I suddenly wish for a Freelancer esque game based in Star Wars.

I want Elite: Dangerous with a Star Wars skin on it.

I want elite dangerous that isn't insanely boring.

That is already out there. Elite is only boring if you make it boring. A lot of people have problems with sandbox games to actually do something which they like instead of doing something which advance their credit account. Sounds almost to much like the real world. ;-)

edit: Though I totally don't want a star wars sandbox space sim. I rather take a more interesting approach like Star Citizen for that. Though I totally would love to see a classic co-op campaign setting with X-Wings. This time maybe a little bit more Wing Commander like with branching campaigns and episodic DLCs and 8 player co-op. Battle at Yavin or Endor in modern graphics and old school X-Wing gameplay would be awesome. Even better if you add options to play imperial vs rebels pvp on those missions.

Co-op campaign would be nice, but can we make sure there's also enough content for a decent single-player campaign, as well? Some of us don't like our games to be unplayable just because the Internet's out or no one happens to be on at a given time.

LAN co-op is a must. But a special single-player campaign? Nah. A decent mission design with adjustable difficulty levels means in a space sim that it just works regardless of the amount of players. It just makes so much more fun to fly with your friends. Squad chatter and all included.

Example: Starlancer. The last few missions might have a "git gud" feeling when flying alone, but once you actually got good … well, a highly rewarding experience. And in the case that you did not got good; you just invited someone who actually was good into your game and solved the mission together.

I suddenly wish for a Freelancer esque game based in Star Wars.

I want Elite: Dangerous with a Star Wars skin on it.

I want elite dangerous that isn't insanely boring.

That is already out there. Elite is only boring if you make it boring. A lot of people have problems with sandbox games to actually do something which they like instead of doing something which advance their credit account. Sounds almost to much like the real world. ;-)

edit: Though I totally don't want a star wars sandbox space sim. I rather take a more interesting approach like Star Citizen for that. Though I totally would love to see a classic co-op campaign setting with X-Wings. This time maybe a little bit more Wing Commander like with branching campaigns and episodic DLCs and 8 player co-op. Battle at Yavin or Endor in modern graphics and old school X-Wing gameplay would be awesome. Even better if you add options to play imperial vs rebels pvp on those missions.

Co-op campaign would be nice, but can we make sure there's also enough content for a decent single-player campaign, as well? Some of us don't like our games to be unplayable just because the Internet's out or no one happens to be on at a given time.

LAN co-op is a must. But a special single-player campaign? Nah. A decent mission design with adjustable difficulty levels means in a space sim that it just works regardless of the amount of players. It just makes so much more fun to fly with your friends. Squad chatter and all included.

Example: Starlancer. The last few missions might have a "git gud" feeling when flying alone, but once you actually got good … well, a highly rewarding experience. And in the case that you did not got good; you just invited someone who actually was good into your game and solved the mission together.

Not saying the single-player campaign has to be separate, but the campaign should have enough story in it that I can enjoy it even flying alone. If your focus is entirely on the multiplayer, then you basically have X-Wing vs TIE Fighter, which was kind of the weak game of the series specifically because it didn't really have any storyline campaign.

For me X-Wing started as a non-competitive game and this is when it was the absolute best.. When people built X-Wing lists for aesthetics and theme, rather then competition. When I started competitive play the game kind of got ruined because suddenly 80% of it was basically useless in the meta game. I have shifted back to "fun play"... gotten away from 100 point standards and the game has not only turned around but really opened up to some of the most amazing table time moments I have ever had. I will never go back to competitive play, it's completely dead to me.

Dude...I agree 100% with everything you said. I'm at the same place as you. I even started my podcast to go into Casual gaming. My only problem now is that the podcast eats into my game play time!

This Thursday night I'm running the fine tuned version of a mission that is based around 4 tooled up Tie Punishers blasting a Pirate Base to bits. We tried it last week, but the Pirates were too powerful. Those Kihraxz Fighters were just brutal. I made this mission because there is a local guy that just loves Tie Punishers. So, I wanted to make a scenario where they would shine. Here's a thread with the details:

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/226174-mission-punish-them-a-tie-punisher-mission/?hl=punish+them

I suddenly wish for a Freelancer esque game based in Star Wars.

I want Elite: Dangerous with a Star Wars skin on it.

I want elite dangerous that isn't insanely boring.

That is already out there. Elite is only boring if you make it boring. A lot of people have problems with sandbox games to actually do something which they like instead of doing something which advance their credit account. Sounds almost to much like the real world. ;-)

edit: Though I totally don't want a star wars sandbox space sim. I rather take a more interesting approach like Star Citizen for that. Though I totally would love to see a classic co-op campaign setting with X-Wings. This time maybe a little bit more Wing Commander like with branching campaigns and episodic DLCs and 8 player co-op. Battle at Yavin or Endor in modern graphics and old school X-Wing gameplay would be awesome. Even better if you add options to play imperial vs rebels pvp on those missions.

