1 hour ago, meffo said:

rules reference, page 16. please note that the range 1 bonus applies to range 0 attacks,

Primary attacks

The general "attacks" is here

1 hour ago, meffo said:

rules reference, page five.

about the special case where the range would be 1 but the ships are at range 0 of each other.

Where is the general "no special attacks at range 0"?

10 hours ago, joeshmoe554 said:

It was a terrible ruling, that was only corrected later when they changed the rules reference so a ship may drop more than one device per round.

That's entirely backwards. The rules change didn't fix a bad ruling, the ruling fixed a "bad" rule.

Only it wasn't that bad of a rule in the first place, just folks got verkakte about it for no real reason.

FFG could obviously be better at distinguishing between the circumstances of normal play, and absolute limits, but it was always possible to view Paige and Deathfire as dropping more than one device. Folks will say "but the bonus attacks!" to which the only good response is "but the actions!" The text for both the perform action step and the coordinate action and cards like Pattern Analyzer all say "perform 1 action." We have, by and large, not been fools when it comes to reading this, and gotten along fine. All we as a community had to do was view dropping bombs as like actions, rather than like bonus attacks, and we'd have been fine.

But overall the rules community decided to be fools, and decided to get mad at FFG for... wait for it... writing a ruling which matched what had always been their intent . And on top of that, folks are still mad. Just everyone thing for a second about how absurd it is to have gotten mad at FFG over the ruling , rather than not having been more precise in the rulebook, particularly when every time they were asked about the subject they told us the exact same thing: Paige and Deathfire work.

Bah, I know I'm being insufferable, but I made the mistake of reading this thread, and so I've got to get this out of my system or I'll just stew all day long, and I've got a bunch of work to do.

//

Anyhow, I'm Rhymer-Works-At-0. The arguments used aren't foolish, and that's enough. Even though there's at least something to hang a "doesn't work" interpretation, I don't care. It can go either way, so we have to make a decision. All we ever do here is make decisions (although some folks pretend otherwise).

• Rhymer clearly used to work before FFG closed a loophole unrelated to Rhymer.
• There's a valid "still works" argument, even after the loophole was closed.
• Why are we even still here?

2 hours ago, theBitterFig said:

But overall the rules community decided to be fools, and decided to get mad at FFG for... wait for it... writing a ruling which matched what had always been their intent .

You're completely off base with this comment. We didnt "decide to be fools", we called FFG out for their crap rulings. Its still a bad ruling. And as this community loves to point out "it doesnt matter what their intent is, only what is written". At least, this is what im told every time i try to interpret FFG's intention on questionable abilities. If their intent was for those two to be able to drop multiple bombs during the system phase, then that statement should be written directly on their ability text. Its as simple as that.

And its the same for Rhymer. If they *intend* for him to attack at range 0, then he should have text stating as much in his ability text, like ALL OTHER ABILITIES that override that restriction do.

2 minutes ago, Lyianx said:

If they *intend* for him to attack at range 0, then he should have text stating as much in his ability text, like ALL OTHER ABILITIES that override that restriction do.

1) where's the restriction for special attacks?

2) why did they add the 0 in "Range 0-3" when he can't actually attack at range 0?

Edit: Quote broke

8 minutes ago, Lyianx said:

And its the same for Rhymer. If they *intend* for him to attack at range 0, then he should have text stating as much in his ability text, like ALL OTHER ABILITIES that override that restriction do.

Rhymer and those “Other Abilities” were in at the start of 2.0. The rule in question wasn’t; the only related rule was simply stating that Primary Weapons are range 1-3.

The rule constantly being referenced in this thread was added later to clarify a specific situation and Rhymer got caught in the crossfire.

17 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

1) where's the restriction for special attacks?

2) why did they add the 0 in "Range 0-3" when he can't actually attack at range 0?

1) "A ship cannot attack a ship at range 0, even if the attack range would be range 1." - Rules Reference, Attack

2) Because that rule was added after his card ability had already been written and printed. They also likely agree that it implicitly works and you should assume their intent so they haven't bothered to clarify or errata the card.

42 minutes ago, Lyianx said:

If their intent was for those two to be able to drop multiple bombs during the system phase, then that statement should be written directly on their ability text.

And yet, FFG ruled *TWICE* that it worked. In hindsight, it is certain this was the intent.

