Jump to content



Photo

Rule Question - Simultaneous Attack


  • Please log in to reply
35 replies to this topic

#1 Big Al

Big Al

    Member

  • Members
  • 13 posts

Posted 30 September 2012 - 08:53 PM

There are two problems with this rule. The rule states that when two pilots are of equal grade, their attacks become simultaneous. However, the pilot who works out his attacks first is the one with Initiative. This is always the Imperial player, which is no big deal until you read the rest of the Simultaneous attack rule. Because the attacks are simultaneous, any damage that is caused by the player with initiative will still affect the weapons or weapon effects of the other pilot. This means that if his guns are put out of action in any way, then he won't be able to fire or his shots may not have any effect. This, then, is not Simultaneous. I think that should be changed to say that the damage should be applied after both ships have resolved their fire.

 

Cheers

 

Al



#2 R2D2

R2D2

    Member

  • Members
  • 123 posts

Posted 01 October 2012 - 12:30 AM

Big Al said:

There are two problems with this rule. The rule states that when two pilots are of equal grade, their attacks become simultaneous. However, the pilot who works out his attacks first is the one with Initiative. This is always the Imperial player, which is no big deal until you read the rest of the Simultaneous attack rule. Because the attacks are simultaneous, any damage that is caused by the player with initiative will still affect the weapons or weapon effects of the other pilot. This means that if his guns are put out of action in any way, then he won't be able to fire or his shots may not have any effect. This, then, is not Simultaneous. I think that should be changed to say that the damage should be applied after both ships have resolved their fire.

 

Cheers

 

Al

Firstly, this should probably be in the rules questions subforum…

 

Its not the case that the imperial player ALWAYS has initiative. This is only true if using basic rules or if squad points are equal. Otherwise the player with the least squad points has initiative.

I agree though that the weapon effects probably shouldnt be added until the end phase of that round…



#3 Major Mishap

Major Mishap

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,728 posts

Posted 01 October 2012 - 12:33 AM

Isn't that what the rules say anyway?



#4 Big Al

Big Al

    Member

  • Members
  • 13 posts

Posted 01 October 2012 - 01:03 AM

No they don't. Unless I've missed something. The rules do state that the Imperial Player always gets the initiative, but I didn't see the bit where it said least squad points. Thanks for that. Oh, and yes, it should be in the Rules Questions section, I don't know how I missed that one!Sorry.



#5 Big Al

Big Al

    Member

  • Members
  • 13 posts

Posted 01 October 2012 - 01:21 AM

Just found the bit about initiative and Squadron building. I haven't got as far as doing that yet, which is why I missed it. That is much better. I will still go with  simultaneous attacks  being at the same time and not affecting the opponent's weapons in that combat phase.

Thanks for your help, guys

Al



#6 ArcticSnake

ArcticSnake

    Member

  • Members
  • 125 posts

Posted 01 October 2012 - 02:11 AM

That is one of the very few perks of having the initiative.


Battlescribe X-Wing Miniatures Data file links:
Index.bsi file: https://dl.dropboxus...tures/index.bsi
Index.xml file: https://dl.dropboxus...tures/index.xml

 


#7 drkjedi35

drkjedi35

    Member

  • Members
  • 389 posts

Posted 01 October 2012 - 02:56 AM

This is not so much a rules question (even though it is labeled a rules questions) as it is a comment on the rules.  I say that because this is spelled out very clearly in the rule book under Simultaneous Attack.

Simultaneous Attack Rule (pg 16 of the rule book)
Although ships perform their attacks one at a time, ships with a pilot skill value equal to the active ship’s pilot skill value have the opportunity to attack before being destroyed.

If such a ship would be destroyed, it simply retains its Damage cards without being removed from the play area. It may perform an attack as normal during the Combat phase, although any faceup Damage cards just dealt to it may affect this attack.

After this ship has had its opportunity to attack this round, it is immediately destroyed and removed from the play area.

I don't like the rule either, but it looks as though they have thought about it and made a clear decision.  If the bolded section was NOT in the rule book, then we would need an answer to the question.  However, a ruling was made before the game was released.  Looks like they intentionally wanted to give this advantage to the team with initiative. 

