Hopefully, with Hera, FFG is starting to think it is okay to release pilots in other ships.

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.

You never specified, only said that very few pilots could fly other ships. What's your restrictions for who can pilot what? Is it based strictly on lore? Or are you going for a more attack wing style setup? Never specified.

Lore. It is there in the OP.

Of course that could be additionally limited for balance purpose (like everything in this game).

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."

I don't think that discussing, debating, or even disagreeing, with the OP's points make anyone an *ss. In fact, I happen to disagree with a lot of his points.

It's *hit like your "Gryffindor" comment that are what I'm referring to being immature, and *ss like.

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.

Start with an inflammatory title and opening post, then dismiss the people who were to-that-point-fairly-civilly explaining why a lot of your ideas were wrong-headed as "white knights" and you can't be that surprised when the tone goes downhill fast, y'know?

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

The title and OP are only inflammatory if you have a defensive stance. And no, people didn't always keep the discussion health - some dismissed it without any argument.

This is not like discussing "what Jesus did wrong in the Bible". It is a game done by people like us. Sure, very capable people, but if you can't find a single flaw in this game, you are fanatical.

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."

I don't think that discussing, debating, or even disagreeing, with the OP's points make anyone an *ss. In fact, I happen to disagree with a lot of his points.

It's *hit like your "Gryffindor" comment that are what I'm referring to being immature, and *ss like.

In addition to debate and arguing, sarcasm and humor are now no longer allowed on the intertubes.

We all love this game. Its great and extremely rewarding and fun to play. Im a huge fan and will continue to play for a very long time. With that being said..

This thread is filled with nothing but fanboys who are afraid to point out flaws in their baby.

Sorry gentlemen but as incredible as this game is, it is not perfect and like everytbing in life can be improved.

The OP might not have been perfect in his analysis. But its absurd for most of you to sit here ppretending everything is perfect.

Balance is NOT easy. But its obvious FFG had made many mistakes here.

How many ships are useless? How many pilots to never see flown? How many upgrade csrds sit in the box just rotting from never being used?

If this game was a perfect as many here think, all these improvement title cards wouldn't be necessary.

Ordance has been tweaked countless times and still isnt where it needs to be. It wasnt long ago that this game was ruled by a small handful of ships. That is a flaw.

His way of fixing things might not be ideal but its hell of a lot better then most of you sitting here with your "xwing is perfect" fanboy mindsets.

You can still love your child and see its flaws. Only then can your baby grow up to be a "perfect" adult.

We all love this game. Its great and extremely rewarding and fun to play. Im a huge fan and will continue to play for a very long time. With that being said..

This thread is filled with nothing but fanboys who are afraid to point out flaws in their baby.

Sorry gentlemen but as incredible as this game is, it is not perfect and like everytbing in life can be improved.

The OP might not have been perfect in his analysis. But its absurd for most of you to sit here ppretending everything is perfect.

Balance is NOT easy. But its obvious FFG had made many mistakes here.

How many ships are useless? How many pilots to never see flown? How many upgrade csrds sit in the box just rotting from never being used?

If this game was a perfect as many here think, all these improvement title cards wouldn't be necessary.

Ordance has been tweaked countless times and still isnt where it needs to be. It wasnt long ago that this game was ruled by a small handful of ships. That is a flaw.

His way of fixing things might not be ideal but its hell of a lot better then most of you sitting here with your "xwing is perfect" fanboy mindsets.

You can still love your child and see its flaws. Only then can your baby grow up to be a "perfect" adult.

Who is arguing that the game is perfect? A lot of people are arguing that the OP's ideas aren't improvements. That doesn't mean folks think the game is perfect in its current state.

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.

Start with an inflammatory title and opening post, then dismiss the people who were to-that-point-fairly-civilly explaining why a lot of your ideas were wrong-headed as "white knights" and you can't be that surprised when the tone goes downhill fast, y'know?You're gonna reap just what you sow, etc.

Just because someone doesn't agree with his opinion it doesn't mean he is being insulting. Yeah, sure, he could have chosen some better words to use, but I thought it was pretty obvious he wasn't trying to insult anyone with his original post. I can tell the folks who's lives revolve around this game, because they are the ones who get sooooo insulted everytime someone comes up with an idea about the game they don't agree with, or nitpick about an aspect of the game they don't like. Seriously, who gives a *hit what he thinks the game should be like?

