Sure, but would also invalidate peoples old sets - and prizes.

It's possible, but if we work on the assumption they try to stay backward compatible you also have the prospect of either banning the ordinance fixes on a card-by-card basis, or entirely overpowering it, at this point. It would have worked, but I'm just not convinced it would still work now. I guess we can blame the card-based balance patch nature for ordinance as the key there.

(I'm still puzzled why they didn't just declare that Attack(Target Lock) and Attack(Focus) didn't modify the dice with the upgrade in question, which would've been enough to buff such weapons; instead we got guidance chips. Mathematically it works out, but one would've been a tidy little FAQ. Shrug.)

Considering fighters don't work thematically in Armada I respond with a resounding nope.

A second edition will invariably invalidate some stuff a new edition is the only time that should happen.

Of course how they'll handle redux cards without buying the ship's all over again is the big question.

For X wing 2.0 I can see them changing the points values completely, probably going to 200/300 point games and increasing the points for ships/upgrades so they can fine tune the points for things a lot better than they can now.

I think they will keep the attack/defence dice and templates as they are now although I would like to see a manoeuvre template like the armada one

I'm just not sure how they would implement the change over though as what ever they do will invalidate a lot of, if not all, the upgrade cards.

Urgh imagine flying a swarm with the armarda template...

Urgh imagine flying a swarm with the armarda template...

id hate to get rid of x-wing dials

maneuvering is the best part of this game

They really are entirely different games.

As they should be. Small-scale dogfighting compared to (relatively) large-scale fleet actions.

No

But no overall Armada should give you very little to no indication of what FFG may due with a hypothetical X-wing 2.0.

Armada has different mechanics because it needs different mechanics in order to differentiate itself from X-wing. The two games will always be different in fundemental ways because FFG wants to be able to sell both games. If they were too similar one would fail.

The only thing I'd expect them to do is raise the point costs and point limit so they have more room to cost things appropriately. There's a lot of stuff that are equal in cost that just outright shouldn't be and only are because there is no 1.5pt upgrade.

I'd agree on pretty much all accounts.

I especially agree with the idea of having a higher point limit to enable finer control of things. If I look back one of the things I disliked about WotC's StarWars minis game was that it used massive 10 point steps for damage and hitpoints instead of the 5 points steps that the DDM game used. When the stats were also supposed to be comparable to the RPG game stats there is a massive jump when you go from 10 damage to 20 damage while going from blaster pistols (3d6 average 10.5=10) to blaster rifles (3d8 average 13.5 = 15) just to keep make them different. In X-Wing if everything were double the points it would open up space for the +/- 1 adjustments as whole numbers that should be half point changes now.

I sometimes think that FFG could introduce a 3rd die type into X-Wing that could represent a "half" result. Make it an 8 sided die with two Evade, Hit, Focus, and Blank results on them. When rolled you have a 1/4 chance of getting what you want and an additional 1/4 chance of getting something you could turn into something desired; the result that is unrelated to what you're rolling would be considered unmodifiable (but possibly re-rollable) failures instead of simple blanks.

Looking at the TFA coreset, It looks like we are already in "X-wing 2.0". New rocks, new damage deck, and new upgrades that are compatible with older stuff. (IA, BB-8, wired, etc.).

Thing is, 1.0 is still fully compatible.

It's the perfect release.

I think they would get rid of primary weapon turrets and use the Shadowcaster mechanic they came up with. I think the black ordnance dice would be a brilliant idea. I think the core flight mechanic of the game is really solid though, I don't see them changing that. 200 point games with upgrades 2x the cost would allow for more minor differentiation between upgrades ans ships and afford them to balance things slightly better. I think they'll never make a 1 attack ship again.

Honestly though they have a really good game on their hands, it would all be minor changes.

They really are entirely different games.

As they should be. Small-scale dogfighting compared to (relatively) large-scale fleet actions.

I mean, that doesn't mean Armada doesn't have some good ideas that could improve X-wing, differently coloured dice for example, round limits, objectives, those are all things that can make X-wing a better game.

I don't think Armada works too well with X-wing. The entire striped down of the squadron mechanics is proof with no docking, no hyperspace (they all have to start next to a capital ship), and a very limited stats and abilities.

I think they might want to introduce a new secondary weapon die and put ordnance there.

Objectives don't make sense for X-wing the way they do for Armada. Again you're just homogenizing the games for the sake of doing it.

Alternating activations also comes with its own baggage. It inherently places a large emphasis on having more activations then your opponent. The advantage in being able to sandbag activations so your opponent has to activate is huge. Gaining uncontested activations is likewise huge.

Urgh imagine flying a swarm with the armarda template...

/tries flying swarm with armada template

Board littered with traffic jammed mess

/goes back to flying swarm with X-Wing dials

Board littered with traffic jammed mess

I don't see the difference.

I don't think Armada works too well with X-wing. The entire striped down of the squadron mechanics is proof with no docking, no hyperspace (they all have to start next to a capital ship), and a very limited stats and abilities.

lack of over-complicated baggage is somehow incompatible with a game praised for how streamlined and easy to understand the rules are ?

not that one needs to steal from Armada, mind, but of all the non-sequiturs I've read this is the only one that's tried to pass as an argument

Armada doesnt play at all like xwing does. Its got a ton of mechanics that are either handled way differently or are completely unique between the two.