Co-op campaign would be nice, but can we make sure there's also enough content for a decent single-player campaign, as well? Some of us don't like our games to be unplayable just because the Internet's out or no one happens to be on at a given time.

LAN co-op is a must. But a special single-player campaign? Nah. A decent mission design with adjustable difficulty levels means in a space sim that it just works regardless of the amount of players. It just makes so much more fun to fly with your friends. Squad chatter and all included.

Example: Starlancer. The last few missions might have a "git gud" feeling when flying alone, but once you actually got good … well, a highly rewarding experience. And in the case that you did not got good; you just invited someone who actually was good into your game and solved the mission together.

Not saying the single-player campaign has to be separate, but the campaign should have enough story in it that I can enjoy it even flying alone. If your focus is entirely on the multiplayer, then you basically have X-Wing vs TIE Fighter, which was kind of the weak game of the series specifically because it didn't really have any storyline campaign.

As I said, multi-branch campaign. And I think you blame here the wrong factor. A lot of coop games have little to no campaign, this is true and they get away with it often enough because doing stuff with your friends is fun, no matter what you play. But those games are still bad games with bad campaigns, they are basically just lucky that the competition on the co-op market is so bad,

With coop being such a huge trend in board-gaming I can only imagine when videogames will catch up and jump onto the trend. And this would be super healthy for the market as we would start to see some competition on the market. *sigh*

And btw, Balance of Power for XvT was good. Not great, because it was super bad compared to Wing Commander style multi-branch campaign designs, but it had a coop campaign. XvT at the other hand was awesome, but ahead of its time. To played tones of that before Starlancer took the top stop in multiplayer space sims. It clearly a technological experiment with a very clear focus to pvp multiplayer and it literally had campaign before they added a campaign add-on, but it was freaking awesome on LAN. I did not like it over internet, because of latency issues, but on LAN? Man it was such a blast. And TIE-Fighter Aces reign supreme in that game too as imperial agility and arc dodging annihilated rebel regen. ;-)

I suddenly wish for a Freelancer esque game based in Star Wars.

I want Elite: Dangerous with a Star Wars skin on it.

I want elite dangerous that isn't insanely boring.

That is already out there. Elite is only boring if you make it boring. A lot of people have problems with sandbox games to actually do something which they like instead of doing something which advance their credit account. Sounds almost to much like the real world. ;-)

edit: Though I totally don't want a star wars sandbox space sim. I rather take a more interesting approach like Star Citizen for that. Though I totally would love to see a classic co-op campaign setting with X-Wings. This time maybe a little bit more Wing Commander like with branching campaigns and episodic DLCs and 8 player co-op. Battle at Yavin or Endor in modern graphics and old school X-Wing gameplay would be awesome. Even better if you add options to play imperial vs rebels pvp on those missions.

Co-op campaign would be nice, but can we make sure there's also enough content for a decent single-player campaign, as well? Some of us don't like our games to be unplayable just because the Internet's out or no one happens to be on at a given time.

LAN co-op is a must. But a special single-player campaign? Nah. A decent mission design with adjustable difficulty levels means in a space sim that it just works regardless of the amount of players. It just makes so much more fun to fly with your friends. Squad chatter and all included.

Example: Starlancer. The last few missions might have a "git gud" feeling when flying alone, but once you actually got good … well, a highly rewarding experience. And in the case that you did not got good; you just invited someone who actually was good into your game and solved the mission together.

Not saying the single-player campaign has to be separate, but the campaign should have enough story in it that I can enjoy it even flying alone. If your focus is entirely on the multiplayer, then you basically have X-Wing vs TIE Fighter, which was kind of the weak game of the series specifically because it didn't really have any storyline campaign.

As I said, multi-branch campaign. And I think you blame here the wrong factor. A lot of coop games have little to no campaign, this is true and they get away with it often enough because doing stuff with your friends is fun, no matter what you play. But those games are still bad games with bad campaigns, they are basically just lucky the competition on the co-op market is so bad,

With coop being such a huge trend in board-gaming I can only imagine when videogames will catch up and jump onto the trend. And this would be super healthy for the market as we would start to see some competition on the market. *sigh*

And btw, Balance of Power for XvT was good. Not great, because it was super bad compared to Wing Commander style multi-branch campaign designs, but it had a coop campaign. XvT at the other hand was awesome, but ahead of its time. To played tones of that before Starlancer took the top stop in multiplayer space sims. It clearly a technological experiment with a very clear focus to pvp multiplayer and it literally had campaign before they added a campaign add-on, but it was freaking awesome on LAN. I did not like it over internet, because of latency issues, but on LAN? Man it was such a blast. And TIE-Fighter Aces reign supreme in that game too as imperial agility and arc dodging annihilated rebel regen. ;-)

I really don't understand which "coop games have little to no campaign" (in what sense are they coop, then?), but all I'm saying is, if they make more Star Wars piloting games, please don't ignore those of us who prefer single player.

