Bumping ships

[Kaudia 26]

However, we must remember that FFG DID intend to capitalize on bumping, as we have everyone's favorite pilot: Arvel Crynyd, and we also have the upcoming Enhanced Scopes upgrade.

I agree here. Remember, I was talking about friendly bumping.

[Kaudia 26]

So you don't think the game evolved in terms of friendly bumping? Interesting.

Krynn, maybe they did see all this coming, but it's at least possible they didn't. They didn't see everything from the beginning, otherwise we wouldn't see ANY rule changes or tweaks.

No they don't see everything, but the mechanic of movement is obvious.

If ships A can move before ship B it won't take long to see the benefits.

I don't disagree.

[pbpanchotest 226]

 

You can't anymore say they (FFG) anticipated it than others can say they didn't. All conjecture.

 

One point of conjecture (that they didn't see it coming) operates on the premise that FFG is very inattentive in their playtesting and design.  The other (that they did) operates on the premise that FFG is relatively diligent in their playtesting and design.  Given that FFG has a general reputation for diligent playtesting and design, and that the overall functionality of the game support that reputation, the premise that they didn't conceive of "bumping" ships purposefully is very much baseless conjecture, bro-migo.

And on it goes.

It is not baseless. Only your opinion.

It is possible that even the mighty FFG did not see the EXTENT of friendly bumping that is used as a tactic, Bro-seppi.

It doesn't mean they were "very inattentive," it just means maybe they didn't see it for what it has become. There are plenty of FAQ's that have fixed things they didn't see coming, so it's possible they might have not seen everything. I think it's an amazing game, anyway, but (sigh) wish that part was tweaked.

I recognize that they don't feel like this is something that needs tweaking. I just disagree.

You say there are plenty of fixes for things they didn't see coming. Yet there has been no "fix" for friendly bumping. Why fix everything else but not that? Perhaps because it is intended?

[Kaudia 26]

You can't anymore say they (FFG) anticipated it than others can say they didn't. All conjecture.

One point of conjecture (that they didn't see it coming) operates on the premise that FFG is very inattentive in their playtesting and design. The other (that they did) operates on the premise that FFG is relatively diligent in their playtesting and design. Given that FFG has a general reputation for diligent playtesting and design, and that the overall functionality of the game support that reputation, the premise that they didn't conceive of "bumping" ships purposefully is very much baseless conjecture, bro-migo.

And on it goes.

It is not baseless. Only your opinion.

It is possible that even the mighty FFG did not see the EXTENT of friendly bumping that is used as a tactic, Bro-seppi.

It doesn't mean they were "very inattentive," it just means maybe they didn't see it for what it has become. There are plenty of FAQ's that have fixed things they didn't see coming, so it's possible they might have not seen everything. I think it's an amazing game, anyway, but (sigh) wish that part was tweaked.

I recognize that they don't feel like this is something that needs tweaking. I just disagree.

You say there are plenty of fixes for things they didn't see coming. Yet there has been no "fix" for friendly bumping. Why fix everything else but not that? Perhaps because it is intended?

That's possible I suppose. That doesn't change my opinion that I think it needs to be tweaked. They don't. No big deal. I'm not alone, even if I'm I the minority.

Isn't it also possible that they don't see it as as big a problem, yet it has become more than they intended? Deep, huh?

Edited August 4, 2014 by Kaudia

[Tawnos 92]

I stopped reading about 2 pages in.

 

Why does X-wing use a 2D abstraction of 3D space by design?  Because it's simpler to manage during the game.  End of story.  You don't have to like it, and there are plenty of other games that have more complex mechanics to represent 3D space.  Those games tend to take a lot longer to play, but if that's your thing, more power to you.

 

Also, for tournament play, abusing movement mechanics to infinitely stall a ship (such as the Millennium Fortress, mentioned earlier in this thread) would be in violation of the Unsportsmanlike Conduct clause of the Tournament Rules.

[eagletsi111 1,113]

The simplest change of all to fix this game would be:   When shooting at a target and the line of fire passes through a friendly ship add 1 defensive die (Maximum) to the target.

 

This helps eliminate alot of issues.      We played a fun group game with this rule in play at my store.   At first I didn't think I would like it, but after playing it really makes it a very different game and requires much more skill for maneuving which is a good thing.

 

Try it an see what you think?

 

 

 

Also, bumping is a bad word for it.    It's called Overlapping for a reason.   You are just flying over top or close to each other.   Since it requires full concentration to not crash into them you lose an action.

Edited August 4, 2014 by eagletsi111

[ScottieATF 2,864]

I stopped reading about 2 pages in.

