I believe one of the reasons that missiles and torpedoes do not work in this game is that this game represents combat at short-to-medium range. It is akin to dogfighting in the first thirty years of aerial warfare (1914 to 1944). PIlots got up close and personal to their opponents; under the right circumstances, a pilot could see into his opponent's cockpit. This changed with the advent of missiles and torpedoes which were used for medium-to-longe range combat. Pilots could now kill their enemies miles away.

As for bombs, the point about bombs is that the pilot wants distance between himself and the bomb detonation. I have read accounts of planes being buffeted by a bomb explosion, and, in some rare cases, being brought down by a bomb explosion.

I do not remember in the canon Star Wars an incident where missiles and torpedoes were fired at enemy fighters. Both, if I remember correctly, were used for the destruction of the DS and DS II reactors. (I have not seen the movies in a long time.) Again, from memory, the only use of bombs in the canon Star Wars was seen when the TIE bombers bombed an asteroid, in an effort of spooking the Millennium Falcon out of its hiding place.

I like breakfast. What do you guys and girls like for breakfast? Do you like breakfast even? I do.

Yesh...

Never get tired of this image!

Needs more cowbell though. I mean Y-wings.

This is the most spammed image ever.

I believe one of the reasons that missiles and torpedoes do not work in this game is that this game represents combat at short-to-medium range. It is akin to dogfighting in the first thirty years of aerial warfare (1914 to 1944). PIlots got up close and personal to their opponents; under the right circumstances, a pilot could see into his opponent's cockpit. This changed with the advent of missiles and torpedoes which were used for medium-to-longe range combat. Pilots could now kill their enemies miles away.

As for bombs, the point about bombs is that the pilot wants distance between himself and the bomb detonation. I have read accounts of planes being buffeted by a bomb explosion, and, in some rare cases, being brought down by a bomb explosion.

I do not remember in the canon Star Wars an incident where missiles and torpedoes were fired at enemy fighters. Both, if I remember correctly, were used for the destruction of the DS and DS II reactors. (I have not seen the movies in a long time.) Again, from memory, the only use of bombs in the canon Star Wars was seen when the TIE bombers bombed an asteroid, in an effort of spooking the Millennium Falcon out of its hiding place.

Yeah, this game(and Star Wars in general) has a lot of ww2 dogfighting in its DNA and missiles and torpedoes don't really fit that at all. I'm okay with them being a casualty.

Couple other things FFG did wrong that are really just nitpicks:

1. Maarek Stele in the Advanced. One of the only Imperial starfighters he DIDN'T fly. You had 7 options and managed to miss ALL of them.

2. Too much ordnance on the TIE Bomber. The TIE Bomber carried torpedoes OR missiles OR bombs. Not all 3 at once. And it didn't really carry any more torpedoes than a Y-Wing or more Missiles than an A-Wing. So there was no reason to give it two torpedo and 2 missile slots at all. Plus it left you with no room to go with the Punisher, which is supposed to carry 4x as much ordnance as the bomber, but they only get it one extra slot.

TIE Bomber should have had 1 Torpedo slot and 1 Bomb slot. And then the Punisher would have made sense having 2, 2 and 2(torpedos and bombs in the bottom two pods, missiles in the top 2).

3. Imperial Firesprays - I realize you did this because you didn't know you were going to do Scum at the time. But this ship never should have been Imperial.

4. The Scum and Villainy Symbol is the Mandalorian Symbol - I'm guessing this is yet another "didn't realize we were going to do it at the time." But this was a poor choice, knowing that you are now doing Subfactions, as it makes it difficult to actually do Mandalorians as a subfaction of Scum, which is something you should absolutely do.

I suppose though they could still do a Death Watch subfaction(which has a different symbol), along with things like Black Sun and Hutt subfactions.

I prefer that the pilots are tied to the ships. For me, it's more thematic having Han in the Falcon, Luke flying an X-Wing, etc. It would be silly seeing my opponent plop down Han on an E-Wing, Biggs on the Falcon, and Luke behind the wheel of a B-Wing.

