Too many people worry about the things they can't control in this game instead of the things they can.

It's no different than people wanting extra pickles or no onions. People like lots of things but they like them best on their own terms, not someone else's. Players are free to do whatever they want to the game, just not in tournaments.

I think the OP is right, but I don't think the addition of new dice types is feasible at this point. Not unless there comes an X-Wing 2.0 and a conversion pack for current players.

We can, however, design weapons that are more precise but deal less damage, without leaving the current possibilities of the game.

One point where this game doesn't really make justice to the combat sims is with "superiority". The A-Wing sure packs not so strong weapons, but its agility allowed it to stick to its target's rear and keep on shooting on it until it blew up.

In contrast, the B-Wing had much harder time to keep agile foes in its sight, but when it managed to do so, it shot a big burst of lasers that balanced it out.

For a B-Wing, keeping a TIE Interceptor on sight was really hard. For an A-Wing, not so much.

This game tries to mimic that with the boost action and the many green maneuvers on the A-Wing's dial. But it's not enough, because even when the A-Wing gets the interceptor on arc, it still rolls 3-4 greens against its 2-3 reds.

One way to decouple the precision from the damage on a weapon could be done by adding Primary Weapon Replacement upgrade cards, that alter the damage dealt during combat resolution, between the "Compare Dice Results" and "Deal Damage" phases.

For example:

Semirotary lasers

Primary Weapon Replacement

Only A-Wing

[1-3] Atk: 4

At the end of the "Compare results phase", pick two uncancelled attack die results, cancel the rest.

while I do much prefer the warmachine system of splitting offense values for accuracy and strength and splitting defense values into evasiveness and armor, and doing away almost entirely with the fickleness of defensive dice (**** tough), I don't think it's going to matter in the long run

the design space for x-wing miniatures should be more focused on things outside the dice, i.e the actual strategy part of the game: maneuvering. The activation stage of the game is imo easily the most involving and almost completely rng, making it the core of the x-wing fun for me As such, any design of future pieces would be better off focusing on that instead of dice values anyway

I don't think I'd give two ***** about the k-wing being less accurate and more powerful compared to its bombs and S.L.A.M

Having flown Vader pre-ATC, I am going to say that the dismissal of 2 Atk is a bit much. Sure, you shouldn't put all your stock in with expensive 2 Atk ships, but they can work.

True - but given that he has 2 actions, he is a bit of an outlier.

Going into this thread I thought it would be just long boring rant. It's nice to be wrong sometimes.

Anyway, the idea to have Armada style dice is a good one, though perhaps not feasible until a second edition of the rules is on the table.

The main problem of the game is that it is based on combat and not on scenarios. This locks the designers into a bind further excarbated by the Red Dice. I can also forsee that design space will be narrower up until it'll start to choke the life out of the game. Either they go 2nd ed then and hope customers follow or the decline will be inevitable.

The game works because it's simple and fast, if you over complicate attack or defense you get 40k where basic games take 3-4 hours because you roll to hit, then to damage then you make two types of save.

I agree that the games core simplicity is one of it's major drawcards. It's as simple as roll red dice, roll green dice, compare results and allocate damage.

I think part of the problem is that FFG is trying to get more waves out of the game and it's core mechanics than it really can. If you start adding more and more ships, and you want all of those ships to be distinct (and not to mention all the extra upgrade cards that come with each new ship) then you start to reach the limits of what you can do with a single dice interaction (I roll red, you roll green and we compare). The more complex the relationship of the dice, then the more scope you have for adjustment.

Having recently started playing Armada, I think I slightly prefer the system of multiple dice colours vs tokens. For the attacker, it opens up far more variation in play styles without requiring a stack of upgrade cards. For the defender, it takes a chunk of RNG out of the game and allows for more strategic resource management. Not sure I like ALL tokens being refreshed at the end of each combat round, I think refreshing one per round would have been enough.

Has Twin Laser Turret been spoiled? The way you talk about it seems like it has, but I can't find any information.

There was a crappy photo from a Spanish distributors website. Through the magic of image enhancement and people that are literate in multiple languages it has been mostly spoiled. It looks like the turret will cost 6 points and allow you to make two three dice attacks. When an attack hits you cancel all hits and the defender takes one damage.

That's a worse turret effect than Autoblaster. How disappointing. The reign of the K is over before it could begin.

It's also range 2-3. I thought it was a fantastic turret that works well on Rebel HWKs and BTL-A4 Y-wings, especially Horton Salm. It's very likely to get some damage through on high agility targets and is especially useful against anything that depends on tokens for defense.

Not really, 2 damage cap a turn really limits its effectiveness. Although this buffs R3-A2 to godlike levels- you can triple stress someone in one shot.

Having recently started playing Armada, I think I slightly prefer the system of multiple dice colours vs tokens. For the attacker, it opens up far more variation in play styles without requiring a stack of upgrade cards. For the defender, it takes a chunk of RNG out of the game and allows for more strategic resource management. Not sure I like ALL tokens being refreshed at the end of each combat round, I think refreshing one per round would have been enough.

