We all know the A wing refit reduces its cost my 2 points, which can be handy but i was thinking while struggling to sleep last night that other 'degrade' cards could be thematic and useful.

For those times when you really wish you had 102 points to pick from you could have the option of taking damaged ships (as in some of the published scenarios).

For example.

Battle Damage - 3 points.

The ship begins the game with one face down damage card.

I like that idea. That could be what one of the upcoming scum cards, the BTLA4 Y-wing is... a Y-wing without a turret (or it has a cannon upgrade).

I like the idea, but I think it would have to be more like -1 points to make it work good.

Reason being, imagine someone taking a 4 b-wing list that all have this mod. They now have 28 hit points instead of 32 which with 1 agility isn't that big a difference, but now they have an extra 12 points to spend on upgrades which makes them far more deadly.

I can see this working for the Rebels and S&V, though maybe not for the Imperials for thematic reasons. Maybe the cards could be 'Unique' like named pilots/astromechs? The rebels limited to one per list, S&V maybe limited to two? Again for thematic reasons.

It was just a number off the top of my head.

In that an *extra* hull point is worth 3pts so by that logic removing one should save 3pts.

You could have varients as well that reflect the criticals.

Like 'targetting computer failure' allowing you to remove the TC for the same 'saving' as buying a TC as an upgrade or also have 'wounded pilot' which would be the opposite of VI

So you could fly a 'wounded Luke' at -2PS but keep his ability but he cost a bit less.

Those examples possibly complicate things too much but i thought that taking a damaged ship has precedence in the game, is easy to cost and fits in well with the background.

I can see this working for the Rebels and S&V, though maybe not for the Imperials for thematic reasons. Maybe the cards could be 'Unique' like named pilots/astromechs? The rebels limited to one per list, S&V maybe limited to two? Again for thematic reasons.

I dont know, i see what you mean about rebs or S&V flying patched up stuff but i was thinking that not all 'fights' start with the ships fresh from the factory.

My thought was in part two of the tantive campaign if the rebels won the first one then the imperials start their game with three black squadron TIEs that have already taken a point of damage

I think being able to choose what ships have damage would be weird. As part of a campaign, maybe, but neither the Rebels or Imperials would clear a damaged ship to leave the hangar.

The problem with this as a general approach (rather than a one-off as with the A-wing) is that it opens up opportunities for min-maxing.

The classic RPG example is accepting a penalty to your Charisma stat (or whatever governs social interaction) for a bonus to your Strength and Constitution stats (or whatever governs more combat-oriented interactions). You sacrifice something you don't care about in order to gain resources to spend on things you do care about.

So, taking your example, a naked, battle-damaged TIE Fighter doesn't sound like a great idea--they're already pretty fragile. But the current limit is 8, for a total of 24 hit points; with the battle-damaged "degrade" card, you can take up to 11 Academy Pilots, with a total of 22 hit points and almost half again as much offense (three more ships attacking). That's a net increase in power, even from a seemingly balanced card.

And consider other ships, where even on an individual basis the value you lose is outstripped by the points you gain back: a battle-damaged Omicron Group Pilot loses 10% of its hit points but drops in price by 14%. Now it costs just 18 points, and you've admitted the Quadruple Buzzsaw to the game: players can trade away a surplus resource (hit points on a ship with extraordinary defensive efficiency) for a scarce/valuable one (the points saved can be used to purchase additional offense).

Separately from the min-max issue, "degrades" also have the effect of narrowing the design space. Suppose FFG wants to release a close Imperial equivalent to the Y-wing: under 20 points, low Agility but high hit points, relatively weak dial. Taking the example of the battle-damaged ship again, the new ship has to compete in cost and role with the battle-damaged Lambda. Without the battle-damaged card in the game, the new ship (in addition to whatever they're already doing to differentiate it) can have a 3/1/4/3 stat line without really stepping on the Lambda's toes; with the battle damage card, now the design team has to design around both the Lambda and the battle-damaged Lambda.

TL;DR: I'm not sure it's a good idea for X-wing.

A wing pilot,

You're missing the point. I'm saying that not all games represent a fight where both sides take off and decide to have a dogfight over nothing.

Imagine a rebel patrol has tangled with an imperial force and just as they think they are safely home they get bumped by another imperial force.

