1 maneuvers with big ships

[Buhallin 4,563]

From the Huge ship rules:

 

When a huge ship executes a maneuver and the final position of one of its sections overlaps one or more huge ships, use the standard rules for overlapping ships as described on page 17 of the core set rulebook. However, the huge ship that moved does not skip its “Perform Action” step. Instead, both huge ships are dealt one faceup Damage card; each player draws this Damage card from the deck that corresponds to his ship’s affected section.

 

Emphasis (mostly) mine.

 

FFG obviously didn't want a pair of huge ships to be sitting there facing each other and going nowhere, acting as immobile support or turrets.  Whether that should be used to extrapolate intent for standard ships is left to the personal views of the reader.

[rym 211]

 

 

Edit: Off to find my rulebooks, but knowing Buhallin, Draco, or Wonder, or any number of people on here really, I expect an anwer will be posted up before I can find out for myself...

 

Yup. Buhallin beat me to it.

 

 

~ wondering if Buhallin has a copy of the rules with him at all times. Don't answer that.

[rym 211]

 

From the Huge ship rules:

 

When a huge ship executes a maneuver and the final position of one of its sections overlaps one or more huge ships, use the standard rules for overlapping ships as described on page 17 of the core set rulebook. However, the huge ship that moved does not skip its “Perform Action” step. Instead, both huge ships are dealt one faceup Damage card; each player draws this Damage card from the deck that corresponds to his ship’s affected section.

 

Emphasis (mostly) mine.

 

Just checked again, though. The YT is a large ship, and thus, should follow normal overlapping rules. The transport and the corvette are huge ships. The "affected section" part of the repsonse is what set the bells off.

 

Either way, I didn't know, so thanks for the input and help.

[DraconPyrothayan 6,107]

 

 

 

Edit: Off to find my rulebooks, but knowing Buhallin, Draco, or Wonder, or any number of people on here really, I expect an anwer will be posted up before I can find out for myself...

 

Yup. Buhallin beat me to it.

 

 

~ wondering if Buhallin has a copy of the rules with him at all times. Don't answer that.

 

Hey, don't look at me. I don't actually own an Epic ship yet.

 

 

 

 

 

 

.........What?

[Buhallin 4,563]

Just checked again, though. The YT is a large ship, and thus, should follow normal overlapping rules. The transport and the corvette are huge ships. The "affected section" part of the repsonse is what set the bells off.

 

 

Either way, I didn't know, so thanks for the input and help.

 

Correct - apologies if my statement was confusing.

 

Small and Large ships (Fighters and YT/Firespray/Lambda) use the base rules for colliding, and lose their action for doing so.

 

Huge ships (GR-75 and CR90) use the Huge ship rules, which causes a face-up damage to each ship in a collision.

 

I didn't mean to imply the Falcon would take that critical damage because, as you say, it's not a huge ship.  I was pointing out the huge ship collision primarily as a data point in the "It's all great and legal and perfectly intended and you're not abusing anything by using it!" claim.  Specifically, that FFG thought it was iffy enough to up the penalty pretty dramatically for huge ships.  Maybe that only applies to huge ships, maybe there's intent there, maybe there's not, maybe there was just too much potential for perma-parking big ships by accident.  We can't really know why they did it, but the fact that the newer iteration of the rules makes collision of bigger ships more painful is indisputable.

[Buhallin 4,563]

 

~ wondering if Buhallin has a copy of the rules with him at all times. Don't answer that.

 

It's worth answering

 

I do...  sorta.  I keep copies of the PDF rules docs in Google Drive.  Makes it very quick to access and search them before responding.

 

So while I don't have a copy on me all the time, I DO actually have the rules available at all times I'm on the forums

[VanorDM 11,599]

I keep copies of the PDF rules docs in Google Drive.

I do the same thing, and even have local copies on my tablet.

As far as the Huge ships vs Large ships and taking damage. My guess is that after FFG became aware of the Falcon Fortress they at least decided they didn't want 2 CR-90's parked in the middle of the each with 4 shots. The amount of firepower that provides is a good bit larger then 2 YT's.

It could also have something to do with the damage Huge ships do when they run over smaller ones. Logically if a CR or GR running into a YT or Shuttle destroys it, then they should do at least some damage to each other.

[Jehan Menasis 1,562]

Tough most relevant points have been said, I'd like to point that even if I agree in considering it a 'legal' move, it may be pushing rule's limits (Rules As Intended), since it essentially gives ships involved the benefits and the equivalent of a '0' maneuver that is obviously not on their dial.

 

In other words, the game seems designed to keep ships constantly on the move. And by contrast, The Lambda shuttle has an explicit and particular exception to that mechanic. However, by stopping the movement of your ships using the overlap rule, you are in fact circumventing that basic mechanic of the game, and applying without limits what should be the unique advantage of an already existing ship.

