Ship Stacking, badley worded or rule not required!

[Grunvald]

I put this in the Rulesmasters and got told to put it here so here it is!!!

Ships may never be stacked on top of one another. If your movement ends ‘on top’ of another ship, simply place your ship as far as it may normally move without being stacked on another. Fighters however, may be placed on top of ship counters or bases, but never on top of other Fighters.

This is what is stated in the rule book, but what does "stacked" mean in ACTA?

Stacking usually means placing on item ontop of another item creating in effects a "stack"!

Now in ACTA you dont count the base size of ships for any purpose at all!!

Everything is done from ship "stem"!

Yet now when i am moving a ship and when positioning it, if its base is "overlapping" another ships base i cant place it here, Why?

All the base of the ship is there for is to keep the model from falling over!!

With ppl now making there own Ship design models and placing fighters onto different style bases, why is this rule still in here, it bears no signifficance on the game at all!!

In effect if i want to base all of my ships on dinner plates i can and that means you "Can NOT" place your ship anywhere on my new base!!!

So i'm asking is it miss worded (meaning you can overlap)

Or a rule that is just no longer required?

 

[Grunvald]

Have since been told that it poorly worded and should be overlapping, but as i ask above when everything in ACTA is from "STEM" why is it there?

 

[l33tpenguin]

I play with 16 inch diameter bases, so narn secondaries are never in range

No, seriously... I would love if Mongoose would actually use the base sizes (or a template size...) for ships, targeting, etc. It would be nice to play with a rule that indicated just how big some ships are compared to others

 

[Taran]

It would also go a long way to helping the Boresight issue. You need to bring the bore to bear with any part of the base, not just the stem. Thus making larger ships less likely to evade even with init-sinking.

I definitely agree on a standardized base system. For all craft.

 

[Ripple]

Standardized bases would be useful, and would help bore sights somewhat, but not much.

The issue being polled however is whether bases should be able to overlap, which the original poster thinks is different from stacking. Say if I was using cross shaped bases could I tuck two ships up together so that their actual stems were touching. By his definition they are not 'stacked' and well within the spirit of the game (stem for everything), shouldn't this be legal.

I personally don't feel any fleets were test with this kind of concentration... thus I would have to say no. But I also feel that bases should not be random factor. I would say inch of the stem is a 'maneuver zone' that the ship occupies and no other ships maneuver zone shall intrude other than a fighter. But at that point why not allow fighters to 'overlap' and start the creep factor for tightening the fur ball.

Ripple

 

[mikelosaurus]

Given that a lot of people have gone their own way with their bases on their own ships, trying to standardize this after the fact would be a nightmare. It would be far better IMHO to allow for overlap but just outlaw base edges touching the base stems of other ships.

 

[Ripple]

The issue with things like defining by edge and stem allows for the cross shaped bases, allowing FA scale ships to crowd into less than a full centimeter gap between ships.

While using an 'exclusion' range is actually base neutral. At most you might need a template to put around stems while crowding in close.

The issue is folks who used big bases for stability, and wanting to be able to move closer. Big ships with big bases won't be helped much by your no edge to stem rule.

I know I've been rebasing my Drazi due to needing to crowd in.... and the edge thing would only change it a bit.

Ripple

 

[Grunvald]

If there was any reason in the rule book for having the "stack" rule in i wouldn't be asking this, representing some sort of size of ship or how many fighters you can get around a ship etc.

But stacking doesnt mean anything in ACTA when dealing with base's! (ok apart from fighter bases not stacking on top of one another!)

If one of my ship bases is now about to over lap another base and someone says its stacking i cant do that ok, i'll just take that "large" base off and put a small one on, no rule break all it has done is slow the game down!

Stack:
An orderly pile, especially one arranged in layers.
To arrange in a stack; pile.

if you are overlapping bases you are not stacking!!!

So i ask is it really needed in ACTA, or should it be amended to something like moving with in 1" of another stem!

 

[Davesaint]

If there was any reason in the rule book for having the "stack" rule in i wouldn't be asking this, representing some sort of size of ship or how many fighters you can get around a ship etc.

But stacking doesnt mean anything in ACTA when dealing with base's! (ok apart from fighter bases not stacking on top of one another!)

If one of my ship bases is now about to over lap another base and someone says its stacking i cant do that ok, i'll just take that "large" base off and put a small one on, no rule break all it has done is slow the game down!

