I'm looking for maths here...

How much more effective than just sitting them side by side?

How much more effective than just sitting them side by side?

Well as shown in the above picture I can get ships into a tighter starting formation which for rebels means I can control how my group moves and keep them in formation to maximize my firepower

But how much more than just having them close but not touching?

I'm looking for maths here...

Quarter of an inch or so per ship and I was about to use 93% of that deployment corner versus the 65% without

I'm looking for maths here...

Maths are meh, this game is more about the tactical capacity to accomplish things. The mathematical side while important is just as important as being able to bring ones force to bear at roughly the same time so that you can maximize the total amount of damage being dealt

A Quarter of an Inch. Okay. Just so we know how much we're dealing with.

Then we just wait for FFG to reply and say...

You've got to be kidding with this stuff.

Yea quarter inch Pershing up to half an inch. . . I will test it more at home later

You've got to be kidding with this stuff.

This really only works with fast ships or ships going at seperate angles.

Well no an infinite amount of rules. The rules for one allow you to estimate where a ship would end up when in a position that you can not get the maneuver tool locked in so that covers your concern on moving ships from that position.

Also I don't see any RAI on this. What rule am I breaking? What rule could I be close to breaking?

I will ask. Thankfully I have a picture of the concept as well.

Um, your kidding me right? You can verbally declare anything but unless there is damage equal to my hull. So there is a rule that hinders that.

There is no rule on how set up is done EXCEPT it has to be in the setup area befitting the objective. That's it. I am not overlapping, I am not ramming, etc because I have yet to execute a maneuver.

Now I really think like you guys that it can't be done but I can't find any sliver of a rule to back that up. I am hoping someone can find anything that I can logically link that says no to this.

@err404, the maneuver section would not need to be changed. As I have stated and as it is in the Rules, when you can't lock in the tool you estimate the starting and ending position. So there is no issue with this and the tool. It is actually easy to do.

Alao destroyed ship step? Ships are destroyed after damage is done in an attack not at the end of turn unless Rieekan works like he reads in which case zombie ships are going to be a thing.

what rule are you breaking? The rule of common sense and easily seen intent.

Well no an infinite amount of rules. The rules for one allow you to estimate where a ship would end up when in a position that you can not get the maneuver tool locked in so that covers your concern on moving ships from that position.

Also I don't see any RAI on this. What rule am I breaking? What rule could I be close to breaking?

I will ask. Thankfully I have a picture of the concept as well.

Um, your kidding me right? You can verbally declare anything but unless there is damage equal to my hull. So there is a rule that hinders that.

There is no rule on how set up is done EXCEPT it has to be in the setup area befitting the objective. That's it. I am not overlapping, I am not ramming, etc because I have yet to execute a maneuver.

Now I really think like you guys that it can't be done but I can't find any sliver of a rule to back that up. I am hoping someone can find anything that I can logically link that says no to this.

@err404, the maneuver section would not need to be changed. As I have stated and as it is in the Rules, when you can't lock in the tool you estimate the starting and ending position. So there is no issue with this and the tool. It is actually easy to do.

Alao destroyed ship step? Ships are destroyed after damage is done in an attack not at the end of turn unless Rieekan works like he reads in which case zombie ships are going to be a thing.

what rule are you breaking? The rule of common sense and easily seen intent.

Go ahead and prove me wrong, I don't mind but so far some of the most influential people on the fourms regarding rules have not found anything.

Don't use common sense as a factor, it really is not so common. Next, Raw and RAI arguments are pointless because they occurred during the XI7 "debate" and many people were proved wrong so intent has to be based off a historical record which as stated so far means everything occurs at the end of the move.

I still feel like responding with my initial XKCD post... Because that's the only "proof" there is.

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.

So, I guess I'm saying "I'm out.".

I still feel like responding with my initial XKCD post... Because that's the only "proof" there is.

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.

So, I guess I'm saying "I'm out.".

That's fine with the XKDC post but at the same time it really is not logical.

You care about the math so geometry should matter here and being able to get intricate maneuvers in.

Now remember I am in agreement with all of you but I want a rule to at least back this, because we have had these conversations concerning other issues, Advanced Projectors & XI7 Turbolasers is a huge point here.

People wonder why I don't play ultra-competitively, and people wonder why I also am not incline to give fellow gamers the benefit of the doubt. Ladies and gentlefolk, I present to you 'gaminess'. It's that subtle line between playing a thematic game of Star Wars, and pushing coloured plastic around the table to 'win': illustrated here in not so subtle ways.

And yet, he's got a point I suppose. It's a restrictive game, 'you cannot', and this just isn't covered. It's within the play area, ther's no requirement that the ship's base be on the table itself.

pg.8:

• a squadron cannot be placed so that it would overlap another squadron or ship (no mention of ship)
• ships and squadrons can move through other ships and squadrons without issue.

