All other issues aside, I'd be amazed if Kickstarter even let you start a campaign, much less complete one. They could be on shaky legal ground themselves if they knowingly let you essentially plagiarize a game/game system alone, not to mention infringing on Disney's IP (which is basically financial suicide anyway).

It's pretty clear that you don't know what you're doing, legally, and it could land you, personally, in a ton of trouble. As in seized assets and cripplingly large legal bills trouble.

Your idea to create some house rules for X-wing is a decent idea. Write them, play them, post here and let us know about them.

DO. NOT. SEEK. MONEY. FOR. IT.

I'm not suggesting creating a retail product but simply using patreon, kickstarter or the like to raise money to support the effort of compiling and playtesting "corrected" point values and distributing the results. Wouldn't really be that much different than the current squad-building apps. Would just provide meager compensation for the poor souls that would be responsible for hashing a balanced game.

If you could show that ALL the money was going towards manufacturing the components that your backers would receive, you might just get away with it.

Expecting to be paid for compiling and playtesting - no. Just no. You would get shut down so fast. You can't make money off other people's ideas. Even if it's getting paid for your time in fiddling those ideas into something new. Especially when those other people are Disney.

If you just want to "correct" point cost you are better off not asking for money at all and just making a printable sheet of your houserules to share.

This is basically what Major Juggler did. His X-Wing 2.0 stuff is on this forum somewhere...

So there are two issues: one legal and the other game-related.

As many others have pointed out, your idea is on terrible legal ground. A day after FFG or Disney notice you, you'll be hit by a cease and desist letter.

As for what you want to do itself?

Point 1: great idea for any 2.0 X-Wing.

Point 2: runs disastrously into EA's license with Disney. Which. I mean. I'm almost impressed that you'd have 3 different huge companies fighting to sue you out of existence.

Point 3: great idea for a 2.0 product.

Point 4: no, no, no, a thousand times no. Once cardboard is distributed, the cards need to be static. I do _not_ want to futz around with a game that has cardboard pieces that do not actually do what they say they do. That sort of thing has _killed_ other games.

Also: mobile firing arcs are a great idea for ships built for them from the ground up. Retrofitting them into the game now would require rebalancing everything. That's... A much bigger commitment than I think you realize.

"Would crowd-funded version of an existing commercial product, that has multiple copyrights and trademarks, be legal?"

How is this even a question?

Yeah. Pretty much this but with support from an online squad builder.

Good golly folks. Settle down some.

Plenty of folks are willing to support podcasts through patreon. I was just wondering what would happen if someone (not me) started a serious effort to create a balanced version of the game.

Yes, FFG pays people to develop the game. Bit that game is stuck with printed card costs. Some shops are misses from day one. Others become obsolete later. I'm just saying I'd throw a few bucks at someone like Majorjuggler if they wanted to produce a squad builder with adjusted point values.

I find it interesting that so many on this thread are saying things that amount to "FFG knows what they are doing at point values are fine." That's the exact opposite of every other post on these forums.

And would anyone help crowdfund one if it was?

Ironically, it was the introduction of the mobile firing arc that caused me to seriously consider what would be required to "soft-boot" the game knowing what we know now. Far too many pilots, upgrades, and even entire ships simply can’t compete in X-wing currently. The mobile arc also makes so much more sense and is simply more fun than full 360 turrets. So can we go somewhere above simple house-rules and create our own 2.0 or maybe 1.5?

What it would require:

1. Refined costing for the many cards/pilots that never see competitive play. This would obviously be a contentious proposition but it should be feasible.

2. An online and/or app-based squad builder with updated point values. (I would suggest introducing half point values as well.)

3. Extensive beta testing to make sure the adjusted values do not unintentionally break the game. This could easily be a fully open beta with the current suggested point values available at all times during the testing phase.

4. Infrequent updates to the card point values once the beta test is over.

What it could add:

1. Mobile firing arc rules now apply to all Primary Weapon Turret large base ships. This would require a player to purchase a Shadowcaster for each large base turret in their squad or just pencil in the quadrant lines and use any old thing to show the direction of the mobile arc.. Probably remove the “Lancer Class Only” restriction on Gyro Targeting. Would seriously destabilize point values for all turrets but would return the game to a state where maneuver and prediction are important for all ships.

