I really wouldn't change the deck. So much balancing has been done around the current deck.

I think all of these neat ideas for real bastard or interesting crit cards just need to be adjusted and balanced into scum EPT and pilot abilities. They are good ideas, I just wouldn't put them there.

First, I agree that the game, for the most part, is fair and balanced, and that there is nothing wrong with the damage deck per say. This is a credit to FFG for design such a fantastic game! And I am not in the camp that the game NEEDS this change to be successful. Far from it.

However, that being said, I do think that after 4 full expansions, plus two Aces, and two Epics (just the standard play aspects of these, of course), that the damage deck is starting to feel a bit out of date currently. Upgrades which they may have thought were would be widely used in development do not effect the current game. I mean seriously, how many times have you pulled the munitions one and been like, oh well, I never take munitions anyway. I also believe that some upgrades have been added to the game that need to be addressed in the damage deck and they are not, such as Crew, Modifications, Systems... These things did not exist when the deck was design and could use a crit specified directly towards them.

Perhaps we are not discussing a new damage deck, or an expansion to the current damage deck. Maybe we have reached the point where a second edition of the game is ready to be discussed, and this can be one of a few issue this new edition would address.

I myself think a 'band aid' to a new edition would be an updated damage deck for competitive play, there for making the current existing one fair play for casual play, but competitive players would be required to get the updated one. I seriously doubt you will find that much friction from the competitive community if it improved the game and addressed some hot button issues like C3P0, ACD, and more.

I really wouldn't change the deck. So much balancing has been done around the current deck.

I think all of these neat ideas for real bastard or interesting crit cards just need to be adjusted and balanced into scum EPT and pilot abilities. They are good ideas, I just wouldn't put them there.

I like your point but I think we can narrow down the balancing around the current deck to explicit cards. Most of them would have the critical text on them (in OP), others would be cost of opportunity (as with Ion). Specific hull/shield values also come into play (a Phantom would die to a Proton Bomb Direct Hit for example). Those can be kept the same by maintaining the same ratio of 2dmg and 1.5dmg crits (I forget the name). The others could be discussed on case-by-case basis.

I have no miniature gaming background, so I don't know how long it usually takes for a game to go to next-tier edition, or if FFG would stick to that. I am under the impression that X-Wing is booming right now and wouldn't need a revised edition for some time. Chardaan refits, TIE Advanced fixes, hypothetical new damage decks and new releases can keep it going for quite a while.

Ed you just want crew-specific crits so your TIE swarm will rise again!

What would crew-specific crits do to help him? He should be fine against C3PO with a swarm, and versus a phantom, if you've given it a crit, your job is already 3/4 done (with a small chance of it being completely over).

They just wouldn't do anything to the always crit-fragile swarm.

I just wanted to point out to the people that say you can't make it tournament legal without making it a must buy. You already have to buy at least 2 extra expansions to field a tournament list. If you already have to buy extra stuff to get your tournament on, the expansion holding this (hypothetical) new damage deck shouldn't be an issue from go.

I think there is a way to counter the 'have to buy' while still allowing to expand on it. If a player could select 35 cards out of an ever expanding set, with - as said before - a minimum of double damage cards, it would be just another deck to build. You can buy the new cards (as with expansions) but you dont have to. Or they could be supplied with expansions to come. Of course if you make your own deck, you will select what works best for you, but what if you would hand it to the opponent as his deck to use. So you could make it strong against tie swarms (or han+cp0 if thats your thing). It would make another good choice. Of course there will be some overhead setting up the game, checking the decks and making sure you get them back, but in theory it could work.

if i where to change anything it would be to add something to the Munitions failure and other cards like to have you draw another card if it doesn't apply to your ship. I rolled 2 crits against Lando on the weekend and got Munitions Failure twice which did nothing but then i got a munitions failure on my defender and lost my HLC, that seems unfair.

IF FFG was going to alter the damage deck and it composition then they would need to make it a complete replacement. I really don't see how you could make additions to the current deck fair and allowing card swapping is just an open invitation to certain kinds of cheating.

I don't even think having an "original damage deck" and a brand new "revised damage deck" where you could use either of them would work. Every list has cards they don't want to see but usually have cards they don't care about seeing as much. If there were two decks to choose from you obviously choose the deck with the fewer bad cards for your squadron.

Unintentional EVA is absolutely hilarious.

I think there is a way to counter the 'have to buy' while still allowing to expand on it. If a player could select 35 cards out of an ever expanding set, with - as said before - a minimum of double damage cards, it would be just another deck to build. You can buy the new cards (as with expansions) but you dont have to. Or they could be supplied with expansions to come. Of course if you make your own deck, you will select what works best for you, but what if you would hand it to the opponent as his deck to use. So you could make it strong against tie swarms (or han+cp0 if thats your thing). It would make another good choice. Of course there will be some overhead setting up the game, checking the decks and making sure you get them back, but in theory it could work.

if i where to change anything it would be to add something to the Munitions failure and other cards like to have you draw another card if it doesn't apply to your ship. I rolled 2 crits against Lando on the weekend and got Munitions Failure twice which did nothing but then i got a munitions failure on my defender and lost my HLC, that seems unfair.

Well, the easiest way to deal with that is provide a secondary effect to the crit cards.

IE., remove all 'direct hit' cards from the deck, and instead replace them with the requisite 'modification'/'crew'/'system' crit cards...but then on ALL mod/crew/system/secondary cards (for example) add the note "if there is no applicable upgrade on the target ship, suffer one additional damage and turn this card face down".

