[Dreadpirate]

I’m not trying to turn fight.  I’m trying to do basically what you said.

The problem is that I am finding it difficult to get the angle I need to set up any kind of an attack run since I have to move a minimum of 5″ and can only turn 45* at the end of my move.  I’m usually outnumbered and my opponents do a good job of coming at me from multiple sides during deployment.  Setting up a tailing shot is very difficult in those circumstances.

In order to attack, it seems like like I always have to get within 9″ to outmaneuver someone down from advantaged and once I close in to that distance things fall apart.  The 5″ minimum move turns into a disadvantage and it seems like other planes designed for turn fighting have the advantage at that range.

[Dreadpirate]

Thanks for the feedback.  I have only played a handful of pickup games with friends.  I’m still struggling to figure out the game mechanics.  They seem counterintuitive to me for some reason.

I just got beaten a couple days ago by the four wildcat aces list in one game and then a swarm of something like 11 buffalos using Ram Attack in the next game.

I have been sticking to P-51 lists to try to limit the learning variables and to master one plane before moving on to the next. Oddly, the Mustang’s high speed has seemed like more of a detriment than an advantage so far and Great Dive seems to be of very limited usefulness.  I have tried using the Sustained Dive doctrine and Wall of Lead, but didn’t seem to do much better.

I’m going to try Aggressive Tactics next and see if that makes things any easier.

[Dreadpirate]

Thanks.  We have always played with the optional open hand/open deck rule.  I guess the retention test would be relevant if you are using the standard action deck rule.

[Dreadpirate]

I figured as much, but I can’t find anything anywhere in the rules where it actually says that.

[Dreadpirate]

That’s too bad.  Then LAP turns into Dive Away when you play it with Great Dive. It would be nice to have the option to just discard the bonus card to retain the doctrine card instead of being required to play it.

Thanks for the answer.

[Dreadpirate]

Renko, Please read again what you quoted above. It clearly says “I see” not “you see” or “Renko sees”. It was originally given in the context of acknowledging that we saw and interpreted the same thing in different ways.

I don’t expect you to necessarily agree with me, but what is the point of coming into a discussion about house rules, which by its very nature involves making changes to the rules, and repeatedly saying what is fairly summarized as “RAW, RAW, RAW” (rules as written)?

I’m not trying to chase you off. You share a lot of information that is valuable and interesting. I really appreciated what you posted about sustained dive and interlocking fire and upcoming releases.

I’m just asking you to play along with my wacky notions for house rules in a conversation about my wacky notions for house rules and discuss how to make them better aside from just not having any wacky notions at all.

I asked some questions way up top that I’d love to hear your opinion on if you care to share them about what would happen if you played deep pockets as a bonus. Would you be able to prevent a boom chit before you’ve taken it and would you discard deep pockets or remove it? You don’t have to agree with the necessity of my house rule at all to weigh in on that.

As for being passive/aggressive, well that’s the pot calling the kettle black. You seem to do that quite well yourself whenever I am cheeky enough to suggest deviating from the RAW in any way.

Go if you must or stay and join the conversation if you like.

• This reply was modified 5 years, 5 months ago by Dreadpirate.

[Dreadpirate]

Renko, I’m not suggesting you said the rule was a loophole. I understand you see it as a well designed feature. However, I’m explaining that I have a different point of view in that regard.

My point of view is that this is a game about air to air combat. A widely accepted axiom of air to air combat is that it is generally a bad idea to fly into the space between a wingman and the lead plane he is covering. Since the game is about air to air combat it generally shouldn’t reward doing things in game that are considered bad in air to air combat. The game currently does reward in some instances flying into the space between a wingman and the plane he is protecting. I want to create a house rule to make doing that a potentially riskier decision than it already is under the official rules.

I created this topic to get feedback on the best way to accomplish my desired goal of making a house rule to change the game in a minor way that I think is interesting and fun. Coming into such a discussion and essentially saying the game is perfect as written so you shouldn’t be trying to change it and if you do then you don’t understand the game doesn’t add anything to the sort of conversation I’m trying to have. I welcome any feedback you want to offer, but “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” isn’t really constructive feedback in a topic about house rules. It’s just noise.

I get the impression that you are somehow involved in the play testing or development of this game in an official or semi-official capacity and may have some insight into the intent and philosophy of the game’s creator that I don’t have. Maybe you feel you are preserving the purity of that intent.

As a mere consumer of the product I guess I don’t hold the original intent of the designer in such high regard and feel free to deviate from it in ways I think might be interesting or fun. My desire to do so shouldn’t be seen as an attack on the game design or a criticism of the game designer.

As I have repeatedly said, the game is brilliantly designed and fun to play. Just because I think it would be more fun to do some things a little differently doesn’t make it any less so.

[Dreadpirate]

Renko, no worries about coming across negatively.  I appreciate you taking the time to provide feedback based on your experience.  That’s what I’m asking for.

However, you do seem to put too much emphasis on the name I assign to these cards.  To me, the mechanics are important and names just add flavor.  The whole discussion about wingman tactics being universal is kind of missing the point.  Let’s just call it Test House Rule #3 instead of wingman tactics.

I always consider other people’s feedback and try to see things from their point of view before making up my mind.  I may not agree with that point of view in the end, but I do try to understand it.  That’s still how I feel about the auto outmaneuver rule in the other discussion topic.  It’s not a lack of understanding the game dynamics, rather I’m generally not a fan of automatic outcomes and believe they are bad for gameplay, but there’s no need to rehash that here.

