Big ones for me:

• New attack die types:
  • Blue: accuracy. TLTs, missiles etc. Would have a number of double hit symbols which take 2 evades to cancel but deal 1 damage if uncancelled.
  • Red: the current standard red die.
  • Black: damage. HLCs, torpedoes etc. Would have a number of double crit symbols requiring one evade to cancel but dealing 2 critical damage if uncancelled.
    • Cancellation order would be double hit > hit > double crit > crit.
    • Symbols could be added of any sort, using that cancellation order, or mixed dice could be used potentially.
    • IA/Descent-style Surges should also be added to represent mixed arms and weapons with added effects.
    • In general more attack dice, so that the game is balanced around 5 or 6 being a standard number, and minor variations aren't so important.
• New defence system, reducing defensive variance significantly now that offensive variance has been increased with different die types. Something akin to Runewars' armour/wounds, maybe. Haven't thought this one all the way through.
• New base size: medium - could be used long or wide, with nubs on all four sides. THis would probably necessitate new barrel roll rules but:
• New manoeuvring rules: all manoeuvres are rear-to-front, eliminating much of the 'big ships are stupid fast' element that comes from front-to-rear manoeuvres.
• New boost, barrel roll, and decloak actions: to account for the variety of base sizes.
• Significantly increased point values all round - making everything 3 or 4 times more points, to allow for more fine grained points costs.
• Alternating initiative. No more bidding, no more 'I lost a roll at the start so I lose the game'.
• Built in penalties for attacking out of arc (-1 red die) and bonuses for attacking from out of arc (-1 green die) to increase the value of POINTING AT THINGS and outflying people, and reduce the disparities caused by Autothrusters.
• A new standard available-to-everyone upgrade type to go along with title and modification - Configuration. Basically, generic titles - the kinds of things like Adaptive Ailerons, Special Ops Training, Alliance Overhaul, that are basically there to write on the pilot card what there isn't space to write on them, leaving Titles to be just that - the actual names of ships.

That's the general stuff for me, specific stuff like rebalancing individual ships and pilots would take a lot longer...

I'm really intrigued by this medium size base thing. When someone first mentioned it I immediately thought 1x2 rectangle Base size with a 'wide' version for like the K-wing, Scurg, Punisher, ARC-170, and a 'narrow' version for things like the U-wing. Thinking about it I love how such a game piece could be moved around the play space. Literally pulling 'wing-over like' maneuvering in and through other fighters and obstacles. And a narrow version would pick up a little more speed and feel very dart like diving long into positions. (Which intrigued me even more to have that rectangle style as the standard for even small ships. Narrow A-wing, wide TIE/bombers?) But then someone corrected me with the concept of a 1.5x1.5 square base that was more catch-all and probably a little more stable and I like that too.

My question that I really have to ask here so the aim of such a change isn't lost is this: What are we doing this for? Is this to correct a disparity between the model and the game experience? Is this to add further dimensions to the maneuvering system for interest sake? Is this to accentuate what a ship does? Solidify it as distinct and different? All are fantastic answers and I think they are all true, but how do they compare or is there something I just missed?

Bottom line question: okay many of us want to do this, myself included... But why? What does the new design HAVE to accomplish?

Related: why the **** was there never a 4-bank maneuver? Who dropped the ball there? Like... Really?

For me, the medium base is partly about making the minis fit the base sizes better from a pure practicality standpoint - putting ships that are nearly twice as wide/long as a small base on a meidum base just makes more sense to me, and it means that some of the currently-large ships that don't really need a large base could have a medium one, like the Aggressor.

Partly it's also to add more interesting movement profiles - long thing bases move fast like big ships, short wide bases move slow like small ships.

Though, that benefit is kind of obviated if you also change to back-to-front movement rather than front-to-back.

it also changes their range and arc profiles significantly.

I'd like to see the game use defense tokens ala armada, varying them based on the ship and allowing them to have different effects under different circumstances. I think this would do a good job of making some ships handle dealing with turrets better and also make ships be able to be more variable. I also like the idea of different kinds of attack die.

I would also like to see missiles/torps reworked to augment a normal attack rather than make whole new attacks because the need to make this seperate attack worthwhile but also not lead to dumb alpha strike play makes balancing them insanely difficult.

I'd like to see separate pilot and ship cards so I can put my favourite pilots into good ships.

2 minutes ago, Estarriol said:

I'd like to see separate pilot and ship cards so I can put my favourite pilots into good ships.

That way madness (or Star Trek Attack Wing) lies.

