It's possible to place a ship so that you have unobstructed LOS, but the shortest point requires you to fire through an enemy hull zone. Example attached.

What happens in this scenario? Does the CR90 get to attack the forward hull zone, or is it forced to attack the side? This scenario is actually very easy to pull off against many Imperial ships with careful positioning.

I don't understand the problem.

You have los.
You have arc.
You measure closest range between hull zones (staying inside arc).

Fire away.

Edit: closest range would be from around the corner of the CR90's base to just in front of the green hull zone division on the SD.

It would only be blocked, in this case, if los was obstructed. Front to front is still legit in this case.

It would only be blocked, in this case, if los was obstructed. Front to front is still legit in this case.

According to the official new diagram, not so!

Look at the FAQ diagram: the measurement is from the nearest point of the ship, not the point most logically likely to intersect near the hull (even though in their example, the measurement is a failure by default).

A similar question was submitted to FFG a while back. No response yet.

I don't understand the problem.

You have los.

You have arc.

You measure closest range between hull zones (staying inside arc).

Fire away.

Edit: closest range would be from around the corner of the CR90's base to just in front of the green hull zone division on the SD.

No The closest is the CR90 base to a millimeter forward of the base edge! The nearest portion of the enemy hull zone is through the enemy side hull .

I don't understand the problem.

You have los.

You have arc.

You measure closest range between hull zones (staying inside arc).

Fire away.

Edit: closest range would be from around the corner of the CR90's base to just in front of the green hull zone division on the SD.

No The closest is the CR90 base to a millimeter forward of the base edge! The nearest portion of the enemy hull zone is through the enemy side hull .

Ah, now I understand:

You feel obliged to measure through the side zone, because the distance is technically less if you go corner to somewhere inside the front zone, rather than corner to edge of front zone adjacent to the green line.

And in doing so you've crossed another zone than the defending zone and therefore do not have LoS, as per the FAQ.

I do not think it was FFG's intention to measure range that way, nor do I think the FAQ was intended to create this conundrum.

IMO it's another contrived situation that could be resolved with some common sense.

But still, I suppose it could do with some clarification, since the question seems valid enough.

The problem is somewhat clearer here (per the FAQ, ship C's left hull zone cannot be attacked):

But still, I suppose it could do with some clarification, since the question seems valid enough.

I'll shoot FFG an email.

Edit: I guess I needn't bother sending them an email, then.

So I am confused on the above diagram. Per the rules reference, it says that when you are checking LoS from hull zone to hull zone, you use the yellow dots on the firing and targeted hull zone. So why is ship C's side zone not a valid target?

A similar question was submitted to FFG a while back. No response yet.

There was, in fact, a response:

Hello, Upon reviewing the latest FAQ for Star Wars: Armada I came across the following change: “If line of sight or attack range is traced through a hull zone on the defender that is not the defending zone, the attacker does not have line of sight and must choose another target.” Can you tell me what situation this change is intended to fix?

Interesting! Your measurements look correct to me. It does indeed feel like the shot on C’s left zone should be a legal shot, but it isn’t legal according to the current rules. I’ll bring this up to the design team for a possible change in the future.

Thanks for pointing out the issue!

TL;DR - They didn't notice the issue. It may be addressed soon as it is unintended.

you have to read the latest FAQ, it says you have to consider attack range tool crossing a hull zone that is not the defending hull zone.

I don't understand the problem.

You have los.

You have arc.

You measure closest range between hull zones (staying inside arc).

Fire away.

Edit: closest range would be from around the corner of the CR90's base to just in front of the green hull zone division on the SD.

No The closest is the CR90 base to a millimeter forward of the base edge! The nearest portion of the enemy hull zone is through the enemy side hull .

Ah, now I understand:

You feel obliged to measure through the side zone, because the distance is technically less if you go corner to somewhere inside the front zone, rather than corner to edge of front zone adjacent to the green line.

And in doing so you've crossed another zone than the defending zone and therefore do not have LoS, as per the FAQ.

I do not think it was FFG's intention to measure range that way, nor do I think the FAQ was intended to create this conundrum.

IMO it's another contrived situation that could be resolved with some common sense.

But still, I suppose it could do with some clarification, since the question seems valid enough.

FAQ inserted some funny range rules, that combined with the fact that the range drawn HAS to be the shortest possible line make it wonky in some scenarios.

Even though there ARE totally free range measurements that should make the shot work, they're all longer than the one from the corner, which crosses a hull zone, which makes the shot illegal.

“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.”

“When measuring attack range for a ship, ignore any portion of the defender that is outside the attacking hull zone’s firing arc, even if that portion is at a closer range.”

A similar question was submitted to FFG a while back. No response yet.

