I love this game and I'm grateful to FFG for this product, but I would like to see one change (but I know I won't).

I think there should be a bigger penalty for bumping friendly ships. I think it's so cheesy when people purposely smash into the back of their own ships and only miss an action. I don't like things that allow people to do things that the game isn't about. I don't believe you'd see the USS Lincoln bump into a slower boat in the ocean. Thank God. What if the famous Blue Angels did tricks by smacking into one another at air shows (please no tasteless jokes)?

I think that BOTH friendly ships should have to roll for damage as well as losing the action. Or auto damage, or... What do you think?

I think we would see more careful flying and less swarms (or at least better swarm pilots) .

Thoughts?

The reason you don't suffer more penalties for bumping, is because space is 3 dimensional, and that is how FFG simulates it, hence not being able to shoot enemies you collided with (because you are either above or below them). The ptl card picture is a perfect example of colliding in this game.

^^^ This.

Dudes, with all respect...

I get that part, but your tiny TIEs shouldn't keep your giant Shuttle behind them. If the shuttle were truly "above or below" them, it shouldn't lose its action. I know how it works and why they do it, but to me it just doesn't do enough. People smash their ships to "cheat" the rules and that to me is a farce.

I still enjoy the game, but at least understand my argument even if you don't agree.

The concept is that you lose your action because you are concentrating on not hitting the other ship sharing the same space as you are ( collision avoidance ) .. I think everyone understands what you mean, but possibly you aren't seeing it for what it really is...

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

I love this game and I'm grateful to FFG for this product, but I would like to see one change (but I know I won't).

I think there should be a bigger penalty for bumping friendly ships. I think it's so cheesy when people purposely smash into the back of their own ships and only miss an action. I don't like things that allow people to do things that the game isn't about. I don't believe you'd see the USS Lincoln bump into a slower boat in the ocean. Thank God. What if the famous Blue Angels did tricks by smacking into one another at air shows (please no tasteless jokes)?

I think that BOTH friendly ships should have to roll for damage as well as losing the action. Or auto damage, or... What do you think?

I think we would see more careful flying and less swarms (or at least better swarm pilots) .

Thoughts?

I feel bumping is the same as Ionizing or stressing, they suck if your the victim but are apart of the game and their are ways to counter. As for bumping into their own this is a tactic you can use as well. Also not all friendly bumps are planned.

This isn't an attack but as for your comparisons its really apples to oranges.

USS Lincoln is a carrier and moves like one but theres plenty of cases of destroyers hunt down and ramming subs (smaller slower ships) and sinking them thats why had a reinforced hull and it was a designed tactic.

but the point is moot since it already been said its 3-D and they are not touching. Ships what would touch are the huge ships and look what happens there but that is another point. The answer applies to the angels aswell not touching much like the angels but I'm sure you'd agree that to pull off their close formations and tricks it requires intense concentration not to hit and the action lost represents that you can focus on your enemy when your focusing on trying not to crash.

What you purpose is an outside rule that would could the meta and possibly unbalance the game. Stiffer penalties may mean less ships, smaller lists, pilot ability effectiveness loss due to wider ranges between allies. The game already penalizes you for crashing and has plenty of ways to punish/rewards tight formations anyway.

As a Reb Phantoms sucks but like everything in X-wing nothing (yet and thank god) is broken we just gotta take the time to figure out how to best fight everything

The concept is that you lose your action because you are concentrating on not hitting the other ship sharing the same space as you are ( collision avoidance ) .. I think everyone understands what you mean, but possibly you aren't seeing it for what it really is...

If he isn't seeing it for what it really is ... then he isn't the only one.

If I have any beef with this game, it is exactly the point made by the OP. You can't have it both ways. Either they bump and are sharing the same space, concentration or no, or it truly is 3d space, and one is above or below the other. If the former, then there should be substantial penalties ... if the latter, then I should be able to have LOS and attack the ship (the one either above or below).

As the side which purposefully caused the collision/bumping, you shouldn't gain the advantage of being able to "hide" the offending ship.

