Situation:

Two small ships, side by side, parallel and about a templates width apart - facing the same direction with front of bases "level" with each other.

One ship moved 3 Straight forward and barrel-rolls across the path of the other - a directly sideways roll, with no "front to back").

The 2nd ship reveals a 2 Straight - what happens next?...

Situation:

Two small ships, side by side, parallel and about a templates width apart - facing the same direction with front of bases "level" with each other.

One ship moved 3 Straight forward and barrel-rolls across the path of the other - a directly sideways roll, with no "front to back").

The 2nd ship reveals a 2 Straight - what happens next?...

2nd ship runs into the back corner of the first ship.

The Straight 1 is about the same length as a side on a small ship base but only about. If you've got a base that is on the small side of tolerance and a template on the long sider of tolerance the template may be the same length or a hair longer. In your example that hair longer is not going to cover the width of the template with the BR.

Now with further thought maybe the 3 template will push the first ship forward enough that the 2nd ship doing a speed 2 can edge it behind it provided there is no base nub interference. It's going to be tight in any case are is really going to depend on where your templates and bases fall when it comes to tolerances.

Uh-huh, I didn't take template variance into account.

This happened against me in a game. Opponent claimed it couldn't possibly be a collision cos it moved 1 slower.

But I was off the belief that each unit of movement is equal to a base-length <b>excluding</b> the nubs - so, I'd argued that it must have been a collision.

I believe the base unit of movement is a tiny bit shorter that base side length of a small base on average. I believe someone has real measurements but the difference is only really noticable when you start doing these craze things right ontop of another ship.

Had the first ship moved forward the least little bit with the BR then I'm pretty sure the speed 2 would have pulled in behind the speed 3 maneuver. It should have been easy to make it fit front to back especially if that lead ship had acted 2nd but it likely wouldn't be able to roll over the other ship.

Uh-huh, I didn't take template variance into account.

This happened against me in a game. Opponent claimed it couldn't possibly be a collision cos it moved 1 slower.

But I was off the belief that each unit of movement is equal to a base-length <b>excluding</b> the nubs - so, I'd argued that it must have been a collision.

The bases are generally not equal to the templates, especially when the nubs are taken into account, and it's the nubs that everyone seems to forget each time this comes up. You can never assume that the ship is going to fit just because the manoeuvre is 1 shorter than the other ship's manoeuvre. You must still place the template and then try and place the ship. And I can guarantee you'll find it won't fit because the nubs will contact somewhere.

The thing in this case Parravon is that they were two side by side ships where one went ahead of the other and then rolled across the second's flight path. I don't think the objective was stacking ships in a line.

You just execute the maneuver and watch carefully for any overlap... like you should always do.

There's variance in template lengths and base sizes, there's some error whenever you set down or pick up a template or ship, etc... You can never assume that 2 ships won't overlap because "mathematically" they shouldn't. The exception, of course, being that one specific case pointed out in the FAQ.

The thing in this case Parravon is that they were two side by side ships where one went ahead of the other and then rolled across the second's flight path. I don't think the objective was stacking ships in a line.

I realise that, but if the placement of the ships was as precise as the OP suggests, then the nubs should come into play. The second ship isn't going to just fit in there simply because it's a 2-straight versus a 3-straight scenario. There should be an overlap caused by the nubs.

I realise that, but if the placement of the ships was as precise as the OP suggests, then the nubs should come into play. The second ship isn't going to just fit in there simply because it's a 2-straight versus a 3-straight scenario. There should be an overlap caused by the nubs.

Yeah, you've pretty much got the heart of the issue - anyone who's ever tried something remotely similar realises you get done over by the nubs.

I don't even have that much experience but have already discovered that element of the base dimensions through failed execution.

Normally, I wouldn't even bothered arguing the point - except the same player pulled a swifty of infinitely dirtier proportions in the preceding turn, so I was being hyper-vigilant with their execution of maneuvers.

I realise that, but if the placement of the ships was as precise as the OP suggests, then the nubs should come into play. The second ship isn't going to just fit in there simply because it's a 2-straight versus a 3-straight scenario. There should be an overlap caused by the nubs.

Yeah, you've pretty much got the heart of the issue - anyone who's ever tried something remotely similar realises you get done over by the nubs.

I don't even have that much experience but have already discovered that element of the base dimensions through failed execution.

Normally, I wouldn't even bothered arguing the point - except the same player pulled a swifty of infinitely dirtier proportions in the preceding turn, so I was being hyper-vigilant with their execution of maneuvers.