Taddah! Two birds killed with one stone.

(Or even three birds, really, as it immediately boosts the value of even BRINGING ALONG those kind of upgrades to build our your fleet in the first place, as they help to act as a buffer against extra hull damage. And yes, I'm a long time SFB player and have spent a lot of time plotting attacks to maximize DAC results, obviously.)

I like this idea. I'm not sure how they'd manage it without everyone screaming bloody murder over it, although I do find it interesting that some of the same people whose standard response is "STFU and stop whining!" are suddenly concerned over the community disapproval something might draw (pun intended).

I don't think there's much need for a serious overhaul or a completely new deck, but a few things could be improved. Is there any particularly good reason that that secondary weapons and EPTs are subject to critical effects, but none of the other upgrades are? Munitions Failure really stands out as the main culprit, IMHO.

Perhaps I need to read the epic rules again, but how is the damage deck handled for a 300 point epic match? 12 TIE Fighters and 5 Interceptors could possibly eat the entire deck (2 damage each, no ships destroyed), and have 48 squad points left to spend on more ships. Or 12 TIES and 2 Lambdas, which would leave behind 1 damage card before they started recycling with destroyed ships, but also has 112 more points to spend.

Honestly, STFU and buy the new deck.

I'm all for it. A crit for crew and a crit for mods please? Thanks.

Also, the damage deck rules are archaic and silly. No, I don't worship how the game is designed. Thanks.

I do think there should be more crits that affect different ships. The munitions one is kind of a slap in the face to ordnance also. I'll have you know, my statistics tell me that 107% of the time you try playing missiles for fun you will draw the Munitions Failure card. 85.738% of the time you will draw both.

It's like Murphy's Law. If you have HLC, expect Munitions Failure. If you have 2 damage left, expect a Direct Hit. Soontir with PtL? Have a Damaged Engine.

I'm of the opinion the every combo has to be scared of running bad luck like this... it's fun! (Especially in casual gameplay getting really bad luck is hilarious. 3rd Direct Hit in a row, LOL)

My concern about updating the damage deck to affect new upgrades that did not exist in Wave 1, is that then you will constantly be wanting a new damage deck. We are getting two new upgrade options in Wave 6. And I'm sure we will constantly get new upgrade options.

Of course, I also don't see the issue with the current damage deck. There is enough good stuff in there that I still see use in Rexlar's ability (not so Maarek, but that is primarily due to the size of the damage deck).

Perhaps I need to read the epic rules again, but how is the damage deck handled for a 300 point epic match? 12 TIE Fighters and 5 Interceptors could possibly eat the entire deck (2 damage each, no ships destroyed), and have 48 squad points left to spend on more ships. Or 12 TIES and 2 Lambdas, which would leave behind 1 damage card before they started recycling with destroyed ships, but also has 112 more points to spend.

This is actually covered in the basic rules. If all the damage cards are in play (on undestroyed ships) you basically replace any "cards" drawn with some other token that reflects getting a card although those "cards" have no "face-up" to show.

Strategically, if your opponent has all of his damage deck on ships I'd say you've done something wrong by letting all of those damaged ships live. Statistically, I say that if you are ever in a situation where you are worried about running out of cards in the damage deck you can just start using some kind of "token" to represent any face-down cards until such a time that they would be flipped face-up or if they were dealt face-up.

Honestly, STFU and buy the new deck.

FFG would lose a lot of customers with a don't-give-a-poop attitude like that. Allowing tournament players to use different damage decks isn't the answer, nor is forcing them to purchase a new deck to participate.

I agree that the damage deck is outdated. I would have no objection to FFG providing and requiring an expanded damage deck for official tournaments. It's just another thing that could be added to a ship-less expansion for the game which could include all sorts of stuff, such as new ship cards for older ships, new upgrades and highly-desired upgrades, corrected cards (errata), range 1 and range 2 rulers, tokens for delayed-effect elite talent and droid actions, new terrain, new campaign or scenario, etc.

Honestly, STFU and buy the new deck.

FFG would lose a lot of customers with a don't-give-a-poop attitude like that. Allowing tournament players to use different damage decks isn't the answer, nor is forcing them to purchase a new deck to participate.

Haha, you must be joking. FFG wouldn't lose any customers at all. People aren't going to abandon their $200-$400 worth of miniatures over the fact that they have to buy $2.99 worth of new damage cards (and if this thread is any indicator, many customers would love to purchase a new damage deck). If FFG required a new damage deck for tournament play, they would definitely not bundle it in a new $30 core set (though they might do that as an option). They would make it available cheaply--between $2.99 and $5.99, I would imagine. And we would all buy them up like candy. Stores would probably also host tournaments where the old damage decks are still legal, with new damage decks as entrance prizes.

FFG is super customer-focused. If you have something broken or missing upon arrival, they replace it without fuss (they've replaced missing tiles from my Twilight Imperium game). Their excellent service has created many of us customers-for-life. I wouldn't expect them to do something that would cause us to spite them when there are so many customer-serving opportunities for them to make us into even bigger fans of the company.

That said, I think that there must be an easier way. Tournaments would become nightmarish if the store official had to count the individual cards in every single player's damage deck...

That said, I think that there must be an easier way. Tournaments would become nightmarish if the store official had to count the individual cards in every single player's damage deck...

They don't count them now. It is all on the honor system. Why would that change?