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.

They added the FAQ rule we're discussing because in that FAQ example, it can be argued that a part of the back hull of the VSD is in fact in the front arc of the cr90. They're measuring the closest point of the defending hull zone WITHIN the firing arc, and saying the shot is invalid because that measurement crosses a hull line.

It would have been much simpler and nonbreaking to say that the back hull isn't in the arc because the base edge isn't in the arc and call it a day.

I'm not sure if that answers your question.

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. . .

I didn't mean to insult you or your videos (that's why I didn't call you out by name). I have also seen other videos online making similar targeting mistakes. The point was just that the mistakes made in targeting are too common. The rules could be simplified into two binary checks and a measurement. Sure a few edge cases would resolve differently, but not drastically so.

They added the FAQ rule we're discussing because in that FAQ example, it can be argued that a part of the back hull of the VSD is in fact in the front arc of the cr90. They're measuring the closest point of the defending hull zone WITHIN the firing arc, and saying the shot is invalid because that measurement crosses a hull line.

It would have been much simpler and nonbreaking to say that the back hull isn't in the arc because the base edge isn't in the arc and call it a day.

I'm not sure if that answers your question.

I see what you mean. In that case it could be said that all the hull zones are in the front arc of the cr90. The example is actually more confusing then helping.

Is the example in the previous post right and there is no shot or wrong and there is a shot? I would say yes there is a shot. Since it is the defending hull zone I agree with Tvayumat and say yes there should be a shot on the front arc.

For additional reference:

An Imperial Custom Corvette has caught up to a group of freighters smuggling arms for the rebel terrorists. The Corvette (A) powers up the turbolasers in its front hull zone and prepares to disintegrate the traitorous ships.

-There is a clear line of sight to the rear hull zones of ships B and C.

-There is a clear line of sight to the left hull zone of ship D: the attacker's own hull zones are ignored for the LoS and range check, provided the defending hull zone is within the firing arc.

-No attack can be made against the right hull zone of ship B: the line of sight crosses through the freighter's rear hull zone.

-No attack can be made against the left hull zone of ship C: although the line of sight (dot-to-dot) is clear, the range measurement (in blue) crosses the Gozanti's rear hull zone.

It makes no sense to me that the firing ship CAN shoot out its FRONT arc at the LEFT hull zone of the ship on the right, but it CAN'T shoot out its front at the left side of the ship in the top-right, which seems to have a lot more of the hull zone exposed to that front arc.

Asinine.

The two ships you are talking about Spellbound, are different shapes, only Star destroyers have that wide angle to allow for their general wedge like shape that would allow forward firing guns to swivel to the side more easily. I mean when you think about it a SD has two front edges and no sides, so it's "front" arc should be able to hit the long thin ship next to it...

In addition the fire arcs of the ship to the right are generally assigned to ships with long side arcs that are visible from most angles (like home one).

I do love a narrative argument in a rules forum...

I agree with Spellbound.

If the yellow dots line up without obstruction and you could just fire from within your arc at a different angle and still hit you should. I think something has been taken out of context for the front of A to port of C scenario.

Can someone tell me where it says you ignore hull zones for the yellow dot LOS. That seems ridiculous! The front and rear of A should not hit the port of D without direct LOS.

I also think DWRR is right drop this closest to closest rubbish, you already have the yellow dots for LOS and the arc on your hull zone. and no ignoring hull zone lines for LOS! That's like saying the port of A can see the port of D but it cant shoot it.

No offence intended, as you can see i started this thread and i'm also very confused about the LOS scenarios that have happened to me. I'd like to have a better understanding before 'the massing'.

Front of A to port of C : nothing was taken out of context, it's the botched rule fixing the faq 1st page case being applied to another situation.

Front and rear of A to port of D : Says under Line of Sight in the rulebook "The attacker’s hull zones do not block his line of sight."

I think we pretty much all agree that DWRR's solution is what needs to be done.

It is closest to closest, but closest attacking hull zone to closest defending hull zone according to page 7 in the rules reference. That example where it is going though the rear is wrong because its not the defending hull zone.

It is closest to closest, but closest attacking hull zone to closest defending hull zone according to page 7 in the rules reference. That example where it is going though the rear is wrong because its not the defending hull zone.

The blue line is the shortest distance between the closest point of the attacking hull zone (along the front edge of A) and the closest point of defending hull zone (the lowermost tip of the left hull zone of C). There's no shorter line connecting the two hull zones (either within or outside the firing arc), so this is the one that range should be measured along - and FAQ 1.1.1. rules that, as this line crosses through a non-defending hull zone, the attack isn't possible. I also think the new clause is rather silly, but we have to live with it until it's changed.

It is closest to closest, but closest attacking hull zone to closest defending hull zone according to page 7 in the rules reference. That example where it is going though the rear is wrong because its not the defending hull zone.

The blue line is the shortest distance between the closest point of the attacking hull zone (along the front edge of A) and the closest point of defending hull zone (the lowermost tip of the left hull zone of C). There's no shorter line connecting the two hull zones (either within or outside the firing arc), so this is the one that range should be measured along - and FAQ 1.1.1. rules that, as this line crosses through a non-defending hull zone, the attack isn't possible. I also think the new clause is rather silly, but we have to live with it until it's changed.

I am wrong. You are right. It's right there in red ink. Leave it to me not to notice the obvious. Wow that is pretty dumb. I guess your stuck shooting the rear arc of the ship... It's a really strange ruling. Thanks for pointing that out to me. I hope that they are not going to leave it like that.

It is strange, yes, both in wording and in this particular outcome. I suspect the ruling was intended to fix a different (probably more likely) corner case, but inadvertently "broke" this one.

It is strange, yes, both in wording and in this particular outcome. I suspect the ruling was intended to fix a different (probably more likely) corner case, but inadvertently "broke" this one.

It's intended to prevent firing through hull zones when they're blocking your arc but not your LOS.

When I sent in the picture of the disputed shot they confirmed that it hadn't been noticed, appeared to be an issue and would be looked at.

It is strange, yes, both in wording and in this particular outcome. I suspect the ruling was intended to fix a different (probably more likely) corner case, but inadvertently "broke" this one.

I sent in a question about this, and this does appear to be the case.

It's intended to prevent firing through hull zones when they're blocking your arc but not your LOS.

When I sent in the picture of the disputed shot they confirmed that it hadn't been noticed, appeared to be an issue and would be looked at.

Could you post that email?

They need to scrap the whole targeting section and re-write it. These piecemeal fixes just cause confusion. Also, I don't care if we have an edge case fireing condition looks counter intuitive. I just want simple rules that are easy to follow.

They need to scrap the whole targeting section and re-write it. These piecemeal fixes just cause confusion. Also, I don't care if we have an edge case fireing condition looks counter intuitive. I just want simple rules that are easy to follow.

Off the top of my head:

1. LoS: used only for obstruction

2. Arc/range: one check - measure from any point in attacking zone, to any point in defending zone (must stay in arc of course).