Hi,

Finch Dallow, say : "Before you would drop a bomb, you may place it in the play area touching you instead."

"Range 0 is used for describing the range of objects that are physically touching". (Rules references / Range )

"Ships & Devices are all objects" (Rules references / Objects)

"An object is at range 0 of an obstacle or device if it is physically on top of it" (Rules references / Range )

So, bomb can be placed everywhere under the ship base?

I believe the intent is that you put the bomb anywhere along the base of your ship rather than under it.

Yeah, if they meant 'anywhere at range 0' they would have said that.

If I put it under my ship, is it still in the play area? And is it still touching my base? Those are the only conditions on the card.

13 hours ago, thespaceinvader said:

Yeah, if they meant 'anywhere at range 0' they would have said that. 

Totaly agree but unfortunatly there is a difference between what we expect and what the rules means.

Right or wrong, we just want to be in accordance with the rules. (After that, FFG can edit the rules, use Errata, FAQ)

While nobody demonstrates that it's wrong. According to the rules, i understand : everywhere under the ship base and nowhere just at edges contact.

Nowhere just at edge contact like Boba Fett crew. (Because "An object is at range 0 of an device if it is physically on top of it " & "Range 0 is used for describing the range of objects that are physically touching")

(May be i'm wrong, that's why i'm asking. 😉)

20 hours ago, thespaceinvader said:

Yeah, if they meant 'anywhere at range 0' they would have said that.

You would think, but FFG is unfortunately, not that consistent with their wording (even with ability's that work identically). Finch's ability just seems to be copy/pasted from 1E "Crimson Specialist" with little regard for mechanic formatting in 2E. His text *probably* should read like this..

"While you drop a bomb, you may place it at Range 0 instead."

Or something to that effect. I would agree that Range 0 is the games mechanical way of saying "touching you" and interpret Finch's ability in that way, so i would agree bombs can be placed under him.

Just read and apply rules.

Don't try to understand "spirit" of the rules until an official. Remember dash roark combo, the rules was clear and involve awesome trick, even if the spirit of solo was to shoot first and not let to fire again in the same arc.

You are thinking to much guys

Finch can't place bombs underneath himself. See: "Overlap," p.14, describing a partially executed maneuver:

Quote

A ship fully executes a maneuver if it does not overlap a ship. If a ship executes a maneuver and overlaps a ship, it must partially execute that maneuver by performing the following steps:

1. Move the ship backward along the template until it is no longer on top of any other ships. While doing so, adjust the position of the ship so that the hashmarks in the middle of both sets of guides remains centered over the line down the middle of the template.
2. Once the ship is no longer on top of any other ship, place it so that it is touching the last ship it backed over. This may result in the ship returning to its starting position.

In this case, it is quite clear that a ship cannot be placed underneath another ship while partially executing a maneuver, but must be placed touching that ship instead.

So 'touching' is not synonymous with range 0; it means in physical contact without an overlap.

17 hours ago, Maui. said:

Finch can't place bombs underneath himself. See: "Overlap," p.14, describing a partially executed maneuver:

In this case, it is quite clear that a ship cannot be placed underneath another ship while partially executing a maneuver, but must be placed touching that ship instead.

So 'touching' is not synonymous with range 0; it means in physical contact without an overlap.

Not agree with "without an overlap"...

Sadly, touching a ship and touching device are not the same...

"Range 0 is used for describing the range of objects that are physically touching". (Rules references / Range )

So, if an object don't touch an other object, they can't be at range 0...

"An object is at range 0 of an obstacle or device if it is physically on top of it" (Rules references / Range )

So, object like ship can't be at range 0 of an obstacle or device when it is only in physical contact with obstacle or device by sides. (For example : "in physical contact without an overlap.")

So, object like ship are not considering "touching" obstacle or device when it is only in physical contact with obstacle or device by sides. (For example : "in physical contact without an overlap.")

I'm going to take paracetamol... 😆

19 hours ago, Maui. said:

Finch can't place bombs underneath himself. See: "Overlap," p.14, describing a partially executed maneuver:

In this case, it is quite clear that a ship cannot be placed underneath another ship while partially executing a maneuver, but must be placed touching that ship instead.

So 'touching' is not synonymous with range 0; it means in physical contact without an overlap.

As was said, Overlapping a ship has different rule than overlapping a non-ship object.

Quote

◊ An object is at range 0 of an obstacle or device if it is physically on top of it.
◊ A ship is at range 0 of another ship if it is physically touching another ship.

What you quoted, clearly only happens when overlapping a ship, not an obstacle or device. So it doesn't apply in this case.

1 hour ago, Lyianx said:

As was said, Overlapping a ship has different rule than overlapping a non-ship object.

What you quoted, clearly only happens when overlapping a ship, not an obstacle or device. So it doesn't apply in this case.

My point wasn't about overlapping, it was about touching. I brought it up because when a ship would overlap another ship, you change the maneuver so that they are touching instead, which is instructive because it informs us that placing something so that it touches another object means that the two objects are in physical contact without overlapping.

