0 to be one of them?

That’s definitely a gimmick; range 0 attacks, if they really have to be in the game at all (for thematic reasons), should be restricted to primary attacks only.

Ordnance, as a “Special” attack, should require more skill and judgement to use than just flying into the enemy and not caring if they bump into you or you bump into them.

5 minutes ago, DexterOnone said:

That’s definitely a gimmick; range 0 attacks, if they really have to be in the game at all (for thematic reasons), should be restricted to primary attacks only.

Ordnance, as a “Special” attack, should require more skill and judgement to use than just flying into the enemy and not caring if they bump into you or you bump into them.

It still requires you to get a Lock of some sort, usually from a previous round seeing as a bump robs you of your action.

41 minutes ago, DexterOnone said:

That’s definitely a gimmick; range 0 attacks, if they really have to be in the game at all (for thematic reasons), should be restricted to primary attacks only.

Ordnance, as a “Special” attack, should require more skill and judgement to use than just flying into the enemy and not caring if they bump into you or you bump into them.

there are several ships that can always attack at range 0. there are even effects from upgrades that let you do it. it's even clarified that you get the range 1 bonus when you attack at range 0, so it's not uncommon or strange for it to happen. major ryhmer specifically can only fire ordnance at range 0. that's his thing, he can make ordnance work at ranges others can't. i think it's very fitting that he can fire advanced proton torpedoes or cluster missiles at range 0.

of course it's a bit of a gimmick, since no one else can do it, but it's not like it's abusive or over powered. it's worth noting i've never flewn him myself, but faced him several times. i found his ability to be fun and quite balanced, since you have to consider flying around him extra carefully.

he can take a lock the same round, unless he's the one bumping - and that's the best way to use him, as an ace blocker with advanced proton torps. he will very rarely have lock and focus, though. lock and stress is more common.

1 hour ago, DexterOnone said:

After all, the likelihood is that people are only trying to get these gimmicks through because they can’t win with a standard list and need some sort of trick to give them an advantage over their opponents...

That's kind of ignorant dont you think? Every upgrade and unique pilot has a "gimmick". Are you saying that "standard lists" should only have naked ships with generic pilots? And if you use any upgrade or ability, that means you have to use those because you "cant win" otherwise?

The issue with that statement is, you are pushing shame onto the player for something that FFG produced for the game thats being played, and thats not really fair. If the game gives you the means to use an ability, why should someone be shamed for using that ability?

11 minutes ago, Lyianx said:

That's kind of ignorant dont you think? Every upgrade and unique pilot has a "gimmick". Are you saying that "standard lists" should only have naked ships with generic pilots? And if you use any upgrade or ability, that means you have to use those because you "cant win" otherwise?

The issue with that statement is, you are pushing shame onto the player for something that FFG produced for the game thats being played, and thats not really fair. If the game gives you the means to use an ability, why should someone be shamed for using that ability?

You’re taking that out of context by quoting without the previous paragraph. I’m talking about fringe cases where there’s disagreement over how they work, and people trying to “rules lawyer” their preferred interpretation into legality.

I have no issue with the vast majority of abilities being used, since they’re clearly and unambiguously worded and everyone agrees how they’re supposed to be applied.

Where something is disputed, however, then insisting on playing it to the interpretation that gives you an advantage is probably something that should cause some feelings of guilt or shame... and then you either play something less controversial until there’s an official ruling or run it anyway because you want to win at any cost.

34 minutes ago, DexterOnone said:

You’re taking that out of context by quoting without the previous paragraph. I’m talking about fringe cases where there’s disagreement over how they work, and people trying to “rules lawyer” their preferred interpretation into legality.

I have no issue with the vast majority of abilities being used, since they’re clearly and unambiguously worded and everyone agrees how they’re supposed to be applied.

