Had a situation come up at a Store Championship that I wanted some clarification for.

The rules with regards to landing on asteroids talk about physically overlapping the ship base on the asteroid token. My opponents ship ended its movement physically touching the side of the asteroid but it was not overlapping/on top. As we all know there is a little bit of play in setting our templates in the guides and moving ships, accidentally shifting tokens etc. It took quite a bit of work to get it in there...lol. We played on as if it cleared the asteroid.

So in a situation where the ship base physically touches the side of the asteroid but is not on top/overlap, do you roll for damage/lose action/don't attack?

I guess it's impossibile to judge properly and it may change everytime.

If both player agree, no problem.

Otherwise, that's a situation i'd call To

Yeah, that's a situation where a TO could make a ruling or you could decide to flip a coin / roll a die for it.

I'm of the opinion that, if your base comes into contact with the asteroid at all, you're considered to be overlapping the asteroid.

That's how we play it on Vassal. If there is no black pixels between your ship and the asteroid then you are considered overlapping. It's just a little different in the real world. Not so exact. And the rule states that they need to "overlap".

That's how we play it on Vassal. If there is no black pixels between your ship and the asteroid then you are considered overlapping. It's just a little different in the real world. Not so exact. And the rule states that they need to "overlap".

Yeah, it's a tricky situation obviously. Which is why you'd need a TO to come over if you can't come to an agreement with your opponent.

I know the rules say "overlap", but (IMO) if you're touching it it's probably that your ship overlapped the side of the asteroid as you placed it down, or you pushed the asteroid ever so slightly to get the ship into place. So, in my book, as soon as there's contact there's "overlap".

How about a "compromise" solution if you're playing a friendly game. Say the ship loses its action as if it hit the asteroid (the damage roll is another thing) but still allow it to make its attacks as if it never touched it.

If there really is a question and you can't decide (or have a TO decide) I'll suggest rolling that red die you would for hitting an asteroid; if it hits then you are on the asteroid with all the other problems that come with it but if it doesn't then you are considered free and clear. You get to kill two birds with one roll this way.

In my games, if it is not evident, it didn't happen.

If we are not sure if the ship overlapped the asteroid, then, it didn't.

In the end, it is a much more preferable solution than hearing your opponent for the next minutes-hours-days how he could have won that game if not for overlapping that rock.

I normally play it that if you can put your ship flat on the table without moving the obstacle, then it's not overlapping. If you've got to nudge it by the slightest amount to do this, then it's an overlap.

Our house rule is "if the ship fits, you must acquit (from rolling a damage die)"

it's probably that your ship overlapped the side of the asteroid as you placed it down, or you pushed the asteroid ever so slightly to get the ship into place.

But you're assuming that the asteroid was moved, which isn't always true. If I'm holding it down with one hand and drop the ship in place with the other, or the other guy is holding it down, and it fits. You can't really call that an overlap.

How about a "compromise" solution if you're playing a friendly game. Say the ship loses its action as if it hit the asteroid (the damage roll is another thing) but still allow it to make its attacks as if it never touched it.

If there really is a question and you can't decide (or have a TO decide) I'll suggest rolling that red die you would for hitting an asteroid; if it hits then you are on the asteroid with all the other problems that come with it but if it doesn't then you are considered free and clear. You get to kill two birds with one roll this way.

I think a compromise is a bad solution. You're either on the asteroid or not. It could get really messy enforcing some of the rules because they apply but ignoring others for the sake of a compromise.

The word overlap means to partly cover something, and the rules also state "When overlapping an obstacle token, the ship stays where it lands (on top of the token)." Touching only applies to ships, not obstacles. So if you end your maneuver flat on the table and touching the obstacle, you haven't overlapped it. To place a ship in this manner would require very careful observation from both players.

In a friendly game, it's generally not likely to be an issue as the only thing at stake is bragging rights for winning just that game.

I always thought the rulebook (or an FAQ at least) cleared this up? That if you fit but are technically 'touching' the asteroid, it doesn't count of an overlap.

