Collision Example #2

[fredmiracle]

I have to say that, although I read the collision rules and they made sense at the time, they also seemed like one of the most clunky elements of the game--requiring a lot of thought to "get," and then quick to "lose" again when you haven't played in a few days. Maybe there was no way to make it better, but it's a shame it's not more elegant.

Of course it's hard to really internalize the rules when you don't have the goods in front of you. Hopefully once I've played it out on the table a few times it will seem natural.

[Andy Blozinski]

I have to say that, although I read the collision rules and they made sense at the time, they also seemed like one of the most clunky elements of the game--requiring a lot of thought to "get," and then quick to "lose" again when you haven't played in a few days. Maybe there was no way to make it better, but it's a shame it's not more elegant.

Of course it's hard to really internalize the rules when you don't have the goods in front of you. Hopefully once I've played it out on the table a few times it will seem natural.

The problem with example #2 is that it doesn't correctly explain what is done. A step by step example is supposed to go step by step what you are supposed to do. This is a 4 step movement and they only list 3 steps.
Step 3 states "The second ship moves". This is not correct. They completely skipped the step where you pick up the ship and change its starting position from the beginning of the card to being completely on top of the card. Todd's statement was "It's only the reason for the example." is why this is a bad example. They completely missed the step that is the whole reason for this example to exist.
I get it now and it's simple to me, but this is a badly written example in the rulebook.