When we were discussing the new Jamming Field yesterday we decided that the Jamming field only obstructed attacks (based on its wording) but did not count as obstruction for the case of engagement. This is the logical conclusion of the wording if the card.

Contested Outpost says "The station does not obstruct attacks and does not have the ability to discard damage cards or recover hull points"

With this logic, it would still provide obstruction for the purpose of squadron engagement.

Thus came up in a game once where Mauler Mithel landed on the station at distance 1 of several squadrons and my opponent had me deal 1 damage to all squadrons. But since his ability is not an attack, and required engagement, shouldn't this damage not have happened? At least that's how it should be of we are being consistent in wording.

What do you guys think?

Ohhh. . . How has that been missed. . . DRAS! We need a ruling here

Very good catch. It would appear you are correct.

I can't make a ruling... That's FFG's job.

But here's some mostly incoherent thoughts on the matter, because I'm not paid enough...

.......

Engagement

• If line of sight between two squadrons is obstructed, those squadrons are not engaged even if at distance 1 of each other, though they can still attack each other.

Okay, so that makes simple sense, right. If the LOS is obstructed, then you are not Engaged.

However, when do you check line of sight?

Line of Sight

When resolving an attack , players measure line of sight between ships and squadrons in the play area to determine if an attack is possible and whether it is obstructed.

(Emphasis mine)

So so far, we only check Line of Sight during an Attack. Mauler Mithel isn't an attack, so we don't actually check Line of Sight and Determine wether there's an Obstruction there or not... That... is interesting, right?

Now, Premeasuring lets you use either side of the Range Ruler at any time. But that's for Measuring distance and range , not for checking LOS.

IF this is an issue, it will need FFG Clarification. Why?

If we go 100% by RAW, with no Intent , then Mauler Mithel always works, because you never check to see if there is a blockage to the Engagement. At least, until after he's attacked once and then not moved... You first have to establish that its blocked, before its stopped - if he just flies in, in any situation , then its never blocked for his first lot of damage, because you never checked and thus, proved it was blocked.

So that's the pedantry of the RAW.

How much of that should be put on the Contested Outpost card. Well, its tricky. It certainly says that its not obstructed for attacks , and that overlapping does not heal... PLUS, we already established that, with the certain damage card (that slips my mind) that deals damage to you when you overlap an obstacle, still happens even on a contested outpost, because you're still overlapping it, you just don't get the benefit for doing so...

So, in conclusion...

I do agree, based on the simple wording, that yes, it only Obstructs Attacks, and Mauler Mithel can go to town on it... You'll still engage and stop people from shooting other people...

But Clarification wouldn't hurt.

I don't understand your conclusion. Why do you feel you'd still engage since, by the wording, it would be obstructed during engagement.

Here's the wording under "Engagement".

If line of sight between two squadrons is obstructed, those squadrons are not engaged even if at distance 1 of each other, though they can still attack each other.

I don't understand your conclusion. Why do you feel you'd still engage since, by the wording, it would be obstructed during engagement.

But you don't check Line of Sight to see if there's a Blockage until you attack, which is after Mauler Mithel has moved...

Don't worry. I totally confused myself. You should be Obstructed . You should not be engaged. But its not 100%

I would have never thought about it if we hadn't discussed this exact matter yesterday in the Gozanti thread regarding the Jamming field.

The wording in our rules is not tight enough to just take things at RAW and ignore all semblence of Intent. I mean, that leads us to the whole XI7-Advanced Projectors dealio...

So yes. Good find.

Now submit to get Clarification

Yeah, I feel like intent could go either way. I'll definitely send in for clarification.

This is also why I didn't take up Psychiatry...

"You Dreamt about what ?! ... No, no doubt about it. You're Crazy... Get the **** out of my Office... "

... ... ...

"NEXT!"

Soo....

How do I submit this question to FFG again?

Edit: I found it. Sorry, I've been drinking.

I can't make a ruling... That's FFG's job.

But here's some mostly incoherent thoughts on the matter, because I'm not paid enough...

.......

Engagement

• If line of sight between two squadrons is obstructed, those squadrons are not engaged even if at distance 1 of each other, though they can still attack each other.

Okay, so that makes simple sense, right. If the LOS is obstructed, then you are not Engaged.

However, when do you check line of sight?

Line of Sight

When resolving an attack , players measure line of sight between ships and squadrons in the play area to determine if an attack is possible and whether it is obstructed.

(Emphasis mine)

So so far, we only check Line of Sight during an Attack. Mauler Mithel isn't an attack, so we don't actually check Line of Sight and Determine wether there's an Obstruction there or not... That... is interesting, right?

Now, Premeasuring lets you use either side of the Range Ruler at any time. But that's for Measuring distance and range , not for checking LOS.

IF this is an issue, it will need FFG Clarification. Why?

