Draw line of sight/range post to post like is intuitive rather than closest to closest... on a SQUARE.

Oh, I think I would upgrade the HWK to a large base to make it the Lambda counterpart it was meant to be.

Oh, I think I would upgrade the HWK to a large base to make it the Lambda counterpart it was meant to be.

Oh, I think I would upgrade the HWK to a large base to make it the Lambda counterpart it was meant to be.

I rather like it as a Lambda-counter-but-not-quite. But chances are that its points cost and hull were modelled after the X-Wing. My feeling is that the HWK could use an extra hull and/or shield.

I think it was actually designed to fit on a large base, and then scaled down for whatever reason. Wookieepedia has its size equivalent to a YT or Lambda.

I still have to try it out though, but it feels as if it makes more sense on a large base.

AKA Phantom has 3 firepower and defender has 4.

Nope and Nooope.

Phantom nerf is only added if problems persist, defender fix only if it doesn't pull through.

The Phantom nerf made flying the Phantom more skilled, more thematic and most of all more interesting. And you'd rather have a boring number increase (with no thought or testing as to how gamebreaking a Defender with 4 attack dice would be) than the awesomeness that is the X/7 and TIE/D titles?

Corran Horn's second shot costs a shield, because reasons.

That's stupid, and I don't know where you got this idea from, or why you think it's a good one.

Instead of all this ill thought out patch work nonsense. Which in theory is great, but in practice has lots of hidden consequences.

Ill thought out? As opposed to pulling numbers out of our asses and saying the Defender is 4 attack and the Phantom is 3? Just because? Not to mention the logistical nightmare of informing everyone who plays the game that the numbers on their cards are printed wrong, and they need to buy a replacement/print out the errata.

It's not a video game. You can't just 'patch' stuff and change numbers around until the game works. Not to mention it can't be as granular as a Video game. If a gun fires too fast, they can tweak it so it fires 0.1 shot per second less. In this game, you either have an attack dice, or you don't. There is no 1/2 attack dice, and so randomly errata-ing ships to have more attack just because you feel like they need a boost is not only lazy, but irresponsible.

I wouldn't change a **** thing. Because as interesting as many of these proposed changes are, they make the game more complicated and rules heavy. Many of us forget that the simplicity of the system is what pulled us in at the beginning, allowing us to focus on our squad building and flight skill rather than lots of different attack types and fancy-shmancy rules mods. As irritating as some of these components might be to us, like turrets, the players who stick with the game long enough will eventually figure out our preferred method around them. But new players need the simplicity that allows the game to stick to being just plain fun.

1) Attacks outside of a printed firing arc are treated as range 3 by the defender.

Breaks every SWT in the game apart from TLT.

Oh boy, where to start!

Ok, first of all the cards are gone. Everything is done with a roster, and all the rules are in a booklet. You mark damage and critical hits with a pen and paper, on your roster. Critical hits are generated with a D6 or 2D6.

On that note, the custom D8s are gone, and damage is caused by a two-stage hit-then-damage process using D6s.

As a rough idea, each ship would have a number of dice that it would roll for each action. A success would always be on a 5+. Pilots would, in addition to having unique rules and abilities, have modifiers to their ships dice. So an X Wing might have 3/3 attack dice, meaning he rolls three dice to hit his opponent, and if he hits then he rolls 3 dice to damage them. Then Wedge Antilles might increase that to 4/4, and add a further +1 to all dice rolled. Focusing could allow you to either add a die or add +1 to your rolls or something. This is all just brainstorming off the top of my head. In fact, I think I'd like to see an adaptation of the might/will/fate system from the LotR rules.

Finally, I think I'd make it impossible to do more than a single re-positioning action in a turn. Agile ships already have better agility and better dials, as well as access to better re=positioning actions. If you want to get out of someone's arc, you should have to do that in (mostly) in the planning phase when you set your dial, not rely on being able to take two actions after the fact.

OMG!!! Are we turning X-Wing into 40K? Maybe we should get rid of movement templates, too, and just have everything move 6 inches ....

Oh boy, where to start!

Ok, first of all the cards are gone. Everything is done with a roster, and all the rules are in a booklet. You mark damage and critical hits with a pen and paper, on your roster. Critical hits are generated with a D6 or 2D6.

On that note, the custom D8s are gone, and damage is caused by a two-stage hit-then-damage process using D6s.

As a rough idea, each ship would have a number of dice that it would roll for each action. A success would always be on a 5+. Pilots would, in addition to having unique rules and abilities, have modifiers to their ships dice. So an X Wing might have 3/3 attack dice, meaning he rolls three dice to hit his opponent, and if he hits then he rolls 3 dice to damage them. Then Wedge Antilles might increase that to 4/4, and add a further +1 to all dice rolled. Focusing could allow you to either add a die or add +1 to your rolls or something. This is all just brainstorming off the top of my head. In fact, I think I'd like to see an adaptation of the might/will/fate system from the LotR rules.

