That would be fine rule change if the game designers made it. I get that flying off the board can be very punishing. But the answer is, learn to fly your ships, not change the rules we don't like.

Sure it is a harsh rule and I wouldn't enforce it against my opponent if it was their first game or two and we were not in a tournament. But the rules works fine.

Sure in a house rule situation your fine, but we just don't have the authority to make game rule decisions.

Before I read all the rules I thought maybe it could be like pac man or other old school video games, if you go off the board to your left, come back in on the right of the board lol

I used to play a lot of Ace Combat and thought the "combat zone" and "return line" mechanisms would be good mechanics for casual play. Use a 4x4 board and mark off 6" on each side. Players' deployment edge is their "Return Line" fly passed to reload Ordnance. And the other edges define the "Combat Zone" and ships entering the area receive 1 Stress Token and a Critical Hit Marker (or another Turn Counter) to a maximum of 3 Consecutive Markers. Then is removed from the board as a causality.

It's a game. It is futile cpmparing it to real life. It's like saying, "I know exactly what it's like to be a Navy Seal .. I've played Call of Duty".

Because it's a game there are various considerations one has to make which differ from a real world scenario. One of which is playing within a standardised and agreed upon boundary. The rules are defined with these boundaries in mind.

I agree with some of the posters here, I think it's a rule that doesn't need changing.

I like the idea of flying / limping off the board to save your ship though. Also, the idea of flying within a span of your own board edge to reload. I think this might help the ordnance issue.

It's a game. It is futile cpmparing it to real life. It's like saying, "I know exactly what it's like to be a Navy Seal .. I've played Call of Duty".

Because it's a game there are various considerations one has to make which differ from a real world scenario. One of which is playing within a standardised and agreed upon boundary. The rules are defined with these boundaries in mind.

I agree with some of the posters here, I think it's a rule that doesn't need changing.

I like the idea of flying / limping off the board to save your ship though. Also, the idea of flying within a span of your own board edge to reload. I think this might help the ordnance issue.

Agreed. If I get a chance to mess with the scenario builder, I might try to build the ordnance reload into a scenario and see how it goes.

I can see the argument for, a ship doesn't blow up the moment it moves a few meters out of area. However unless you got ionized off the table if you move off the table edge it is your fault. Now on some games that have compulsory moves such as Warhammer fantasy where a fleeing unit could cause your own unit to chase it off the table with them. The rule to com back the next turn was necessary in order to prevent from punishing people for good strategic game play.

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?

Reading this, it just occurred to me that I have never played a game where a ship has flown off the board. Ever. That's actually kind of weird.

Reading this, it just occurred to me that I have never played a game where a ship has flown off the board. Ever. That's actually kind of weird.

I've done it once by accident (when I was first learning to use the Falcon and underestimated how far a move could take a large ship). I've done it a couple of times for thematic purposes (i.e. I'm getting hammered, the match is effectively over, so my remaining ship "jumps to hyperspace" and I concede)

But yeah, in tournament play, it hardly ever rears it's head because people know the game well enough to avoid putting themselves in that situation. In casual play, either take it on the chin and move on or agree to let it slide. When introducing a new player, you simply explain to them what happens when you fly off the board (accidentally or not) and let them re-do their move, it's as simple as that.

My first game with Darth Vader in a Tie Advanced .. I flew him off the edge. Was the tiniest part of his base .. but alas. Just like in ANH ... he left the board.

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.

Makes no sense.

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.

There is a fast chance that ships drift too far off combat. How would YOU represent that in X-WIng in an easy fun to play way?

Look there's a lot of things that doesn't make sense in X-Wing so don't go there, please.