But, as I am sure when this has come up in the past, I will just receive flaming for such an outrageous thought. Fire away ... although I am distinctly 3D (too much so for my own tastes) and take up significant space, prior to typing this response I bumped into my opponent, and so your flames will do no damage ...

It's only 'technically' bumping, because the models touch during the move.. it is the 3d effect of the rules and concepts that says you occupy the same space and dont really touch. Mechanics wise they felt 2 ships in such an instance shouldn't be able to attack each other.. it's pretty simple.. not trying to be mean here, but it is just a concept idea and a rules mechanic...

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.

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.

I play wings of glory (as it is now called) and the rules for collisions are that each plane recieves a 'C' damage card.. with that deck the possibility of taking big damage is very real, but also, it gives one a reason to plan your moves carefully..

Is overlapping ships cheesy.. maybe.. is it a viable tactic in this game.. yes..

Simple solution.. don't do it if you find it cheesy... others will, you'll have to live with that and get over it..

.. it's pretty simple.. not trying to be mean here, but it is just a concept idea and a rules mechanic...

You keep making this point. I understand it is the rules. I understand it is a mechanic to the game.

That doesn't mean I have to like it; nor does it mean that FFG made a good decision in making this the "mechanic". I know for some of you saying this is absolutely blasphemous ...

I dont think it blasphemous, that is just silly.

Its how they decided to do it.. do you have to like it.. no.. do you have to live with it.. if you play tourneys.. yes.. just for your own games.. no.. make a house rule. Personally I'd just live with it because... it is the rules.. is everyone happy with all the rules.. probably not.

You're complaining about something that is hard wired into the system.. so I guess I dont understand what your beef is.. people will overlap for tactical reasons.. others won't..

Edit in.

Also.. I'm sure they wanted to avoid the idea that 2 ships coliding in mid space would be catastrophic to each other and went with a simple fix..

So.. you share the same space and don't get actions.. maybe try not to think of it as 'bumping' but Overlapping ...

Dudes, with all respect...

I get that part, but your tiny TIEs shouldn't keep your giant Shuttle behind them. If the shuttle were truly "above or below" them, it shouldn't lose its action. I know how it works and why they do it, but to me it just doesn't do enough. People smash their ships to "cheat" the rules and that to me is a farce.

I still enjoy the game, but at least understand my argument even if you don't agree.

It's part of the strategy. If a player does it, learn to deal with it.

Plain and simple

To be honest, it does feel that although FFG knew that bumping would happen, I genuinely don’t think in their original testing of the game rules that it was used as a core tactic to such an extent that it is used in the game we play today.

Yes there is a mechanic in place to punish overlapping by losing the ships action but what it does do is open up design space for other pilots or ships in the future to interact with that effect, for example the new decimator pilot that damages ships it rams into as well as the current upgrade Anti Pursuit lasers.

In terms of an effect that could be quite good you could have a pilot ability with “ enemy ships in your firing arc that overlap during their manoeuvre receive a stress token”

As others have said there is a mitigating effect when you do overlap, the “higher level” way to look at it though is to say that it adds another tactical manoeuvring dimension to the game, if PTL interceptors can boost & barrel roll, an astute pilot should also be able to reduce their movement also.

Often the better payoff is getting a firing arc and forgoing your action.

As has been said in these forums too many times to count, you can learn to play the game in 15 minute but take a lifetime to master.

Chewy + Luke + C-3PO + EU + MF + PTL on the other hand, that my friend is just plain wrong

If you are going to make harsher penalties for overlapping Allies then you MUST make those penalties apply in ALL overlap situations. You want to damage both ships? That could be arrange but I don't see how you'll prevent the first ship from taking actions if it didn't do any overlapping when it moved. If you want to penalize a Falcon for running into another Falcon then you better be penalizing that Falcon for running into a TIE Fighter as well.

It may have been "hard-wired" in, but I think any gamer that has played any sort of aerial combat game will agree that FFG could've incorporated the 3D environment better than with the overlapping rules.

