There are two problems with this rule. The rule states that when two pilots are of equal grade, their attacks become simultaneous. However, the pilot who works out his attacks first is the one with Initiative. This is always the Imperial player, which is no big deal until you read the rest of the Simultaneous attack rule. Because the attacks are simultaneous, any damage that is caused by the player with initiative will still affect the weapons or weapon effects of the other pilot. This means that if his guns are put out of action in any way, then he won't be able to fire or his shots may not have any effect. This, then, is not Simultaneous . I think that should be changed to say that the damage should be applied after both ships have resolved their fire.

Cheers

Al

Big Al said:

Firstly, this should probably be in the rules questions subforum…

Its not the case that the imperial player ALWAYS has initiative. This is only true if using basic rules or if squad points are equal. Otherwise the player with the least squad points has initiative.

I agree though that the weapon effects probably shouldnt be added until the end phase of that round…

Isn't that what the rules say anyway?

No they don't. Unless I've missed something. The rules do state that the Imperial Player always gets the initiative, but I didn't see the bit where it said least squad points. Thanks for that. Oh, and yes, it should be in the Rules Questions section, I don't know how I missed that one!Sorry.

Just found the bit about initiative and Squadron building. I haven't got as far as doing that yet, which is why I missed it. That is much better. I will still go with simultaneous attacks being at the same time and not affecting the opponent's weapons in that combat phase.

Thanks for your help, guys

Al

That is one of the very few perks of having the initiative.

This is not so much a rules question (even though it is labeled a rules questions) as it is a comment on the rules. I say that because this is spelled out very clearly in the rule book under Simultaneous Attack.

Simultaneous Attack Rule (pg 16 of the rule book)
Although ships perform their attacks one at a time, ships with a pilot skill value equal to the active ship’s pilot skill value have the opportunity to attack before being destroyed.

If such a ship would be destroyed, it simply retains its Damage cards without being removed from the play area. It may perform an attack as normal during the Combat phase, although any faceup Damage cards just dealt to it may affect this attack .

After this ship has had its opportunity to attack this round, it is immediately destroyed and removed from the play area.

I don't like the rule either, but it looks as though they have thought about it and made a clear decision. If the bolded section was NOT in the rule book, then we would need an answer to the question. However, a ruling was made before the game was released. Looks like they intentionally wanted to give this advantage to the team with initiative.

Roy

drkjedi35 said:

This is the bit that isn't right. If the face up damage cards just dealt count before the ship makes its attacks, then they are not simultaneous. I'm sure I don't have to explain what simultaneous means and there is no way that anyone can say this is simultaneous. Forget about a ship being destroyed, the face up cards could prevent the ship from firing or doing any damage to the enemy. If I fire my weapons at the same time that you do, both our weapons will fire at full effect, not one set at full and the other waiting to see if there is any change in effect. I believe it is wrong and that attacks should be made before any damage comes into effect and that is the way I'll be playing the game. In many films, like a good Western Gunfight, you will see the two protagonists draw their pistols and shoot each other, simultaneously. You will then see both stand with a shocked look on their faces and eventually, one will cough or stagger, before making some wise crack and collapsing to the floor. The remaining shootist will then reveal that he too was badly wounded, but very much alive.

I have been wondering if it was written that way to prevent a situation where a game ends with no apparent victor, all ships having been destroyed. If so, it is a poor way of doing it when you could go to victory points or something similar.

I understand the criticism that it is not actually simultaneous, but I just don't see this as a problem. The game mechanic can only take simulation so far.

For example, they are supposed to be moving simultaneously also, but in reality one player (the one with initiative) moves first. This can force a different player into a "crash" situation, preventing the attack altogether for both players. This is a particular disadvantage for the player moving second if they were trying to execute a K-turn and they were unable to complete it. They get the red-move induced stress token, but now they are still facing the wrong way from how they intended.

There have to be some small advantages built in to the mechanic for the skilled player to exploit, or else the chance element becomes even more important than it already is.

