Major Rhymer - Range 0 / Cluster Missiles

[AramoroA 103]

55 minutes ago, MockingBird ME said:

That's a lot of conjecture right there. 

Can Oicunn attack a target at range 0 outside of his arc? You stated his ability ignored targeting restrictions like a weapons range, so I assume you think yes?

[thespaceinvader 17,568]

Here's a question.

If a special weapon were published which had a range of 0-1, could any ship use it to attack at range 0?

[Icelom 3,405]

55 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

Here's a question.

If a special weapon were published which had a range of 0-1, could any ship use it to attack at range 0?

According to certain people in this thread... no.

Apparently having the range band be 0-? is not explicit enough to be able to shoot at range 0.... even though the range of the weapon is 0-?

Mind-boggling.

[emeraldbeacon 1,996]

1 hour ago, AramoroA said:

Can Oicunn attack a target at range 0 outside of his arc? You stated his ability ignored targeting restrictions like a weapons range, so I assume you think yes?

Oicunn is a special case, as his card explicitly overrides the "No Shot At Range 0" restriction that was installed via the forum "Official Rulings" post.  Now, his ability only overrides the range limitations on attacks; it doesn't override the requirement to have the target in-arc... so if the target ship is not in-arc for Oicunn, he can't attack it.

[muribundi 406]

59 minutes ago, emeraldbeacon said:

Now, his ability only overrides the range limitations on attacks; it doesn't override the requirement to have the target in-arc... so if the target ship is not in-arc for Oicunn, he can't attack it.

Why, why deciding that it also remove range restriction but not arc... This is the problem with reasoning of people saying that Rhymer can't attack at range 0. The sentence have no indication that it remove the need to have a weapon that can attack at 0. If this sentence mean that it remove the can't attack at range 0, then it can't mean that it add weapon range. Or the sentence mean it add the range 0 and it does not mean that it remove the can't attack because it does not need to.

And all of this is to try to point out the illogisme behind deciding that Oicunn and other can but Rhymer can't. Because to be so, it must be arbitrary decided that the three also add range.

Edit: And no, his card was never meant to explicitly remove a rule that was not even there when they designed it. The rule "Can't attack a ship at range 0 of you" is new, and was added when they seen that leaving it to range only had some hole in it. At first it was explicitly made to add range 0 to the primary weapon of Oicunn and other.

Edited October 19, 2018 by muribundi

[emeraldbeacon 1,996]

17 minutes ago, muribundi said:

Edit: And no, his card was never meant to explicitly remove a rule that was not even there when they designed it. The rule "Can't attack a ship at range 0 of you" is new, and was added when they seen that leaving it to range only had some hole in it. At first it was explicitly made to add range 0 to the primary weapon of Oicunn and other. 

EXACTLY!  Rhymer used to work perfectly, but this new rule of "can't attack at Range 0" broke him!  Oicunn and Arvel and Zeb do work because they specifically include language that overrides the "can't attack at Range 0" rule... Rhymer does not include that language, so if we're going by the forum post, he can't attack!

[MockingBird ME 61]

2 hours ago, emeraldbeacon said:

Edit: And no, his card was never meant to explicitly remove a rule that was not even there when they designed it. The rule "Can't attack a ship at range 0 of you" is new, and was added when they seen that leaving it to range only had some hole in it. At first it was explicitly made to add range 0 to the primary weapon of Oicunn and other.

Totally understand that this rule wasn't in the printed rules originally but they did claim that it was omitted previously and not new. This suggests that the devs were already aware of this rule even though the community was not and not that it's a new rule that existing cards were not designed/worded around. 

[emeraldbeacon 1,996]

Hey @OfficialRules, can we get someone in here to look over this thread and get a more definitive ruling on the situation?

[jftanner 150]

2 minutes ago, emeraldbeacon said:

Hey @OfficialRules, can we get someone in here to look over this thread and get a more definitive ruling on the situation?

