Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
IG88E

Choosing side after asteroid placement: tips and tricks?

Recommended Posts

As far as I know the rules say you can choose side after asteroid placement.

I know that nobody is doing it. But are there any tricks to "exploit" this rule in regard of the new meta?

Tips? Experiences?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has been brought up multiple times in recent months in the Rules Subforum. 

In the Tournament Regulations, sides of the table are assigned to players before obstacle placement. There is no legal way to exploit this rule in competitive play. 

If you want to do it in casual play, be my guest. In the interest of good sportsmanship; I highly recommend you discuss this rule with your opponent prior to setup. 

Fly casual. Don’t be a (insert descriptor of your choice here.)

Edited by jmswood
grammar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If, after asteroid placement, my opponent wanted to swap sides, making me shift all my cards, tokens, templates etc. and messing up my deployment strategy I would refuse. If forced, I promise that would be the nastiest, least pleasant game I have ever played. Every slight bump would see my ship "returned" to where it was (magically in arc now). Every opportunity misses by a fraction of a second would be missed forever, every range measure with the vaguest ambiguity would get a judge call and if I'm winning on points, you can bet my dials are going to take five or ten minutes to place.

In short, don't be a dick or it will come back and bite you. And if you're looking to "exploit" a rule that nobody ever uses and most people don't even know exists... you're probably being a dick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the OP was trying to be a ****. When I started playing x wing I thought the same thing,  as it  was mentioned in the original core set rules and it's in the setup of other miniatures games that I've played.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, jmswood said:

It’s in the TFA Core Set Rules Reference, Page 17, step 4 under “Setup.”

Oh man, i was strongly under the impression that it was taken out. Because tournaments do not use that rule, and it's generally cumbersome in most game stores, people generally ignore it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jmswood said:

This has been brought up multiple times in recent months in the Rules Subforum. 

In the Tournament Regulations, sides of the table are assigned to players before obstacle placement. There is no legal way to exploit this rule in competitive play. 

If you want to do it in casual play, be my guest. In the interest of good sportsmanship; I highly recommend you discuss this rule with your opponent prior to setup. 

Fly casual. Don’t be a (insert descriptor of your choice here.)

Well, if you can't change seats, you would have to rotate the mat.  Sounds like a PIA either way.

Ostensibly, the RAW would help make asteroid placement more even-handed.  You could not go for favorable/unfavorable asteroid placement, because you would never know if you would end up changing sides.

Interesting that some people would even consider using the rule "poor sportsmanship."

Edited by Darth Meanie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Darth Meanie said:

Well, if you can't change seats, you would have to rotate the mat.  Sounds like a PIA either way.

Ostensibly, the RAW would help make asteroid placement more even-handed.  You could not go for favorable/unfavorable asteroid placement, because you would never know if you would end up changing sides.

Interesting that some people would even consider using the rule "poor sportsmanship."

“Each player places their squad outside of the 3’ by 3’ play area next to their assigned player edge.” - Tournament Regs page 5 under Game Setup. Rotating the mat and changing seats don’t change which edge of the play area is assigned to a player.

In the most general sense, playing by the rules is not unsportsmanlike. However, the community customarily ignores this specific rule because the rule is different in the game’s primary competitive format. Customs can be just as important as codified rules when promoting good sportsmanship. That is the reason I said if a player wants to play by this rule, it would be in the interest of good sportsmanship to discuss it with their opponent ahead of time. Waiting until after obstacle placement to enforce the rule and gain an advantage in a casual setting could be unsportsmanlike.

That being said, I think the tournament rule should be reversed. Allowing the player without initiative to choose sides after obstacle placement adds at least one more layer to turn zero strategies. More strategy is good for the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, catachanninja said:

Oh man, i was strongly under the impression that it was taken out. Because tournaments do not use that rule, and it's generally cumbersome in most game stores, people generally ignore it.

