Am I the only one that noticed that the title cards actually are no titles?

Pivot Wing: Thats no title - thats a technical feature!

Adaptive Ailerons: Thats no title - thats a technical feature!

FFG should have introduced them as 'Feature' cards instead of title cards.

Aside from the aspect that I personally dislike and loathe inconsistencies like this:

If we ever get S-Foils for X-Wings as a title card - this would actually the 'Black One' title as well as a possible future 'Rogue Squadron' title.

And this thought is getting ridiculous: either you could use your s-foils OR you are Black One...

Is this telling us that X-Wings will never get a S-foils dual card?

This would be very sad.

Put it on the to-do list for X-Wing 2.0

Along with 4 & 5 speed maneuvers, modification slots, mobile arcs for all large ships, range bonuses for cannons, range 4 & 5 ruler in core set and adjusted ranges for ordnance.

Different between Title as you intend and 'features' is the black dot before the name. Unique Titles and not.

So there's no need to call common Titles as 'Features' I guess

Is this telling us that X-Wings will never get a S-foils dual card?

This would be very sad.

Because we really need X-wings to flap around mid-combat.

I have to agree.

Title cards started out as a way to represent the unique modifications of specific ships from their generic models. Great.

Then it became a way to represent special(but not unique) versions of ships that differed from the standard versions. Still great.

Then, with A-Wing Test Pilot, it also became a way to modify the pilot apparently in a way that had nothing to do with the ship itself(this was not so great, and it should have been an A-Wing only EPT that added two more EPTs).

And now, it's just become a way to add special rules to a ship without putting them on the pilot card. And it's just assumed that all ships of that type would have that Title. Are there TIE Strikers that DON'T have Adaptive Ailerons? Probably not. But you could technically make one I suppose.

That's neat and all, but it feels like it gets away from what Titles were originally meant to be.

Put it on the to-do list for X-Wing 2.0

Along with 4 & 5 speed maneuvers, modification slots, mobile arcs for all large ships, range bonuses for cannons, range 4 & 5 ruler in core set and adjusted ranges for ordnance.

Different dice for primary weapons and ordnance!

Fluff < Gameplay. Titles have always just been extra rules guised as fluffy titles. Some of those titles didn't even make sense, nor helped the ship, Slave-1 before EM and LRS.

Put it on the to-do list for X-Wing 2.0

Along with 4 & 5 speed maneuvers, modification slots, mobile arcs for all large ships, range bonuses for cannons, range 4 & 5 ruler in core set and adjusted ranges for ordnance.

This. ^

Not that I want to dish my collection, but if made today, with all lessons learnt, a X-Wing 2.0 would be a much better game.

Things I would include:

- full campaign in the basic box (that's a success in Imperial Assault).

- 2 types of attack dice (something like the Descent).

- ship "abilities" - could be in the own ship card (that would require a separated pilot card, like in this personal project ) or could be extra "upgrade" cards. Titles would be only extreme modifications or famous ships.

- missiles and torpedoes with very different mechanics and probably long range only (meaning range 3-5).

- medium base ships (and why not with rectangular bases?).

- reviewed stats (and COSTS) for most ships, texts revised for minimizing the need of FAQs, etc.

But, most of all, if FFG ever do a X-Wing "2nd Edition", they need to add conversion kits for owners of the old stuff. Some ship have changed dial or card? Include 1 extra new dial and card in the updated expansion. (this way they can sell the new expansions, but we can still use our old ships.

If they make a 2nd Ed it means back to Wave 1. Total overhaul of just about everything right down to core mechanics and card layout, no cross compatability. Maybe even a slight change in scale so that they aren't selling the same models again.

If they make a 2.0 then 1.0 material isn't going to carry over. That's what a 2nd Edition is. A hard reset.

This massive fix box conversion kit people keep convincing themselves is coming isn't financially realistic. Making a new game might be a good design decision but it isn't a good business decision: they'll make 2.0 when it'd sell better than continuing to make 1.0. That'll probably be when the ship barrel is too empty to make sellable products and the game is such a mess of fixes that it fails to attract new players.

If they make a 2nd Ed it means back to Wave 1. Total overhaul of just about everything right down to core mechanics and card layout, no cross compatability. Maybe even a slight change in scale so that they aren't selling the same models again.

If they make a 2.0 then 1.0 material isn't going to carry over. That's what a 2nd Edition is. A hard reset.

This massive fix box conversion kit people keep convincing themselves is coming isn't financially realistic. Making a new game might be a good design decision but it isn't a good business decision: they'll make 2.0 when it'd sell better than continuing to make 1.0. That'll probably be when the ship barrel is too empty to make sellable products and the game is such a mess of fixes that it fails to attract new players.

Descent?

Edit: As in Descent did the conversion box for 2.0 and by all accounts it was not only awesome for older players but sold well too.

Fluff < Gameplay.

Why does everyone want a new edition? New edition cost us money.

As far as titles go. I believe it's an easy way to add rules to a ship that should have the abiltiies without having to put it on the ship card. saves space and easier to do.

