I've been going through the damage deck lately and giving it some thought.

One of the dissatisfying questions that will (probably) never be resolved is the question, "why don't we have any cards that work like Munitions Failure, but for Crew/System/Astromech/etc. upgrades?"

Or how about the "Damaged Engine" crit, which has no effect on the Lambda Shuttle (its only turn maneuver was already red!)?

Crits represent an aspect of the game that can be situationally devastating or trivial. Which probably shouldn't be the case.

But, of course, the problem is that the designers of the starter set had no idea just how far the game could go (then again, why didn't they design a 'discard your astromech' card back then? Rude Rebel sympathizers).

My solution to this problem amounts to nothing more than wishful thinking about the damage deck, and how hindsight is 20/20. It's not possible to implement at this point.

But what would be a good solution to the damage deck problems, admittedly causing a bit more hassle for the players, would be for each ship to have its own damage deck, just like the GR-75 and the CR90 (and the Raider).

10-15 cards that could address specific ships' upgrades. No more necessarily redundant cards.

When you use a ship in a list, you must have that ship's damage deck on the table. Combine the decks of like-model ships (e.g., for 3 TIE Interceptors, you shuffle together 3 Interceptor decks). Keep different decks separate (have the outline of the ship on the back of the cards). To avoid "stacked decks", you could have written face of the cards numbered 1-15 for easy checking.

This way, you have damage cards that are no longer ignorant about the types of upgrades that exist in the games. No waste of "Minor Hull Breach" on the Decimator, which can never trigger it! There could have been a crit that made the YT-1300 unable to perform attacks outside of its primary arc, with no chance of that card being drawn by any other ship on the table! Munitions Failure wouldn't even exist in the TIE Fighter/Interceptor decks!

It's just not possible to implement at this point in the game. Too many logistics involved in distributing cards to players and ensuring everyone has the necessary components.

But it might be fun to house-rule.

My first thing that jumps out at that, is what about upgrades you're not taking? If you have a deck for an E wing, perhaps it has a disabled astro card, a munitions failure card, two direct hits, a damaged engine card, an injured/stunned pilot, a computer failure (discard systems), and maybe some sort of discard a mod.

That would mean each crit would have some sort of damaging effect on a Corran w/ PTL, FCS, APT, R2D2, and EU. But very few cards would even affect a naked Knave. So, that's the same problem that we have right now. Some ships have a large pool of damaging crits, while others don't really care.

An doom shuttle really only cares about direct hits, stunned pilot, and minor hull breach. Sure, a few of the other ones can be annoying depending on the situation, but those are the big hitters.

Personally, I'd prefer a system where I can choose to have the <kaboom> work as a <boom>

My first thing that jumps out at that, is what about upgrades you're not taking? If you have a deck for an E wing, perhaps it has a disabled astro card, a munitions failure card, two direct hits, a damaged engine card, an injured/stunned pilot, a computer failure (discard systems), and maybe some sort of discard a mod.

That would mean each crit would have some sort of damaging effect on a Corran w/ PTL, FCS, APT, R2D2, and EU. But very few cards would even affect a naked Knave. So, that's the same problem that we have right now. Some ships have a large pool of damaging crits, while others don't really care.

An doom shuttle really only cares about direct hits, stunned pilot, and minor hull breach. Sure, a few of the other ones can be annoying depending on the situation, but those are the big hitters.

Personally, I'd prefer a system where I can choose to have the <kaboom> work as a <boom>

But there's also the maneuvers, stress tokens, selectively removing actions from the action bar (as opposed to currently removing them all [which admittedly is a pretty rough crit, but you can flip it facedown with an action + dice roll]), etc, which can affect all ships of a certain class, generic or no.

So since you mention the Doomshuttle, what about giving the Lambda deck a crit that assigns an additional stress token when performing the '0' maneuver?

Or a crit that forces you to discard a crew? Doomshuttle becomes far less useful in that case unless you also slapped a Gunner on there.

I think one of the best options is to look at the Star Wars: Armada damage deck and emulate some of the design in X-Wing. Things like losing a secondary weapon don't really happen there but there's still a lot that is very damaging to your ship.

I personally hate cards like the lose a secondary weapon card. I wish they'd gone a very different way with the design goals there.

Wait to 2.0

Personally I would like to see a damage deck with 50% direct hits, but that wouldn't be nice to ties.

