short question :
Is it possible to shoot through a small gap < 1 BW while complying to the rule 9.6 D2 on page 156 (basically stating both corners of the shooter should be able to see part of the target) as I have not noticed any mention of a minimum gap ?
I don't see why not. As long as you can trace lines from the front corners, there is nothing written in the rules about a minimum gap.
Atone time in the discussions there was question of 1 MU as to have a gap but the rules are indeed very silent
You can shoot through a gap that is less than 1BW wide. As Francis mentioned the only requirement is that both corners of the shooting base can draw a line to the same point on the target file (without my rules to hand I believe it is the "same" point not "some" point).
Quote from: steads on June 14, 2021, 11:57:12 AM
You can shoot through a gap that is less than 1BW wide. As Francis mentioned the only requirement is that both corners of the shooting base can draw a line to the same point on the target file (without my rules to hand I believe it is the "same" point not "some" point).
Whoops! Steads just set off the arcane rule point siren!!!
For a long time I had assumed that it must be the same point, but the rules don't say this. From p. 156:
Quote
For a target to be valid both front corners of the shooting file must be able to draw an uninterrupted line to some part of the target base without passing through friends, enemy or terrain that blocks visibility.
You can certainly set up situations where the left corner draws a line to "some part" and the right corner draws a line to "some part", and the lines are drawn to different points. Still, the sentence is ambiguous enough that a clarification would be helpful.
I believe the rule is as written. It may seem generous, but it as intended.
Richard
Quote from: lionheartrjc on June 14, 2021, 05:35:17 PM
I believe the rule is as written. It may seem generous, but it as intended.
Richard
I concur and IMO it is clear.
It could be clearer.
For example, is the front edge of a base "some part"?
For the next edition, consider:
"For a target to be valid it must be possible to draw straight lines (that do not pass through friends, enemy or terrain that blocks visibility) from a single point on the target base to both front corners of the shooting file ."
Quote from: lionheartrjc on June 14, 2021, 05:35:17 PM
I believe the rule is as written. It may seem generous, but it as intended.
Richard
So in the diagram both files of the blue missile armed unit may fire at the red elephants: as the bottom file has an uninterrupted LoS to the same point on the elephant base (pick one: there are many) and the top file has an LoS from its top corner to a point (say the top corner) of the elephant base and has an LoS from its bottom corner to a point (say the bottom corner) of the elephant base. Is that correct?
Obviously my "same point" reading of "some" would prohibit the top file from shooting.
(https://i.postimg.cc/YvTTbtrX/Lo-S-question.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/YvTTbtrX)
Quote from: LawrenceG on June 14, 2021, 09:26:17 PM
It could be clearer.
For example, is the front edge of a base "some part"?
In what bizarro world would the front edge of a base not be "some part" of a base?
Quote from: steads on June 15, 2021, 12:47:25 AM
Obviously my "same point" reading of "some" would prohibit the top file from shooting.
It says "some point" not "same point" so the top file can presumably shoot. The intention is, as far as I know, to be generous as RJC said - very occasionally this could lead to real oddities.
The ambiguity is whether it means:
there exists some part of the target that both corners can trace lines to
or
left corner can trace a line to some part of the target and right corner can trace a line to some (possibly a different) part of the target.
Quote from: LawrenceG on June 15, 2021, 07:21:53 AM
The ambiguity is whether it means:
there exists some part of the target that both corners can trace lines to
or
left corner can trace a line to some part of the target and right corner can trace a line to some (possibly a different) part of the target.
I think you are creating ambiguity in your own mind based on what other rule sets have said.
Just reading what MEG says without reference to other rules is not ambiguous. It does not say a single point on the target base, multiple points are valid.
The rules as written are clear IMO for the intent.
In the scenario above, looks like both files can shoot.
Yes as said you are overcomplicating things here.
It is exactly as written and deliberately so.
Simply as written without any implied additions from past rule sets and it's clear.
S