Another vote for @OfficialRules on the subject. (And others. There's a couple unresolvable questions floating around the forums right now.)

[emeraldbeacon 1,996]

Just now, jftanner said:

Another vote for @OfficialRules on the subject. (And others. There's a couple unresolvable questions floating around the forums right now.)

I don't know if pinging @OfficialRules helps or not, but I figure it can't hurt.

[MockingBird ME 61]

Didn't know that was a thing. Help us @OfficialRules, you're our only hope. 

[Icelom 3,405]

2 hours ago, MockingBird ME said:

Didn't know that was a thing. Help us @OfficialRules, you're our only hope. 

@OfficialRules kind of made this problem with a poorly worded and though our official rules... So probably not a good idea to pin it as your only hope, better to ask obiwan.

[muribundi 406]

17 hours ago, emeraldbeacon said:

EXACTLY!  Rhymer used to work perfectly, but this new rule of "can't attack at Range 0" broke him!  Oicunn and Arvel and Zeb do work because they specifically include language that overrides the "can't attack at Range 0" rule... Rhymer does not include that language, so if we're going by the forum post, he can't attack!

If the new rule broke Rhymer then it broke them, if there wording remove the can't attack, then it do not grant the primary weapon range value, this is Rhymer wording that give it. If their wording is enough to give range AND override the new rule, then Rhymer is also enough.

14 hours ago, MockingBird ME said:

Totally understand that this rule wasn't in the printed rules originally but they did claim that it was omitted previously and not new. This suggests that the devs were already aware of this rule even though the community was not and not that it's a new rule that existing cards were not designed/worded around. 

Are you naive enough to believe that?!? They said it was an omission, not that it was planed, they even suggested that it will have to be properly done for the document. With ffg precedent, it was not planed... If it was, they would aready have it ready to show

Edited October 20, 2018 by muribundi

[MockingBird ME 61]

57 minutes ago, muribundi said:

Are you naive enough to believe that?!? They said it was an omission, not that it was planed, they even suggested that it will have to be properly done for the document. With ffg precedent, it was not planed... If it was, they would aready have it ready to show

You can't omit something that wasn't supposed to be there, the rule was at the very least supposed to be in the original RR; it's just speculation from there as to when it made a rule compared to when Rhymer was written but I see no reason to assume it could only have been in one possible order. So yes, calling me names aside, I do believe that Rhymer could have been worded with that rule already in existence/mind. 

[AramoroA 103]

On 10/19/2018 at 7:46 PM, emeraldbeacon said:

EXACTLY!  Rhymer used to work perfectly, but this new rule of "can't attack at Range 0" broke him!  Oicunn and Arvel and Zeb do work because they specifically include language that overrides the "can't attack at Range 0" rule... Rhymer does not include that language, so if we're going by the forum post, he can't attack!

This is where it's interesting Mockingbird is saying that Oicunn ignores all restrictions that prevent him from attacking at Range 0, together with your reasoning that prevents Ryhmer from attacking at Range 0, means that Oicunn can attack anyone at range 0 in or out of arc. (Note he does NOT say attack range 0, just range 0 which is different) because he's ignoring all the rules about who he can attack including his weapon range. OR he cannot attack a target at range 0 because his weapon does not include 0 as a range he can attack at. 

Edited October 22, 2018 by AramoroA

[muribundi 406]

On 10/20/2018 at 8:59 AM, MockingBird ME said:

So yes, calling me names aside

I don't think asking if you are naive enough to still buy into FFG rhetoric after they clearly shown, after all these year, their lack of attention to detail in rules as an insult. I did not say, "do you have a IQ of 2", or "shut up you *** ***". I just used an adjective that could describe some that still believe in good faith the "lie" of a company. I'm sometime too naive myself.

