Hiding behind side arc

[Thraug 1,066]

 

 

That is definitely naughty, front arc is clearly in arc on the enemy ship, but because of the rules, the side is blocking the shot?

 

They need to fix that, as the guy said, how can the side of the ship be blocking an attack? surely it would sustain the damage instead of the rear.

But what use would the LoS dots be if not for this exact situation? You're pretty much advocating for an arc-only system, which I think would take away quite a bit of the depth that makes maneuvering a challenge in this game.

 

Gods remember when people would just measure Dot to Dot never checking arc. . . I still have some people who have not played in some time doing that. . . 

 

 

I've said it before and I'm still a 100% advocate for changing firing eligibility to just a LOS check. A shot is possible when dot-to-dot measurement only passes through the firing and target arc. In the pic above, the VSD could fire at the AF's side arc, not the AF's front. It's infinitely easier and quicker to execute, visualize, document, and teach. I've never met a player who has only read the rules, including the RRG and FAQ, but hasn't read these forums and hasn't been instructed by someone who has, that knows how to properly check target eligibility.

 

The overall change would speed up play, make it easier to understand, and allow for more firing, which I feel are all great. Wider firing arcs would also be more impressive, as they should be.

 

[Ardaedhel 10,844]

 

 

 

That is definitely naughty, front arc is clearly in arc on the enemy ship, but because of the rules, the side is blocking the shot?

 

They need to fix that, as the guy said, how can the side of the ship be blocking an attack? surely it would sustain the damage instead of the rear.

But what use would the LoS dots be if not for this exact situation? You're pretty much advocating for an arc-only system, which I think would take away quite a bit of the depth that makes maneuvering a challenge in this game.

 

Gods remember when people would just measure Dot to Dot never checking arc. . . I still have some people who have not played in some time doing that. . . 

 

 

I've said it before and I'm still a 100% advocate for changing firing eligibility to just a LOS check. A shot is possible when dot-to-dot measurement only passes through the firing and target arc. In the pic above, the VSD could fire at the AF's side arc, not the AF's front. It's infinitely easier and quicker to execute, visualize, document, and teach. I've never met a player who has only read the rules, including the RRG and FAQ, but hasn't read these forums and hasn't been instructed by someone who has, that knows how to properly check target eligibility.

 

The overall change would speed up play, make it easier to understand, and allow for more firing, which I feel are all great. Wider firing arcs would also be more impressive, as they should be.

 

 

 

This change would make double-arcing dramatically easier, and thus require rebalancing of basically every ship.

[mathay86 6]

 

 

 

 

That is definitely naughty, front arc is clearly in arc on the enemy ship, but because of the rules, the side is blocking the shot?

 

They need to fix that, as the guy said, how can the side of the ship be blocking an attack? surely it would sustain the damage instead of the rear.

But what use would the LoS dots be if not for this exact situation? You're pretty much advocating for an arc-only system, which I think would take away quite a bit of the depth that makes maneuvering a challenge in this game.

 

Gods remember when people would just measure Dot to Dot never checking arc. . . I still have some people who have not played in some time doing that. . . 

 

 

I've said it before and I'm still a 100% advocate for changing firing eligibility to just a LOS check. A shot is possible when dot-to-dot measurement only passes through the firing and target arc. In the pic above, the VSD could fire at the AF's side arc, not the AF's front. It's infinitely easier and quicker to execute, visualize, document, and teach. I've never met a player who has only read the rules, including the RRG and FAQ, but hasn't read these forums and hasn't been instructed by someone who has, that knows how to properly check target eligibility.

 

The overall change would speed up play, make it easier to understand, and allow for more firing, which I feel are all great. Wider firing arcs would also be more impressive, as they should be.

 

 

 

This change would make double-arcing dramatically easier, and thus require rebalancing of basically every ship.

 

What you said 100 times over, the system is simple; Arc Check, Range Check, LOS check......the biggest struggle I still have is having to explain that I can draw LOS through my own arc lines just not theirs.

[Lyraeus 4,759]

That is definitely naughty, front arc is clearly in arc on the enemy ship, but because of the rules, the side is blocking the shot?

 

They need to fix that, as the guy said, how can the side of the ship be blocking an attack? surely it would sustain the damage instead of the rear.

But what use would the LoS dots be if not for this exact situation? You're pretty much advocating for an arc-only system, which I think would take away quite a bit of the depth that makes maneuvering a challenge in this game.

