Are you also going to be cross with your opponent if they place your squadrons in a position to get shot up by all of thiers after an overlap?

In that situation I will at least get a chance to fight back and he will actually have to use activations to do this where placing someones fighters off the board is an instant kill with no investment in activations or risk to his units.

If FFG ruled that, after you moved your ship onto your own squadrons and I placed them in contact with your ship - any that were not all on the play area were destroyed, I would do it in a second. The responsibility for establishing the rules of the game is the game company's, not some random dude on the internet's. In all my years of gaming, i have never met anyone who was capable of throwing a punch at me, so that is just talk. And the idea of a game about a space opera having some sort of moral component to its decision making is silly.

What should happen is, FFG should clarify what they intended here. The rest of this is petulance.

Are you also going to be cross with your opponent if they place your squadrons in a position to get shot up by all of thiers after an overlap?

In that situation I will at least get a chance to fight back and he will actually have to use activations to do this where placing someones fighters off the board is an instant kill with no investment in activations or risk to his units.

Didn't you have the ability to not run your own ship over your own squadrons next to the board edge? I mean you may need to make it clear to your opponent which misplays of yours are fair game to capitalize on and which will earn him the stink eye.

so it is okay for you to make an error in your movement in such a way that you bring a zero shielded hull in close range of my VSD with 3 black and 3 red dice and I blow you out of the water with a single salvo but not okay if you make 2 errors by misplacing your fighters but also drive your ship through them to let me place them in such a way they get destroyed.

hmmm interesting

That's kind of my point.

Let's assume that FFG comes back and says yes you can place Squadrons off the board if that placement would still have them touching the base of the overlapping ship.

Why then would your opponent be at fault for taking advantage of your tactical errors that lead you to be in a position where your Squadrons can be placed off the board? Why would you expect them to softball you there, and not on any overlap? Or when you end up dead to rights in front of thier VSD? Or any other situation in which you put yourself in a tactically compromising position?

If you have no issue using other rules to beat your oppenent why, if this is a rule, would it be viewed differently.

And let's be perfectly fair you have to do a few things wrong to make this even possible, so it isn't as if they are blindsiding you with something.

Now my guess if FFG is going to say they have to stay on the board if able. But that is just a guess.

{dream state FFG rules guys over coffee}

Pierre: "Screw 'um they screwed themselves by making a ton of errors to make it even possible"

Jac: "Hold on now Pierre", "would't it alienate some gamers if we come across so harsh"

Pierre: "I can't help it if they are morons, besides how else is a player supposed to get a squadron off the play area?"

Jac: "You got a point there; we made destruction rules for ships and squadrons that are off the play area."

Pierre: "but how does a player get a squadron off unless he deliberately flies them off?"

Jac: (after some thought) "Screw it in version v.2 lets make it that you cannot destroys ships and everyone is equal and if you hit a ship for damage he can split it evenly over all the ships in the game"

It seems that flying the edge is high risk, presumably high reward (since you're doing it) behavior. Maybe to"game the system" (moral double standard) by using the edge to protect a weak side or concentrate enemies to one area. It sounds like sour grapes when you cash in on that risk by losing squadrons for flying the knife edge.

There's 3 issues here.

1) What do the rules currently say?

2) What should be the FAQ ruling?

3) Would taking advantage of 2 be poor sportsmanship?

1) Right now the RAW is that you can place the squadrons on the table so they're in contact with the Ship. If that puts part of the Squadron base off the table, then they're destroyed.

2) I think that for RAI, FFG is likely to rule that 'on the table' means the whole of the squadrons base must be on the table, so you can't use this as a way to destroy squadrons, but I could be wrong.

3) If they do however rule that such a thing is allowed, I'd see no issue with it, and wouldn't find it to be a violation of Fly Casual. If you put your squadrons in a place that your ship overlaps them, then it's no different than if someone makes a maneuver that takes a Ship off the table.

