FFG is also addressing IDs. That could be part of why the whining stopped.

They may have addressed it but has anything actually changed? In some ways it is almost like saying "we're looking into Fortressing" which is another thing some people loved to whine about like it is a REALLY BIG DEAL when it really isn't.

They may have addressed it but has anything actually changed?

No nothing has and we don't even know if they'll actually get rid of it in the end.

Same issue with Imperial Assault when they nerfed a few units. You got replacements at the store championship, but only the first 32 did, and only one copy. At least there you can print out the errata... Which I suppose could work here, some sort of sticker over the existing base card, you could print out. But that all presumes that FFG actually wants to change how PWT work...

Nothing has changed YET. It's going to change in the August update to the tournament rules though, when they're going to remove draws from their single-game swiss games (of which x-wing is one). If there's no draws at all, then by definition there can't be Intentional Draws (source)

They still have a primary arc marked on though.

That's the thing and I'll freely admit I'm just guessing...

But as the rules stand now, any printed arc counts as an arc, for things like Autothruters or Backstabber. I'd presume that would still hold true for the MA rules, that they'd be treated like an arc even if you can't shoot from them. Because otherwise it could be a huge mess.

But the whole concept of a MA seems less of a deal if you can still shoot out the primary arc, because then what you really have is a mobile aux arc.

Although I suppose primary attacks only out of the arc the arrow is pointing at, but secondary ones from any printed arc or perhaps only the primary arc could be how it will work.

Technically, according to the faq your firing arcs are the printed and shaded portions of the ship base (so currently, auxiliary arcs and the special arc on the ghost). Only the primary arc on the shadowcaster is shaded, none of the other 3 are, so they don't, on their own, stop autothrusters and the like. Presumably there'll be something in the rules for the shadowcaster that specifies that whichever direction your mobile arc is facing DOES count as a firing arc (the arrow on the piece for the mobile arc IS shaded).

Im fairly confident you'll always be able to fire out your primary arc though. So far there's not a single ship that can't use it's primary arc (the outrider can't use it's primary WEAPON if it has a cannon, but can still use the arc since it fires 360, and the arc still matters for effects that trigger off it). The only way you wouldn't be able to fire out your primary would be if you simply didn't HAVE a primary arc (such as the rebel transport, which has no weapons period).

And the mobile arc is a BETTER deal when you can still use your primary. Now instead of an arc-dodger only having to avoid 1 arc, they hvae to avoid 2 (unless you have the mobile arc pointed forward). Look at how hard it is for an arc-dodger to approach a yv666 without getting shot. Now you can have a 180 degree (diagonal) arc on either the left or right side + front arc, or you can have a firespray style front/rear. Or you can have both forward and have easy activation of Ketsu's ability.

The argument against turrets can be more obviously observed if we look at mirror matches.

Say we face off with identical Palp+Aces list in a series of 5 games, who wins? In all likelihood the player that can better read his opponent will come out on top. We still have a luck factor with the die, but skill and decision making still remain supreme.

Now let's do the same with identical double YT1300 list, who wins? It's likely that beyond the initial engagement both players ships will have a shot 90% of the time, and the times they don't the enemy also will not have a shot. In such a situation it comes down purely to the dice to decide the victor.

The game basically becomes monopoly with space ships. Now some people like monopoly, obviously as it has been around for decades and will likely outlive us all(Sadly). I on the other hand F#%@ing hate monopoly. It's a game where human input is so minimal you can just as easily play it with your self rolling for each separate piece as you can with other people. It's more luck based than many forms of gambling. That's the basis of why people hate PWT ships so much, it replaces skill with luck.

The fact that they had to design a card that quickly became mandatory on arc dodgers specifically to counter turrets is a good indicator of poor design, mandatory upgrades are generally bad, unless we're talking the titles they're now using to give ships special abilities outside unique pilots.