Gods remember when people would just measure Dot to Dot never checking arc. . . I still have some people who have not played in some time doing that. . .

 

I've said it before and I'm still a 100% advocate for changing firing eligibility to just a LOS check. A shot is possible when dot-to-dot measurement only passes through the firing and target arc. In the pic above, the VSD could fire at the AF's side arc, not the AF's front. It's infinitely easier and quicker to execute, visualize, document, and teach. I've never met a player who has only read the rules, including the RRG and FAQ, but hasn't read these forums and hasn't been instructed by someone who has, that knows how to properly check target eligibility.

 

The overall change would speed up play, make it easier to understand, and allow for more firing, which I feel are all great. Wider firing arcs would also be more impressive, as they should be.

 

This change would make double-arcing dramatically easier, and thus require rebalancing of basically every ship.

What you said 100 times over, the system is simple; Arc Check, Range Check, LOS check......the biggest struggle I still have is having to explain that I can draw LOS through my own arc lines just not theirs.

Your turrets turn but you can't shoot through something to get to something else.

[DiabloAzul 2,636]

It's worth bringing up this diagram from time to time:

 

 

The case under discussion, while more apparent, would be akin to attempting a shot against the right hull zone of ship B, front hull zone of ship C, or rear hull zone of ship D. No can do.

[Rocmistro 1,090]

 

 

 

That is definitely naughty, front arc is clearly in arc on the enemy ship, but because of the rules, the side is blocking the shot?

 

They need to fix that, as the guy said, how can the side of the ship be blocking an attack? surely it would sustain the damage instead of the rear.

But what use would the LoS dots be if not for this exact situation? You're pretty much advocating for an arc-only system, which I think would take away quite a bit of the depth that makes maneuvering a challenge in this game.

 

Gods remember when people would just measure Dot to Dot never checking arc. . . I still have some people who have not played in some time doing that. . . 

 

 

I've said it before and I'm still a 100% advocate for changing firing eligibility to just a LOS check. A shot is possible when dot-to-dot measurement only passes through the firing and target arc. In the pic above, the VSD could fire at the AF's side arc, not the AF's front. It's infinitely easier and quicker to execute, visualize, document, and teach. I've never met a player who has only read the rules, including the RRG and FAQ, but hasn't read these forums and hasn't been instructed by someone who has, that knows how to properly check target eligibility.

 

The overall change would speed up play, make it easier to understand, and allow for more firing, which I feel are all great. Wider firing arcs would also be more impressive, as they should be.

 

 

 

Respectfully, Thraug, I must disagree.

 

I think it's also worth noting that these types of incidences happen...I wouldn't say commonly, (often, perhapsy) but also that it's pretty hard to actually intentionally pull this off via maneuvering your ship in such a way as to get this affect. It's usually an unintended boon moment for the defending ship.

[Thraug 1,066]

 

 

 

 

That is definitely naughty, front arc is clearly in arc on the enemy ship, but because of the rules, the side is blocking the shot?

 

They need to fix that, as the guy said, how can the side of the ship be blocking an attack? surely it would sustain the damage instead of the rear.

But what use would the LoS dots be if not for this exact situation? You're pretty much advocating for an arc-only system, which I think would take away quite a bit of the depth that makes maneuvering a challenge in this game.

 

Gods remember when people would just measure Dot to Dot never checking arc. . . I still have some people who have not played in some time doing that. . . 

 

 

I've said it before and I'm still a 100% advocate for changing firing eligibility to just a LOS check. A shot is possible when dot-to-dot measurement only passes through the firing and target arc. In the pic above, the VSD could fire at the AF's side arc, not the AF's front. It's infinitely easier and quicker to execute, visualize, document, and teach. I've never met a player who has only read the rules, including the RRG and FAQ, but hasn't read these forums and hasn't been instructed by someone who has, that knows how to properly check target eligibility.

 

The overall change would speed up play, make it easier to understand, and allow for more firing, which I feel are all great. Wider firing arcs would also be more impressive, as they should be.

 

 

 

Respectfully, Thraug, I must disagree.

 

I think it's also worth noting that these types of incidences happen...I wouldn't say commonly, (often, perhapsy) but also that it's pretty hard to actually intentionally pull this off via maneuvering your ship in such a way as to get this affect. It's usually an unintended boon moment for the defending ship.

 

 

Then how do you explain this thread, or one similar, being created every month? Or, why do I, or another player who knows the targeting rules, have to thoroughly explain how they work at least once every tourney I've ever been too, and even after a precise explanation there are still a few players that still don't get it?

