Fenn and Concord Dawn Protector vs the Inquisitor

[dotswarlock 2,424]

Let's see if I get this straight:

 

The Inquisitor: When attacking with your primary weapon at Range 2-3, treat the range of the attack as Range 1.

 

Fenn: When attacking or defending, if the enemy ship is at Range 1, you may roll 1 additional die.

 

Concord Dawn Protector: When defending, if you are inside the attacker's firing arc and at Range 1 and the the attacker is inside your firing arc, add 1 evade result.

 

So if Fenn is defending against the Inquisitor's attack, at any range, he may roll 1 additional defense die (because the Inquisitor threats the attack as range 1).

 

If you have the Concord Dawn Protector title, and Feen is in the Inquisitor's arc (and vice versa), you get to add 1 evade result, even at range 2-3 (because the condition only checks the range of the attacker).

 

Does it all add up?

 

(All of the attacks mentionned above take into consideration primary weapon attacks)

Edited June 3, 2016 by dotswarlock

[drjkel 1,365]

The inquisitor is "treat the range of the attack as Range 1", Fenn is "if the enemy ship is at Range 1." These are different concepts (range of an attack vs range between ships), so, no, it wouldn't trigger.

[StephenEsven 632]

drjkel is right. Fenns ability is measured from Fenn to the enemy. For the Concord Dawn Protector. it is a bit harder. Is it inside the arc AND at Range 1 or inside the arc at Range 1. My best guess is you get the Evade result.

[Rawling 345]

 

if you are inside the attacker's firing arc and at Range 1

 

I wonder if that is intentionally different from "inside the attaker's firing arc at range 1" as described in the latest FAQ...

[thespaceinvader 17,568]

This is the same argument as inq and autothrusters which was ruled to get invalidate ats, so i'd argue this should work the same and give fenn his bonuses for inq shots.

[Goseki1 637]

Fenn will not get his bonuses unless the Inquisitor is physically at range 1. You only treat the range of the Inquisitors attack as range 1, not the distance if the Inquisitors ship. Autothrusters got ruled in the Inquisitors favour via FAQ.

[nitrobenz 1,369]

My short answer is: Protector title, yes, always active. Fenn Rau's pilot ability, ugh, wait for the FAQ

At first glance in looks like it should be the same argument as autothrusters; always works because Inq always attacks at range 1...

Relevant text from Autothrusters:

"When defending, if you are beyond range 2 or outside the attacker's firing arc..." and all of the rule-meisters here are aware the FAQ sides with the Inq in that case.

Starting with the Protector title, yes it works because the phrasing is the same as autothrusters with inverted conditions.

Fenn's ability on the other hand specifically references the enemy ship being at range 1, and I'd say this is still no clearer than the original argument, nor helped by its precedent since they pretty deliberately reworded it to be different. Did they re-word it to be more clear that it's the same? Or to make it specifically different? For his ability is "...if the enemy ship is at Range 1..." measured from Fenn to his attacker, from the attacker to Fenn, or is it a static measurement between two ships where Fenn happens to be defending?

[thespaceinvader 17,568]

This is the same wording autothrusters used to have. We all know know he ruling for autothrusters. I just hope this one will be consistent.

[Rawling 345]

This is the same wording autothrusters used to have. We all know know he ruling for autothrusters. I just hope this one will be consistent.

Emphasis on "used to have". Autothrusters had been errata'd now to have different wording, so there's no reason to expect this to work the same way AT was ruled to work.

[Jehan Menasis 1,562]

I'd say neither ability would work against (or along with) Inquisitor's attacks.

 

The reason is the FAQ's entry about the inquisitor's ability:

 

"Only the range of the attack is treated as range 1... Any abilities that reference the range of ships, such as Carnor Jax and Scum & Villany Bobba Fett, are not affected by The Inquisitor's ability."

 

Protector's title and Fenn's ability are such type of abilities, and so don't activate if the ships are physically at range 2-3. Only the Inquisitor gets its "range bonus".

 

And yes, I'm aware of the Auto-thrusters case (which would also fit on this category) but the fact is that it got specifically trumped by the FAQ. In other words, it seems more like an ad-hoc exception, rather than the rule.

 

So we can say, "Any range abilities are not affected by the inquisitor's ability, unless the FAQ allows you to do so", which is the case of auto-thrusters.

