Hi all

It seems pretty well established that as of wave 1 using squadrons isn't as effective as ship builds. Largely I believe this is due to squadrons without squadron commands not being able to keep up with most ships. Yet this seems contrary to the star wars background. Hence I was wondering what people thought of the following rule.

Fighter suppression: if no enemy squadron is within distance 3 (can be changed) of your squadron it can move and fire as long as the shot is at an enemy ship.

Largely the idea is when fighters aren't having to fight for air superiority there seems little reason they couldn't bomb.

Not needed. Fighters are very effective as they are.

It blows my mind that people want to advocate for rules changes when we only have a single major tournament to go off of.

It blows my mind that people want to advocate for rules changes when we only have a single major tournament to go off of.

Funny that we agree 100% on this one Lyraeus

I think, too, it's telling to how people like to approach miniature games/wargames/etc in modern times.

A single major tournament, that was not even played at full points value, held within the first 8 months of the game when most of the playing population is still considering how the rules work as opposed to developing deeper tactical thought.

I don't think the OP has a bad idea, it may be an awesome fix, but it is way too soon to tell if it's needed.

Well what else are they supposed to do when the sky is falling? Stay calm and wait for proper data? This is the internet, we don't have time for rational thought!

It blows my mind that people want to advocate for rules changes when we only have a single major tournament to go off of.

Funny that we agree 100% on this one Lyraeus

I think, too, it's telling to how people like to approach miniature games/wargames/etc in modern times.

Well if ffg realesed some spoilers finally we wouldn't have to make up rules to talk about...

It blows my mind that people want to advocate for rules changes when we only have a single major tournament to go off of.

especially since the 2 at the final table avoided bomber heavy lists all day.

Alex Davy seems to think that bomber heavy lists would have given both a run for their money and my groups playtesting of those lists would seem to concur (closest the Vic/3 Glad has come v bomber heavy is a 6-4 loss)

It blows my mind that people want to advocate for rules changes when we only have a single major tournament to go off of.

especially since the 2 at the final table avoided bomber heavy lists all day.

Alex Davy seems to think that bomber heavy lists would have given both a run for their money and my groups playtesting of those lists would seem to concur (closest the Vic/3 Glad has come v bomber heavy is a 6-4 loss)

Not that I think this particular rule is necessary or helpful, but I don't get why some here are so dismissive of house rules, custom scenarios/cards, etc. There's no need to be hard on the guy. Some people just like to tinker, to place more focus on the aspects of the game they find most appealing, or simply to let their fantasy fly. Nothing wrong with that - even if FFG have made this a tournament-grade ruleset (which is a feat of game design!), it doesn't mean those who enjoy it differently are heretics of some sort.

Just wait. When there will be tournaments with 300 to 500 points and the rebels will get their own Chiraneau (Jan Ors, if I remember correctly) things will look up for squadrons. Even now squadron heavy armadas have punch. There just one bad matchup. If you just brought interceptors (i. e. squadrons without punch against capital ships) against an enemy who brought no squadrons at all, you have a hard time.

Not that I think this particular rule is necessary or helpful, but I don't get why some here are so dismissive of house rules, custom scenarios/cards, etc. There's no need to be hard on the guy. Some people just like to tinker, to place more focus on the aspects of the game they find most appealing, or simply to let their fantasy fly. Nothing wrong with that - even if FFG have made this a tournament-grade ruleset (which is a feat of game design!), it doesn't mean those who enjoy it differently are heretics of some sort.

I am tired of this "sky is falling let's plug the hole" issue people are having.

The winner at Nationals did not face off against a squadron heavy list and many people were new at Nationals who never played before so be patient and wait. If you want squadrons to be good practice practice practice

I get it, and I agree with your assessment that the rule is not necessary for balance. But if SireScott wants to try out some house-rules that he likes better, for whatever reason, what's the harm? There's no need to lash out at the guy :/

The ruleset is neither law nor religion, and FFG are certainly no gods. Please don't be an inquisitor

I get it, and I agree with your assessment that the rule is not necessary for balance. But if SireScott wants to try out some house-rules that he likes better, for whatever reason, what's the harm? There's no need to lash out at the guy :/The ruleset is neither law nor religion, and FFG are certainly no gods. Please don't be an inquisitor

Will this happen, it is a possibility at best but it has happened to me and I have seem it happen to others.

Now the rule itself is broken, I can easily move a squadron outside of 3 of an enemy squadron and get to move and shoot it for days. At that point the Rouge ability is kinda moot in comparison. Hey, let me throw these 2 X-Wings into your interceptors while my Y-Wings get free move and shoots for the next 3 turns without me having to command them to do so. Well I no longer need Squadron commands anymore.

This would make a Rhymer circus an absolute nightmare.

I personally abhor house rules. Every game I have, I play it strictly by the rules it has. But hey, you want to butcher the game, in your own home, go ahead, it's your game after all.

It seems

No squadrons def Fighter heavy lists

Fighter heavy def Bomber heavy

bomber heavy def no squadrons.

Rock-Scissors-paper

Though "def" is probably the wrong term as it's not auto-win, just gives them an advantage

The harm is as I state for EVERY house rule idea I come across. These house rules will 1) unbalance this beautifully designed and balanced game, 2) teach this game to someone and when they play the true game they will be lost, confused, and possibly quit because they no longer like the game.

Imagine if some guy deeply believed people should learn the game by themselves, and posted harsh comments against you in every single video thread you made. Not cool, right?

Please be cool

I agree with the masses here: Squadrons are not less powerful than ships, so there's nothing to fix.