First, I would like to say I love this game.

The minis are gorgeous, it brings a lot of EU characters to the table, it has an good luck/strategy radio and great movement system.

That being said, here are some things I think FFG did wrong in the game: EDIT: could have done better.

1- The pilots should be a separated card of the ship. That would allow some interesting things: a) ships could have their own "ability" (much like what they are trying to do with the TIE/v1); b) pilots could describe which ships they can fly, allowing a pilot to fly 1-3 different ships (more lore friendly); c) combining the ship ability with the pilot ability would allow greater customization and tactical richness (each ship would be really unique, even the no-named); d) hey, it is much cooler to see the pilot picture than some generic image of the ship. EDIT: very few pilots could use different ships, and that would be like 2 different ships tops. The most classic example of this is Maarek Stele, which should be able to pilot the TIE Defender. Example of the pilot and ship card.

1a- Ship dials should be faction-neutral. That would allow multi faction expansions (no need to release "Most Wanted" stuff just to allow a ship to be used by another faction). Z-95, T-Wing? = Rebel and Scum pilots. In that same thought even ship cards should be faction-neutral.

1b- Ship bases should be generic, and not for a specific pilot. You already need to add the ship number when you have more than one generic pilot in the table, why not making only one base to fit all? (save material for more cards and tokens in each expansion)

2- Balancing (in cost): most ships with attack 2 cost too much; ordinance is too expensive; etc. FFG had to implement a lot of fixes (including the monstrous* TIE/x1 title for the TIE Advanced or the AT for the TIE Interceptors), but most fixes instead of adding to the variety of the game, become indispensable. *EDIT: monstrous, but a necessary fix for the TIE Advanced (giving a ship one clean critical hit for 1 squad point clearly shows how much the ship was imbalanced).

3- Small number of upgrade cards with each expansion. Really, it is already pushy to need to buy a TIE Punisher just for the Extra Munitions card - but if you want more cards, you will need to buy more of those monstrosities. Does it make sense in the commercial stand point? Yes, they would sell more dubious ships. But treating well the consumer isn't a better thing in the long term?

4- Upgrade types: they added the "system" upgrade too late and now are adding the unnecessary "tech" upgrade (for, really, just 1 upgrade card?). Also, there are numerous new different maneuver types being released with the last waves. This should have be better planned from the start.

I know the game will stay as it is (no reset in the near future, thankfully), but I really wished these things were put in consideration before the release of the first core set. Wouldn't it be a better game?

And you, what are the flaws you see? What's your perfect X-Wing Miniatures Game?

5- Where is the Assault Gunboat?

You like the game, but you use terms like "monstrous" and "dubious" in describing it. And most of your "flaws" are about marketing and packaging, not game design.

I have some pretty clear ideas what I'd do if I were working on X-wing 2.0, but this doesn't seem like a place to have a constructive conversation about design.

Agree with your 1 (a, b) and 2. I don't see 3 and 4 (or 5) as issues myself.

Specific fixes:

- Ordnance (well, torpedoes) still need tweaks. I have more Proton Torpedo cards than any other single card and its simply not worth the cost, yet I'd desperately like to hang them on and X-wing since that fits so well with the lore of the game (and the feel of the old X-wing video games).

- Individual ships need tweaks. The Millenium Falcon is one -- should have had the Punishing One title treatment, for example.

- The latest SLAM ruling needs to be reversed.

Minor nitpicks, overall.

I agree with none of this.

1- The pilots should be a separated card of the ship. That would allow some interesting things: a) ships could have their own "ability" (much like what they are trying to do with the TIE/v1); b) pilots could describe which ships they can fly, allowing a pilot to fly 1-3 different ships (more lore friendly); c) combining the ship ability with the pilot ability would allow greater customization and tactical richness; d) hey, it is much cooler to see the pilot picture than some generic image of the ship.

FFG originally did have separate pilots and ships. They consciously fused them together as a design decision, and a wise one.

1a- Ship dials should be faction-neutral. That would allow multi faction expansions (no need to release "Most Wanted" stuff just to allow a ship to be used by another faction). Z-95, T-Wing? = Rebel and Scum pilots. In that same thought even ship cards should be faction-neutral.

That'd both make the game components much less colourful and annihilate faction identity.

Plus, I think it's pretty rich that you rag on the Punisher later on but suggest the T-wing of all things.

1b- Ship bases should be generic, and not for a specific pilot. You already need to add the ship number when you have more than one generic pilot in the table, why not making only one base to fit all? (save material for more cards and tokens in each expansion)

Because the ship baseplates are useful references, that's why.