Look, I'm not saying they can't write stuff more precisely. But even then, the problem *WAS NEVER THE RULING* but a slightly unclear rulebook. They've absolutely told us all along that Deathfire/Paige worked, and although some folks onhere didn't agree, it was never impossible to make a reasonable interpretation from the text that they did work.

But like, y'all don't want to take responsibility for your own interpretations, and pretend like you aren't making decisions.

42 minutes ago, Lyianx said:

And its the same for Rhymer. If they *intend* for him to attack at range 0, then he should have text stating as much in his ability text, like ALL OTHER ABILITIES that override that restriction do.

But it does.

The concept of having a Range 0 attack *IS UTTERLY IRRELEVANT* if you can't attack at Range 0. It changes the range to 0 so you can attack at Range 0.

I guess some folks need to be told like five times.

43 minutes ago, joeshmoe554 said:

1) "A ship cannot attack a ship at range 0, even if the attack range would be range 1." - Rules Reference, Attack

Whoops, you're right. I thought the context is slightly different.

I still suspect that the intention behind that point was a bit different, but that's conjecture based on other things, not on the paragraph itself.

1 hour ago, Lyianx said:

And its the same for Rhymer. If they *intend* for him to attack at range 0, then he should have text stating as much in his ability text, like ALL OTHER ABILITIES that override that restriction do.

please, let me clarify that for you. let us look at his card.

while rhymer performs a (torpedo) or (missile) attack, the range requirement may be increased or decreased by 1, to a limit of range 0-3. we can agree on that, no?

thus, his card clearly states that he may change the range requirement of a weapon down to 0. if that's isn't explicit and clear, i don't know what is. don't agree? why not?

if a weapon's range requirement is 0 and a ship is at range 0, that ship is eligible to be declared as a defender during step 1C of performing an attack. don't agree? why not?

no? because of this?

Quote

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

if that line of text is so absolute, then how come the rules reference talks about attacking at range 0 in so many other places? and how come rhymers card tells us he can make the required range of a torpedo or missile 0?

I’m convinced. The way someone... I think it was Meffo... laid it out about a page ago, it’s obvious that he should be allowed to make attacks at range zero.

12 minutes ago, meffo said:

if that line of text is so absolute, then how come the rules reference talks about attacking at range 0 in so many other places?

Because there are at least 4 card abilities that state, "You can perform primary attacks at range 0."

10 hours ago, theBitterFig said:

And yet, FFG ruled *TWICE* that it worked. In hindsight, it is certain this was the intent.

Is @Lyianx actually is correct on the historical recounting.

At the time when Paige was initially released this line was in the rules (v1.0.3 p.9) "• Each ship can drop or launch only one device per round."

For historical accuracy it should be noted that the Official Rulings thread addressed Paige/Deathfire in March of that year:

But the next rules update continued to say 'one per round' (10Jul2019 v1.0.4 p.9) until it was eventually replaced by this line (18Sep2019 v1.0.5 p.9) "• Most devices are placed during the System Phase. Each ship can place a device only once per System Phase."

It in fact took two updates of the rules and six months time (not counting time prior to release) for the rules to reflect the intent as was declared by the ruling. In that time the Official Ruling (you may drop any number of devices per round -outside the activation phase- as long as you don't have reminder text) was in direct contradiction to the Rules As Written (you may drop exactly one device in the entire round). This is one of the strongest arguments in favor of following the rules to the letter specifically because sometimes the intent is against Rules As Written.

A good example of a toss-up of intent is the timing on the 'when destroyed' trigger of several cards which has recently switched back to resolving at the time a ship reaches zero hull, but previously it had to wait for that engagement step to finish. It seems like that a tie that gets changed every time a new card is under/over-performing! Which version was the 'obvious' intent if the rules changed multiple times?

TL;DR: Sure, hindsight is 20/20, but what becomes 'obvious' after official clarification is not obvious when it is in violation of existing rules.

9 hours ago, nitrobenz said:

It in fact took two updates of the rules and six months time (not counting time prior to release) for the rules to reflect the intent as was declared by the ruling.

I'm not saying FFG is timely or precise. Heck, the fact that *WE ALL KNOW* they aren't timely or precise is one of the core motivations for how I approach rules interpretation.

There's kind of two ways to view this.

