Since I was PM'd to come back to the thread.

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.

So, Right back at-cha.

As I said. Combative.

Why does it have to be written 100%? Can't it simply have been missed because the writers didn't consider it a possibility, and thus, that's why its not spelled out?

WHY does it need to be. You've brought it up, and we've seen that, even if it *is* not explicitly disallowed, it gains you very, very little benefit for the effort involved to Defend it, and/or avoid arguments at the table, because it *intuitively* feels like it is incorrect for a lot of us... Note, I don't say all of us, or even a majority of us, just for a lot of people who have weighed in here.

Why don't we have a rule that says we can't touch other people's models? Explicity disallowing that? Because its intuitively something we do and respect as something that doesn't need to be explained in rules...

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

You have billed yourself up as a Tactics man. As an explanations man. You're making Videos explaining rules concepts, and making videos that explain tactical concepts, both basic and - one would assume - much more advanced in the future as they come up...

The perception being that, someone who has that broad-based, potentially Introductory aspect to the game - and has the reach to get to people who are just starting their learning - may come across this information - Correct, Incorrect, Potential, Wrong, whatever... And take that as a measure of Authority *as it comes from you, the guy doing the learning videos*...

The fact that, rather than bringing it up in one Topic, and letting it stay and be debated in one topic, it was taken across the MULTIPLE topics... I'm sure I saw your explanatory picture elsewhere...

*IF* it comes up to be a legitimate Tactic... Great! Spread it around then. But while its under question, leave it under question...

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

Also attacking people's way of thinking and beliefs rather than having a conversation about it directly pretty much invalidates any support you would hope to garner from the rest of the community. At a certain point it's probably best to realize we are talking about little plastic space ships on a table and calm down. I understand that you can get heated but when everyone else on the forum you brought the topic up in is telling you that it's not okay and you refuse to listen for three pages then it definitely starts to get a little stale. Either way though I appreciate that in this game the TO can look at you and say no you can't and be done with it as I would hope most would. Best of luck in your future endeavors.

Look, if they spelled out the rule for squadrons but did not for ships what could that tell you?

A tournament organizer can't really say no to something like this without a reason or rule that can be linked to it. That is why I asked FFG and am awaiting a response. I seem or come off combative because I am being ridiculed on a concept that has so far no right or wrong answer and I am getting stupid response like "I can throw your model. . . " That is beyond stupid.

This is a game where there are very few loopholes and the ones that are have at least a possibility to logically figured out. XI7's and Advanced Projectors and other such things.

I have said it multiple times, I agree that it is silly, it was likely overlooked and I will likely be told it is not allowed.

The issues I have with all of you saying it can't be done is that you have no logical explanation for it. You have no rule, no concept other than "because it does not say you can then you cant". Which is a stupid argument because there is no basis for it.

You think I am supporting this, nay. I am asking for something that makes sense and you guys are spouting something that does not.

As far as I can tell, most of the posts I have seen have been belittling towards Lyr in one way or another. People are calling his idea stupid, dumb, they're being dismissive and so on...and to what end? I don't see the big deal here. He wants to see if anyone else finds this to be illegal and if so, to back it up with rules. The horror!!

Here is the first 'combative' post I've seen:

Congratulations, you've found a loophole.

It's a stupid one for sure.

Its obvious intent is that bases never overlap, hence all the rules for resolving overlapping.

I'm not arguing you can't do it, just saying it is very dumb.

Wow! Seems over the top to me just for asking about a situation that he doesn't find a rule for that he may want to utilize.

Then this:

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

And this:

You've got to be kidding with this stuff.

or this:

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

Now if he uses such a technique, he's a villian?

My guess is that FFG will rule that it isn't allowed and cite overlapping as the reasoning behind it and say that overlapping isn't just dependent upon the 'end of the maneuver' portion of the text.

In either way, the amount of nastiness and dismissiveness directed towards Lyr is/was unnecessary over a rules question that he sought greater clarity on backed up by a rules citation.

My rules rebuttal would be that under the heading Overlapping in the rules reference, it does not define overlapping. It simply lays out how to resolve it. Since there is not an in game definition of overlap (just how to resolve it), we have to assume that overlap simply means what it does in every day life.

Since the rules document does not DEFINE overlapping, only tells us how to resolve it after executing a maneuver, it can be inferred that that is the only time that overlapping can happen. Based on that inference, we can also infer that overlapping during setup is not a legal placement of your ship.

As far as I can tell, most of the posts I have seen have been belittling towards Lyr in one way or another. People are calling his idea stupid, dumb, they're being dismissive and so on...and to what end? I don't see the big deal here. He wants to see if anyone else finds this to be illegal and if so, to back it up with rules. The horror!!

Here is the first 'combative' post I've seen

:...

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

Now if he uses such a technique, he's a villian?

Woah-woah-woah stop right there: context, read the rest of my post. I was defending Lyraeus by saying it's a hypothetical situation that was counter-intuitive but constitutes a neat little hole in the deployment rules. I've been agreeing with Lyraeus that it really should be patched and closed for the sake of argument, especially in a tournament-heavy setting (This from a game that meticulously defined what a model was, but 'placed' wasn't.)

I loath when people use little rules deficiencies to gain stupid counter-intuitive advantages: they're playing the rules rather than playing the game. But it's absolutely worth talking about them, because whether it's fixed or not in the long term, we still have to figure it out in the short term for ourselves. It's better to know about these things and expose the deficiencies so it can be acknowledged and dealt with (especially with a company like FFG which has shown an interest in actually patching their rule sets). We don't shoot the messenger, but I absolutely reserve the right to pack up my models and go home if any opponent uses this on me.