Come on now, you can't drop a bombshell like that and not let us know what it was.

What was the "dirty swifty" that was so dubious?

Template sliding trickery to avoid a T-bone collision - it wasn't quite enough and the bumped ship moved sideways - they then refused to acknowledge I'd seen the ship get nudged.

Then further compounded the situation by repeating the deed (backsliding the template) for the tandem ship (which had a clear path) in order to cover up the first indiscretion.

I was shocked - never had such a thing happen - didn't know how to react, other than to watch each move like a hawk.

Later in the game they were also flying close to the edge with one ship and gave the template a bit of a nudge to ensure there was space (by my reckoning it was going to be safe anyway, but I guess they weren't as confident).

The thing in this case Parravon is that they were two side by side ships where one went ahead of the other and then rolled across the second's flight path. I don't think the objective was stacking ships in a line.

I realise that, but if the placement of the ships was as precise as the OP suggests, then the nubs should come into play. The second ship isn't going to just fit in there simply because it's a 2-straight versus a 3-straight scenario. There should be an overlap caused by the nubs.

I don't believe they (the nubs) should come into play in this case. If one ship goes 2 and the other 3 then the line each is perpendicular to would be running through the front/back nubs on each ship. I believe that rolling should provide enough movement to get the nubs clear to the other side so they wouldn't be interfering but you've still got to worry about the contact with the base proper.

To look at the nub issue a bit differently I think everyone should agree that if two ships are straight on nose to nose there is no way a 1 straight will clear a small base. Now if the two ships are one parallel, but opposite, courses and happen to just clip each other so that bases are flush without any interference from the nubs then things becomes a lot more complex and is at the heart of this posts question. There you would lay down the movement template without needing to do anything about the other ship (the space infront of and between the nubs is clear) but if the small ship could be jumped with a speed 1 it all comes down to that template compared to the base. The right variations it may but with most there will be contact and thus no movement happens.

Guide nubs count for the purpose of overlapping. Assuming template length is identical to base length, the rear ship would land on the forward ship's guides and be considered overlapping.

Assuming template length is identical to base length...

Guide nubs count for the purpose of overlapping. Assuming template length is identical to base length, the rear ship would land on the forward ship's guides and be considered overlapping.

IF it was trying to land directly infront of of the other ship.

The way I understand the original post is that the first ship tries to zoom ahead (speed 3) of the second ship and then COMPLETELY pass over its projected path with a BR. If this were a number pad it wants to move from 4 to 9 or from 9 o'clock to 1:30 if you're better with that. I do not believe the roll would completely clear the second ship's flight path but it should move it over far enough that the nubs are not in play at this time when it comes to overruns.

The way I understand the original post is that the first ship tries to zoom ahead (speed 3) of the second ship and then COMPLETELY pass over its projected path with a BR.

Not exactly... they started about a standard straight template width apart (but not quite half a base-width, so somewhere between 1cm and 2cm).

So the ship's BR most definitely left the 1st ship in the path of the 2nd.

I don't know if "back-right nub" was aligned to "front-left nub", but by my reckoning it would not have mattered as each unit of move is about as long a base less the nubs (in the absence excessive "natural variation").

I can say undoubtedly that the two ships started perfectly level, with identical bearing - due to the player asserting unquestionably that they were level and parallel in their the ending positions from the previous turn.

yeah, if ship 1 is half a base away from ship 2 and barrel rolls, its left nub is squarely in the way of ship 2 and will be contacted by ship 2's base. Even if the templates were exactly multiples of bases and the movement had no human error, that would be the case. The only way to prevent the bump is to move forward a bit on that barrel roll.

I don't know for anything else he have done during the game... but some player are way less good manually then other... and sometime small "nudge" will happen all around and template will not always be perfect fit... I'm a bit lenient with these because I want the game to flow. Anyway this may as well create a bump later on. If they are sketchy only when this can advantage them, then yes I would intervene. But if they are always sketchy because they are not manualy clever or shake hand, then I would let go.

My appologies. When I saw "template width" I was thinking what should probably be called template edge instead; two ships right next to each other but not quite touching to start with. If I had been thinking "large ship BR appart" or the "half a base of seperation" I'd completely agree that nubs will ruin any chance of fitting with a +1 speed trying to cleanly get ahead of another ship.

No matter what the starting position was, or which sequence of maneuvers and barrel rolls was executed...
You perform the maneuvers normally and watch carefully for an overlap.