 

Why does X-wing use a 2D abstraction of 3D space by design?  Because it's simpler to manage during the game.  End of story.  You don't have to like it, and there are plenty of other games that have more complex mechanics to represent 3D space.  Those games tend to take a lot longer to play, but if that's your thing, more power to you.

 

Also, for tournament play, abusing movement mechanics to infinitely stall a ship (such as the Millennium Fortress, mentioned earlier in this thread) would be in violation of the Unsportsmanlike Conduct clause of the Tournament Rules.

No, it wouldn't.

FFG has specifically come out and said that nothing about the Falcon Fortress is illegal in anyway, but that they may address it a later date if they feel it is problematic. We've had multiple FAQ updates since that point.

[Kaudia 26]

Interesting proposal, eagle. We might try it at home. Thanks!

Also, bumping is a bad word for it. It's called Overlapping for a reason. You are just flying over top or close to each other. Since it requires full concentration to not crash into them you lose an action.

Yeah, I get it, but bumping is how you control a faster ship behind you as well. They don't "overlap" in that sense. The trailing ship bumps the leader to stop.

It is cheesy IMO, but it is the rule and (for everyone!) I will live with it.

p.s. Did I mention that I LOVE this game?

Edited August 4, 2014 by Kaudia

[switch8383 19]

I can see the OPs point of view on this. I find the tactic of deliberately ramming ships into each other to be a little cheesy, but sometimes the loss of an action can have larger consequences.

I do like the rules with the huge ships: if a huge ship overlaps a smaller ship, it's destroyed.

Maybe this should extend to large ships also, but inflict 2 damage instead of destroying it. Just an idea.

 

On an side note: I was watching a game of Wings of War (WW1) at our club meeting, where one of the guys was showing some of the younger guys how to play. He had told them there was a rule that if you overlapped another aircraft, both were destroyed. The game progressed without a shot being fired and all aircraft were downed by mid-air collision. When I pointed out I couldn't find such a rule in the book, the game changed dramatically.

 

To try and change something like bumping in X-Wing and keep if fair and reasonable, is likely to affect the way the game works in more ways than one. What FFG have created, although not a terrific solution, it does work.

 

Its actions like the guy you mentioned that was teaching people the wrong way to play that makes a lot of people not like table top gaming. Its a sad reality which i dont agree with i think every one should learn the right way. sometime when we are squad building we accidintly over look things and try to make thing to our advantage which is wrong as well. So hopefully we all will follow the rules and teach those the correct way to play.

[Bilisknir 443]

I do have one thing to point out to all those discussing this. The scale of the model is not the scale of the battlespace.

If we assume that the X-wing combat speed in space is around half its maximum atmospheric velocity (which isn't stupid - I would probably say this is a low estimation), and thus ~525kph. This is 145m/s. (And I note quite close to the maximum speed of World War 2 fighters such as the Spitfire/Me109). We also know that the X-wing is 12.5m long. (and is approximately the same length as the base)

 

Thus on the mat:

Range 1 is ~31m

Range 2 is ~63m

Range 3 is ~94m

(This is significantly shorter than expected engagement ranges for WW2 fighters where guns for, for example, the Spitfire were set to converge initially at 350m and later at 225m).

 

A speed 2 manoeuvre moves the base 3 slots forward, for 37.5m move. So at combat speeds a single round takes...

0.25 seconds. (37.5m / 145 m/s).

 

Seems a little short to me....

 

So I would guess that scale on the board doesn't match the scale of the models.

If you up range 2 to be 225m. Then a base is 45m, a speed 2 manoeuvre is 135m and a round is more like 1 second.

If you make range 1 to be 225m. A base is then 90m, and a speed 2 manoeuvre is 270m and the round is more like 1.9 seconds.

 

So if we assume a round time of around 2 seconds is sensible. That means the fighter is only occupying 14% of the base. Thus plenty of space to overlap and losing action is because the higher PS pilot is just avoiding hitting the lower PS pilot.

[Krynn007 2,445]

Interesting proposal, eagle. We might try it at home. Thanks!

Also, bumping is a bad word for it. It's called Overlapping for a reason. You are just flying over top or close to each other. Since it requires full concentration to not crash into them you lose an action.

Yeah, I get it, but bumping is how you control a faster ship behind you as well. They don't "overlap" in that sense. The trailing ship bumps the leader to stop.

It is cheesy IMO, but it is the rule and (for everyone!) I will live with it.

p.s. Did I mention that I LOVE this game?

It is an awesome game and like everything there is always going to be opinions. Just make the best of it, and for what it is, its a pretty **** good game

You know what they say about opinions?

They're like butt holes. Everyone has Anne and they all stink.

[Tawnos 92]

 

I stopped reading about 2 pages in.