As for the possibility of 2.0, I don't see why not, beyond FFG's stated desire not to make cardboard only expansions. Revamping the rules after a point almost becomes a necessity. With a constant string of expansions the problems of rule bloat, power creep, and shelf only units will continue to increase. Just about every long term wargame I can think of goes through this eventually, it seems to be the natural progression. As for the cost to consumers, I don't see it being that bad unless they stick to their guns on the cardboard thing. Realistically they could release card packs like Netrunner boxes that contain the updated ship cards and bases, then just switch back to their previous business model for 2.0. I honestly wish they did this anyway just so we could get new pilots for our favorite ships every now and then.

Ok, so say they issue 2.0 and they issue cardboard only updates. What are stores supposed to do with all outstanding inventory? Does FFG wait until every ship is sold out to swap versions? If they do how to they continue to make money during the transition? If they don't what do the stores do with the inventory? What happens to players with huge investments in ship which would require huge reinvestment in cardboard? You do understand what punch and print costs and what shipping costs right?

It would be simpler to just close down X-wing and launch a new game with the similar mechanics but redesigned completely from every angle. Simpler, fairer to stores and players and FFG.

They don't need to reissue ships, new ships have new cards, simple as that. Old ships can remain with their old cards for those that wish to play 1.0. If you want to play with the old ships in 2.0 you simply buy the cardboard expansion that could be priced between 20-40 USD. Is popping 40 bucks per faction really a huge investment? That's about the same price as a single ship.

Production wise, check out Netrunner, a card game produced by this very company. If you check the homepage you'll see that it is constantly getting expansions, faster even then this game. Using this as a basis for how much the cardboard would cost to produce, the 15$ packs have 60 cards, the deluxe expansions cost 30$ and have 165 cards, and the core set cost 40$ and has 252 cards along with the cardboard for various tokens. There is absolutely no reason that Xwing cards should cost more to produce, and using these numbers as examples I think we could easily see faction based 2.0 expansions at around 30 USD.

Sorry friend, your argument just don't hold water.

Ok, so lets do some math. First lets say we are going to just cutover to 2.0 with a hard swap. Retailers now have $15+ expansions, lets say each state has 20 game stores and each has $1000 in inventory. This would be a $1 million hurt put on just US brick and mortars, exposure to online resellers would be even greater per company and they run tighter margins as they sell on volume. Maybe the stores would accept this, maybe not but either way their inventory would essentially become reduced in value by the cost of the upgrade packs which would necessarily be more than their profit margins.

On to upgrade packs. Each needs to include all relevant ship cards and punch and upgrades for a given hull to bring them up to the new 2.0 format. Let's say upgrade cards go unchanged and only ship cards and ship punch changes. You would necessarily need to break everything down into per ship packs so that everyone could buy what they need. Lets take a $15 packaged ship and break it down. $15 MSRP, roughly $8-10 wholesale price, $6-8 FFG cost. So with that we have about $3 for the model and $3 for punch/board/plastic packaging. Lets say that can be brought down to $2 by cutting extra tokens and upgrade cards. Now back up the scale, $2 cost goes to a $3 wholesale goes to a $5 MSRP. So for the low low cost of 30% of what you already paid for each ship you own (less % for big ships) you can buy in to 2.0 and be a part of the new game. Now lets say you have a moderate collection of 8 ships per faction, your costs would be fairly moderate, only $120 plus tax to update. Now take someone with a serious collection and 1 of each ship, now you are talking almost $200. Then take some enthusiast collections and you are looking at a lot of money.

So your plan would cost FFG nothing but a reputation hit, stores would lose about $1 million, more for online sellers and players would lose about 30% of what they had already paid or would be relegated to 1.0 only. Yes, this sounds just fine for everyone and perfectly reasonable...

Okay, I really feel like you're grasping at straws here and ignoring all the evidence. Such as what this very company has already done, what it has accomplished, and how just about any major wargame that has lasted over the years has successfully transferred from one revision or more. You say let's do the math, first I think we need to take a quick lesson in capitalism. How much do you honestly believe it takes to make a deck of cards? A small Netrunner expansion will cost 15$ and contains 60 cards with a printed graphic on them, a standard deck of bicycle playing cards contains 52 cards with a printed graphic on them. I can currently buy 6 packs of bicycle playing cards for 14.50 on amazon. Why is it that something that should have **** near the same manufacturing cost be priced so much higher? Surely production is one reason, you're designing a new game. If you really want to grasp at straws you could mention the difference in ink cost for the more color heavy Netrunner cards.

