No, if the range is "whithin range 3" you cannot place them "within range 2" or "whithin range 1".

15 minutes ago, Mad Cat said:

So could I place a squadron touching Invisible Hand and that counts as within distance 3?

No, the general principle of what you said was correct--it says within distance 3, not within distance 1-3. So yeah, you have to place them pretty far. But "within" is even more restrictive than "at."

So...don't wait too long to use Invisible Hand?

On the face of it, No.

Within Distance 3, means wholly within the Distance 3 Range Band.

Any portion within Distance 2, would mean you are not wholly within Distance 3.

We know this, because of precedents regarding Evade Usage and such... Because otherwise you could claim being within Long Range while being at Short Range.

So until we're told explicitly that it should be 1-3, or 2-3... We must take it as written that it means Within 3, and not at any other range band distance.

so you guys think these are both large base ships?

I can't tell from the pictures, I'm just assuming the Pelta is small, which makes the other 3 releases look medium based to me. But the ships look big in the box but long and have a lot of overhang. They still look like Pelta-small Other 3 - medium based

9 minutes ago, buckero0 said:

so you guys think these are both large base ships?

I can't tell from the pictures, I'm just assuming the Pelta is small, which makes the other 3 releases look medium based to me. But the ships look big in the box but long and have a lot of overhang. They still look like Pelta-small Other 3 - medium based

They literally say in the beginning of the article that those two are large ships

"Not only do these expansions add the power of these two large ships to your fleets..."

3 hours ago, Drasnighta said:

On the face of it, No.

Within Distance 3, means wholly within the Distance 3 Range Band.

Any portion within Distance 2, would mean you are not wholly within Distance 3.

We know this, because of precedents regarding Evade Usage and such... Because otherwise you could claim being within Long Range while being at Short Range.

So until we're told explicitly that it should be 1-3, or 2-3... We must take it as written that it means Within 3, and not at any other range band distance.

I know of the precedents, but if this is indeed their intention, why didn't they use the term "at distance 3" instead of "within distance..."?

7 minutes ago, SithLrd88 said:

I know of the precedents, but if this is indeed their intention, why didn't they use the term "at distance 3" instead of "within distance..."?

'At distance 3' would allow overlaps, with say a quarter of the Squadron base within 3 and the rest outside.
'Within distance 3' means the whole squadron base must be within 3.

Think of it as the Invisible Hand Deployment Donut .

3 hours ago, Mad Cat said:

So could I place a squadron touching Invisible Hand and that counts as within distance 3?

Distance 3 is actually the segment on the range ruler from the 2 to the 3.

To be fair though, that is never explained in the rules very well, so don't feel bad.

It is why the wording on cards is always distance 1-3 or 1-5... rather than distance 3 or distance 5.

19 hours ago, >kkj said:

Notice how big the Providence model is on that large base, its much longer than a ISD. So they definately went for the upscaled variant from the TCW show for no reason. Urgh. I guess this thing will have a Starhawk points cost. I gotta say im disappointed. Also, those new prices make me seriously reconsider if im gonna stick to the new factions. (And im a clone wars fan)

Which is strange because the Invisible Hand is the smaller version not the larger.

My idea of collecting both CW armada and CW Legion has met a large roadblock now. :(. It's like a solid $3-500 to collect both fleets.

27 minutes ago, Ilostmycactus said:

Which is strange because the Invisible Hand is the smaller version not the larger.

Yeah. Call me a purist but i think movie canon should always trump a cartoon series? Visually speaking. We also didnt get giraffe-neck ISDs in Armada or off-proportions TIE Fighters in X-Wing. Weird choice to make the model so big.

I sense a plot to destroy my wallet. The greed side of the industry surrounds disney. If they do not deliver on product quality after the destruction of wild speculations they should be removed from office...

22 hours ago, >kkj said:

Urgh. I guess this thing will have a Starhawk points cost. I gotta say im disappointed.

Would you like a little more overreaction with your exaggeration? Because 105 looks a lot cheaper than 140 and 150.

This popped up on Reddit recently. The source is Asmodee's website.

22 minutes ago, Derpzilla88 said:

Because 105 looks a lot cheaper than 1 40 and 1 50

Fixed that for you.

3 minutes ago, Rmcarrier1 said:

Fixed that for you.

I reap what I sow. 😆

22 minutes ago, Derpzilla88 said:

Would you like a little more overreaction with your exaggeration? Because 105 looks a lot cheaper than 240 and 250.

This popped up on Reddit recently.

Whoa, that is a bit of info, we have Trench confirmed as a admiral, ship has 9 hull, strong shields like a Liberty but better. Heck even has dual turbolasers like the Liberty. The placement of the defense tokens make me think it has Brace, Redirect, Contain, and either nothing/Contain/Salvo.

Here's the Recusant too.

85 point recusant? Ummm yes please may I have another?

I still haven't seen a defense slot so these are more like ISD-I or VSDs defensively.

Not that that's awful but we may want to think carefully before tooling them up with all the upgrades.

Onagers are on the prowl after all.

A large ship with an evade seems weird to me, but I'm rather new at this Armada thing. At least that'll be pretty great against said Onagers for maybe one or two shots.

51 minutes ago, Kirjath08 said:

A large ship with an evade seems weird to me, but I'm rather new at this Armada thing. At least that'll be pretty great against said Onagers for maybe one or two shots.

In fairness, it is pretty skinny. 😁

Do we know its maneuver chart? Wonder if we could see the first true speed 4 large...

39 minutes ago, The Jabbawookie said:

In fairness, it is pretty skinny. 😁

Do we know its maneuver chart? Wonder if we could see the first true speed 4 large...

Not yet. The article made it sound like it might be speed 3, but speed 2 isn't a deal breaker with all those red dice it throws

13 hours ago, thepopemobile100 said:

85 point recusant? Ummm yes please may I have another?

Yes to this! Looks like shopping list is now one more core set, one Providence and two Recusants.

On 1/26/2021 at 8:25 AM, Drasnighta said:

On the face of it, No.

Within Distance 3, means wholly within the Distance 3 Range Band.

Any portion within Distance 2, would mean you are not wholly within Distance 3.

We know this, because of precedents regarding Evade Usage and such... Because otherwise you could claim being within Long Range while being at Short Range.

So until we're told explicitly that it should be 1-3, or 2-3... We must take it as written that it means Within 3, and not at any other range band distance.

This is a terrible contortion of language and math. Range 2 is within Range 3 by any sensible definition of "within".

If this is rules as designed, I'm not sad to see FFG lose control of Armada. That we even have to have this conversation shows poor quality control in the writing of the rules and cards.

Legion fixed this problem by explicitly writing the range bands allowed on each card. It's clear and concise.

Within distance 3 is a very clearly defined value. It's entirely within the distance 3 band.

Distance 1-3 is different.

You need look no further than snipe to see something similar already in the game.

5 hours ago, SoonerTed said:

This is a terrible contortion of language and math. Range 2 is within Range 3 by any sensible definition of "within".

This is nothing new. The rules have always shown that each range band only consists of itself, which is why all the upgrade cards so far have used phrasing like "distance 1-3" or "distance 1-2", etc.
The rules have also clearly defined "at" and "within".

Also: Hook 'em!

4 hours ago, Formynder4 said:

This is nothing new. The rules have always shown that each range band only consists of itself, which is why all the upgrade cards so far have used phrasing like "distance 1-3" or "distance 1-2", etc.
The rules have also clearly defined "at" and "within".

Also: Hook 'em!

That‘s right, but the devs forgot about it themselves more than once. I think we will see an errata soon. (Soon in Armada terms of time...)