So, if I am reading this right, people don't like S&V because it feels like those types of characters would band together to fight. Seriously? Never mind that Jabba had a private army or that Cloud City was an independent operation. Planetary governments handle their own security for the most part. Remember that the only reason there were StormTroopers on Tatooine was because there was a Star Destroyer in orbit, they weren't stationed there.

The entire notion of Star Wars is that the only thing black and white is the Force. Instead of thinking of these guys as Pirates why not think of them as criminal gangs that want to take over a star system for their very own, carve out their own empire. Or the forces of a local Star System that see the Rebels as a threat or are mounting their own private rebellion against the Empire and they hired a bunch of mercenaries and thugs to protect themselves. Or a group of bounty hunters that are closing in on a huge score and the "benevolent" alliance is getting in their way.

Basically, HAVE FUN and let your imagination run wild. If you are looking for logic may I remind you that you're playing a game based on a sci-fi movie that came out almost 40 years ago, literally a long long time ago.

But isn't that basically what we have already? I don't see how your suggestion would be any different. No one is forced to buy or play with the S&V ships. The game is about as modular as it can be; as in, no one ship is required. You're free to customise your force any way you like with whatever ships you like (within the factions of course). It is no way required that you buy anything from S&V in order to play the game. And if your argument is that you will end up having to play against people using S&V, how would your way be any different? Surely those same people would want to use the S&V 'module', so therefore you'd be in the exact same situation.

Note: Not trying to troll or harshly criticise; I just can't see how your suggestion is different from what we have already.

*sigh*

No, nobody is forcing me to play the game. But they are forcing me to interact with elements of the game that I'd rather not. Even if I choose not to purchase the new ships (and I won't even bother addressing the issue of missing out on certain upgrades), I can't realistically stop my opponents from fielding them.

I really don't see this move as catering to X-wing sim players vs Star Wars Galaxies, I've never played either, but I wanted S&V because the underworld and bounty hunters were my favorite part of the movies. I'm sure I'm not alone here.

There's plenty of players who make similar points about the Falcon and Outrider because they don't think 360 arcs belong in the game. Should FFG cater to them? They could've made the game modular in the way you describe, they did it with the RPG, and there's a ton of players who hate that they took that route. Like you said, star wars is different things to different people, there's no way to please everyone.

I really don't see this move as catering to X-wing sim players vs Star Wars Galaxies, I've never played either, but I wanted S&V because the underworld and bounty hunters were my favorite part of the movies. I'm sure I'm not alone here.

Actually, the issues and qualms surrounding turreted arcs is quite a valid one, especially considering the recent metagame trends. Suffice it to say, I'm not very interested in pouring that can of worms into the current one.

I can't speak to the popularity of the RPG, but I have a hard time imagining that everyone hates the modules. Surely there must be some redeeming value, no? Again, different strokes for different folks. Someone must like it.

I honestly don't think it matters what they called it. Players, as a whole, will consider it a single game regardless of what you call it.

Privateer went through this when they announced Hordes. It's technically a different game that just happens to have the same rule set... but I honestly don't know anyone who treats them like that. There's a reason most people wall it Warmahordes. And that was announced as a completely separate game line, not just an expansion.

If they tried to isolate Scum into its own expansion, the same thing would happen. It doesn't really matter whether it's a new faction in X-wing or some standalone expansion - players as a whole won't view it as such, and any hope you might have that you could wall off the parts you don't like would end up in exactly the same position.

And, honestly, even if you could it wouldn't last. Unless every expansion that came in a Scum ship was marked Scum-only, at some point (probably very quickly) people would come across upgrades they wanted to have for their Imperials or Rebels, and the walls would break down.

I understand you want some way to isolate the parts that you don't like, but there's really no realistic way that was going to happen, no matter what FFG did.

There's plenty of players who make similar points about the Falcon and Outrider because they don't think 360 arcs belong in the game. Should FFG cater to them? They could've made the game modular in the way you describe, they did it with the RPG, and there's a ton of players who hate that they took that route. Like you said, star wars is different things to different people, there's no way to please everyone.

I really don't see this move as catering to X-wing sim players vs Star Wars Galaxies, I've never played either, but I wanted S&V because the underworld and bounty hunters were my favorite part of the movies. I'm sure I'm not alone here.

