Overlapping in the setup -- THE PARODY

[Intys Rule 148]

Link to the original thread.

 

TL;DR - basically, Lyraeus is saying that because there are no rules that say it isn't allowed, he can deploy his ships overlapping one another.  Here is his suggested deployment method:

 

Here is the picture.

 

 

 

So some players decided to take it a step further to build the ultimate starship:

 

Just sayin'.

 

 

 

Another awesome formation:

 

I for one think it's entirely fair to mercilessy mock Lyraeus now...





...but only if we're willing to eat crow in the (ridiculously unlikely) event that FFG agree with him

 

 

 

Since he's sticking to his guns until FFG issues an FAQ to resolve the matter (or hopefully get an email response if he's sent a clarification question out), let's see how far we can push this game in terms of stupidity until FFG says otherwise.

 

 

Here's an idea:

 

We GLUE Rhymer and his bomber escort onto the ship base, that way when we move the ship, we bring the bombers along with us.  Now we have extra firepower that goes out to medium range... then we can blu-tac (so we can adjust) another ship on top of the ship facing any direction.... forward/left/right/back.  This will result in an ultra-powerful ship that can probably alpha-strike anything it comes across.

 

There's no rules saying gluing or blu-tac is not allowed, or anything about putting a ship on top of a ship to gain more attacks and firing arcs.  I've not modified any bases or altered their shape (p4 Tournament rules) so I should be good.

 

So, since there seems to be no rules saying what I'm planning to do is not allowed, I can do this until FFG says otherwise.... or until somebody can point out a rule that says I can't do this.  And no, "common sense, fair play, and RAI" reasoning does not count.

 

I'll be readying the popcorn. 

[DWRR 898]

I really don't think this needed to spew forth from the rules forum...

[Lyraeus 4,759]

/sigh... For all I do, this is what I get. . . Thank you interwebs.

Remember that squadrons can never be placed in an overlap with other squadrons or ships.

Oh, and remember that the overlap rule comes into play after you execute a maneuver.

For those that say that this is a 2d setup, please tell me how high that goes to during setup (hint, I am setting you up on this one)

Edited August 15, 2015 by Lyraeus

[Stasy 2,502]

Do those ships take fall damage?

[DWRR 898]

This does feel like a very childish thread.

[Lyraeus 4,759]

This does feel like a very childish thread.

Tell me about it. I think Intys is still mad at me.

[Bipolar Potter 679]

The easy answer to Lyraeus inane question is that you never actually deployed the ship to the play area, therefore the game is stuck until he decided to stop wasting time and place it on the play area.

"The play area is the shared space occupied by ships, squadrons, obstacle tokens and objective tokens. The recommended play area is 3' x 3' for the core set and 3' x 6' for a 300 fleet point game.
• If any portion of a ship’s or squadron’s base is outside the play area, that ship or squadron is destroyed. For this purpose, ignore activation sliders, shield dials, and the plastic portions of a ship’s base that frame shield dials."

The play area is the mat. Not the space above the mat, the mat itself. If it's not touching the mat, then its not in the play area. The only caveats to that are terrain and objective markers, which are specifically stated. Squadrons and ships can overlap them, and still be legally touching the play area. so as per Deployment: "Deploy Ships: Starting with the first player, the players take turns deploying their forces into the setup area. A single deployment turn consists of placing one ship or two squadrons."

Lyraeus hasn't deployed his ship in the setup area, which is a part of the play area, so therefore he hasn't deployed the ship in the first place.

Edited August 15, 2015 by Bipolar Potter

[Lyraeus 4,759]

Why is it outside the play area though? Please say it's because it is a 2d game. Pretty please!

[Bipolar Potter 679]

Because the play area is the 3x3 or 3x6 mat every piece on the game has to touch. There's only 4 categories of things that are in the play area. (Well, technically 5 if you count the setup area markers). Ships, squadrons, obstacles, and objective markers.
Ships and squadrons are explicitly prevented from overlapping each other during gameplay after deployment, and are explicitly ALLOWED to overlap obstacles and objective markers.

Your problem lies in that the deployment SPECIFICALLY states you have to place the ship on the play area. The play area is defined SPECIFICALLY as the 3x3 or 3x6 mat. If you don't place the ship/squadron/obstacle/objective on the play area, you didn't place it properly according to the rules. 

Oh and: "If any portion of a ship’s or squadron’s base is outside the play area, that ship or squadron is destroyed." If you don't place the ship ENTIRELY in the play area you have to destroy it immediately.

Edited August 15, 2015 by Bipolar Potter

[Lyraeus 4,759]

Where does it state that ships are not allowed to overlap?

Did you know that the shield dials don't count for being outside the play area.

