The new maneuvers few like not planned additions, but ways to differentiate the new ships. A-Wing and TIE Interceptor area extremely maneuverable ships and don't have S-loops and T-rolls...

Because those maneuvers weren't designed yet. The Core Set involved designing all the maneuvers they thought they'd need: I would be surprised if they considered not having the K-turn. S-loop and T-roll were made for Waves 6 and 7.5 respectively, where they had a lot more information. If they thought they were a good idea in Wave 0, they'd probably be in there.

The choice is either to add new maneuvers when you think they're appropriate, or to stick to your starting set of maneuvers. The choice FFG had with the Segnor was to give the new ships the Segnor or to not implement the Segnor at all. They can't go back and Segnor all the old ships.

I never proposed fully interchangeable pilots, in the first place, just a little more flexibility for a very few characters.

Then why add all the effort of separating the cards when only a few pilots are actually interchangable?

If only a few pilots can jump ship then you might as well just release pilot cards for those pilots in those ships. Want a TIE defender Maarek? Release a Maarek card in a TIE defender. Doing it this way lets you adjust the pilot ability or pilot skill to balance if you want to and saves you having to design pilot abilities for ships you haven't designed yet.

And that's what FFG does.

There is only 1 tech slot card in the new core set...but we do not yet know what else is coming down the line in the future...I'm sure they are designing more cards for this slot right now and we will see them next year. Just because something is not immediately useful or in huge quantity does not mean it is useless or a failure...it's part of design space in the game...it gives the designers room to add new things to the game and that's a good thing.

The same applies to the new maneuvers they've added; I imagine they added them exactly when they wanted to add them, giving new ships new maneuver options. It helps keep things interesting and not every ship should have the same list of maneuvers.

I rather like the idea of the card and pilot being one. It gives the game a more "personal" feel as this is more of an individual dogfighting game, which is person vs person. Having separate ships and characters works well in Star Trek Attack Wing (well might be a poor term choice lol) since they are using Starships that sometimes have a thousand crew members aboard and fixing the captain to the ship card would be a bit weird.

I know there will be more "tech" cards in the next expansions, but it really is just another "system" upgrade, restricted to the new ships. I also think there should be at least one more of these cards in the new core set, because all ships there are able to use it.

The new maneuvers few like not planned additions, but ways to differentiate the new ships. A-Wing and TIE Interceptor area extremely maneuverable ships and don't have S-loops and T-rolls...

About the pilots, I feel it is important to give them a face (not only in promo cards). I never proposed fully interchangeable pilots, in the first place, just a little more flexibility for a very few characters.

You have this already. You can take Luke or Chewbacca either as pilots for their respective ships or as a crew member. R2-D2 can be in your astromech slot or a crew member.

Folks have asked designers about the possibility of getting a version of Corran for an X-Wing or Luke in an E-Wing, and their answer was "possibly." Early on, doing this limits your list building. For example, if one of the four pilot cards included in the E-Wing was Luke, you wouldn't be able to run Luke (from the core, in an X-Wing) with your new Luke (from the E-Wing pack). With a lot more options now available, it's not quite as restrictive, but still somewhat meh from a list building standpoint. I'd rather have more options than less options.

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.

Agreed! And it is difficult to get a good conversation about differing ideas going accordingly!

I liked some of your ideas and really you have a basis for another game. Perhaps these could be written out and tried!?!

Good luck and good conversation starter!

I think it would be hard to balance the game around pilot abilities transferring from ship to ship - especially if ship cards were neutral or cross factionable...

Go ahead - Shoot my Serrisu, body guard supported, stealth biggs phantom with recon specialist and sensor jammer, behind a tactical jammer. 8 green dice at range with a reroll and 2 focus tokens. I get to convert a hit to a focus,

It is hard? Yes. But you already do this with the crew upgrades, don't you?

And Biggs would only fly the X-Wing, of course.

Not so much, Consider that when a new ship comes out - it can be granted or denied crew slot access, and likely all new ships and all old crew ships are looked at in a sense of "is anything broken." And then when you find something that might be too good in one place - you can place the faction limitation on it. (Probably why bodyguard is not available to the rebels!) - then you can tweak further by creating the cost.

as for Biggs - The original poster was talking about being able to shift pilots between ships - and have ships neutral faction.

Expecting FFG to have a general plan that fits their 2015 sales and design budget in 2012 is incredibly unrealistic. How were they supposed to know it would take off like this?

Bingo. The CEO of FFG, at the recent GenCon, talked about the runaway hit that X-Wing turned in to. They had *no* idea it was going to be this successful when they released it.

So ease up on them.

Expecting FFG to have a general plan that fits their 2015 sales and design budget in 2012 is incredibly unrealistic. How were they supposed to know it would take off like this?

