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'm sure you could smash X-Wing and Aeronautica together get a bit of the best of both...

Oh! Oh!

I would make a FREE dice app that wasn't so convoluted as the official one, and I would either allow others to make a squad builder, or (good gravy!) I would put one out that was official!

I would also include QR codes on the back of each card, making them unique. Then I would have a developer create an online version of the game where you scan in your cards, and use them to play in a newly created online version. That way you could play what you've purchased in real life, and play what you've purchased in real life online as well. Having a standardized online system like that would open the game up tremendously - and the techno-weary would probably jump on that a lot faster than they have on Vassal (as great as that is).

The good news re: QR codes is that Disney has already demonstrated they are willing to do this with Infinity. You don't even have to purchase the core set if you want to play on PC or mobile - just get the figures, load the code, and away you go.

Will that ever happen with these more niche games? Not likely - but, there is precedent at least

That aint happenin. NO.

I do not want to deal with the kind of people that collect things like Amiibo.

....? because collecting plastic space ships is the superior adult hobby? Superiority complex much?

My kids and I love playing Infinity and we have a lot of the characters - and v3.0 introduces Star Wars - it looks great

When (if) we get a Wii U or the newest 3DS the Amiibo's will be fun as well.

I think my complaint should have been focused on Nintendo a bit more than the collectors but scalpers are definitely partially to blame.

I'm sure you've heard the complaints around the Internet about how hard it is to get some Amiibos, and that is at least partially Nintendo's fault but again, scalpers taking advantage of this exacerbate the problem.

I don't think we have that problem with X-Wing. I don't believe there's been much time during the life of the game where a ship was that hard to get for about retail price.

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 really like this idea. Maybe even give higher PS pilots better accuracy.

MMMMMMMMMM. IDK bout this one... We would need to buy extra dice tho.

We're talking about V2.0. I'm presuming that you're going to have to buy extra SOMETHING in order to upgrade to v2.0. Might as well include dice in this.

They would only include three tho. wee would need at LEAST 4 by these rules.

You had to buy more dice anyway. The 3 red and green are inadequate even in the **** core set.

ok gadge,

rule 1, stop playing 40k, it will break you, I have an ork army I started back in rogue trader days and I am now on the verge of selling it, I havnt played in a year and I don't miss it and all its profit generating nonsense.

rule 2, if its not broke don't fix it, 40k was great, got better, then the corperate thugs took over and now every edition is more broken than the last. ever notice how point values dropped while model prices increased?im telling you, stop feeding that monster man, it will eat your soul

rule 3, as rick perry would say "uuuhhhh?"

but seriously now, a more realistic second edition IMO would be a new rule book cleaning including all current FAQ and ERATTA. then some basic rules changes regarding ordnance. then throw in different starters. it is x-wing after all, so 1 starter with an x-wing and 2 TIE fighters and 1 starter with an x-wing and 2 scum z-95.

wait a second, I just thought of another thing I think would be cool to test out, not sure if it would work but bear with me.

the attack value on your card is the flat rate of damage that you do if you hit. but your attack dice will be determined by your PS and the targets PS. if PS is equal then you get 3 attack dice. if you pilot skill is greater you get 4 attack dice. if your pilot skill is 4 or more greater than targets you get 5 attack dice. if your PS is lower than the targets you get 2 attack dice.

no, this wont work without changing the core of the game, I think its a good idea, but point values would have to be re-adjusted and the mechanic wouldn't flow as it does now. scrap that idea.

oh well

the most realistic NEXT version I see would not be called x-wing.

this game has out grown what it was originally meant to be. it is a gold mine for FFG. I foresee any NEXT edition being something like: STAR WARS star fighter miniatures.

this edition will keep all current ships valid, but open up the ERA to include all ships from all ERA's.

this will open up new factions including:

Republic

Separatist

Vong

and any other substantial force from the star wars universe

ok gadge,

wait a second, I just thought of another thing I think would be cool to test out, not sure if it would work but bear with me.

the attack value on your card is the flat rate of damage that you do if you hit. but your attack dice will be determined by your PS and the targets PS. if PS is equal then you get 3 attack dice. if you pilot skill is greater you get 4 attack dice. if your pilot skill is 4 or more greater than targets you get 5 attack dice. if your PS is lower than the targets you get 2 attack dice.

I kinda like this idea, but if I had to choose, I'd want to see something like this with ordnance rather than primaries.

I would:

Have better standards for quality control on the ship chits

double points cost of everything, this allows for minior adjustments, some 3 point upgrades should be 2.5 etc

ban everyone from the forums that ******* about turrets

Create a separate set of templates for moving large base ships like they have for huge ships. That way a small base and large base side by side making the same maneuver stay side by side as they go across the table.

OR

Remove all 4 speed and 3 turn moves from large base ships.

OR

Make certain upgrades cost more on large bases, either by having 2 versions labeled "small base only" and "large base only" or by wording on the card itself making the cost different for each.

