Actually I think this is one area that was cleaned up a bit, but it still confuses some if they try and apply the rulings from the previous set. In the first rulebook, "touching" was not a defined state as it is now.

If a ship's manoeuvre (other than a stop) is insufficient to clear another ship, the overlap still occurs even if the ship slides back down the template to it's starting position. This would still result in an overlap and leave the ship touching because the final position would have been on top of another ship's base.

Let me try again.

In turn 1, A moves after B, overlaps B, and A and B end up touching.

In turn 2, B tries to move, does not overlap A, but overlaps C, and does not move.

Also in turn 2, A tries to move, but overlaps D, and does not move.

As currently ruled, A and B are still touching. They did not overlap one another this turn, but they are still touching, because they have no "moved away."

That's the mess (one example of it). The rules would simply be cleaner if you're only touching ships for which there was an overlap in the current turn. Unfortunately, the "move away" language in the rule-book has been ruled very literally.

I'm not sure that's cleaner - by that definition ships that are touching aren't necessarily touching. You might as well define it as "overlapped" rather than "touching".

I think the definition is easy - are the bases touching? Either because overlap, or because you didn't move away? Then you're touching.

But the whole aligned ships moving together flies in the face of that.

I'm not sure that's cleaner - by that definition ships that are touching aren't necessarily touching. You might as well define it as "overlapped" rather than "touching".

I'm sorry, I don't know what you're saying here.

What I mean, if you define "touching" as "having overlapped each other" rather than actually touching, that gets rather confusing. Particularly when you have to keep track of the ships on the board that are actually touching rather than merely in contact. Really it makes a lot more sense to just define ships as touching if they end up in contact, however that happens (stop maneuver, bump, etc), but that flies in the face of the ruling about in-line ships moving together. It would be better if there were a global ruling that ships in contact cannot shoot each other with no exceptions. Or if "touching but not touching" has to exist, then nudge the ships apart by a mm or so, to make it clear they aren't.

It's still quite clear. Touching is a defined game state now, and can only happen as the result of an overlap. Any other form of base-to-base contact is merely "in contact" or "adjacent" and has no bearing or penalty on the ships. Ships flying on formation with their bases adjacent are not considered "touching" because they didn't overlap.

Actually I think this is one area that was cleaned up a bit, but it still confuses some if they try and apply the rulings from the previous set. In the first rulebook, "touching" was not a defined state as it is now.

If a ship's manoeuvre (other than a stop) is insufficient to clear another ship, the overlap still occurs even if the ship slides back down the template to it's starting position. This would still result in an overlap and leave the ship touching because the final position would have been on top of another ship's base.

Let me try again.

In turn 1, A moves after B, overlaps B, and A and B end up touching.

In turn 2, B tries to move, does not overlap A, but overlaps C, and does not move.

Also in turn 2, A tries to move, but overlaps D, and does not move.

As currently ruled, A and B are still touching. They did not overlap one another this turn, but they are still touching, because they have no "moved away."

That's the mess (one example of it). The rules would simply be cleaner if you're only touching ships for which there was an overlap in the current turn. Unfortunately, the "move away" language in the rule-book has been ruled very literally.

This one's not the mess you may think it is. If I understand you correctly, A and B have overlapped and are now touching.That's fine, they can't shoot each other. Turn two B attempts a manoeuvre that will clear A, but overlaps C, so B backs down the template until it no longer overlaps C. But, it's now overlapping A again, so it continues back along the template until it doesn't overlap A, and effectively is right back where it started. An overlap has still happened, and B is still touching a ship (A in this case). Ship A tries to move and has a similar result with ship D, and backs down the template, overlapping B again and ending back where it started.

Both ships have attempted a manoeuvre, but overlapped another ship, or two other ships in each case. They have tried to move away but both have been blocked. Their final positions just happen to be back where they both started. If there's an ability that can trigger on an overlap, then A and B both qualify as they've overlapped each other. It doesn't matter about C and D as that's where they should have been. It's the final position that counts.

What I mean, if you define "touching" as "having overlapped each other" rather than actually touching, that gets rather confusing.

Ah, I see. That's not what I'm suggesting. I've suggesting that touching (as defined in the game rules) can only come about as a result of overlapping in the current turn. You've assumed that I meant touching would always come about as the result of overlapping in the current turn.

So what I'm saying is it should be: "If there's overlapping of ships in the current turn, and the ships are physically adjacent, then they are touching."

