22 hours ago, Baltanok said:

Imagine just before the Rogue One hammerhead ram: front left corner is closest to the defending ISDs right side. It wants to shoot the ISD's front arc with it's front arc.

It's conceivable that the ramming Hammerhead could draw a line from yellow dot to yellow dot. But the front left quarter is the closest range point, and it has to cross the side arc to get to the closest point of the defenders front arc. So, no shooting the front arc.

8 hours ago, Grumbleduke said:

It only comes up in pretty weird situations. I think this would be one .

The CR90 is trying to attack the front hull zone of the ISD with its front hull zone. The CR90 appears to have Line of Sight (yellow dot to yellow dot - no other defender hull zones in the way). It has arc. It has range - measured from the closest point on the ISD's hull zone to the closest point on the CR90's.

But that range is measured through the ISD's left hull zone. So based on the FAQ, the CR90 doesn't actually have Line of Sight on the ISD's front - so no shot.

That's what I don't understand: These cases violate the core rules:

To measure attack range from a ship, measure from the closest point of the attacking hull zone. To measure attack range to a ship, measure to the closest point of the defending hull zone. To measure attack range to or from a squadron, measure to or from the closest point of the squadron’s base.

Those examples show measuring to the nearest location on the defender's hull, not the nearest point on the defending hull.

Don't you see what he's saying?

The Hull zone is in arc... Because the Yellow Dot...Which is in the Hull Zone in question... Is on it... Which is Part of the Hull Zone .. Is in Arc.

Its just not the "outside edge" of the Hull Zone that's in arc... Its an entirely inconsequential part of the Hull Zone - the Inner Part...

Its tecnically "part of the Hull Zone", as it is bordered by the Hull Zone lines... Its just not a part of the edge .

3 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

Don't you see what he's saying?

The Hull zone is in arc... Because the Yellow Dot...Which is in the Hull Zone in question... Is on it... Which is Part of the Hull Zone .. Is in Arc.

Its just not the "outside edge" of the Hull Zone that's in arc... Its an entirely inconsequential part of the Hull Zone - the Inner Part...

Its tecnically "part of the Hull Zone", as it is bordered by the Hull Zone lines... Its just not a part of the edge .

I guess...?

It's completely different from how I've understand the rules for two years now.

Considering this image the linked image, it seems to severely limit shots available, and not just apply to rare situations.

https://imgur.com/mq6DrRW

This seems to prevent ever firing on the front hull zone when coming up from behind, and conversely prevents firing on the rear hull zone when coming in from front. That then makes double-arcs even harder.

So...ok...I think...it's going to take a few games to sort this out.

Thanks, all for the clarifications. I appreciate the help. I can't say that I really "get" what FFG is going for here. But I'll add this as yet another step in checking range and arc and LOS.

This does nothing for helping me speed up my gameplay.

8 hours ago, ShoutingMan said:

Those examples show measuring to the nearest location on the defender's hull, not the nearest point on the defending hull.

Not quite. If you go back to this image , the blue line for checking range is measuring from the front hull zone of the CR90 to the front hull zone of the ISD. Based on the geometry that's going to be the perpendicular from the front-left border of the ISD's hull to the front-right corner of the CR90. And that will go through the ISD's left hull zone.

By itself that doesn't matter. We'd still measure range to the front hull zone - so the full length of that blue line. But with the extra FAQ ruling because the blue line goes through the left hull zone, the CR90 doesn't have Line of Sight to the ISD's front hull zone.

The CR90 still has the ISD double-arc'd, with front-to-side and side-to-side shots.

8 hours ago, ShoutingMan said:

This seems to prevent ever firing on the front hull zone when coming up from behind

Yes. That's what it's meant to do. If you're behind a ship you shouldn't be able to shoot the front of it... you're behind it.

16 hours ago, ShoutingMan said:

Those examples show measuring to the nearest location on the defender's hull, not the nearest point on the defending hull.

"Nearest point" and "nearest location" mean the same thing. "Point" does not mean just "corner" or "vertex". It's possible for the closest point of one hull section involved to lie somewhere in the middle of a section outline. (In fact, if things are perfectly parallel, there are an infinite number of parallel shortest lines between them, with an infinite number of endpoint pairs.)

