Specifically, I want to hear how others look at the placement of their ships with the same pilot skill. Here are the rules:

Let's say you have 4 Academy Pilots to place.

I've always assumed that ships are placed one at a time, and that once you commit to the placement of one you move onto the next and live with your previous choices. There's no going back and moving your first Academy Pilot if you find out that your third Academy Pilot doesn't quite fit where you wanted them to.

But the rules don't actually say that you place ships one at a time. I think it would be easy to make the case that you can place all of your ships of the same pilot skill as you wish, only committing once you have placed them all.

So how do you see this? Do you think it matters?

The rules say that when you have multiple effects occurring at the same time, you can resolve them in any order, and that's the basis for placing ships at the same PS in any order. But the rules don't let you resolve those effects at the same time, so I'd be inclined to say that you do your Academy Pilots one at a time, and once you start on the next one you shouldn't move it until the first Activation phase.

I'm not sure it really matters, and I wouldn't ding an opponent for going back and changing a ship on the same PS. But technically, I think it's illegal.

I think it would be easy to make the case that you can place all of your ships of the same pilot skill as you wish, only committing once you have placed them all.

So how do you see this? Do you think it matters?

Everyone does that. Especially as a swarm player myself, I'll place them down in a general fashion and then fine tune their placement. Or, as I'm setting them down, if I see that I don't like where they are, I'll move them to a new spot. However, once I tell my opponent I'm set, I of course won't move them again. (Unless I bump my ships, which happens to everyone, in which case I get them back to where they were best as possible.)

I'm a swarm player sometimes. I place my ships one at a time because I thought the rules implied it. I've definitely made some deployment errors as a consequence.

What bothers me about the looser approach is that it certainly matters where you commit to placing your ships that do not have a PS tie. Why is there just this special case where you get to fine-tune the placement of a block of ships?

Enforcing this on swarm players seems arbitrarily mean. The thought that I could force a crooked placement on the first tie they sat down to remain never occurred to me. Go watch any recorded matches from World's. This is not an interpretation anyone is enforcing. And if they do I think FFG should just alter that language in setup.

I think if you watch games like the finals at Worlds, you see players do a deliberate setup of one ship at a time and not going back to move ships after placement. I kind of take it as the proper way to do it, rather than it being a hard fast rule. I also usually know the setup I want to run, but if it were a casual game, I would not think about it too much. Guess it would really depend on the situation as to whether I had a problem with somebody else doing it.

I was always under the assumption you place all your same PS ships but how you do that doesn't matter til you are satisfied with their placement and say you are good. Then they are 'locked in' so to speak. At least that is how I interpreted and play the rule.

I've seen examples of both kinds of placement in recorded tournament matches, which is why I'm asking. We have an inconsistency with this, and we usually don't like inconsistency in our tournament practices.

Let's say you have a PS 2 and a PS 4, and your opponent has no ships with PS in that range. Are you okay with moving the PS 2 again when it's technically the PS 4's turn to be placed? I'm sort of okay with that.

What if you have a PS 2, PS 4, and PS 6 and no enemy ships in that range. Okay or not okay to move the PS 2 again when you're placing the PS 6? I'm definitely not okay with that.

So I think a consistent approach would be to place one ship at a time and just live with your mistakes. I don't think the rules are written clearly enough to insist that an opponent do it in a tournament, though, so I'm not going to do that. But I think I would teach new players to place their ships one at a time just because it seems like a good habit.

I place them one at a time, and as long as my hand is still on the model, I can change the position of the first ship. Once I place the second ship on the table, the first is locked in place. That's the way I do it.

Man, at least I'm now aware that someone might think this is the rule and call me out on it.

I will sometimes place my ships, move them around, look at them from one side and the other, and then put them down on the totally opposite side, and then call set. And if I have two at the same PS, I sometimes alternate between the two. I personally don't see any reason why a player shouldn't be able to adjust ships of the same PS that they are placing, as there is nothing they are "reacting" to, and it would be petty to enforce such a rule in my opinion.

But I will be more aware of this in the future.

I always place all of my ships that aren't interrupted by an opponent's placement in the general position that I want them and then start fine-tuning the spacing between my formation. I usually let them know that there won't be any changes in facing or major changes in position if they want to start placing their own ships.

I've never once had anyone call me on it and it seems like most people I play do something similar.