The truth is that the value of any object is based off what someone is willing to pay for it. This may seem simple, but it's often forgotten when everyone assumes that because something cost more that it must automatically cost more to make and thus be better, this is simply not always the case. I call it the "Beats By Dre" syndrome. Your argument once again falls flat, this time because you're ignoring current evidence and the numbers you provided were pulled from thin air with no real world context.

The idea that FFG and our LGS would lose money because their current stock became less valuable with a 2.0 version is complete bunk. If anything it would increase the sales and thus value of said items because it would make them desirable again. How often do you think they sell the old ships that I can get in a aces pack? How about the ships that because of power creep haven't been competitive in years? Or how about the ships like the Scyk or the Hawk that practically came DOA? You don't think those ships sitting on the shelf not selling because of a design mistake is not bad for business? You're telling me that those very same ships suddenly selling again because they actually don't suck in 2.0 would depreciate their value? Nonsense. This is not blind speculation, this is something we can observe happening with other game systems such as Warhammer, WarmaHordes, ect, ect. A ships competitive value is directly linked to how well it sells, this is just common sense.

Also how are they losing a million? I'm quite confused on this, are they not selling the expansions? You saying that they're losing a million is being purposely misleading. The only way they're losing money is if they're literally giving the expansion away for free. Buying a product to sell for more then you purchased it for is making money, not losing it, not sure why you even brought this into the argument. By this flawed logic it should put every LGS out of business every time they make a new product as they can't afford to buy it. Don't be silly.

For example, you're ignoring the elephant in the room that is the epic ships such as the Tantive and the Raider. To get 1 or 2 powerful competitive cards such as C-3PO, R2-D2, and the man him self Palpatine I need to purchase a 100 dollar ship that is only usable in a barely supported(and barely played) game mode. So despite this being rather standard practice to make us purchase ships that we don't want for cards that we do, you think it's somehow worse to plop down 20-40$ to have a slew of useful and needed upgrades for our faction? You think this will tank FFG's reputation after they have already successfully made us buy a 100$ dust collector for a single upgrade card? Be real friend, that's utterly ridiculous.

At the end of the day most wouldn't even need to buy the 2.0 pack, I don't currently buy ships I don't intend to use for upgrade cards, I barely use the ones I have. It's simply easier/cost effective to use the phone app or proxy cards. The main people it would affect is the tournament goers and the collectors, and as I've already pointed out above, they're getting screwed over worse with the current system then they would be if they could just buy a deck.

The 40$ I quoted was on the high end of the spectrum by the way. Xwing currently has around 230 different upgrade cards including the epic only upgrades, and around 200 unique pilots. Split this up between the 3 factions. And once again using the Netrunner core set to give us a idea of what it cost to manufacture a new rulebook, cards, and tokens, we can determine that a faction specific 2.0 upgrade could very realistically come in at around 25$. It could very well be cheaper when you consider that production is likely cheaper for making a slight modifications to a game over creating a entirely new system.

I'm not saying the game needs a 2.0 quite yet, but I am saying that it's a good thing to consider 2-3 waves down the road. It simply allows FFG to clear up the game bloat and fix some things they've learned from experience thus far. This is the entire reason it's so common to see wargames go through these transitions. If you want to argue what should consist of a theoretical 2.0 then fine, but your argument about cost or practicality quite frankly has no more ground to stand on with the counter evidence rallied against it.

Ok,...

Okay,...

I don't think he's imagining it the same way we are - he seems to be assuming that a) existing versions of affected ships be now be redundant and b) every ship will be affected, What I was imagining, and you too I think, was there would be a small number of affected ships, and there'd be upgrade kits for them. Nothing would be rendered redundant so the shops wouldn't lose anything, and it wouldn't be anywhere near all the ships in our collections, so even if the upgrade kit cost 30% of the original pack's cost we wouldn't be paying anywhere near 30% of what we've already paid.