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...

I like my small base list. . . It is fun!

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 went 1-9 against a Dodanna list at my last Store Champ. I don't see him often, but he's not bad.

Plus he's cheap.

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 went 1-9 against a Dodanna list at my last Store Champ. I don't see him often, but he's not bad.

Plus he's cheap.

He is just do good! People who know ow how to use him, use him in a devastating fashion

He isn't bad, that's for sure. That game sucked, AF with XX9, MC30 with APT, Dodanna's Pride, and Yavaris. My Demolisher got a little too ahead of the battle lines and ate it early. That didn't help, and he just swarmed me with his other ships, and laid those fat crits out. At the end I think I had like 4 damage cards left in my deck or something.

My buddy ran him for awhile, too, though I think the allure of Mon Mothma called him back.

He is just do good! People who know ow how to use him, use him in a devastating fashion

He isn't bad, that's for sure. That game sucked, AF with XX9, MC30 with APT, Dodanna's Pride, and Yavaris. My Demolisher got a little too ahead of the battle lines and ate it early. That didn't help, and he just swarmed me with his other ships, and laid those fat crits out. At the end I think I had like 4 damage cards left in my deck or something.

My buddy ran him for awhile, too, though I think the allure of Mon Mothma called him back.

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...

Lol?

Yeah, they're kind of hard to find unless you really search.

To get back to the ramming debate, I was giving it some thought and had the following idea: what if we define two different kinds of 'ramming' - involuntary and voluntary.

Involuntary would follow the same rules as current, but shields should function against it. It reflects two ships on a collision course taking evasive action and/or scraping eachother. Engine techs and other cards that allow for a double move can still inflict 2 involuntary collisions just like it is now.

Voluntary ramming would be a new type of ramming, that can only be executed when a navigate command is resolved. It simulates a ship increasing speed and purposefully ramming another ship with catastrophic consequences. The voluntary ram inflicts 1 damage for small, 2 for medium and 3 for large ships directly to the hull. The rammed ship may spend an evade token to instead downgrade the effect (for both ships) to that of an involuntary ram.

How do you determine what is voluntary and what isn't? Based on a Command?

How do you determine what is voluntary and what isn't? Based on a Command?

Ah no, I forgot to add that but voluntary should be declared.

I like simple, to be honest. Even with intentional ramming the recipient would in theory try to evade as much as they can.

How do you determine what is voluntary and what isn't? Based on a Command?

Ah no, I forgot to add that but voluntary should be declared.

I had a thought about this. What if they come out with an offensive retrofit and defensive retrofit for ramming?

The defensive one could be if you are rammed then you don't take a card (could be an exhaust for balancing purposes)

The offensive one could be if you ram someone you deal them a face up (again, could be an exhaust effect)

That would be a compromise for everyone without needing to rewrite the game rules.

I had a thought about this. What if they come out with an offensive retrofit and defensive retrofit for ramming?

The defensive one could be if you are rammed then you don't take a card (could be an exhaust for balancing purposes)

The offensive one could be if you ram someone you deal them a face up (again, could be an exhaust effect)

That would be a compromise for everyone without needing to rewrite the game rules.

I had a thought about this. What if they come out with an offensive retrofit and defensive retrofit for ramming?

The defensive one could be if you are rammed then you don't take a card (could be an exhaust for balancing purposes)

The offensive one could be if you ram someone you deal them a face up (again, could be an exhaust effect)

That would be a compromise for everyone without needing to rewrite the game rules.

Would depend on the points but the defensive retrofit version would make the engine tech CR90 swarm a bigger pain.

Sure, I am certain any upgrade like that would require playtesting before implementation. Perhaps it could be worded to be something like if you are the one being hit, not the hitter.

Part I (really only for those interested in a new ramming rule or for those who prefer the current rule, but are willin. To help those of us out who want to keep ships moving) For anyone else this is just TLDR or whatever and clearly not worth your time. Move along, This is not the post you seek!