I have played various different games where the 3D aspect was properly incorporated into the combat, and all of them worked well. It's not a difficult or complex concept. It would enhance the combat enormously, but would require some form of multi-post stand to show the various altitude levels, and I think that's why FFG may have decided not to go with it.

What they have done, is simple and keeps the gameplay running quickly and smoothly, which was one of the goals of the game to start with.

For the love of God and everything holy... I understand the rules, why they say ships can't target, and even the loss of an action. Heck, I even understand 3d space, Ywingace. I "see it for what it is," oneway.

Theycamefrombehind, I even understand naval warfare perhaps a bit better than you realize, but I will tell you that two friendly tugs standing in the Lincoln's way wouldn't stop the Lincoln from continuing forward, (even less so in outer space, but I digress) and would certainly damage ALL ships involved. You just told me about enemy ships which IS apples and oranges. As for the Blue Angels... Read on..

I'm not buying the unbalance the game argument for two reasons...

1. I don't think FFG put this game out with the intentions that bumping friendly ships would balance anything. I don't think they could foresee people doing this on purpose. The mechanic is the mechanic, but I think it needs tweaking.

2. I think that if people flew the ships with the INTENDED rules, the game would be balanced. Better "concentration" for the Blue Angel pilots, means that you should not bump... Ever. If you're concentrating and a high level pilot, you should never bump. If you added damage, people would stop these broken steps and play the intended game instead.

By the way, if you don't think I know that some bumping is unintentional, watch my next game. Haha. I do NOT bump intentionally ever! I should have to roll even if it's an "accident."

Edit: I also agree that two enemy ships should also have consequences. Maybe they both lose actions, since they are "occupying the same space."

ALSO... I'm not complaining. I LOVE THIS GAME! And, I will "live with it."

This is a great convo.

To be honest, it does feel that although FFG knew that bumping would happen, I genuinely don’t think in their original testing of the game rules that it was used as a core tactic to such an extent that it is used in the game we play today.

Yes there is a mechanic in place to punish overlapping by losing the ships action but what it does do is open up design space for other pilots or ships in the future to interact with that effect, for example the new decimator pilot that damages ships it rams into as well as the current upgrade Anti Pursuit lasers.

In terms of an effect that could be quite good you could have a pilot ability with “ enemy ships in your firing arc that overlap during their manoeuvre receive a stress token”

As others have said there is a mitigating effect when you do overlap, the “higher level” way to look at it though is to say that it adds another tactical manoeuvring dimension to the game, if PTL interceptors can boost & barrel roll, an astute pilot should also be able to reduce their movement also.

Often the better payoff is getting a firing arc and forgoing your action.

As has been said in these forums too many times to count, you can learn to play the game in 15 minute but take a lifetime to master.

Chewy + Luke + C-3PO + EU + MF + PTL on the other hand, that my friend is just plain wrong

Look at Arvel in the awing. His ability revolves around running into ships

Ffg are not idiots when it comes to strategy games.

This isn't their first day on the job

For the love of God and everything holy... I understand the rules, why they say ships can't target, and even the loss of an action. Heck, I even understand 3d space, Ywingace. I "see it for what it is," oneway.

Theycamefrombehind, I even understand naval warfare perhaps a bit better than you realize, but I will tell you that two friendly tugs standing in the Lincoln's way wouldn't stop the Lincoln from continuing forward, (even less so in outer space, but I digress) and would certainly damage ALL ships involved. You just told me about enemy ships which IS apples and oranges. As for the Blue Angels... Read on..

I'm not buying the unbalance the game argument for two reasons...

1. I don't think FFG put this game out with the intentions that bumping friendly ships would balance anything. I don't think they could foresee people doing this on purpose. The mechanic is the mechanic, but I think it needs tweaking.

2. I think that if people flew the ships with the INTENDED rules, the game would be balanced. Better "concentration" for the Blue Angel pilots, means that you should not bump... Ever. If you're concentrating and a high level pilot, you should never bump. If you added damage, people would stop these broken steps and play the intended game instead.

