Should you be committed to the move?
I feel it fits thematically and game play wise it makes sense(to me). You hit the boost button and you clip a rock, why would you get to undo that decision?
Boost could be used/abused to not get shot if you miss your mark, I get that but you could always add the rule that if you boosted into a ship you roll for a damage. 1 on a crit?
I feel it would add more to the game without there being much of a downside. It would certainly be no more abusive than ships using it to see if they can 1 bank the next turn safely.

Slam is practically the same in a sense and you have to commit to that, it's just a more extreme version.

Thoughts?

Are you referring to the rule where if you cant place the ship you back up and do something else, or is someone doing the roll/boost, seeing where they'd be, then going "Nah nevermind" and moving back?

The second is illegal, as that is within the bounds of premeasuring.

The designers have boost and barrel roll as non-maneuvers for a reason. I don’t know that reason. But since both actions are chosen by the player they are allowed to choose a different baring or side if blocked just like if you try to TL a ship that’s outside range 3 you can choose another ship or even choose another action.

of all the unfair things in this game, I would say that this would not even be on the list of things to ‘fix’. If you want boost/b-roll collisions then bring Tractor beams.

5 minutes ago, GrimmyV said:

The designers have boost and barrel roll as non-maneuvers for a reason. I don’t know that reason. But since both actions are chosen by the player they are allowed to choose a different baring or side if blocked just like if you try to TL a ship that’s outside range 3 you can choose another ship or even choose another action.

of all the unfair things in this game, I would say that this would not even be on the list of things to ‘fix’. If you want boost/b-roll collisions then bring Tractor beams.

The reason is obvious. That you can´´not just boost or barrel roll into another ship to avoid fire.

It also keeps “after maneuver” triggers from going off from a boost/roll, and stops awkward interactions like Kanan or the crit that makes whites give you a stress... there are plenty of good reasons for boosts to not be a maneuver.

Leave it.

The reason you can't bump a ship with a boost or barrel roll is pretty simple; Aside from being able to block dangerous shots by bumping, ajudicating a bumped barrel roll would be somewhat messy. I imagine the reason you cannot boost or barrel roll onto obstacles is just because the developers felt that most things that trigger upon overlapping a ship should also trigger upon overlapping an obstacle.

I'm thinking more about obstacles than ships, but I can certainly see the avenue for abuse on bumping into ships for protection against being shot.

If Soontir Fel had a choice between boosting onto a rock for his second action after evading), or take a R1 primary from Rey he'd go for the boost.

There are so many situations like this that would just lead to ships with repositioning getting a further advantage over their sluggish compatriots.

What I would be in favour of is if you declare an action and can't do it, you still use up that action. Gets rid of the "target lock a ship across the board" abuse, and makes boosting/barrel rolling near rocks a much more daunting task, for flavour.

Aww, Boost and Barrel Roll are getting married? When's the big day?

6 hours ago, Shraken said:

... You hit the boost button and you clip a rock, why would you get to undo that decision?

...

Thoughts?

You hit the boost button, then the automated proximity override systems kick-in, determine that the pilot input will result in a collision and it cancels the instruction.

That being said - I wouldn't mind such a change for Boost/BR overlapping obstacles - since ending a move overlapping an obstacle is a valid game-state. Especially when in most cases the risk of damage and stress/loss of shot should still be a discouragement.

Overlapping another ship should cause a complete retraction...

... the loss of your action is an interesting suggestion.

I've always felt that arc-dodging is too easy, that PS confers too great of an advantage in that respect, and that post-maneuver repositioning actions diminish the importance and risk of the Planning phase (my favorite part of the game). I've also never understood why barrel rolling offers such fine control over your final position while boosting does not (other than the lack of nubs on the sides of the ship bases).

So to increase the difficulty a little bit, I'd consider changing barrel rolls so that the player is locked into a choice of one of three final positions (like boosting) with no option for sliding along the template. You could barrel roll full forward (template aligns front-to-back), full backward (template aligns back-to-front), or directly laterally (template must be aligned to either the front-to-front edges or back-to-back edges). You must declare the side (left, right) and motion (front, back, lateral front, lateral back) before picking up your template.

Another change I'd consider is that if your declared boost or barrel roll action cannot be completed because it would result in an overlap, your action is spent anyway. I would consider the same penalty for failed target lock attempts, to cut down on abusing TLs for range-finding. It made sense to be forgiving about that sort of thing when the game was young and action economy was poor, but these days it wouldn't hurt as much -- and good players would rarely make those kinds of errors, but wouldn't have the luxury of checking first.