I went ahead and sent FFG an email about this, hoping to put it to bed with an answer from the source. I'll post their reply on this thread as soon as I get it.
For future reference, the link is "Rules Questions" in grey at the very bottom of the page, not the blue "X-Wing Rules Questions" at the bottom of the highlighted portion of the page, a little higher up. Excuse me, at the bottom of YOUR page, if that wasn't clear… (forgive the cheap shot, just trying to inject a little humor).
Memnon of Rhodes said:
I went ahead and sent FFG an email about this, hoping to put it to bed with an answer from the source. I'll post their reply on this thread as soon as I get it.
For future reference, the link is "Rules Questions" in grey at the very bottom of the page, not the blue "X-Wing Rules Questions" at the bottom of the highlighted portion of the page, a little higher up. Excuse me, at the bottom of YOUR page, if that wasn't clear… (forgive the cheap shot, just trying to inject a little humor).
I have a handicap…it's called being a lawyer
kingbobb said:
Memnon of Rhodes said:
I went ahead and sent FFG an email about this, hoping to put it to bed with an answer from the source. I'll post their reply on this thread as soon as I get it.
For future reference, the link is "Rules Questions" in grey at the very bottom of the page, not the blue "X-Wing Rules Questions" at the bottom of the highlighted portion of the page, a little higher up. Excuse me, at the bottom of YOUR page, if that wasn't clear… (forgive the cheap shot, just trying to inject a little humor).
I have a handicap…it's called being a
lawyer
I totally get it now! :-p
If a card's Pilot Ability (that's what it's called) didn't apply specifically to that pilot, then Dutch Vander, Wedge Antilles, Backstabber, Biggs Darklighter and Mauler Mithel would all suffer the same problem as Howlrunner. The game would be unplayable.
Let's read these without assuming the implied subjects for anything:
Mauler Mithel: When [some unspecified ship] is attacking at Range 1, [some unspecified ship -- not necessarily the same ship since we don't know who the subject of this Pilot Ability might be -- must] roll 1 additional attack die.
Dutch Vander: After [ some unspecified ship] acquire a target lock, choose another friendly ship [but friendly to whom? Friendly to Dutch? Friendly to the unspecified ship that acquired the target lock?] at Range 1-2 [to whom?] . The chosen ship may immediately acquire a target lock.
I could go on, but I won't. The answer is obvious.
If the ability read "whenever a friendly ship is attacking at range 1," then I could understand arguing that it applied to any friendly ship as long as their attack was at range 1 from the enemy ship. However, it actually reads "Whenever a friend ship at range 1 is attacking…" I guess there are 2 different ways to read that. The first is the common English implied range one from the source of the ability. The other is the "uh oh, it doesn't specify, range 1 from what?" version. With the second version, why stop at arguing that it could mean range 1 from the defending ship… perhaps it means range 1 from an obstacle, or range 1 from the edge of the board, or range 1 from any given random point… all of those are a friendly ship at range 1 from something attacking.
DagobahDave said:
If a card's Pilot Ability (that's what it's called) didn't apply specifically to that pilot, then Dutch Vander, Wedge Antilles, Backstabber, Biggs Darklighter and Mauler Mithel would all suffer the same problem as Howlrunner. The game would be unplayable.
Let's read these without assuming the implied subjects for anything:
Mauler Mithel: When [some unspecified ship] is attacking at Range 1, [some unspecified ship -- not necessarily the same ship since we don't know who the subject of this Pilot Ability might be -- must] roll 1 additional attack die.
Dutch Vander: After [ some unspecified ship] acquire a target lock, choose another friendly ship [but friendly to whom? Friendly to Dutch? Friendly to the unspecified ship that acquired the target lock?] at Range 1-2 [to whom?] . The chosen ship may immediately acquire a target lock.
I could go on, but I won't. The answer is obvious.
The difference is that the rules address this: Unless the card says otherwise, it cannot affect other ships. So Backstabber's ability:
"When attacking from outside the defenders firing arc, roll 1 additional attack die"
can only apply to Backstabber. The rules cover the card, and the card states when the bonus is granted.
Howlrunner messes this up by specifically affecting a ship other than Howlrunner. And whether "at range 1" is listed after "when" or "is attacking," the card + rules creates an imprecise situation that could be argued either way.
Note that I'm not arguing (any longer) that the ability applies universally to Howlrunner's allies attacking a target at range 1, and that I think the ability is meant to convey a bonus to allies in close formation with Howlrunner. But the hole in the rules is there, and creates a potential for games to break down. I'm not submitting an additional rules question directly, because others already have, and I don't want to spam the FFG team.
kingbobb said:
DagobahDave said:
If a card's Pilot Ability (that's what it's called) didn't apply specifically to that pilot, then Dutch Vander, Wedge Antilles, Backstabber, Biggs Darklighter and Mauler Mithel would all suffer the same problem as Howlrunner. The game would be unplayable.
