It does not prevent movement or even hinder the tool. Remember when you can't lock the tool in you estimate with it.

Measuring Range and arc are not interrupted either. Since arc is a continuous line all you have to do is measure it as normal. It is also unlikely to have range on turn 1 but can happen I guess with a Fleet Ambush.

The rules tell you to estimate when you can't lock the tool in, but in the picture examples you provided you can cetainly lock the tool in to the side of the ship that is propped up. You can even notch the ship in at the end of the template, the issue is when you let go you very well may be dropping the ship base a few inches given that any turn in the direction of the propped up side will result in the end of the template floating in mid air. I am unsure how the rules deal with the possibility of being forced to drop a ship on to the table from an altitude.

You also can't measure your arc as you normally would, as one side of your arc is going to extended into a different axis the the game rules make accommodations for. So that is another hurdle.

And how exactly is range going to work if one portion of the base is propped up in the air. You'd have to account for the incline level needed to reach from a seated base to the propped up base. Again something the rules don't accomdate for.

And how exactly would you resolve movement that perpetually resulted in you overlapping the ship that you began the game overlapping? Does the game just go on infinitly as you continually attempt to resolve a maneuver that you can never resolve?

Actually I think FFG has a better chance of saying 2+2=5 then saying you can stack your ships during deployment. Changing basic math would effect less then stacking ships, which you think is an actual possibility.

See you are not reading the rules right. The Overlap rule only comes into effect AFTER you execute a maneuver. So you pick your ship up, move it to the end of its speed and place it against the maneuver tool at that notch. Some and no fuss.

Arc's are once again lines that are infinite in length and you are supposed to use the range ruler to measure them which is still some enough because they are infinite when measuring from them so place the arc and move on.

Range is still easy enough, as or stands you measure from the cardboard of a ship base which is raised in comparison to the edge of a squadron so same concepts apply.

I think you are over thinking this and are not looking at it from the standpoint of what if. All the rules you bring up are some and easy with no need of adjustment to this style of deployment.

This would cause some lovely overlapping fire though in a Fleet Ambush deployment. . . Hmmmmm

Oh and in the 2 games where I did this none of these things were an issue. Measuring arc and range were still simple and had no problems with doing those things.

That you used it in 2 games with no issue, doesn't mean it doesn't create an issue. It means that you aren't looking for the issues you are creating.

Take two Corvettes and deploy them with one propped up on the right side of another (meaning that the example ship has it's left side up in the air). Set the propped up ship to Speed 4 and try to preform a maneuver turning the example ship to the left. You can easily notch the template in for both the beginning and end of the movement , but the resulting (legal) manuver ends with the template sitting 3-4 inches above the table. You have no way to remotely estimate or execute that legal maneuver because you have a side of the ship propped up at an angle.

Now take two VSDs prop the example ship up so it's front pegs are sitting on the back of the other VSD. Set it's Speed to whatever you want. No possible maneuver will result in you being able to clear the base of the underneath VSD, and reducing Speed temporarily still results in an overlap at 1 and even 0. You can never resolve what are completely legal maneuvers because of the manner in which the ship's are set up. How is that suppose to work?

The deployment you are suggesting as possibly legal in no way works with the rules of the game. You can not have the above highlighted issues and act as if you aren't suggesting that the rules of the game function in a manner which leads to situations in which they litterally can't work. The VSD example above highlights specifically that this type of deployment creates a situation in which legally under taken activations and perfectly legal maneuvers simply can not resolve themselves.

This is why I said you had to be kidding with this thread, because I honestly did think you had to be joking as even 10 minutes looking at the actual ramifications of this setup shows instances where it is untenable.

It is all possible. You think it is a joke but the situations you are coming up with don't actually occur.

Measure your arc on turn 1, can you tell me why you would check both arcs? You really only need 1. Even if Rhymer and 4 squadrons are sent forward I don't thing you need both arcs to tell what arc they are in.

Ugh.

This debate.

Look, if you really - really - need that extra quarter of an inch, feel free to take it... I just personally think its silly, overinflated, and, especially with the way you respond... Overly combative.

It's helpful to step back a bit and choose not to take it as being combative. I know Lyraeus personally, he's a friend of mine, and he's not a troll. He will however bite back when bitten.

Post Scriptum: The person who thinks such a thing up is not the bad guy, but the person who uses it is a villain.

Well... Lyraeus did use it at a tournament no less. I was the impromptu TO at this event, and we had first discussed it the evening before during a practice match.