If you don't like it, don't read it. If you do, don't be a *ss about it. He's trying to be constructive PERIOD

What is wrong with that?

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.

Start with an inflammatory title and opening post, then dismiss the people who were to-that-point-fairly-civilly explaining why a lot of your ideas were wrong-headed as "white knights" and you can't be that surprised when the tone goes downhill fast, y'know?You're gonna reap just what you sow, etc.

Just because someone doesn't agree with his opinion it doesn't mean he is being insulting. Yeah, sure, he could have chosen some better words to use, but I thought it was pretty obvious he wasn't trying to insult anyone with his original post. I can tell the folks who's lives revolve around this game, because they are the ones who get sooooo insulted everytime someone comes up with an idea about the game they don't agree with, or nitpick about an aspect of the game they don't like. Seriously, who gives a *hit what he thinks the game should be like?

If you don't like it, don't read it. If you do, don't be a *ss about it. He's trying to be constructive PERIOD

What is wrong with that?

Nothing. There's also nothing wrong with people disagreeing with him and countering his points. Hooray for opinions, discussion, and disagreement!

The title and OP are only inflammatory if you have a defensive stance. And no, people didn't always keep the discussion health - some dismissed it without any argument.

This is not like discussing "what Jesus did wrong in the Bible". It is a game done by people like us. Sure, very capable people, but if you can't find a single flaw in this game, you are fanatical.

And "Don't Agree That The Things You're Saying FFG Did Wrong Are Flaws And Think That Some Of Your Suggestions Would Actively Make The Game Worse" <> "Can't Find A Single Flaw In The Game".

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.

Start with an inflammatory title and opening post, then dismiss the people who were to-that-point-fairly-civilly explaining why a lot of your ideas were wrong-headed as "white knights" and you can't be that surprised when the tone goes downhill fast, y'know?You're gonna reap just what you sow, etc.

Just because someone doesn't agree with his opinion it doesn't mean he is being insulting. Yeah, sure, he could have chosen some better words to use, but I thought it was pretty obvious he wasn't trying to insult anyone with his original post. I can tell the folks who's lives revolve around this game, because they are the ones who get sooooo insulted everytime someone comes up with an idea about the game they don't agree with, or nitpick about an aspect of the game they don't like. Seriously, who gives a *hit what he thinks the game should be like?

If you don't like it, don't read it. If you do, don't be a *ss about it. He's trying to be constructive PERIOD

What is wrong with that?

Nothing. There's also nothing wrong with people disagreeing with him and countering his points. Hooray for opinions, discussion, and disagreement!

Sure. You can agree or disagree with my points (I'm not even sure about many), but please don't take away my (or anybody's) faculty to discuss about it.

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.

Start with an inflammatory title and opening post, then dismiss the people who were to-that-point-fairly-civilly explaining why a lot of your ideas were wrong-headed as "white knights" and you can't be that surprised when the tone goes downhill fast, y'know?You're gonna reap just what you sow, etc.

Just because someone doesn't agree with his opinion it doesn't mean he is being insulting. Yeah, sure, he could have chosen some better words to use, but I thought it was pretty obvious he wasn't trying to insult anyone with his original post. I can tell the folks who's lives revolve around this game, because they are the ones who get sooooo insulted everytime someone comes up with an idea about the game they don't agree with, or nitpick about an aspect of the game they don't like. Seriously, who gives a *hit what he thinks the game should be like?

If you don't like it, don't read it. If you do, don't be a *ss about it. He's trying to be constructive PERIOD

What is wrong with that?

Nothing. There's also nothing wrong with people disagreeing with him and countering his points. Hooray for opinions, discussion, and disagreement!

Sure. You can agree or disagree with my points (I'm not even sure about many), but please don't take away my (or anybody's) faculty to discuss about it.

Uh... I don't think anyone posting in this thread has the ability to ban you. I think you're good to go on that front.

The title and OP are only inflammatory if you have a defensive stance. And no, people didn't always keep the discussion health - some dismissed it without any argument.

This is not like discussing "what Jesus did wrong in the Bible". It is a game done by people like us. Sure, very capable people, but if you can't find a single flaw in this game, you are fanatical.

