I am hoping to get the communities thoughts for a house rule I have been mulling over.

Rule: during activation, if both squadrons have ships of eaqual pilot skill, ships of apposing squadrons would alternate activation starting with the first player.

My intent is to lessening the advantage of being the second player which is determined by a dice roll or an out of game choice. I am not too worried about how often this situation comes up ( you need at least three eaqual pilot skills split between the two squadrons and two need to belong to the first player).

It would perhaps give a bit of an advantage to squadrons comprised of a single pilot skill. But now by going first you could also go last.

This just heavily rewards bringing lotsof ships of equal init, rather than bidding. It changes the game, but doesn't necessarily make it better.

The simplest solution to the First Player issue is to flip the First Player token at the end of every round. Adds a neat back-and-forth to equal Pilot Skill and eradicates the game-warping factor of a locked First Player.

3 minutes ago, Firespray-32 said:

The simplest solution to the First Player issue is to flip the First Player token at the end of every round. Adds a neat back-and-forth to equal Pilot Skill and eradicates the game-warping factor of a locked First Player.

This was tried during 2e development by all accounts, and was just found to be too fiddly for the benefit it offered.

The best solution I've seen suggested before is to make bids lost rather than held in the event of a game going to time (i.e. when compiling MoV, the bid counts against you rather than in your favour) - that would mean that bidding had a higher cost than just points unspent, and would make late game fortressing harder as the points wouldn't be held in your fortress.

I don't find it fiddly at all and I play every game that way now.

But then again, some players struggle with lists with more than one ship type in them, and the solution has to work for the game as a whole.

I like your idea too.

5 hours ago, thespaceinvader said:

This just heavily rewards bringing lotsof ships of equal init, rather than bidding. It changes the game, but doesn't necessarily make it better.

Maybe, but you are probably not bringing lots of ships at ps 5 or 6. It might allow for elite generic squadrons something we have never seen before (crack swarm aside, wich I would be happy to see again). I am not sure if it heavily rewards equal ps squadrons, but it does let you hedge you bid.

\It heavily rewards them in matchups with equal init squads which have fewer ships of that init, in exactly the same way bidding heavily rewards the bidder in equal init matchups.

7 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

\It heavily rewards them in matchups with equal init squads which have fewer ships of that init, in exactly the same way bidding heavily rewards the bidder in equal init matchups.

Right, but if both of you have similar squads then instead of one dice roll ( or bid) being so influential, it just decides who moves the last ship not the last squadron. Right now the bid is a heavy reward, but by alternating the reward is lessened.

At least this way if you had two ships of equal pilot skill in your list and you were made first player. One of your ships could react to a similar pilot instead of both ships being at a disadvantage. The person going second would still have an advantage but it would be less.

That's a fair cop, but it's still a band-aid on a horribly mixed metaphor.

Or something.

It's a good idea, but it doesn't solve the problem completely.

I'd be interested to try it out actually.

I don't like it. While there's maybe some benefit in breaking things up at higher init, but it seems like a major hassle when two squads full of generics at lower init match up. I guess there's a benefit in that it'd be easier for low-init munitions based squad to get locks on other low-init ships, but I think I'd just get annoyed. Two TIE Swarms crashing into each other would be even more of a nightmare than it already is.

7 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

\It heavily rewards them in matchups with equal init squads which have fewer ships of that init, in exactly the same way bidding heavily rewards the bidder in equal init matchups.

There's a reward for it, but I don't think it does so *in the same way*. This would radically change how list design works. Maybe Nien/L'ulo fly beside Ello instead of Poe, to run 3 5s, or Whisper/Redline with Duchess instead of Soontir Fel. But then that leaves Soontir in the classic list completely unchallenged. Maybe Soontir/Vader becomes a thing, to fight against single Init 6 squads.

It seems like there's going to be some way to build a list to win the "moves last" under any scheme.

But... the more I think about it for aces, there are going to be some awkward things. Consider: a list with 3 Init 5s will move one last--no matter how little they bid--against any list with 2 Init 5 ships. Duchess/Whisper/Redline can always get Redline to move last for a lock on a key target, or Whisper to arc dodge, or whatever.

Like I said, I think I was a little too reactive initially. It sounds like an interesting thing to try.

But it does also mean that things like the 4 I5 Resistance squad are very, very strong, because they have a small bid but will still be moving two or three ships last (and ships which get huge benefits for moving last) against most of the meta.

Flipping it each turn doesn't seem that fiddly - plenty of board games, and other miniature games, do so. Now, it might not actually be a bad thing per se that deep bids exist - but it does feel weird.

28 minutes ago, player3679152 said:

Flipping it each turn doesn't seem that fiddly - plenty of board games, and other miniature games, do so. Now, it might not actually be a bad thing per se that deep bids exist - but it does feel weird.

