Deliberately bumping sets a poor precedent.

In your opinion. It is not a widely held one.

FFG should alter the rules and deal a damage card to each ship involved in a collision. If you want to play demolition derby be prepared to rub some paint.

Then prepare to enter the age of the invincible swarm. Seriously, if you're going to suggest rule changes, at least make them intelligent ones.

Deliberately bumping sets a poor precedent.

In your opinion. It is not a widely held one.

Mob Rules do not dictate acceptable behavior. Exploiting a rules error such as this is a JACKASS performance. I believe that is you word of choice, JACKASS. No? So where then do you draw your ethical line for actions not specified in the rules? Maybe you nuke your dice also? You are not altering them in mass, shape, weight, etc... so that must be a legit and commendable tactic also.

As I pointed out in the other related thread, this is a player issue not a rules issue. The lack of moral integrity in society today is extremely disappointing.

Deliberately bumping sets a poor precedent.

In your opinion. It is not a widely held one.

Mob Rules do not dictate acceptable behavior. Exploiting a rules error such as this is a JACKASS performance. I believe that is you word of choice, JACKASS. No? So where then do you draw your ethical line for actions not specified in the rules? Maybe you nuke your dice also? You are not altering them in mass, shape, weight, etc... so that must be a legit and commendable tactic also.

As I pointed out in the other related thread, this is a player issue not a rules issue. The lack of moral integrity in society today is extremely disappointing.

Mob rule most definitely dictates acceptable behaviour, what do you think democracy is?

Well then, let's poll the prisoners and prison guards and see how they weigh in for a few topics.

By your logic then we could also look back and declare slavery was fine. It was widely accepted too. Genocide is cool too then by that standard.

Morality is not dictated by numbers.

Morality is dictated by society, and some societies make their own rules. That's really neither here nor there, because this conversation isn't about moral relativism. Besides, invoking Godwin's Law on page 30 of a thread is a little trite, don't you think?

23 pages of shenigans!

Some call officer Barbrady!

Deliberately bumping sets a poor precedent.

In your opinion. It is not a widely held one.

Mob Rules do not dictate acceptable behavior. Exploiting a rules error such as this is a JACKASS performance. I believe that is you word of choice, JACKASS. No? So where then do you draw your ethical line for actions not specified in the rules? Maybe you nuke your dice also? You are not altering them in mass, shape, weight, etc... so that must be a legit and commendable tactic also.

As I pointed out in the other related thread, this is a player issue not a rules issue. The lack of moral integrity in society today is extremely disappointing.

Yeah, this is a game. I tend not to think of things in terms of "ethical" or "morality". In the end, it just isn't that important. Judging a person's character based on what they play is going a bit far.

After a game last night, I'm looking at the situation from the reverse. If it's okay to purposefully bump into your opponent's ships, it should be okay to bump into your own.

Story: My opponent was running Keyan + Adv Sensors + EU. He barrel rolled and then did a 3 K turn so he could pick up stress, knowing he wouldn't finish the K but would instead bump into my toughest ship giving him a R1 shot at my most damaged ship. It was brilliant.

The 1st Time I ran into this was a build cooked up by Scott Williams and Jonathan Gomes running 3 lambdas and 2 black squads with wingman. Jonathan ran it at the local regional. Jonathan did well until he played some very good Phantom players from Canada. The phantom player expertly moved up and used the Phantoms ability to stay in one spot of the board to rip apart his wall forcing him to move his ships breaking up the play. I think if Jonathan had more play time he could have won but he didn't have the number of games under his belt with the build to exploit the break out attack he could have done vs the phantom. It was funny to watch the battle. I think Jonathan came in top 6 with that build I can't remember. I didn't hear anyone complain about the build other than how to beat it. Both Mr Froggie ( scott ) and Jonathan made it to the top 32 and Jonathan made top 8 at worlds 2014 and Jonathan made top 3 in 2013. In no way I could ever be so rude to say their idea or play with this build was low brow .. in fact it was Genus and Out of the box.

... Phantoms ability to stay in one spot of the board ...

I've busted out my templates and tried to get this to work. I can almost get it to work with Echo (I can end up about 1 straight to the side with my arc angled by about 45 degrees) but can't come close to staying still with a standard Phantom. How would you pull this off?

EDIT: With the standard decloak, decloaking to the side and back, 2 bank the opposite direction, barrel-roll to the opposite side of the decloak and back seems to put me just slightly forward of my starting position with the arc shifted 45 degrees or so.

EDIT 2: I'll start a new thread to discuss, since it is wildly off topic.

Deliberately bumping sets a poor precedent.

In your opinion. It is not a widely held one.

Mob Rules do not dictate acceptable behavior. Exploiting a rules error such as this is a JACKASS performance. I believe that is you word of choice, JACKASS. No? So where then do you draw your ethical line for actions not specified in the rules? Maybe you nuke your dice also? You are not altering them in mass, shape, weight, etc... so that must be a legit and commendable tactic also.