Bingo. The CEO of FFG, at the recent GenCon, talked about the runaway hit that X-Wing turned in to. They had *no* idea it was going to be this successful when they released it.

So ease up on them.

needs to be repeated

it is also the only way I can personally fathom the existence of PWTs

About the "pilot card upgrade" (it is poorly done, but you can have an idea):

Personally, I like to see the pilots' faces.

This system would also make easier for adding cross-faction ships, but yes, in a different game... X-Wing is what it is and we need to accept it.

Not a bad mockup - it would work mechanically, and give you the needed control, but - it also eats up an upgrade card per pilot, if we've only got space for 5 upgrade cards, and we're always burning 2 of them on pilots... There are other logistical/economical problems involved.

Not a bad mockup - it would work mechanically, and give you the needed control, but - it also eats up an upgrade card per pilot, if we've only got space for 5 upgrade cards, and we're always burning 2 of them on pilots... There are other logistical/economical problems involved.

That rule (limit of upgrade cards) could be changed for... 6?

This "pilot card upgrade" is just an exercise of imagination. The game would be something different with different rules.

bwa-ha-ha....

About the "pilot card upgrade" (it is poorly done, but you can have an idea):

Personally, I like to see the pilots' faces.

This system would also make easier for adding cross-faction ships, but yes, in a different game... X-Wing is what it is and we need to accept it.

Don't get me wrong, this looks cool, but it's also overly complicated.

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".

Well, it's official. "White knight" now just means "anyone who disagrees with me on the Internet".

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".

Well, it's official. "White knight" now just means "anyone who disagrees with me on the Internet".

UNITE, BROTHERS, FOR WE MUST PROTECT THE HONOR OF THE FAIR MAIDEN FFG.

On a more serious note, you're proposing ideas, placing them up for discussion/debate. Don't be surprised when people discuss and debate them.

And what's to say they didn't? Your criticisms of what they "did wrong" are based on seven waves of this game, from knowing how each mechanic and interaction turned out. When you're designing, you don't know that. Armada, for example, avoided many of the pitfalls of X-wing, but we don't know what troubles it'll run into further down the line.

Furthermore, this notion that they'd plan the whole game out from the start is just silly. Firstly, in a commercial environment you have to manage your design time. Designing the game and all its future expansions and mechanics off the bat is limiting. Secondly, expansion based game design is iterative, you design a component as best you can, release it, see how it does and then you use that knowledge to make future components better. If they planned the whole game out in advance and never designed anything new based on feedback then it'd be a much worse games: we'd have seven Wave 1s rather than each Wave improving on the last.

You can't design 8 waves forward, but you can have a general plan. It is not that the EU will change much in the meantime (you kind of know which ships will be added).

It looks like the simply words "did wrong" offend a lot of people here.

You can have a plan. But, FFG doesn't have a free reign. They have to get approval. And, while LFL is fairly good with them, Peterson has stated they have run into no go places before. And, what happens when the designers change. This is a fairly common occurence at FFG, so making a 3-4 year plan as you are suggesting (This isn't Attack Wing, the waves aren't that close together) seems potententially problematic. I mean, we've already had two designer change overs. And hopefully, Alex and Frank aren't leaving soon, but they will eventually.

Not a bad mockup - it would work mechanically, and give you the needed control, but - it also eats up an upgrade card per pilot, if we've only got space for 5 upgrade cards, and we're always burning 2 of them on pilots... There are other logistical/economical problems involved.

That rule (limit of upgrade cards) could be changed for... 6?

This "pilot card upgrade" is just an exercise of imagination. The game would be something different with different rules.

Pardon me if I don't see the "imagination" in "let's do what Attack Wing does, but seriously, it's balanced this way, guys!!!".

No thanks I play both attack wing and X-wing and the pilot swapping in Attack wing is one of the worst aspects of that game. Jean-Luc Picard is always there as he is essentially Vader getting double actions... Or Donatra constantly in my Romulan fleets cuse she gives out extra Red dice. It's a super weak mechanic and some ships never see play even though the captains came from that expansion because... No reason to use the ship! just use the better ones.

No I think one of the biggest issues FFG has with this game was their idea in the core box to mirror X-wings and Tie Fighters dice (3 red 2 green vs 2 red 3 green) at first it seemed fine but as expansions landed it became clear this wasn't a good idea. Especially (in my eyes) when they decided to give every Imp fighter 3 green dice. Now I get the hardcore imp players are gonna come in here thumping their chests about "fickle green dice" but there's a reason naked Y-wings blow and A-wings sucked.. 2 Red dice against Imps is pathetic unless counter swarmed like the Z-95 allowed.

