Horizon, I know you’re worried about this developing into a tactic. Why this was in the FAQ is because it is ALREADY a tactic.
I'm with Horizon on this one. I've only played BFG for 2 years, but never in that time has anyone I've played with or discussed BFG with ever assumed it's okay to stack ships (maybe I live in a small world of CA and Portmaw! ). The way it's been clarified in the FAQ is inviting it as a tactic and people will use it as such. Many years have already been put into the game exploring a wide variety of rules scenarios and although I believe a game should have room to evolve ( to improve ) I think stacking ships and all the AC and Torp clarification that are following this ruling is a very Gray zone that remains to be tested as thoroughly as the rule needs to be.
The knee-jerk reaction the HA’s had to this tactic was to simply not allow bases to EVER be stacked.
Was this really the case? All the discussions with Ray Bell and the contributing members on this topic up to the first draft of the FAQ didn't indicate that. Although a few people didn't like the idea of stacking ever, a lions share of people did finally come around to supporting Ray in the concept of stacking only on enemy bases. This has happened every game since I've played and it's yet to confuse any of the game rules when a ship is overlapping with an enemy ship.
However, this got messy because we were in effect saying that “if I put a Brute squad to ram a battleship and they roll AAF to move just enough to hit the battleship, some of the Brutes won’t make it not because they don’t reach, but because they’re not allowed to stack bases.†When we tried to amend it by saying they can’t normally stack bases but may do so if ramming or if unavoidable, we ended up needing so many “except when†clauses that the ruling was essentially broken. There are a lot of other examples that make a no-stack rule just as messy, far more examples than there are for simply saying how torpedoes and attack craft behave when bases are stacked.
Nate, this is an excellent example of how denying friendly stacking can effect the game; one that I had not thought of.
Can you name the other situations that can not be avoided by tactical forethought? I really am interested in hearing them so I can put them on the table and think about the problem. I fully acknowledge that not allowing friendly or any stacking will have a number of affects on situations. Though, ironically, you've already created a host of "except when" rulings in the FAQ regarding AC, torps, and blastmarkers.
Addressing your ramming example above, it's true that not allowing friendly stacking or any would make it difficult to Ram another vessel with more then 2 to 3 ships and probably impossible with 4+ ships. Certainly this has some tactical affect on every race (I would argue not very much) , but it impacts Ork Ramships the most. I'm not looking for an "except when" clause for all fleets in this case, because it would be nonsense to add a special rule for everyone when it's going to only benefit brute ramships 95% of the time. I would be willing to sacrafice the other 5% change, just to keep things smooth. In this particular case I would find it except-able to create a unique, but simple ramming rule for ramships alone that both does not contradict non-overlapping and doesn't sacrifice there ability to overwhelm a single vessel with ramming. Of course I need to really think hard about the possibility of this, but the point is to avoid creating a global rule change that will make every race play different, when it might only benefit a small number of exceptions the majority of the time.
Lastly I think this is worth repeating from my FAQ post, just in case it didn't get read...
I'm going to make a final attempt to list why the stacking rule should not exist and should be replaced with "A ship may end it's movement overlapping with an enemy, but not a friendly base unless completely unavoidable. This does not restrict any ship overlapping during it's movement."
1.) As Nate has stated to me, "Bases stacking on each other is supposed to result from an unhappy accident when trying to move your ships maximum distance and optimum firing arc." Unfortunately, as stated, the stacking rule (along with the following FAQ paragraph) fully permits ship bases to stack not only in an unhappy accident, but even as a suggested tactic.
The critical point is that when friendly ships are being moved in relation to one another, they can all be moved in an informed manor with the player having the ability to consider each ships placement to provide them with maximum distance and optimum firing arc while taking into account how other friendly ships will be placed during that game turn. This means the player has ample ability in nearly every case to place them advantageously without the need of stacking if just a little forethought is used. But that player did not have this luxury when his enemy placed his ships, so to avoid situations where an enemy base would deny the player an advantageous position we must allow a ship to be placed overlapping an enemy if necessary.
2.) The rule is creating additional paragraphs in the FAQ to address, clarify, and support this ruling. A perfect example is the entry on "Blast Markers and Multiple Bases". This entry has become confusing as it attempts to both explain scenarios with bases touching and overlapping. Torpedoes now require more explanation on how to deal with launching and resolving attacks. AC now has contradictory exceptions to the conventional rules (see point 3 below). We should be thinking about how the rules can be clarified to keep the essences of the game but help remove the need to excessively "provide solutions to problems that are not addressed in the current rules because in most cases, frankly they don't often come up in normal game play". This is a challenge yes, but it should be in the forethought of every rules decision. Essentially, allowing friendly bases to overlap is creating exceptions to current rules and requiring new rules to be drafted. Allowing enemy overlapping does not conflict with any of the current rule set and thus requires little to no explanation for how to deal with AC attacks, torpedo launch and hits, etc.
3.) In an attempt to clarify bases "hiding" inside another base and to not allow this to be abused there is a new rule / clarification stating "attack craft can select to target vessels with bases hiding inside the large base in this manner". This new ruling is contradictory to the core mechanic of what constitutes AC engaging a ship (i.e the moment it touches a base). This contradiction is clear seen in the FAQ on page 6 where it's stated "Ordnance markers must always attack the first ordnance or vessels the come in contact with" and "they [attack craft] are assumed to be able to avoid or ignore closer targets or obstructions unless the course of their movement unavoidably brings them in contact". This situation creates a rules paradox were the rule exception is trying to be shoe-horned in to make friendly overlapping function within the theory of the original rule, while not tangibly working with the core mechanic.
4.) In regard to point 2, in my opinion it's best to create clarifications that enhance the game by making rule scenarios simpler to understand and minimize the edge cases that cause confusion, disputes, or vagary. Any rule that creates the need for more rules to justify or clarify is a classic indicator that something is mechanically wrong. A good example of a simplified rule in action is the choice for blast markers affecting all around a base. Sure it makes some tactical decisions moot, but it does a grand job of simplifying situations, avoiding vagary, and thus keeping the game moving while retaining the essence of the original rules. The shortest path to achieving the same results with overlapping bases is of course to not allow any overlapping at all, but this might provide to much compromise to the essence of the game. Instead I offer a shorter path to simplicity at less of a sacrifice: allow non-friendly overlapping.
5.) My last point is a bit abstract and ill-informed, but worth throwing out for some thought I think… I would encourage everyone to think about how the average BFG gaming session goes within your game group and how tournament play has occurred for the last 10 years. How common is it really for friendly ships to necessitate overlapping? How many past tournaments would have been affected by people "stacking" ships? Now, how many times have you needed to overlap your ship with an enemy to gain the position you intended? I don't want to sacrifice the essence of BFG or the intent of the original designer, but I would say that how the game has been "traditionally" played by the community at large for the last 10 years, has weight in what's right for the game.
Granted I'm certainly biased here because I only have my gaming group's experience to reflect on. In my group we just assumed for whatever reason (probably because of the models) that when moving our own ships we should not overlap them if not necessary (it's never been). But, when my opponent moves his ships I sportingly allow him to place his ship in any legal place, even if it overlaps with my ship, to give him the advantage he deserves due to good commanding. So I am genuinely curious if other people's gaming groups have found these scenarios common or not.
Cheers,
Russ
