In my next line of ambitious projects, I have "X-Wing 2.0" roughly mapped out, you know, that thing everyone has been talking about for years. Well i've been working on it, and while i'm confident in the direction i want to go...

Well, the work ahead of me is astounding. In fact, it's really less X-Wing 2.0 than my operating name, X-Wing TCS(Tactical Combat System). It operates under more conventional numbered die results and a granularity system, wherein each part of a craft is simulated and can be individually damaged. Additionally, the maneuver system is slightly adjusted. I like the maneuver system, but it's primary flaw is the front-to-back movement, whereas this system will be front-to-front, eliminating the natural advantage of large-base size creating artificial speed. I havent actually figured out how to make that work just yet, but it's definitely planned. Amongst other changes, of course. Each dial will get looked over in the context of modern play and the other adjustments to maneuvering and be rebalanced accordingly. Movement bases would ideally be changed to a hexagonal shape to better simulate which parts of the craft are being damaged, as well as allow for both front and rear shielding, but a system using existing bases has been developed. Craft will bear particular roles that give them bonuses and downsides, that help them fit into a role that suits them canonically.

What's also really neat, is that because the statistics of a ship go MUCH more in-depth, ships like the T-65 X-Wing can much more easily have variants with various statistics changes and an adjustment to price. For example, a T-65B X-Wing and a T-65C-A2 X-Wing could vary in things like Critical Threshold, action bar, accuracy, etc.

Additionally, nearly every craft needs to be built completely from the ground up in terms of health, crit charts, etc. Another important addition in a tournament atmosphere would be the removal of the 100 pt. dogfight and the addition of tournament legal and competitive mission objectives.

So heres the thing. I need people to help. It's a big project, and again, while i'm fairly confident where i want to take this, i'd rather not spend the next 3 years of my life doing this by myself, when i know that there are talented individuals here who could help.

I need people who are willing to pitch in, in various ways. I've got a very decent amount of ships mapped out already, but that needs to be finished. The new combat system needs to be developed and tested. I need to probably completely redesign most pilots and upgrade cards due to complete combat redesign which changes how dice mod actions work, which i'd need help with. I need people who are skilled graphics designers for ship cards. Everything needs to be recosted based on new abilities.

I'll say upfront that X-Wing TCS is not really.... casual friendly. X-Wing is great, in my opinion, because it's just as good for casual players as it is for diehard tabletop players. This... isn't that. It's mostly for the latter group. This isn't a game that goes for 1 hour and 15 minutes, i mean with a wing of 3 X-Wings versus the (so-far undetermined) equivalent number of TIE Fighters could go multiple hours. For casual players or simply players with not enough time on their hands, X-Wing is literally perfect as-is. People like me just really like depth, and i know i'm not alone in that. So, here we are.

To show that i mean business, i'll give a small example of the system i've worked out so far, using X-Wings and TIE Fighters. Excuse the rather crude MS Paint pictures, i'm no graphic artist.

A quick rundown of most of the major changes:

Certain effects, such as criticals, may make maneuvers more difficult. On such an effect, the specified maneuver increases in difficult like so:

Green maneuvers become white maneuvers, white maneuvers become red maneuvers, and red maneuvers are no longer able to be executed.

All ships now have standardized hit locations; Wings, Fuselage, and Cockpit. Even TIE Fighters. Damage done to a Crippled ship part flows to the next hit location like so: Wings -> Fuselage -> Cockpit.

The attack phase is now as follows.

Declare target.

Declare weapon.

Determine Range to target. Each ship has a different range chart. determine modifier from that. If the declared weapon cannot attack at this range, you may declare a different weapon.

Determine To Hit value. Take defender's agility value, add or subtract by range modifier, subtract by your accuracy value, and factor in other modifiers, such as obstacles which add +1 To Hit. Evade tokens may be spent to grant +2 agility. Target Lock tokens may be spent to give a +2 to your accuracy value. Focus tokens may be used to either give a -1 To Hit offensively, or a +1 To Hit defensively.

Roll 2d6. Apply any modifiers.

If the roll meets or exceeds the To Hit value, the attack hit. Determine which side of the base your "attack line"(a line from your peg to theirs) passes through, then which half of the base it is on. If the target has shields remaining on that side, deal that weapon's damage to the shields on that side until all damage has been dealt or all shields have been removed. If there are no shields on that side, or all shields on that side have been removed and there is still damage remaining, roll 2d6 on a chart for that side to determine the part hit, and deal all pending damage to that part.