 

It may end this way too for the Protector's title, but unless the FAQ allows you, the rule is that you can't use it.

[nitrobenz 1,369]

if anything, the errata'd Autothrusters is more similar to the Protector title than it was before, underlined the relevant identical phrasing below:

• [errata'd] Autothrusters - When defending, if you are inside the attacker's firing arc beyond range 2 or outside the attacker's firing arc, you may change 1 of your blank results to an [evade] result. You can equip this card only if you have the [boost] action icon.
• [preview'd] Concord Dawn Protector - Protectorate Starfighter Only. Title. When defending, if you are inside the attacker's firing arc and at range 1 and the attacker is inside your firing arc, add 1 [evade] result.

the phrasing here is identical with inverted conditions, hence I say the Protector title will trigger whenever Inq looks at it.

[nitrobenz 1,369]

 

I'd say neither ability would work against (or along with) Inquisitor's attacks.

 

The reason is the FAQ's entry about the inquisitor's ability:

 

"Only the range of the attack is treated as range 1... Any abilities that reference the range of ships, such as Carnor Jax and Scum & Villany Bobba Fett, are not affected by The Inquisitor's ability."

 

Protector's title and Fenn's ability are such type of abilities, and so don't activate if the ships are physically at range 2-3. Only the Inquisitor gets its "range bonus".

 

And yes, I'm aware of the Auto-thrusters case (which would also fit on this category) but the fact is that it got specifically trumped by the FAQ. In other words, it seems more like an ad-hoc exception, rather than the rule.

 

So we can say, "Any range abilities are not affected by the inquisitor's ability, unless the FAQ allows you to do so", which is the case of auto-thrusters.

 

It may end this way too for the Protector's title, but unless the FAQ allows you, the rule is that you can't use it.

 

 

Hmmm... I see what you're saying, that the Protector (and everything else that will ever be released) has already been superseded by the FAQ, but the Autothrusters case indicates that "when defending, if the attacker is at range x" is measured according to the attacker, not from ship to ship.

• Fenn Rau pilot ability - When attacking or defending, if the enemy ship is at range 1, you may roll 1 additional die.

     If I had to judge it now, I would agree that Fenn Rau's ability is measured from ship to ship independent of attack/defense range as it references the enemy ship rather than the attacker as referred to by both Autothrusters and Protector. The key difference I see in the phrasing here is "the attacker" vs "enemy ship".

[Rawling 345]

the phrasing here is identical with inverted conditions

No, it's not.

Autothrusters is "inside the attacker's firing arc beyond range 2", which corresponds to the new section in the latest FAQ, where you only measure the range to the part of ship in arc.

CDP is "inside the attacker's firing arc AND at range 1". The added "and" makes it two separate, independent conditions

[StephenEsven 632]

While I agree with the above, this was probably written vefore the latest FAQ and the AND could be subject to errata upon release. But as it stands right now I agree that Range and arc are determined separately.

[Vitalis 1,012]

Guys, you are refering to faq here and there but have not read it. Inquisitor was faqued so that abilities depending on range 1 DOES NOT trigger unless he is physically at range 1,just read something you reffered to....

For inquisitor to trigger an ability that ability would have to be worded like: "when you are attacked at range 1".

Cause when inki attacks you:

Are you at range 1? No.

Are you attacked at range 1? Yes

Edited June 6, 2016 by Vitalis

[thespaceinvader 17,568]

Yes, I know.

 

But the ability of Autothrusters was FAQed the opposite way despite originally being worded in precisely the same way.  This feels to me like it will be ruled the same, as it's clearly referencing the range of the attack the same way autothrusters does/did.

 

It's different from Carnor, because his condition is a continually checked one and affects all spending of focus within r1 of him, for whatever reason including making an attack with Deadeye or Blaster Turret, regenning a shield with R5P9, etc.

 

CDP and Fenn's ability are only ever checked when an attack is happening, as Autothrusters are, and the ATs FAQ/errata and the range-in-arc thing suggest to me that his ability and the title will be ruled the same way they are.

 

I'd be happy to change my position if an FAQ proves otherwise, of course.

[WWHSD 9,273]

After giving the card an errata and adding a section to the FAQ on what "in arc at range X" means that gives an example that is contrary to the FAQ ruling, I'm still no clearer on why The Inquisitor negates Autothrusters. Whatever logic has him negating Autothrusters should apply for CDP and Fenn's ability.

