hi all,

I'm curious if you guys use house rules a lot. I have only played by the book so far, but there are some ideas I think would be great additions to the game:

1. PWT arc setting

PWTs are strong, no doubt about that. So to make them a little harder to use and still remain dangerous, PWT ships get the "rotate primary arc action". I'll explain: When performing this action, you may rotate your PRIMARY firing arc to one side of the ship's base by assigning an "arc" token (rear, right, or left). The ship can now attack with its primary weapon ONLY in the set direction. During the end phase, you MAY discard the arc token, which resets the primary arc to the front direction. Cannons, Torpedoes and Missiles still always use the front arc.

Pro:

- Forces players to put a lot more thought to maneuvering their PWT ships

- Autothrusters wouldn't be as much of an auto-include anymore, because you now can still get caught in the primary arc of a PWT ship - they would be useful against secondary turrets, however

Con:

- maybe too much of a nerf? It is a purely hypothetical idea and I'd love to test it sometime.

2. Large ship boosts

I think most of us agree that the boost mechanism is pretty wack on large ships. So what I propose is to boost from the back nubs. If you're gonna boost, you just slide any maneuver template into you back nubs, remove the ship and then apply your chosen boost template to the front of the "helper" template.

Pro:

- no more covering extreme amounts of ground by boosting

Con:

- one extra template used

- maybe too little ground covered? could be remedied by just using the "2" template for large ship boosts

3. Range modifiers for cannons and turrets

Cannons and turret secondary weapons WILL get the defender an extra defence die at range 3. Due to balancing and the way these weapons are designed, the extra attack die at range 1 will not be granted, though.

Pro:

- it only makes sense that a shot from a cannon or turret is easier to dodge at range 3, it's no different from a primary weapon shot

- it would passively add to the usefulness of torpedoes and missiles, which don't suffer from range modifiers

Con:

- I can't find any

4. Determining initiative

Don't you hate that? To make sure your best arc-dodging ace gets to move last, You slap VI on them only to discover your opponent has done the same. You lose the initiative bet (or the dice roll if your lists are equally priced) and your VI is basically a point wasted (ironically, if you had not taken VI, your list would be cheaper and therefore you'd win the initiative bet... ;-) )

So I would just roll for initiative at the start of each turn. Having played lots of Battletech back in the day, the "roll for initiative phase" always was a thriller.

Pro:

- Very interesting tactically. You can't just rely on a set movement / firing order.

- It can give you the edge in one situation, it can be brutal in another one. The dice giveth and the dice taketh away...

Con:

- a bit much unpredictability maybe?

What do you think? Did I forget something vital? What about your ideas?

1) That would basically extend the Mobile Arc rules that are coming with the Shadowcaster to any ship. I'm in favour of it. Turretwing has never really been my favoured way to play this game.

2) Sure, sounds good. I'd want to experiment with various templates to see what actually gives a useful, but not overpowerful, movement.

3) Yeah, again... makes sense logically. I don't think ordnance needs (odd to say this... but...) another boost as they seem pretty efficient overall, but yeah I like it.

4) FFG already has an initiative system for the other Star Wars games - that initiative in a round switches side each turn. You can plan for it, and if you forget you're not going to have it next round, you end up in a bit of a bad situation...

1) Sorry but right now, the meta is dominated by Triple Imperial Ace...PWT are far from the problem, except maybe by virtue of having Autothruster, Ace are good... By "killing" turret even more, you would make Ace even better...

2) Manipulation error could happen, but this one could massively change Large ship... but they done it for the barrel roll so why not...

3) Nope, Canon are not used that much, and nerfing canon would not make ordnance better... You kill the only chance Moralo have to ever see play. You also kill the only thing that give a small help again triple Aces...

4) Yep, this one could be nice, but as Slugrage said, alternate each turn, way faster then rolling...

Everything you propose appears to be hinderances for Jumpmasters, but takes away benefits from ships like Dash, IGs, and higher PS pilots that are paid for in squad points. These changes don't reflect half points given for large ships either. I wouldn't want any of those changes.

Thanks for the input, guys. Some things I gotta clarify, though:

1) How is the meta "dominated" by triple imperial aces? There are other lists that are equally as strong or stronger even. Also, don't forget that autothrusters wouldn't save them as often anymore. That's huge.

2) Well, manipulation errors can always happen, can't they?

3) This ain't as much of a nerf as you make it out to be. It's more of a fluffy alteration anyway, because it just makes sense. Also, the thing that helps best against triple aces is just bombing them to oblivion or any other kind of damage that can't be canceled.

4) I thought about the alternating initiative, but then I concluded that having an unpredictable initiative is more interesting. Again, this could give you the edge against your dreaded Imp aces, muribundi.

Everything you propose appears to be hinderances for Jumpmasters, but takes away benefits from ships like Dash, IGs, and higher PS pilots that are paid for in squad points. These changes don't reflect half points given for large ships either. I wouldn't want any of those changes.