If your roll value was equal to or greater than the Critical Threshold of the ship, and the side of the base you attacked does not have shields remaining, deal 1 of your damage as a critical to that part of the ship.

If the attack reduced the ship part to below 0 health, that part is destroyed, and an effect is rolled for on the crit chart. Apply that plus any effects on destruction of that part to the ship, starting next round. Each ship has different values at which they are destroyed, but a ship is always immediately destroyed if the cockpit is destroyed, and is removed during the End Phase. Damage done to a Crippled ship part flows to the next hit location like so: Wings -> Fuselage -> Cockpit.

X-Wing TCS 0.15a update:

A rough baseline for movement modifiers has been added.

Speed 1 = -1 to Agility

Speed 2 = +0 to Agility

Speed 3 = +1 to Agility

Speed 4+5 = +2 to Agility

Straight Maneuver = +0 to Agility

Bank Maneuver = +1 to Agility

Turn Maneuver = +2 to Agility

K-Turn, Sloop, T-Roll = +3 to Agility

Front/Rear hit chart
3-5 - Right Wing
6-8 - Fuselage
9-11 - Left Wing
2+12 - Cockpit

Left Side hit chart
2-7 - Left Wing
8-11 - Fuselage
12 - Cockpit

Right Side hit chart
2-7 - Right Wing
8-11 - Fuselage
12 - Cockpit

This is true for all ships. No individualized hit charts. Even on a TIE Fighter, a laser cannon bolt can pass right through the center spoke on the wing and tear up the wing pylon on the fuselage, even pass through the cockpit on it's way.

Crit Chart

2- Discard an equipment hardpoint on this location(ships without an equipment hardpoint on this location treat this as No Critical)
3 - 4- and 5-speed maneuvers are more difficult
4- -1 Accuracy
5- -1 Primary Weapon Base Damage
6- No Critical
7- -1 to all movement modifiers
8- No Critical
9- Turn maneuvers are more difficult
10- -1 Accuracy
11- -1 Agility
12- This location is destroyed.

T-65B X-Wing

TIE/LN Fighter

I'm mostly just kind of throwing this at the wall and seeing what sticks by posting this. If this looks at all interesting and you'd like to be involved, shoot me an email at [email protected]. Otherwise, thoughtful comments, suggestions and criticisms are welcome.

Changelog:

X-Wing TCS 0.1a - Posted.

X-Wing TCS 0.15a - Updated hit and crit chart for simplicity. Added movement agility modifiers. TIE Fighter hit location chart updated. Significant reductions in complexity.

X-Wing TCS 0.17a - Added Y-Wing and TIE Interceptor. Teased ground combat module.

X-Wing TCS 0.25a - Updated Crit Chart and Movement Modifiers. Updated T-65 and Y-Wing hit chart for aesthetics and crit chart update. Added B-Wing, A-Wing, ARC-170, BTL-S3 Y-Wing, and T-65C-A2 X-Wing.

X-Wing TCS 0.3a - Released new, super flashy and good lookin' ship damage cards for all available craft. Released TIE Advanced, Bomber, Defender, and Interceptor Mk. II. Released T-70 X-Wing, U-Wing, and Z-95 Headhunter.

X-Wing TCS 0.35a- You know those flashy damage cards i said i made last update? Yeah, those, but even BETTER this time. Released T-Wing, E-Wing, T-65BR X-Wing, T-47 Airspeeder, TIE Avenger. Updated hit chart.

X-Wing TCS 0.4a- A-Wing, T-Wing, V-Wing, TIE Interceptor, and TIE Interceptor Mk. II statline updated. New Maneuver System released. Ground Combat Module 0.1a released.

Do you have a playable prototype yet?

5 minutes ago, Blue Five said:

Do you have a playable prototype yet?

Yes! Using the system described above with the standard bases and maneuver dials, you can play basic games with X-Wings and TIE Fighters.

Is it fun?

Just now, Blue Five said:

Is it fun?

I think so. But that's me; Much like Classic Battletech, it takes a while for a game to finish, and for the average X-Wing player that can be a bit of a turn-off. But i personally enjoyed the granularity and detail it offers. Personally i think that for things like HoTAC, or other thematic, RPG-style gametypes, this system is absolutely perfect for that, as it gives huge depth and detail.

Looks like it is absolutely unfit for 'real' second edition purposes as this much detail will make the game significantly longer to play - and thats X-Wings biggest strength compared to other tabletops, especially Armada.

It does statisfy a totaly different desire, though. Reminds me of more classic war games and I know a lot of people appreciate that. Fantastic for the right group, maybe I'll give it a shot when you are ready to release a first rules pack for a more nerdy experience.

