I don't think I am. I agree that a ranged attack is an attack against enemies that you are not engaged with, and the first part of the sentence specifies that Ranged characters may declare ranged attack when their controller is declaring attacks. The second half of the sentence doesn't specify that characters with the Ranged ability can only participate in ranged attacks when another player declares and attack, it simply says when another player declares an attack. Why would they take the time to specify that it is a ranged attack when declaring, but fail to do so when participating with another player's attack unless there was actually a difference? I believe there is a difference. Attacks declared by other players, regardless of their target, allow a Ranged character to participate. Ranged characters can assist in a Quick Strike outside of the combat phase because of this.

Kiwina said:

I'm sorry but I just don't understand your logic. It specifically says that the ranged keyword is relating to attacking enemies engaged with other players. It's right there in the first line. When a player declares an attack against enemies engaged with you, that completely negates the whole ranged keyword. The first sentence is the general explanation of ranged, with the second sentence being a clarification.

It just doesn't make sense in general to use the "Ranged" keyword to attack enemies engaged with you. You are really stretching here.

"A character with the ranged keyword can be declared by its controller as an attacker against enemies that are engaged with other players." This is what ranged means.

"A character can declare ranged attacks against these targets while its owner is declaring attacks, or it can participate in attacks that are declared by other players." This is a clarification built upon the first sentence. It explains that you can declare the ranged character as an attacker against enemies engaged with another player, OR you can declare them as an attacker when other players declare an attack against enemies engaged with another player. This does not override the first sentence, it is further explanation of when these attacks made against other enemies can be declared.

You are right on many points. Ranged is meant to refer to attacking enemies engaged with other players. Thematically that is what it is. When I read the phrase "or it can participate in attacks against these targets that are declared by other players." I know they are writing it on the assumption that other players are declaring attacks on enemies engaged with themselves, thus the ranged keyword is still being used to attack enemies engaged with other players. I guess what I am really conveying here is that I see the current wording providing a loop-hole. The first sentence does explain what ranged is, the ability to attack enemies engaged with other players. The second sentence then puts forth two conditions for designating your ranged character as an attacker.

1) You can designate them as an attacker against enemies engaged with another player while you are the active attacker. The thing is, they actually specify that you can "declare ranged attacks against these targets while its owner is declaring attacks." They take the time to specify that the ranged attacks are against enemies that are engaged with other players. They basically repeat what they had just stated in the first sentence. (After reading this paragraph and sentence over several times I'm beginning to wonder if the pronoun "its" is referring to the ranged character, which is the more likely thing, or "these targets", which is grammatically the implied target of the pronoun. However being engaged with an enemy doesn't grant ownership of that enemy, so the second theory must be discounted.)

2) You can have your ranged character participate in attacks declared by other players. Do they probably mean against enemies engaged with other players? Yes. Is it worded that way? Since FFG actually took the time to specify the first condition was against enemies engaged with other players, and failed to do so with this condition I argue, no it is not worded in such a way. I find it is worded such that putting thematic reasoning aside, a ranged character could participate in an attack that is declare by another player, even if that attack is targeting an enemy engaged with the player controlling the ranged character.

If FFG worded the Ranged section in a manner similar to this, there could be no dispute, and no loop-hole.

"A character with the ranged keyword can be declared by its controller as an attacker against enemies that are engaged with other players. A character can declare ranged attacks against these targets while its owner is declaring attacks, or it can participate in attacks against these targets that are declared by other players. In either case, the character must exhaust and meet any other requirements necessary to make the attack."

It is not worded like that, and I see a loop-hole in the way it's worded. I've sent a question about it to FFG for a rules clarification, because I do want to stick to the rules. Will they tell me I'm wrong? Probably, but until then I'll stick to my guns because that's how I see it. Although it could just be that I've got an astigmatism and I'm far-sighted, so I don't see things correctly any way. Who knows?

Well, I've stated it over and over, but one more time... The very first sentence explains it all. The ranged keyword only comes into play on attacks made against enemies engaged with another player. If the attack is not made against an enemy engaged with another player, the ranged keyword never comes into play.

The part you are referring to is conditional on the definition of a ranged attack. They don't need to specifically state it here (although I suppose they could for the sake of eliminating an argument like this) because it's already defined.