obstruction question, apply +1 def or not? Comes up often in VASSAL play, less in real play

By Mu0n729, in X-Wing Rules Questions

Posted at

This scenario has happened in a few of my games in VASSAL, where one ship is currently overlapping an asteroid with one corner clearly on the asteroid and another is clearly free. Since the various movements can rotate ships only by 45 degrees or 90 degrees, the absolute orientation of the ships tend to be similar because most players orient their ships parallel to the game area's edges in the setup phase. There might be some variation due to small errors in movement in face-to-face play, but this doesn't occur obviously in VASSAL, where movement is managed by the game.
range1.png
On page 10 of the rules, you can read the following:
"To measure range, place the Range 1 end of the range ruler so that it touches the closest part of the attacker’s base. Then point the ruler toward the closest part of the target ship’s base that is inside the attacker’s firing arc. The lowest section (1, 2, or 3) of the ruler that overlaps the target ship’s base is considered the range between the ships. If the ruler is not long enough to reach the target ship, the ship is considered out of range and cannot be targeted. A ship may be within range, but still fall outside the attacker’s firing arc."
However, in this case, there are many different choices of the smallest distances, some that go through the asteroid, some that don't, purely because the sides of the ship bases are parallel. Many segments can be drawn between the ships that arrive at a 90 degree angle on both ships' sides and thus constitute "minimal distances".
Page 20, which gives the rule about defense modification when asteroids come into play, doesn't help us:
"When measuring range during combat, if the edge of the range ruler between the closest points of the two ships overlaps an obstacle token, the attack is considered oBStructed. Because of this obstruction, the defender rolls one additional defense die during the “Roll Defense Dice” step of this attack. Remember that range is always measured as the shortest distance between the two ships’ bases. The attacker cannot attempt to measure range to a different part of a base in order to avoid obstructing obstacles."
The question becomes: do you apply the obstruction +1 def modifier, or not?
I'll also provide another example with big ships here:
range2.png
Posted at

I think at that point it comes down to rolling focuses to settle the dispute. Both sides have a valid point when ship bases are parallel, as you have stated.

Posted at

My (totally unsupported by any specific rule) opinion on the setup: if a clean shot exists following the minimum distance rule, then no extra defense die.

Posted at

dbmeboy said:

My (totally unsupported by any specific rule) opinion on the setup: if a clean shot exists following the minimum distance rule, then no extra defense die.

This.

Of course, I'm American, so I automatically assume the tie goes to the runner, too. :)

Posted at

As i say in BGG the has cover, so +1def dice

Posted at

I've followed the idea that if you are completely parallel, as long as one point on the shooter's ship has a clear line, the shot is clear.

But now that this has been brought up, I went back to the official rules for shooting through an obstacle which states:

Remember that range is always measured as the shortest distance between the two ships’ bases. The attacker cannot attempt to measure range to a different part of a base in order to avoid obstructing obstacles.
Which I think means that if any part of the shot on a parallel scenario is obstructed, the whole shot is obstructed. So in retrospect, I think we've been playing it wrong and would add +1 DEF for the future.
Posted at
paradox23 said:

I've followed the idea that if you are completely parallel, as long as one point on the shooter's ship has a clear line, the shot is clear.

But now that this has been brought up, I went back to the official rules for shooting through an obstacle which states:

Remember that range is always measured as the shortest distance between the two ships’ bases. The attacker cannot attempt to measure range to a different part of a base in order to avoid obstructing obstacles.
Which I think means that if any part of the shot on a parallel scenario is obstructed, the whole shot is obstructed. So in retrospect, I think we've been playing it wrong and would add +1 DEF for the future.
Posted at

I can't really disagree with any of that.

Posted at

This has come up sevral times in my games. Since I have a construction back ground (electrician) We are sometimes required to messure a straigt line from the closest point to closest point. Unless your doing something wrong then most of the time things are parrallel. We messure from center to center.
So thats how I see it.

Posted at

"When measuring range during combat, if the edge of the range ruler between the closest points of the two ships overlaps an obstacle token, the attack is considered oBStructed."

In the example above, you could measure unobstructed to target ship however the edge of the range ruler would still contact the obstacle.

Regardless, I find it better to error on the side of caution thus granting the benfit when in question.

Posted at

Just to add my two cents on this,

If two bases are parallel, the shortest distance between them is every line that is perpedicular to the base, which is essentially every line drawn from 90 degrees to the edge of the base. So the shortest path can be through the obstruction and unobstructed.

The only thing that limits this is the attackers choice of path.

"The attacker cannot attempt to measure range to a different part of a base in order to avoid obstructing obstacles" p. 20

The attacker is, therefore, not allowed to choose to measure the unobstructed path over the equally obstructed path. He has to measure the shortest path through the obstruction.

This works only for edges of bases that are completely parallel to one another. Any slight deviation and the measurement snaps to the shortest distance regardless of choice.