Hello Community / FFG rules and balance teams,

As the game often gets points changes and other updates, I'd like to open this thread as a request for changes to rules largely without expected changes to balance or gameplay that are quality of life changes. This includes reasonings by way of: Consistency of similar instances, ease of remembering, ease of reading of rules or text, common sense changes.
In addition, changes may consider flavor, or lack of flavor, however noting that game balance generally supercedes flavor. Goals of these suggestions would likely include making the game easier to play, easier for new players to pick up.

I invite the community to offer their own suggestions, counter arguments to everyone's arguments, and request that community like/support/bump sensible suggestions.

Reserved for collection of good ideas

Based on this thread above, there's an interesting disparity in the range requirement for TL, coordinate and jam.

TL allows you to TL at Range 0, however Coordinate is strictly R1-2, and Jam is strictly R1. There doesn't seem to be any flavor or balance reasons to why one would not be able to choose a ship at R0 for these abilities, this may become possible now or in the future with things such as advanced sensors or coordinating from another ship.

Also suggest that the damage deck be written more clearly to illustrate intent, many cards are confusing without reduction of possibilities.

I would have liked to see Range 0 written as a function of having overlapped a ship. (Plus "self.") But it's tricky, because it's a function of two (or more) ships executing maneuvers at different times.

But the whole "it's possible for a ship to land physically adjacent, but not overlapping, and be at Range 0" is a horrible rule ... one of the few terrible rules of 2E. I've never seen it result in anything but two players who disagree, one of whom (the more reasonable, cowed, or winning) will give in to the other, despite perfectly understandable doubt. That's not a good position to leave players in, speaking both literally and figuratively.

2 hours ago, Jeff Wilder said:

I would have liked to see Range 0 written as a function of having overlapped a ship. (Plus "self.") But it's tricky, because it's a function of two (or more) ships executing maneuvers at different times.

But the whole "it's possible for a ship to land physically adjacent, but not overlapping, and be at Range 0" is a horrible rule ... one of the few terrible rules of 2E. I've never seen it result in anything but two players who disagree, one of whom (the more reasonable, cowed, or winning) will give in to the other, despite perfectly understandable doubt. That's not a good position to leave players in, speaking both literally and figuratively.

Yeah, that whole R0 thing adjacency thing is tough too.

3 hours ago, Jeff Wilder said:

I would have liked to see Range 0 written as a function of having overlapped a ship. (Plus "self.") But it's tricky, because it's a function of two (or more) ships executing maneuvers at different times.

But the whole "it's possible for a ship to land physically adjacent, but not overlapping, and be at Range 0" is a horrible rule ... one of the few terrible rules of 2E. I've never seen it result in anything but two players who disagree, one of whom (the more reasonable, cowed, or winning) will give in to the other, despite perfectly understandable doubt. That's not a good position to leave players in, speaking both literally and figuratively.

100 % agree

You want easier remembering? How about placing Force markers by the ship that is/has a Force user?

Probably for 3.0, but make it clear what is the trigger/cost/effect portion of each ability, probably via a special symbol as other games do

Also arc rules are a dumpster fire, need to be totally revamped

7 hours ago, Jeff Wilder said:

I would have liked to see Range 0 written as a function of having overlapped a ship. (Plus "self.") But it's tricky, because it's a function of two (or more) ships executing maneuvers at different times.

But the whole "it's possible for a ship to land physically adjacent, but not overlapping, and be at Range 0" is a horrible rule ... one of the few terrible rules of 2E. I've never seen it result in anything but two players who disagree, one of whom (the more reasonable, cowed, or winning) will give in to the other, despite perfectly understandable doubt. That's not a good position to leave players in, speaking both literally and figuratively.

You added the word "land" the clause just says "move".

I personally think range 0 non-overlapping is impossible for most moves (it either touches or don't) and the clause is only for special cases such as rotates and straight maneuvers when a ship is touching your side and you bump a 3rd ship before clearing (you are overlapping the ship you bumped but not the ship at your side). Of course FFG has not confirmed this so it's not very helpful

Oh yeah, we also need rule for the how to do a rotate move, several unanswered scenarios there

4 minutes ago, prauxim said:

I personally think range 0 non-overlapping is impossible for most moves (it either touches or don't)

Okay. That's contrary to how things have been done by every major tourney judge so far, but that's fine ... theoretically everybody in the echo chamber could be wrong.

But your parenthetical doesn't actually explain anything. Are you saying that a ship that "touches" another ship has definitely overlapped, and the overlap procedure must be followed, leaving the ships at Range 0?

33 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

Okay. That's contrary to how things have been done by every major tourney judge so far, but that's fine ... theoretically everybody in the echo chamber could be wrong.

But your parenthetical doesn't actually explain anything. Are you saying that a ship that "touches" another ship has definitely overlapped, and the overlap procedure must be followed, leaving the ships at Range 0?

That's my speculative RAI, but I don't think the ruling is wrong per se given the current wording, I look it as a judgement call on an ambiguous rule that needs some clear 'x works, y doesn't' examples for clarity

Making a distinction between contact/no contact can still be tricky, but it's discerning "would have been physically on top of" from "just touching" is much worse especially if you are cursed with a knowledge of contact modeling as I am