It was actually added in the TFA rulebook. XD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, MacchuWA said:

If, after asteroid placement, my opponent wanted to swap sides, making me shift all my cards, tokens, templates etc. and messing up my deployment strategy I would refuse. If forced, I promise that would be the nastiest, least pleasant game I have ever played. Every slight bump would see my ship "returned" to where it was (magically in arc now). Every opportunity misses by a fraction of a second would be missed forever, every range measure with the vaguest ambiguity would get a judge call and if I'm winning on points, you can bet my dials are going to take five or ten minutes to place.

In short, don't be a **** or it will come back and bite you. And if you're looking to "exploit" a rule that nobody ever uses and most people don't even know exists... you're probably being a ****.

How-you-really-feel.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, jmswood said:

“Each player places their squad outside of the 3’ by 3’ play area next to their assigned player edge.” - Tournament Regs page 5 under Game Setup. Rotating the mat and changing seats don’t change which edge of the play area is assigned to a player.

In the most general sense, playing by the rules is not unsportsmanlike. However, the community customarily ignores this specific rule because the rule is different in the game’s primary competitive format. Customs can be just as important as codified rules when promoting good sportsmanship. That is the reason I said if a player wants to play by this rule, it would be in the interest of good sportsmanship to discuss it with their opponent ahead of time. Waiting until after obstacle placement to enforce the rule and gain an advantage in a casual setting could be unsportsmanlike.

That being said, I think the tournament rule should be reversed. Allowing the player without initiative to choose sides after obstacle placement adds at least one more layer to turn zero strategies. More strategy is good for the game.

Sounds like their are actually 2 rules at odds with one another, so the cumbersome one is ignored.  Even in my dining room, we always sit in the same spots, so we could "load the dice" asteroid wise.  What actually happens is that there is no strategic asteroid placement at all: often, one of us will toss all the asteroids out, and then say to the other "OK with that?"

On the other hand, asteroid placement as a strategy seems a bit silly to me.  Generals don't get to say, "OK, so the river goes here, and we'll put that copse of trees over there (cuz I'll use it to screen my infantry, hehe), and then a farmhouse there."

The only other alternative would be random asteroid placement, but that would be even more cumbersome to implement.  Failing that, and logic aside, I agree with your last statement.  Moreover, I would argue that more terrain features would be good for the game, like static mines, ion clouds, Huge ships as debris, more or less asteroids than 12, et. al.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, MacchuWA said:

If, after asteroid placement, my opponent wanted to swap sides, making me shift all my cards, tokens, templates etc. and messing up my deployment strategy I would refuse. If forced, I promise that would be the nastiest, least pleasant game I have ever played. Every slight bump would see my ship "returned" to where it was (magically in arc now). Every opportunity misses by a fraction of a second would be missed forever, every range measure with the vaguest ambiguity would get a judge call and if I'm winning on points, you can bet my dials are going to take five or ten minutes to place.

In short, don't be a **** or it will come back and bite you. And if you're looking to "exploit" a rule that nobody ever uses and most people don't even know exists... you're probably being a ****.

"If my opponent forced me to move sides, I would respond by cheating." -This Guy.

By your own philosophy, your own jackassery would result in further jackassery in order to punish you, which in turn would result in futher jackassery to punish your punisher, onward into an infinity of baby shoes jackassery perpetrated by a karma as enforced by garbage people.

Get off that high horse, cowboy, take a look at yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, E Chu Ta said:

"If my opponent forced me to move sides, I would respond by cheating." -This Guy.

By your own philosophy, your own jackassery would result in further jackassery in order to punish you, which in turn would result in futher jackassery to punish your punisher, onward into an infinity of baby shoes jackassery perpetrated by a karma as enforced by garbage people.

Get off that high horse, cowboy, take a look at yourself.

Think what you want, but people reap what they sow. Pulling a stunt like this would be an immediate indicator that the person I was playing with had no intention or good sportsmanship and came in with a bad faith attitude from te word go - it's tantamount to cheating. Why give a rotten person like that the advantage and benefit of a friendly, casual game when they clearly don't plan on doing the same?