Finally, I think I'd make it impossible to do more than a single re-positioning action in a turn. Agile ships already have better agility and better dials, as well as access to better re=positioning actions. If you want to get out of someone's arc, you should have to do that in (mostly) in the planning phase when you set your dial, not rely on being able to take two actions after the fact.

OMG!!! Are we turning X-Wing into 40K? Maybe we should get rid of movement templates, too, and just have everything move 6 inches ....

pretty sure that was their joke...

I would have scaled up hull, shields and dice numbers to give more flexibility to change things later.

For example, the Tie would have 3 attack, 5 agility, and 5 hull while the X-Wing would have had 4 attack, 3 agility and 4 hull and shield each. This would have allowed for a little more wiggle room in newer ships without changing the initial balance. Say the Lambda Shuttle still has agility 1 but the Y and B could have been 2 or something like that.

But all in all. It is really hard to complain about this awesome game.

I got nothin'.

I'm not sure, honestly. I don't... 'like' the turret mechanics per se (I really do wish there was more counterplay), but most of the changes I see end up overly complicated and break KISS, don't succeed, or just change the dice equations, neither of which help matters (I also detest anything that applies to PWT but not SWT because it makes absolutely no sense to me).

Making turrets and cannons use range modifiers is probably the most rational change, but it complicates the value of such secondary weapons that have only partial range like SWTs and HLCs (Autoblasters would actually be pretty easy because you'd know they'd only get r1 shots).

I think if I'd been on the design team from the beginning I would have argued for a slightly different bank and turn system- The existing turns and banks would be increased in speed by 1, and 5-banks and turns would be added (These would be small ship only), as well as a new, shorter 1-bank.

Finally, I'd definitely argue for cinematic mission packs of some sort like IA's deluxe Expansion packs (Sort of like Most Wanted and the Aces packs, but cross-faction).

Backwards movement. Such as a looping action, basically a backwards boost with the 1 straight. Or a ship which has, on its dial, say, -1 bank and straight, and -2 straight, all these being red.

I would have scaled up hull, shields and dice numbers to give more flexibility to change things later.

For example, the Tie would have 3 attack, 5 agility, and 5 hull while the X-Wing would have had 4 attack, 3 agility and 4 hull and shield each. This would have allowed for a little more wiggle room in newer ships without changing the initial balance. Say the Lambda Shuttle still has agility 1 but the Y and B could have been 2 or something like that.

But all in all. It is really hard to complain about this awesome game.

This is a great post. They really kind of smushed the design space for ships in the future by making the original release too tight in regards to attack and agility. If they had made it a bit wider, it may create more balance issues, so maybe that is why they did it this way. But I do agree here. More diversity in stats on ships would have been fantastic. The fact that we are already getting really cramped in some factions (Imperials Tie/Fo and Tie adv Proto are really close to the same ship, especially in stats) doesn't bode well for the future.

It's not a video game. You can't just 'patch' stuff and change numbers around until the game works. Not to mention it can't be as granular as a Video game. If a gun fires too fast, they can tweak it so it fires 0.1 shot per second less. In this game, you either have an attack dice, or you don't. There is no 1/2 attack dice, and so randomly errata-ing ships to have more attack just because you feel like they need a boost is not only lazy, but irresponsible.

Son, you need to calm down. Calling someone irresponsible and lazy over off-the-cuff hypothetical suggestions isn't warranted.

Many of us forget that the simplicity of the system is what pulled us in at the beginning, allowing us to focus on our squad building and flight skill rather than lots of different attack types and fancy-shmancy rules mods.

Two things though:

1 - The game is no longer simple. Sure, it's still pretty simple on the table top but there are now several layers of patches and bandaids and counters that need to be considered when building lists.

2 - The simplicity of the game didn't draw me in. The Star Wars drew me in.

pretty sure that was their joke...

It's no joke. X Wing could learn a lot from more traditional table-top wargames. Yes, even from 40K (Although I was thinking more Hail Caesar and SAGA when I was writing my post).

OMG!!! Are we turning X-Wing into 40K? Maybe we should get rid of movement templates, too, and just have everything move 6 inches ....

To be fair, it's an opinion based on what your background is. My background is with CCGs/LCGs/CMGs so I am fine with the card approach. I like seeing the stuff in front of me rather than memorizing or looking up in a book. Those with a more traditional wargaming background wouldn't have the issue with a book with rules.

It's not necessarily wrong, as it just depends on your background. But, I think it is obvious which FFG will be catering to.

I would have scaled up hull, shields and dice numbers to give more flexibility to change things later.

For example, the Tie would have 3 attack, 5 agility, and 5 hull while the X-Wing would have had 4 attack, 3 agility and 4 hull and shield each. This would have allowed for a little more wiggle room in newer ships without changing the initial balance. Say the Lambda Shuttle still has agility 1 but the Y and B could have been 2 or something like that.

