Collisions are here...just as they are in Star Wars: X-Wing. And just as players eventually incorporated them into their tabletop plans, so the same will it be in Star Wars: Armada. The way each system ruled collisions is slightly different though. But that's not why I bring up the discussion.

In some gaming circles, already is 'Collision' (aka Ramming) a dirty word. Had FFG just given a different name or explanation for the event that leads up to and prevents bases from overlapping we wouldn't think the purposeful use of a rule as 'dirty play'.

What if FFG had described the result and prevention of base overlap as a 'Close Quarter Battle' that automatically results in one point of damage to the hulls (from the close proximity of so many guns) of each ship? Maybe that would be a pill more easily swallowed insofar as the rules go. Maybe?

Sadly my alternative narrative just doesn't fly when you apply it to friendly ship bases overlapping (Close Quarter Battling?) each other. Oh well, back to the writing board.

The point of posting this was to share with you my belief that if the 'narrative reason' for the inclusion of a rule is strong it would more readily be accepted. I accept FFGs rule, naming, and narrative to prevent bases from overlapping. But if you don't, come up with an alternate narrative that sits better for you. In the end though, remember that the rule is the rule, regardless of how you dress it.

If it's a close quarter battle, what would be your explanation as to why the shields do nothing? Alternately, why would a closer quarters battle just deal a single damage when normal range 1 attacks can potentially do much more than that?

For me, thinking of it as a collision makes the most sense. There's even evidence in the movies of physical collisions bypassing shields. "That was no laser blast! Something hit us!"

@Wonderplug Not everyone is as fine with it as you. The topic was for discussion not for an exercise in debunking theory, reality, and/or rules. I mean, I can poke holes in your counters to my alternate narrative as well. (I didn't see the Falcons before and after shield dials....and if physical objects can go through shields why did the attack get called off on Endor when the ships could have gone past and through it?) See how silly we would sound debating a science fiction movie? In truth my friends catch ourselves doing this all the time, habit maybe. lol, good times though.

The collision rule is in place to avoid awkwardly placed bases over each other. But was the damage part intended as a punishment for poor maneuvering or a tool to inflict more damage? I'm sure the views on 'intent' vary from gamer to gamer. So lets discuss!

Not sure why you're taking offense. I think alternative explanations are just fine, and I do that myself in games all the time. I'm legitimately curious how you conceptualize the shield situation for the way you think of the overlapping ship rules.

The collision rule is in place to avoid awkwardly placed bases over each other. But was the damage part intended as a punishment for poor maneuvering or a tool to inflict more damage? I'm sure the views on 'intent' vary from gamer to gamer. So lets discuss!

I think 'punishment' is probably the wrong word to use. 'Consequence' is better, IMHO. I tend to see collision damage as a "We tried to avoid the other ship, and they tried to avoid us. Unfortunately it didn't quite work out that way." scenario; as George Carlin might have said, "Look - they nearly missed." I don't see it as a Kamikaze-style attack, even though people have used it in that manner.

Not sure why you're taking offense.

Gah! Typing has no tone. Especially so with my personality. I am not offended wonderplug. Just know that I'm not inferring this is how it 'should be'. I was just giving examples for topic discussion and such. The collision thing isn't a favorite among all that play Armada. That's all. Seriously though, no offense at all taken.

Ramming is a legitimate naval tactic. Sure if you accidentally hit another ship, it can be seen as a punishment. But it is also a tactic with a risk/reward element.

You already see "close quarters" battles with the different dice available at varying distances.

I personally don't see anything wrong with collisions as they are right now. It has numerous applications for both Rebel and Imperial.

I think eventually implementing some kind of boarding action could be entertaining, but then you'd run the risk of over complicating things.

Not sure why you're taking offense.

Gah! Typing has no tone. Especially so with my personality. I am not offended wonderplug. Just know that I'm not inferring this is how it 'should be'. I was just giving examples for topic discussion and such. The collision thing isn't a favorite among all that play Armada. That's all. Seriously though, no offense at all taken.

Good to hear.

