So I've carried on counting and I believe the current tally to be roughly:

• No - 61
• Maybe - 9
• Yes - 22

There are several other IP's I would've said yes to. Nothing is as sure as Star Wars, though.

Still want a gundam version.

8 hours ago, NakedDex said:

Yes, for sure. I was never a big Star Wars fan really. I loved the old X-wing and TIE Fighter games, but that's because I loved combat flight sim games more than anything. If this exact game had been Star Trek instead, I'd actually have jumped on right at the core set, rather than wait for wave 2. I'm still waiting on a decent Star Trek TNG/Voy/DS9 era game...

Wait a second. There isn't there a Star Trek version of this game, or are the differences between that game and X-Wing great enough that they can't possible be related? I've seen enough posts that want to take stuff from that game and introduce it to X-Wing that if you want Star Trek and don't care for Star Wars I'm not sure why you're here.

Probably not. I do play other RPGs and wargames, so I might have. But being Star Wars sealed the deal.

13 minutes ago, StevenO said:

Wait a second. There isn't there a Star Trek version of this game, or are the differences between that game and X-Wing great enough that they can't possible be related? I've seen enough posts that want to take stuff from that game and introduce it to X-Wing that if you want Star Trek and don't care for Star Wars I'm not sure why you're here.

It's a disaster of a game, on several fronts. For all its faults, X-wing is still vastly superior. Among said faults is the ability to use other factions captains on ships they'd never be on, game breaking combinations (hello Picard on a Borg Cube), tournament exclusive cards (not alt-art, literally exclusive cards with effects nowhere else), and just the sheer state of the models; not only are none of them in any sort of scale, they're godawful quality.

Really what I'd love is a Trek game with the Armada system. Get my Dominion war on, or a proper Borg fight. Applying a dog fighting mechanic to capital ships like Attack Wing does is rough.

I'll go with No. I don't think I would've tried it. Maybe if a friend really pushed it I would've given it a chance, but I was deep into WHFB at the time. It was a better game and Star Wars that really got me to quit WHFB.

1 hour ago, NakedDex said:

It's a disaster of a game, on several fronts. For all its faults, X-wing is still vastly superior. Among said faults is the ability to use other factions captains on ships they'd never be on, game breaking combinations (hello Picard on a Borg Cube), tournament exclusive cards (not alt-art, literally exclusive cards with effects nowhere else), and just the sheer state of the models; not only are none of them in any sort of scale, they're godawful quality.

Really what I'd love is a Trek game with the Armada system. Get my Dominion war on, or a proper Borg fight. Applying a dog fighting mechanic to capital ships like Attack Wing does is rough.

Yeah, the problem with STAW is that for all the stuff people complain about in terms of upgrade cards in X-wing, it's got nothing on the kind of shenanigans in STAW. It got to the point where they had to put a limit on how many points could be put into a single ship because it's very possible to have ships roll 6-7 modified green dice no problem.

Also the 1,000 identically named but slightly different photon torpedoes.

1 hour ago, Stay On The Leader said:

So I've carried on counting and I believe the current tally to be roughly:

• No - 61
• Maybe - 9
• Yes - 22

That's almost exactly 2/3. Personally I would have guessed at 3/4, but that was based on pure anecdotal evidence.

One point should be considered though: forums attract more competitive players than casual ones. So it's reasonable to assume that the actual percentage is slightly higher when all players would be questioned, without the selection bias we have here.

3 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

That's almost exactly 2/3. Personally I would have guessed at 3/4, but that was based on pure anecdotal evidence.

One point should be considered though: forums attract more competitive players than casual ones. So it's reasonable to assume that the actual percentage is slightly higher when all players would be questioned, without the selection bias we have here.

I readily admit the vast majority of any player base is casual. Where I differ is when people argue that casual players should dictate competitive policy. I think casual players should have some number of formats and competitive players should have some number of formats. In every game I've played, there is a great divide between casual and competitive mindsets and one group shouldn't dictate the terms on the other groups format. When FFG doesn't provide you with a format though.....

16 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

That's almost exactly 2/3. Personally I would have guessed at 3/4, but that was based on pure anecdotal evidence.

One point should be considered though: forums attract more competitive players than casual ones. So it's reasonable to assume that the actual percentage is slightly higher when all players would be questioned, without the selection bias we have here.

I think that's a pretty subjective call to make.

1 hour ago, NakedDex said:

2 hours ago, StevenO said:

Wait a second. There isn't there a Star Trek version of this game, or are the differences between that game and X-Wing great enough that they can't possible be related? I've seen enough posts that want to take stuff from that game and introduce it to X-Wing that if you want Star Trek and don't care for Star Wars I'm not sure why you're here.

