Had this come up in a game last week.

My Y-Wing (with ICT) and an opponents Defender were as close to being exactly parallel as could be judged by eye or with a range ruler - at about range 1.5 from each other

He was facing "north" I was facing "south" and between us was an asteroid, other than the fact that we were facing opposite directions we were exactly parallel.

However the line of fire between us did not appear to be completely obstructed - I could plot a clear, straight line of fire from the rear of the right hand edge of my base to the front left hand edge of his base with a few mm to spare sliding the range ruler along my base (bear in mind I had a 360 firing arc) - measuring from further along the base my shot was obstructed, but because we were parallel there was no obvious "closest point to closest point"

It was a friendly game and I was winning by a mile at that point so we just rolled on it and I lost - but I'm pretty sure that had I wanted to push it I could have called that shot as unobstructed.

Edit - I know that in Epic rules, judging line of fire to Fore / Aft sections of a huge ship (which is also counted as an obstacle in some respects) is measured from the the post at the centre of the base of a small / large ship rather than the edge of the base as with most other circumstances- but I don't recall that being a criteria for shooting through - or rather around - "regular" obstacles like asteroids

Rulebook page 20:

"When measuring range during combat, if the edge of the range ruler between the closest points of the two ships overlaps an obstacle token, the attack is considered obstructed."

"The attacker cannot attempt to measure range to a different part of a base in order to avoid obstructing obstacles."

So because the ships were parallel, when you measured one line of fire that went through an obstacle, then it was obstructed. You take the worst case scenario in this case.

Rather rare, as you must have been lined up exactly opposite each other.

Rulebook page 20:

"When measuring range during combat, if the edge of the range ruler between the closest points of the two ships overlaps an obstacle token, the attack is considered obstructed."

"The attacker cannot attempt to measure range to a different part of a base in order to avoid obstructing obstacles."

So because the ships were parallel, when you measured one line of fire that went through an obstacle, then it was obstructed. You take the worst case scenario in this case.

Rather rare, as you must have been lined up exactly opposite each other.

so if the first thing I did was measure range where it was not obstructed (edit: and then declare the shot} - then show that the range at all other points along my base was the same - then the shot would not have been considered as obstructed

No, if it was obstructed at any point (because they're all the closest), then it's obstructed.

I'm pretty sure I read a ruling somewhere that said if there was more than one path that can be traced for arc of fire then the attacker can choose which to use. Don't know where that was, though.

No, if it was obstructed at any point (because they're all the closest), then it's obstructed.

I see what you are saying, but in circumstance where I have a choice of points from which I can legitimately declare to be the closest point - then surely I can simply declare the shot from an unobstructed line of fire of my choosing.

I would be fulfilling the rule as I had not attempted to measure range from a different part of my base.

Is there not a burden of proof on the defender to say that this is NOT the closest point?

If that's not the case and the burden of proof is on me then I can, with confidence, say that it is indeed the closest point

There are other closest points for sure - but I haven't measured range or declared a shot from them

Edit - remember to hit the quote button in future

I'm pretty sure I read a ruling somewhere that said if there was more than one path that can be traced for arc of fire then the attacker can choose which to use. Don't know where that was, though.

I remember seeing something along those lines as well. But I can't remember which way it was ruled. I suspect it was an email reply from Frank.

If you look at it from the "cockpit" point of view: you're going head to head with an enemy ship, jousting on either side of an asteroid. It doesn't seem too logical that the asteroid isn't going to make it a harder shot, especially when you're shooting sideways with turret weapons. You're effectively strafing each other as you go past. Surely the asteroid is going to be taking some of that fire.

I can see the arguments from both sides. Using the rules, the attacker can claim that all points are closest, but from one particular corner it's clear, so it's unobstructed. The defender can equally then claim the other corner is obstructed. So I would tend to go with the defender, because there is a measurement (closest to closest) that is obstructed.

Maybe you should send this one off to Frank, just to confirm which way it should go.

I'm pretty sure I read a ruling somewhere that said if there was more than one path that can be traced for arc of fire then the attacker can choose which to use. Don't know where that was, though.

I remember seeing something along those lines as well. But I can't remember which way it was ruled. I suspect it was an email reply from Frank.

If you look at it from the "cockpit" point of view: you're going head to head with an enemy ship, jousting on either side of an asteroid. It doesn't seem too logical that the asteroid isn't going to make it a harder shot, especially when you're shooting sideways with turret weapons. You're effectively strafing each other as you go past. Surely the asteroid is going to be taking some of that fire.

I can see the arguments from both sides. Using the rules, the attacker can claim that all points are closest, but from one particular corner it's clear, so it's unobstructed. The defender can equally then claim the other corner is obstructed. So I would tend to go with the defender, because there is a measurement (closest to closest) that is obstructed.

Maybe you should send this one off to Frank, just to confirm which way it should go.

Consider the following scenario:

Two ships are facing each other at range 1 - front to front and side to side as close to being exactly parallel as can be judged with the measuring tools available in the game.

in the gap directly between as the bases face each other, an asteroid is encroaching by about 3mm

the attacker can declare an unobstructed shot at any point along his base except for the last 3mm

is this shot obstructed or not?

if it's not, what's the real difference between that scenario and mine?

Maybe you should send this one off to Frank, just to confirm which way it should go.

I'm guessing Buhallin or sergovan will poke their head in here sometime tonight and be able to remember the details for us.

Maybe you should send this one off to Frank, just to confirm which way it should go.

I'm guessing Buhallin or sergovan will poke their head in here sometime tonight and be able to remember the details for us.