Actually, the issues and qualms surrounding turreted arcs is quite a valid one, especially considering the recent metagame trends. Suffice it to say, I'm not very interested in pouring that can of worms into the current one.

I can't speak to the popularity of the RPG, but I have a hard time imagining that everyone hates the modules. Surely there must be some redeeming value, no? Again, different strokes for different folks. Someone must like it.

As for the RPG, they released 3 core books, first the underworld, then the rebels, and at gencon the beta for the force. It's all the same system, so about 30 percent of each book is the same. Some people hate that they need to buy that portion of the book 3 times, others like it because it can help to have extra copies of the core rules to split between players and GM. There were loads of people saying they wouldn't even try it because of this model. Other complained that the first book was all fringe/underworld stuff (personally I think that helped them introduce the game while they worked out fleet battles and force abilities).

I'm still curious what you would've had FFG do for wave 6. You said you'd have done S&V anyway, but it would've been a seperate but compatible game. Then we'd still be in the same position we are now, only slightly more complicated be cause we'd have people playing different games, and they'd have to ask their opponent's permission to flield a squad from the other game, most would allow it so as not to seem like a jerk. So where does that leave wave 6? More EU rebels and imperials? Nearly half of what we have for them are ships I've never heard of, and not part of "my Star Wars" I don't want them to become even more diluted to the point where they loose the iconic flavor. There's just no way they can please everyone, so why not fly what you like and let everyone else do the same?

As for the RPG, they released 3 core books, first the underworld, then the rebels, and at gencon the beta for the force. It's all the same system, so about 30 percent of each book is the same. Some people hate that they need to buy that portion of the book 3 times, others like it because it can help to have extra copies of the core rules to split between players and GM. There were loads of people saying they wouldn't even try it because of this model. Other complained that the first book was all fringe/underworld stuff (personally I think that helped them introduce the game while they worked out fleet battles and force abilities).

I'm still curious what you would've had FFG do for wave 6. You said you'd have done S&V anyway, but it would've been a seperate but compatible game. Then we'd still be in the same position we are now, only slightly more complicated be cause we'd have people playing different games, and they'd have to ask their opponent's permission to flield a squad from the other game, most would allow it so as not to seem like a jerk. So where does that leave wave 6? More EU rebels and imperials? Nearly half of what we have for them are ships I've never heard of, and not part of "my Star Wars" I don't want them to become even more diluted to the point where they loose the iconic flavor. There's just no way they can please everyone, so why not fly what you like and let everyone else do the same?

Yeah, I didn't mean to turn this into another turret argument, I was just making an analogy. Keep in mind, I play the empire almost exculsively, so turrets are annoying as hell, but I don't think it would be star wars without the falcon and y-wing.

Like I said before, what draws people into X-Wing is our various appreciations and opinions of what constitutes Star Wars. If all that mattered was the game system or the mechanics be fun and varied, we could easily play this game without the ships mounted on their bases. But who wants to push shipless bases around, right? No, we want to see the models, even if they don't impact the actual gameplay one way or another. Some people like the OT better, and, as I alluded to in my first post in this thread, some people are all about the Galaxies ships (or the Shadows ships, or anything else you want to call them). While some people are ambivalent on the matter, I'd simply rather not see them on either side of the board, mine or my opponent's. If that's difficult to grasp, try to imagine what it would be like to merge all of the flightpath games together. I know several people who play both Star Wars and Star Trek, but nobody's ever thought to ask me "hey, can I play my Federation ships against your Imperials?"

Now, if you're still having trouble imagining how it would make a practical difference, consider another game: Magic. Lots of stores run official Magic events, usually on Friday evenings. Most of them also alternate formats, usually between standard and some form of sealed. I suppose the closest comparison would be sealed events using different product, like an M15 draft versus a Theros block draft. How is this analogy relevant? Well, most game stores also usually have nights dedicated to X-Wing. What's to stop them from, say, running X-Wing module events on the first and third Saturday of every month, and Star Wars: Miniatures (the entire umbrella of modules, including possible prequel ships in the future) on the second and fourth? That way people can pick and choose the official events that they go to, and once again nobody is alienated by the experience. "Official" is the key word in that sentence. To understand how much of a difference it makes, consider all the debate that goes on about house rules and custom card creation around here.

If that's difficult to grasp, try to imagine what it would be like to merge all of the flightpath games together. I know several people who play both Star Wars and Star Trek, but nobody's ever thought to ask me "hey, can I play my Federation ships against your Imperials?"

