Had to pop my nose back in to see what my once favorite game was doing lately. Also had to run the FLGS Store Championship so kinda had to come back. Sadly came back to a lot of the same disappointing changes that the game has gone through, but I will also say the meta appeared very healthy and diverse at least in our little corner. Fourteen players and no real repeat list or faction lopsidedness. Credit where due.

But before we had got down to buisness there was a chance to chat with players and inevitably X-wing 2.0 came up. And there were a ton of interesting ideas thrown around for changes along with things that players shared as being sticking points that they wanted to see fixed, and most importantly things that players wanted to see stay the same. Like, A LOT, of good thoughts.

I love game design. Not the designing of mathematical vehicles to represent the skill of one game piece over the other, that comes later and along with, but GAME design. The math is what you hammer out once you got the feeling of the game right and have assigned the rough formulas to the interaction points. (Okay, really there's a lot of back and forth between the two sides as you go through game creation, but math interaction follows almost every step but ever so rarely is a math component designed and then an aesthetic assigned to it) Game design is creating the vehicle of experience that the players will share. So when I heard how the folks at the tournament were EXPERIENCING X-wing and the conversation that followed, I realized how much folks had been pondering this notion. So I wanted to start a bit of a collection as it were.

So please share your thoughts on what you like, what you don't like. Mechanics (not individual cards effects per se mind you, unless you feel it warrants it) that you think are cool, ones that you can't stand. Overall feeling stuff. Mechanics you want to add. (again, not cards, full mechanics though concept cards are helpful to demonstrate your ideas) Mechanics you don't think do what they were intended to do. Mechanics you see as getting in the way of the game or just being non-functional and want removed. As some examples that I've heard over the past years, some buzz words really, things like higher point values, either to add 'granularity' or other wise. Changes to the boost mechanic on large ships. New dice types. This is a brainstorm/think tank so feel free to get carried away from this structure if you feel it will add to the conversation. The last thing we want is to be locked in the box.

Lastly for the OP, a reading comprehension challenge to see if you read this far: This is not a discussion of whether or not the powers that be will create a second edition X-wing or not. So if you write in something like 'I like the mechanics as they are', congrats you passed! If you write in 'FFG won't make a 2.0, stop talking about it'... Well... We'll know how far you read through the OP and have a pretty good laugh at your expense. So hey thanks for footing that bill. ?

Below is the list. The list has been 100% generated by ideas put forward in this thread. I provide some minor commentary, and at times identify the ones I've heard or share, but these are all forum users ideas. As much as possible I'm keeping it up to date and on order of mention. Edit: a numbering system has recently been added for ease of reference. Because I'm dumb and didn't originally plan one in ? Sub points to categories were not numbered. When reading through the thread you may want to check posters citation system in the first three pages as it may differ from the one below.

THE LIST:

1+Granularity gained by raising point cost

2+Models stay the same, base may change?

--+Guides on all sides of the ship.(somewhere I have sketches of a circular base concept that had this and achieved 8 slots that were all equally usable by having 8 nubs[nubs gets a mention later] at equidistant points all the way around. Abandoned for lack of firing arc clarity. Worth a second look)

--+Mention of medium bases. Curious notion. I like it. This one came up once in the local pod too.

--+Nubs have been brought up a few times now. Recessed slots for templates mentioned repeatedly. (Can't really disagree here with getting rid of them. They've not exactly helped with the clarity of what's a bump/overlap versus what is range measured from etc. I feel like they've also changed the rules on what they do a few times now which to me is always a bad indication of it's usability. It's a really common rules question and not exactly intuitive. If we're talking about new bases, definitely worth talking about

3+Maneuver tool instead of templates (Surprised how much I like this concept, good discussion point. Might just be the Armada talking.)

--+Base size to maneuver interaction appears to be a sticking point. (Should look at that. Rear to _____ common maneuvering is popular idea. Armada does a front corner to front corner and I feel like this was a response to lessons learned in X-wing. Might be worth a bit of dissection)

--+Modify the secondary positioning actions.