Play Area RRG pg9

"If any portion of a ship’s or squadron’s base is outside the play area, that ship or squadron is destroyed. For this purpose, ignore activation sliders, shield dials, and the plastic portions of a ship’s base that frame shield dials."

If you are using the Learn to play rules, please transfer to the Rules Reference Guide. It goes in depth into these rules.

Lastly you deploy ships into the Setup Area. Which is a subset of the play area.

[Bipolar Potter 679]

Im quoting directly from the Rule Reference, theres a nifty PDF you can copy-paste directly from. 
https://images-cdn.fantasyflightgames.com/filer_public/2c/4d/2c4de555-925d-4fde-8af6-02873437149b/swm01_rules_reference_guide_lowres.pdf

You asked for proof, I gave it to you, now you're attempting to insult me, and then referencing rules that have no direct bearing on the subject matter.
You're missing the point on purpose now, and setting up a strawman argument to prove how clever you are i guess. It's kinda sad, especially given how excellent your previous posts and contributions have been. 

[Vykes 1,927]

If the solution was that simple, it would have been answered in the 7 pages of debates that we've already had. Now, this thread actually feels grotesquely malicious.

 

Since he's sticking to his guns until FFG issues an FAQ to resolve the matter (or hopefully get an email response if he's sent a clarification question out), let's see how far we can push this game in terms of stupidity until FFG says otherwise.

 

but... well, I'm still consistently amazed with El Diablo's Star Destroyer Stacking Spree, particularly number 4. That' right impressive. DiabloAzule's artistic vision is not beyond me, and we should all look to the esoteric truths which exist in AAA. That is, quite obviously, Armada Alternative Art.

 

I'm not condoning the whole purpose in any way, but if we want to start a stacking competition... you know, frigging go ahead, because that might be cool looking.

 

As always, we expect you to be respectful of all members, so please refrain from any hostility, and use language appropriate for all audiences.

[kite14 237]

Seeing all those VSDs stacked on top of another made my heart stop for a second. I fear for the antenna.

[Grave13 235]

Most ridiculously hilarious post on here yet. I needed this LMFAO!!!!

[Zeiss 29]

Everything Armada was missing... The 3rd dimension

[Mikael Hasselstein 6,898]

Lyraeus is a friend of mine (despite his allegiance to the pathetic Rebellion), so I do think getting mean-spirited towards him about his ... 'finding' isn't sign of a generous spirit. I think people are getting WAY too worked up about it.

 

(I also realize that this is a function of the internet and the pseudo-anonymity that people enjoy.)

 

But I do think the pictures, without the intended context, are funny.

 

TL:DR: People; just chill the hell out.

[MattShadowlord 1,494]

Thank goodness it's just a game

[Lyraeus 4,759]

Thank goodness it's just a game

Which part. . . Picking on a concept of mine or Armada?

[Amanal 2,557]

Can't we have both?

[Lyraeus 4,759]

I already have enough self esteem issues. Being picked on for something I think is legitimate is wrong to me.

I have come on here more than enough times and said I was wrong or changed my tune when I was wrong so anyone who thinks I am being stubborn on this needs to reevaluate their information. If it were so cut and dry I would have dropped this long ago.

As for FFG. I have sent them two enquires on this and if they had a cut and dry answer, I would expect them to of emailed me back by now.

[Stasy 2,502]

While I don't agree with everything Lyraeus says, it's pretty **** like harassing him over this. And the continued harassment may bring out the wrath of the gods...uh, I mean admins. And nobody wants or needs that.

That being said, I'm enjoying the photos and comments related to them. I'm not enjoying a 2nd thread of ball busting targeted at one guy who tries to develop the community of the game.

[Stasy 2,502]

Duplicate post removed.

Edited August 16, 2015 by Stasy

[ficklegreendice 34,362]

The incredibly amusing overlap setups are pretty diluted by the incredibly pointed text

Just delete all that and leave the silly pics

[Shadowmax 211]

As a new player to Armada, I come to this forum for ideas and advice from those who understand the game more than I, not to see stuff like this,. like mattshadowlord says, Thank goodness this is game....Posts such as this taint the whole deal for us all and is an insult to all of us. not only to the poor chap who is the target of such needless crap...if this was an attempt to curry favor in some way, it failed miserably

[Admiral Crackbar 18]

First off, when posted in the other thread, these pictures were amusing, and showed some pretty **** impressive stacking skills!

 

However, this thread is pretty poor form. 

 

I personally don't agree with his proposed setup, but there is nothing from rules point of view I could contribute to that thread that hasn't already been said.

 

This isn't just beating a dead horse, it is dragging it somewhere else to beat it in front of others.