Bumping ships

[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.

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

 

 

Apparently, all is NOT good.  After all, a little bit ago Explosive Ewok was saying that ALL can agree that Falcon Fortress is "cheap and arguably cheating."  Then there is also this little tidbit. 

 

...

 

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.

 

 

Now unless I'm reading that wrong here we have someone saying that if the TO happens to not like the way I'm playing my 100% LEGAL tactic can be considered "unsportsmanlike" with all of the consequence that could come from that.  A post or two later is sure looks like you Kaudia also support that interpretation and would be over the moon if a TO came and declare that tactic unsportsmanlike.

 

When I'm playing a perfectly legal game and someone with some "official" standing can come by and say "YOUR NOT PLAYING NICE!" while I'm minding my own business don't you go telling me that "all is good."

[Kaudia 26]

I'm ok with nobody agreeing. Can I have my own opinion? I've been respectful until disrespected. I spelled out and stated my opinion and defended it. Still think it's cheesy. (Both Fortress and friendly bumping.)

As the famous Ron Burgandy once said "That really escalated."

Edited August 4, 2014 by Kaudia

[Kaudia 26]

StevenO,

What difference does it make to you what my opinion is? We will never play this game against each other. The truth is big world and lots of views. Will the TO work on my opinion? Nope. Trust me. It truly is all good.

Much respect, man.

Edited August 4, 2014 by Kaudia

[Parravon 5,216]

It's clear FFG may or may not have seen bumping to be a tactic when they designed the game. No one here can know that for certain (except that guy from FFG who is possibly reading this thread now). After much playtesting, and many competitions, they have clearly decided it hasn't broken the game. Hence the reason it hasn't been altered or removed from the rules.

[Kaudia 26]

I agree that's what they've decided and that no one can say for certain either way. I also stand by my initial post. In my opinion, it's cheesy. I will abide by the rules, but I don't have to like it.

Edited August 5, 2014 by Kaudia

[Tawnos 92]

...

 

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.

 

 

Now unless I'm reading that wrong here we have someone saying that if the TO happens to not like the way I'm playing my 100% LEGAL tactic can be considered "unsportsmanlike" with all of the consequence that could come from that.

 

Well, let me clarify that the TO's likes or dislikes have nothing to do with making a judgment call.  Posing it that way seems like you're just trying to vilify the TO in question.

 

Expert Handling once went through a situation very similar to this one.  As written upon release, nothing prevented a ship with multiple actions (such as Vader) from performing two Barrel Rolls per turn.  And though there was eventually an official ruling made and the card errata'd, in the interim it was decided by TOs (FFG's TOs included, at the Inaugural tourney) that Expert Handling did not allow two barrel rolls per turn.  Are you saying that the TOs were wrong to make a judgment call in that regard?

 

How about the theoretical scenario where I decide I'm going to play with my squad and maneuver dials behind a screen where you can't see them?  Nothing in the rules says I ever have to show my opponent my squad cards, and nothing says my maneuver dials ever have to be visible to you before their maneuvers are revealed.  The only requirement is that they're placed near the ship they represent or, as per the Tournament Rules, on the ship card itself; again, no rule says that card (or the maneuver dial on it) has to be visible to the opponent.  Would you likewise say that this is sportmanlike play?  It is, after all, perfectly within the definition of "legal".

[macar 408]

can we please not start another flame war

[Krynn007 2,445]

...

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.

Now unless I'm reading that wrong here we have someone saying that if the TO happens to not like the way I'm playing my 100% LEGAL tactic can be considered "unsportsmanlike" with all of the consequence that could come from that.

Well, let me clarify that the TO's likes or dislikes have nothing to do with making a judgment call. Posing it that way seems like you're just trying to vilify the TO in question.

Expert Handling once went through a situation very similar to this one. As written upon release, nothing prevented a ship with multiple actions (such as Vader) from performing two Barrel Rolls per turn. And though there was eventually an official ruling made and the card errata'd, in the interim it was decided by TOs (FFG's TOs included, at the Inaugural tourney) that Expert Handling did not allow two barrel rolls per turn. Are you saying that the TOs were wrong to make a judgment call in that regard?

How about the theoretical scenario where I decide I'm going to play with my squad and maneuver dials behind a screen where you can't see them? Nothing in the rules says I ever have to show my opponent my squad cards, and nothing says my maneuver dials ever have to be visible to you before their maneuvers are revealed. The only requirement is that they're placed near the ship they represent or, as per the Tournament Rules, on the ship card itself; again, no rule says that card (or the maneuver dial on it) has to be visible to the opponent. Would you likewise say that this is sportmanlike play? It is, after all, perfectly within the definition of "legal".

I believe it says right in the rule book that you have to place your dial on the table for your opponent to see.

Feel free to hide your cards all you like, but dials have to be in view.

That's an obvious reason

Of a TO decided to disqualify someone because they don't like what they are flying or how, in this case two Falcons, they are in their wrong and abusing their authority.

