Can a range 0 attack be obstructed?
i.e. Arvel and a bumped ship both on the same debris, or Oicun bumped on a ship with tactical scrambler
Range 0 Obstruction
Rules reference 1.0.4, page 14:
“An attack is obstructed if the attacker measures range through an object.”
And page 15:
”Range 0 does not appear on the range ruler, but is used for describing the range of objects that are physically touching.“
If objects are “physically touching”, there can not be an object between them that could be “measured through”.
So, a range 0 attack on debris is not obstructed.
It actually depends on how the two objects are touching, to be specific. Remember, line of fire needs to be measured from the closest part of the base IN ARC , meaning that certain positions might still be obstructed. If the enemy ship is touching Arvel's front arc, then there's no space between Arvel's base in arc, and the enemy ship's base. HOWEVER, if it's the corner of Arvel's base that's touching the enemy ship, or if either ship's guides are creating a small range gap, then there would be enough space (~1mm) to measure range through an obstacle. Remember, while physical contact establishes the official Attack Range as Zero, the actual line of fire might still be a non-zero distance.
Edited by emeraldbeaconclarification
As long as the part of the ship that is touching is in arc, then yup, no obstruction.
The Oicunn example wouldn't be obstructed, however. At ranges other than 0, a ship with Tactical Scrambler doesn't obstruct itself, so it oughtn't become obstructed at Range 0.
There are no rules covering that specific case.
So none of us can have the correct answer!
ffg did not address this issue so far.
But this case is covered in the unofficial rules supplement .
There it is ruled as obstructed.
And quite simple: both ships are on the asteroid - so it could NOT be not-obstructed.
(The asteroid would not disappear magically between them.)
Just now, Tellonius said:There are no rules covering that specific case.
So none of us can have the correct answer!
ffg did not address this issue so far.
But this case is covered in the unofficial rules supplement .
There it is ruled as obstructed.
And quite simple: both ships are on the asteroid - so it could NOT be not-obstructed.
(The asteroid would not disappear magically between them.)
???
The asteroid doesn't magically disappear between them, because there is no "between them." The range is 0; they're touching each other. There's no space there for any object to obstruct an attack.
I would argue that a range 0 attack can never be obstructed, even when the point of contact is not in the attack arc. For any range 0 attack, the attack arc only matters for determining whether the enemy ship is in it at all. We know this because such an attack still happens at range 0 and not at whatever the attack range would be in the attack arc.
49 minutes ago, Maui. said: ???
The asteroid doesn't magically disappear between them, because there is no "between them." The range is 0; they're touching each other. There's no space there for any object to obstruct an attack.
I would argue that a range 0 attack can never be obstructed, even when the point of contact is not in the attack arc. For any range 0 attack, the attack arc only matters for determining whether the enemy ship is in it at all. We know this because such an attack still happens at range 0 and not at whatever the attack range would be in the attack arc.
That's fine and all, but a significant portion of the tournament judging community is utilizing this rules supplement that @Tellonius references in lieu of FFG ruling one way or the other. That ruling is that it is obstructed, pending FFG clarifying their stance on the subject.
Edited by dsul4132 minutes ago, dsul413 said:That's fine and all, but a significant portion of the tournament judging community is utilizing this rules supplement that @Tellonius references in lieu of FFG ruling one way or the other. That ruling is that it is obstructed, pending FFG clarifying their stance on the subject.
I understand, I am expressing bafflement at the ruling because it does not make any sense to me. But there are plenty of official rulings that also don't make sense to me, so I wouldn't be surprised at all if FFG ruled it that way--just confused.
Well, slightly more confused than usual
2 minutes ago, Maui. said:I understand, I am expressing bafflement at the ruling because it does not make any sense to me. But there are plenty of official rulings that also don't make sense to me, so I wouldn't be surprised at all if FFG ruled it that way--just confused.
Well, slightly more confused than usual
Cool, sorry. Just making sure we are all on the same page. It feels weird to me also if I'm shooting a ship that I'm literally touching that it would be obstructed, but we'll see if FFG ever decides on way or the other on it.
15 hours ago, dsul413 said:That's fine and all, but a significant portion of the tournament judging community is utilizing this rules supplement that @Tellonius references in lieu of FFG ruling one way or the other. That ruling is that it is obstructed, pending FFG clarifying their stance on the subject.
That document should be taken with a grain of salt and should *not* be used as a solid ruling document. Their end phase timing is completely wrong, for example. And ive found a few other errors as well (most of which have been overruled by FFG's official rulings).
On 8/5/2019 at 10:45 PM, Lyianx said:That document should be taken with a grain of salt and should *not* be used as a solid ruling document. Their end phase timing is completely wrong, for example. And ive found a few other errors as well (most of which have been overruled by FFG's official rulings).
Indeed, with a LARGE grain of salt.
I wasnt sure wether I should quote it or not, because of all the issues.
But in the asteroid case I agree with them...