Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Correct. It's no different to firing a twin laser turret at a target that happens to be in your primary weapon arc at range 2. The target is within your arc, hence cannot use autothrusters.

It doesn't matter that you're not firing your primary weapon, or even if you don't have a primary weapon (say a HWK-260 with an appropriate critical hit).

A printed arc still counts for anything which says inside/outside your arc:

Autothrusters
Backstabber
Graz the Hunter
Kavil
Outmaneuver
Tactician

Wording on the Phantom allows the Ghost to fire out of a 'Special" arc... which is different than an auxiliary arc. I don't know if Autothrusters actually shut off if Fel is behind the Ghost.
Either way, if the Phantom isn't there there isn't an arc there... turret shot or no. We need to wait for the FAQ to be certain.

I didn't see this mentionned here so far, and it is raging on a FB thread right now:

Does the Inquisitor invalidate a)the extra green dice at range 3 or b)autothrusters.

I'm asking because I am literally of two minds.

"When attacking at Range 2-3 with your Primary Weapon, treat the range as Range 1."

Yes to both, it hardly gets more unequivocal than that?

If the intent was to simply give the Inquisitor an extra red die (which is the only bonus he'd get if things like AT still get to work) then they'd have said "when attacking at range 2-3, roll an additional attack die." Or something similar.

So ironically, the simplest counter to Soontir Fel is another Imperial ship. Nice.

Seems that way! The Quis is force sensitive after all!

Thinking further, I'm more certain I'm correct, as the range is determined when you declare the attack, and is measured from the attacker to the defender.

I imagine the objections are based around the idea that you measure from defender to attacker for defensive cards (even if not articulated that way) but the rules never give permission to do that, only to determine the defender's range from the attacker, which, in his case, will always be treated as 1.

For the case of defense dice, I think it's very clear that the defender gains no range 3 advantage, because you treat the range as Range 1.

For the case of autothrusters, I think you can use similar logic: that autothrusters does not trigger, because you treat the range as Range 1.

The argument I've seen to the contrary about autothrusters boils down to basically that the triggering condition is that the ship is in range 3, not that the attack is range 3. I think that's a distinction without a difference, especially since auothrusters only ever triggers as a modifier to dice during an attack. The wordage "when defending" makes the intent clear.



For an interesting comparison, I would use the example of Gemmer Sojan's ability. If the Inquisitor attacks Gemmer, does he count as being within range 1 of the Inquisitor, and so gain the extra defense dice? Take a look at combat steps:

Roll Defense Dice: The defender rolls a number of defense dice equal to its agility value.
The defender resolves any card abilities that allow him to roll additional or fewer defense dice.

We resolve Gemmer and the Inquisitor's card abilities. At what range is Gemmer's ship from the Inquisitor? The Inquisitor's card tells us to treat the range as range 1 when attacking with his primary weapon.



Gemmer says to roll an extra defense dice if the range is 1.



So we do what the cards tell us to do: we treat Gemmer's agility as 4.

Playing Devil's advocate/splitting hairs here:

The inquisitor's Ability says to "treat the range...as Range 1", referring only to your attacks, NOT to your ship.

Gemmer's ability says "When you are at range 1 of at least one enemy ship...increase agility"

Could the argument be made that if the Inquisitor is not physically in range 1 of Gemmer, no bonus applies?

The things affected by the Quis's ability: attacks =/= ship in this case.

No.

At, within and beyond are specific game terms.

The answer is really simple, when making a R2-3 attack with the Inquisitor, what bonuses/penalties would apply if the attack were actually being made at R1?

Then do that.

I'm hoping we get a day 1 FAQ about it, because there are a lot of range-based abilities in the game.

 Azreal13 wrote:
No.

At, within and beyond are specific game terms.

The answer is really simple, when making a R2-3 attack with the Inquisitor, what bonuses/penalties would apply if the attack were actually being made at R1?

Then do that.

Right, but I'm saying Gemmer's ability refers to a ship being at range 1, whereas Quis's ability refers to his attacks (not his ship) treated as if at range 1.
Maybe if it were worded to say "treat the Inquisitor's ship as being at range 1 for all attacks", but as written....no.

Not trying to be obtuse here, trying to understand.

And maybe he'll be the one ship that can actually bypass all of them. That'll make him really good, but in a flimsy ship.

Something I found on the FFG forums that I wanted you guys to be aware of...


So, by strict RAW a Tractor Beam putting you on an obstacle during the shooting phase you wouldn't roll for damage for being on the asteroid this turn.

I don't think that that is what FFG intended, but there you have it.

 Anpu-adom wrote:
So, by strict RAW a Tractor Beam putting you on an obstacle during the shooting phase you wouldn't roll for damage for being on the asteroid this turn.

I don't think that that is what FFG intended, but there you have it.

You will still roll for damage because the FAQ says you suffer the effects of the obstacle if you are forced to land on a token.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Anpu-adom wrote:
So, by strict RAW a Tractor Beam putting you on an obstacle during the shooting phase you wouldn't roll for damage for being on the asteroid this turn.

I don't think that that is what FFG intended, but there you have it.

You will still roll for damage because the FAQ says you suffer the effects of the obstacle if you are forced to land on a token.

That's the way I read it as well. I suppose they could have slipped the word "immediately" right before "suffer the effects" to make it more clear though.

I see it both ways, and believe that the intent is that you roll for damage. The wording is unclear, and I expect FFG to make further adjustments to the language.

 Anpu-adom wrote:
I see it both ways, and believe that the intent is that you roll for damage. The wording is unclear, and I expect FFG to make further adjustments to the language.