4+App software support system/mandatory system. (In my head I've been designing systems that use this, I feel like games will be moving more in this direction more and more. FFG has demonstrated as much with Descent and XCOM, soon Imperial Assault. Good discussion point)

5+Dice types (holy Qui-gon this is popular. I'm all for it but it opens up an opportunity to revamp a TON of stuff. Lots to explore. Seems to be nearly unanimous at this point, so happy.)

--+Accuracy versus damage and damage type.

6+Mobile firing arcs. (Huh. I didn't like that one but worth exploring, turrets have been a rough spot since introduction in wave TWO)

7+Pilots separate from ships (see also App system. This one gets a lot of love but has been a notoriously sticky area. Must dive deep.)

8+Core level mechanic that adds action economy to universal level. (Push the limit)

9+Bonus dice versus weapon types(see also dice types *Clarification edit:* it's been brought up that the bonus dice for range that is currently primary weapon only should be extended to include Canon and turret upgrade type weapons)

10+Alternating initiative. (In a group discussion locally we also once think tabled what the game would be like with alternate activation and removing pilot skill entirely. Seems like a low identify point, get the microscope. Seems to have been considered by many)

11+New defense mechanism that has no variance. (This one has also been around since nearly the beginning. Seems to have fallen out of Vogue discussions of late but still very much in the players mind simultaneously. Green dice are so very often thought to have 'failed' the player when in reality they were only ever intended to delay the destruction. Green dice were DESIGNED TO FAIL intentionally so the game would not likely stagnate in shoot outs. It's also the only built in advantage to tailing another fighter: it's my reds versus your greens and your greens are weaker one to one. I feel very strongly that the cinematic flavor and the 'this one time...' stories that are created from that should be kept. This will be a bit of a briar patch, but a successful 2.0 could hinge on being able to capture that action-cinematic feel that draws so many to the game particularly in casual players, while also satisfying the mathematical bent that many competitive players enjoy. Must dive deep here also, with the microscope in tow. Armada notably did this successfully but the scale difference of the game makes it seem more reasonable for the context. Notably in Armada fighters don't have any defensive damage mitigation unless they have a name, and even then it's pretty limited. Addendum: lots of discussion on this one)

12+More types of upgrades. (Ship titles versus refits kinda stuff. Totally agree. Easy open. *Clarification edit*: it's been mentioned that perhaps having only the one 'slot' for title cards is not enough. Especially since a title can overlap between a ships given name like 'Millennium Falcon' or like a model number 'BTL-a4' or whatever. I think that's a great point. This is a great topic I would love to throw down on.)

13+Objective Based Play (Oh my gawd yes. DO IT!)

14+Keywords being brought in as a common usage item. (Thank you! Since I started this game I've been scratching my head asking why there were not keywords. One of the most ubiquitous mechanics of modern games is bizarrely not in X-wing. I mean, unless we count "Attack(Target lock:".)

15+An additional type of stress mechanic to differentiate between a pilots stress and the vehicles stress. 'Anxiety' was the mention. (Fascinating notion. I am certainly curious. I mean it really makes sense thematically. Good discussion point)

16+Plan more turns in advance. A two dial system was recommended. As well as...

17+Action planning. Setting a dial for what action you well perform ahead of time.

18+Core level Bullseye arc.

19+Time restriction mechanic. Specifically this was "first to put dials down chooses initiative". (Highly opposed to this sadly.)

20+Altitude tracking mechanics

21+ Shield regen as inherent qualities of ships (like an action or something)

22+ Three dimensional support

23+ All arcs printed on every ship (allows for referencing of mechanics to rear arc, potential enables all ships to have a mobile arc)

24+ Better ion system

25+ Ships having native qualities like 'bomber' and 'interceptor' (see also keywords. My own notes on a2.0 have this included.

26+ Force power abilities.

27+ Lessen the penalty for bumping.( Meh. I like them as is, BUT, now that you mention it...I know a ton of the demos I gave left that as a sore spot for players)

28+ Additional maneuvers for things like speed 4-bank (6-straight was mentioned too)

29+ Ship creation Formula

30+ Damaged state that effects your ships performance.

We need 2 ideas, only 2 ideas, and exactly 2 ideas. NOT ONE-TENTH MORE!!

