The Large ship rules state that Large ships are unaffected by 1 Ion Token. The Ion effect only triggers when you have 2 Ion tokens. And Ion tokens are only removed when you suffer the Ion effect.

This is in the FAQ, there is an Ion token section right under the Large Ship heading. (Ironically, right under the Ion token section)

Thanks for the veiled insult. I guess your double evil name requires that you poke fun at the newbs? Or perhaps your 3k plus posts give you the cachet to treat others disrespectfully? I'm disappointed; I thought folks here wouldn't be so snobbish, but perhaps I'm reading too much into your "ironic" comment. Let's discuss this.

I'm aware of where the rules are located, but I don't see how what is written there indicates a large ship should carry an ion token until the end of time or until it gets 1+ more tokens. So, not only are ion effects not immediate like the rest of the combat effects but they also are tempo-permanent? Help me to understand because my friends and I don't see 1 token being permanent but 2+ being temporary and those contradictions making sense.

I got it, I may be Johnny Come Lately and lots of folks have been playing this way for several years now. But, I must say, playing ions this way certainly does give a measly Y-wing with an ion cannon turret way too much power. Not only are you causing damage to the target ship but you disable it every turn or two also. I don't consider myself incredibly intelligent (and neither does Sithborg ;-)) but I'm surprised that this isn't more of an issue with the more hardcore players. There is way too much contradiction with other mechanics of the game. Perhaps it's a case of "that's the way we've always done it" and everyone is afraid of change? Has this ever been brought up before? Am I COMPLETELY alone in thinking the ion weapons mechanics is broken and is the Mickey Mouse hand on an otherwise beautiful Breitling? Bueller? Bueller?

Thanks for your patience … you know who you are.

And the placement of the two paragraphs isn't ironic, it's coincidental.

It carries one token around because the only way to remove an ion token is to suffer the ion effect. There is literally nothing else in the game that removes an ion token. Since large ships don't suffer the ion effect until they have at least 2 tokens, if they receive a single token it just stays put until the ship gets a second token.

It's true that this element of ion weapons is not a particularly good simulation, but it is kinda necessary. If large ships were ioned by a single token, a huge chunk of your force would be too easily crippled, if they shed a token after a round without effect, ion weapons would be completely worthless against large ships.

There are ways to rationalize it, but they are just rationalizations. X-wing is meant to be a very simple game and trying to be overly simulationist just slows it down and complicates it.

Quoth the Raven, "Nevermore!"

OK, I get it. Wasting my thumbs here. Even though there has been acknowledgment that it's not the best simulation of what ion weapons should do/be, no one wants to change. Subject closed, tell the moderators to take it down so it doesn't get anyone else thinking.

I like "simulationist", it's very inventive.

Darkness there, and nothing more.

I like "simulationist", it's very inventive.

It comes from the old three-fold model (and it's offspring) used to describe role-players. Simulationists, Gamists and Narativists. Broadly speaking, discarding much of the nuance, and adapting it to non-RPGs

Simulationists enjoy realistic rules sets. They tend to favor complicated rules systems because reality is complicated and there are a lot of variables that the rules need to take into account.

Narrativists are looking for flavor in a game. they care more about telling a story or having a dramatic game than being "realistic". They tend to favor simpler rules that create tense moments and that capture the correct flavor.

Gamists are looking for a competition. they are playing a game and want a tight, balanced rule set so that they can challenge their skill against their opponent's. Complexity of the rules are not a factor, as long as the rules provide an opportunity to test their skill.

Again, those are VERY broad generalizations and are entirely subjective interpretations of a 20+ year old theory used to describe players of a different kind of game, but that's where I got the term.

Subject closed, tell the moderators to take it down so it doesn't get anyone else thinking.

I'm trying to find a way to put this politely, but from my perspective it looks like someone relatively new to the game came to the Rules Questions forum to post his homebrew, without first understanding the rules you were replacing or thinking through the consequences of the new ones. Then you got in a huff about being corrected, and after that you randomly attacked a long-time poster for posting a recap of the ion rules, including a reference to the location of the relevant rules in the FAQ*.

Then, to cap it all off, you accuse everyone else of not thinking. I can't speak for anyone else, but this introduction has not endeared you to me.

I like "simulationist", it's very inventive.

"Simulationist" versus "gamist" are fairly common references to two poles on a continuum of game design. A simulationist game attempts to faithfully reproduce its concept, while a gamist game prioritizes smooth and straightforward play experice.