Roy



#8 Big Al

Big Al

    Member

  • Members
  • 13 posts

Posted 01 October 2012 - 03:45 AM

drkjedi35 said:

If such a ship would be destroyed, it simply retains its Damage cards without being removed from the play area. It may perform an attack as normal during the Combat phase, although any faceup Damage cards just dealt to it may affect this attack.


 

Roy

This is the bit that isn't right. If the face up damage cards just dealt count before the ship makes its attacks, then they are not simultaneous. I'm sure I don't have to explain what simultaneous means and there is no way that anyone can say this is simultaneous. Forget about a ship being destroyed, the face up cards could prevent the ship from firing or doing any damage to the enemy. If I fire my weapons at the same time that you do, both our weapons will fire at full effect, not one set at full and the other waiting to see if there is any change in effect. I believe it is wrong and that attacks should be made before any damage comes into effect and that is the way I'll be playing the game. In many films, like a good Western Gunfight, you will see the two protagonists draw their pistols and shoot each other, simultaneously. You will then see both stand with a shocked look on their faces and eventually, one will cough or stagger, before making some wise crack and collapsing to the floor. The remaining shootist will then reveal that he too was badly wounded, but very much alive.

 

I have been wondering if it was written that way to prevent a situation where a game ends with no apparent victor, all ships having been destroyed. If so, it is a poor way of doing it when you could go to victory points or something similar.



#9 magadizer

magadizer

    Member

  • Members
  • 982 posts

Posted 01 October 2012 - 03:53 AM

 I understand the criticism that it is not actually simultaneous, but I just don't see this as a problem. The game mechanic can only take simulation so far.

For example, they are supposed to be moving simultaneously also, but in reality one player (the one with initiative) moves first. This can force a different player into a "crash" situation, preventing the attack altogether for both players. This is a particular disadvantage for the player moving second if they were trying to execute a K-turn and they were unable to complete it. They get the red-move induced stress token, but now they are still facing the wrong way from how they intended.

There have to be some small advantages built in to the mechanic for the skilled player to exploit, or else the chance element becomes even more important than it already is.


Be seeing you.

#10 drkjedi35

drkjedi35

    Member

  • Members
  • 389 posts

Posted 01 October 2012 - 06:01 AM

Big Al said:

drkjedi35 said:

 

If such a ship would be destroyed, it simply retains its Damage cards without being removed from the play area. It may perform an attack as normal during the Combat phase, although any faceup Damage cards just dealt to it may affect this attack.


 

Roy

 

 

This is the bit that isn't right. If the face up damage cards just dealt count before the ship makes its attacks, then they are not simultaneous. I'm sure I don't have to explain what simultaneous means and there is no way that anyone can say this is simultaneous. Forget about a ship being destroyed, the face up cards could prevent the ship from firing or doing any damage to the enemy. If I fire my weapons at the same time that you do, both our weapons will fire at full effect, not one set at full and the other waiting to see if there is any change in effect. I believe it is wrong and that attacks should be made before any damage comes into effect and that is the way I'll be playing the game. In many films, like a good Western Gunfight, you will see the two protagonists draw their pistols and shoot each other, simultaneously. You will then see both stand with a shocked look on their faces and eventually, one will cough or stagger, before making some wise crack and collapsing to the floor. The remaining shootist will then reveal that he too was badly wounded, but very much alive.

 

I have been wondering if it was written that way to prevent a situation where a game ends with no apparent victor, all ships having been destroyed. If so, it is a poor way of doing it when you could go to victory points or something similar.

No, you don't have to explain to me what simultaneous means.  I full understand why people do not agree with the ruling.  I myself do not agree with the ruling.   Everything from my last post that was in italics was STRAIGHT FROM THE RULEBOOK.  So whether we agree with it or not, this situation was obviously NOT a mistake nor an omission.  It was clearly thought out and playtested.  And the result of all of that, was to make it work as it currently does.  I understand not liking the ruling, but that was the decision that FFG made.  So I will accept it and move on.  If you decide to play it differently, thats up to you.  People were already coming up with house rules before the game was even released.  However, if you plan on playing in tournaments, I suggest you accept the ruling or you will be upset if this issue comes up in one of your matches.  I seriously doubt there will be any change in this ruling when the FAQ comes out.  Right now they are more concerned with the things that are not clearly spelled out in the rulebook.