There is no provision I found that would inhibit the ship's actual movement. However, you have to lock the manoeuvring tool into the ships base except when another intervening ship would make this impossible: then you may hold said snaky-thingie over the ship and estimate its final position. So it still sorta works.

But it is silly, it's a technicality masquerading as the gleaming peak of 'logic', it is gamey, it is absolutely immersion breaking, and it's better that it comes up sooner rather than later. I'm actually grateful he found it so it can be corrected before it became a 'thing'. That's what playtesting does. On one hand, I trust Lyraeus would never actually deploy like this in a friendly game (beyond as an experiment with someone else who's wondering the same thing).

This kind of a thing in a friendly game is basically a litmus test for an opponent: if they do this, then they're too acidic for me and I'm likely too basic for them. No raging, no screaming, no plastic and cardboard whirlwind tantrum, the game wouldn't have been worth it. I said the exact same thing about that absolutely asinine 'locked castle' formation in X-wing, where nothing moves but it has overlapping arcs of fire in just about every direction. That wasn't discovered either and the result, it became a 'thing'. A stitch in time saves nine.

As the good doctor said, “Logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the end.”

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

Thanks Vykes!

I agree on everything but the immersion part. It's space, ships in space can be above, below, turned 90° compared to other ships, etc.

Other than that though you are correct on all accounts. If someone had an issue with this, I would not do it. Hopefully FFG gets back to me in the next few days.

I don't see a direct rule against it... the only thing I see that's close is in overlapping which is done to prevent a ship from physically overlapping another ship, thus making it not possible for ships to overlap after a maneuver and at any other time in the game aside from deployment which isn't specifically ruled out.

Personally, if you and i were playing, I wouldn't mind at all.

I'm not sure what's with some of the responses being somewhat on the rude side of things though... it's just a game with plastic toys for adults after all!

Um, seeing as it'll be 2, maybe 3 rounds before shooting starts, I don't see how this initial setup would cause an issue for me as the opposing player. I'd just say "yeah, go ahead, we'll see if that works for you!"

Of course, this is under the assumption of a casual game. If it were a tournament game and maybe if I didn't like the other guy so much, I'll bring the TO in, whereupon whatever the TO says goes.

But Lyraeus, 'tis equally linear thinking to assume that side by side on a 2D representative plane only means X and Y axies. It can also be merely the relative distances between ships compared to each other on any axis, though, not just X and Y but Z as well. So while I'd enjoy playing Armada on a tetra tiered board allowing for a one range decrease between levels and positional advantages on ventral and dorsal angles, we can also assume that ship A placed to the left of ship B is also not 'to the left' of ship B, but 'to the left, or above, or below' within a relative arc of fire. Even something above a Star Destroyer could be right in front of it, given the positioning of its weapon systems on the dorsal side of the ship, which give it a high degree of fire in elevation, while a ship headed 'away' could be going up or down.

It's better than me laying a ship on its side to crease an asymptote and the most bewildering exchange of fire. Because by the same principal that your overlapping notion exists, so too is that a legitimate placement for the model as it is within the play zone, even if its functioning rules are totally questionable.

Four on the table: all four pegs should have always been the rule and it could have been written as such, not just placed within a vague set up area.

Post scriptum:

base contact is merely a position in which two ships are at dangerous close proximity and will not get away without damage (whether from physical damage, or thruster fire, grave pulses, tractor beams, conflicting artificial gravity wells, the reasons are endless, the effect is the same: stay away.

Thanks Reiryc. Yea, overlapping comes VERY close but since this game is all about timing and the Overlap rule is after a maneuver. . . While it seems a nuisance, this whole game is a nuisance

Well considering that they specified the rule for squadrons but not ships maybe it never came up or it could be allowed. Regardless less FFG returns from GenCon Wednesday and I hopefully will get an answer by the end of the week

Lyraeus, I would let you set it up like this. Then I would table you. Then I would stick a VSD in your eye.

Seriously, how did you even think of this?? I read your explanation, and this frankly gives you zero advantage. Heck you could start all your ships in a single stack, and gain no positive advantage. Btw, I'm referring if you're playing against me. Hell, if you set up like that you're making it easier for me to beat you.

Really, wow. Not arguing there's a loophole, it's obvious. Just thinking it would be absolutely stupid to set up like that.

I will simply take the time to revisit the lack of rule stating I can't pick up my opponents ships and throw them accross the room. Obviously I have found a loophole and will now win worlds. Mwahahahahahaha

I will simply take the time to revisit the lack of rule stating I can't pick up my opponents ships and throw them accross the room. Obviously I have found a loophole and will now win worlds. Mwahahahahahaha

I am tired of it and if you don't have anything to bring to the conversation, them just leave it alone.

If you can find a rule or even a hint of one that could resolve this then we can talk other than that, your stupid argument can go die.

And for everyone's information this is not a loophole. For a loophole to exist there needs to be a rule for it to get through and as several people have found, there is no such rule