This is probably dumb, but is this shot obstructed?

LOS does pass through the obstacle. but the obstacle is obstructed by the ship's base, so the line doesn't visibly pass through it. I have no clue why I assumed that this meant it was NOT obstructed, but now it seems I am entirely incorrect!

Seems annoying, especially if the asteroid were COMPLETELY under the base.

The only rules precendence given for Obstacles under bases tends to state that even though the view of them is obstructed, they still exist, and still obstruct.

The Rule precedence in question:

Page 8, RRG, Obstruction:

• If line of sight is drawn over an obstacle, the attack is obstructed even if the bases of the attacker and defender are touching.

In such a case, you would be drawing LOS with Base-on-base, and not actually over the obstacle, as above... But the obstacle is still there .

So... ULTRA nerdy but two squadrons touching still leaves an atomic level gap (hah- I realize how ridiculous that is!) between the touching bases. But in this case, that isn't really the case. Dumb, I know.

• If line of sight is traced through an obstacle token or through a ship that is not the attacker or defender, the attack is obstructed.

The Line goes through the yellow hatched shape?

Still, as I look at the rules, its not specifically mentioned one way or another... But its the only relevant rule I could come up with...\

And if we're going on your Technicality that Touching isn't touching because there is that atomic levels of distance - Never take Damage from touching Asteroids, because, well, you're never actually touching the obstacle token...

Yeah, just seems wonky that, say that obstacle were entirely underneath the base, you'd have to sort of lift up the ship and figure it out. But RAW I can't see much argument with that.

" And if we're going on your Technicality that Touching isn't touching because there is that atomic levels of distance - Never take Damage from touching Asteroids, because, well, you're never actually touching the obstacle token..."

But the rule isn't touching them, it's overlapping them But, yeah, point taken!

Yeah, just seems wonky that, say that obstacle were entirely underneath the base, you'd have to sort of lift up the ship and figure it out. But RAW I can't see much argument with that.

Or you could get your opponents version of the same obstacle and put it over the ship base and align with the obstacle on the table or the Space Rocks clear version.

Good question for ffg me thinks...

First off, I didn't realize the LOS points matched the profiles of the ships in question. That's neat.

Second, I would argue that it does not since the measurements usually start from edge to edge, except that LOS specifically uses the dot.

Holy crud, the LOS dots do line up with the ship.

---

This is STUPID RULE NUMBER 23u4yoi897938 in Armada. I HATE this example.

Yes I had some guy tell me that this was an obstructed shot. Knowing that nothing in the rules atm says anything otherwise, I simply let him have that ruling.

Anyone remember exactly which parts of the base count for LOS block but not range nor arc, but are also so incredibly unlikely to happen that its really dumb to make an extra requirement to know?
On top of that, which parts of your ship don't count for flying off the map?

Which parts of your ship count for being on a rock?

(I know the answers, but wow. What a pain.)

Do I want to be lifting my ship up everytime we play Dangerous Territory to add a FOURTH check to create a 9 step attack? NOOOO.

*lots of rage.

I've always played that that counts as obstruction, and I usually just eyeball it.

Obstructed.

I'd take that as non obstructed. But I could understand why it would be considered.

It's to me a judgment call. If you have to pick a ship up to determine obstruction, you're already altering the game state. If your opponent wants to argue it, I'd just roll with it as obstructed and hope he plays fair with other questionable calls down the road.

As a judge i'd treat it as unobstructed simply because i dont consider anything under the base as existing so far. Lifting a ship up poses more problems than it solves to be honest.. also it's very hard to abuse this interpretation willingly to get an advantage. But that's just how we play it...

I don't see how anyone can argue this is not obstructed. The rule is quite clear:

Page 8, RRG, Obstruction:

• If line of sight is drawn over an obstacle, the attack is obstructed even if the bases of the attacker and defender are touching.

LOS is drawn over an obstacle. What else needs to be considered? There's no mention is any rule that a ship overlapping an obstacle removes that obstacle from play/consideration. Cut & dry here guys.