I love the game, but there have clearly been some... less preferable decisions made along the way. But what game like this wouldn't have that? It's a grwoing game and lessons are learnt. One day, if a 2.0 is released, I'm betting this is where a lot of the ideas for making the game better (or possibly worse) will come from.

I think this forum is the perfect place for such a discussion, and see nothing wrong with the OP speaking their opinion. If they have their own vision as to the way they think the game should be, then who is anyone else to tell them otherwise? Wouldn't you feel silly if FFG did release a 2.0 one day using his vision? I'm sure some thought the ideas for the way the game was released were silly too.

To those who don't agree? Don't read it. And to those being an *ss to the OP for discussing the game they love, in a forum designed for such? It is uncalled for, and quite simply, immature.

There would be very few pilots that could swap ships, I said that several times.

The main idea of the proposal was not to have your favorite pilot in your favorite ship and OP combos, but to:

a) show the pilots faces;

b) allow greater (but not game breaking) customization;

c) allow the ships to have their own abilities;

d) make cross faction ships more easy;

e) be faithful to the lore (some pilots did indeed fly in different ships).

you know, I was going to say that what FFG did wrong was not look into the future and use Armada's token mechanics instead of **** green dice, but instead I'll say this

in this Wave and the next, there are two PWTs that I not only love but do/will own two of

if FFG ain't doing **** right, then idk what the hell is going on

Personally, I like to see the pilots' faces.

I mean, I don't want to see the pilots' faces so much that I want an extra separate pointless card with them on to take up space in expansions that could be an upgrade, or to be another card I have to fit into the never-enough-room on my side of the gameboard in order to enable a mechanic that'd be a pain in the arse to balance and would please only the poor benighted souls who gave a tuppenny toss about EU fluff. But I really like the Armada fighter cards and kind of wish FFG had done the same with X-Wing.

Then I think of losing Scum Boba's picture and I'm not so sure. DON'T MAKE ME CHOOSE FFG.

I love the game, but there have clearly been some... less preferable decisions made along the way. But what game like this wouldn't have that? It's a grwoing game and lessons are learnt. One day, if a 2.0 is released, I'm betting this is where a lot of the ideas for making the game better (or possibly worse) will come from.

I think this forum is the perfect place for such a discussion, and see nothing wrong with the OP speaking their opinion. If they have their own vision as to the way they think the game should be, then who is anyone else to tell them otherwise? Wouldn't you feel silly if FFG did release a 2.0 one day using his vision? I'm sure some thought the ideas for the way the game was released were silly too.

To those who don't agree? Don't read it. And to those being an *ss to the OP for discussing the game they love, in a forum designed for such? It is uncalled for, and quite simply, immature.

Thank you so much.

in this Wave and the next, there are two PWTs that I not only love but do/will own two of

if FFG ain't doing **** right, then idk what the hell is going on

Ya sorry OP #1is a definite no no....NOOOO!!!!! Corran horn in a falcon or outrider?! Really? You want to break this game haha. After the first point I really just stopped reading.

You didn't read the first point very well, it looks.

To those who don't agree? Don't read it. And to those being an *ss to the OP for discussing the game they love, in a forum designed for such? It is uncalled for, and quite simply, immature.

You're gonna reap just what you sow, etc.

in this Wave and the next, there are two PWTs that I not only love but do/will own two of

if FFG ain't doing **** right, then idk what the hell is going on

WHO ARE YOU AND WHAT HAVE YOU DONE WITH FGD???

I love the game, but there have clearly been some... less preferable decisions made along the way. But what game like this wouldn't have that? It's a grwoing game and lessons are learnt. One day, if a 2.0 is released, I'm betting this is where a lot of the ideas for making the game better (or possibly worse) will come from.

I think this forum is the perfect place for such a discussion, and see nothing wrong with the OP speaking their opinion. If they have their own vision as to the way they think the game should be, then who is anyone else to tell them otherwise? Wouldn't you feel silly if FFG did release a 2.0 one day using his vision? I'm sure some thought the ideas for the way the game was released were silly too.

To those who don't agree? Don't read it. And to those being an *ss to the OP for discussing the game they love, in a forum designed for such? It is uncalled for, and quite simply, immature.

Designers working for licensed games are pretty much forbidden from doing what you're talking about in the bolded section, for reasons of legality. I'm sure FFG employees keep a finger on the pulse of the community (hence why we received a fix for the Advanced and why there's an X-Wing fix in the pipeline), but they can't lift mechanics from suggestions that people post here.

As for the underlined part, I'm not sure why people debating and discussing the OP's points makes them an ass. I'd much rather read reasoned rebuttals and counter-arguments than a flood of people saying, "Great idea. 10 points for Gryffindor."