What is with so many people at the 'I hit them' or 'I smash them' arguments? For the sake of some common decency, dial it back: we don't live in the medieval age where trial by combat is a judicial procedure anymore. It proves nothing but the lack of self control.

Valid point Geekopoliss. I did not look at it that way. I am also in the boat with Reiryc on this. I expect FFG to come back with the same answer. This is like the Garm token situation so I expect it to be resolved the same way.

Vykes said nothing wrong towards me. He has a point. This type of deployment can be annoying to those that like thematic play.

I do Amtgard LARP so trial by combat is plausible thankfully it's not to the literal death

From a TO's perspective I would easily rule it as your models are not inside the play area and therefore have not been deployed yet. The play area is defined pretty well as being a 2 dimensional space and the examples in the rulebook show you how your ships are supposed to be oriented. Hopefully that clears it up for most of you following this thread and may run into this in your games. They are no more in the play area than if a ship was on the floor under the table.

Now that is a very valid point GameCafe. That makes sense to me. If FFG rules that way that will likely be their response.

Yeah, I hope you don't think that I was trying to be too critical Lyraeus. I sometimes get a little frustrated at things like this as I am a 40K refugee and that game was just heianous with little rules quips like this. Thank god FFG has not followed down the textbook rule book road.

Just some more tidbits from reading through the overlapping rules: the reason it was expressly laid out for squadrons but not ships is because squadrons can be placed as a result of an overlap during the game. Ships cannot. Since a squadron can be placed overlapping an obstacle, that definitively means that overlapping CAN occur without a maneuver being executed (the squadron does not gain the benefit from the obstacle but is still considered to be overlapping it).

I've dealt with more than one too many WFB 8E sideways facing monsters to be so cavalier about these kind of placement issues (and those were 100% legal, just unquestionably gamey). Hmm, Larp type, eh? Well maybe some things can be determined via trial by combat.

From a TO's perspective I would easily rule it as your models are not inside the play area and therefore have not been deployed yet. The play area is defined pretty well as being a 2 dimensional space and the examples in the rulebook show you how your ships are supposed to be oriented.

Now thaaat's a good take on the matter, mate. I like it, it's actively showing intent to combat the ambiguity and holds with the spirit of things. Good answer.

Ships can also overlap obstacles though during deployment. Minefields can cause this

I played 40k up until a few months after 6th started up. I get the feeling but I am not trying to power game, I just want this figured out.

Ships can also overlap obstacles though during deployment. Minefields can cause this

Yes, but one of the reasons you think this is legal is that it is expressly written that squadrons cannot be placed overlapping a ship or another squadron. The reason that is expressly laid out is because it is in the resolving overlaps section. Since squadrons are removed from the table and then placed back on, they explicitly say they can't be placed overlapping. Since ships are not removed and replaced, there was no need for similar language regarding ships.

Ships do get removed though. For instance the most recent FAQ shows that ships don't move along the table but instead get picked up and placed at the end of the maneuver tool, if they then can not be placed then they overlap and get put back along the movement tool until they no longer overlap

I think what he meant was that you do not "displace" ships. Ship vs. ship, the activating/moving ship "slows down" even up to the point of "not moving." Ship vs. squadrons, the ship plows in, removes the squadrons, which are then placed back on the table.

As for the original topic, I don't get what all the hate is about. Lyraeus has what... maybe half an inch of "advantage" his setup gives him? I'm sure there are ways to counter that. Is it legal? Is it allowed? Until FFG replies, there isn't really a final answer. If this was happening on an actual event, I would call the TO over and if he can't decide, maybe get everyone over, get the majority vote, and go with that.

I say half an inch but this is more of a geometry thing then simple inches. This gives people access to being able to stack ships slightly so that they can get angles and turns that they want sooner. I think I will make a small video about it if I get an email that ok's this. . . though if I do I think people will question the authenticity which would rather annoy me.

Think about how you could deploy in a corner area. Being able to tightly bring your forces around a position or to use the space to create a quick pincer for fleet ambush targets. There is so much that can be done with this.

I say half an inch but this is more of a geometry thing then simple inches. This gives people access to being able to stack ships slightly so that they can get angles and turns that they want sooner. I think I will make a small video about it if I get an email that ok's this. . . though if I do I think people will question the authenticity which would rather annoy me.

Think about how you could deploy in a corner area. Being able to tightly bring your forces around a position or to use the space to create a quick pincer for fleet ambush targets. There is so much that can be done with this.

I tried this on my table, and quite frankly I found it to be disadvantageous. Against my type of play all this does is set you up tighter for me to concentrate my fire against. I still fail to see how this would give any advantage whatsoever.

It's not about advantage. It is more about being able to setup in a way to make formations easier with mixed sized ships.

May I ask why you would spend time working out how to effectively set your ships up in this manner? Is there really any expectation that FFG is going to respond in the affirmative to this type of set up?

I get asking the question, but the follow up exercises just seem to be very much a waste of time and energy.

Truthfully do you have any expectation that FFG is going to rule that ships can be set up in a manner that would allow them to be stacked, up ended, or otherwise occupy space in a manner that they will never otherwise be legally occupy during game play?

It's possible that they could indeed rule that way and say this is not allowed, if they don't however then the discussion is a good one.

To me it's not a waste of time, it is using my time to find reasons and other methods of thinking which I don't have to understand and possibly fix a problem. W

You say "never otherwise" but I think it better to just say after deployment because that is the issue I think.

Regardless, it is a discussion people want and I am trying to give a good debate as to why it is plausible to do.

There is no technical advantage from this. You are not increasing your deployment area or such. You are just using it effectively

By configuring your ships in a manner which directly interferes with your ability to measure to/from them for arc, range, and movement purposes. And for that reason I see no more of a chance of FFG ruling that 2+2=5 for Armada purposes then I do FFG ruling you can stack your ships.