Edit- formatting

If an x-wing 2.0 is being made. I like mobile firing arcs for all ships, but point reductions would have to be given to ships going from turrets to mobile. I also think large ship movement probably has to be looked at (either different templates or measured from the center of the base would be easier. Another change that I think would at least be interesting would be separating the maneuver and action phases; I believe (at least in theory) this nerfs high ps post dial maneuvering while not completely negating it which would also help to put more emphasis back on maneuvering and prediction. Essentially all ships move in order of PS as normal then after all moves have been made all ships then go through and take actions in order of PS. Oh yea and also, since we're already dreaming this up, I would love to have medium size bases (K-wing, ARC, Punisher, Misthunter, IG-88) since we're making point adjustments anyways. Last thing, otherwise I'll spend all day adding ideas, some actions could be added as well like an escort action, adding a reinforce action to some ships, and some others probably. The biggest thing would truly be point cost because every rule change would alter value of the current ships drastically, so they would essentially need to be recosted from scratch. I'll stop there, but if you get going on this and want more, most likely not very good, ideas let me know and I'm happy to help.

Yeah. Pretty much this but with support from an online squad builder.

Good golly folks. Settle down some.

Plenty of folks are willing to support podcasts through patreon. I was just wondering what would happen if someone (not me) started a serious effort to create a balanced version of the game.

We HAVE a balanced version of the game.

Best case scarion for this idea. FFG makes mobile arcs something you can upgrade into with perks/points reductions And ffg makes being out of arc much better for all defending ships, either by rules errata or upgrades.

Yeah. Pretty much this but with support from an online squad builder.

Good golly folks. Settle down some.

Plenty of folks are willing to support podcasts through patreon. I was just wondering what would happen if someone (not me) started a serious effort to create a balanced version of the game.

Yes, FFG pays people to develop the game. Bit that game is stuck with printed card costs. Some shops are misses from day one. Others become obsolete later. I'm just saying I'd throw a few bucks at someone like Majorjuggler if they wanted to produce a squad builder with adjusted point values.

I find it interesting that so many on this thread are saying things that amount to "FFG knows what they are doing at point values are fine." That's the exact opposite of every other post on these forums.

Asks people's opinion on ideas

Doesn't like the majority of opinions

Tells people to settle down...because you don't like what they say?

Okay then, if you won't listen to what forumers are saying, and dismissing us because we disagree, there are other courses of action you could take.

- Ask FFG directly. Would they be upset if you tried to crowdfund a variation on their game. And you would have to make it clear to them that you would get monetary compensation from this crowdfunding. They can give you the best answer.

- Make a poll asking forum goes if they would back your crowdfunding. That way you don't have to read these answers that disagree with you, you just have to look at the numbers.

As for your base idea, you say it's the same as crowdfunding for a podcast. I contend that there is a big difference. Podcasts on a topic do not directly compete with the product, and in fact may draw customers and enhance the customer experience. It's also a very different medium, and requires more originality. There's all the difference in the world between this and taking someone's game, fiddling it about slightly and wondering if they'll mind you getting paid to do this.

PS. I am quite calm and settled as I type this.

I have a 2nd ed set of rules and it is extremely well balanced mechanically, but it is unplayable for most people due to its complexity.

Make your own set of rules, publish them for free and without claim and maybe FFG will use the best parts for their own 2nd ed.

If you try to put Money gain on it, you'll be liable for all the intellectual property that you profited on. Anything you retain from the original game would fall under such property.

Apparently, I was terribly unclear and/or chose a bad title.

My suggestion was simply to develop a squadron builder with updated/corrected point values. Not a new retail product or even a physical product at all. This wouldn't, legally, be much different than the currently available squadron builders and certainly wouldn't compete in any way with FFG's bottom line. You still play with FFG's toys but would (in some cases) ignore the printed card costs.

I did not intend to act on the idea. I don't have the time or the expertise. Certainly did not intend to come across as asking for money. I'd just love to see a rigorous, objectively balanced version of the game that could be played by more people rather than a hodge-podge of house rules.

OP your plan is about as sound as marrying Lorenna Bobbit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_and_Lorena_Bobbitt

I'd just love to see a rigorous, objectively balanced version of the game that could be played by more people rather than a hodge-podge of house rules.

Whelp. "Objectively ballanced" is going to be a huge problem. Giant companies like VALVe, Blizzard, and Riot spend millions of dollars doing years of work... And still have to issue constant ballance patches.

I'm not sure why I think someone us going to be able to do fundamentally the same thing as FFG, but better than they have.

FFG can't issue balance patches. That's part of the problem.

FFG can't issue balance patches. That's part of the problem.

FFG relies on a constant stream of new releases for profit. That's the real problem.

If you just want to "correct" point cost you are better off not asking for money at all and just making a printable sheet of your houserules to share.

This is basically what Major Juggler did. His X-Wing 2.0 stuff is on this forum somewhere...

