Knowing that the dials, plastic protrusions, and basically the physical base itself counts for determining overlaps, I wonder how it is for range.

I think it is obvious that the dials and plastic protrusions do not count, but what about the plastic bit that frames the cardboard ship card? I know this is a small part but sometimes, that fraction of a mm. can mean the difference between rolling 3 dice or 6 dice. So far, I've been measuring from cardboard-to-cardboard but I've seen players measure from plastic edge-to-plastic edge.

p.7 of the RRG, last bullet point of Measuring Firing Arc and Range only states "When measuring firing arc, range, or distance, ignore squadrons’ activation sliders and ships’ shield dials and the plastic portions of the base that frame the shield dial."

Am I correct in interpreting this to say that the plastic edge counts?

Not sure, but I've always used the base (which I mean as the plastic edge around the ship card)since it isn't part of that specific list.

This means that you ignore the plastic part that frames the cardboard base for determining range. The ONLY time that you don't ignore shield dials and the plastic frame is when determining whether or not ships overlap each other.

I would agree with that... It includes all of the plastic, with the specific exception of the rounded plastic protrusion above the shield dial.

This means that you ignore the plastic part that frames the cardboard base for determining range. The ONLY time that you don't ignore shield dials and the plastic frame is when determining whether or not ships overlap each other.

I disagree, the only plastic portion that it says to ignore is the " plastic portions of the base that frame the shield dial." That means specifically the little inverse circularish portion on each shield facing that supports the cardboard shield dial. The rest of the plastic frame that makes up the base in general is not listed, therefore is included in measurements.

So in answer to the original post - yes the plastic base counts, just not the sticky out sheild dial bits of plastic.

This means that you ignore the plastic part that frames the cardboard base for determining range. The ONLY time that you don't ignore shield dials and the plastic frame is when determining whether or not ships overlap each other.

I disagree, the only plastic portion that it says to ignore is the " plastic portions of the base that frame the shield dial." That means specifically the little inverse circularish portion on each shield facing that supports the cardboard shield dial. The rest of the plastic frame that makes up the base in general is not listed, therefore is included in measurements.

So in answer to the original post - yes the plastic base counts, just not the sticky out sheild dial bits of plastic.

You are right! For some reason I forgot about the little blips that the shield dials attach to and my brain made the connection "plastic that frames the cardboard ship base". I am wrong.

I've only really realized this because by the way the X-Wing bases are shaped, the plastic only protrudes on the sides. The front and back are bare and straight to the cardboard. With Armada, side-arc shots are done a lot more often so I just wanted to clarify this.

I've caught on to that overlap and plastic bits rule quite early because I had an issue with X-Wing whether the plastic guide nubs were counted for overlaps or not... apparently they are so I was not surprised that they are counted for overlaps here in Armada as well.

If you look at the defenition of "hull zone" (RRG P6) it specificaly states that is doesn't include any part of the plastic base.

Then for "Measuring firing arc and range" (RRG P7) it tells us to measure attackrange from the closets point of the two hull zones.

So for attack range (or any measurement that measures from/to a hull zone) you ignore ALL plastic and measure from/to the cardboard.

Any measurement where a specific hull zone is not used, the last bullet under "Measuring firing arc and range" strongly implyes that the plastic base is included by stating specific parts of the plastic that are NOT included (why exclude some parts if all of it should be excluded any way).

So it looks to me that what you include depends on what you are measuring. Atleast that is what I can get from the rules.

If you look at the defenition of "hull zone" (RRG P6) it specificaly states that is doesn't include any part of the plastic base.

Then for "Measuring firing arc and range" (RRG P7) it tells us to measure attackrange from the closets point of the two hull zones.

So for attack range (or any measurement that measures from/to a hull zone) you ignore ALL plastic and measure from/to the cardboard.

Any measurement where a specific hull zone is not used, the last bullet under "Measuring firing arc and range" strongly implyes that the plastic base is included by stating specific parts of the plastic that are NOT included (why exclude some parts if all of it should be excluded any way).

So it looks to me that what you include depends on what you are measuring. Atleast that is what I can get from the rules.

This!

Two important distinctions.

Okay, so I'm back to being confused now.

Hull zone - "It does NOT include any part of the plastic base"

Measruing range - ".... measure from the closest point of the attacking hull zone... measure to the closest point of the defending hull zone..."

I guess I'll go with this. Although the last bullet point says "ignore this and that," nothing says "include the plastic border" so that part is unclear.... but the points I pointed out above is clear so that's that.

Color me confused, too. Do I measure range to the cardboard, or to the plastic base that surrounds the cardboard, excluding shield dials?

Attack range is measured card to card. The rules are quite clear about that.

D.

I'm going with cardboard-to-cardboard because it's easier and clearer to point that out in the rulebook (pages 6 and 7 as pointed out) and so would stand better in an argument because the RRG backs it up.

This is awesome, not only does it mean I've been playing wrong (on both counts, overlapping, and range measurement) but it means I've been teaching wrong. Awesome. :/

That's what I like about these boards... the discussion makes me question myself and learn something new.... which in turn makes me play just a tiny bit better!

Yeah, it's true that it's good to know this stuff. I just feel like I suck a lot after learning that I've been playing the game wrong.

Hehehehe... at least I know I am playing the game right.... then I can work on getting better at the actual tactics of the game.

It'll be a shame to find an awesome combo only to find out you've been playing the game wrong.

"Excuse me, but you can't do any of those things...."

"My list! My beautiful, beautiful list!"

The last bullet point of that is ambiguous, but the hull zone definition is clearly the cardboard, it even bolds it

"A hull zone is a section of a ship token delineated by the two firing arc lines that border it. It does not include any part of the plastic base." -RRG 6 (Bold in original)

Then on page seven as stated earlier we have this

"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." -RRG 7

Regardless of the last bullet point on the "Measuring and Attacking" the definition of a hull zone is clear as stated on page 6.

On page 9 we read definitions of the terms At, Beyond, Within, and Minimum-Maximum. These all make clear statements that the base is including in all of these definitions. However when it comes to measuring attacking you still measure by definition of the hull zone because of what is quoted above. The purpose of the bullet points are to clarify possible circumstances that come up, it just happens that this one is poorly worded.

Hmmmmmm I have to stop being so trusting of the people I play with. We missed that for the most part in Portland. Some of us were under the impression that hull zones continued onto the plastic in their lines. Well now we know and now we can fix that discrepancy.

Since when did hulls sing?

Again, this is why I appreciate the forums so much. Very helpful people and always pointing to the proper materials for reference. It makes learning the game much more easier.

Sometimes I REALLY hate autocorrect