XvT was AWESOME! I was at a point that I didn't own a pc, but rented one and spent one weekend playing that with about 12 guys. It was one of the best times ever. It was all before DHCP and we had a hell of a time getting all the IP's and subnets configured.

I still say EA would make a killing if they released XvT as a new game that was all redone with latest graphics and for all the various platforms. Then, they can come out with two expansion packs that basically are X-wing single player campaign and Tie Fighter single player campaign. I'd be ecstatic. The games would be a huge hit. They would only need to revamp the graphics.

…

I really don't understand which "coop games have little to no campaign" (in what sense are they coop, then?), but all I'm saying is, if they make more Star Wars piloting games, please don't ignore those of us who prefer single player.

Borderlands, Far Cry, and dozen of FPS Horde modes in games like COD come immediately to my mind.

Besides, hey I am not developing any space sims multiplayer games. So I have no say in that either, even when I am believe that there is no point to focus on the single player experience when a good co op campaign does work still as single player experience.

I think most X-Wing players have sort of diluted there own experiences by seeing X-Wing as a "competitive" game which is an odd thing that happens to most miniatures game but is actually completly contrary to the inspiration and purpose of the original designers. Take Warhammer 40k for example.

I totally get your point. Even Games Workshop recognized this problem and attempted to rectify it with their Fantasy equivalent. They produced Age of Sigmar with none of the points values and army composition rules from the previous edition of Warhammer. The sales results were disappointing and it was only the new core box sets offering models at a substantial discount over the individual models that saw any decent sales.

For months GW insisted that this was a new way of playing, one that emphasised fun and creativity over list building and competitive play. Eventually, in the face of slumping sales, they capitulated and released the General's Handbook which put points values and matched scenarios back in. I don't know if this about-face has changed much yet although I did buy a copy.

What this shows though is that it is in human nature to be competitive and to seek a balanced environment. Contrary to some people's feelings, I believe that scenario play and unbalanced games are actually harder and require more experienced gamers. Introduce a new gamer to that style of play and they will likely be put off by what they perceive as a 1-sided game. Even if they are the winner, they may well end up feeling that the game provides an unsatisfying experience.

My point in this rambling is not that people should only play games in one way. Far from it, I believe good games are the ones that lend themselves to being played however people want. But you have to get the basics of balanced competitive play right or you will never sustain the interest of the core gamers who make up the bulk of the hobby.

Here is what I know about Age of Sigmar, Warhammer Fantasy in general and Gamesworkshop, pull away all the fluff, books, charts and fancy models and it's still basically Yahtzee and this has ALWAYS been the case with Warhammer Fantasy. The entire game boils down to, can you roll well and how can you stack dice odds in your favor (which in the past simply meant buying the most recently released army and army book). The tactical level and mechanics level of Age of Sigmar is still very much 1985 game design and at the heart of Gamesworkshop problem is the fact that they don't seem to have any clue about what is going on in the gaming world outside their offices. They are the leader in miniatures production, but can't keep up with game design that would have been rejected at FFG 10 years ago let alone now.

Not trying to insult any Warhammer Fantasy players or anything, but I honestly believe if Gamesworkshop went to FFG and said, make us a rule-set for Warhammer Fantasy and we'll make the miniatures, Warhammer Fantasy would be insta awesome, because that is what Gamesworkshop and Warhammer Fantasy really needs.. just a bit of modern game design.

The low sales of Age of Sigmar don't surprise me because there are so many fantasy miniature games out there right now using modern game mechanics that are so much easier to get into and with Runewars we just got one more thing for Gamesworkshop to worry about.

I do understand that competitive play is very much in the consciousness of miniature gamers, X-wing and Armada would also take big hits if competitive play were removed, but if you read the X-Wing forums with any regularity here you know that the bitching about the competitive worthiness of ships, cards etc.. is relentlessly constant. The complaints about competitive play, the competition rules, the way competitions are organized among many other topics just washes all the joy out of the game. If you just look over the forums you start to believe that every person here hates the game and is miserably playing it as if someone was forcing them to and it all stems from this competitive approach to the game.

I know quite a few X-Wing players and the ones that compete are always the ones that make the game uncomfortable and suck the joy out of the room.

I'm actually okay with shuttles and jumpers and everything else being in the game. The issue I draw (and I have NO idea how you would rectify this) is the comparative rarity that you see regular attack squadrons in the game.

