Hi, anyone is of course more than welcome to give their input or to shoot this idea down, but I've put MJ's name in the title because of his mathsing and he is houseruling like mad anyway it seems. .

So here's the situation: Bonus dice, it never felt right to me that lasers get bonus dice if you are real close and give extra agility if far away while cannons and turrets aren't hampered at all.

I get that secondary weapons initially just consisted of torpedoes and missiles so it makes sense they don't get bonus dice, they can steer after all. But cannons? Turrets? They are just bigger pew pews after all.

So here's my question: would the folowing house rule be broken from a maths point of view?

Primary weapon attacks at range 1: Defender lowers his agility by 1 to a minimum of 0

Primary weapon attacks at range 3: Attacker lowers his attack dice by 1 to a minimum of 0

This is to simulate that you are a bigger target up close while at a distance your weapons just aren't as powerful.

Attacks made with cannons and turret weapons at range 1: Attacker rolls one extra die

Attacks made with cannons and turret weapons at range 3: defender rolls one extra die

These are strong, powerful weapons and at range one getting hit should hurt while at range three you should be harder to hit by cumbersome weapons, this ties in nicely with the turbolasers on the corvette I feel.

Attacks with torpedoes and missiles stay the same.

I'm aware this would drastically alter the way the game plays but would it break the game?

I'm aware this would drastically alter the way the game plays but would it break the game?

Maybe...

Why are you changing how primaries work? Right now you get a slightly bigger advantage odds wise at R1 then you do at R3, because red dice have better odds then green do. So a extra attack die is actually better then an extra defense die.

Plus that when you start changing agility values, you start effecting upgrades, like 3-CPO, which won't work if you don't roll a die.

Right now I think the secondary weapons work like they do, mostly because there's so few of them. That and the fact that the range 1/3 rule is about damage and not accuracy.

Ion cannons and turrets aren't about doing damage, so gaining or losing potential damage doesn't make sense. HLC can't shoot at range 1, so there's nothing to do there really. Autoblasters can only shoot at range 1, so kinda the same thing as HLC's.

It may be that they either change the rule at some point, or perhaps just factor in the R1/3 rule into the weapon itself, which they seemed to have done so far.

The way I saw it, all the primary weapons base value IS the range 1 value, but the pilot limits their effectiveness because of reaction time, human(for some) error, etc.

Turrets and Cannons may be operating automatically, all the pilot is doing is pushing the "turn on" and "shoot" buttons. Since they are being controlled by automated systems, there is no "human error" element.

Not an argument, just a justification.

In terms of gameplay, turrets with 4 dice might be out of hand, but autoblaster would be appropriately adjusted (in my opinion). Since 2nd'ary weapons can't always hit at every range, I think it was the designers' way of limiting confusion and streamlining. Autoblaster and APT's, for instance, would have an attack value that was never used.

EDIT: To clarify, I disagree with the primary weapon change. Since the game doesn't use a chance to hit vs damage done dice system, you'd be messing with too many things. A lot of tie fighters would be nerfed by this, and it also nullifies Mauler Mithel's ability.

Why don't you just try it and see how it plays?

Really I don't see anything wrong with the dice the way they are though.

What's the point? Game works fine thematically and mechanically.

Hi, anyone is of course more than welcome to give their input or to shoot this idea down, but I've put MJ's name in the title because of his mathsing and he is houseruling like mad anyway it seems. .

So here's the situation: Bonus dice, it never felt right to me that lasers get bonus dice if you are real close and give extra agility if far away while cannons and turrets aren't hampered at all.

I get that secondary weapons initially just consisted of torpedoes and missiles so it makes sense they don't get bonus dice, they can steer after all. But cannons? Turrets? They are just bigger pew pews after all.

So here's my question: would the folowing house rule be broken from a maths point of view?

Primary weapon attacks at range 1: Defender lowers his agility by 1 to a minimum of 0

Primary weapon attacks at range 3: Attacker lowers his attack dice by 1 to a minimum of 0

This is to simulate that you are a bigger target up close while at a distance your weapons just aren't as powerful.

Attacks made with cannons and turret weapons at range 1: Attacker rolls one extra die

Attacks made with cannons and turret weapons at range 3: defender rolls one extra die

These are strong, powerful weapons and at range one getting hit should hurt while at range three you should be harder to hit by cumbersome weapons, this ties in nicely with the turbolasers on the corvette I feel.

Attacks with torpedoes and missiles stay the same.

I'm aware this would drastically alter the way the game plays but would it break the game?

Yeah, no. This would be absolutely, the worst idea ever. Autoblasters and APTs would never use attack value. And one of the biggest reasons to take an HLC is that they cancel range bonuses. Same with Ion and turrets.

