Question in title. It also applies to in person games, but online probably has a better turnaround time.

Many of the threads here are about hypotetical fixes to Xwings, starvipers, munitions and more. But would you let someone actually play you with unsanctioned cards, or changing the core rules in their favor?

It doesn't particularly interest me what other people think is a good fix for this game since on average people are **** at game design and balance. Because of this I would politely refuse to allow them to do so. I am all for playing with upcoming cards/fixes casually though, but I prefer to stick to ffg approved things.

This was the entire point of the Team Covenant Open this year.

Two house rules were tested:

1) Defenders get a free ion cannon that does not occupy the cannon slot.

2) X-Wings can equip any modification without restriction at -4 cost (minimum of zero). Pilot abilities are cancelled by cloaking.

My 3 deltas with hull upgrades (with free ions) went 2-2. I was 2-1 against a variety of buffed X-wings (won against combat retrofit luke and tarn, won against acd rookie (with roark), and lost against acd wedge+vi, and autothrusters biggs)

I echo what nigeltastic said, I would add that that's my personal reason for not participating in the TCO.

It's a good idea on the surface but ultimately a flawed premise because you are still dealing with the biggest variable of all - the players.

How do you account for a list with a 'fix' doing well as being attributable to the fix or the skill (or lack) of the opponent, their list, etc...? Now you would get flawed data regarding the success or efficacy of a fix being purported as evidence that validates the fix as being viable.

You are basically just wanting to play house rules versions of Vassal games - which is fine by me if the opponent agrees but I would be wary of using it as anything other than entertainment

It doesn't particularly interest me what other people think is a good fix for this game since on average people are **** at game design and balance. Because of this I would politely refuse to allow them to do so. I am all for playing with upcoming cards/fixes casually though, but I prefer to stick to ffg approved things.

Honestly, I have a pretty heavy interest in game design and a decent background in that area and I happen to agree with you. I don't make a lot of suggestions for fixes unless FFG happens to ask me to, though I like to contribute to the discussion and play test some of my own ideas. Without knowing their formula and their probably expansive list of things that have and havent worked, and their design goals and ground rules, it's very difficult to know exactly what to do to fix anything that might be a little out of whack.

I am all for people spouting their ideas off. It's great and healthy for the game, as is playtesting ideas and reporting the results. It's up to FFG to look at such feedback and filter or integrate it as they see fit. They certainly seem to keep an eye on the communities thoughts. I openly support things like the TCO and other efforts to further the game.

If someone wants to play their "idea" or "fix", I'm all for it if I have the extra time for that. However, my time on vassal and my time on the table is not generally "extra" time. I am there to practice, play and improve. I would have to (gently) turn down such a request if it came out of the blue. It's not that I don't want to help, but it's also not my primary purpose for sitting down at night with Vassal, iced T and some space ships.

Again, the communities feedback is an important part of the design and development of the game, regardless of skill level in design. It's not the 'all important' factor or anything, but it's still important. I hope that people keep posting their ideas, good or bad, and I hope people keep experimenting with house rules and tweaks, even flat out new cards they came up with. And I hope they report the results back to the community!

Depends on the idea. If it sounds interesting and I have time for it, why not?

Sure! But probably spoiled cards only which we know are coming out, so proxy is not an issue with me. But discuss it with other players first, before initiating a game. As for new rules it would depend, as I stated discuss with the player first.

Vassal often has the spoilers available in one of the patch notes.

Wait a week or 2 and Bossik and the Natasha pup will be out since the dial has been spoiled.

The Natasha pup will need some explanation on how it is deployed first.

Vassal often has the spoilers available in one of the patch notes.

Wait a week or 2 and Bossik and the Natasha pup will be out since the dial has been spoiled.

The Natasha pup will need some explanation on how it is deployed first.

I believe the YV-666 is already in Vassal as of 5.3.1 released this week, everything except the unspoiled bits, I believe.

I was playing against the YV-666 last night. It was pretty sweet.

I was playing against the YV-666 last night. It was pretty sweet.

I guess to use the title card, you and your opponent just have to agree on some deployment rule up front, since we don't know how that works yet.

To the OP, No. I've got no interest in someone's homebrewed, unbalanced (which these suggestions almost always are) "fixes". The TCO was a different situation by the way, because at least everyone going in knew the changes and had the opportunity to either use them or not.

I rarely, if ever, even read the "fix" threads. I wish there was a separate sub-forum for them.

Vassal often has the spoilers available in one of the patch notes.

Wait a week or 2 and Bossik and the Natasha pup will be out since the dial has been spoiled.

The Natasha pup will need some explanation on how it is deployed first.

I believe the YV-666 is already in Vassal as of 5.3.1 released this week, everything except the unspoiled bits, I believe.

All the spoiled YV-666 stuff from the preview is playable in v5.3.1.

Question in title. It also applies to in person games, but online probably has a better turnaround time.

Many of the threads here are about hypotetical fixes to Xwings, starvipers, munitions and more. But would you let someone actually play you with unsanctioned cards, or changing the core rules in their favor?

I guess it's appropriate for me to add my 2 cents. I put together a set of House Rules^* which is, as far as I have seen, the most balanced and comprehensive set of house rules by a very wide margin. (If you come across anything similar please let me know, as I am genuinely curious to see what other people have thought of.)

* Note - I haven't looked at them for a while, and there are still quite a few TBDs in there. Once Regionals season is over and wave 7 is fully spoiled I will take another close look at everything.

So naturally I am interested in empirically verifying balance, and in the right context I would love to take some of them out for a spin. On the other hand, if I am looking to practice for Regionals, then I might rather play vs a standard list, although I suppose if the house rules make my opponent's squad better, that's not terrible for practice either.

Related, I may eventually run a Team Covenant style tournament using all of these rules. But not during Regionals season, and not until I take a very close look at everything again.

It doesn't particularly interest me what other people think is a good fix for this game since on average people are **** at game design and balance. Because of this I would politely refuse to allow them to do so. I am all for playing with upcoming cards/fixes casually though, but I prefer to stick to ffg approved things.

I agree with this. The overwhelming majority of people proposing "fixes" don't understand enough of the underlying fundamentals, and would certainly make very poor designers. But it is also important to recognize that during the "brainstorming" stage it is actually encouraged to come up with crazy ideas. You don't want to stifle creativity initially. Sometimes I see a good idea and leverage off of that basic idea but balance it better, and roll it into my house rules with citation.

The corollary to this, is that playtesters themselves are not necessarily much better, including FFG's own playtesting process - otherwise the many imbalances would have been caught during playtesting, and we would not be having this conversation.

This was the entire point of the Team Covenant Open this year.

Theorists's TC tournament was a very strange tournament. It included the possibility of changes which would clearly never make it into any real "fix", like Advanced Cloaking Device or epic ship upgrades on X-wings. And it was in the middle of the Regionals season, which makes no sense to me.

I don't make a lot of suggestions for fixes unless FFG happens to ask me to

Wait, did FFG actually ask you for suggestions outside of playtesting? Or are you a playtester? Or is this rhetorical?

As Reddit Cup II wraps up tomorrow night, I'm thinking about running a house rule tournament.

Do you think it is better to implement a slew of rules or just one or two?

I feel too many rules is a turnoff to many players. Maybe that's what you want for a quick, limited run though.