Or boba fet having succesfully fought off his opponenets and captured his prey is pursued by their mates who catch up with him,

The whole point is to represent ships already slightly damaged.

OR, perhaps its the defence of a base under imperial attack. If you consider the attack on Hoth the rebels would totally put an speeder in the air that hadnt been properly serviced if it would stop the imperials.

In the real world, in desperate times aircraft have gone up again for several soties a day with the bare amount of repairs doen to them to get them flying... the battle of britain for example

As for playtesting

I dont really see how working out the balance of a shuttle with one less hull point is that different from working out its balance with one more (hull upgrade)?

Pretty much agree with everything Vorpal said. This is the sort of thing that looks great on paper but actually does nothing but empower min/maxing and winning during the list building phase.

Having some mechanism for beginning with damaged ships would be nice for scenario construction, but having cards that could be used in standard play is a bad idea. The a-wing refit is something of a special case since it is attempting to fix an imbalance, basically, you are MEANT to min/max with it.

I'm still struggling to see how it does more min/maxing than the existing hull *upgrade*.

Its not like its anything new is it?

I like the idea. I actually like the idea of a battle damage card more than the Chaaradan Refit. Getting points back simply for not using your upgrade slot is a pretty big deal.

As for a battle damage card it wouldn't be as hard to balance as you might think. It should definitely not give very many points back. It shouldn't be a card that you want to put on all the time, but a card that might be useful in certain circumstances.

What I wouldn't like to see is "degrade" cards that you would want to throw on all the time. Again, that is what I don't like about the Chaaradan Refit card. I get that is was an attempt to "fix" the A-wing, but I don't like the card out of principal. Of course that doesn't stop me from using it every time I fly rebels.

I think being able to choose what ships have damage would be weird. As part of a campaign, maybe, but neither the Rebels or Imperials would clear a damaged ship to leave the hangar.

A wing pilot,

You're missing the point. I'm saying that not all games represent a fight where both sides take off and decide to have a dogfight over nothing.

Imagine a rebel patrol has tangled with an imperial force and just as they think they are safely home they get bumped by another imperial force.

Or boba fet having succesfully fought off his opponenets and captured his prey is pursued by their mates who catch up with him,

The whole point is to represent ships already slightly damaged.

OR, perhaps its the defence of a base under imperial attack. If you consider the attack on Hoth the rebels would totally put an speeder in the air that hadnt been properly serviced if it would stop the imperials.

In the real world, in desperate times aircraft have gone up again for several soties a day with the bare amount of repairs doen to them to get them flying... the battle of britain for example

I was going to say this, but you nailed it!

Gadge, the problem with your real life situation, is why would it cost less to have it damaged?

If 4 x-wings took out a pair of Tie fighters prior to the current engagement, and one of the X's took a point of hull damage, why would he suddenly have enough points to equip a torpedo he didn't have earlier?

For the Rebels and the Empire, it doesn't make sense at all. They wouldn't clear a damaged ship to fly, and even if they did in an emergency, why would it cost any less? It's not like they saved money by not repairing it...they didn't have time.

Now...I could see this for Scum and Villany, and it would be thematic. The idea is that these guys are all solo mercs working together because it's convienent. They are all in charge of their own maintenance. I could totally see a guy deciding to reload his torpedo over fully repairing his hull (I got shields right?). He's taking the gamble.

So, I could see this being an illicit upgrade, perhaps with a caveat.

-3 points, -1 hull - but you have to spend at least 3 points in upgrades on that particular ship.

This way you can't run 9 point Z-wings and swarm 11 of them into a game.

People could for 1 point, swap a hull for a shield. Or for 1 point, trade a hull for a proton. Or trade that hull point for a stealth device.

I'm still struggling to see how it does more min/maxing than the existing hull *upgrade*.

Because the hull upgrade does not give you more points. Putting on a hull upgrade means limiting your options on what else you can fit for 100 points.

Putting on a hull downgrade or added damage to subtract points increases the number of things you can fit in a list, at little to no real cost in some cases.

How much worse off is a B-Wing with 1 damage card when you have to get though it's shields to add more damage? Or as Vorpal points out, on a ship like a Tie Fighter which is already fragile.

Im not convinced.

Its also important not to consider the points as 'cost to buy' , its an indication of 'utility'.