I think if you watch games like the finals at Worlds, you see players do a deliberate setup of one ship at a time and not going back to move ships after placement. I kind of take it as the proper way to do it, rather than it being a hard fast rule. I also usually know the setup I want to run, but if it were a casual game, I would not think about it too much. Guess it would really depend on the situation as to whether I had a problem with somebody else doing it.

You are mistaken. Watch 2014 final table. Neither player follows the method you are describing. Given that both developers were right there and have never commented on it(despite commenting on other allowances that were made at World's tables) I think they do not intend to punish swarms.

I suppose the key word is 'resolve' in the semantics of it all. If something is resolved, it's done. Finished. You can't fiddle with it again once you move on to something else, because in the rules of this game by the very nature of beginning to place another ship you've declared "this ship's position is final".

That being said, what is allowed to fly in the end is what your opponent will allow. And I don't think most of us are so heartless and unsporting that they'll jump all over you for scooting them a base or so to the left or right. At that point it's just bickering.

I realize that I'm totally making an argument based on what I believe the intent of the behind the deployment procedure was.

Placing ships in PS order is meant to provide an advantage in placement from knowing where lower PS ships are being deployed. It's not done to reward squads that are easy to setup and penalize players that fly their ships in tight formation.

I personally don't see any reason why a player shouldn't be able to adjust ships of the same PS that they are placing, as there is nothing they are "reacting" to, and it would be petty to enforce such a rule in my opinion.

I agree that it's petty to enforce it, because I don't think we can point to a rule that says we have to place them one by one.

However, we know that we don't activate tied PS ships at the same time, so where are we getting the idea that we deploy tied PS ships in a block?

Also, it doesn't just affect swarms. Swarm players don't need the help any more than brobots or triple PS 9 aces. The rules about this should neither reward nor punish. I'd just like them to be clear, if they're not going to be consistent.

Specifically, I want to hear how others look at the placement of their ships with the same pilot skill. Here are the rules:

Place Forces: The players place their ships into the play area in order from lowest pilot skill to highest pilot skill. If multiple ships tie in pilot skill, the player with initiative places his ships with that pilot skill first. Ships must be placed within Range 1 of their player’s edge.

Let's say you have 4 Academy Pilots to place.

I've always assumed that ships are placed one at a time, and that once you commit to the placement of one you move onto the next and live with your previous choices. There's no going back and moving your first Academy Pilot if you find out that your third Academy Pilot doesn't quite fit where you wanted them to.

But the rules don't actually say that you place ships one at a time. I think it would be easy to make the case that you can place all of your ships of the same pilot skill as you wish, only committing once you have placed them all.

So how do you see this? Do you think it matters?

I would look at it exactly as if you were using the ship bases as templates/range ruler to help you set up within the range 1 band. I don't see anything wrong with it. You can have ALL your ships regardless of PS in the setup area...but then you are giving away information to your opponent.

I personally don't see any reason why a player shouldn't be able to adjust ships of the same PS that they are placing, as there is nothing they are "reacting" to, and it would be petty to enforce such a rule in my opinion.

I agree that it's petty to enforce it, because I don't think we can point to a rule that says we have to place them one by one.

However, we know that we don't activate tied PS ships at the same time, so where are we getting the idea that we deploy tied PS ships in a block?

The definition of the active ship is: "the ship that is currently resolving the Activation or Combat phase". So there is no such thing as active ship during setup.

Without a clear commitment point, I think we end up with setup quirkiness that goes beyond tied PS ships. I'll go back to the example I used earlier because I've actually seen this situation happen:

I have a PS 2, PS 4, and PS 6. My opponent's ships are all PS 9, so that doesn't matter.

I place my PS 2. Then I place my PS 4.

I have my PS 6 in hand and I'm looking for places to deploy, but now I don't like where my PS 4 is. So I put my PS 6 down, and pick up my PS 4.

Or would you stop me at this point? Let's assume you don't, and I pick up my PS 4.

Now the only ship on the board is my PS 2. My PS 4 ship is in hand but not placed. I could put it back in the supply.

Let me ask you: Is it okay if I move my PS 2 ship now?

So by this logic, if I have initiative and some of my ps 1 ships are within my deployment zone after the 6th obstacle is placed, then those ships are locked there for the rest of the game?

What if the last obstacle had been placed, if I drop 1 of my ps 1 ships and it lands in my deployment zone as I'm placing another ship down?

I've always played that for any block of ships that gets placed by one player before their opponent places anything, you can freely reorder and move things around within that block. Once you say you're set and your opponent places something, then of course you can't go back and change them.

