Hi, in the F.A.Q. you mentioned firing through obstacles, you draw a line from the nearest point of the base with firing arc instead from the center of the base origin of that firing arc. example:

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/189/firingarc.jpg/

That generate some troubles, we called that WTF situations example:

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/546/ejemplo1t.jpg/

Using your measuring rules ( A line ), Why the TIE it´s obstructed to firing the YT1000 when the 95% of the miniature isn´t obstructed??

We propose to be obstructed almost need the 50% of the enemy base in firing arc obstructed by the asteroid , measuring from the center of the attacker base to the center of the defender base. example:

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/818/ejemplo2p.jpg/

Your rules allows the YT1000 to firing with an asteroid between 2 ships (A line), measuring from the center of the base like the illustration from YT1000 you are obstructed. ( B line). Thats mean with your rule YT1000 have 4 firing arcs instead central example:

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/543/ejemplo4.jpg/

This example it´s from boardgamegeek forum:

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/542/ejemplo3.jpg/

The YT1000 firing line it´s obstructed by an asteroid, the tie firing arc gets a part of the YT1000 base, but using your measuring rule both ships are obstructed, when the TIE firing arc isn´t it.

If we measure from the center of the base like the draw in it, the YT1000 it´s obstructed, because 50% of the tie it´s obstructed in the firing arc, but the tie not.

Your firing arc measure rule benefcs the YT1000 and other big base ships.

Sorry about my english

It seems like you have a firm grasp on the rule … No need to complicate things.

though i'm inclined to agree with you, don't forget that this is supposed to be 3 dimentional space after all.. not 2 dimentional.. so technically speaking even when fully behind an asteroid.. who's to say that the asteroid is even really blocking the line of sight in the first place?.. it could very well be far under or far above both ships to even impeed the line of sight in the first place

so think of it as that the asteroid is "passing by" and currently interrupting the line of sight on your fire.. because we all know that asteroids don't just float aimlessly in one place.. they are orbiting something.. be it a moon, a star or even a death star…

just stick to the rules and don't complicate things.. everybody has to deal with those WTF moments, so don't think you're the only one getting screwed on occations. Just play around it the best you can.. also remember that most of the time that ship will also be firing back at you with the same obstruction

The only was trying to say, its not logic measuring from the front of the base when you have a friring arc drawed on it

The rules in this aren't meant to be 100% logical, they are just there to make it easy and fun. When they designed this game, the question came up as to where you should measure, they made a decision, and that is just how the game is played. It doesn't have to confirm to the laws of physics and reality.

Nobody talks about physics laws or something else, only if you draw something why dont use it??

I agree, the rule as written is perfectly clear and even if it doesn't always realistically simulate space combat, it works and is consistent with the corner-to-corner measurement of range.

Your proposed fix for the problem is even worse, as it would provoke arguments over just how much of the ship is 50% visible. At that point it's a judgment call. The rule as written enjoys the benefit of precision--you can take a laser beam, point it across each corner, and obstruction is a simple yes/no value.

I´m agree with you, but you belive 1st ex and last tie firing arc are obstructed?? , that we propose certain is not the solution but measuring from the origing of the firing arc to the nearly part of base??.

360º firing arc can cornering obstructions measuring from the corner of the base, because their base its 4 times big than fighters ex nº 2

I am sorry to say this but I cannot make out what you are trying to say due to the language problem.

Based on the illustrations you provided, it does seem that you correctly understand the Obstruction rules, you are just presenting unusual instances where the rules as written are not satisfying to you. I don't believe there is much in the way of any alternate rule that would improve matters.

I either disagree or simply don't understand.

In the final example of the original post I see the YT-1300 has an obstructed view to the X-Wing and the X-Wing has a clear shot to the YT-1300.

We seem to be using this rule pg 20:

The rules on page 10 are a little unclear. "…Then point the ruler toward the closest part of the target ship's base that is inside the attacker's firing arc." But if you break the sentence down, it's a little easier to understand. 1. [Then point the ruler toward the closest part of…] 2. [the target ship's base that is inside the attacker's firing arc.] This rule just states the target is inside the firing arc of the attacking ship, but not that you measure within the firing arc. Page 20 clearly states to "Remember that range is always measured as the shortest distance between the two ships' bases."

Golden ANVIL said:

I don't understand what is not clear. You're breaking the sentence apart and saying one part has nothing to do with the other part of the same sentence. "point the ruler toward the closest part of the target ship's base that is inside the attacker's firing arc." The "that is inside the attacher's firing arc." is a limitation to where you "point the ruler" The closest part that is inside the attacker's arc seems very straight forward unless we add complication but taking words and phases out of context.