 

Why does X-wing use a 2D abstraction of 3D space by design?  Because it's simpler to manage during the game.  End of story.  You don't have to like it, and there are plenty of other games that have more complex mechanics to represent 3D space.  Those games tend to take a lot longer to play, but if that's your thing, more power to you.

 

Also, for tournament play, abusing movement mechanics to infinitely stall a ship (such as the Millennium Fortress, mentioned earlier in this thread) would be in violation of the Unsportsmanlike Conduct clause of the Tournament Rules.

No, it wouldn't.

FFG has specifically come out and said that nothing about the Falcon Fortress is illegal in anyway, but that they may address it a later date if they feel it is problematic. We've had multiple FAQ updates since that point.

 

 

Yes, it in fact, absolutely can be.

 

The only correspondence from FFG on this matter is from this thread in which they say that they're aware of the "fortress" strategy and will add specific rules for it if they feel it necessary.  This is not an official stance on the strategy's tournament legality, because e-mail doesn't dictate legality.

 

The entry for Unsportmanlike Conduct in the official Tournament Rules is written in such a way that a TO would be well within their rights to declare a "fortress" strategy to be abuse of game mechanics and rule it unsportsmanlike.  And I know several TOs who would rule in that fashion.

[ScottieATF 2,864]

Just because TOs can do whatever they want in events they run, as they are given full latitude to adjudicate an event by FFG, does not mean they should abuse that power. Deeming a tactic that has been acknowledged and repeatedly not addressed (despite stating they would if needed)as illegal, is an abuse of that power. It is no different then a TO deciding they don't like how a certain rule or ability works, so they are going to rule it another way at events they run. This may fly in casual level events but absolutely should be called out for the abuse of position it is in any higher tiered event.

Nothing involved in that stratedgy is against the rules, there is no need for FFG to deem it legal, the rules have already done that.. Because nothing involved in it is against the rules it is legal until FFG says otherwise.

This is not Attack Wing. FFG actually looks to balance and test thier games unlike Wiz Kids. There is no need for TOs to take overzealous measures and institute house rules to make this game work competitively. I know TOs that have suggested banning TiE Swarms because they think thier are OP, doesn't make thier position tenable just because they take the position.

Edited August 4, 2014 by ScottieATF

[Kaudia 26]

Just because TOs can do whatever they want in events they run, as they are given full latitude to adjudicate an event by FFG, does not mean they should abuse that power. Deeming a tactic that has been acknowledged and repeatedly not addressed (despite stating they would if needed)as illegal, is an abuse of that power. It is no different then a TO deciding they don't like how a certain rule or ability works, so they are going to rule it another way at events they run. This may fly in casual level events but absolutely should be called out for the abuse of position it is in any higher tiered event.

Nothing involved in that stratedgy is against the rules, there is no need for FFG to deem it legal, the rules have already done that.. Because nothing involved in it is against the rules it is legal until FFG says otherwise.

This is not Attack Wing. FFG actually looks to balance and test thier games unlike Wiz Kids. There is no need for TOs to take overzealous measures and institute house rules to make this game work competitively. I know TOs that have suggested banning TiE Swarms because they think thier are OP, doesn't make thier position tenable just because they take the position.

You'll find this as a huge surprise, but I couldn't disagree more, Scottie.

This is blatantly abusing game mechanics and if I were at a tourney, I would be disappointed if the TO didn't act. There are things that should pass the eyeball test and this just doesn't. It is not in the spirit of the game. And yes this is again another opinion. Flame on.

[StevenO 2,996]

If I had a pair of Falcons and decided I wanted to use the Fortress tactic for a game and had a TO disqualify me for "unsportsmanlike  conduct" I'd ask for an immediate refund, write to FFG about the store and their draconian practices, definitely never BUY anything from there again, likely never play there again, and finally tell all of my friends that they should stay away from there as well.

Edited August 4, 2014 by StevenO

[Tawnos 92]

By my reckoning, the only reason why FFG hasn't felt the need to rule on "abusive nature" the Fortress strategy is because it's not that good, so no one uses it.  If it were prevalent, I'd bet we'd see an official ruling.

 

Either way, this is a discussion for another thread; we're kinda getting away from the original topic.  And I hear what you're saying; I just don't agree with it.

[Rakky Wistol 2,903]

So much need for an unlike button in this thread...

 

This has been covered enough...Falcon Fortress is not a viable tactic unless you let it be.  FFG would have fixed it if it was a problem, it's not a problem, it's part of the game...one of the biggest tactical parts of the game!

 

Also, remember that is is actually called "Overlapping" and no actual bumping is happening (unless it's the decimator!)

[Kaudia 26]

If I had a pair of Falcons and decided I wanted to use the Fortress tactic for a game and had a TO disqualify me for "unsportsmanlike  conduct" I'd ask for an immediate refund, write to FFG about the store and their draconian practices, definitely never BUY anything from there again, likely never play there again, and finally tell all of my friends that they should stay away from there as well.

Hey man, not everyone likes cheese on their game. You don't mind it. It's all good.

[ScottieATF 2,864]

 

Just because TOs can do whatever they want in events they run, as they are given full latitude to adjudicate an event by FFG, does not mean they should abuse that power. Deeming a tactic that has been acknowledged and repeatedly not addressed (despite stating they would if needed)as illegal, is an abuse of that power. It is no different then a TO deciding they don't like how a certain rule or ability works, so they are going to rule it another way at events they run. This may fly in casual level events but absolutely should be called out for the abuse of position it is in any higher tiered event.

Nothing involved in that stratedgy is against the rules, there is no need for FFG to deem it legal, the rules have already done that.. Because nothing involved in it is against the rules it is legal until FFG says otherwise.

This is not Attack Wing. FFG actually looks to balance and test thier games unlike Wiz Kids. There is no need for TOs to take overzealous measures and institute house rules to make this game work competitively. I know TOs that have suggested banning TiE Swarms because they think thier are OP, doesn't make thier position tenable just because they take the position.

You'll find this as a huge surprise, but I couldn't disagree more, Scottie.

This is blatantly abusing game mechanics and if I were at a tourney, I would be disappointed if the TO didn't act. There are things that should pass the eyeball test and this just doesn't. It is not in the spirit of the game. And yes this is again another opinion. Flame on.

 

 

And who defines the "spirit of the game" again?  Because if we let the individual player define that nebulous concept then lets see what in these forums have people decried as against the "spirit of the game".  So we have turrets, ion lists, blocking, bumping, stress inducers, TiE Swarms, not allowing your opponent take-backs, playing defensively, "power-gaming".  So clearly individual players are not really capable of defining what is or is not in keeping with the spirit of the game.

 

How about we leave that to the company making the game instead.  I know that's an odd concept for some but rather then having 90 different opinions on it wouldn't it make sense for the overarching developer of the game to not just define it, but legislate in the game rules.  Crazy right, the rules of a game defining what is or isn't suppose to be apart of the game

 

That you'd be disappointed that a TO didn't take action against a player solely because you personally don't like his legal (read as not against any rules and acknowledge and not addressed by FFG) play style is pretty low.

[Tawnos 92]

Also, remember that is is actually called "Overlapping" and no actual bumping is happening (unless it's the decimator!)

 

I had an evil grin worthy of the Grinch when they announced Captain Ramming Speed.  I'm prepared to be disappointed by the Decimator's maneuver dial, though.

[ScottieATF 2,864]

And now we've progressed to the part of our programing where anything a player doesn't like is decried as "cheese". 

[Sithborg 11,513]

It the strategy were a good one, then maybe there is some room for debate. But, quite obviously, it isn't that good of a strategy, since it really hasn't been winning. It is fun to play against, probably not. But there are a lot of things that many people consider not fun that aren't overpowered in this game. It only becomes an issue if it becomes widespread.

 

Of course, if you are a militant casual, it doesn't matter.

[Rakky Wistol 2,903]

 

Of course, if you are a militant casual, it doesn't matter.

Militant Casual... I like that terminology. 

[oneway 1,878]

If I had a pair of Falcons and decided I wanted to use the Fortress tactic for a game and had a TO disqualify me for "unsportsmanlike  conduct" I'd ask for an immediate refund, write to FFG about the store and their draconian practices, definitely never BUY anything from there again, likely never play there again, and finally tell all of my friends that they should stay away from there as well.

Hey man, not everyone likes cheese on their game. You don't mind it. It's all good.

It's a game legal move.. whether you feel itnis cheesy or not, isn't really important here.. a legal move is just that... legal.. and any TO that banned it, should be stripped of his position..

Personally, I've never been against a list that uses the tactic.. but overall, I'm not a fan.. it seems like, from what I have read here in the past, that it is a boring list to fly against.. that doesn't sound fun.

Would I point a finger and scream .. unsportsman like!!! .. No...

[pbpanchotest 226]

Again, if you feel like Falcon Fortress is unfair or unsportsmanlike or an overly strong strategy, you're probably bad at X-Wing.  It's far worse than a dozen flavors of regular old non-fortress dual Falcons, not to mention almost anything else.  I don't think that strategy/squad has EVER won a major event.  Why are people still worrying about it?

 

If your friend tries it in a friendly game, call him an *******.  If an opponent tries it in a tournament game, congrats on your win.