There are SO many pilot abilities that are balanced by their ships that it's just not even a suggestion that should be countenanced.

I'm definitely putting and already have put the seperate pilot idea on the list because I absolutely feel it is a demand of the majority of players, even if it's only slightly a majority. I do not have any data to support that feeling but I've seen it get brought up from basically the games inception and throughout my time on the forums, each time spontaneously, which tells me this is a pretty natural thought for most players. **** it was a thought of mine until I thought of the crazy combos it could create. Silly stuff like Corran Horn on the Millennium Falcon would be bananas. Which is why we usually quash the idea on contact.

But in this discussion we have the opportunity to look at everything with fresh eyes and nothing should be outside consideration. We're ripping ALL THE GUTS OUT'O THIS _______ and seeing them laid out on the table were going at them with micrometers and looking for wear and warp. And looking at putting on some upgrades in to and getting rid of components that are pulling too much power without good effect. We're not going to reject a part for inclusion until a little experimentation has been done.

In the current game engine just separated pilots would be such a fail as to be laughable. But if we were to pair it with a couple other ideas we might get somewhere. Like the App support option. Via app you could regularly update the pilots virtual 'card' with each update of new ships, or even between ship releases. Or if we were to change the product line up to include card packs that add pilot/ship pairings regularly that could be an option. The virtual system would be better here as the computer could easily track point costs for different combinations. Pick the ship you want, open a drop down menu of pilot options that shows a listed price for that specific ship, open up drop down for the upgrades that show prices specific to that ship for the upgrades, etc. That could work. Because if the ability is costed appropriately, and you have and will use the ability to edit those prices as needed for the life of the game, your only gaining variety and sand box levels of freedom. Now meta will be an issue but that's a whole other beast. Letters not discount it yet though.?

Being something the majority think they want doesn't make it a good idea.

26 minutes ago, ForceSensitive said:

I'm definitely putting and already have put the seperate pilot idea on the list because I absolutely feel it is a demand of the majority of players, even if it's only slightly a majority. I do not have any data to support that feeling but I've seen it get brought up from basically the games inception and throughout my time on the forums, each time spontaneously, which tells me this is a pretty natural thought for most players. **** it was a thought of mine until I thought of the crazy combos it could create. Silly stuff like Corran Horn on the Millennium Falcon would be bananas. Which is why we usually quash the idea on contact.

But in this discussion we have the opportunity to look at everything with fresh eyes and nothing should be outside consideration. We're ripping ALL THE GUTS OUT'O THIS _______ and seeing them laid out on the table were going at them with micrometers and looking for wear and warp. And looking at putting on some upgrades in to and getting rid of components that are pulling too much power without good effect. We're not going to reject a part for inclusion until a little experimentation has been done.

In the current game engine just separated pilots would be such a fail as to be laughable. But if we were to pair it with a couple other ideas we might get somewhere. Like the App support option. Via app you could regularly update the pilots virtual 'card' with each update of new ships, or even between ship releases. Or if we were to change the product line up to include card packs that add pilot/ship pairings regularly that could be an option. The virtual system would be better here as the computer could easily track point costs for different combinations. Pick the ship you want, open a drop down menu of pilot options that shows a listed price for that specific ship, open up drop down for the upgrades that show prices specific to that ship for the upgrades, etc. That could work. Because if the ability is costed appropriately, and you have and will use the ability to edit those prices as needed for the life of the game, your only gaining variety and sand box levels of freedom. Now meta will be an issue but that's a whole other beast. Letters not discount it yet though.?

I kinda think you hit the problem with the fact that in order to balance it, you'd pretty much have an insane task of balancing every single pilot ability with every single ship, even if you can get the point costing correct(and have different ones with different ships).

Also, while an app is nice and all, part of the appeal of tabletop games is having a ruleset that's designed to be totally understood by humans, and the more we get toward differing point costs per expansion, crazy variety in that way and cards changing weekly, the more we get toward something that would probably be better as a computer game.

I could maybe get on board with a very limited selection of pilots having portability between a very limited selection of ships. But it would be really, really difficult to judge pricing even in that context - consider, for instance, Omega Leader in any ship which has a System slot. He's free to take VI and FCS, and never need to worry about getting target locks.

It's a balancing NIGHTMARE.