There was, in fact, a response:

Interesting! Your measurements look correct to me. It does indeed feel like the shot on C’s left zone should be a legal shot, but it isn’t legal according to the current rules. I’ll bring this up to the design team for a possible change in the future.[/size]

Thanks for pointing out the issue!

TL;DR - They didn't notice the issue. It may be addressed soon as it is unintended.

EDIT: I submitted the same question (diagram included) myself, and didn't get a response. Guess they figured one was enough - especially since there wasn't much to say!

All they need to do is have the wording changed to only allow attacks that were in arc as well as have LoS. The whole closest point to to closest point thing just increases the complexity of the game

All they need to do is have the wording changed to only allow attacks that were in arc as well as have LoS. The whole closest point to to closest point thing just increases the complexity of the game

I agree it was much simpler before much more room for arguments now you have no idea

All they need to do is have the wording changed to only allow attacks that were in arc as well as have LoS. The whole closest point to to closest point thing just increases the complexity of the game

I agree it was much simpler before much more room for arguments now you have no idea

I have actually gotten into a few arguments over this. finding out exact measurements for such is a pain.

I can see why its needed but only a tiny bit. The part they have that limits attack range to be measured only with the are you have in arc fixes a lot things.

And honestly I rarely get into the situation that might involve this discussion here , more often than not there is either ramming or moving past the other ship, but there is always a time and place for such event to occur

The weird thing is they explicitly added this check in the 1.2 FAQ and it only serves to to cause this exact issue. And now they want to review it? By and large they have been very good with the rules. I can understand rule errata for unusual upgrade interactions, but it's just bizarre that they have the rules so unnecessarily complex for a core mechanic. It seems like FFG doesn't even fully grasp the ramifications of their own rule.

It still boggles my mind that they developed, and stuck with, LOS and range rules that couldn't be more convoluted, misunderstand, and extremely difficult rule to both teach and execute. Even though I understand the rule completely, it's very clunky to use correctly and even more hard to convince others who do not read this forum, even after showing them all of the relevant rules and FAQ. The LOS/Range rules are far too convoluted and unintuitive to be kept and should be replaced with an elegant and easy-to-use change. The evidence in in this and the many other threads on this topic. Even we have been trying to figure out how they work, 1+ years later.

I'm still of the belief they should simply change the rule for LOS and range to connecting the LOS dots and be done with with it. It's super easy to use, simple to explain and learn, and ends of being the same as their convoluted rule in 95% of the cases. In a game where millimeters of precision "matter", for a game where pieces are constantly bumped/knocked-over/nudged/fudged, with a movement tool that is far from accurate, I'm shocked they feel it necessary to create this complex rule to solve such an easy problem. These LOS/Range rules add a great deal of chunkiness where it's not needed, and could be fixed with a simple rule change.

Or just simply say that you if you can't draw a line within the firing arc to the target hull zone without crossing a different enemy hull zone, you don't have arc.

Or just simply say that you if you can't draw a line within the firing arc to the target hull zone without crossing a different enemy hull zone, you don't have arc.

Except that it isn't that simple at all, though.

I say just have three separate tests. Who cares about edge case differences, so long as we play the same way. It is a bit more forgiving on range, but it makes for a fast easy to remember method with minimal room for arguments.

Arc: When a hull zone is attacking, any part of the target hull zone or squadron must fall within the firing zones arc. Skip this test if a squadron is attacking.

Range: Measure the Range/Distance between the closest points of a hull zone cardboard base or squadron plastic base (not including activation sliders). Ignore Arc. The Range/Distance must be valid for the attacking armament.

LOS: Trace a line between the yellow targeting dot of a hull zone or the closest part of a squdron base. If targeting a hull zone, this line must not cross any other zone on the defending ship. If this line crosses an obstacle or another ship (other than attacker or defender), the attack is obstructed and the attacker removes 1 die from the attack pool.

Or just simply say that you if you can't draw a line within the firing arc to the target hull zone without crossing a different enemy hull zone, you don't have arc.

Except that it isn't that simple at all, though.

Why not? If the rules for shooting were:

1) Measure arc by making sure the targeted hull zone falls within the firing arc of the firing hull zone, and if you can't draw a line from the firing zone's edge to the targeted zone's edge without crossing another enemy hull zone the targeted zone is not in arc.

2) Measure range from closest point in firing hull zone to closest point in targeted hull zone.

3) Make sure yellow dot to yellow dot doesn't cross another enemy hull zone.

how is that not simplified, takes care of the edge case FFG was worried about, and in line with the spirit of how the sequence is supposed to function?

Testing dot to dot for firing eligibility fixes every known problem and is super easy to understand and teach, and super quick to execute. Less clunky and faster gameplay make this a better game.