LOS line from yellow dot to yellow dot crosses over a thing that obstructs then its obstructed. The target ship and firing ship base has no input into it at all.

in this case you don't have to lift the ship just tip it a bit to see where it field is. and if its still in question roll a 50/50 die to decide.

I don't see how anyone can argue this is not obstructed. The rule is quite clear:

Page 8, RRG, Obstruction:

• If line of sight is drawn over an obstacle, the attack is obstructed even if the bases of the attacker and defender are touching.

LOS is drawn over an obstacle. What else needs to be considered? There's no mention is any rule that a ship overlapping an obstacle removes that obstacle from play/consideration. Cut & dry here guys.

While I agree it is cut and dry in wording, it also isn't evident, and this situation could've really stood to have a diagram or example in the rule book. I have been playing this game fervently (about at least 2-3 times a week) and am glad this point was brought up because through multiple opponents and tourneys, no one seemed to go by this interpretation.

I would appreciate an official ruling just so I could point something out to my opponent at a tournament so as to not bog down a timed game with a rule discussion/filibuster.

I would appreciate an official ruling just so I could point something out to my opponent at a tournament so as to not bog down a timed game with a rule discussion/filibuster.

Did you send them an email?

This is probably dumb, but is this shot obstructed?

LOS does pass through the obstacle. but the obstacle is obstructed by the ship's base, so the line doesn't visibly pass through it. I have no clue why I assumed that this meant it was NOT obstructed, but now it seems I am entirely incorrect!

Seems annoying, especially if the asteroid were COMPLETELY under the base.

I had this very thing happen in one of my games at the 2015 Worlds.

We called the judges over, they ruled that this shot is NOT obstructed. (I'm my case, the obstacle was even closer to the yellow dot area underneath the cardboard and thus impossible to tell if the rock was really clear of the dot or not).

Go with the rule on this, looking straight down on it, the LOS line is not on the rock. Yes the rock is underneath the base, but a laser line beaming straight down from above would not land on the rock, it lands on the base first.

I did not because I figured clon might have given his above post, but if no one else has sent in the question I would be happy to do so.

It's not schrodingers obstacle, its not in a state of existence/nonexistence just because it's under the base!

the line is from yellow dot to yellow dot and just because a portion of that is drawn over the base doesn't mean that it isn't ultimately drawn over the obstacle as well. Yes there are cases where its questionable whether the dot or line are over an obscured obstacle but I don't think you can pitch the rules just because it's inconvenient to determine if its obstructed or not!

My argument against it not being obstructed is the fact you cannot absolutely confirm that it is because of the existence of the cardboard base. Simply everything else in determining the shot is done visually in absolutes. This cannot.

I'm also aware that most likely it should be marked obstructed. At some point the asteroid would cover the dot, should you have X ray vision to prove it. I'm simply being devil's advocate/ lawyer here. I think this falls under burden of guilt. This should be ruled upon by FFG for clarification sake IMO.

If anything, I think this is one spot X Wing has it right. Either you're on an obstacle or not (loss of action/shot/ roll for damage).

It's not schrodingers obstacle, its not in a state of existence/nonexistence just because it's under the base!

the line is from yellow dot to yellow dot and just because a portion of that is drawn over the base doesn't mean that it isn't ultimately drawn over the obstacle as well. Yes there are cases where its questionable whether the dot or line are over an obscured obstacle but I don't think you can pitch the rules just because it's inconvenient to determine if its obstructed or not!

I don't think anyone is trying to pitch the rules. And I agree with the general consensus that it should be obstructed. It would be nice if they could come out with something official to clarify what should be done, for instance, if the entire obstacle is covered and it is impossible to determine whether the yellow dot is over the obstacle or not.

As a Devil's Advocate, I could see it being unobstructed as the entire token is treated as the ship for mechanics purposes, and if you really want to split hairs, the path is over the ship which is over the obstacle. LOS is all about visibility, and in a 2D plane, at that point the obstacle technically isn't visible.

Again, I agree with the interpretation, but I still feel the argument has merit.