FFG email answers: range & arc, Autothrusters, Tactician, and cutting steps short

[Quarrel 631]

1. When attacking with a non-turret weapon, where do you measure range FROM?

A) the absolute closest corner of the attacking ship

B) the closest point on the attacker’s base that’s within the weapon’s firing arc

I ask because the Force Awakens Rules Ref. clearly says the answer is A, but that defies common sense (and is also different from how Armada works). This is a big question because most ships have a standard firing arc that’s too skinny to reach the front corners.

As quoted from p 16 of the Rules Reference under Range: "When measuring range for an attack, the attacker measures to the closest point of the target ship that is inside the attacker's firing arc.” This does imply that when measuring range (for a non-turret weapon), it is measured from the front edge of the punchboard as the plastic base on the sides is not inside the attacker’s firing arc.

 

Confirming what I expected here: there's a small oversight in the base rules when it comes to the front corner gaps.

 

2. What range do you use to determine whether Autothrusters can activate: the range of the attack being defended against, or the pure base-to-base range between the ships?

As currently ruled, the range is purely the base-to-base range of the ships (not the range of the attack) and the empirical fact of the ship being inside of the attacker’s firing arc or not.

 

This matches what I've seen posted in other threads over the last couple of days. (It's also the opposite of how I thought it worked! Turns out I was wrong all along.)

 

 

3. Same question as #2, but for Tactician.

Tactician uses the phrase “inside of arc at Range 2.” This specific phrase is going to be clarified in the upcoming FAQ. This phrase is saying specifically that the closest point (when measured inside firing arc) is Range 2.

This caught me completely off guard. I expect it will cause a bit of a stir.

 

4. What happens if a ship loses its Perform Action step while it’s in the middle of that step? Does the step end immediately, or does it continue normally since it already started? The specific example I’m thinking of is Darth Vader using his first action to barrel roll onto a Conner Net.

As far as I am aware, this is currently the only way that a ship could do something that would cause it skip its "Perform Action" step during its “Perform Action” step. In all other instances (i.e. using Push the Limit or other “action stacking”) the action chain could continue. In this instance, Darth Vader would lose his second action if his first action caused him to overlap a Conner Net (such as boost or barrel roll).

Thanks for playing,

Frank Brooks

Associate Creative Content Developer

Fantasy Flight Games

fbrooks@fantasyflightgames.com

[StephenEsven 632]

So it would seem that all the answers we hace gotten recently are based on an as of yet unpublished FAQ where everything we know about measuring Range is changing.

Because the answers clearly contradict rulings in the current FAQ.

I wonder when that FAQ will be published?

[skotothalamos 3,652]

I wonder when that FAQ will be published?

 

"We will be publishing a new round structure for higher levels of competiton, including the 2016 Regional Championships, with the next rules update prior to the start

of the season."

 

https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2016/1/18/preparing-for-2016/

[Quarrel 631]

Because the answers clearly contradict rulings in the current FAQ.

Which ones do they contradict?

AFAICT, the issue isn't that the FAQ currently says something else, it's that the FAQ doesn't actually clarify these points in an unambiguous fashion.

[Vulf 911]

So it would seem that all the answers we hace gotten recently are based on an as of yet unpublished FAQ where everything we know about measuring Range is changing.

Because the answers clearly contradict rulings in the current FAQ.

I wonder when that FAQ will be published?

 

It only changes things if you were making the wrong assumptions to begin with!

Edited January 21, 2016 by Vulf

[Remulus Dreypa 1]

Why is this such a hard game to understand? Ambiguity in sentence structure in ruling AND in response to the questions, the lack of structure and clearly thought out rules here are becoming more abundant and noticeable. The formulation of these sentences and their meaning has lead to many errors in the game and taken enjoyment away due to arguments, cheating, etc... while I have enjoyed the game, I have become more and more disappointed in FFG and their ability to streamline their rules and the cards they distribute.  There have been many questions answered here, but the continuance of the same questions in the FAQ and their similarity to one another means that the responses are not well worded and, to put it simply, condescending.  They are condescending due to their short and simplistic response with the final touch, and insincere, Thanks For Playing.  We the players should have more respect than that since we are paying for your job, we might have not been the ones who hired you, but we support the company which allows you to pay the bills.  As it stands, the game is great, but the FAQ and constant rule change do not allow for a smooth and streamlined field of play, especially to those who do not stay current with the game and pick it up just for a quick game or two.  Instead of making all these changes, simply think about this proverb- "Measure twice and cut once"

 

Lastly, this is what your rules sound like most of the time, especially for auto-thrusters "I shot an elephant in my pajamas", was I in my pajamas or the was the elephant in my pajamas...logically speaking it should have been me, but with FFG and their logic, it could have been the elephant...

[Dirtyvader2 4]

This has messed everything right up as Autothrusters has always been messured by the line of attack not the closest points in every game ive seen and played in.

Frank i think you need to clear this up as i know from facts and sources that it would be better ruled that autothrusters should be line of attack, because it would work a hole lot more logical and a hell of alot easy to enforce. I beleive this years worlds had some Autothruster situations that might have been played wrong.

Edited January 22, 2016 by DirtyVader

[heliodorus04 166]

Maybe they should hire a technical writer... Republish cards, etc.

[kopmcginty 609]

Wait, what?

I'm flying a Firespray which has a Tactician crew and no canon upgrade. I'm heading exactly 'north'

I'm shooting at a T-70 flying exactly 'south' which is equipped with Autothrusters. It is parallel but not directly in line with me. That is, it is offset to the side by some distance.

I measure my attack within my arc. The range ruler reaches the enemy ship at its rear corner just barely at range three. My attack is range three so the T-70 gets its bonus green die as I'm shooting with a primary weapon. Tactician does not trigger because it's card implicitly States in arc at range two. This condition is not met regardless of out of arc distance.

However we then need to check for AT separately going from the physical closest to closest ignoring arc. This is just within range two as the front corner of the target is closer to me than the rear corner that my firing arc meant I measured to for deciding range. This means despite being a range three attack, Autothrusters don't activate.

Is that how I should be playing it? Having AT fail to activate for a range three in arc attack sounds bonkers?

Edited January 24, 2016 by kopmcginty

[Rawling 345]

i know from facts and sources

We'd love to hear

 

 

Is that how I should be playing it? Having AT fail to activate for a range three in arc attack sounds bonkers?

You may think it sounds bonkers, but that's how it's been ruled.

It's different from Tactician, because Tactician says inside your firing arc at range 2 and autothrusters just says beyond range 2.

[kopmcginty 609]

Meh, I don't have to agree with a rule to abide by it. I can think it's bonkers and play it that way just fine. As of right now where do I direct an opponent or judge to clarify this though? As far as I can tell, the current FAQ certainly doesn't, it only clarifies for turreted attacks.

I have a store tournament on the 7th of Feb so new FAQ may not be here in time and an email reply copied into a thread on a forum obviously doesn't cut it for making sure everyone is happy with how it's played at an event.

[StephenEsven 632]

Then you go by the FAQ even though Frank has issues a mail contradicting the FAQ. Or you exercise your TO perogative and overrule the FAQ if you disagree with it. Just inform players in advance and you will save yourself time as this is bound to pop up.

[Rawling 345]

Then you go by the FAQ even though Frank has issues a mail contradicting the FAQ.

Technically, Frank's ruling doesn't contradict the FAQ.

[StephenEsven 632]

That is where some of us disagree. But in the end you are free as a TO ✌ rule it one way or the other.