• A. The ruling was wrong, and remained wrong until the rulebook changed, possibly to cover up a ruling they knew was bad.
• B. FFG didn't do a perfect job writing the rulebook, they clarified what they'd meant, they eventually revised the rulebook to clearly express what they'd been getting at the whole time.

B is the pragmatic explanation of what almost surely happened. And yet, there was a large contingent on these forums really mad about the ruling. It's like folks can't process the concept that, given the fact that FFG is imprecise, our best course of action is just to do what they told us most recently.

9 hours ago, nitrobenz said:

TL;DR: Sure, hindsight is 20/20, but what becomes 'obvious' after official clarification is not obvious when it is in violation of existing rules.

It's a fundamental mistake to presume the existing rules *must* be correct.

There is a certain level of precision we get from FFG. Our interpretations can't exceed that precision. Garbage in, garbage out.

With the bombs, there were similarities to bonus attacks, to be sure. There were also similarities to how actions get described, and performing one action in the perform action step. There were cards with two different kinds of language which described alternate timings for bombs. Were these only shifting the case? Were these, for lack of a better term, "bonus drops?" There's no point to having two different kinds of language, but maybe that's just a mistake. FFG is inconsistent, but are they inconsistent enough to use really different language on the cards? Maybe. There are places where they don't feel the need to tell us when we can go beyond the normal limits, and there are times when they do.

So things weren't perfectly clear to squash all possible questions. But it was possible to view it in two ways, even if it leaned more one way than the other.

Enter FFG's ruling. The devs come around and actively tell us to treat bombs more like actions than bonus attacks. Can we as a community just accept that? Apparently not.

3 hours ago, theBitterFig said:

So things weren't perfectly clear to squash all possible questions. But it was possible to view it in two ways, even if it leaned more one way than the other.

Did you not read the rules I quoted? The rules reference was perfectly clear at the time Paige was released:

"• Each ship can drop or launch only one device per round." (RR1.0.3 p9)

One. Device. Per. Round. And that was how it was when 2e released (with Deathfire in attendance) This was never even a discussion for Deathfire alone. It was just, "hey, can I drop a second device if Deathfire dies?" - "No, because page 9 is clear." That was the whole discussion at the start when we all combed through the initial rules and cards. Most people were happy with that answer because they were still traumatized by the Nymranda meta monster in 1e dropping bombs everywhere.

What changed was that they released a new card (Paige) that was underperforming under the then-existing rules. They could have written an exception on the card, or changed the rule before releasing the new card, or even in the next update, but they didn't! They just gave us a ruling that this card does not follow the rules because it doesn't remind you to follow the rules. And that is what gets us rules lawyers fired up: if cards that don't have a reminder don't follow the rules then why have rules at all? It would have been more acceptable to me personally -and some of my compatriots that have made the same argument- if they had left out that little nugget because it sets a bad precedent. Eventually they did update the Rules Reference in version 1.0.5, but again it should be noted that even the current wording in the rules reference is more specific than the initial Official Ruling.

I mentioned before the back and forth changes of some rules because that makes it clear to me that they change the rules to suit the intention of the most recently released card OR to buff/nerf cards in the meta that aren't even new. Paige was generally considered DOA under the original rule and FFG wants to sell new stuff, so they made a change that makes specifically her way better (and incidentally makes an old underplayed card a little better too).

The original intent of the one device per round limit was very clear; FFG was saying to old players, "Don't you worry about that old bomber Boogeyman. We've got it under control now."

A year out with time to recover, an influx of new players unhurt by 1e baggage, plus a new character whose theme cannot be about anything except bombs all combines to FFG making a change to encourage use of the new card by changing/easing the restrictions on its signature mechanic.

The fact that intentions change -sometimes between the time of design and time of release, sometimes just to mix up the meta- is exactly why I believe we should not even try to interpret what was intended or will be intended in the future and just play the game as written.

At least that way we'll all be playing the same game.

27 minutes ago, nitrobenz said:

The fact that intentions change -sometimes between the time of design and time of release, sometimes just to mix up the meta- is exactly why I believe we should not even try to interpret what was intended or will be intended in the future and just play the game as written.

At least that way we'll all be playing the same game.

i 100% agree with this.

what does the rules as written say about major rhymer attacking at range 0, in your interpretation? yes or no?

