Looking at the "within distance 1-2", does this mean the obstacle must be placed within the 2 section of the distance ruler only(and not the 1 section), or can be placed anywhere from 0 to 2 of the original position?(0 being the obstacle's original position) I assume the obstacles would be moving in a straight line towards the gravity rift

“Within 1-2” means just that - it must be between distance 1 or two - but you start at distance 1 of yourself as is, so any portion of movement is okay there as long as it’s not nowhere, I believe.

if it were distance 2-3 that would necessitate minimum movement outside of distance 1

16 hours ago, Drasnighta said:

“Within 1-2” means just that - it must be between distance 1 or two - but you start at distance 1 of yourself as is, so any portion of movement is okay there as long as it’s not nowhere, I believe.

if it were distance 2-3 that would necessitate minimum movement outside of distance 1

Thanks. So if I read you correctly, I can tap the station and declare a minuscule move and as 2nd player can do this every round and so can choose exactly when I want to send it to the rift?

I am still not sure what i should think about this mission. Basically it is just another contested outpost. Giving the second player two CO (one on yellow, one on blue).

The second player is moving the first obstacle. So he is always moving the station first. And he can just move it by 0.0001 mm. nearly keep the station where it was. Just all other obstacles may disappear sooner or later.
The only bonus for the second player is, that he can decide to kill the station, if he cannot gain the victory tokens anymore.

sounds about right to me. I hope that this isn't right or there is going to be a lot more sitting on stations. 2 contested outposts with the new red objective seems really good. (the purgil attacking ship red)

Yes, second player will probably choose to move the station first each round, but then he's also giving first player the option of moving two asteroids.

Doomed Station doesn't seem to have the "does not obstruct" and "does not heal" rules that Contested Outpost does, or the "cannot be moved so that it overlaps a ship, squadron, or other obstacle" rule from Navigational Hazards, which makes it even better for the Second Player as they can move it to make it easier to land on it next turn, move it to carefully obstruct ship shots, or even move it under a squadron ball to break it up in just the right way. That last one probably won't come up often, but is an interesting

1 hour ago, Grumbleduke said:

Doomed Station doesn't seem to have the "does not obstruct" and "does not heal" rules that Contested Outpost does, or the "cannot be moved so that it overlaps a ship, squadron, or other obstacle" rule from Navigational Hazards, which makes it even better for the Second Player as they can move it to make it easier to land on it next turn, move it to carefully obstruct ship shots, or even move it under a squadron ball to break it up in just the right way. That last one probably won't come up often, but is an interesting

that is really interesting. If you position with that in mind, you could have a really powerful ability at your disposal.

You could set Morna Kee and Jendon on top of the station, and have MK fire at ships that try to steal the station's points. She'd fire less dice than normal, but she'd be hard to kill and impossible to engage. Hmm...

Edit: It's probably best to assume that we don't know everything that we need to know about this objective. For example, "toward the gravity rift." "Toward" isn't defined.

https://armadaihaveyounow.blogspot.com/2019/05/objectives-doomed-station-navigation.html

2 hours ago, Bertie Wooster said:

You could set Morna Kee and Jendon on top of the station, and have MK fire at ships that try to steal the station's points. She'd fire less dice than normal, but she'd be hard to kill and impossible to engage. Hmm...

 Edit: It's probably best to assume that we don't know everything that we need to know about this objective. For example, "toward the gravity rift." "Toward" isn't defined.   

True.

But.

"Toward" is an English word, easy to understand. Meaning "in the direction" of.

So, assuming the designers are still sane, we can infer what it means.

Just now, Green Knight said:

True.

But.

"Toward" is an English word, easy to understand. Meaning "in the direction" of.

So, assuming the designers are still sane, we can infer what it means.

To a point.

”At” and “Within” are also englush terms, but they also have specific definitions

9 hours ago, Tokra said:

I am still not sure what i should think about this mission. Basically it is just another contested outpost. Giving the second player two CO (one on yellow, one on blue).