5 hours ago, AramoroA said:

This is where it's interesting Mockingbird is saying that Oicunn ignores all restrictions that prevent him from attacking at Range 0, together with your reasoning that prevents Ryhmer from attacking at Range 0, means that Oicunn can attack anyone at range 0 in or out of arc. (Note he does NOT say attack range 0, just range 0 which is different) because he's ignoring all the rules about who he can attack including his weapon range. OR he cannot attack a target at range 0 because his weapon does not include 0 as a range he can attack at. 

That is the point I try to make, the "new rule" broke everyone or it broke no one, it can't be arbitrarily applied just as some see fit to make it work with their belief...

[thespaceinvader 17,568]

On 10/19/2018 at 5:13 PM, thespaceinvader said:

Here's a question.

If a special weapon were published which had a range of 0-1, could any ship use it to attack at range 0?

Still haven't seen an answer to this from the Rhymer doesn't work at 0 crowd.

Anyone care to comment?

[shaunmerritt 204]

38 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

Still haven't seen an answer to this from the Rhymer doesn't work at 0 crowd.

Anyone care to comment?

To be fair, that is nonsensical question. Asking "What if FFG did this?" style questions will not prove or disprove anyone's point. 

Both sides have valid points. You cannot shoot at range zero (that's the rule), but giving him the ability to reduce the range to zero but not giving him the ability to shoot at range zero makes no sense at all (a very valid point). 

The one real fact here is that Rhymer's card needs clarification from FFG.  I think the best thing to do now is before you play, agree with your opponent on how his card should play, or get a ruling from the TO at an event. The vagueness of the wording on his card is too muddy for this debate to keep going like this. People calling each other names or taking stuff personally will not solve anything.  Let's just wait for FFG to chime in and then those who were right can take a bow. 

[AramoroA 103]

17 minutes ago, shaunmerritt said:

To be fair, that is nonsensical question. Asking "What if FFG did this?" style questions will not prove or disprove anyone's point. 

Not really, it's a fairly simple 'What if' to see how you are interpreting the rules. It's not going to prove a point, it's going to show how the way you are choosing to interpret the rules 

So what about you, do you think Oicunn can attack someone out of his arc at Range 0, or not attack at range 0 at all because of his weapon range? Those are real card that really exist right now. 

[jftanner 150]

Unless I've missed something, I don't think anyone is saying you Oicunn can attack outside of arc. I saw that set up as a straw-man, but I haven't seen anyone agree to it.

Ultimately, it's the same argument: cards only override the specific effects that they override. Oicunn states "you can perform primary attacks at range one"; this overrides only the range restriction and nothing else. Similarly, the argument against Rhymer is that his ability only changes the stated range of the weapon and does not, additionally, override the "you cannot attack at range 0" rule added by the official ruling.

I, personally, think it's clear that Rhymer was/is intended to shoot at range 0. Because otherwise, why have that on his card? So, I think the rule as stated in the official ruling is a mistake. But Rules-as-Intended is a slippery slope. As convinced as I am that it's a mistake, and that it will be clarified, it  doesn't change the Rules-as-Written. And, as written, the official ruling "broke" Rhymer.

At the end of the day, I'm with @shaunmerritt here: there's not much point in continuing to argue. FFG already said they'd be updating the rules reference to clarify the attack range thing. Hopefully, they're paying attention to the forum and will update it in a way that is more clear how it interacts with Rhymer. Until then, just come to an agreement with your opponent/TO before putting Rhymer on the field. Or, if you're worried about "practicing him wrong", don't give him range 1 munitions.

[AramoroA 103]

10 minutes ago, jftanner said:

Unless I've missed something, I don't think anyone is saying you Oicunn can attack outside of arc. I saw that set up as a straw-man, but I haven't seen anyone agree to it.

Ultimately, it's the same argument: cards only override the specific effects that they override. Oicunn states "you can perform primary attacks at range one"; this overrides only the range restriction and nothing else. Similarly, the argument against Rhymer is that his ability only changes the stated range of the weapon and does not, additionally, override the "you cannot attack at range 0" rule added by the official ruling.