Plus having the pilots separate would mean a far greater chance of broken combos since it would be more difficult to test everything thoroughly.

I don't like it in Attack Wing, and wouldn't like it here.

I do not remember in the canon Star Wars an incident where missiles and torpedoes were fired at enemy fighters. Both, if I remember correctly, were used for the destruction of the DS and DS II reactors. (I have not seen the movies in a long time.) Again, from memory, the only use of bombs in the canon Star Wars was seen when the TIE bombers bombed an asteroid, in an effort of spooking the Millennium Falcon out of its hiding place.

Before Disney did away with the EU, torpedoes were used by both Rogue and Wraith squadrons against TIEs on a regular basis in the X-Wing series of books. Now, with the new canon, you only see them used against both Death Stars and, in the Clone Wars cartoon, against capital ships like the Malevolence.

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.

And version 2 of that book went over just as well. I wonder if in a x-wing version 2 universe, people will randomly pick rules they like from version 1 and ignore the rest of it.

I pretty much don't agree with any of this. I think rather than saying it's what they did wrong or could have done better, I think it's more appropriate to say they could have done them different (not necessarily better).

1. Nope. Check out Attack Wing and the pile of dung they refer to as "design". It's terrible and requires even more suspension of disbelief. Just because someone can pilot one craft does not imply they can imply any other craft. That's true in the real world and most likely true in Star Wars (except Fel, he was awesome on so many levels).
2. This is something I may agree with but only slightly. The only ships with 2 attack are priced appropriately. The Z95 and TIE/Ln are both just 12 measely points (except the debatable pricing of the new TIE/FO). The Advanced was offered an improvement in a title. The K-Wing is a PWT and has upgrades to spare. The HWK is, well, it sucks but makes for an interesting support craft. The ORS should probably be 3 attack, but that's about it.
3. It's a minis game, you get a ton of stuff for so little money. If you're like the rest of us, you'll end up buying the extra ship regardless.
4. Tech is not the same as System. Adding it in wave 3 is hardly adding it "late". Tech is a way of pricing the new ships higher so players get something for the extra points. Plus, more slot types equals more design space. This is a good thing.

Personally, the only thing I wish they had done would be to use normal d8 dice (or better yet, d12 or d20). The distribution of the current dice lead to some insane moments of elation and depression (nothing better/worse than Fel getting killed after he rolls 3 blanks to 3 hits).

All it does is create balance problems and ridiculous combinations that would never happen in the lore.

And unlocked pilots wouldn't? I doubt Vader would ever step outside of his TIE interceptor, and his wingman, Mauler Mithel, who died at Yavin'd be a great fan of the TIE phantom.

But who is to say the pilots would have retained the same abilities under that sort of a design so as to make them so potent in those particular ships?

The debate isn't about what if the game was exactly the same, but with seperated pilot cards. It's about what if the game was designed with these different mechanics? Pilots abilities could then have been designed to make them more compatible with the ship they were more known for flying.

True, the abilities would be much more conservative and limited such as to be balanced on every ship (or at least not overpowered on any), and future ship design would be hampered by having to make all past pilots balanced on it.

I understand why they chose the path they did.

To be completely honest, from my understanding of things, I don't think it would matter either way. There would be flaws inherent in either system. Both ways would have pros and cons. But until the other way is tried, there is no saying which way would be better, other than that of personal opinion. And even if both ways existed, it would still be just opinion as to which is "better". My guess is that they probably went the way they did simply because the mechanics are easier to work out, and because it is cheaper to produce.

But...wasn't the other way tried in Attack Wing?

I do not remember in the canon Star Wars an incident where missiles and torpedoes were fired at enemy fighters. Both, if I remember correctly, were used for the destruction of the DS and DS II reactors. (I have not seen the movies in a long time.) Again, from memory, the only use of bombs in the canon Star Wars was seen when the TIE bombers bombed an asteroid, in an effort of spooking the Millennium Falcon out of its hiding place.