Except this is a legitimate attack. The blue line measuring from the closest point on the attacker only determines range. Because the Line of Sight measurement doesn't cross any of the defenders' hull zones, the attack is legal:

4 minutes ago, rasproteus said:

Except this is a legitimate attack. The blue line measuring from the closest point on the attacker only determines range. Because the Line of Sight measurement doesn't cross any of the defenders' hull zones, the attack is legal:

That is how everyone on the earth ruled this circumstance, but a closer read in the FAQ clarifying LOS requirements adds the stipulation that the line drawn for range cannot pass through a non-targeted hull zone either.

I can honestly say I've never noticed that clarification in the FAQ until just recently, and thanks to this thread. I've also never seen a game played out that utilized this additional method of determining LOS either. Granted, I've only played in two competitive environments, and several casual settings, but range was always measured to the closest point that was in arc, but didn't pass through adjacent hull zone, as long as the yellow targeting dot requirement was met.

I question whether the designers realized the implications of the FAQ, simply because the diagram they provide as an example (not the one above, the one on page 4 of the FAQ) is a terrible example, since the ship doing the firing doesn't even have the enemy targeted hull zone in arc anyways, so the range measurement passing through the non-targeted hull doesn't even matter in that example.

Here is the example I was referring to. It's pointed out that the shot is cancelled because the range measurement passes through the side hull zone. Ok, fine. However, the rear hull zone isn't even IN the CR90's front arc, as extending the arc line clearly shows no shot to the Victory's rear hull without first passing through it's side (they were even nice enough to highlight in red what the extended arc lines encompass). This shot wouldn't be allowed regardless of the range measurement, and is a very poor example of a new concept.

3 minutes ago, LeatherPants said:

Here is the example I was referring to. It's pointed out that the shot is cancelled because the range measurement passes through the side hull zone. Ok, fine. However, the rear hull zone isn't even IN the CR90's front arc, as extending the arc line clearly shows no shot to the Victory's rear hull without first passing through it's side (they were even nice enough to highlight in red what the extended arc lines encompass). This shot wouldn't be allowed regardless of the range measurement, and is a very poor example of a new concept.

Part of the rear hull is in arc of the CR90. It just isn’t an “edge” portion that touches plastic. In this example, there is LOS from yellow dot to yellow dot. However, the closest point in range is forced to cross another hull zone, so the shot is cancelled. It perfectly exemplifies what they were trying to show. Even with dot-to-dot LOS, you may lose the LOS during range measurement.

12 minutes ago, Astrodar said:

Part of the rear hull is in arc of the CR90. It just isn’t an “edge” portion that touches plastic. In this example, there is LOS from yellow dot to yellow dot. However, the closest point in range is forced to cross another hull zone, so the shot is cancelled. It perfectly exemplifies what they were trying to show. Even with dot-to-dot LOS, you may lose the LOS during range measurement.

Measuring LOS and range are two different things. The fact that they would reference the first while referencing the other makes me think this is an error rather than an intentional rule change. I'm going to go look at the FAQ myself and come back.

3 minutes ago, rasproteus said:

Measuring LOS and range are two different things. The fact that they would reference the first while referencing the other makes me think this is an error rather than an intentional rule change. I'm going to go look at the FAQ myself and come back.

From page 4:

Quote

If attack range is measured through a hull zone on the defender that is not the defending hull zone, the attack does not have line of sight and must choose another target.

It's the same page that has the range example LeatherPants provided. It's definitely not an error.

4 minutes ago, Astrodar said:

Part of the rear hull is in arc of the CR90. It just isn’t an “edge” portion that touches plastic. In this example, there is LOS from yellow dot to yellow dot. However, the closest point in range is forced to cross another hull zone, so the shot is cancelled. It perfectly exemplifies what they were trying to show. Even with dot-to-dot LOS, you may lose the LOS during range measurement.

I'm going to have to completely disagree with this statement. Did ANYONE playing this game decide that some if some internally located part of a hull zone, and not the edge of the hull zone, were in arc that a shot was possible? When you extend the arc line towards the target, if it passes through another hull zone first, of course the shot is obviously blocked. The range measurement is redundant. The yellow dots aren't obstructed is true, but again, the shot is not in arc.

