magadizer said:
So what should be the word other than "simultaneous?" That is, given that they are trying to simulate actual simultaneous combat, but there are actual game mechanics for the purpose of balance and tiebreaking that make it technically turn based.
None. It only needed to say "When two pilots of the same level are to be activated, the one holding the initiative goes first." Nothing more is required and no confusion.
That's incorrect. If that's all that's said, then the second ship would not get to fire if it suffered fatal damage.
Big Al said:
@Roy - Use of capitals is normally shouting, not emphasis. Bold text is better for that, imho. Less confusion. I haven't said that FFG is wrong for ruling the way they did. I have only questioned their use of a particular word. I have also said that I am not willing to just assume that they have got it absolutely right, either. If that is the case, why have they published FAQs for their other games after publication, if not to rectify errors that have been discovered? There would be absolutely no need. FFG are able to admit to those errors when they find them or see an issue raised by a customer/player and do so.
I fully understand your logic and I have never disputed about what is actually written in the rulebook. I read it and it doesn't follow. If something is said to be simulataneous, then it is simultaneous. To then say it isn't by allowing one side to act on initiative in the next sentence is not good writing. As I have said numerous times, the word "simultaneous" should not have been used and is probably the real error.
Yes, you gave me an answer based on what you understand the rules to be and I appreciate that. Thank you, again. Unfortunately, it is not an official answer or ruling, only an opinion which is different to mine, which is based on the meaning of the word "simultaneous". Note that I haven't said that you are wrong in your interpretation, either. Just that I don't agree with you.
Use of Capitals - If I had written a whole sentence in capitals, that would be shouting. But a couple of words? No. Sorry if you got that impression.
The word "simultaneous" - The definition of "Simultaneous Attack" in the rulebook is obviously not what most consider to be simultaneous. Could they have chosen a better word? Yes they could. But they gave their definition of "Simultaneous" is in this game. Is their clearly defined "Simultaneous" rule in error? I don't believe so. They are in the unique position as game designers to decide what "simultaneous" means in their game. Which they have done. Will they fix it in the FAQ? Probably not. (See my comments in the FAQ section)
FAQ - Stands for "frequently asked questions". Is this question asked frequently? No. However, this game (like many others) is not in its final form. There will be changes and clarifications that we (as players of this game) will have to deal with in the future. They have already stated that in Wave 2 there will be some rules changes. But an FAQ is not for changes to the rules. An FAQ is used to clarify something that is ambiguous or omitted. If your suggestion is that they replace the word "Simultaneous", that would be something that is dealt with in an errata. That is the proper place for something that has been ruled and is being changed.
Official Answer or Ruling - As I am fairly new to the FFG forums (but not at all new to gaming), I must go on what I have been told, which is that FFG does not give official answers or rulings in the forums. I don't like that. This is the perfect place for game designers to make that type of response. But I digress. If you want an official answer, then you should click the Rules Questions link at the bottom of the page.
Roy
KarmikazeKidd said:
Al, I understand the function of the cards' skill levels. My point was that they clearly mean to give these advantages through the mechanics, and what I was stating, if you'll reread my post, is that initiative is MEANT to give this advantage in what they are calling simultaneous combat. Same pilot skill + Initiative = advantage in 'simultaneous' combat. And if you want to go to the definition of the word 'simultaneous' it still holds up. It could easily simply refer to a specific period of initiative. Simultaneous does not require things to happen at the very same instant. In would not be incorrect to say that you, over the period of ten minutes, simultaneously patted your head and rubbed your stomach. Even though you have horrible rhythm and rarely did these two actions at the exact same instant. Therefore combat that is occurring simultaneously, or in the same period of initiative, operates as demonstrated.
And I agree with you that simultaneous actions work well in board games. My point was that there is no such thing as pure simultaneous action, on the instantaneous level that you seem to want to restrict the word to, in anything outside of video games. Diplomacy is fantastic, but there are instances where one action is dependent on the result of another, and there is a turn order, and therefore it fails at achieving your limited definition of simultaneous.
KarmikazeKidd said:
Al, I understand the function of the cards' skill levels. My point was that they clearly mean to give these advantages through the mechanics, and what I was stating, if you'll reread my post, is that initiative is MEANT to give this advantage in what they are calling simultaneous combat. Same pilot skill + Initiative = advantage in 'simultaneous' combat. And if you want to go to the definition of the word 'simultaneous' it still holds up. It could easily simply refer to a specific period of initiative. Simultaneous does not require things to happen at the very same instant. In would not be incorrect to say that you, over the period of ten minutes, simultaneously patted your head and rubbed your stomach. Even though you have horrible rhythm and rarely did these two actions at the exact same instant. Therefore combat that is occurring simultaneously, or in the same period of initiative, operates as demonstrated.
