On 6/15/2020 at 7:33 AM, JBFancourt said:

My thoughts expressed in a theoretical example.

This was my fun hypothetical way of arguing my point... 😁 👍

2 hours ago, meffo said:

it's as if there was a torpedo/missile with a range requirement of 0-2 and you're claiming you won't be able to fire it at range 0 because the RR says you cannot perform attacks at range 0

That's.. exactly what I'm saying.

Look, im not saying I dont see what Rhymer is *trying* to do, i may even agree with it, from an interpretation perspective. All im saying is, i do not see a weapons range requirement as a statement of override to the rules even a golden rule. They are *requirements* for the weapon, not a free pass past restrictions. Basically, im saying he's poorly worded to do what people are interpreting he can do. That, or they need to change the rule on page 5, OR state directly that Weapon range requirements override normal range restrictions.

Pg 37

Quote

Unlike standard ships, huge ships can sometimes perform attacks at range 4–5.

This is a rule that directly overrides the range 3 limit, allowing huge ships to make attacks at range 4-5.

Given the lack of tournaments happening right now however, this really isnt that big of a deal. People can play it how they like, im not hating on anyone who would choose to play it that way. Basically, all im saying is, dont be surprised if FFG comes back and says no, OR changes the rules to allow for it. Even them posting an FAQ saying that range restrictions can be integrated as a direct override would be enough. But i dont see the golden rules covering this, nor do i see it directly stated as currently being the case.

2 hours ago, Lyianx said:

That's.. exactly what I'm saying.

Look, im not saying I dont see what Rhymer is *trying* to do, i may even agree with it, from an interpretation perspective. All im saying is, i do not see a weapons range requirement as a statement of override to the rules even a golden rule. They are *requirements* for the weapon, not a free pass past restrictions. Basically, im saying he's poorly worded to do what people are interpreting he can do. That, or they need to change the rule on page 5, OR state directly that Weapon range requirements override normal range restrictions

so basically, you're saying the golden rules have no bearing, since the statement in the rules reference about not being able to perform attacks at range 0 is absolute and cannot be overridden by text or range requirements printed on cards? (yes, the range requirement printed on special weapons is text as well, as far as we can interpret the word "text")

2 hours ago, Lyianx said:

Pg 37

This is a rule that directly overrides the range 3 limit, allowing huge ships to make attacks at range 4-5.

Given the lack of tournaments happening right now however, this really isnt that big of a deal. People can play it how they like, im not hating on anyone who would choose to play it that way. Basically, all im saying is, dont be surprised if FFG comes back and says no, OR changes the rules to allow for it. Even them posting an FAQ saying that range restrictions can be integrated as a direct override would be enough. But i dont see the golden rules covering this, nor do i see it directly stated as currently being the case.

so for rhymer to be able to attack at range 0, the rules reference needs to state he can attack at range 0? you realize there is already text in the rules referencing attacking at range 0 (range bonus)? and you also realize rhymers ability clearly states he can change a weapons range requirement by 1, to a limit of 0-3 , right?

basically, advanced proton torpedoes could have a range requirement of 0 - and if that was the case, you would argue that they cannot be used, since the rules reference is absolute and card text is not?

i'm not quite sure i'm capable of following your line of reasoning there.

I'm going to go back and reiterate my take, in the hopes that it helps resolve things a bit.

THE HISTORY: Rhymer originally worked just fine, since there was no rule restriction against performing Range 0 attacks. Primary weapons were always Range 1-3 (save for a few outlying cards that allowed Range 0 attacks), and no secondary weapon was naturally Range 0, so it didn't matter... until someone came up with the edge case that two touching ships can have a non-zero attack range. FFG "closed" that loophole by stating that you may not attack another ship at Range 0, no matter the attack range.

THE DILEMMA: This created an edge case exception for Major Rhymer, whose pilot ability can " create" Range 0 special weapons. However, he lacks the explicit game text (found on Arvel, Oicunn, Zeb, etc) that would permit Range 0 attacks. Hence, this entire (currently 7 page) dispute. At the heart of the problem is whether you take a literal or an interpretive view of his ability. Both views are valid interpretations in the scope of rules analysis. Literalists hold that the Rules Reference has a strict ban on attacks at Range 0, and a card only overrides a rule if it explicitly does so. Arvel, Zeb, and Oicunn all override the Range 0 attack prohibition, but Rhymer does not. Interpretivists believe that a weapon's range requirement carries with it implicit permission to

THE QUESTION: Does a weapon's range requirements convey an override to the existing game rule against attacking at Range 0?

