Hi Guys,
The Assumption: I suppose I am assuming that bases can overlap, but you are assuming that they can’t. Now all other table top games that spring to mind have no overlapping with a clearly defined rule like no enemy with 1†or 5cm, granted most of these games are ground based. But a few space ship games have the no overlapping rule as well, in which case they celebrate this fact with a few paragraphs of explanation and methods of dealing with it when it is unavoidable.
So it is either an oversight that no overlapping wasn’t explained or even mentioned in the rulebook, or area denial wasn’t an intention in the rules at all, which given the 3D element seems reasonable.
So at current we have a situation where any ship may overlap or stack.
Not a situation which automatically means stacking is allowed. I can point out that FAQ prevents ordnance from being stacked. That would indicate a no overlapping or stacking assumption.
Models and bases: Of course removing the models that are overlapping or stacking is necessary, with lines on the bases determining direction and one model remaining if possible.
See Russ? This meant the idea was about physically overlapping, not just putting a marker.
Friendly overlapping exploits:
Hiding ships with small bases inside the perimeter of ships with large bases preventing ordnance from attacking it (unless torpedoes which will attack after).
Large bases won't be able to hide against small bases. Small bases maybe able to hide inside large bases. If this is the case, I would suggest the active player decides which ship the ordnance can attack first if it has the distance to reach both bases. Ex. If AC only had enough speed to reach the big base, then that would be the only ship attacked. If it was enough to reach the other base, then the attacking player gets a choice which to attack. East enough to measure anyway. This problem would not happen if bases did not overlap. But if you insist on overlapping, then too bad, you have to take the bad with the good. I would insist that I have access to friendly advantages as well as disadvantages. Fair is fair Ray.
Stacking Necron escorts/capital ships for massed turrets and making them more efficient at moving and firing.
It's not as if you can't do the same if ships can't overlap. Massed turrets work on the assumption of ships in B2B contact. Not a good reason.
Stacking Eldar for efficient moving and firing. However blast markers may be more destructive.
You mean they're not as efficient even if they don't stack? C'mon. Not a good reason.
Necrons gain heavily and some ships can’t be attacked with ordnance. A Dictator with a large base squadroned with a Dauntless is straight out abuse IMO. Given these weird advantages coupled with wasting the great BFG models and the clumsiness of overlapping bases I would say NO to friendly overlapping. A fluff reason could be that it is considered too risky by most admirals.
Again not a good reason. The issue is only with ordnance, easily addressed by something similar to the rule I made above. Sorry but fluff reason is if the ships need to defend against ordnance, then grouping together to concentrate their firepower against ordnance makes more sense.
NO overlapping exploits (area denial):
Stopping ships from turning by reducing their movement. (especially easy to do to slow BB’s).
Stopping ships from moving their full distance.
Forcing ships to move further than they wanted. (possibly into ordnance or celestial phenomenon).
Forcing a ship to turn by occupying the length of movement including a little of the minimum movement and all of the extra. (preventing Lock-on, and changing its firing angles).
Again I cannot fathom how you can come to this conclusion. If you are allowing overlapping bases it means the ship can exist at the same point, regardless of whether both bases are friend or foe. The point here is that overlapping is allowed. And so, the ship should not stop and instead proceed as if there is no base in that area and continue to turn.The ship should not be forced to turn. I do not know where you get this idea that a ship's movement is reduced or a ship is forced to turn just because it is in another ship's base. This only happens if there is a no overlapping rule and I again point out that since you insist on this, both sides should benefit.
Denying ships getting both broadsides on close vessels.
As well it should. if you don't have the space to fire both your broadsides, why should you be able to?
Preventing boarding.
Addressed similarly like my rule with ordnance. Not that hard to get a B2B contact with a ship hidden by a large base.
I dislike all of these conditions, they’re unrealistic and change the state of play massively with unreasonable tactics. So a NO to not being able to overlap with enemy ships.
Fine if you want to change the rules but you cannot limit it to only enemy. You cannot just take the good and leave the bad. You open up being able to overlap enemy bases, well for sure as hell, you allow friendly bases overlapping as well. You're giving an advantage to the enemy while at the same time denying the advantage to the friendly and the disadvantage to the enemy. I do not like limiting overlapping only to enemy ships.