Well, although attack wing is based on the flight path system, it does in fact have some significantly different rules so they really wouldn't be compatible.

On the other hand, I would very much like to work up stats and cards to add Robotech Defense Force and Zentradi factions to the game for when they finally ship the kickstarter, and occasionally play those factions against regular imperial, rebel and scum ships.

Well, I never played Magic, and I only recently started gaming at a store, but I get what you're saying. At my FLGS there's only 6 x-wing players, and usually only 2-4 there at game day, so your idea of specific days wouldn't work very well there.

My question still stands. What would you have had wave 6 be, if not S&V. If it's just adding more EU ships the the two factions, doesn't that create the same problem as S&V, only that a different player base is effected?

If you're asking me which ships I would have preferred in their place, that's a difficult question, and not altogether a practical one. We all have our pet favorites, and you're right, one way or another it's about which segment of the player base gets their way. I'm okay with the IG-2000, or any of the other bounty hunters in ESB, because they fit from a thematic point of view - working for the Empire. Dash Rendar may be EU (regardless of the handful of frames in ANH), but his ship is iconic enough that it merits inclusion in the current faction lineup. And while I'm not overly fond of cherry-picking too much from Galaxies, I will concede that the Decimator has just enough of an Imperial aesthetic about it to also warrant my approval. These are all personal justifications that I hold for ships that, technically, are beyond the scope of the OT. Could I do the same for other EU ships? Probably, but it's not an exercise I'm inclined to put myself through at present. The only ship that I would genuinely like to see, if for no other reason than because I love the game it comes from, is the Rogue Shadow. That having been said, I feel that FFG is in no way obliged to make that happen, and I won't be hurt if it doesn't.

So, what else could FFG have done? They could have slowed their releases a hair, that would have been nice. Follow wave 5 with another two ship release, and now that we know FFG is finally alright with releasing alternate pilots in unrelated products, they could have done that for some of the problem ships as well.

Magic. Lots of stores run official Magic events, usually on Friday evenings. Most of them also alternate formats, usually between standard and some form of sealed. I suppose the closest comparison would be sealed events using different product, like an M15 draft versus a Theros block draft. How is this analogy relevant? Well, most game stores also usually have nights dedicated to X-Wing. What's to stop them from, say, running X-Wing module events on the first and third Saturday of every month, and Star Wars: Miniatures (the entire umbrella of modules, including possible prequel ships in the future) on the second and fourth?

Three major things make this not work for X-wing.

First, volume. X-wing does not have enough volume and variety in its play to survive cutting 1/3 of the models out because you don't like them.

Second, Magic's had a well established system of separation which evolved from decades of necessity. It started early because of the stupid lack of balance the game had in its earliest incarnations, and eventually as a way to (make it easy for new players to get in/apply forced obsolescence to keep people buying cards). Magic players are very accustomed to this. Most other gamers aren't, and non-gamers CERTAINLY aren't.

Third, the entire business model is centered on the idea of cross-faction purchase driven by upgrades. How do you handle upgrades? Is an upgrade which comes in a Scum ship allowable on your "pure" night?

Magic's system evolved from a necessity which simply doesn't exist in X-wing. Magic also has a critical mass that X-wing, in many areas, simply doesn't match. Forcing a split based on "I don't want to play with the new faction" would be harmful to most X-wing communities. None of that is worth it. It's a hypothetical solution to nothing more than your personal dislike that would do far more harm than good.

Nothing personal Buhallin, but I can't lend you an ounce of credibility in this conversation, owing to your unsubstantiated bias against Magic. Sorry.

Here's the thing you have to realize. Those behind the various Star Wars games are CLEARLY fans of the EU. I have an image of Kyle Katarn with a yellow saber, which most sources seem to ignore that small fact of the light side ending. Expecting them to not go deep ignores the facts.

Nothing personal Buhallin, but I can't lend you an ounce of credibility in this conversation, owing to your unsubstantiated bias against Magic. Sorry.

Awwww... see, now I'm crushed Someone should let the community know that the validity of their opinions on X-wing depends on your approval of how they view Magic.

Oh, wait. It doesn't.

This doesn't actually have anything to do with Magic specifically. It has everything to do with X-wing, and whether there's any actual need for something as dramatic as splitting the game. If you don't want to relate it to Magic, then we can focus on X-wing all by itself. Or we could consider Warmahordes, a game that went the opposite route, kept everything integrated despite a lot of player resistance, and is a far better game for having done so.

