IMO, if the Maneuver template or Ship are off the board they are considered destroyed.

This is not a matter opinions. Had you said "interpretation" then it would be a different matter.

For now all we have to adhere to is the example from X-Wing and the fact that nowhere in the rules is it stipulated that you MUST move the ship along the movement tool and check for "out of map-ness" the entire movement

Even forgetting X-Wing, the current rules for Armada do not say that the maneuver tool cannot leave the playing area. All the rules are concerned with is the starting and ending position of the ship. If the ship ends the movement completely in the play area (ignoring the dials for shields), it is a legal maneuver.

FFG should be easily able to word a FAQ to remove speculation.

1) If at any point of your movement your ship leaves the play area it is destroyed

2) If You ship or squadron ends it's movement or is relocated off the playing area it is destroyed

There is no need for a FAQ. The Rule Reference clearly states that ships "teleport"

Page 11, Ship Movement

​ Move Ship: Place the maneuver tool on the play area and insert the guides of the first segment into the notches on one side of the front of the ship’s base. Then slide the ship away from the guides on the first segment and place the ship by sliding its notches over the guides on the joint that corresponds to the ship’s speed.

You slide the ship away, then you slide the ship in.

Everyone's interpretation of movement is important and valued

as there seems to be differences of opinion

FFG should be easily able to word a FAQ to remove speculation.

1) If at any point of your movement your ship leaves the play area it is destroyed

2) If You ship or squadron ends it's movement or is relocated off the playing area it is destroyed

FFG should be easily able to word a FAQ to remove speculation.

1) If at any point of your movement your ship leaves the play area it is destroyed

2) If You ship or squadron ends it's movement or is relocated off the playing area it is destroyed

For squadrons do you mean relocated as in overlapped by a ship and therefore placed by the other player? No way. People would intentionally place squadrons off the board when possible to KO them.

yes exactly as long as they touch part of the ships base. If you can do it and the squads base touches both the ships base and off the board they would technically be out of play and destroyed.

FFG should be easily able to word a FAQ to remove speculation.

1) If at any point of your movement your ship leaves the play area it is destroyed

2) If You ship or squadron ends it's movement or is relocated off the playing area it is destroyed

For squadrons do you mean relocated as in overlapped by a ship and therefore placed by the other player? No way. People would intentionally place squadrons off the board when possible to KO them.

yes exactly as long as they touch part of the ships base. If you can do it and the squads base touches both the ships base and off the board they would technically be out of play and destroyed.

No way. If there is legal placement on the board no one should be allowed to place them off the board. It is already penalty enough that the other player gets to put the squadrons in a position that most benefits them. Letting them auto-kill squadrons because you are near the board edge is ridiculous.

that is why the question was brought

either it is awesomely mean and you get to destroy stuff or not

either way the rules fail to mention it hence the query

no reply from FFG either way yet but will keep you updated. I expect several days

To ensure accurate and complete information, we are spending time collecting questions and compiling answers for Star Wars: Armada . Once this process is complete, we will answer your question in a timely manner.

Thanks for playing!

James Kniffen

Game Designer

Fantasy Flight Games

email from FFG

Short Version: No. A ship is destroyed as part of this rull if, and only if, the ship is placed at the end of the maneuver tool and part of it's base is out of the play area.

Long Version:

In reality, you are inventing and applying rules where there is no need for rules. The rules work exactly as the rules are written.

The pertinent rules:

1) "a ship or squadron is destroyed if a portion of its base is outside the play area."

2) "Place the maneuver tool on the play area and insert the guides of the first segment into the notches on one side of the front of the ship’s base. Then slide the ship away from the guides on the first segment and place the ship by sliding its notches over the guides on the joint that corresponds to the ship’s speed."

Following these rules, exactly as they are written results in only the following: The ship is physically picked up off of the play area at the start position, and placed onto the play area in the destination position. If the position the ship is placed in at the end of the tool results in part of the base being out of the play area, it is destroyed.

Likewise, it is not necesssary to explicitly state in the rules that where the guide snakes between the start and end position dosen't actually matter. Why? because no rule says that it matters. It's not neccessary to worry about the intervening path of the ship. Why? because no rule says that it matters.

