I'm not sure why so many find this so difficult to do. If you are able to place your ship FLAT on the table, it is NOT considered to be an overlap, regardless of whether or not it's in actual contact with the obstacle. The same applies to ships.

If you CANNOT place your ship FLAT on the table because part of it's base is OVER the obstacle, then you have overlapped it.

The term "touching" ONLY applies to ships that have overlapped other ships, as in "ships that are touching cannot attack each other". The same term has never applied to ships and obstacles. You're either on the obstacle because of an overlap, or you're on the table. You can never be FLAT on the table and suffer the effects of an obstacle just because you happen to be in contact with it.

It most certainly is an overlap. If you make any contact with the asteroid you are overlapping. IF I slide the base - flat on the table now - and it bumps an asteroid but stays flat on the table that is certainly overlapping because no matter how small, if there's contact the rock moves. If you touch a rock you're overlapping pure and simple. If you think otherwise, try sliding your ships around so as not to 'overlap' anything. You said as long as it's flat, no overlap, right? Touching, or contacting, or overlapping (whatever you'd like to call it) an obstacle has always been roll and lose your action - possibly your attack too.

...

Contact of any sort (with template or final resting position) with an obstacle is considered to be interacting with the obstacle .

Fixed that just so we can take out the word overlapping.

Works better for sure. I perhaps was using the term 'overlap' as a blanket term for final base contact/maneuver template contact on any other game element. I think interaction/ing is a much better way to put it, Thanks

Just like using "physically adjacent" to a ship may be a much better term to use than saying they are "touching" unless an overlap had occured and brought with it the no attack issues. When two things are very close to each other the terminology used can make a world of difference in how something is read. You can't be "touching" another ship after you barrel roll for example but you COULD be physically adjacent to it.

I'm not sure why so many find this so difficult to do. If you are able to place your ship FLAT on the table, it is NOT considered to be an overlap, regardless of whether or not it's in actual contact with the obstacle. The same applies to ships.

If you CANNOT place your ship FLAT on the table because part of it's base is OVER the obstacle, then you have overlapped it.

The term "touching" ONLY applies to ships that have overlapped other ships, as in "ships that are touching cannot attack each other". The same term has never applied to ships and obstacles. You're either on the obstacle because of an overlap, or you're on the table. You can never be FLAT on the table and suffer the effects of an obstacle just because you happen to be in contact with it.

Contact of any sort (with template or final resting position) with an obstacle is considered to be overlapping.

Care to point out where in the rulebook it says that?

I'm not sure why so many find this so difficult to do. If you are able to place your ship FLAT on the table, it is NOT considered to be an overlap, regardless of whether or not it's in actual contact with the obstacle. The same applies to ships.

If you CANNOT place your ship FLAT on the table because part of it's base is OVER the obstacle, then you have overlapped it.

The term "touching" ONLY applies to ships that have overlapped other ships, as in "ships that are touching cannot attack each other". The same term has never applied to ships and obstacles. You're either on the obstacle because of an overlap, or you're on the table. You can never be FLAT on the table and suffer the effects of an obstacle just because you happen to be in contact with it.

Contact of any sort (with template or final resting position) with an obstacle is considered to be overlapping.

Care to point out where in the rulebook it says that?

Rules Reference page 14 says "When a ship executes a maneuver, if its base or maneuver template overlaps an obstacle token, it executes its maneuver as normal but suffers an effect based on the type of obstacle.".

If a ship base or maneuver template makes any physical contact then it's overlapping. Think of it like a 2D thing. The height of the cardboard that the asteroid is printed on doesn't matter. If it were flat, and you contact it, you're overlapping interacting with the obstacle - no matter how small that interaction is. With the slight height of the asteroid token, in some cases a ship base just would just push it (or slide off it) as compared to being able to rest on it. Hence any contact with the asteroid is interacting with the asteroid.