23 minutes ago, ForceSensitive said:

I'm definitely putting and already have put the seperate pilot idea on the list because I absolutely feel it is a demand of the majority of players, even if it's only slightly a majority. I do not have any data to support that feeling but I've seen it get brought up from basically the games inception and throughout my time on the forums, each time spontaneously, which tells me this is a pretty natural thought for most players. **** it was a thought of mine until I thought of the crazy combos it could create. Silly stuff like Corran Horn on the Millennium Falcon would be bananas. Which is why we usually quash the idea on contact.

But in this discussion we have the opportunity to look at everything with fresh eyes and nothing should be outside consideration. We're ripping ALL THE GUTS OUT'O THIS _______ and seeing them laid out on the table were going at them with micrometers and looking for wear and warp. And looking at putting on some upgrades in to and getting rid of components that are pulling too much power without good effect. We're not going to reject a part for inclusion until a little experimentation has been done.

In the current game engine just separated pilots would be such a fail as to be laughable. But if we were to pair it with a couple other ideas we might get somewhere. Like the App support option. Via app you could regularly update the pilots virtual 'card' with each update of new ships, or even between ship releases. Or if we were to change the product line up to include card packs that add pilot/ship pairings regularly that could be an option. The virtual system would be better here as the computer could easily track point costs for different combinations. Pick the ship you want, open a drop down menu of pilot options that shows a listed price for that specific ship, open up drop down for the upgrades that show prices specific to that ship for the upgrades, etc. That could work. Because if the ability is costed appropriately, and you have and will use the ability to edit those prices as needed for the life of the game, your only gaining variety and sand box levels of freedom. Now meta will be an issue but that's a whole other beast. Letters not discount it yet though.?

I agree. This is a new idea to me and I already love it. But obviously we would need entirely new pilot abilities: Corran's current ability would definitely not be balanced to put him on just any ship. Plus, the Empire isn't likely to win the allegiance of Wedge or Corran in a TIE Fighter. We would need limitations: Imperial only. Rebel only. Scum and Rebel only. etc. Just because you're a Y-Wing veteran of the Battle of Yavin doesn't mean you can necessarily hop in an A-Wing and immediately be an ace A-Wing pilot. There are exceptions (i.e. Poe "I can fly anything!" Dameron), but we would probably see limitations on pilot cards that tell us what that pilot knows how to fly. A-Wing only. X-Wing, A-Wing, and E-Wing only. or Small ship only. Large ship only. (for the sake of Chewie and Han, the former who would be hard-pressed to fit into the cockpit of an A-Wing and the latter who we've never seen fly a starfighter.)

This would make balancing a whole lot easier.

8 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

Being something the majority think they want doesn't make it a good idea.

When it comes to product and game design, it means you have to try to make it into a good idea. Think supply and demand. So yes, it does make it a good idea ? No bad ideas in this thread.

And remember now, it's a concept for a rule. Nothing writ in stone here. We are not FFG... Sadly.

It really, really doesn't.

For instance, the majority of people think they should win the game.

But the majority of people can't win the game.

ESPECIALLY when it comes to game design, people frequently don't know what they ACTUALLY want, or don't know how to implement what they want in a way that makes a good game. Game design is HARD.

For instance, I know I want small and large ship movement to work such that a 3 straight is the same 'length' for each ship. But I've spent about 5 iterations of working out how it should work in practice, without requiring a different set of templates for each base size or having unintended consequences WRT tightness of turns or bumping.

I'm still nto sure I've got it right and wouldn't be unless I playtested it.

Portable pilots is usually cited as the biggest reason STAW fails as hard as it does when it comes to balance, because EVERY pilot and EVERY ship have to be balanced with each other, whereas X Wing avoids that by only designing pilots as part of ships.

I'd not only not include it in my list of things to think about for 2.0, I'd actively campaign against it.

3 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

It really, really doesn't.

For instance, the majority of people think they should win the game.

But the majority of people can't win the game.

Dang it. Now I just lost the game.

53 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

It really, really doesn't.

For instance, the majority of people think they should win the game.

But the majority of people can't win the game.

ESPECIALLY when it comes to game design, people frequently don't know what they ACTUALLY want, or don't know how to implement what they want in a way that makes a good game. Game design is HARD.

For instance, I know I want small and large ship movement to work such that a 3 straight is the same 'length' for each ship. But I've spent about 5 iterations of working out how it should work in practice, without requiring a different set of templates for each base size or having unintended consequences WRT tightness of turns or bumping.

I'm still nto sure I've got it right and wouldn't be unless I playtested it.

Portable pilots is usually cited as the biggest reason STAW fails as hard as it does when it comes to balance, because EVERY pilot and EVERY ship have to be balanced with each other, whereas X Wing avoids that by only designing pilots as part of ships.

