This question is about Oicunn and touching models whom you're already in base contact with.

Let's say in a previous turn a player ended up in base contact with Captain Oicunn of a vt-49 decimator. (For sake of argument, it's a gold squadron pilot) Now it's time to reveal dials and I notice I am already touching someone, but it's off to the side so I can't just ram them. Instead a loyal tie interceptor of Alpha Squadron (like the opposing ship, it doesn't matter who) moves right into Oicunns flight path. Now blocked by his own guy, Oicunn reveals his manuver and is unable to do any actual movement. Does his ability still trigger to deal one damage to the gold squadron pilot?

I'm saying yes because he's done everything the ability requires: To execute a maneuver and then be touching an opponent.

Yes you'd still do damage. You'd follow the template until you bumped your TIE, back the VT-49 off until you no longer overlap your TIE, realize that you now overlap and enemy ship, and back the VT-49 off until you no longer overlap. It doesn't matter that you didn't move from your starting point because you still met the requirements for Oicunn's ability to trigger.

Moreover, Oicunn's ability specifies that he damages enemies, so this tactic has no more sacrifice than his usual play.

This is actually already being in another thread. I can't find it right now. But since Oicunn doesn't overlap the GSP, he is not touching it even though they are physically adjacent. FAQ covers this clearly. You can touch and not be Touching.

The debate is wether overlapping the ship in front to not move at all is equal to executing a 0 Stationary Maneuver, because that maneuver has a special FAQ stating that executing the 0 Stationary maneuver does not cause the Touching state to end, as any other movement does.

Wait. If i can touch a ship but not be touching a ship, can I shoot at him?

Yes.

Wait. If i can touch a ship but not be touching a ship, can I shoot at him?

Yes. Touching has a game description which can only be caused by an overlap or maintained by a stationary maneuver; there is also the appearance of touching which is a real world thing but has nothing to do with the game.

Touching has a game description which can only be caused by an overlap or maintained by a stationary maneuver;

That is currently debated. It is not clear whether the state is maintained by just the stationary maneuver or by simply not moving. The FAQ used to make it clear that it was because of not moving, but the most recent change in wording has made that not clear.

My initial answer to the OP was assuming that this was the situation being described:

If that is what was being described then Oicunn would deal damage.

I don't believe that Oicunn would deal damage if this was the scenario being described:

EDIT: Used the wrong second picture. Replaced it.

So I looked over page 17 of the rule book, and it doesn't use touching as a special game term. It uses the common definition. Touching isn't even a term in the index.

Where can I find this legal distinction?

So I looked over page 17 of the rule book, and it doesn't use touching as a special game term. It uses the common definition. Touching isn't even a term in the index.

Where can I find this legal distinction?

Page 8 of the FAQ has this:

Overlapping Inline Ships

Sometimes a round will end with two ships touching each other, parallel, and facing the same direction. If both ships are the same base size and execute the same unobstructed straight [ ] maneuver during the next round, the ships do not overlap each other and are not considered touching, even though they remain physically adjacent.

I read that as saying that it is possible for ships to be in base to base contact without being considered touching. I've had a ship that fit perfectly between a template and an enemy ship with no air gap between either but placement of the ship didn't displace either the template or the enemy ship. Those ships were in physical contact but were not "touching".

In the situation pictured, when you place the VT-49 you never overlap the Y-Wing or cause it to be displaced. I wouldn't consider them touching for the purposes of Oicunn's ability, Intimidation, or target selection.

Looking at WWHSD's diagrams I would revise my earlier conclusion if the situation is like the first picture. There you try your maneuver but the are blocked back. However, just backing up off of your own blocking ship would not be enough so you need to back off the offending Y-Wing as well. In the end you may not have changed position but you are not touching your TIE but would be touching the Y-Wing as that is the ship which pushed you back the rest of the way.

While "blocking" is a strategy I don't believe it is something defined in the rules. When I hear blocking I do think of a ship that gets in the way to void maneuvers. I guess I take that a step further and define a "blocking ship" as the last ship one needs to back off of to find a legal position; it may not be the one that starts a chain of events but it is the one a ship is finally considered to have run into/overlap and now be touching.

The situation that spawned this thread is the second picture.

How often do they update the FAQ?

The situation that spawned this thread is the second picture.

How often do they update the FAQ?

My original answers figured that but there is that other big thread that is already covering that topic.

Where is this in the FAQ? I keep seeing people reference this "touching but not touching," but so far it just seems like forum-theory, not backed up by anything in the rules or FAQ. Are there secret rulings that have not been published?

The rulebook says "Ships whose bases are touching cannot declare each other as a target during the Combat phase while their bases remain touching."

It's in the Overlapping section, but it just says "while their bases remain touching."

