Quote

To measure range between two objects, place the range ruler over the point of the first object that is closest to the second object, then aim the other end of the ruler toward the point of the second object that is closest to the first object. The ships are at the range that corresponds to the range band that is over the closest point of the second object.
While measuring attack Range for an attack, the attacker measures to the closest point of the target ship that is in the attacker’s attack arc.

Above is a quote from the rules reference. Attached is a picture with two ways to measure range. Which one is the correct way? It is undisputed that the closest point of the Academy Pilot is within Soontir’s front arc. Please disregard the number tiles.

The orange ruler starts from the attack arc line on the ship token and is set towards the closest point, but fits between. Therefore the attack would be range two.

The yellow ruler is set between closest points, i.e. the corners. It does not fit between them and therefore the attack would be range one.

I found one old thread that would suggest orange is correct. However, that was first edition, which I recall was worded differently. In the rules quote above I find nothing that supports orange over yellow. Also watching stream games, I think even in the highest levels people measure like yellow.

1. Attacks are measured from in the attack arc.

36 minutes ago, RikuM said:

The orange ruler starts from the attack arc line on the ship token and is set towards the closest point, but fits between

Really? it doesnt look like it fits. It looks like you are not *quite* on the interceptors attack arc line. It looks (from the camera angle) that his arc is pointing toward the back of the tie fighter, so the orange template can move a bit more toward the corner, making it range 1.

But its also hard to really tell without seeing it in person.

37 minutes ago, Lyianx said:

Really? it doesnt look like it fits. It looks like you are not *quite* on the interceptors attack arc line. It looks (from the camera angle) that his arc is pointing toward the back of the tie fighter, so the orange template can move a bit more toward the corner, making it range 1.

As you guessed, it’s parallax due to camera angle. I considered drawing a picture, but quick photo setup felt good enough.

1 hour ago, Hiemfire said:

1. Attacks are measured from in the attack arc.

This.

Specifically, the attacker measures from the closest point of their ship's base, inside the attack arc . This means that when attacking with a 180-degree front arc, or a side arc turret, you can measure from the very corner of your base (because that's the closest base point in arc)... but when determining range for a front arc attack (like most primary attacks, ordnance, etc), you may not include the corner of your own base, since that part of your base is not within the attack arc.

Always in Arc. Sometimes you may see people be lax about this for the first measurement. IDK. It doesn’t really matter unless it’s very close to a difference in range.

This can even make for some “feel bad” moments where one ship may have a range 1 attack and the ship being attacked only gets a range 2 attack.

13 hours ago, emeraldbeacon said:

This.

Specifically, the attacker measures from the closest point of their ship's base, inside the attack arc . This means that when attacking with a 180-degree front arc, or a side arc turret, you can measure from the very corner of your base (because that's the closest base point in arc)... but when determining range for a front arc attack (like most primary attacks, ordnance, etc), you may not include the corner of your own base, since that part of your base is not within the attack arc.

Could you provide a quote from the rules concerning this? I can only find that you measure to the defender's closest point inside the attack arc. Specifically, I cannot find where it says you start measuring from inside the attacker's arc.

"The attack range is determined by measuring range from the closest point of the attacker to the closest point of the defender that is in the attack arc ."
"During an attack, the attack range is determined by measuring range from the closest point of the attacker to the closest point of the defender that is in the attack arc ."

Bolded part only applies to the closest point of the defender. If it applied to both it would be worded as 'which are in the attack arc', no?

4 hours ago, GMTemplar said:

Could you provide a quote from the rules concerning this?

Its not so much a quote as a design issue.

Due to how the plastic bases are designed, the fronts and backs are "flat" (minus the guides which dont count for range anyway), while the sides have the "frame" that helps hold the cardboard base in place. So it sticks out a bit beyond the cardboard. Due to this, the side arcs 'go though" the plastic base, while the front and rear arcs do not. (you can see in the picture, the front arc just misses the corner of the plastic base)

And given this rule on pg 3 of the reference....

Quote

Arcs are measured beyond the base of ships. The portion of any object that lies beneath a ship is not in any of those ship’s arcs.

You get a *little* bit more distance from the side arcs, than you do the front or back. Its just a "flaw" in the design we have to work with (and why doing things in side arcs has always been a tiny bit more beneficial).

Hope that helps.

18 minutes ago, Lyianx said:

Hope that helps.

Yes, I'm familiar with this, but no, it doesn't help. Currently the rules don't seem to support what the previous members answered unless someone can come up with a rules reference I don't know about.