I think it's already clear because they made a point to say that you suffer the effects of landing on the obstacle, which is clearly defined in the rules.

This is another one of those cases where people are trying to rules lawyer and looking way too much into what has been written in an attempt to figure out an advantage, just like the people arguing that the TIE Adv. Prototype should be able to take the TIE/x1 title.

Elusiveness and Target Lock.

A die that has been rerolled cannot be rerolled again. But what if different effects (and players) are causing the reroll?

We know the attack sequence:

Attacker Rolls dice
-Defender Modifies Attack Dice
-Attacker Modifies Attack Dice

Elusiveness: "When defending, you may receive 1 stress token to choose 1 attack die. The attacker must reroll that die."

Hypothetical:

My opponent has a Target Lock on my ship and is attacking with 4 red dice; they roll Hit, Hit, Focus, Blank.

I use Elusiveness and make them reroll a Hit, resulting in another Blank. (Hit, Focus, Blank, Blank)

They spend their Target Lock; can they reroll both Blanks, or just the original one? I feel like the rule is meant to be used for things like Target Lock and Predator, or Predator and Dengar crew, but as far as I can see it's not instance specific; once a die has been rerolled, it cannot under any circumstances be rerolled again.

Edit: this would apply equally to Zuckus crew and (lol) Flight Instructor crew. That is, if anyone ever used Flight Instructor. Concept still applies though.

It's really simply put, a dice that is rerolled cannot be rerolled again. If I force you to reroll your dice with Zuckus crew (and take stress for each of your dice) then you can spend your Target Lock, but you don't actually get to reroll any dice.

Correct.

They can't reroll the Elusiveness die as it has already been rerolled once.

Thanks guys!

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Anpu-adom wrote:
So, by strict RAW a Tractor Beam putting you on an obstacle during the shooting phase you wouldn't roll for damage for being on the asteroid this turn.

I don't think that that is what FFG intended, but there you have it.

You will still roll for damage because the FAQ says you suffer the effects of the obstacle if you are forced to land on a token.

It's a good thing they FAQed it. Because yesterday (after a really rapid loss to Brobots) we were trying to figure out a good combination to use the tractor beam, and we kept getting hung up on the fact that the Rules Reference booklet specifies that it is when a ship executes a maneuver, and the Tractor Beam reference card specifies that the move is not a maneuver. So I was a bit stumped.

 Mathieu Raymond wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Anpu-adom wrote:
So, by strict RAW a Tractor Beam putting you on an obstacle during the shooting phase you wouldn't roll for damage for being on the asteroid this turn.

I don't think that that is what FFG intended, but there you have it.

You will still roll for damage because the FAQ says you suffer the effects of the obstacle if you are forced to land on a token.

It's a good thing they FAQed it. Because yesterday (after a really rapid loss to Brobots) we were trying to figure out a good combination to use the tractor beam, and we kept getting hung up on the fact that the Rules Reference booklet specifies that it is when a ship executes a maneuver, and the Tractor Beam reference card specifies that the move is not a maneuver. So I was a bit stumped.

Well, the argument against rolling damage comes from the fact that the rules about how obstacles work also mention that everything happens after executing a maneuver (this was done to prevent the Tractor Beam from triggering other game effects that happen after executing a maneuver).

Although I understand this is a tabletop game so common sense is often ignored, it's pretty obvious what to do since the effects are spelled out in the rules:

Asteroid: The ship must skip its “Perform Action” step this round. After skipping the “Perform Action” step, it rolls one attack die. On a [BOOM] result, the ship suffers one damage; on a [KABOOM] result, it suffers one critical damage. While a ship is overlapping an asteroid, it cannot perform any attacks.

So in this case, you follow the steps in a logical order. It says to skip the "Perform Action" step, which you ignore because that window has passed. The next thing to do is roll an attack dice and suffer any damage from said roll. Finally, if you haven't attacked this round, you cannot do so because you're on the asteroid. The argument is that since you have to ignore the "skip its 'Perform Actions' step this round," then you don't have to roll for damage, which is ridiculous.

Agreed. But for some esl readers, the sentence structure of the paragraph before that seems binding. Like I said, I'm just happy there was an FAQ, it means I'm not at the complete bottom of the barrel.

Imagine if you can maneuver the ship just so its front guides leave some asteroid showing. Potential double damage. Very nice.

Pretty sure this is a stupid question, but I want to be certain I have this right before I attempt this in game. If a ship's maneuvre template was to go over all three of a cluster mines templates, do they all detonate at once? I'm sure they do, but would just like to be sure

Yep, and conversely if you were to drop a CM on a large based ship so as to have it touch al 3, then that would trigger them all too.

Just checking, if you put a TLT on a Ghost / Phantom, that you only get one attack rather than the usual two out of the TLT at the End of Combat?

I'm fairly sure that's the case but still a bit fuzzy on TLT and 'attack'

Cheers

I think that's what I've heard, but my brain is too fuzzy at this moment to answer fully. I'll throw up some card images later in this spot.

 Turnip Jedi wrote:
Just checking, if you put a TLT on a Ghost / Phantom, that you only get one attack rather than the usual two out of the TLT at the End of Combat?

Probably.

That seems to be the consensus as of now, though I'm sure it will be FAQ'd before long.

Juno Eclipse question: when Juno imcreases or decreases the speed of a maneuver does the color of the maneuver remain the same? I.e. if Juno reveals a 1 bank (green) but increases the speed to 2 (which would be a white maneuver) would it still clear a stress token?

I've looked into the FAQ and couldn't find any reference to it