Some weeks ago I came to this (and I forgot it completely).

This objectives says that the station does not obstruct attacks but does it mean the station doesn't prevent from engagement?

I always played as if it does but reading it closely and comparing it with Ciena Ree I think the station still obstructing the engagement. Right?

Per the rules reference guide, no it does not prevent engagement.

Page 6: "If line of sight between two squadrons is obstructed, those squadrons are not engaged..."

10 minutes ago, Warlord Zepnick said:

Per the rules reference guide, no it does not prevent engagement.

Page 6: "If line of sight between two squadrons is obstructed, those squadrons are not engaged..."

Sure? I mean, the objective wording says:

The station does not obstruct attacks

I said cause the engagement is something checked before attacking or at least out of the attacking process. And the station does not obstruct attacks. This special rule would only came up during an attack. I could imagine that while I am not attacking I could check for engagement and as the LoS is obstructed I am not engage.

I see your point and I always played as if the station didn't obstruct engagement but now we have Ciena Ree who we know (I think) obstruct attacks but not engagement.

If we agree that the station does not obstruct engagement cause:

Page 6: "If line of sight between two squadrons is obstructed, those squadrons are not engaged..."

Then Ciena does not too, right? Well, Ciena skill just works while defending but I can't imagine the Ciena's engagement blinking each time she was attacked even when it doesn't mean anything.

Maybe all these have no sense and my mind is melting down after a not-ended-long-week XD

3 minutes ago, ovinomanc3r said:

Sure? I mean, the objective wording says:

The station does not obstruct attacks

I said cause the engagement is something checked before attacking or at least out of the attacking process. And the station does not obstruct attacks. This special rule would only came up during an attack. I could imagine that while I am not attacking I could check for engagement and as the LoS is obstructed I am not engage.

I see your point and I always played as if the station didn't obstruct engagement but now we have Ciena Ree who we know (I think) obstruct attacks but not engagement.

If we agree that the station does not obstruct engagement cause:

Page 6: "If line of sight between two squadrons is obstructed, those squadrons are not engaged..."

Then Ciena does not too, right? Well, Ciena skill just works while defending but I can't imagine the Ciena's engagement blinking each time she was attacked even when it doesn't mean anything.

Maybe all these have no sense and my mind is melting down after a not-ended-long-week XD

Right, and obstruction is determined by drawing line of sight. So if you're attack is not obstructed, that means you're able to draw line of sight.

If you're able to draw line of sight, you are engaged (per the rules reference guide).

With Ciena, only the attack is treated as obstructed, not the engagement. When an attack is obstructed, you remove one die.

1 hour ago, ovinomanc3r said:

Some weeks ago I came to this (and I forgot it completely).

This objectives says that the station does not obstruct attacks but does it mean the station doesn't prevent from engagement?

I always played as if it does but reading it closely and comparing it with Ciena Ree I think the station still obstructing the engagement. Right?

Correct. This came up a year or so ago, up until which point pretty much everybody had been playing it wrong. But you're right: the wording clearly specifies that only attacks are obstructed, therefore, it does not prevent engagement.

36 minutes ago, Warlord Zepnick said:

Right, and obstruction is determined by drawing line of sight. So if you're attack is not obstructed, that means you're able to draw line of sight.

Careful, you're affirming the consequent here.

"If you are able to trace LoS, the attack is not obstructed.

The attack is not obstructed.

Therefore, you are able to trace LoS."

This does not follow. You cannot reverse the flow of the logic and have it remain true.

23 minutes ago, Ardaedhel said:

Correct. This came up a year or so ago, up until which point pretty much everybody had been playing it wrong. But you're right: the wording clearly specifies that only attacks are obstructed, therefore, it does not prevent engagement.

Careful, you're affirming the consequent here.

"If you are able to trace LoS, the attack is not obstructed.

The attack is not obstructed.

Therefore, you are able to trace LoS."

This does not follow. You cannot reverse the flow of the logic and have it remain true.

Right because there are situations where your attack may not be obstructed by an obstacle, but line of sight cannot be drawn due to it being drawn through an opposing ship's hull zone.

Still, the logic flows in this context because the question OP posed purely concerns a non-ship obstruction.

