Hey all; since I'm pretty new to the forum I don't know how much I really have the right to say when it comes to opinions, although I have asked some questions - and had some great responses!

I will say that I can share some of B.B.'s feelings though, but it's kind of inevitable that new units and new upgrades will slowly make any game become more complicated as time goes on - even I dabbled with Warhammer 40K many years ago, and later gave it up. I will totally agree with him on at least the point he made about consistency, when it comes to the plastic around shield dials counting for overlapping issues on everything except going out of bounds - it always made me feel like different people worked on different parts of the rules without consulting each other. Oh well, I guess it's a little easier to stay in bounds of the play area - considering that some have questioned if 3' deep is actually deep enough! Steiner

Ly, do you want to explain that? Cuz I explained my approach pretty wordily.

Steiner, yes, I'm very sure that 3 ft is NOT deep enough, but that's what makes this game tough: you GOTTA plan those navigates and angles to stay on the board. Imo, I think its part of the game intention as designed.

Also, of course, they have their 3ft wide xwing mats they want to use.

Targeting in this game is a complete mess requiring 3 different complex, timely and unnecessary checks, all of which are fixed by one simple and easy-to-use fix that takes 1 second: check range, LOS and arc with one dot-to-dot check for ship to ship; dot to closest part of squadron for ship/squad.

Dot to Dot does not work. The issue comes in that just having dot to dot would have tons of issues and would change the space that the game needs. You would need different rulers, ranges, movement. . . everything. If you can come up with a better system go make it!

Don't be so defensive, this whole thread is about changes, no need to tell people to go design their own games.

Dot to dot wouldn't change anything drastic. It would reduce effective range by about an 1" - 2" which still leaves a playable game. Arc, LOS etc all still work.

The problem is the Game needs rules telling you what part of your ship can fire (arc) and it needs rules telling you what part of the enemy ship you can target (LOS) and all weapons need range.

As it stands most people I game with understand it all so I'm not in some dire need to wish fulfil a re-write.

This would permit me to attack the starbord hull, from the port flank. Sort of eliminates the idea of turning my strong shield towards the enemy.

I think I did not communicate clearly enough. You would still determine LoS as normal - I was specifically referencing the closest point to closest point line. I should have been a little more explicit.

Targeting in this game is a complete mess requiring 3 different complex, timely and unnecessary checks, all of which are fixed by one simple and easy-to-use fix that takes 1 second: check range, LOS and arc with one dot-to-dot check for ship to ship; dot to closest part of squadron for ship/squad.

Dot to Dot does not work. The issue comes in that just having dot to dot would have tons of issues and would change the space that the game needs. You would need different rulers, ranges, movement. . . everything. If you can come up with a better system go make it!

Don't be so defensive, this whole thread is about changes, no need to tell people to go design their own games.

Dot to dot wouldn't change anything drastic. It would reduce effective range by about an 1" - 2" which still leaves a playable game. Arc, LOS etc all still work.

The problem is the Game needs rules telling you what part of your ship can fire (arc) and it needs rules telling you what part of the enemy ship you can target (LOS) and all weapons need range.

As it stands most people I game with understand it all so I'm not in some dire need to wish fulfil a re-write.

Actually, arc would change pretty significantly if you ignored attacking arc lines to do dot to dot.

For example, the ISD has a much narrower front arc than the VSD. If you only measured dot to dot that will affect incoming attacks, but not outgoing attacks. That means that the ISD will get a substantial increase in arc length - it would probably be more than 180°. That's hugely different than the arc it currently has.

Targeting in this game is a complete mess requiring 3 different complex, timely and unnecessary checks, all of which are fixed by one simple and easy-to-use fix that takes 1 second: check range, LOS and arc with one dot-to-dot check for ship to ship; dot to closest part of squadron for ship/squad.

Dot to Dot does not work. The issue comes in that just having dot to dot would have tons of issues and would change the space that the game needs. You would need different rulers, ranges, movement. . . everything. If you can come up with a better system go make it!

Don't be so defensive, this whole thread is about changes, no need to tell people to go design their own games.

