Snipe and engagement rules of distance 1

[Ginkapo 9,321]

I would like to se an actual errata to the egagement rules as the current FAQ (and e-mail ruling) clearly goes against what the RRG says. It's not just a clearification, it's a compleate change of the rule.

 

"When a squadron attacks, it must attack an engaged squadron if possible rather than an enemy ship."

 

A change like above would make it clear how to handle both snipe and obstruction without having to add an other FAQ-entry for yet an other special case (unless ofcource they don't want Snipe to work that way).

 

So you must attack an obstructed squadron before a ship in that case? What is the point of Intel? You completely change the game with that errata.

[Smuggler 556]

 

I would like to se an actual errata to the egagement rules as the current FAQ (and e-mail ruling) clearly goes against what the RRG says. It's not just a clearification, it's a compleate change of the rule.

 

"When a squadron attacks, it must attack an engaged squadron if possible rather than an enemy ship."

 

A change like above would make it clear how to handle both snipe and obstruction without having to add an other FAQ-entry for yet an other special case (unless ofcource they don't want Snipe to work that way).

 

So you must attack an obstructed squadron before a ship in that case? What is the point of Intel? You completely change the game with that errata.

 

Ok, lucky I'm not the one writing the rules then

My point is, the current FAQ (not writen under the errata section) goes totaly against the rule about engegements. That is why we have problems decipering how to apply new cards. I would rather see an errata to the actual engagment rules so they work as intended (how ever that is, I have no knowlage of that) for all ocations then every new card/ability requiering an FAQ entry on release.

[Drasnighta 26,832]

Ok, lucky I'm not the one writing the rules then

My point is, the current FAQ (not writen under the errata section) goes totaly against the rule about engegements. That is why we have problems decipering how to apply new cards. I would rather see an errata to the actual engagment rules so they work as intended (how ever that is, I have no knowlage of that) for all ocations then every new card/ability requiering an FAQ entry on release.

 

 

But...  What if they are working as intended?

[Muelmuel 774]

IMO, what is really happening. While we are all debating left right and centre here, ffg is doing another XI7/AP reconsideration by re-playtesting and holding back before deciding how they want to play with the words going in which direction. Then we will all be shocked again by the outcome but have to accept it nevertheless.

I'm considering the possibility that they use wordings and rulings as such now, so they can have space to "re-rule" in the direction they want without a direct errata like X-wing. But it leads to so many issues just like this one.

Edited November 2, 2016 by Muelmuel

[Muelmuel 774]

 

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.

 

so i emailed FFG this morning and got a reply within 15 mins which never happens !! and this is what i was told. so looking forward to answers i hope around time the Corellian Conflict comes out.

 

To ensure accurate and complete information, we are spending time collecting questions and compiling answers for The Corellian Conflict. Once this process is complete, we will answer your question in a timely manner. An updated Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document will also be posted on our website at that time.

 

Thanks for your question!

 

This is basically saying that they want the community to question their things as much as possible and point out stuff they may have missed. So spam them guys!!

I don't know why they don't make it clear that they want feedback and responses from the community though, maybe is just me.

[Drasnighta 26,832]

I don't know why they don't make it clear that they want feedback and responses from the community though, maybe is just me.

 

 

Do you want more people like me around?

[Muelmuel 774]

 

I don't know why they don't make it clear that they want feedback and responses from the community though, maybe is just me.

 

 

Do you want more people like me around?

 

I don't think it is bad having you around in the forums

 

But my question is regarding ffg receiving community feedback, about communication between them and us, not about communication between those of us in the forums. I haven't really seen them make it explicit that they would like feedback and questions regarding their products.

Edited November 2, 2016 by Muelmuel

[Drasnighta 26,832]

Procedures have changed as of recently with the Asmodee partnership/takeover.

 

 

Before, they were more open about it - but there was also a crew of people who worked on it...

 

Now, we're pretty much down to one, and its tricky, because that one person means one email for both email requests AND for things that are logged in the Webform.

 

So basically, its a fine line between "send in stuff to get it answered" and "too much stuff, stuff is lost."

[Muelmuel 774]

Procedures have changed as of recently with the Asmodee partnership/takeover.

 

 

Before, they were more open about it - but there was also a crew of people who worked on it...