It is mildly hilarious to me that you accuse other people of being defensive.

And "Don't Agree That The Things You're Saying FFG Did Wrong Are Flaws And Think That Some Of Your Suggestions Would Actively Make The Game Worse" <> "Can't Find A Single Flaw In The Game".

Are they not defensive? Somehow I got that feeling.

Indeed, these are not the same thing. If you elaborate your opinions it would be easier to argue.

Just because someone doesn't agree with his opinion it doesn't mean he is being insulting. Yeah, sure, he could have chosen some better words to use, but I thought it was pretty obvious he wasn't trying to insult anyone with his original post. I can tell the folks who's lives revolve around this game, because they are the ones who get sooooo insulted everytime someone comes up with an idea about the game they don't agree with, or nitpick about an aspect of the game they don't like. Seriously, who gives a *hit what he thinks the game should be like?

But you're right, probably best if I leave it there.

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.

Start with an inflammatory title and opening post, then dismiss the people who were to-that-point-fairly-civilly explaining why a lot of your ideas were wrong-headed as "white knights" and you can't be that surprised when the tone goes downhill fast, y'know?You're gonna reap just what you sow, etc.

Just because someone doesn't agree with his opinion it doesn't mean he is being insulting. Yeah, sure, he could have chosen some better words to use, but I thought it was pretty obvious he wasn't trying to insult anyone with his original post. I can tell the folks who's lives revolve around this game, because they are the ones who get sooooo insulted everytime someone comes up with an idea about the game they don't agree with, or nitpick about an aspect of the game they don't like. Seriously, who gives a *hit what he thinks the game should be like?

If you don't like it, don't read it. If you do, don't be a *ss about it. He's trying to be constructive PERIOD

What is wrong with that?

Nothing. There's also nothing wrong with people disagreeing with him and countering his points. Hooray for opinions, discussion, and disagreement!

Sure. You can agree or disagree with my points (I'm not even sure about many), but please don't take away my (or anybody's) faculty to discuss about it.

Uh... I don't think anyone posting in this thread has the ability to ban you. I think you're good to go on that front.

Thank goodness!

Just because someone doesn't agree with his opinion it doesn't mean he is being insulting. Yeah, sure, he could have chosen some better words to use, but I thought it was pretty obvious he wasn't trying to insult anyone with his original post. I can tell the folks who's lives revolve around this game, because they are the ones who get sooooo insulted everytime someone comes up with an idea about the game they don't agree with, or nitpick about an aspect of the game they don't like. Seriously, who gives a *hit what he thinks the game should be like?

Did I say "insulting"? I said "inflammatory". As in, high-handed, emotive, reactionary and dismissive. If your title and first post are kind of dickish, it's a bit rich clutching your pearls if people are a bit dickish back.But you're right, probably best if I leave it there.

So, you think that because he thinks the game has some flaws and would like to have seen it designed differently, that he's being a ****, and that in turn he deserves to be talked to like a ****?

His OPINION is different than yours. Get use to it!

Bah, while I can respect coming up with ideas to make a great game even better, most of the ideas proposed here are retro, meaning they would have to be installed when the game first came out. Even so, If we could go back in time I don't think I would apply the changes suggested because FFG does do things to make this game stay fresh and keep veterans of the game still playing while simultaneously still attracting a new audience:

1. Most all of the ships (generic t-65s and all e-wings beside horn aside) can still be effective in play no matter how long ago they were released.

2. When a ship does start to see diminished roles in builds, FFG is pretty good at coming up with upgrade cards to make them viable once more. See: tie advanced title, tie interceptor title and rebel aces a wing upgrade cards as proof of this.

3. No build ever stays on top alone as the "unbeatable build" that nothing else can beat. Think of all the builds people have come up with that now have at least some way to counter them, tie swarms, fat han, super dash, even the new hot thing of a TLT mini swarm can be countered if played right.

4. Finally placement of ships and how you fly them matter just as much as the actually build you put out there.

All this leads to a pretty balanced game actually, more than any other miniatures game I've played anyway. The only small gripe I would have is that sometimes great upgrade cards are included only in expensive expansions for no other reason than to intice you to buy the expansion to get said card (c3po for example) but hey, that's what all businesses do when they have a hot commodity.