It's a disaster of a game, on several fronts. For all its faults, X-wing is still vastly superior. Among said faults is the ability to use other factions captains on ships they'd never be on, game breaking combinations (hello Picard on a Borg Cube), tournament exclusive cards (not alt-art, literally exclusive cards with effects nowhere else), and just the sheer state of the models; not only are none of them in any sort of scale, they're godawful quality.
...

As I mentioned there have been calls for similar things in X-Wing although those have fortunately been falling on deaf ear. Put Captains on "their" ships, do away with the exclusive limited edition super effects, and improve the models and then it seems they should match. The thing is you see here people asking to use "Pilot X" in "ship Y" all the time. The exclusive tournament boosters are fortunately not a thing and I guess we can that FFG's tournaments for that. As for scale I find that word hard to get around in Star Trek as they weren't even consistent within the movies/shows.

46 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

2 hours ago, Stay On The Leader said:

So I've carried on counting and I believe the current tally to be roughly:

• No - 61
• Maybe - 9
• Yes - 22

That's almost exactly 2/3. Personally I would have guessed at 3/4, but that was based on pure anecdotal evidence.

One point should be considered though: forums attract more competitive players than casual ones. So it's reasonable to assume that the actual percentage is slightly higher when all players would be questioned, without the selection bias we have here.

You know, I'd say that is a lot closer to 3/4 saying "no" than 2/3. Multiply the 22 x3 and you get 66 so you've got a 1:3 ratio with less than 1/4 saying "yes" uniquivably.

The canon scale isn't bad once you stick within an era. Once you introduce movies and other eras, it gets messy. That's why late TNG/Voy/DS9 is ideal: they're simultaneous, for the most part. WizKids went super cash grab on it, though, and broke the game early on, then repeatedly patched it with mass power creep and insanely overpowered combinations.

11 hours ago, Jadotch said:

Nope.

Star Wars (more specifically, the YT-2400, my favorite ship in the franchise), is why I gave the game a chance. And it worked to get me hooked, it was a good game., and I appreciate the game mechanics.

An excellent argument for continuing to explore EU/Legends ships.

3 hours ago, Stay On The Leader said:

So I've carried on counting and I believe the current tally to be roughly:

• No - 61
• Maybe - 9
• Yes - 22

Thanks for picking up the torch. I basically figured no on really cared about the results.

1 hour ago, GreenDragoon said:

That's almost exactly 2/3. Personally I would have guessed at 3/4, but that was based on pure anecdotal evidence.

One point should be considered though: forums attract more competitive players than casual ones. So it's reasonable to assume that the actual percentage is slightly higher when all players would be questioned, without the selection bias we have here.

I'll just leave this here and bask in my own brilliance for the day:

On ‎2‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 10:36 AM, Darth Meanie said:

Of course people come to this game for all reasons, but just for fast math, it's me, Clan, Blod, and Green vs. you and Ace.

2/3 of us are in the game cuz it's SW. FFG better pander to that.

1 hour ago, AceWing said:

I readily admit the vast majority of any player base is casual. Where I differ is when people argue that casual players should dictate competitive policy. I think casual players should have some number of formats and competitive players should have some number of formats. In every game I've played, there is a great divide between casual and competitive mindsets and one group shouldn't dictate the terms on the other groups format. When FFG doesn't provide you with a format though.....

Technically, they do: Epic. OTOH, the designers readily admit they are only looking at tournament meta when designing ship waves. I'm not sure who gets to design Huge ships (is it the same team?) and if they are created in a vacuum (i.e., not looking at combos with small/large ships), but as a casual player, I can't help but feel like a second-class citizen in X-Wing design.

1 hour ago, Stay On The Leader said:

I think that's a pretty subjective call to make.

It's as objective as possible with the data available. Sometimes, you just gotta make the call. . .

Yes. I actually stayed away from the game for a while due to it being "Star Wars". I guess I had it in my mind that the game was likely riding on the IP as opposed to actually being a solid game. After constantly reading good reviews about the rules though, I decided I had to try it.

I've actually begun to appreciate Star Wars much more because of this game.

No. I try to avoid collectible games, and definitely stay away from collectible minis like the plague.

And I'm sure it's been said already in this thread, but while that's my answer, the other question to ask is, "Would I have kept playing it if the game sucked?" No, no I would not have. It's a great game, and that's why I've stuck with it since Wave 1. The IP sucked me in, but the quality of the game kept me here.

