I don't mean to be a doomsayer, but I am worried about Wave 6.

Worry #1:
This wave includes an aspect of the game that I was hoping wouldn't come about. Boarding rules. I know that they are a part of the SWU, but I just can't make myself like them. They did an OK job with the rules (it seems), but I worry about future additions.

Worry#2:
Ramming. They just purposefully gave a rule to an aspect of the game that I believe we all, excepting the evil @ginkapo would rather see go. This is not to say that there is an alternative to the current ramming rules, but I believe that few if any of us like using ramming as a strategy. I personally hate myself when I use it (as I did recently against @skycake.

Is anyone else concerned about these developments?

Finally, lets keep this civil no matter what anyone else thinks.

Not worried.

You could replace (mechanically) the words "Boarding team" with "Overload Pulse Torpedoes" and, basically... It works. There's not much specifically "Boarding" about it... Now, if it were "take control of the enemy ship", then we've got problems.

I prefer Ramming the way it is at the moment, because otherwise, what do you do? As has been explored dozens of times here, there's no seeming "acceptable" way of doing things that doesn't allow you to either push things out of crazy position, or require you to do some obscene measurement and movement that isn't tied to the movement tool (and thus, if you're doing such a thing, why have the tool in the first place?).

Yes, there's a terribly specific way to abuse the ramming rules for your benefit - but even with it, it only wins games, it has to be lucky with matchups and maneuver to win tournaments while it bleeds its own points... Which can be said of almost any other list out there that puts specific combinations to work...

WRT to #1, they needed to add boarding rules and I'm glad they finally did. I don't think the rules they went with are perfect though. The downside is that boarding always succeeds and it doesn't take into account ship speed or shields. I would have preferred more powerful effects that are harder to pull off.

As for the ramming, I too wish they wouldn't encourage it. I'm glad it's restricted to a single title.

Also I wish that they implemented boarding in a way that would interact with the campaign system.

I'm glad they went with a KISS approach for the boarding teams. Non-commander upgrades shouldn't take long to resolve.

As for the Garrel's Honor title... That ship ramming the Star Destroyer is probably the Hammerhead's most iconic scene. It would feel a little odd if the Hammerhead didn't do something with ramming. I definitely don't want ramming focused upgrades to become a common feature, and I definitely prefer it as a title as opposed to an Admiral Raddus commander.

22 minutes ago, Squark said:

I'm glad they went with a KISS approach for the boarding teams. Non-commander upgrades shouldn't take long to resolve.

As for the Garrel's Honor title... That ship ramming the Star Destroyer is probably the Hammerhead's most iconic scene. It would feel a little odd if the Hammerhead didn't do something with ramming. I definitely don't want ramming focused upgrades to become a common feature, and I definitely prefer it as a title as opposed to an Admiral Raddus commander.

Except the name of the corvette in question is Lightmaker....

Difference here...is the ship in question is the Lightmaker, it's a reinforced combat corvette, the hammerhead's in wave 6 are poorly armed transport ships not meant for combat.

Yeah...I'd have rather seen the combat hammerhead with ramming rules, these they just crumble.

I actually like the additions. I ram in games when it benefits me and my ship can take the hit. Enemy with 1 hill left and put itself in front of me... Yeah I'm not gonna try to avoid it if I have the hull to take the damage card and not risk loosing my ship soon after. I don't go into a game planning to ram ships though.

13 minutes ago, TallGiraffe said:

Except the name of the corvette in question is Lightmaker....

11 minutes ago, Gottmituns205 said:

Difference here...is the ship in question is the Lightmaker, it's a reinforced combat corvette, the hammerhead's in wave 6 are poorly armed transport ships not meant for combat.

Yeah...I'd have rather seen the combat hammerhead with ramming rules, these they just crumble.

Neeeeeeeeeeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrds!

Joking aside, this is the singular Hammerhead expansion you are gonna see. Whatever they want to do with both versions wil find its life in this expac.

That's what I get for making assumptions. It is kind of weird that they didn't use the Lightmaker as the title- I wonder if the design team didn't have access to the novelization when they designed the ship.

Still, my point was that the average purchaser who picks up the Hammerhead expansion is probably just going to think, "Cool, just like the movie."

Frankly I'm as interested in the ships as the upgrades.

There is no doubt in my mind they will release a combat version in a single pack.

4 engines, gun pods, lightmaker....yeah I'm in.

When I read this thread title...

;D

49 minutes ago, Gottmituns205 said:

There is no doubt in my mind they will release a combat version in a single pack.

4 engines, gun pods, lightmaker....yeah I'm in.

Screenshot this. If it happens before wave 12 i'll buy one for you.

1 minute ago, Madaghmire said:

Screenshot this. If it happens before wave 12 i'll buy one for you.

Does the same apply for me too?

1 minute ago, DrakonLord said:

Does the same apply for me too?

I'll buy yours, same terms.

Why are people against ramming? It seems to happen rather infrequently in my experience, it just seems like such a strange thing to be concerned about.

You know what I hate? When my corvette gets caught in an ISD's front arc when it has spinal armament and concentrate fire, doesnt mean I think the ISD should change its mechanic.

7 minutes ago, Forresto said:

Why are people against ramming? It seems to happen rather infrequently in my experience, it just seems like such a strange thing to be concerned about.

You know what I hate? When my corvette gets caught in an ISD's front arc when it has spinal armament and concentrate fire, doesnt mean I think the ISD should change its mechanic.

Dont worry, i dont get it either.