As far as the game is concerned, the intervening time dosen't matter in the slightest.

Lets say the ship is in the absolute middle of the board where no maneuver could result in it flying off. I can pick up my ship, hold it in my hand, leave and go to the bathroom, come back, and place it at the end of the maneuver. The bathroom is pretty far outside the play area, but it dosen't matter. The rules don't say that ships that accompany a player to the bathroom are destroyed, they're not, and it dosen't need to.

The only way that you can reach the assumption that a ship is destroyed as per your example, is if you invent a rule that sates something to the effect of "the ship travels continiously along the path indicated by the manuever tool". There is no such rule or rule lsimilar to it anywhere in the learn to play or reference guide. Ergo, that rule dosen't not actually exist.

Your interpretation follows some logical path, how would a ship get from point A to point B. But it dosen't make your interpretation valid, nor does it make the discussion over it anything like two people that disagree and need an arbitrator to sort out.

Many people have stated what I covered in both of the threads you have put this question in. Just because you have an opinion doesn't make your opinion valid. Guess what? it's ok for your opinion to be wrong. You are acting somewhat childishly; the internet equivalent of stomping your feet and calling the teacher because people keep disagreeing with you. And likewise, FFG will come back as said teacher and say "no daloonie, that's not how it works". Though, the wording of your replies seems to indicate that you expect to be vindicated by the FAQ response. Interesting...

To this end... page 7 of the Rules Reference pdf states the measure tool is intended to be used "inside the Play Area" (Play Area being defined on page 9). Does that mean you cannot measure out of the play area?

With friends we'll probably wind up saying the ending position of the ship base is used for checking if it's inside the play area (call it a house rule, if you want). No idea what tournament rules will be, until FFG updates their pdfs.

Squadron placement is restricted to avoiding other ships and squadrons, but you're aloud to place over obstacles. Nothing about needing to place them on the play area. I imagine again, friendly play would probably be bad form to dump all the squadrons off the table (house rule!). But again, no idea about tournament play.

I really wish FFG could implement something like the Infernals on the Privateer Press forums to answer rules questions, so we don't have to wait months for an FAQ. Infernals are able to lock threads and are able to answer most rules questions or rules interactions quite well. If they don't have an answer, they work with the developers to find an answer. For us, it would be really nice if some of the top QA guys could help us out and have an official voice so we aren't going in circles the entire time.

That is the forum version of sending a question in for designer clarification on this website. Primarily the same thing but less chance of an Infernal overstepping and giving a incorrect ruling.

To this end... page 7 of the Rules Reference pdf states the measure tool is intended to be used "inside the Play Area" (Play Area being defined on page 9). Does that mean you cannot measure out of the play area?

With friends we'll probably wind up saying the ending position of the ship base is used for checking if it's inside the play area (call it a house rule, if you want). No idea what tournament rules will be, until FFG updates their pdfs.

Squadron placement is restricted to avoiding other ships and squadrons, but you're aloud to place over obstacles. Nothing about needing to place them on the play area. I imagine again, friendly play would probably be bad form to dump all the squadrons off the table (house rule!). But again, no idea about tournament play.

? if the maneuver tool goes outside the play area you cannot move? are you violating the definition of the play area, like a pilot would violate a flight ceiling?

what does it mean that you ignore the segments of the tool that are beyond the final joint to which the ship moves. does that mean all the joints between your starting point and final move joint you do not ignore? If you "teleport" wouldn't you just ignore them also? ..... hmmm not according to the rules as you have to make sure your ship doesn't overlap them, and if you bump into something you have to reduce it's speed (moving it back down the dial)

so you move your speed up the dial then if you hit something you move back down the dial ... sounds a heck of a lot like you are following the path of the dial.

The Rules tell you how to use the tool by notching your ship at both ends, you still have to move from point A to point B (just like 99.9% of all other miniature games)

The rules try to include some sense of 3d space by allowing you to move though ships, obstacle and such along your path as space is not 2 dimensional. in the obstacle and only in the obstacle rules.