Roy



#11 Big Al

Big Al

    Member

  • Members
  • 13 posts

Posted 01 October 2012 - 06:10 AM

I don't see simultaneous, or lack of it, making chance element greater. I also don't see why there has to be any advantages built in for just a skilful player to exploit. A skilful player will be able to use his skill to create an advantage, but that is very different from the game mechanics providing an advantage for a skilful player. That implies that there is something that is locked to the less skilful or new player. It implies that there is not a level playing field, or rather, balanced game. That is something that I don't believe FFG are guilty of.

In the old Wings of War game, simultaneous attacks worked exactly as they should….. simultaneously, with damage being resolved after the simultaneous attacks have been completed. I don't have a problem with initiative, but when something is simultaneous, there is no initiative advantage because everything happens at exactly the same time. That's what simultaneous means.



#12 Big Al

Big Al

    Member

  • Members
  • 13 posts

Posted 01 October 2012 - 06:24 AM

drkjedi35 said:

Big Al said:

 

drkjedi35 said:

 

If such a ship would be destroyed, it simply retains its Damage cards without being removed from the play area. It may perform an attack as normal during the Combat phase, although any faceup Damage cards just dealt to it may affect this attack.


 

Roy

 

 

This is the bit that isn't right. If the face up damage cards just dealt count before the ship makes its attacks, then they are not simultaneous. I'm sure I don't have to explain what simultaneous means and there is no way that anyone can say this is simultaneous. Forget about a ship being destroyed, the face up cards could prevent the ship from firing or doing any damage to the enemy. If I fire my weapons at the same time that you do, both our weapons will fire at full effect, not one set at full and the other waiting to see if there is any change in effect. I believe it is wrong and that attacks should be made before any damage comes into effect and that is the way I'll be playing the game. In many films, like a good Western Gunfight, you will see the two protagonists draw their pistols and shoot each other, simultaneously. You will then see both stand with a shocked look on their faces and eventually, one will cough or stagger, before making some wise crack and collapsing to the floor. The remaining shootist will then reveal that he too was badly wounded, but very much alive.

 

I have been wondering if it was written that way to prevent a situation where a game ends with no apparent victor, all ships having been destroyed. If so, it is a poor way of doing it when you could go to victory points or something similar.

 

 

No, you don't have to explain to me what simultaneous means.  I full understand why people do not agree with the ruling.  I myself do not agree with the ruling.   Everything from my last post that was in italics was STRAIGHT FROM THE RULEBOOK.  So whether we agree with it or not, this situation was obviously NOT a mistake nor an omission.  It was clearly thought out and playtested.  And the result of all of that, was to make it work as it currently does.  I understand not liking the ruling, but that was the decision that FFG made.  So I will accept it and move on.  If you decide to play it differently, thats up to you.  People were already coming up with house rules before the game was even released.  However, if you plan on playing in tournaments, I suggest you accept the ruling or you will be upset if this issue comes up in one of your matches.  I seriously doubt there will be any change in this ruling when the FAQ comes out.  Right now they are more concerned with the things that are not clearly spelled out in the rulebook.

Roy

Unfortunately, I have just had to explain what Simultaneous means. I fully understood what you were saying and where your italics came from. I also understand the full process of playtesting, having been involved in the playtesting of many published wargaming rules over the years. I am also well aware of the fact that things get missed or overlooked. It is also glaringly obvious that, unless a FAQ is issued to the contrary, the rules as written will be used in any tournaments. Fortunately, I don't participate in those, so it won't matter whether I use the rule or alter it to my preference.

Perhaps the use of the word "Simultaneous" was wrong and where the problem lay.