In a similar perspective, i dont get everyones hatred of flotillas, especially as in my local area i am the only one who uses them on a regular basis

5 minutes ago, Forresto said:

Why are people against ramming? It seems to happen rather infrequently in my experience, it just seems like such a strange thing to be concerned about.

There's been a fairly vocal minority that doesn't like the current ramming rules basically since I started playing the game. They became more vocal with the release of W2 and Large ships when they couldn't figure out how to drive their MC80s in such a way as to not get stuck forever nose-to-nose with ISDs.*

Couple that with extraordinarily frustrating fleets like this popping up on occasion, and ramming is kind of a bugaboo right now.

REBEL FLEET (392 points)
1 • CR90 Corellian Corvette B - Engine Techs - Reinforced Blast Doors (52)
2 • CR90 Corellian Corvette B - Engine Techs - Reinforced Blast Doors (52)
3 • CR90 Corellian Corvette B - Engine Techs - Reinforced Blast Doors (52)
4 • CR90 Corellian Corvette B - Engine Techs (47)
5 • CR90 Corellian Corvette B - Engine Techs (47)
6 • CR90 Corellian Corvette B - Engine Techs (47)
7 • CR90 Corellian Corvette B - Engine Techs (47)
8 • GR-75 Medium Transports - General Rieekan (48)

* I actually don't entirely disagree personally. I just think the ramming rules are like democracy: the worst option except for all the other ones. I have yet to see a proposal for alternate rules that was an improvement.

1 minute ago, Ardaedhel said:

There's been a fairly vocal minority that doesn't like the current ramming rules basically since I started playing the game. They became more vocal with the release of W2 and Large ships when they couldn't figure out how to drive their MC80s in such a way as to not get stuck forever nose-to-nose with ISDs.*

Couple that with extraordinarily frustrating fleets like this popping up on occasion, and ramming is kind of a bugaboo right now.

REBEL FLEET (392 points)
1 • CR90 Corellian Corvette B - Engine Techs - Reinforced Blast Doors (52)
2 • CR90 Corellian Corvette B - Engine Techs - Reinforced Blast Doors (52)
3 • CR90 Corellian Corvette B - Engine Techs - Reinforced Blast Doors (52)
4 • CR90 Corellian Corvette B - Engine Techs (47)
5 • CR90 Corellian Corvette B - Engine Techs (47)
6 • CR90 Corellian Corvette B - Engine Techs (47)
7 • CR90 Corellian Corvette B - Engine Techs (47)
8 • GR-75 Medium Transports - General Rieekan (48)

* I actually don't entirely disagree personally. I just think the ramming rules are like democracy: the worst option except for all the other ones. I have yet to see a proposal for alternate rules that was an improvement.

Had a casual game over the weekend where i f-ed up on deployment, i managed to have my MC80H1 and my MC80L nose to nose, but i saved it without ramming because of ray and a couple other upgrades....

....but by doing so i was in the front arc of a ISD2 at medium range with a bead on the side of my MC80L....

.....i was not happy when that ISD took out my MC80L in one salvo

I'm not a fan of spam ram lists, but blocking a ships maneuver to keep it locked in it's currently location is a big part of the game at least I employ this strategy to great effect in my games, and having a ship title that make this strategy a little more punishing is fine with me.

Boarding parties will have to play with them. Because boarding parties take the weapons slots I just feel I would rather take gunnery teams, or OE, or flight controllers. I'll have to play with them to pass judgement.

7 minutes ago, Forresto said:

Why are people against ramming? It seems to happen rather infrequently in my experience, it just seems like such a strange thing to be concerned about.

You know what I hate? When my corvette gets caught in an ISD's front arc when it has spinal armament and concentrate fire, doesnt mean I think the ISD should change its mechanic.

People are against fleets designed to game the rule. Some folks also dislike the actual rule since it can be kinda counter intuitive, thematically. Like why does a CR90 prevent an ISD from moving forward when its so much smaller and this is supposed to be in space? But from a game design perspective, I feel like most folks have sort of accepted the ram rule as the best we can do given the limitations of a game played on the 2D plane.

As to the fleet thing, I can't speak as to others, but my feelings are that there is a line between "clever use of game mechanics" and "gaming the mechanics". Something like the full CRambo90 fleet (cr90's B's with ET's and RBD's, commanded by rieekan) is deisgned to push damage straight to the hull, and there is very little counterplay available. You cant blow up the ships first, you cant outrun a tech'd cr90, and you cant trade efficiently. You can try to make them trip over themselves. For myself, I just think its unfun nonsense, and if thats what I wanted to do I could just buy some micromachines and smack them together. So I know I grow weary when I see anything that encourages or enables ramming as a tactic. (Dont get me wrong, I have no issue with intentionally ramming someone to push an extra damage where it makes sense as dictated by the natural flow of a game. My issue is fleets designed to game the rule.)

All that said, a title like Gorals Honor or whatever its called doesn't ruffle my feathers too much since its a unique title. One unit acting as fire ship is not a big deal to me.

If the previewed title isn't the famous Hammerhead from Rogue One that makes me suspect there might be a second ramming title with the new ships.

Just remember that the boarding cards take up 2 important slots and are one time use.

Ram locking and maneuver control is the only thing that keeps dual ISD competitive. Fly better or deal I say

Boarding parties were done in a simple, dare I say elegant way with serious set up requirements and opportunity cost. I didnt want them either but FFG proved me wrong.

Im actually really pleased with wave s6 except for the removal of the QFs contain.