Collisions - Options and most played option

[Madboyo]

Working through the rule books collisions seem to be covered differently depending on the set.

In the Revised Deluxe set - Disappeared completely (unless some one corrects me)
In Balloon busters they draw two A damage if at the same altitude (and some minor conditions are met)
In older versions we found reference to C decks.

Which one do most people use? We favor The Balloon busters rules when we use altitude, but Deluxe when we don't.

Collisions was also discussed in this post: http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/sho...Bases-question But is there several different conventions here?

[Bartman]

You are right right Chris, the RDE does not contain collision rules.

Collisions are actually one of the few rules that we have never played with.

[Oberst Hajj]

It should be C damage. In BB, which does not come with a C deck, Andrea re wrote the rule to draw two A damage cards since they are roughly worth one C damage cards. He said this someplace here on the site, or the same basic thing about another rule in question about the damage type drawn.

[Pooh]

We redid the altitude rules a bit that reduces the number of collisions. Now a collision (for my group) requires the models to overlap at the exact same altitude and both players draw a "C" damage card.

Pooh

[Flying Officer Kyte]

We redid the altitude rules a bit that reduces the number of collisions. Now a collision (for my group) requires the models to overlap at the exact same altitude and both players draw a "C" damage card.

Pooh

That is the way I do it unless it is a proper league game. Climb counters register for height too.
Rob.

[sparty]

C deck reflections the violent nature of a collision upon these aircraft best IMO. That's how I've played it. And it's generally 1 card total, not 1 for each plane. That one card affects both planes equally.

[Flying Officer Kyte]

C deck reflections the violent nature of a collision upon these aircraft best IMO. That's how I've played it. And it's generally 1 card total, not 1 for each plane. That one card affects both planes equally.

That is an interesting outlook Keith. Do you assume that both planes always take the same amount of damage in a collision, or is it just for the sake of speeding up the game and keeping things simple?
Rob.

[tuladin]

The most noted mid-air collision in WWI was probably that of Oswald Boelcke and Erwin Böhme. Böhme received some slight damage to his undercarriage. Boelcke's wing collapsed and he fell to his death.

This would be an impossible result to simulate if both planes took the same damage card.

[Flying Officer Kyte]

Thanks Larry.
Rob.

[KiltedWolf]

Excellent point Larry. Our group uses the C deck, and one card is drawn for each plane. Just recently I collided with another plane -- they took zero damage, and I took 10! Needles to say, I wasn't in the air very long after that encounter!

We also apply a slight house-rule to mitigate the number of collisions, this being the bases must overlap to such an extent that the plane would be overlapped if the card was used (correct me if I am wrong here HardRock). Firing out of overlap remains the same per the written rules.

Cheers!

[tuladin]

Another limiting factor some use: a collision only occurs if one plane's card/base overlaps the center point/post of the other plane.

[Niclas]

C deck reflections the violent nature of a collision upon these aircraft best IMO. That's how I've played it. And it's generally 1 card total, not 1 for each plane. That one card affects both planes equally.

I use the C-deck, same altitude rule. Though I've used one card per plane. I like this game mechanic by Keith, but at the same time it's conceivable that the planes wouldn't get damage equally - I can't decide, I'll have to think about it a bit...

[Flying Officer Kyte]

If we are doing friendly games, we tend to use the rule collide only if physical contact is made by the models.
Rob.

[Hunter]

C deck reflections the violent nature of a collision upon these aircraft best IMO. That's how I've played it. And it's generally 1 card total, not 1 for each plane. That one card affects both planes equally.

Yes the 'C' deck, but we use one for each plane for reasons you listed. Very good and concise rational Keith!

Today, our first Saturday, we had an inordinate number of collisions which shortened up gaming time that we got in a few extra missions and some newbies got a couple of kills and also crashed! Everyone seemed to enjoy this playing!

[Oberst Hajj]

Udet also had a collision and mentions that his plane was pretty much fine but the enemy plane had to crash land do to it.

[Ginarley]

We play with minis and our collision rule has evolved to this (noting we don't generally use altitude):

If two minis can't be placed because the peg of one gets in the way of the base of another then this counts as a collision. Anything else is not a collision.

In the case of a collision return both minis to original position (usually we spot its going to happen and don't move them to start with) and both planes draw a C card and take that damage. Assuming both survive, the plane with the lowest card number (the x of the x/y at the bottom right) moves first and the second plane is then moved as close as possible to where it was going to move taking account of the other mini. Obviously if only one survives then it goes where it normally would.

[Bruce]

We play "no collisions" when we are not using altitude.
When using altitude, we have collisions only when: the altitude level (not-including the number of climb counters) is identical and the center-peg of one of the aircraft is over-lapped. In this case we draw a "C" damage card for each aircraft.