[*The FAQ is a long and complex document, and lots of people--especially, but not exclusively, new players--miss important stuff in there. It's regular practice here to reference the location of rules within the relevant documents, so that people asking questions can verify the answers and then teach the rule to others in their play groups.]

Forgottenlore et.al.: Thank you for your thoughtful responses.

Vorpal Sword: Nor I you. Perhaps it can only get better from here.

Thanks for that.

Here's a quick summary on y's vs VT: 75 pnts each side

Imp- Adm Chiraneau, dauntless, eng upgrade, Mara Jade, Y. Isard, Lone Wolf, recon Specialist (was worthless), ion torps, proton bomb

Reb- Dutch V, R2D2, ion cannon turret, 2xproton torps; gray sqdn, r2f2, ion cannon turret, 2xproton torps

BLUF: VT won with 6 damage to hull. Once one y-wing was down, the VT's turrets ruled.

At the initial head-2-head, VT took out one shield on DV while both Ys landed ion hits. Next round, Ys both landed solid hits taking out all shields and landing several hull hits with a couple of minor crits. Now, all 3 ships are starting to overlap each other or asteroids every turn. Close proximity also brought Mara Jade into play while YI was giving an evade token each round. The Ys were never able to get another combined two ion tokens on VT. Then the Ys split up because of accrued stress and avoiding obstacles and VT followed Gray SP picking him off. When DV and VT met again h2h, VT zapped DV with ion torps causing DV to miss an opportunity to use his last proton torpedo. Next turn, VT and DV overlap (DV doing a straight 3 due to ion effects and VT cuz it's so dang big) so no shooting but Mara Jade stresses DV preventing red maneuvers next turn. DV and VT separate to range 3 now tail-to-tail and VT lands on hit and two crits. DV has one shield and 3 hull left and one of the crits is a direct hit thereby spacing DV.

I must admit, after the first 2 turns I thought the VT would be a goner but when the VT was able to stay close and cause overlaps and stress (taking an ion turret out of action and further reducing the Ys maneuver) it was only a matter of time until Ys were reduced. And yes, I did modify the ion effects but it's only one game.

I liked your test but I would have gone with 3 Gold Squadron pilots, two with R2 astros and maybe one with R3-A2. Drop the torps. With 3 ships spread out you stand a better chance of cleaning the Decimator's clock. If you're arming the Deci with ion torps it's mandatory for three ships. Give the Y with r3-a2 the title and give the Deci 2 stress a turn

Thanks for the input, Stoneface. Unfortunately, the most Ys we could muster were two. They aren't very popular in these parts hahaha. But yes, playing with the homebrew, you need a ship or more with ions to get a large. An ion bomb would be ideal in that scenario but it's only one shot. Dropped in a tight formation, it would really clean up. Hitting the Ys with the ion torp while they were next to eachother prevented them from launching torps to take out shields and cause damage … under my homebrew … but it really just bought time/space as they coasted by and were fully functional next combat phase.

Thanks for the input, Stoneface. Unfortunately, the most Ys we could muster were two. They aren't very popular in these parts hahaha. But yes, playing with the homebrew, you need a ship or more with ions to get a large. An ion bomb would be ideal in that scenario but it's only one shot. Dropped in a tight formation, it would really clean up. Hitting the Ys with the ion torp while they were next to eachother prevented them from launching torps to take out shields and cause damage … under my homebrew … but it really just bought time/space as they coasted by and were fully functional next combat phase.

Got to get more Y's. They're not as sexy as the fast movers like the A and E but with the right load out they are a PITA. Forgo the Ion Bomb. I think the best attack pattern would be the two normal Y's to one side with the Stress Y to the other. If RAC goes after the stressor the other two can gang up on him. The opposite is also true. But with EU on RAC you might change out the R2 units for EU upgrades. This might leave you with enough for EU on the Stress Hog.

You make some valid points about the Ion weapon but I think the fit to the game mechanics, as they stand, is not too good. If this idea had been considered during the conception of X-wing it might have had a chance. Then again it might have been dropped for ease of play or game balance. There are some other effects in this game that don't make sense from a logic stand point but then this is a SCi-Fi game after all.

The turn based movement and firing order always has been a problem (for lack of a better word) for most competitive games, even chess. There have been some interesting approaches to solving this dilema. SNIPER and STAR FLEET BATTLES are two that come to mind. Both required more 'bookkeeping" than X-wing and were slower paced. X-Wing is a much faster paced game for that reason. And it should be. Some pilot in WWII, when asked what it was like to fly some mission responded with: "hours of sheer boredom sprinkled with moments of pure terror." That quote is probably not verbatim but close.