I'm not talking about swarms or miniswarms, but functional, small, effective units that would be similar to what you saw in the films. A group of 4 x-wings that are competitive, a flight of interceptors, etc.etc.

something that makes me feel like I'm flying a squadron again.

something we started doing in our local group for this purpose exactly was to set a rule that you could only take the same type of small base ship, only one pilot at or over ps8, and you had an upper and lower limit of 3-5 ships. It was AWESOME.

Step away from the 100/6 format and you'll find that feeling again

100/6 is great as a purely competitive exercise, but frankly it's not very Star Wars.

I have to disagree. For me it is very, very star wars. It not the focus of the movies, but it fits the universe perfectly to have this small scale skirmishes. For example when Jango hunted Obi-Wan or Anakin was trying to get rid of bounty hunters or Luke got owned by Mara Jade in her Z-95 or even whe Maarek Stele was saving the emperor (this can be cut in multiple 100pts battles with Vader, Stele and a Palp shuttle.)

It star wars, it just not all of it and epic is and should be a big part of it as well, transcending into Armada for the large battles.

Nothing wrong with either format imho, it just different and if you are in for those attack squadrons than epic should be what you are aiming for. Even the rather small campaign missions which come with the raider have a significant different feeling than those 100pts duells, which come down to one Flight of ships against another, while epic allows for full squadrons of 12 ships to fight another squadron. Both come with the optional ships which get protected by their fighters, Palp aces for example is the shuttle with Ace and his Wingman as escort, while the rebel transport is clearly that ship which needs protection from a rebel squadron.

I agree with you in principle, but in practice the competitive nature of 100/6 means that all the Star Wars is squeezed out in favour of raw dice, dice mods and action efficiency. Obi Wan or Anakin shaking off Bounty Hunters is all well and good, but playing Palp Aces vs U Boats for the sixth time in a day is not quite the same.

By and large, no one playing the 100/6 format cares about Star Wars, they just care about putting together the most efficient list they can, and with that Star Wars veneer stripped away, the game loses a lot of it's lustre for some (a lot of) people. When you step away from the hyper competitive tournament format, I find most players are happy to include some more Star Wars in their games.

But that's just my experience

I'm actually okay with shuttles and jumpers and everything else being in the game. The issue I draw (and I have NO idea how you would rectify this) is the comparative rarity that you see regular attack squadrons in the game.

I'm not talking about swarms or miniswarms, but functional, small, effective units that would be similar to what you saw in the films. A group of 4 x-wings that are competitive, a flight of interceptors, etc.etc.

something that makes me feel like I'm flying a squadron again.

something we started doing in our local group for this purpose exactly was to set a rule that you could only take the same type of small base ship, only one pilot at or over ps8, and you had an upper and lower limit of 3-5 ships. It was AWESOME.

Step away from the 100/6 format and you'll find that feeling again

100/6 is great as a purely competitive exercise, but frankly it's not very Star Wars.

I have to disagree. For me it is very, very star wars. It not the focus of the movies, but it fits the universe perfectly to have this small scale skirmishes. For example when Jango hunted Obi-Wan or Anakin was trying to get rid of bounty hunters or Luke got owned by Mara Jade in her Z-95 or even whe Maarek Stele was saving the emperor (this can be cut in multiple 100pts battles with Vader, Stele and a Palp shuttle.)

It star wars, it just not all of it and epic is and should be a big part of it as well, transcending into Armada for the large battles.

Nothing wrong with either format imho, it just different and if you are in for those attack squadrons than epic should be what you are aiming for. Even the rather small campaign missions which come with the raider have a significant different feeling than those 100pts duells, which come down to one Flight of ships against another, while epic allows for full squadrons of 12 ships to fight another squadron. Both come with the optional ships which get protected by their fighters, Palp aces for example is the shuttle with Ace and his Wingman as escort, while the rebel transport is clearly that ship which needs protection from a rebel squadron.

I agree with you in principle, but in practice the competitive nature of 100/6 means that all the Star Wars is squeezed out in favour of raw dice, dice mods and action efficiency. Obi Wan or Anakin shaking off Bounty Hunters is all well and good, but playing Palp Aces vs U Boats for the sixth time in a day is not quite the same.

By and large, no one playing the 100/6 format cares about Star Wars, they just care about putting together the most efficient list they can, and with that Star Wars veneer stripped away, the game loses a lot of it's lustre for some (a lot of) people. When you step away from the hyper competitive tournament format, I find most players are happy to include some more Star Wars in their games.

But that's just my experience

Nah, I fly Palp Aces not because it the hottest competitive list, but because is that part which I love most about star wars. I would go for scouts if that would be my thing in star wars or rebel ships, etc

The thing is the meta is so rich that you can cherry pick your tournament list based on personal taste anyway.