The rules do NOT say that you "teleport"

The Rules do say you move back down the dial by reducing your speed (hmm travel along the path) which may reduce your speed to (0) for that move

You can't overlap the tool (if you "teleport" why is that at all relevant?)

The rules do state quite clearly that if a portion of your ship is off the board you are destroyed (99.9% of miniature games have similar rules or have VERY specific return rules)

The reason this is important is several fold

It changes the strategy of both Rebel and Imperial players

Rebel: I can just run off the board in a wide U using my superior movement and handling, violating the definition of the play area.

Imperial: Why should I even pursue him I am a floating shoe box with a turn radius of half the solar system.

Rebel: Yea it is risky but if he follows me he will NEVER be able to turn before running out of play area and I should be able to make the U turn no problem

IF FFG intended to make this a real strategy game as it appears it may very well be the rules will be clarified about flying off the play area.

Right now if any part of your base off you are destroyed plane and simple the rules are crystal clear about that and NO ONE has questioned that.

The debate here is either you "teleport" or not.

so in a nut shell is Armada like 99.9% of other miniature games or is it x-wing

Regarding your very last question....since FFG make X-Wing and DON'T make the 99.9%^ of other games you refer to, i would suspect it will lean more in the obvious direction.

I expect it'll be clarified by them, but i have no real doubt that it'll be ruled that only end position matters.

Regarding your very last question....since FFG make X-Wing and DON'T make the 99.9%^ of other games you refer to, i would suspect it will lean more in the obvious direction.

I expect it'll be clarified by them, but i have no real doubt that it'll be ruled that only end position matters.

ahh

but they make other miniature games such as Dust Tactics and Imperial Assault. It will of course be their choice of how strategic they wish to make the game.

The Mechanics of using a game aid (maneuver tool) and how to play strategically within the guidelines of the other rules is 2 vastly different things

I have been a rules editor, playtester, and forum moderator for a major game company (you sign an NDA when you work with pre-release items), and no it's not FFG, but we did work with some game designers that have designed for FFG games. So I have some experience dealing with game rules and helping write manuals to effectively convey those rules. Discussions like this are why I quit forum moderating, and can't for the life of me figure out why I got involved in this thread.

If it makes you feel better to answer your question in 'official rules mod tone', here goes.

Q;"is Armada like 99.9% of other miniature games or is it x-wing"?

A: Using the movement tool in Armada is exactly how it's written in the rules reference guide. While it may not feel as intuitive to you, it is clear cut and the simplest way to have the ship be in one spot and then be in another without getting tangled in pages of clarifying rules. It's best to take the game for what it is, an abstract simplification. Your play experience is at the core of what we do as a game company. Sometimes we think a rule feels fine, but it ruins the immersion for some players. If you want to suggest ways to change the game to feel more compelling as a player, we always welcome suggestions. In this specific case there are similarities between Armada and X-wing, that you can use to get your head around the game if you've played X-wing in the past. Especially if it really helps you dive into fighting epic battles between the implacable imperial star destroyers and beleagured but stalwart rebels.

Now, behind the scenes.

it almost seems as though you're intentionally obtuse. I just can't figure your goal.

There are absolutely some actual rules holes in Armada that lead to un-resolvable situations. THIS IS NOT ONE OF THEM. I would prefer if FFG didn't waste time trying to play whack-a-mole with poorly interpreted non-issues like this, and focus on actual ones. Though, I guess if you individually ask this enough times it may qualify as "frequently asked", and the document is called the "frequently asked questions". As an aside the FAQ dosen't create any rules precedence, that is exclusively in the errata.

Yes, you can take the rules and make wild inferences about what they might imply and reduce the game to unplayable. They are still inferences, not the actual rules themselves.

The quote about the maneuver tool and the play area is incorrect. The text actually states: "The maneuver tool is used to precisely move ships inside the play area" Lets start with simple sentence structure. English is subject-verb-object. The "maneuver tool" is the subject, "is used to precisely move" is the verb group, and "ships inside the play area" is the object. It is very plainly a sentence to orient a player as to what this grey jointed thing is used for in the game. **Star Wars Trivia- yoda sounds wierd because he speaks in object-subject-verb.**

You're right, the rules do not say teleport. The rules make no term for what happens. The fact remains that the ship still is at point A, and then at point B and at no point inbetween. And they do not say it travels along the path.

