Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
RedSquadBW

Major Rhymer and attacking at R0 with new RR

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, nitrobenz said:

Current (v1.1.0 first half of 2020) RAI has consensus (yes, it was meant to work) but it's not irrefutable as I noted above. Current RAW is clear: No attacks while at R0 regardless of the actual range of the attack.

doesn't seem like clear RAW to a lot of us. if a range requirement of a weapon is changed to 0 by card text, it seems more obvious that attacks could be made at range 0 with that weapon, regardless of what the rules reference says about attacks at range 0.

exactly like pilots that explicitly state they can attack at range 0, the ability to change a range requirement of a weapon to 0 is an explicit statement that that weapon can be used to attack at range 0.

thanks for elaborating on the other side of the argument, but it's obviously not clear, no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/15/2020 at 7:33 AM, JBFancourt said:

My thoughts expressed in a theoretical example. 

FMpUn8G_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&f

@nitrobenz Sorry, didn’t mean to cause any ill feelings. 🥺

So..... earlier, I made this card as my passive aggressive means of argumentation. 🙄😝 It largely received no feedback .... despite the exceptional art work... 🙃

IF (hypothetical) this card were released tomorrow, you’d say (if I’m understanding you correctly) that this card could never attack and would be DOA on release.

Okay, I get you.

Frankly, I disagree. I hold that the card specifically states it can attack at Rang 0, even tho there is no “Arvel”-like text in its wording.

Rhymer can shift the special weapon range requirement to 0. This is accepted, no dispute.

 

So what is the conflict?

 

We are actually NOT arguing about RANG 0 ATTACKS!

Because we all agree they are not permitted.

In reality, we are arguing about whether or not SPECIAL WEAPON RANGE PARAMETERS supersede general rules text or not. 

Side A - Nope! Need specific “Arvel”-like text.

Side B - Yup! The entirety of the card dictates it’s rules of use and overrides general rules text.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JBFancourt said:

The entirety of the card dictates it’s rules of use and overrides general rules text.

More precisely the argument at its core is over whether or not this is true, especially in the case of when another card's ability has adjusted the effect being compared to the rules. 

Share this post


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

@nitrobenz Sorry, didn’t mean to cause any ill feelings. 🥺

So..... earlier, I made this card as my passive aggressive means of argumentation. 🙄😝 It largely received no feedback .... despite the exceptional art work... 🙃

No worries, I can't blame anyone but myself for getting worked up over minutia of a board game 😵. In my own commotion I forgot about your very excellent counterpoint of a hypothetical upgrade!

The biggest difference is that the hypothetical R0 only weapon has literally no other function. So, I would say by the rules it does not work, but I wouldn't object to its use in practice since there is no other use case*. I would hope though that in the hypothetical development process this potential conflict would be noticed and resolved either by adding 'you may perform this attack while at R0' to the card or change the rule from 'no attacks at R0' to 'cannot choose a defender at R0 unless using a weapon with attack range including 0.'

*Side note: It wouldn't be the first time I took that stance. I still feel that way about Grappling Struts because as written Struts should always flip back to flight mode after flipping to landing mode, but then it would functionally be a blank card so I don't object to use as intended in that case.

Rhymer on the other hand does have other uses (R2 APT,  R1-3 Torps, etc.) without changing anything so he's not a completely blank card. Rhymer is a very strong case of intention (what's the point of 0-3?) But as I've said before I think the existing change in rules since his time of release does negated that part of his ability, and that stands regardless of the original intent of the ability.

My position on it is that if asked --in the current ruleset v1.1.0-- to rule on this I would say 'No' to Rhymer R0. At a casual table though, I'll just clarify during setup how my opponent intends to play it and roll with that because it won't ruin my day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@nitrobenz

Soooo 😂😂 ...... I REALLY don’t wanna derail here..... 

But my curiosity is irrevocably piqued by the struts comment!

Could I get a cliff notes version, just to satisfy my insatiable thirst for rule minutiae?

Otherwise, thanks for your comments. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Want my own counter arguments to my own argument??? 🤣

1) To those referencing the Golden Rule,

“If the ability of a card conflicts with the rules in this guide, the card ability takes precedence.” :

Ability of a card is not perfectly defined in RR, however, the only three things that are remotely similar are Pilot Abilities, Upgrade Abilities, and Ship Abilities, all of which ARE defined and do not include weapon ranges. These are the ONLY references to “Ability”. 
 