[thespaceinvader 17,568]

FWIW, I thought initially, and still think, that Autothrusters' wording taken independently of the FAQ, even with the new errata, means they shouldn't be affected by Inq's special rule, and nor should CDP/Fenn.

 

But I'm just going with the argument that I think FFG will end up making into the official ruling on release.

[VanderLegion 4,939]

After giving the card an errata and adding a section to the FAQ on what "in arc at range X" means that gives an example that is contrary to the FAQ ruling, I'm still no clearer on why The Inquisitor negates Autothrusters. Whatever logic has him negating Autothrusters should apply for CDP and Fenn's ability.

 

Anything that specifies "In arc at range X" uses the range of the attack, not the ship range.  Fenn's abilitty doesn't say anything about in arc, so uses the distance between the ships.  CDP DOES mentino in arc and at range 1, which mya or may not fall under the same ruling (that "and" in between might separate them so it doesn't count inqy's ability)

[Rawling 345]

Anything that specifies "In arc at range X" uses the range of the attack, not the ship range.

Well, no, not if the attack is a turret. I dread to think what a mess we'd have if the Inquisitor had a PWT.

[VanderLegion 4,939]

 

Anything that specifies "In arc at range X" uses the range of the attack, not the ship range.

Well, no, not if the attack is a turret. I dread to think what a mess we'd have if the Inquisitor had a PWT.

 

 

Not sure how it would matter if the attack was a turret.  It still specifies "In arc".  PWTs still have a primary arc, they can just shoot outside of it.

[Rawling 345]

Not sure how it would matter if the attack was a turret.  It still specifies "In arc".  PWTs still have a primary arc, they can just shoot outside of it.

So...

Anything that specifies "In arc at range X" uses the range of the attack, not the ship range.

is not correct, then? "In arc at range X" uses the range of the attack, unless the attack is a PWT in which case it requires a separate arc check/range measurement, except if the closest point is in arc in which case it doesn't?

Wouldn't it be simpler to just as "in arc at range X" always requires a separate arc check/range measurement like many "at range X", and save the measurement-skipping for obvious things like "attacking at range X" or "defending at range X"?

[Mozic 174]

For the record, I agree that the Concord Dawn Protector title will provide a natural advantage over the Inquisitor's pilot skill while Fenn's pilot skill would not trigger unless the Inquisitor is actually physically within range 1 of Fenn.

 

Fenn's skill specifically requires measuring the distance to the enemy ship. It's effectively the same measuring rules as Guri, with a very different timing and condition. He benefits from out-of-arc shots, ordinance shots, and so on, but not here.

 

The range of the inquisitor's attack is treated as 1 as soon as the attack is initiated, so triggers that are looking for range 1 attacks will all be valid. For this reason, any titled Fang jousting the Inquisitor should be enjoying a very desirable free evade result.

 

Inquisitor: [..] treat the range of the attack as range 1

Title: if you are inside the attack's firing arc at range 1

 

Seems pretty 1:1 to me!

[WWHSD 9,273]

Anything that specifies "In arc at range X" uses the range of the attack, not the ship range.

 

 

Where do you get that from? That's not what the FAQ says at all.

 

FAQ, pg 4: 

'Inside Firing Arc at Range X

Some card abilities use the expression “inside arc at Range X” or “inside arc

beyond Range X.” This compound phrase defines a specific situation where

the closest point to closest point distance between two ships, when measured

inside firing arc, is at a specific range band. See the diagram below.'

 

That doesn't mention "range of attack" once.

 

 

If you look at the diagram you'll see an example of an ability that is triggered "inside arc at range 2" being triggered on a range 1 shot.

[Rawling 345]

For this reason, any titled Fang jousting the Inquisitor should be enjoying a very desirable free evade result.

 

Inquisitor: [..] treat the range of the attack as range 1

Title: if you are inside the attack's firing arc at range 1

 

Seems pretty 1:1 to me!

You've missed the "and" in the title.

You can be inside the attacker's firing arc "and" at range 1, and the range of the attack could still be range 2.

Conversely, if you are inside the attacker's firing arc "and" at range 3, the Inquisitor changing the attack range to range 1 doesn't change the fact that you are at range 3, not range 1.