If by canon you mean original trilogy, no. But Jango Fett launches warheads at Obi-Wan in Attack of the Clones and a tri-fighter shoots missiles at Anakin and Obi-Wan in Revenge of the Sith (these latter ones blow up and release buzz droids).

The X-Wing books, which were based off of the popular video games, had X-wings launching proton torpedoes at enemy fighters all the time, if I remember correctly.

Torpedoes are meant for taking out larger targets and should be difficult, but devastating, when used in dogfighting. Would be a bit nicer if they had some kind of bonus for hitting when used against large or huge ships. Missiles, I think, are meant to be more effective in dogfighting. I think to reflect that, they should have designed torps and missiles that are meant to be more devastating to have to spend their target lock when rolling damage, increasing their chance of dealing the heavy damage they are known for, but only if they score a hit on the original roll. Then, have the more agile torps and missiles designed for dogfighting have to spend their target lock to shoot, allowing the re-roll of all dice if no hit is scored on the original roll.

You know... sometimes I think I liked this game more before it became the raging success that it has. Honestly, some of you seem to be impossible to make happy.

"This is wrong, because I don't remember it in any of the three dozen novels I read."

"This is broken, because it works too well against how I like to play."

"This is stupid, because I haven't figured out how to use quite effectively for my play style."

"This is a poor game design, because they didn't think of this four years ago when they first designed the game. Dummies."

Eesh.

All it does is create balance problems and ridiculous combinations that would never happen in the lore.

And unlocked pilots wouldn't? I doubt Vader would ever step outside of his TIE interceptor, and his wingman, Mauler Mithel, who died at Yavin'd be a great fan of the TIE phantom.

But who is to say the pilots would have retained the same abilities under that sort of a design so as to make them so potent in those particular ships?

The debate isn't about what if the game was exactly the same, but with seperated pilot cards. It's about what if the game was designed with these different mechanics? Pilots abilities could then have been designed to make them more compatible with the ship they were more known for flying.

True, the abilities would be much more conservative and limited such as to be balanced on every ship (or at least not overpowered on any), and future ship design would be hampered by having to make all past pilots balanced on it.

I understand why they chose the path they did.

To be completely honest, from my understanding of things, I don't think it would matter either way. There would be flaws inherent in either system. Both ways would have pros and cons. But until the other way is tried, there is no saying which way would be better, other than that of personal opinion. And even if both ways existed, it would still be just opinion as to which is "better". My guess is that they probably went the way they did simply because the mechanics are easier to work out, and because it is cheaper to produce.

But...wasn't the other way tried in Attack Wing?

Argh!

Again with the Attack Wing?

There is something to be learned from Attack Wing, so it could be done better with X-Wing. (And don't say, "Yeah, the way they did X-Wing.")

You know... sometimes I think I liked this game more before it became the raging success that it has. Honestly, some of you seem to be impossible to make happy.

"This is wrong, because I don't remember it in any of the three dozen novels I read."

"This is broken, because it works too well against how I like to play."

"This is stupid, because I haven't figured out how to use quite effectively for my play style."

"This is a poor game design, because they didn't think of this four years ago when they first designed the game. Dummies."

Eesh.

And your whining about a thread that no one is forcing you to read is any better? Hypocrite much?

In fact, no one said they weren't happy. In fact, most, if not, all, love the game who are discussing this. It's a forum for discussing the game there, Sluggy. You don't like this particular discussion, your more than welcome to hit that Exit button on your keyboard. Or do you feel your opinion is just so important that you must share it?

You don't like this particular discussion, your more than welcome to hit that Exit button on your keyboard.

My keyboard doesn't have an Exit button.

I do not remember in the canon Star Wars an incident where missiles and torpedoes were fired at enemy fighters. Both, if I remember correctly, were used for the destruction of the DS and DS II reactors. (I have not seen the movies in a long time.) Again, from memory, the only use of bombs in the canon Star Wars was seen when the TIE bombers bombed an asteroid, in an effort of spooking the Millennium Falcon out of its hiding place.

