so never played this objective until this week and me and the other player were like how to we draw the line between the tokens ?? using a laser of course.. just looking for thoughts here from folks.. we thought about measuring from outside of 1 objective token circle to the outside of the other objective token circle BUT then you have the ability to draw a same line on the other side of the token ... so we ended up with our final thought or solution and that was to draw a line from the center of 1 objective token to the center of the other one and that seemed to work best for us and there was no issues all around.. is that what most people are doing? center of 1 objective token to the center of the other one

Jamming Barrier Card:

Setup: Place obstacles as normal, excluding the station and replacing the 2 debris fields with the 2 dust fields.

After deploying fleets, the second player places 2 objective tokens in the setup area at distance 1-5 of each other.

Special Rule: While attacking, if line of sight is traced across the line between the two objective tokens, the attacker must choose and remove half of the dice from the attack pool rounded down, before rolling.

I would draw the line between the two closest edges of the objective tokens, as that's how distances are measured between squadrons. (This would give you the same line as drawing from centre to centre anyway, so you could just stick with that!)

1 hour ago, thanosazlin said:

so never played this objective until this week and me and the other player were like how to we draw the line between the tokens ?? using a laser of course.. just looking for thoughts here from folks.. we thought about measuring from outside of 1 objective token circle to the outside of the other objective token circle BUT then you have the ability to draw a same line on the other side of the token ... so we ended up with our final thought or solution and that was to draw a line from the center of 1 objective token to the center of the other one and that seemed to work best for us and there was no issues all around.. is that what most people are doing? center of 1 objective token to the center of the other one

Jamming Barrier Card:

Setup: Place obstacles as normal, excluding the station and replacing the 2 debris fields with the 2 dust fields.

After deploying fleets, the second player places 2 objective tokens in the setup area at distance 1-5 of each other.

Special Rule: While attacking, if line of sight is traced across the line between the two objective tokens, the attacker must choose and remove half of the dice from the attack pool rounded down, before rolling.

I've played it exactly once, but that's how we did it.

I don't think you count the tokens themselves, though. In my mind "the line between the two tokens" is not inclusive of the two tokens unless explicitly defined to be so, and off the top of my head I can't think of a place that it would be defined like that. Little bit murky, probably worth submitting to the "maybe eventually you'll get an answer" form, if @Drasnighta didn't already do it last November.

Yeah, it's a good question.

So far we've played it as: the line has the thickness of the objective tokens.

No official response yet, but playtester grumbling and responses was “only line between, not tokens themselves”

3 hours ago, Drasnighta said:

No official response yet, but playtester grumbling and responses was “only line between, not tokens themselves”

+

6 hours ago, Flengin said:

Yeah, it's a good question.

So far we've played it as: the line has the thickness of the objective tokens.

I’ve worked on Closest point to closest point, so far.

abd as an arc line width. As it is the line between them, not the area between them,

22 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

I’ve worked on Closest point to closest point, so far.

abd as an arc line width. As it is the line between them, not the area between them,

Don't missunderstand me. I don't know how it will be ruled at the end.

I just see that right now from closest to closest ignores other lines between those tokens. Taking the area you are sure to to be crossing at least 1 line (I acknowledge the "the" on th card) between those tokens.

Of course the best way is to find an agreement previously. It happens that you chose the objective before the agreement. Not a big deal I must say.

We also have this:

When measuring non-attack range or distance between two components, measure from the closest point of the first component to the closest point of the second component.

But we are not measuring anything between those tokens so not sure how much it is applicable.

I.. didn't misunderstand you? (Not until now, anyway. )

I was merely providing clarification on what I've been told and discussed. Granted, they were only with playtesters, and not designers. They don't seem to respond to even informal emails anymore...

That's just how I've worked it, and how I've been informed things work. As you've said, when you measure, you measure from the closest points to closest points. Objective tokens are circular, of course, which means there will always be a closest point. Of course, measuring is irrelevent, because with Strategic, you can move them way outside of their starting range, and still be drawing a line between them that works... They don't have to be close to generate the barrier or anything.