I'm reporting what a designer has indicated they felt, not what I feel, I've not tried it. It's as close to a quote from Alex Davey as I could provide without remembering his exact words.

innitiative should alternate every turn. its common sense.

if it alternates its fair to both players, its easy to track by simply passing the token each turn, and it completely eliminates both bidding and lists that only win with innitiative. all pros no cons

2 hours ago, theBitterFig said:

. Two TIE Swarms crashing into each other would be even more of a nightmare than it already is

But now activation order becomes more interesting. Do you do the ship with the obvious move or the one needed to block. It is kind of like this in armada, and the few times I played that it seemed to work.

8 hours ago, thespaceinvader said:

This just heavily rewards bringing lotsof ships of equal init, rather than bidding. It changes the game, but doesn't necessarily make it better.

You should do this anyway, if only to have control over the order you activate in.

3 hours ago, Vontoothskie said:

innitiative should alternate every turn. its common sense.

if it alternates its fair to both players, its easy to track by simply passing the token each turn, and it completely eliminates both bidding and lists that only win with innitiative. all pros no cons

I feel like players would then alternate between an aggressive turn and a defensive turn. It is probably worth a try.

11 hours ago, thespaceinvader said:

This just heavily rewards bringing lotsof ships of equal init, rather than bidding. It changes the game, but doesn't necessarily make it better.

^THIS^

Armada has that system, and it causes one of the many problems with that game (Sorry for those that like Armada).

40 minutes ago, Marinealver said:

^THIS^

Armada has that system, and it causes one of the many problems with that game (Sorry for those that like Armada).

But unlike armada, X-Wing has different pilot skills so instead of everyone being lumped together (like in armada) you get groups of pilot skill. If someone was taking lots of a type of ship then the opponent could take less at a higher pilot skill.

I really don’t think alternating would be a significant change in most games and I don’t think it would be that rewarding to try and exploited the rule with specific lists. It would just be away of avoiding that situation where your three Pilot skill 5 ships don’t all go before your opponents 5 and 6 just because of a dice roll. You may still have to move first but then your opponent would have to move something before they had perfect information.

3 minutes ago, BenDay said:

But unlike armada, X-Wing has different pilot skills so instead of everyone being lumped together (like in armada) you get groups of pilot skill. If someone was taking lots of a type of ship then the opponent could take less at a higher pilot skill.

I really don’t think alternating would be a significant change in most games and I don’t think it would be that rewarding to try and exploited the rule with specific lists. It would just be away of avoiding that situation where your three Pilot skill 5 ships don’t all go before your opponents 5 and 6 just because of a dice roll. You may still have to move first but then your opponent would have to move something before they had perfect information.

You are trying to fix one problem that will only cause more problems. Besides it doesn't matter what you are asking for will never be put into X-wing. Not unless there is a 3rd edition and if they didn't change it in 2nd edition I doubt that change will happen.

You could try a house rule match, but I won't be interested.

9 hours ago, Marinealver said:

You could try a house rule match, but I won't be interested.

It literally says this is a house rule in the title of the thread.

8 hours ago, GuacCousteau said:

It literally says this is a house rule in the title of the thread.

and I'm not going use it. As I said there are games that use this system and the problems with that system has already been laid out.

I frequently play casual games with alternating initiative each turn. We don't find it cumbersome to do and it feels like it ought to just be the official rule. Solves most of the initiative problems without really creating new ones.

On 2/24/2019 at 6:26 PM, BenDay said:

I feel like players would then alternate between an aggressive turn and a defensive turn. It is probably worth a try.

isnt that a pro and not a con though?

the problem with innitiative is that players can often rely on winning if they have it, assuming they are evenly matched and dice dont get too crazy. thus people bring lists with point bids to try and garauntee they get it, the problem is reliance on innitiative and abuse of it, not so much how people are playing once the game has started

On 2/25/2019 at 1:26 AM, Marinealver said:

^THIS^

Armada has that system, and it causes one of the many problems with that game (Sorry for those that like Armada).

Initiative sinks is a problem in any game with I-go-you-go activations without some means to cope with one party bringing more units.

By comparison, "pass the initiative token to the other player" as a one-liner in the end phase and clean up is not complex, and is far more far-reaching:

• If you have ships of the same initiative, the move first/shoot first alternates between turns. All of your ships at initiative 5 move first (or last), but next turn you get to have the drop on your opponent, and so on.
• It also alternates initiative so that mechanics which either neutralise one another or not depending on initiative work, or don't work, on alternating turns. For example, Assaj Ventress/Latts Razzi versus "Muse" - if the player with Assaj Ventress has initiative, they will spend the entire game going "Have stress!" "No." - change the token over every turn and you have a window where the first order are immune to her ability, and a window where they aren't.
• It means the Initiative token being a physical object actually matters, and opens up the theoretical design space for "if you have/do not have the First Player token" as a trigger for abilities, or abilities which allow you/force you to pass the token or take it from your opponent.