Krynn, please don't take this as a shot at you in anger. It's not intended to be that.

X-Wing is the exception when it comes to air combat type games. I've played at least 8-10 different air combat games from World War I to Modern jet combat, where they all have 3D represented by the height of the model or a marker on the base. For you, X-Wing seems the norm. For those of us that are used to other games, the X-Wing bumping seems unusual and unrealistic.

It doesn't mean we can't adjust. It doesn't mean we all think the game is broken because of it. I think we all accept that this is the way FFG got around it. It's just some of us don't think it's a particularly great solution. That's all.

But it's not like the ships are really taking turns to move.

"Ok rookie I have a better pilot skill than you, so you go ahead, and I'll move after "

That is just the rules.

Look at it as if it was played out in real time.

You can't move every ship at the same time, and they can't shoot at the same time so there is an order to everything.

So two ships have ps5.

You move ship A first

Ship B bumps behind him.

It's not like they really moved.

Again it's like I said in another post

Ship A may not even notice how close ship B became.

Ship A could already have his target lock, or maybe already fired if it was in real time, but it's not.

I think this system is fine the way it is honesty

Krynn, please don't take this as a shot at you in anger. It's not intended to be that.

X-Wing is the exception when it comes to air combat type games. I've played at least 8-10 different air combat games from World War I to Modern jet combat, where they all have 3D represented by the height of the model or a marker on the base. For you, X-Wing seems the norm. For those of us that are used to other games, the X-Wing bumping seems unusual and unrealistic.

It doesn't mean we can't adjust. It doesn't mean we all think the game is broken because of it. I think we all accept that this is the way FFG got around it. It's just some of us don't think it's a particularly great solution. That's all.

Difference between atmospheric and space combat?

I've been gaming for 25+ years and the only game I have ever seen try and model 3d space is some fight sim game played at conventions by the same half dozen people every year. Wings of Glory has some optional altitude rules that no one seems to use because they make the game too fiddly.

Krynn, please don't take this as a shot at you in anger. It's not intended to be that.

X-Wing is the exception when it comes to air combat type games. I've played at least 8-10 different air combat games from World War I to Modern jet combat, where they all have 3D represented by the height of the model or a marker on the base. For you, X-Wing seems the norm. For those of us that are used to other games, the X-Wing bumping seems unusual and unrealistic.

It doesn't mean we can't adjust. It doesn't mean we all think the game is broken because of it. I think we all accept that this is the way FFG got around it. It's just some of us don't think it's a particularly great solution. That's all.

Ya, your right this is my first game of this type so how else would one know?

But I see the system for what it is, and looks fine to me.

Even though you have different levels of height in other games, the ships are still beside each other?

That's how it looked in that pic.

Since I never played another game like this before I can't speak for others, but I have played a lot of Ffg games.

Some are pretty complex, and others are not.

This for example I think they were wanting to keep it simple. As simple as possible. Makes for a better market for consumers.

Are the othe air combat games more complex than this? I don't know.

Look at civilization the board game they did.

It's a lot easier and more user friendly than the other version that came out a few years back. You need a week or more to play that one.

I just think they wanted to keep it simple.

Again maybe other variations are just as simple, I don't know.

But the way I see it is If it was played out in real time would ship A have noticed ship B coming from under him while he was taking his shot on ship C? That's how I see it. So why should ship A lose his action since the two things could be happening simultaneously?

Atmosphere and space aren't really the issue, and X-Wing is possibly the first space dogfighting game I've played (but not the first space combat game), but the argument of why is there no 3D element is still relevant. Space is a 3D environment and FFG have chosen to treat it in a way that some of us find to be a little short of the mark.

But it's not like the ships are really taking turns to move.

"Ok rookie I have a better pilot skill than you, so you go ahead, and I'll move after "

That is just the rules.

Look at it as if it was played out in real time.

You can't move every ship at the same time, and they can't shoot at the same time so there is an order to everything.

So two ships have ps5.

You move ship A first

Ship B bumps behind him.

It's not like they really moved.

Again it's like I said in another post

Ship A may not even notice how close ship B became.