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.

Start with an inflammatory title and opening post, then dismiss the people who were to-that-point-fairly-civilly explaining why a lot of your ideas were wrong-headed as "white knights" and you can't be that surprised when the tone goes downhill fast, y'know?You're gonna reap just what you sow, etc.

Just because someone doesn't agree with his opinion it doesn't mean he is being insulting. Yeah, sure, he could have chosen some better words to use, but I thought it was pretty obvious he wasn't trying to insult anyone with his original post. I can tell the folks who's lives revolve around this game, because they are the ones who get sooooo insulted everytime someone comes up with an idea about the game they don't agree with, or nitpick about an aspect of the game they don't like. Seriously, who gives a *hit what he thinks the game should be like?

If you don't like it, don't read it. If you do, don't be a *ss about it. He's trying to be constructive PERIOD

What is wrong with that?

Nothing. There's also nothing wrong with people disagreeing with him and countering his points. Hooray for opinions, discussion, and disagreement!

Did I strike a cord?

Pilot cards just... don't work. If you leave them open to all ships, you have a balance nightmare. If you try to limit them to a few ships, backwards compatibility becomes tricky.

FFG might have been able to separate pilots from ships if they went with a more traditional pen, paper, and rulebook approach for list building, but that would significantly alter the aesthetics of the game, and definitely did not fit with their original vision for the game.

The new manuvers are fine, in my opinion. As for Tech upgrades, they're clearly there to give Sequel Trilogy ships their own identity. While another Tech upgrade or two in the core set would have been nice, their existance makes perfect sense.

Things I feel were genuine mistakes on FFG's part...

Large Ships are too maneuverable. Remember that scene where the Tie Fighters pursuing the Falcon from the Death Star easily overtake it and outmaneuver it? That doesn't happen in this game. I think I'd give the PWTs a dial more like the K-wing, maybe without the 3-Banks. The Firespray and Shuttle would probably also need to be tweaked, although since the Aggressor is just an overgrown starfighter, it could probably stay as is. Obviously, points costs would be adjusted.

I also wish tactician had some sort of drawback to it. Ion Cannons reduce damage to one, R3-A2 gives you stress, Flechette Cannon doesn't double stress people and can't do more than one damage, Ion and Flechette munitions are one-use... I understand that tactician plays an important part in the current metagame and is balanced fine, but I really, really do not enjoy playing against it (And for the record, I'm talking about using non-turreted ships here).

I will never have an issue with someone trying to be creative (unless that creativity involves hurting innocents), even if I disagree with their views. I personally like the pilot card idea. Whether it would work better or not, I don't know. But I think it's worth discussing. What better place for it than here?

Hats off to the OP for his efforts to discuss ways we could possibly better the game we all love.

Sorry to those who found a way to be personally insulted for him sharing his opinion about a game.

Pilot cards just... don't work. If you leave them open to all ships, you have a balance nightmare. If you try to limit them to a few ships, backwards compatibility becomes tricky.

FFG might have been able to separate pilots from ships if they went with a more traditional pen, paper, and rulebook approach for list building, but that would significantly alter the aesthetics of the game, and definitely did not fit with their original vision for the game.

The new manuvers are fine, in my opinion. As for Tech upgrades, they're clearly there to give Sequel Trilogy ships their own identity. While another Tech upgrade or two in the core set would have been nice, their existance makes perfect sense.

Things I feel were genuine mistakes on FFG's part...

Large Ships are too maneuverable. Remember that scene where the Tie Fighters pursuing the Falcon from the Death Star easily overtake it and outmaneuver it? That doesn't happen in this game. I think I'd give the PWTs a dial more like the K-wing, maybe without the 3-Banks. The Firespray and Shuttle would probably also need to be tweaked, although since the Aggressor is just an overgrown starfighter, it could probably stay as is. Obviously, points costs would be adjusted.

I also wish tactician had some sort of drawback to it. Ion Cannons reduce damage to one, R3-A2 gives you stress, Flechette Cannon doesn't double stress people and can't do more than one damage, Ion and Flechette munitions are one-use... I understand that tactician plays an important part in the current metagame and is balanced fine, but I really, really do not enjoy playing against it (And for the record, I'm talking about using non-turreted ships here).

