I am curious as to how many ships would take damage in this scenario

3 z95's have surrounded oicunn. Oicunn does a 1 forward that overlaps the front z95.

Since they had all moved they are all considered touching. Oicunn overlaps the front z95 and backs up to his original position. Do all 3 ships take damage or just the front one?

Rules: Ships are considered touching after overlapping for the remainder of the round.

So let me get this straight. Oicunn does a 1 forward from this position? If that's the case, then all three are touching him so all three would take 1 damage each.

I think he would be overlapping only the ship that stopped him.

He is still touching all 3 of them. All 3 take damage.

He overlapped the one in front, but touching remains consistent if no distance has been traveled (0 Stop FAQ).

Basically he does Bowser's move in Super Smash Bros. where he spins really fast and his everything around him.

He is still touching all 3 of them. All 3 take damage.

He overlapped the one in front, but touching remains consistent if no distance has been traveled (0 Stop FAQ).

Actually I am not sure you are right. The FAQ specifically states that if you execute the 0 Stationary maneuver, you are still touching. Normally Touching ends whenever a ship moves, and you then only touch the ship you overlapped (the one in front).

This is a classic FFG rules not being 100% clear on the Touching state. And I honestly can't recall what the latest ruling is on when you are touching or not.

I don't think the maneuver matters so much, because if Oicunn can't move forward and clear the Z-95, he's still touching.

The rulebook states:

Ships whose bases are touching cannot declare each other as a target during the Combat phase while their bases remain touching. As soon as either of these ships moves away (so that the bases are no longer touching), this combat restriction no longer applies.

So clearly a move away is required to avoid the "touching" state. If nobody can move away, they must still be "touching". Either way, no one gets to shoot at each other.

Current relevant FAQ entries:

- If you're touching and execute a stationary, you're still considered touching

- Anti-Pursuit Lasers trigger if an enemy ship is touching after executing its maneuver

So, if you're touching, you take the hit. If you execute a Stationary (the bearing, not the result) maneuver when touching, you're still considered touching.

So the question is, if you're touching and execute a non-stationary maneuver which results in no movement, are you still touching? <shrug> Honestly, the FAQ has flip flopped on this so many times, with so many different bits of clarifying text, I honestly don't know what to think any more. I'm inclined to take the stationary-is-still-touching as precedent, and say yes - if you don't move, it doesn't matter WHY you didn't move, only that you didn't. You're still touching a ship, and that touch was caused by an overlap at some point. So... bam.

My conclusion is he would damage everyone as well. If anything because they would still be touching and he couldn't shoot them. So why wouldn't his ability trigger off the same event.

I disagree.

The example in the FAQ about touching multiple ships is very especific. For a ship to be considered 'touching' a ship, it is necessary to have overlapped that especific ship first. Not only that, but the example is very keen on exemplifying how both enemy ships have to be perfectly aligned and overlapped first by the moving ship in order to be considered touching them at the same time.

The 'stationary and touching' entry in the FAQ also refers especifically to the [0·] maneuver. It doesn't say anything about 'remaining stationary' because you tried to move but couldn't because of overlapping. It exclusively refers to executing a [0·] maneuver in your dial, either because you are a Lambda, or because you used inertial dampeners.

So, in the example above, the only ship damaged by Oicunn would the the Z-95 in front of him, which would be the only ship overlapped by Oicunn's maneuver. Only if Oicunn executes (somehow) a stationary bearing [0·] maneuver would the three Z-95's be damaged by his ability.

The example in the FAQ about touching multiple ships is very especific. For a ship to be considered 'touching' a ship, it is necessary to have overlapped that especific ship first. Not only that, but the example is very keen on exemplifying how both enemy ships have to be perfectly aligned and overlapped first by the moving ship in order to be considered touching them at the same time.

The 'stationary and touching' entry in the FAQ also refers especifically to the [0·] maneuver. It doesn't say anything about 'remaining stationary' because you tried to move but couldn't because of overlapping. It exclusively refers to executing a [0·] maneuver in your dial, either because you are a Lambda, or because you used inertial dampeners.

It seems like you're trying to have your cake and eat it too.

You're right that the stationary maneuver relates to that specific maneuver, without addressing other non-moving situations.

But the overlapping multiple is specifically about executing a maneuver which does involve moving and overlapping both, and doesn't actually do anything to address the situation where you try to move without overlapping.

There's definitely a gap in the FAQ here. So until they fix it, we have to decide which is closer to the scenario in question - two ships which start touching but don't move (albeit for different reasons) or a case where ships started in contact but didn't move as compared to one where ships didn't start in contact, and did move.

I don't think there's any real contest, honestly. The applicability of the "stationary while touching" rule may be questionable - and I certainly agree that it is - but the "Touching Multiple Ships" ruling really has absolutely nothing to do with this question. One's iffy, but the other is completely irrelevant.

... but the "Touching Multiple Ships" ruling really has absolutely nothing to do with this question. One's iffy, but the other is completely irrelevant.

