The visual example of the attack range in the FAQ on page 1 doesn't make sense to me. The CR90 is targeting the rear hull zone of the Victory from its front hull. Don't you measure the shortest distance between those two zones? not the closest point on the whole base? It seems to me the range ruler needs to angle itself to the right and actually use the closest rear hull zone spot on the Victory and thus DOES have a clear shot.

Upper right -- page 1 of the FAQ -- https://images-cdn.fantasyflightgames.com/filer_public/f4/eb/f4ebd68c-0e24-430f-95f6-1851f72b456b/armada-faq-v111-high-res.pdf

EDIT:

Nevermind I was looking at the arc on the CR90 and not the projected red area coming out of it that is actually slightly different. This makes sense now, The issue is -- the closest point IN ARC is behind another hull zone.

Yup. Arcs and LoS are 2 seperate things. LoS is based in the little yellow dots where the arcs are based off the red and green lines. I actually made this mistake a few days ago.

The only time closest matters is for squadrons.

First you check to see if the target zone is in arc.

Then you measure closest point to closest point, of the attacking and defending hull zones.

Then finally you measure line of sight, which is yellow dot to yellow dot.

3 different measurements. All checking different things.

Essentially, you need an edge of the cardboard base within the target hull zone to be in arc in order to make the shot. As the FAQ says, I was actually already playing it this way. I wouldn't have thought the rear arc of the VSD was even in arc.

Essentially, you need an edge of the cardboard base within the target hull zone to be in arc in order to make the shot. As the FAQ says, I was actually already playing it this way. I wouldn't have thought the rear arc of the VSD was even in arc.

This basically.

We have always played it his way as well, but it turns out only now with the FAQ are we playing it right.

Huh? I don't understand the picture in the FAQ. The CR90 wants to attack the VSD's rear hull zone. LOS is present (I wonder why the last sentence says it doesn't), but the rear arc is not in the CR90's front arc... so why even measure range?

In this example, I would have said that while the CR90's front arc gunners could clearly see the VSD's rear hull zone, they could not traverse their guns far enough to actually get a shot at it and could only shoot at the VSD's left hull zone.

Huh? I don't understand the picture in the FAQ. The CR90 wants to attack the VSD's rear hull zone. LOS is present (I wonder why the last sentence says it doesn't), but the rear arc is not in the CR90's front arc... so why even measure range?

In this example, I would have said that while the CR90's front arc gunners could clearly see the VSD's rear hull zone, they could not traverse their guns far enough to actually get a shot at it and could only shoot at the VSD's left hull zone.

Apparently as the rules are written (before this update) people were treating the arc as a whole section of the base, wherein if any part of that section (anywhere on the base) was in the arc, it could be fired upon. So up near the center of the base, all 4 hull zones of the VSD were "in arc".

In the picture, does any part of the red shaded arc overlap the rear hull zone of the VSD? Yes, so people were playing it as a valid target if line of sight could still be drawn.

This actually is a big change. Previously there were edge cases where you could have valid Arc and LOS, but the Range measurment as described would be made beyond the limit of the firing arc. As written the example in the FAQ used to be valid for the rear arc.

This actually is a big change. Previously there were edge cases where you could have valid Arc and LOS, but the Range measurment as described would be made beyond the limit of the firing arc. As written the example in the FAQ used to be valid for the rear arc.

Except it is not a big change for some people at all. I think many people were playing as it now works: the edge of the cardboard in a hull zone has to be in arc (and be the closest point to the attacking hull zone).

The FAQ just clarifies what you are targeting. We had this discussion on the rules thread and found hull zones to be the cardboard and overlaps to include all plastic of the bases

I find the attack calculation rules to be overly complex and extremely fiddly while playing, even though I fully understand them. Often time, other players, most who are not frequent visiters of sites like this, do not understand how to properly execute attack calculations and get frustrated and confused when it's explained to them, rightfully so.

FFG can both consolidate the 3-step attack calculation process into one step and make it extremely easy to learn and use, without losing anything in gameplay. All they need to do is measure Arc, LOS, and range by simply using the range ruler to connect the LOS dot of the attacking hull to the LOS dot of the desired defending hull. If the line created by this measurement doesn't cross any other hulls of the attacker and defender, the attack can be made and the range is whatever is shown for the dot to dot range measurement. Boom ... arc, LOS, and range in 1 easy calculartion step. It's simple to understand, quick and easy to execute and not much changes with firing arcs.