Again, let me remind the reader that ram minis the only rule I don,t like in the game. One rule. That is really good for a game. I have a problem with the flow and found an elegant solution. Not having visuals it is not as easy to explain as it is. Pictures say a thousand words as they say. All I can say to the people would say it adds complexity is that is does not so far as I can tell. While I have only tested the idea one time, I have been looking at situation where it might cause problems for about 5-6 games. I play 500-750 point games with a lot of ships and have not found a situation that can't logically flow from the rule I came up with. However, after play testing I did reveal an even better way to prevent too much movement from happening if people think the unit ended consequence of passing through a ship for free is worse than two ships grinding to a haunt in 3D space when their design angles would 95% of the time result in a glancing blow unless the ship is much smaller. Hence, why also support another's idea to hand out damage based on ship size. The probability of a MC90 glancing off a ISD is low so three black dice of damage as another suggested "seems" great at this point. Hey, I realize FF isn't going to chance the rule and the tournament players will not like anything that doesn't prepare them for winning run placing well, but for us casual players I offer the following house rule. Again, the tournament players might as well stop reading here as I suspect there will just be the same reasons why changing the rules is no go as I already heard, but obviously that is up to you. Yes, I know it happened in the movies, but that was for cinematic excitement. Of course, ships would still hit and take damage, but they would flow like water around a rock in doing so. That is the real point here WATER & ROCKS. For those not opposed to a house rule because you play casually, aren't an orginalalist when it comes to games, and don't like the idea of ships coming to a dead halt in 3D space with the aerodynamics you see on these ships we push around, please read on. Again, if you like ramming the way it is there is no reason to defend because your way/preference will always stand since FF will never change it. So a debate of a "real" change doesn't exist so no one is threatening the way you like it. Actually,Mehta would be helpful is those with tons of experience is to actually offer an alternative to those of us who would like one. Using you experience to help us instead of just saying are ideas are no good. Well, if they are no good what would be a good method is the challenge I present you. If you were to design an alternative to keep ships moving, what does YOUR massive experience tell you might/would be the best possible alternative?

-------

Part II

I am strongly in the camp that thought ramming "could" be changed. I would also be willing to play both ways. My way in my gameroom and the orginal way at a store. The rule as is does offer its own degree of excitement as we see who wins the shoot until there is a victor contest. Afterall, it is just a game.

I never tested my idea until last night so I was not completely sold on the idea. If ramming on the side, the idea I was throwing out there was to place the ramming ship at its same approach angle just past the rammed ship it (easy to do: you just place a damage card in front of the angle it hits). If ramming on the front of a target ship, place it parallel to the side of the front corner so you could trace an imaginary line along each of the fronts of the ship and trace a line on the sides--ignoring the shield dial (counting the shield dial is also frustrating). If ramming the back same idea. If there is a ship on the side, use the other side. If sides on both side, treat like ramming on side and move completely past the ship. Which side is easy as pie to determine by just picking the closest side it was rammed. People will tell you this or that about there being unintended consequences, but as I see it we are now dealing with the worst possible unintended consequence which is stalled ships for up to two turn before someone wins. In is game the gladiator was going speed 3 and could not clear the ship. Even if it was closer going speed 1 and could not even get that move off, it would have temporarily gained 61/2 inches of movement in this case to clear both the MC80 and AF perpendicular to the moving glad. Now let's say that the AF would have been 3" away from the MC80 and the 31/2" long glad could not fit in between and had to go a total of 11-12" of movement. Now that is maybe too much for some, but I would still prefer that. If that elegant solution of just passing the ships grants too much movement then instead just place it on its approach angle on which ever far corner of the first ship was closest to impact:either rear/right far corner or front,left far corner. Under this condition, the glad would have passed through the MC80 and would have landed a perfect broadside on the AF's front or opposite side Hull of the MC80 that was rammed. Both take damage either how it is or based on ship size--more realistic and fun IMHO. On the AF's turn it would just pass through the side of the glad if it didn't have enough speed. After playing it the pass through no matter how many ships, I will try the other method which we both agreed while play was going to be better. You may ask what if there is a ship also in the location? Well chose the opposite side of the ship, the one not closest to impact. What if there is a ship there? Then just use the pass through rule until you clear. Again the ship remains at that same angle of approach at contact like determined in X-wing. Easy as pie guys. Easy as pie. Ok, so you don't like not having a way to shut down the Congo line. Sorry, I don't have anything for you on that.

Three pictures/visuals could be used to explain the rule with one page of text--one added page in the rulebook.

No I come from a historical miniatures background where players are always attempting to add realism to really bad rule. The main argument against this is that people like the tactic and don't want to let it go. The other is nothing about the game is "really" all that realistic so why are we pointing out this rule in particular.

My favorite damage suggestion was one black die of damage for small ships hitting you, 2 for medium, and three for large.