 

In my local group, this tactic is considered nothing short of a 'bug' in the game, and an oversight from the devs. That's why we ruled that if a ship is unable to move a single milimeter from its original position due to overlapping, both the 'moving' ship and the ship that it touches suffer the result of an attack die.

[Bilisknir 443]

** Dislike **

[VanorDM 11,599]

In my local group, this tactic is considered nothing short of a 'bug' in the game, and an oversight from the devs.

Do as you wish in your local group. But you can't really consider this to be a oversight on FFG's part, since they emailed about it and said that they consider it a valid tactic. It may be a 'unintended feature' but it's also one they could fix easily enough if they wish to. But they choose not to do so, so it's not just an oversight or bug in the game.

[Buhallin 4,563]

 

In my local group, this tactic is considered nothing short of a 'bug' in the game, and an oversight from the devs.

Do as you wish in your local group. But you can't really consider this to be a oversight on FFG's part, since they emailed about it and said that they consider it a valid tactic. It may be a 'unintended feature' but it's also one they could fix easily enough if they wish to. But they choose not to do so, so it's not just an oversight or bug in the game.

 

To be fair, "working as intended" can often mean "broken but not going to bother to fix it".

 

The problem with trying to fix it, IMHO, is that it's very hard to come up with rules to pushing fortressing without punishing incidental bumping.  I've had games where I've had shuttles go 2-3 turns without moving - nothing intentional about it, not bumping my own stuff, just how it played out.

 

I think FFG is also somewhat leery about rules which would encourage parking lots or ramming as a way to do damage.  It works fine for the huge ships, because it fits their feel very well...  but giving people the ability to do damage by creating a parking lot where nothing can move would undoubtedly have some unpleasant side effects, and the new round of "Oh that's cheesy and unsportsmanlike no it's not yes it is is not is so!" debates would be over intentionally creating logjams.

Edited June 11, 2014 by Buhallin

[Jehan Menasis 1,562]

To be exact, I never said that "I" consider it to be a bug of the game... But it's fine. I'll endure making my local group opinion extensive to me, since I after all, consider it a legal, albeit fishy tactic.

 

My intention was to point out that not everyone is pleased with "pushing the rule to the limit" and with that "Aware of it, but not going to do anything until it becomes a real problem" attitude from FFG in this matter.

[VanorDM 11,599]

The problem with trying to fix it, IMHO, is that it's very hard to come up with rules to pushing fortressing without punishing incidental bumping.

There's a fairly simple fix. Rule that if 2 or more ships have their dials set in such a way that none of the ships actually move for 2 or perhaps 3 turns in a row, this is violation of the 'no infinite combo rule'

Then only the Falcon Fortress is really effected, normal bumping and blocking still works the same. Since it's part of the 'sportsmanship' part of the rules it doesn't effect normal game play either.

@Jehan Menasis.

Maybe I misunderstood what you were saying. You made it sound like it was only allowed because FFG didn't know it was happening. I was just pointing out that they are aware of it and said it's allowed.

[Buhallin 4,563]

 

The problem with trying to fix it, IMHO, is that it's very hard to come up with rules to pushing fortressing without punishing incidental bumping.

There's a fairly simple fix. Rule that if 2 or more ships have their dials set in such a way that none of the ships actually move for 2 or perhaps 3 turns in a row, this is violation of the 'no infinite combo rule'

 

Then only the Falcon Fortress is really effected

 

Any rule that requires tracking something over 3 consecutive turns is not "simple"  But even if we could track it, it doesn't work.  If I fly a pair of shuttles with Black Squadron Wingmen, I can relatively easily keep them at 0 perfectly legally, and I think well outside any level of abuse, although others will disagree.  But that would trigger your rule.  Should it?  That's the problem with deciding that certain uses of a rule should be illegal while other uses should be allowed.  Creating a rule isn't necessarily hard - creating a simple, trackable rule with a low false positive rate is very tricky.

 

It seems a serious stretch to claim this as an infinite combo too.  Infinite combos are generally prohibited because they can freeze the game at a point in time while they cycle - in effect, they're a form of stalling.  There's nothing infinite about keeping a ship in a given position while everything continues to maneuver.  Sure, the game could theoretically go on forever if one player refused to move and the other close to engage...  But who's actually right or wrong in that case?

[VanorDM 11,599]

It seems a serious stretch to claim this as an infinite combo too.

I'm not saying it's infinite, just that it could fall under that heading for tournament rules. Also since it's a matter of sportsmanship more so then actual rules, it's up to the TO to decide if something is a violation or not.

Edited June 11, 2014 by VanorDM

[Bilisknir 443]

 

It seems a serious stretch to claim this as an infinite combo too.

I'm not saying it's infinite, just that it could fall under that heading for tournament rules. Also since it's a matter of sportsmanship more so then actual rules, it's up to the TO to decide if something is a violation or not.

