Our gaming group are testing a house rule for friendly games.

We all think its a bit mental that flying off the board 'destroys' your ship, more so when you clip the edge with the corned of the base.

So we came up with a house rule that if you fly off board you miss a turn with that ship but come back on at the point you went of the turn after but 'stressed' (representing you K turning to get back).

Likewise we're considering letting damaged ships 'disengage' and be worth half their points with regards to victory as it seems a bit crazy that everyone fights to the death.

Totally wouldnt work in a competetive environment as its open to abuse but do any other narrative player groups like this idea?

Yeah, seems reasonable.

X-wing has an advantage with stuff like this in that there are lesser forms of 'damage' that can be used to balance effects.

I like it. Good friendly rule for new players.

The disengage could be regular tournament use too. Would be a great counter to the stupid points victories that people are doing now.

When a ship flies off board it doesn't 'die', it has simply drifted too far off from the actual battle to be able to return to it before it is over. The rulebook says it has been destroyed, sure, but this is just gamespeak for "not part of the battle anymore". I think it is a good representation of the 3rd dimension, sometimes a ship acquires a velocity in the perpendcular axis that differs to much from the others and involuntary disengages.

I like it. Good friendly rule for new players.

The disengage could be regular tournament use too. Would be a great counter to the stupid points victories that people are doing now.

until it gets abused with ships like Keyan, Tycho, Ibtisam, etcetc

When a ship flies off board it doesn't 'die', it has simply drifted too far off from the actual battle to be able to return to it before it is over. The rulebook says it has been destroyed, sure, but this is just gamespeak for "not part of the battle anymore". I think it is a good representation of the 3rd dimension, sometimes a ship acquires a velocity in the perpendcular axis that differs to much from the others and involuntary disengages.

But regardless of how you describe it in words, and like you say the rulebook says 'destroyed' . At present to all extents and purposes it does 'die'.

I just think that rather than envsion the board as being surrounded by some square force wall its more realistic to let units come back on after a period of time but 'disorganised'

Many traditional wargames (even early editions of warhammer) allow you to do this.

I'm trying to think how you could abuse it too badly.

Yeah stress processers like tycho and keyan dont 'suffer' as much but they stil miss a turn of firing and manouvreing and your opponent knows *exactly* where you come back on so can be set up to flank shot you.

It just seems a better 'narrative' fix at the mo than 'sorry 2mm of the corner of your base is out of the engagement area, you just self destructed[' or 'your 2mm base overlay prevents you 4 agility ship from *ever* turning around'

I like it. Good friendly rule for new players.

The disengage could be regular tournament use too. Would be a great counter to the stupid points victories that people are doing now.

until it gets abused with ships like Keyan, Tycho, Ibtisam, etcetc

If the new player can abuse it, they aren't a new player anymore. No more casual rule. Also note that you spend one turn in purgatory.

Look at the fleeing as 1/2 points lost also. Isn't that helpful a little to curb the Falcon wins?

When a ship flies off board it doesn't 'die', it has simply drifted too far off from the actual battle to be able to return to it before it is over. The rulebook says it has been destroyed, sure, but this is just gamespeak for "not part of the battle anymore". I think it is a good representation of the 3rd dimension, sometimes a ship acquires a velocity in the perpendcular axis that differs to much from the others and involuntary disengages.

But regardless of how you describe it in words, and like you say the rulebook says 'destroyed' . At present to all extents and purposes it does 'die'.

I think there is a difference in 'die' as "eaten by the big space-monster" and 'destroyed' as "no longer able to take part in the battle". A ship that lost all of it's hull is 'destroyed' game wise, but it is perfectly reasonable to picture it too damaged to fight on or to have jumped to hyperspace at the last moment. (Unless it's a TIE. TIEs always blow up.)

A zero gravity space dog fight takes place in a moving reference system (i.e. the game board doesn't represent a fixed position in space, asteroids aside). At some point one or more participants may acquire a velocity that differs too much from the rest of the dog fighters and therefor is unable to keep up. I would be disappointed if this effect wasn't represented in the game somehow.