If anything, Armada should be a template to follow for Epic Xwing. **** near every complaint i have about the epic ships would be resolved if they simply added a few rules from Armada...namely "Fighter in range 1, cant target ship!" and the ability to tag several fighters for light damage instead of trying to obliterate a single fighter (which isnt even done right imo in xwing).

Only complaint i have about epic xwing ships that wouldnt be fixed like this is the slots they gave us lol. Personally i feel like the Teams slot is pretty **** pointless to have more than 1 of. Engineering Team is awesome, others are either meh or utterly useless.

X-Wing Epic feels more like the movies than Armada does to me. In the movies, the capital ships aren't wiping out entire squads of fighters, they are shooting at each other and occasionally one of their turbo-lasers catches a poor sap that was paying too much attention to the TIE Fighter he's trying to get a bead on. Smacking into a capital ship while dog-fighting is usually a bigger threat than being shot by one. The big ships are just the backdrop for the action and an environmental hazard in the movies.

I haven't played Armada but from what I have seen of it I agree with the others that say it plays different enough that neither would fit the goal of the other. I'd much rather they both continue seperate but equal to each other.

The biggest change I'd like to see is with the dice. Both games use 8 sided correct? I think at least 10's but ideally 12's would be great and add more depth to either system.

I haven't played Armada but from what I have seen of it I agree with the others that say it plays different enough that neither would fit the goal of the other. I'd much rather they both continue seperate but equal to each other.

The biggest change I'd like to see is with the dice. Both games use 8 sided correct? I think at least 10's but ideally 12's would be great and add more depth to either system.

Nah, 8-sides are neat and FFG-ish. Hipsthor-dice

Armada has different dice (sides are different for colours) and they have overlapping range bands of attack.

That's a grand idea and works perfectly. That's definitely a go-to variant for X-w2.0

although It might sound weird, but to my perverted mind there are merits of clicking ruler.

it surely bumps PS race further so it's definitely a no-go-area, BUT the speed-control is great.

In X-wing we have instantly stopping-boosting-striptease-pole-dancing-turn-around-in-the-same-place PWTs that don't feel remotely close to something logical (speaking of logic in a universe with DENSE VACUUM)

And to me, actions must be declared when the dial is revealed.

If they were going to do an X-Wing 2.0 I'd like to see a third "invisible" upgrade slot, along side modifications and titles.

This slot is where I'd like to see all the upgrades that don't affect the ship they're assigned to. There are a bunch of great cards like Wingman and Bodyguard or Squad Leader that are never quite good enough for me to want to put on a ship with an EPT. But a support ship at PS 1 or PS2 with a cheap upgrade that can help the squad? Yes please!

Objectives don't make sense for X-wing the way they do for Armada. Again you're just homogenizing the games for the sake of doing it.

Depends on the objectives. Some of the scenarios make for very interesting games.

We've run a couple of game night kits using the expansion & core set scenarios, and they do provide different tactical challenges to 'first one to die loses'. The Political Escort (core set) and Preyhunter (Slave 1) particularly.

Alternating activations also comes with its own baggage. It inherently places a large emphasis on having more activations then your opponent. The advantage in being able to sandbag activations so your opponent has to activate is huge. Gaining uncontested activations is likewise huge.

Definitely agree on this one. My previous fleet combat game was A Call To Arms, by Mongoose, which was a game crippled by a focus on initiative using this mechanic - "initiative sinks" were a critical part of your fleet whose effect bore no resemblance to reality per se but made all the difference in game. A player with more ships can potentially move in, then next turn shoot a target and move away again, without ever letting the other ship shoot back at it.

Now in X-wing, that happens if you're sufficiently good to dance around someone's arc of fire so you have a shot and they don't (fair enough; it's a dogfighting game - you should be able to do that!), or if you shoot first and they suffer spontaneous existence failure. But if two ships end up parked nose-to-nose at point blank range, not getting to shoot feels a bit...... harsh. Especially if (as I've seen on nearby tables a few times) it's a star destroyer outmanoeuvring a smaller ship, simply by virtue of having two corvettes elsewhere on the board....

Especially if (as I've seen on nearby tables a few times) it's a star destroyer outmanoeuvring a smaller ship, simply by virtue of having two corvettes elsewhere on the board....

That's no Infinity, mate!

IN Armada it takes extreme planning to maange such a feat

end your turn where needed, flip initiative (perfect idea for X-wing!)

and then shoot and fly past the dangerous arc to a less dangerous one.

I think X Wing 2.0 if it were ever to happen should only need rules changes and calefactions and repackaging. so when you buy an A wing it come with AT refit title. Interceptor comes with AT PTL, Tie advanced comes with the fix and so on. this way I don't have to buy 5 ships to make 1 work. 2.0 should not make old cards and ship invalid.

the only 2 things I would X wing to have that Armada has is no green dice only tokens and with secondary weapons they should work like a constraint fire command. I roll my attack die see the result then add a die to fire a torp or missile. so if I roll bad I can keep the torp or missile to fire later. but this will never happen

I think people are looking at this a bit too large scale, I'm not saying, completely overthrow the movement mechanics, I'm more curious about if there's just some small design decisions made for Armada that hint that FFG would have handled things a bit differently were they to make X-wing again now.