The exception in the FAQ says that in order for touching ships to not be considered touching, they have to start touching and do the same straight maneuver. Everything else just says, basically, "yep, touching is touching."

And Oicunn's pilot card says if he overlaps, then he damages all enemy ships he's touching.

The FAQ for overlapping in line ships is just one example of ending up en physical contact without overlapping. This must also be true for any other situation where no one elapsed occurs. So in order to be touching in the rules sense an overlap must have occurred.

The FAQ for overlapping in line ships is just one example of ending up en physical contact without overlapping. This must also be true for any other situation where no one elapsed occurs. So in order to be touching in the rules sense an overlap must have occurred.

Cite a rules example, please.

The FAQ for overlapping in line ships is just one example of ending up en physical contact without overlapping. This must also be true for any other situation where no one elapsed occurs. So in order to be touching in the rules sense an overlap must have occurred.

Cite a rules example, please.

Page 8 of the FAQ states:

Overlapping Inline Ships

Sometimes a round will end with two ships touching each other, parallel, and

facing the same direction. If both ships are the same base size and execute

the same unobstructed straight [ ] maneuver during the next round, the ships

do not overlap each other and are not considered touching, even though they

remain physically adjacent.

so (as I have stated more times than I can count in the rules forums) Touching from Overlapping does not equal Touching as in being Physically adjacent.

Example, you can barrel roll into physical contact with another ship, however you cannot overlap while barrel rolling, hence you are touching but not "FFG Touching"

now until FFG issues an FAQ stating that Oicunns ability is either Real world touching or "FFG touching (overlapped)" then we will never know.

Why FFG don't just change to technical key word "Touching" (I.e. this ship either overlapped or was overlapped) to something else is beyond me it would clear up so many questions on this board.

My suggestion would be to rename Touching to "Close Quarters" i.e. when this ship overlaps another both ships are considered in close quarters, ships in close quarters cannot shot at each other.

Then all of this touching nonsense would finally be resolved.

Edit:

for further evidence, from the same page in the FAQ:

Touching Multiple Ships

A ship can end its maneuver touching multiple ships. If a ship overlaps

two ships, and its own base ends its maneuver touching both ships it has

overlapped after moving backwards along the template, the overlapping ship

is considered to be touching both overlapped ships, and both overlapped ships

are touching it.

This to me clearly states that for a ship to be "touching" it needs to have been overlapped and indeed this seems to be the only rules exerpt that allows a ship to be "Touching" multiple ships after its own maneouvre

Example, you can barrel roll into physical contact with another ship, however you cannot overlap while barrel rolling, hence you are touching but not "FFG Touching"

Show me a rules citation on that, please. If there's no overlap, the barrel roll is legal, but I see nothing that would override the rule "Ships whose bases are touching cannot declare each other as a target during the Combat phase while their bases remain touching."

This is followed by a rule that says "As soon as either of these ships moves away (so that the bases are no longer touching), this combat restriction no longer applies."

In the example above, none of the ships has moved away in a manner that causes their bases to not be touching. Per the only rules in the rulebook on touching, they are still touching while they are touching.

There's an exception for ships flying in formation, fine.

There are other clarifications, none of which say what you're saying.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but if you're right, FFG has not done a good job of communicating it to their players.

Old FAQ versions covered much better the 'contact' vs 'touching' issue. When the FAQ was converted to the new format, a few past explanations were lost on the transition.

Some months ago, it was clear that bases 'in contact' were not the same as bases 'touching'. Touching was a special state generated exclusively by an overlap. If there wasn't a previous overlap, ships could not be considered touching even if their bases were in contact.

The new FAQ is not as detailed on it as the old ones, but since there's no new rule in it that specifically contradicts the old ruling (like for example, autoblasters), we can assume that the Developer's intentions didn't change about that issue.

And think of it this way: If, according to your interpretation, bases 'in contact' were considered for all effects as bases 'touching'... Why the [·0 zero] maneuver needs an specific FAQ entry clarifying that it keeps a previous 'touching' state?

Shouldn't the stationary ship be considered 'touching' by default if 'contact' were the same as 'touching'?

Example, you can barrel roll into physical contact with another ship, however you cannot overlap while barrel rolling, hence you are touching but not "FFG Touching"

Show me a rules citation on that, please. If there's no overlap, the barrel roll is legal, but I see nothing that would override the rule "Ships whose bases are touching cannot declare each other as a target during the Combat phase while their bases remain touching."

This is followed by a rule that says "As soon as either of these ships moves away (so that the bases are no longer touching), this combat restriction no longer applies."

In the example above, none of the ships has moved away in a manner that causes their bases to not be touching. Per the only rules in the rulebook on touching, they are still touching while they are touching.