Where something is disputed, however, then insisting on playing it to the interpretation that gives you an advantage is probably something that should cause some feelings of guilt or shame... and then you either play something less controversial until there’s an official ruling or run it anyway because you want to win at any cost.

is there a reason you're making this a discussion about ethics and sportsmanship?

to me, it's very simple. major rhymer can use his ability to make the required range of ordnance like advanced proton torpedoes or cluster missiles 0. therefore, he can attack at range 0. the newly added paragraph from the rules reference does not have any effect on this what so ever. it deals with ships at range 0 but at attack range 1, not at attack range 0 which is what rhymers ability can make some ordnance special weapons.

also, there is always the glorious golden rule:
"If the ability of a card conflicts with the rules in this guide, the card ability takes precedence."

so even if there was a conflict between major rhymers ability and the rules reference (which there clearly isn't), major rhymers ability would still take precedence.

As others have said in this topic, with this new Ref I dont believe he can fire special weapons at range 0. Intentional fix, or mistaken overstep? Who can say... regardless while special weapons have their own special requirements to perform the attack they are still an "Attack" have have to adhere to the rules of "Attack" in the reference. Rhymer can change the range requirement of the special weapon to 0 (as useless as this may be.) but doesn't change the hard rule of not being able to fire at range 0. The "even if the attack range would be range one" isn't a extension of the rule its added clarification of the rule.

In any case this doesn't make his ability bad, he can still launch clusters at range three or torps at range one, I think that was the goal of this pilot anyway.

To increase his effectiveness within all "Attack" ranges.

40 minutes ago, MrSkorm said:

As others have said in this topic, with this new Ref I dont believe he can fire special weapons at range 0. Intentional fix, or mistaken overstep? Who can say... regardless while special weapons have their own special requirements to perform the attack they are still an "Attack" have have to adhere to the rules of "Attack" in the reference. Rhymer can change the range requirement of the special weapon to 0 (as useless as this may be.) but doesn't change the hard rule of not being able to fire at range 0. The "even if the attack range would be range one" isn't a extension of the rule its added clarification of the rule.

In any case this doesn't make his ability bad, he can still launch clusters at range three or torps at range one, I think that was the goal of this pilot anyway.

To increase his effectiveness within all "Attack" ranges.

ok, so how do you explain this?



why does his ability clearly state that he can change the range of a torpedo or missile attack by 1, to a limit of 0-3 if he is not supposed to ever change it to 0?

if the intention is as you describe, why doesn't his ability just say 1-3 instead?

if major rhymer changes the required range of a weapon to lets say 0 or 0-1, we need to treat that weapon upgrade card as if it's saying it's required range is 0 or 0-1. if the required range printed on the card is treated as 0, that of course takes precedence over the rules reference.

why would text in the rules reference take precedence over an ability printed on a card, when the rules reference itself clearly states that card abilities takes precedence over the rules reference?

major rhymers ability does not have to conflict with the rules reference, but what is your reasoning for assuming the rules reference takes precedence over major rhymers ability when it does?

The pat answer is 'future proofing for a putative future upgrade (probably an elite) that allows attacking at range 0'.

It's a bad answer, but it does exist.

On 4/10/2019 at 9:35 PM, Hiemfire said:

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.

Oh no! I remember endless forum debates in the Warmachine forums in the early days of Mk1. Some rules used “may” to indicate you have the option to do ___. Other rules used “may” to indicate you had the ability to do ___ outside of the normal rules that precluded ___ but you had no choice to opt out (I called it the “must-may”).

I hope to not relive those days!

3 minutes ago, Pewpewpew BOOM said:

I hope to not relive those days!

You and me both.

On 4/11/2019 at 6:18 PM, StephenEsven said:

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

Yes there is - page 15 "Although the range bonus applies at range 0, a ship cannot normally perform a primary attack at range 0."

On 4/12/2019 at 5:24 AM, meffo said:

the ships are in space, which is a three dimensional (at least) evironment. the two dimensional game we play is just a representation.

One time I maneuvered a Lambda shuttle through the middle of the battlefield, only to realize when it was his time to move that not only was his end point blocked, but every stopping place along the template was blocked as well, so he ended up in the exact place that he started as if he had just selected a Stop.

I'm frankly not sure how to imagine that in 2D space or 3D space. In 2D space, of course, there's just no way the smaller ships completely absorbed his momentum. In 3D space, though, it's still weird that he went full speed ahead toward a bunch of ships, but somehow instead just ended up above/below his original position without actually heading toward those ships after all?

