Snipe and engagement rules of distance 1

[Drasnighta 26,832]

 

Currently, the FAQ has stated that if you are engaged you can attack another squadron at distance 1.

 

yes, but that is "specific" to obstructions and at distance 1, hard to apply it to Snipe , but i get where you are going for sure . i guess we going to have to wait a few months for FAQ i hope FFG addresses Snipe.

 

Q: If a squadron is at distance 1 of two enemy squadrons, one

that it is engaged with and one that it is not engaged with

because it is separated by an obstacle, does the original

squadron have to attack the engaged squadron?

A: No. A squadron can attack another squadron at distance 1

regardless of whether it is technically engaged with that

squadron.

 

 

Answered in such a way, as squadrons (at that time) could only attack at distance 1.

 

 

What is the mostimportant part to take from that:

 

That

 

1) You don't have to shoot someone you're engaged with.

 

or  

 

2) You can only ever shoot at distance 1.

[Democratus 1,698]

 

 

Currently, the FAQ has stated that if you are engaged you can attack another squadron at distance 1.

 

yes, but that is "specific" to obstructions and at distance 1, hard to apply it to Snipe , but i get where you are going for sure . i guess we going to have to wait a few months for FAQ i hope FFG addresses Snipe.

 

Q: If a squadron is at distance 1 of two enemy squadrons, one

that it is engaged with and one that it is not engaged with

because it is separated by an obstacle, does the original

squadron have to attack the engaged squadron?

A: No. A squadron can attack another squadron at distance 1

regardless of whether it is technically engaged with that

squadron.

 

 

Answered in such a way, as squadrons (at that time) could only attack at distance 1.

 

 

What is the mostimportant part to take from that:

 

That

 

1) You don't have to shoot someone you're engaged with.

 

or  

 

2) You can only ever shoot at distance 1.

 

 

The way it is written in the current FAQ: both.

 

The way I will play it at my casual tables: 1

[Drasnighta 26,832]

Awesome.

 

Because if you rigidly take #2, Snipe doesn't work at all.

Edited October 27, 2016 by Drasnighta

[thanosazlin 52]

 

 

Currently, the FAQ has stated that if you are engaged you can attack another squadron at distance 1.

 

yes, but that is "specific" to obstructions and at distance 1, hard to apply it to Snipe , but i get where you are going for sure . i guess we going to have to wait a few months for FAQ i hope FFG addresses Snipe.

 

Q: If a squadron is at distance 1 of two enemy squadrons, one

that it is engaged with and one that it is not engaged with

because it is separated by an obstacle, does the original

squadron have to attack the engaged squadron?

A: No. A squadron can attack another squadron at distance 1

regardless of whether it is technically engaged with that

squadron.

 

 

Answered in such a way, as squadrons (at that time) could only attack at distance 1.

 

 

What is the mostimportant part to take from that:

 

That

 

1) You don't have to shoot someone you're engaged with.

 

or  

 

2) You can only ever shoot at distance 1.

 

 

i never said squads can ONLY attack at distance 1. they are "engaged" if another enemy squad is distance 1. for me again, it's "When a squadron attacks, it must attack an engaged

squadron " Snipe negates that but at the same time Snipe can be defeated IMO like in the pic i posted,  well we just going to have to wait until it's FAQ LOL.

 

i will leave with this, if we take the FAQ for it's TRUE WORDING , ok, then it says

 

No. A squadron can attack another squadron at distance 1

regardless of whether it is technically engaged with that

squadron.

 

it doesn't state anything about any OTHER distance , so if a squadron with snipe is engaged like in the pic i posted, it has to attack the engaged squadron, unless it has dengar near by to fly out of the mess it finds itself in. in my pic , the Awing is outside of distance 1, so it has to attack the Xwing (again bad example as it has escort, but imagine the Xwing is an Awing instead). 

[Muelmuel 774]

Don't wait, email them about it

And spam mail them with all the other unanswered rulings that are not covered so they know that they need to update their FAQ more frequently or word their upgrades/rulings more succinctly/future-minded.

Though emails are not the be-all-end-all they are at least an official form of answer. 

Edited October 28, 2016 by Muelmuel

[TheCallum 758]

Isn't the rule that cards overwrite the rulebook?

I don't understand why people are taking any reference to must/can/whatever attack at distance 1, when snipe overrules it to distance 2.

Personally I agree with Green Knight's summary.