Come to play a friendly game, fly casual and you'll get exactly that back. Come to, in OP's own words, "exploit" some obscure rule, and I'll "exploit" every obscure rule right back at you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you’re dead set on incorporating this into your games, then I’d say be a gentleman about it and build a rotating mat base. Get some “lazy susan” hardware and then attach it to a piece of MDF or thick Masonite. Then you could allow your opponent to rotate the game. You could probably get it for less than $50 which isn’t ridiculous compared to buying a raider to get Palpantine. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, MacchuWA said:

Think what you want, but people reap what they sow. Pulling a stunt like this would be an immediate indicator that the person I was playing with had no intention or good sportsmanship and came in with a bad faith attitude from te word go - it's tantamount to cheating. Why give a rotten person like that the advantage and benefit of a friendly, casual game when they clearly don't plan on doing the same?

Come to play a friendly game, fly casual and you'll get exactly that back. Come to, in OP's own words, "exploit" some obscure rule, and I'll "exploit" every obscure rule right back at you.

How on earth do you see yourself being "forced" into switching table sides in the first place? What does that script look like? If it's a casual game, then, y'know, discussing it with your opponent like a person would very likely make this a non issue. Problem solved.

If you are so dead set about taking a minute or two to move your spaceships (as you are clearly horrified by the egregious oppression of your opponent to put upon you as such) then you could politely, perhaps icily, refuse the game, and play someone else or do something else with your time. Problem solved.

If your opponent ACTUALLY forces you to switch sides by means of force, violence, or extortion, then they are in the wrong. If not, you are assumedly a mature human being with agency who can just walk away from this situation, rather than cheat to teach the "agressor" a lesson. Problem solved.

If you are in a tournament, the protocol would be to call over a TO, and abide by their ruling. If you then followed that up by cheating, which was your first reaction mind you, then you are trash wearing babyshoes. You're the problem, not  solved. (That is, until you opponent calls a TO over to witness your slowplay and base-wizardry and you get ejected for your troubles.)

the simpsons lisa simpson gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, IG88E said:

As far as I know the rules say you can choose side after asteroid placement.

I know that nobody is doing it. But are there any tricks to "exploit" this rule in regard of the new meta?

Tips? Experiences?

 

I feel like it’s about the same as any other Turn Zero, except that you want initiative so you can choose which side you’re on. But you really just want to know what a favorable setup looks like for your squad, and take the side that does that. If you can, while you’re setting up, identify a side you like, and try to masked the opposite side real nasty. Don’t really know what else to say...especially about the new meta....

5 hours ago, catachanninja said:

That I know is untrue,  a buddy of mine who quit before tea used to discuss doing the side switch before our games routinely

Yeah. When I first started, I had a guy pull that rule on me after we had all our rocks down...I was very confused, but I kinda went “well, I guess he knows the rules.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, MacchuWA said:

Think what you want, but people reap what they sow. Pulling a stunt like this would be an immediate indicator that the person I was playing with had no intention or good sportsmanship and came in with a bad faith attitude from te word go - it's tantamount to cheating. Why give a rotten person like that the advantage and benefit of a friendly, casual game when they clearly don't plan on doing the same?

Come to play a friendly game, fly casual and you'll get exactly that back. Come to, in OP's own words, "exploit" some obscure rule, and I'll "exploit" every obscure rule right back at you.

So someone is pulling a "stunt" in choosing to play by the rules as written.  You don't normally use that rule, so how dare they!  So you will respond by cheating.  If I were your opponent, I would have a TO by the table after your first attempt to cheat.  You would surely be disqualified as I would request a TO to watch the rest of the game and when you bump ships to be in arc or purposely slow play your dials to drag out the game.. both explicitly CHEATING. And as you are being disqualified you can shout the heavens the injustice of being told to use a rule you don't like.  