Stack:
An orderly pile, especially one arranged in layers.
To arrange in a stack; pile.

if you are overlapping bases you are not stacking!!!

So i ask is it really needed in ACTA, or should it be amended to something like moving with in 1" of another stem!

Of course, the stacking could be done if you are using counters instead of minis.... :wink:


dave

 

[greenboy]

I play with 16 inch diameter bases, so narn secondaries are never in range

No, seriously... I would love if Mongoose would actually use the base sizes (or a template size...) for ships, targeting, etc. It would be nice to play with a rule that indicated just how big some ships are compared to others

Thats nothing i have a fleet of 10 apollos with long range missiles mounted on 35 inch bases :wink:

 

[Joe_Dracos]

well, you could abuse that rule.... but I think you might find your pool of possible opponents shrinking quickly. :wink:

Personally, I rationalize the base rule represents the necessary room a ship needs to manouver properly without colliding accidentally and to keep the lines of fire open between ships.

This, of course, just opens the door to a bunch of science and realism problems (3d,inertia, ect) that if included would simply complicate the game.

Here we simply use the bases the ships come with (when possible) and that problem is solved (except with the Avoiki and the Brokados, which we assume has the large bases).

Really, I don't see the huge problem with this rule. Its a small problem that can be solved with a simple agreement between the players involved if it really comes down to it.

 

[Burger]

"Stacking" as defined by Mongoose is not the same as your dictionary definition. Mongoose say "stacking" means overlapping of bases or counters. In fact google "stack" and hit "Images" - how many of them show nice, neat ordered piles?

In theory I think the rule is bad. It means that the rules and the outcome of manouvers vary depending on your or your opponent's base size, so sometimes FA scale minis have an unfair advantage, sometimes counters are better than minis, some people put their Strikehawks on small bases instead of large ones so they can arrange boresights more easily (ahem ). It is fundamentally an unfair rule.

But, in the real world, it is a necessary rule. If I was allowed to pile all my Strikehawk bases on top of your Apollo's base when I attack it, how are you supposed to move your Apollo without dislodging all of my Strikehawks (and losing all of their facings)? If you put your Apollo on top of my Strikehawk and blow it up, how can I get the mini out without moving your Apollo? It just isn't possible. Therefore the "no stacking" rule is necessary.

 

[Grunvald]

But, in the real world, it is a necessary rule. If I was allowed to pile all my Strikehawk bases on top of your Apollo's base when I attack it, how are you supposed to move your Apollo without dislodging all of my Strikehawks (and losing all of their facings)? If you put your Apollo on top of my Strikehawk and blow it up, how can I get the mini out without moving your Apollo? It just isn't possible. Therefore the "no stacking" rule is necessary.

What a load of twoddle!!!

If a ship is overlapping a base you "slide" the model out from it, if you happen to have more than 1 base overlapping then you lift a model slid the other out and replace the model simple and if you want a more defined deffination of STACK i just took the simplest but try this link!

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Stack

And if "mongoose" change the deffinition for stack for ship bases, then how can it mean something different for fighter bases (which dont overlap but do stack!)

How many times have players had trouble line up ships when they are too BIG in actual size (not bases) and you then have to state to your opponent that it is just pointing that way but cant cause it would mean having to lye one model over another due to the sheer length of it!

A word will either mean one thing or it doesnt, it cant mean 2 entirely different things!!!

And as stated in my subject, according to your own description, i state my case, badley worded!

Definatley!

Rule not needed!

I would most deffinatley say so!

 

[Grunvald]

Also where is it "defined by Mongoose"?

 

[lastbesthope]

A word will either mean one thing or it doesnt, it cant mean 2 entirely different things!!!

Oh yes it can, welcome to the English language (and I suspect a great many other languages as well have this sort of problem)

LBH

 

[Grunvald]

Ok i wrote it badly!

Should have said when used in context, or the way that they have been used!

And from what i remember the English language is the worst for cross meaning words!!!

 

[l33tpenguin]

A word will either mean one thing or it doesnt, it cant mean 2 entirely different things!!!

Oh yes it can, welcome to the English language (and I suspect a great many other languages as well have this sort of problem)

LBH

This is even more true in regards to gaming. A term in a game can have nothing to do with the original meaning of the word. Look at the usage of 'Wisdom' in d20 :roll:

 

[Burger]

Look at the usage of 'Wisdom' in d20 :roll:

And "balance" in ACtA