The overlap rule I quoted uses language similar to Finch Dallow's ("place it so that it is touching the last ship it backed over" vs "place it in the play area touching you"). If Finch can place a 'touching' device underneath his own base, then any time a ship partially executes a maneuver, it can legally place its 'touching' base underneath another ship's base. Since it's clearly understood by everyone who plays the game that ships cannot do that, then it should also be clear that Finch can't place bombs underneath his base, only adjacent to it.

17 minutes ago, Maui. said:

My point wasn't about overlapping, it was about touching. I brought it up because when a ship would overlap another ship, you change the maneuver so that they are touching instead, which is instructive because it informs us that placing something so that it touches another object means that the two objects are in physical contact without overlapping.

The overlap rule I quoted uses language similar to Finch Dallow's ("place it so that it is touching the last ship it backed over" vs "place it in the play area touching you"). If Finch can place a 'touching' device underneath his own base, then any time a ship partially executes a maneuver, it can legally place its 'touching' base underneath another ship's base. Since it's clearly understood by everyone who plays the game that ships cannot do that, then it should also be clear that Finch can't place bombs underneath his base, only adjacent to it.

But, again, the rule for adjusting the maneuver is only referencing ships, not objects in general. Touching and "Range 0" are the same thing and is defined in the rules.

Quote

Range 0 does not appear on the range ruler, but is used for describing the range of objects that are physically touching.

Now, in typical FFG fashion, their wording sucks.

"A ship is at range 0 of another ship if it is physically touching another ship." is just saying "A ship is physically touching another ship if it is physically touching another ship." I mean, i *get* what they are trying to say, but they worded it in such a way that its the same as their definition of "physically touching". I'm not really sure how to properly word that so its not confusing..maybe this?

"A ship is at range 0 of another ship if it is in physically contact, another ship without being physically on top of it."

But that really doesnt seem that much clearer. The point being, ships cannot be on top of one another, but a ship can be on top of another non-ship object. Otherwise, when ships move during activation, they wouldnt be allowed to move on top of bombs, and would have to back track their movement to where they are not on top of it. Which of course, is not the case.

I agree that objects that are physically touching are at range 0. I don't think that means 'place touching x' allows you can place it anywhere beneath x, because otherwise the overlap rule for ships would prevent you from overlapping other ships, but then bizarrely allow you to place your ship beneath another ship. Which would be quite silly indeed.

i agree with both of you.

i would rule with @Maui.s interpretation.

i agree with @Lyianx that it's not sufficiently clear.

for me it comes down to the difference between "anywhere at range 0" and "touching".

i would agree that anywhere at range zero is also touching and that touching is also at range zero, but placing an object touching another object should mean something along the lines of at range 0, but not overlapping.

it's even more difficult with obstacles, because as far as i've understood it, you cannot be at range 0 of an obstacle without overlapping it. this would mean that something placed touching an obstacle would not be at range 0 of that obstacle. or maybe it's just ships that cannot be at range 0 of obstacles without overlapping them? strange. i'll have to refresh my memory later.

this should definitely be clarified to avoid further confusion.

Unfortunately, there are points at which language fundamentally fails. Spatially, we're talking about a two-dimensional representation of a three-dimensional space. Perceptually, we're looking at physical bases and physical tokens. While three-dimensionally, a bomb can be placed under Finch's base and be "anywhere at Range 0", there's no way of actually checking if it is touching since it is obscured by the base and base cardboard. Consequently, the rules of the game have tried to cover these situations by using "touching" and "overlapping" to describe two-dimensional relationships, which is what we've got to work with on a flat table, using ship models that move by sliding.

Intuitively, my reading of Finch's ability would be that the bomb token can be placed anywhere around the ship base, in any orientation, as long as at least one part of it is physically touching the base and also touching the play surface. Anything else is a semantic difference that can't really be overcome by the dimensional limits of the language and play space.

Touching does not get an explicit rules reference entry. The only useful reference we have is this: (emphasis added)

• Range 0 does not appear on the range ruler, but is used for describing the range of objects that are physically touching.
  • An object is at range 0 of an obstacle or device if it is physically on top of it.
  • A ship is at range 0 of another ship if it is physically touching another ship.

Range 0 seems pretty clear. Different criteria for ships vs obstacle/device but that makes sense as ships cannot overlap other ships. Finch doesn't say Range 0 though. If he did, you would have to place the device so that it is physically under his base. (partially or completely)

So how do we interpret the top bullet point?

1. Range 0 = physically touching. or Physically touching is defined as being at Range 0

• Finch must place the device physically under his base. Next to and in contact does not meet the requirement of range 0 so it is not physically touching.
• Option 1 is the literal interpretation of the rules as written but presumes a level of intentionality and semantic coherence that FFG has not demonstrated.

2. Range 0 applies to objects that are in physical contact either by "touching" or "overlapping."

• Because Finch specifies as touching, not range 0, he must place the device physically adjacent to but not under his base.
• Option 2 presumes 2 different definitions for the word "touching," neither of which are clearly defined in the rules.
• FWIW, I think FFG intended this ruling for Finch and I would rule it as such.

If FFG wants to rule option 2 as correct, simply change the first sentence to:

• Range 0 does not appear on the range ruler, but is used for describing the range of objects that are in physical contact, either touching or overlapping.