#13 drkjedi35

drkjedi35

    Member

  • Members
  • 389 posts

Posted 01 October 2012 - 06:36 AM

Big Al said:

 

I don't see simultaneous, or lack of it, making chance element greater. I also don't see why there has to be any advantages built in for just a skilful player to exploit. A skilful player will be able to use his skill to create an advantage, but that is very different from the game mechanics providing an advantage for a skilful player. That implies that there is something that is locked to the less skilful or new player. It implies that there is not a level playing field, or rather, balanced game. That is something that I don't believe FFG are guilty of.

In the old Wings of War game, simultaneous attacks worked exactly as they should….. simultaneously, with damage being resolved after the simultaneous attacks have been completed. I don't have a problem with initiative, but when something is simultaneous, there is no initiative advantage because everything happens at exactly the same time. That's what simultaneous means.

 

 

You're preaching to the choir.  But you are arguing about what it SHOULD BE, and I am trying to tell you what IT IS.  There is a clear ruling as to what FFG intended this to be.  If they had left out this statement "…although any faceup Damage cards just dealt to it may affect this attack" then I would agree that a ruling needs to be made.  And I would fight for a ruling that would work as you describe.  But the fact that this statement was included in the official rulebook tells me that they saw this issue in advance and chose to rule it as such.  If we can't accept a ruling that has clearly been laid out in the rulebook, then maybe we should be arguing that after each ship makes its move, the next ship should be able to change its maneuver dial.  But we are not arguing that point, because it is clearly spelled out in the rulebook.  Just like what happens when 2 figures have the same pilot skill.  They understood that this needed a ruling and they made it.  Maybe if they had left out the word "Simultaneous" and referred to it as ships having equal pilot skill, then this would not be an issue.

Roy



#14 magadizer

magadizer

    Member

  • Members
  • 982 posts

Posted 01 October 2012 - 06:43 AM

 I think they were using the word "simultaneous" loosely, to be sure. After all, you literally resolve the two attacks in two separate sets of rolls, which unless you have lots of dice you can't do anyways (and aren't intended to according to the rules obviously).

I think it is just a way to keep same skill pilots from having a excess of advantage due to initiative. It's still a slight advantage but not unbalancing in the scheme of things.

What I meant was if you are aware of the full implications of the initiative rule, then you use it as best you can to your advantage. In other words, the artificial limits created by the rules are tools, which the more skillful player will use in a more advantageous way. The same benefits/disabilities are there for both players though. I don't think that it affects the gameplay as far as to unbalance it for either side.


Be seeing you.

#15 Big Al

Big Al

    Member

  • Members
  • 13 posts

Posted 01 October 2012 - 07:24 AM

drkjedi35 said:

Big Al said:

 

I don't see simultaneous, or lack of it, making chance element greater. I also don't see why there has to be any advantages built in for just a skilful player to exploit. A skilful player will be able to use his skill to create an advantage, but that is very different from the game mechanics providing an advantage for a skilful player. That implies that there is something that is locked to the less skilful or new player. It implies that there is not a level playing field, or rather, balanced game. That is something that I don't believe FFG are guilty of.

In the old Wings of War game, simultaneous attacks worked exactly as they should….. simultaneously, with damage being resolved after the simultaneous attacks have been completed. I don't have a problem with initiative, but when something is simultaneous, there is no initiative advantage because everything happens at exactly the same time. That's what simultaneous means.

 

 

You're preaching to the choir.  But you are arguing about what it SHOULD BE, and I am trying to tell you what IT IS.  There is a clear ruling as to what FFG intended this to be.  If they had left out this statement "…although any faceup Damage cards just dealt to it may affect this attack" then I would agree that a ruling needs to be made.  And I would fight for a ruling that would work as you describe.  But the fact that this statement was included in the official rulebook tells me that they saw this issue in advance and chose to rule it as such.  If we can't accept a ruling that has clearly been laid out in the rulebook, then maybe we should be arguing that after each ship makes its move, the next ship should be able to change its maneuver dial.  But we are not arguing that point, because it is clearly spelled out in the rulebook.  Just like what happens when 2 figures have the same pilot skill.  They understood that this needed a ruling and they made it.  Maybe if they had left out the word "Simultaneous" and referred to it as ships having equal pilot skill, then this would not be an issue.