Although I'm getting really tired of seeing Uboat lists all over youtube, I didn't have this in mind. Actually, I have never played against a Jumpmaster, ever. I just think that PWTs in general are a bit too convenient. And the boost on large ships was heavily debated long before Jumpmasters even came out.

EDIT: IGs would still be crazy strong, are you kidding? Dash would only suffer a little from not being able to boost through asteroids like crazy anymore.

More EDIT: Only point 1) would be a "hinderance" to Jumpmasters. Did you read my post all the way to the end?

The thing is, there is no point in proposing rule if there is not a problem in the first place and PWT are not a problem right now. Jumpmaster are not a problem because of 2 dice PWT, they are because of their easy maneuver to place them always in front for Ordnance attack.

Yep Autothruster would not help them anymore, but they would also not care anymore, because they will just arc dodge it.

It is really easy to arc dodge a Ghost or a Firespray when you know what you are doing...

For the agility, I don't really care about "realisms" and yes Heavy Laser Canon can be an answer to Ace.

for point 4, I hate randomness so I'm never in favor of anything that add more randomness at the cost of slowing game a bit.

I think you skipped one important thing, these are house rules. Not things I'd hope to see in the actual game. The only one that could be taken into consideration for real would be the boosting rule. And the reason for the PWT rule is because my friends and I shy away from flying these ships, because they're just not fun. We're not playing competitively, just for fun. I think we'll give it a whirl next time we have a game. I'll tell you all about how it went. :-)

I'm curious if you guys use house rules a lot. I have only played by the book so far, but there are some ideas I think would be great additions to the game:

1. PWT arc setting

PWTs are strong, no doubt about that. So to make them a little harder to use and still remain dangerous, PWT ships get the "rotate primary arc action". I'll explain: When performing this action, you may rotate your PRIMARY firing arc to one side of the ship's base by assigning an "arc" token (rear, right, or left). The ship can now attack with its primary weapon ONLY in the set direction. During the end phase, you MAY discard the arc token, which resets the primary arc to the front direction. Cannons, Torpedoes and Missiles still always use the front arc.

2. Large ship boosts

I think most of us agree that the boost mechanism is pretty wack on large ships. So what I propose is to boost from the back nubs. If you're gonna boost, you just slide any maneuver template into you back nubs, remove the ship and then apply your chosen boost template to the front of the "helper" template.

3. Range modifiers for cannons and turrets

Cannons and turret secondary weapons WILL get the defender an extra defence die at range 3. Due to balancing and the way these weapons are designed, the extra attack die at range 1 will not be granted, though.

4. Determining initiative

Don't you hate that? To make sure your best arc-dodging ace gets to move last, You slap VI on them only to discover your opponent has done the same. You lose the initiative bet (or the dice roll if your lists are equally priced) and your VI is basically a point wasted (ironically, if you had not taken VI, your list would be cheaper and therefore you'd win the initiative bet... ;-) )

So I would just roll for initiative at the start of each turn. Having played lots of Battletech back in the day, the "roll for initiative phase" always was a thriller.

1. NO! Why? Look at all the reasons given in those threads that suggest turning every turrent weapon, or at least every PWT, into a weapon using a Mobile Firing Arc. Hell, I'm not even sure your HR would give the former turret the benefit of an "arc" that the MFA gives.

2. Are you going to make ALL ships "boost from the back" now? If not then you've certainly added a MASSIVE nerf to boost on large ships. How massive? Ok instead of a boost ahead moving the nose approximately 3 "units" you only have it moving 1 "unit" ahead while you still have small ships moving 2 "units" ahead.

If you want to alter boost my suggestion is that you use the speed 2 maneuvers to measure from front to front for everything. This means that the nose of all ships moves the same distance. How does it work? You measure out the Boost using a speed 2 just like you currently would but then use a different template to mark where the front of the ship will go and then remove the measured maneuver and replace it with the ship. I'd need to check the angles more but it comes a lot closer to making boost uniform across ship sizes.

3. NO. Sorry but they were already designed with the "no range bonuses" in mind. Those long range (4+) hardpoints now become even harder to use when you stack the range penalties on top of the firing penalties they may already have. Adding the penalty but not giving the bonus is just stupid as well.

4. No thank you. It eats up too much time for minimal gain.

Houserule 0-4 although one (#2) has potential with some adjustment.

I would go for rule 4 if it only worked with equal cost lists, makes the initiative bid more important. That little bit of randomness would add to the fun of the game, we roll dice after all. And rolling one dice at that start of each turn does not mean you're going to have to cut your game short. Come on, how long does it take to set your dials in comparison!?

I also like 2, but play Scum... Sorry, not a fan of 1 and 3.

3 is bad, cannos are expensive and barely better the primaries already.

Some of you guys are clearly missing my point here. I'm gonna spell it out once more: HOUSE RULES! Not overall rule changes.

Also, StevenO: Your suggestion with the "2" templates is exactly what I wrote as an addition to a Contra point for 2), so we're kind of on the same page there.

