I generally hate people coming up with alternate rules for things. It smacks of people thinking they are somehow better than the designer. But as gamers it's a hard tendency to avoid. We are planning another Corellian Conflict soon and it had me thinking on 2 of the campaign's weaknesses: the snowball and the repetitiveness of playing the same fleet over and over. In the process of brainstorming I came up with the following idea:

"PLAY ALL THE THINGS MODE!!"

Each side builds 8, 400 point fleets, one for each Admiral. Every ship title must be used somewhere. Every unique squad must be used somewhere.

The one upgrade for starting ships rule is removed. Instead, you may only take a second copy of an upgrade card once at least one copy of every upgrade of that type is being used. You may only take a third when 2 of each are being used, etc.

A similar rule applies to ship variants. You must have roughly equal numbers of each variant for a ship. You can only take a 3rd CR-90a when you also have at least 2 CR-90b's.

Only Refit points can be used to un-scar ships and can only be used on fleets that did not participate in a game that round. A fleet can't be used 2 rounds in a row. So, a trashed fleet may have to sit out a few rounds to lick its wounds.

Resource points are divided 8 ways and can only be used to build up the fleets.

Show of Force is available to both players. Each destroyed station allows a player to permanently destroy one scarred ship or (two scarred squadrons) that is not in a game this round. Each station that survives allows a player to un-scar a ship for free. It would take 2 stations to destroy/un-scar a large ship.

Hyperlane Raid is available to both players. Each ship with an objective token destroyed by the 1st player reduces the amount of resource Points available to the second player for that turn.

I am going to try and talk the local group into trying this out. Anyone have any feedback?

Are the upgrade/ship variant rules navy-wide or fleet-wide? And how much does Hyperlane Raid penalize the second player by? Otherwise I really like the feel, though I might tweak it some myself.

Just now, GiledPallaeon said:

Are the upgrade/ship variant rules navy-wide or fleet-wide? And how much does Hyperlane Raid penalize the second player by? Otherwise I really like the feel, though I might tweak it some myself.

Navy wide. The idea was to make it harder to make cookie-cutter fleets that only have the admiral as a difference. Also thought some lesser used upgrades will see some play.

I love the idea of having every ship represented. The upgrade and unique squads not as much. I would probably run/suggest you can not add a variant of a ship until all ships are represented in a single iteration, with your ISD 1, no ISD 2 until one of each other ship is fielded. I REALLY like the title requirement.

Looking, the Imperials have a cost advantage with titles. If you just allow titled ships the Rebels would cost 1412, while the Empire would be 1137. This is one of each ship with title only, I put the most expensive version in for the third ship so costs could be slightly less starting out.

I forgot Admirals, Rebels add another 231, Imperials 215.

Before assaults and defenses are declared, players should announce which fleet they are running. That way, you don't have a player attacking a place and then picking a fleet. Instead, you have a fleet attacking, and the opposing team has to decide which of their fleets will be best against it.

1 minute ago, Cusm said:

Looking, the Imperials have a cost advantage with titles. If you just allow titled ships the Rebels would cost 1412, while the Empire would be 1137. This is one of each ship with title only, I put the most expensive version in for the third ship so costs could be slightly less starting out.

Noticed that as well. Figured that dispersed over 8 fleets and 3200 points it wasn't that big of a deal. Any advantage the Imperials gain in flexibility would be offset by the Rebels having a couple of additional options for gaining Veteran status.

Local CC. Imperials.

We didn't make any rules, but we did - informally - go for variety.

Decided we'd include at least 1 ship of every type. So while all 3 players took an ISD (or two in one case), we also have Glads, Vics, a Dictor, Arquitens - and oc Gozanti.

Edit: and Raider oc.

The game is certainly more interesting with the lesser used titles.

Ever seen Devastator used?

We saw it come out of hyperspace in our All Out Assault and one-shot two mc30s.

Next round it one-shot another one.

It was so cool.

6 minutes ago, TheCallum said:

The game is certainly more interesting with the lesser used titles.

Ever seen Devastator used?

We saw it come out of hyperspace in our All Out Assault and one-shot two mc30s.

Next round it one-shot another one.

It was so cool.

Presumably the Devastator title was rather pointless when it came out, no? Or did it start scarred + IO its own token or some such?

Quote

I generally hate people coming up with alternate rules for things. It smacks of people thinking they are somehow better than the designer. But as gamers it's a hard tendency to avoid.

The existence of this very thread smacks as if someone thinks they are somehow better than the designer.

1 hour ago, Green Knight said:

Presumably the Devastator title was rather pointless when it came out, no? Or did it start scarred + IO its own token or some such?

It was triple forking, so I believe we let it get double arc'd to burn a token, then it activated, and IO'd itself.

edit: Oh and it was Vader's flagship!

49 minutes ago, One-Armed Sorcerer said:

The existence of this very thread smacks as if someone thinks they are somehow better than the designer.

The very existence of this post reeks of troll.

Quote

55 minutes ago, One-Armed Sorcerer said:

The existence of this very thread smacks as if someone thinks they are somehow better than the designer.

The very existence of this post reeks of troll.

No, I don't see myself as that, even if my post count is low. And I apologize if my original post sounds somewhat rude. It just struck me as mildly rude and (somewhat arrogant) by the original poster to proclaim within his first sentence that he "generally hates" people coming up with alternative rules for things and then to present a list of alternative rules for something himself.

57 minutes ago, One-Armed Sorcerer said:

No, I don't see myself as that, even if my post count is low. And I apologize if my original post sounds somewhat rude. It just struck me as mildly rude and (somewhat arrogant) by the original poster to proclaim within his first sentence that he "generally hates" people coming up with alternative rules for things and then to present a list of alternative rules for something himself.

@shmitty is no such thing.

Also, in the second sentence, he admits that gamers - himself included - have a hard time NOT tweaking rules.

I don't necessarily agree with him tho - I've seen too many examples of shoddy game design.

2 hours ago, One-Armed Sorcerer said:

No, I don't see myself as that, even if my post count is low. And I apologize if my original post sounds somewhat rude. It just struck me as mildly rude and (somewhat arrogant) by the original poster to proclaim within his first sentence that he "generally hates" people coming up with alternative rules for things and then to present a list of alternative rules for something himself.

Just my poor attempt at irony.

What I'd really dig is a totally anti-tournament campaign, if they ever make a new one (and I hope they do, or else I'll just write it). Take the "side missions to recruit allies" concept from Imperial Assault, and theme the campaign around completing strategic objectives in order to obtain new ships and new upgrades. Figure out some clever way to semi-randomize the upgrades so that your fleet can contain some uglies that come together to work.