Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Crysus

Rebel Aces Spoilers on Team Covenant

379 posts in this topic

Until we gain a ship that can live on another ship's base, I will assume that the single ship is at Range 0 from itself.

Maybe the new PS5 A-Wing is a reincarnation of Arvel Crynyd that does just that.

DraconPyrothayan likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Until we gain a ship that can live on another ship's base, I will assume that the single ship is at Range 0 from itself.

Which is not within rage 1-3 of itself, it is at range 0.

 

Measuring range to yourself if you're a friendly target very well could. I get that we need a FAQ entry on this. But the point was, there is some grounding in the rules that makes it seem reasonable.

 

Similar to the "Replace the Focus Token (or in one instance, Action) with an Evade Token situation" from earlier on theis thread, I am going to play it as if FFG has not created a new rule within the text of the card by allowing you to measure across your ships base, and instead continue to measure it from the edge on out to the target. 

 

At least until there is a FAQ that is.  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In all seriousness, I can buy into the range 0 explanation. Not too long ago there was no such thing as range 4 or 5. There's no reason we can't pretend like the ranges extend farther in both directions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, Rulebook, page 10 under "Range"

 

 

To measure range, place the Range 1 end of the range ruler so that it touches the closest part

of the attacker’s base. Then point the ruler toward the closest part of the target ship’s base that is inside the attacker’s firing arc.

 

Emphasis THEIRS.

 

Ah, you're looking at the rules for attacking.

 

Page 9 under "Range Ruler":

 

 

The range ruler is divided into three sections, and each section is labeled with a number (1, 2, or 3). When the rules instruct a player to "measure the distance," always orient the range ruler so that the Range 1 section touches the point of origin (usually the active ship) and the Range 3 section points towards (or touches) the intended target.

 

When the rules refer to a ship being "at Range 2," it means that the closest part of the intended target's base must fall under the "range 2" section of the range ruler. When the rules refer to a ship being "at Range 1-3," it means that the target's base must fall under any section of the range ruler.

 

Just in case anyone then wants to argue that the rules for attacking specify closest to closest, therefore closest to closest must apply to all range measurements, that it discounted by the fact that the rules state any point to any point in the target lock section (also on page 9).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just in case anyone then wants to argue that the rules for attacking specify closest to closest, therefore closest to closest must apply to all range measurements, that it discounted by the fact that the rules state any point to any point in the target lock section (also on page 9).

Which is both arbitrary and irrelevant to the conversation, because on the very next line it still says "if the enemy ship is at Range 1, 2, or 3, the active ship may acquire a target lock on that ship." Unless you suppose that the range band somehow shifted between measuring the TL and combat, in which case a ship could be considered at range 2 for measuring the lock and range 1 for applying extra dice. That completely throws the entire idea of a fixed and uniform range band right out the window.

Edited by WonderWAAAGH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Until we gain a ship that can live on another ship's base, I will assume that the single ship is at Range 0 from itself.

Maybe the new PS5 A-Wing is a reincarnation of Arvel Crynyd that does just that.

 

 

The reincarnation of Arvel Crynyd destroys huge ships that splat it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Until we gain a ship that can live on another ship's base, I will assume that the single ship is at Range 0 from itself.

Maybe the new PS5 A-Wing is a reincarnation of Arvel Crynyd that does just that.

 

 

The reincarnation of Arvel Crynyd destroys huge ships that splat it.

 

 

inb4 Imperial huge ship enthusiasts cry more about OP rebels

Rakky Wistol likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Just in case anyone then wants to argue that the rules for attacking specify closest to closest, therefore closest to closest must apply to all range measurements, that it discounted by the fact that the rules state any point to any point in the target lock section (also on page 9).

 

Which is both arbitrary and irrelevant to the conversation, because on the very next line it still says "if the enemy ship is at Range 1, 2, or 3, the active ship may acquire a target lock on that ship." Unless you suppose that the range band somehow shifted between measuring the TL and combat, in which case a ship could be considered at range 2 for measuring the lock and range 1 for applying extra dice.

 

It is no less relevant than quoting page 10. I included it only as an example that page 10 is not a universal rule for measuring range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nor did I cite those pages as a rule, only an observation. One can plainly see where the range bands are. Do we not see the potential for conflict if the range bands are mutable and subject to change, depending on the situation? There would be no such thing as an actual range 1-3 to be at or within, only an arbitrary distance measured between two ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Situational examples? So the range band arbitrarily changes depending on the circumstances under which you're measuring? That would mean that the entire concept of a range band is completely subjective, which is ludicrous in a game reliant upon concrete rules and definitions.

It changes based on firing arc vs ability, so yes, in a sense, it does change based on circumstances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From now on, whenever I play against a TIE swarm, I'm going to make my opponent measure range 1 from the opposite side of the base.

Yeah, that's not helping your case. The rules for measuring change based on a number of criteria but the biggest one to remember is that it should be measured to create the lowest possible number. Otherwise ordnance would be far better than it is. It's one of those rules of thumb.

rym likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rules text?

You know the rules text and where to find it as well as I do. being absurd because you're irritated doesn't become you. You're better than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You said it's a rule of thumb, but I must have missed a part in the actual rulebook where it says that. Unless you're talking about measuring closest to closest, at which point we're back to square one.

Please don't pretend like the burden of proof is on someone else when you make an assertion and get called out on it. That kind of absurdity doesn't become you. If you can't (or won't) cite it, don't say it.