My main desire would be more dice types.

I think we could also get a new single maneuver tool and range tool, like what we see in Legion and Armada. This maneuver tool can be bent in several ways to emulate the direction/shape of current maneuver templates. If there were varying sizes of this tool, one for slow/large ships and one for fast ships we can get a change in dynamics for many ships.

Additionally, a segmented range tool like Legion has, would be briliant.

29 minutes ago, That Blasted Samophlange said:

This maneuver tool can be bent in several ways to emulate the direction/shape of current maneuver templates.

Until the joints wear out and the clicks degrade into something like a dead snake. Gawd, I hated that floppy SOB. I'll take a stiff tool in preference any day of the week.

First and foremost, keep the same scale so the "1.0" miniatures still work in 2.0. Keep pilots separate from fighters, but limit the ships they can pilot. Keep red dice and green dice as is, but also add an accuracy roll as well. I'd also love to see broken pilot skills revamped or replaced with something more in line with the game (not naming any names) and older ships given better dials or a better native action pool.

Aside from that, I feel like what we have now is a solid set of game mechanics and rules.

When a 2.0 hits:

• I would love to see multiple die types. It allows weapon accuracy and power to be separated more. I would say ordnance having different die would be acceptable, or upgrades that upgrade/downgrade die rather than just adding or taking away would increase design options.
• Points values increased to allow more granularity between ship and upgrade cost.
• Play centered around objectives
• Movement phase and action phase separated
• A "push the limit" type mechanic built into the game where you can take a stress for additional action
• Accepting that a game like this gets more and more difficult to balance as it expands so doing it in a way where making point adjustments is simple and easy to correct things i.e. an official squadron builder and no sp cost on the cards or cardboard
• hexagonal bases? I honestly don't know why I'd prefer this, just going with my gut here
• All turrets being mobile turrets. I would have it work where they can shoot out of arc, but take a penalty to do so.

I'm sure there is more, but I'm no game designer so they are all just irrelevant ideas anyways.

7 minutes ago, Kehl_Aecea said:

First and foremost, keep the same scale so the "1.0" miniatures still work in 2.0. Keep pilots separate from fighters, but limit the ships they can pilot. Keep red dice and green dice as is, but also add an accuracy roll as well. I'd also love to see broken pilot skills revamped or replaced with something more in line with the game (not naming any names) and older ships given better dials or a better native action pool.

Aside from that, I feel like what we have now is a solid set of game mechanics and rules.

I would agree with my top priority would be that the game isn't redesigned in a way that doesn't allow me to continue to utilize my 1.0 ships with minimal investment. rebuying all the same ships would probably be a deal breaker for a lot of people.

Things I would like to see:

-Different types of attack die. (3 colors, each weapon and ship is assigned one of the 3)
-Different evasive dice. (Again 3 colors, each ship is assigned a color.)
-Medium base plate (2 wide, and 2 long)
-Separate Maneuver Templates for small, medium and large ships. (Mainly to shut people up about "Reeeee! freighters should not move that fast! Reeeeee!)
-Total rewrite of the point system. Even broke into pilot points and upgrade points. Or each ship brings so many upgrade points with it.
-A mobile like firing arc system. (A clear plastic disc with a 90 degree arc on it which can be spun in any direction, instead of just quadrants.)
-Some how streamline the combat system. It is kinda a mess.

I have more but that is off the top of my head.

Accuracy and ballanced weapons.

Ie- Torpedoes, low accuracy devastating damage. (Vice versa for missles)

Turrets should be adjusted to this as well. Low accuracy and higher (relative) damage.

Astromecs and crew abilities should not require an action. (What is the point of them if it requires the pilot to make it happen)

Large ships ops should not be allowed to boost or barrel roll

Need a medium base platform

GAH! I forgot about the medium bases idea! Yes, that! Medium and small base ships could use the same templates, just mediums wouldn't be using 3, 4, and 5s (or at least they'd ALWAYS be red). For large base ships, I actually was thinking a variation of what Epic ships use where movements are made from the rear edge of the ship (with a few rare exceptions).

Ideas I've seen that I like have included:

* Range bonus on defence against secondary weapons

* Out-of-arc bonus on defence against turrets

* Pilot cards separate from ships

Ideas I'm neutral on:

* Separate dice for ordnance

Ideas that I respectfully disagree with:

* A second dice-rolling step for accuracy

* Armada-style movement templates

Overall, what I would be looking for in a second edition would be simply a cleaning-up of the existing system: rebalancing costs, stats, and effects according to a rational, consistent system. As others have said, it must use the existing ship models as well, though I think few would disagree with that. I'd also like a new edition to take the opportunity to fix flavour misses like the HWK's dial, the X-wing's action bar, or the U-wing's firing arcs.

Ideally, the game would define its power levels and the expected interaction between different elements (e.g. bombs and arc-dodgers) at the outset and stick with them.

One other random thing I'd like would be for the game to rejig its pilot skills to align more closely with the lore. Especially this means restoring the sanctity of PS 9: Luke, Han, Wedge, Poe, Vader, Fel, Stele, Dengar, and no one else ever. But that's kind of a personal pet peeve.

The biggest change I would want to see would be for a digital component to be put into the game for use in tournament level play (and use outside of that at the player's discretion), that periodically updated cards. This would allow the physical game to be updated as frequently and consistently as a fully digital game is through balancing patches. This would help create a better experience for the players by assuring components that may have been under or overperforming upon release can be adjusted, and both old and new can stay fresh and interesting.

10 minutes ago, Kdubb said:

The biggest change I would want to see would be for a digital component to be put into the game for use in tournament level play (and use outside of that at the player's discretion), that periodically updated cards. This would allow the physical game to be updated as frequently and consistently as a fully digital game is through balancing patches. This would help create a better experience for the players by assuring components that may have been under or overperforming upon release can be adjusted, and both old and new can stay fresh and interesting.

Like... the current FAQ does, only more frequently?

2 hours ago, FlyingAnchors said:

Like... the current FAQ does, only more frequently?

Pretty much

But I think a lot of their unnecessary fears about making tons of errata would go out the window if they came into it saying "hey, changes are going to happen, and we have a prescribed way of dealing with it that makes it easy on us and you."

Definitely have pilots able to move between ships. However, that would definitely need to have an online list of what ships are legal for each pilot. That way, when a new ship is released the pilots don't get their ships messed up.

Full app intigration eliminating the need to collect, organize, and replace old cards. You don't need to twist people's arms with cards FFG we would buy the toys anyway.*

The app would include turn and activation tracking so it would know both player's lists and tell you who gets to move next and present relevant information. Maybe it tracks damage and crit efects.

And it would report game results to a data base developers could look at to identify problems.

Other than that?

up all the numbers!

Base attack defense of 4-6 or something, more hull and shields. You don't need more granular dice if you simply have a bigger range of dice to play with. More dice mean a stronger more predictable curve.

*im not buying a seccond star viper on purpose just because I refuse to reward you for keeping such a game defining card to a single ship. Shame on you! Let people buy the toys they want you misers. Let me love you.

5 hours ago, TheHumanHydra said:

One other random thing I'd like would be for the game to rejig its pilot skills to align more closely with the lore. Especially this means restoring the sanctity of PS 9: Luke, Han, Wedge, Poe, Vader, Fel, Stele, Dengar, and no one else ever. But that's kind of a personal pet peeve.

THIS!!! I oh-so-agree with this. (Everything else you said was good too) but this is gold.

Oh thank the Maker! I'm loving all this. I want to have individual conversations in all these subjects. Also, assuming it's not due to seeding the conversation on the OP, I'm intrigued by the consistency of responses.

I'd like to throw out one: I don't like how large ships with crews work. Like the Falcon, Decimator, Outrider, and Ghost.. I don't see why when the ship activates, one action is supposed to represent what the ENTIRE CREW COMPLEMENT did. Like why is the Gunner for a Target lock that only he could use because seriously it's on his guns scope, and the pilot is trying to evade, and the copilot is trying to reroute power to Shields... Like really, what happened to all that? I know it's not an RPG, but the advantage of having more peeps on the ships is getting more functionality out of the ship. Could this game not represent that better? How does the Turret fire if there's no one to man it? End of day: how do we better represent crewed vessels with multiple crew roles in a game where you only have one step to show what the crew did? I'm thinking it can use work.