I agree with your assessment that this is NOT for the casual player. You have increased the complexity of this game significantly, and that is only considering the information provided for the two ships themselves, without adding any form of pilot information/skills, upgrades, any additional interactions, etc.

To be clear, this is not a criticism. I enjoy highly sophisticated, tactical games. There will simply be a lot of information for people to consider and remember when playing this game. Ultimately, I think it will be helpful and attract more players if you have the proper "tools" to assist memories with all of the various stats that make up the game.

One last comment ... for the TIE/LN fighter, you state the following: "This ship is destroyed if any 2 parts of the ship are destroyed, or if the cockpit is destroyed." I think we can all agree, at least thematically, that if any ship has its main cockpit destroyed, then the ship itself is mostly useless, and should be considered destroyed. The issue I have with the TIE/LN fighter is that the only way to destroy 2 parts of the ship that doesn't involve the cockpit is to destroy the port and starboard panels (using your terminology). Quite frankly, I would guess that destroying one (thematically) will make this ship useless.

Just my two cents (worth about $1.10 these days)

11 minutes ago, any2cards said:

I agree with your assessment that this is NOT for the casual player. You have increased the complexity of this game significantly, and that is only considering the information provided for the two ships themselves, without adding any form of pilot information/skills, upgrades, any additional interactions, etc.

To be clear, this is not a criticism. I enjoy highly sophisticated, tactical games. There will simply be a lot of information for people to consider and remember when playing this game. Ultimately, I think it will be helpful and attract more players if you have the proper "tools" to assist memories with all of the various stats that make up the game.

One last comment ... for the TIE/LN fighter, you state the following: "This ship is destroyed if any 2 parts of the ship are destroyed, or if the cockpit is destroyed." I think we can all agree, at least thematically, that if any ship has its main cockpit destroyed, then the ship itself is mostly useless, and should be considered destroyed. The issue I have with the TIE/LN fighter is that the only way to destroy 2 parts of the ship that doesn't involve the cockpit is to destroy the port and starboard panels (using your terminology). Quite frankly, I would guess that destroying one (thematically) will make this ship useless.

Just my two cents (worth about $1.10 these days)

As for the tools you mentioned, the end plan is to have each ship represented by it's own placard, with all relevant information accessible through it, which is why i want a graphic designer to help out.

Your comment about the TIE/LN is correct and incorrect, but i'll attempt to elaborate; I've seen Star Wars content where a TIE Fighter gets winged and has one panel heavily damaged. It suffers maneuverability and other mechanical issues, but it could still fly and fight. With two gone though, it loses almost all mobility and doesnt have any solar panels available to provide power, so it's definitely useless at this point. And of course, if the cockpit is destroyed the ship is definitely dead. I'm erring on the assumption that if one TIE Fighter can survive serious damage to a panel, they all can, just to keep the TIE Fighter viable compared to the veritable tank that is an X-Wing.

This is really cool. I'd love to help, but I barely have time to play regular X-wing right now.

6 minutes ago, Biophysical said:

This is really cool. I'd love to help, but I barely have time to play regular X-wing right now.

Well if that ever changes, shoot me a message.

Just a thought but you may want to increase each ships base accuracy and agility that way you have more room to play with when designing future ships. Otherwise it looks great.

42 minutes ago, Razgriz25thinf said:

Your comment about the TIE/LN is correct and incorrect, but i'll attempt to elaborate; I've seen Star Wars content where a TIE Fighter gets winged and has one panel heavily damaged. It suffers maneuverability and other mechanical issues, but it could still fly and fight. With two gone though, it loses almost all mobility and doesnt have any solar panels available to provide power, so it's definitely useless at this point. And of course, if the cockpit is destroyed the ship is definitely dead. I'm erring on the assumption that if one TIE Fighter can survive serious damage to a panel, they all can, just to keep the TIE Fighter viable compared to the veritable tank that is an X-Wing.

The issue I have with this is that your intent is not that the panel is heavily damaged, but that it is DESTROYED. I suppose that this is simply semantics. I must admit that I have definitely seen scenes where a TIE has a panel damaged, and still can remain in battle. Works for me.

20 minutes ago, Biophysical said:

This is really cool. I'd love to help, but I barely have time to play regular X-wing right now.

Ditto; I'm swamped by X-wing projects and real life responsibilities. I'm very impressed though!

3 minutes ago, MenaceNsobriety said:

Just a thought but you may want to increase each ships base accuracy and agility that way you have more room to play with when designing future ships. Otherwise it looks great.