[Flying Officer Kyte]

That is a good simple straight forward method Ian. I think it gives a good impression of what would most likely be the outcome of a collision. One plane gets its undercart ripped off but carrys on. The other suffers top wing damage and staggers away, or some such senario, or if the cards fall wrong for them they both plummet to earth interlocked in each others debris.
Rob.

[Oberst Hajj]

I like the "peg interference" part as well.

[Charlie3]

Our group here in Traverse City uses the peg overlaping a silhoette rule.

We came up with this house rule because invariably you end up with the need to place a plane card down to allow another model to occupy the same space on the table. When the planes are in place if the Peg of the Model touches the silhoette of the card under it a collision occures. Although this has cut down on our need to deal with collisions (something that apparently happens to the rest of you quite often) we do still have them and they seem to rear their ugly head at the least oppertune moments. :eek2:

We draw the A cards because when we started our league we only had the Aces and Watch your Back sets. Both players must draw to cover the idea that one may take more damage than the otherby trying to evade each other. To date I have gone down 3 times in the last year and a half due to collision damage.

My favorite story is one I witnessed close up but was not actually part of. We were using a cloud in the game, and although it limits gun range we do not try to "hide" the movement inside or the veiw outside. A player made a poor choice of cards and his plane popped out of the edge of a cloud and rammed into a friendly that had a good bead (3rd shot) on an enemy. The shooter went down, and the next card caused the one that came out of the cloud to ram into the enemy target! The enemy plane survived (2 points left) and the cloud pilot went down from collision cards only! Priceless.

[fist]

like the thought with the peg and plain card we will use this for our collisions

[Albert Ross]

Two aircraft approaching at the same altitude will automatically try to avoid a collision; we simulate this by cutting the damage deck and comparing numbers: a collision only happens if both pilots draw the same number, otherwise the pilot drawing the higher numbered card is deemed to have flown over the lower one.

[Charlie3]

Two aircraft approaching at the same altitude will automatically try to avoid a collision; we simulate this by cutting the damage deck and comparing numbers: a collision only happens if both pilots draw the same number, otherwise the pilot drawing the higher numbered card is deemed to have flown over the lower one.

We use (Shhhh don't tell anyone!) a die roll, but I like your idea with the cards.

[MayorJim]

C deck reflections the violent nature of a collision upon these aircraft best IMO. That's how I've played it. And it's generally 1 card total, not 1 for each plane. That one card affects both planes equally.

That's an interesting view of the damage rule...We draw 1 "C" card for each plane involved. Our take (as mentioned earlier in this post), is that not all planes will suffer the same (if any) damage.

[Пилот]

We count climb counters and actual aircrafts' position. So, if planes are at the very same altitude, and if they actually overlap, each takes 2 A cards.

But, I must say, that I find deck-cutting a very good idea.

[rcboater]

I mostly run beginner/casual games, without altitude. I don't use collisions at all. The only rule I use is that overlapped planes can't fire at each other.
I figure that the planes have vertical separation, and it keeps things a little simpler for novice players.
Plus, the nature of the cards force you into overlaps, because you can't do a 20 degree turn or slow down a little-- so why penalize the player?

[Doug]

We use the altitude and collision rules (as it is good fun to see the enemy crash into each other). I am only playing for pleasure and I take all good or bad with same amount of pleasure.

[Lugburz]

At our house, we always play using collisions. If we are doing a quick game, without altitude, we treat overlapping pegs as a possible collision, flipping a coin to determine if damage cards will be drawn. If the collision happens, after the flip, each player draws for damage.

If we are playing with altitude rules, and the pegs overlap, then we decide if a collision occurs using the official rules from Buring Drachens: "Was each plane at the same altitude? Were climb tokens present? A collision will occur only if they have the same number of climb tokens and were at the same altitude, otherwise it's a near miss."

I prefer the collision rules as written in Burning Drachens as this seems both logical and fair. The reason why we use a coin toss when playing without altitude is because I feel as though collisions are still something that should be in the game, regardless of whether you track altitude. By enforcing the threat of damage, pilots are driven to think critically about their flight path and the airspace around them, just as it would be in a real combat scenario. I've noticed players can become a little lax with their maneuver planning when they don't have to worry about colliding in the middle of a big furball.

As for damage, we draw two "A" damage cards per plane (Disclaimer: this is only because I do not yet own Burning Drachens, and I lack a "C" damage deck, otherwise we would draw a single "C" card instead).

