Ok, 2 questions about fire arcs:

1. On the front fire arc, is it just if the markers touch the plane that it is hit, or is it anywhere in the borders of that line between the actual octagons?

2. On the rear fire arc, do you just count out from the angled sides to check range, or do you count directly out the back edge as well. Is the rear arc a triangle(out the sides only), or an actual quarter-circle(connecting the ends of the arcs with the back edge, since the back edge will go out farther)?

1. It's only the markers. It is possible for the arc to miss a plane because it falls into one of the "notches" of the arc.

2. The rule book says it's an arc, but it's very fuzzy as to exactly how you determine this. If it's close, I'd do lines of markers out the appropriate side and directly back, and guage the curve. If it's too close to call, there's always the Gentleman's Resolution.

Actually, CriticalMiss (Kelly Bonilla - WizKids Development team) had stated a while back that the front line of fire actually counts as if it were a straight line, with no jags along the edges. Draw a line along the outside edge of the marker, and if the traget marker falls in one of the "notches" it is still counted as a legal shot.

Can't find that thread right now, but I will keep looking for it.

Unless, of course, this has been addressed in an FAQ that I have missed...

<sigh> I hate it when they do that.

From the rule book, page 17:

"If the markers overlap an opposing plane's final movement marker, you may shoot at the target"

If it does include the notches, it's a direct contradiction of the rule book, and doesn't exist in the FAQ yet. I'd keep playing it per the rule book until it's officially FAQ'ed.

Of course, that may be because, IMHO, I think it's a horrible change. Though there may be some logical problems with the gap, trying to eyeball whether another plane's marker is in the gap will lead to all kinds of problems, whereas the overlap check is typically very, very obvious.

And the logic problems aren't any worse than a third plane not being able to follow the other two in his squadron because there are only two Glide cards, now are they? :grin:

I have to agree. It definitely makes it a bit more complicated when the rule books say one thing, and the WK reps say something else. You're probably right, though Buhallin. Play it as written til it's FAQ'd.

I kind of like it when you miss if the target is only in the notch. I seem to me like machine gun fire rattling round is is not presicely straight like some laser beam. The same holds true for the flight tiles not being a perfectly the same every time you lay them out.

-ape2020

I agree. I mean this is the 1930's right? If you've ever seen a "movie" portrayal of that era's dogfights...you'll notice that just because you're directly in line with someone doesn't mean you can't hit air.

As far a the rear arcs go...an arc is an arc is an arc in my opinion...why would only the sides have max range and not the one directly behind you?

I recall seeing that same ruling about the notches as well, and usually play it that way.

It doesn't really contradict the rules because it doesn't specifically say you can't shoot if it's in a notch (after all the subtle rule changes in MK 2.0, I've learned to interpret the rules for WK games as word-for-word as possible).
It's true that a plane can have a perfect shot at another and still miss, but that's already covered by rolling the dice.

It also doesn't really complicate things either, because it's easy enough to take an extra marker and lay it on top of the ones you're already using to determine the front arc - just line up all the edges and you've got a nice straight line.


I never count the first notch (between the plane's movement marker and the first range marker) or the half-notch at the very end of the range markers, though.

That's the problem though, woelf - it DOES say that.

It says that the movement markers have to overlap. If it's in the notch, there's no overlap in the markers. If you go that route, you could just as easily argue for closing the corners when checking for collisions.

The front-and-back corner issue is a valid one, too... If you're going to close the corners on some, why not all?

I don't think it's bad the way it's written - sure it's annoying if you lose that shot, but it's not a common thing, and it avoids special-case stuff. If the markers touch, you can shoot. If they don't, you can't - end of story.

Gotcha. We've been playing that it's markers-only, that wasn't tough to figure out.

The big question was the rear arc, and whether it is a true arc or just a triangle with the third side being the imaginary line between where the side arcs end.

I think the FAQ clarifies it nicely as an actual arc.