Yes, if ShipA's right side can fire on ShipB's front, then the reverse is always true. ShipB's front can fire on ShipA's right. Nothing wrong with that.

I find the attack calculation rules to be overly complex and extremely fiddly while playing, even though I fully understand them. Often time, other players, most who are not frequent visiters of sites like this, do not understand how to properly execute attack calculations and get frustrated and confused when it's explained to them, rightfully so.

FFG can both consolidate the 3-step attack calculation process into one step and make it extremely easy to learn and use, without losing anything in gameplay. All they need to do is measure Arc, LOS, and range by simply using the range ruler to connect the LOS dot of the attacking hull to the LOS dot of the desired defending hull. If the line created by this measurement doesn't cross any other hulls of the attacker and defender, the attack can be made and the range is whatever is shown for the dot to dot range measurement. Boom ... arc, LOS, and range in 1 easy calculartion step. It's simple to understand, quick and easy to execute and not much changes with firing arcs.

Yes, if ShipA's right side can fire on ShipB's front, then the reverse is always true. ShipB's front can fire on ShipA's right. Nothing wrong with that.

This would completely break down the range system as it currently operates. It would also eliminate a lot of attacks that are currently possible.

Huh? I don't understand the picture in the FAQ. The CR90 wants to attack the VSD's rear hull zone. LOS is present (I wonder why the last sentence says it doesn't), but the rear arc is not in the CR90's front arc... so why even measure range?

In this example, I would have said that while the CR90's front arc gunners could clearly see the VSD's rear hull zone, they could not traverse their guns far enough to actually get a shot at it and could only shoot at the VSD's left hull zone.

Apparently as the rules are written (before this update) people were treating the arc as a whole section of the base, wherein if any part of that section (anywhere on the base) was in the arc, it could be fired upon. So up near the center of the base, all 4 hull zones of the VSD were "in arc".

In the picture, does any part of the red shaded arc overlap the rear hull zone of the VSD? Yes, so people were playing it as a valid target if line of sight could still be drawn.

This actually is a big change. Previously there were edge cases where you could have valid Arc and LOS, but the Range measurment as described would be made beyond the limit of the firing arc. As written the example in the FAQ used to be valid for the rear arc.

Even if you treat the arc as a whole section of the base, it very clearly shows that the left hull is obstructing the rear hull. If we follow your logic, then two ships directly facing each other, I could still target his rear hull because the front/left/right hull does not obstruct my shot to his rear hull.

Again, I wonder why the FAQ says there is no LoS... there clearly IS LOS from the CR90's front to the VSD's rear, but the rear is not in arc.

Here, I explained it with pictures:

http://xwingtactics.blogspot.com/2015/07/faq-tournament-rules-update-72415.html

I don't understand WHY the change so that range now is taken into account with the LOS determination.

Why not just take the Medium range shot where you DO have LOS to the hull? Why does it have to only be measured from the closest point? (that is: what's the reasoning)

Because if you measure from the little yellow dot you are losing out on range and it makes hitting targets harder. I have always played it like they clarified and have no issues.

It really is very simple, Range, LOS and ARC to the defending Hull Zone cannot cross any of the target ship's hull zones that are not the defending hull zone.

I find the attack calculation rules to be overly complex and extremely fiddly while playing, even though I fully understand them. Often time, other players, most who are not frequent visiters of sites like this, do not understand how to properly execute attack calculations and get frustrated and confused when it's explained to them, rightfully so.

FFG can both consolidate the 3-step attack calculation process into one step and make it extremely easy to learn and use, without losing anything in gameplay. All they need to do is measure Arc, LOS, and range by simply using the range ruler to connect the LOS dot of the attacking hull to the LOS dot of the desired defending hull. If the line created by this measurement doesn't cross any other hulls of the attacker and defender, the attack can be made and the range is whatever is shown for the dot to dot range measurement. Boom ... arc, LOS, and range in 1 easy calculartion step. It's simple to understand, quick and easy to execute and not much changes with firing arcs.

Yes, if ShipA's right side can fire on ShipB's front, then the reverse is always true. ShipB's front can fire on ShipA's right. Nothing wrong with that.

This would completely break down the range system as it currently operates. It would also eliminate a lot of attacks that are currently possible.