There's a reason why FFG made the decision to add dice to attack and defense rolls based on range instead of subtracting them. Losing an agility die at range one is largely a buff for Decimators, who don't have agility to lose, but results in lower damage output for everyone else. It's the opposite for Range 3. HWKs basically lose the ability to attack at Range 3, while Y-Wings, TIE Fighters, Bombers and Advanced would only get one die on the attack. It'd greatly reduce the damage you could deal at long range.

Short answer, several points:

1. The game mechanics have been set in stone now for a while, so if it ain't broke, don't fix it!
2. This reduces the overall damage done. For 2 attack ships, it goes down the toilet. At range 1 more damage will be done by having an additional die than remove the defender's die. Generally you want things dying faster so games don't take forever. Swarm vs. Swarm would be even worse. 1 attack dice v 3 defense dice at range 3! Yay!
3. It would affect the effective damage output and durability of all the ships in the game, and their point costs are generally based on the existing system. So you would almost certainly break game balance somewhere.

So I wouldn't even think about House Ruling something this fundamental. but just for kicks lets see what would happen.

Here's the outputs from my current jousting calculator scripts. Too many assumptions to quickly list here. I'm just going to compare the before and after expected damage outputs for each # of dice, and the jousting efficiency for all the ships.

Normal game mechanics

Normalized damage per attack dice

1 attack dice: 0.4388

2 attack dice: 1.0000

3 attack dice: 1.6992

4 attack dice: 2.4783

5 attack dice: 3.3009

HLC: 2.2961

Jousting efficiency

Normalized damage per attack dice (normalized to original rules 2 attack)

1 attack dice: 0.3051

2 attack dice: 0.8481

3 attack dice: 1.5459

4 attack dice: 2.3293

5 attack dice: 3.1570

HLC: 2.2961

Jousting efficiency (normalized to TIE Fighter with new rules)

• Biggest culprit: the HLC Outrider whose damage output didn't go down.
• 4 attack ships see a big boost
• 3 attack ships see a nice boost as well

Edit: reordered the jousting values

MJ has already hit most of the important points, but I think it's worth reiterating that even without going into the details of his scripts, two (related) things immediately happen to primary attacks: they get weaker, and they hit less often. That will make games last longer, and individual attacks will be less rewarding.

But you break secondary weapons entirely. The Blaster Turret is suddenly a drastically more attractive option if it gets four dice at Range 1, and the Autoblaster suddenly becomes one of the strongest attacks in the game (since it's now much more difficult to get four dice). The Ion Cannon Turret suddenly gets even more powerful with the ability to make essentially automatic attacks against anything with two or fewer defense dice. And the HLC is now worth much less than its current value, since it loses damage at Range 3 but without losing its very exploitable Range 1 band.

Add that to the valid question of why you feel the need to houserule something that's (a) very fundamental and (b) working well... I wouldn't do it.

Just consider dice an abstract way of representing chance to hit.

Doesn't seem to be broke,and I do think your new system would have drastic unpleasant side-effects as MJ said. Like making the games longer than they already are.

Don't do it!

And no more math for you until he figures out the resiliency of a 5 native defense dice ship with a reroll, focus, sensor jammer, and shifts the first hit/crit every attack onto a friend from my theoretical tread!

Ok, weighing my 2 cents in here. This is my opinion/interpretation, but I hope it helps you to more easily accept the FFG design and improves your immersion. Thinking of "red dice" as raw damage isn't (in my opinion) the right way to think of things. They represent accurate shots on target. Or, if you so prefer, accurate bursts of shots (with the number of dice representing either the lethality of the bursts or the speed at which they can be delivered). "Green dice" are (in my opinion) representative of either evading a shot or mitigating it by causing a deflection (or any other low damage shot).

In terms of this, at range 1 (closer) your ship is able to place more accurate shots or bursts on target. You being closer to the enemy means either your reactions and targeting computer are able to put more accurate shots on target (shots) or could serve to reduce time between shots (bursts). So, you're not getting an extra red dice because the lasers hurt more, you're getting it because your pilot is able to shoot more accurately/faster/your computer sucks less.

In my world, the lasers are not more powerful closer up and weaker further away. Instead, the computers and humans are able to hit more accurately (or faster) when closer to the enemy. Likewise, pilots are able to "dodge" more when they are further from the enemy (and have more time to react between bursts). The other interpretation I have for extra green dice is that at longer ranges, a pilot is more able to cause deflections or glancing blows than closer in. Kinda like armor in D&D isn't always "blocking" or avoiding hits, but rather causing them to be deflected or at least not causing permanent damage. And how "hits" aren't just "hitting" the enemy, but rather hitting them in a place that can cause harm.

NOTE: I know my answer isn't really "mathy." I just feel that the main concern here is an idea of immersion and suspension of disbelief.

Don't do it!

And no more math for you until he figures out the resiliency of a 5 native defense dice ship with a reroll, focus, sensor jammer, and shifts the first hit/crit every attack onto a friend from my theoretical tread!

How many Hull / Shields does this ship have???