2 hours ago, meffo said:

i 100% agree with this.

what does the rules as written say about major rhymer attacking at range 0, in your interpretation? yes or no?

I would judge no. Explanation below, followed by counter examples at the end.

This is based on a wholistic reading of the 'additional info' bullets in the Declare Target step (RR1.1.0, starting on p4 continued on p5) which have been quoted ad nauseum already so I'll just paraphrase with commentary around what each bullet does/doesn't identify: The first bullet of the list (bottom of p4) reviews how to identify the attack arc of the current attack in progress, this point 'corresponds to' whatever type of weapon has been selected. The first bullet at the top of p5 specifically identifies Primary Weapon range & cost. The second bullet point specifically states that a special weapon will identify its own range & cost. The third bullet does not reference any specific type of weapon, only identifying that attacks cannot be made against a target at r0 of the attacker regardless of attack range. And the fourth also does not identify a specific type of weapon, just weapons generally, and says if you can't find a valid target for a chosen weapon you may check with a different weapon.

This third point is of course the centerpiece of this discussion. The fact that it is in a list where other points do specifically identify primary vs special, and in a rules section that governs use of both primary as well as special attacks, and does not itself identify a type of weapon; all indicates to me that it is a restriction on all weapons. The sentence structure with the comma separating two clauses indicates that the first part is independent of the second, even though the second references the first. (Note that I structured that sentence similarly with a comma separating the clauses and the word 'even' being used as an adjective to make the second part emphasize the first while the first is not dependent on the existence of the second.)

I am interpreting the 'even if the arc range is 1' clause to be a reminder that the attack arc range is irrelevant as long as the ships are at R0 of each other. In this interpretation the rule does not change if that reminder is removed, but it is reinforced.

Counter Example: I imagine most players think the default scenario for Rhymer R0 attack is that he has bumped face first into an enemy that cannot get away, but imagine an alternative scenario where Rhymer gets bumped on the side of his base by an enemy in a way that his arc intersects with the enemy base at range 1. He is at range zero of the target even though his attack range is 1, can he attack this target with his APT?

Counter Example 2: Imagine a separate scenario where a ship with bowtie arc sideways (let's say it's a Falcon) tries to fly over the back of an enemy huge base (a Corvette) but due to overlaps it backs up to a position where the front of the Falcon is R0 on the back corner of the Corvette, then the Corvette executes a speed 0 and does not move away. If the Falcon is facing slightly more to the back of the Corvette it is possible for the firing arc closer to the long side to reach the huge ship base at Range 2. Can this Falcon attack the Corvette at Range 2 even though their bases are at R0?

In both of my counter examples if the second part of the third bullet point is a reminder then the Rhymer and the Falcon are still restricted by not being allowed to attack a ship while at R0 of it. If on the other hand the second part of the third bullet is an integral part of that restriction then the Falcon can make a valid attack against the Corvette because the attack range is not 1 while Rhymer is out of luck since his attack range is 1. How would you interpret these scenarios: Can Rhymer attack at R1 while his base is at R0? Can the Falcon perform a range 2 attack against a Corvette it is at R0 of?

14 minutes ago, nitrobenz said:

I would judge no. Explanation below, followed by counter examples at the end.

This is based on a wholistic reading of the 'additional info' bullets in the Declare Target step (RR1.1.0, starting on p4 continued on p5) which have been quoted ad nauseum already so I'll just paraphrase with commentary around what each bullet does/doesn't identify: The first bullet of the list (bottom of p4) reviews how to identify the attack arc of the current attack in progress, this point 'corresponds to' whatever type of weapon has been selected. The first bullet at the top of p5 specifically identifies Primary Weapon range & cost. The second bullet point specifically states that a special weapon will identify its own range & cost. The third bullet does not reference any specific type of weapon, only identifying that attacks cannot be made against a target at r0 of the attacker regardless of attack range. And the fourth also does not identify a specific type of weapon, just weapons generally, and says if you can't find a valid target for a chosen weapon you may check with a different weapon.

This third point is of course the centerpiece of this discussion. The fact that it is in a list where other points do specifically identify primary vs special, and in a rules section that governs use of both primary as well as special attacks, and does not itself identify a type of weapon; all indicates to me that it is a restriction on all weapons. The sentence structure with the comma separating two clauses indicates that the first part is independent of the second, even though the second references the first. (Note that I structured that sentence similarly with a comma separating the clauses and the word 'even' being used as an adjective to make the second part emphasize the first while the first is not dependent on the existence of the second.)

