So this game is quickly becoming my favorite game. It's closing the gap on X-Wing.

That said I feel like there should be some sort of cover implemented. This might come from my days of playing WOTC minis, but I feel like shooting through certain things should be harder.

It'd basically be one more colored line. Like Green or Purple. When shooting through that line you need 2 more accuracy. Or whatever.

Basically something that just means you need extra accuracy would feel appropriate for me.

The way this game's LOS works it doesn't feel like you can ever hunker down and hide from the enemy unless you just run far enough away.

All units have the equivalent of WotC's mobile attack, so you can move out to shoot and then move back in. You also don't have the wall running rule from WotC's SWM so you can make plenty of situations where they can shoot you and you can't shoot them.

Or use Mak.

Part of it I think, is that like X-Wing they want offense to be a big part of the game. Also while a cover mechanic might be nice, there comes a point where you have to stop adding in more 'nice mechanics' or else you get a rulebook the size of the 40k one.

most maps include a corner where is possible to have line of sight on anybody on that side while they don't have line of sight on you. I think that's the closest it will get, and honestly I think that's the closest it should ever be.I, for one prefer FFGs policy of emphasizing attack in their miniatures games. It keeps the action moving and prevents the game from descending into a turtle fest

I don't miss that mechanic at all. It was fine for a set or two, but then got more difficult in every combination. Almost impossible to explain to newer players who tried to apply real world logic to it. I like the defense dice variable in this game which can easily be used to represent a character with cover, but not having to change the tiles or have to worry about how it interacts with other rules and abilities down the road.

one thing that could work in IA. A cover action, it takes 1 action and then gives you +1 block +1 evade or something. Would be a generic status like Focus.

The cost of losing an action could be balanced with the increase in defense. While I do think the game works well being focused on offense, a bit more defense could be nice, as long as it was balanced.

one thing that could work in IA. A cover action, it takes 1 action and then gives you +1 block +1 evade or something. Would be a generic status like Focus.

The cost of losing an action could be balanced with the increase in defense. While I do think the game works well being focused on offense, a bit more defense could be nice, as long as it was balanced.

There's the command card "Take Cover", with "[Action]: Add one [block] and -2 Accuracy to all attacks targeting you until the end of the round." 0 points, Limit one. And there are several other cards that provide defensive options too, but since they're all cards, you can't use them indefinitely, which keeps the game moving faster.

And you'll notice that "Focus" isn't exactly something that's widely available either.

I think 'Reflect' should be an exhaustible skill for any force user (wielding a light saber) during campaign ...

But ... cover for everyone? No.

most maps include a corner where is possible to have line of sight on anybody on that side while they don't have line of sight on you. I think that's the closest it will get, and honestly I think that's the closest it should ever be.I, for one prefer FFGs policy of emphasizing attack in their miniatures games. It keeps the action moving and prevents the game from descending into a turtle fest

Can you show a fizzgrid example of this? I believe you that it's on most maps but my brain is freezing trying to draw one on a post-it note at work?

Are you talking Skirmish maps?

Back on topic for me I wouldn't mind cover being another positive condition, it could be similar to focus.

We've already seen that weakened is being added in the Twin Shadows wave so maybe cover will be added in the future.

Something like, the next time you defend you are forced to discard this token to apply -2 accuracy +1 surge cancel to the results. Or just plain and simple, the next time you defend add a black die to your dice pool. So some units may be able to surge for cover. Or a guardian can give an adjacent unit cover as a condition like how Gideon can give focused.

Personally, I don't think there should be a cover mechanic as it would encourage the heroes to play more defensively than in most cases they should.

If they were to add a cover mechanic, it should be something extremely simple, like, if you draw LOS though X square, defender gets +1 (block) or +1 (evade). Something that can be resolved quickly and doesn't bog the game down with more complexity than it needs.

As for the Fizzgrid™ showing where the attacker has LOS where the defender does not back to the attacker:

[_ ] [ _] [_] [_] [_]
[ A ] [ _][ D ][ _ ][ _ ]
[_] [_] [_] [ D ] [_]
[_][_][_][_][_]

The orange part of the Fizzgrid™ is a wall. The attacker "A" can draw LOS to both "D" defenders, but the red " D " defender cannot draw LOS back to the attacker.

As for the Fizzgrid™ showing where the attacker has LOS where the defender does not back to the attacker:

[_ ] [ _] [_] [_] [_]

[ A ] [ _][ D ][ _ ][ _ ]

[_] [_] [_] [ D ] [_]

[_][_][_][_][_]

The orange part of the Fizzgrid™ is a wall. The attacker "A" can draw LOS to both "D" defenders, but the red " D " defender cannot draw LOS back to the attacker.

Thanks my mind is complete now.

This application of Fizzgrid ^TM technology is not sensitive to my colorblindness. Fizzgrid ^TM is soon to be overwhelmed by a class action lawsuit claiming loss of enjoyment of life because I, and many others, can't enjoy life if we can't play IA. We can't play IA if we can't understand the rules. We can't understand the rules if we can't understand Fizzgrid ^TM . We can't understand Fizzgrid ^TM if we're colorblind and you use the same letters only differentiated by the colors red and green. I plan on using my proceeds from the lawsuit to build a 24hr IA play center, with walls that are just black lines on the ground and the doors are the only 3 dimensional pieces of the building.

...I plan on using my proceeds from the lawsuit to build a 24hr IA play center, with walls that are just black lines on the ground and the doors are the only 3 dimensional pieces of the building.

It's life-sized Wizarding Chess! But with blasters!

[_!!_][_][_][_]

[A!!_][C][_][_]

[_][_][_][D][_]

[_][_][_][_][_]

Does this help for the color blind? The wall is actually just some ! The defender who cannot attack back without moving is C. Please no lawsuit

Disclaimer: I am in no way related to or in league with the creator of Fizzgrid Technology, just want to see us all get along.

Oh hey, I like that! But you know, there isn't a good character for the floors. how about commas and hypens for walls?

[_ ! !,] [,] [,] [,]
[A ! !_ ][ D ][ _ ][ ' ]
[_] [_] [_] [E] [_]
[_][_][_][_][_]

I take it back, that looks ugly.

I'm open for suggestions to prevent lawsuits.

Mixed opinions from our group as well.

I think cover would be a little more useful if movement wasn't so flexible.

It’s very easy to obtain LOS to a specific target with the current rules for moving:

It would be interesting to try a campaign implementing a rule where it costs an additional movement point to move diagonally past enemy figures (the idea has been floating around on BGG I think).

More movement restrictions = less opportunities to find a space that could target a figure behind cover, perhaps?

I might not actually BE colorblind. It all depends on what the definition of "is" is.....

If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit!

Mixed opinions from our group as well.

I think cover would be a little more useful if movement wasn't so flexible.

It’s very easy to obtain LOS to a specific target with the current rules for moving:

It would be interesting to try a campaign implementing a rule where it costs an additional movement point to move diagonally past enemy figures (the idea has been floating around on BGG I think).

More movement restrictions = less opportunities to find a space that could target a figure behind cover, perhaps?

A ton of this, and LOS is extremely permissive around corners. If you're at the end of a wall you basically have a 360 arc as you can draw from that corner with no restrictions. If you're trying to hide behind a corner, you need to be two spaces in as all it takes someone to be one space over and they have unimpeded LOS to you.

I'd totally be in favor of making crossing a digonal cost the less of the two spaces on either side. However it would probably swing the balance heavily in favor of the imperials.