lets imagine that FFG do 'xwing v2' in four or so years.

What things would you change?

Bear in mind we'll assume that any big changes would not 'break the game' as your core rules would factor them in. Im not saying 'what would you add to the current rules' , more if the current rules were being totally rewritten what would you put in.

Personally i'd make ordnance work in reverse. You'd get a 'lock' on ships in arc and then be able to fire 360.

I'd also remove being able to spend a focus token even if you have no 'eyes' in your role and in my mythical 2nd edition a 'token' would *not* be considered a 'die' , so for example an evade would guarantee you one save even off weapons it currently doesnt.

I'd also probably double the points of everything with a 200 point basic game so that you had more increments to work with.

I'd also focus the game on 'star wars' narrative, i'd intrinsically make the emphasis more on scenarios and objectives than meaningless clashes

I'd also try and have some mechanic that restricted what you could shoot at, i dont know how this would work but it would stop people being able to say single out howlrunner at the back of a swarm of ties. at the moment this just means that you have to give her stealth device, draw their fire or shield upgrade to keep her alive whereas some system that made it easier to shoot the nearest target but allowed you to shoot someone further away but with a penalty might be better.

So what would you do. Try and keep it to no more than five key points if you can

Also no need to slate anyone else ideas, its more about what *you* think would make decent changes than responding to someone elses ideas.

Not sure how feasible it is and on some level would require trust in your opponent but I think being blind to your opponent's list, pilots, and abilities would be interesting so as to create a more realistic 'fog of war' - ie - all you know is what you see about the ships in front of you. That could also help a bit with your Howlrunner issue above

I've actually thought about running games where all upgrades are 'blind' until used. Thing is its remembering you have them...its tricky enough when you have them in front of you. I forgot to use mangler cannons and sensor jammer loads in my 150 point game yesterday and i think it might well have cost me the game seeing as my opponent ended 'victor' with a couple of ties on 2 hits each remaining.

But yeah i do like the idea of blind upgrades and a fog of war.

I've actually thought about running games where all upgrades are 'blind' until used. Thing is its remembering you have them...its tricky enough when you have them in front of you. I forgot to use mangler cannons and sensor jammer loads in my 150 point game yesterday and i think it might well have cost me the game seeing as my opponent ended 'victor' with a couple of ties on 2 hits each remaining.

But yeah i do like the idea of blind upgrades and a fog of war.

Which of these 5 A-Wings has the proton rocket?

Does Chiraneau have rebel captive or Vader? Come in and find out Fel!

I think the problem with this mechanic is you have o have some way to keep them honest. I guess if you included ship numbers on the sheets it wouldn't be too hard. Also you can't be completely blind because you need to know pilot skill early for timing. The timing of activations and combat is too well-done to mess with it IMO.

Yeah it just means you have to have a print out of your list that can be checked post game i suppose.

A 2nd edition that required that I spend more than $15-20 to upgrade my whole collection would mean me getting out of the game completely.

Non upgraded turrets don't go beyond range two like the y-wing. Eliminate soft 3 turns and 4 forwards from big ships.

I'd leave the game pretty much "as is".

That being said, I do like the idea of having a more fluid way of maneuvering. Instead of having contrived bends and turns, or razor straight forwards, I imagine having a single "bendy" template for each velocity. Not like the Armada one, where you click the yaw, and even that is determined by the characteristics of your ship - but rather maneuver templates that are hinged (not unlike those cheap wooden snakes that can be made to undulate like a real snake). Done right, each speed would allow a maximum bend of 90 degrees, except for perhaps the 5 which might only allow up to a 45 degree bend.

I think that would make it just a little bit harder to guess where an opponent's ship is going to end up, and give you a little more freedom when moving your own ships.

I think I would rather see the game become more streamlined (if and where that is possible) than any more (or less) complicated.