I am interpreting the 'even if the arc range is 1' clause to be a reminder that the attack arc range is irrelevant as long as the ships are at R0 of each other. In this interpretation the rule does not change if that reminder is removed, but it is reinforced.

Counter Example: I imagine most players think the default scenario for Rhymer R0 attack is that he has bumped face first into an enemy that cannot get away, but imagine an alternative scenario where Rhymer gets bumped on the side of his base by an enemy in a way that his arc intersects with the enemy base at range 1. He is at range zero of the target even though his attack range is 1, can he attack this target with his APT?

Counter Example 2: Imagine a separate scenario where a ship with bowtie arc sideways (let's say it's a Falcon) tries to fly over the back of an enemy huge base (a Corvette) but due to overlaps it backs up to a position where the front of the Falcon is R0 on the back corner of the Corvette, then the Corvette executes a speed 0 and does not move away. If the Falcon is facing slightly more to the back of the Corvette it is possible for the firing arc closer to the long side to reach the huge ship base at Range 2. Can this Falcon attack the Corvette at Range 2 even though their bases are at R0?

In both of my counter examples if the second part of the third bullet point is a reminder then the Rhymer and the Falcon are still restricted by not being allowed to attack a ship while at R0 of it. If on the other hand the second part of the third bullet is an integral part of that restriction then the Falcon can make a valid attack against the Corvette because the attack range is not 1 while Rhymer is out of luck since his attack range is 1. How would you interpret these scenarios: Can Rhymer attack at R1 while his base is at R0? Can the Falcon perform a range 2 attack against a Corvette it is at R0 of?

nice breakdown! i appreciate your work. i will happily address your counter examples.


these be our problem children. 😉

special weapons have different requirements, yes. that's a given.

as for the second bullet point, it leaves some space for interpretation, since the second clause of the sentence can be seen as a an additional clarification to the first clause, or a requirement for the first clause. i view it as a clarification, not a condition. or in other words "a ship cannot attack a ship at range 0" should be true, no matter if the attack range is 1 or anything else. that's my reasoning for saying no to your second counter example. the falcon cannot attack the raider even if the attack range is 2, since it's at range 0 of the raider.

this all comes down to the difference between range and attack range, which are of course two very different beasts.

your first counter example is a lot more interesting!

it's worth mentioning that oicunn, arvel and zeb crew use similar wording. they don't mention attack range at all, just range. they do mention range in the context of attacking, but it still makes a huge difference, since i believe that their abilities concern both range and attack range, which is nothing but an assumption. meaning that by assumption, i conclude they would all allow you perform primary attacks at attack range 1 even if they are at range 0 of the defender. i in other words and even if i don't believe it's the case, it's very possible that their abilities only concern attack range 0, which would mean that they could not attack a ship at range 0 if the attack range was 1 or anything other than 0.

the wording on our dearly observed major rhymer is very different. he can change the attack range (range requirement) only. all the way down to 0. letting him attack a defender at attack range 1 but at range 0 of himself would be jumping hoops with no real support in the rules. from at gameplay perspective, i would be willing to support it in a casual environment. i would also love to discuss it, roll dice for it, or in a compititive environment ask a judge for a call on it.

it's an edge case. i think for APT, rhymer could only change the range requirement to a flat 0 or 2, so he couldn't cover both the attack range and the range. for cluster missiles he could change the range requirement to 0-1, so it could make sense thematically, but not RAW.

well, since i bring these up, i'm still 100% sure rhymer can attack a defender at range 0 with a torpedo or missile, since that how i interpret his ability.

i will definitely agree that it needs clarification by now, though. especially in light of you excellent counter examples where the attack range and range differ.

thank you!

Thank you for the discourse @meffo

I find this especially interesting because it would seem to me that your reasoning here is in alignment with my own, but I am reading a clear 'No' from the rules while you close your post with this reaffirmation that you are in favor of 'Yes' to Rhymer R0 with the same written rules:

4 hours ago, meffo said:

[Golden Rules quote]

well, since i bring these up, i'm still 100% sure rhymer can attack a defender at range 0 with a torpedo or missile, since that how i interpret his ability.