Big Al said:

No, you don't have to explain to me what simultaneous means. I full understand why people do not agree with the ruling. I myself do not agree with the ruling. Everything from my last post that was in italics was STRAIGHT FROM THE RULEBOOK. So whether we agree with it or not, this situation was obviously NOT a mistake nor an omission. It was clearly thought out and playtested. And the result of all of that, was to make it work as it currently does. I understand not liking the ruling, but that was the decision that FFG made. So I will accept it and move on. If you decide to play it differently, thats up to you. People were already coming up with house rules before the game was even released. However, if you plan on playing in tournaments, I suggest you accept the ruling or you will be upset if this issue comes up in one of your matches. I seriously doubt there will be any change in this ruling when the FAQ comes out. Right now they are more concerned with the things that are not clearly spelled out in the rulebook.

Roy

I don't see simultaneous, or lack of it, making chance element greater. I also don't see why there has to be any advantages built in for just a skilful player to exploit. A skilful player will be able to use his skill to create an advantage, but that is very different from the game mechanics providing an advantage for a skilful player. That implies that there is something that is locked to the less skilful or new player. It implies that there is not a level playing field, or rather, balanced game. That is something that I don't believe FFG are guilty of.

In the old Wings of War game, simultaneous attacks worked exactly as they should….. simultaneously, with damage being resolved after the simultaneous attacks have been completed. I don't have a problem with initiative, but when something is simultaneous, there is no initiative advantage because everything happens at exactly the same time. That's what simultaneous means.

drkjedi35 said:

Unfortunately, I have just had to explain what Simultaneous means. I fully understood what you were saying and where your italics came from. I also understand the full process of playtesting, having been involved in the playtesting of many published wargaming rules over the years. I am also well aware of the fact that things get missed or overlooked. It is also glaringly obvious that, unless a FAQ is issued to the contrary, the rules as written will be used in any tournaments. Fortunately, I don't participate in those, so it won't matter whether I use the rule or alter it to my preference.

Perhaps the use of the word "Simultaneous" was wrong and where the problem lay.

Big Al said:

You're preaching to the choir. But you are arguing about what it SHOULD BE, and I am trying to tell you what IT IS. There is a clear ruling as to what FFG intended this to be. If they had left out this statement " …although any faceup Damage cards just dealt to it may affect this attack " then I would agree that a ruling needs to be made. And I would fight for a ruling that would work as you describe. But the fact that this statement was included in the official rulebook tells me that they saw this issue in advance and chose to rule it as such. If we can't accept a ruling that has clearly been laid out in the rulebook, then maybe we should be arguing that after each ship makes its move, the next ship should be able to change its maneuver dial. But we are not arguing that point, because it is clearly spelled out in the rulebook. Just like what happens when 2 figures have the same pilot skill. They understood that this needed a ruling and they made it. Maybe if they had left out the word "Simultaneous" and referred to it as ships having equal pilot skill, then this would not be an issue.

Roy

I think they were using the word "simultaneous" loosely, to be sure. After all, you literally resolve the two attacks in two separate sets of rolls, which unless you have lots of dice you can't do anyways (and aren't intended to according to the rules obviously).

I think it is just a way to keep same skill pilots from having a excess of advantage due to initiative. It's still a slight advantage but not unbalancing in the scheme of things.

What I meant was if you are aware of the full implications of the initiative rule, then you use it as best you can to your advantage. In other words, the artificial limits created by the rules are tools, which the more skillful player will use in a more advantageous way. The same benefits/disabilities are there for both players though. I don't think that it affects the gameplay as far as to unbalance it for either side.

drkjedi35 said:

Which is exactly what I said!

Why all the capital letters, Roy? There is no need for them. As I said, I know what the rule is. I know how it is written and what it means. I do not assume that the company have got it right and not made a mistake, which was why I raised the issue and I have stated twice that I will be playing it the way I think it should be. As the purchaser of the game, that is my choice. I was looking for clarification, but have only got opinion, so far, some that agree with my own and some that don't. That isn't a problem because we are all entitled to that. I am very pleased that people have taken the time and trouble to express those to me and I have taken all comments into consideration.

