If there was some sort of damage scaling such that small base= 1 damage, medium = 2, large = 3 it would not only be more realistic, it would mean you wouldn't have the gamey effects of a small base holding up a large base all game.

I consider it already scaled...

I mean, when my ISD runs into a Corvette, that Corvette loses 25% of its Hull due to the impact... My ISD loses less than 10% in comparison...

If there was some sort of damage scaling such that small base= 1 damage, medium = 2, large = 3 it would not only be more realistic, it would mean you wouldn't have the gamey effects of a small base holding up a large base all game.

I consider it already scaled...

I mean, when my ISD runs into a Corvette, that Corvette loses 25% of its Hull due to the impact... My ISD loses less than 10% in comparison...

I consider it already scaled...

I mean, when my ISD runs into a Corvette, that Corvette loses 25% of its Hull due to the impact... My ISD loses less than 10% in comparison...

Yet when a ISD runs into a mc80, its still 10%. Not scaled.

I consider it already scaled...I mean, when my ISD runs into a Corvette, that Corvette loses 25% of its Hull due to the impact... My ISD loses less than 10% in comparison...

Yet when a ISD runs into a mc80, its still 10%. Not scaled.

I consider it already scaled...

I mean, when my ISD runs into a Corvette, that Corvette loses 25% of its Hull due to the impact... My ISD loses less than 10% in comparison...

Yet when a ISD runs into a mc80, its still 10%. Not scaled.

But what's the proposed alternative? If you have larger ships do more damage, it is going to make it pretty unbalanced. As I mentioned it before, it would require a shift in the rules and points costs. You'll have to shift the entire game because of one rule that doesn't make "logical" sense.

I consider it already scaled...

I mean, when my ISD runs into a Corvette, that Corvette loses 25% of its Hull due to the impact... My ISD loses less than 10% in comparison...

Yet when a ISD runs into a mc80, its still 10%. Not scaled.

But what's the proposed alternative? If you have larger ships do more damage, it is going to make it pretty unbalanced. As I mentioned it before, it would require a shift in the rules and points costs. You'll have to shift the entire game because of one rule that doesn't make "logical" sense.

Then look at the MC80 with Engine Techs. If you do the proposed 3 damage to another ship because you are a large ship if can do 6 damage on the ram!yoy would double tap an Assault Frigate and boom it's gone. No shots required. . . Yea. . . No.

Do we need an alternative? I feel that it works quite well.

The only thing I have seen in this entire thread that might be worth adopting as a house rule or even has a hope of being FAQd at some point is that if a larger base bumps a smaller base the smaller base takes a face up but the larger base takes a face down. I feel that would slightly devalue deliberate bumping with cheap ships as a strategy while not completely unbalancing the game to the point where you need to rewrite the point costs or add absurd placement rules. People can barely follow and understand the current bumping and targeting rules I can't imagine the nightmare of cascading rule caveats that would need to be added for bump-through for some silly fluff reasons on what would happen in "real life".

Do we need an alternative? I feel that it works quite well.

Do we need an alternative? I feel that it works quite well.

I think the Answer to the OP's Question, "Does it need to be Changed?"

I believe the mostly consensus answer is No it does not Need to be changed.

But there is plenty of Scope for people to consider changing it on their own accords if they feel it neccessary.

But it does not NEED to be changed.

People can barely follow and understand the current bumping and targeting rules I can't imagine the nightmare of cascading rule caveats that would need to be added for bump-through for some silly fluff reasons on what would happen in "real life".

This. I can't tell you the number of times I've had to explain the rules for overlapping multiple ships to an opponent mid-game, and then had them look at me like I was trying to put one over on them. If people can't grasp the relatively simple rules as they stand now, I don't think there's value to be gained in making them even more complicated.

People can barely follow and understand the current bumping and targeting rules I can't imagine the nightmare of cascading rule caveats that would need to be added for bump-through for some silly fluff reasons on what would happen in "real life".

This. I can't tell you the number of times I've had to explain the rules for overlapping multiple ships to an opponent mid-game, and then had them look at me like I was trying to put one over on them. If people can't grasp the relatively simple rules as they stand now, I don't think there's value to be gained in making them even more complicated.

People can barely follow and understand the current bumping and targeting rules I can't imagine the nightmare of cascading rule caveats that would need to be added for bump-through for some silly fluff reasons on what would happen in "real life".

This. I can't tell you the number of times I've had to explain the rules for overlapping multiple ships to an opponent mid-game, and then had them look at me like I was trying to put one over on them. If people can't grasp the relatively simple rules as they stand now, I don't think there's value to be gained in making them even more complicated.

Really? I don't seem to have that issue. . .

Oh, it happens.

Even in a recent competitive game I had to explain to my opponent that he did not actually change the speed dial on his ship that collided with mine and he was shocked.