Wanted

Consider the following scenario:

Two ships are facing each other at range 1 - front to front and side to side as close to being exactly parallel as can be judged with the measuring tools available in the game.

in the gap directly between as the bases face each other, an asteroid is encroaching by about 3mm

the attacker can declare an unobstructed shot at any point along his base except for the last 3mm

is this shot obstructed or not?

if it's not, what's the real difference between that scenario and mine?

There is no difference. I'd still say it's obstructed under the current rules. The main problem is the measurement datum that's used in this game. You can measure from a point on the base and depending on who you are measuring to, that particular point will change with nearly every measurement. I've played Battlefleet Gothic where measurements are taken from the pin on the model's stand so it's always the same point and this type of issue just doesn't come up. But that's not the case in X-wing.

What you're saying is if you measure from the left corner it's clear, but if you measure from the right corner it's obstructed (by 3mm), so which is it? Well the rulebooks says if a measurement goes through an obstacle, it's obstructed. So with both corners being equal distance, which measurement is used? The ships are parallel, so does the player get to choose?

Like I said, I can't remember which way the discussion went in the end. But you can still see there are two fairly solid sides to this debate.

This answer was in one of the older FAQs

This answer was in one of the older FAQs

Q: If two ships are oriented so that their closest edges are parallel, there is no single closest-point-to-closest-point line between the two ships. If one ship attacked the other, could it choose which line to use?

A: Yes. In this case, the attacking player chooses the best point from which to draw the line to the target, which may allow him to avoid having his attack obstructed by an obstacle.

There's a black mask / bandanna type thing and a pair of those funny-looking boots with toes waiting for you in your locker.

You might have to stitch the tears and wash out some of the blood stains though

This answer was in one of the older FAQs

Interesting. It was in the FAQ and they took it out? I wonder why.

This answer was in one of the older FAQs

Q: If two ships are oriented so that their closest edges are parallel, there is no single closest-point-to-closest-point line between the two ships. If one ship attacked the other, could it choose which line to use?

A: Yes. In this case, the attacking player chooses the best point from which to draw the line to the target, which may allow him to avoid having his attack obstructed by an obstacle.

Which is one of the many things that has been omitted in the three FAQs that have been published since that one (FAQ 1.3). So I think we're still no closer to a ruling.

Mathematically, it's impossible for two ship bases to be exactly parallel to each other. Therefore, there will always be a minimal distance line between the two ship bases.

Practically, it can be difficult to determine that line when the two ship bases appear to be nearly parallel to the naked eye. Without allowing the attacker to choose an unobstructed line, the situation that Funkleton describes in Post #8 is absurd.

I guess the ruling was dropped from the FAQ because it's impossible for ship bases to be exactly parallel to each other?

I remember the discussion regarding this issue. I do find it interesting that the result has been omitted from the newer revisions of the FAQ.

Since there is an FAQ that covers the scenario I would go with that precedent until it gets updated. Attackers choice.

I'll send a reminder in to Frank for inclusion for the next FAQ update.

Mathematically it is possible for ships to be parallel. The ships have straight edges that can be equidistant to each other along the whole edge.

In which case the closest point to closest point can be anywhere along the edge, at a 90 degree angle. And since the rules don't specifically address this, the attacking player should be free to choose any point along the edge of the ship to shoot from. It should not matter if he measures in one location first that is obstructed, then in another location that is unobstructed and determine that the distance is the same. This also goes well in hand with the deleted FAQ entry.

Mathematically it is possible for ships to be parallel. The ships have straight edges that can be equidistant to each other along the whole edge.

It's not mathematically possible for two generally given straight lines in a plane to be parallel.

The angle between the lines is a continuous variable and the probability of observing any particular value is zero.

However, it is physically possible for lines to look like they are parallel when the continuous interval that bounds the true angle difference shrinks sufficiently small enough to trick the human eye.

Mathematics cares about continues variables. Engineering and Science will set a required error tolerance and get on with the job.

If Y = X + k, where k is a constant then by definition those two lines are parallel because they never intersect. Physically it is hard to reproduce this, and this is where our margin of error comes in. As is this case where we estimate that the ships are parallel. But let'a discuss rules rather than math.

The ships have straight edges ...

They don't.

Edges of plastic parts are never straight in a strict mathematical sense. The manufacturing process is not that precise.

The ships have straight edges ...

They don't.

Edges of plastic parts are never straight in a strict mathematical sense. The manufacturing process is not that precise.

I think we are straying into the realms of irrelevancy.

The game mechanic assumes a degree of uncertainty and inaccuracy - it would be unplayable if it didn't

The question is not whether uncertain conditions exist within the game (they clearly do!), it is how we deal with them when they arise.

This is usually settled pretty pragmatically on the spot by player agreement.

So if both players are in agreement that:

To the very best of their abilities to measure, and using the measuring tools available to them in the game, two bases are as close to being exactly parallel as makes no odds.

How do we progress?

Which player, if any, receives the benefit of the doubt

We could go with the assumption that there is a closest point but it is beyond our capability to measure therefore we let the dice decide on every occasion like this that arises.

We could treat it like Cricket where in cases of doubt it is always the defender who receives the benefit of it

Or we could treat the attacker as the player who is taking the initiative and he gets to call his shot from any legal point of his choice.

The general flavour of the rules so far has been to favour the attacker in these types of circumstances

My understanding is that if there is a continuous stretch of "closes points" the attacker will get to pick which of those points gets to be used. This may allow a ship to shoot "around" an obstruction.

In a mathematical sense there may not be two parallel ships and determining that could be done by measuring points along the expected line to see what actually is closer.

If you can't tell I would ask if we could measure from pegs like huge ships or just roll dice

...or just roll dice

I think this gets forgotten a lot. It is part of the primary rulebook that, in the event of a rule dispute that the players are unable to resolve, they should dice off and move on with the game. I think this situation would qualify.