Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
RedSquadBW

Major Rhymer and attacking at R0 with new RR

Recommended Posts

54 minutes ago, muribundi said:

People have to stop bringing Future Proof for Rhymer.

I've argued future-proofing before (like in the case of the Gunner slot barely having any use on the TIE Phantom), but in this case I was playing devil's advocate. My point was mostly to point out that even "rules as written" and "rules as intended" can be muddy.

For the record, I believe that Major Rhymer can use his special weapons at Range 0 if he so chooses.

30 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:

Oicunn states "can" which overrides a Rules Reference "cannot" per the Golden Rules. Rhymer states "may" for his missile and torpedo Special Weapons. That Rhymer use "may" and not "can" is where the issue is arising...

Hmmm... The may is not about being able to fire at Range 0 or not, though, right? It's about him having the option to change the range requirement on his special attack.

Maybe the real question is, is the special weapon range requirement rule its own Golden Rule? Is a special weapon saying that 0 is within its attack range innately a "not normal" in a "you can't normally" situation?

Let's say we have a special weapon called something like "Mines Attached to your Own Hull", with a range of only 0. Would it be impossible to attack with this weapon? Would the card need a clause that you could attack at Range 0 with it?

 

Edited by Jokubas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Jokubas said:

Let's say we have a special weapon called something like "Mines Attached to your Own Hull", with a range of only 0. Would it be impossible to attack with this weapon? Would the card need a clause that you could attack at Range 0 with it?

Again, according to me yes, but according to some other no...

But looking at Oicunn, adding the range 0 AND the "can attack at range 0" would be superfluous. Again we have to take into account that no where in the rules or Oicunn is it said that he gain the range 0 on is primary weapon, we just assume so because the card would not work at all... but because some part of Rhymer still work, some people just decided to block the range 0 for him.

Seriouly, if Oicunn had no text and just a range 0-3 under is primary weapon we would not even talk about this... hoooo well

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Jokubas said:

Is a special weapon saying that 0 is within its attack range innately a "not normal" in a "you can't normally" situation?

The previously quoted part that stated "normally" referenced primary attacks directly and not attacks with secondary weapons. Hmm...

•Major Rhymer

His ability focuses its affect on the stated range bracket on the upgrade itself and not the attack being made other than for timing. I'm starting to get the idea that they intend the "increase or decrease the range requirement" portion of his ability to be read similar to the "treats its initiative as" statement on Swarm Tactics. IE for the purpose of Rhymer making a special attack the bracket should be read as "(x-1) to (y+1)" on the card itself.

Using Cluster Missiles as an example:

Cluster Missiles

The range here for Rhymer would not read 1-2, but instead for him the card is altered to read 0-3 meaning the Rhymer altered upgrade itself now contradicts the "You cannot make attacks at range 0." rule triggering the Golden Rule of card trumps RR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/16/2019 at 5:31 PM, Matanui3 said:

The real question is what if the enemy is touching Rhymer, but the attack range would be one?  He can attack at attack range zero, but the enemy isn’t at that range.

C'mon! He clearly can

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to try to opine on this, without taking any sides, by asking one simple question:  Does Rhymer's ability (to extend the range of a missile or torpedo weapon down to Range 0) grant the ability to attack at Range 0 through implication, or does the ability to attack at Range 0 need to be explicitly granted through a card ability?

  • Things that we know (emphasis mine):
    1. Per the recent RRG update, "A ship cannot attack a ship at Range 0, even if the attack range would be range 1."
      1. This is under the heading of "attack," and as such, applies to all attacks, not just primary attacks.
      2. IMPORTANT TO NOTE:  The second part of the sentence (attack range 1) is a special circumstance of the first; it does not override the prohibition created by the first part (cannot attack at Range 0).
    2. Game rules which state "cannot" are overridden by card effects which state "can."
    3. Some ships and crew (Arvel, Oicunn, Zeb) explicitly state that attacks can be made at Range 0.
    4. Major Rhymer's ability allows him to change the printed range of missile and torpedo Special Weapons, to a maximum of 3, and a minimum of 0.
  • Things we're arguing about:
    1. Does Rhymer's ability to change the printed range on weapons, also through implication grant him the ability to attack at Range 0?  OR...
    2. Does Rhymer's lack of explicit "may attack at Range 0" text forbid him from using that effect of his ability?

