Oh I have said it and meant it just that way. Some people dont see the concepts or refuse to look at them and only wish to see the world with their rose tinted glasses.

Link to the original thread.

TL;DR - basically, Lyraeus is saying that because there are no rules that say it isn't allowed, he can deploy his ships overlapping one another. Here is his suggested deployment method:

Here is the picture.

So some players decided to take it a step further to build the ultimate starship:

Just sayin'.

Another awesome formation:

I for one think it's entirely fair to mercilessy mock Lyraeus now...

...but only if we're willing to eat crow in the (ridiculously unlikely) event that FFG agree with him

Since he's sticking to his guns until FFG issues an FAQ to resolve the matter (or hopefully get an email response if he's sent a clarification question out), let's see how far we can push this game in terms of stupidity until FFG says otherwise.

Here's an idea:

We GLUE Rhymer and his bomber escort onto the ship base, that way when we move the ship, we bring the bombers along with us. Now we have extra firepower that goes out to medium range... then we can blu-tac (so we can adjust) another ship on top of the ship facing any direction.... forward/left/right/back. This will result in an ultra-powerful ship that can probably alpha-strike anything it comes across.

There's no rules saying gluing or blu-tac is not allowed, or anything about putting a ship on top of a ship to gain more attacks and firing arcs. I've not modified any bases or altered their shape (p4 Tournament rules) so I should be good.

So, since there seems to be no rules saying what I'm planning to do is not allowed, I can do this until FFG says otherwise.... or until somebody can point out a rule that says I can't do this. And no, "common sense, fair play, and RAI" reasoning does not count.

I'll be readying the popcorn.

Funniest thing i ever saw

Don't bring up the stupid "it does not say I cant" argument. I covered that as well.

I mean no disrepect Lyraeus, I have enjoyed most of the stuff you have posted, but this is exactly how you are defending the overlap during deployment.

-The rules do not state that I cannot stack during deployment, it only specifies no overlap during movement, so that must mean it is allowed.

-Show me where in the rules it says I cannot stack during deployment.

Those are essentially your main two points. Which fall under the "it does not say I can't" argument.

As to the actual topic of this thread, I would love to see what other crazy stacking people can come up with. Still like the Star Destroyer Tower the best (Leaning tower of Star Destroyers?)

The reason the argument is not valid is because I am not using the "it does not say I cant" logic. I am using the "They laid out every other possibility but left this one thing out" logic.

The difference is that this game lays out everything, it tells you what

When I say they laid out every other possibility, they covered squadrons and overlapping at any point of the game but never did that with ships. Why? Why be so meticulous about it but leave that part out? Hmmm look at how in depth all these rules are, look at how much they cover in so few pages. Why would they miss that one thing if it was possibly not intentional?

When I say they laid out every other possibility, they covered squadrons and overlapping at any point of the game but never did that with ships. Why? Why be so meticulous about it but leave that part out? Hmmm look at how in depth all these rules are, look at how much they cover in so few pages. Why would they miss that one thing if it was possibly not intentional?

I refer you to the Errata section of the FAQ.

On most wanted, how did they miss "only ships"?

How could they miss the "ships cannot have more than one copy of the same upgrade" from being in the rules?

This is a complex game and there are a lot of rules, some things get missed. You can easily tell that this game was never meant to allow overlapping at any point. You have even said you do not agree with it, but you keep pushing, telling others to prove you wrong, why? To me it seems like you are just trying to get them to add it so you can say "ya I got them to add that to the rules.". Now granted, with people (me included) bumping the posts, it doesnt help matters.

I guess the main thing is, instead of everyone (including me) spending so much time on this ridiculous topic (no matter how you spin it, it is ridiculous to keep debating it), lets put our energy into something better....like going back to debating squadron build vs pure ship build!. We can all be more productive and improve this game in other ways.

Cheers mate.

Why would they miss that one thing if it was possibly not intentional?

It is easy to miss things when no one challenges the structure of the rules in order to make the game behave in a way it shouldn't. I would probably say that as people knew they couldn't end their movement overlapping then they never challenged the rule that they could deploy overlapping. As such the rules people never got to notice the oversight, these guys were probably writing the rules for months, improving the language, responding to feedback and inventing a game. Its like writing without getting the text proofread or edited by some one who spells like I do.

That said I wouldn't care if you did this, the game proper doesn't start until after we move and if you feel that ending your first turn in a certain formation is warranted then you could deploy with overlap and figure out the moves or just reverse engineer where to deploy without any overlap and figure out the moves to end up in the same formation.

Keep in mind here that regardless of you being right or wrong, you are messing with some rather basic preconceptions about the game, and people don't like that. Keep in mind, before acceptance comes anger and denial. So why create a situation that will be a problem and possibly colour the game from that point on? Usually games that start with a rules lawyer issue don't play out well for any one.

BTW: I would suggest by now the topic has been seen, perhaps the next FAQ release will give you a wink perhaps not. But I think you have achieved what you wanted, so I don't think you will gain much ground continuing the argument. Sometimes the other guy gets the last word, be at peace with that and move along, do you have more to say that would be constructive to the topic?

I have never been the type to let others get the last word. I will be the first to admit I am wrong but for those that dont read the entire thread(s), I am firmly in your category. A preconception to me does not qualify as a reason to ignore a possibility. Not when a game on strategy and tactics are involved.

At the end of the day it boils down to this: If anyone stacks their ships in their deployment, just laugh at them and ask them to deploy normally. If they refuse, pack up your ships and walk away from the table.

No one in their right mind would try this. It's ludicrous. I'm still not sure this isn't one big trolling operation.

The ship stacking is kinda crazy. My version was all I meant.

Right, but there's no difference there. Stacking is stacking.

Without getting into the debate on the legality of the move.......why do you want to deploy like that in the first place? It looks like you are saving yourself maybe a centimeter or two, at the expense of limiting your first turn moves both in terms of end positions to put the ships, and order in which you can move them without colliding. If you are trying to get all ships into a specific formation after the first move isn't there an easier way to do it than this?

The concept was to maximize the use of a corner deployment so that hammer and anvil Tactics can be used with precision as well as being able to use all the space of the corner.

If you deploy a medium ship at an angle and then a small ship horizontal this comes into play somewhat.

Couldn't you just deploy them all in almost base contact (slightly staggered to avoid shield dials) facing the same direction and save even more space? Or just deploy one behind the other? Is it really impossible to get into your desired formation after a turns movement in any other way?

The issue I come up then is that I end up ramming things horribly, my own ships usually

So this came about because of a lack of maneuvering skill?!??

( just messing with you, although I still think you way over analyze this game.)

I over analyze the game as I do most things.

This is a Concept idea.

Lyraeus, whatever you do, NEVER EVER start playing 40k or fantasy. Trust me on this.

I have played 40k. All of 5th edition. 6th killed it for me.

lol so you can avoid ramming your own ships with this setup but just plain spacing them out a little in a straight line causes you issues.......that's some wicked skills right there! (I mean this in good humor, just in case that came across badly)