Why do you shy away from 3) so violently? The strength of cannons and turrets is that they grant you special abilities a primary weapon doesn't have. You should pay for that. It's not like I made them unusable, just a little more realistic.

Fly casual. And don't forget, these suggestions are tailored to my meta. Each of the four would work great there.

We are not missing the point when you are proposing rule changes. When you suggest a "house rule" you ARE making an "overall rule change" even if it is just in your own little world. We most likely can not force you to play any given way but if you are not ready to accept criticism on your proposed rules then DON'T POST THEM AND ASK FOR THOUGHTS. If you only want to hold hands and sing camp songs around a fire you don't need to come here. I'm sorry if it sounds like I'm taking a hard line here but you are asking about rule changes and you are going to get opinions that probably don't match up with what you want to hear.

When it comes to changing the way Boost works our suggestions are not the same even as I point out the weakness you mention in your CONs. My suggestion alters the way boost works FOR EVERYONE although the movement difference will be less for smaller ships. I don't really want to see boost working a bunch of different ways for different size ships.

Now it may not help slow down the big ship boosting straight but another relatively common suggestion to modify boost on large ships is to have the template set down outside the nubs opposite the direction of the bank. If you were going to bank right then instead of the template being placed in the center it is instead placed left of the nubs to start and finish. This still allows the direction change but greatly slows the forward movement. I guess the straight correlation could have you use the 1 template's side just like you'd use it when performing a BR.

Why shy away from #3? Because it is a massive nerf to cannons and turrets that could reach out to R3 or beyond in the case of hardpoints. Grants a special ability: You mean like turning all of your kabooms into booms? MAYBE if you also increased the damage at R1 but then you're actually powering up those short range weapon systems beyond their design specs.

Maybe you want casual but remember that when you start posting any suggestion of rule changes people are likely to take notice. If you made a bunch of crazy changes and just get "that a boy"s and pats on the back then someone else may come along and see your rule changes and think "no one seems to think there's anything wrong with those so maybe I'll use them without having any understanding behind them to begin with."

I generally find that folks that suggest house rules that nerf certain aspects of the rules, usually don't have an adequate tactical solution to combat the situation to start with.

Right now, house rule or not, some of his suggestion make sense.

Yes boost is a bit overboard for large ship, there is a reason why everyone use Engine Upgrade on large ship. There is also a reason why they nerfed barrel roll when they released the YT-2400.

For the Canon, then fine, you want it realistic, then add the bonus at range 1 too... if not, then you just want to nerf them because you don't like them... and their cost already balance that... 7 for Heavy Laser Canon that can't shoot at range 1 and can't crit is a very high number of point when you factor in the fact that on a primary weapon attack, 1 more dice is 3-4 more point on the ship cost. And Mangler Canon at 4 point to only change a BOOM to a CABOOM is also not cheap.

For the PWT, you say that you don't want to play them in your group because you find them lame, what's the point to nerf them then... You will see that they are probably not playable anymore with an arc that take an action.

I came from a game where the guy running it had house rules that basically nerfed anything he personally did not like, really frustrating.

So I gave a pretty strong anti house rules opinion. Be careful when you introduce these rules in your local group that everyone likes them and agrees, do not do what you are doing here and hard selling them. You need to state you want to flat out nerf cannons and large bases, and pwt's because really that is all you are doing. Frankly trying to convince someone the melenium falcon needs to be nerfed twice should be impossible in the current meta (I don't think I have seen one on the table in over 6 months).

That sounds about right Icelom.

I certainly don't think its fun when one person's houserules take out those things you consider fun.

Chill, guys. Although you might find it hard to believe, these rules are exactly what my meta needs. Nobody in my group of friends likes to fly PWTs, because they are just not much fun. I would very much like to fly Han in the Falcon from time to time, but it's just not that big of a challenge. Again, we play for fun, not for the competition. I do fully understand that my cannon and PWT alteration would be seriously unbalanced in a competitive setting. On the other hand, I can only imagine the looks I would get if I decided to bring u-boats to the table when my buddy is trying out a flavor list of Wedge, Luke and Biggs.

So please, I just need opinions and suggestions on what to improve about my house rules. I don't need you telling me that they wouldn't fly in a tournament environment. I already know that.

Also, I wouldn't dare impose a rule on one of my friends if they weren't cool with it in the first place. Who does that, anyway?

I came from a game where the guy running it had house rules that basically nerfed anything he personally did not like, really frustrating.

That sucks. I can imagine what it would be like. For example, I love bombs and mines. I love the Punisher and the K-Wing. So if somebody decided to take the punch out of them without checking with me first, I'd be royally pissed.

Right now, house rule or not, some of his suggestion make sense.

For the PWT, you say that you don't want to play them in your group because you find them lame, what's the point to nerf them then... You will see that they are probably not playable anymore with an arc that take an action.

Another example is Countess Ryad. I flew her once, tore apart everything in my path and decided that it's just not fun to have a total of four (!) green k-turns at my disposal.