In which case the store and them would hopefully get banned after word gets back to ffg or whoever that makes that decision

Edited August 5, 2014 by Krynn007

[Emrico 410]

How about the theoretical scenario where I decide I'm going to play with my squad and maneuver dials behind a screen where you can't see them?  Nothing in the rules says I ever have to show my opponent my squad cards, and nothing says my maneuver dials ever have to be visible to you before their maneuvers are revealed.  The only requirement is that they're placed near the ship they represent or, as per the Tournament Rules, on the ship card itself; again, no rule says that card (or the maneuver dial on it) has to be visible to the opponent.  Would you likewise say that this is sportmanlike play?  It is, after all, perfectly within the definition of "legal".

Its actually clearly spelled out in the main rulebook that all the ship and upgrade cards must be placed in full view of both players (Pg 4).

Jim

[Kaudia 26]

Just to bring everyone up to speed, I thought the penalty for bumping friendlies (haha) was a little light. I suggested a few different things and asked for thoughts. I had several people quote rules and explanations, but they didn't understand that I understood the rules, I was just thinking out loud. And then the fire lit up the sky. When I came to, I saw all this other stuff.

Evidently this place is not for voicing opinions anymore. My bad.

Edited August 5, 2014 by Kaudia

[Kaudia 26]

If they plan 2 or 3 waves ahead, you get Howlrunner followed by Assault Missiles and Anti-pursuit lasers.

People have been doing this since release weekend. If they didn't predict it and they didn't like friendly bumping, they've had multiple waves and multiple FAQs to fix it. Just because you think they didn't think it out doesn't make it true.

Me and plenty others.

I'm not trying to ruin this game for anyone. I was suggesting there might be a better plan and I gave my reasons why, respectfully. Most disagree and that's fine. I already stated that I liked the game. I enjoy it, and it wasn't going to change.

Dude, everyone else on this thread actually discussed the idea in somewhat understanding tones until you butted in and acted like a d-bag. You can disagree all you like, but you brought the rudeness. Relax, bro. You can't anymore say they (FFG) anticipated it than others can say they didn't. All conjecture. Besides, you already said this convo was pointless. Then leave the discussion.

The damage rules in Wings of War work fine because you have the concept of altitude as you fly over the Earth. From what focal point in space should we consider altitude for X-Wing? After 2 years, can we stop complaining about this "problem" already?

I'm a d-bag because I was sarcastic? Lighten up. We're talking about toy ships moving in 2D simulating 3D space combat set in a galaxy far far away. Let's not take anything too serious here.

All of this talk of friendly bumping makes me want to go out and do it that much more. I'll have all of my TIE fighters fist bump right before my opponent bumps into them. Sure hope it's a Falcon that bumps me, because turrets are cheating and I want to auto-win against those rebel scum.

(see what I did there? that too was sarcasm, sort of)

Nope. Not a d-bag for being sarcastic. Your points are well argued, but you are a d-bag for how you busted in with your "Usually when people whine about this, it's because someone beat them doing it." We were discussing possible changes. Some said it was fine as is, and others argued it could be tweaked or fine tuned. They're called opinions. Edited August 5, 2014 by Kaudia

[StevenO 2,996]

Just to bring everyone up to speed, I thought the penalty for bumping friendlies (haha) was a little light. I suggested a few different things and asked for thoughts. I had several people quote rules and explanations, but they didn't understand that I understood the rules, I was just thinking out loud. And then the fire lit up the sky. When I came to, I saw all this other stuff.

Evidently this place is not for voicing opinions anymore. My bad.

 

My initial comments are simply that if you feel the need to increase penalties for bumping  friendlies you MUST apply them to all overlap situations.

 

If someone parks a prototype in the way of a TIE Fighter swarm and causes one of those chain reaction overlaps saying overlap penalties only apply when it it between allies is complete BS.  Sure, the chain reaction is initially caused by an opponent's action but then every other overlap is caused by you and there is no method within the rules to distinguish why the overlap happened.  After all you INTENTIONALLY run one AP onto another so it seems there must be consequences.

[Kaudia 26]

Just to bring everyone up to speed, I thought the penalty for bumping friendlies (haha) was a little light. I suggested a few different things and asked for thoughts. I had several people quote rules and explanations, but they didn't understand that I understood the rules, I was just thinking out loud. And then the fire lit up the sky. When I came to, I saw all this other stuff.

Evidently this place is not for voicing opinions anymore. My bad.

 

My initial comments are simply that if you feel the need to increase penalties for bumping  friendlies you MUST apply them to all overlap situations.

 

If someone parks a prototype in the way of a TIE Fighter swarm and causes one of those chain reaction overlaps saying overlap penalties only apply when it it between allies is complete BS.  Sure, the chain reaction is initially caused by an opponent's action but then every other overlap is caused by you and there is no method within the rules to distinguish why the overlap happened.  After all you INTENTIONALLY run one AP onto another so it seems there must be consequences.

Yeah. I get it. Not an easy thing to keep in check. My first comment was that the penalty stopped just short of enough, though. Someone suggested an extra agility dice for the defender of a ship who is being shot at by a bumped ship. Just food for thought.

[AverageBoss 233]

Meh...it's a game mechanic, nothing more.

 

If you don't like bumping and what it does in this game you could always go for attack wing!  /dives for cover

But you lose your actions in Attack Wing as well...

 

The only difference is that you are allowed to attack the ships you bump into, which makes since given that most ST weapons can be angled straight up or down.

Edited August 5, 2014 by AverageBoss