Or a rule that all missile/torpedo crits are direct hits.

You would need to start having seperate damage decks for factions then, or having cards such as "discard one of your astromechs" being a "Discard one of your astromechs - or if you do not have one equipped do X" Otherwise those crits would not effect most ships or any Imperial and very few Scum ships.

Oh goodie, this week's "let's revise the damage deck" thread.

I'd have to say "hell no" to suggestions of a damage deck for every ship. It would be FAR too much work trying to keep them straight for the limited benefit it will give you. Epic ships may have their own decks but when was the last time you saw someone two needed more than three decks, counting the standard one, in play at a time? Maybe someone has run the Corvette, Transport, and escort requiring four decks but the decks for the big ships isn't nearly the problem it would be if I needed to carry around EIGHT decks to fly my TIE Swarm.

Individual decks would also be very small and not give much choice when it comes to possible outcomes. Shuffling multiple decks together just throws out whatever balance a deck had. As already mentioned you have ships with lots of upgrade options which it seems you want to target but if those aren't used then what do you gain?

Now there may be things I do think could go into a new damage deck 2.0. To me such a deck would need to be completely separate from the original DD yet should probably have all the same effects. Where I believe such a deck should differ is that cards would have some kind of "if not X, then do Y instead" mechanic. If you were to draw Munition's Failure you would first be forced to discard a secondary weapon but if that is not possible then you would discard an upgrade going down a list until you find one to discard. If a ship would have been hit by the old DD then it would get hit the same way with the new one but if it had a hard that would have missed it now there is still a follow up effect that could affect it.

This DD 2.0 could become the new standard unless both players agree to use the original DD. Distribution could be done via a newly revised Starter (which isn't really a new game) or as part of a tournament's swag.

One idea I heard that I like is re do the damage deck and give every card a point value. Then give a set number of points that the set number of card damage deck has to be.

Then you list build a personal damage deck. Want to take low point non-threatening Crits, you'll have to balance it with worse Crits. Because you would always need "x" amount of cards and "y" amount of points regardless of what Crits you draw.

If you did it right, ffg could essentially force people into a certain number of direct hits while allowing some strategy for other things.

It would be unlike anything ffg has done but would be an added part of strategy to the game.

Maybe not fluffy though.

Considering how far the game has progressed since the Core and Wave 1, I think the damage deck has aged quite well with the game. In fact, some cards that were almost always duds in Wave 1 (Munitions Failure & Injured Pilot), have become quite potent with the increased presence of cannons, turrets and aces.

The damage deck is fine, don't try to fix what isn't broke.

Its a dice game, the damage deck is just another "random" effect. You said yourself it could be trivial or devastating. Similar to your ship taking a direct hit on a non-essential part, or blinding a pilot.

I think a "damage die" could work very well in this situation: a six sided die that helps setup become easier, etc. It wouldn't be too hard to come up with what each side does... but it may get completely rid of some of those more devastating crits at certain times....

Ships with crew are balanced around crew-removal crits not existing.

I can only see downsides to adding them now without a total game revamp.

New damage deck, just go with a handful of crit effects:

Direct hit (same)

Discard one upgrade card (if no upgrades treat as direct hit)

All nongreen maneuvers cause stress

No actions

No attack (with the appropriate token. You could even make a no actions token for the previous crit)

That's it. Upgrade cards almost become insurance against extra hull damage, but we don't want to let naked generics get off Scott free do we?

Maybe not as flavorful as the current deck but simpler.

Considering how far the game has progressed since the Core and Wave 1, I think the damage deck has aged quite well with the game. In fact, some cards that were almost always duds in Wave 1 (Munitions Failure & Injured Pilot), have become quite potent with the increased presence of cannons, turrets and aces.

The damage deck is fine, don't try to fix what isn't broke.

It's always the same thing with you. "This game is perfect, nothing's broken or needs improvement and stop messing with gamance I've got going here!" I didn't get the impression at all that this was about the damage deck being broken or awful just that there might be some fun ideas for improvement or variation. These threads aren't about down with FFG they're doing an awful job. They're about people expressing custom fun ideas and learning who else shares similar thoughts.

What I'd like to see/hear is someone who does it. You can make a deck of standard size cards with nice backgrounds for around $10. You could probably get that down around $8 if you could get a few friends to buy in. So make a new damage deck for all three factions (every ship may be too impractical) and use it in your casual games. If you don't I might?

