Here's a weird Buzz Droid situation... say I launch my discord missile, and my buzz droid both overlaps the enemy ship AND extends beyond the play area. What happens?

1. Does the buzz droid relocate to the enemy's front or rear guides as normal?
2. Does the buzz droid instantly run away due to being partially outside the play area?
3. Does the discord missile get re-charged, because deploying it out of bounds is an illegal placement?

35 minutes ago, emeraldbeacon said:

Here's a weird Buzz Droid situation... say I launch my discord missile, and my buzz droid both overlaps the enemy ship AND extends beyond the play area. What happens?

1. Does the buzz droid relocate to the enemy's front or rear guides as normal?
2. Does the buzz droid instantly run away due to being partially outside the play area?
3. Does the discord missile get re-charged, because deploying it out of bounds is an illegal placement?

Being as remotes are devices and this is not during a relocation the rules governing devices placed so they are partially out of the play area would apply. Sadly these don't exist so this does need to be addressed by FFG since this edge case doesn't just pertain to Buzz Droids but also any device dropped or launched with part of the device's template hanging off the play area.

11 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:

Being as remotes are devices and this is not during a relocation the rules governing devices placed so they are partially out of the play area would apply. Sadly these don't exist so this does need to be addressed by FFG since this edge case doesn't just pertain to Buzz Droids but also any device dropped or launched with part of the device's template hanging off the play area.

There are rules governing this situation. The deployment is cancelled and play is rolled back to immediately before the attempted deployment. Page 10:

Quote

• A device cannot be placed so that a portion of the device would be outside the play area. If this would happen, play is reversed to before the device was placed—the device is not placed, any charges spent are recovered, and the player can choose to not place that device.

34 minutes ago, Maui. said:

There are rules governing this situation. The deployment is cancelled and play is rolled back to immediately before the attempted deployment. Page 10:

I missed that part when I was looking. Derp me stopped on page 9 of the RR for some reason. @emeraldbeacon remotes are devices so this covers your edge case, even in the case of it simultaneously being placed so a ship overlaps it since the Buzz Droid card has its template placed before the check for overlap.

Hoping this version is more accurate now...!

14 hours ago, emeraldbeacon said:

For all intents and purposes, this is correct, except in the very unlikely situation when an enemy ship perfectly lands at Range 0 of the Buzz Droids, without overlapping (technically JUST nudging against the side of the base). This circumstance is covered in the Rules Reference, for Ships... it makes sense that it would also apply to Remotes.

While the chances of executing a maneuver that touches (but does not overlap) the Buzz Droids remote are extremely low, it is a non-zero number. There's also the possibility of a Buzz Droid being forced to relocate, and in so doing, can take advantage of the half millimeter of "wiggle room" in fitting within the ship guides to JUST kiss the edge of another ship base: By definition, Range 0 without overlapping.

I dont think this is possible. I beleive, the only way the buzz droid swarm can be at range 0 of a ship, is if it was relocated to be there. If a ship did not overlap it, then its not at range 0 of the swarm. This is my own opinion on it until FFG updates the Range section, as currently they only state that ships are at range 0 if they are touching. Remotes are not ships.

10 hours ago, emeraldbeacon said:

Hoping this version is more accurate now...!

"The enemy ship suffers 1 [hit], then remove the remote"

Except its more accurate to say 'The enemy ship & the remote each suffer 1 [hit] damage'. The remote isnt simply removed because it cannot be placed, it does actually suffer damage.

3 hours ago, Lyianx said:

I dont think this is possible. I beleive, the only way the buzz droid swarm can be at range 0 of a ship, is if it was relocated to be there. If a ship did not overlap it, then its not at range 0 of the swarm. This is my own opinion on it until FFG updates the Range section, as currently they only state that ships are at range 0 if they are touching. Remotes are not ships.

"The enemy ship suffers 1 [hit], then remove the remote"

Except its more accurate to say 'The enemy ship & the remote each suffer 1 [hit] damage'. The remote isnt simply removed because it cannot be placed, it does actually suffer damage.

We spend so much time digging through the Rules Reference that we forget there is a foundational set of rules it builds on.

15 hours ago, emeraldbeacon said:

For all intents and purposes, this is correct, except in the very unlikely situation when an enemy ship perfectly lands at Range 0 of the Buzz Droids, without overlapping (technically JUST nudging against the side of the base). This circumstance is covered in the Rules Reference, for Ships... it makes sense that it would also apply to Remotes.

While the chances of executing a maneuver that touches (but does not overlap) the Buzz Droids remote are extremely low, it is a non-zero number. There's also the possibility of a Buzz Droid being forced to relocate, and in so doing, can take advantage of the half millimeter of "wiggle room" in fitting within the ship guides to JUST kiss the edge of another ship base: By definition, Range 0 without overlapping.

i wholeheartedly disagree concerning the very unlikely situation you're referring to. in fact, it does not make sense at all that the circumstance covered in the RR regarding ships should apply to remotes as well.

lets look at what the rules reference says about range 0.