You don't like what they've done, and you're grasping at any excuse for how they could have done something to make you happy. Magic is your preferred model for pretty much everything, so of course you think doing it like Magic would have been awesome. But as the poster above you, and now I, have pointed out, X-wing doesn't fit the model in this case for any number of reasons. I don't care what format-splitting game you choose to hold up, it won't make it any more appropriate for X-wing.

And really, have you not seen the absolutely panicked response that Armada has drawn with people worried about splitting the X-wing community? And that's for a completely different game that just happens to share "Star Wars spaceships" as a theme. What do you suppose the reaction would have been about something that truly did split the X-wing community into multiple pieces?

Sorry bud, you shot your credibility on the topic when you gave me that song and dance about how Wizards ruined the gaming industry forever, and how it would do the same to anything I even remotely associated with their flagship property. Forgive me if I have a hard time taking anything you say seriously after that.

Just so you know, I haven't even bothered reading your last two posts, so you should probably go ahead and save yourself the time and energy of a third one.

If you're asking me which ships I would have preferred in their place, that's a difficult question, and not altogether a practical one. We all have our pet favorites, and you're right, one way or another it's about which segment of the player base gets their way. I'm okay with the IG-2000, or any of the other bounty hunters in ESB, because they fit from a thematic point of view - working for the Empire. Dash Rendar may be EU (regardless of the handful of frames in ANH), but his ship is iconic enough that it merits inclusion in the current faction lineup. And while I'm not overly fond of cherry-picking too much from Galaxies, I will concede that the Decimator has just enough of an Imperial aesthetic about it to also warrant my approval. These are all personal justifications that I hold for ships that, technically, are beyond the scope of the OT. Could I do the same for other EU ships? Probably, but it's not an exercise I'm inclined to put myself through at present. The only ship that I would genuinely like to see, if for no other reason than because I love the game it comes from, is the Rogue Shadow. That having been said, I feel that FFG is in no way obliged to make that happen, and I won't be hurt if it doesn't.

So, what else could FFG have done? They could have slowed their releases a hair, that would have been nice. Follow wave 5 with another two ship release, and now that we know FFG is finally alright with releasing alternate pilots in unrelated products, they could have done that for some of the problem ships as well.

Btw, Am I the only one who thinks the Decimator looks like K9 from Doctor Who got its head stuck in a Star Destroyer?

Nothing personal Buhallin, but I can't lend you an ounce of credibility in this conversation, owing to your unsubstantiated bias against Magic. Sorry.

As someone who likes Magic and is checking the spoilers for Khans almost every day even though the set isn't out for another month, I agree with Buhalin. The difference between Magic's structure and X-wing's structure is too different for the comparison to work.

I've said it before, but most LGS will want to field every expansion because it draws the biggest crowd. Bigger crowd means more customers and more models being fielded means even more free advertisement for said models.

I didn't play galaxies so I have no attachment to ships made for the game but I'm not against them as a source if ffg can make them interesting to use, decimator has an imperial look to it and I look forward to adding it to the collection.

Nothing personal Buhallin, but I can't lend you an ounce of credibility in this conversation, owing to your unsubstantiated bias against Magic. Sorry.

As someone who likes Magic and is checking the spoilers for Khans almost every day even though the set isn't out for another month, I agree with Buhalin. The difference between Magic's structure and X-wing's structure is too different for the comparison to work.

I've said it before, but most LGS will want to field every expansion because it draws the biggest crowd. Bigger crowd means more customers and more models being fielded means even more free advertisement for said models.

It was actually a simple example as to how an LGS could run separate events to satisfy different segments of the community, just like they can currently do with escalation, epic, and standard dogfight formats. It wasn't intended for people to overly scrutinize the difference between Magic and X-Wing.

I think WOTC's overall success speaks for itself. It is now a shadow of itself. It has practically imploded since I started paying attention to them in 2003. How many games do they have now? Magic and D&D are still pretty much big names, but their market share is slipping. Just look at how are licensing stuff out now. FFG is making Netrunner. Wizkids is making D&D miniatures. That speaks volumes of WOTC as a company overall.