Sorry, im having trouble understanding where you are confused. You quoted emeraldbeacon, and then quoted rules that support what he said, so im not sure what the confusion is.

1 minute ago, Lyianx said:

Sorry, im having trouble understanding where you are confused. You quoted emeraldbeacon, and then quoted rules that support what he said, so im not sure what the confusion is.

They specifically don't support what he said. This is a very marginal problem and only comes up in a situation as OP described.

"The attack range is determined by measuring range from the closest point of the attacker to the closest point of the defender that is in the attack arc ."
"During an attack, the attack range is determined by measuring range from the closest point of the attacker to the closest point of the defender that is in the attack arc ."

Bolded part only applies to the closest point of the defender. If it applied to both it would be worded as 'which are in the attack arc'.
Closest point of the attacker isn't required to be in arc, thus you could use the corner of the ship to start measuring attack range (yellow ruler in OP post).

3 minutes ago, GMTemplar said:

They specifically don't support what he said. This is a very marginal problem and only comes up in a situation as OP described.

"The attack range is determined by measuring range from the closest point of the attacker to the closest point of the defender that is in the attack arc ."
"During an attack, the attack range is determined by measuring range from the closest point of the attacker to the closest point of the defender that is in the attack arc ."

Bolded part only applies to the closest point of the defender. If it applied to both it would be worded as 'which are in the attack arc'.
Closest point of the attacker isn't required to be in arc, thus you could use the corner of the ship to start measuring attack range (yellow ruler in OP post).

I see now.

I think what you are looking for is on pg 15 then.

Quote

While measuring attack range for an attack, the attacker measures to the closest point of the target ship that is in the attacker’s attack arc.

17 minutes ago, Lyianx said:

the attacker measures to the closest point of the target ship that is in the attacker’s attack arc.

This says measure to the closest point of the target ship in arc. @GMTemplar is talking about where you measure from . That's identified as " the closest point of the attacker", with no such stipulation that you start measuring inside the arc.

I think I understand @GMTemplar 's question (correct me if I'm wrong)

In the above situation it is established that the closest corner of the target ship is in the attack arc. It is also established that measuring from the cardboard the range is just out of 1 while measuring from the plastic is just in 1.

There is a an inherent vagueness to the rules quoted from p.4 that makes it not 100% clear the that "in the attack arc" applies to "the closest point" of both the attacker and defender as the phrase is only attached to the defender, but could be read as applying to the whole list (attacker and defender) which is the common consensus.

I think GMT is asking for an additional written rule specifying that the consensus reading that the attack is measured "from the closest point of the attacker ... that is in the attack arc." (RR1.0.4 p.4 Attack allegedly extra text removed) is the correct reading.

5 minutes ago, KiAdiMoody said:

This says measure to the closest point of the target ship in arc. @GMTemplar is talking about where you measure from . That's identified as " the closest point of the attacker", with no such stipulation that you start measuring inside the arc.

the very last part of what i quoted literately says "in the attackers arc". I dont know how to be any more clear on it.

12 minutes ago, Lyianx said:

the very last part of what i quoted literately says "in the attackers arc". I dont know how to be any more clear on it.

KiAdiMoody and nitrobenz understood the problem 100%. The part you refferred to only requires the target's point to be in the arc. Attacker's measuring point could still be outside the arc (ie corner in the OP example).

1 hour ago, Lyianx said:

the very last part of what i quoted literately says "in the attackers arc". I dont know how to be any more clear on it.

The quoted passage from p.15 says "the attacker measures to the closest point of the target ship that is in the attacker’s attack arc." Which does explicitly say the closest point of the target must be in arc, but does not explicitly reference that the point measured from on the attacker itself need be in arc. This literal corner case is there only place where this distinction will ever matter.

There was not any 1e rule I could find that explicitly stated this either, but it was community consensus based on Rulings at official events. @GMTemplar I think "it's consensus" is as good as you're going to get on this.

from page five, under Attack Range:

"ATTACK RANGE
During an attack, the attack range is determined by measuring range from the closest point of the attacker to the closest point of the defender that is in the attack arc."

RAW, this is not 100% clear, since it can be said to mean you can measure anywhere from the attacker to the closest point of the defender that is in the attack arc (not the closest point in arc, the closest point to a defender as long as that defender is in the attack arc). how ever, in my view, since you can only measure to the closest point of the defender that is in the attack arc, you have to measure from the attack arc, which actually makes it a non-issue. i believe this is also the consensus.

even though it can be interpreted that it's enough that the defender is in the attack arc and you can just measure closest point from the attacker to the closest point of the defender if that is the case - a stricter interpretation can be made. you have to measure not closest point from the attacker to the defender when the defender is in the attack arc, but the closest point of the defender in the attackers attack arc.

simply, there is no way to determine which is the closest point of the defender in the attack arc other than measuring from the attack arc.

