When you use the Grav Shift Reroute and move an obstacle up to distance 2 of its current location, how does that work? Can you rotate the obstacle as you please so long as some part of it is within distance 2 of some part of it previously? That would be somewhat hard to establish. Or is it that you can only translate it up to a distance of 2 in any direction?

What are your thoughts on this?

I'd think you could rotate it within that distance, sure.

It is "To Within" distance 2 of its current location.

Within is defined in the rulebook as "Completely Within"...

So its not just *any part*, its completely within... In the strictest reading of that sense, it cannot be Rotated if you expect to move it as far as possible - as no part of it can be outside of distance 2 of the original position.

That is with the strictest of readings, and I'm sure as long as you are not moving it so a sticky-outy-bit is suddently sticky-outy in the other direction at a large distance, it won't matter...



But yes, so long as any and all parts of it are completely within distance 2 of its original position, you'd be free to rotate. Just realise that rotating can change that measurement at times

As long as any part of the obstacle is within distance two of its original position it's fine. I think Dras is being overly strict in his reading here.

As long as any part of the obstacle is within distance two of its original position it's fine.

"Within" and "At" are two different defined terms.

Rotate it all you want, but it must be completely within distance 2 of its original position, to be "Within".

Otherwise its just "At", and that's a difference.

Nope, Dras is right: from the RRG regarding distance and range, but still applies to this.

Within: If the entirety of a base or token is inside a specified band, that component is within that band.

As long as any part of the obstacle is within distance two of its original position it's fine.

"Within" and "At" are two different defined terms.

Rotate it all you want, but it must be completely within distance 2 of its original position, to be "Within".

Otherwise its just "At", and that's a difference.

Uh...but how do you define its original position? It's edge, or its center? No matter how you measure it, you cannot move it more than distance 2.

What you were stating, however, was that any part of it could be at distance 2, and that is fine...

Which would be "I Place the station in a position, I measure distance two from its right side, and place its LEFT side at that point... A part of the station is at Distance 2, ergo, I have placed it within distance 2".

Which is incorrect.

Because that means the far edge of the station is Distance 2 + the width of the station from its original point...


So to be clear:

"No any one point of the obstacle, once moved, can be further than Distance 2 of any point on the original position of the obstacle."

Not a case of, "I measure center point to center point, and rotate freely"... No.

Not a case of "if any point is within 2, its cool."... No.

That is what completely within entails.

You don't get to move it that far.

Also, of course, I am being overly strict. That is the Rules.

The easiest way to do it, is to take your Range 2 measurement from the furthest back point, considering the direction you wish to go... No part of the obstacle can be further than that away... So you measure, essentially, across the obstacle towards where you want it to go.

Don't overthink this. Put down ruler, measure 2, make sure no part of token sticks out beyond 2, prosper.

We're playing a game, not trying to make geometric problems.

What you were stating, however, was that any part of it could be at distance 2, and that is fine...

Which would be "I Place the station in a position, I measure distance two from its right side, and place its LEFT side at that point... A part of the station is at Distance 2, ergo, I have placed it within distance 2".

Which is incorrect.

Because that means the far edge of the station is Distance 2 + the width of the station from its original point...

So to be clear:

"No any one point of the obstacle, once moved, can be further than Distance 2 of any point on the original position of the obstacle."

Not a case of, "I measure center point to center point, and rotate freely"... No.

Not a case of "if any point is within 2, its cool."... No.

That is what completely within entails.

You don't get to move it that far.

Doesn't "within" mean within a band that is distance 2 from all points on the object? E.G. extend an imaginary point a distance 2 from all points on the object and the new spot must be somewhere within that area? It's not within distance 2 of the furthest original point, but rather within distance 2 of the object at all.

As GK said, we're trying to be quick and simple with explanations here, rarther than raising complete geometrical points.

Furthest point, nothing extendeding beyond that = quickest way to not screw up

I mean, come on, I was just accused of being overly strict... I should try to mellow things a little, right?

Can't be Technically correct all the time...

...

dammit, I've already had 2 cups of coffee, today.

Which means the object can rotate freely, so long as no piece of the obstacle extends beyond distance 2 of any piece of the obstacle's initial position.

An individual point of the obstacle COULD move more than 2 in the case of rotation, but because we deal with the obstacle as a whole I think Dras' "Furthest point, nothing extendeding beyond that" is reasonable.

Yep the rule is easy with round fighter bases (where the rule is from), it gets a little janky with odd shaped terrain if you don't have Vassal giving you a 3-d overlay.

Don't overthink this

We're playing a game

This ^^^

...

dammit, I've already had 2 cups of coffee, today.

I've had 5.

Double espressos that is.

My mistake is:

1) They were within like, 10 minutes of each others.

2) They were both Venti and Overcooked.

3) I have been up for 4 hours and havn't eaten anything - indeed, consumed anything - other than those Coffees about 30 minutes ago.

No rotations on vassal. For practicality reasons.

No rotations on vassal. For practicality reasons.

Ah didn't know that, but vassal does show the full 360 range of "within" that you don't get with a ruler.

Also, of course, I am being overly strict. That is the Rules.

The easiest way to do it, is to take your Range 2 measurement from the furthest back point, considering the direction you wish to go... No part of the obstacle can be further than that away... So you measure, essentially, across the obstacle towards where you want it to go.

I think your interpretation is incorrect on this one. From the card's text, quoted....(I added the bold and underline)

"Before deploying fleets, place 1 grav shift token anywhere in the play area.

After deploying fleets, you may move each obstacle at distance 1-3 of that token to within distance 2 of that obstacle's current location. Obstacles cannot overlap tokens, obstacles, or ships."

The debate point is "obstacle's current location". The "current location" phrase is not defined in the rulebook with regard to range and distance. In this case, I interpret "within distance 2 of that obstacle's current location" to mean the polygonal area defined by every point that is distance 2 from every point on the obstacles perimeter. Meaning, the obstacle can be placed within that polygonal blob. Your execution suggestion confines the obstacle to a smaller space.

I hope that made sense. I also hope the ruling is how I interpret it, otherwise the upgrade card isn't worth playing, especially since your are already paying a premium on the Interdictor ship to get a Experimental Retrofit slot.

Primarily, I just quoted what "within" meant, in terms of measuring distance and range.

If you can find a way to be "within", without being "completely Within" as defined by the rules, by all means, go ahead.

I was wrong about your procedure. After I layed out some bits and tried it it made more sense and yes, your procedure is correct and is the same as my (wordy) polygonal within-area. I think......

lol

Well I read that whole debate....... 5 mins of my life I will never get back.....

You have a Life?

I'm jealous.

I was wrong about your procedure. After I layed out some bits and tried it it made more sense and yes, your procedure is correct and is the same as my (wordy) polygonal within-area. I think......

lol

Ah true, that is the same thing. You can take any point on the object and move it up to a distance of 2 for a simple translation. Rotation makes that a little more complicated though as then the point can move further than a distance of 2 as long as you rotate it as well.