1 minute ago, Clancampbell said:

I'm glad you s*** gold. Us working fools can not keep shelling out money to "keep up with the joneses". I also don't like the idea that I now have some ships that are little more than paper weights. Sh*tty paperweights too because they weigh next to nothing.

And I thought it was one design goal to keep all ships 'viable', and assumed that this was done with new upgrades. In any case, to some degree it does seem to work that way. We've had Defenders for years, but since Imp. Vets. they've been better than before. So I don't subscribe to the observation that ships become obsolete. A new title and boom, your ship's back.

9 minutes ago, Verlaine said:

I figured as much.

please enlighten us.

17 minutes ago, Luke C said:

two erratta? I am only aware of the deadeye change.

First was the R4 Agromech clarification.

4 minutes ago, Verlaine said:

And I thought it was one design goal to keep all ships 'viable', and assumed that this was done with new upgrades. In any case, to some degree it does seem to work that way. We've had Defenders for years, but since Imp. Vets. they've been better than before. So I don't subscribe to the observation that ships become obsolete. A new title and boom, your ship's back.

Yeah, that's the 'churn' that I talked about in my blog. It's how FFG not only ensures they sell new product to old players, but also old product to new players.

Any ship that is currently unplayable would at some point be made good again, I've no doubt about that. My more specific complaint would be that the pool of things that are viable at any one time appears to be shrinking. Ships that were buffed less than 18 months ago (TIE Advanced) are now cannon fodder because of the rapid escalation in power level that is driving the churn.

Just now, costi said:

First was the R4 Agromech clarification.

You're still feeding the troll.

1 minute ago, Stay On The Leader said:

You're still feeding the troll.

Yeah the r4 agro change wasnt meant as a nerf to jumpmasters so much as making it consistent with the flowchart.

1 minute ago, Panzeh said:

Yeah the r4 agro change wasnt meant as a nerf to jumpmasters so much as making it consistent with the flowchart.

Well, it certainly wasn't intended to nerf Kavil and his deadly Blaster Turret...

3 minutes ago, Panzeh said:

Yeah the r4 agro change wasnt meant as a nerf to jumpmasters so much as making it consistent with the flowchart.

If making stuff consistent with the flowchart is such a top priority for FFG, where's the R3-A2 errata ? RAW it no longer does anything thanks to the flowchart.

14 minutes ago, Clancampbell said:

I'm glad you s*** gold. Us working fools can not keep shelling out money to "keep up with the joneses". I also don't like the idea that I now have some ships that are little more than paper weights. Sh*tty paperweights too because they weigh next to nothing.

Haha, okay. I don't buy ships. I win them with store credit from Friday night events. Convince your LGS to do flatter payouts so all winning records get paid out. It incentives new players to show up because they just need a winning record to win something. Better records get paid out more so you're still incentived to do better but new players don't feel like they're throwing their money away. Save up your store credit and get ships with it.

5 minutes ago, Verlaine said:

Well, it certainly wasn't intended to nerf Kavil and his deadly Blaster Turret...

It actually ruined a mindlink Kavil build I was working on that allowed Kavil to have a 4 dice blaster turret attack with TL and Focus if all went well every turn. It may not have been thier intention but it nerf'd kavil's blaster turret for me

2 hours ago, AceWing said:

No, I honestly don't know why you think the game will die if the early wave and core ships aren't competitive anymore. Do you think that because 'X-Wing' is in the name of the game?

100% Yes. People buy the game because it is Star Wars. They keep buying the game because the mechanics don't suck. If it stops being X-Wing(s), people will stop buying the game.

Go ahead. Rerelease this game with Generic Really Neat Starfighters Represented By Cards and Moved By Templates. Bet it flops.

2 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

100% Yes. People buy the game because it is Star Wars. They keep buying the game because the mechanics don't suck. If it stops being X-Wing(s), people will stop buying the game.

Go ahead. Rerelease this game with Generic Really Neat Starfighters Represented By Cards and Moved By Templates. Bet it flops.

Its called wings of war.

Just now, Luke C said:

Its called wings of war.

Well no, because although FFG did steal from Wings of War that game already built on a fanbase of historical combat games.

1 minute ago, Stay On The Leader said:

Well no, because although FFG did steal from Wings of War that game already built on a fanbase of historical combat games.

They really cleaned the game up though. X-wing is very different from wings of war.