If only one got refreshed ships would be going down in flames every turn.

Armada has no pre-set movement so reactive defensive placement becomes a large part of mitigating damage, more so than tokens.

The idea of different type of dice, as per how Armada does it, is a good idea in my opinion - though it is not something that can retroactively be added to x-wing, what with the tournament and forcing someone to purchase the new dice to compete.

I have thought that, with the new movies and their new ships, it would be an interesting idea to release an advanced x-wing boxed set, similar to the starter that updates and adds new things but is both an upgrade with compatibility and a stand alone game at the same time, featuring the new ships.

There are many things that could benefit from a release like this:

Differentiate the new movie lines, should people decide they want to fly only in the new era

Update, expand, and alter the rules. Clean it up, add new dice possibly

Change card layouts to account for the possibly rear firing small ship: the TIE/cog. This would allow for a rear firing a-wing

I'm sure other things I'm not considering.

Something that I just considered is the new dice could be added by purchasing an upgrade pack that has a "refit" card that lets you replace some dice with the newer ones.

I have thought several times about this.

For example, maybe a Heavy Laser cannon should fire only 2 dices and be able to fire at distance 2-4 (representing is more suitable against big and capital ships), but each dice that impacts make two damages.

The autoblaster cannon could fire 5 dices, the target can roll evade dices, and in case of impact cancel all red dices and make 2 damage against small ships, one against big ships and ineffective against huge ships, this would represent a very accurate, but weak, weapon.

Or for example a missile should fire 3 dices, with range 3-5, but in case of impact, cancel all dices and make 3 damages and a critical, etc, and so on with torpedoes etc.

What do you think?

I fundamentally disagree with the problem being the red dice. I actually don't think ANY of the dice are a problem for this game. The red die simulate how accurate of a shot the attacker made and the green die represent the evasive maneuvers of the defender. The dice are balanced in favor of the attacker to insure that even 2 attack die ships can get damage through.

If you don't like how unpredictable the dice are, then try Armada. It removes the green dice all-together. The mechanic is what adds the drama and excitement to the game though. While tournament players are looking to remove as much chance as possible, remind yourself that this is not the only way to play the game. Put a fun list together once in awhile. Get together with friends and run a mission or play an Epic style game.

X-wing is not broken or flawed. It is one of the most balanced (if not THE) table top war games I have ever played. Even after years of expansions and some rule changes, it still remains an easy game to learn and fun for all experience levels to play.

Not really, 2 damage cap a turn really limits its effectiveness.

It actually doesn't, when you look at the math.

If you don't like how unpredictable the dice are, then try Armada. It removes the green dice all-together.

I think the OP had that in mind, yes.

In my mind, though, red dice aren't the problem. Having different kinds of dice to represent different kinds of attacks is clever, but the main thing Armada has going for it over X-wing is that it doesn't roll green dice. That gives the game a lot more consistency than X-wing has; the fewer dice in play, the smaller the available variance.

I for one do not believe the dice are at issue here...you want dice issue's and pure hatred at them look at ST:Attack Wing...their dice and amounts have serious issues

The designers for X Wing have done an excellent job overall to keep a balanced gamed in all aspects.

This does not however say that im against new mechanics in X wing. I just put my trust in FFG to have a planned out direction for the game

I think a bigger issue is the damage model. A TIE Fighter with 1 HP left is as good as a brand new one (taking certain, also random, crits aside).

So for how the game develops 1 damage more or less, out of a single dice roll, can have a huge impact on the next round (losing a whole ship or still having it). So this tipping point of how much a single attack or even damage can do or not is the bigger problem in the ruleset.

Especially because most of the time you only have a few ships in the squad. That is also why TIE swarms were soo strong in the beginning i think. if oyu have 7 or 8 Ships the loss of one doesnt matter so much. The luck or bad luck evens out more than if you play with a 3 ship squad. If you go lucky and take out that wedge in the first round of combat out of a 3 ship squad the game can be over (suddenly you throw a lot less dice per round to earn back that luck).

Re OP: dissenting opinion: the fundamental mechanics are fine, except for possibly the pre-nerf Phantom simultaneously granting both high cost efficiency and high arc dodging capability when out-PSing the opponent, which led to the inevitable stratospheric PS9+ wave 4-5 meta.

Actual problem: the printed costs are wrong for about half the pilots/ships, which is why you see significantly less variety than would otherwise be possible at competitive events. Citation: math ^[1], cross-referenced with tournament results ^{[2] [3] [4]}.

Figuring how to cost the ships / upgrades properly with limited playtesting is an extremely challenging proposition, and requires a deep technical understanding of the fundamental mathematics and mechanics of the game engine. I am not aware of any miniatures company that has figured it out yet. The duds in X-wing can largely be fixed or at least massaged the right direction with properly designed house rules ^[5]. The developers don't have this kind of flexibility to fix ships so don't expect changes for most or many pilots any time soon.

