Can ships overlapping squadrons move them off board?

[RowUrBoatGently 58]

This is a somewhat hypothetical question, but I'm still curious what you think: If I due to careless maneuvering overlap one of my own squadrons with a ship, can my opponent place the squadron so that it is overlapping the edge of the play area if my ship is near enough?

[ransburger 256]

It sounds like a totally valid, and legal move.  Although not very kind.

 

I suspect there will be something in the FAQ about this, because its been asked several times.

[RowUrBoatGently 58]

Thank you!

[Ghost Dancer 401]

There was a huge debate about it in at least one other thread, some people think it is a legal move, others think that this was not the intention. Personally I fall into the latter category. Until FFG release an official FAQ about you and your opponent/local club/group will have to agree on a ruling.

[Larac 14]

My hope is it will be that you can not do this.

 

Really do not want to see the overlapping rules become tactics.

 

Like in X Wing.

[RowUrBoatGently 58]

I agree, I think it would be best if the devs declare that this wasn't the intention of the overlapping rules. Though I appreciate it being a tactical feature in x-wing I don't see it fitting in Armada.

[ScottieATF 2,867]

The overlap rules already are tactics, even excluding this debate.

They are even at the most basic level a way to maintain firing distance on a ship while not being able to move, and a way to get your squadrons disengaged without wasting thier attacks.

Regardless of how FFG wants this to work the overlap rulse of both Ships and Squadrons have intrinsic tactical implications on how you are going to play the game.

I want my X-Wings to get a shot at his VSD without a Squadron Command what do I do? Park my X-wings in a way he will overlap them with his VSD allowing me to place my X-Wings in whatever arc I want. Mostly likely in front of him so that even when it move next turn I can still stay in range.

You may need to come to terms with the fact that the overlapping rules are absolutely something that will be used as a tactical advantage.

[Wes Janson 1,184]

I would think this is rather silly to allow them to place them off table. I would probably want to punch my opponent for that kind of crap. Who plays against people like that more then once anyway? Would it not make more sense to have to place them in play where possible only removing squadrons which can't be placed otherwise?

Edited April 5, 2015 by Wes Janson

[ScottieATF 2,867]

You'd punch your opponent for making a legal play in a game? I think you'd be the out of line one in that case.

Don't overlap your own Squadrons near the board edge.

[moffmalthus 141]

I agree with wess. It seems like a very lowbrow move imho.

Edited April 4, 2015 by moffmalthus

[daloonieshaman 17]

the problem is in tournament play lowbrow is the norm

[headache62 130]

Does anyone have a problem in X-wing with ioning a ship off the table? It's not exactly the same thing, but it is a valid tactic, isn't it? And it's fair in that your opponent can do it to you, too, right (if you put your ships that close to the edge)?

[daloonieshaman 17]

most of the guys in our rather large group have not played x-wing

[ScottieATF 2,867]

Holding people to what is an inherently ambiguous standard of what you as an individual person feel is or not in keeping with the spirit if a game is an impossible situation.

What type of within the rules play people find lowbrow or beardy or whatever varies so greatly from person to person that you are setting a goal post that is constantly moving.

You may find this topic lowbrow, but I'm sure I can find some gamer that will cry foul over things you wouldn't conceive of as an issue. I mean it really is only a matter of time before someone loses a game because thier opponent prevented thier ship from moving by blocking it in. They come to these forums and talk about what poor etiquette thier opponent displayed how they "abused" the rules and how what they did is clearly not within the "spirit of the game". Some people will even agree with them though most will think them quite daft. You can find a gamer somewhere that will look at the most basic leverging of the game rules and cry beardy.

It's silly, and a completely impossible standard to expect people to operate under. Especially in an environment where you are playing unknown players, like a tournament. So rather then an inherantly ambiguous constantly in flux standard you have one that is available for all to learn and should set clear expectations of what is and isn't allowable play. That being the rules of the game.