That's just the thing. There is no "touching" when it comes to obstacles. Touching is a state that results from overlapping a ship, because you move off the ship until you are touching. With obstacles, you either overlap it or you don't because there is no "move off". Every reference in the rulebook and FAQ is for overlapping an obstacle, there is no mention or reference to touching one.

I'd be in the touching counts as overlapping camp, it's an either or situation either you missed the asteroid or you didn't.

How about a "compromise" solution if you're playing a friendly game. Say the ship loses its action as if it hit the asteroid (the damage roll is another thing) but still allow it to make its attacks as if it never touched it.

If there really is a question and you can't decide (or have a TO decide) I'll suggest rolling that red die you would for hitting an asteroid; if it hits then you are on the asteroid with all the other problems that come with it but if it doesn't then you are considered free and clear. You get to kill two birds with one roll this way.

I think a compromise is a bad solution. You're either on the asteroid or not. It could get really messy enforcing some of the rules because they apply but ignoring others for the sake of a compromise.

....

The "compromise" is more for that friendly game. It's true that you should either be on it or you shouldn't but that compromise could help keep both sides unhappy if they can't agree.

If you need the YES/NO answer and can't have a 3rd-party/TO make the call then you'd be rolling the die to randomly see who's right. Here I'm just saying you could combine that roll with what would be the damage roll should hitting actually happened; I'd even say this favors the guy who wants the ship on the rock as because even if the 50:50 for sitting on the rock goes his way there would then be another 50:50 on damage.

If the ship lands flat on the table without moving the asteroid then it was not an overlap. If the ship moves the asteroid token to sit flat then it is an overlap. If the ship gets hung up on the asteroid and doesn't sit flat it is an overlap.

I'd be in the touching counts as overlapping camp, it's an either or situation either you missed the asteroid or you didn't.

You're right with the 2nd part but wrong with the first.

Either you overlapped the obstacle or you did not. If your base happens to be in contact with the edge of one, this is not overlapping it. Overlapping something is clearly defined in the rules, and you can't simply refine it.

Now it would be very easy to nudge the obstacle when placing your ship. But the only way a TO or dice should really be involved is both sides can't agree if the obstacle was nudged or not.

I'd be in the touching counts as overlapping camp, it's an either or situation either you missed the asteroid or you didn't.

You're right with the 2nd part but wrong with the first.

Either you overlapped the obstacle or you did not. If your base happens to be in contact with the edge of one, this is not overlapping it. Overlapping something is clearly defined in the rules, and you can't simply refine it.

Now it would be very easy to nudge the obstacle when placing your ship. But the only way a TO or dice should really be involved is both sides can't agree if the obstacle was nudged or not.

My point is more that it'd be very, VERY hard to place your ship into position so it touches the side of an asteroid without having nudged it at all.

In my mind, either there's a few microns between the ship and the asteroid, or there's not and you touched/overlapped it as you placed your ship down.

I.e.: You can't be "in contact with it" without "nudging it", and therefore overlapping it.

I.e.: You can't be "in contact with it" without "nudging it", and therefore overlapping it.

Sure you can. It would be fairly difficult, but it can be done. All you need to do is have the other guy hold it in place, and put your ship down. I'd assume he wouldn't move it in your favor, so if it fits but is in contact, then it didn't overlap.

Two touching elements are not overlapping so why not just adhere to the rules?

Touching an obstacle is not the same as overlapping it. It is certainly possible to be physically touching and not overlapping ships and or obstacles. Remember that you can barrel roll so that you are physically in base contact with an asteroid but never overlapped it.

I generally play the following: for any manoeuvre where the clearance is less than a single mm or either player thinks the asteroid may have been moved during the manoeuvre, either player can ask for a roll off to determine overlapping or not.

I will pretty much always offer the roll to my opponent if I think it is close on my manoeuvre, and will ask on any of their manoeuvres if I think it was too close to call. This most often occurs when bumping and placing a model exactly is almost impossible because there are no nubs part of the way along the template.

I find this not only speeds up play (because you don't spend ages trying to measure fractions of a millimetre), but also prevents any lingering bad feeling on close calls.