No, blatant disregard for the rules is cheating... I dont care if everyone agrees. When you disregard the rules because you want to make changes you feel are needed, and you completely discard balance and playability... you break the game.. especially in the manner mentioned above. The rules are quite clear on this particular aspect, only a single copy of a unique card per side.. as I said, the rules are in place for a reason... I'm just glad I dont have to deal with that situation in my group.

Fine then, it's cheating. Just let them "cheat" together. Why do you care what house rules (or "cheating") people do amongst themselves?

as I said, the rules are in place for a reason...

Yes, they are. And that reason is to make it easy for everyone playing to agree on how they are playing. The rules facilitate the social contract between the two players in a way that helps them both to have fun, and that is all. If two (or more) people want to go to the effort of changing that contract in a mutually agreed manner because they think they will have more fun that way, that is totally acceptable, and is called house ruling. Cheating means being dishonest about what you are doing, he is certainly not doing that and it is incredibly rude of you to accuse him of it. If you don't like house rules, that's fine. I think you are denying yourself a lot of fun, but whatever, just don't accuse someone of being decietful just because they like to engage in some amateur game design, something pretty much every professional game designer I have ever spoken to encourages. Game rules are not some holy writ handed down from on high, they are just the result of a bunch of people just like us sitting around and trying to think of new ways to have fun.

as I said, the rules are in place for a reason...

Yes, they are. And that reason is to make it easy for everyone playing to agree on how they are playing. The rules facilitate the social contract between the two players in a way that helps them both to have fun, and that is all. If two (or more) people want to go to the effort of changing that contract in a mutually agreed manner because they think they will have more fun that way, that is totally acceptable, and is called house ruling. Cheating means being dishonest about what you are doing, he is certainly not doing that and it is incredibly rude of you to accuse him of it. If you don't like house rules, that's fine. I think you are denying yourself a lot of fun, but whatever, just don't accuse someone of being decietful just because they like to engage in some amateur game design, something pretty much every professional game designer I have ever spoken to encourages. Game rules are not some holy writ handed down from on high, they are just the result of a bunch of people just like us sitting around and trying to think of new ways to have fun.

Well said. As long as two people agree to the terms and are having fun, then it's all good. Fly casual!

I have great fun playing by the rules as they are.

I have great fun playing by the rules as they are.

Which is fine, but you shouldn't accuse someone of dishonest behavior just because they and their friends enjoy tweaking the rules, especially when it is patently clear that he ISN'T being dishonest.

Now, if he did something like that (taking chewie and chewie) without discussing it and getting his opponent's OK before the game started, that would be cheating, but he has made it quite plain that that isn't what he is doing.

Another example. In chess it is against the rules to take back a move once your hand has left the peice, but in casual, friendly games that happens all the time, people take their hand off and go "oh, wait! I missed something, is it OK if Itake that back and do something else?", and if the opponent says sure, then it is fine. That isn't cheating. It may be encouraging bad play and stunting the person's growth as a chess player, but it isn't cheating.

Perhaps my use of the word cheating was... heavy handed... I will just leave it at this. I like the rules as they are, and I won't be using any house rules to change them.

Good to see an adult discussion.

Other things I do, not in the rules, is play more than 100 points.

Bigger play area than listed

Not fussed if ships get bumped.

If you roll your dice and it hits a ship on the board the opposing player picks one of your ships to give it one automatic hit.

(We have since made a dice only rolling area to stop our ships blowing up from heavily thrown dice LOL)

Once played a game where the highest pilot skill moves first and shoots first.

Love just playing around with the rules.

We tend not to have fun when I have to sift through the rule book or FAQ to find something. We just both agree on something we see fit as reasonable and roll with it whether it is correct or not. Hence the Chewie situation.

While you're of course free to do whatever you want I would be forced to argue against using Chewie on Chewie. Not because of the rules or balance but because I see Chewie's pilot ability as him being determined as per the ept automatically and knowing how to compensate for any crits that happen so that the debuffs are avoided, whereas the crew card is him running around the ship putting out fires and reinforcing bulkheads and you discard him because only so much can be done in combat. That's just my interpretation of the abilities though, but if your reasoning is "it makes sense" I just wanted to see what your counterpoint to that was.

I'd also add that making squadron suggestions based on your own personal unknown house rules, on a public forum, doesn't make any sense.

Once you apply your own house rules, which I encourage if you feel the need to, you pretty much right write yourself out of most tactical or strategic discussions. Simply because you aren't playing the game by the assumed rules everyone else is operating under.

While you're of course free to do whatever you want I would be forced to argue against using Chewie on Chewie. Not because of the rules or balance but because I see Chewie's pilot ability as him being determined as per the ept automatically and knowing how to compensate for any crits that happen so that the debuffs are avoided, whereas the crew card is him running around the ship putting out fires and reinforcing bulkheads and you discard him because only so much can be done in combat. That's just my interpretation of the abilities though, but if your reasoning is "it makes sense" I just wanted to see what your counterpoint to that was.