For example:

Engine Upgrade

Small Base 3 points

Engine Upgrade

Large Base 5 points.

This quote belov and also som kind of inertia like in Armada.. That you cannot go from a speed 5 maneuver to a 1 maneuver just like that, but taht you have to balance your speed. For example: Most ships can accelerate 1 speed band per turn - 2 if they have boost . and can brake 1 and 2 and get a stress token.

"Okay, seriously:

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

This. Please, FFG."

"

IF, we're taking major overhaul and alteration there are a few things I would change/upgrade. If we were talking JUST a update to v1.165 then there would be some bandaid things I'd throw on.

For patches it would be nice to see the crit deck represent every upgrade type. I'd keep that for the rebuild to.

For a rebuild it would be really nice to have Armada style mission specialty cards. Almost mirroring most of the mechanic design in fact. Definitely keep the maneuvering as is only redesign the templates and/or bases so that large ships move at the same speeds relative to small ones. (I.e. a speed one maneuver always moves your leading edge/corner the same distance forward) and lastly redesign the dice toward the goal of lesser disparity between say a two dice attack and a three or a four dice attack. Most likely using a "heavy" and "light" attack die and better defining ship durability with differing ships having access to one or the other or a combination of an "evade" and an "armor" dice. But if a simple change to the faces of only the two types of dice would do it I would jump on it.

In conclusion, dice and maneuvering templates/bases get a new design. After that cards can be newly made.

I like version original.

I would at least double all the numbers (number of shields, attack and defense dice, hull value etc) to add more fine tuning and reduce luck components.

Primary Weapon Turrets only get +1 attack die for range 1 when the target is in the front arc.

Thats going to seriously hurt a naked yt-2400 and ALL decimators.

How? I keep hearing how this is going to hurt everything so bad. Decimators have 3 attack all the time.

Please explain how it hurts them, Now one has given a good explanation yet? In most cases I get shot by decimators and turret ships out of arc 90% of the time.

Those pilots will just have to learn to fly a little better to get the +1, just like everyone else.

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

This my friend, is for me the by far best idea suggested by anybody concerning ordnance fix. I love it!

I'd get rid of the dice. I don't have concrete ideas on how to do this, but I'd love a miniature game that combines features of an LCG or deckbuilder with the maneuvering of x-wing.

Failing that, I'd at least change the dice so that there are no blank faces.

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.

Primary Weapon Turrets only get +1 attack die for range 1 when the target is in the front arc.

Thats going to seriously hurt a naked yt-2400 and ALL decimators.

How? I keep hearing how this is going to hurt everything so bad. Decimators have 3 attack all the time.

Please explain how it hurts them, Now one has given a good explanation yet? In most cases I get shot by decimators and turret ships out of arc 90% of the time.

Those pilots will just have to learn to fly a little better to get the +1, just like everyone else.

The Decimator flies like a tank with an extra layer of rocks. very hard to keep a ship in one specific spot all the time. And the YT-2400, along with the generic YT-1300 that nobody uses anyway, only have 2 attack dice. This would make engine upgrade and expert handling even better, for their manuvering capabilities. Plus, what about the K-Wing, the only small ship turret? I could go on and on, but im going to conclude here.

I'd get rid of the dice. I don't have concrete ideas on how to do this, but I'd love a miniature game that combines features of an LCG or deckbuilder with the maneuvering of x-wing.

Failing that, I'd at least change the dice so that there are no blank faces.

It took a little getting used to but I enjoyed the dice mechanic in Imperial Assault - especially the range being part of the dice roll - that could be interesting in X-Wing

Angle of Attack...

Enough stuff in the core set 2.0 to actually play the game:

More than 3 dice of each type (4 would have been nice, 5 would have been perfect)

Two different ship types for the main factions in the core box (doubles the price), or possibly include ships from all three factions, a it of a mash-up of core and most wanted, since some of those ships can be used by scum and rebel. Two TIEs, Advanced, x,y and two Zs is probably perfect.

And give us a way to buy replacements for work out templates and obstructions other than buying the core all over again.

Expansions that are cards and cardboard only so we don't have to buy extra ships we might not need or want.

And of course more missions and real campaign rules.

I really don't think we need to fix a lot of the things people complain about all the time (x-wings, defenders, ordanance, exc.). The rules are pretty good, relatively simple and lead to fast paced games. We don't need to bog stuff down, especially in the Epic games.

That being said I would love a system upgrade that allows a ship to boost or increase attack dice by spending shield tokens, and maybe take a 'no attack' token for a round to gain a shield. It could come with the Assault Gunboat! Call it Power System Regulation. Making something like that as a basic action in the rules would just complicate things way too much, we already have enough actions to worry about without adding more than 4 on a bar per ship without upgrades.

Primary Weapon Turrets only get +1 attack die for range 1 when the target is in the front arc.

Thats going to seriously hurt a naked yt-2400 and ALL decimators.