I don't think anyone here would argue that, given the wording on his card, there's an INTENTION he should be able to (conditionally) attack at Range 0... but does this "new" RRG entry affect his ability to do so, legally?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Why is everyone ignoring the Special Weapons section of the RR? It clearly states that the “legal“ ranges for a special weapon are defined by the values on the card. Rhymer is able to change the range requirement, but by definition any value he changes the card to still “indicates the span of legal attack ranges”. Given that Range Requirement is specifically defined in the rules reference, I don’t see any space for argument.

C7A2DFB0-2AB4-49C8-AB1D-CB1A6A4E77EE.jpeg

Edited by RelativeShoe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, RelativeShoe said:

Why is everyone ignoring the Special Weapons section of the RR? It clearly states that the “legal“ ranges for a special weapon are defined by the values on the card...

The issue at hand is whether or not that "legal range" for the attack supercedes the explicit rule prohibiting attacks at range zero. (RR 1.1.0 p.5).

As @emeraldbeaconj said above:

On 4/19/2019 at 1:56 PM, emeraldbeacon said:

I don't think anyone here would argue that, given the wording on his card, there's an INTENTION he should be able to (conditionally) attack at Range 0... but does this "new" RRG entry affect his ability to do so, legally?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoa! Necropost!

But yea, as nitrobenz stated, the issue is the rule on page 5 (RR-1.1.0)

 

Quote

A ship cannot attack a ship at range 0, even if the attack range would be range 1.

This is a flat out 'no you cant do this' rule. And it would take an ability to explicitly state that it overrides this restriction.

Now, under Range Bonus on pg 16, it says something a bit contradictory.

 

Quote

Although the range bonus applies at range 0, a ship cannot normally perform a primary attack at range 0.

Which is where i think the confusion lies, however i would lean toward the stronger rule of they just cant, to be safe. At least until FFG clarifies it. Tho it has been over a year and havent seen anything on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Lyianx said:

Whoa! Necropost!

But yea, as nitrobenz stated, the issue is the rule on page 5 (RR-1.1.0)

 

This is a flat out 'no you cant do this' rule. And it would take an ability to explicitly state that it overrides this restriction.

Now, under Range Bonus on pg 16, it says something a bit contradictory.

 

Which is where i think the confusion lies, however i would lean toward the stronger rule of they just cant, to be safe. At least until FFG clarifies it. Tho it has been over a year and havent seen anything on this.

Rhymer alters the range on the upgrade causing the upgrade to say it can which contradicts those rules. Cards win contractions with the RR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Hiemfire said:

Rhymer alters the range on the upgrade causing the upgrade to say it can which contradicts those rules. Cards win contractions with the RR.

That isnt how that works. He may be setting the range to zero, but that, by itself, isn't explicitly overriding the "you cannot attack at range 0" rule.

The way im seeing this, is "You cannot perform attacks at range 0" isnt stated simply because attack range is typically 1-3. Its stating it by saying "while you are at range 0 of another ship, you cannot perform attacks against that ship", rather than "oh im at range 0, im out of my weapons legal range". This is reinforced by the next statement..
 

Quote

..even if the attack range would be range 1.

This is saying, it doesnt care what the 'attack' range is. So long as you are at range 0, you cannot attack.

Rhymer may reduce the weapons range to 0, but him being at range 0 of another ship, imo, blocks him from making any attack against it. I still believe, his pilot ability must specifically state "You can perform special attacks at range 0" to override the rule. That, Or FFG needs to reword the rule to only include primary attacks, or else, come out with yet another "because we said so" ruling like they did with Paige.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
17 hours ago, Lyianx said:

That isnt how that works. He may be setting the range to zero, but that, by itself, isn't explicitly overriding the "you cannot attack at range 0" rule.

The way im seeing this, is "You cannot perform attacks at range 0" isnt stated simply because attack range is typically 1-3. Its stating it by saying "while you are at range 0 of another ship, you cannot perform attacks against that ship", rather than "oh im at range 0, im out of my weapons legal range". This is reinforced by the next statement..
 

