Hey all, I've had a hiatus from playing for about half a year, and a little rusty on some of the rules. I've been searching all over for this one, and can't seem to find the right keywords to land my answer:

When measuring for a weapon that has a restriction of 2, or 2-3, if ANY part of the target is at range 1, even if a corner or the majority of the target is within range 2 (and/or 3), can the weapon be fired upon the target? For those instances when my opponent or I want to fire that TLT, but a corner of the target is in range 1, even though the rest of the target is clearly in range 2/3.

I have a feeling it'll be a quick and easy answer, just can't find the answer by searching with the keywords I've laid out.

Thanks!

The closest point is the only thing that matters when determining range. If the weapon is restricted to an arc, it's the closest point that falls inside of the arc. If it's a weapon that can fire out of arc it's just the closest point.

So when firing or being fired upon by a range 2, or 2-3 weapon, if ANY part of the target is in range 1, it cannot be shot at.

Thank you!

I feel it's a lot easier to determine possible fire from shooter out, instead of target in.

So when firing or being fired upon by a range 2, or 2-3 weapon, if ANY part of the target is in range 1, it cannot be shot at.

Thank you!

I feel it's a lot easier to determine possible fire from shooter out, instead of target in.

It's not really either. It's the closest point to closest point between the two (in arc, if appropriate).

But if it is either, it's range from the shooter out that is being measured. I don't know where you get the idea that it's range from the target in.

So when firing or being fired upon by a range 2, or 2-3 weapon, if ANY part of the target is in range 1, it cannot be shot at.

Thank you!

I feel it's a lot easier to determine possible fire from shooter out, instead of target in.

It's not really either. It's the closest point to closest point between the two (in arc, if appropriate).

But if it is either, it's range from the shooter out that is being measured. I don't know where you get the idea that it's range from the target in.

I think I am not being understood: when a weapon range doesn't include range 1, then by logic, if any part of the target is within the appropriate ranges (i.e. range 2 or 3), then it should be available to be shot at, even if a piece of it is in range 1, and only not a candidate when it is either completely within range 1, or completely past the furthest range. That is what I mean by target in. But if we ONLY accept that the target's range is whatever it's CLOSEST point is, then if any part is any closer than the asked for range, then it wouldn't be a candidate, which is what I believe WWHSD is saying.

?

If the distance from the closest point on the attacker to the closest point on the defender is X or less, the range of the attack is X.

You're way overcomplicating this.

?

If the distance from the closest point on the attacker to the closest point on the defender is X or less, the range of the attack is X.

You're way overcomplicating this.

Which is why I asked, the question has been answered, was just explaining why I asked...

So when firing or being fired upon by a range 2, or 2-3 weapon, if ANY part of the target is in range 1, it cannot be shot at.

Thank you!

I feel it's a lot easier to determine possible fire from shooter out, instead of target in.

It's not really either. It's the closest point to closest point between the two (in arc, if appropriate).

But if it is either, it's range from the shooter out that is being measured. I don't know where you get the idea that it's range from the target in.

I think I am not being understood: when a weapon range doesn't include range 1, then by logic, if any part of the target is within the appropriate ranges (i.e. range 2 or 3), then it should be available to be shot at, even if a piece of it is in range 1, and only not a candidate when it is either completely within range 1, or completely past the furthest range. That is what I mean by target in. But if we ONLY accept that the target's range is whatever it's CLOSEST point is, then if any part is any closer than the asked for range, then it wouldn't be a candidate, which is what I believe WWHSD is saying.

Yes, if any part of the ship would be a range one shot, it is a range one shot which would make it not a legal target for a weapon like TLT or HLC that has a range of 2-3.

I think I am not being understood: when a weapon range doesn't include range 1, then by logic,

Aha! There's your problem.

...if any part of the target is within the appropriate ranges (i.e. range 2 or 3), then it should be available to be shot at, even if a piece of it is in range 1, and only not a candidate when it is either completely within range 1, or completely past the furthest range. That is what I mean by target in.

Ah, but see, the reason why these secondary weapons sometimes have minimum ranges is that they have integrated targeting systems that need a certain amount of lead to operate, and since those systems are presumably based on some kind of LOS radiation reflection technology (e.g. radar, lidar, etc), which of course can only reflect back from the closest surface on the target, to say nothing of safety features like warheads that only arm after traveling a minimum distance from the launcher or beams that cohere or converge at a consistent distance from the emitter, or...