Yeah! These values aren't necessarily final; what really matters is insuring that the combat system works as a functional replacement to X-Wing's.

2 minutes ago, any2cards said:

The issue I have with this is that your intent is not that the panel is heavily damaged, but that it is DESTROYED. I suppose that this is simply semantics. I must admit that I have definitely seen scenes where a TIE has a panel damaged, and still can remain in battle. Works for me.

Perhaps crippled might be a better word for it. Destroyed implies it's gone, Crippled implies it's there but non-functional.

I would not call it X-Wing 2.0 though because that jeopardizes the actual idea.

You're doing something else entirely here, and it's not similar at all to X-Wing 2.0 as discussed on S&V - at least to my understanding.

That does not mean I dislike your idea - I think it's awesome - but you're maybe doing the rest of the community a disservice by hijacking the name.

3 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

I would not call it X-Wing 2.0 though because that jeopardizes the actual idea.

You're doing something else entirely here, and it's not similar at all to X-Wing 2.0 as discussed on S&V - at least to my understanding.

That does not mean I dislike your idea - I thing it's awesome - but you're maybe doing the rest of the community a disservice by hijacking the name.

Admittedly the thread title is only named that to draw attention. Officially it is not called X-Wing 2.0, it is called X-Wing Tactical Combat System, or X-Wing TCS.

It feels very "Car Wars".

Therefore I love it.

Interestingly..A turning key ala car wars could be the answer to the movement issue you are working on. Instead of templates.

I use an upsized turning key and do car wars at matchbox scale.it would work fine for X wing bases.

3 minutes ago, Velvetelvis said:

It feels very "Car Wars".

Therefore I love it.

Interestingly..A turning key ala car wars could be the answer to the movement issue you are working on. Instead of templates.

I use an upsized turning key and do car wars at matchbox scale.it would work fine for X wing bases.

Could you describe how it works to me? I've never heard of this.

One sec...

1 hour ago, Razgriz25thinf said:

I like the maneuver system, but it's primary flaw is the front-to-back movement, whereas this system will be front-to-front, eliminating the natural advantage of large-base size creating artificial speed.

What is the problem you're trying to solve here? What's inherently wrong with front-to-back movement?

Are you planning to use the X-Wing maneuver templates, or some other way of determining movement? We know what front-to-front movement is like using XMG templates because it happens a lot when ships overlap. It's awkward and tedious, and it sounds like you want that to happen every time a ship moves.

You'd have to redesign all of the maneuver dials if you used forward-to-forward movement, because that would mean a selection of 1-speed forward results in no movement.

If you think large ships move too fast, just slow them down by redesigning their maneuver dial options, or don't let them boost, or make all maneuvers of speed 3 or greater into red maneuvers.

I don't think making damage more complicated to get a better feel for location and ships would make for better game play. The old Wizzards of the coast had that with their Star Wars starship miniatures game and we all know how that went.

I think if you were going to design a new "X-wing" game or mainly a new engine or game system for X-wing I think you really need to focus on abstraction for simplicity sake instead of simulation sake. There is no shortage of GMT/classic AH that uses the whole number algorithm hex system for attacks and damage. After all X-wing has taken a 3d concept and projected it on the XY plane.

Just now, DagobahDave said:

What is the problem you're trying to solve here? What's inherently wrong with front-to-back movement?

Are you planning to use the X-Wing maneuver templates, or some other way of determining movement? We know what front-to-front movement is like using XMG templates because it happens a lot when ships overlap. It's awkward and tedious, and it sounds like you want that to happen every time a ship moves.

You'd have to redesign all of the maneuver dials if you used forward-to-forward movement, because that would mean a selection of 1-speed forward results in no movement.

If you think large ships move too fast, just slow them down by redesigning their maneuver dial options, or don't let them boost, or make all maneuvers of speed 3 or greater into red maneuvers.

The plan was a form of modified X-Wing templates. Not sure yet modified HOW, but modified.

1-speed forward isn't no movement. You're moving one base-length forward, because that's how long the 1 forward template is.

Either way i have to redesign dials. The good news is that i wont get to this for a long time. By the time i do, i may decide it's an unnecessary addition anyways. So who knows.

I wanted to get you a real demonstration but I'm out of time.

These guys are using turn keys...It's a combination of the way epic ships move straight. And has a variety of turn angles at different difficulties.it also has drift moves which would be great in a flight game as well.

Bad news is it's a long unwatchable video but...An example of a turn key in use must be in there.