Here's my interpretation of the problem starting with the quoted applicable rule, feel free to skip the tangent anecdote:

"The attack range is determined by measuring range from the closest point of the attacker to the closest point of the defender that is in the attack arc." (RR1.0.4 p.4 Attack .)

◊ Here is the consensus interpretation of this passage, which is logically valid and grammatically acceptable (if not the most proper): "The attack range is determined by measuring range from the closest point of the attacker [that is in the attack arc] to the closest point of the defender that is in the attack arc." Brackets here show the implied application of the modifier at the end of this list to both items creating a pair of coordinated phrases, but this is not explicit.

◊ Also valid, would be this interpretation: "The attack range is determined by measuring range [from the closest point of the attacker] [to the closest point of the defender that is in the attack arc]." Here the brackets emphasize that the first item is complete with no additional restrictions and separate from the second which contains an additional modifier.

◊ The case for the coordinated phrases would be much stronger if the passage was written with the modifier first: "The attack range is determined by measuring range [in the attack arc] from the closest point of the attacker to the closest point of the defender th̶a̶t̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶a̶t̶t̶a̶c̶k̶ ̶a̶r̶c̶." Here brackets show moving the phrase modifier to the beginning of the list which is common grammar practice for coordinated lists such as when an adjective modifies multiple nouns.

Tangent argument/anecdote: I think this falls into the same logic and reasoning area as "being at range 0 but not overlapping" where it just makes sense one way to person A but makes sense a different way to person B. In 1e "r0 w/o overlap" was never allowed (consensus was that you could not have been touching without first overlapping) but there's a clarification for that in the 2e rules! "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." (RR1.0.4 p.15 Range .) Every time this comes up with players I know from 1e they have either forgotten or did not know this was added to the 2e rules One could argue that because 2e clarified one edge case (R0 w/o overlap) was in favor of literal logic (which happened to be against consensus) that now the corner case (In arc corner distance discrepancy) should also be re-ruled in favor of literal logic as well. (Or re-written/clarified to follow common grammar and logic)

I didn't hear about the corner range discrepancy until late in 1e when a more serious player brought it up as "that's the way it was ruled at such and such event". Previous to that we had just put the range "corner to corner" in these cases and there was some pushback, but eventually we settled on playing it "cardboard to corner" for these super close calls. Similarly though when I started the game there were arguments (and still are occasionally) about whether it was possible for the closest point to be the flat side of a base because people were used to using the shorthand of "corner to corner" instead of "closest point to closest point". So at least in my area the range measurement for these kind of close calls evolved twice, getting a little more precise each time.

TLDR: Consensus established in 1e and not directly contradicted by 2e rules is that the orange ruler is correct. That is a valid logical interpretation of the rules as written even if I believe the yellow ruler is more correct for common grammar.

23 hours ago, RikuM said:

...

I think that covers the bases from grammar to history to modern consensus. Hopefully no one was bored too severely!

Alright then, here is a visual reference. Note the last paragraph.

Core rule book, Pg 8

We spend so much time looking in the RR we forget that what it says is built on the ground work in the core rules.

22 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:

We spend so much time looking in the RR we forget that what it says is built on the ground work in the core rules.

Yeeah, even i didnt think to look in the core rules till now.

Thanks for the pic @Lyianx that sure looks like they're measuring from the cardboard corner rather than the plastic corner of the base.

Good enough for me!

47 minutes ago, nitrobenz said:

Thanks for the pic @Lyianx that sure looks like they're measuring from the cardboard corner rather than the plastic corner of the base.

Good enough for me!

I wouldn't put much stock behind that. On the next page it shows them measuring from the plastic base. The pictures arnt meant to be hyper accurate, only detailed enough to get the point across on the text referencing it.

This is further clerified in the Rules Reference on pg 15 under Range.

Quote

While measuring range to a ship, range is measured to the closest point of the ship’s base, not its ship token nor the miniature itself.

58 minutes ago, Lyianx said:

I wouldn't put much stock behind that. On the next page it shows them measuring from the plastic base. The pictures arnt meant to be hyper accurate, only detailed enough to get the point across on the text referencing it.

This is further clerified in the Rules Reference on pg 15 under Range.

This pic is still correct. The difference is it’s not along the arc edge so the ruler is turned it and just nearest point is used.