Lugz

[Bruce]

We have an active Family & Friends gaming group (12 players) that has played WoW for a year and a half. We tried altitude rules at the beginning but have settled into a steady diet of non-altitude-rules face-to-face and PBeM games.
BUT, in order to get greater complexity/satisfaction we use more-complex scenarios involving 2-seaters, bombing, photo recce, straffing and diverse combination-missions, AND we kep aircrew records and use the ACE ABILITIES and EXPERIENCE SKILLS.

Like RCboater (above) we still do not use collisions, and nobody has raised the issue. BUT, we leave some EXPLOSION cards in the damage decks (but only a 2% chance vice 2.8% in the "A" deck and 2.2% in the "B" deck).

This game is nicely modifiable to suit any preferences.

but have

[Albert Ross]

Given that the C damage deck is mostly 0's, there is still the chance that the collision will turn into a near miss. Of course there is still that Big 10 card.....

[Chris Maes]

We generally do not play with collisions, unless we are using altitude rules, which is only about 1/3 of the time. Only played once with collisions, and we had each plane draw2 'A Deck" cards. When playing without altitude rules, we rule that any overlapping planes/bases require the pilots to take evasive action (to AVOID a collision!), and thus the pilots involved will not be able to target enemies that phase (Gunner/Observers would also be busy holding on for dear life, so they do not get to fire either!). FYI- we also play that is a plane is on fire, the pilot is so distracted trying to put out the flames/screaming, that he is not able to target an enemy at that time. Perhaps some Ace ability-Fearless might mitigate that, simulating a pilot who is sooooo focused on his opponent, even as he meets his own fiery death!

Chris

[Slexlaw]

We usually play with collisions when using altitude (most of the time). We use the bases overlapping pegs, same altitude including counters, and 2 A card methods.
One thing that recently came up for the first time was the question of collisions and blocked firing angles because of the overlap. One player ploughed his RE8 into a team-mate's SE5a. 2 A cards each, and one drew an explosion. Because the exploding plane is removed before the shooting phase, should the remaining plane then be able to fire on enemies?

[gully_raker]

We usually play with collisions when using altitude (most of the time). We use the bases overlapping pegs, same altitude including counters, and 2 A card methods.
One thing that recently came up for the first time was the question of collisions and blocked firing angles because of the overlap. One player ploughed his RE8 into a team-mate's SE5a. 2 A cards each, and one drew an explosion. Because the exploding plane is removed before the shooting phase, should the remaining plane then be able to fire on enemies?

G'day Dan! My take on that situation would be not on that card. The pilot would be so unsettled by the collision he would not be able to draw a bead on an enemy aircraft. O.K. to shoot on the next card.

Incidentally we use the "C" Deck playing altitude or not & each aircraft has to draw a card. Collisions only occur if both aircraft actually collide fuselarge to fuselarge not if they just brush wings or tail.

[Flying Officer Kyte]

G'day Dan! My take on that situation would be not on that card. The pilot would be so unsettled by the collision he would not be able to draw a bead on an enemy aircraft. O.K. to shoot on the next card.

Incidentally we use the "C" Deck playing altitude or not & each aircraft has to draw a card. Collisions only occur if both aircraft actually collide fuselarge to fuselarge not if they just brush wings or tail.

I actually subscribe to Barry's assessment of the situation. If bases are overlapping a player can not fire that turn because the rules state this. Also Barry's statement about disorientation should reinforce this. However, I use the base must overlap the center peg for a collision to take place situation as do you Dan.
Rob.

[Niclas]

Been using overlapping bases for collisions. Base overlapping center peg may be a better option though, may start using that. I guess the reasoning is that otherwise you're considered able to that last second adjustment?
I wonder - Should collision (or even near miss, as in base overlap but not base to peg) affect the next move? - Only straight, sharpest possible turn away, random move card?
For me, switching to base to peg and adding some sort of after effect would mean less damage (crashes) from collision but still a bit of extra excitement.

/Niclas

[Flying Officer Kyte]

Been using overlapping bases for collisions. Base overlapping center peg may be a better option though, may start using that. I guess the reasoning is that otherwise you're considered able to that last second adjustment?
I wonder - Should collision (or even near miss, as in base overlap but not base to peg) affect the next move? - Only straight, sharpest possible turn away, random move card?
For me, switching to base to peg and adding some sort of after effect would mean less damage (crashes) from collision but still a bit of extra excitement.

/Niclas

Simple way to emulate that is just draw whatever happens to be the next card at the top of your movement deck and substitute it for your next card Niclas.
Rob.

[flash]

Tonyc206 did a great chart for plotting collisions when using altitude rules - dead easy to use - look here


Personally I go with base overlapping peg = collision & draw a C deck card for each aircraft involved.