[Brian_Black 105]

Don't overlap your own Squadrons near the board edge.

Punching opponents aside, it's really that simple. I don't see any issue with an opponent locking up my fighters in front of my own ship so that I plow into them next turn, or even later in the current turn. This scenario really has to take multiple turns to set up, which requires negligence on your part for it to carry through or even come up in the first place.

I get the feeling this question wouldn't have come up so early if the default size of 3x6 was used from the start; since you only get the 4' band in the middle to deploy your ships, flying parallel to a board edge at a distance to make this a viable threat wouldn't realistically occur in most games.

[Serlo 12]

I would suggest that only the play area is a valid for placement, hence you could not place squadrons off the board.

[RowUrBoatGently 58]

I get the feeling this question wouldn't have come up so early if the default size of 3x6 was used from the start; since you only get the 4' band in the middle to deploy your ships, flying parallel to a board edge at a distance to make this a viable threat wouldn't realistically occur in most games.

 

 

I agree, and that is why I called the question "somewhat hypothetical"

[Traveller724 17]

I'll just toss this idea out there. Based on page 8 of the RRG: Overlapping, first paragraph...

..."Then the player who is not moving the ship places the overlapped squadrons, regardless of who owns them, in any position around that ship so that **they touch the ship** that moved."

If they get placed off the map, the squadrons would no longer touch the ship and therefore the placement would not be in compliance with the rule. Anyhow, just a thought, but my preference would be that the squadron stays on the map.

I guess the next question would be this....

I have a badly damaged ship that will probably die soon and decide to try to take some fighters with me. There is a horde of enemy fighters near the edge that I could overlap while also having part of my ship finish movement off the map. Do I take those fighters off the map with me?

[headache62 130]

....

I have a badly damaged ship that will probably die soon and decide to try to take some fighters with me. There is a horde of enemy fighters near the edge that I could overlap while also having part of my ship finish movement off the map. Do I take those fighters off the map with me?

I suggest that probably won't work. First, your ships movement would end off the map, so it could be argued that you don't even remove the enemy fighters from the board before you remove your ship. Second, your opponent places the squadrons you move, and they are not about to put a bunch of their own squadrons off the board because you decided to leave the play area.

[Wes Janson 1,184]

After reading further, under Overlapping, fighters must be placed contacting the base of ship that forced them to move. This says to me that placing them off the table would be not compliant with the meaning of the word. They can't be placed contacting the ship when they fall off the table. Also, if there is no additional room to place the squadrons then that might be the only case I could swallow that play.

 

Anyway, regardless of hypothetical beatings, I feel there is a standard that makes a good player a great player. And that is being competitive while remaining within the spirit of the game. AKA fun to play against. Not all my game group belongs to this forum, but I have a good idea that all of them would find the attempt to execute this play would be of bad taste.

[ScottieATF 2,867]

It's not as if the edge of the play area is going to be a cliff, the play surface can extended past what is used for play. Hence the play area markers included in the game.

[daloonieshaman 17]

A squad COULD physically be placed where a portion of it is touching a ship and off the board. There is no precedence in the rules just player speculation by those of us on the forum. The.The reason it needs to be ruled on is that despite how bad or horrible or stupid it sounds player HAVE and WILL try to do so thus leading to mixed feeling....

[Wes Janson 1,184]

Fair enough. I agree that it can be placed so that it remains on the table but also overhangs the regulated play area therefore being out of play. So currently without any official word it would be up to individual tournament organizers to rule on the issue.

[Vetnor 297]

It would depend if you're playing a social/friendly game or playing for cattle stations.

I would like everybody on this forum to know I will never play like that. I just couldn't do it, it would violate my morel standards and sense of fair play.

Also if my opponent pulled that stunt with me I'd make a mental note of not playing against them again.

[ScottieATF 2,867]

Are you also going to be cross with your opponent if they place your squadrons in a position to get shot up by all of thiers after an overlap?

Edited April 6, 2015 by ScottieATF