Roy

 

Which is exactly what I said!

 

Why all the capital letters, Roy? There is no need for them. As I said, I know what the rule is. I know how it is written and what it means. I do not assume that the company have got it right and not made a mistake, which was why I raised the issue and I have stated twice that I will be playing it the way I think it should be. As the purchaser of the game, that is my choice. I was looking for clarification, but have only got opinion, so far, some that agree with my own and some that don't. That isn't a problem because we are all entitled to that. I am very pleased that people have taken the time and trouble to express those to me and I have taken all comments into consideration.

 

Thank you for your comments

 

Al



#16 Big Al

Big Al

    Member

  • Members
  • 13 posts

Posted 01 October 2012 - 07:35 AM

magadizer said:

 I think they were using the word "simultaneous" loosely, to be sure. After all, you literally resolve the two attacks in two separate sets of rolls, which unless you have lots of dice you can't do anyways (and aren't intended to according to the rules obviously).

And you don't think that the dice expansion kit will have anything to do with this at all? Or am I being too cynical?  You don't need lots of dice to show simultaneous attacks. You just record results and apply them when at the time of the combat between the two.

Ok, I don't think that the word "Simultaneous" should have been used at all. Had it not been, this issue would not have come up. To be honest, unless there are only two ships involved, the problem shouldn't really arise too often.

Cheers

Al



#17 KarmikazeKidd

KarmikazeKidd

    Member

  • Members
  • 157 posts

Posted 01 October 2012 - 07:46 AM

Big Al said:

I don't see simultaneous, or lack of it, making chance element greater. I also don't see why there has to be any advantages built in for just a skilful player to exploit. A skilful player will be able to use his skill to create an advantage, but that is very different from the game mechanics providing an advantage for a skilful player. That implies that there is something that is locked to the less skilful or new player. It implies that there is not a level playing field, or rather, balanced game. That is something that I don't believe FFG are guilty of.

In the old Wings of War game, simultaneous attacks worked exactly as they should….. simultaneously, with damage being resolved after the simultaneous attacks have been completed. I don't have a problem with initiative, but when something is simultaneous, there is no initiative advantage because everything happens at exactly the same time. That's what simultaneous means.

Big Al said:

I don't see simultaneous, or lack of it, making chance element greater. I also don't see why there has to be any advantages built in for just a skilful player to exploit. A skilful player will be able to use his skill to create an advantage, but that is very different from the game mechanics providing an advantage for a skilful player. That implies that there is something that is locked to the less skilful or new player. It implies that there is not a level playing field, or rather, balanced game. That is something that I don't believe FFG are guilty of.

In the old Wings of War game, simultaneous attacks worked exactly as they should….. simultaneously, with damage being resolved after the simultaneous attacks have been completed. I don't have a problem with initiative, but when something is simultaneous, there is no initiative advantage because everything happens at exactly the same time. That's what simultaneous means.

Al, other than the fact that I disagree with your complaint at its base level, I think there is a particular problem with what you've said here. They did intend it to give an advantage to the more skilled pilot. You seem to be saying that they've built the game where it gives an advantage to the more skilled player. Personally, I think it stands by itself that the more skilled/experience player always has an edge. But the point is, the mechanic is giving the card with the higher skill an advantage as they intended, and in this case the person with initiative an advantage, which will generally be determined by squad building. Also, it's the mechanics and knowledge of how to best employ them that make someone a 'skilled' player. If you want a game that provides a perpetual even playing field to experienced player and noob alike, I would suggest opening a pack of standard playing cards and playing War.

As for 'simultaneous'…I don't think anyone's expectation should ever be that this word will be taken in a strict literal sense in regard to tabletop gaming. If you've ever played Diplomacy, which is built to be as simultaneous as possible for all players, you know that it's just not possible to make it perfect. If you want that, you're better off with video games. I understand why you make the point you do, but I simply think it's fine how it is. And I doubt there will be a high percentage of instances where this makes much of a difference.