3 hours ago, Kdubb said:

Pretty much

But I think a lot of their unnecessary fears about making tons of errata would go out the window if they came into it saying "hey, changes are going to happen, and we have a prescribed way of dealing with it that makes it easy on us and you."

I don't think it's solely design fears because from the Nova panel this was brought up and we were basically told the FAQ doesn't get updated more because the mouse treats it as a lore document. So FFG is contractually obligated to get the thing looked at and approved by Lucasfilm before release because updating it is apparently equal to rewriting an origin story. Based on that I theorize, as you can imagine, Lucasfilm rep that signs off on it doesn't play the game and only checks their email once every 4-5 months, so the return rate on the thing is... sub par to say the least. Which makes for frustratingly slow erratas at times.

i wish the nova panel was posted, I haven't seen it yet though. lots of good info.

For:

-Keeping the models!

-Damage and accuracy seperated

-Mobile firing arcs

-Small, medium, large bases

-Movement is measured so that the base size does NOT influence the distance travelled (there you are, all those stupid freighters better than dedicated military snubfighters)

-A much more granular point system. The increments right now are not enough, the game is e.g. more or less stuck at att 3. Separating the new ships from older ships is difficult now design-wise

-A ban list for certain combos for tournaments. The current system of seldomly and unexpectedly dropping FAQ, which often misguided destroy certain upgrade cards instead of hitting the real target. Making those cards unplayable for ALL, while still not moving the meta enough

-Objectives for tournament. 100/6 is stale and unproportionally pushes certain specialists, generalists are chanceless

-Scenario packs (maybe in general a better support of missions and Epic)

Against:

Hex bases. Please no, that takes out all the fun of flying.

[edit: added the objectives and scenarios, I wanted to write, but forgot in the heat of typing )

11 hours ago, FlyingAnchors said:

I don't think it's solely design fears because from the Nova panel this was brought up and we were basically told the FAQ doesn't get updated more because the mouse treats it as a lore document. So FFG is contractually obligated to get the thing looked at and approved by Lucasfilm before release because updating it is apparently equal to rewriting an origin story. Based on that I theorize, as you can imagine, Lucasfilm rep that signs off on it doesn't play the game and only checks their email once every 4-5 months, so the return rate on the thing is... sub par to say the least. Which makes for frustratingly slow erratas at times.

i wish the nova panel was posted, I haven't seen it yet though. lots of good info.

Ya I REALLLLLLLY want to see that.

That seems so silly that the FAQ is treated as a lore document. And even if it is, it should be one of the simplest documents to review. Just read all the text in red!

I do think the devs are fearful of making lots of buffing errata though. From the gamasutra interview, it seemed pretty clear that being tied to physical components makes them hesitant to buff existing cards through errata.

100% behind making push the limit a core game mechanic, that every ship can do.

Range bonuses/penalties for cannons and turrets would be OK.

I'm pretty indifferent to the rest.

43 minutes ago, grandmoffjoe said:

100% behind making push the limit a core game mechanic, that every ship can do.

I have to disagree. Not only would that require drastic changes to pretty much every ship in the game to keep balanced, it'd also widen the already humongous gap between red and white maneuvers even further.

17 hours ago, Elavion said:

I have to disagree. Not only would that require drastic changes to pretty much every ship in the game to keep balanced, it'd also widen the already humongous gap between red and white maneuvers even further.

I don't understand. Every change to the core rules would require drastic changes to every ship in the game to keep balanced. That's why it's X wing 2.0 and not FAQ version 3.141592.

As for the "humongous gap" between white and red maneuvers, I've never experienced such a thing. You do a red when you need to. You do a white most of the time because it's the regular thing to do. If every ship had PTL, you'd just have to decide if you wanted to keep option to do a red open. You wanna PTL all the time and do other stress-inducing nonsense? Slot wingman or wired in the hole you used to put PTL in.

On 06/09/2017 at 8:51 PM, Darth Meanie said:

...I'll take a stiff tool in preference any day of the week.