I'm not tryinig to dissuade you from using your house rule in casual games. I'm just pointing out the reasoning behind the RAW, and why it isn't broken.

I like it. Good friendly rule for new players.

The disengage could be regular tournament use too. Would be a great counter to the stupid points victories that people are doing now.

until it gets abused with ships like Keyan, Tycho, Ibtisam, etcetc

Good point. How about: Comes back with Blinded Pilot effect.

creating another rule for the situations when a ship goes off the table can be nice... but...

one stress token is the normal rule for a k-turn...

so if I'm hypothetically flying out of the board AND having a k-turn, I'll have to take 2 stress token...

it is something worst than the red k-turn...

what do you think about it ??

Our house rule is if more than 50% of the ship goes off the board, it's destroyed/out of play. This allows us to have a little bit of leeway while making the size of the game board still have a significant impact.

YMMV.

-Cal

as a newb when it comes to actual playing i like the rule and always thought the boards edge was an unfair representation and something that could be taken advantage of tactically (AKA fortress and side flying falcons) as an old air warfare gamer we would just say that aircraft disengaged. but back then the the aircraft were little tiny cardboard chits so the board was HUGE in comparison. you also had altitude and attitude AND radar arcs to factor in so the boards edge wasn't a big issue. What about if your ship fly's off the edge your opponent gets to place it within one base width of where it left the board your opponent gets to pick any GREEN maneuver with the ships base aligned with the back facing the edge of the board where it left you also receive a stress.. however this would NOT apply to ioned ships that got zapped off the board.. This would kind of simulate the poor situational awareness of the reengaging pilot. Could also be fun for the opponent as he or she could pick a maneuver that flew you into an asteroid or right into the firing arc of several other ships. but it would beat simply getting destroyed!! Would also think that with that many penalties it wouldn't get abused. just my 5 cents. yeah it could be used as a tactic that an opponent wouldn't expect and may work out to ones advantage rather than get shot at point blank range etc. But still think the cons would out weigh the advantage of using it as a viable tactic all the time. perhaps instead of a stress the ship takes one damage??

Our gaming group are testing a house rule for friendly games.

We all think its a bit mental that flying off the board 'destroys' your ship, more so when you clip the edge with the corned of the base.

So we came up with a house rule that if you fly off board you miss a turn with that ship but come back on at the point you went of the turn after but 'stressed' (representing you K turning to get back).

Likewise we're considering letting damaged ships 'disengage' and be worth half their points with regards to victory as it seems a bit crazy that everyone fights to the death.

Totally wouldnt work in a competetive environment as its open to abuse but do any other narrative player groups like this idea?

My only concern with this house rule is that it inadvertently affects Ion weapons. Essentially, what point would there be to an Ion attack anymore?

One of its best strengths was to gain control of an opposing ship - and sending it to places they didn't want to go ... say off of the board.

The main issue I have with this would be it would allow players to deliberately leave the playing area, which opens up all kinds of shenanigans.

So, you have a damaged X-Wing flanked by two Interceptors which it has little chance of getting in arc this movement turn. What does it do? Fly off the board instead. Suddenly the Interceptors have no target. Do they circle around aimlessly for a few turns waiting for the X-Wing to reappear?

Generally, in board or table top gaming, there is a clearly defined playing surface. Leaving that clearly defined playing surface - voluntarily or otherwise Is usually considered to be "a bad thing". Destroyed, routed, bugging out, jumping to hyperspace, call it what you will, leaving the playing area usually amounts to the same thing.

The simplest solution is usually the best, and the simplest solution in this case would be "don't fly off the board in the first place".

I like it. Good friendly rule for new players.

The disengage could be regular tournament use too. Would be a great counter to the stupid points victories that people are doing now.

until it gets abused with ships like Keyan, Tycho, Ibtisam, etcetc

Right. And also, why bother? How often have you seen a player, even a new one, fly a ship off the board?