There's an exception for ships flying in formation, fine.

There are other clarifications, none of which say what you're saying.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but if you're right, FFG has not done a good job of communicating it to their players.

The rules citation you have just mentioned is explicitly bound within the overlapping rules, here is the whole section:

Overlapping Other Ships

There are a few situations that may arise where ships

overlap other ships, and they are explained below.

Plastic Bases Overlapping

If a ship executes a maneuver that would cause the

final position of its base to physically overlap another

ship’s base (even partially), follow these steps:

1. From the opposite end of the template, move

the active ship backward along the top of the

template until it no longer overlaps another ship.

While moving the ship, adjust it so that the

template remains centered between both sets of

guides on the ship’s base. Place the ship so that

the bases of both ships are touching.

2. Skip this ship’s “Perform Action” step.

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.

As the first sentence states:

There are a few situations that may arise where ships

overlap other ships, and they are explained below.

This to me indicates that the rules below that sentence only apply when ships have overlapped. In fact as far as I can tell in either the core rules, FAQ and tournament rules there is no mention of touching that does not explicitly lie within a rules body relating to overlapping.

This is not to say, as I mentioned in my previous post, that the dual use of the word “touching” in the rules text isn’t confusing, especially when in certain circumstances being in physical contact is not touching, i.e. touching =/= touching.

As with the barrel roll example above, it is perfectly legal, however you are not “touching” the other ship as you did not overlap it, and because of this you can shoot/be shot at even though the ships are/aren’t “touching”. Confusing no?

This to me indicates that the rules below that sentence only apply when ships have overlapped. In fact as far as I can tell in either the core rules, FAQ and tournament rules there is no mention of touching that does not explicitly lie within a rules body relating to overlapping.

Okay. Next step.

Clearly the TIE Fighter coming in from the left overlapped the Decimator at some point, and is therefore touching (well, not "clearly," but let's go with the assumption that it did.)

So, before Oicunn moves, they are touching under all definitions.

Then Oicunn moves, but does not break contact.

"As soon as either of these ships moves away (so that the bases are no longer touching), this combat restriction no longer applies."

Neither ship has moved away so that the bases are no longer touching.

Then the combat restriction should still apply.

Which means they're still touching.

Which means 1 damage from Oicunn.

Is the answer different if Oicunn has room to move, but only goes half an inch or so before colliding, never breaking contact with the ship on the side? He still has not "moved so that the bases are no longer touching."

Yes he actually did move so that they are no longer touching. Because any movement breaks contact. Hence the FAQ for the Stationary Maneuver. The rules clearly state that you pick up the ship and move it to the other end of the template. Then the overlap causes you to slide the ship back. You just happen to tend the move in the same spot as you started. But you did execute a maneuver, which caused you to move so the ships are no longer touching. Because you didn't overlap them, only the ship in front was overlapped, and is touching Oicunn.

Because any movement breaks contact.

rules reference, please?

a FAQ answer that says "if you didn't overlap but are still touching because of [reason], then you are still touching" does not, by itself, imply that if you didn't overlap but are still touching because of [other reason], then you are not still touching. In fact, it implies the opposite.

I think the main problem is the lexical ambiguity of "so" (also known as the "it depends on what the definition of 'so' is" argument).

one definition is "therefore" (The witness is biased and so he is unreliable)

another definition is "with the result that" (He checked carefully, so that the mistakes were caught). (this so is often followed by "that")

The rule in the book can be interpreted in two different ways, depending on which "so" is being used.

substitutions:

1: As soon as either of these ships moves away (therefore that the bases are no longer touching), this combat restriction no longer applies.

2: As soon as either of these ships moves away (with the result that the bases are no longer touching), this combat restriction no longer applies.

You guys are arguing 1 (a move, by definition, breaks contact)

I'm arguing 2 (a move has to physically break contact to break contact)

To be clear: I'm not saying I'm right, but I don't see the evidence that you're right, either.

For one, "therefore that the bases are no longer touching" makes no sense. Additionally, the most common usage of so+that is the "with the result that" definition.

(gotta use that Linguistics degree for something) :/

And think of it this way: If, according to your interpretation, bases 'in contact' were considered for all effects as bases 'touching'... Why the [·0 zero] maneuver needs an specific FAQ entry clarifying that it keeps a previous 'touching' state?

The FAQ needs this entry because the previous version(s) of the FAQ had it that the 0 maneuver did not preserve the touching state.

Version 2.1 says, "If a model begins its activation touching another ship and executes a [0 stop] maneuver, the ships do not overlap each other and are not considered touching, even though they remain physically adjacent."

Version 2.2 says, "If a model begins its activation touching another ship and executes a [0 stop] maneuver, the ships are considered touching."