Got to get more Y's. They're not as sexy as the fast movers like the A and E but with the right load out they are a PITA. Forgo the Ion Bomb. I think the best attack pattern would be the two normal Y's to one side with the Stress Y to the other. If RAC goes after the stressor the other two can gang up on him. The opposite is also true. But with EU on RAC you might change out the R2 units for EU upgrades. This might leave you with enough for EU on the Stress Hog.

You make some valid points about the Ion weapon but I think the fit to the game mechanics, as they stand, is not too good. If this idea had been considered during the conception of X-wing it might have had a chance. Then again it might have been dropped for ease of play or game balance. There are some other effects in this game that don't make sense from a logic stand point but then this is a SCi-Fi game after all.

The turn based movement and firing order always has been a problem (for lack of a better word) for most competitive games, even chess. There have been some interesting approaches to solving this dilema. SNIPER and STAR FLEET BATTLES are two that come to mind. Both required more 'bookkeeping" than X-wing and were slower paced. X-Wing is a much faster paced game for that reason. And it should be. Some pilot in WWII, when asked what it was like to fly some mission responded with: "hours of sheer boredom sprinkled with moments of pure terror." That quote is probably not verbatim but close.

Stoneface, thank you for your respectful, thoughtful and measured responses. You, and others like Forgottenlore, are more representative of those I've already met playing X-wing. I'm fully understanding of the logistics and upheaval a big rules change would require to implement. Open-minded responses have allowed me to see that my original concept wasn't workable but with some of the suggested tweaks it seems "playable and balanced".

I've played numerous games that have resolved combat effects in different ways. I think X-wing is the best I've played in that regard. MBT (an Avalon Hill WW III game) required all units to shoot then tokens placed with all results resolved at the end of the shooting. The IED is the first game I've played where two similar weapons (blasters and zappers) are so contradictory in the timing of their effects. I know it's just Sci-Fi and I'll continue to enjoy it immensely but every time my PS8 ion shooter zaps a PS3 bubba, I'll wonder how it is he can maneuver and return fire throughout the rest of the turn. It'll be interesting to hear the discussions after the ion bombs are released and ships shoot and maneuver all throughout the combat and end phases as if it was never dropped. I think when the K and Punisher hit the play mats, folks will be scratching their heads and wonder why they would load-out with an ion bomb.

I would ask fellow players to try the "home brew" during some friendly plays and provide some feedback. I respect your greater experience and opinions on what it would do to the game, however, until you go head-to-head with another living, breathing opponent, it's just SWAG (Scientific Wild-A** Guessing). Besides, what do you have to lose … it's just a Sci-Fi game?

I'm very familiar with the boredom punctuated with moments of sheer terror quote. From personal experience, I'd say it's moments of intense excitement, alertness, and anxiety if you stick to your training. But then, WWII was a VERY different type of combat.

Again, thanks for the thoughtful feedback/input.

I'm set to play Deci vs Ys on Wednesday maybe sooner if lucky. We'll use yours and FFGs.

My introduction to war games started with Avalon Hill's Gettysburg. The map version that used a square grid rather than the hexes. That should give you an idea of my age. (Chuckle) I tried my hand at designing once back in my college days based on the Viet Nam war. I freely admit to borrowing heavily from AH's rules on movement, combat and combat resolution. I will also freely admit that it was a complete and utter disaster. Questions popped up during the first round of movement. We never even got to combat! That idea was put in the circular file and forgotten. Until now. I find it amazing that what seems to be a small tweek or fix can turn out to be so disastrous and complicated.

Don't take anything that said in these forums personally. You can't see or hear the other guy and what you perceive as his tone can be shaped by you. These "home brew" ideas of yours had some time and thought put in them. Anytime that someone attacks a theory that you spent time on it's natural to get defensive. Some of these gray beards as you call them have been with game since release. Me? I'm a noob. My grey beard is because of age.

So, I can see now why the dominant opinion is that ion weapons are OPd with my "home brew". How is it then that a large ship can get rid of two ion tokens but can't get rid of one? Am I missing a clarification in the FAQ? I will admit that I haven't read the tourney rules (haven't had a need to); is there something in there? Assuming you're going to show me the answer, I'd say ion weapons under this interpretation are OPd already. Things that make you hmmmm.

This was the part I was referring to. Not meant to be dismissal. I apologize for not understanding your logic.

Sithborg: thanks for clearing that up, like Stoneface was saying, I was just taking things a little more personally than I ought to have.