But all in all. It is really hard to complain about this awesome game.

This is a great post. They really kind of smushed the design space for ships in the future by making the original release too tight in regards to attack and agility. If they had made it a bit wider, it may create more balance issues, so maybe that is why they did it this way. But I do agree here. More diversity in stats on ships would have been fantastic. The fact that we are already getting really cramped in some factions (Imperials Tie/Fo and Tie adv Proto are really close to the same ship, especially in stats) doesn't bode well for the future.

I don't know if i'd jack up the amount of dice floating around, but if you look at Armada and IA, they use different kinds of dice to differentiate units pretty well which would do a lot for making Ordnance less binary.

1. You should roll to hit, then roll damage.

2. There should be a genuine chance for ships to avoid fire. Y-wings and B-wings with 1 Agil cannot avoid anything. This is stupid.

3. High PS pilots should be harder to hit and more accurate. TIE's firing at Wedge and a Rookie have the same chance to hit and damage either of them... this makes NO sense. Likewise when Luke and a Rookie shoot at a TIE, they are both rolling the same dice. Why? Shouldn't the better pilot have a better chance to hit? MAD!

Don't get me wrong, I love the game, for the ships, but if this game wasn't wearing a Star Wars skin then it wouldn't get a second play-through, as the rules make no sense to me.

Don't get me wrong, I love the game, for the ships, but if this game wasn't wearing a Star Wars skin then it wouldn't get a second play-through, as the rules make no sense to me.

Agreed. The rules are just so-so, but it's cool because Star Wars.

Don't get me wrong, I love the game, for the ships, but if this game wasn't wearing a Star Wars skin then it wouldn't get a second play-through, as the rules make no sense to me.

Agreed. The rules are just so-so, but it's cool because Star Wars.

I totally disagree. Most tabletop wargames are written by people who have no concept of game design who obsess over a certain notion of logic generally deriving from older wargames and D&D. I couldn't care less about Star Wars, but this game has a very, very solid design to it that puts pretty much everything else in the dirt, including all the other flightpath games.

Don't get me wrong, I love the game, for the ships, but if this game wasn't wearing a Star Wars skin then it wouldn't get a second play-through, as the rules make no sense to me.

Agreed. The rules are just so-so, but it's cool because Star Wars.

I totally disagree. Most tabletop wargames are written by people who have no concept of game design who obsess over a certain notion of logic generally deriving from older wargames and D&D. I couldn't care less about Star Wars, but this game has a very, very solid design to it that puts pretty much everything else in the dirt, including all the other flightpath games.

It works well when you consider it as a purely mathematical exercise, but it fails the crucial test of accurately mirroring Star Wars dogfighting. And apart from that there are many design philosophies I don't like that are inherent in the way the rules are written and products are developed.

If the rules had taken a different approach right from the start, many things would have been easier to implement and there could have been an exponentially larger design space. The current rules do very little to differentiate between a highly skilled pilot and a rookie, and allow certain ships to be far more agile than they have any right to be, not to mention the mess that has been ordnance, the fat turret debacle, and the nedd for a myriad of patches and fixes all stemming from those initial design philosophies.

Frankly, it's just not a great game. It's pretty good, but without the Star Wars skin I'd never have given it a second look.

if it were just a star wars game without stupidly good mechanics, it'd have been forgotten in 2012 for the next big thing, whatever that is

we're swimming in star wars merchandise, but there is only one X-wing miniatures

if it were just a star wars game without stupidly good mechanics, it'd have been forgotten in 2012 for the next big thing, whatever that is

we're swimming in star wars merchandise, but there is only one X-wing miniatures

If it were just the mechanics without Star Wars, it'd never have made it to the end of 2012 without being discontinued.

if it were just a star wars game without stupidly good mechanics, it'd have been forgotten in 2012 for the next big thing, whatever that is we're swimming in star wars merchandise, but there is only one X-wing miniatures

If it were just the mechanics without Star Wars, it'd never have made it to the end of 2012 without being discontinued.

So I'd say you're wrong on that account.

if it were just a star wars game without stupidly good mechanics, it'd have been forgotten in 2012 for the next big thing, whatever that is we're swimming in star wars merchandise, but there is only one X-wing miniatures

If it were just the mechanics without Star Wars, it'd never have made it to the end of 2012 without being discontinued.

Uh, Wings of War (The system FFG bases the game on) is over a decade old and is still being produced. There are differences, mind you, but the spirit of the game is the same.

not to mention we have plenty of popular miniatures games without the star wars license running around, and all the non-GW ones have really solid mechanics

some people love to put too much emphasis on the license without crediting the meat of the game, i.e the actual gameplay, which makes me glad they're not on the design team

people will buy any garbage with a star wars brand on it

but it's the stuff that's simply excellent in its own regard that will stick around