Page 67 of current RRG states: "To use a weapon during an attack, the units target must be at a range that is equal to or greater than the weapons minimum range, and equal to or less than the weapons maximum range". If the minimum range is range 1, does this mean a weapon whose range indicates 1-3 can NOT be used if the target is INSIDE of range one?

1 is "equal to or greater than the weapon's minimum range."

minimum range of 1 means you cant shoot at anything less than range 1 (which would be melee range)

minimum range of 4 means you cant shoot at anything at range 1-3 (the target has to be at a distance more than 3 measuring sticks away)

yes it is somewhat confusing. its what happens when a game company discards commonly used measurement units like inches in favor of inventing their own measurement units that they can force people to buy special tools for.

1 hour ago, Khobai said:

(...)

yes it is somewhat confusing. its what happens when a game company discards commonly used measurement units like inches in favor of inventing their own measurement units that they can force people to buy special tools for.

*Sigh* I REALLY should know better than to debate with you off all the users, but I can't help but wonder what twisted excuse you'll come up with to convince us that the sentence "target must be at a range that is equal to or greater than the weapons minimum range, and equal to or less than the weapons maximum range" has any and whatsoever different sense when said ranges are given in 1-5 of 6 inch sticks than if they were given in inches.

Say we have a 1-3 range weapon that would become a 1 - 18 inch weapon.

Like really, beat me to it to explain that "being 1 or more 1inch hashes on a ruler away" is logically different than "being 1 or more 6 inch plastic sticks away".

Both are confusing because you have to low-key know the being inside the first inch / stick works, not because you're told it's sticks.

2 hours ago, Ryfterek said:

*Sigh* I REALLY should know better than to debate with you off all the users, but I can't help but wonder what twisted excuse you'll come up with to convince us that the sentence "target must be at a range that is equal to or greater than the weapons minimum range, and equal to or less than the weapons maximum range" has any and whatsoever different sense when said ranges are given in 1-5 of 6 inch sticks than if they were given in inches.

Say we have a 1-3 range weapon that would become a 1 - 18 inch weapon.

Like really, beat me to it to explain that "being 1 or more 1inch hashes on a ruler away" is logically different than "being 1 or more 6 inch plastic sticks away".

Both are confusing because you have to low-key know the being inside the first inch / stick works, not because you're told it's sticks.

A 1-3 range weapon would not become a 1-18 inch weapon. That would mean you couldnt use a ranged weapon at ranges less than 1" which isnt true.

A range 1-3 weapon would become a weapon with a minimum range of any value greater than 0" with a maximum range of upto 18".

But thank you for illustrating how sticks are more confusing than just using inches. FFG just invented their own measurement system to force players to buy sticks. Because everyone already owns a ruler.

15 hours ago, Jerome6741 said:

Page 67 of current RRG states: "To use a weapon during an attack, the units target must be at a range that is equal to or greater than the weapons minimum range, and equal to or less than the weapons maximum range". If the minimum range is range 1, does this mean a weapon whose range indicates 1-3 can NOT be used if the target is INSIDE of range one?

Page 87 "Within (Range)":

"A unit is within a range if the entirety of
the miniature’s base is inside the segment that corresponds to that range.
• A unit can be within a range that extends through multiple segments.
For example, a unit can be within range 1–2 if the entirety of the mini’s base is somewhere inside the first and second range segments of the range ruler.
• If a unit is within a particular range, that unit is also at that range"

Edit: so if a model is "within range 1" by the base being inside the first segment of the range ruler, it is also "at range 1."

1 hour ago, Khobai said:

A 1-3 range weapon would not become a 1-18 inch weapon. That would mean you couldnt use a ranged weapon at ranges less than 1" which isnt true.

Being range 1-stick doesn't mean it can't be used at range less than 1 stick, so why would range 1-inch mean it can't be used at range less than 1 inch?

1 hour ago, Khobai said:

A range 1-3 weapon would become a weapon with a minimum range of any value greater than 0" with a maximum range of upto 18".

Assuming we'd change the idea of the definition from an inclusive-inclusive band to exclusive-inclusive band, that is. But we could as well do that with sticks, making it range of any value greater than 0 sticks to a maximum of X sticks.

I think I get the US's confusion when metric system is suggested, you don't grasp too firmly the idea of units with a fixed conversion ratio and how they are interchangeable...

I own a whole bunch of rurels but none of them has inches on it because, surprise, most of the world only uses these when buying new LCD devices so I'm rather happy FFG thrown an appropriate ruler to my €100 box of game components...

It does seem that FFG could have avoided some confusion by just listing the maximum range for any weapon that doesn't have a minimum range, and listing two numbers would just be an indicator that the weapon has a minimum range. So an E-11 would just say 3 instead of 1-3, but an HH-12 would still say 2-4. After all, nobody says a DLT-19 is a "range 1-to-4 weapon," they just say "range 4."

1 minute ago, Lochlan said:

It does seem that FFG could have avoided some confusion by just listing the maximum range for any weapon that doesn't have a minimum range, and listing two numbers would just be an indicator that the weapon has a minimum range. So an E-11 would just say 3 instead of 1-3, but an HH-12 would still say 2-4. After all, nobody says a DLT-19 is a "range 1-to-4 weapon," they just say "range 4."

Almost every weapon does have a minimum range, however. A weapon with a range of 1-3 can't be used in melee (base contact). This is why your Vehicle can't shoot someone in base contact with them, even if they aren't engaged.

Just now, arnoldrew said:

Almost every weapon does have a minimum range, however. A weapon with a range of 1-3 can't be used in melee (base contact). This is why your Vehicle can't shoot someone in base contact with them, even if they aren't engaged.

Yes, but that's made clear by the Melee range icon (or lack thereof), and explained in the rules for melee attacks.

46 minutes ago, Lochlan said:

It does seem that FFG could have avoided some confusion by just listing the maximum range for any weapon that doesn't have a minimum range, and listing two numbers would just be an indicator that the weapon has a minimum range. So an E-11 would just say 3 instead of 1-3, but an HH-12 would still say 2-4. After all, nobody says a DLT-19 is a "range 1-to-4 weapon," they just say "range 4."

Except it doesn't completely eliminate the potential confusion since the minimum range would be a rare marking, so people wouldn't have be as used to seeing the range marking, and therefore could make confusion more likely.

range should have been done the same way that Xwing does it, range 0 is for the unit or a touching unit, range 1 is anything less than 1 but not touch (or that would be 0) and so on

that said, it is not that confusing, this is being blown way out of proportion by people here

8 minutes ago, 5particus said:

range should have been done the same way that Xwing does it, range 0 is for the unit or a touching unit, range 1 is anything less than 1 but not touch (or that would be 0) and so on

that said, it is not that confusing, this is being blown way out of proportion by people here

I would not be against replacing the melee range symbol with range 0.