Ship A could already have his target lock, or maybe already fired if it was in real time, but it's not.

I think this system is fine the way it is honesty

Two ships with equal PS can fly simultaneously in real life. Both should lose actions if that's your argument. Agree to disagree. I think they could tweak rules like this and be fine.

Krynn, I'm not arguing the action loss, I see that as quite realistic given the situation. I'm more concerned with the stopping movement aspect of the bump rules. If I was flying a ship straight at another I'd be pulling up, or diving under or banking away, not just parking on top of it.

And the aircraft in that picture are flying a "finger-4" formation, which is why they are base to base. It's a posed shot. I would normally fly aircraft like that in a spread formation so that they have room to move. Most other games have more dire consequences for mid-air collisions. These models are 1/300 scale and a little smaller than the X-Wing models, and typically played on a larger table. The restricting nature of the 3'x3' play area together with the scale of the models, is going to result in models getting into bumping situations. It's been incorporated as part of the game. I accept that.

Hypothetically, if you expanded the maneuver templates and ranges to twice the size and played on a 8'x4' table (like the tables we use in New Zealand), you might find that bumping happens considerably less, because you've got more room to maneuver. Give it a go some time for something a little different.

if you bring in altitude then you need to bring in attitude and relative heading/bearing and in space that can be ANY combination....

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

For a company who makes a lot of games and does a lot of play testing, I'm pretty sure they knew people would use it to their advantage in some cases.

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

I never said they didn’t know that this would happen, I actually said they would have know, and I certainly don’t think FFG are idiots and am well aware of their vast gaming expertise, so I don’t appreciate you implying that I think that of them.

Having said that I did say that I believe that this particular tactic has become far more ingrained as a tactic in the game than they may have intended, certainly in the case of appreciating views as of those expressed in the OP.

X-Wing has been far more popular than first envisioned (one of their most rapidly expanding player base if reports are to be believed) and the more players you have playing a game, the more likely it is that certain mechanics of the game can and will be manipulated and exploited in a way not 100% as intended by the games creators.

Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy using this tactic as part of my overall tactical arsenal if you will and enjoy the fact that it adds another manoeuvring dimension to the game.

The effects is balanced enough once you learn to expect it as an option from your opponent.

Realistically the only other mechanism that could be used within the existing game rules to have a symmetrical effect on the ‘overlapper’ and the ‘overlapee’ would be that both ships receive a stress token but this would create a whole new tactic that would have a much worse adverse effect on the game that the current exploitable aspect of manoeuvring.

I see the point being made here. I agree, and I don't agree.

The ultimate example of bumping used in a cheap and arguably cheating way that we ALL can agree on is the Millennium Fortress.

Haven't heard of it? Aren't you lucky! For those that haven't, you take Chewie and Lando, point them at one another, bump and from then on do 1-forwards. The ships never move and Lando's pilot ability grants Chewie an action regardless of the bump.

Is this legal in terms of the rules? Absolutely. Is it abuse of said rules in the worst possible way? Absolutely.

You cannot in any way explain away the Millennium Fortress in a real world situation. The ships would not only severely damage each other but would probably rip each other apart. Game, set, match.

The fact of the matter is that this is a 2d game doing it's best to represent a 3d space. Because of this, not everything is represented in a 100% accurate way.

For what it's worth, I think FFG did an amazing job of keeping it both fairly accurate and simple.

I don't think that bumped ships should get damage. That's going too far, but at the same time I could live with an errata to the rules about bumping that in some way ruled out the ability to successfully fly, say, the Millennium Fortress ever again.

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

For a company who makes a lot of games and does a lot of play testing, I'm pretty sure they knew people would use it to their advantage in some cases.

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

I never said they didn’t know that this would happen, I actually said they would have know, and I certainly don’t think FFG are idiots and am well aware of their vast gaming expertise, so I don’t appreciate you implying that I think that of them.

Having said that I did say that I believe that this particular tactic has become far more ingrained as a tactic in the game than they may have intended, certainly in the case of appreciating views as of those expressed in the OP.