Ultimately, the mechanic itself is representative. I'm not complaining, but it can certainly lead to some interesting edge cases.

As for the main topic, I still think the origin of the Range 0 ruling is key to the ambiguity, as it was a response to a different kind of interaction.

"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."

Rules as written and rules as intended seem to exist because there's room for debate even within themselves. If it was simple, then you wouldn't even need to take different perspectives on it. I think I could argue the same angle for both of them right now.

Pro Range 0

As Intended: The Range 0 ruling was in response to a firing arc question, not a range or Ordnance question. Major Rhymer says he can choose Range 0. Major Rhymer is probably intended to fire at Range 0.

As Written: Ordnance weapons define their own ranges and Major Rhymer can choose Range 0. The ruling is thus overridden by the Golden Rule by the card giving that option.

Against Range 0

As Intended: Ships can't ever attack a Range 0 target unless specifically stated otherwise, which the ruling reinforces. Major Rhymer's ability is intended as future-proofing, not permission.

As Written: The ruling said that you cannot attack a ship at Range 0 and Major Rhymer does not explicitly override this rule. The Range 0 option on his ability doesn't have to do anything at the moment just because it's an option.

How is this rule anything new?

Previously the RR very clearly said that you got an extra attack die at range 0, even though you normally cannot attack at range 0. Which would be the same ruling.

And yet, Rhymer worked fine before.

16 hours ago, Derenga said:

Yes there is - page 15 "Although the range bonus applies at range 0, a ship cannot normally perform a primary attack at range 0."

That doesn't say you cannot attack at Range 0. It says you cannot normally attack at Range 0. That is because you do not normally have a weapon with a minimum range of 0.

17 hours ago, Jokubas said:

As Intended: Ships can't ever attack a Range 0 target unless specifically stated otherwise, which the ruling reinforces. Major Rhymer's ability is intended as future-proofing, not permission.

People have to stop bringing Future Proof for Rhymer. If this was Future Proof for when he will have a way to attack at Range 0, then it means Oicunn can't work for now because they don't have Range 0 on their primary weapon. If the fact that granting the ability to attack at range 0 also grant the range, then the range 0 on Rhymer will always be useless.

Oicunn and the like are proof that Rhymer can attack, because if their wording mean bypass the rule preventing the attack AND add range 0 to a weapon, Rhymer will always be a useless addition to specify range 0.

At some point, we have to stop assume idiot thing on FFG part.

And also about the Future Proofing, it is still up in the air to even come with an upgrade example that would need the weapon to have been granted range 0 by Rhymer but still do something on everyone else.

Darth Maul, we could figure out why it would be useful. Deathfire we can see why it is a useful future proof, but I still fail to see how it would ever be needed on Rhymer. (Taking into account the like of Oicunn are proof that you don't need the range on the weapon)

20 minutes ago, muribundi said:

People have to stop bringing Future Proof for Rhymer. If this was Future Proof for when he will have a way to attack at Range 0, then it means Oicunn can't work for now because they don't have Range 0 on their primary weapon. If the fact that granting the ability to attack at range 0 also grant the range, then the range 0 on Rhymer will always be useless.

Oicunn and the like are proof that Rhymer can attack, because if their wording mean bypass the rule preventing the attack AND add range 0 to a weapon, Rhymer will always be a useless addition to specify range 0.

At some point, we have to stop assume idiot thing on FFG part.

And also about the Future Proofing, it is still up in the air to even come with an upgrade example that would need the weapon to have been granted range 0 by Rhymer but still do something on everyone else.

Darth Maul, we could figure out why it would be useful. Deathfire we can see why it is a useful future proof, but I still fail to see how it would ever be needed on Rhymer. (Taking into account the like of Oicunn are proof that you don't need the range on the weapon)

Oicunn states "can" which overrides a Rules Reference "cannot" per the Golden Rules. Rhymer states "may" for his missile and torpedo Special Weapons. That Rhymer use "may" and not "can" is where the issue is arising...