How would it break the range system? Range would instead be measured dot to dot. What would break?

Really this is a change to the rules. I get that some of you played this way before, but that would have limited firing conditions beyond the written rules. The original rule treated Arc, Range and LoS as three separate and simple tests to define a valid attack. Range used to be measured between the closest points on the hull zone, with no regaurd for Arc. Now Range measurements act like a subset of Arc.

It also makes the LoS test feel off. The LoS test and the changes to Range seem to be trying to solve the same thing. It's almost like two designer worked on a mechanic and they just added both solutions to the rule book.

I've been condensing the rules into reference cards (posted on BGG) and the change is more nuanced then it appears. It it less elegant and requires more language to express in detail.

This seems like the way I've already been playing.

I am confused because this is how we all played the rules in Portland. We all knew that we could not cross other arcs, we knew that it was dot to dot measurement to make sure that the arc could see what it was shooting at.

I just don't get what issues people are having because of this confirmation.

As for measuring dot to dot for range, this is not Battle Fleet Gothic. If you measure for the dot to dot you will have odd situations such as large ship bases having to measure 2" just to get out of their base and now they only have 10" of range to get to the other dot. That means combats will take place closet together and run 's the point of having a variety of arc sizes and styles.

Huh? I don't understand the picture in the FAQ. The CR90 wants to attack the VSD's rear hull zone. LOS is present (I wonder why the last sentence says it doesn't), but the rear arc is not in the CR90's front arc... so why even measure range? In this example, I would have said that while the CR90's front arc gunners could clearly see the VSD's rear hull zone, they could not traverse their guns far enough to actually get a shot at it and could only shoot at the VSD's left hull zone.

Apparently as the rules are written (before this update) people were treating the arc as a whole section of the base, wherein if any part of that section (anywhere on the base) was in the arc, it could be fired upon. So up near the center of the base, all 4 hull zones of the VSD were "in arc".In the picture, does any part of the red shaded arc overlap the rear hull zone of the VSD? Yes, so people were playing it as a valid target if line of sight could still be drawn.

This actually is a big change. Previously there were edge cases where you could have valid Arc and LOS, but the Range measurment as described would be made beyond the limit of the firing arc. As written the example in the FAQ used to be valid for the rear arc.

Even if you treat the arc as a whole section of the base, it very clearly shows that the left hull is obstructing the rear hull. If we follow your logic, then two ships directly facing each other, I could still target his rear hull because the front/left/right hull does not obstruct my shot to his rear hull. Again, I wonder why the FAQ says there is no LoS... there clearly IS LOS from the CR90's front to the VSD's rear, but the rear is not in arc.

You contradicted yourself. You say the left zone is "obstructing" but then later said the hull zones have line of sight to each other. When you treat arc, line of sight, and range as separate entities, independent of each other, you can have line of sight but not arc, arc and not range, etc.

To be clear, I think the way the FAQ has clarified things is the better way.

In the FAQ image, I would have measured range to the edge of the base where the line between the VSD left and rear hull zones is. I would not have even thought to draw range over another hull zone.

I just don't get what issues people are having because of this confirmation.

lol, I guess that is why there needed to be confirmation put in, because people were getting confused. Now the people that were already confused are confused even more.

I am confused because this is how we all played the rules in Portland. We all knew that we could not cross other arcs, we knew that it was dot to dot measurement to make sure that the arc could see what it was shooting at.

I just don't get what issues people are having because of this confirmation.

As for measuring dot to dot for range, this is not Battle Fleet Gothic. If you measure for the dot to dot you will have odd situations such as large ship bases having to measure 2" just to get out of their base and now they only have 10" of range to get to the other dot. That means combats will take place closet together and run 's the point of having a variety of arc sizes and styles.

That isn't the change. It's not about LoS, it's about Range. The Range measurement is now limited to within the firing arc. This limit is new. Before Arc and Range tests were independent steps. Now Arc is just a consideration of Range. This also introduced the crossing hull zone clarification making Range an alternate second LoS test. The new rule is fine, but it does change the result of some edge cases.

I have always played it that way. It makes sense. That is how Firestorm Armada, Battle Fleet Gothic, and the like run things. I don't see how people thought that you could shoot outside of that arc. . . Hell even Warhammer 40k's vehicle rules did that