18 hours ago, DiabloAzul said:

This post from DiabloAzul would have been a FAR superior example to use, if the new clarifications for determining LOS are truly what the game designers meant to implement. I honestly don't think a lot of thought was put into these clarifications/restrictions, and I question how many players and TO's are actually implementing it. Even tourney videos online don't appear to follow these rules, but rather measure range to closest point in arc that doesn't pass through adjacent hull zone while meeting yellow dot requirement.

So, from a RAW standpoint, the above example is indeed correct. However, I'm just saying that I think that situations like the above weren't considered when the designers wrote the FAQ clarifications.

14 minutes ago, Astrodar said:

From page 4:

It's the same page that has the range example LeatherPants provided. It's definitely not an error.

1 hour ago, rasproteus said:

Except this is a legitimate attack. The blue line measuring from the closest point on the attacker only determines range. Because the Line of Sight measurement doesn't cross any of the defenders' hull zones, the attack is legal:

Quoting myself for clarity. You are correct, I am wrong. Per the FAQ, my circled attack is no longer valid.

25 minutes ago, Astrodar said:

Part of the rear hull is in arc of the CR90. It just isn’t an “edge” portion that touches plastic. In this example, there is LOS from yellow dot to yellow dot. However, the closest point in range is forced to cross another hull zone, so the shot is cancelled. It perfectly exemplifies what they were trying to show. Even with dot-to-dot LOS, you may lose the LOS during range measurement.

Agreed. A portion of the rear arc is well within the front arc of the CR90. In addition, the front arc of the CR90 has LOS that is not obstructed to the rear arc of the VSD. Pre-FAQ, even though this shot looks like it is completely illegal on its face, the rules would allow it. Post-FAQ, it is an illegal shot. Unfortunately, it makes the attack that I requoted above illegal - which most players would consider to be a perfectly reasonable shot to take.

My opinion: I don't like this change - an attempt to address what I believe is a rarely-encountered edge case will cause more in-game arguments than it resolved.

Just now, LeatherPants said:

Did ANYONE playing this game decide that some if some internally located part of a hull zone, and not the edge of the hull zone, were in arc that a shot was possible?

Yes. See the beginning of this thread.

FAQ 1.0.0 included errata to ignore range measurements outside of the firing arc, even if that portion was closer.

FAQ 1.1.1 included errata that the range measurement couldn't cross a hull zone of the defending ship that wasn't the targeted hull zone.

16 minutes ago, rasproteus said:

My opinion: I don't like this change - an attempt to address what I believe is a rarely-encountered edge case will cause more in-game arguments than it resolved.

Understandable. To be fair though, this change was made in 2015.

Thanks for the further clarifications! And that illustration is superb! I wish it could be incorporated into the quad-chart firing guide that someone else made (that was my go to reference until this confusion).

For me, the confusion is that until now, I've never seen any illustrations from FFG or enthusiasts that indicated that Range or LOS was based on anything except the outer perimeter of the ship hull. I see now how this works and is allowed by the letter of the rules. But it's not at all apparent for the casual player from even a reasonable reading of everything printed and online.

5 hours ago, ShoutingMan said:

Thanks for the further clarifications! And that illustration is superb! I wish it could be incorporated into the quad-chart firing guide that someone else made (that was my go to reference until this confusion).

For me, the confusion is that until now, I've never seen any illustrations from FFG or enthusiasts that indicated that Range or LOS was based on anything except the outer perimeter of the ship hull. I see now how this works and is allowed by the letter of the rules. But it's not at all apparent for the casual player from even a reasonable reading of everything printed and online.

100% agree. I think that is the reason that many players aren't using the actual RAW, and instead defaulting to (in my opinion) the superior targeting rules pre-FAQ.

Again, I'll say that there is no question about how the FAQ is written, and that a player could completely defend the denial of a shot. I just haven't seen anyone play it post-FAQ RAW (as far as I know. I haven't gone back and watched every match to spot this. LOL). As best as I can determine, current RAW came into being to thwart knuckleheads trying to play word games with the ORIGINAL RAW (which in and of itself is a completely rules-lawyer way of trying to circumvent what should have been a very direct game concept). I'm all about using the rules to win, but seriously.... when it is SOOOO obvious that what you want to do wasn't intended (or even makes sense, for that matter), I think it's incredibly petty to mince some poorly worded text.