Stoneface: thanks for giving the homebrew a try. It's like your baby, it can never have any flaws but to everyone else, it's the ugliest baby ever hahaha. I'll be interested to see how that works out and what you think. I don't mind candid reviews from someone who has given something at least half of an objective try. It's like trying to get your kids to try new food, right? Enough kid analogies.

I never tried to create a game from scratch but I've certainly tweaked a few. It was all back in college also. We adapted MBT for use with the micro-tanks that GHQ (I think that's who it was) castedr from lead (yep, that old) then pewter. We'd paint them, make custom move and firing arc templates, puffs of black and orange cotton for when they were blown up, marked strings for range and LOS, etc. The one game we rewrote some rules for was FASA's Centurion. It was anti-grav tanks and we didn't like that smaller cannons had the same rate of fire as the large cannons (once per round). We knew modern cannons increased their rate of fire the smaller they were so we redid that portion of the combat sequence. It made he smaller cannoned tanks and fighting vehicles more capable but it increased play time by a factor of at least 2. That had something primarily to do with all the record keeping that had to be done for each hit. It made it a lot more realistic (as realistic as a scifi game can be hahaha) and in doing so, changed the dynamic of the game. So the things that you got away with before, couldn't be done with the new combat rules. We worked on that for a good bit. I still have that in a closet upstairs.

I think the game that was the best was the original Space Hulk. Space Marines vs Gene Stealers running around through the corridors of a derelict hunk-o-junk. That game was simple, straight forward, and nuanced with a playability like no other game I've dabbled with. One of the things I loved was the time constraint the SM player was under during his movement phase. I've often wondered what X-Wing would be like if everyone had only 1.5 minutes for their planning phase. Could you imagine all the wrong turns people would be taking. Multiple players per faction would be a hoot because there would be almost no time for discussion. Then, at the end of the 90 seconds, all maneuver dials have to be on the board. OOPS!!! I FORGOT HE WAS ALREADY STRESSED AND PICKED A K-TURN AAAARRRRGGGGHHHH!!!!!!!!! Oh yes, then there would be much calamity and many sad faces buwahahaha.

Let me know how the IED fix goes and thanks again.

I'll try to clarify my position a little.

Currently, ions affect movement and only movement. If you take enough ions to affect you (based on the size of your ship) there actually is no delay: the ion effect takes place at the first available opportunity to affect the way the ionized ship moves.

So your IED isn't getting rid of a delay, because the gap between getting hit by an ion weapon and moving is already as short as it can possibly be. Instead, you're adding additional things to the ion effect so that it has effects in the combat phase as well as the planning and activation phases. In fact, you're saying an ionized ship can't do anything until it shakes the ion effect.

That's a game design problem, because it allows one player to effectively remove another player's ships from play for as long as they stay ionized. It's a game balance problem because ion weapons weren't priced with the added effects in mind. And it's a thematic problem because starfighter ion weapons don't do that. The only time we see anything like a temporary shutdown of an enemy ship is the ground-based cannon on Hoth knocking out a Star Destroyer so the Dutyfree (I think!) can zip by.

And I can see the problems without having to play with your variant. If I suggested you use sawdust in place of cheese in a risotto, would you have to prepare it and eat it to know that wasn't a good idea? If I offered you a sandwich made with shredded bond paper and topped off with plastic shavings, would it demonstrate a lack of open-mindedness not to try a few bites?

I kinda hate to do this, because I agree with your post completely, but my pedantry levels are high today.

Currently, ions affect movement and only movement.

If you take enough ions to affect you (based on the size of your ship) there actually is no delay: the ion effect takes place at the first available opportunity to affect the way the ionized ship moves

Vorpal, I appreciate your point and I understand everything that you're saying (except the post consumer recycling material analogy; that was a bit like comparing apples with Jupiters haha) with ion effects and movement. But that is exactly my point: how does a ship that can't maneuver bring their guns to bear on a target? Take out the ability to pull the trigger and have a shot leave the cannon and just focus on everything that must happen up to that point. The game can't replicate the fine maneuvering that a pilot does in order to get crosshairs on target and release them in order to intercept a target. Hence, the firing arc and the reason I say the effect is delayed; the ionized ship continues to perform its attack (if PS is lower) which is assumed to require some maneuvering or a defense which also requires some maneuvering (it's even called agility) all before the ion effects go into action. So really, I'm the one in need of clarification and I hope you see my original point a little better. BTW, I may have had some Army meals that were made with saw dust and plastic shavings hahaha. If you're hungry enough, anything tastes good :-)