You definitely can still play X-Wings but even if you couldn't, it would still be Star Wars without X-Wings.

6 minutes ago, Luke C said:

Its called wings of war.

4 minutes ago, AceWing said:

You definitely can still play X-Wings but even if you couldn't, it would still be Star Wars without X-Wings.

And how many Star Wars elements can you remove before it becomes "generic space game XYZ"?

We still see the Millennium Falcon, the Ghost + Biggs, the Lambda shuttle and TIE Defenders.
Other than that there are not many iconic ships being played, end the first three I mentioned are relatively rare already.

So why is X-Wing a Star Wars game? Because it's written on the label?!

9 minutes ago, Panzeh said:

They really cleaned the game up though. X-wing is very different from wings of war.

Yeah that's typical FFG. They were in talks with the designer of Wings of War about using it for a Star Wars space combat game then pulled out and did it 'in house', with that in house design really just a streamlined version of Wings of War. FFG are quite good at taking a mechanic that's probably a little more complicated than it needs to be because it's aimed at board game players and boiling it down to the essence and something that's more marketable to the mainstream.

Definitely something they're good at.

59 minutes ago, Stay On The Leader said:

Yeah, that's the 'churn' that I talked about in my blog. It's how FFG not only ensures they sell new product to old players, but also old product to new players.

Any ship that is currently unplayable would at some point be made good again, I've no doubt about that. My more specific complaint would be that the pool of things that are viable at any one time appears to be shrinking. Ships that were buffed less than 18 months ago (TIE Advanced) are now cannon fodder because of the rapid escalation in power level that is driving the churn.

Yes that's great. Even now there are new ships released with upgrades and stuff that would help the older ships. My problem with it is I still have to fork out more money. In these cases, money for ships I don't even want, just to get the upgrade cards. I still think they should just do card packs.

25 minutes ago, Luke C said:

Its called wings of war.

And that game draws historical aviation buffs.

19 minutes ago, AceWing said:

You definitely can still play X-Wings but even if you couldn't, it would still be Star Wars without X-Wings.

Ok, seriously, you're just sort of being willfully antagonistic. Did you start playing this game because you like the red and green dice, or did you start playing because you like Star Wars? Gameplay is more important than fluff, but the fluff draws people to the gameplay.

The problem with unrecognizable ships is already fixing itself. Now that there's a steady stream of movies each year the majority of the releases moving forward will be sourced from them and most of their ship designs aren't just inspired by they're down right copies of the original trilogy. We're almost guaranteed to see a Last Jedi version of Luke, almost guaranteed to see new versions of Han and Boba based on their stand alones, and likely to see several other updated ships that will appear there. We're not in a great place now but they've already naturally moved the rudder where it needs to go, it just takes a while for the boat to turn (and we all know how slow the FFG boat is...)

7 minutes ago, Clancampbell said:

Yes that's great. Even now there are new ships released with upgrades and stuff that would help the older ships. My problem with it is I still have to fork out more money. In these cases, money for ships I don't even want, just to get the upgrade cards. I still think they should just do card packs.

Do you just play casual? Use an online builder, and proxy the cards via the printout. Then just buy the actual models you want and play.

I'm honestly not being antagonistic. I wasn't drawn to this game because of Star Wars because I wasn't a fan of Star Wars until I started playing this game. On that note, I don't like Star Wars because of X-Wings so this whole argument about X-Wing dying if you can't play early wave ships rings hollow to me because it's not my experience. I like the mechanics so I play the game.

11 minutes ago, AceWing said:

I'm honestly not being antagonistic. I wasn't drawn to this game because of Star Wars because I wasn't a fan of Star Wars until I started playing this game. On that note, I don't like Star Wars because of X-Wings so this whole argument about X-Wing dying if you can't play early wave ships rings hollow to me because it's not my experience. I like the mechanics so I play the game.

Fair enough. But I think that a lot of people play this game because it is Star Wars. Me included.

10 minutes ago, AceWing said:

I'm honestly not being antagonistic. I wasn't drawn to this game because of Star Wars because I wasn't a fan of Star Wars until I started playing this game. On that note, I don't like Star Wars because of X-Wings so this whole argument about X-Wing dying if you can't play early wave ships rings hollow to me because it's not my experience. I like the mechanics so I play the game.

You are probably in the minority.