Before Disney did away with the EU, torpedoes were used by both Rogue and Wraith squadrons against TIEs on a regular basis in the X-Wing series of books. Now, with the new canon, you only see them used against both Death Stars and, in the Clone Wars cartoon, against capital ships like the Malevolence.

There's a fair bit of ship-to-ship missile fire in Heir to the Jedi, as well as a mention of the Cloakshape fighter which I guess makes it the first EU ship to be officially folded into the new canon?

And of course, there's all the X-Wing video games, which were still more or less canon to the EU.

In pretty much all of them, dodging torpedoes was really easy for an even moderately maneuverable starfighter.

Until the other way is tried, there is no saying which way would be better.

You say this and then dismiss the example of the other way not working because it didn't work. How is that fair?

One of the biggest lessons to learn from Attack Wing is that more moving pieces add more balance concerns, especially when those moving pieces have to be applied universally as in the case of a pilot card. The beauty of X-Wing's system is that it allows different pilot abilities to be priced appropriately to their ship [whether or not this is applied successfully is a different discussion]. Building from the ground up we don't have to worry about things like Wedge on a B-Wing or Biggs on a Falcon, but the potential for each abuse is there. Every pilot in this system has to be balanced against every existing ship and every future ship.

Limiting pilots to certain ships solves this problem to some degree, but it also creates its own problems: "Why can't I fly Wedge on the new E-Wing? Just because the E-Wing wasn't invented when he came out?" It also significantly reduces the power that we can give to pilot abilities, even with these caveats.

This is different than missiles/torpedoes/tech/systems because those upgrades do not need to be available to every ship in the same way that a pilot clearly needs to be. Tech and systems may appear similar, but making them different allows FFG to create ships that have one or the other, both, or neither. Pilots, thematically at least, wouldn't have these various options.

Aside from these potential drawbacks, however, I also don't see any purely mechanical advantage to making pilot cards an upgrade. It makes sense from the lore, but what mechanical benefit is there from mixing and matching pilots? It potentially opens up more options to use, but how many more really? If new Wedge is available to the X,Y, and E-Wing, players will quickly find where he fits best and nothing will change from the current model until a more powerful option emerges. Bad choices don't serve an important mechanical role.

So to me the benefit--more thematic options--doesn't outweigh the balance concerns that have been demonstrated by Attack Wing.

@OP: all I have to say is:

And then you wind up with the Vader/Picard situation, where there is only one pilot worth it. Ever.

Seems like a potential false causation fallacy to me.

Attack Wing had separate pilots. Attack Wing failed. Therefor, anything with separate pilots would fail.

Am I really expected to believe that Attack Wing failed entirely because of separate pilots? Or that X-Wings success rests purely upon it's lack of separate pilots?

One could argue that, for awhile, fat turrets was the exact same thing. The same ship with the same upgrades dominating the entire metagame.

Imbalance can come in all shapes and sizes. Having separate pilots doesn't automatically cause imbalance. And not having them doesn't magically prevent it.

No. But it shows that you can't have the kind of powerful abilities like we currently have.

No. But it shows that you can't have the kind of powerful abilities like we currently have.

Well, I agree with that. But the point of the thread was "What FFG did wrong."

Obviously, there's no changing it now. It's the kind of thing the entire game has to be designed around. It's just a "wish they'd done it this way from the start" type thing.

After writing my last post, I had a recollection of Jango Fett battling Obi-Wan Kenobi in the ring system of a planet. I have not seen the prequels in a long time, and I know more about the originals as I watched them more.

Pilots are trained for a specific aircraft type: fighter, (fighter)-bomber, and transport/cargo. Another type, the tanker, came into use after WWII.

I believe FFG selected the Mandalorian symbol as it is the most recognized of the scum faction symbols. The others are less known or not known at all. I know the symbol for Black Sun. I do not know the symbol for the Car'das smugglers nor the Hutt Cartel. According to FFG, Scum and Villainy is a subfaction of Scum. (TFA Core Set, "Learn to Play", pg. 15)