The most simple thing would be to drop the "closest point" clause in checking range. Yes you still have to measure within your arc and yes your range cannot cross enemy arc lines but you don't have to measure closest to closest.

Fixes thing neatly.

It's also worth seeing fire arcs and hull zones as a representation of the shape of a ship and its weapon layout. So yes, you can't hit a zone that can in return hit you, it's just got better placed weaponry...

I feel that that they should not have added the crossing hull check to the range test. It doesn't really fix anything and LoS already does a better job at what they are trying to accomplish. It leads to some very counterintuitive situations.

I also feel that range should NOT be measured in arc. Removing this rule would make targeting just a bit simpler. Besides, LoS isn't measured in arc anyway. All of the exceptions have lead to targeting being Far more complex than it should be.

It should be this simple. Check the following 3 things: Part of the target component must be in arc. Verify LoS between the targeting dots does not cross another defending hull zone. Measure range between the closest two points.

Add a few bullets for squad arc/LoS and obstructions and your done.

I think the targeting rules work just fine - they have since the beginning. The only thing that needed clarifying was the 'you can't fire out of arc' clarification (always played it that way, it seemed fairly obvious you couldn't shoot out of arc).

@Green Knight. I think you underestimate the number of people doing subtle things wrong. A great example is the range measurement at the bottom of the first page of this thread. It's great that you have adopted conventions from other games or your personal intuition and landed at the right conclusion. Many people don't. I have even seen tutorial videos on how to perform targeting that have gotten things wrong. I don't see how you can argue that rules are fine given that this thread exists. People are struggling to get it right. Targeting is one of the most fundamentally mechanics of the game and it has already seen two erratas.

Making the range check a subset of the arc check adds complexity. Using range to be a secondary LoS check adds complexity. The details of how you target don't really matter so long as all players do it the same way. So I argue that any step that serves a redundant function that is already being tested for should be removed.

I got it wrong once! Just once! I didn't understand what they were talking about for a few days and that FAQ had come out around the same day as my video. . .

Alright, somebody help me out here.

There are plenty of places in the book talking about how LOS can be obstructed by hull zones, but I can't find anything about hull zones affecting range, which I think renders the fourth scenario invalid.

Measuring Firing Arc and Range:

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.

This is the only mention of closest point to closest point, and at no point is it stated that range has any interaction with intervening hull zones, nor can it be obstructed (Obstruction only interacts with LOS). This, to me, says that yes, you could in fact fire freely on the left hull zone of ship C.

As far as I can tell, range measurements can cross defending hull zones no problem.

EDIT: I've checked the errata, I've searched the forum. Nowhere can I find anything stating that range is obstructed by hull zones.

FAQ 1st page top right. Look at the example

Measuring Firing Arc and Range, p.7

This entry should include the following paragraph:

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

Hmmm actually. . . It is measured to the closest point of the hull zone you are attacking. It says nothing about being the closest point of the attackers hull zone. . .

Oh I was looking at the previous FAQ.

In that case I need to echo the above sentiment: This makes no sense at all.

Hmmm actually. . . It is measured to the closest point of the hull zone you are attacking. It says nothing about being the closest point of the attackers hull zone. . .

It does, actually.

"To measure attack range from a ship, measure from the closest point of the attacking hull zone"

This rule is not only counter-intuitive but utterly nonsensical.

If I have a ship in line of sight, in arc, and in range, there's no logical reason whatsoever that this attack shouldn't be good.

This is particularly galling:

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

Uh... so if my RANGE is measured through a hull zone, I don't have line of sight... except I DO have line of sight, provably and demonstrably, and the attack IS in range, provably and demonstrably.

Who was smoking what when they decided this was a good change, and what situation could this possibly be "fixing"?

EDIT: Consolidating multi post

EDIT: Consolidating multi post

Who was smoking what when they decided this was a good change, and what situation could this possibly be "fixing"?

It fixes the case in the picture on first page of the FAQ, where people might argue that the back of the VSD is actually inside the front arc of the cr90.

Who was smoking what when they decided this was a good change, and what situation could this possibly be "fixing"?