Well, that's because I believe everyone is assuming that since Oicunn ended on his 'starting' position, it is like he has not moved at all...

But the matter of fact is that he truly moved away from its starting position, and his base indeed broke physical contact, at least with the flanking Z's bases (see below). And I think that's where the answer to the question lies. The moment he moved away, he ceased touching all of his surrounding ships.

However, its landing position was illegal, because he overlapped the front Z, so he got carried back, and ended in an equivalent starting position. But that's not like if he hasn't moved at all. That only could truly happen with a [0·] maneuver.

However, it could be still debatable if he kept 'touching' the front Z at all moments... Or if he briefly lost contact, just to regain it immediately after his maneuver.

Indeed. That is my reading too.

As soon as Oicunn reveals a non 0 manoeuvre, he is immediately not touching any adjacent ships. He attempts to move forward, if he cannot fit in his final position. He moves back along the template until he fits. In this case it is his starting position. As such he overlaps the ship in front of him. He would not at any point of the manoeuvre overlap the ships to the sides. So only the front ship takes damage. He would be free to shoot (and be shot by) the 2 ships on either side.

Indeed. That is my reading too.

As soon as Oicunn reveals a non 0 manoeuvre, he is immediately not touching any adjacent ships. He attempts to move forward, if he cannot fit in his final position. He moves back along the template until he fits. In this case it is his starting position. As such he overlaps the ship in front of him. He would not at any point of the manoeuvre overlap the ships to the sides. So only the front ship takes damage. He would be free to shoot (and be shot by) the 2 ships on either side.

I agree with this. Also if the z-95 to his front had been just a fraction of a millimeter from touching, his ending position would have been slightly different from his initial, but he would still physically touch the two other z-95s but not have overlaped and thus not be Touching as in unable to target / be targeted by the z's. The fact is you moved. thus breaking contact, but ended up the the same position due to sliding back, and you never overlapped the z's at the side because it was a straight move.

He is still touching all 3 of them. All 3 take damage.

He overlapped the one in front, but touching remains consistent if no distance has been traveled (0 Stop FAQ).

I'm saying he's just damaging the one in front.

There may be zero relative motion but the Decimator did move. I view the situation like you would view touchinging with parallel ships that then take the same motion. If one TIE Fighter ran straight into the back of another one turn and then the next turn both do the same forward move they will remain in extremely close proximity to each other but they would no longer be touching in the rules sense.

If the Decimator is actually going to touch more than one would it not be backing up even more as you don't get a 'touch' unless you have an overlap first.

A lot of people are drawing a distinction between executing a stationary, and revealing something else but not moving. There's pretty much nothing to support that distinction.

What we do know is that if you execute an intentional maneuver which would leave you in the same place, you're still touching, even though there was no overlap. "Touching" as a game state is created by an overlap, and we have at least one case where that state lasts until the ships are no longer physically touching.

So we don't know either way what happens, but the stationary move provides a much closer precedent than the multiple touching example does, and the distinctions people are trying to draw don't actually exist either.

Seems like a good question to email FFG with.

A lot of people are drawing a distinction between executing a stationary, and revealing something else but not moving. There's pretty much nothing to support that distinction.

But there's no 'revealing something else but not moving'. If you reveal other maneuver than a stationary [0·] you move. The empyrical proof that you move is precisely that you overlap (again) what you have in front.

Since you move forward and overlap, you must move again backwards... And if there is no room to hold a little forward displacement you end back in your original position. And because you end in your original position, people fall into the illusion that 'the ship has not moved'. Moreso when in order to speed up the game, if it is evident that it won't be room to displace your ship, not even a milimeter, after executing its maneuver, people just leave it as it is, in the table, which also contributes to create the illusion that the ship didn't move.

But the fact is that you effectively moved forward, and then, because you overlapped something at the other end of your movement template, your are moved again backwards.

What we do know is that if you execute an intentional maneuver which would leave you in the same place, you're still touching, even though there was no overlap. "Touching" as a game state is created by an overlap, and we have at least one case where that state lasts until the ships are no longer physically touching.

That's not correct. There can't be touching if there's no previous overlap. And there's no maneuver that leaves you in the same place, except the [0·] maneuver. That's the only one that is allowed to 'last' because the ship didn't effectively move due to the properties of the [0·] maneuver. That only singular exception is the one that the FAQ clarifies, precisely because it is the only way for ships of 'not moving'.

Any other movement, actually displaces the ship and ends any previous touching.

But the fact is that you effectively moved forward, and then, because you overlapped something at the other end of your movement template, your are moved again backwards.

Not really. Ships in X-wing never actually move - they teleport from one position to another. All the fiddly bits of overlapping and backing up are used to determine the final position you teleport to, but you never move over any intervening positions, and you're never considered to have moved "past" your final landing spot, even if your maneuver could have taken you there.

