If there was an (unique) upgrade card to increase the greens by 1 to 3,

even Rhymer would be worth to take (with Prockets):

(unique) Enhanced Turbo Thrusters

Modification, Tie Bomber only

2 Points

"Increase your agility value by 1. You cannot equip this card if your pilot skill is "6" or lower."

So I don't think that existing cards have to be reprinted with different values - there are different ways to make unused pilots and upgrade cards usable.

Yes, I would appreciate some refreshed cards for lesser used pilots, cards that need point corrections, and cards that can benefit from more or revised text per the FAQ. But I would like them to be rolled out in two manners so that players can choose which to buy:

1. Via re-released ships with alternate paint schemes; and

2. Via card boxes (similar to the tournament kits with great art and better quality) for each faction (one for rebels, imperial and scum) that contains the revised pilots and upgrades for those ships (not every card for the faction, just the ones that need revision to increase their use).

This gives players the option on what to invest in and would help diversify play. Frankly, I'd probably buy both options and I'm sure many other would too.

Thanks FFG!

In addition to upgrade cards, like changing the asteroids by adding debris, they could pad the damage deck too.

There are so many additions to the game mechanics since the core set that go unpunished with crits. Off the top of my head, a crit that addressed losing your modification would be a game changer. Falcons losing their engine upgrade, phantoms losing their ACD, you get the picture.

Any other areas that crits don't address?

The issue with that is that you are creating an ever expanding issue. There will be new types of upgrades, do you seriously expect them to constantly update the damage deck to account for them, when they will rarely have an effect on the actual game?

In addition to upgrade cards, like changing the asteroids by adding debris, they could pad the damage deck too.

There are so many additions to the game mechanics since the core set that go unpunished with crits. Off the top of my head, a crit that addressed losing your modification would be a game changer. Falcons losing their engine upgrade, phantoms losing their ACD, you get the picture.

Any other areas that crits don't address?

The issue with that is that you are creating an ever expanding issue. There will be new types of upgrades, do you seriously expect them to constantly update the damage deck to account for them, when they will rarely have an effect on the actual game?

No, I do not expect them to constantly update the damage deck to account for ever expanding upgrades that will rarely have an effect on the actual game. It bewilders me to think that some might.

Modifications are a huge part of the game. Most lists have at least one. EVERY ship is eligible for them. More than I can say about secondary weapons (a crit that seems to rarely cripple players).

I'm not saying to revamp the damage deck every wave... But modifications in the least now go untouched. Same with illicit upgrades once they're released...

The more different types of critical damage cards they have, the lower odds you have of drawing it, and the the lower odds of it affecting your squad.

Modifications are a huge part of the game. Most lists have at least one. EVERY ship is eligible for them. More than I can say about secondary weapons (a crit that seems to rarely cripple players).

I'm not saying to revamp the damage deck every wave... But modifications in the least now go untouched. Same with illicit upgrades once they're released...

And System, and Astromech, and Scavenged Astromech, and Crew. And don't forget whatever new key upgrade type they add in the future.

I just don't see how Munitions Failure and Injured Pilot justify more cards of those types. Especially since those crits aren't exactly that punishing in the current meta anyway. And ironically, the more you add to the damage deck, the worse Maarek gets.

I don't think it's just by chance that no A-wings or Advanced ships made the top 32 at Worlds, and that's after Rebel Aces and the refit was released for the A-wing.

Going forward, it is going to be real tough for all ships to have representation in the top tables. We do have more and more ships being released. There were A-wings at Worlds, though. And it sounds like they did okay, if just not the best.

I also remember people talking about how loading up a HWK was crazy. Hello 40pt Jan...

I agree that it's not realistic to have all ships represented, but the Top 32 is is a heck of a lot of lists -- and it wasn't just A-Wings and Advanced. No Firesprays, bombers or defenders (half the Imperial Fleet, btw). And to not see a single A-Wing after they became cheaper and received better pilots is more indicative of the state of the meta (and the price paid for 2 attacks as I mentioned above) than just bad luck or the fact that there are 8 ships p/side. You especially won't see all ships represented if the meta continues to shift to 2-3 ship builds. Even at World's one of the reasons so many ships were missing was because the two most potent ships from each side (Phantom and Falcon) eat up a lot of points.

Bombers barely missed the cut twice (and he didn't even use Jonus). I do believe a good player brought Vader, even though he didn't make the cut. Heck, Hothie faced a couple Defenders in the first flight, one of them in the top tables.

Personally, looking at all the 4-2s would be interesting. Sure, the top 32 gives you a good picture of the tier 1 stuff. But the game isn't just the tier 1 stuff. The health of the meta is likely to be best viewed when you look at the tier 1.5 and tier 2 stuff. Middling winning records (especially in such a long tournament). A game's true meta health is where people feel that they can experiment with other ships.

EDIT: We are veering off topic here. I still maintain that we won't have blatant replacements.

Modifications are a huge part of the game. Most lists have at least one. EVERY ship is eligible for them. More than I can say about secondary weapons (a crit that seems to rarely cripple players).

I'm not saying to revamp the damage deck every wave... But modifications in the least now go untouched. Same with illicit upgrades once they're released...

And System, and Astromech, and Scavenged Astromech, and Crew. And don't forget whatever new key upgrade type they add in the future.

I just don't see how Munitions Failure and Injured Pilot justify more cards of those types. Especially since those crits aren't exactly that punishing in the current meta anyway. And ironically, the more you add to the damage deck, the worse Maarek gets.