Your problem is not that you run for the sixth time a day a patrol mission against some suspicious contracted scouts, your problem is that this is a boring part of star wars and the game for you. You seem to getting tired of the format even when such events have to be pretty standard in that galaxy, far far away, long time ago.

And certainly, the 100pts skirmish format is for sure not a multi-branching campaign which have their own appeal. We fly quite often missions too.

I'm actually okay with shuttles and jumpers and everything else being in the game. The issue I draw (and I have NO idea how you would rectify this) is the comparative rarity that you see regular attack squadrons in the game.

I'm not talking about swarms or miniswarms, but functional, small, effective units that would be similar to what you saw in the films. A group of 4 x-wings that are competitive, a flight of interceptors, etc.etc.

something that makes me feel like I'm flying a squadron again.

something we started doing in our local group for this purpose exactly was to set a rule that you could only take the same type of small base ship, only one pilot at or over ps8, and you had an upper and lower limit of 3-5 ships. It was AWESOME.

Step away from the 100/6 format and you'll find that feeling again

100/6 is great as a purely competitive exercise, but frankly it's not very Star Wars.

I have to disagree. For me it is very, very star wars. It not the focus of the movies, but it fits the universe perfectly to have this small scale skirmishes. For example when Jango hunted Obi-Wan or Anakin was trying to get rid of bounty hunters or Luke got owned by Mara Jade in her Z-95 or even whe Maarek Stele was saving the emperor (this can be cut in multiple 100pts battles with Vader, Stele and a Palp shuttle.)

It star wars, it just not all of it and epic is and should be a big part of it as well, transcending into Armada for the large battles.

Nothing wrong with either format imho, it just different and if you are in for those attack squadrons than epic should be what you are aiming for. Even the rather small campaign missions which come with the raider have a significant different feeling than those 100pts duells, which come down to one Flight of ships against another, while epic allows for full squadrons of 12 ships to fight another squadron. Both come with the optional ships which get protected by their fighters, Palp aces for example is the shuttle with Ace and his Wingman as escort, while the rebel transport is clearly that ship which needs protection from a rebel squadron.

I agree with you in principle, but in practice the competitive nature of 100/6 means that all the Star Wars is squeezed out in favour of raw dice, dice mods and action efficiency. Obi Wan or Anakin shaking off Bounty Hunters is all well and good, but playing Palp Aces vs U Boats for the sixth time in a day is not quite the same.

By and large, no one playing the 100/6 format cares about Star Wars, they just care about putting together the most efficient list they can, and with that Star Wars veneer stripped away, the game loses a lot of it's lustre for some (a lot of) people. When you step away from the hyper competitive tournament format, I find most players are happy to include some more Star Wars in their games.

But that's just my experience

100/6?

I'm actually okay with shuttles and jumpers and everything else being in the game. The issue I draw (and I have NO idea how you would rectify this) is the comparative rarity that you see regular attack squadrons in the game.

I'm not talking about swarms or miniswarms, but functional, small, effective units that would be similar to what you saw in the films. A group of 4 x-wings that are competitive, a flight of interceptors, etc.etc.

something that makes me feel like I'm flying a squadron again.

something we started doing in our local group for this purpose exactly was to set a rule that you could only take the same type of small base ship, only one pilot at or over ps8, and you had an upper and lower limit of 3-5 ships. It was AWESOME.

Step away from the 100/6 format and you'll find that feeling again

100/6 is great as a purely competitive exercise, but frankly it's not very Star Wars.

I have to disagree. For me it is very, very star wars. It not the focus of the movies, but it fits the universe perfectly to have this small scale skirmishes. For example when Jango hunted Obi-Wan or Anakin was trying to get rid of bounty hunters or Luke got owned by Mara Jade in her Z-95 or even whe Maarek Stele was saving the emperor (this can be cut in multiple 100pts battles with Vader, Stele and a Palp shuttle.)

It star wars, it just not all of it and epic is and should be a big part of it as well, transcending into Armada for the large battles.

Nothing wrong with either format imho, it just different and if you are in for those attack squadrons than epic should be what you are aiming for. Even the rather small campaign missions which come with the raider have a significant different feeling than those 100pts duells, which come down to one Flight of ships against another, while epic allows for full squadrons of 12 ships to fight another squadron. Both come with the optional ships which get protected by their fighters, Palp aces for example is the shuttle with Ace and his Wingman as escort, while the rebel transport is clearly that ship which needs protection from a rebel squadron.

