Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
41 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

Star Wars: X-Wing Miniatures Game» Forums » Rules

Subject: Moving across two asteroids rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
David Scherr
United States
Minnesota
flag msg tools
So I've been playing for awhile now and this question cropped up at our store gaming day this last weekend. We know that if part of your movement template overlaps an asteroid as part of your move that you have to roll for damage. What happens though if your movement template overlaps TWO asteroids when you go to move? We went by a majority vote (2-1) that since it went over two asteroids the player had to to roll the damage dice twice. Is this correct?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bryce K. Nielsen
United States
Elk Ridge
Utah
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
If you move through any obstacle, you roll one red die. The total number of obstacles doesn't matter.

The rules on pg 20 don't specify a number, and to further clarify, the FAQ has this entry:

Quote:
Q: After a ship moves through or overlaps
more than one obstacle, does the owner
roll an attack die for each of these
obstacles?


A: No. He rolls only one attack die regardless of the
number of obstacle tokens his ship moves through
or overlaps.


-shnar
11 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jade Youngblood
Canada
Montreal
Quebec
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Here is a follow up to this.

I end my move on an asteroid. I roll dmg and lose my turn.

The following turn when I leave the asteroid, my template is still slightly overlapping the asteroid I collided with on the previous turn. Do I roll damage again for having my template overlapping an object? Or is the obstacle considered dealt with already?

In our game we had this question come up and ruled on the spot that if the template is still overlapping you will roll damage to complete the maneuver. Is this the correct ruling?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bryce K. Nielsen
United States
Elk Ridge
Utah
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Yes, that's correct. The question right before the one I quoted states:

Quote:
Q: If a ship’s base overlaps an obstacle
during the previous round, is that ship
automatically considered overlapping the
same obstacle during the next round?

A: No. The ship does not move through or overlap that
same obstacle unless the maneuver template it is
using or its base after executing the maneuver
overlap that obstacle again during the next round.


If any part of your template touches that Asteroid, then it is considered to have moved through that obstacle and thus rolls a red die and skips its Perform Actions step.

-shnar
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff Wilder

Daly City
California
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I completely missed that answer in the FAQ. How amazingly non-intuitive and unjustified. I would have ruled exactly as the OP's group did.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bryce K. Nielsen
United States
Elk Ridge
Utah
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
*shrug* I think the text in the rulebook is clear. It doesn't say "each" obstacle, just if you overlap "an" obstacle. To me that means 1 or more. The FAQ just clarifies it more.

It sucks hitting an asteroid, I'm glad it's not even worse if you hit two...

-shnar
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jesse L
United States
Connecticut
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Jeff Wilder wrote:
I completely missed that answer in the FAQ. How amazingly non-intuitive and unjustified. I would have ruled exactly as the OP's group did.


It seems you and I have differing opinions on what is intuitive/justified. I really don't see this as surprising in the least, and it makes perfect sense...
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff Wilder

Daly City
California
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
So if you eat "an apple" at 12 PM, and "an apple" at 12:05 PM, you haven't eaten two apples? You haven't eaten "an apple" twice?

Well ... okay, if that works for you.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff Wilder

Daly City
California
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
shnar wrote:
It sucks hitting an asteroid, I'm glad it's not even worse if you hit two...

Yeah, how bizarre would it be if flying through two asteroids was somehow worse than flying through one asteroid.

That just wouldn't make any sense at all.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bryce K. Nielsen
United States
Elk Ridge
Utah
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Jeff Wilder wrote:
shnar wrote:
It sucks hitting an asteroid, I'm glad it's not even worse if you hit two...

Yeah, how bizarre would it be if flying through two asteroids was somehow worse than flying through one asteroid.

That just wouldn't make any sense at all.

Not much makes sense when playing a 3D game on a 2D surface...

-shnar
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bryce K. Nielsen
United States
Elk Ridge
Utah
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Jeff Wilder wrote:
So if you eat "an apple" at 12 PM, and "an apple" at 12:05 PM, you haven't eaten two apples? You haven't eaten "an apple" twice?

Well ... okay, if that works for you.

If you've eaten "an apple" at lunch, have you eaten on or two? And how do you skip your Perform Action step twice?

If you don't like the rule, that's what house rules are for. Just house rule your games to roll a die for each attack.

-shnar
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff Wilder

Daly City
California
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
shnar wrote:
If you've eaten "an apple" at lunch, have you eaten on or two?

Exactly. When you say you've eaten "an apple," you are referring to that apple. You aren't referring to a possible other apple that you may have also eaten.