They have the same route argument, it's not a strawman as it's directly related to the rules being discussed here.  If we're saying that Rhymer cannot attack at range 0 then Oicunn cannot attack at range 0 as his weapon does not have Range 0, all his ability does is specifically override the rule that you cannot attack at range 0. It's just that he doesn't have a weapon that can hit there, just like Rhymer, he has a weapon that can shoot at range 0, but not the rule giving him the exception to allow him to actually perform the attack.

They are the 2 sides of the same rule, they're either both true, or neither are true. 

In addition if you're saying that Oicunn overrides all targeting restrictions, so he can use a primary weapon at range 0 as well as allowing him to override the rule preventing attacks at range 0 then he also removes the need for the target to be in his arc. His ability doesn't say attack range 0, just range 0 so if you're touching him his ability kicks is and allows him to perform a primary weapon attack against you surely. 

 

[thespaceinvader 17,568]

56 minutes ago, shaunmerritt said:

To be fair, that is nonsensical question. Asking "What if FFG did this?" style questions will not prove or disprove anyone's point. 

Both sides have valid points. You cannot shoot at range zero (that's the rule), but giving him the ability to reduce the range to zero but not giving him the ability to shoot at range zero makes no sense at all (a very valid point). 

The one real fact here is that Rhymer's card needs clarification from FFG.  I think the best thing to do now is before you play, agree with your opponent on how his card should play, or get a ruling from the TO at an event. The vagueness of the wording on his card is too muddy for this debate to keep going like this. People calling each other names or taking stuff personally will not solve anything.  Let's just wait for FFG to chime in and then those who were right can take a bow. 

It's not though.

Rhymer's cluster missiles have attack range 0-3 on them already.

[jftanner 150]

3 minutes ago, AramoroA said:

They have the same route argument, it's not a strawman as it's directly related to the rules being discussed here.  If we're saying that Rhymer cannot attack at range 0 then Oicunn cannot attack at range 0 as his weapon does not have Range 0, all his ability does is specifically override the rule that you cannot attack at range 0. It's just that he doesn't have a weapon that can hit there, just like Rhymer, he has a weapon that can shoot at range 0, but not the rule giving him the exception to allow him to actually perform the attack.

They are the 2 sides of the same rule, they're either both true, or neither are true. 

In addition if you're saying that Oicunn overrides all targeting restrictions, so he can use a primary weapon at range 0 as well as allowing him to override the rule preventing attacks at range 0 then he also removes the need for the target to be in his arc. His ability doesn't say attack range 0, just range 0 so if you're touching him his ability kicks is and allows him to perform a primary weapon attack against you surely. 

 

It's a strawman because it's setting up an argument on behalf of the opposition which the opposition themselves are not actually making.

I'm definitely not saying that Oicunn overrides all targeting restrictions. No one is saying that. On page 4 of the rules reference, it states: "A primary weapon requires the attack range to be range 1–3." Oicunn's ability quite clearly overrules this rule to allow an attack at range 0. Additionally, the official ruling adds a new rule "You cannot attack at range 0". Oicunn's ability also overrides that new rule. So Oicunn fixes both problems simultaniously.

The argument against Rhymer is that his ability changes the range on special weapons, but does not override the new rule. So it makes the weapon have range 0, but does not also allow you to attack at range zero. Therefore, it only solves half the problem.

 

4 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

Rhymer's cluster missiles have attack range 0-3 on them already.

The muddiness comes from whether or not having attack range 0 is sufficient to attack at range zero. Which, I agree, seems like it really should. But the official ruling makes that fuzzy. After all, the ruling just says "you cannot perform attacks at range 0." Period. So the argument is, essentially, "yes, the attack has a range 0. But you can't attack at range 0. Those two things are not mutually exclusive."