2- Balancing: most ships with attack 2 cost too much; ordinance is too expensive; etc. FFG had to implement a lot of fixes (including the monstrous TIE/x1 title), but some things are not easy to fix.

They did a better job at game design than you could, based on some of the suggestions you've made so far. It's fairly clear you have no idea what goes into balancing a game, how difficult it is and how situtations you never could have dreamed up can arise when a product is released to the world at large.

And TIE/x1 is great. In many ways, more interesting than having a working TIE advanced in the first place.

3- Small number of upgrade cards with each expansion. Really, if is already pushy to need to buy a TIE Punisher just for the Extra Munitions card - but if you want more cards, you will need to buy more of those monstrosities. Does it make sense in the commercial stand point? Yes, they would sell more dubious ships. But treating well the consumer isn't a better thing in the long term?

You don't like the TIE punisher. Your opinion.

They usually do include multiples of cards they think will be very popular elsewhere in expansions: the Viper has a redundant copy of Autothrusters and the Raider has four TIE/x1s. Extra Munitions only has a single copy because of the limited space on the punchboard for EM tokens.

4- Upgrade types: they added the "system" upgrade too late and now are adding the unnecessary "tech" upgrade (for, really, just 1 upgrade card?). Also, there are numerous new different maneuver types being released with the last waves. This should have be better planned from the start.

I'm sure they'd benefit greatly from your clairvoyance. As would most global intelligence agencies. If you can see into the future and plan perfectly for every possible future situation I'm surprised you're not rich from betting on situations where your future-sight lets you see the outcome.

And if you can't, why do you assume FFG can?

And do you honestly think the Tech slot will only ever have one upgrade card? Really now?

- The latest SLAM ruling needs to be reversed.

Nothing to reverse: it works the way the card says it works.

No. It would not be a better game. See the failures of Attack Wing for reference.

I'm glad that FFG did everything wrong, that you mentioned. Otherwise, they wouldn't have produced the game.

I have some pretty clear ideas what I'd do if I were working on X-wing 2.0, but this doesn't seem like a place to have a constructive conversation about design.

If this is not the place, I don't know where would be. But OK if you don't want to share your thoughts.

Not much.

I dislike that technically with a high enough pointed game you could have 3 Falcons flying around, i think the phantom "nerf" was heavy handed and reflected poorly on FFG and most of all I want the defender to be better.

I want a real reason to take a generic. I want Rexlar to be the god that he is in epic. But I don't want to need to have a raider and comms team to support him.

Vessary is fine.

1 - Nope.

1a - Nope. Dials they kind are already; you can use a Rebel Z-95 (and other mulit faction ships) dial and vice versa as long as the pilot token and pilot card are the proper faction.

1b - Nope.

2 - The "monsterous" TIE/x1 title? Really?

3 - You don't like the TIE Punisher? Okay, but I do so your point is invalid. On the card thing, lots of extra cards come in many of the expansions and they have gotten better about spreading the cards around so you have more options on what to buy to get which cards. Now only having one Conner Net and Cluster Mine token with a ship that comes with a card to allow you equip two... well, that does suck.

4 - The new upgrade slot on two ships that have been out for four days is "unnecessary?" Okay, man.

One where getting things in your firing arc and flying well to maintain good action economy matter.

Basically banhammer all of the super fat turret stuff, and some of the ridiculous power combos like 4 dice FCS gunner/Corran BS.

ACD would provide a cloak at the end phase, FCS would provide a TL at the end phase, C-3PO would have some sort of nerf like not allowing guesses of zero or forcing the defender to call out a number before the attack rolls attack dice, Predator would only work on lower pilot skills, or higher pilot skills that were stressed.

Then after all the super ship stuff was gone, a nerf to swarms once they cropped up again. Spams of generics would be all that is viable but that's how the game is best.

Allowing named pilots to fly in any ship they wanted to would get broken and make balancing the game much harder. You bet your ass I'd fly Howlrunner in a ship more durable than a TIE Fighter, or Biggs, or Corran in a K-Wing or whatever other annoying combo. I'm not opposed to say, having a separate Soontir card for a standard TIE Fighter or Mauler in a Defender if it's done in a careful way I'm fine with it, just not every ship can have every pilot.

No. It would not be a better game. See the failures of Attack Wing for reference.

Come on, it can always be a better game. There is a reason "second editions" are released, with reviewed rules.

But don't worry, before more white knights come bashing, I'm not proposing a reset of the game (your dozens of minis are safe). I'm just proposing some kind of "lessons to be learned after 3 years of X-Wing".