 

Now, we're pretty much down to one, and its tricky, because that one person means one email for both email requests AND for things that are logged in the Webform.

 

So basically, its a fine line between "send in stuff to get it answered" and "too much stuff, stuff is lost."

Sad

 

And yet, that would contradict the email that says they are collecting questions. How can one efficiently collect questions and issues when only one person is working on it? So basically because they have only one person they are not able to give an answer now because of the lack of manpower working on it.

Edited November 2, 2016 by Muelmuel

[Smuggler 556]

 

Ok, lucky I'm not the one writing the rules then

My point is, the current FAQ (not writen under the errata section) goes totaly against the rule about engegements. That is why we have problems decipering how to apply new cards. I would rather see an errata to the actual engagment rules so they work as intended (how ever that is, I have no knowlage of that) for all ocations then every new card/ability requiering an FAQ entry on release.

 

 

But...  What if they are working as intended?

 

As I stated, I have no idea what is intended. All I know is we have a rule saying you must attack an engaged squadron rather then a ship if able, and then we have an FAQ entry (not erata) that say "You know what, ignore that rule and feel free to attack any squadron at range 1".

I find it strange and counter productive to issue that kind of rules reversal as a "clarifacation" rather then a propper erata to fix the rule.

Or are peopel actually saying the FAQ-entry is in line with the rule as writen? If so then I have obviously missed something.

[Ardaedhel 10,844]

Ok, lucky I'm not the one writing the rules then

My point is, the current FAQ (not writen under the errata section) goes totaly against the rule about engegements. That is why we have problems decipering how to apply new cards. I would rather see an errata to the actual engagment rules so they work as intended (how ever that is, I have no knowlage of that) for all ocations then every new card/ability requiering an FAQ entry on release.

 

But...  What if they are working as intended?

As I stated, I have no idea what is intended. All I know is we have a rule saying you must attack an engaged squadron rather then a ship if able, and then we have an FAQ entry (not erata) that say "You know what, ignore that rule and feel free to attack any squadron at range 1".

I find it strange and counter productive to issue that kind of rules reversal as a "clarifacation" rather then a propper erata to fix the rule.

Or are peopel actually saying the FAQ-entry is in line with the rule as writen? If so then I have obviously missed something.

They're just different, related scenarios.

The RRG says you can't attack ships if you're engaged. Squadrons are not ships. It says nothing about disengaged squadrons.

The FAQ further clarifies that this restriction does not apply when choosing between engaged and disengaged squadrons. The RRG doesn't say that it does, so no errata needed.

[Smuggler 556]

 

 

 

Ok, lucky I'm not the one writing the rules then

My point is, the current FAQ (not writen under the errata section) goes totaly against the rule about engegements. That is why we have problems decipering how to apply new cards. I would rather see an errata to the actual engagment rules so they work as intended (how ever that is, I have no knowlage of that) for all ocations then every new card/ability requiering an FAQ entry on release.

 

But...  What if they are working as intended?

As I stated, I have no idea what is intended. All I know is we have a rule saying you must attack an engaged squadron rather then a ship if able, and then we have an FAQ entry (not erata) that say "You know what, ignore that rule and feel free to attack any squadron at range 1".

I find it strange and counter productive to issue that kind of rules reversal as a "clarifacation" rather then a propper erata to fix the rule.

Or are peopel actually saying the FAQ-entry is in line with the rule as writen? If so then I have obviously missed something.

They're just different, related scenarios.

The RRG says you can't attack ships if you're engaged. Squadrons are not ships. It says nothing about disengaged squadrons.

The FAQ further clarifies that this restriction does not apply when choosing between engaged and disengaged squadrons. The RRG doesn't say that it does, so no errata needed.

 

Ok, after rereading the paragraf many many many times... I think I finaly see it

 

My initial reading focused on "must attack an engaged squadron if possible" and the "rather than an enemy ship" more as an addon to it. You are saying the last part is actualy the important part (well obviously all of it is important but...).

 

Oh well, I concede my point then and get back on the fence egerly awaiting further debate on the implications of Snipe and engagement

Edited November 2, 2016 by Smuggler

[Ginkapo 9,321]

To be fair, you can attack a ship if engaged by a heavy unit anyway....