Around Wave V the lead game designers changed and the new duo found that they could fix ships using the Title-cards (probably because it doesn't require you to add slots to existing ships, hence making it ideal to fix ships, and the category Title would have remained with a pretty low number of entires otherwise)

... which is known since an interview that occurred at GenCon around 2 years ago (or was it 3 years ago? too lazy to look it up)

Expanding the missions in the core set to a full campaign wouldn't be hard to do, but would require a reprinting of the core sets. An official campaign book would be most welcome though, maybe one core each faction.

I don't know if these dual card ideas would work better as EPTs or titles, but here you go:

Rogue Squadron Orders

(X-wing only)

Full Throttle/ Shields Double Front

Full Throttle

Add boost to action bar. You can perform a white speed 5 straight instead of your chosen maneuver. Then recieve one stress.

Flip (random condition)

Shields double front

Shield tokens negate 2 hits/crits per token when defending an attack from a ship in your front firing arc. Attacks from outside your

Front firing arc ignore shield tokens.

Flip (random condition)

Death Squadron Orders

(TIE only, Imperial only)

Stay in Attack Formation/ Stay on the Leader

Stay in attack formation

Perform a free boost or barrel roll action after executing a non-red maneuver

Flip (random condition)

Stay on the leader

Move a red target lock corresponding to this ship's blue target lock to another enemy ship within range 3.

Flip (random condition)

Put it on the to-do list for X-Wing 2.0

Along with 4 & 5 speed maneuvers, modification slots, mobile arcs for all large ships, range bonuses for cannons, range 4 & 5 ruler in core set and adjusted ranges for ordnance.

no range bonuses for cannons >:L

But extra dice types, extra die mod situations and initiative filps.

Another S-Foils thread? Cool.

Here's my idea:

S-Foils closed: Your craft can land, though landing is not a thing you should ever do in a dogfight, and there are no mechanics for landing so don't bother having your S-Foils closed.

S-Foils Open: You can actually do things.

A lot of this is inevitable when a game gets as big as X-Wing has become. The monster is out of the box and that's an inevitability. I'm spoiled I guess, because of my local meta. We play in tournaments but are not tournament oriented. With some 14 players in my LGS and more a couple miles down the road the lists are diverse and the gaming is fun as hell.

Most of us are constantly messing around with different builds and the X-Wing is still a frequent build in our leagues. Maybe my meta still looks at it as playing Star Wars before anything else. The rest is secondary.

Eric J

Me thinks that they may be doing this for a reason. The old damage deck had a crit where you loose an upgrade card if I recall correctly. Boba Fett also can jettison an upgrade card. As FFG is actually designing 1-2 waves ahead of where we are playing, this may be a marker for future mechanics that we have not seen fully developed yet.

Just a thought.

I am assuming that the title card is the last thing made. It is how they take what they have made and make it work. If the ship is playing well then they make it for one ship, if not then it is for the hole line (IE the black dot). So the title card is the single most important card . When something isn't being seen in lists any more... (BAM).. New title cards.

Am I the only one that noticed that the title cards actually are no titles?

"A title is a type of upgrade." Page 19 of the Rules Reference. Agree with your thinking but FFG's definition is not what you think a title is.

And free actions are not free

THE ILLUMINATI! ALL IS A LIE! REPENT, FOR THE BREAKFAST IS COMING!

I have to agree.

Title cards started out as a way to represent the unique modifications of specific ships from their generic models. Great.

Then it became a way to represent special(but not unique) versions of ships that differed from the standard versions. Still great.

Then, with A-Wing Test Pilot, it also became a way to modify the pilot apparently in a way that had nothing to do with the ship itself(this was not so great, and it should have been an A-Wing only EPT that added two more EPTs).

And now, it's just become a way to add special rules to a ship without putting them on the pilot card. And it's just assumed that all ships of that type would have that Title. Are there TIE Strikers that DON'T have Adaptive Ailerons? Probably not. But you could technically make one I suppose.

That's neat and all, but it feels like it gets away from what Titles were originally meant to be.

Yeah but with the test pilot you can assume that it was the pilot skill that was the upgrade not a modification.

However I understand why FFG is doing this. The Modification slot is almost as saturated as the EPT slot to the point where you will not take anything but the most powerful modification card. If they made the U-wing "feature" like the B-wing E2 which is a modification not a title it would never be used. The U-wing would just grab EU like every other large base ship.

Is this telling us that X-Wings will never get a S-foils dual card?

This would be very sad.

Because we really need X-wings to flap around mid-combat.

Why not? It's something they can do in the movies and games, and its a way to add versatility to a ship that desperately needs it. I don't get to hate for it/

Am I the only one that noticed that the title cards actually are no titles?

"A title is a type of upgrade." Page 19 of the Rules Reference. Agree with your thinking but FFG's definition is not what you think a title is.

Man. all cards you add to the Ship are types of upgrades... :/

Put it on the to-do list for X-Wing 2.0

Along with 4 & 5 speed maneuvers, modification slots, mobile arcs for all large ships, range bonuses for cannons, range 4 & 5 ruler in core set and adjusted ranges for ordnance.

no range bonuses for cannons >:L

Sure, your normal lasers have range bonuses because it's easier to hit stuff close up and harder at a distance. With a cannon that suddenly drops away?

At least missiles and torpedoes can adjust their trajectory.