People can barely follow and understand the current bumping and targeting rules I can't imagine the nightmare of cascading rule caveats that would need to be added for bump-through for some silly fluff reasons on what would happen in "real life".

This. I can't tell you the number of times I've had to explain the rules for overlapping multiple ships to an opponent mid-game, and then had them look at me like I was trying to put one over on them. If people can't grasp the relatively simple rules as they stand now, I don't think there's value to be gained in making them even more complicated.

Really? I don't seem to have that issue. . .

Oh, it happens.

Even in a recent competitive game I had to explain to my opponent that he did not actually change the speed dial on his ship that collided with mine and he was shocked.

I agree completely with keeping the rules streamlined and approachable. I think that right there is why this game and X-Wing are so approachable.

FFG basically did to mini wargaming what Blizzard did to MMOs. They recognized there is an audience out there that likes mini wargaming but would also appreciate a streamlined, approachable version of the game vs one with a 300 page rule book filled with situational stuff. That and with Armada they found a way to actually balance going 2nd with going 1st. I think making the rules more complicated (beyond the straightforward suggestion of larger base ships deal face-up damage) would do more harm than good. There are better ways around being rammed/blocked other than rewriting the rules of the game.

Dodonna would need to have its points changed if they ever implemented that. . . He would be SO power. . One would have to change the cost of the MC80 as well. . . Engine Techs on that would be crazy!

People can barely follow and understand the current bumping and targeting rules I can't imagine the nightmare of cascading rule caveats that would need to be added for bump-through for some silly fluff reasons on what would happen in "real life".

This. I can't tell you the number of times I've had to explain the rules for overlapping multiple ships to an opponent mid-game, and then had them look at me like I was trying to put one over on them. If people can't grasp the relatively simple rules as they stand now, I don't think there's value to be gained in making them even more complicated.

Really? I don't seem to have that issue. . .

Oh, it happens.

Even in a recent competitive game I had to explain to my opponent that he did not actually change the speed dial on his ship that collided with mine and he was shocked.

I agree completely with keeping the rules streamlined and approachable. I think that right there is why this game and X-Wing are so approachable.

FFG basically did to mini wargaming what Blizzard did to MMOs. They recognized there is an audience out there that likes mini wargaming but would also appreciate a streamlined, approachable version of the game vs one with a 300 page rule book filled with situational stuff. That and with Armada they found a way to actually balance going 2nd with going 1st. I think making the rules more complicated (beyond the straightforward suggestion of larger base ships deal face-up damage) would do more harm than good. There are better ways around being rammed/blocked other than rewriting the rules of the game.

Case in point - as I was playing my Armada game last night, there was a Warhammer game going on, too. My game (my third non-intro game and my opponent's seventh or so) went smoothly with no rule arguments. Meanwhile the next table over got into a heated argument over how to interpret a sentence about combat reforming. Now I love Warhammer (or did, until they nuked it), but man, those rules arguments. . .

People can barely follow and understand the current bumping and targeting rules I can't imagine the nightmare of cascading rule caveats that would need to be added for bump-through for some silly fluff reasons on what would happen in "real life".

This. I can't tell you the number of times I've had to explain the rules for overlapping multiple ships to an opponent mid-game, and then had them look at me like I was trying to put one over on them. If people can't grasp the relatively simple rules as they stand now, I don't think there's value to be gained in making them even more complicated.

Really? I don't seem to have that issue. . .

Oh, it happens.

Even in a recent competitive game I had to explain to my opponent that he did not actually change the speed dial on his ship that collided with mine and he was shocked.

I agree completely with keeping the rules streamlined and approachable. I think that right there is why this game and X-Wing are so approachable.

FFG basically did to mini wargaming what Blizzard did to MMOs. They recognized there is an audience out there that likes mini wargaming but would also appreciate a streamlined, approachable version of the game vs one with a 300 page rule book filled with situational stuff. That and with Armada they found a way to actually balance going 2nd with going 1st. I think making the rules more complicated (beyond the straightforward suggestion of larger base ships deal face-up damage) would do more harm than good. There are better ways around being rammed/blocked other than rewriting the rules of the game.

Case in point - as I was playing my Armada game last night, there was a Warhammer game going on, too. My game (my third non-intro game and my opponent's seventh or so) went smoothly with no rule arguments. Meanwhile the next table over got into a heated argument over how to interpret a sentence about combat reforming. Now I love Warhammer (or did, until they nuked it), but man, those rules arguments. . .

FFG did it right. There is very little RAW vs RAR in Armada. What little there are is taken care of by FFG when we ask. Though it does take some time.