X-Wing has been far more popular than first envisioned (one of their most rapidly expanding player base if reports are to be believed) and the more players you have playing a game, the more likely it is that certain mechanics of the game can and will be manipulated and exploited in a way not 100% as intended by the games creators.

Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy using this tactic as part of my overall tactical arsenal if you will and enjoy the fact that it adds another manoeuvring dimension to the game.

The effects is balanced enough once you learn to expect it as an option from your opponent.

Realistically the only other mechanism that could be used within the existing game rules to have a symmetrical effect on the ‘overlapper’ and the ‘overlapee’ would be that both ships receive a stress token but this would create a whole new tactic that would have a much worse adverse effect on the game that the current exploitable aspect of manoeuvring.

Just so you know.

My point was they know what they are doing and are smart at designing games, and that this has probably came up during their play testing

I see the point being made here. I agree, and I don't agree.

The ultimate example of bumping used in a cheap and arguably cheating way that we ALL can agree on is the Millennium Fortress.

Haven't heard of it? Aren't you lucky! For those that haven't, you take Chewie and Lando, point them at one another, bump and from then on do 1-forwards. The ships never move and Lando's pilot ability grants Chewie an action regardless of the bump.

Is this legal in terms of the rules? Absolutely. Is it abuse of said rules in the worst possible way? Absolutely.

You cannot in any way explain away the Millennium Fortress in a real world situation. The ships would not only severely damage each other but would probably rip each other apart. Game, set, match.

The fact of the matter is that this is a 2d game doing it's best to represent a 3d space. Because of this, not everything is represented in a 100% accurate way.

For what it's worth, I think FFG did an amazing job of keeping it both fairly accurate and simple.

I don't think that bumped ships should get damage. That's going too far, but at the same time I could live with an errata to the rules about bumping that in some way ruled out the ability to successfully fly, say, the Millennium Fortress ever again.

For argument's sake, how would you feel if each ship rolled a die and took only a hit (no crits allowed) if you bumped friendly ships? That's a 3/8 chance, 38% right? Not enough to sink you, but enough to make you think twice about using the tactic?

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...

By the way, a ship that is technically occupying the same space as the one ahead of it is out of arc sometimes, making that a false statement.

I.e. Ship A bumps into the back of Ship B. Let's say Ship B is barely in range 3. Ship A is safe. That's not cool.

There's one point that may be getting overlooked in this conversation that might help explain why overlaps work the way they do. Having played both of the flight sims from the 90s, the 3d environment was not always totally "3d". While yes, you could fly in all directions, more engagements than not were still spread across more of a single plane than in all directions.

You had some "vertical" up and down to the engagement area, but the "horizontal" area was generally much more expansive. In a vertical sense, the combat zones were more generally more oval than spherical. The only time you were guaranteed to have ships in all directions was when you were in the middle of the action, not when you on the periphery.

What I'm seeing in the overlap mechanic is the effect of a near miss; hence "overlap" as opposed to "collision". I've had more times playing Tie Fighter and X-Wing than I can count where I've instinctively flinched away from the direction of another fighter zipping past, or as I dodge one that I've approached to closely from the side or rear. You don't have your entire ability to fight impaired for an extended period of time, but it does get you out of things for a few seconds as you react to the immediate threat, then reassess your situation. That's what the loss of your action represents. The inability to fire upon the ship your overlapping is more representing the fact that the vertical spread is more likely much less than the horizontal one. You're simply not at an angle that can bring your weapons to bear.

Hope this point of view helps.

There's one point that may be getting overlooked in this conversation that might help explain why overlaps work the way they do. Having played both of the flight sims from the 90s, the 3d environment was not always totally "3d". While yes, you could fly in all directions, more engagements than not were still spread across more of a single plane than in all directions.

You had some "vertical" up and down to the engagement area, but the "horizontal" area was generally much more expansive. In a vertical sense, the combat zones were more generally more oval than spherical. The only time you were guaranteed to have ships in all directions was when you were in the middle of the action, not when you on the periphery.