#18 winters_night

winters_night

    Member

  • Members
  • 48 posts

Posted 01 October 2012 - 07:51 AM

The reason you get effected by the cards is because the guy with initiative has to finish resolving his attack before the other player, so he has to choose to use his focus on the attack or save it for return fire or any other decisions. If it was truly simultaneous you'd both have to roll secretly and modify the rolls hidden than reveal at the same time which is pretty clunky to do. There's not many critical damage cards that will effect the second shooter and he gets a pretty big advantage in getting decide to use focus to defend or attack with in return.



#19 drkjedi35

drkjedi35

    Member

  • Members
  • 389 posts

Posted 01 October 2012 - 07:57 AM

Big Al said:

 

drkjedi35 said:

 

Big Al said:

 

I don't see simultaneous, or lack of it, making chance element greater. I also don't see why there has to be any advantages built in for just a skilful player to exploit. A skilful player will be able to use his skill to create an advantage, but that is very different from the game mechanics providing an advantage for a skilful player. That implies that there is something that is locked to the less skilful or new player. It implies that there is not a level playing field, or rather, balanced game. That is something that I don't believe FFG are guilty of.

In the old Wings of War game, simultaneous attacks worked exactly as they should….. simultaneously, with damage being resolved after the simultaneous attacks have been completed. I don't have a problem with initiative, but when something is simultaneous, there is no initiative advantage because everything happens at exactly the same time. That's what simultaneous means.

 

 

You're preaching to the choir.  But you are arguing about what it SHOULD BE, and I am trying to tell you what IT IS.  There is a clear ruling as to what FFG intended this to be.  If they had left out this statement "…although any faceup Damage cards just dealt to it may affect this attack" then I would agree that a ruling needs to be made.  And I would fight for a ruling that would work as you describe.  But the fact that this statement was included in the official rulebook tells me that they saw this issue in advance and chose to rule it as such.  If we can't accept a ruling that has clearly been laid out in the rulebook, then maybe we should be arguing that after each ship makes its move, the next ship should be able to change its maneuver dial.  But we are not arguing that point, because it is clearly spelled out in the rulebook.  Just like what happens when 2 figures have the same pilot skill.  They understood that this needed a ruling and they made it.  Maybe if they had left out the word "Simultaneous" and referred to it as ships having equal pilot skill, then this would not be an issue.

Roy

 

 

 

Which is exactly what I said!

 

Why all the capital letters, Roy? There is no need for them. As I said, I know what the rule is. I know how it is written and what it means. I do not assume that the company have got it right and not made a mistake, which was why I raised the issue and I have stated twice that I will be playing it the way I think it should be. As the purchaser of the game, that is my choice. I was looking for clarification, but have only got opinion, so far, some that agree with my own and some that don't. That isn't a problem because we are all entitled to that. I am very pleased that people have taken the time and trouble to express those to me and I have taken all comments into consideration.

 

Thank you for your comments

 

Al

 

 

Capital letters are for emphasis only.  So in my opinion, there WAS a need for them.  And I am not trying to tell you how you should play the game in your house.  You can play it however you want to.  But what I am getting from your comments is that you believe that FFG is wrong for ruling the way they did.  And I don't agree with that.  They made it clear how it should be played.  If you choose to ignore that, then that's on you.  I would rather play the game using the rules that are spelled out by the manufacturer.

I am a tournament player, and I understand that you are not.  Maybe this is why you don't understand my logic.  But when you play many different people, it is important for everyone to be on the same page with the rules.  If FFG says "play it like this", then I'm going to play it like that.  If they say, don't do this, then I wont do it.  If something is left out or the rules, then question it.  If there is ambiguity in the rules, question it.  But I don't see any omission or ambiguity on this issue.  So I don't see a need for a rules question.  But this topic heading is "Rule Question - Simultaneous Attack".  So I answered the question to the best of my ability.

Roy



#20 KarmikazeKidd

KarmikazeKidd

    Member

  • Members
  • 157 posts

Posted 01 October 2012 - 08:12 AM

 Roy leveled up. Eloquence +1, Patience +2, Force Choke +1






© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS