23 minutes ago, svelok said:

I think that reality might basically be a myth.

And that beside, listbuilding counters are bad, and "very situational" upgrades are by definition going to be bad.

Hopefully 3rd edition makes ion and other control feel less bad.

1 hour ago, Managarmr said:

Unless we talk Epic. HLC Scyks or also HLC T70 and HLC Gunbloats eat Huge ships for breakfast.

Something I almost want to try in Epic sometime: Triple HLC Upsilons. Forward deploy with a bunch of Focus and Evade tokens, take Locks, and put some double-mod 5-dice attacks into an enemy huge ship, plus some forward-deployed SFs with missiles.

I'm sure it'll be bad, because for less than the cost of three Upsilons I could get a well-loaded Raider.

44 minutes ago, PaulRuddSays said:

Hopefully 3rd edition makes ion and other control feel less bad.

Ion certainly feels less bad than 1st edition, so there's something.

11 hours ago, theBitterFig said:

Ion certainly feels less bad than 1st edition, so there's something.

Why? (Genuinely asking, I forgot how 1.0 ion worked)

2 hours ago, GreenDragoon said:

Why? (Genuinely asking, I forgot how 1.0 ion worked)

If I recall correctly it was a white move so if you were stressed you stayed stressed and so guess who had no mods to try and avoid being ioned next turn.

1 hour ago, GreenDragoon said:

Why? (Genuinely asking, I forgot how 1.0 ion worked)

First off, Ion moves used to be white and not blue, so you'd keep stress. From my time flying Rainbow TIE/d with Flechette Cannon mixed in, it was pretty nasty to deny someone actions as well as dial. While you're limited only to Focus in 2e, the move is blue so you can't get totally effed over by stress.

Second, it's also about the weapons. From the most common Ion Cannon and IC Turret, a single marginal hit in 1e granted both 1 damage and 1 Ion. In 2e, you'll need a 2nd marginal hit to get the ion token. That alone is a pretty big improvement, since it's harder to get ionized in the first place.

Overall, I'd consider 2e Ion to be in a pretty good place.

17 hours ago, ClassicalMoser said:

Last I checked it was 2 points. It should be one point and they should fix the tractor rules to be what everyone agrees they should be.

Once again, there is no "everyone agrees on this" tractor rules suggestion.

18 hours ago, svelok said:

What makes the game more fun if 3 dice secondaries are viable on 3 dice primary platforms? I really don't think there's a good answer, and plenty of reason to think at least ion being good makes the game actively worse.

Thematic listbuilding shouldn't and doesn't take priority over fun gameplay.

I feel like this is what my barely-thought-through "what if most upgrades are free" idea from a few weeks ago was about.

Suppose B-Wings are now a 2-red ship, cannons are free, and they can also take a 2-slot cannon upgrade which turns them into a 3-red ship. Maybe Torpedoes would be free if you don't add in cannons. So what you select for a B-Wing isn't necessarily going to be about finding what's cheapest for the amount of damage you do, but about what you think would be the most fun and effective set of upgrades against the kinds of ships you think you'll play for the afternoon, for the tournament, etc.

A fluffy Ion Cannon + HCL or Autoblasters build has a bit more utility than a basic 3-red, but maybe 3-red is just more practical. Realistically, one option will still be better than the others, but at least now you won't have to spend more for a worse option--you'd spend the same. For a lot of folks, I think that'd be a more fun way to play the game.

I'm not sure that it's a good idea, but it seems like there's scope for the imagination in it, to borrow from Anne Shirley. I think it can be interesting to think about what a different version of X-Wing could look like along these lines. Upgrades more about roughly equal choices and style-of-play, not about adding power.

If all the Talents were like Expert Handling or Daredevil or Elusive (stuff which has more of an impact on how you play) rather than like Crack Shot or Juke or Predator (just boring dice improvements), I could see some version of the game with only free Talents being kinda fun. Certainly I don't want free Mauls for everyone. But if the choices is only between Composure (insurance on a basic boost going wrong) or Daredevil (access to a more powerful boost), I think that could be cool. Maybe. Again, it'd need to be kinda ground-up design.

52 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:

Suppose B-Wings are now a 2-red ship, cannons are free, and they can also take a 2-slot cannon upgrade which turns them into a 3-red ship. Maybe Torpedoes would be free if you don't add in cannons.

I have thought about this before, but not thought about it all the way through. I suspect, though, that it would run into massive balance problems; seeing as a primary comes built into a ship but upgrades are priced across all possible pilots with differing efficacy with them. At a minimum, I don't think you can argue it would lead to increased build variety - if torps are free because of B-Wings, well, Kylo's going to be taking them.

The other standout question is whether that's even preferable. Swapping all 3 dice primaries for free cannons (as a hypothetical) leads to a lot more ion and tractor in the game, which, again, not preferable. But you're also going to have alpha strikey torpedo metas, which, too, is less than ideal.

X-Wing just isn't the game for Battletech-tier loadout verisimilitude. If what you wanted was to realistically account for the pros and cons of various weapon systems and their requisite logistics and mission applications, acknowledging the wildly divergent loadouts brought into battle by different units... probably just start skinning Battletech with space ships.

Start from the assumption that 2 dice and a focus should scare things.

2 hours ago, svelok said:

At a minimum, I don't think you can argue it would lead to increased build variety - if torps are free because of B-Wings, well, Kylo's going to be taking them.

If Torps are free because of B-Wings, Kylo would certainly cost 100 points or more.

You're right that there's lots of potential balance issues, and there's probably no reasonable way to do it as a quick patch on 2e. Built from the ground up, I think there'd be something fun for at least some players. The whole might not be better. But I'm cooped up and mostly just want something to think about. And at this point, I'm just rambling for my own amusement as much as anything.

Part of the reason it wouldn't work for current X-Wing is there's a lot of granularity. The game is build around being able to have fine adjustments in the relative value of Cluster Missiles vs Concussion Missiles, between Plasma and Proton Torpedoes. This allows Devs to be less precise in the power level of upgrades, since they can dial in the right cost later.

Suppose something more like quickbuild, but let's double the threat, 16 point game. A basic B-Wing is 4 threat, and could bring cannons or 3-dice primary, but maybe a generic Torpedo B-Wing (with Passive Sensors or equivalent) is 5-threat. So most upgrades would be 0-threat, but some are 1-threat, or theoretically even 2-threat. Under such a scheme, devs would need to put a lot of effort into making sure the 0-threat upgrades are all essentially worth the same. It's a version of X-Wing where something like Shield Upgrade pretty much can't exist. Virago + Shield Upgrade might be something which could, but upgrades would pretty much have to be really strong, or do next to nothing (at least baked into the ship cost... choice of non-regen Astromech, etc etc).

I guess that's what's appealing to me. Anything fun and mostly useless is free. It adds a bit of flavor, a bit of texture, maybe helps in some edge cases depending on how a player likes to fly (R4 vs R3 on E-Wings, for example). Anything which has a larger impact than that should be big and expensive and exert real pressure on list-building.

Mostly just a silly idea.

10 minutes ago, Boom Owl said:

Start from the assumption that 2 dice and a focus should scare things.

My only concern with this: then 3 dice and a focus is outright terrifying.

With standard X-Wing dice, there's not a lot of room for fine-tuning the offense power of different ships.

I have no great solution.

5 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:

My only concern with this: then 3 dice and a focus is outright terrifying.

I dont see a problem there. Its a actually a good thing. The goal should be for players to be used to and expect to take damage and lose ships.

47 minutes ago, Boom Owl said:

Start from the assumption that 2 dice and a focus should scare things.

30 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:

My only concern with this: then 3 dice and a focus is outright terrifying.

With standard X-Wing dice, there's not a lot of room for fine-tuning the offense power of different ships.

I have no great solution.

So this exists as-is, right? It's just called "range bonus"?

25 minutes ago, Boom Owl said:

I dont see a problem there. Its a actually a good thing. The goal should be for players to be used to and expect to take damage and lose ships.

But Poe never dies in the movies!!1!1!!

8 minutes ago, Ablazoned said:

But Poe never dies in the movies!!1!1!!

THEY FLY NOW??!?11!?

49 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:

With standard X-Wing dice, there's not a lot of room for fine-tuning the offense power of different ships.

I disagree, but concede that implementing such fine-tuning can add complexity.

Examples- add a hit. Add a blank. Add an eyeball. Only in bullseye. Spend a [token] to add a [something]. Reroll a thing. Only [tweak your dice] when [defender has 3 agility or more]. Cancel a [type of result] too [do a thing].

For example, A-wings. I'm perfectly happy with them getting a 2-dice primary. But it's supposed to be an interceptor. So how about a config+talent upgrade like:

Dedicated Interceptor. While you perform a primary attack, if the defender is in your [bullseye], the defender cannot roll more than 2 defense dice.

Heck, you could probably give this to any ship with a 2-dice [forward primary], 3 agility, and boost and be fine (BotE gets the love, too).

I have a ton of such examples rattling around in my brain. But the point is that, even in the 2-4 dice space, there's room for a TON of different damage distribution curves given all the other rules in play.

1 hour ago, Boom Owl said:

Start from the assumption that 2 dice and a focus should scare things.

There's at least one ship type where that's evidently true

10 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

There's at least one ship type where that's evidently true

Yea for sure. 2.0 actually did a pretty awesome job of making 2 dice relevant.

Its not always true but its sometimes true enough that its kinda neat.

I would look to Legion for ideas of how to make the attack power level of ships more granular - lower the power of tokens, create more granular dice, use keywords to change how different units interact with dice.

1 hour ago, Boom Owl said:

I dont see a problem there. Its a actually a good thing. The goal should be for players to be used to and expect to take damage and lose ships.

I guess my point is that it makes the comparative balance between an X-Wing and a TIE Fighter a lot trickier.

If I'm splitting hairs, I think the goal should less be for 2 dice attacks to be relevant, but for 2 dice ships to be relevant, and while making sure that ships with 2 reds can push damage is a huge part of that, it's not the only thing. If 2 reds are scary, and 3 reds are terrifying, then don't players still just ignore 2 red ships?

Also probably needs to be paired with a reform of initiative killing.

//

Overall, I think I'm just kinda jealous of Legion with multiple attack dice with different face counts (caveat: I only really have a passing understanding of Legion mechanics). They've got attack dice that, if we don't care about a hit vs crit difference and there are no focus-like modifiers, will be 2/8 hits (white), 4/8 hits (black), or 6/8 hits (red). There, a unit doesn't have to go from Black/Black to Black/Black/Black. You could go to Black/Red, or to White/White/Red, or to White/Black/Black whatever. Those would all probably be better than two black dice, but worse than three black dice. There could be times and opponents when three white dice might be worse than two black dice, or others where it's a lot better.

Meanwhile, all the faces are still just 1-symbol faces, and the results ultimately reduce to either hit-or-not. Armada and Imperial Assault dice are a lot trickier to parse, IMHO, where different results do entirely different things, and . I never know what sides are what I'm actually looking for, or the value of one kind of symbol compared to another.

Also, I may have been ninja'd by @Transmogrifier (*edit* I was!)

46 minutes ago, Ablazoned said:

I disagree, but concede that implementing such fine-tuning can add complexity.

Yeah, too many hoops to jump through for my taste.

OK. New completely mad idea.

All attacks do no more than a single damage, hit or crit depending on dice (probably with crits cancelled before hits).

Pair with ships losing 1 agility, and around a third of their health.

So a TIE fighter would be a 2/2/2. A single Direct Hit crit will kill them, but otherwise will die to two attacks. An X-Wing would be 3/1/3/1. They'll live through four attacks most of the time. While an X-Wing or other 3-red ship would be better at ensuring the attacks actually push damage, it'll still take the same number of successful attacks for a 3-dice ship to kill something as a 2-dice ship.

1 hour ago, Transmogrifier said:

I would look to Legion for ideas of how to make the attack power level of ships more granular - lower the power of tokens, create more granular dice, use keywords to change how different units interact with dice.

I think this is the nail on the head of this discussion.

There's is only so much granularity available in X-Wing, and that's by design.

A 100 point scale was pretty broken in late design space, and far less competitive.

The 200 point scale of 2E has taken that issue leaps and bounds in the right direction without sacrificing too much accessibility (although many have said 2e still has a steeper learning curve than 1e).

The bones of SW Legion (and Armada, for that matter) lend themselves to many more design variables and thus greater dice modification complexity and thus more competitive/difficult/complex list design.

______

Whenever the competitor in me screams for more control of design and outcomes in X-Wing, I try to remember that the gameplay must always be frustratingly out of my control ... For this is our dogfighting miniatures game.

Victory goes not to the strategic and the mathematically correct; victory goes to the sly and the daring.

Dogfighting is not fair... And aces do not become aces simply by being correct.

1 hour ago, theBitterFig said:

OK. New completely mad idea.

All attacks do no more than a single damage, hit or crit depending on dice (probably with crits cancelled before hits).

Pair with ships losing 1 agility, and around a third of their health.

So a TIE fighter would be a 2/2/2. A single Direct Hit crit will kill them, but otherwise will die to two attacks. An X-Wing would be 3/1/3/1. They'll live through four attacks most of the time. While an X-Wing or other 3-red ship would be better at ensuring the attacks actually push damage, it'll still take the same number of successful attacks for a 3-dice ship to kill something as a 2-dice ship.

This looks fun.

1 hour ago, theBitterFig said:

hit or crit depending on dice (probably with crits cancelled before hits).

Though this brushes firmly against one of the primary critiques brought against my Unguided Torp idea that I posted a few months ago. Crits become something you don't want to roll so turn into a negative experience for the person rolling the attack dice.

30 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:

Though this brushes firmly against one of the primary critiques brought against my Unguided Torp idea that I posted a few months ago. Crits become something you don't want to roll so turn into a negative experience for the person rolling the attack dice.

Only in the slightest way: "did that leaf actually touch me or did I only feel the air move?"

Crits--although cancelled first--would still be better than hits, since if you have any crits when the dice pool remained, you'd get one through. Any player would still want to roll crits, and rolling more crits is always better than more hits.

If only one damage is ever sneaking through, seeing a radically increased percentage of that damage which is critical damage might be undesirable.

It's like Plasma Torpedoes. A minor check on balance--when CRITS ARE STILL GOOD.

4 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:

Crits--although cancelled first--would still be better than hits, since if you have any crits when the dice pool remained, you'd get one through. Any player would still want to roll crits, and rolling more crits is always better than more hits.

Okay so by "hit or crit depending on dice" you mean that the attack is considered a hit or a crit base on if there is a crit result is remaining in the attack roll after canceling or is it based on which result is there more of in the remaining results?

At some point the simplicity was an important argument in favor of Xwing. It is likely gone anyway, so FFG might as well embrace higher complexity with special dice.

@theBitterFig I like the 1dmg idea, but it's not compatible with 2.0