Im not suggesting that a 'damaged b wing' went into the hangar and spent his pocket money on a missile rather than fixing his rear stabiliser

Its to reflect the fact that some ships in some battles could have gone out on a sortie.. not had reason to fire their ordnance and be rapidly sent out on another mission with only enough time to perhaps put in some fuel if that.

Game wise the point is thus.

We have a mechanic to make a wings more effective that creates a precedence with 'negative cost', so nothings broken there.

We also have a game mechanic already in place to alter substantially the hit points of a ship (royal tie with HU and SU adds 2/3rds of the initial hit points *again*).

The processes are in place, they don't affect balance.

Personally I think the idea to field a ship that is a bit battered now and then in order to fit in that extra upgrade or even extra ship is not worse than EVERY a wing in the field all of a sudden having a refit and being flown by test pilots... the alliance must have more test pilots than anyother sort at the moment

I'm still struggling to see how it does more min/maxing than the existing hull *upgrade*.

Its not like its anything new is it?

Being able to reduce the cost of any ship in the game is new. The cost of a ship isn't directly related to the stat lines alone. Even if it was, this would be incredibly unbalanced.

Think of it this way: Using that math, if you pulled 2 hull from the APs, they would cost half as much. I think it is pretty obvious that running 16 ties, even if they die with one hit, is really unbalanced.

In this game offense is significantly more important than defense. There is a reason why one extra attack die costs 7 points and one extra hull is only 3.

Im not convinced.

Well you could do this...

Using some sort of secret code, perhaps written in disappearing ink or some sort of self destruct text, gather a few friends in a hidden and secure location, and give it a try...

Then when you find out how well it works post it to some form on the blacknet, so no one can trace it back to you.

Otherwise the FFG secret police will find you and put you on trial for miniature war-game crimes.

I could put a /jk tag up top, but I think it would ruin the joke... Clearly I'm joking mostly. But if you think it might work try it and see. Maybe you and people you play with would be willing to adopt it as a house rule or something. Or you might find it doesn't work and then you have your answer.

No thats what i just said. If you read the post i said that chardan refit sets a precedent. Therefore reducing cost via a card is *not* new.

As i've said, reduced cost mechanic is in place, drastically adjusting the hitpoints of a ship (positively) is in place already.

Im not convinced.

Well you could do this...

Using some sort of secret code, perhaps written in disappearing ink or some sort of self destruct text, gather a few friends in a hidden and secure location, and give it a try...

Then when you find out how well it works post it to some form on the blacknet, so no one can trace it back to you.

Otherwise the FFG secret police will find you and put you on trial for miniature war-game crimes.

I could put a /jk tag up top, but I think it would ruin the joke... Clearly I'm joking mostly. But if you think it might work try it and see. Maybe you and people you play with would be willing to adopt it as a house rule or something. Or you might find it doesn't work and then you have your answer.

Given i play with a group of guys who largely work in games design and many work for FFG i cant see them having a problem with it. We house rule stuff all the time.

You should perhaps check out my blog at some point, we're always making stuff up on the fly to suit the situation.

(note they dont work on Xwing, they work on other games)

Something that would probably be more balanced:

Modification: This ship begins with 1 faceup damage card that cannot be removed or flipped. Cost -2

This would highlight the gamble of flying while broken, and bring the cost up a bit to account for the math of it all.

I was considering face up damage cards as well when musing this the other night.

The only problem is if its randomly drawn it has the potential to blow up a A wing before it goes on the table

No thats what i just said. If you read the post i said that chardan refit sets a precedent. Therefore reducing cost via a card is *not* new.

As i've said, reduced cost mechanic is in place, drastically adjusting the hitpoints of a ship (positively) is in place already.

There is a mechanic of increasing any ship types hull. There is a mechanic for decreasing a single ship type's hull. They balanced the decrease for a single ship type. Having a card that applies to every ship in the game would require some serious playtesting for balance.

IMO the hull upgrade is overpriced for most ships, but since it is overpriced there isn't really a reason to spend too much effeort trying to balance it. Similarily, a decrease would need to be overpriced.

If they were to do it, it would probably be -1.

I was considering face up damage cards as well when musing this the other night.

The only problem is if its randomly drawn it has the potential to blow up a A wing before it goes on the table

I know, that is the gamble part