My friend showed me these new templates for resolving bumps. I know he is a play-tester but he wouldn't tell me if they were for 2ed or not. We played a game and they actually work quite well, I think it is faster than trying to move a ship only half way down a template and no less accurate than barrel rolling.

templates.

https://imgur.com/a/DkpjU

the approach, assume the Blue Ace would move to bump the TIE.

https://imgur.com/a/8KZJZ

Resolving the bump,the small ships must be totally between the lines and the large ship must totally encompass the lines.

https://imgur.com/a/9cNkf

then the active ship is slid back until it touches, normal penalties for bumping apply.

https://imgur.com/a/LMedT

This is a rule or rules unlike anything I've ever seen. Bumping but ending up on the other side of the ship? Very strange.

3 minutes ago, citruscannon said:

This is a rule or rules unlike anything I've ever seen. Bumping but ending up on the other side of the ship? Very strange.

If I'm seeing it right, you aldo roll a die to see where you end up. if this IS from a playtester friend and actually something being playtested...said friend is liable to get in big trouble for letting him take pictures and share it...

I'm not sure what problem this is solving.

Just now, VanderLegion said:

If I'm seeing it right, you aldo roll a die to see where you end up. if this IS from a playtester friend and actually something being playtested...said friend is liable to get in big trouble for letting him take pictures and share it...

yea, @BenDay if you know there is the slightest chance this is a rule being playtested I would remove this immediately.

I can't imagine this is something actually being playtested for X-Wing, and doesn't look at all like the current way bumps go.

Edit: Also, it has a 1-6 and 1-8 for dice rolls. Clearly, if this were FFG there would be proprietary special directional symbol dice you'd roll instead!

5 minutes ago, mdl0114 said:

I can't imagine this is something actually being playtested for X-Wing, and doesn't look at all like the current way bumps go.

Edit: Also, it has a 1-6 and 1-8 for dice rolls. Clearly, if this were FFG there would be proprietary special directional symbol dice you'd roll instead!

Your insight serves you well

I think your friend is a liar.

1 hour ago, Hawkstrike said:

I'm not sure what problem this is solving.

I'd say this solves the growing concern of fortressing and ships with cheesy infinite bumping tricks (e.g. Oicunn Palp Ion projector). It would also make the game faster and less trickier to resolve bumping. Also, depending on where the bumping ship ends (right or left bump), It's easier for primary arc ships to get back into the fray after bumping instead of getting bullied by turrets.

If this is legit, I think it would make for a welcome change.

If this is fake, props to the guy for preparing such a well thought-out trolling. Can I have the acryllic template please?

It'd be weird for a playtest to have acrylic stuff and not cardboard, right? I honestly don't know. As for the implicit rules change for resolving an overlap: it seems unusual I guess, but I suppose it'd be easy enough to do on the table. I don't know if I like the change or not, but I definitely don't like seeing it here if it is a bona fide leak.

Remove it asap, please, don't get your friend in trouble and anger ffg. If this is legit, we can possibly not get it because of the leak, as it was with the faq.

2 minutes ago, Zura said:

Remove it asap, please, don't get your friend in trouble and anger ffg. If this is legit, we can possibly not get it because of the leak, as it was with the faq.

Sigh... we still haven’t gotten a FAQ update. Until then we have no idea whether there were repercussions for the leak. And even if for some reason the leak ISNT in the next FAQ, that still proves nothing. They could have simply determined the changes were unnecessary.

but as a playtester, I’m going to have to report this post.

jk I’m not a playtester.

This looks terrible. Too fiddly to fit the ring around ships that are larger than the base (several of them at this point), also too fiddly to place it if there are several ships touching, and in the end it might generate chain bumping in a tight furball.

So, no, that is not likely to ever be implemented in x wing.

This looks more like someone has made up some houserules because they dislike the current rules of bumping in X-wing.
As Takfar says, this only works for when there are 2 ships involved, they are about the same size than the base (good luck getting that ring around a K-wing or Scurrg, or a Decimator or Ghost), and they are far from the board's edge.

