2e request - stacking

[animus]

One thing that has always bothered me with ACTA is the stacking limitation. I make models and I often have to use larger bases for the ships than they're supposed to have just for balance and stability. Further, we tend to have big fur-ball games.

Remembering that this is a space game and only the center of the stand counts usually, there's got to be a mechanism to allow ships to stack fairly. In my home games we just allow it now - chits over each other, 6 fighter flights 2" on any given ship at any one time and in the case of miniatures, place as close to where it belongs as possible. It's a gentleman's game. Nevertheless, I think such things should be official. Consider adopting such things in 2e.

 

[Target]

We allow 3 flights per arc on ships.

 

[animus]

I like 3 flights too. Maybe we'll go with that. What do you do about "spacing" (aka stacking with models and such?)

One of my problems is I'm always teaching newbs the game (trying to get more interest) and I hate to punish them when the mess up their moves and a chit is overlapping another ship. It was my first house rule to disregard the stacking limitation.

 

[Burger]

Please no, its a nightmare if you want to move your ship and its on the bottom of a "stack". Its bad enough now that fighters are allowed on bases... imagine trying to move a ship if there are 4 other ships overlapping its base, you have to replace each of them in the exact same position and same facing! Nightmare!

 

[Voronesh]

Well strictly speaking, there is no "realism" or tactical reason to disallow stacking.

It has more to do with the fact that moving ships that overlap each other via their bases, can become a pain to move.....

As far as i know, there is little advantage to be had by dissallowing stacking.

As a house rule, its really nice. But i guess for tourney play, where people might hurt each others ship its an easy rule, so no one feels hurt about broken ship stands (plastic buggers that they are....)

 

[animus]

Please no, its a nightmare if you want to move your ship and its on the bottom of a "stack". Its bad enough now that fighters are allowed on bases... imagine trying to move a ship if there are 4 other ships overlapping its base, you have to replace each of them in the exact same position and same facing! Nightmare!

That's why a set of rules or criteria would be helpful. Ships don't block line of sight but a three inch base restricts movement?

 

[Target]

Please no, its a nightmare if you want to move your ship and its on the bottom of a "stack". Its bad enough now that fighters are allowed on bases... imagine trying to move a ship if there are 4 other ships overlapping its base, you have to replace each of them in the exact same position and same facing! Nightmare!

Facing doesn't worry fighters. The way we do it is saying 3 per arc, so just because someone has a smaller base the 3 fighters will be in the weaker arc even though they can't quite fit. It's sort of a gentlemans agreement. If one fighter sits in completely different arc it will get massacred.
We normaly don't allow stacking of ships on ships but had to do it last weekend, a 4 way planetary assault (4pt battle) so everyone could drop troops. No one won the planets nuetral defenders were the only ones left alive as everyone smashed each others troops instead of the nuetrals.

 

[Triggy]

So with 3 per arc, does that include fighters with 2", 3", 4", or even greater ranged weapons? We've all seen the Starfury inner ring with a Thunderbolt outer ring of fighters before...

 

[Burger]

Yeah fighters is not too bad since facing doesn't matter. But thats not really what is under question here is it? Its the stacking of ships bases I thought.

In theory I'm for allowing it. The actual ship is meant to be just a pin-point in the middle of the stem of the mini. But in practice, it just isn't practical to allow stacking because it's such a nightmare to move the bottom ship of a stack.

 

[H]

with most secondary ranges of ships a good 8", how do so many people still end up with 15 ships all trying to fit on one square inch of table?! It amazes me. I admit, in some rather nasty games, I have ended up with ships base to base with Karlpopli (and a fine chain reaction of explosions it was) but not once did we see the need to stack? we just stopped a bit short, or went a bit long to avoid it, it didn't affect the game, it didn't seem unreasonable, unbalanced or broken? Surely we are mature enough to agree an extra half inch here or there just to not need to stack?

 

[High Sierra]

surely a gentlemens agreement as to where the ships have ended up is sufficient?

if you cant do that, you're playing with the wrong people.

 

[Burger]

surely a gentlemens agreement as to where the ships have ended up is sufficient?

if you cant do that, you're playing with the wrong people.

Don't get much choice abut who you play at tourneys. And believe me, some players can be right a***holes.

 

[H]

your'e not that bad mate ;-)

 

[Tank]

hehehehe :lol:

 

[tneva82]

with most secondary ranges of ships a good 8", how do so many people still end up with 15 ships all trying to fit on one square inch of table?!

Movement rules tend to have habit of doing that here.

Ship A moves front of Nova with speed crit. Nova find itself in situation where minimum movement takes it to stacking situation and maximum movement doesn't clear it either.

How do folk play that situation anyway? You can't stack but you can't avoid that...

Add no SA critical to prevent all stop for extra fun.

 

[Tank]

Stop at the earliest opportunity, so basically go base to base

 

[H]

in that instance, the nova stops a tad short, or a tad long, based upon where it would most likely reach.

 

[Tank]

Tad short Id say

 

[CZuschlag]

Should include some small-probability outlandish-impact problem if you encounter this situation as a matter of cheezing out the movement of the ship in question. Even if it's an artificial mechanic, we really don't want people moving ships in a location such that another ship "has" to move an extra 1/2"+ and thereby get that last tiny pit of range...cheezing out the adjustment to get movement you normally wouldn't get. Or just as bad, stopping short so you don't have to pass the target out of your F arc. You know ... just exactly the kinds of things that Burger's Tourney players will do .. and they WILL do it.

Low-probability should equal not worth the attacker not dealing with the convoluted crap to set something up by injecting his own ships in harm's way to intentionally make such a traffic jam; high-impact to keep the cheezmeister from continually squeezing out that last 1/2" by conveniently having ships in the way ... say, mutual ram on 1:36 chance? Just a graze, not the full-blown thing, but that should be bad enough.

I'm probably rambling here.

 

[CZuschlag]

Oops. I realized now there's an implicit assumption under this suggestion, with its rules and penalties and the like --

It only works if you standardize bases. Matter of fact, the whole conversation only makes sense if you standardize bases.

That probably dooms the whole idea, but it's just another argument as to why some standards on these things really are necessary. Durn.