The second player is moving the first obstacle. So he is always moving the station first. And he can just move it by 0.0001 mm. nearly keep the station where it was. Just all other obstacles may disappear sooner or later.
The only bonus for the second player is, that he can decide to kill the station, if he cannot gain the victory tokens anymore. 

It's a BLUE CO. Which I guess is good for some fleets?

It also has a little bit of Nav Hazards in it.

But the disappointing thing is you can keep the obstacles for all intents and purposes in the same spot, if you want to. That seems like a wasted opportunity.

2 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

To a point.

”At” and “Within” are also englush terms, but they also have specific definitions

Oh, I don't doubt it will be defined.

But I think that if one would like to explore the possibilities of this objective, without waiting for release, one can safely make some assumptions about "toward".

What I do not understand is what I wrote above: if obstacles can stay put, then the objective makes little sense.

So perhaps "toward" will mean something more than just "in the direction of".

Edit: For example, maybe staying put isn't "toward", so there is a minimum movement? Not sure how that would have to be worded.

4 minutes ago, Green Knight said:

For example, maybe staying put i  sn't "toward", so there is a minimum movement?

I would hope so Commander, for your sake.

2 hours ago, Green Knight said:

if obstacles can stay put, then the objective makes little sense. 

Yes, but that's like saying Contested Outpost makes no sense because players could avoid the Station, or Capture the VIP makes no sense because you can ignore the VIP. Or even obstacles make no sense because you can end up placing them on one half of the Play Area while playing entirely in the other.

Yes, both players could ignore the objective and just leave the obstacles where they are, but in most situations there is likely to be some advantage to moving them (getting one out of your path, or moving it into the other player's path).

3 hours ago, Green Knight said:

But I think that if one would like to explore the possibilities of this objective, without waiting for release, one can safely make some assumptions about "toward".

Oh, I totally agree. This objective is the easiest to "test" out of all of the RR objectives they've teased.

If I were playing it with a friend, I would suggest using a range ruler to measure a straight line between the center of the gravity rift, and the center of the obstacle being moved. Then move the obstacle, doing your best to keep the center of the obstacle along that line. That seems most logical to me, but whether that's what the designers intended, I have no idea. I have to admit it seems impractical if the obstacle being moved is more than a range ruler's length away from the gravity rift.

Does "toward" mean "exactly into that direction" though? Or as long as the obstacle gets closer to the rift, it is moving "toward" it? So can the obstacles swirl around the rift? If yes, can they touch or even overlap each other?

I could see some pretty nasty options in that, stacking the obstacles in front of the enemy ship, creating a "wall" of them, slamming asteroids into enemy ships... This could be a very powerful objective, especially against ships with limited maneuvering ability. Or even MSU when ships are everywhere and obstacles limit their movement.

Towards, as in ending up closer than you started

Directly Towards, is "exactly into that direction"

1 hour ago, slasher956 said:

Towards, as in ending up closer than you started

Directly Towards, is "exactly into that direction"

Is there any reason why Towards can’t mean Directly Towards?

Nope.

And that’s why we’re waiting.

I can’t assume something as potentially awesome as a gravity rift does nothing - so no testing for me until I know.

On 5/7/2019 at 6:38 AM, Bertie Wooster said:

Oh, I totally agree. This objective is the easiest to "test" out of all of the RR objectives they've teased.

Well, they haven't yet released the rules for gravity rift. Is it as large a token as a grav well token? Is it a huge obstacle? What are it's rules for overlapping? Do ships that overlap it disappear? Can it move(though the wording on the card suggests a no)? The Purrgil objective can't be played coz the rules for Purrgil tokens aren't released yet, and I suspect the gravity rift will have its own set of rules.

(It would be fun if Interdictors could somehow affect gravity rifts )

but yes, if we assume the rift is a point in space, we can play this objective now

... its almost like they chose objectives to give all the Detail on, but still have you waiting in Anticipation to actually try it , giving you Nothing until you buy it

I could swear I saw an octopus-like obstacle representing the gravity rift, but it isn't in the Rebellion in the Rim article, so it was probably my imagination.