Let's read these without assuming the implied subjects for anything:
Mauler Mithel: When [some unspecified ship] is attacking at Range 1, [some unspecified ship -- not necessarily the same ship since we don't know who the subject of this Pilot Ability might be -- must] roll 1 additional attack die.
Dutch Vander: After [ some unspecified ship] acquire a target lock, choose another friendly ship [but friendly to whom? Friendly to Dutch? Friendly to the unspecified ship that acquired the target lock?] at Range 1-2 [to whom?] . The chosen ship may immediately acquire a target lock.
I could go on, but I won't. The answer is obvious.
The difference is that the rules address this: Unless the card says otherwise, it cannot affect other ships. So Backstabber's ability:
"When attacking from outside the defenders firing arc, roll 1 additional attack die"
can only apply to Backstabber. The rules cover the card, and the card states when the bonus is granted.
Howlrunner messes this up by specifically affecting a ship other than Howlrunner. And whether "at range 1" is listed after "when" or "is attacking," the card + rules creates an imprecise situation that could be argued either way.
Note that I'm not arguing (any longer) that the ability applies universally to Howlrunner's allies attacking a target at range 1, and that I think the ability is meant to convey a bonus to allies in close formation with Howlrunner. But the hole in the rules is there, and creates a potential for games to break down. I'm not submitting an additional rules question directly, because others already have, and I don't want to spam the FFG team.
I think with any game you will run into language that seems "leaky" and not "airtight." I'm glad to hear that we have won you over to the common sense interpretation!
I will concede that many of the cards in this game could be more stalwart in their wording. I actually think this is one of the lower level holes in the overall dam. There are bigger leaks in the card rules for sure.
Cheers!
@kingbobb (and maybe others)
I think the spirit of the ability seems clear (at least to me and many others), even if the letter of the ability is not (at least to some). It seems to me (and maybe I'm missing something) that if we go with your interpretation, the attacking ship can really be at range 1 of ANYTHING (Howlrunner, another friendly ship, an enemy ship it is attacking, an enemy ship it is not attacking, an asteroid, a focus or evade token, etc.). I don't see how it is possible that this was the intent, so at range 1 of Howlrunner seems very safe to assume.
But, if your point is that it could have been worded better, that appears to be the case by definition (at least one person is not clear so that means there is at room for improvement). I have had several questions about the rules myself. But, it seems very hard to make everything clear to everyone in any game.
EDIT: And in a friendly attempt to show I understand your point, let's speak in terms of probabilities and not absolutes. I'd say there is a 99% chance that when the rules people decide it will be within range of Howlruner, and a 1% chance it is in range of something else. So, it IS possible I/we are mistaken.
Curious what probabilities others would give various options. I'm guessing we are closer than we appear if we look at it that way.
El_Tonio said:
@kingbobb (and maybe others)
I think the spirit of the ability seems clear (at least to me and many others), even if the letter of the ability is not (at least to some). It seems to me (and maybe I'm missing something) that if we go with your interpretation, the attacking ship can really be at range 1 of ANYTHING (Howlrunner, another friendly ship, an enemy ship it is attacking, an enemy ship it is not attacking, an asteroid, a focus or evade token, etc.). I don't see how it is possible that this was the intent, so at range 1 of Howlrunner seems very safe to assume.
But, if your point is that it could have been worded better, that appears to be the case by definition (at least one person is not clear so that means there is at room for improvement). I have had several questions about the rules myself. But, it seems very hard to make everything clear to everyone in any game.
EDIT: And in a friendly attempt to show I understand your point, let's speak in terms of probabilities and not absolutes. I'd say there is a 99% chance that when the rules people decide it will be within range of Howlruner, and a 1% chance it is in range of something else. So, it IS possible I/we are mistaken.
Curious what probabilities others would give various options. I'm guessing we are closer than we appear if we look at it that way.
I actually think that the the FAQ/Rules team has a 100% chance of clarifying that the ability is measured from Howlrunner, because I do feel that all signs indicate that is how the ability was meant to work. My concern is that the rules don't allow you 100% to reach that conclusion. You need to infer several things. And I'm willing to be nearly everyone has had a moment where an otherwise great game has broken down because someone's read a rule slightly differently from everyone else. I see this rule/card combo as one of those areas, and nipping it in the bud is the best way to deal with it.