How about this. If a ship has 1 hull left it may disengage by flying off the board. Half points will be awarded.

They way they cannot flee until almost dead.

Maybe they should just pop back on the opposite board side, like in Asteroids.

Yes. Good idea. I wish the system had some disengagement mechanic. Points make much more sense in non tournament games. 50% sounds good.

Like the idea of a damaged ship limping home.

I think that will create more problems than it solves. It's open to abuse in some really obvious ways. It will encourage players to flee when their positioning makes them vulnerable, which will rob their opponents of having out-played them. It'll also teach new players bad habits. It may push the action closer to the edges rather than toward the middle, making asteroids less relevant. And yeah, it weakens ion attacks.

If it helps, envision the edges of the play area to be totally cluttered with asteroids, or the broadsides of capital ships, or lanes of intense turbolaser fire, or other dogfights, or falling off the scopes of a commander trying to coordinate their squad. However you imagine it, you're always going to be making some excuse for an arbitrary limit to the play area. Your house rule doesn't change that.

For all intents and purposes, a ship leaving the current sector of combat is "destroyed" so the game doesn't need to explain it using any other term, and indeed it would only confuse things if it did. But you can imagine other explanations for what really happened. The effect is the same -- the ship won't be coming back and the opposing player should get credit for that (possibly forced) result.

In any case, I don't understand why a ship would come back where it left the play area. Couldn't it circle the battle and re-enter wherever and whenever it chose? It looks like you're just replacing one arbitrary rule with another.

If you've got a new player and they don't quite know where their maneuver would end up, I'd let them change it or just ignore the little bit hanging over. It's about making sure they learn and have fun. As far as it just being for casual games, how often does it really happen? For a random fun afternoon I think you just have a good laugh about it or swallow your resentment, letting it slowly fester deep down inside until your every game is suffused with the black bile of resentment and your friendships wither and die.

I do like Swedge's point about how we use the edge of the board as if it were something that actually existed. It's kind of weird.

I dislike the disengage idea but the 'come back with a stress token' is the best house rule I've heard in a long, long time.

First way to abuse it that comes to mind that no one mentionned: the lambda shuttle. You keep it safe "and" get a free K-turn in the process? Score! I like the blinded pilot thing, however. That or at least lose all target locks in the process.

When a ship flies off board it doesn't 'die', it has simply drifted too far off from the actual battle to be able to return to it before it is over.

A ship can do a turning maneuver that goes beyond the boundary and back in, as long as the ship is fully within the boundaries at the end of the maneuver.

Yet, if even the tiniest corner of the ship is not back in, it's destroyed.

So, a nonlinear 3D scale of the battlefield in which "drifting too far away to return to battle" would have to be the case for your explanation to work is not acceptable.

Sorry.

(I could maybe dig this if the rule was any part of the maneuver template during the movement, but it isn't. It's a magical cubic forcefield that only activates at the end of a ship's maneuver.)

Even more interestingly, albeit much more rare to occur, is that a ship can set up to do that same turning maneuver that would safely bring it back in bounds to battle...but if there happens to be another ship that is on the edge of the battle and the maneuver happens to overlap it, the same exact maneuver will cause it to have "fled the battlefield" as termed in the rulebook...by colliding with a ship that is still in the battle.

I support the double stress to return to battle rule.

How about this. If a ship has 1 hull left it may disengage by flying off the board. Half points will be awarded.

They way they cannot flee until almost dead.

Again, highly exploitable. You are ahead in a game by more than half the points of your main ship, it allows you to almost guarantee that you win by simply flying near the edge and waiting to get hit.

Really guys, the game isn't perfect, but why try and fix a part of it that genuinely isn't broken?

If it's a good, friendly game. Or if we're teaching a new player. We just let players take back their move or not to worry about clipping an edge or something.