By the way, if you don't think I know that some bumping is unintentional, watch my next game. Haha. I do NOT bump intentionally ever! I should have to roll even if it's an "accident."

It's a 2d space that is suppose to represent 3d space.

The idea is the small ships are smart enough to not run into one another, so when they over lap they just touch base, or in some cases don't move and stay put.

That's the best way to represent 3d in a 2d, so unless you want to get grids and have layers of boards over each other this is how it is played.

Reason why they don't get actions is best to look at it like they are busy avoiding collisions, so they are not really focusing at the current task at hand.

A ship like the shuttle that runs into the back of a the fighter stays behind him because really he is either under or over. The was no real collision.

He is avoiding the tie and readjusting coarse.

Again unless you wanted to have another play area above your current one there is no way to set ships on each other, so best and easiest way is he just bumps into him

And yes ffg knew people would use this as part of their strategy in some cases.

Like I just said in the above post, Arvel or whatever his name is in the awing excells at running into other ships and still gets to shoot at them.

No sense trying to argue what it is. It is what it is, so best just to get use to it.

No matter what you say, be an expert in navel warfare or whatever, this is just a game with make belief ships and people in a fictional galaxy,

Respect, Krynn.

Thanks for not assuming I don't know rules, explanations, etc.

I understand it's not perfect, and that it's pretty good anyway. However, do think that if you're going to say one ship is focusing so hard not trying to crash, he loses action, then both should lose actions as both should be worried.

I said this at the top, that I know it's not going to change, but I am tired of all the nonsense of causing a pileup of your own ships on purpose.

Krynn, I'm not sure where you get the idea of "grids and layers of boards" from but this is how we do it with modern air combat. Simple telescoping stand that changes the height of the model. One segment on the stand equals one altitude band. A marker on the base can do the same thing. It's not a complex system, but it works really well. With this system we can have a truly 3D game, but with X-Wing, it would have driven the price per model up to probably unacceptable price points, thus killing the game.

I actually wonder if FFG considered this a little when you look at the fact that each ship comes with two posts for the stand. It may have been there at the beginning but was considered too cumbersome for gameplay. Who knows?

I think what Kaudia is trying to advocate is that it could have been done better, but it is what it is. Bumping is there, whether we want to use it tactically or not. It's up to each individual player.

Why should the other ship lose his action?

Who's to say he even saw the other guy comin?

He's focusing on his target.

This is a game that if you were to put it in real time an hour would probably be 30 seconds.

So ship A moves. Takes action

Ship B over laps, losses action.

Everyone finishes their moves.

Ship A attacks

Ship B attack

Everyone else finishes.

This is probably 5-10 seconds.

So who to say that while ship B was busy avoiding ship A, ship A had his target lock, or was focusing on ship C.

Ship B could actually be avoiding ship A while ship A is firing at ship C.

It's a game that is all.

Krynn, I'm not sure where you get the idea of "grids and layers of boards" from but this is how we do it with modern air combat. Simple telescoping stand that changes the height of the model. One segment on the stand equals one altitude band. A marker on the base can do the same thing. It's not a complex system, but it works really well. With this system we can have a truly 3D game, but with X-Wing, it would have driven the price per model up to probably unacceptable price points, thus killing the game.

I actually wonder if FFG considered this a little when you look at the fact that each ship comes with two posts for the stand. It may have been there at the beginning but was considered too cumbersome for gameplay. Who knows?

I think what Kaudia is trying to advocate is that it could have been done better, but it is what it is. Bumping is there, whether we want to use it tactically or not. It's up to each individual player.

Anyway there were multiple layers over lapping one another.

So I just always had this picture in my head for xwing.

If it was a grid you could know if your ship was exactly above the other.

No matter though. The system is what it is. It is something in sure ffg knew would be used to players advantage,others wise they wouldn't have given an awing a ability that works off it

Well, one reason they both should lose action is f pilot skill is equal, both ships would "simultaneously" move as they would if they fired.

And yes I understand initiative, but simultaneous rule would still be used.