If we go 100% by RAW, with no Intent , then Mauler Mithel always works, because you never check to see if there is a blockage to the Engagement. At least, until after he's attacked once and then not moved... You first have to establish that its blocked, before its stopped - if he just flies in, in any situation , then its never blocked for his first lot of damage, because you never checked and thus, proved it was blocked.

So that's the pedantry of the RAW.

How much of that should be put on the Contested Outpost card. Well, its tricky. It certainly says that its not obstructed for attacks , and that overlapping does not heal... PLUS, we already established that, with the certain damage card (that slips my mind) that deals damage to you when you overlap an obstacle, still happens even on a contested outpost, because you're still overlapping it, you just don't get the benefit for doing so...

So, in conclusion...

I do agree, based on the simple wording, that yes, it only Obstructs Attacks, and Mauler Mithel can go to town on it... You'll still engage and stop people from shooting other people...

But Clarification wouldn't hurt.

I think the problem I'm having with this is that you also check engagement if you want to move a squad without an attack. By the wording of your explanation, I can't ever move a squadron away from an enemy squadron when they are both on an obstacle, since I can't check line of site unless I attacked it first. There are obviously more than one reason to check LoS, so I don't think FFG meant that you can only do it on an attack:

Engagement

If line of sight between two squadrons is obstructed, those squadrons are not engaged even if at distance 1 of each other, though they can still attack each other.

This wording implys that LoS is checked when a squadron wants to move, since you have to know if LoS is obstructed in order to check for engagement.

it's early and I've only had one cup of Coffee, but that is how I am reading it.....

Oh, I completely agree with you...

But there's no mechanic listed for checking.

This was me mostly being a pedantic arse

But the problem is, without that Mechanic, someone will always argue RAW with no intent...

Which raises issues of intent in different places - On the Station in this issue, and with the Jamming Field.


This at least isn't a full "rules explanation" - its just a clarification of wording...

Except everything has LoS to anything it can see. You check LoS when you attack of course but you are always allowed to use the range ruler to check for distance, range, and LoS outside of that.

Except everything has LoS to anything it can see. You check LoS when you attack of course but you are always allowed to use the range ruler to check for distance, range, and LoS outside of that.

Really?

I mean, sure, I agree with you - but what does the rules say (versus what do they not say that we imply?)

You can premeasure distance and range at any time.

But nothing states you can check LOS at any time

Except everything has LoS to anything it can see. You check LoS when you attack of course but you are always allowed to use the range ruler to check for distance, range, and LoS outside of that.

Really?

I mean, sure, I agree with you - but what does the rules say (versus what do they not say that we imply?)

You can premeasure distance and range at any time.

But nothing states you can check LOS at any time

So tell me this, when you measure distance from a squadron to a squadron where do you measure it from? What about LoS?

Oh I will note that this is one of the few times where I will back "It does not say we cant". Yes I know, it gets me in trouble but they specify with the Movement tool in premeasuring that you can only use it in the determine course step.

Except everything has LoS to anything it can see. You check LoS when you attack of course but you are always allowed to use the range ruler to check for distance, range, and LoS outside of that.

Really?

I mean, sure, I agree with you - but what does the rules say (versus what do they not say that we imply?)

You can premeasure distance and range at any time.

But nothing states you can check LOS at any time

So tell me this, when you measure distance from a squadron to a squadron where do you measure it from? What about LoS?

Just because you're measuring essentially the same thing does not mean you are actually doing the other thing...

Because you're Measuring Range and Distance between Squadrons. You are not checking LOS (even though LOS would entail being essentially the same measurement)... because you only measure LOS in Attacks, according to the Rules

If its not during the time for an Attack, then you are not measuring Line of Sight.

...

Please, don't misinterpret me at all... I am intentionally being as pedantic as possible on an absolutely stupid concept in order to prove a point which, really, You, I, and virtually every other right minded Individual already knows ...

I'm mostly showing how raw-RAW is dangerous

Valid point. I will leave the discussion now.

So, to clarify... It's obviously not supposed to block LoS because it is not obstructing anything. It is basically just a large objective token.

That said, if not, and if we go further down the rabbit hole, fire lane and minefield tokens would also block los...

So, to clarify... It's obviously not supposed to block LoS because it is not obstructing anything. It is basically just a large objective token.

That said, if not, and if we go further down the rabbit hole, fire lane and minefield tokens would also block los...

I disagree. Tokens are not listed as Obstacles in the rules. The station, while an obstacle, has it's rules changed by the objective card, but isn't called a token by that card. Two different things.

I also disagree.

The card says obstructed. Obstructed precludes engagement.

I think it obviously stops the engagement.

I also disagree.

The card says obstructed. Obstructed precludes engagement.

I think it obviously stops the engagement.

The card for contested outpost says it does not obstruct... or are you talking about jamming field?

The card for contested outpost says it does not obstruct...

attacks

The station does not obstruct attacks