Ok assume that it doesnt invalidate your current collection. (i agree with you, if i had to buy all new ships i'd probably stick to playing 1st ed... but if a 2nd edition box set came with new chits and cards but used the same base i'd be in)

What would you change in the way of game mechanics and the way it is played.

I am pretty sure that for the third edition - I would want the game to return again to something more akin to the first edition.

I think the only large scale change I would make is sliding upgrade costs. Putting Predator on a 60-point ship is objectively more valuable than putting it on a 29-point ship. I'm not sure how it could be implemented, but this is the actual core of the balance problem right now. Ptl on Corran costs 3 points. Ptl on a green costs 3 points. There is no way that costs are being accurately reflected there.

But thats the problem with all points based games isnt it.

Its like in 40k, if a las cannon is 40 points then its worth those 40 points on a model that hits on a 2+ in his turn, less so on a model that hits on a 6.

First Order Ties and dials as such.

Obligatory link:

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/122473-house-rules-technical-balance-fixes-for-casual-play/

(Work in progress, will be revised after wave 7 is fully spoiled and I'm done my Regionals season.)

Aside from cost fixes, I do have some mechanical changes to roll in that will make Missiles and Torpedoes viable. Stay tuned...

I think the only large scale change I would make is sliding upgrade costs. Putting Predator on a 60-point ship is objectively more valuable than putting it on a 29-point ship. I'm not sure how it could be implemented, but this is the actual core of the balance problem right now. Ptl on Corran costs 3 points. Ptl on a green costs 3 points. There is no way that costs are being accurately reflected there.

That's certainly part of the problem that encourages fat ships!

Defense tokens instead of dice

For the love of god, defense tokens!

Couple of things I would implement:

-Ordnance would have low dice but do high damage if it hits. Basically, Protons, 2 dice attack that you don't have to spend TL to fire. If the attack hits cancel all dice and the target receives 2 hits and a crit. So it would one-shot ties and really hurt X-wings/Zs. Easier to hit low-agility targets too. Missiles would be a 3 dice attack, you don't have to spend TL as well. If they hit cancel all dice and the target receives 1 hit and 1 crit. The price would be adjusted accordingly, about 1 less point expensive for ordnance in general.

-Like the OP I would introduce scenarios kind of like Armada that you would pick a few to build around. They would be pretty simple though. Like destroy the sensor probe, or a certain ship is worth bonus points destroyed.

-I like the idea of a power system, where you can adjust from shields to guns or to engines, etc. Don't know how to implement that simply though. Might over complicate things a bit too much.

-Two damage decks. 1 would be about a 16 card Ion deck which would have different disabling effects. No longer do you get 1 ion token and 1 damage. If you were ioned you would draw form the Ion deck. Some effects would be reduced agility, disabling turrets, weapons, modifications etc. These effects would last through the next end phase. Then they are discarded. Also, you don't do a 1 forward anymore unless that is one of the cards you drew. I feel like the current Ion effect doesn't represent what Ion cannons do fluff wise. They do a lot more than simply disable your controls and send you adrift for a bit.

I would also expand the existing damage deck to include crits that kill off crew and destroy modifications.

I would change the bumping penalty to not penalize you for bumping into friendly ships. your squadrons fight together and should be able to operate in close proximity

turret ships should be allowed to have as many shots as they have turrets but if the ship performs any white or red maneuvers the target receives +1 agility

in the fluff of the game, ships carry more than 1 of any given ordnance. so each ordnance upgrade would come with a number of tokens equal to the payload of its type.

3D movement !!! using more or less pegs, this will also have a direct effect on overlapping, as only ships at the same level would lose actions. it would be an action to go up or down 1 level, in addition you can go up or down 2 levels as an action but receive a stress token unless you have the boost action in your action bar

Obligatory link:

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/122473-house-rules-technical-balance-fixes-for-casual-play/

(Work in progress, will be revised after wave 7 is fully spoiled and I'm done my Regionals season.)