It’s sort of the same with test house rule 3. You see a feature of the game that rewards a player for expertly using the sequence of play to their advantage allowing them to drop in front an enemy plane’s wingman and take a shot then fly clear with little risk in certain circumstances.

I see a player gaming the system or exploiting a loophole in the sequence of play to get away with doing something that would otherwise be quite foolish. I don’t want want to eliminate that choice from the game as I recognize that some players really enjoy cleverly manipulating the game mechanics that way, but I would also like to add some risk to that choice such as wondering if their opponent has test house rule 3 in hand to make them pay for dropping into a position that should otherwise be avoided except for their clever gaming of the sequence of play.

Do you have any ideas about how to do that in an easy to understand way that doesn’t cause gameplay to break down? I know you don’t agree with necessity of it or like the idea of adding it to the game, but if you were going to how would you do it? I promise I won’t make you use my house rule even if you help me make it.

• This reply was modified 5 years, 5 months ago by Dreadpirate.

[Dreadpirate]

Renko, thanks for the feedback. Sustained Dive does fit the niche I was trying to fill with BnZ, so I agree that BnZ would be redundant. Although, I like my card name better. 😁

What is interlocking fire? An effect similar to what I was trying for with Wingman Tactics?

I don’t understand the feedback you gave on Wingman Tactics. How does the lead plane’s advantage level affect the card?

I’m basically trying to create a card that punishes a player for flying directly into the line of fire of enemy plane A to take a shot at enemy plane B by giving plane A a snap shot at the attacking plane. I’m not aware of anything currently in the game that does that. Of course, I don’t have any of the Aces or Russian forces and only the zeros for Japan, so there’s a lot I don’t know about.

I’m certainly excited to hear about new expansions coming out, but I can’t resist the urge to tinker with house rules for my games.

I’m not looking to propose anything official. It’s just nice to get feedback from experienced players on house rules to help avoid any major game breaking blunders because you overlooked some weird interaction your house rule might have with the official rules.

[Dreadpirate]

Does this help make BnZ more in line with the power of the other Doctrines?

Doctrine: Boom and Zoom – Bonus Great Climb or Great Dive. Play on a friendly advantaged plane that burns advantage to dive. After completing its Pilot Action the plane may take a bonus climb action. Pilot Test.

This leaves the plane neutral for any shooting action but returns the plane to advantaged afterwards. It can’t be used to increase two advantage levels since it can only be played on an advantaged plane. Does it still need to be a discard?

[Dreadpirate]

Looking for input on another Doctrine.

Wingman Tactics: Bonus – Deep Pockets? Play on a friendly plane in wingman position in reaction to an enemy plane shooting. The plane may shoot at the enemy plane. Discard.

I’m not sure how to word it simply, but the idea is that if an enemy plane is shooting at a friendly plane and you have a plane in a position that would qualify for the wingman effect relative to the shooting plane then you can take a shot at that plane.

I can’t think of an appropriate bonus other than Deep Pockets, which isn’t a great fit. Also, would you just discard Deep Pockets to retain Wingman Tactics or would you have to remove it? I don’t think you’d be able to use Deep Pockets to prevent a Boom Chit you haven’t taken yet so I doubt it would be worth removing a deep pockets just to retain Wingman Tactics.

[Dreadpirate]

Nat, my wording may have been unclear, but the intention is that you could not play boom and zoom on a neutral plane only on an advantaged plane. I’m open to making it a discard, but is it really that overpowered in comparison to the other doctrine cards? All the ones I have are pilot test retention.

Renko, Slashing Attack increases FP and, although thematically similar, isn’t mechanically similar at all. I don’t have whatever supplement includes sustained dive yet. If it’s in the FW190s or F4Us, well those are on the way, but haven’t arrived yet.

What is it about BnZ that makes it overpowered (so I know what tweaks to make to bring it in line with the other doctrines)? It seems less powerful than flying into a cloud.

My reasoning for BnZ is that I want to represent energy fighting tactics and I don’t think any of the cards I already have at my disposal capture that feeling quite right. Low Altitude performance is the closest, but isn’t quite right as energy fighting usually doesn’t involve low altitude fighting — low altitude is more in the realm of turn and burn tactics.

As for Superior Training and Seasoned Pilots, again they may be thematically similar, but are mechanically very different. If you ignore the card names and just look at the mechanics do you still see any redundancy?

[Dreadpirate]

The simplest solution to the problem might be to identify outmaneuver as an advanced rule that should be added at the same time as the other advanced rules that interact with outmaneuver.

[Dreadpirate]

Nat, “look at these other successful games with awful basic rules” isn’t a very convincing argument.

[Dreadpirate]

Many of you seem to think I’m trying to argue that you are wrong when you say the rule works fine when you add in all the other advanced rules. I am not. I am sure you are correct in that assessment.

My original post wasn’t really addressed to an audience of experienced players using all of the advanced rules to convince you to play the game differently. It would be pointless for me to try to convince you that you are wrong when you, as experienced players using all of the advanced rules, say the game is fine as is and see no reason to change anything just because of something that primarily affects new players using only the basic rules.

However, a game designer or publisher trying to sell their game to new players might (perhaps they don’t) care very much about a rule that negatively impacts new players trying to learn the game and using only the basic rules.

I’ve made the information available here for Andy/Warlord to consider. It’s up to them to decide what, if anything, to do with it.

I sincerely hope they consider revising the rule so that the game works as well for new players using the basic rules as it does for experienced players using the advanced rules. If Warlord doesn’t care about that, well, that’s a shame, but I won’t lose any sleep over it.

[Author]

Posts