For me though, the only time it really matters is when you're basically really **** close to the tokens themselves. You have to be essentially abutting up against a token, and have your enemy on the other side of the token, and be able to draw a line that effectively cuts over the token itself... So that if you were including the entire width of the token (and its outer curved surface), you would be barrier'd, and if you go closest point, you'd be outside of it...

Its not specified, and I agree there. That's why its been asked about.

But I think in the meantime , we should look at every other precedence we have with measuring and drawing lines, and take that to be a point to point, and thus, a line, not a swathed area.

Also, its a cool excuse to use the fact that objective tokens have targeting reticles on them. Since you can pretend you're going from reticle point to reticle point.

6 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

I.. didn't misunderstand you? (Not until now, anyway. )

I was merely providing clarification on what I've been told and discussed. Granted, they were only with playtesters, and not designers. They don't seem to respond to even informal emails anymore...

That's just how I've worked it, and how I've been informed things work. As you've said, when you measure, you measure from the closest points to closest points. Objective tokens are circular, of course, which means there will always be a closest point. Of course, measuring is irrelevent, because with Strategic, you can move them way outside of their starting range, and still be drawing a line between them that works... They don't have to be close to generate the barrier or anything.

For me though, the only time it really matters is when you're basically really **** close to the tokens themselves. You have to be essentially abutting up against a token, and have your enemy on the other side of the token, and be able to draw a line that effectively cuts over the token itself... So that if you were including the entire width of the token (and its outer curved surface), you would be barrier'd, and if you go closest point, you'd be outside of it...

Its not specified, and I agree there. That's why its been asked about.

But I think in the meantime , we should look at every other precedence we have with measuring and drawing lines, and take that to be a point to point, and thus, a line, not a swathed area.

Also, its a cool excuse to use the fact that objective tokens have targeting reticles on them. Since you can pretend you're going from reticle point to reticle point.

Lol

I am wondering now if playing Fire Lanes was ever possible.

Objective Tokens are not ships or squadron. The objective card clarifies that you measure range and LoS as performing attacks with the battery armament but we don't have specification about how to treat the tokens or what reference we use to measure attacks on objective tokens.

8 minutes ago, ovinomanc3r said:

Lol

I am wondering now if playing Fire Lanes was ever possible.

Objective Tokens are not ships or squadron. The objective card clarifies that you measure range and LoS as performing attacks with the battery armament but we don't have specification about how to treat the tokens or what reference we use to measure attacks on objective tokens.

Kind of.

I mean, it says when you measure a non-attack range or distance, you measure to the closest part of the component .

Tokens are components.

As are ships, including the Bases.

Which is why you measure Plastic-to-Plastic for Home One's distance, for example... Or Phylom Q-7 Tractor Beams...

But from Cardboard to Cardboard for attacks, because those are specificied as Attack Distances and Ranges.

HOWEVER, for the Point, fire lanes says this in particular:

"To determine control of each token, players measure attack range and line of sight from each of their ships' hull zones as if performing attacks with battery armament targeting that objective token."

So, for Fire lines "Targeting that Objective Token" means you substitute the Targets in question.

Normally, you Target a Hull Zone or a Squadron. That's simple. Pull out the wording and replace "Hull Zone or Squadron" with "Objective Token" effectively.

Do that, and the rule works completely and utterly normally and perfectly. Because you're still measuring Hull-Zone to Objective Token, and you thusly measure to the closest part of it that is in arc... as Standard.

As here, substituted directly in the quote:

" To measure attack range from a ship, measure from the closest point of the attacking hull zone. To measure attack range to a ship fire lanes token , measure to the closest point of the defending hull zone Objective token . "

A perfect substitution that leaves no gap or problem to assume or fill. It just goes right over the top of the original wording, as a substitute, as required by the rules .

Although, I will admit, I do occasioanlly wonder how these things would read in French, German and Spanish, and wonder how such a substitution would work, or not... Especially in those languages which have gendered terms and would be substituting genders... I wilfully admit, as someone who is fairly ignorant of language science (my skill is in physical sciences), it does make me wonder.

Resolved by FAQ