Interesting. You don't find that the Range 2 only restriction is limiting enough?

Pilot cards just... don't work. If you leave them open to all ships, you have a balance nightmare. If you try to limit them to a few ships, backwards compatibility becomes tricky.

FFG might have been able to separate pilots from ships if they went with a more traditional pen, paper, and rulebook approach for list building, but that would significantly alter the aesthetics of the game, and definitely did not fit with their original vision for the game.

The new manuvers are fine, in my opinion. As for Tech upgrades, they're clearly there to give Sequel Trilogy ships their own identity. While another Tech upgrade or two in the core set would have been nice, their existance makes perfect sense.

Things I feel were genuine mistakes on FFG's part...

Large Ships are too maneuverable. Remember that scene where the Tie Fighters pursuing the Falcon from the Death Star easily overtake it and outmaneuver it? That doesn't happen in this game. I think I'd give the PWTs a dial more like the K-wing, maybe without the 3-Banks. The Firespray and Shuttle would probably also need to be tweaked, although since the Aggressor is just an overgrown starfighter, it could probably stay as is. Obviously, points costs would be adjusted.

I also wish tactician had some sort of drawback to it. Ion Cannons reduce damage to one, R3-A2 gives you stress, Flechette Cannon doesn't double stress people and can't do more than one damage, Ion and Flechette munitions are one-use... I understand that tactician plays an important part in the current metagame and is balanced fine, but I really, really do not enjoy playing against it (And for the record, I'm talking about using non-turreted ships here).

This here, is constructive, mature, and respectful discussion.

I would really have liked movement templates for turn and bank 4 and 5. That would've opened up design space for Interceptors and A-Wings to really differentiate them.

A more varied damage deck with stuff that hampers maneuvering for instance ("all right turns are now red", or "you must perform a straight 1 maneuver").

That's basically all I would change when rebuilding from the ground up.

I will never have an issue with someone trying to be creative (unless that creativity involves hurting innocents), even if I disagree with their views. I personally like the pilot card idea. Whether it would work better or not, I don't know. But I think it's worth discussing. What better place for it than here?

Hats off to the OP for his efforts to discuss ways we could possibly better the game we all love.

Sorry to those who found a way to be personally insulted for him sharing his opinion about a game.

I seriously cannot find any posts in this thread that fit that description. I do find posts where people seem to be personally insulted because there are people debating/countering the OP's ideas.

Pilot cards just... don't work. If you leave them open to all ships, you have a balance nightmare. If you try to limit them to a few ships, backwards compatibility becomes tricky.

FFG might have been able to separate pilots from ships if they went with a more traditional pen, paper, and rulebook approach for list building, but that would significantly alter the aesthetics of the game, and definitely did not fit with their original vision for the game.

The new manuvers are fine, in my opinion. As for Tech upgrades, they're clearly there to give Sequel Trilogy ships their own identity. While another Tech upgrade or two in the core set would have been nice, their existance makes perfect sense.

Things I feel were genuine mistakes on FFG's part...

Large Ships are too maneuverable. Remember that scene where the Tie Fighters pursuing the Falcon from the Death Star easily overtake it and outmaneuver it? That doesn't happen in this game. I think I'd give the PWTs a dial more like the K-wing, maybe without the 3-Banks. The Firespray and Shuttle would probably also need to be tweaked, although since the Aggressor is just an overgrown starfighter, it could probably stay as is. Obviously, points costs would be adjusted.

I also wish tactician had some sort of drawback to it. Ion Cannons reduce damage to one, R3-A2 gives you stress, Flechette Cannon doesn't double stress people and can't do more than one damage, Ion and Flechette munitions are one-use... I understand that tactician plays an important part in the current metagame and is balanced fine, but I really, really do not enjoy playing against it (And for the record, I'm talking about using non-turreted ships here).

Interesting. You don't find that the Range 2 only restriction is limiting enough?

It takes a bit of practice, and a number of ships are better at avoiding it, but good rebel control players have no trouble getting it off. Again, it might not necessarily be unbalanced, and it's probably necessary for the metagame, but it creates unenjoyable play experiences for the opponent. It feels similar to playing against Draw-Go control in magic, to be honest.