• If there are more than two ships, you could end needing several rings becase the exit point of the first could make the bumping ship overlap a second or third ship. Also, rings would overlap several bases making them really clumsy to use.
• If the stationary ship model is bigger than the base, you would need to remove the model for every bump. That is slower than the current procedure of just sliding the bumping ship forward until it touches the other ship's base.
• If they are close to the board's edge, (or even if they re not, but there is a conga line of ships that lead all the way to the edge) a simple bump and a bad dice roll could end placing a full health ship outside of the play area, immediately destroying it. I seriously doubt FFG wants to add that kind of arbitrary lethality to bumps.

2ed?

Yeah, your friend is outright lying to you if there even is a friend. Bad troll is bad.

4 hours ago, Azrapse said:

This looks more like someone has made up some houserules because they dislike the current rules of bumping in X-wing.
As Takfar says, this only works for when there are 2 ships involved, they are about the same size than the base (good luck getting that ring around a K-wing or Scurrg, or a Decimator or Ghost), and they are far from the board's edge.

• If there are more than two ships, you could end needing several rings becase the exit point of the first could make the bumping ship overlap a second or third ship. Also, rings would overlap several bases making them really clumsy to use.
• If the stationary ship model is bigger than the base, you would need to remove the model for every bump. That is slower than the current procedure of just sliding the bumping ship forward until it touches the other ship's base.
• If they are close to the board's edge, (or even if they re not, but there is a conga line of ships that lead all the way to the edge) a simple bump and a bad dice roll could end placing a full health ship outside of the play area, immediately destroying it. I seriously doubt FFG wants to add that kind of arbitrary lethality to bumps.

It actually was easy even with a K-Wing because you just hold it above the model. I though it was faster than the original rules. Not sure what happens when you hit another ship, maybe scatter twice and take a stress. As for my friend getting in trouble he is always bragging so you make your bed you lie in it.

6 minutes ago, BenDay said:

As for my friend getting in trouble he is always bragging so you make your bed you lie in it.

Maybe he's just begging for attention. Be a good friend and tell him how awesome it is that he is a FFG tester and how much you envy him.

I do not think this is anything 'official' and honestly I do not see what problem this should solve? From what I see this makes the bumping system we have worse in every aspect:

• It is less intuitive
• Less immersive
• More random
• Much harder to fiddle around with on the table

Looks like someone is heavily overthinking x-wing rules to find problems where no problems are.

And so if there's a ship behind the ship you bump into you then have to do it again?

Anyway, yeah, this is bollocks.

I can see why changing the current bumping rules could happen, since perma-blocks can happen.

But as has been said, this won't be it.

16 hours ago, Hawkstrike said:

I'm not sure what problem this is solving.

Actually this is kind of interesting. Currently if you overlap, you stop short and fiddle with the ship to get proper alignment. If I'm understanding these templates correctly, they represent your position after you avoided the collision.

The problem it solves is the bump to fortress. It also effects the bump to slow roll on some builds to keep them in a tight formation.

It's actually an interesting idea. Sort of like the concept of scatter when applied to some artillery bombardments.

It represents the pilot flinching to avoid the collision and zipping by the other guy. I is just my idea I have posted before and the 2nd edition story was just to get you to read, sorry for the incovienience. But it was neat to read your feed back.

21 hours ago, Grivoire said:

I'd say this solves the growing concern of fortressing and ships with cheesy infinite bumping tricks (e.g. Oicunn Palp Ion projector). It would also make the game faster and less trickier to resolve bumping. Also, depending on where the bumping ship ends (right or left bump), It's easier for primary arc ships to get back into the fray after bumping instead of getting bullied by turrets.

If this is legit, I think it would make for a welcome change.

If this is fake, props to the guy for preparing such a well thought-out trolling. Can I have the acryllic template please?

Here is the link to buy the templates... there is no image but you could probably ask LITKO to confirm for you if you don't trust me

http://www.litko.net/products.php?product=Q20170925%2d001#.WeqEj47yu1s

Wait... what?! We've been hosed.