[Democratus 1,698]

Isn't the rule that cards overwrite the rulebook?

 

 

This isn't from the rulebook. It's from the FAQ.

[Drasnighta 26,832]

 

Isn't the rule that cards overwrite the rulebook?

 

 

This isn't from the rulebook. It's from the FAQ.

 

 

 

The Second Paragraph of the Golden Rules is as Such:

Effects on components such as cards sometimes contradict rules found in the Learn to Play or Rules Reference booklets.

 

In these situations, the component’s effect takes precedence.

 

 

 

There is no statement of legal precedence for the FAQ - other than the Errata overwriting the original card wording in totality.

 

 

 

But as the FAQ can quite likely contradict the Rulebook and the Cards in question, while giving their clarification - the best thing (I believe) is to take it as such:

- If the FAQ Question is written specifically for the situation - it should be considered binding.

- If the FAQ Question is not written specifically, and accounting, for the situation - it should be considered guidance.

[Democratus 1,698]

Of course in this case there is no contradiction.

 

Snipe allows you to attack at range 2 unless you are engaged. If engaged, the FAQ ruling kicks in and states you can attack any squadron at range 1.

[Drasnighta 26,832]

Of course in this case there is no contradiction.

 

Snipe allows you to attack at range 2 unless you are engaged. If engaged, the FAQ ruling kicks in and states you can attack any squadron at range 1.

 

That's still misleading.

 

 

Snipe allows you to attack at range 2.

 

Full stop.  End of Story, as it comes to Snipe.

 

Anything else, you're adding as a Rule from elsewhere.

 

And yes, what you have is a legitimate set of rules - but that hardly makes it true.

 

It can't be quoted as part of one finial statement, when its demonstratably unclear - as I've been trying for days to do so...  And failed...

[Democratus 1,698]

Indeed. I would play the game allowing Snipe to work at range 2 even while engaged.

 

But the FAQ statement stands on its own when it says that if you are engaged you can attack another squadron at distance 1.

 

Since an FAQ is allowed to completely contradict the rules and the card text, it acts as a final arbiter.

 

Here's hoping they clear this up soon after selling CC or wave 5!

[Drasnighta 26,832]

Indeed. I would play the game allowing Snipe to work at range 2 even while engaged.

 

But the FAQ statement stands on its own when it says that if you are engaged you can attack another squadron at distance 1.

 

Since an FAQ is allowed to completely contradict the rules and the card text, it acts as a final arbiter.

 

Here's hoping they clear this up soon after selling CC or wave 5!

 

Next FAQ isn't due until April.

[Democratus 1,698]

If so, it's going to be an interesting 6 months!

[Vetnor 297]

I don't understand the confusion?

 

If you're unengaged you can "Snipe" a target at range 2. i.e. You're a sniper.

 

If you're engaged you can attack at range 1. i.e. You're dogfighting.

[Ardaedhel 10,844]

I don't understand the confusion?

 

If you're unengaged you can "Snipe" a target at range 2. i.e. You're a sniper.

 

If you're engaged you can attack at range 1. i.e. You're dogfighting.

Yes, both of those things are true. Neither answers the question.

If I'm engaged and have snipe, can I still use Snipe to shoot at something at range 2?

[DonKarnage 189]

I don't understand the confusion?

 

If you're unengaged you can "Snipe" a target at range 2. i.e. You're a sniper.

 

If you're engaged you can attack at range 1. i.e. You're dogfighting.

Yes, both of those things are true. Neither answers the question.

If I'm engaged and have snipe, can I still use Snipe to shoot at something at range 2?

Yes, unless the squadron at range 1 has escort.

[Ardaedhel 10,844]

I don't understand the confusion?

 

If you're unengaged you can "Snipe" a target at range 2. i.e. You're a sniper.

 

If you're engaged you can attack at range 1. i.e. You're dogfighting.

Yes, both of those things are true. Neither answers the question.

If I'm engaged and have snipe, can I still use Snipe to shoot at something at range 2?

Yes, unless the squadron at range 1 has escort.

I agree. Engagement prevents you from attacking ships not other squadrons, as has been amply demonstrated in this thread already.

[Vetnor 297]

I don't understand the confusion?

 

If you're unengaged you can "Snipe" a target at range 2. i.e. You're a sniper.

 

If you're engaged you can attack at range 1. i.e. You're dogfighting.

Yes, both of those things are true. Neither answers the question.

If I'm engaged and have snipe, can I still use Snipe to shoot at something at range 2?