I agree with you in principle, but in practice the competitive nature of 100/6 means that all the Star Wars is squeezed out in favour of raw dice, dice mods and action efficiency. Obi Wan or Anakin shaking off Bounty Hunters is all well and good, but playing Palp Aces vs U Boats for the sixth time in a day is not quite the same.

By and large, no one playing the 100/6 format cares about Star Wars, they just care about putting together the most efficient list they can, and with that Star Wars veneer stripped away, the game loses a lot of it's lustre for some (a lot of) people. When you step away from the hyper competitive tournament format, I find most players are happy to include some more Star Wars in their games.

But that's just my experience

Yes, please keep telling me how I don't care about Star Wars because I play competitively. Why did I start playing? X-wings and TIE Fighters. Why do I still dedicate time to playing it between all the myriad other things I could be doing with my free time? Because I enjoy the competitive side. But I still like the X-wings and TIE Fighters. I just flew Wes+Corran+Biggs at GenCon, which yes is a popular list in the meta lately, but is also a competitive list that features X-wings and one of my favorite EU characters. And those games, at that level, were some of the most fun I've had with the game in a while, even if I didn't make it past the prelim group*.

The reason there's so much talk about competitive play online, here and elsewhere, is because disproportionately the people who bother to come to forums like this or the X-wing subreddit are the most dedicated, and those are disproportionately going to be the competitive players, even if they're a relatively small fraction of the total player base. There was a panel at DragonCon last year for X-wing with the original lead designer, Jay Little, where at one point either he or the moderators asked "who here is a tournament player?". 10-20% of the room raised their hands, and that's probably being generous. As much as there's a crowd here that goes on about getting people out of the tournament matchup mindset, the vast majority of X-wing players already are.

As much as some of you(the aforementioned crowd) are tired about the constant tournament talk around here, the constant counterpoint of how the way we enjoy playing being boring is equally tiring. I've tried epic, I find it slow and boring compared to the snappy pace of tournament X-wing.

PS: Balance and viability benefits everyone, at all levels of play because the less the game is won at the listbuilding step, the better it is. Notice how much complaining there is about the X-wing? It's because many of us would love to be able to take more than just Wes and Biggs to something more 'serious' than game night and not have it be a liability. What was that about not liking Star Wars?

*4-2 with crummy MoV on Day 1 if anyone cares, though I got to play against Paul Heaver, so that was still pretty cool. If you're out there Paul, I think I was too flustered after our game to remember to shake hands, especially after doing Netrunner the next day it's all a bit of a blur. So yeah, gg and sorry again about the rotten luck on the damage deck pulls.

Here is what I know about Age of Sigmar, Warhammer Fantasy in general and Gamesworkshop, pull away all the fluff, books, charts and fancy models and it's still basically Yahtzee and this has ALWAYS been the case with Warhammer Fantasy. The entire game boils down to, can you roll well and how can you stack dice odds in your favor (which in the past simply meant buying the most recently released army and army book). The tactical level and mechanics level of Age of Sigmar is still very much 1985 game design and at the heart of Gamesworkshop problem is the fact that they don't seem to have any clue about what is going on in the gaming world outside their offices. They are the leader in miniatures production, but can't keep up with game design that would have been rejected at FFG 10 years ago let alone now.

Not trying to insult any Warhammer Fantasy players or anything, but I honestly believe if Gamesworkshop went to FFG and said, make us a rule-set for Warhammer Fantasy and we'll make the miniatures, Warhammer Fantasy would be insta awesome, because that is what Gamesworkshop and Warhammer Fantasy really needs.. just a bit of modern game design.

I absolutely agree with what you're saying, but I would like to point out that game design is not like technology: It doesn't age. A clever and intuitive bit of game design will remain clever and intuitive through the years. The reason GWs games failed so often was due to a poor concept to start with, refusal to innovate, and constant changes in design philosophy. Using my Grey Knights as an example, years and years ago they started as a part faction. They shared a source book with like, three other factions and had very few options of their own. Then they were written by someone who had a "Yeah, kickass!" kind of attitude and gave them their own sourcebook, with heaps of options that were almost ALL well priced and effective, making the army a powerhouse. Then after that, their next sourcebook was written by someone with a very subdued attitude, who removed a lot of options and made some of them prohibitively expensive and prevented a lot of combinations from occuring. And so the army lost a lot of power. The problem was, a lot of OTHER sourcebooks were written by more enthusiastic authors who gave those factions lots of kickass toys, so the balance between the factions became totally skewed. I still do well with my Knights when I pull them off the shelf (picked up the best general award at the last tournament I went to) but it's such a painful, uphill struggle against over-powered enemies that I really can't be bothered any more.