I think the point is that while i thought seperate pilots with 'classes' like 'fighters only' etc would be a great idea the potential for game breaking combos is huge and you'd lose a lot of 'theme' (see attack wing where if im correct you could have picard command a borg cube or some such sillyness?)

Xwing is a fantastically simple yet effective and visual game, i think a lot of the 'fixes' you suggest would stop it being so simple and elegant.

The only thing i'd agree with is 2 attack ships being a little over priced and some ships being a little too good (phantoms and agressors)

But don't worry, before more white knights come bashing, I'm not proposing a reset of the game (your dozens of minis are safe). I'm just proposing some kind of "lessons to be learned after 3 years of X-Wing".

And you're proposing them as a total outsider with very little idea of what they've tested and rejected. Your detached pilots idea is one of them.

Come on, it can always be a better game. There is a reason "second editions" are released, with reviewed rules.

It's called the new core, and it cleaned up the ruleset significantly.

I'm just proposing some kind of "lessons to be learned after 3 years of X-Wing".

No, your post lacks the "after" entirely. Your suggestions include helpful ideas such as to balance everything perfectly" (you think they don't try to do this?" and "This should have be better planned from the start." Yeah, do three to four years of game design before you even release the core (meaning the game would be releasing for the first time about now and would have a grand total of zero feedback from release) and have no idea if the game will sell. Great idea.

2 - The "monsterous" TIE/x1 title? Really?

3 - You don't like the TIE Punisher? Okay, but I do so your point is invalid. On the card thing, lots of extra cards come in many of the expansions and they have gotten better about spreading the cards around so you have more options on what to buy to get which cards. Now only having one Conner Net and Cluster Mine token with a ship that comes with a card to allow you equip two... well, that does suck.

4 - The new upgrade slot on two ships that have been out for four days is "unnecessary?" Okay, man.

2- It is monstrous, because it is a big deal. You can't have the TIE Advanced in the table without it. It is a necessary fix, but I'm criticizing the fact it was needed in the first place.

3- Not exactly against the Punisher, but how you need to buy it to salvage another ships and cards.

4- It could be the "system", or it could at least come with 2 more "tech" cards.

I think had ffg known early on that scum would be a seperste faction we wouldn't see the firespray as an imperial ship. Design wise it doesn't fit the rest of the imperial lineup.

I think the new damage deck is an obvious redesign choice by ffg admitting they could have made it better.

I think all the different upgrades slots by ffg would have been a little less convoluted had they planned them early on.

I'm quite certain a lot of little changes to individual ships would be reassessed such as lack of ept on certain ships. They also pretty much stated in interviews the hwk with 1 atk was a mistake.

They really should had a playmat early on my god the first two years there was a major void and desire for that accessory that saw a lot of companies step up to fill that void.

I get the feeling armada was made because they ran into a size limit with the xwing. Which makes me wonder if ffg would have shrunk the game more

"The hindsight is strong in this one."

3- Not exactly against the Punisher, but how you need to buy it to salvage another ships and cards.

You called it a monstrousity, which means you either are against it or you desperately need someone to buy you a dictionary.

2- It is monstrous, because it is a big deal. You can't have the TIE Advanced in the table without it. It is a necessary fix, but I'm criticizing the fact it was needed in the first place.

Great thing, hindsight.

The TIE advanced was fine in Wave 1. It was one of the first expansions and designed very early in the game's life, when the designers didn't have seven waves of experience and feedback to work with. In a world where the only two opposing ships were the X-wing and Y-wing it did just fine.

4- It could be the "system", or it could at least come with 2 more "tech" cards.

Yes, it could be System. And it's not. Which suggests quite strongly that they decided making it system wasn't a good idea. They didn't want the T-70 or TIE/fo to take System cards and/or didn't want the System ships to take tech cards. Same reason Missile and Torpedo are separate slots despite doing the same thing.

As for more tech cards, dear god, it's only appeared in the Core Set! If the whole Episode 7 wave lacked any then maybe you'd have a point.

stuff

You're pretty much wasting your time criticising FFG in any way on these forums, even though you've made some good points and done so in an articulate and polite way. You'll find the crowd here is very one-eyed.

But don't worry, before more white knights come bashing, I'm not proposing a reset of the game (your dozens of minis are safe). I'm just proposing some kind of "lessons to be learned after 3 years of X-Wing".

And you're proposing them as a total outsider with very little idea of what they've tested and rejected. Your detached pilots idea is one of them.

Come on, it can always be a better game. There is a reason "second editions" are released, with reviewed rules.

It's called the new core, and it cleaned up the ruleset significantly.

I'm just proposing some kind of "lessons to be learned after 3 years of X-Wing".