30 minutes ago, Ardaedhel said:

Correct. This came up a year or so ago, up until which point pretty much everybody had been playing it wrong. But you're right: the wording clearly specifies that only attacks are obstructed, therefore, it does not prevent engagement

Sorry I lost myself here. The station prevent engagement cause the wording clearly specifies that only attacks are obstructed OR the station does not prevent engagement despite the wording clearly specifies that only attacks are obstructed??

24 minutes ago, Warlord Zepnick said:

Still, the logic flows in this context because the question OP posed purely concerns a non-ship obstruction.

The rules of reasoning don't change contextually. Your point is not supported because you used a non sequitur to support it, the end. That doesn't mean it's necessarily incorrect--it just means that all you have right now is an unsupported claim that the card also applies to engagement. If you can show evidence that is logically sound that supports that claim, you'll have a valid contribution.

My point, by contrast, is logically supported. You follow the rules as presented in the RRG unless you are specifically exempted from them by an effect in play. The rules as written say that:

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.

LoS is used for two different purposes in the RRG: attacking and determining engagement. CO specifically disregards its effect for attacks, but makes no mention of it with respect to engagement. Therefore, the RRG stands.

18 minutes ago, Ardaedhel said:

The rules of reasoning don't change contextually. Your point is not supported because you used a non sequitur to support it, the end. That doesn't mean it's necessarily incorrect--it just means that all you have right now is an unsupported claim that the card also applies to engagement. If you can show evidence that is logically sound that supports that claim, you'll have a valid contribution.

My point, by contrast, is logically supported. You follow the rules as presented in the RRG unless you are specifically exempted from them by an effect in play. The rules as written say that:

LoS is used for two different purposes in the RRG: attacking and determining engagement. CO specifically disregards its effect for attacks, but makes no mention of it with respect to engagement. Therefore, the RRG stands.

It's supported by the mechanics of the game and the RRG. But hey, see what you want to see.

10 minutes ago, ovinomanc3r said:

Sorry I lost myself here. The station prevent engagement cause the wording clearly specifies that only attacks are obstructed OR the station does not prevent engagement despite the wording clearly specifies that only attacks are obstructed??

No worries. Let's put all the relevant rules out there, shall we?

An attack is obstructed if line of sight is traced through an obstacle token or another ship that is not the defender.

If an attack is obstructed by one or more ships or obstacles, the attacker must choose and remove one die from his attack pool before he rolls dice during the “Roll Attack Dice” step.
• Squadrons do not obstruct attacks.
• If line of sight is drawn over an obstacle, the attack is obstructed even if the bases of the attacker and defender are touching.

While a squadron is at distance 1 of one or more enemy squadrons, it is engaged with all of those enemy squadrons.

...

• 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.

• 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.

So, normally when you go to move a squadron, you check for engagement. Part of doing so is checking LoS between that squadron and any enemy squadrons within distance 1. If there is clear LoS between your squadron and any enemy squadron that is at distance 1, you are engaged. Obstacles obstruct that LoS, removing the engaged condition.

Remember, Contested Outpost specifies that it does not obstruct attacks . It doesn't say that it does not obstruct LoS . There is no attack happening when you attempt to check your squadron for engagement. Engagement checks for obstructed LoS , not for obstructed attacks . Therefore, there is no effect in play that overrides

• 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.

SO, bottom line:

Attacks are obstructed .

Engagement is not .

41 minutes ago, ovinomanc3r said:

Sorry I lost myself here. The station prevent engagement cause the wording clearly specifies that only attacks are obstructed OR the station does not prevent engagement despite the wording clearly specifies that only attacks are obstructed??

It's easier to explain than others have without needlessly complicating the issue:

The station doesn't obstruct so you can draw line of sight through it.

Engagement is determined by line of sight.

Squadrons can draw line of sight to one another through the station because it doesn't obstruct.

Therefore squads that can draw line of sight to one another through the station are engaged.

2 minutes ago, Warlord Zepnick said:

It's easier to explain than others have without needlessly complicating the issue:

The station doesn't obstruct so you can draw line of sight through it.

Engagement is determined by line of sight.

Squadrons can draw line of sight to one another through the station because it doesn't obstruct.