Regardless, this is only MY opinion. Current RAW is pretty clear. The original system didn't favor either 1st or 2nd player, Rebel or Imperial, just ANYONE who maneuvered well. 2015 FAQ defeated knuckleheads trying to circumvent what really is a basic concept, but didn't have the EXACT wording originally to deny shots that no reasonable player would think legal. It's an over-correction. Oh well.

something very similar came up once in a tournament where it would only once have helped me avoid a shot and when I asked TO they didn't rule it "correctly" according to the 1.1.1. In the dozens of other cases neither player objected when I was able to make a shot that would otherwise be expressly forbidden.

This is just a confusing and seemingly counter-intuitive rules clarification.

I get the feeling that even if I brought the diagram and explained it to them they would still just say "if its in line of sight and within the arc - its a clean shot".

I don't currently play at game stores or in competitions. But if I can get my game time down to under three hours, I'd like to play with strangers. To that end, I'm always try to play by the correct rules -- it's a complex game and I keep learning little ins and outs of it. So discovering this FAQ's nuance two years late, is it used and followed in tournaments? Or is it ignored? It seems like it would affect games not infrequently, appearing to prevent front attacks coming from behind and rear attacks coming from the front. Maybe those scenarios present better targets are rear and front hulls respectively and the edge case doesn't pop up too often.

I only know that the day I learned about the rule, it affected the game I played that afternoon.

8 hours ago, ShoutingMan said:

I don't currently play at game stores or in competitions. But if I can get my game time down to under three hours, I'd like to play with strangers. To that end, I'm always try to play by the correct rules -- it's a complex game and I keep learning little ins and outs of it. So discovering this FAQ's nuance two years late, is it used and followed in tournaments? Or is it ignored? It seems like it would affect games not infrequently, appearing to prevent front attacks coming from behind and rear attacks coming from the front. Maybe those scenarios present better targets are rear and front hulls respectively and the edge case doesn't pop up too often.

I only know that the day I learned about the rule, it affected the game I played that afternoon.

I have never not played by this rule since the FAQ, and I think I've had it come up maybe twice in all that time. So... I dunno. Maybe it's just my playstyle, but this is almost entirely a non-issue for me...

On 3.2.2018 at 2:16 PM, LeatherPants said:

Here is the example I was referring to. It's pointed out that the shot is cancelled because the range measurement passes through the side hull zone. Ok, fine. However, the rear hull zone isn't even IN the CR90's front arc, as extending the arc line clearly shows no shot to the Victory's rear hull without first passing through it's side (they were even nice enough to highlight in red what the extended arc lines encompass). This shot wouldn't be allowed regardless of the range measurement, and is a very poor example of a new concept.

Your example illustrates that the designers know what they are doing - and that the rules/faq are solid, if a little hard to understand.

In the above image the rear hull zone is in arc. The Los check is also valid, because it does NOT pass through the side zone.

So without the range check the cr could take that shot, which seems odd.

20 hours ago, Green Knight said:

Your example illustrates that the designers know what they are doing - and that the rules/faq are solid, if a little hard to understand.

In the above image the rear hull zone is in arc. The Los check is also valid, because it does NOT pass through the side zone.

So without the range check the cr could take that shot, which seems odd.

The simple reading of the rules and examples i've seen were: Firing Arc check is from cardboard perimeter to cardboard perimeter. Which in the above case, the defender is outside Arc, so it would fail anyway.

What's to me surprising is @DiabloAzul 's example, where the shot fails on Left hull zone of the upper right defender.

I don't get it. Someone earlier said it's because tournament players were cheesing victories by exploiting these scenarios? Regardless, FFG FAQ'd it, so I'll follow it.

On 2/3/2018 at 7:45 AM, ShoutingMan said:

Thanks for the further clarifications! And that illustration is superb! I wish it could be incorporated into the quad-chart firing guide that someone else made (that was my go to reference until this confusion).

I've made what improvements I could in a reasonable amount of time (this blew up over a weekend when I was quite busy). I'm not even an active Armada player personally, so I'm not confident I can increase the overall clarity by writing more -- the most fundamental part of rectifying common misconceptions is knowing what those are , and I had no idea there was such a widespread trend of thinking only external edges mattered for checking whether shots had arc.