No, your post lacks the "after" entirely. Your suggestions include helpful ideas such as to balance everything perfectly" (you think they don't try to do this?" and "This should have be better planned from the start." Yeah, do three to four years of game design before you even release the core (meaning the game would be releasing for the first time about now and would have a grand total of zero feedback from release) and have no idea if the game will sell. Great idea.

When I say separated pilots, I'm not saying a pilot should go with every ship (most would keep piloting just one ship). But some pilot did indeed pilot different ships (like the Stele).

I'm not talking about the new core set: I have nothing against it. On the contrary, I like the fact it compiles and clarifies a lot of rules and it is compatible with the rest of the game.

The designers are human, like everyone of us. The game is great, but it is perfect? Of course not. We can't rewind the time, but we can learn with the past. X-Wing Miniatures Game is what it is, but lessons could be learned for other future (and different) games.

One thing i always think is a bit odd is that named pilots pretty much always have their own 'integral' EPT, where you *really* want to customise is on generics so if you wanted you could make your own characters.

What you tend to get though is either elites loaded with abilities (many of which you forget about) or naked ships, even the mid PS ones.

Like from memory not a single rebel Y wing has an EPT, i mean come on , Keyan was a ywing pilot, they cant all have been that bad

On that note i agree that there should be cards for pilots in other ships as options..

Like luke in an ewing, or Keyan in a Y wing etc.

Especially when their chosen ship by FFG makes less sense narratively but they clearly were struggling to find a known pilot for the 'whatever ship'.

I have some pretty clear ideas what I'd do if I were working on X-wing 2.0, but this doesn't seem like a place to have a constructive conversation about design.

If this is not the place, I don't know where would be. But OK if you don't want to share your thoughts.

The right place would be one where the topic post was open minded, constructive, and showed some awareness of not only design issues but of game design as an iterative process.

I think had ffg known early on that scum would be a seperste faction we wouldn't see the firespray as an imperial ship. Design wise it doesn't fit the rest of the imperial lineup.

I think the new damage deck is an obvious redesign choice by ffg admitting they could have made it better.

I think all the different upgrades slots by ffg would have been a little less convoluted had they planned them early on.

I'm quite certain a lot of little changes to individual ships would be reassessed such as lack of ept on certain ships. They also pretty much stated in interviews the hwk with 1 atk was a mistake.

That's what I'm talking about.

I have some pretty clear ideas what I'd do if I were working on X-wing 2.0, but this doesn't seem like a place to have a constructive conversation about design.

If this is not the place, I don't know where would be. But OK if you don't want to share your thoughts.

The right place would be one where the topic post was open minded, constructive, and showed some awareness of not only design issues but of game design as an iterative process.

Like my old 'what would you like to see in a hypothetical 2nd edition of the game' thread from a month or so back ?

Not much.

I dislike that technically with a high enough pointed game you could have 3 Falcons flying around, i think the phantom "nerf" was heavy handed and reflected poorly on FFG and most of all I want the defender to be better.

I want a real reason to take a generic. I want Rexlar to be the god that he is in epic. But I don't want to need to have a raider and comms team to support him.

Vessary is fine.

Phantom nerf was needed to not autolose every single game where you faced one without PS 9+, a dumb fat turret, or awkward hard counter lists that auto killed Phantoms and lost to everything. Someone is buttmad that their autowin button.

When I flew 86 Double Phantom pre-nerf I would autowin against non-turrets, and autolose against turrets. Oh yeah, and I lost against a triple high PS A-Wing 3x homing missile list built specifically to hard counter Phantoms that would have autolost to literally any other list.

When I say separated pilots, I'm not saying a pilot should go with every ship (most would keep piloting just one ship). But some pilot did indeed pilot different ships (like the Stele).

And Steele released in Wave 1. That gives you two ships to choose from. TIE fighter and TIE advanced. And whenever they released a new pilot, they could only put it on past ships, because they don't know what future ships they'll release due to this thing called licensor approval. It's much easier and gives them a lot more design freedom to just release future ship cards for that pilot. They almost did: the elite E-wing was going to be Luke Skywalker. They changed it to Corran so that you could run it and the X-wing Luke together.

The designers are human, like everyone of us. The game is great, but it is perfect? Of course not. We can't rewind the time, but we can learn with the past. X-Wing Miniatures Game is what it is, but lessons could be learned for other future (and different) games.

But that's not what you've said. You've said this is what FFG did wrong, not what they could do better armed with the experience from X-wing.

You're applying hindsight to everything. You're saying what you'd change with all the knowledge we have now, and then saying FFG should have done it differently without that knowledge.