It fixes the case in the picture on first page of the FAQ, where people might argue that the back of the VSD is actually inside the front arc of the cr90.

But... it IS in the front arc of the CR-90.

If this is not intended to work, you could just say that LOS must be traced within arc. This would fix the problem, make sense, and not arbitrarily hamstring range measurements. (EDIT: I see how this wouldn't work, examining the example picture due to the wide arc on the CR-90. This really just illustrates how the targeting rules and their interaction with LOS are fairly awkward)

This rule change displeases me greatly, though I'm glad it was brought to my attention.

Well my understanding of the way they modeled hull zones is that the edge of the base is what you can "see" in a given arc. So if the edge of the base of a hull zone isn't in your arc, or if there's another hull zone blocking LOS then you can't shoot it.

I personally would have never considered that the back of the VSD was a valid shot even before this rule was added, but I can see why you would say so.

Well my understanding of the way they modeled hull zones is that the edge of the base is what you can "see" in a given arc. So if the edge of the base of a hull zone isn't in your arc, or if there's another hull zone blocking LOS then you can't shoot it.

I personally would have never considered that the back of the VSD was a valid shot even before this rule was added, but I can see why you would say so.

Theoretically we're dealing with a three dimensional space represented on a two dimensional board.

The wonky targeting on the rear hull zone of the VSD makes perfect sense to me as representative of the potential Z axis difference of the two ships. If I'm firing from above or below a target, I don't need to shoot through its side to hit in in the rear, or similarly, if the VSD were banked to one side or the other as part of a turn, I could similarly target the rear without physically firing through the side. (I know, I know, suddenly we'd need SIX hull zones to account for top and bottom, the whole thing is a bit game-y)

Rules is rules, but this one strikes me as poorly considered, turning Range into a secondary LOS measurement.

The thing though is that the game is 2d, and all measurements except for LOS (and that added nonsensical rule) are made from base edge to base edge within arc.

Z axis or turret positioning are valid fluff explanations, they just don't help at all with making targeting easier or the game more fluid.

The thing though is that the game is 2d, and all measurements except for LOS (and that added nonsensical rule) are made from base edge to base edge within arc.

Z axis or turret positioning are valid fluff explanations, they just don't help at all with making targeting easier or the game more fluid.

True, but neither does this rule.

LOS, Range, and Arc are complex enough without introducing extra interactions to consider.

Err yeah, that's what I've been saying for a few posts. Good to see we're agreeing

More visual proof it's completely counterintuitive : the left cr90 can shoot on the VSD front hull, the right one cannot.

Well if you're going to make sense I can't very well argue with you!

Err yeah, that's what I've been saying for a few posts. Good to see we're agreeing

More visual proof it's completely counterintuitive : the left cr90 can shoot on the VSD front hull, the right one cannot.

Now, is this strictly true?

I've added what would be my range measurements as blue lines.

I think closest point to closest point still has this shot. Note that range is drawn to the closest point of the defending hull zone which, I think, is the corner. My geometry might be failing me.

Err yeah, that's what I've been saying for a few posts. Good to see we're agreeing

More visual proof it's completely counterintuitive : the left cr90 can shoot on the VSD front hull, the right one cannot.

That came out weird in the last post.

I will ask a question here. In the rules reference it states on page 7 that you measure range from the closest point of the attacking HULL zone to the closest point of the defending HULL zone. You are attacking the front hall of the VSD or want to attack it. In the picture of the cr 90 on the right, is the right side HULL the defending hull zone of the VSD? Yes or No?

In the faq you don't have a shot at the back arc anyways because it is out of your front fire arc. So is the Rules Reference on page 7 right or the FAQ right? To me the FAQ is wrong because that is not the closest point of the defending rear hull zone it is just closest point to closest point of the attacking arc to the closest point of the base of the defending ship. It is not the closest point of the defending hull zone.

Tvayumat you're right, my example doesn't work. It looked better with actual bases on my desk

Although, strictly speaking, if we measure from base to base (and not to ship token, which is only possible when the hull edge is inside the firing arc) then DiabloAzul's example doesn't work either, closest straight line doesn't cross a hull line

This proves the point further anyway, needlessly complicated.