What I'm seeing in the overlap mechanic is the effect of a near miss; hence "overlap" as opposed to "collision". I've had more times playing Tie Fighter and X-Wing than I can count where I've instinctively flinched away from the direction of another fighter zipping past, or as I dodge one that I've approached to closely from the side or rear. You don't have your entire ability to fight impaired for an extended period of time, but it does get you out of things for a few seconds as you react to the immediate threat, then reassess your situation. That's what the loss of your action represents. The inability to fire upon the ship your overlapping is more representing the fact that the vertical spread is more likely much less than the horizontal one. You're simply not at an angle that can bring your weapons to bear.

Hope this point of view helps.

I never argued that two ships should be able to shoot each other. But, why would the friendly ship who bumps behind another friendly ship still be allowed to attack? Wasn't his bearing thrown off as well? Was his angle not changed, theoretically?

P.s. Screw all this. LETS PLAY SOME XWING! Haha

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.

Its not cheating the rules. Theyre actually the full intent of the rules. It creates a balancing effect on low PS vs high PS.

For argument's sake, how would you feel if each ship rolled a die and took only a hit (no crits allowed) if you bumped friendly ships? That's a 3/8 chance, 38% right? Not enough to sink you, but enough to make you think twice about using the tactic?

I think no one would play tie fighters because it would be like trying to fly in formation with a bunch of asteroids.

everyone would play only ships that are good on their own, Biggs & Howlrunner would become obsolete many ships that provide synergy at range like Garven and Dutch would fall away.

Basically a bunch of YT-1300s and Phantom lists......... 'Mind Explosion'

so yeah all it would do is heavily restrict playability of the least maneuverable ships, the shuttle would become less playable that the advanced, (well maybe that is a stretch haha) and the game would actually be less fun to play in general I think.

the current solution is clean, efficient, easy to understand & doesn't unnecessarily complicate or consume time. Sure its not 100% realistic or thematic, but neither is a stop-motion game where ships have to wait in line to shoot at each other.

Regardless the game is still immensely fun to play and FFG have done a great job of creating a game system that manages to replicate space combat in a simple effective and enjoyable fashion that doesnt require a 500 page rulebook and several hours to play a single game.

For argument's sake, how would you feel if each ship rolled a die and took only a hit (no crits allowed) if you bumped friendly ships? That's a 3/8 chance, 38% right? Not enough to sink you, but enough to make you think twice about using the tactic?

I think no one would play tie fighters because it would be like trying to fly in formation with a bunch of asteroids.

everyone would play only ships that are good on their own, Biggs & Howlrunner would become obsolete many ships that provide synergy at range like Garven and Dutch would fall away.

Basically a bunch of YT-1300s and Phantom lists......... 'Mind Explosion'

so yeah all it would do is heavily restrict playability of the least maneuverable ships, the shuttle would become less playable that the advanced, (well maybe that is a stretch haha) and the game would actually be less fun to play in general I think.

the current solution is clean, efficient, easy to understand & doesn't unnecessarily complicate or consume time. Sure its not 100% realistic or thematic, but neither is a stop-motion game where ships have to wait in line to shoot at each other.

Regardless the game is still immensely fun to play and FFG have done a great job of creating a game system that manages to replicate space combat in a simple effective and enjoyable fashion that doesnt require a 500 page rulebook and several hours to play a single game.

In regards to your "No one would play TIEs," that's not true. TIE piloting would just take more planning and concentration. People would figure out ways of flying them without bumping them. It SHOULD be tough to fly a swarm through asteroids and it should be A LOT harder to stay in formation doing so.

I will agree with your point here : "Regardless the game is still immensely fun to play and FFG have done a great job of creating a game system that manages to replicate space combat in a simple effective and enjoyable fashion that doesnt require a 500 page rulebook and several hours to play a single game."

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.

Its not cheating the rules. Theyre actually the full intent of the rules. It creates a balancing effect on low PS vs high PS.

Again, I respect that there are many sides to this, and I'm sure there's some merit to what you say, but you can't tell me that this was fully expected by FFG and the "full intent." No way, Jose.

For argument's sake, how would you feel if each ship rolled a die and took only a hit (no crits allowed) if you bumped friendly ships? That's a 3/8 chance, 38% right? Not enough to sink you, but enough to make you think twice about using the tactic?