 

Except that FFG have ruled that it is allowed. TO should not be overruling rules (and their interpretations) as defined by FFG. Do we really want a TO to be able to rewrite any rule they like?

[VanorDM 11,599]

Except that FFG have ruled that it is allowed.

I know, I was just giving an example of one way of dealing with it, if they wished.

TO should not be overruling rules (and their interpretations) as defined by FFG.

No they shouldn't, but that doesn't mean they can't or don't. A TO has the same power a DM/GM does, namely they have the power to kick you out of the game. So if a TO says that TL isn't spent when it's used, and refuses to change that stance, you have two choices. Play it that way or leave.

A TO also has the same vulnerability that a DM/GM does, namely without other people they don't really have any power. So if a TO gets it as wrong as my example above, people will stop showing up, and a tournament without players isn't really a tournament.

So while they shouldn't... That isn't the same thing at all as saying they can't.

On this issue, yes FFG made a comment, and while I accept the answer as given, it was posted on a message board by someone else. A TO could quite fairly make the argument that the answer given doesn't count unless it's made officially in a FAQ or something.

[Sergovan 1,440]

Vanor,

 

I have the e-mail from Frank that states directly FFG's stance on the tactic of Fortressing. I always post any response I get from the rules guys as it just works in everyones best interests to do so. I have to do it this way because it would be too easy for Frank to post the e-mail response on the Forums, and then it wouldn't be in doubt by anyone.

 

But you are correct in that the T.O. has the authority to overide the FAQ or rules if he feels like it. It is stated in the Tournament rules (I'm at work so can someone please quote page and section for me) and the T.O. has ultimate authority on rules decisions. Period. So be careful with how you approach one regarding a rule.

Edited June 12, 2014 by Sergovan

[VanorDM 11,599]

I have the e-mail from Frank that states directly FFG's stance on the tactic of Fortressing.

And I don't doubt you for a moment. I'm not questioning that you have the email or that you posted exactly what he said. I'm saying that a TO who doesn't come here might question it.

It is stated in the Tournament rules (I'm at work so can someone please quote page and section for me) and the T.O. has ultimate authority on rules decisions.

Page 1, under the Conduct section.

The Tournament Organizer (“TO”) is the final authority for all card interpretations, and he or she may overrule the FAQ when, in his or her opinion, a mistake or error is discovered.

[Buhallin 4,563]

TOs do have the authority to change rules, but I'm a lot less comfortable giving them broad latitude to rewrite rules than I am to make calls on sportsmanship, which is much fuzzier.

This may be a sportsmanship question, but it's not really a rules question. It doesn't fit the definition of am infinite combo, being neither infinite nor even really a combo. There's nothing in place that is even close to making this against the rules.

While TOs may have this authority, they also have a responsibility to use or judiciously and only in serious cases. Rewriting the rules to punish cheesy tactics doesn't qualify.

[VanorDM 11,599]

I'm a lot less comfortable giving them broad latitude to rewrite rules than I am to make calls on sportsmanship, which is much fuzzier.

I'd agree. I don't think a TO should ever be changing the rules, unless it's something specified up front, such as running a Highlander Tournament, where you can only have 1 of each ship, or something else like that.

But if I were in a tournament where the TO decided that you didn't have to discard TL's when you use them, or Interceptors got 2 Evades when they take a focus action... I'd just get up and leave.

Rewriting the rules to punish cheesy tactics doesn't qualify.

Again, it's like a DM/GM in a RPG, they have all the power, they can use the rules as written, throw them out completely or anything in between. As a player your only option is to play or not play with them. But that option goes a long way to keeping a DM/GM in check, because without players you don't have a game.

[Buhallin 4,563]

 

Again, it's like a DM/GM in a RPG, they have all the power, they can use the rules as written, throw them out completely or anything in between. As a player your only option is to play or not play with them. But that option goes a long way to keeping a DM/GM in check, because without players you don't have a game.

 

Oh, I agree.  I've been very adamant that you respect the TO's authority.

 

But I think it's important to draw a bright line here between things a TO is technically allowed to do, and things a TO should be doing.  I'm actually very comfortable with a TO declaring the Fortress an issue of sportsmanship or abuse of the rules.  I may not agree with it, but if that's what the standard is for their area, it's perfectly within their job description to rule it as such.

 

I'm not OK with a TO just rewriting the rules at a whim.  While they can do so, and I do think you should respect that in the middle of an event, it's not something they should be doing.

 

I expect we're probably on the same page for this, but thought that needed to be clear

[VanorDM 11,599]

I expect we're probably on the same page for this, but thought that needed to be clear

We are As I said up a few posts, but could of been missed. There's a pretty big line IMO between what a TO can do and should do.

Edited June 12, 2014 by VanorDM