To me, this appears to be in conflict with how you described the denial of the Falcon attacking at R2 while being at R0. This line in particular:

4 hours ago, meffo said:

... i view it as a clarification, not a condition. or in other words "a ship cannot attack a ship at range 0" should be true, no matter if the attack range is 1 or anything else ...

(Italics added by me for emphasis) When I read those bullet points I come to the same conclusion that as long as two ships are at R0 of each other the attack range does not matter. By necessity a range zero attack is performed while at R0 of the target ship and as such is strictly not allowed without a card ability that explicitly exempts the attacker from the 'no attacks while at R0' rule.

4 hours ago, meffo said:

... from at gameplay perspective, i would be willing to support it in a casual environment. i would also love to discuss it, roll dice for it, or in a compititive environment ask a judge for a call on it.

At least we can agree on amicable arbitration at the table. Personally I've never been hit by R0 Rhymer and tactically I'm much more concerned about R2 APTs when he's on the table. It's a fun and not game breaking ability since it's on a ship that is not terribly difficult to Outmaneuver so I would let it slide in a casual game, as long as it's made clear how it's going to work during the pre-game list review.

As long as we're clear before the game starts then we're still playing the same game. 😀

@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?

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

5 hours ago, nitrobenz said:

Thank you for the discourse @meffo

I find this especially interesting because it would seem to me that your reasoning here is in alignment with my own, but I am reading a clear 'No' from the rules while you close your post with this reaffirmation that you are in favor of 'Yes' to Rhymer R0 with the same written rules:

To me, this appears to be in conflict with how you described the denial of the Falcon attacking at R2 while being at R0. This line in particular:

(Italics added by me for emphasis) When I read those bullet points I come to the same conclusion that as long as two ships are at R0 of each other the attack range does not matter. By necessity a range zero attack is performed while at R0 of the target ship and as such is strictly not allowed without a card ability that explicitly exempts the attacker from the 'no attacks while at R0' rule.

At least we can agree on amicable arbitration at the table. Personally I've never been hit by R0 Rhymer and tactically I'm much more concerned about R2 APTs when he's on the table. It's a fun and not game breaking ability since it's on a ship that is not terribly difficult to Outmaneuver so I would let it slide in a casual game, as long as it's made clear how it's going to work during the pre-game list review.

As long as we're clear before the game starts then we're still playing the same game. 😀

well, his ability states he can change the range requirement to 0, so it seems really clear that he should be able to fire at range 0. that's what his card text says - and that's why he can ignore the rules text on not being able to fire at range 0.

i don't think that's in conflict with denying a falcon to attack a ship at range 0 while the attack range is 2 at all. it means i think the rules text about not being able to attack at range 0 is about range and not attack range. the second clause then goes on to clarify that the attack range does not matter even if it's 1.

i've been hit by an APT from rhymer at range 0. it hurt, but didn't feel the least bit unfair. that was way before the RR was changed, so i didn't even question it. as far as i'm concerned, if you're bringing rhymer to the table, more power to you!

if there are any question marks, the should be straightened out before the game starts, yeah. some people bring strange lists - and that's part of the fun.

4 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?

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

i'll happily answer that as well! 😉

1. yes, it does, but card text trumps rules text.

2. yes. arc and range are actually considered ability requirements.

Really interesting discussion. If we want to get picky: is there ever a range 0 attack? As far as I know, card board is usually a bit shorter than the base. After all, you never have the cardboard touching - and the cardboard is where you have to measure range from.

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

7 hours ago, GreenDragoon said:

If we want to get picky: is there ever a range 0 attack? As far as I know, card board is usually a bit shorter than the base. After all, you never have the cardboard touching - and the cardboard is where you have to measure range from.

You don't measure to and from the cardboard, you measure between the edge of the plastic bases… RR page 15, Range, second bullet point.

"While measuring range to a ship, range is measured to the closest point of the ship’s base, not its ship token nor the miniature itself."

Just now, Hiemfire said:

You don't measure to and from the cardboard, you measure between the edge of the plastic bases… RR page 15, Range, second bullet point.

"While measuring range to a ship, range is measured to the closest point of the ship’s base, not its ship token nor the miniature itself."

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. ****