Quote

• Range 0 does not appear on the range ruler, but is used for describing the range of objects that are physically touching.
◊ After a ship partially executes a maneuver, it is at range 0 of the last ship it overlapped.
◊ 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.
◊ If two ships are at range 0 of each other, they remain at range 0 until one of the ships moves in a way that results in their bases no longer being in physical contact.
◊ Although rare, it is possible for a ship to move in such a way that it is at range 0 of another ship (in physical contact with it) without having overlapped it.

would you rule a ship that is not overlapping an asteroid should still suffer the effects of being at range 0 of an asteroid (that it cannot perform attacks)?

you know touching a mine has no effect, right? they only detonate when they're overlapped.


basically, in my opinion, ending up at range 0 of cardboard only happens when overlapping, otherwise it's not range 0. range 0 of ships is quite often touching, though, since ships cannot overlap ships.


now there is another part of the rules that kind of supports you view, this little tidbit from the section on remotes.

Quote

Remotes are devices that have initiative, agility, and hull values, and can be attacked. Ships can move through, overlap, or be at range 0 of remotes.

even though there is an "or" used here, i don't think that's enough to justify being at range 0 of a remote without overlapping it is possible.


can't really remember when i came to this conclusion. could have been at some discussion about qi'ra, mines or rigger cargo maybe?

2 hours ago, Hiemfire said:

We spend so much time digging through the Rules Reference that we forget there is a foundational set of rules it builds on.

Except, the rules reference overrides the core rule book. Which says that only objects that are *overlapping* obstacles are at range 0. Otherwise, they are not. That statement in the core book is over simplified compared to how it actually works.

26 minutes ago, Lyianx said:

Except, the rules reference overrides the core rule book. Which says that only objects that are *overlapping* obstacles are at range 0. Otherwise, they are not. That statement in the core book is over simplified compared to how it actually works.

Citation? I just reread through the obstacles section of the RR (also browsed through the rest of the RR and nothing there states the range 0 of an obstacle = only when overlapping. It does specifically call out that moving through, overlapping and being at range 0 of an obstacle have separate effects in the second sentence of the Obstacles section:

"Obstacles act as hazards that can disrupt and damage ships. A ship can suffer
effects by moving through, overlapping, or while being at range 0 of obstacles."

I haven't found anything that contradicts the definition of "range 0" (2 objects touching are at range 0 of each other) from the rulebook.

i found some of our older discussions on this subject:

22 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:

Citation? I just reread through the obstacles section of the RR (also browsed through the rest of the RR and nothing there states the range 0 of an obstacle = only when overlapping. It does specifically call out that moving through, overlapping and being at range 0 of an obstacle have separate effects in the second sentence of the Obstacles section:

"Obstacles act as hazards that can disrupt and damage ships. A ship can suffer
effects by moving through, overlapping, or while being at range 0 of obstacles."

I haven't found anything that contradicts the definition of "range 0" (2 objects touching are at range 0 of each other) from the rulebook.

can you prove that you're at range 0 of cardboard without having overlapped it? how do you go about that?

the citation for @Lyianx 's view is right there, in the part about range 0, under Range on page 16 of the rules reference.

" ◊ An object is at range 0 of an obstacle or device if it is physically on top of it. "

@meffo Thank you for the citation, I had missed that part of the Range section in my rereading of the RR. This means that it is impossible for Buzz Droids to deal a critical damage to more than 1 ship when Buzz Droids engage.

1 hour ago, meffo said:

" ◊ An object is at range 0 of an obstacle or device if it is physically on top of it. "

53 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:

@meffo Thank you for the citation, I had missed that part of the Range section in my rereading of the RR. This means that it is impossible for Buzz Droids to deal a critical damage to more than 1 ship when Buzz Droids engage.

Except... that means it’s not even at R0 of the ship whose guides it’s relocating to? No?

13 minutes ago, SpiderMana said:

Except... that means it’s not even at R0 of the ship whose guides it’s relocating to? No?

The Buzz Droids card itself specifies that they are considered to be at range 0 of the ship who's guides they were placed in when they relocated.

46 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:

The Buzz Droids card itself specifies that they are considered to be at range 0 of the ship who's guides they were placed in when they relocated.

Wow it’s like they actually thought this through.

17 hours ago, Hiemfire said:

@meffo Thank you for the citation, I had missed that part of the Range section in my rereading of the RR. This means that it is impossible for Buzz Droids to deal a critical damage to more than 1 ship when Buzz Droids engage.

Correct. They are meant to focus on 1 ship at a time. Which is weird when you think about how they were in the movie, but its easier to deal with mechanically for the game i guess.