And the problem with WHFB wasn't the rules, not really. Some of the rules were a bit wonky, and encouraged certain army builds, but there was still a lot more diversity in factions and faction builds than you see in X Wing. I mean, the rules weren't great, not by a long shot. You had to work through like, six or seven (sometimes very complicated) steps to get the same result that Kings of War would get in two, but that wasn't what killed it off. What killed WHFB was the enormous investment required in models. The models were hellishly expensive and you needed HUNDREDS of them. Old players already had their 3,000 points of models and didn't want to buy a new army, and new players looked at the cost and time involved in building a new army and thought "Nope!" and the end result was that NO ONE was buying WHFB models.

There's a reason that Age of Sigmar is a skirmish game, not a ranked unit game, and that reason is that it's much easier to attract a player to a new game when they only have to buy one or two boxes of models to get started.

I like FFG games, but frankly I don't think they're any better at game design than GW is. LotR is a great skirmish game, Bloodbowl remains one of the greatest 'board' games of all time, Space Hulk is fantastic, BFG has (IMO) better rules than Star Wars: Armada and Epic (whichever flavour you prefer) is such a good game that even years after it was discontinued, people are STILL recasting the models, sculpting new ones, and it continues to have a thriving tournament scene! FFGs reliance on complicated card interactions and custom dice for EVERYTHING (and measuring ranges, have they HEARD of tape-measures?). won't work for all types of games. Arguably, it barely works for X Wing! GWs big-ticket games kind of suck, but they are capable of some really great game design as well.

You know what? I want an ewok ship made out of large trees with imperial helmets strung from the sides. Crew is obvious, but I want a special condition card that involves the yub nub song. Some ewoks still never blink so that could be an accuracy type card. Now I just need a desperate writer to make this an EU ship fast so FFG can start working on it immediately.

Next wave: Christmas Special expansion!

Cuz it's all c.a.n.o.n.

Sorry I get bored.

Im extremely competitive. I hate to lose. I dont care what mindset my opponent approaches the game with. I want to win, and i want to win my way, within the ruleset. Period.

I play monopoly the same way.

If the competition wasn't real in x-wing, i wouldn't have half the miniatures i do, and i would have moved on by now. If i was looking for a more immersive star wars experience, without the competition, i would play Edge of the empire or something of that nature.

YMMV which is fine, but i sure seem to see more "casual" players worried about "competitive" players, than the other way around.

Play the game the way you enjoy to play it, and dont worry about the way others play. Diversity in game play possibilities is good for all involved.

XvT was AWESOME! I was at a point that I didn't own a pc, but rented one and spent one weekend playing that with about 12 guys. It was one of the best times ever. It was all before DHCP and we had a hell of a time getting all the IP's and subnets configured.

I still say EA would make a killing if they released XvT as a new game that was all redone with latest graphics and for all the various platforms. Then, they can come out with two expansion packs that basically are X-wing single player campaign and Tie Fighter single player campaign. I'd be ecstatic. The games would be a huge hit. They would only need to revamp the graphics.

I like FFG games, but frankly I don't think they're any better at game design than GW is.

I mean yeah, they have some unprofessional codex writers (guys who let their personal like/dislike of a faction dictate its power level) but many bad game design decisions seem to be a deliberate choice,motivated by sales numbers (new model releases usually have better rules than similar older models, new codices buffing stuff that isn't really selling to absurd levels etc.)

EDIT: talking 40k here, as it's the only GW system I interact with on a regular basis.

I like FFG games, but frankly I don't think they're any better at game design than GW is.

For me it has always been a question how much GW CAN'T design games, and how much they just WON'T.

I mean yeah, they have some unprofessional codex writers (guys who let their personal like/dislike of a faction dictate its power level) but many bad game design decisions seem to be a deliberate choice,motivated by sales numbers (new model releases usually have better rules than similar older models, new codices buffing stuff that isn't really selling to absurd levels etc.)

EDIT: talking 40k here, as it's the only GW system I interact with on a regular basis.

I think the effect is over-stated, there's just as many codexes and new units that are dead on arrival, IMO. I think a lot of the time it's simply a lack of objectivity and creative control. The writer responsible for putting the rules together gets too excited and makes his new shiny OP. And stuff usually isn't selling because it sucks, so it makes sense to buff units that are perceived as being weak, it's just an indictment of their ability to create a coherent rule set that they could never really hit that 'sweet spot' of a unit having a good power level to points ratio.

But I don't think FFG is immune to it either, we have to remember X Wing is a relative infant in tabletop gaming terms, the whole game has been around for less time than a single edition of 40K, and we're already seeing new waves introducing entirely new mechanics and maneuvers (S-loops, T-rolls, Conditions) and as more waves are released we as players are going to want to see more and more new abilities to keep each unit distinct and give it it's own identity. And given the small points value we've got with X Wing a unit only needs to be off by a point or two to really skew the balance! I love X Wing and think FFG have done truly awesome things with it, but I see a lot of people thinking FFG can do no wrong and I think that's a pretty dangerous attitude. We can already see that something like 90% of pilots aren't tournament viable...