Aside from cost fixes, I do have some mechanical changes to roll in that will make Missiles and Torpedoes viable. Stay tuned...

You see im not too keen on 'half points' so I think in a larger points 'basic' game with doubled costs it gives you that freedom to make those 'half point' tweaks without having to work in fractions.

Because i can see your point that some things are *marginally* over/undercosted but I just think whole numbers sit better in a game system.

Essentially doubling the cost of everything and having 200 point basic game would do the same thing as 'half points'

I like 3d heights and i also thought energy management would be good.

Perhaps this is less xwing v2 in my head and more 'advanced xwing'

I like 3d heights and i also thought energy management would be good.

Perhaps this is less xwing v2 in my head and more 'advanced xwing'

Yeah there are a LOT of more complex things that you could do, especially along the lines of the old X-wing and TIE Fighter PC game with energy management, but it would become an entirely different game.

Mostly just fix ordnance.

I like the game overall, it's solid, with not much is really broken. Most things just need a small tweak, either cost or mechanically.

I like the idea of missiles and torpedoes doing a set amount of damage when they hit - maybe requiring two evades to cancel a hit, but I also think they should not hit in the same round from they were were launched. Rather they should hit at the end of the next action phase - and only if the ship that fired the missile/torpedo is still within range 2 of the target ship.

Or something like that. disposable ordinance ought to give you a bigger bang for your buck - but it also should be risky.

Frankly, I don't really think this would improve the game much - it would just be different - and would change tactics more than anything else (should I bug out and avoid the hit, or should I double down, and come in guns a blazing?). I like changes that introduce or require strategy - that is, changes that make the game more about flying and choices than about card synergy and fleet combos.

Ok assume that it doesnt invalidate your current collection. (i agree with you, if i had to buy all new ships i'd probably stick to playing 1st ed... but if a 2nd edition box set came with new chits and cards but used the same base i'd be in)

What would you change in the way of game mechanics and the way it is played.

That's what Second Editions are though. Blank slates. New core, biannual waves. It's why I doubt we'll ever see one: more likely once it's run its course (when it stops selling) they'll can X-Wing and start a new game.

What would you change in the way of game mechanics and the way it is played.

See that's my problem, and I don't want to derail this thread. But if I were to do a 2nd edition I don't think I could do it without breaking enough stuff that my collection would require an upgrade. I think some of the ideas here are good, but they're not really a 2nd edition, they're more bandaids put on the existing game.

So if you were to do a 2nd edition, rip off all the bandaids and rebuild the game from the ground up.

That all said, I'd be for such a thing, if FFG could produce an upgrade pack that cost say $5-10 a wave with enough upgrades to cover 6-8 of each ship per wave. The problem is, I don't think such a thing is feasible for them.

We're talking about things to modify the base game (without having to rebuy everything)... sure, I'll give it a go!

I wouldn't make things blind. While I like it in a normal game (and even implemented it in a campaign I was running), it wouldn't work in a tourney scene. You'd have to start adhering to the MTG etiquette of not watching other matches, which would change the tourney scene quite a bit.

I would prefer to decouple damage from accuracy. For example, imo the A wing should be very accurate, but not very powerful. As such, perhaps it gets 4 accuracy dice, but only 2 damage dice. Where as an HLC should be powerful but not very accurate, so it would get 2 accuracy dice, but 4 damage dice. The accuracy dice would be rolled against the agility dice to determine whether or not the shot hits. If it does, the attack dice are rolled for how much damage it did. Note, this mechanic would also fix ordnance, as they could become 4 accuracy weapons of 4 power or something like that.

I would put a dimple in the center of the templates to line up on the nubs. This would allow you to either line the template up in between the nubs (like it currently does), or center the template on either of the nubs. This would basically allow half a base of movement left/right per maneuver template usage.

And there were 13 new replies by the time I finished typing this up, so some of this might have already been said.