[diceslinger]

I'm not a fan of collision rules, but I notice I fly a bit less aggressively when then are in use. I think they add a nice degree of difficulty with balloons, so I try to use them to make me a better "pilot." I only use them when altitude rules are in use however. When you get 6-8 planes in a furball it is just too easy to clip each other with the standard rules.

Hey, I see a new Ace skill coming on.....Turn Signals! Any ace with this skill may draw two C damage cards and pick which one to apply.

[Niclas]

Besides liking the rule for bit of extra excitement, without too much extra clutter, I find it useful for keeping the more wildish players a bit more focused.

/Niclas

[wargamer]

Probably trivia but....

Notice in several of these comments, that people want to count climb counters as altitude. What I wonder is if they realize they are using fractions? An aircraft with a climb counter requirement of 8 say, against a aircraft with a climb counter of 3. The aircraft that has 3 counters of 8 is at 3/8ths of the way to the next level, while the aircraft that has 2 of 3 is at 2/3rd and thus higher than your aircraft with 3.

[Flying Officer Kyte]

The system is not geared like that Al as is explained at length in another thread.

This one may be of some interest to you.
http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/sho...climb+counters

Rob.

[Willi Von Klugermann]

Rob, I think Al's thinking is correct if you look at Tony's chart. The altitude levels are 500m so if you use Als example plane A is at 3/8(500) while the second plane is 2/3(500). Tony's minimum distance for collisions was 10m.

[Flying Officer Kyte]

Rob, I think Al's thinking is correct if you look at Tony's chart. The altitude levels are 500m so if you use Als example plane A is at 3/8(500) while the second plane is 2/3(500). Tony's minimum distance for collisions was 10m.

Tony's chart is fine Chris. It makes sense of the whole climb thing.
i am only repeating what Andrea said. That climb counters are not measurements of distance or height. They are measurements of time.
Rob.

[Zoe Brain]

We use -
both bases must touch both pegs.
Otherwise bomber and balloon collisions are too likely

Altitudes must be the same. That means Alt X with no climb counters is different from Alt X with Y climb counters, but Alt X with Y climb counters is the same as Alt X with Z climb counters (Y,Z both non-zero)

I've experimented with using the D deck, taking "fire" to mean progressive structural failure, as appears common from collisions. Same effect though, 3 turns of A damage. NASTY.

[Flying Officer Kyte]

We use -
both bases must touch both pegs.
Otherwise bomber and balloon collisions are too likely

Altitudes must be the same. That means Alt X with no climb counters is different from Alt X with Y climb counters, but Alt X with Y climb counters is the same as Alt X with Z climb counters (Y,Z both non-zero)

I've experimented with using the D deck, taking "fire" to mean progressive structural failure, as appears common from collisions. Same effect though, 3 turns of A damage. NASTY.

I like that idea Zoe. It takes care of the situation nicely without overcomplicating things in the heat of action.
The progressive structural failure is inspired.
Rob.

[Willi Von Klugermann]

Tony's chart is fine Chris. It makes sense of the whole climb thing.
i am only repeating what Andrea said. That climb counters are not measurements of distance or height. They are measurements of time.
Rob.

Understood Rob, but time X climb rate = height. Secondly Tony's chart can be tweaked to put collisions in those areas where the are none so they are always possible regardless of a planes climb rate.

[PilGrim]

We use climb counters and each draw a C deck, however the problem happens when you dive because you discard all climb counters and drop one level - ie you always end up at zero climb counters after a dive. This seems to make collisions a bit too regular for my liking as you cant legitimately drop a climb counter without pulling a special move.

Thinking about it we could allow pilots to drop a climb counter - the equivalent of a gentle decent rather than a genuine dive. Question then would be should it be restricted to straights or could you drop in a turn? The other question would be should you restrict the number you can do so that actual changes of altitude have to be the result of dives?

[Flying Officer Kyte]

If you play a dive card, you may choose to drop less than the total distance, and just as in a climb take a number of climb counters but discard the peg. Thus you may for instance dive from level three to two but hold two climb counters.
If your climb rate is three, that would mean that one climb card would get you back to level three.
That would put you in prime position for shooting into the underbelly of your favourite two seater.
Rob.

[diceslinger]

If you play a dive card, you may choose to drop less than the total distance, and just as in a climb take a number of climb counters but discard the peg. Thus you may for instance dive from level three to two but hold two climb counters.
If your climb rate is three, that would mean that one climb card would get you back to level three.
That would put you in prime position for shooting into the underbelly of your favourite two seater.
Rob.

Is this an official rule Rob? I don't see anything like it in the rule books, but I like it. It gives a bit more maneuverability with no extra work. I'm going to start using this!

[Flying Officer Kyte]

No it is not official Shawn. Just a way of creating order out of chaos.
Rob.