From the rules reference.
QuoteWhile a ship executes a maneuver or otherwise moves, it overlaps an object if the ship’s final position would physically be on top of an object.
From this, it says the ship has to be Moving, to cause an overlap. But from today's FAQ dump, now that isn't a requirement anymore. Will this definition in the rule reference be changed, and whats the point of specifically saying Range 0 of an object anymore when you can just say Overlap?
Currently they are synonyms. In future though a ship or upgrade could allow bumping into rocks like you do ships at which point you could be at range 0 of a rock but not overlapping it.
Overlapping is still a game state that occurs only while Moving, or when something is being placed (a mine, a Loose Cargo token). All other effects that reference a ships' position on or around an object specify the range itself. Thus, any ability that talks about overlapping can only occur while that ship is moving, or has a thing placed on top of it (and the latter is only because the game specifies that they trigger, such as with mines).
We can iron out specific cards if they provoke questions, if you'd like.
Exactly, overlapping only happens during your movement, so whilst doing a dead stop of a debris cloud you are overlapping it and take a stress from the effect of it. For the rest of the turn you're just at range 0 of it.
4 hours ago, AramoroA said:Exactly, overlapping only happens during your movement
Or if something new is placed on the board appearently (as seen with the proximity mines).
3 minutes ago, GermanBlackbot said:Or if something new is placed on the board appearently (as seen with the proximity mines).
It very possibly might be a meaningless distinction but dropping an object under a ship only makes it count as overlapping, hence making mines blow up.
22 hours ago, thespaceinvader said:Currently they are synonyms. In future though a ship or upgrade could allow bumping into rocks like you do ships at which point you could be at range 0 of a rock but not overlapping it.
There actually already is. Boba Fett (Crew)
Quote...place yourself at range 0 of an obstacle ...
..but doesn't say to overlap it. So, by whats been told so far, you could, technically, place the ship so the edge of the base touches the edge of the obstacle, thus making it range 0, but not actually overlapping it.
In my mind, if placing a rock under a ship triggers overlapping, then placing a ship
on
a rock during deployment should also trigger overlapping effects. This is actually how Han (TFA) was ruled in 1E.
Overlapping is only during movement and not in deployment phase, You can use crew Boba to deploy right on top of a rock if you want. You'll never overlap something in the deployment phase.
42 minutes ago, AramoroA said:You'll never overlap something in the deployment phase .
You got a quote for that?
Because that's what we thought/suspected for the Systems Phase as well and as it turns out it was wrong.
EDIT: Or for the distinction – it might not be overlapping, but maybe it counts as overlapping or something.
Edited by GermanBlackbot16 minutes ago, GermanBlackbot said:You got a quote for that?
Because that's what we thought/suspected for the Systems Phase as well and as it turns out it was wrong.
EDIT: Or for the distinction – it might not be overlapping, but maybe it counts as overlapping or something.
Just straight from the RR
QuoteWhile a ship executes a maneuver or otherwise moves, it overlaps an object if the ship’s final position would physically be on top of an object.
That's the definition of Overlap from the rulebook, and nothing suggests that Deploying is movement, so you cannot overlap in the deployment phase. The ruling on placing objects under ships is an effective change to the rules to make them count as overlapping. Now they might rule that if you deploy on an obstacle with Boba Fett you count as overlapping the Obstacle and suffer the effects of doing that but it would require a ruling to do that. We don't just tear up the rulebook because there's a ruling, ruling's add to the rules, not remove from them. So you're overlapping when you move OR if the object appears under you.
The thing with objects going under ships just looks like a mistake as there were rules for what happened when you deployed under 2 ships at the same time, just not one. So it was fairly obvious mines were always going to detonate instantly.
Also, per page 15 of the RR: “Although rare, it is possible for a ship to move in such a way that it is at range 0 of another ship (in physical contact with it) without having overlapped it.”
If your bases are physically touching even though you didn’t overlap another ship, youre not firing.
3 hours ago, Gberezowsky said:Also, per page 15 of the RR: “Although rare, it is possible for a ship to move in such a way that it is at range 0 of another ship (in physical contact with it) without having overlapped it.”
If your bases are physically touching even though you didn’t overlap another ship, youre not firing.
Basically the only way this can happen is with a 0 stop manoeuvre whilst already bumped with another ship, for the record. That's close to the only way that a ship can execute a manoeuvre and end at range 0 without overlapping.
2 hours ago, thespaceinvader said:Basically the only way this can happen is with a 0 stop manoeuvre whilst already bumped with another ship, for the record. That's close to the only way that a ship can execute a manoeuvre and end at range 0 without overlapping.
Its rare, but a ship can be touching physically without having overlapped after moving. It’s happened in at least a few games for me where the template didn’t come down on top of the other ship, but the bases are physically touching. It’s not required to overlap, though. Touching is separate from overlap although overlap always results in touching.
The rules are not “you can’t shoot a ship you overlapped”, but rather you can’t shoot a ship you are “at range 0 of” (in physical contact with). It doesn’t matter how you got there.
This seems quite clear, although I think it has adjudication problems if players disagree. Other thoughts?
as I understand it, the Range 0 also applies to obstacles. so if you are touching an asteroid or debris, you suffer all effects as well.
1 hour ago, PanchoX1 said:as I understand it, the Range 0 also applies to obstacles. so if you are touching an asteroid or debris, you suffer all effects as well.
No, there effect is a result of overlapping, not the same thing as range 0.
If you end up physically touching an asteroid, you suffer nothing but you can't attack because you are at range 0
31 minutes ago, muribundi said:If you end up physically touching an asteroid, you suffer nothing but you can't attack because you are at range 0
Are you sure? This is under performing a stationary or stop maneuver in the rules reference:
"A ship that executes this maneuver counts as executing a maneuver, does not overlap any ships, does trigger the effects of overlapping any obstacles at range 0 , and continues to be at range 0 of any objects it was touching before executing this maneuver."
And this is under obstacles:
"Obstacles act as hazards that can disrupt and damage ships. A ship can suffer effects by moving through, overlapping, or while being at range 0 of obstacles."
Seems to me that they affect ships at range 0 regardless of how they get there. is there another rule somewhere that contradicts this?
4 hours ago, Gberezowsky said:Its rare, but a ship can be touching physically without having overlapped after moving. It’s happened in at least a few games for me where the template didn’t come down on top of the other ship, but the bases are physically touching. It’s not required to overlap, though. Touching is separate from overlap although overlap always results in touching.
The rules are not “you can’t shoot a ship you overlapped”, but rather you can’t shoot a ship you are “at range 0 of” (in physical contact with). It doesn’t matter how you got there.
This seems quite clear, although I think it has adjudication problems if players disagree. Other thoughts?
The game state of being range 0/overlapping another ship only occurs as a result of a ship partially executing a manoeuvre, but can be maintained thereafter with stops. You either do, and you're range 0, or you don't, and you're not.
If you land perfectly next to a ship, you're not range 0.
1 hour ago, PanchoX1 said:Are you sure? This is under performing a stationary or stop maneuver in the rules reference:
"A ship that executes this maneuver counts as executing a maneuver, does not overlap any ships, does trigger the effects of overlapping any obstacles at range 0 , and continues to be at range 0 of any objects it was touching before executing this maneuver."
And this is under obstacles:
"Obstacles act as hazards that can disrupt and damage ships. A ship can suffer effects by moving through, overlapping, or while being at range 0 of obstacles."
Seems to me that they affect ships at range 0 regardless of how they get there. is there another rule somewhere that contradicts this?
Being at Range 0 is defined differently for ships and obstacles.
An object is at range 0 of an obstacle or device if it is physically on top of it.
A ship is at range 0 of another ship if it is physically touching another ship.
11 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:The game state of being range 0/overlapping another ship only occurs as a result of a ship partially executing a manoeuvre, but can be maintained thereafter with stops. You either do, and you're range 0, or you don't, and you're not.
If you land perfectly next to a ship, you're not range 0.
If your bases are touching but you didn't overlap, you are at range 0.
Yes, it can happen through a normal manoeuvre (happened to my the other day when a 1 bank scraped in, but was fully completed).
Yes, it's defined differently to 1.0.
4 hours ago, DamianR said:Being at Range 0 is defined differently for ships and obstacles.
An object is at range 0 of an obstacle or device if it is physically on top of it.
A ship is at range 0 of another ship if it is physically touching another ship.
I'm not so sure those are definitions. The reason is that both ships and obstacles are defined at objects in the object section of the rules. and under range in the rules reference just above the section you quoted it states:
Range 0 does not appear on the range ruler, but is used for describing the range of objects that are physically touching.
based on that, Ships are in range 0 of obstacles if they are physically touching. they don't need to have overlapped. under the obstacle rules it states:
A ship can suffer effects by moving through, overlapping, or while being at range 0 of obstacles.
8 hours ago, DamianR said:If your bases are touching but you didn't overlap, you are at range 0.
Yes, it can happen through a normal manoeuvre (happened to my the other day when a 1 bank scraped in, but was fully completed).
Yes, it's defined differently to 1.0.
Quote the rules reference to that effect please.
5 hours ago, thespaceinvader said:Quote the rules reference to that effect please.
I did, in the previous post. I'll quote the entire section for clarity.
Range, page 15
• Range 0 does not appear on the range ruler, but is used for describing the range of objects that are physically touching.
◊ After a ship partially executes a maneuver, it is at range 0 of the last ship it overlapped.
◊ An object is at range 0 of an obstacle or device if it is physically on top of it.
◊ A ship is at range 0 of another ship if it is physically touching another ship.
◊ If two ships are at range 0 of each other, they remain at range 0 until one of the ships moves in a way that results in their bases no longer being in physical contact.
◊ Although rare, it is possible for a ship to move in such a way that it is at range 0 of another ship (in physical contact with it) without having overlapped it.
That is the rulebook definition for Range 0.
The situation was that a bank meant that a corner of the base was touching, but the base was flush with the template and flat on the mat, landing cleanly (without disturbing the other ship). So there was no overlap, but the ships were touching, so, as per the third diamond point, they are at range 0.
8 hours ago, PanchoX1 said:I'm not so sure those are definitions. The reason is that both ships and obstacles are defined at objects in the object section of the rules. and under range in the rules reference just above the section you quoted it states:
Range 0 does not appear on the range ruler, but is used for describing the range of objects that are physically touching.
based on that, Ships are in range 0 of obstacles if they are physically touching. they don't need to have overlapped. under the obstacle rules it states:
A ship can suffer effects by moving through, overlapping, or while being at range 0 of obstacles.
And range 0 is defined (I don't know what else the different descriptions in the diamond points is supposed to mean if it's not defining the two separate situations) as one thing for ships and something else for obstacles and devices.
Reading the section as a whole, your example is not correct, as it contradicts the second bullet point. Something overlapping an obstacle is also physically touching it, so the opening sentence is not contradicted by the second bullet point.
If FFG meant it to be played as per your example, there is no need for the distinction given by the second and third diamond points.
1 hour ago, DamianR said:And range 0 is defined (I don't know what else the different descriptions in the diamond points is supposed to mean if it's not defining the two separate situations) as one thing for ships and something else for obstacles and devices.
I think those diamond points are examples. The Range 0 definition is under the Range rule section on page 14. I think if the bullet point were definitions, it would not have been necessary to state that ships suffer effects by overlapping or being at range 0 if a ship is only at range 0 of an obstacle if it is on top of it. it also would not have been necessary to state in the obstacles rules that effects of overlapping trigger at range 0. If you're only at range 0 of an obstacle while on top of it, why include a rule that shows triggering effects in two different manners (overlapping and range 0)? I see where you're coming from but I don't think your interpretation of the diamond points is the correct one.
1 hour ago, DamianR said:I did, in the previous post. I'll quote the entire section for clarity.
Range, page 15• Range 0 does not appear on the range ruler, but is used for describing the range of objects that are physically touching.
◊ After a ship partially executes a maneuver, it is at range 0 of the last ship it overlapped.
◊ An object is at range 0 of an obstacle or device if it is physically on top of it.
◊ A ship is at range 0 of another ship if it is physically touching another ship.
◊ If two ships are at range 0 of each other, they remain at range 0 until one of the ships moves in a way that results in their bases no longer being in physical contact.
◊ Although rare, it is possible for a ship to move in such a way that it is at range 0 of another ship (in physical contact with it) without having overlapped it.That is the rulebook definition for Range 0.
The situation was that a bank meant that a corner of the base was touching, but the base was flush with the template and flat on the mat, landing cleanly (without disturbing the other ship). So there was no overlap, but the ships were touching, so, as per the third diamond point, they are at range 0.
And I would disagree.
Unless you actually overlapped the ships concerned at some point previously, there is still some, albeit small, distance between them. If there's not, they overlapped and you should react accordingly.