Each "an apple" is separate. Each "an obstacle" is separate. It's therefore bizarre that the FAQ treats "an obstacle" as "you know, however many."
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pasi Ojala
Finland
Tampere
flag msg tools
Get the Imperial Assault Campaign module for Vassal from http://www.vassalengine.org/wiki/Module:Star_Wars:_Imperial_Assault
badge
The next Total Solar Eclipse holiday in 2024 in USA? See you there!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Jeff Wilder wrote:
Each "an obstacle" is separate. It's therefore bizarre that the FAQ treats "an obstacle" as "you know, however many."

No, you should not think about this from the asteroids' point of view. You are not playing with the asteroids, you are flying a ship.

If your maneuver (template) or end position (base) brings you into close proximity of (overlaps) any obstacles (asteroids), you need to swerve to try to avoid them all. The losing of your action step models this extra effort you have to spend. The roll of the attack die models how well you did in that evasive action. Roll poorly, and you hit one or more obstacles and your ship starts to malfunction or fall apart. Roll well, and you just about managed to avoid hitting them.

And you don't need the FAQ. Just be literal when you read the rules. (The rules are right there in the core box.)
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bryce K. Nielsen
United States
Elk Ridge
Utah
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Jeff Wilder wrote:
shnar wrote:
If you've eaten "an apple" at lunch, have you eaten on or two?

Exactly. When you say you've eaten "an apple," you are referring to that apple. You aren't referring to a possible other apple that you may have also eaten.

Each "an apple" is separate. Each "an obstacle" is separate. It's therefore bizarre that the FAQ treats "an obstacle" as "you know, however many."

No, the FAQ is just restated the rules. If anything, you should treat the rules as bizarre. The rules state that during the maneuver, if you hit an obstacle you do the following, not for each obstacle you hit. And again, if you don't like it, just house-rule it.

-shnar
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris L
United States
New York
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
Jeff Wilder wrote:
So if you eat "an apple" at 12 PM, and "an apple" at 12:05 PM, you haven't eaten two apples? You haven't eaten "an apple" twice?

Well ... okay, if that works for you.


I'm not eating apples. I'm playing a game with friends with incredibly simplified rules that makes it a heck of a lot of fun. I go along with the compromises as defined by the game designers as written because they work as a game system and accomplish desired goals. If anyone wants to make their game more realistic, go ahead, but I'll stick with the game as is. Though, if I was to try it, I'd probably start with the restriction of only being able to turn at 45 degrees or 90 degrees rather than worrying about whether a ship is damaged twice by asteroids or not.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Geordan Rosario
United States
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Jeff Wilder wrote:
shnar wrote:
If you've eaten "an apple" at lunch, have you eaten on or two?

Exactly. When you say you've eaten "an apple," you are referring to that apple. You aren't referring to a possible other apple that you may have also eaten.

Each "an apple" is separate. Each "an obstacle" is separate. It's therefore bizarre that the FAQ treats "an obstacle" as "you know, however many."

Except "an" is an indefinite article; it does not refer to a specific apple. If you ate two apples, and someone asks you "give me a dollar if you ate an apple today," would you give them two?

It's probably my programmer mindset talking, but the test "if you overlap an obstacle" implies to me "if you overlap at least one obstacle" (which would have been better, clearer phrasing).

I guess it's like that joke:
Quote:
A programmer’s wife sends him to the grocery store with the instructions, “get a loaf of bread, and if they have eggs, get a dozen.” He comes home with a dozen loaves of bread.


Why are we talking about food again? I'm hungry.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff Wilder

Daly City
California
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
shnar wrote:
No, the FAQ is just restated the rules. If anything, you should treat the rules as bizarre. The rules state that during the maneuver, if you hit an obstacle you do the following, not for each obstacle you hit.

Oh, for Christ's sake.

It doesn't have to state "for each." When one says, "If this, then that," when "this" refers to a singular event (hitting an obstacle), "that" is performed each time "this" happens. "If you hit an obstacle," you do whatever "that" is.

I hit an obstacle. I skip Perform Actions, then I roll for damage.

I hit an(other) obstacle. I skip Perform Actions, then I do this.

That's English. I understand why the FAQ is saying what it's saying, and I'm not stating any preference for the content of the FAQ answer at all, so quit bleating to me about "house-ruling" it, please.

It's simply extremely poor, bizarre, and non-intuitive rules-writing (or, alternately, extreme poor, bizarre, and non-intuitive rules-interpreting), at odds with how the English languages handles multiple instances of the singular article "a" or "an."

"If A then B" is not equivalent to "If A (or A and A again, or A and A and A again) then B." Those are simply not equivalent in the English language. This isn't opinion. This is fact. They're not equivalent, and that means that either the rule is terribly written or the rule has been terribly interpreted. There are no other options, at least for educated English readers.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin Smith
United States
Wichita
Kansas
flag msg tools
I'm fine with it as ruled, though my guess would've also been to roll a die for each asteroid moved through.