As I pointed out in the other related thread, this is a player issue not a rules issue. The lack of moral integrity in society today is extremely disappointing.

Yeah, this is a game. I tend not to think of things in terms of "ethical" or "morality". In the end, it just isn't that important. Judging a person's character based on what they play is going a bit far.

It's not what they play, but how they play. Taking advantage of a lack of rules planning is right next door to cheating in my book. No game is worth cheating over or even taking an under-handed action. Auto-bumping/fortressing neither makes the game or breaks it. But it's acceptance does support the use of errors in the rules. I 100% honestly do not think FFG ever planned the rule structure to include this form of movement (or lack thereof). I truly believe this support of this is derogatory over all to the longevity of this game.

Just my ever-so humble opinion

Okay, it took me a while, but I read every post in this thread. Please bear with me through the first few paragraphs; I think the explanation is vital to my point.

I'm speaking as a phantom player who used to rely heavily on turreted ships, specifically Y-Wings. The main reason I played turrets is because I don't honestly consider myself to be all that great at this game, and a cluster of Y-Wings flying in formation is a lot of hitpoints that is extremely forgiving if you make a piloting mistake and turn the wrong way, overshoot your mark, etc.

Anyway, I've only played in local tournaments, and had varying success (i.e., I'd rank in one, be almost dead last on the next one, etc.). Then I started flying Whisper with VI and ACD (and Navigator, because I cannot stress enough that I am a terrible pilot). Now, I consistently rank first or second whenever I fly Whisper. I've never lost a phantom in a game, ever. I haven't even had a problem with Fat Han. He's just a big target worth a lot of points, and he goes down very quickly with focus fire.

So why did my fortunes change so much? Did I become a better player? Probably...at least a little. If I'm being honest though, it's the phantom. That ship is so great, I can make mistakes and still end up in a decent position to take a good shot without taking much, if any, return fire.

As a phantom player, if I went against someone flying XXXZ in a tournament and using a fortress tactic, my response would basically be, "yup, do what you've gotta do." After that, I'd try to find a way to beat it, but, seriously, as a former rebel player who's seen the light, I don't blame anyone for using any and every legal trick at their disposal when dealing with a phantom.

Maybe its time to get over it. Whether we like it or not bumping or contact is allowed in the game with some penalties in some cases. Whether it is a x-wing fortress that does not move of a tie fortress that does. Fortress tactics have existed since at least the Greeks. the Greek navy used it against the Persians. The settlers used it against the indians. So while some of us believe it is an unfair tactic, it is still a viable tactic within the rules. Did FFG anticipate this, who knows. They did anticipate contact, maybe not that we as players would find a way to create tactics around it. Its called gamesmanship. And since this conversation has about run its course I hope I am going to unfollow it, and maybe others will also.

Anyone else kinda wanna try it now?

I love when one dude comes in, announces the topic has run its course, and declares it finished.

I said good day!

I don't think that the tactic in and of itself is bad sportsmanship, but I do think it needs to be addressed. Not because the tactic is too powerful, but because it can effectively stop the game. Sopping gameplay is bad. A game where nothing happens for 50 minutes out of an hour is bad.

I do not think the player that used it is cheesy, or a bad sport. He used the tools at his disposal to win the game. While I do think that, at a certain point we are responsible for the other players fun as well as our own, it is not unlike asking a player not to bring Whisper. I don't like it, but that is different than bad sportsmanship. Also, if people don't use crazy, edge of the rules stuff, you will never identify problem areas until it is a real problem.

But it still needs to be addressed. It is not about whether the tactic is effective, that is seldom a good reason to change the rules. It is because the tactic can grind a timed game to a halt. One of the worst things that can happen in a spectator sport (or game) is nothing. Even chess added a clock to avoid that. It is not about winning or losing, it only needs to win enough to show up at tournaments. Too many of those and people start wondering what those Clix games are about.

So how do you fix it? The best ways are usually the least invasive, and attack the motives instead of the tactic. Basically, instead of eliminating the tactic, introduce an incentive not to use it. My personal choice (probably because I like scenarios) is to introduce ways to score besides killing your opponent. This has the added bonus of keeping tournament players on their toes, and can sometimes bring previously ignored units to the table. There are other soft ways to keep the game moving, but like I said, I am a scenario fan.

http://teamcovenant.com/blog/2014/11/13/alex-davy-on-x-wing/

Around 11mn - FFG Alex Davy talks about it, calls it clever, within the rules, and that it will not be future of X-Wing one way or the other, as well as their initial design thinking as to why they haven't outlawed it ('it's a mild cold at best')

tempest, meet your teapot

Deliberately bumping sets a poor precedent.

In your opinion. It is not a widely held one.

Mob Rules do not dictate acceptable behavior. Exploiting a rules error such as this is a JACKASS performance. I believe that is you word of choice, JACKASS. No? So where then do you draw your ethical line for actions not specified in the rules? Maybe you nuke your dice also? You are not altering them in mass, shape, weight, etc... so that must be a legit and commendable tactic also.

As I pointed out in the other related thread, this is a player issue not a rules issue. The lack of moral integrity in society today is extremely disappointing.

Thankfully for the rest of us niether mob rule not DoubleNot7 dictates what is acceptable behavior in this game. That would be FFGs role. For you to talk about moral decay while casting dispersions on someone character based on your own egocentric view of the subject is both amusing and a bit sad in regards to the level of hypocrisy.

Thank you for providing the prime example as to why letting individual player preference dictate acceptable play is foolish.

I'm very glad the lead FFG designer comes down on the opposite side of your condemnation and doom proclamations on the subject. No ego fueled moral judgement on a player using a legal tactic. No over reaction to a cornercase ineffective stratedgym. Very good to see such a reasonable and rational position from really the only source that matters.

to the OP >>>>> In my experience, miniatures games tend to favor aggressive strategies over defensive ones, so I don't think this will be either good or bad in the long run.

To those looking for mechanical fixes: I actually have a rather simple solution. if you are concerned about fortressing, require the player implementing it to follow the movement procedure as described in the rule book. As described they would reveal the maneuver then backtrack to their starting position. While this may not seem like much, the slight variance caused by physically handling the figures will eventually offset the alignment needed to maintain the formation. While both players "know" that the ship will return to its starting position, the rules do specify how the Movement phase is resolved. I've had to implement similar restrictions for TIE swarms, which was not received well as I was "being a jerk" by requiring him to move all 7 of his ships independently purposefully "denying his actions". With several of the larger ships (Lambdas, YT1300's) it probably will not matter much, but in this specific instance, I think something would have broke loose eventually.

Personally, I try to engage my opponent with the same level of "sportsmanship" and courtesy as they show me, and in this instance I wouldn't have felt bad at all about requesting specific movement practices be adhered to. not like I would have been doing much else for 70 min.

to the OP >>>>> In my experience, miniatures games tend to favor aggressive strategies over defensive ones, so I don't think this will be either good or bad in the long run.

To those looking for mechanical fixes: I actually have a rather simple solution. if you are concerned about fortressing, require the player implementing it to follow the movement procedure as described in the rule book. As described they would reveal the maneuver then backtrack to their starting position. While this may not seem like much, the slight variance caused by physically handling the figures will eventually offset the alignment needed to maintain the formation. While both players "know" that the ship will return to its starting position, the rules do specify how the Movement phase is resolved. I've had to implement similar restrictions for TIE swarms, which was not received well as I was "being a jerk" by requiring him to move all 7 of his ships independently purposefully "denying his actions". With several of the larger ships (Lambdas, YT1300's) it probably will not matter much, but in this specific instance, I think something would have broke loose eventually.

Personally, I try to engage my opponent with the same level of "sportsmanship" and courtesy as they show me, and in this instance I wouldn't have felt bad at all about requesting specific movement practices be adhered to. not like I would have been doing much else for 70 min.

This would drag the game down to 3 moves. If you made someone play 8 ships 1 move at a time.

... Phantoms ability to stay in one spot of the board ...

I've busted out my templates and tried to get this to work. I can almost get it to work with Echo (I can end up about 1 straight to the side with my arc angled by about 45 degrees) but can't come close to staying still with a standard Phantom. How would you pull this off?

EDIT: With the standard decloak, decloaking to the side and back, 2 bank the opposite direction, barrel-roll to the opposite side of the decloak and back seems to put me just slightly forward of my starting position with the arc shifted 45 degrees or so.

EDIT 2: I'll start a new thread to discuss, since it is wildly off topic.

Don't give up on this puzzle young one.. lol

Anyone else kinda wanna try it now?

Unrelated.: I need to tell you that taking an avatar solely used by mrfroggies before this is, well, confusing.

Oh dear Scottie, I will certainly try to care what your little opinion is in my next life time.

All this has shown is that FFG is guilty of leaving a loophole in the rules and allow it to be exploited. They simply ignored the issue rather than address it, because they feel it won't be common. It doesn't take a decree by FFG to recognize a rules omission or recognize right from wrong. Well, maybe in your case...

But you feel free to continue your delusional psychoanalysis.

Oh dear Scottie, I will certainly try to care what your little opinion is in my next life time.

All this has shown is that FFG is guilty of leaving a loophole in the rules and allow it to be exploited. They simply ignored the issue rather than address it, because they feel it won't be common. It doesn't take a decree by FFG to recognize a rules omission or recognize right from wrong. Well, maybe in your case...

But you feel free to continue your delusional psychoanalysis.

Why do you presume to be in constant possession of the moral high-ground? It smacks more of amorality than perhaps anything else in this thread.

Story: My opponent was running Keyan + Adv Sensors + EU. He barrel rolled and then did a 3 K turn so he could pick up stress, knowing he wouldn't finish the K but would instead bump into my toughest ship giving him a R1 shot at my most damaged ship. It was brilliant.

Illegal too. (Spot where)