This is saying, it doesnt care what the 'attack' range is. So long as you are at range 0, you cannot attack.

Rhymer may reduce the weapons range to 0, but him being at range 0 of another ship, imo, blocks him from making any attack against it. I still believe, his pilot ability must specifically state "You can perform special attacks at range 0" to override the rule. That, Or FFG needs to reword the rule to only include primary attacks, or else, come out with yet another "because we said so" ruling like they did with Paige.

Generally agreed.  Rhymer allows ranges to change, but my opinion is that pesky "no attacks at Range 0" rule gets in the way of his ability, as the rules are strictly written.

Again, I want to reiterate that I believe (along with what, I hope, is the general consensus) that Rhymer should be able to attack at Range 0; otherwise, his card text is rather foolishly written.  The trouble is that a rule was added, after Rhymer was made, that interferes with his pilot ability... and that rule has not yet been suitably addressed, to "fix" Rhymer.

Edited by emeraldbeacon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

whoa, this discussion is so old. sounds like you're ignoring the previous posts in this thread by this point. please go re-read the thread.

also, "cannot" in rules text has no special magnitude what so ever. it's only "cannot" in card text that is absolute.

as for not explicitly ignoring rules, rhymers card text definitely explicitly ignores the rules on not attacking at range 0, since it clearly states that it changes the required range to a minimum of 0. also, we've seen abilities on cards break rules before without explicitly stating so. yes, i'm looking on paige tico / deathfire.

basically, @Lyianx and @emeraldbeacon - you are both wrong. please do not forget the golden rules. 😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rhymer’s text only changes the “range requirement” of the special weapon, which is the number(s) above the little “no range bonus” missile icon on the weapon card. His text doesn’t seem to override the “no range zero attacks“ rule. At least, I don’t see why he would.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
42 minutes ago, Cpt ObVus said:

Rhymer’s text only changes the “range requirement” of the special weapon, which is the number(s) above the little “no range bonus” missile icon on the weapon card. His text doesn’t seem to override the “no range zero attacks“ rule. At least, I don’t see why he would.

He causes the weapon itself to override when the adjustment to the weapon's range bracket that he causes permits the weapon to attack at range 0.

Also, since it seems to be being ignored. From page 2 of the RR:

GOLDEN RULES
If a rule in this guide contradicts the Rulebook, the rule in this guide takes
precedence.
If the ability of a card conflicts with the rules in this guide, the card ability
takes precedence.
If a card ability uses the word “cannot,” that effect is absolute and cannot be
overridden by other effects.
During an attack or while otherwise resolving an effect involving dice, each die
cannot be rerolled more than once.

Edited by Hiemfire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, meffo said:

also, "cannot" in rules text has no special magnitude what so ever. it's only "cannot" in card text that is absolute.

as for not explicitly ignoring rules, rhymers card text definitely explicitly ignores the rules on not attacking at range 0, since it clearly states that it changes the required range to a minimum of 0. also, we've seen abilities on cards break rules before without explicitly stating so. yes, i'm looking on paige tico / deathfire.

Please refresh yourself on the definitions of "explicit" and "implied."  Explicit means "stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt."  Implied means "suggested but not directly expressed; implicit." 

Then, per your own example, let's actually look at the Golden Rules (bold indicates the rule in question we're talking about):

Quote

GOLDEN RULES

  • If a rule in this guide contradicts the Rulebook, the rule in this guide takes precedence.
  • If the ability of a card conflicts with the rules in this guide, the card ability takes precedence.
  • If a card ability uses the word “cannot,” that effect is absolute and cannot be overridden by other effects.
  • During an attack or while otherwise resolving an effect involving dice, each die cannot be rerolled more than once.

The issue that we're having, is that there is a direct rule in the guide that "you may not perform attacks against enemy ships at Range 0."  Certain cards do provide a clear, definite, explicit exception to this rule:  Zeb, Oicunn, and Arvel all include very clear abilities, that their relevant ships may perform attacks at Range 0.  Major Rhymer does not include the same kind of explicit exception to that rule.  He instead provides an implied exception, by allowing certain weapons to include a firing range of 0.  Our question is, from a rules lawyering perspective, is an implied permission to attack at Range 0 enough to satisfy the Golden Rules, and allow the "cannot attack a ship at Range 0" rule to be ignored, or does a card effect need to be explicit to function properly?  My personal belief is that, no, implied abilities do not meet the standard required by the Golden Rules, to override a Game Rule which states "cannot;" only explicit abilities can.