The bottom line is that if you know you're going to move through one, don't worry about moving through a second if it'll get you to a more advantageous position.

Kevin
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff Wilder

Daly City
California
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
geordan wrote:
It's probably my programmer mindset talking, but the test "if you overlap an obstacle" implies to me "if you overlap at least one obstacle" (which would have been better, clearer phrasing).

Exactly. And so easy to write, canon of construction suggests that it's not what was meant. FAQ notwithstanding. (I should point out that there are good arguments for saying that they did actually mean "one or more," but those good arguments are game-concept based, not language-based. The language-based arguments are terrible.)

Rules are written in English, for better or worse, not PASCAL.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pasi Ojala
Finland
Tampere
flag msg tools
Get the Imperial Assault Campaign module for Vassal from http://www.vassalengine.org/wiki/Module:Star_Wars:_Imperial_Assault
badge
The next Total Solar Eclipse holiday in 2024 in USA? See you there!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Jeff Wilder wrote:
I hit an obstacle. I skip Perform Actions, then I roll for damage.
I hit an(other) obstacle. I skip Perform Actions, then I do this.

Are you doing one round or two? devil

If one, you are doing something else that is described as the steps you perform according to the rules. No wonder you are confused.

You reveal a maneuver, you take the template, put it between the guides at the front, you move the ship to the end of the template. Then you check for overlap of either the template or the ship's end position to see if you hit an obstacle. If you did hit, then roll for damage and skip your action step. If you did not, then do your action step.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff Wilder

Daly City
California
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
a1bert wrote:
You reveal a maneuver, you take the template, put it between the guides at the front, you move the ship to the end of the template. Then you check for overlap of either the template or the ship's end position to see if you hit an obstacle. If you did hit, then roll for damage and skip your action step. If you did not, then do your action step.

Yes, that is the "game-concept" good argument for the FAQ ruling.

I'm not arguing against that (see above), I'm arguing that the rule (or interpretation) is bizarre and non-intuitive from a language perspective.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Geordan Rosario
United States
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Jeff Wilder wrote:
geordan wrote:
It's probably my programmer mindset talking, but the test "if you overlap an obstacle" implies to me "if you overlap at least one obstacle" (which would have been better, clearer phrasing).

Exactly. And so easy to write, canon of construction suggests that it's not what was meant. FAQ notwithstanding.

FAQ notwithstanding. But the FAQ entry is there, so I chalk it up to poor/imprecise writing, and not intent that was changed after the fact. Mistakes will be (willon have on-when) made.
Quote:
Rules are written in English, for better or worse, not PASCAL.

Yeah, and English sucks In general, I wish game rules were written more unambiguously; not that I want legalese to wade through, but I'd appreciate clearer terms like "at least one" or "for each".
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff Wilder

Daly City
California
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
geordan wrote:
Yeah, and English sucks

No, bad writing sucks.

Quote:
In general, I wish game rules were written more unambiguously; not that I want legalese to wade through, but I'd appreciate clearer terms like "at least one" or "for each".

That's English, Geordan. It's just, you know, well-written English.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bryce K. Nielsen
United States
Elk Ridge
Utah
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Jeff Wilder wrote:
shnar wrote:
No, the FAQ is just restated the rules. If anything, you should treat the rules as bizarre. The rules state that during the maneuver, if you hit an obstacle you do the following, not for each obstacle you hit.

Oh, for Christ's sake.

It doesn't have to state "for each." When one says, "If this, then that," when "this" refers to a singular event (hitting an obstacle), "that" is performed each time "this" happens. "If you hit an obstacle," you do whatever "that" is.

I hit an obstacle. I skip Perform Actions, then I roll for damage.

I hit an(other) obstacle. I skip Perform Actions, then I do this.

That's English. I understand why the FAQ is saying what it's saying, and I'm not stating any preference for the content of the FAQ answer at all, so quit bleating to me about "house-ruling" it, please.

It's simply extremely poor, bizarre, and non-intuitive rules-writing (or, alternately, extreme poor, bizarre, and non-intuitive rules-interpreting), at odds with how the English languages handles multiple instances of the singular article "a" or "an."

"If A then B" is not equivalent to "If A (or A and A again, or A and A and A again) then B." Those are simply not equivalent in the English language. This isn't opinion. This is fact. They're not equivalent, and that means that either the rule is terribly written or the rule has been terribly interpreted. There are no other options, at least for educated English readers.

I don't think you understand languages...

-shnar
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff Wilder

Daly City
California
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
shnar wrote:
I don't think you understand languages...

Yeah, that must be it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.