When you say " "Remember that range is always measured as the shortest distance between the two ships' bases." on page 20, it doesn't mention say anything about arc. Which I think is your point. But following your logic I can shoot directly behind me if it is the closest distance.

Range is measured "as the shortest distance between the two ships' bases' (pg 20) and within the firing arc of the attacker (pg 10). Don't over complicate and read part of the rules and ignoring others.

It isn't unclear at all.

Page 10 trumps page 20. I sent off for a rules clarification and received a reply--even if the closest corner-to-corner line is obstructed, the attack is only obstructed if that line is within the attacker's firing arc.

So, for this illustration from above: http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/542/ejemplo3.jpg/

Darth Vader's attack on Lando is not obstructed, as the Asteroid is not in his firing arc. His line of range measurement would be the left edge of his firing arc, which is not blocked. Lando's shot at Darth Vader would be obstructed, as Lando's line of range measurement is Line "A" in that illustration, which is blocked by the asteroid.

The entire entry on page 20 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 ." This rule specifically concerns obstructing obstacles. The statement "…the range is always measured…" is all inclusive because of the word "always." Also, the statement "…can not attempt to measure range to a different part of a base…" is contradictory to the explanation of measuring within firing arc. I broke the sentence down in an attempt to show that "…the target ship's base that is inside the attacker's firing arc" is one subject (a ship that is inside the targeting ship's firing arc). Why else is the rule on page 20? It's rather specific. Is there other rules we ignore? Seriously not trying to be smart with the question. If we ignore some rules and not others, how do we play the game? If there was a reply from FFG about this, can the response be posted or a contact provided to confirm FFG ruling?

Or is there an English major that can help with the grammer of the sentence. I used this page( http://learningnerd.wordpress.com/2006/09/10/english-grammar-basic-sentence-elements/ ) to identify [the target ship's base that is inside the attacker's firing arc] as a compund subject linked together using a subordinating conjuction (that).

Grimwalker said:

I believe that would be the correct way both combat range and obstruction range. Reasoning being, why would you concider any range that is outside of your firing arc during combat as your guns could not hit that point you are measureing to anyway?

Grimwalker - did you have this ruling in another posting, if so could you link it here as it would be relevant.

I would think the mention about not measureing from the closest point assumes you are still measuring from within you firing arc. E.g. in the other image: http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/546/ejemplo1t.jpg/ The closest point between Vaders and Lando, that is within Vaders firing arc, is the A line which crosses an obstacle, therefore obstructed. Vader can not choose to measure the closet point from point B on his ship to Lando in order to ignore the obstacle.

All I am trying to get across is that firing arc and range measurement are two seperate things. 1. Firing arc tells you who you can shoot at. 2. Range is just a measurement between ships. There is an entry in the Errata & FAQ ver 1.1 stating that the first sentence of the second paragraph of the "Attacking Through Obstacles" section on page 20 should read: "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." Someone had to make the decision for the rulebook of where to measure from, and base to base is what we get. If you notice, compared to smaller ships, large ships get a boost to movement too. No complaints here though.

There is also the message board topic: Closest corner of bases within range 3, within firing arch, but… But your post helps me out more. It does make more sense, but I personally get a little bullheaded about the way rules are written. It sounds like we have to wait until at least June before anything changes officially. Out of curiousity, does anyone know how range is measured currently in tournament play? Thank you for your post Grimwalker!

Golden ANVIL said:

Another KEY thing to note is that the very first word in the sentence is " Remember ". This very word should force one to recall a previous reference. That reference is found on page 10. I believe breaking down the sentence may mistakenly create two sentences and unnecessarily force two different subjects. This is NOT ignoring rules, quite the opposite it is reading them all of them in context as they are intended.

Yes we may find a english major or rules lawyer to slice and dice and define individual words without context; but I believe the spirit and as the previous post stated the intent is to be able to fire only at what is within your firing arc and that arc determines range and obstacles.

In the end we may all play as we wish but for me at least… this makes more sense.

Happy gaming and remember, in your own house, 'house rules'.

I think one of the core problems is taking the models too seriously. Yes, the Millennium Falcon shoots from the central turret in the movies, but the game is abstracted a little. Measuring from the corner looks a little goofy sometimes, but as has been stated, ruling "closest point to closest point" provides a lot of precision on rulings.

In one image, the X-wing's target wasnot obstructed when measuring from the corner, but if you measured from the center then it was. In this case, it makes sense because the lasers are on the side of the fighter, so nobody argues about that.