This one's not the mess you may think it is. If I understand you correctly, A and B have overlapped and are now touching.That's fine, they can't shoot each other. Turn two B attempts a manoeuvre that will clear A, but overlaps C, so B backs down the template until it no longer overlaps C. But, it's now overlapping A again

You've made an assumption here (bolded) that is not in my example.

This one's not the mess you may think it is. If I understand you correctly, A and B have overlapped and are now touching.That's fine, they can't shoot each other. Turn two B attempts a manoeuvre that will clear A, but overlaps C, so B backs down the template until it no longer overlaps C. But, it's now overlapping A again

You've made an assumption here (bolded) that is not in my example.

Well it's a little hard to visualise exactly what you mean here. I assumed B overlapped A because you said that A and B were still touching. And that was because I assumed B's manoeuvre towards C took it over A, hence the movement back to the starting point.

Well it's a little hard to visualise exactly what you mean here. I assumed B overlapped A because you said that A and B were still touching. And that was because I assumed B's manoeuvre towards C took it over A, hence the movement back to the starting point.

There's should be no actual need to visualize it, but if necessary, imagine A and B next to each other and parallel, with C directly in front of A.

Last turn, A overlapped B, say by trying to turn or bank in B's direction. They ended up touching. No problem. This turn, A moves directly ahead and overlaps C, so can't move at all. A does not overlap B. However you want to visualize it, B had also tried to move, and overlapped D, so couldn't move at all. B did not overlap A.

A and B are now touching, yet have not overlapped in this turn. Why are they touching, even though they didn't overlap in this turn? Because neither one has successfully "moved away."

"Moved away," as a term, isn't defined in the rules, and generally speaking, that's fine. Most players of X-Wing can parse natural language. But it's a problem in this case because all of the examples and explanations lead us to believe that touching (rules-defined) is a function of overlapping (rules-defined) ... but in this case it is not. Touching, in this case, is a function of not "moving away" (not rules-defined).

It's not contradictory to the literal language in the rulebook, it's just contradictory to the examples and the spirit of the rules in the rulebook, and in a rules-intensive area of the rules, it relies on a term that is not rules-defined. So it's not wrong ... but it's messy.

Well, that makes a bit more sense now. I would say they are still touching as they haven't been able to move away.

Under the rules "touching" can only be achieved from an overlap, but the state will remain until one ship or the other manages to move away. So I don't see that as messy. It's quite defined.

Are the ships in contact with each other? Yes. Was it from a previous overlap?

Yes, then they're "touching" as defined in the rules.

No, then they're just sitting beside each other.

The overlap doesn't have to happen each turn for the touching state to remain.

If you try and apply the FAQ entry for Overlapping In-line Ships while touching or in contact, it gets messy there.

Well, that makes a bit more sense now. I would say they are still touching as they haven't been able to move away.

Yes, I'm aware. My point is that the rules would be cleaner and easier to apply (and, importantly, extrapolate from) if ships did have to overlap in each turn to remain touching.

Well, that makes a bit more sense now. I would say they are still touching as they haven't been able to move away.

Okay, so what does "move away" mean? (Note: My bet is that you're already trying to define it in some fashion as the absence of touching or overlapping. Which is, of course, a circular definition. Unfortunately, it really is the only way we have to define it. Which is messy.)

I'm still not seeing this as "messy". To me, it's a very binary condition. You're either "touching" from a previous overlap, or you're not.

I'm still not seeing this as "messy". To me, it's a very binary condition. You're either "touching" from a previous overlap, or you're not.

... Then why the FAQ rulings? And why the questions that aren't even answerable by the FAQ rulings?

None of that would be necessary with non-messy, truly binary, rules.

So looks like the general consensus is touching but not overlapping from a stop move? This is a relevant distinction to me because of electronic baffle. If I do a stop and remain touching, after using electronic baffle I've been still taking my focus action which is legal assuming that the stop is just maintaining touching and not causing another overlap (which would feel pretty illogical for not moving).

The "general consensus" doesn't really matter here. If it comes up you're probably going to need to ask the TO or determine it otherwise.

FFG isn't entirely consistent with naming conventions. Overlap leads to touching and the only way touching happens is if there is/was overlap. If you have something that triggered against a ship you "overlap" and then your maneuver would take you over a ship onto another but that would then back you up to the first and the first would back you up even more you only overlap the ship you are touching well everything is all done; as far as the game is concerned you NEVER overlapped that more distant ship.