MY ANSWER: I personally believe that while Rhymer is intended to be able to attack at Range 0. I believe that Judges & Marshalls should rule that he can attack, because that is the intent (judgement via RAI and BISS, essentially). However, if you as the rule is explicitly written (RAW), Rhymer cannot attack targets at Range 0, even if his weapon has 0 as a valid attack range.

MY SOLUTION: Outside of creating errata for Rhymer (which would solve the dispute very quickly), the Rules Reference should be changed from " A ship cannot attack a ship at range 0, even if the attack range would be range 1," to read "When two ships are at Range 0 of one another, their attack range to each other is always considered to be Range 0."

7 hours ago, emeraldbeacon said:

I'm going to go back and reiterate my take, in the hopes that it helps resolve things a bit.

THE HISTORY: Rhymer originally worked just fine, since there was no rule restriction against performing Range 0 attacks. Primary weapons were always Range 1-3 (save for a few outlying cards that allowed Range 0 attacks), and no secondary weapon was naturally Range 0, so it didn't matter... until someone came up with the edge case that two touching ships can have a non-zero attack range. FFG "closed" that loophole by stating that you may not attack another ship at Range 0, no matter the attack range.

THE DILEMMA: This created an edge case exception for Major Rhymer, whose pilot ability can " create" Range 0 special weapons. However, he lacks the explicit game text (found on Arvel, Oicunn, Zeb, etc) that would permit Range 0 attacks. Hence, this entire (currently 7 page) dispute. At the heart of the problem is whether you take a literal or an interpretive view of his ability. Both views are valid interpretations in the scope of rules analysis. Literalists hold that the Rules Reference has a strict ban on attacks at Range 0, and a card only overrides a rule if it explicitly does so. Arvel, Zeb, and Oicunn all override the Range 0 attack prohibition, but Rhymer does not. Interpretivists believe that a weapon's range requirement carries with it implicit permission to

THE QUESTION: Does a weapon's range requirements convey an override to the existing game rule against attacking at Range 0?

MY ANSWER: I personally believe that while Rhymer is intended to be able to attack at Range 0. I believe that Judges & Marshalls should rule that he can attack, because that is the intent (judgement via RAI and BISS, essentially). However, if you as the rule is explicitly written (RAW), Rhymer cannot attack targets at Range 0, even if his weapon has 0 as a valid attack range.

MY SOLUTION: Outside of creating errata for Rhymer (which would solve the dispute very quickly), the Rules Reference should be changed from " A ship cannot attack a ship at range 0, even if the attack range would be range 1," to read "When two ships are at Range 0 of one another, their attack range to each other is always considered to be Range 0."

rhymer still works just fine, some people just don't want him to. we choose how to interpret the rules. we can break the rules whenever we want. there really isn't much of a dispute here, some people just stubbornly claim that rules text is more important than card text. just like the rules explicitly state that you cannot attack at range 0 and there there are abilities that explicitly state you can attack at range 0, major rhymer explicitly states that he can change the range requirement of a weapon to 0.

that's a literal interpretation of the text on his card. the "cannot" stated in the rules text has no bearing on that what so ever. "cannot" in rules text is not absolute, only in card text. there is no RAW interpretation that he cannot attack at range 0, because that's not what's written in the rules.

if you claim rhymer cannot attack at range 0 according to RAW, you choose to interpret something the rules and his card do not state. or in other words, you're making up problems that are not there and asking for clarifications or changes to the rules that are not necessary.

i don't see anything wrong with your solution, though.

52 minutes ago, meffo said:

there is no RAW interpretation that he cannot attack at range 0, because that's not what's written in the rules.

...except that it is, literally, specifically, exactly, precisely written in the rules.

47 minutes ago, emeraldbeacon said:

...except that it is, literally, specifically, exactly, precisely written in the rules.

no, it says "A ship cannot attack a ship at range 0, even if the attack range would be range 1.". there is nothing about major rhymer in that sentence at all.

it's also written in the rules that card text overrules rules text. it's a central part of how we use the rules to play the game. interpreting the rules out of context is pretty useless. the rules are used to play the game. even "rules as written" requires interpretation.

At the 7th page of discussin about it to me is trolling.

goodbye

14 hours ago, meffo said:

no, it says "A ship cannot attack a ship at range 0, even if the attack range would be range 1.". there is nothing about major rhymer in that sentence at all.

There's nothing about ANY ship in that sentence. The rule applies to EVERY ship. ALL of the time. WITHOUT exception... until there IS an exception. This is how permission/exception-based rulesets, like X-Wing, function. The rules lay out a groundwork for what you are permitted to do, then the individual cards grant special exceptions to the standard rules.

14 hours ago, meffo said:

it's also written in the rules that card text overrules rules text. it's a central part of how we use the rules to play the game. interpreting the rules out of context is pretty useless. the rules are used to play the game. even "rules as written" requires interpretation.

How is the "Range 0" rule out of context? It is part of the rules explicitly defining the restrictions of an attack. Not only a primary attack, or only an attack by Joe X-Wing over there (but not for Mister TIE Fighter)... but every attack. Every single attack falls under those rules. I agree that you need context to interpret rules... but the context here is (to me, at least) crystal clear.

9 hours ago, emeraldbeacon said:

There's nothing about ANY ship in that sentence. The rule applies to EVERY ship. ALL of the time. WITHOUT exception... until there IS an exception. This is how permission/exception-based rulesets, like X-Wing, function. The rules lay out a groundwork for what you are permitted to do, then the individual cards grant special exceptions to the standard rules.

How is the "Range 0" rule out of context? It is part of the rules explicitly defining the restrictions of an attack. Not only a primary attack, or only an attack by Joe X-Wing over there (but not for Mister TIE Fighter)... but every attack. Every single attack falls under those rules. I agree that you need context to interpret rules... but the context here is (to me, at least) crystal clear.

there is something about a ship, meaning a ship the rule applies to, not all the ships without exception until there is an exception, because that's nonsensical. it means all ships that are not exceptions, since you have to read it in the context of the golden rules.

your interpretation and statement that the "range 0" rule is plain RAW and any exceptions to it are interpretative rather than RAW is out of context of the golden rules.

your use of terms like "literalist" and "interpretivist" are arbitrary, out of context and quite off putting.

the interpretation that rhymers ability to attack at range 0 is not literal because all he does is change the range requirement is also out of context, since the rules on performing an attack clearly state that you have to choose a defender that is in the required arc and range of the weapon you're using. if range 0 is the range requirement, it seems clear that you would be able to attack at range 0, since range requirements on special weapons are written on cards and not in rules text.

apparently, the context is not crystal clear to you, no. otherwise you would simply agree that rhymer can attack at range 0. i've yet to see any arguments stating that he cannot attack at range 0 that consider the context.

9 hours ago, meffo said:

apparently, the context is not crystal clear to you, no. otherwise you would simply agree that rhymer can attack at range 0. i've yet to see any arguments stating that he cannot attack at range 0 that consider the context.

One thing that is clear, is that each of us is interpreting the RAW situation in two very different ways, and that neither of us can understand how the other can't see the "simple logic" of their argument. I could try and break down each of your points and explain how they simply don't make sense to me, but you'd do exactly the same for me, and we'll be going in circles about this endlessly forever. To that end, I recommend that we simply drop the issue and agree that each of us is right, and the other one is hopelessly confused.

For what it's worth, aside from all of this pedantic "this is what the RULES say" discussion, Rhymer is clearly INTENDED to be able to use ordnance at Range 0, and should be played as such for the forseeable future (barring a crazy ruling from FFG).

23 minutes ago, emeraldbeacon said:

One thing that is clear, is that each of us is interpreting the RAW situation in two very different ways, and that neither of us can understand how the other can't see the "simple logic" of their argument. I could try and break down each of your points and explain how they simply don't make sense to me, but you'd do exactly the same for me, and we'll be going in circles about this endlessly forever. To that end, I recommend that we simply drop the issue and agree that each of us is right, and the other one is hopelessly confused.

For what it's worth, aside from all of this pedantic "this is what the RULES say" discussion, Rhymer is clearly INTENDED to be able to use ordnance at Range 0, and should be played as such for the forseeable future (barring a crazy ruling from FFG).

i think that sounds like a cozy time. maybe a waste of time, but still very pleasant.

i will still maintain that the opinion of rhymer not being able to attack at range 0 is reading the rules out of context. out of context of his card text, out of context of the golden rules and out of context of the rules on performing attacks. i will also maintain that your proposed solution is the best one i've seen.

On 10/28/2020 at 11:15 PM, emeraldbeacon said:

the Rules Reference should be changed from " A ship cannot attack a ship at range 0, even if the attack range would be range 1," to read "When two ships are at Range 0 of one another, their attack range to each other is always considered to be Range 0."

not that i think it needs fixing, but that's just my interpretation.

Aaaand as always in these technically ambiguous questions, the obvious answer was correctly representing the designer's intentions.

27 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

Aaaand as always in these technically ambiguous questions, the obvious answer was correctly representing the designer's intentions.

Mind sharing the link to the update next time...

From page 5 of the update published today (Nov 24th 2020) Bolded and underlined is what was added:

Quote

• Unless it has an ability that allows attacks at range 0, a ship cannot
attack a ship at range 0, even if the attack range would be range 1.

And from page 37 (the FAQ):

Quote

Q: Can Major Rhymer perform a 󲁏 or 󲁐 attack at attack
range 0?
A: Yes. Major Rhymer's pilot ability supersedes the base rule that ships
cannot perform attacks at range 0.

1 minute ago, Hiemfire said:

Unless it has an ability that allows attacks at range 0,

That is basically the golden rule: unless something more specific says otherwise, ...

2 hours ago, GreenDragoon said:

Aaaand as always in these technically ambiguous questions, the obvious answer was correctly representing the designer's intentions.

1. It wasnt 'obvious'. It was logical. If it was obvious, it wouldnt have been in debate.
2. " Unless it has an ability that allows attacks at range 0", I still dont see how attack range restrictions count as 'an ability that allows'. Its only their specific FAQ addressing his specific ability that clarifies it. Otherwise, this ruling would have gone against him. They need to flat out say "Range requirements of a weapon supersede normal attack restrictions" for it to be fully clear for EVERY weapon.

Regardless, im glad its finally settled.

2 hours ago, GreenDragoon said:

That is basically the golden rule: unless something more specific says otherwise, ...

It is, which is why it is still not phrased as well as it could have been. It would have been better if they specified "Unless a ship has a weapon with an attack range of 0, ..." as that would have addressed the concern with Major Rhymer.

i dare say i like it, just out of pure spite. 😈 he wasn't fixed. they didn't change anything except state how he works in the FAQ section. they did not errata his ability. he doesn't have an ability that states he can perform attacks at range 0. it still says he can change the range requirement of missiles and torpedoes down to 0.

"Yes. Major Rhymer's pilot ability supersedes the base rule that ships cannot perform attacks at range 0." is basically just saying that we should follow the golden rules. it's just stating "If the ability of a card conflicts with the rules in this guide, the card ability takes precedence." specifically for major rhymers card.

and, yes. i love you guys.

KEEP IT GOING !!! 🤪 🥳 (theoretically)

15 hours ago, meffo said:

i dare say i like it, just out of pure spite. 😈 he wasn't fixed. they didn't change anything except state how he works in the FAQ section. they did not errata his ability. he doesn't have an ability that states he can perform attacks at range 0. it still says he can change the range requirement of missiles and torpedoes down to 0.

"Yes. Major Rhymer's pilot ability supersedes the base rule that ships cannot perform attacks at range 0." is basically just saying that we should follow the golden rules. it's just stating "If the ability of a card conflicts with the rules in this guide, the card ability takes precedence." specifically for major rhymers card.

and, yes. i love you guys.

again.. not a golden rule issue before. All they did was state that "the range requirement of the weapon does in fact count as "and 'ability' of a card. Which was the debate. It was never.. EVER about the golden rule, and i thank you to stop trying to make it like it was.

I just appreciate that it took a BISS ruling ("because we said so") to finally close the book on Rhymer. For people like me who who don't like implied abilities, Rhymer became a sticking point for the discrepancies between strict RAW interpretations of the rules, and a more nuanced RAI approach. As I look at the latest rules update, I personally think Rhymer only properly functions because of the FAQ entry, not his own card text... and I fully understand others disagree with that rules interpretation, and that's fine. At least we have an official answer, now.

Regardless... no matter whether one believes that he always worked, or that he had to be fixed, we can all agree now that he does indeed function as intended all along.

Can't belive.... It's over

33 minutes ago, emeraldbeacon said:

I just appreciate that it took a BISS ruling ("because we said so") to finally close the book on Rhymer. For people like me who who don't like implied abilities, Rhymer became a sticking point for the discrepancies between strict RAW interpretations of the rules, and a more nuanced RAI approach. As I look at the latest rules update, I personally think Rhymer only properly functions because of the FAQ entry, not his own card text... and I fully understand others disagree with that rules interpretation, and that's fine. At least we have an official answer, now.

Regardless... no matter whether one believes that he always worked, or that he had to be fixed, we can all agree now that he does indeed function as intended all along.

It only took a BISS ruling because some folks would accept nothing less.

It's more of a comment on the interpreters than the actual rules.

Mad respect for y'all hanging in there and hashing out out.

Now that it's over, I'm just gonna say...

My favorite part of these huge arguments is when one person chimes in with, "but you see, I play other games with complicated/unclear language. Therefore I win."

🤔

I don't think either of the final contestants used that argument, by the way. Hurray!