@MajorJuggler

You cant "figure it out" as long as future releases mess around with it. Only if everthing that will ever be released would be developed before the first releases and tested throughout all the waves or releases with their options it could get even close to figuring it out.

Even then you probably would have to change numbers throughout releases because some wave y upgrades that enhance the usage of x arent out at a point. That would lead you to a similar situation to what it looks like now, that later waves actually change the costs (e.gg through titles). Only that each wave would be better planned ahead and thus having better live times.

The things is. No company can afford to do those crazy amounts of preproduction and testing.

I could see X-wing working like Armada with a couple of types of attack dice that have varying probabilities and effects. That wouldn't slow play and would add another variable to manipulate. It would actually be easy to introduce: have a ship that has "blue" attack dice (maybe 5 with a lower p(h)) that comes with the new dice, and another with "black" attack dice (maybe 2 with higher p(h)) that also comes with new dice. Then some upgrade cards could allow for substitution or trade of attack die types.On the other hand, if the original poster is suggesting a "to hit" roll and then a "damage" roll, my answer is: No. The game needs to stay streamlined.

On the other hand, it might be fun to try a variant in which some A - wings with +2 longbows go up against TIE bomber who have pole arms and flasks of flaming oil. Gotta try that tonight.

Not really, 2 damage cap a turn really limits its effectiveness.

It actually doesn't, when you look at the math.

If you don't like how unpredictable the dice are, then try Armada. It removes the green dice all-together.

I think the OP had that in mind, yes.

In my mind, though, red dice aren't the problem. Having different kinds of dice to represent different kinds of attacks is clever, but the main thing Armada has going for it over X-wing is that it doesn't roll green dice. That gives the game a lot more consistency than X-wing has; the fewer dice in play, the smaller the available variance.

Vorpal speaks the truth!

@MajorJuggler

You cant "figure it out" as long as future releases mess around with it. Only if everthing that will ever be released would be developed before the first releases and tested throughout all the waves or releases with their options it could get even close to figuring it out.

Even then you probably would have to change numbers throughout releases because some wave y upgrades that enhance the usage of x arent out at a point. That would lead you to a similar situation to what it looks like now, that later waves actually change the costs (e.gg through titles). Only that each wave would be better planned ahead and thus having better live times.

This sentiment is common and well intended, but misguided (again, by lack of understanding of the fundamental mathematics). You will have extreme difficulty picking out even one concrete example of this argument.

Not really, 2 damage cap a turn really limits its effectiveness.

It actually doesn't, when you look at the math.

If you don't like how unpredictable the dice are, then try Armada. It removes the green dice all-together.

I think the OP had that in mind, yes.

In my mind, though, red dice aren't the problem. Having different kinds of dice to represent different kinds of attacks is clever, but the main thing Armada has going for it over X-wing is that it doesn't roll green dice. That gives the game a lot more consistency than X-wing has; the fewer dice in play, the smaller the available variance.

I agree with everything you have stated. However, I think we have gone a bit astray. I don't recall the OP specifically worrying about consistency. His thought (or at least the major part of it) is that a single type of attack (everyone fires red attack dice) doesn't give the game much freedom of design.

@MajorJuggler

You cant "figure it out" as long as future releases mess around with it. Only if everthing that will ever be released would be developed before the first releases and tested throughout all the waves or releases with their options it could get even close to figuring it out.

Even then you probably would have to change numbers throughout releases because some wave y upgrades that enhance the usage of x arent out at a point. That would lead you to a similar situation to what it looks like now, that later waves actually change the costs (e.gg through titles). Only that each wave would be better planned ahead and thus having better live times.

This sentiment is common and well intended, but misguided (again, by lack of understanding of the fundamental mathematics). You will have extreme difficulty picking out even one concrete example of this argument.

The things is. No company can afford to do those crazy amounts of preproduction and testing.

That's exactly my point. Work smarter not harder. No current company truly understands the mathematical underpinnings of their miniatures game, let alone how to properly pull that into playtesting.

Math can solve problems in average but i don't think its wise to let it decide everything thats going on in a game with just a few dice rolls throughout one game.

@MajorJuggler

You cant "figure it out" as long as future releases mess around with it. Only if everthing that will ever be released would be developed before the first releases and tested throughout all the waves or releases with their options it could get even close to figuring it out.

Even then you probably would have to change numbers throughout releases because some wave y upgrades that enhance the usage of x arent out at a point. That would lead you to a similar situation to what it looks like now, that later waves actually change the costs (e.gg through titles). Only that each wave would be better planned ahead and thus having better live times.

This sentiment is common and well intended, but misguided (again, by lack of understanding of the fundamental mathematics). You will have extreme difficulty picking out even one concrete example of this argument.

The things is. No company can afford to do those crazy amounts of preproduction and testing.

That's exactly my point. Work smarter not harder. No current company truly understands the mathematical underpinnings of their miniatures game, let alone how to properly pull that into playtesting.

Math can solve problems in average but i don't think its wise to let it decide everything thats going on in a game with just a few dice rolls throughout one game.

I'm not a mathematician, but I'm pretty sure that's not how math and probability work