One of the cool things I like about this game is if you have that question you could ask your opponent what their preference was to the rule. You can then both agree to us the rule, not use the rule and if you can't make an agreement you can flip a coin.

I'm flexibly with the rule however, I think I lean more toward keep the ship on the board.

I think they'll probably rule that you have to place the overlapping squadrons in the play area, if possible. If they do rule that you can place them off the board (thereby destroying them), I might choose to use that my advantage depending on the situation. In a friendly or casual game I'd probably keep them on the board. In a tournament? I don't know. If I was really down point wise, or if the other player had been a jerk, or excessively rules-lawyered throughout the game then I'd probably relieve him of his poorly piloted fighters.

Regardless, I wouldn't recommend punching anyone for blowing up your pretend spaceships. Although, it could make for a pretty amusing afternoon in the local courtroom:

Judge: Can you tell me one more time why you punched the victim?

Defendant: Umm, he blew up my plastic spaceships.

Judge: You mean he physically destroyed property of yours?

Defendant: Umm, no, it was all pretend, your honor. He just picked them up and set them off the board, thereby placing me at a slight disadvantage in our game.

Judge: .....

the attempted puncher would not need a judge, he'd need a surgeon. ..lol

In a friendly or casual game I'd probably keep them on the board. In a tournament? I don't know. If I was really down point wise, or if the other player had been a jerk, or excessively rules-lawyered throughout the game then I'd probably relieve him of his poorly piloted fighters.

Just curious, but in your play group do you all usually go easy on each other? Like if you have an upgrade that grants +2 attack dice or something would you not use it because its powerful and you want to, I don't know, not hurt each other's feelings or something?

I'm genuinely curious why you (and by extension other players who would do the same thing in the same situation) wouldn't use your full ability when playing a game. If it's a learning game, that's one thing. If you're playing to win (which presumably you are), what do you tell your opponent? "Yeah, I could have done enough damage to take you out, but I chose not to. So your victory that you just got, well, you're welcome." "Those X- Wing squadrons that finished off my damaged Star Destroyer, I probably should have placed them off the board, but I didn't so you won. Good game, though."

I understand where you are coming from, but honestly, I'm in the other camp. We play a game and you take it easy on me because of your own perceived "code of honor" or whatnot, and we don't play again. I know the rules. You know the rules. You want to give me an advantage by intentionally putting yourself in an inferior position? Yeah, not worth playing with that kind of person. There are too many other equality players out there that I can truly test myself against, and learn from.

In a friendly or casual game I'd probably keep them on the board. In a tournament? I don't know. If I was really down point wise, or if the other player had been a jerk, or excessively rules-lawyered throughout the game then I'd probably relieve him of his poorly piloted fighters.

Just curious, but in your play group do you all usually go easy on each other? Like if you have an upgrade that grants +2 attack dice or something would you not use it because its powerful and you want to, I don't know, not hurt each other's feelings or something?

I'm genuinely curious why you (and by extension other players who would do the same thing in the same situation) wouldn't use your full ability when playing a game. If it's a learning game, that's one thing. If you're playing to win (which presumably you are), what do you tell your opponent? "Yeah, I could have done enough damage to take you out, but I chose not to. So your victory that you just got, well, you're welcome." "Those X- Wing squadrons that finished off my damaged Star Destroyer, I probably should have placed them off the board, but I didn't so you won. Good game, though."

I understand where you are coming from, but honestly, I'm in the other camp. We play a game and you take it easy on me because of your own perceived "code of honor" or whatnot, and we don't play again. I know the rules. You know the rules. You want to give me an advantage by intentionally putting yourself in an inferior position? Yeah, not worth playing with that kind of person. There are too many other equality players out there that I can truly test myself against, and learn from.