I have never side switched, but I am aware of the rule.  If an opponent wanted to switch sides at a non-side locked tournament so be it.  The advantages of it are so minimal I can't see why you'd ever do it honestly.  It could be that they just use that rule in normal play,  you know, since it is a rule and all. Not that they are coming in "in bad faith."  Your extreme response to it make you sound like you are the one who plays in bad faith, waiting for the first slight against you so you can justify underhanded tactics in return.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm very confused.

Like many rules, the switch-sides rule is superseded by tournament rules.  In tournaments, the rule doesn't exist.  Since most players abide by tournament restrictions in competitive-casual games, in those games it doesn't exist, either.

Other rules that are superseded by tournament rules?  Lots of 'em.  Time-limits enforced.  Half-points for Large ships.  I don't recall if it's still the case in TFA, but in the original Core, you explicitly could measure out BR and decide not to BR at all.  Using separate damage decks.  Bringing three specified obstacles.  And so on.

The switch-sides rule isn't an exploitable rules because in tournaments, it's not the rule, and in non-tournament-rules games, the players should be on the same page from the beginning.

Logistically it's a bad rule because laying out obstacles means components have been unpacked ... which means switching sides means moving a bunch of unpacked components.

I've never had any kind of elevated grasp of supposed Turn 0 strategy (to the point that sometimes I think people who measure rock placement with extreme precision are pulling a deadpan joke), but I like the tournament rule because it at least purports to add more strategic decisions to the game, and I think that's a good thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To sum up the issue from a rules perspective;

The rule in question is superseded by the tournament regulations. While this does offer a different strategic experience than the one described in the Core rules, using the latter rules requires the ability to either access all four sides of the board with minimal obstruction (Which requires way too much space for most venues to support) or the ability to rotate the wakeboard without disturbing obstacle placement (Which would probably require specially constructed boards and obstacles using magnets or velcro).

In casual games, the decision to use this rule comes down to player agreement. If both players agree, they may use or disregard the rule as they desire (And many who do know of the rule chose to disregard it so as to practice for tournaments as well as for the aforementioned logistic rules). If you want to use this rule in a casual game, best practice is to inform your opponent of your desire before setting anything up so there are no surprises or delays (Springing seldom used rules that are not used in all game modes on someone at the last possible moment in order to gain an advantage is a jerk move, and when it's obvious that's what somebody's doing... well, lots of more socially competent people than I have written things about how to deal with jerks in a gaming group.

As to the situation in which a new participant at a venue who's used to following this rule brings it up unexpectedly... Well, judge the situation as best you can. If It's a precocious ten year old who's on the autism spectrum (Or an older person with more extreme tendencies), you're probably best off giving in and planning accordingly until you can show them the tournament regulations (Ten year old me would have a) thought this game was the coolest thing ever, and b) been outraged to find people disregarding rules). People less set in their ways will be more open to keeping things as they are. When all else fails, agree to do it one way, but reset the board so that neither player has an unfair advantage.

Edit: As far as the "in-universe" explanation for players setting up terrain as part of the strategy goes, it used to bug me too. It felt much more gamey when Warhammer 40k adopted that method of setting up terrain in 6th edition. I eventually found a pretty good rationalization for it, though. Exempting recently constructed defenses, the two forces aren't actually setting up the terrain pieces, but trying to force the engagement to take place in a location most favorable to them. Giving both players a hand in this means the question of who the terrain favors comes down to the players' skill at placing terrain both in terms of their initial battle plan as well as reacting to their opponent's placement.

Edited by Squark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ailowynn said:

I feel like it’s about the same as any other Turn Zero, except that you want initiative so you can choose which side you’re on.

The rule says the player without initiative chooses sides. The player with initiative doesn’t have any advantage when you play by this rule. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, MegaSilver said:

It was actually added in the TFA rulebook. XD

In theory, it makes sense as it means players aren't going to try to use asteroid placement to gain advantage, and instead to create an interesting battlefield.  In practice it is probably cumbersome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×