On 4/5/2018 at 3:57 PM, Lord Tareq said:

It's hard to convey emotion over written posts, but some of the replies here do read a bit hostile imo.

Case in point:

On 4/5/2018 at 8:42 PM, Tvayumat said:

See, what I don't get about this thread is... why tell us at all?

If you're not trying to convince anyone to change their sinful RAW ways, why are you announcing your house rules in the general forum, and not just... ya know... using them?

Coming into FFG games for the first time, frankly the whole community has come off rather hostile. Between pouncing on people over "illegal" modelling and stuff like the above quoted insisting certain topics simply aren't welcome, this is either one of the most aggressively confrontational communities I've ever come across in wargaming, or if such behaviour is only from a minority then the community needs to decide whether it wants those self-appointed gatekeepers to be the face of the community to newcomers.

I've put my second core box and expansion purchases on-hold until I can figure out which characterisation is more accurate.

Seriously though, if some people on the internet scoffing at house rules and refining tournament concepts for a wargame is that much of a turn off for you well... you'll be missed?

@yodhrin is right. This thread got confrontational almost from the start.

The op was sharing house rules and looking for some clarification and opinion. Not just to be told he's wrong and why he's wrong.

The more house rules and ideas shared the better. Entire sub games and even complete new game systems were developed for xwing by the fan base all starting from house rules.

Hotac, objective format, Mario Kart xwing, death race xwing and even tournament formats.

10 hours ago, Josh3794 said:

@yodhrin is right. This thread got confrontational almost from the start.

The op was sharing house rules and looking for some clarification and opinion. Not just to be told he's wrong and why he's wrong.

The more house rules and ideas shared the better. Entire sub games and even complete new game systems were developed for xwing by the fan base all starting from house rules.

Hotac, objective format, Mario Kart xwing, death race xwing and even tournament formats.

And clarification and opinion is what he got. Really, if you are saying that this is hostile, then you have never been on gaming boards in your life. Share your house rules all you want, but don't get upset when you get "clarification and opinion" from everyone else. Otherwise don't post your rules ideas.

On 4/5/2018 at 9:42 AM, Undeadguy said:

I think you're taking this too far. Don is looking to make house rules. The RAI vs RAW doesn't matter because he wants to play the game how he sees it was intended to be made.

I really don't get why this thread is so hostile to the notion of house rules. This isn't the rules forum.

On the other hand, he also claimed he wasn’t trying to change the rules. What else are House rules if not changing the rules?

I find the dichotomy of those contradictory notions to be extra puzzling.

4 hours ago, Derrault said:

On the other hand, he also claimed he wasn’t trying to change the rules. What else are House rules if not changing the rules?

I find the dichotomy of those contradictory notions to be extra puzzling.

Exactly. If it was just house rules, I don't think anyone would have cared. It was more of a "I'm not changing any rules, I'm just interpreting the rules differently based on my interpretation of the author's intent... which directly contradicts the actual rules... which I'm not changing... even though I'm changing them." I didn't actually care about the house rules. I was challenging the interpretation of intent.

Derrault, Kriswall

I agree with your statements and a large majority of your posts in this thread.

As well as other threads by the way

Undeadguy, yodhrin and myself were all pointing out that the thread itself turned hostile towards the op.

I personally believe more sharing of rule interpretations or even outright possible rule changes etc can only help improve the game. Its why other games have become huge successes.

FFG has shown they listen to these forums with other games like xwing, Arkham horror, eldricht.

For the recruited I don't agree with the op's version of these particular rules, except suppression possibly.

Game been out 5 min and your already making up rules, just give it a month or two and wait and see what faq comes out. It might help everyone involved. Its a bit of a silly post as 2/3 dont need houserules whatsoever but a lot of comments are unnecessarily angry so keep it polite people.

@Josh3794 I tend to agree that it’s best to avoid hostility; and to that end I also try to keep separate my judgment on matters of opinion (how a rule ought to be) and matters of fact (how a rule is).

Allowing those things to bleed together, conflating them even, tends to invite more tart criticisms in my experience (for whatever that is worth).

@Derrault it's all good. Your comments were on point and had good information in them.

My comment also wasn't calling you out. It was excluding how myself and a could of others were seeing the thread direction going.

I love the fan made game versions of xwing and Arkham horror and I'm waiting to see what can get cooked up with Legion as the game progresses.

Has anyone had any ideas about rules for AT-ATs, DF9s and P-Towers? Apart from, "don't use them", that is! I'm thinking they'd be best handled in their own scenarios rather than in open play (between consenting adults of course). With Snowtroopers and General Veers being realeased shortly I can feel the assult on Echo Base calling to me. I hope they release Echo Base Troopers and either Major Derlin or General Rieekan soon.

22 minutes ago, Don Henderson fan club said:

Has anyone had any ideas about rules for AT-ATs, DF9s and P-Towers? Apart from, "don't use them", that is! I'm thinking they'd be best handled in their own scenarios rather than in open play (between consenting adults of course). With Snowtroopers and General Veers being realeased shortly I can feel the assult on Echo Base calling to me. I hope they release Echo Base Troopers and either Major Derlin or General Rieekan soon.

I was drafting a concept for immobile weapons. The idea is they're placed as terrain on the board, but have an attached card with weapon profiles and HP. Then they'd have a keyword, something like "Emplacement X" where X is the number of miniatures that must be in a unit to operate it. (So the rule would be something like, "A Trooper unit in base contact with this Terrain Feature that has at least X miniatures in it may use a weapon profile on this card instead of adding those miniatures to the Attack Pool. This ability may only be used once each round."

For simplicity sake, we'll just assume that the DF-9 and P-Tower pivot automatically to fire, and you can just limit the DF-9 to it's 180 firing arc with a special base and just add a rule for it's line of fire. (If you do an E-Web, you can just use a regular four directional base and limit its arc to forward).

Then it's a matter of defining the profiles. For the E-Web, have it throw a bunch of black dice (5 or 6) at range 1-3 and make it require an aim token to even fire. DF-9 is an anti-infantry blast weapon, so give it something like 2 black dice with Blast, Impact 1, at range 2-infinite but allow it to add 1 additional black dice for each mini after the first when firing on troops to represent its explosive nature. P-Tower could throw something like a red and two black at 2-infinte with some amount of impact (1 or 2) to represent it being specifically anti-armor.

Great ideas. Many thanks.

The E-Web certainly should not be able to move and fire. I was thinking of basing the stats on an enlarged DLT-19 rather than a rotary-blaster (to reflect the slower rate of fire but each with more lethal outcomes - i.e. with fewer red dice), but the overall effect would be about the same - an average of between 2 and 2.5 hits per shot.

The P-Tower seems to be operated by one crewman standing behind it - a surprisingly low-tech solution!