One could argue they aren't punishing in the current meta because people avoid bringing ships that could be affected by them or they disproportionately affect ships that aren't seen much already. For example Injured pilot (and a lot of others) are nasty on interceptors (with PTL or named) and munitions failure hurts bombers.

Really, I think it's pretty clear that the damage deck could use a retooling for several reasons and I even overheard one of the developers mentioning that it is a bit outdated at World's (though I'm not sure that means they'll be redoing it).

Bombers barely missed the cut twice (and he didn't even use Jonus). I do believe a good player brought Vader, even though he didn't make the cut. Heck, Hothie faced a couple Defenders in the first flight, one of them in the top tables.

Personally, looking at all the 4-2s would be interesting. Sure, the top 32 gives you a good picture of the tier 1 stuff. But the game isn't just the tier 1 stuff. The health of the meta is likely to be best viewed when you look at the tier 1.5 and tier 2 stuff. Middling winning records (especially in such a long tournament). A game's true meta health is where people feel that they can experiment with other ships.

EDIT: We are veering off topic here. I still maintain that we won't have blatant replacements.

FWIW, I mostly agree with you, especially in relationship with the meta of other games. However, I think that I could use the same examples you use above to support the opposite side, (good players bringing underrepresented ships not making the cut). I also don't think there will be blatant replacements, but I think there are places where it might be useful in this game. The reason I referred to the A-Wing fix is a good example. It was clearly overpriced. Now, it's still probably not a ship that fits in with the meta, but if they had simply reprinted the card (and I understand their policies in avoiding that) and allowed you to take proton rockets with a cheaper A-wing, you have a ship that I think would cause people to consider taking over the Z-95 and would make the named pilots a lot more useable.

There's a difference between a thousand bandages and a dead body part, and I'm pretty sure the TIE Advanced nearly qualifies as Canseco's finger at this point.

Oh, that's bad

I still maintain that we won't have blatant replacements.

I'd prefer a "patch" deck with updated cards which could include improvement to under-performing pilots as well as updated text for pilots/upgrades from the FAQ. Other games have done this and it works out just fine.

In addition to upgrade cards, like changing the asteroids by adding debris, they could pad the damage deck too.

There are so many additions to the game mechanics since the core set that go unpunished with crits. Off the top of my head, a crit that addressed losing your modification would be a game changer. Falcons losing their engine upgrade, phantoms losing their ACD, you get the picture.

Any other areas that crits don't address?

I'm suprised there was no "I've Lost Artoo" card that discards the astromech (& S&V salvaged astromech) upgrade slot. However in order to change a core mechanic such as the damage deck they will have to reprint the entire core set. Simply adding damage cards would not be good for the game because then there will either be a requirement to have the additional cards making all player's collection unplayable or make it optional in which only imperial players or rebel (and S&V) squadrons with no astromech upgrades would take just to pad the damage deck with critical damage that has no effects.

They've done this exact thing with adding debris. You have to own the decimator and outrider to get all of those.

They've done this exact thing with adding debris. You have to own the decimator and outrider to get all of those.

The difference being, that if they become tourny legal, I'm pretty certain asteroids will still be an option. The damage deck sort of needs to be uniform between the players.

Fair enough, but you could sell the update separately, for way cheap. What tournament player wouldn't spend $5.00 on an updated damage deck? I suppose there would be a massive amount of grumbling and complaining, but the drive would be for game betterment. With that logic of never improving, why do we keep releasing new ships then? I totally understand the counterpoint, I'm just of the opinion that the game could further be enriched with addressing the damage deck because new ships and more importantly new abilities have been released.

I suppose there would be a massive amount of grumbling and complaining

Which is why FFG won't do it.

Fair enough, but you could sell the update separately, for way cheap. What tournament player wouldn't spend $5.00 on an updated damage deck? I suppose there would be a massive amount of grumbling and complaining, but the drive would be for game betterment. With that logic of never improving, why do we keep releasing new ships then? I totally understand the counterpoint, I'm just of the opinion that the game could further be enriched with addressing the damage deck because new ships and more importantly new abilities have been released.

The issue with this is you either have to make it required or make it a choice. The issue with making it optional is you destroy the reason for making a new damage deck in the first place. Making it mandatory is such a large, large break from FFG's policies for playing the game. The core is really the only purchase you need beyond the ships that you want to play. Adding a new item to purchase just to play in tournaments is a very large break from that philosophy, no matter how inexpensive it may be.

And truthfully, $5 is a bit naive on the cost of a new damage deck.

And truthfully, $5 is a bit naive on the cost of a new damage deck.

$5-$12?:

Updated Damage Deck

Updated text to replace cards changed by the FAQ

Debris Field tokens

Updates to cards(Fixes for advanced Ties, ect)

Couple Alt Art cards (AP/Rooks?)

Don't alter the damage deck. It's fine as it is and far too entrenched in the game to change now.

It wouldn't be that difficult for FFG to create a missile/torp/bomb that when it hits, it destroys a particular kind of upgrade card.

I would like to see ordnance that will kill off a crew member or destroy a modification.

Considering an LCG pack is $15 for 60 cards, I would put it at least $7 for just the damage deck. And again, the price is not the issue when talking about it.

What would be the rationale for updating the damage deck? What could possibly be more fair than both players having the exact thing?

So to answer my question from the OP, nobody would be too terribly upset if a few odd cards like basic Proton Torpedoes got entirely superseded by stuff in new expansions? The question was mainly so that the designers would have additional options in repairing the inevitable mistakes that get made in creating a game of XWM's complexity.