2) What we are talking about is specifically entitled “Weapon Restrictions” and “Range Restrictions”.

Which, tho slight, is different than Weapon Range. Restriction denotes a smaller subset of larger permission. Ie. Only Range 2-3 of the permitted 1-3. 

However, even considering this, I still believe Rhymer functions as above. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, JBFancourt said:

@nitrobenz

Soooo 😂😂 ...... I REALLY don’t wanna derail here..... 

But my curiosity is irrevocably piqued by the struts comment!

Could I get a cliff notes version, just to satisfy my insatiable thirst for rule minutiae?

Otherwise, thanks for your comments. 

I can answer and they are quite welcome to correct me if I'm inaccurate in something and they wish to.

First for reference, both side of the 2 currently existing struts configurations (they read exactly the same so I'll just just the grappling version):

Closed:

latest?cb=20190110141537

Open:

latest?cb=20190110141612

The key to the issue is the separate timings for triggering the flip on the open and closed side of the config. On the closed side it is "While you execute a maneuver" so during your maneuver, but before you've completed it, if you overlap an asteroid or a debris field you flip it to the open side. Now you're still executing the maneuver when this flip occurs. Here we take a look at the last line of the open side: "After you execute a maneuver, flip this card." So card flips while the maneuver is being executed if the final position of the maneuver is on an obstacle (asteroid or debris), and then after the maneuver is executed the open side tells you to flip it back so RAW you do. Before some ******* numbskull says "once per opportunity" or "you can only flip a config once per round", they are 2 separate opportunities as defined in the rules and there is no such limitation on flipping configs written in the rules.

Personally I think they ran out of space to format it properly without reducing the text to an unreadable size.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Reminds me of the Finn “taking” a strain while defending only to remove it immediately after. 
 

That’s hilarious. Never heard of this 🤣 but I don’t fly them and I just use @emeraldbeacon’s chart to track my opponent’s nonsense. 
 

Whenever I have a question, it goes like “that’s not right”.... “why?” ..... “cuz this picture on my phone”.... “oh cool, can I have that?” 😜

Edited by JBFancourt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Hiemfirecovered the struts summary beautifully.

@emeraldbeaconfs flowchart is a handy and very accurate reference (once you ignore that double flip bug) since there's still a lot of other struts interactions. I also appreciate that emerald has continuously evolved the chart to cover scenarios that were not initially covered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, JBFancourt said:

Ability of a card is not perfectly defined in RR

Page 31.
 

Quote

Q: What makes an effect an "ability?"
A: An ability is text from a card a player controls

The attack value, range requirement, if its eligible for range bonus or not, if it adds an action to the ship action bar, number of charges it has... none of these are "abilities".

Share this post


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

Page 31.
 

The attack value, range requirement, if its eligible for range bonus or not, if it adds an action to the ship action bar, number of charges it has... none of these are "abilities".

Exactly.

However, that still does not define “Card Ability” perfectly. Pilot, Ship, and Upgrade Ability are all defined tho. In the “Anatomy” section, Pg 26. The same place that defines range as Weapon/ Range Restriction. 
 

Also, not “Range Requirement”, “Range Restriction”. Not sure if that’s significant. 
 

Pg 31 defines when an effect = ability. But I’ll grant you that, otherwise.

Edited by JBFancourt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/9/2020 at 3:15 PM, JBFancourt said:

In reality, we are arguing about whether or not SPECIAL WEAPON RANGE PARAMETERS supersede general rules text or not. 

Can he then attack at range 4?

(obviously not, but doesn't that defeat your argument?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

Can he then attack at range 4?

(obviously not, but doesn't that defeat your argument?)

Bomber_Rhymer.png

Swz55_targeting-battery_card.png

can targeting battery be used to attack at range 4?
of course.

i don't believe @JBFancourt is even making an argument here, he's just stating what the topic of our debate is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@GreenDragoon

0-3 is stipulated, so no. Are you asking if it said 0-4? I’d say yes as @meffo demonstrated with epic card. 
 

And yes, I was just honing in on the real issue being whether or not missile attack restrictions override rules or not. 
 

Personally, it’s a big YESH for me. 😁👍

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...