Yeah, it's outdated and really not accurate at all for 1) the new meta, or 2) any named pilots, but it was a good initial starting point. It's still in the pinned Index of Useful Links thread.

Isn't the FlightPath system owned by someone other than FFG? Didn't they license it from the Wings of Glory creators?

From what I have read online, FFG was in talks with the parent company to hire the developers and pay a licensing fee for the FlightPath system. Supposedly contracts were drawn up. I don't know if they were signed or not. Then the company went bankrupt, and in the 6 months that the IP was in limbo, FFG decided to just use the system anyway without paying for it.

FFG also claims that they came up with the FlightPath system on their own, that it was based on an earlier game they had made. The flip side to this, is the Wings of War designer has claimed to have shown FFG a prototype of his FlightPath game well before FFG's game was made public.

Apparently, I was terribly unclear and/or chose a bad title.

My suggestion was simply to develop a squadron builder with updated/corrected point values. Not a new retail product or even a physical product at all. This wouldn't, legally, be much different than the currently available squadron builders and certainly wouldn't compete in any way with FFG's bottom line. You still play with FFG's toys but would (in some cases) ignore the printed card costs.

I did not intend to act on the idea. I don't have the time or the expertise. Certainly did not intend to come across as asking for money. I'd just love to see a rigorous, objectively balanced version of the game that could be played by more people rather than a hodge-podge of house rules.

In theory, you could do this. You would need buy-in from "The Community" though to get adoption. Unfortunately most hardcore players only play 100 point tournament legal death match because they're intent on trying to beat everyone else in tournaments. Even for those that would use it, deciding on a system to chose what buffs / nerfs get used is a non-trivial social problem. The ideal solution is to get a benevolent dictator who can magically fix the game, but I don't know anyone who is both capable and willing of performing this role.

All the legal **** aside, I always am amazed at people who think they can do better, 99% sure you cant.

Balancing X-wing is difficult, so for the majority of people this is true. Probably 90% to 99% of randomly selected X-wing players could not do a better job at balancing the game than the professional developers.

However, a corollary to this premise exists: If you have the capability to do something difficult that few others can do, then that capability is valuable.

In theory, you could do this. You would need buy-in from "The Community" though to get adoption. Unfortunately most hardcore players only play 100 point tournament legal death match because they're intent on trying to beat everyone else in tournaments. Even for those that would use it, deciding on a system to chose what buffs / nerfs get used is a non-trivial social problem. The ideal solution is to get a benevolent dictator who can magically fix the game, but I don't know anyone who is both capable and willing of performing this role.

In the video gaming world, XCOM: Enemy Within had the Long War mod, which basically did become a benevolent dictator. They also had the encouragement of the Firaxis dev team.

Alternatively: Starbow does not seem to be replacing StarCraft 2, despite being by all accounts quite good.

One of these games is single player, and the other just isn't. That probably helps explain the difference: a split player base doesn't matter nearly as much in a single player game.

And in that sense: Heroes of the Arturi Cluster might well be the X-Wing 2.0 we're looking for. It offers a very different experience, and people are very willing to fiddle with its systems to create an experience they want.

I'm not suggesting creating a retail product but simply using patreon, kickstarter or the like to raise money to support the effort of compiling and playtesting "corrected" point values and distributing the results. Wouldn't really be that much different than the current squad-building apps. Would just provide meager compensation for the poor souls that would be responsible for hashing a balanced game.

What part of us giving you money for you to make a product and give it to us isn't a "retail product?" Because that's what the lawyers from FFG are going to ask

In the video gaming world, XCOM: Enemy Within had the Long War mod, which basically did become a benevolent dictator. They also had the encouragement of the Firaxis dev team.

Long War was practically a total conversion, not an unofficial balance patch.

This game is too big, too varied and has too many rules to get to any kind of "every point is equal" position.

FULL STOP.

All this discussion (and these types of discussions, which as MJ eluded to, have been going on for quite some time) does is rile folks up for their favorite and least favorite mechanic and excite the amateur lawyers.

To the OP: I echo so many here when I advise you DO NOT ASK FOR MONEY FOR THIS. You can do whatever you want until somebody smells money. Make your rules and be content that you have made the x-wing world a better place.

FFG can't issue balance patches. That's part of the problem.

Respectfully disagree. FFG issue the equivalent of balance patches all the time. FAQ changes cards like Decloak and tightens rules e.g. Timing chart for attacks. They also bring out new cards like Autothrusters, TIE/x1, Chardaan refit, TIE/x7 etc.

If someone wants to put together alternative rules I think that's fine but if they are going to take money for doing it they'll need legal advice.