Does this seems wrong? To me, absolutely it does, and I really hope that FFG properly clarifies it. But seeming wrong and being wrong are two different things.

[MockingBird ME 61]

13 minutes ago, AramoroA said:

They have the same route argument, it's not a strawman as it's directly related to the rules being discussed here.  If we're saying that Rhymer cannot attack at range 0 then Oicunn cannot attack at range 0 as his weapon does not have Range 0, all his ability does is specifically override the rule that you cannot attack at range 0. It's just that he doesn't have a weapon that can hit there, just like Rhymer, he has a weapon that can shoot at range 0, but not the rule giving him the exception to allow him to actually perform the attack.

They are the 2 sides of the same rule, they're either both true, or neither are true. 

In addition if you're saying that Oicunn overrides all targeting restrictions, so he can use a primary weapon at range 0 as well as allowing him to override the rule preventing attacks at range 0 then he also removes the need for the target to be in his arc. His ability doesn't say attack range 0, just range 0 so if you're touching him his ability kicks is and allows him to perform a primary weapon attack against you surely. 

A card can override the base rules and only overrides those rules that it needs to for it to have it's written effect. Rhymer overrules no rule as stated on his card, only changes the ranges on his ordinance. Oicunn's card specifically states he can make primary attacks at range zero, this overrules the RR rules that would normally prevent him from doing so but does not change any arc rules as that is not referenced by his card. The "Can perform attack at range zero" is not overriding his range, it's not changing its range, it is, however, allowing him to use his primary attack at range zero regardless of the normal rules saying he can't. 

[AramoroA 103]

2 minutes ago, jftanner said:

It's a strawman because it's setting up an argument on behalf of the opposition which the opposition themselves are not actually making.

I'm definitely not saying that Oicunn overrides all targeting restrictions. No one is saying that. On page 4 of the rules reference, it states: "A primary weapon requires the attack range to be range 1–3." Oicunn's ability quite clearly overrules this rule to allow an attack at range 0. Additionally, the official ruling adds a new rule "You cannot attack at range 0". Oicunn's ability also overrides that new rule. So Oicunn fixes both problems simultaniously.

The argument against Rhymer is that his ability changes the range on special weapons, but does not override the new rule. So it makes the weapon have range 0, but does not also allow you to attack at range zero. Therefore, it only solves half the problem.

Again it's not a strawman as I'm not saying 'this is a thing you think is true', but that's an aside. So now I will state what you think, the situation as I see it from the Rhymer Deniers, correct me if I'm wrong, is

Rhymer has a weapon capable of attacking at range 0, the legal attack range is 0-3 in the case of cluster missiles, but there's a general rule preventing him from using it so he can't.

But with Oicunn, he has a rule allowing him to attack at Range 0, which for some reason also changes the legal attack range for his weapon to 0-3. 

Do you not see the problem with this? Oicunn does not not have a weapon with a legal attack range of 0, if he did have one he could totally use it is surely just the corollary of Rhymer in this explanation. 

 

2 minutes ago, MockingBird ME said:

A card can override the base rules and only overrides those rules that it needs to for it to have it's written effect. Rhymer overrules no rule as stated on his card, only changes the ranges on his ordinance. Oicunn's card specifically states he can make primary attacks at range zero, this overrules the RR rules that would normally prevent him from doing so but does not change any arc rules as that is not referenced by his card. The "Can perform attack at range zero" is not overriding his range, it's not changing its range, it is, however, allowing him to use his primary attack at range zero regardless of the normal rules saying he can't. 

You're saying it overrides the rules it needs to for it to work. So a ship is touching Oicunn at Range 0, outside of his arc, why does his rule only override part of the restriction preventing him from attacking him? The target is at range 0, Oicunn clearly states he can perform primary attacks at range 0, not attack range 0, not range 0 in arc, just at range 0. Your selective override here doesn't make that much sense, you're saying his ability overrides 2 of the rules stopping him from attacking but not a third for no reason that I can see.