Because it was a friendly tournament with only 5 players in attendance, I was not going to do excess damage to my poor brain cells trying to work out the correct rules on this. Lyraeus is as well read in the rules as anyone I know, and I'm sure he combed them pretty thoroughly. My on-the-spot solution was to ask his opponent: "Does this bother you?" Opponent said "No", so I shrugged and got back to my own game.

But, I do think it's silly.

What I have the issue with here, Lyraeus, is one of perception.

[...]

Your support of it, given your position doing the tactics videos - seems to some perception as to compromise integrity.

^Agreed. Now, maybe being the guy who forces FFG into a clarification might be a good line on Lyraeus' rules-lawyer curriculum vita , but the point of this game - it strikes me (YMMV) - is to bring out the better tactician/strategist not rules lawyerism. More important than that, this game is about having fun with friends and potential friends.

In this case, it was annoying (which I know Lyraeus didn't intend) because it put me as well as his opponent in an awkward position. Thankfully it didn't seem to bother his opponent enough to make a stink so that I didn't have to make an explicit call. But it could have done.

You think it is a joke but the situations you are coming up with don't actually occur.

They can occure. You have not adressed the situation with the back most of the stacked ships not being able to reduce speed enough to stop an overlap from happening. I mentioned this early on in this thread, and Scottie made an other exmple for it now. The rules simply can not resolve that situation.

I see no way that FFG would say that this is legal.

Throughout the game (excluding the setup, as you have indicated) no models can overlap other models, whether it be ships or squadrons. If a ship ovelaps a squadron (or squadrons), the squadrons are removed from the playing area, the ship is placed where it moved to, then the squadrons ar placed touching the base.

If a ship overlaps a ship, the speed of the moving ship is reduced until it is no longer overlapping and then the both ships take damage.

Squadrons cannot overlap one another, they will always be at most base to base.

So just looking at how the game is played, you can easily tell that no models are ever to be overlapping.

The XI7 debate was a little different than this, the wording on those cards was a little unclear and I could see how they could be interpreted either way. This question though you can clearly see this goes against everything else that is outlined in the rules about overlapping.

Also if you do overlap such as you did in the picture you posted, it will give you a slight advantage. When moving, if the right side of the stand is overlapping another model, and you were moving to the right (say you move the first notch 1 to the right, then the second notch one to the left), you would only be able to use the maneuver tool by holding it above, you could not accurately notch it in and move as it would also then be slanted. What is worse is that when you eyeball it, you would (assumingly) hold it as close to the edge of the raised side of the stand. But with the stand being raised, it reduced the X axis of the stand, allowing the ship to not be moved as far to the right as it should be if the stand was not overlapping. Granted this doesnt seem like much, but it can give you a slight advantage in positioning.

Granted I think this is completely academic, as I said above, there is almost no way this would be legal. I would say there is a 0.000000000001% chance that FFG will say this is legal.

Granted I think this is completely academic, as I said above, there is almost no way this would be legal. I would say there is a 0.000000000001% chance that FFG will say this is legal.

Well when you are tight in on ships and can't lock the tool as normal you hold OT over and eyeball it. That is covered in the rules so I don't see an issue there.

Well when you are tight in on ships and can't lock the tool as normal you hold OT over and eyeball it. That is covered in the rules so I don't see an issue there.

I never said there was anything wrong with eyeballing the movement, you are misunderstanding what I am saying. What IS wrong though is that by having the base of the model on top of another, you have just reduced the x axis of the model.

Exercise: Take a base from a ship, put it flat on a piece of paper, now trace the X axis of the stand (the shorter length side). Now take the same base, place on piece of paper again, this time though raise one of the Y axis sides (longer length side) and again trace the X axis of the base from the point that is still in contact with the paper to the "new" edge of the base. There will be a noticeable difference in the length of the X axis of the base.

By having one side raised you have essential reduced the size of the base, which will cause the ship in question to move incorrectly. Again say you are going to place the maneuver tool on the right side of the base (the raised side), you click the first notch once to the right, then click the second notch one the left (essentially keeping the pointed straight, but just more to the right of the original position). This will cause the ship to not be moved as for to the right as it should have.

Depends on the base and how you do it but you are correct.

In the picture I showed the front of the model was flat and only the rear right pegs were on another base. That does not reduce the axis by anything I believe, now if you have 2 pegs off the table on a single side that would change things

Depends on the base and how you do it but you are correct.

