| Register Now | |
| My Points | |
| My Games | |
| Page 2 of 3 (35 messages) | « First page... 1 2 3 ...Last page » |
Big Al said:
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.
Big Al said:
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.
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.
If you expected something witty here, well…you probably didn't read the rest of my post. Shame on you.
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:
drkjedi35 said:
Big Al said:
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.
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
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
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
Founder of AFewManeuvers
Roy leveled up. Eloquence +1, Patience +2, Force Choke +1
If you expected something witty here, well…you probably didn't read the rest of my post. Shame on you.
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.
NezziR's excellent dice notations PDF: mywebpages.comcast.net/nezzir/files/nn.zip
WFRP3e Master Skill list v1: home.comcast.net/~dcvdg/WFRP3e/WFRP3e-MasterSkillList_v1.pdf
Gitzman's wonderful WFRP3 site: www.gitzmansgallery.com/
Online (unofficial) WFRP3e dice roller: home.comcast.net/~dcvdg/WFRP_dice_roller/dice_roller.html
@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.
Without Signature
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.
Be Seeing You.
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.
If you expected something witty here, well…you probably didn't read the rest of my post. Shame on you.
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.
If you expected something witty here, well…you probably didn't read the rest of my post. Shame on you.
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
Founder of AFewManeuvers
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.
If you expected something witty here, well…you probably didn't read the rest of my post. Shame on you.
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
| Page 2 of 3 (35 messages) | « First page... 1 2 3 ...Last page » |
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS