20 hours ago, AwesomeJedi said:

Also to balance it out for the non-uniques, you could make a "stock model" upgrade that says you cannot equip Modification's and give it a cost of 1 so you could either field 4 Rookie Pilots with Proton Torpedoes and a 1 pt Astromech at 100 pts or 5 Rookie Pilots without upgrads at 100 pts. That upgrade would not have a pilot skill restriction.

Any thoughts? If anyone likes this can they make cards for me?

I'm sure you mean -1pt. I love this idea for the Reds and Rookies.

8 hours ago, DerRitter said:

One of the reasons the X-wings performs well in HoTC is beacouse most of the oppsition are dumb PS1 TIEs that you can K-turn behind and shred to pieces using predator. Then you can switch to torpedos when in need to blow some mission critical objectives (lamdas, shields, containers, etc). The thing is that we are talking over 50 points worth on upgrades and pilot abilities. Even then, the X-wings are not the best ship for the campaing.

The problem with the X-wing as always been that it is a multirole ship so he can't he better than the more focused ones, for example: He can´'t be faster/more maneubrable than a TIE\LN or A-wing, so he has less green moves and can't have more than 2 green dice and he is also at the peak of attack power for small ships (3 dice). The only thing that could be improved and not step into other ships toes is his durability, with 1 more shield (for both T-65 and T-70) and a little more green (maybe 2 banks).

Something like this? What kind of point reduction are you suggesting?

I like the custom stuff... but that's a lot of cards... we really don't need the scout X-wing (though a Y-wing longprobe would be cool) and the upgunned future ones aren't really in the new scope of "XWing as set by Disney"... plus we have the T-70s. But I like the idea behind those and I like the idea of the reversible cards... good thoughts

21 hours ago, Lobokai said:

... and maybe one squadron per A,B,X, and Y...

You called??

23 hours ago, Lobokai said:

I'd really like to see a Rebel veterans pack. Give us a new Y-Wing model (as we have A, B, and X additional rebels atm). And then maybe a new blue (or yellow) striped XWing. I know some are tired of moar XWings, but I'd really like that. Use the above idea to make a couple different XWing veteran titles... Scarif, Yavin, Endor would be nice... and maybe one squadron per A,B,X, and Y... Swipe the ones from Armada or Rebels that haven't shown up yet.

I'm tired of TIE Fighters. I don't want any more TIE Fighters, whatever suffix they decide to put on them. I bought two core sets because everyone back then recommended to do so. Big mistake.

Now I have 4 TIE Fighters from the 2 core sets, plus 1 from the standalone expansion, plus 2 /FOs from The Force Awakens core, plus 1 from the /FO standalone expansion, plus 2 more from the Gozanti, plus 1 from the /SF expansion, plus 1 from Sabine's... That is 12 boring TIE Fighters, all looking almost like pallete swaps of each other.

Getting another X-Wing wouldn't be as bad as that already is.

16 hours ago, BlodVargarna said:

Why would anyone want a ship called the X-wing to be a viable functioning component of the X-Wing miniatures game?

If you ask me, the naming of the game was a problem in the first place. They should have called it "TIE-Fighter - The Miniature Game" in the first place.

6 hours ago, Lobokai said:

I like the custom stuff... but that's a lot of cards... we really don't need the scout X-wing (though a Y-wing longprobe would be cool) and the upgunned future ones aren't really in the new scope of "XWing as set by Disney"... plus we have the T-70s. But I like the idea behind those and I like the idea of the reversible cards... good thoughts

FFG managed to get plenty of EU stuff in before Disney bought Lucasfilm, and they (either) are slowly bringing some of it back. So I don't see a problem with a heavy X-wing inbetween T-65 and T-70 models. I like the idea of swapping 4x blaster for the laser cannons.

Just errata IA to be a title and be done with it, T-65s can get that barrel roll they have been begging for and T70 can keep autothrusters.

27 minutes ago, Shraken said:

Just errata IA to be a title and be done with it, T-65s can get that barrel roll they have been begging for and T70 can keep autothrusters.

Does not solve the cost issue.

On 1/25/2017 at 8:53 AM, Smutpedler said:

Sounds like a certain player from Swindon's Rouge Squadron list. We had a match in a double asteroids event and it was a tough nut to crack. I won the game on points but, honestly, if we'd had longer I'd have lost. Regen luke vs a k-wing with no bombs left was not going to end pretty...

Three x-wings against two decimators is not exactly something the snub fighters should walk away from, but wedge just go so. Lucky. With. Defending.

Someone earlier made a comment that a multi role fighter should struggle in a dogfight game. I've never seen an XWing called anything other than a space superiority platform. And it acts and is used as such.

16 hours ago, Lobokai said:

Someone earlier made a comment that a multi role fighter should struggle in a dogfight game. I've never seen an XWing called anything other than a space superiority platform. And it acts and is used as such.

Wookieepedia, 1st sentence:

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/T-65_X-wing_starfighter

26 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

Wookieepedia, 1st sentence:

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/T-65_X-wing_starfighter

Cute. Read its role in the wiki out loud.

Btw multi-role =/= all purpose. I'm fine saying the wiki is dumb and whomever wrote the source for that needs to separate utility craft jargon from fighter lexicon

16 hours ago, Lobokai said:

Someone earlier made a comment that a multi role fighter should struggle in a dogfight game. I've never seen an XWing called anything other than a space superiority platform. And it acts and is used as such.

problem with that line of thinking (x-wing should struggle because it is multi-role) is that the generic Y-wing performs very well

why? is it a superiority fighter?

not to mention it's incredibly silly because gameplay >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fluff, due to this being a game

basically, it does not matter at all what the X-wing is . No one should concern themselves with that petty detail. It is part of the game, and it should perform at least decently therein

1 minute ago, ficklegreendice said:

problem with that line of thinking (x-wing should struggle because it is multi-role) is that the generic Y-wing performs very well

why? is it a superiority fighter?

not to mention it's incredibly silly because gameplay >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fluff, due to it being a game

Agreed. The multiroles do well and regardless of how you classify any unit, it needs to be playable and worth it's points.

aaaaaaand the game is called X Wing miniatures. So the X wing should feature is said game.

On 1/24/2017 at 7:36 PM, AwesomeJedi said:

I've heard people say that they think that the X-wing is the best ship to use in HotAC because of its high versatility. So...make an X-wing fix that makes the X-wing more like it is in Aturi Cluster. I was thinking of an upgrade that gives you the choice to either an Elite Pilot Talent if you don't have one or an additional Modification. That should probably say that you cannot equip the card if yoir pilot skill is 2 or less.

Also to balance it out for the non-uniques, you could make a "stock model" upgrade that says you cannot equip Modification's and give it a cost of 1 so you could either field 4 Rookie Pilots with Proton Torpedoes and a 1 pt Astromech at 100 pts or 5 Rookie Pilots without upgrads at 100 pts. That upgrade would not have a pilot skill restriction.

Any thoughts? If anyone likes this can they make cards for me?

On 1/25/2017 at 4:13 PM, Eyegor said:

I'm sure you mean -1pt. I love this idea for the Reds and Rookies.

I've been preaching: Production Model, modification, -2pts: you may not equip any other cards to this ship.

I think it would fix most generics! Bwings, Scyck, Kfighter, Advanced (f you still allowed title), and xwings.

24 minutes ago, ficklegreendice said:

not to mention it's incredibly silly because gameplay >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fluff, due to this being a game

If it's not about the fluff, then this game would be called Kihraxz Miniatures Game. I for one would not have taken an interest in this game were it not Star Wars, so the silly fluff does matter.

37 minutes ago, Lobokai said:

17 hours ago, Lobokai said:

Someone earlier made a comment that a multi role fighter should struggle in a dogfight game. I've never seen an XWing called anything other than a space superiority platform . And it acts and is used as such.

It is also called a multi-purpose starfighter.

12 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

If it's not about the fluff, then this game would be called Kihraxz Miniatures Game.

no it wouldn't be, because the K wasn't out during the core set launch

or for a while

slavish adherence to the fluff will only result in a sh*tty game, which will result in said game being quickly forgotten in favor for one other amongst the LEGION of star wars themed games

the star wars license will push sales, the actual game part of the ******* game will ensure people keep buying it outside of just the collectors

sure, you adhere to fluff a little. For example, a cr-90 shouldn't be able to outshoot an ISD, obviously. But you work that into the game such that you create an engaging and largely balanced experience. For example, two ISDs in rogue 1 kept an entire fleet at bay. You pull that **** in Armada, though, and people aren't going to play rebels because a single ISD is cheaper than the gobs upon gobs of ships that the fluff would demand of an equivalent rebel fleet

you also don't do stupid things like bloat the rules because the X-wing had a standard assortment of proton torpedoes and therefore MUST take them, or anything along those lines. Such minor, petulant details do nothing but bog down the design for no good reason other than to attempt to appease a very tiny minority of people who have skewed enough priorities to care

fluff inspires game design, but fluff is also a more than acceptable loss if the game mechanics demand it

this is just simple common sense

40 minutes ago, ficklegreendice said:

fluff inspires game design, but fluff is also a more than acceptable loss if the game mechanics demand it

this is just simple common sense

How do you justify this against every single ship having to perform equally well in the same circumstances? For example, why present bombers and shuttles if mechanically they all have to be the same as space superiority fighters??

15 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

How do you justify this against every single ship having to perform equally well in the same circumstances? For example, why present bombers and shuttles if mechanically they all have to be the same as space superiority fighters??

how do you get "mechanically the same" from "largely balanced"?

they aren't even remotely the same thing

hell, part of making games fun is ensuring a variety of options

part of ensuring said variety is making sure a variety of things are worth playing, as well as having a variety in the first place. game design 101, I'm sure

fluff taking a dive doesn't mean everything becomes chess (though even chess has variety in its pieces). For example, Asajj the shadow caster is deemed pretty viable and it sure as hell doesn't play like a defender

Just now, ficklegreendice said:

how do you get "mechanically the same" from "relatively balanced"?

they aren't even remotely the same thing

Sorry, I love the fluff, but Fickle has you on this one. I think FFG generally does well at matching fluff with gameplay, and the X-Wing is more a victim of power creep than a disgrace to its fluff.

32 minutes ago, BlueMusketeer28 said:

Sorry, I love the fluff, but Fickle has you on this one. I think FFG generally does well at matching fluff with gameplay, and the X-Wing is more a victim of power creep than a disgrace to its fluff.

Fair enough, I concede the point.

1 hour ago, ficklegreendice said:

not to mention it's incredibly silly because gameplay >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fluff, due to this being a game

But since this is X-Wing, the game, I think there should be a lot less ">>>" above.

And maybe Defenders should kick the X-Wing's a$$, since the Defender was developed in response to it.

34 minutes ago, BlueMusketeer28 said:

Sorry, I love the fluff, but Fickle has you on this one. I think FFG generally does well at matching fluff with gameplay, and the X-Wing is more a victim of power creep than a disgrace to its fluff.

I don't think the X-Wing is a victim of power creep- it's been underperforming since Wave 1, in the core set. Point for point, the TIE Fighter is better than the X-Wing out of the box. There's a reason the B-Wing and the Z-95 overtook the X-Wing's role as soon as they were introduced.

The T-65 needs a bit more help. It got a nice buff with Integrated Astromech, but that wasn't _quite_ enough- the points spent on the Droid outweigh the benefit of the mod. Not by much, but by enough that you're better off taking a different ship.

"The fix" has to be a Title, don't you think?

I assume it would "stack" with the Integrated Astromech modification.

If you wanted it to not affect the T-70, you'd grant something the T-70 already has: boost or tech slot.

Not sure how to separate the two models, since IA says "X-wing Only" and still works on the "T-70 X-wing".