I'm getting from your posts that you're pretty firmly in the camp of "if it's not physically resting on the obstacle token there's no interaction". I don't personally subscribe to that interpretation, but everyone can play however they want. I will just say that at every tournament I've been at, the rule has been contact is interaction. I think I saw you say that you sent an email asking for the fine print on this rule, and I think that's awesome! I'd love to have the designers weigh in on this.

I'm not sure why so many find this so difficult to do. If you are able to place your ship FLAT on the table, it is NOT considered to be an overlap, regardless of whether or not it's in actual contact with the obstacle. The same applies to ships.

If you CANNOT place your ship FLAT on the table because part of it's base is OVER the obstacle, then you have overlapped it.

The term "touching" ONLY applies to ships that have overlapped other ships, as in "ships that are touching cannot attack each other". The same term has never applied to ships and obstacles. You're either on the obstacle because of an overlap, or you're on the table. You can never be FLAT on the table and suffer the effects of an obstacle just because you happen to be in contact with it.

Contact of any sort (with template or final resting position) with an obstacle is considered to be overlapping.

Care to point out where in the rulebook it says that?

Rules Reference page 14 says "When a ship executes a maneuver, if its base or maneuver template overlaps an obstacle token, it executes its maneuver as normal but suffers an effect based on the type of obstacle.".

If a ship base or maneuver template makes any physical contact then it's overlapping. Think of it like a 2D thing. The height of the cardboard that the asteroid is printed on doesn't matter. If it were flat, and you contact it, you're overlapping interacting with the obstacle - no matter how small that interaction is. With the slight height of the asteroid token, in some cases a ship base just would just push it (or slide off it) as compared to being able to rest on it. Hence any contact with the asteroid is interacting with the asteroid.

I'm getting from your posts that you're pretty firmly in the camp of "if it's not physically resting on the obstacle token there's no interaction". I don't personally subscribe to that interpretation, but everyone can play however they want. I will just say that at every tournament I've been at, the rule has been contact is interaction. I think I saw you say that you sent an email asking for the fine print on this rule, and I think that's awesome! I'd love to have the designers weigh in on this.

You are correct for what camp I'm in. The rulebook does not have a section for overlapping an obstacle, just for overlapping ships. It's not defined what it means to be overlapped with an obstacle. Obviously if you're on top of it you're overlapping, but physical contact, aka touching? Not defined. Sure, I can see the argument for either side, but in my area we go with touching does not equal overlapping, as the ship is not physically overlapping. (And if the ship bumps the obstacle when you're placing it down then lays flat, you know it was meant to be overlapping it, and that's happened several times.)

So the problem with the understanding here seems to be the term "overlap" and what everyone seems to think it means, instead of what it actually means. The dictionary definition of the word is:

verb: " to cover something partly by going over its edge; to cover part of the same space. "

So if you can place your ship's base flat, how does that constitute an overlap ? By any definition? Certainly not by the game definition. Is it covering part of the token? Is it covering the same space? No, it's not, therefore no overlap exists.

It's possible to place a ship on the table in contact with another ship and that doesn't constitute an overlap (see the FAQ, page 5). Why then, are obstacles considered different? If you nudge the token when placing the ship, then you have overlapped, but if you hold the token firmly in place and you can still legally place your ship, then there's no overlap.

An overlap only happens when you land on top of something, be it a ship or an obstacle token.

If a ship knocks a asteroid is it consider as overlap?

Don't just put the ship down and then slide it sideways onto the maneuver template. That's how you end up knocking the asteroid to the side, and now there is no way to know if it's because it was actually an overlap or you were just overzealous.

Here is Frank Brook's answer, after several back and forths for clarification. (I can add the other posts if others wish.)

Tommy,

If a ship is overlapping an obstacle, it is overlapping it. If it is not overlapping an obstacle, it is not overlapping it. If something appears to be “touching,” it is either overlapping that obstacle, or not overlapping it. There is no way where a ship can be “touching” and not overlapping (and therefore suffering the effects of) an asteroid. A ship cannot be “touching” an asteroid.

Is that helpful?

So it looks like if you do touch an obstacle, you do not suffer it's effects. You must physically overlap to suffer the effects of overlapping.