Dodonna would need to have its points changed if they ever implemented that. . . He would be SO power. . One would have to change the cost of the MC80 as well. . . Engine Techs on that would be crazy!

nah, dodonna would scale mechanically. Smaller ships are always more manouverable than big ships. If you are fighting against dodonna and you are using all small ships, you just don't ram...and then taking only big/medium (MC80s-AF) to exploit the rare ram situation doesn't play to dodonnas strengths in any case!

Plus if you are ramming head on with rebels, especially MC80s, you're doing it wrong...I think fishing for bumps with big ships would yes be more powerful (naturally) but the big abuse case for current bumping rules is overwhelmingly small bumping big. This would balance that. and hell, if you have the skill to hunt down and ram smaller base ships with your big ships...a face up vs a face down is deserved lol.

Would also breathe life into Dodonna.

Yeah, I know, the 4 people on here who occassionally break him out will jump out and explain how he is so great and amazeballs etc etc. but fact of the matter is I have never ever ever played a game where anyone was using dodonna, I have never read an AAR or tourney report where he pops up...

Dodonna would need to have its points changed if they ever implemented that. . . He would be SO power. . One would have to change the cost of the MC80 as well. . . Engine Techs on that would be crazy!

nah, dodonna would scale mechanically. Smaller ships are always more manouverable than big ships. If you are fighting against dodonna and you are using all small ships, you just don't ram...and then taking only big/medium (MC80s-AF) to exploit the rare ram situation doesn't play to dodonnas strengths in any case!

Plus if you are ramming head on with rebels, especially MC80s, you're doing it wrong...I think fishing for bumps with big ships would yes be more powerful (naturally) but the big abuse case for current bumping rules is overwhelmingly small bumping big. This would balance that. and hell, if you have the skill to hunt down and ram smaller base ships with your big ships...a face up vs a face down is deserved lol.

You are not doing it wrong if those crits work for in your favor!

Would also breathe life into Dodonna.

Yeah, I know, the 4 people on here who occassionally break him out will jump out and explain how he is so great and amazeballs etc etc. but fact of the matter is I have never ever ever played a game where anyone was using dodonna, I have never read an AAR or tourney report where he pops up...

You should try my Dodonna the Oppressor list. . . It is . . . Oh I love the list!

EDIT: Added link to the mentioned list.

Would also breathe life into Dodonna.

Yeah, I know, the 4 people on here who occassionally break him out will jump out and explain how he is so great and amazeballs etc etc. but fact of the matter is I have never ever ever played a game where anyone was using dodonna, I have never read an AAR or tourney report where he pops up...

I'm just waiting for my last streamed game to hit Youtube... My Enemy was a Dual MC80 list with Dodonna...

I finished the game with only 3 cards left in my damage Deck. And that was only because I was able to be repairing most of the time with TarkinTokens...

Would also breathe life into Dodonna.

Yeah, I know, the 4 people on here who occassionally break him out will jump out and explain how he is so great and amazeballs etc etc. but fact of the matter is I have never ever ever played a game where anyone was using dodonna, I have never read an AAR or tourney report where he pops up...

I'm just waiting for my last streamed game to hit Youtube... My Enemy was a Dual MC80 list with Dodonna...

I finished the game with only 3 cards left in my damage Deck. And that was only because I was able to be repairing most of the time with TarkinTokens...

I have gotten close to this before!!!

k so there are 2 of you, waiting for the other 2...

Dodonna would need to have its points changed if they ever implemented that. . . He would be SO power. . One would have to change the cost of the MC80 as well. . . Engine Techs on that would be crazy!

nah, dodonna would scale mechanically. Smaller ships are always more manouverable than big ships. If you are fighting against dodonna and you are using all small ships, you just don't ram...and then taking only big/medium (MC80s-AF) to exploit the rare ram situation doesn't play to dodonnas strengths in any case!

Plus if you are ramming head on with rebels, especially MC80s, you're doing it wrong...I think fishing for bumps with big ships would yes be more powerful (naturally) but the big abuse case for current bumping rules is overwhelmingly small bumping big. This would balance that. and hell, if you have the skill to hunt down and ram smaller base ships with your big ships...a face up vs a face down is deserved lol.

You are not doing it wrong if those crits work for in your favor!

Would also breathe life into Dodonna.

Yeah, I know, the 4 people on here who occassionally break him out will jump out and explain how he is so great and amazeballs etc etc. but fact of the matter is I have never ever ever played a game where anyone was using dodonna, I have never read an AAR or tourney report where he pops up...

You should try my Dodonna the Oppressor list. . . It is . . . Oh I love the list!

EDIT: Added link to the mentioned list.

I also find it hilarious that after I said it wont affect dodonna too much because taking big bases doesn't play to his strength you post an optimal dodonna list---that is all small bases....

I'd love to see Dodonna on 2 MC80s, it would be hillarious to see how many face up cards he could carefully select for my bombers...