Therefore squads that can draw line of sight to one another through the station are engaged.

But LoS is not the attack.

Ciena obstructs the attack, not the LoS.

Jaina's Light says that the attack cannot be obstructed even when the LoS is obstructed.

In fact nowhere in the rules is said that LoS cannot be drawn when is obstructed. Actually youd raw in order to check obstruction. What CO said is that the attacks cannot be obstructed when shooting through he station, not that the LoS cannot be obstructed.

More I think it more sure I am that I was playing this wrong and I can't engage a squadron inside of the station even when I could shoot it with all my armament.

5 minutes ago, ovinomanc3r said:

But LoS is not the attack.

Ciena obstructs the attack, not the LoS.

Jaina's Light says that the attack cannot be obstructed even when the LoS is obstructed.

In fact nowhere in the rules is said that LoS cannot be drawn when is obstructed. Actually youd raw in order to check obstruction. What CO said is that the attacks cannot be obstructed when shooting through he station, not that the LoS cannot be obstructed.

More I think it more sure I am that I was playing this wrong and I can't engage a squadron inside of the station even when I could shoot it with all my armament.

Many people here are unwilling to budge from strict textualism.. and for the worse.

10 minutes ago, Warlord Zepnick said:

Many people here are unwilling to budge from strict textualism.. and for the worse.

What other common standard do we have for playing with consistent rules?

8 hours ago, Warlord Zepnick said:

It's easier to explain than others have without needlessly complicating the issue:

The station doesn't obstruct (attacks) so you can draw line of sight through it (during attacks) .

Engagement is determined by line of sight.

Squadrons can draw line of sight (during attacks) to one another through the station because it doesn't obstruct (attacks) . (in fact they can always draw a line of sight, but sometimes the LOS is obstructed, but i see what you mean).

Therefore squads that can draw line of sight (during attacks) to one another through the station are engaged (during attacks) .

I changed it for you so it is correct.
As far as i remember we have always played it by the wording. The station only blocks attacks but not squadron movement.

Counter question: If you want to move a squadron, what are you doing and when does it happen (not related to the Contested Outpost, just in general)?

You check for the line of sight to find out if the squadron is engaged. And you are not doing this during an attack. You do it when you want to move the squadron.
So the whole wording of the RRG are a bit blurry. The RRG always talk from attack when it comes to LOS and obstruction.

Contested outpost clearly say it obstruct attacks, nothing more. If it would count for everything, the wording would have been: "The station does obstract line of sight" or "The station does obstract".

But the rules are mainly for ships. And for these it is the same. Checking for obstruction happens only during attacks for ships. And this is why there are sometimes problems in the wording when it comes to squadrons.
It can be, that the devs missed this part (shocking), that it does make a difference, and that there are parts where obstruction might be important outside of an attack.

This is why Line of Sight says "when resolving an attack" and Obstructed says an "attack is obstructed".
And all upgrade cards that i found speak of an attack when it comes to obstruct:

• General Cracken : "While a friendly small or medium ship is defending ... the attack is treated as obstructed . "

• Jamming Field: " While a squadron ... is attacking or defending ... the attack is treated as obstructed . "

• Admiral Montferrat : " While defending ... the attack is treated as obstructed "

• Jainas Light: " Your attacks cannot be obstructed . "

• Ciena Ree: " While you are defending, the attack is treated as obstructed . "

Contested outpost is the only special case. Because on this card it does matter if it is during an attack or not.

From the logic the station should not obstruct anything. By the rules it only works for attacks.

7 hours ago, Ardaedhel said:

What other common standard do we have for playing with consistent rules?

Free will seems to be...

10 hours ago, Warlord Zepnick said:

With Ciena, only the attack is treated as obstructed, not the engagement. When an attack is obstructed, you remove one die.

If you said that why you said the station does not obstruct LoS?

With Contested Outpost only the attack cannot be obstructed by the station, not the engagement. Paraphrasing you.

If the line of sight is obstructed each time the attack is obstructed then we would have funny situations where the engagement would be blinking every time a squadron attacks. As with Ciena or with Jamming Fields. Actually Monferrat and Craken would obstruct line of sight too what they do not.

There are many cards that clearly... I end here cause I was ninjad XD