A great example is the Star Wars Starship Battles that WotC put out in 2006. My local community jumped all over it because it was Star Wars. However, not only was it truly collectible (ships were sold in blind, random booster packs), but the game mechanics were pretty half-assed and it wasn't well-designed. Within a few months, the scene had completely dried up. No one was playing it and I had a bunch of a useless ships and hundreds of dollars worth of regret.

yes. i know there was a plane version (sorta) but no one played it and it wasn't as good. if there was a plane version that was as widely played and talked about, i would totally be in.

i would run the red baron and be smug when anyone talked about the flying circus meta and tell them to get good

2 hours ago, GreenDragoon said:

That's almost exactly 2/3. Personally I would have guessed at 3/4, but that was based on pure anecdotal evidence.

One point should be considered though: forums attract more competitive players than casual ones. So it's reasonable to assume that the actual percentage is slightly higher when all players would be questioned, without the selection bias we have here.

However, 1/4 is not a 'tiny' fraction as it's been speculated in this thread several pages back

2 hours ago, Stay On The Leader said:

I think that's a pretty subjective call to make.

What exactly?

The assumption that the forum attracts more competitive than casual players? Or my initially completely wild and unsubstantiated guess that it's 3/4, which is now somewhat backed up by this thread plus the assumption I made?

1 minute ago, LordBlades said:

However, 1/4 is not a 'tiny' fraction as it's been speculated in this thread several pages back

That is right.

However, from a business point of view, FFG clearly has to take the StarWars-yness into account. As @Stay On The Leader wrote as 4th point in his blog, it is one of 4 problems. And personally I'd rate it as the second most important, but the reasoning behind is for another topic.

22 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

That is right.

However, from a business point of view, FFG clearly has to take the StarWars-yness into account. As @Stay On The Leader wrote as 4th point in his blog, it is one of 4 problems. And personally I'd rate it as the second most important, but the reasoning behind is for another topic.

FFG pays a significant amount of $$$ for the right to put Star Wars ships into their game. It would be a bloody terrible business decision to not capitalise on that as much as they can, although their strategy (release everything that's been on the screen in a Star Wars movie or TV show) doesn't seem to find that much sympathy with the older fans, who want their OT ships to be good.

14 minutes ago, LordBlades said:

FFG pays a significant amount of $$$ for the right to put Star Wars ships into their game. It would be a bloody terrible business decision to not capitalise on that as much as they can, although their strategy (release everything that's been on the screen in a Star Wars movie or TV show) doesn't seem to find that much sympathy with the older fans, who want their OT ships to be good.

yes, it looks like they misread their customers a bit. I do hope though that they have much bettere analysis themselves, and that they know what they are doing.

It would be a shame for such a great game to lose growth because the wrong piece of plastic is being moved around on the board.

1 hour ago, theninthguardian said:

No. I try to avoid collectible games, and definitely stay away from collectible minis like the plague.

...

A great example is the Star Wars Starship Battles that WotC put out in 2006. My local community jumped all over it because it was Star Wars. However, not only was it truly collectible (ships were sold in blind, random booster packs), but the game mechanics were pretty half-assed and it wasn't well-designed. Within a few months, the scene had completely dried up. No one was playing it and I had a bunch of a useless ships and hundreds of dollars worth of regret.

SSB is a great example of a Star Wars mini game gone horribly wrong. You can dislike the distribution system which was also used for the character level minis skirmish game but the execution of the game was so horrible. While you could at least trace how SWM played to the RPG there was next to no connection between SSB and the RPG. HAD WotC made their SSB rules something much closer to their War At Sea rules the game would have been far more interesting and probably kept people interested in it for far longer. I've got a small collection of SSB minis but I highly doubt I'd ever consider using them as the game intended.

23 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

yes, it looks like they misread their customers a bit. I do hope though that they have much bettere analysis themselves, and that they know what they are doing.

It would be a shame for such a great game to lose growth because the wrong piece of plastic is being moved around on the board.

I kinda think the problem is the OT ships get made first, when they don't have an idea of how the game is going to pan out, then by the time they've got it down, those ships have a lot of problems, some of which can't be fixed with an upgrade card down the line.

2 hours ago, theninthguardian said:

No. I try to avoid collectible games, and definitely stay away from collectible minis like the plague.

And I'm sure it's been said already in this thread, but while that's my answer, the other question to ask is, "Would I have kept playing it if the game sucked?" No, no I would not have. It's a great game, and that's why I've stuck with it since Wave 1. The IP sucked me in, but the quality of the game kept me here.

Same for me.