The rules do not say "you move back down the dial by reducing your speed (hmm travel along the path) which may reduce your speed to (0) for that move" (your quote). The rules actually say " temporarily reduce its speed by one (without changing the speed dial) and move the ship at the new speed." So you actually just attempt the maneuver again at this new temporary reduced speed without changing the maneuver tool. (For those interested you can't change the maneuver tool once you put it in the front guides, which you did on the first attempt to move the ship and found it overlapped). You don't "move back down the dial."

I agree "Right now if any part of your base off you are destroyed plane and simple the rules are crystal clear about that and NO ONE has questioned that."

I do have issue with "The debate here is either you "teleport" or not." THIS IS NOT THE DEBATE. Your argument can only be that moving along the path is the way the game should be CHANGED to be, in order to feel more like what you intuit starship movement to feel like.

Oh, and before asks. Yes, using the lock thread button is just as satisfying as you think it is.

Also, as far as the design of the game strategy. Quirks at the fringes of the ruleset aren't a result of a deliberate decision to expand possible strategies, they just kinda crop up along the way accidentally. Especially given that in practice, it's almost impossible to setup the situation you describe basing a core strategy around.

so by your own standard you cannot move off the table as the maneuver tool is used to move precisely in the play area yet the rules clearly state that if you are off the play area you are destroyed

circular argument time....

so the tool precisely moves you in the play area yet you are destroyed when you are out of the play area. if you are moving precisely in the play area how can you be precisely out of the play area

you cannot be both moving precisely moving in the play area and precisely moving out of the play area or does the precise tool cease to exist out of the play area where you are destroyed

hmmm food for thought

Also, as far as the design of the game strategy. Quirks at the fringes of the ruleset aren't a result of a deliberate decision to expand possible strategies, they just kinda crop up along the way accidentally. Especially given that in practice, it's almost impossible to setup the situation you describe basing a core strategy around.

Yes and when players come across them in games and different portions of the rules have slightly different interpretations questions are asked, discussed, and eventually clarified.

so by your own standard you cannot move off the table as the maneuver tool is used to move precisely in the play area yet the rules clearly state that if you are off the play area you are destroyed

circular argument time....

so the tool precisely moves you in the play area yet you are destroyed when you are out of the play area. if you are moving precisely in the play area how can you be precisely out of the play area

you cannot be both moving precisely moving in the play area and precisely moving out of the play area or does the precise tool cease to exist out of the play area where you are destroyed

hmmm food for thought

It's a silly technicality, not to belabor the point. but you can fly your ship off the play area while still keeping the relevant parts of the measure tool within the play area. Also, now all I can think of is the exchange between Westley and Vizzini in the Princess Bride.

roflmbo

I don't know how you got to the point of the post where snipped out part of the response, and managed to let the entire rest of the post sail straight over your head.

By my standard? I made no standard. I quoted rules verbatim, then said how those words fit into english sentence structure. The following sentence then made a completely different point. It's comically ironic that you constructed another rule, in a post that's entire goal was to show that the crux of the problem is constructing rules that don't exist.

Game rules are a permissive set of instructions. Subroutines if you will. They tell you when and how you can do things. If this X situation exists, do Y. You do not get to do Y when you feel like it, you can only do it when instructed. I cannot roll an extra dice because I think I should, and a ship is not destroyed because I think it should be. These events only occur when specific conditions are met. The rules do not say to put your ship at any point but the start or end points of your maneuver, so you don't do that.

Previously you made a point about ignoring the joints of the maneuver tool past your ship. Telling you to ignore those joints is only telling you to ignore those joints. It's making no statement about any other part of the tool or what to do with it. If the world worked off of you logic, when I sent an message directing the promotion of one of my employees, HR would demote all of the other employees. See the point?

Your post is also useful to show the straw-man fallacy. You took a tiny part of the post out of context. Using it you constructed an argument that I did not make. Disproved that invented argument, and declared victory.

You are making me worried about being a TO if this is what I have to expect.