FFG however, is producing and supporting 5 full time LCG/CCGs, with one being cut back, 1 miniature game, with another entering the market next year, full support to 3/1 RPGs (depending on your point of view), plus their wide line of board games. Magic is still king, can't deny that. But, looking at just how much WOTC imploded, I would be very hesitant to advocate any business practices used by them.

Just so you know, I haven't even bothered reading your last two posts, so you should probably go ahead and save yourself the time and energy of a third one.

Ah, the internet version of sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

Always a winning rhetorical point.

Ah, the internet version of sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

Always a winning rhetorical point.

How often do you waste your time on people you know to be irrevocably biased about something? Eye rolls abound, it would seem.

Nothing personal Buhallin, but I can't lend you an ounce of credibility in this conversation, owing to your unsubstantiated bias against Magic. Sorry.

As someone who likes Magic and is checking the spoilers for Khans almost every day even though the set isn't out for another month, I agree with Buhalin. The difference between Magic's structure and X-wing's structure is too different for the comparison to work.

I've said it before, but most LGS will want to field every expansion because it draws the biggest crowd. Bigger crowd means more customers and more models being fielded means even more free advertisement for said models.

It was actually a simple example as to how an LGS could run separate events to satisfy different segments of the community, just like they can currently do with escalation, epic, and standard dogfight formats. It wasn't intended for people to overly scrutinize the difference between Magic and X-Wing.

And we countered it by noting that the comparison doesn't work for X-wing, and that due to X-wing's size most store owners will want to maximize the inclusion in tournaments when possible, making the idea of modules for anything not OT rather pointless as they would be included anyway.

It was actually a simple example as to how an LGS could run separate events to satisfy different segments of the community, just like they can currently do with escalation, epic, and standard dogfight formats. It wasn't intended for people to overly scrutinize the difference between Magic and X-Wing.

<sigh> Going to keep trying at reasonable here.

Nobody was overly scrutinizing anything. You suggested a model which has been successful in another environment. You cannot consider the success of that model in THIS environment without making at least a minimal comparison of the two. If I were to suggest that FFG could make it all work by following the NFL model, there are any number of problems with that suggestion.

There honestly really isn't any separation between standard, epic, and escalation, at least not that I've encountered anywhere. Epic and Escalation are sideshows. You have to get to the fourth page of the Organized Play forum to find anything listed for an epic tournament (at least based on subject of the post). Escalation is just an alternate tournament format, and not even in the same vein as splitting products.

That such a split would conflict with the way X-wing is packed and distributed is something else you kinda breeze by, for some reason because I don't like WotC. <shrug>

It really doesn't have anything to do with Magic, but it does make a handy talisman for avoiding any explanation of how it might work for X-wing, doesn't it?

And we countered it by noting that the comparison doesn't work for X-wing, and that due to X-wing's size most store owners will want to maximize the inclusion in tournaments when possible, making the idea of modules for anything not OT rather pointless as they would be included anyway.

Alternating multiple events handles that quite well, but either way the point is purely hypothetical. Can any of us say with full certainty what the respective turnouts would look like at every game store?

<sigh> Going to keep trying at reasonable here.

Nobody was overly scrutinizing anything. You suggested a model which has been successful in another environment. You cannot consider the success of that model in THIS environment without making at least a minimal comparison of the two. If I were to suggest that FFG could make it all work by following the NFL model, there are any number of problems with that suggestion.

There honestly really isn't any separation between standard, epic, and escalation, at least not that I've encountered anywhere. Epic and Escalation are sideshows. You have to get to the fourth page of the Organized Play forum to find anything listed for an epic tournament (at least based on subject of the post). Escalation is just an alternate tournament format, and not even in the same vein as splitting products.

That such a split would conflict with the way X-wing is packed and distributed is something else you kinda breeze by, for some reason because I don't like WotC. <shrug>

It really doesn't have anything to do with Magic, but it does make a handy talisman for avoiding any explanation of how it might work for X-wing, doesn't it?

And yet some people really like escalation, and others are perfectly okay with a third faction being a "sideshow."

Alternating multiple events handles that quite well, but either way the point is purely hypothetical. Can any of us say with full certainty what the respective turnouts would look like at every game store?

Exactly? No. But the idea that tournaments would see less people show up when they can't field what they bought is an easy one. And store owners want maximum turnouts, so why take the risk?

Let me ask you this: How many stores regularly organize Epic tournaments? And how often do they do so in comparison to regular X-wing tournaments?