In the picture I showed the front of the model was flat and only the rear right pegs were on another base. That does not reduce the axis by anything I believe, now if you have 2 pegs off the table on a single side that would change things

It does not matter if only one of the pegs is off the play area, the base dimensions will still be altered in some way.

That you commonly don't have use for arc or range on turn 1 does no mean you don't need to be able to make those measurements. The ship is on the table turn one or not.

Additionally you keep bringing up that you are permitted to estimate of you are unable to place the movement template on the play area, but that isn't the issue. The issue is that while you can place the template and notch on both starting and end points the template is hanging off in the space above the play area, possibly at an angle. So you have no reason, nor even means if you did, to estimate that maneuver. And given it has your ship inches in the area you certainly can't execute it.

Additionally you have refused multiple opportunities to address the issue, brought up by multiple posters, of what happens when you can't move off of a ship that you started the game overlapping. I detailed the exact instance for you on which it was possible ,VanorDM brought it up pages ago, and you've not addressed it at all. Your theory begins and ends there, it creates a blatant instance where legal activations and maneuvers can't be resolved.

And you tried this in a tournament?

I can't address the issue of if a ship can't move off another ship. It could possibly happen. But unlikely since the ships most used in this method are small bases.

Yup I did, my opponent was ok with it and we had no issues because it gave NE no advantage other than being able to fully utilize the corner of the deployment area.

Now let's say a VSD tried this with Half of its base in the air (that changes the dimensions but not 3 pegs, I will explain in a bit), that VSD moves even speed 1 and it will be off the base. (though why it would occur that way I don't know but meh people deploy for wierd reasons)

Now here is why 3 pegs don't effect the X axis of a ship, 3 pegs on the table means that it has a flat section, that means that 2 arcs are flat, there will be 1 arc of the X axis and 1 arc of the Y axis. So dimensions don't change. Also if I am doing that then it likely means I can't reach a target if there was one.

ScottieATF, I am being nice I suggest you tone it down and watch your context.

Oh and ScottieATF and kami689, while I appreciate your logical standpoint on this there is no rule I have seen yet. The closest that gets there is medium ships causing a feedback loop but then again it would be a simple understanding that once you are speed 0 you can't go any slower and you return to the beginning movement. Overlapping or not. Since it never states that ships can not be placed overlapping other ships or squadrons. Only squadrons have that rule.

Wait, it was used in a tournament after springing it on someone but before the matter was resolved?

Mikael, I respect you for your play style and community spirit more than just about anyone on these boards, and Lyraus for his commitement as a player (I compartmentalize, there's some others, I just feel awkward as some sort of 'antagonist'), but this whole issue has become an odious millstone of assumptions. If an opponent with that sprung on me, I'd have probably said 'yes' as well, but I'm a conciliatory doormat. I'm too passive to say 'that's ridiculous'. (The same thing happened with a 'with opponents permission' piece sprung on me at a campaign in 2006, I said yes because that's what nice people say. I still think it was crummy to do and I still remember it.)

I'm out until we get a ruling, and I'll be fine with eating crow publicly if it turns out that's the correct way to play.

It was brought up prior to the tournament when we were going over the game that had this occur from the day prior, and no one had an issue with it. Honestly I think deploying this way is risky. You concentrate your forces far too much.

Also people were playing Dominator, Most Wanted, XI7 Turbolasers, etc before clarifications.

That's a lot more tolerable, otherwise it would have been downright low. I've got no problem testing it out, and no real problem testing it out with consent against a player that you really know... but can we agree that a tournament setting is not the right venue for testing an unproven theory directly related to a rules issue that's currently undergoing review?

Well the rule issue was not going under review at the time. This was posted afterwards to double check my logic.

Oh, then that's fine and responsible. I withdraw my objection. Like I said, I'm fine eating crow and saying when I'm wrong.

... would you kindly pass the salt?

Oh, then that's fine and responsible. I withdraw my objection. Like I said, I'm fine eating crow and saying when I'm wrong.

... would you kindly pass the salt?

It almost certainly will, if only for the strictly commercial issue that it looks messy annd that doesn't sell. No one wants to present a whole mangled pile of models and call it 'a complete exciting game experience' which is what this could devolve into with something like a 400-500 point corvette swarm (lets admit it, there's a sliding scale precedent of 300-400, so why not 400-500 in wave 4? Or 1,000 points when an epic ship comes out). With all the time put in to it with prepaints, visual packaging, etc, it seems counter intuitive to make a single instance okay when they maintain such a strong base aesthetic at all other times.