Hi!

I'm not sure, but in my opinion, he should still call the original author of the idea. Otherwise it looks very much like a stolen idea.

Or am I too sensitive?

I think Nick deserves his credit at this point.

Source:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HX6SOM7HR0I

I think you are being a bit too sensitive.

Just read through the article and no where does the guest writer claim ownership of the rule. It is referenced as being " a fundamental X-Wing concept, and many among the game’s community assume that all players understand it".

I don't see this as different than any of the other Flight Academy articles which are generally aimed at newer players looking to get involved in 2.0. For Example Zach Bunn did not come up with the 4 pillars of X-wing himself. Same applies for this article.

Possible. I just do not feel very comfortable. I was already in such a situation. I see it as an token of respect to mention an X-Wing-strategy-video-pioneer. ?

Dalli is correct in this. Any sort of writing that uses material from another source should at least include something as simple as a footnote of that source, otherwise it's simply plagiarism. For example, if I wrote an article for FFG about asteroid selection for turn zero and focused in on the size and shape of asteroids and how those shapes affect my initial strategies, I should at least credit Paul Heaver as the original author on turn zero as a broader topic. If I don't, I'm basically stealing his work to develop my own.

That being said, the author isn't claiming the Rule of 11 to be his own idea, but he is using established precedent to write an article that expands on that precedent without citing the original author(s) or source material. Going so far to state that it is " a fundamental X-Wing concept, and many among the game’s community assume that all players understand it" simply illustrates that the author understands that he's standing on the shoulders of someone else's research/work.

A great example of how to expand on that is here (from 2 years ago) that cites Nick's work.
http://xwingtactics.tumblr.com/post/130587909765/technical-tips-integrating-the-rule-of-1016-aka

Bonus points: anyone feel like reading that tumblr post and comparing it to the recent article to see how closely they overlap in sequencing and formatting?

This was started on board game geek by piqsid before the video. We knew about it in wave 1.

Also no, he didn't need to cite his sources, FFG marketing probably would have shot that down.

Source: I wrote an article for FFG for Xwing.

It's probably not a legal issue for non-copyrighted material. Doesn't mean it's not an ethical issue.

Google searching found this:
https://boardgamegeek.com/filepage/87723/movement

Perfect example in the comments, someone asked permission to reuse it. Still, a great point about building on existing knowledge, and giving credit where it's due.

When you explain Pythagoras to someone on a limited amount of words, how many of those words do you use to explain who Pythagoras was?

At no point in the video does Nick lay ownership to the “Rule of 11” he states in the same way that the article did that it exists.

The Rule of 11 is a fundamental truth about X-Wing that if you understand it helps you to understand how ship movement functions, it is not a super secret strategy that lets you win at jousting.

The very fact that it goes by so many names should put paid to this rediculusness, Rule of 14, Rule of 10.5, the simple fact that the one straight is one small base length. People have recognized this from play testing wave one as the game was designed around these laws.

If you learned about the “Rule of 11” from Nicks channel, awesome. Just don’t assume that we all did.

It is a shame that Nick only made 11 videos, he helped a lot of people but a lot of what he speaks about are not original ideas, he is sharing his thoughts on X-Wing fundamentals in the same way FFG is now.

Cheers

Kris