by delinear
kmanweiss wrote:
Here's my reasoning.
The two ships just tried to occupy the same exact spot in space. The one that moved last had to do an emergency evasive manuever to avoid the collision (which is why he can't perform a manuever and he no longer gets to be where he planned to be). They are very close to each other, but had to avoid a collision, so they are no longer 'aimed' at each other. One of them had to pull up hard at the last second so neither of them has the other in their firing arc.
The two ships just tried to occupy the same exact spot in space. The one that moved last had to do an emergency evasive manuever to avoid the collision (which is why he can't perform a manuever and he no longer gets to be where he planned to be). They are very close to each other, but had to avoid a collision, so they are no longer 'aimed' at each other. One of them had to pull up hard at the last second so neither of them has the other in their firing arc.
Sure that's how you'd thematically justify the rule in retrospect, and I can appreciate and easily picture that, but what I mean is what would be the reasoning for the rule from a gameplay perspective (after all, it would be just as easy to have the rule be that firing is allowed and to just say "the ships pass at very close range so firing off a shot is no problem", besides movement and firing in reality wouldn't happen in order, they'd all be mixed together so in reality you'd be firing on the approach while moving, before having to dodge).
Just to be clear, I don't have a problem with the rule, I'm just interested in why they arrived at that mechanic. I wonder if they found that it unbalanced the game in some way to allow firing at point blank range, or if it was as simple as it felt silly that two ships can sit nose to nose, fire at each other and still potentially miss?