Yes, please keep telling me how I don't care about Star Wars because I play competitively. Why did I start playing? X-wings and TIE Fighters. Why do I still dedicate time to playing it between all the myriad other things I could be doing with my free time? Because I enjoy the competitive side. But I still like the X-wings and TIE Fighters. I just flew Wes+Corran+Biggs at GenCon, which yes is a popular list in the meta lately, but is also a competitive list that features X-wings and one of my favorite EU characters. And those games, at that level, were some of the most fun I've had with the game in a while, even if I didn't make it past the prelim group*.

The reason there's so much talk about competitive play online, here and elsewhere, is because disproportionately the people who bother to come to forums like this or the X-wing subreddit are the most dedicated, and those are disproportionately going to be the competitive players, even if they're a relatively small fraction of the total player base. There was a panel at DragonCon last year for X-wing with the original lead designer, Jay Little, where at one point either he or the moderators asked "who here is a tournament player?". 10-20% of the room raised their hands, and that's probably being generous. As much as there's a crowd here that goes on about getting people out of the tournament matchup mindset, the vast majority of X-wing players already are.

As much as some of you(the aforementioned crowd) are tired about the constant tournament talk around here, the constant counterpoint of how the way we enjoy playing being boring is equally tiring. I've tried epic, I find it slow and boring compared to the snappy pace of tournament X-wing.

PS: Balance and viability benefits everyone, at all levels of play because the less the game is won at the listbuilding step, the better it is. Notice how much complaining there is about the X-wing? It's because many of us would love to be able to take more than just Wes and Biggs to something more 'serious' than game night and not have it be a liability. What was that about not liking Star Wars?

*4-2 with crummy MoV on Day 1 if anyone cares, though I got to play against Paul Heaver, so that was still pretty cool. If you're out there Paul, I think I was too flustered after our game to remember to shake hands, especially after doing Netrunner the next day it's all a bit of a blur. So yeah, gg and sorry again about the rotten luck on the damage deck pulls.

Things derailed a bit but I was the original poster who suggested that tournament players complain to much but I think the message got lost a bit in the conversation. My point was not to suggest that people who play tournaments don't like Star Wars, the point was that people are not having "conversations" about the game, but rather using the forum as a way to vent all of their frustrations about the horrible experiences they are having. I was simply pointing out that the overwhelming majority of those players are complaining specifically as a result of competitive/tournament play, not casual house games and that an easy solution to that problem is play Star Wars using some of the more thematic methods (different point counts, scenario's, campaigns etc..).

I have no issue with competitive play, but again and I'm only saying this out of personal experience that when I play against a player who is a competitive/tournament player, the games are not that much fun. The rigid structure of meta lists ,mindset of the player, frustration they display about mechanics in particular commentary like "Oh Fat Han, yeah that needs to be nerfed" (that sort of thing). It's just clear that they are miserable and not really enjoying the game. They might enjoy the thrill of competition and maybe that's what drives it but, its so evident that they aren't playing for the love of the game.

Personal experiences being just that personal, I can't speak for everyone but if like you said the large majority of players on the forum are competitive players, considering how miserable most of these posters are and how many complaints they have to file with FFG about the game it sounds to me like there is a lot of this sort of thing going around.

I can't speak for everyone but if like you said the large majority of players on the forum are competitive players, considering how miserable most of these posters are and how many complaints they have to file with FFG about the game it sounds to me like there is a lot of this sort of thing going around.

Actually the vast majority of complaints are by people who come here to complain then never come back. It happens every wave, and again when the current meta hotness sets in.

People who don't really post here very often come out to complain about X, Y or Z and then go away again.

Competitive players by and large don't really call for nerfs, it's normally the casual player who got beat by the current meta hotness that complains about it. Because a competitive player will either play the current meta hotness or find a way to beat it.

I can't speak for everyone but if like you said the large majority of players on the forum are competitive players, considering how miserable most of these posters are and how many complaints they have to file with FFG about the game it sounds to me like there is a lot of this sort of thing going around.

Actually the vast majority of complaints are by people who come here to complain then never come back. It happens every wave, and again when the current meta hotness sets in.

People who don't really post here very often come out to complain about X, Y or Z and then go away again.

Competitive players by and large don't really call for nerfs, it's normally the casual player who got beat by the current meta hotness that complains about it. Because a competitive player will either play the current meta hotness or find a way to beat it.

Yup. I'm disappointed with the revealed content, but that doesn't mean I thinks it's unbalanced or that I'm not gonna play the game anymore because of it. I probably just won't get it since none of it interests me.