There is never a case of "in theory it shouldn't have overlapped, so we'll consider that it didn't" *.

This whole discussion is pretty pointless IMHO...

* Except the very specific case that is addressed in the FAQ.

Ships are parallel with the front of the bases even. 20mm between the sides of the bases.

Ship 1 moves 3 (120mm) forward and barrel rolls perfectly sideways 40mm.

This leaves ship 1 20mm off the center of Ship 2.

Distance between the front edge of Ship 2 to the tip of the back nub of Ship 1 is approximately 118mm.

Ship 2 moves 2 (80mm) forward, plus the base length of 40mm for a total of 120mm.

In theory, there is definitely an overlap due to the nubs.

Claims that it's not possible remind me of one thing:

No matter what the starting position was, or which sequence of maneuvers and barrel rolls was executed...

You perform the maneuvers normally and watch carefully for an overlap.

There is never a case of "in theory it shouldn't have overlapped, so we'll consider that it didn't" *.

This whole discussion is pretty pointless IMHO...

* Except the very specific case that is addressed in the FAQ.

Oh wait a second. Missed the footnote when I hit quote. As you mention there is a specific case when two ships have collided and are both facing the exact same direction and then perform the same forward maneuver.

Template sliding trickery to avoid a T-bone collision - it wasn't quite enough and the bumped ship moved sideways - they then refused to acknowledge I'd seen the ship get nudged.

Then further compounded the situation by repeating the deed (backsliding the template) for the tandem ship (which had a clear path) in order to cover up the first indiscretion.

I was shocked - never had such a thing happen - didn't know how to react, other than to watch each move like a hawk.

Later in the game they were also flying close to the edge with one ship and gave the template a bit of a nudge to ensure there was space (by my reckoning it was going to be safe anyway, but I guess they weren't as confident).

Keep in mind that such movements can happen subconscious too. That's something you should always remember and account for in your planning, because arguing that without video evidence is often a mood point.

Besides that: Yeah, discussion is pointless, especially as the most relevant move, the barrel roll, has to be eyeballed to hit the middle of the base. If you are off by the length of the nubs into the forward direction … then the next ship should be clear. ;-)

Keep in mind that such movements can happen subconscious too.

Agreed, and some people even have difficulty with shaky hands, and I'd be willing to concede some margin of error to that.

However, when this player laid the first template, it was obvious that there was not likely going to be space for the move (I even said "oop, that'll be a bump") - I'm sure he realised this and hence tried to expedite the move in the belief I wouldn't notice - given the positioning, that ship WOULD have flown off board next turn if the overlap occurred (though it didn't cross my mind until placing dials next turn), so the "value at stake" was high.

In that situation, a 'fair' player should have said "looks like this will be close, let's take care with how it is executed", especially when I have stated a belief the the move was obstructed. But no, he slipped the template and yet still failed to create quite enough space, so that when the moving ship was placed the obstructing ship was slightly nudged. The player then flatly refused to accept my assertion that the ship moved (so, 2nd count of bad sportsmanship, calling my honestly into doubt).

Lastly, he had an adjacent ship that was executing the same move, and once it was complete, would demonstrate the relative positioning of all ships in question. Thus he had to slip the template for that one as well, so as not to have the final position so obviously misaligned. He did this swiftly and deftly and I had simply never played someone so obviously playing (at best) so negligently (and that's being generous) - (at worst) outright cheating - so did not have the experience to handle the situation.

The ironic thing is, this was early in the game, and I'd hate the idea of a player being handicapped by loss of a ship flying off-board (which would have been the outcome) for a slight miscalculation before ships were even anywhere near in range of each other. I would have proposed a mutually agreed penalty to apply*, and get on with the game.

(* = eg. I get full points for the offending ship even if it's not destroyed when calculating the victory, but the ship gets to stay in-game in order to try and make-back the points it has given away, and not completely mutilate his game plan with a loss of a whole ship - if he felt this gave him absolutely no scope to still achieve a win, I'd possibly even take half-points, so as to still keep the game a competitive concern)

His later moves displayed no similar clumsiness or hand-shake (until the one other specific edge-skirting move I mentioned) so am not inclined to accept it was unintentional.

That's something you should always remember and account for in your planning, because arguing that without video evidence is often a mood moot point.

Exactly! - it's a sad state when you wish you'd had video running to expose foul play - and had an otherwise pleasant tournament spoiled by unscrupulous behavior.