(Also please note that your counter examples, Paige Tico and Deathfire, both required rulings from FFG to operate how they now do.  Per the specific wording of the cards and the rules, they did not work as they now do, without the explicit rules exceptions created for them.)

2 hours ago, meffo said:

basically, @Lyianx and @emeraldbeacon - you are both wrong. please do not forget the golden rules. 😉

On a final note, rather than state that someone is wrong, without any documented proof to back up your claims, please state instead that you do not agree with the interpretation.  I'm perfectly willing to consider other viewpoints, if they're supported by relevant information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Why include 0 when he can't attack at 0?

 

edit: maybe relevant to add that I ate a r0 torpedo with Soontir once. I've only been on the receiving end and I see no problem. The legalese discussion might be interesting, but imo my question answers how to rule it until we get something official

Edited by GreenDragoon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, emeraldbeacon said:

Please refresh yourself on the definitions of "explicit" and "implied."  Explicit means "stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt."  Implied means "suggested but not directly expressed; implicit." 

Then, per your own example, let's actually look at the Golden Rules (bold indicates the rule in question we're talking about):

The issue that we're having, is that there is a direct rule in the guide that "you may not perform attacks against enemy ships at Range 0."  Certain cards do provide a clear, definite, explicit exception to this rule:  Zeb, Oicunn, and Arvel all include very clear abilities, that their relevant ships may perform attacks at Range 0.  Major Rhymer does not include the same kind of explicit exception to that rule.  He instead provides an implied exception, by allowing certain weapons to include a firing range of 0.  Our question is, from a rules lawyering perspective, is an implied permission to attack at Range 0 enough to satisfy the Golden Rules, and allow the "cannot attack a ship at Range 0" rule to be ignored, or does a card effect need to be explicit to function properly?  My personal belief is that, no, implied abilities do not meet the standard required by the Golden Rules, to override a Game Rule which states "cannot;" only explicit abilities can.

(Also please note that your counter examples, Paige Tico and Deathfire, both required rulings from FFG to operate how they now do.  Per the specific wording of the cards and the rules, they did not work as they now do, without the explicit rules exceptions created for them.)

On a final note, rather than state that someone is wrong, without any documented proof to back up your claims, please state instead that you do not agree with the interpretation.  I'm perfectly willing to consider other viewpoints, if they're supported by relevant information.

well, making a required range 0 seems very explicit to me.

it's good that you've had a look at the golden rules. the one you've highlighted is relevant. also, you're (or rather @Lyianx's) trying to make use of the next one, which is not relevant. hence my statement:

Quote

also, "cannot" in rules text has no special magnitude what so ever. it's only "cannot" in card text that is absolute.


as for the rulings on paige and deathfire, they did not work because we didn't interpret them to wok. they didn't change because of the clarification, the only thing that changed is our interpretation of them. they set an example, though. for cards to override the rules, it does not have to be clearly stated on them in very minute detail (your definition of explicit, if you will). it's enough that it's stated. if card text is not intended to break the rules, that will be clearly stated, as per the example of genius and edon kappehl used in that ruling.

on that final note, i don't really see the need to delve deeply into this subject again, as it's already been discussed at length in this very thread. my line of reasoning is already quite detailed. you're 100% right i could certainly have put more effort into my post, of course. necroing threads is fine and all, i'd just like it if people who respond read the thread again instead of asking me to restate my views.

both me and others (including @Lyianx) clearly state our opinion on the dreaded line of text on the very first page of this thread. he seems to have  changed his opinion. i have not.

Quote

A ship cannot attack a ship at range 0, even if the attack range would be range 1.

that's from page five of the RR under Attack, by the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, meffo said:

as for the rulings on paige and deathfire, they did not work because we didn't interpret them to wok. they didn't change because of the clarification, the only thing that changed is our interpretation of them. they set an example, though. for cards to override the rules, it does not have to be clearly stated on them in very minute detail (your definition of explicit, if you will). it's enough that it's stated. if card text is not intended to break the rules, that will be clearly stated, as per the example of genius and edon kappehl used in that ruling.