Thank you for your comments

Al

magadizer said:

And you don't think that the dice expansion kit will have anything to do with this at all? Or am I being too cynical? You don't need lots of dice to show simultaneous attacks. You just record results and apply them when at the time of the combat between the two.

Ok, I don't think that the word "Simultaneous" should have been used at all. Had it not been, this issue would not have come up. To be honest, unless there are only two ships involved, the problem shouldn't really arise too often.

Cheers

Al

Big Al said:

Big Al said:

As for 'simultaneous'…I don't think anyone's expectation should ever be that this word will be taken in a strict literal sense in regard to tabletop gaming. If you've ever played Diplomacy, which is built to be as simultaneous as possible for all players, you know that it's just not possible to make it perfect. If you want that, you're better off with video games. I understand why you make the point you do, but I simply think it's fine how it is. And I doubt there will be a high percentage of instances where this makes much of a difference.

The reason you get effected by the cards is because the guy with initiative has to finish resolving his attack before the other player, so he has to choose to use his focus on the attack or save it for return fire or any other decisions. If it was truly simultaneous you'd both have to roll secretly and modify the rolls hidden than reveal at the same time which is pretty clunky to do. There's not many critical damage cards that will effect the second shooter and he gets a pretty big advantage in getting decide to use focus to defend or attack with in return.

Big Al said:

Capital letters are for emphasis only. So in my opinion, there WAS a need for them. And I am not trying to tell you how you should play the game in your house. You can play it however you want to. But what I am getting from your comments is that you believe that FFG is wrong for ruling the way they did. And I don't agree with that. They made it clear how it should be played. If you choose to ignore that, then that's on you. I would rather play the game using the rules that are spelled out by the manufacturer.

I am a tournament player, and I understand that you are not. Maybe this is why you don't understand my logic. But when you play many different people, it is important for everyone to be on the same page with the rules. If FFG says "play it like this", then I'm going to play it like that. If they say, don't do this, then I wont do it. If something is left out or the rules, then question it. If there is ambiguity in the rules, question it. But I don't see any omission or ambiguity on this issue. So I don't see a need for a rules question. But this topic heading is "Rule Question - Simultaneous Attack". So I answered the question to the best of my ability.

Roy

Roy leveled up. Eloquence +1, Patience +2, Force Choke +1

The player that has initiative is the one that has fewer squad points. Therefore, there are instances where they get a *slight* advantage by "winning ties" (as it were). When points are tied, then the imperials have initiative.

I believe that the term "simultaneously" was used loosely. It was used to quickly convey the idea that both ships get to shoot, despite one ship actually shooting first and potentially killing the other one with its roll.

@Karmikaze Kid - I didn't say that that the game gives an advantage to the skilled player. Someone else implied that and I responded by saying that would be wrong. You'll see that if you re-read my post. Also, there is no "higher skill" on the card. A simultaneous attack occurs between two pilots that have the same skill level. If "simultaneous" is used, then it should mean simultaneous. You can't use a word with a specific meaning and then not expect people to take its meaning literally. Simultaneous doesn't mean anything else! There can't be a "loose" meaning of the word. I have played Diplomacy and lots of other board wargames. Simultaneous actions are not restricted to video games and do work well in board games. As I said before, it worked perfectly well in all of the Wings of War games. Oh, and I had no complaint. I just mentioned that I thought there was a problem with the simultaneous attack and that it is not actually simultaneous, which it isn't.

@Winters_Night - I understand that the effects of the cards is governed by initiative and that the use of focus is too. But if an attack is simultaneous, then the two players would have to make a decision on when to use their focus proactively instead of reactively. I don't see the need to roll secretly, either.

@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.

Cheers

Al

Think of it more as a "Revenge Attack" rather than "Simultaneous Attack." As we've discussed elsewhere, having initiative is seemingly a hinderance in this game, and this is one of the few rules that favors it.

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.

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.