One way of rationalizing that while also being very strict about the rules as written would be to say that the out-of-order ships are being used as measuring aids. e.g. I'm placing my PS 4 ship as a way to determine where I want my PS 2 ship to go. Then, once I've decided I'm happy with my PS 2 ship's placement, it just so happens that my PS 4 ship is already in place as well.

I'm not sure if using ship bases (instead of just maneuver templates) for measurement inside your deployment zone is allowed, though. The tournament rules don't seem to directly say what you can use, just that you can't use maneuver templates to measure outside your deployment zone.

Let me ask you: Is it okay if I move my PS 2 ship now?

Rules as written, no. But I would let you do that anyway.

Edit: We could just say, that you did not actually place anything yet, just still thinking and planning.

Here's my reasoning for allowing this kind of placement: a players ships deployment is not finalized until that player SAYS it is final. This is not a game where things are final after you take your hand off.

Thus, if I place ship #1 in the deployment zone, then ship #2, neither have been truly deployed until I announce that their positions are final, which is a perquisite for the opponent to start deploying. I can move my ships around the deployment zone as much as I want until I have announced that each ones deployment has been finalized.

Let me ask you: Is it okay if I move my PS 2 ship now?

Rules as written, no. But I would let you do that anyway.

Edit: We could just say, that you did not actually place anything yet, just still thinking and planning.

I feel the same way. I think it's illegal, but I'd almost certainly allow it in casual play. But it seems messy for tournament play. Seems like the kind of thing you should have worked out ahead of time.

And if the order was PS 2 you, PS 3 me, PS 4 you, then most certainly I would not allow you to mess with your PS 2 once I've placed my PS 3. It's not because now we're "reacting" to each other. It's just because the game state has moved on. This ship, then that ship, step by step in order because everything else in this game happens in a very strict order, especially when tiebreakers are needed. I really don't see a good reason why we'd be making an exception during ship placement.

I have no issue with an opponent changing the placement of any of his or her ships that have been placed since I last deployed a ship.

Let me ask you: Is it okay if I move my PS 2 ship now?

Rules as written, no. But I would let you do that anyway.

Edit: We could just say, that you did not actually place anything yet, just still thinking and planning.

I feel the same way. I think it's illegal, but I'd almost certainly allow it in casual play. But it seems messy for tournament play. Seems like the kind of thing you should have worked out ahead of time.

And if the order was PS 2 you, PS 3 me, PS 4 you, then most certainly I would not allow you to mess with your PS 2 once I've placed my PS 3. It's not because now we're "reacting" to each other. It's just because the game state has moved on. This ship, then that ship, step by step in order because everything else in this game happens in a very strict order, especially when tiebreakers are needed. I really don't see a good reason why we'd be making an exception during ship placement.

I see where you're coming from in your example, and I agree to an extent. I definitely agree with the point about not being able to change previous ship's positions if your opponent has already placed their higher PS ships.

However, in your example of 2, 4, 6 against a list of all 9s, I don't think it makes a difference. Technically, as Vorpal Sword said in his first post, the timing is all the same for them and the player chooses to place them as they see fit.

How exactly does it change anything if the lower PS player places their PS2, then 4, then when looking at their 6 they realize they need to swap the 2 and 4's position for maneuvering purposes? It doesn't impact the way the higher PS player will set up their ships -- they still get to respond according to the intended rules.

Now, the 2 / 4 / 6 player should make it very clear what is happening and that their opponent understands so that players don't intentionally do this to confuse others. If I think your PS2 is on the left side of your mini-swarm but you move it to the right, that might impact the way I set up because I think you're going to turn to the side with your lower PS ships. No big deal if you want to move it, but make sure to tell me so I can react accordingly.

I've seen it happen plenty in tournaments as I'm usually flying higher PS ships. Someone sets up their Syndicate Thug, then Bossk, then they realize they want them in different areas and it's no big deal -- I can still set up my higher PS ships in the way that is most beneficial to my squad. I still get the higher PS advantage I paid extra points for.

Unless FFG releases some wacky pre-setup upgrade card that in some way influences the game, I'm not sure that this should even be an issue. It just doesn't affect anything. I'm all for writing clear rules, but if someone really called you out on going back to tweak your PS2 when you're about to set your PS4 and nothing has been set in between those two, then that extends far beyond acceptable "rules policing."