I don't see anything wrong with how it works and to me (from the few threads I've seen on this topic) the people "against" Ramming/Collisions are in the minority. Mistakes happen on a ship guided by a large crew and I feel it is a valid strategy to intentionally Ram if the benefit is to get rid of a ship that is hard to destroy. Narrative wise, if a VSD bumps into another one some poor nav officer gets choked out and replaced. Ramming they are sacrificing for victory.

Ramming is a legitimate naval tactic. Sure if you accidentally hit another ship, it can be seen as a punishment. But it is also a tactic with a risk/reward element.

You already see "close quarters" battles with the different dice available at varying distances.

I personally don't see anything wrong with collisions as they are right now. It has numerous applications for both Rebel and Imperial.

I think eventually implementing some kind of boarding action could be entertaining, but then you'd run the risk of over complicating things.

I'm Navy. Ramming has not been a legitimate Naval tactic since the invention of Naval Gunnery.

And in Space. VERY. BAD. IDEA.

As far as why collision damage bypasses shields, I kind of think of it as structural damage from the sheer force of the impact. Sure you had shields, but there was still a ton of force impacting your ship. If I knew more about physics I'd probably be making a lot more sense. Think of it like this: if a football player gets hit really hard he can still get a TBI even if he's wearing a really good helmet and his skull itself is still intact (it was the squishy parts inside getting bounced around that caused the damage). Makes sense to me anyway.

And personally, I love ramming at an opportune moment and I think anyone who would be offended by their opponent performing a perfectly legal move that anyone is allowed to do is a bit over sensitive. If using the rules to my advantage when possible makes me a "nasty player" then I guess I'm happy just to play with other "nasty players". I just call it strategy. At this point no one can say for sure what the spirit of the rule is, as no one from the design team has commented that I know of.

Ramming is a legitimate naval tactic. Sure if you accidentally hit another ship, it can be seen as a punishment. But it is also a tactic with a risk/reward element.

You already see "close quarters" battles with the different dice available at varying distances.

I personally don't see anything wrong with collisions as they are right now. It has numerous applications for both Rebel and Imperial.

I think eventually implementing some kind of boarding action could be entertaining, but then you'd run the risk of over complicating things.

I'm Navy. Ramming has not been a legitimate Naval tactic since the invention of Naval Gunnery.

And in Space. VERY. BAD. IDEA.

Fair enough.

Not a legitimate tactic with modern naval ships. But in a fictional environment? Totally legit

As far as why collision damage bypasses shields, I kind of think of it as structural damage from the sheer force of the impact. Sure you had shields, but there was still a ton of force impacting your ship. If I knew more about physics I'd probably be making a lot more sense. Think of it like this: if a football player gets hit really hard he can still get a TBI even if he's wearing a really good helmet and his skull itself is still intact (it was the squishy parts inside getting bounced around that caused the damage). Makes sense to me anyway.

Either this, more of an internal injury type thing, or the type of shields used.

The Death Star 2 shields were referenced in an earlier post. I honestly don't know off hand what kind of shield it was, but it could have been more of an energy/laser grid type shield that was designed to block physical and energy.

The ships don't have the kind of power source needed to fuel such a shield (after all, the shield batteries were on the forest moon of Endor). So they probably just have deflector shields that can protect against laser fire and smaller physical projectiles such as missiles or small space debris. A ship or asteroid or debris field is bigger than what the shield can effectively deflect, thus direct damage to the ship's hull.

Hope that makes sense.

I also am okay with it bypassing shields.

In my mind, some of the damage comes from crew getting tossed about: into consoles and other delicate equipment, against bulkheads, through viewports, etc. Yeah, I see this sort of damage as injuring crew. But stuff also gets thrown around inside the ship. That stuff busts other stuff, etc.

The ships wouldn't even have to touch in order to make a royal mess inside them.

At least this isn't Trek. It is only a slight exaggeration to say that whenever any ship was hit the crew flew all over the place and half the bridge consoles exploded, whether their shields were still up or not. Um... seatbelts anyone?

I like to think that the damage is from "near-collisions" rather than all-out ramming. In essence, the ships are struggling to avoid each other, and strain their engines or the spaceframe in complex desperation maneuvers to prevent total destruction.

That is how I imagine it, anyway.