How? I keep hearing how this is going to hurt everything so bad. Decimators have 3 attack all the time.

Please explain how it hurts them, Now one has given a good explanation yet? In most cases I get shot by decimators and turret ships out of arc 90% of the time.

Those pilots will just have to learn to fly a little better to get the +1, just like everyone else.

The Decimator flies like a tank with an extra layer of rocks. very hard to keep a ship in one specific spot all the time. And the YT-2400, along with the generic YT-1300 that nobody uses anyway, only have 2 attack dice. This would make engine upgrade and expert handling even better, for their manuvering capabilities. Plus, what about the K-Wing, the only small ship turret? I could go on and on, but im going to conclude here.

You seemed to have ignored his point, The Decimator has 3 dice all the time so it is still plenty capable of dealing damage, and I have yet to see a 2400 without the Outrider title already (granted this change would cut the chance of that happening down even further)

I would probably change:

1 Target Locks instead of rerolling dice you instead just add 1 attack die to your pool

2 Damage Decks-allow you to remove every upgrade type, if a ship does not have an upgrade type that can be removed it counts as a direct hit

3 Crits remove 2 shields rather than 1

4 If you have 2 of the same Torpedoes/Missiles let you twin-link them and fire them both at the same target for the same cost (TL/Focus whatever it would be), the question for this being does it count as 2 attacks like Cluster Missiles or would it merely let you reroll your dice (this would probably depend on what other ordnance fixes there are present

Remove all 4 speed and 3 turn moves from large base ships.

This reads well, and fits with lumbering ships like the Decimator and Shuttle, but doesn't gel with fast, nimble ships like the YT-1300 and YT-2400...

Remove all 4 speed and 3 turn moves from large base ships.

Make certain upgrades cost more on large bases, either by having 2 versions labeled "small base only" and "large base only" or by wording on the card itself making the cost different for each.

For example:

Engine Upgrade

Small Base 3 points

Engine Upgrade

Large Base 5 points.

Yes, yes, yes - sooo much this!

I would see a 2nd edition as a completely new game re-built from the ground up, rather than a tweaking/modification of the current system, which would be a revised edition, rather than a 2.0

I would expect a 2.0 to be re-written whole cloth, no assumptions to be made about preserving any given game mechanic.

That said, here's what I would love to see in a 2.0:

1) The game has to be fast, and capture the feel of dogfighting in the Star Wars universe. This is handled pretty well by the game as it stands... it needs to be maintained or improved upon, not lost in additional layers of complexity. (note: I'm talking about complexity in gameplay here - if squad building becomes more complex that's ok, as long as the game experience is preserved).

2) Turrets as separate entities with their own mobile arcs. Ship chits would show four quadrants for the turret(s). If the turret (and a gunner) is purchased then a rotatable marker is attached to the base peg to represent the facing of the turret. The turret can be rotated one facing clockwise or counterclockwise at the end of movement.

3) Integration of strategic goals in standard play like Armada or Imperial Assault skirmish.

My prediction:

The Second edition will be a streamlining and revision of the First edition, but will throw out some controversial but well-loved elements.

The Third edition will return to the roots of the First edition, but with unified mechanics. Unfortunately as it grows the rules bloat will make it much more difficult to attract new players.

Fourth Edition will offer radically new game play, but generally alienate fans of the prior editions, and will be retired prematurely.

Fifth Edition will return full circle to First edition flavor, but with the improved mechanics from Third and Fourth edition, but it will be too late to reunite the fan base.

Primary Weapon Turrets only get +1 attack die for range 1 when the target is in the front arc.

Thats going to seriously hurt a naked yt-2400 and ALL decimators.

How? I keep hearing how this is going to hurt everything so bad. Decimators have 3 attack all the time.

Please explain how it hurts them, Now one has given a good explanation yet? In most cases I get shot by decimators and turret ships out of arc 90% of the time.

Those pilots will just have to learn to fly a little better to get the +1, just like everyone else.

The Decimator flies like a tank with an extra layer of rocks. very hard to keep a ship in one specific spot all the time. And the YT-2400, along with the generic YT-1300 that nobody uses anyway, only have 2 attack dice. This would make engine upgrade and expert handling even better, for their manuvering capabilities. Plus, what about the K-Wing, the only small ship turret? I could go on and on, but im going to conclude here.

It's pointless to argue with you. Have you even flown Decimators their dial has no red and lots of maneuver I wish small ships had. How would it make their engine upgrade and expert handling better?

It's obvious that you are turret player and to argue the point with someone who doesn't want change for balance it pointless.

The only major points I can think of offhand are:

1) More acrylic/plastic parts with the starter kit

2) No natural 4 dice attack ships...or at least if they do, don't do it on a ship that's so powerful already.

3) Make the "time period" multi generational, like I believe attack wing is, so you could have ships/pilots/factions from all the movies, tv shows, etc.

4) Some type of fix to the turreted ships for doing out of arc shooting

Some other things would be nice too, but not necessary.