One idea I heard that I like is re do the damage deck and give every card a point value. Then give a set number of points that the set number of card damage deck has to be.

Then you list build a personal damage deck. Want to take low point non-threatening Crits, you'll have to balance it with worse Crits. Because you would always need "x" amount of cards and "y" amount of points regardless of what Crits you draw.

If you did it right, ffg could essentially force people into a certain number of direct hits while allowing some strategy for other things.

It would be unlike anything ffg has done but would be an added part of strategy to the game.

Maybe not fluffy though.

A big HELL NO. This "build your damage deck" scenario based around some kind of point balance would be a nightmare. Now you MUST check your opponent's deck before play starts and not just with some simple counting and a quick glance but while doing a bunch of addition to make sure the points are actually where they need to be. It also completely ignores the idea that sometime a give critical is worthless but at other times it is devastating.

We like picking on Munition's Failure so how much would a critical like that be worth? Playing a TIE Swarm it is a crit you very much want to see. Playing Y-Wings or HWKs it can turn into a crit you never want to see. There's no way to assign that critical a point value that is fair to all which will mean there is no way to build a deck that is actually fair just because it's points and card numbers happen to add up to some magical value.

To review the problems with "build your own damage deck" based on each crit having a given point value:

1. A logistical nightmare that would add a huge time suck to games.

2. It's impossible to price crits fairly for all ships and possible ship configurations.

One idea I heard that I like is re do the damage deck and give every card a point value. Then give a set number of points that the set number of card damage deck has to be.

Then you list build a personal damage deck. Want to take low point non-threatening Crits, you'll have to balance it with worse Crits. Because you would always need "x" amount of cards and "y" amount of points regardless of what Crits you draw.

If you did it right, ffg could essentially force people into a certain number of direct hits while allowing some strategy for other things.

It would be unlike anything ffg has done but would be an added part of strategy to the game.

Maybe not fluffy though.

A big HELL NO. This "build your damage deck" scenario based around some kind of point balance would be a nightmare. Now you MUST check your opponent's deck before play starts and not just with some simple counting and a quick glance but while doing a bunch of addition to make sure the points are actually where they need to be. It also completely ignores the idea that sometime a give critical is worthless but at other times it is devastating.

We like picking on Munition's Failure so how much would a critical like that be worth? Playing a TIE Swarm it is a crit you very much want to see. Playing Y-Wings or HWKs it can turn into a crit you never want to see. There's no way to assign that critical a point value that is fair to all which will mean there is no way to build a deck that is actually fair just because it's points and card numbers happen to add up to some magical value.

To review the problems with "build your own damage deck" based on each crit having a given point value:

1. A logistical nightmare that would add a huge time suck to games.

2. It's impossible to price crits fairly for all ships and possible ship configurations.

Yes WAAAAYYY too much time trying to keep things straight. The beauty about xwing is the simplicity of it, you've got 100 points then your good. Using personalized damage decks would also take more time for a TO to setup. I mean it already takes awhile just to verify lists but then checking damage decks as well just seems like an all around bad idea.

Personally, i would like to see a "crew member/astromech/salvaged astro killed" card added to the deck. There are a large number of ships that have one of those three items, it would be effective, but at the same time, it would be just a regular hit against a Tie Fighter, just like having to discard a secondary weapon or munitions. I can't tell you how many times I wish I could kill R2-D2 to prevent him from replenshing shields. There's even a great scene in the movie that would be soooo perfect for this card.

Personally, i would like to see a "crew member/astromech/salvaged astro killed" card added to the deck. There are a large number of ships that have one of those three items, it would be effective, but at the same time, it would be just a regular hit against a Tie Fighter, just like having to discard a secondary weapon or munitions. I can't tell you how many times I wish I could kill R2-D2 to prevent him from replenshing shields. There's even a great scene in the movie that would be soooo perfect for this card.

I like the idea of having something to counter the crew member / astromech, but I dont think the damage deck is the right venue for it. I would prefer an upgrade, maybe a modification or a specialized crew (Bounty hunter) something with discard the bounty hunter crew to force an opponent to discard a crew from the targeted ship. I think this might be an interesting space for design. the details have to be worked out but I think the mechanic is sound.