I get where you are coming from as well. I suppose I was referring more to a learning game or perhaps a game with someone I haven't played with before who maybe seems a bit new or just "relaxed" in their gaming mindset. If I was playing against someone I'd played with before and who I found to typically be my equal or better in terms of skill I wouldn't pull any punches, especially if they are aware of this (potential) ruling. If I was playing against someone who honestly didn't even know that having their fighters placed off the board was even a possibility I'd probably go easy on them. That's not to say someone couldn't get the better of me by feigning ignorance. And I should probably qualify this by saying I don't really have a steady play group. I tend to play with one or two friends at our homes or with strangers/loose acquaintances in game stores. And so far, I've only played Armada with one other player. In general, I tend to feel things out with whoever I'm playing so that, for the most part, we both have a good time. And believe me, this can lead to some brutal matches against good friends/game store rivals where we absolutely use any means to gain an advantage.

As far as whether someone is worth playing or not, I think that sometimes it takes me a couple games or more to even pick up on another player's style and skill, so I wouldn't count someone out as a worthy opponent just because they took it easy on me regarding a contentious rules issue during our first match. Plus, I've got to admit, I've certainly had better players take it easy on me before, still beat me and teach me something about the game in the process. To each his own.

Honestly, in a tournament environment, I would probably move their fighters off the board no matter what.

Before an official ruling on something truly uncertain like this, I would default to not placing the squads off the map, unless both of us agreed to play it otherwise before hand. To do that to an unknowing player, when the rule could go either way to begin with, is just crappy. I dont want to win like that either.

HOWEVER, if ffg rules that it is legal, then fair game.

RRG:

paces the overlapped squadrons, regardless of who owns them, in any position around that ship so that they touch the ship that moved.

To me the bolded part above makes it very clear. Oh well, it will probobly get an FAQ entry as it clearly is the cause of division between players. I'll gladly accept the veridct any way.

But here is an other juicy one for you all.

A ship moves so that it overlapps both squadrons and an asteroid/debrifield. The ship in question only has one hull left and so will be destroyed by the obstacle effect.

The RRG section on obstacles (P8) tells us to resolve the obstacle effect "after executing a maneuver".

The RRG section on overlapping (P8) tells us to move any squadrons out of the way and "finish the ships maneuver" and "Then the player who is not moving the ship places the overlapped squadrons".

Now it seems to me if you finish the maneuver, you are firmly in "efter executing the manuver", so both effects "trigger" at the same time. So we now look at the timing resolution of things happening at the same time (RRG P5). We find that since the effects belong to different players (one moved the ship and the other moved the squadrons) the first player resolves all his effects first.

Now assuming the first player is the one moving the ship, we then get a ship that is destroyed and subsequently removed from play. Now where is the second player supposed to place the squadrons?

ignore this, it didn't quote what I was actualy replying to and I can't seem to get it to.

jboweruk, I have been haveing that issue as well, and have just copy/paste what I was replying to.

RRG:

paces the overlapped squadrons, regardless of who owns them, in any position around that ship so that they touch the ship that moved.

To me the bolded part above makes it very clear. Oh well, it will probobly get an FAQ entry as it clearly is the cause of division between players. I'll gladly accept the veridct any way.

But here is an other juicy one for you all.

A ship moves so that it overlapps both squadrons and an asteroid/debrifield. The ship in question only has one hull left and so will be destroyed by the obstacle effect.

The RRG section on obstacles (P8) tells us to resolve the obstacle effect "after executing a maneuver".

The RRG section on overlapping (P8) tells us to move any squadrons out of the way and "finish the ships maneuver" and "Then the player who is not moving the ship places the overlapped squadrons".

Now it seems to me if you finish the maneuver, you are firmly in "efter executing the manuver", so both effects "trigger" at the same time. So we now look at the timing resolution of things happening at the same time (RRG P5). We find that since the effects belong to different players (one moved the ship and the other moved the squadrons) the first player resolves all his effects first.

Now assuming the first player is the one moving the ship, we then get a ship that is destroyed and subsequently removed from play. Now where is the second player supposed to place the squadrons?

It is quite obvious

they are destroyed by the explosion as they now have no legal placement

lol

Rules errata - squadrons cannot be placed outside of the play area.