Edited by WonderWAAAGH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You said it's a rule of thumb, but I must have missed a part in the actual rulebook where it says that. Unless you're talking about measuring closest to closest, at which point we're back to square one.

Please don't pretend like the burden of proof is on someone else when you make an assertion and get called out on it. That kind of absurdity doesn't become you.

Closest to closest is making the range as short as it can, The rule of thumb I mentioned. I said that in response to you saying you were going to make ties measure firing arcs from the back, which is both clearly against the rules and something I know you don't believe you can do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see. So I was expected to comprehend your mangling of the rules text (which is one hell of an inference) rather than you doing the easy thing and just giving me a page number. Or, you know, actually saying what the rules say.

No, obviously I don't believe I can measure from the back of the base, not with Howl and certainly not with Jan.

Edited by WonderWAAAGH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see. So I was expected to comprehend your mangling of the rules text (which is one hell of an inference) rather than you doing the easy thing and just giving me a page number. Or, you know, actually saying what the rules say.

No, obviously I don't believe I can measure from the back of the base, not with Howl and certainly not with Jan.

Not when attacking. When measuring for abilities, if the ship is behind you, you most certainly can and should be measuring from the back. And summarizing is not mangling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using other words that don't remotely resemble the rules text is most certainly mangling. I wouldn't even dignify your comment as a paraphrase.

When measuring for abilities, you still measure from the edge, whether it's the rear edge or the front. You don't measure across the base, which was what "back" obviously meant in this context, seeing as how I was actually agreeing with you.

Edited by WonderWAAAGH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From now on, whenever I play against a TIE swarm, I'm going to make my opponent measure range 1 from the opposite side of the base.

Yeah, that's not helping your case. The rules for measuring change based on a number of criteria but the biggest one to remember is that it should be measured to create the lowest possible number. Otherwise ordnance would be far better than it is. It's one of those rules of thumb.
  

You said it's a rule of thumb, but I must have missed a part in the actual rulebook where it says that. Unless you're talking about measuring closest to closest, at which point we're back to square one.

Please don't pretend like the burden of proof is on someone else when you make an assertion and get called out on it. That kind of absurdity doesn't become you. If you can't (or won't) cite it, don't say it.

  

You said it's a rule of thumb, but I must have missed a part in the actual rulebook where it says that. Unless you're talking about measuring closest to closest, at which point we're back to square one.

Please don't pretend like the burden of proof is on someone else when you make an assertion and get called out on it. That kind of absurdity doesn't become you.

Closest to closest is making the range as short as it can, The rule of thumb I mentioned. I said that in response to you saying you were going to make ties measure firing arcs from the back, which is both clearly against the rules and something I know you don't believe you can do.

You guys are now talking about the archaic rule where you were allowed to beat your wife/children/servants as long as the stick was no wider than your thumb? C'mon folks, that doesn't even belong in the rules subforum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys are now talking about the archaic rule where you were allowed to beat your wife/children/servants as long as the stick was no wider than your thumb? C'mon folks, that doesn't even belong in the rules subforum.

Rule of thumb?  Cant do much damage with that now, can we?

 

Maybe it should have been rule of wrist?

Rule+of+Wrist.jpg

 

Really guys, we need to tone it down.

Edited by catachan23
ErrantKknight and NotBatman like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aaaarrg someone should teach them about the comma!

What Comma? The card itself is "B-Wing only. Modification." That's perfectly fine. It's exactly how the Phantom mods work. Nothing on the card suggests it can't go on named pilots. Literally nothing?
 

 

This is that the site listed/reported

 

B-Wing/E2

non-unique B-Wing modification only

Your upgrade bar gains the [CREW] icon

 

If the line was "non-unique, B-Wing modification only" then it would mean a non-unique card, b-wing mod only.  No comma means the modification is for a non-unique b-wing.

 

Sorry I took the report at their word and againg read it in proper english.

 

I will admit it on the internet for everyone to read... I was mistaken and you were right.  Happy now?  You win the internet!

The meaning is ambiguous either way. The comma does not clarify it. Which means you have to look at context. So next time, read the card before assuming what it does based on a comma. Yes it's a list, it should have a comma. But that whole section isn't punctuated. Context is the key. Context trumps grammar.

I disagree, without the comma it's not ambiguous, it refers to non-unique b-wings. Further more, grammar makes things explicit so that the meaning is less dependent on context and interpretation, and, you know, more meaningful. For me language that clearly conveys a meaning with as little room for misunderstanding is better language, and grammar aids that. If you have to say "well technically theve said this, but this meaning seems more likely" then that's poor language. Without having read the card text Dandirk was right. And in terms of the context - frankly I think if anything it made it more likely to mean what he thought - cards aren't normally referred to as non-unique.

What's this all about anyway? We got some new toys coming?

rym likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The range zero explanation make sense to me, however it's not clear. As has been pointed out, just because all range measurements so far depicted pictorially have been aimed outwards from the ships base doesn't mean that's the only way it can be done. Going by the wording of the rule it does make sense that you could place the ruler against the edge of your ship, pointing in towards the ship's peg. I doubt that's what FFG meant, but that's the most literal interpretation of the rule in my view, and there's something to be said for adopting the most literal interpretation whenever there's ambiguity.

That said, we already have a mechanism in the book for resolving ambiguity - we roll for it, like ladies.

Edited by mazz0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why doesn't someone just email FFG already? Ziggy's done it twice, they're quite happy to answer.

 

The official rulebook doesn't say anything about email, so I'm not sure that we're allowed to do that. And even if we were, I wouldn't know how.

 

Can I email myself?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0