 

The rule is just overly clunky for what little it offers over the simplest of alternative solutions.

[Drasnighta 26,832]

Then how do you explain this thread, or one similar, being created every month? Or, why do I, or another player who knows the targeting rules, have to thoroughly explain how they work at least once every tourney I've ever been too, and even after a precise explanation there are still a few players that still don't get it?

 

The rule is just overly clunky for what little it offers over the simplest of alternative solutions.

 

 

How many times do we see questions about Ackbar and Obstructed 1 Die shots?

How many times do we see people assuming Critical hits come before Defense Token usage?

 

How many times do we see people thinking they can spend an Acc the enemy makes them reroll to?

 

 

In effect, the Line of sight "once a month" deal is just as topical as all of these - and they are resolved by actually reading the rules, and the faq, and accepting them without assumptions of how you think it should be, or how you were told it was by someone else...

[Lyraeus 4,759]

 

Then how do you explain this thread, or one similar, being created every month? Or, why do I, or another player who knows the targeting rules, have to thoroughly explain how they work at least once every tourney I've ever been too, and even after a precise explanation there are still a few players that still don't get it?

 

The rule is just overly clunky for what little it offers over the simplest of alternative solutions.

 

 

How many times do we see questions about Ackbar and Obstructed 1 Die shots?

How many times do we see people assuming Critical hits come before Defense Token usage?

 

How many times do we see people thinking they can spend an Acc the enemy makes them reroll to?

 

 

In effect, the Line of sight "once a month" deal is just as topical as all of these - and they are resolved by actually reading the rules, and the faq, and accepting them without assumptions of how you think it should be, or how you were told it was by someone else...

 

QFT

 

Thinking about a CR90 that just needs LoS and not arc or even the MC30, an ISD could do it easily too which would make arc dodging impossible. . . that would change the game so much. . . 

[Thraug 1,066]

It's the 'A' to 'C' shot that players have the hardest time with, even after explaining it to them.

[Thraug 1,066]

 

Then how do you explain this thread, or one similar, being created every month? Or, why do I, or another player who knows the targeting rules, have to thoroughly explain how they work at least once every tourney I've ever been too, and even after a precise explanation there are still a few players that still don't get it?

 

The rule is just overly clunky for what little it offers over the simplest of alternative solutions.

 

 

How many times do we see questions about Ackbar and Obstructed 1 Die shots?

How many times do we see people assuming Critical hits come before Defense Token usage?

 

How many times do we see people thinking they can spend an Acc the enemy makes them reroll to?

 

 

In effect, the Line of sight "once a month" deal is just as topical as all of these - and they are resolved by actually reading the rules, and the faq, and accepting them without assumptions of how you think it should be, or how you were told it was by someone else...

 

 

None of those slow the game down, ever. The targeting rules do, even for players that know all of the rules and conditions. Having to measure arc, LOS and range instead of just the LOS dots slows it down, even when there aren't a lot of pieces in the way. In a giant squadron furball it's much worse. None of the items you mentioned are comparable, they are apples and oranges.

[Drasnighta 26,832]

They are comparable in the fact that you stated it was a major issue because, and I quote:

 

 

 

how do you explain this thread, or one similar, being created every month?

 

I listed some other things that have a thread created for those specific instances, or similar, every month.

 

Honestly, if anything, they're not comparable because some of the ones I listed (Including the Middle one - OLP) is mistaken and asked more often.

[Lyraeus 4,759]

It's the 'A' to 'C' shot that players have the hardest time with, even after explaining it to them.

You are trying to shoot his side Through his engines. Not much to question there. Closest happens but it is rare since the Arc Line does not count as part of the Hull Zone

Edited August 28, 2016 by Lyraeus

[Ardaedhel 10,844]

It's the 'A' to 'C' shot that players have the hardest time with, even after explaining it to them.

 

I agree.

This is not OP's issue.  OP's issue is A to B's side. 

 

A to C is illustrating the edge-case change that was added to the FAQ 6 months or so ago, almost never comes up, and is a bad change IMO because it adds complexity without contributing significantly to depth.

 

Line of Sight, p. 7:

The fourth bullet point of this entry should read:

“If line of sight or attack range is traced through a hull zone on

the defender that is not the defending zone, the attacker does

not have line of sight and must choose another target.”

Edited August 28, 2016 by Ardaedhel