I had a thread ages ago where I explored how the imperial faction was slightly disadvantaged due to damage deck composition. It was back before Imperial Aces even hit and the interceptor was really hurting (see how far we haven't gone?). The general idea was there was a ~10% chance that any given card would be more crippling to imperial ships than a rebel ship. The game was still pretty small then so it wasn't quite as complex. Most people didn't really agree that it was unbalanced but did agree that it could use updating. That was long ago...in a galaxy far, far away.

I'd absolutely be down for damage deck 2.0. There is a lot of design space there to explore (mechanically and even more narratively!). And I bet many people are seeing a lot of wear on their core game set after this many years.

Personally, i would like to see a "crew member/astromech/salvaged astro killed" card added to the deck. There are a large number of ships that have one of those three items, it would be effective, but at the same time, it would be just a regular hit against a Tie Fighter, just like having to discard a secondary weapon or munitions. I can't tell you how many times I wish I could kill R2-D2 to prevent him from replenshing shields. There's even a great scene in the movie that would be soooo perfect for this card.

I like the idea of having something to counter the crew member / astromech, but I dont think the damage deck is the right venue for it. I would prefer an upgrade, maybe a modification or a specialized crew (Bounty hunter) something with discard the bounty hunter crew to force an opponent to discard a crew from the targeted ship. I think this might be an interesting space for design. the details have to be worked out but I think the mechanic is sound.

Hmm, Bbrawler, you got me thinking about something like...

Precision Targeting (I would have liked to call it Marksmanship, but alas...)

EPT, 3 pts

After declaring the target of your attack, you may choose aloud one of the target's upgrade cards. If your attack results in a faceup damage card being dealt to the defender, the defender instead discards the chosen upgrade card and flips the damage card facedown without resolving its effect.

This way you don't mess with the deck, but still get the potential to take out R2-D2, Vader, a Gunner or if you are a heartless rebel, even a Rebel Captive. And it doesn't have to be an EPT, could be a system, astromech, title or modification depending on how limited they want it to be.

Do you really want to ad more clutter to the table??

It would have been interesting to have large ships come with their own unique damage decks, similar to the huge ships. I don't see clutter being a huge issue, though it adds another layer of balancing, which needlessly complicate things.

Considering how far the game has progressed since the Core and Wave 1, I think the damage deck has aged quite well with the game. In fact, some cards that were almost always duds in Wave 1 (Munitions Failure & Injured Pilot), have become quite potent with the increased presence of cannons, turrets and aces.

The damage deck is fine, don't try to fix what isn't broke.

It's always the same thing with you. "This game is perfect, nothing's broken or needs improvement and stop messing with gamance I've got going here!" I didn't get the impression at all that this was about the damage deck being broken or awful just that there might be some fun ideas for improvement or variation. These threads aren't about down with FFG they're doing an awful job. They're about people expressing custom fun ideas and learning who else shares similar thoughts.

I am no FFG defender (Raider bundle, playmat debacle), nor do I think X-Wing is a perfect game (omni-turrets), but I will continue to point out to people that threads like this are ultimately pointless and lead to zero change outside of someone's basement house-rule games, which doesn't help the rest of us that play in game stores and Vassal and therefore have to play the game we've got. I would love to see a game where primary turrets can't shoot at range 3, but I understand that no amount of typing or forum threads or e-signatures will ever make that a reality in the rules, that the energy I spent talking about that, energy from both myself and people telling me I'm an idiot, could be used elsewhere to do something productive.

House rules are great for house games, I use them all the time when I play games like Cards Against Humanity, games where winning and growth are not important. But X-Wing isn't a house game for most of us, it's a game that we take out of our house to play with other people in a neutral setting, either the LGS or the internet, a game that involves learning and growth between each game. Which means that a lot of our games are played against aquaintances or complete strangers, where a universal rule set is the only thing that binds us together and creates a level playing field.

I understand that for many players, X-Wing is no different than a game like Cards Against Humanity, a game that never leaves the basement or living room and is only played against family and close friends, but for most of us that isn't the case. I'd like to see a "house-rule" or "custom rules/cards" sub so that we don't have to have these types of threads clogging up the main thread.

This is the internet, there is no such thing as "clogging up" the space is unlimited. 90% of the X Wing matches played are those "basement" games you refer to. Your perception is skewed by your personal experience. The number of people who use house rules is huge and the number of people playing narrative or campaign style games is growing daily.

Evidently you don't understand how change works or the power of the consumer. If you don't like these threads get the hell off and don't read them. It's that simple.