...or maybe we should avoid trying to apply too much logic to game rules.

But if we ONLY accept that the target's range is whatever it's CLOSEST point is,

...which we do. Range is defined as a single number to be determined by measuring in the way outlined on Page 16 of the Rules Reference.

...then if any part is any closer than the asked for range, then it wouldn't be a candidate, which is what I believe WWHSD is saying.

Yeah, that's what WWHSD was saying, and that's the way it works.

To be clear, this wasn't a dumb question, and I don't mean to make fun of you for temporarily following logic into a dark and confusing cave. Questions with simple answers backed up by clear rules citations are a nice change from some of the esoterica we wind up rolling around in here.

I think I am not being understood: when a weapon range doesn't include range 1, then by logic,

Aha! There's your problem.

...if any part of the target is within the appropriate ranges (i.e. range 2 or 3), then it should be available to be shot at, even if a piece of it is in range 1, and only not a candidate when it is either completely within range 1, or completely past the furthest range. That is what I mean by target in.

Ah, but see, the reason why these secondary weapons sometimes have minimum ranges is that they have integrated targeting systems that need a certain amount of lead to operate, and since those systems are presumably based on some kind of LOS radiation reflection technology (e.g. radar, lidar, etc), which of course can only reflect back from the closest surface on the target, to say nothing of safety features like warheads that only arm after traveling a minimum distance from the launcher or beams that cohere or converge at a consistent distance from the emitter, or...

...or maybe we should avoid trying to apply too much logic to game rules.

But if we ONLY accept that the target's range is whatever it's CLOSEST point is,

...which we do. Range is defined as a single number to be determined by measuring in the way outlined on Page 16 of the Rules Reference.

...then if any part is any closer than the asked for range, then it wouldn't be a candidate, which is what I believe WWHSD is saying.

Yeah, that's what WWHSD was saying, and that's the way it works.

To be clear, this wasn't a dumb question, and I don't mean to make fun of you for temporarily following logic into a dark and confusing cave. Questions with simple answers backed up by clear rules citations are a nice change from some of the esoterica we wind up rolling around in here.

As I prefaced: I have been on a hiatus for a while and was just clearing something up. No insult taken.

Thank you for this, the page number helped immensely.

So when firing or being fired upon by a range 2, or 2-3 weapon, if ANY part of the target is in range 1, it cannot be shot at.

The reason this isn't 100% correct is it is entirely possible to hit a ship with say Proton Torpedoes (R2-3) if that ship is in R1, provided the R1 part of the ship is out of arc since PT's are an arc-only secondary weapon. A corner (pun not intended) case for sure, but something to keep in mind.

Also, as a general rule, anything answer digitalbusker gives is correct. It's a shame members can't get titles any more, because hers/his would say "knows all the rules" or something. S/he really knows her/his stuff. The wise owl is an apt choice of avatar.

So when firing or being fired upon by a range 2, or 2-3 weapon, if ANY part of the target is in range 1, it cannot be shot at.

The reason this isn't 100% correct is it is entirely possible to hit a ship with say Proton Torpedoes (R2-3) if that ship is in R1, provided the R1 part of the ship is out of arc since PT's are an arc-only secondary weapon. A corner (pun not intended) case for sure, but something to keep in mind.

Also, as a general rule, anything answer digitalbusker gives is correct. It's a shame members can't get titles any more, because hers/his would say "knows all the rules" or something. S/he really knows her/his stuff.

The wise owl is an apt choice of avatar.

Ah, but see, the reason why these secondary weapons sometimes have minimum ranges is that they have integrated targeting systems that need a certain amount of lead to operate, and since those systems are presumably based on some kind of LOS radiation reflection technology (e.g. radar, lidar, etc), which of course can only reflect back from the closest surface on the target, to say nothing of safety features like warheads that only arm after traveling a minimum distance from the launcher or beams that cohere or converge at a consistent distance from the emitter, or...

...or maybe we should avoid trying to apply too much logic to game rules.

No, no. Keep going with that logic/science explanation. It was just starting to get real good!

I prioritize uniqueness when picking my own.

+1 for unique avatars