16 hours ago, Hiemfire said:

All of this debate over Range 0 and Overlapping is just making it clear why FFG included this in the RR section on Range:

"Although rare, it is possible for a ship to move in such a way that it is at range 0 of another ship (in physical contact with it) without having overlapped it."

It's almost as if this argument has happened before. Likely on several occasions...

I'm pretty sure they adding this on RR is just making it worse.

Before this line existed, a ship would actually bump or complete the manouver. Now a ship can also be a r0 without overlapping, whatever it even means.

And please can someone tell me how being at r0 from an obstacle work?

I'm pretty sure we play better by completely ignoring that rule...

11 minutes ago, Sunitsa said:

And please can someone tell me how being at r0 from an obstacle work?

Thankfully, r0 of an obstacle is defined separately as overlapping.

20 minutes ago, Sunitsa said:

I'm pretty sure they adding this on RR is just making it worse.

Before this line existed, a ship would actually bump or complete the manouver. Now a ship can also be a r0 without overlapping, whatever it even means.

And please can someone tell me how being at r0 from an obstacle work?

I'm pretty sure we play better by completely ignoring that rule...

Yeah either

(a) the RR only refers to some unknown set of niche cases, presumably geometrically guaranteed r0 (e.g. ship rotate, same speed straight, etc..)

(b) its dumb and bad for the game (a difficult to determine condition that is subject to player bias and cannot be judged since the event in question is over and unreversible by the time you question it)

I think (a) but perhaps I'm giving FFG too much credit

10 minutes ago, Brunas said:

Thankfully, r0 of an obstacle is defined separately as overlapping.

Cool. Do you know where, offhand? (I'm not able to look it up at the moment.) I have landed R0 to an obstacle, and my opponent said I could still shoot, but that didn't feel right ...

13 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

Cool. Do you know where, offhand? (I'm not able to look it up at the moment.) I have landed R0 to an obstacle, and my opponent said I could still shoot, but that didn't feel right ...

under Range:

"Range 0 does not appear on the range ruler, but is used for describing the range of objects that are physically touching.

◊ After a ship partially executes a maneuver, it is at range 0 of the last ship it overlapped.

◊ An object is at range 0 of an obstacle or device if it is physically on top of it.

◊ A ship is at range 0 of another ship if it is physically touching another ship."

Okay. Wow, so my opponent was right. I was physically adjacent (i.e., R0) and could still shoot.

To contribute to the through-line, we also pretty much ignore the "you can be physically adjacent to a ship and not overlapping," except in those case described (rotation,non-movement, and so on). It just never seems to really happen in an honest way. It seems more common with obstacles because of the cardboard. A ship's beveled base can actually slip under the cardboard by a tiny amount and not physically disturb it at all ... that can't really happen with another plastic base.

I've allowed it against me in tournaments, just to avoid bad feelings, but I think it's just a little bit sketchy. It's not impossible, it's just so unlikely that it might as well be.

39 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

Okay. Wow, so my opponent was right. I was physically adjacent (i.e., R0) and could still shoot.

To contribute to the through-line, we also pretty much ignore the "you can be physically adjacent to a ship and not overlapping," except in those case described (rotation,non-movement, and so on). It just never seems to really happen in an honest way. It seems more common with obstacles because of the cardboard. A ship's beveled base can actually slip under the cardboard by a tiny amount and not physically disturb it at all ... that can't really happen with another plastic base.

I've allowed it against me in tournaments, just to avoid bad feelings, but I think it's just a little bit sketchy. It's not impossible, it's just so unlikely that it might as well be.

^^

chertek is clearly shooting backwards, right? I reject the "it's to his side" argument.

in case it's somehow different

6 minutes ago, Brunas said:

chertek is clearly shooting backwards, right? I reject the "it's to his side" argument.

Looks like some poor perspective on that art. It looks kind of like he's shooting back and to the left (insert JFK memes here). There's some part of the chassis in the back, which...I guess means he could have theoretically rotated to the back and cover that back arc aside from the back bullseye? Redesign session....aaaaaand....GO!

please no.

10 minutes ago, Brunas said:

in case it's somehow different

its really the lasers and explosion that sell it as straight back. Listen though, we knew the devs didnt care about star wars when 2.0 launched and the y wing was designated as btl-a4 even though it was clearly a btl-s3

While the blast looks to be directly behind him, I think that’s just because he’s flying away at that angle. The gunfire looks like it’s falling behind him at a roughly-45-degree angle.

36 minutes ago, Brunas said:

chertek is clearly shooting backwards, right? I reject the "it's to his side" argument.

ACKSDFGHJKLUALLY it's pointed back about 50° from directly left, that Star Destroyer is just barely in his side arc

40 minutes ago, jagsba said:

I don’t see the problem

1 hour ago, jagsba said:

I'm always happy when I can complete the reaction set

Is this the biggest thread on FFG?

38 minutes ago, LagJanson said:

I don’t see the problem

It's highlighting perspective issues in artwork. The engines in that ship's pic appear to extend to even with the front of the cockpit.

@ImperialYeet I dont know who you are but your name made me laugh and I agree. Turrets are dumb.

4 minutes ago, ImperialYeet said:

Is this the biggest thread on FFG?

All I can say is...... YA-YEET!

42 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:

It's highlighting perspective issues in artwork. The engines in that ship's pic appear to extend to even with the front of the cockpit.

What, really?

18 minutes ago, LagJanson said:

What, really?

carolina krayts ruined xwing

1 hour ago, Hiemfire said:

It's highlighting perspective issues in artwork. The engines in that ship's pic appear to extend to even with the front of the cockpit.

To me, the nacelle on the left side of the picture looks like it’s connected about midway down, where the right one appears to be connected towards its front.