Dot to dot wouldn't change anything drastic. It would reduce effective range by about an 1" - 2" which still leaves a playable game. Arc, LOS etc all still work.

The problem is the Game needs rules telling you what part of your ship can fire (arc) and it needs rules telling you what part of the enemy ship you can target (LOS) and all weapons need range.

As it stands most people I game with understand it all so I'm not in some dire need to wish fulfil a re-write.

Actually, arc would change pretty significantly if you ignored attacking arc lines to do dot to dot.

For example, the ISD has a much narrower front arc than the VSD. If you only measured dot to dot that will affect incoming attacks, but not outgoing attacks. That means that the ISD will get a substantial increase in arc length - it would probably be more than 180°. That's hugely different than the arc it currently has.

Not really because your target point (a dot instead of a hull zone) still has to be within your fire arc.

Alright then, small tweak to Arc/LOS - You draw a line dot to target dot. You still make sure those lines are in arc. I guess LOS would go be rolled into Arc. The line drawn could not cross any arc lines. simple.

So you propose that their dot has to be in your arc as well? I don't much care for that as it will significantly reduce the overall number of legal shots without decreasing the number of checks that have to be calculated.

I think a very elegant solution is to draw a line between the dots. As long as that line crosses no arc lines on either ship card its a legal shot.

So you can angle shots outside arc as it were, but only to a certain degree.

That would be very simple for sure. They'd probably need to print new ship cardboard for every ship in the game, but it would be simpler.

Ly, do you want to explain that? Cuz I explained my approach pretty wordily.

Steiner, yes, I'm very sure that 3 ft is NOT deep enough, but that's what makes this game tough: you GOTTA plan those navigates and angles to stay on the board. Imo, I think its part of the game intention as designed.

Also, of course, they have their 3ft wide xwing mats they want to use.

This may add a depth of skill but then you will see min makers using smaller ships more often because they get that bit of range. Since this is shoot and move game, those smaller ships can stay out of the way longer, have more of them, and whittle away the bigger ship without usually taking a hit back. (sounds like a boring unbalanced meta, the polar opposite of what we have now)

I still don't like dot to dot. All they need to do currently remove the need from closest point to closest point and I would be happy.

I still don't like dot to dot. All they need to do currently remove the need from closest point to closest point and I would be happy.

I think that this is the one part of the targeting rules that make the last amount of sense, and the easiest single part to take out. Arc in arc, LoS, and distance are all pretty simple.

Although it should be noted that the ruler is supposed to be exactly a foot, which I like. I could never figure out why they didnt use some obvious metric for the xwing bases/range ruler/distance. -> I really like how those 3 in xwing are so related.

The ruler is a foot long (30,48 cm), but cutting effectively takes away a few mms (on average). Also the actual ranges varies a tiny bit due to printing variations.

As far as I can tell short range is 12,20-12,22 cm, medium 150% of this figure and long 250% (or 167% of medium range).

So there is a certain logic to the madness.

You have to be able to measure Line of Sight through your own hull zones. If you didn't several ships wouldn't be able to double arc unless they were pointed directly at an LOS dot.

The "Closest to Closest" part needs to go. I'm playing small ships lately and it's maddening how often this issue comes up when attacking large ships. Clear LOS per the dot but I technically have to fire through the entire front arc because my corner is a millimeter into the front hull zone.

I think a very elegant solution is to draw a line between the dots. As long as that line crosses no arc lines on either ship card its a legal shot.

So you can angle shots outside arc as it were, but only to a certain degree.

That would require several ships to be entirely redesigned. Just about any Rebel broadside firing at an ISD would need to place itself directly in front of the ship to get a double. Same for ships firing in a straight line at the side of an MC80 from close range, even though they can clearly see the entire hull zone to either side if they are close enough.

You have to be able to measure Line of Sight through your own hull zones. If you didn't several ships wouldn't be able to double arc unless they were pointed directly at an LOS dot.

The "Closest to Closest" part needs to go. I'm playing small ships lately and it's maddening how often this issue comes up when attacking large ships. Clear LOS per the dot but I technically have to fire through the entire front arc because my corner is a millimeter into the front hull zone.