I think no one would play tie fighters because it would be like trying to fly in formation with a bunch of asteroids.

everyone would play only ships that are good on their own, Biggs & Howlrunner would become obsolete many ships that provide synergy at range like Garven and Dutch would fall away.

Basically a bunch of YT-1300s and Phantom lists......... 'Mind Explosion'

so yeah all it would do is heavily restrict playability of the least maneuverable ships, the shuttle would become less playable that the advanced, (well maybe that is a stretch haha) and the game would actually be less fun to play in general I think.

the current solution is clean, efficient, easy to understand & doesn't unnecessarily complicate or consume time. Sure its not 100% realistic or thematic, but neither is a stop-motion game where ships have to wait in line to shoot at each other.

Regardless the game is still immensely fun to play and FFG have done a great job of creating a game system that manages to replicate space combat in a simple effective and enjoyable fashion that doesnt require a 500 page rulebook and several hours to play a single game.

In regards to your "No one would play TIEs," that's not true. TIE piloting would just take more planning and concentration. People would figure out ways of flying them without bumping them. It SHOULD be tough to fly a swarm through asteroids and it should be A LOT harder to stay in formation doing so.

I will agree with your point here : "Regardless the game is still immensely fun to play and FFG have done a great job of creating a game system that manages to replicate space combat in a simple effective and enjoyable fashion that doesnt require a 500 page rulebook and several hours to play a single game."

Well yes I was probably being slightly facetious when saying no one would play TIE Fighters but with the exception of backstabber and dark curse (and Mauler Mithel to a lesser extent) the primary advantage of ties is close formation flying with optimised focus fire and action denial.

They are already fragile enough that to add the possibility effectively an assault missile for just bumping your own ships would make playing swarms unviable.

Currently it seems Swarms balance out the YT menace creating a nice Rock (YT) - Paper (Swarm) – Scissors (Phantom) meta.

Anything that would reduce the Swarm from being playable unbalances the game, to it's detriment.

Usually when people whine about this, it's because someone beat them doing it.

I think the Falcon's 360 arc is cheating. Thoughts?

Usually when people whine about this, it's because someone beat them doing it.

I think the Falcon's 360 arc is cheating. Thoughts?

Nice sniping, s1n.

I get beat by everyone, not just bumpers. I don't lose because they bump, I just think the rules could be tweaked.

Great post. Way to add to an educated discussion! Your depth of understanding of what this was originally about is astounding. Troll on, s1n. Troll on.

Fair point, Mace.

Usually when people whine about this, it's because someone beat them doing it.

I think the Falcon's 360 arc is cheating. Thoughts?

Nice sniping, s1n.

I get beat by everyone, not just bumpers. I don't lose because they bump, I just think the rules could be tweaked.

Great post. Way to add to an educated discussion! Your depth of understanding of what this was originally about is astounding. Troll on, s1n. Troll on.

Oh I understood your original argument well enough. You think FFG didn't expect friendly bumping and you think its cheap (should be more of a penalty).

Does it really matter that you think it's cheesy? If you don't like it, maybe you should do a better job predicting your opponent so you can focus fire down the ships that cannot modify their dice.

I've heard this complaint so many times since wave 2 (when I started playing). Everytime, I hear the same argument and everytime I try to explain the theme behind the rule, the complainer just states I misunderstand the problem. You've done that already, so no need for me to explain anything.

I like how you claim to know what FFG was thinking. Question: do you think they plan their products a few waves out? That is that they were working on waves 2/3 when the game was released? I'd argue they knew full well what they were doing so this conversation is pointless.

How it is the best compromise they could do. Make the penalty too harsh, you then encourage the TIE swarm to play bumper cars, along with a few other ships. Also, you will unfairly punish those who are still learning the game. Flying and planning your maneuvers takes time to learn. You suddenly make it really painful for those mistakes, you will scare away new players.

As it is now, you get a penalty, but it doesn't completely ruin your game. Can it be exploited, yes. But nothing I've seen people talking about to fix this "problem" would be without it's own exploits. To satisfy the complaints would require a rewrite of the rules. And then, we wouldn't be playing X-wing anymore.