And I agree with you that simultaneous actions work well in board games. My point was that there is no such thing as pure simultaneous action, on the instantaneous level that you seem to want to restrict the word to, in anything outside of video games. Diplomacy is fantastic, but there are instances where one action is dependent on the result of another, and there is a turn order, and therefore it fails at achieving your limited definition of simultaneous.
I did read and re-read your post and I KNOW what initiative is MEANT to do. There is such a thing as a simultaneous action at any level,within or outside of video games (which I don't play). As I mentioned, Wings of War Miniatures game used a mechanism which allowed it to work perfectly and there is no reason why it shouldn't work in this game.
Simultaneous (according to the Oxford English Dictionary) Occurring or Operating at the same time.
Where is the ambiguity in that? How can initiative give one an advantage over another in that? Either something happens at the same time or it doesn't. Now, I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with the player with the Initiative acting first. I am saying that it should be one or the other, either simultaneous action or initiative, both are not possible. This means that there is something wrong with the sentence in the rules. Either the inclusion of the word simultaneous, or use of initiative. Which is why I was asking for an official ruling. In the mean time I will go with my interpretation, as I can see that I will have to wait for a FAQ to be released.
You're still basing your entire theory of operation on a limited and ultimately incorrect understanding of the word simultaneous. It can easily be correctly said that two ships firing during the same 'initiative phase' (and when I say that, I'm referring to the phase within the round in which all pilots of the same skill level act) are firing simultaneously. You are trying to wed the words 'simultaneous' and 'instantaneous' and operate under the resulting byproduct. This is faulty. I thought my previous example was sufficient to demonstrate this. Within context the word's true definition clearly refers to a frame of time which by no means must be instantaneous. Just as I can say the Earth orbits the Sun whilst the moon simultaneously orbits the Earth. Or I can say that Obama and Biden hold their respective offices simultaneously. In some cases, this may refer to an instant in time. But again, that is a very limited understanding of the word.
Hi Roy
I see what you mean about capitals. I view them differently and misunderstood.
FAQ - Yes, I know what it means. Funny how some are published before anyone has a chance to ask a question for some games, don't you think? A sort of pre-emptive strike. I agree with you that it is odd for a company to have a forum and then not answer questions about rules because it is usually the only place where they can be asked. Especially when the company encourages you to use it. This is the only games forum that I am a member of where rules questions are not answered officially. As I said earlier, I missed the Rules Questions area of the forum and put this in the wrong place. Not sure that it would make much difference after what you have just said, though.
I don't think that they did give a definition of a "simultaneous attack" , they just gave the procedure, which is at odds with the meaning. That's why I brought it up, to get clarification. Everyone's reaction so far, indicates that people do not think that the procedure is wrong, which is fair enough. All I am saying is that it is not a "simultaneous attack" and that I wouldn't have a problem with it if they hadn't used that term. The discussion has blown it all out of proportion, really, but maybe that is a good thing, because it may bring the issue to the author and some clarification may be forthcoming.
Cheers
Al
KarmikazeKidd said:
You're still basing your entire theory of operation on a limited and ultimately incorrect understanding of the word simultaneous. It can easily be correctly said that two ships firing during the same 'initiative phase' (and when I say that, I'm referring to the phase within the round in which all pilots of the same skill level act) are firing simultaneously. You are trying to wed the words 'simultaneous' and 'instantaneous' and operate under the resulting byproduct. This is faulty. I thought my previous example was sufficient to demonstrate this. Within context the word's true definition clearly refers to a frame of time which by no means must be instantaneous. Just as I can say the Earth orbits the Sun whilst the moon simultaneously orbits the Earth. Or I can say that Obama and Biden hold their respective offices simultaneously. In some cases, this may refer to an instant in time. But again, that is a very limited understanding of the word.
No I am not! THere is no theory. There is a definition of a word in the English language which is properly and accurately defined. You are telling me that I am wrong because some game designer used a word incorrectly. You refuse to accept that the designer might have made an error. I have never used the word "instantaneous" in this thread. I have not tried to "wed" words at all. You have brought that into it. I have given you the official definition of the word and you refuse to accept it. I have not misunderstood the word at all, though, I fear that the designer may have done so. You most certainly have and tried to put words into my mouth, which I clearly have not mentioned.