Granted, not everyone is going to have access to a FAQ, or the internet, for when those moments arise.
kingbobb said:
El_Tonio said:
@kingbobb (and maybe others)
I think the spirit of the ability seems clear (at least to me and many others), even if the letter of the ability is not (at least to some). It seems to me (and maybe I'm missing something) that if we go with your interpretation, the attacking ship can really be at range 1 of ANYTHING (Howlrunner, another friendly ship, an enemy ship it is attacking, an enemy ship it is not attacking, an asteroid, a focus or evade token, etc.). I don't see how it is possible that this was the intent, so at range 1 of Howlrunner seems very safe to assume.
But, if your point is that it could have been worded better, that appears to be the case by definition (at least one person is not clear so that means there is at room for improvement). I have had several questions about the rules myself. But, it seems very hard to make everything clear to everyone in any game.
EDIT: And in a friendly attempt to show I understand your point, let's speak in terms of probabilities and not absolutes. I'd say there is a 99% chance that when the rules people decide it will be within range of Howlruner, and a 1% chance it is in range of something else. So, it IS possible I/we are mistaken.
Curious what probabilities others would give various options. I'm guessing we are closer than we appear if we look at it that way.
I actually think that the the FAQ/Rules team has a 100% chance of clarifying that the ability is measured from Howlrunner, because I do feel that all signs indicate that is how the ability was meant to work. My concern is that the rules don't allow you 100% to reach that conclusion. You need to infer several things. And I'm willing to be nearly everyone has had a moment where an otherwise great game has broken down because someone's read a rule slightly differently from everyone else. I see this rule/card combo as one of those areas, and nipping it in the bud is the best way to deal with it.
Granted, not everyone is going to have access to a FAQ, or the internet, for when those moments arise.
That's what page 13 of the rule book is for. See "resolving rules disputes" sidebar.
spacemonkeymafia said:
That's what page 13 of the rule book is for. See "resolving rules disputes" sidebar.
This is fine for casual players who don't mind letting chance determine how an ability is going to be played each time, and until the FAQ/errata comes out. For the longer term, the rule needs to be clarified and defined.
kingbobb said:
spacemonkeymafia said:
That's what page 13 of the rule book is for. See "resolving rules disputes" sidebar.
This is fine for casual players who don't mind letting chance determine how an ability is going to be played each time, and until the FAQ/errata comes out. For the longer term, the rule needs to be clarified and defined.
Exactly. But until then, if you can't agree, roll the dice.
First off, I'm not here to bust anyone's chops. Just saying what I think. That aside, I think we've all agreed at this point what the intent of the rule is. But there are two reasons I don't think there's really an argument otherwise. Outside of court, it's reasonable to assume people are capable of using context clues. We learn to do this as children to help shape our perspectives and our reality. Based off of this, and the phrasing of various other instances in the rulebook and on cards, it would say 'attacking at range 1' and not 'at range 1 is attacking' as this is how they've phrased other instances. Also, I think a general ignorance of the English language is the other culprit (of which I am also too often guilty). In other languages where sentence structure matters little (Latin for example) this would actually be a MUCH more troublesome card. But in English order and grouping are everything. In this case "When another friendly ship at Range 1" is its own phrase within the sentence structure. And as there is no other subject as of yet, and it clearly says friendly, there is no other option but Howlrunner. So yeah. Hopefully this helps and I've managed to say it without coming off as entirely pretentious.
KarmikazeKidd said:
First off, I'm not here to bust anyone's chops. Just saying what I think. That aside, I think we've all agreed at this point what the intent of the rule is. But there are two reasons I don't think there's really an argument otherwise. Outside of court, it's reasonable to assume people are capable of using context clues. We learn to do this as children to help shape our perspectives and our reality. Based off of this, and the phrasing of various other instances in the rulebook and on cards, it would say 'attacking at range 1' and not 'at range 1 is attacking' as this is how they've phrased other instances. Also, I think a general ignorance of the English language is the other culprit (of which I am also too often guilty). In other languages where sentence structure matters little (Latin for example) this would actually be a MUCH more troublesome card. But in English order and grouping are everything. In this case "When another friendly ship at Range 1" is its own phrase within the sentence structure. And as there is no other subject as of yet, and it clearly says friendly, there is no other option but Howlrunner. So yeah. Hopefully this helps and I've managed to say it without coming off as entirely pretentious.
I think you've laid out why this is likely the correct application of the card. At the same time, I think we've all run into, or at least have heard about, folks (you can call them rules lawyers if you want
) that will look for by the by-the book applications that they can use to their advantage. It's not cheating, because in most of those cases, the rules don't disprove their application. And however strongly anyone thinks a rule is inferred, if you can't point to a line of text and say without qualification what that line means, there's going to be room for debate.
Page 9 has a side box on the range ruler. It includes language that covers what is meant by using "at range X" in the rules and abilities. While it's not completely 100% solid, combined with the other language on abilities, I think it should cover all but the most stubborn of rules parsers.