I envisaged him doing it all from the cockpit. But at some point he is going to get up leave to do something to discard the damage card and recharge the shields.

I try to make the changes I think up fit into the 'reality' of the Star Wars dog fighting. I guess in a dog fight he isn't going to leave his seat unless his next maneuver is a 1 straight forward.

You've changed my mind. We won't be using that custom rule anymore.

This is fun.

A few posts got little touchy, but holy Han Solo, was there just an adult conversation that got settled respectfully... On the internet?!?

Kudos.

My 2 credits: house rules are fine as long as you understand the actual rules. Some rules shouldn't be broken but others def have some give. The chess example was a good one.

Fly classy.

It's HOT Chewie on Chewie action.

I noticed that there are several "chase" upgrade cards in the Tantive IV expansion. C3PO and R2D2 could be very useful for the YT-1300. That's going to raise some frustration amongst those who don't want to shell out for this expensive ship. We'll have to see if Princess Leia also falls in this category or not.

It's an unavoidable situation.

Do you include upgrades only useful on the ship it comes with in order to avoid possibly frustrating a part of your consumer base not willing to buy this product regardless. Or do you throw a little incentive in for players on the fence to maybe push them over and reward the players that are willingly shelling out for the product.

Unless the upgrades are must have to be competitive upgrades I don't think players that won't buy the ship have any solid leg to stand on in their complaints. It makes sense for FFG to make their product more attractive to possibly buyers.

I agree. And from a fluff point of view, the Tantive IV is where we first were introduced to C3PO and R2D2 (Well, at least those of us that saw A New Hope before any of the prequels), so it only seems right that they come with this ship. I'm just bracing for the whining that is inevitably going to come from the sticker shock of what it will take to get these two guys.

It doesn't really matter to me, I've had my Tantive IV pre-ordered for quite some time already. And, I must say, now that we're starting to figure out how it works, I'm glad I did. FFG didn't rest on the shiny miniature wow factor, they seem to really have put a lot of work into adding play value to the game. The flexibility in configuration on this thing is just incredilble. And we get six scenarios to excercise these options. Life is good, or at least it will be when we finally get these things in our hands.

I sure do hope to find out soon about any changes to the play area dimensions for Epic play. I need time to secure a bigger playmat if one is neccessary. Speaking of which, does anyone know of manufacturers offering larger size mats, like 4' x 6' in a space theme?

There was a kickstarter that made some. Not sure if or when they will do another batch of maps.

When FFG publishes play area dimensions for Epic play someone will manufacture appropriate maps. No need to worry about it now.

Yes, but not every average table is able to handle much more than 90 x 90 cm... (Assuming that the new dimensions keep the square shape)

I'm worried about it now because I have to order one and a table to support it before the Tantive is shipped to my doorstep!

Those tiles that EVERYONE (no one) is talking about that they announced last year... remember those? Most people don't. Cuz no one cares.

They probably come with enough for the Epic Play table.

3' x 4'? I wouldn't think that would be enough. But what a way to corner the market! The should make it octagonal with a 4 1/2' width. No one else could compete.

Those tiles that EVERYONE (no one) is talking about that they announced last year... remember those? Most people don't. Cuz no one cares.

They probably come with enough for the Epic Play table.

Is that sarcasm? I was looking forward to those

Epic play should be EPIC PLAY, so I figure it will be set up in a hallway at Gencon and we will all get bigger ships to play with like the "other template" maneuver game.

Yes, but not every average table is able to handle much more than 90 x 90 cm... (Assuming that the new dimensions keep the square shape)

Look out for a cheap second hand table tennis table (ping pong table). They are 5' x 9', fold away to save a lot of space and are perfect for wargaming on. I used to own two and laid out sheets of MDF on them or a gaming sheet for playing Warhammer 40k and a myriad of other gaming systems. The good part is that you don't care if the surface of the table is a bit beaten up since you'll lay stuff over it so you can pick them up very cheaply. I paid $50 AUD for one of mine and $70 AUD for the better quality one.

Space Mats

I picked up a mat from Hotz Mats. They make them in huge sizes, and I think you can even special order a size you want.

They are expensive though. But they look great, and is the best surface I have played on so far.

Anyone have any guesses as to what the icon is with what looks like troops is for? I'm don't mean the crew icon, the other two in this pic.

I'm glad the big ships allow you to equip Companion Cubes. I miss my old one...

Star Wars cargo crates are likely the inspiration for that icon, being featured prominently in games like Jedi Knight and as far back as the Death Star scanning crew in ANH.

Can you find us a picture of what you're thinking of? Looks like a Companion Cube to me!

They're all over the Jedi Knight games, there are a few in the Docking Bay 94 scene in ANH and the Death Star scanning crew which were made into toys.

EDIT: I know that no one thinks the icon is actually a companion cube, I'm just pointing out that I recognized the original SW inspiration for it.