I think this rule can be explained by mechanical procedures. If I get a critical hit, I need to put a face-up damage card by my ship card to indicate that it received a critical hit. If I don't do that, it forces players to memorize how many critical hits were scored between two attacks by pilots of the same skill level. What if Wedge scored a critical hit but the Imperial player didn't put a face-up damage card on Vader right away. After Vader attacks, the Imperial player could claim there was no crit and the Rebel player could claim it was two. The damage has to be revealed as it is received to keep track of it.
Likewise, if the ship already had a crit and it gets a new one, how is a player to know which is the new and which is the old? You don't. You just count both of them. It's a simple solution to a potential conflict.
Another option they could have done is included more crit tokens so that you apply crit tokens during simultaneous combat, deal face-down damage cards, and then flip a number of those damage cards face up equal to the number of crit tokens you have. But they didn't include that many crit tokens so I seriously think this ruling was meant as a means to keep track of damage and avoid potential conflicts between players.
Big Al said:
Hi Roy
I see what you mean about capitals. I view them differently and misunderstood.
FAQ - Yes, I know what it means. Funny how some are published before anyone has a chance to ask a question for some games, don't you think? A sort of pre-emptive strike. I agree with you that it is odd for a company to have a forum and then not answer questions about rules because it is usually the only place where they can be asked. Especially when the company encourages you to use it. This is the only games forum that I am a member of where rules questions are not answered officially. As I said earlier, I missed the Rules Questions area of the forum and put this in the wrong place. Not sure that it would make much difference after what you have just said, though.
I don't think that they did give a definition of a "simultaneous attack" , they just gave the procedure, which is at odds with the meaning. That's why I brought it up, to get clarification. Everyone's reaction so far, indicates that people do not think that the procedure is wrong, which is fair enough. All I am saying is that it is not a "simultaneous attack" and that I wouldn't have a problem with it if they hadn't used that term. The discussion has blown it all out of proportion, really, but maybe that is a good thing, because it may bring the issue to the author and some clarification may be forthcoming.
Cheers
Al
No hard feelings Al. I have decided to limit my use of capital letters to the beginning for sentences, proper nouns, and acronyms. And you're right this has been blown out of proportion. So I'm going to let it go. And there "Rule Questions" link I was talking about is not in the forums. If you scroll to the very bottom of this page, you'll see a grey link labeled "Rules Questions", next to "Help" and "User Support" in the disclaimer. Most people miss it. I did in the beginning. It actually brings you to a page where you can send a email to FFG to ask questions. But don't expect an answer back right away.
Roy
Al, it's ok. We're not fighting here, it's just a friendly discussion. For clarity, I wasn't trying to imply you ever said the word instantaneous. I brought that up on my own. And I agree that they could have phrased things better to avoid confusion or objection to the term. There's no denying that. But my point was that ultimately, you are using an incomplete understanding of the word to make your assertions. Things can be said to happen 'at the same time' or concurrently even if they don't happen at the very same instant in time. Simultaneous is not meant to be so specific a word, though it is (as I granted you) quite often used in this manner. You and I can simultaneously fire 100 rounds at each other. But you might get lucky with your 5th round and hit me in the shoulder, making the latter half of my 100 rounds less accurate. Do you see what I'm saying here? Just because they didn't phrase things as best they could, doesn't mean it was incorrect. And please don't paint me as a fanboy that doesn't think game designers can ever be wrong. I do think FFG does a better job than most, but they are hardly infallible. But I've been around much worse. I played MageKnight, and Wizkids was just horrid with their rules management in that game.
The rules are not at all ambiguous on this issue. They spell out exactly how to resolve the situation. There is no need for an official answer on the subject, you already have it in the rulebook.
The argument that you believe the designers made a mistake with the rule is complete nonsense. There are many cases where this is true in many games. But that is only the case when the rules have holes in them. There are not any holes in this rule. The rulebook leaves no question on how the situation works. So to assume that the designers somehow got a rule wrong despite purposefully wording a rule in a particular way is completely illogical.
The rules doesn't work how you think it should, that doesn't matter at all. It works as the designers think it should work. Not only that but you, Al, did not have an understanding of the initiative rules involved in the situation or the advantages that are granted by having or not having the initiative which could lead to the designers specifically making this rule. Because it is very clear that they purposefully wrote the rule in a certain way, as there is no ambiguity.