Actually, those two rulings were in clear violation of the rules.  They said that because Paige and Deathfire did not repeat the rule that you can only drop one device per round, they got to ignore that rule.  By the same line of thinking, IG-88B can perform as many cannon attacks as he wishes until one sticks because the card doesn't say, "if you have not performed a bonus attack this round, you may", or that any card that says you may perform an action allows you to do so while stressed because it doesn't say, "If you are not stressed, you may perform X action".  Cards do not have to restate the game rules in order for those game rules to apply, and when you start looking for implicit overrides to the rules then it becomes dealer's choice as to what rules apply and what rules don't for any card effect.  It was a terrible ruling, that was only corrected later when they changed the rules reference so a ship may drop more than one device per round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, meffo said:

both me and others (including @Lyianx) clearly state our opinion on the dreaded line of text on the very first page of this thread. he seems to have  changed his opinion. i have not.

It's also been brewing for a year and we've had the paige/deathfire debacle since then. To be fair, im not debating the third golden rule, but the 2nd. Even when i made my first assessment over a year go, i had a debate with myself over it. FFG really needs to address it one way or the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, joeshmoe554 said:

Actually, those two rulings were in clear violation of the rules.  They said that because Paige and Deathfire did not repeat the rule that you can only drop one device per round, they got to ignore that rule.  By the same line of thinking, IG-88B can perform as many cannon attacks as he wishes until one sticks because the card doesn't say, "if you have not performed a bonus attack this round, you may", or that any card that says you may perform an action allows you to do so while stressed because it doesn't say, "If you are not stressed, you may perform X action".  Cards do not have to restate the game rules in order for those game rules to apply, and when you start looking for implicit overrides to the rules then it becomes dealer's choice as to what rules apply and what rules don't for any card effect.  It was a terrible ruling, that was only corrected later when they changed the rules reference so a ship may drop more than one device per round.

indeed, but they didn't simply say abilities don't have to explicitly state they are not limited by the normal rules to function as written, but they made it even more difficult to interpret by making us compare card text to every other card text.

Capture.png

by that logic, performing actions while stressed would be fine, unless there were cards like this:
Ashoka.png

anyway, i'm not trying to argue that card abilities don't have to follow game rules at all. i'm just stating that this logic does not work because of previous examples: "breaking the rules has to be explicitly stated on every card ability that breaks the game rules." - there are a ton of card abilities that break game rules in one way or another. that's what you pay for when adding them to your list. or in other words, whether or not breaking specific rules is explicit or just implied is not a meaningful argument, since there are examples of implied rules breaking being clarified to work based on the fact that there are cards with similar abilities that explicitly do not break the rules.

 

1 hour ago, Lyianx said:

It's also been brewing for a year and we've had the paige/deathfire debacle since then. To be fair, im not debating the third golden rule, but the 2nd. Even when i made my first assessment over a year go, i had a debate with myself over it. FFG really needs to address it one way or the other.

yes, i always like things to be clarified as well, even when the rules seem crystal clear to me. like rhymer's ability. here are some tidbits that i think support his ability working. i will include page number for you heightened satisfaction. 😉

Capture.png
rules reference, page 16. please note that the range 1 bonus applies to range 0 attacks, even though ships cannot attack ships at range 0, here clarified to be a normal restriction, not an absolute rule.

Capture.png
rules reference, page five. please not the wording and my highlight, since it corresponds with our the text of rhymer's pilot ability.
"• Special weapons have different requirements specified by the source of the attack."

Capture.png

 

Capture.png
rules reference, page 18.

and finally, lets look at what happens when you perform an attack.
Capture.png
rules reference page four.


now, what's not clear about major rhymer being able to attack at range 0? please, explain it to me.

in my eyes it's 100% super duper crystal clear, his ability changes the range requirement of a weapon. when he's attacking with that weapon he has to choose a defender that meets the requirements of that weapon. card text supersedes rules text. it's really as simple as that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...