We have several rulings to this effect. If there's an obstacle past the ship you end up touching, you don't hit it even if your template overlaps. If there's another ship past there with APL, you don't hit that.

So your ship never moves forward or back, or actually moves at all. The question is whether there's a distinction between a Stationary move's "I'm just going to stay here" and an "I'm going to teleport to the exact same spot result".

Indeed, by 'move forward' we can also interpret it as 'the ship teleports forward'. But even if the forward movement has a 'teleport' property, the 'backwards' movement caused by an overlap is totally different and has nothing to do with a teleport.

Once the overlap is triggered, the ship crawls backward, centered along its template, milimeter by milimeter, moving over each of the intevening spaces and positions, checking if it overlaps another thing, and the whole ship base counts for it while making the whole route back.

Thus, that premise could apply if the rules for the overlap were something like: "If you don't fit at the end of your movement, you 'teleport' back to your starting position", but the normal 'forward teleport' movement and the overlap backwards movement are totally different, and follow totally different rules.

The ship may 'teleport' to its 'preliminar' position, but it certainly 'moves' to its 'final' position if an overlap occurs. The nature of both movements is just totally different.

Buhallin mentioned in an earlier post, but it bears pointing out specifically.

The FAQ used to address this situation explicitly. It used to say that a ship that ended up not moving stayed touching all the ships it was touching before. A subsequent change in wording that was meant to cover other issues removed that specific clarification.

You can take from that "They changed it, so therefore they meant for it to no longer work that way" or "Previous precedent says it works this way, and the current FAQ does not explicitly contradict that, so in absence of other evidence it still works"

Basically, until FFG "clarifies" it again, if you and your opponent can't agree at the time, roll a die.

Indeed, by 'move forward' we can also interpret it as 'the ship teleports forward'. But even if the forward movement has a 'teleport' property, the 'backwards' movement caused by an overlap is totally different and has nothing to do with a teleport.

Once the overlap is triggered, the ship crawls backward, centered along its template, milimeter by milimeter, moving over each of the intevening spaces and positions, checking if it overlaps another thing, and the whole ship base counts for it while making the whole route back.

Thus, that premise could apply if the rules for the overlap were something like: "If you don't fit at the end of your movement, you 'teleport' back to your starting position", but the normal 'forward teleport' movement and the overlap backwards movement are totally different, and follow totally different rules.

The ship may 'teleport' to its 'preliminar' position, but it certainly 'moves' to its 'final' position if an overlap occurs. The nature of both movements is just totally different.

I'm sorry, but this is completely wrong.

You're conflating the process of determining the final position with actual movement, but it's not. We have several firm rulings on this. You don't even consider parts of the movement template which are past your ship's final position - if some part of the template past your final position overlaps an obstacle, you don't actually hit that. The only way to look at this is that the ship is never past its final position, at all.

Movement in X-wing goes from starting position to final position. "Moving" the ship to determine what that final position is does not count as moving, any more than you're considered to overlap a ship that's in the middle of a traffic jam that you back up over.

Here's another example that covers the lack of mid movement:

The nature of both movements is just totally different.

Effectively no they're not.

Just because you slide backwards doesn't mean you're actually moving backwards. You're just trying to find the most accurate possible spot your teleport would have placed you at. If there's something your base would have traveled over and in theory could interact with. You wouldn't trigger it unless your final position intercepted it somehow.

The fact is that we ended discussing the nature of the movement when that's not even truly relevant for the resolution of the current thread.

Even if we completely disregard the existence of the 'transition' or 'middle' movement, that doesn't change the fact that the ship was actually displaced from its original position.

The very own expression 'final position' determines the possible existence of a previous 'non-final' position. A preliminar position that may be invalid, so we must find a new, correct 'final' one. The ship must be displaced from its original position, even if only to check that its originally intended spot is not valid, so we have to find a new 'final' one. And even if it does so by 'teleporting' from one spot, to another, to its 'final' one, the ship already moved.

Also, check the definition of the [·0] maneuver...

Unlike the other maneuvers in the dial, the [·0] maneuver does not have a corresponding maneuver template. To execute the [·0] maneuver, the active player leaves the ship where it is, keeping its position and facing unchanged.

In other words, its the only maneuver wich allows you to leave the ship in the table, without moving it... All the other ones, force you to use their template and actually move the ship. An overlap may occur then, precisely because the ship moved.

What the FAQ does, is precisely clarifying what happens when the ship doesn't move at all by means of the [·0] maneuver. In that specific case, a previous 'touching' situation is maintained, but only because the ship didn't truly move, due to the special properties of the maneuver.

But what you are trying to suggest is that since the ship ended back where it started, it didn't move at all and the 'previous touchings' were not break. That's what is wrong... And precisely there lies the paradox... if the ship didn't move at all, how it overlapped what it had in front?

The only maneuver that is a no-movement maneuver is the [·0], and because of that, it has its own FAQ entry that makes clear that because of that property, it doesn't break previous 'touching' situations.