I would so no because you're too busy evading the squad that has engaged you to Sniper someone at range 2.

I.e. You're now involved in a knife fight with someone right next to you to spend the time lining up on a target that is further away.

[Drasnighta 26,832]

 

I would so no because you're too busy evading the squad that has engaged you to Sniper someone at range 2.

I.e. You're now involved in a knife fight with someone right next to you to spend the time lining up on a target that is further away.

 

 

But we've already covered that you can go and shoot someone on the other side of an Asteroid Field, who Doesn't Threaten or Engage You, when you've got someone Engaging you up front, and that's perfectly legal - so what's the difference there?  

Edited October 30, 2016 by Drasnighta

[Ardaedhel 10,844]

I don't understand the confusion?

If you're unengaged you can "Snipe" a target at range 2. i.e. You're a sniper.

If you're engaged you can attack at range 1. i.e. You're dogfighting.

Yes, both of those things are true. Neither answers the question.

If I'm engaged and have snipe, can I still use Snipe to shoot at something at range 2?

I would so no because you're too busy evading the squad that has engaged you to Sniper someone at range 2.

I.e. You're now involved in a knife fight with someone right next to you to spend the time lining up on a target that is further away.

I mean... That sounds nice, but do you have any kind of rules support for that opinion, or do you just think it sounds good?

This is the rules forum, man. House ruling is all well and good, and there are threads out there for it, but this isn't the place for that. Unless the rules say I can't attack somebody when my card says I can, I'm gonna be attacking them.

[DiabloAzul 2,636]

FWIW, an old email from James Kniffen (emphasis mine):

 

Rules

Question:

Dear

Armada

gurus: I have a question regarding the Engagement

rules

on p.6, specifically the following bullet point: "When a squadron attacks, it must attack an engaged squadron if possible rather than an enemy ship." It is clear that a squadron can't shoot at a ship if it could attack an engaged squadron instead. However, can the squadron shoot at a squadron that it is NOT engaged with (due to obstruction)? See for example the image here:

http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii188/EvilKobra/

Armada

/Miscellaneous/if%20possible.jpg

Can the TIE Interceptor attack the X-wing? In fact, can it choose to not attack at all? Or is the "must attack an engaged squadron if possible" absolute?

 

Excellent question! The rule that you quoted is only intended to protect ships, allowing players to establish fighter screens as long as those squadrons aren’t on the wrong side of the ship or buried in an obstacle. In your example, the TIE interceptor can attack the X-wing. Additionally, since the TIE interceptor is not engaged with the X-wing, the X-wing’s escort keyword cannot protect the A-wing.

 

To your second point, squadrons are never required to perform attacks. When a squadron activates, it can attack or move (or both if activated by a squadron command), but it is not required to do so. For example, a squadron can activate and choose to do nothing in order to avoid being counterattacked.

 

Thanks for playing!

James Kniffen

Game Designer

Fantasy Flight Games

jkniffen@fantasyflightgames.com

[Democratus 1,698]

The only official ruling we have is the FAQ which states that you can attack squadrons at range 1 if you are engaged.

 

Everything else is applying speculation. Reasonable speculation, to be sure.

[Undeadguy 5,749]

I don't get what the email is supposed to add to this topic. I feel it should be in the Valen Instigator thread and even then it doesn't really add much to the conversation. 

[Drasnighta 26,832]

Everything else is applying speculation. Reasonable speculation, to be sure.

 

 

And being that FFG expects here, the Rules Forum, to be a place where people can come to for Answers...  BEFORE asking FFG the question themselves...

Is that really a bad thing?

Do arguments always have to end with The FAQ is all that Matters.  Everything else is non-official....  ?

 

 

Because that gets really tiresome, really quickly.

 

 

Can't we at least accept that there is some measure of consensus that can be found, based on rational rulings and evidence?

[Ardaedhel 10,844]

Everything else is applying speculation. Reasonable speculation, to be sure.

 

 

And being that FFG expects here, the Rules Forum, to be a place where people can come to for Answers...  BEFORE asking FFG the question themselves...

Is that really a bad thing?

Do arguments always have to end with The FAQ is all that Matters.  Everything else is non-official....  ?

 

 

Because that gets really tiresome, really quickly.

 

 

Can't we at least accept that there is some measure of consensus that can be found, based on rational rulings and evidence?

This is dangerously close to advocacy for common sense. Check yourself, sir.