I'd not only not include it in my list of things to think about for 2.0, I'd actively campaign against it.

I agree that the majority doesn't always know what's best, especially in terms of game and product design. If X-Wing were designed by democracy among its players, we'd see some really horrible *%&# in this game and honestly few of us would be left to play it after that. Supply and demand don't apply when something as delicate as these game design mechanics are on the line. If the supply and demand scenario were applicable, wouldn't that be the grounds for an increase in revenue for FFG vis-a-vis this game? Don't you think FFG would have implemented it? The fact that they haven't, and the game is still as successful as it is, proves that supply and demand does not apply to popularity of game mechanics and concepts. Honestly, I'm glad FFG is in charge of creating new mechanics and abilities. I wouldn't pay money for my own ideas; I pay money because they have more people, more resources to create better things than I, on my own, could.

BUT I think you're jumping the gun and throwing out the baby with the bathwater, here, when it comes to our own idea generation in the forum. Every aspect of game design is hard. Because something is difficult, should we throw it out so quickly? Remember, we're not game designers at FFG anyway, we're just theory-crafters and day-dreamers. There are ways of balancing separate pilots with separate ships--let's just apply a little imagination here. There's nothing to risk by us running a few scenarios of our own. (Honestly, there's probably nothing to gain either. But a guy can dream...)

Besides my comments earlier about hard limitations (i.e. " Imperial only .", " Small ship only. ", " X-Wing and A-Wing only ."), there could easily be implemented soft limitations, even in addition to these hard limitations. You may be able to still honor the lore and have Poe "I can fly anything" Dameron literally fly any Rebel ship, but don't you think he'd be better as an X-Wing pilot than as a Resistance B-17 bomber pilot? Pilots flying ships that are not their favorite could take hits to PS, or cost extra squad points. Poe Dameron behind an X-Wing could be PS9, but in any other ship he's PS7. (That could easily be rendered in a small area of the pilot card called "Proficiency" (or something), where it lists the ships that he keeps his PS9--any ships not listed under "Proficiency" he would take a -2 PS hit for piloting). Or perhaps he could cost 2 points more to fly in a non-proficient ship (and, if we still need balance, lower him to PS7 as a result of stuffing him in said ships). There are many ways we could make this work.

Being proficient in any ship could be a seen as a benefit, a part of their unique pilot ability. Let's face it, Maarek Stele's ability isn't that great--but let's say he gets to remain PS 8 or 9 behind the wheel of any fighter craft. That helps him to make an appearance at all. (even after he was included in the TIE Defender fix I still don't think I've seen him in any tournament, though that may be thanks to Countess Ryad being plain better than him in every way)

Certain abilities would probably be broken regardless (Corran's current ability comes to mind), which is why they wouldn't be included in 2.0 as a pilot ability . You could still include that mechanic as an effect of a cannon, turret, or heck even a crew member (with its own limitations of course-- Rebel only. , Small ship only., Limited. , etc.). That last limitation, " Limited. ", could easily provide balance in such a flexible environment. We see so many more " Limited. " cards in Epic than we do in Standard, since the Epic environment is far more flexible and variable than the Standard environment.

Such flexibility overall I think would create more variety on the table.

With such flexibility, we could see pilot abilities we hardly see now. Luke could read: "When piloting a ship Luke is proficient in, and when defending, you may change 1 [blank] result to an [evade] result. If Luke is not proficient in this ship, when defending, you may change 1 [blank] result into a [focus] result." Etc. etc.

1 hour ago, thespaceinvader said:

6 hours ago, thespaceinvader said:

I could maybe get on board with a very limited selection of pilots having portability between a very limited selection of ships. But it would be really, really difficult to judge pricing even in that context - consider, for instance, Omega Leader in any ship which has a System slot. He's free to take VI and FCS, and never need to worry about getting target locks.

It's a balancing NIGHTMARE.

6 hours ago, ForceSensitive said:

When it comes to product and game design, it means you have to try to make it into a good idea. Think supply and demand. So yes, it does make it a good idea ? No bad ideas in this thread.

And remember now, it's a concept for a rule. Nothing writ in stone here. We are not FFG... Sadly.

It would be very hard to make it a good idea. It's twice the number of elements in the game.

And (Pilots)^(Ships) combinations.

So, just for Rebels, that's 58^18 = 6.3x10E72 possibilities. Good luck in play test.

I don't think the people supporting the separate pilots idea have thought it through very well.

Think about how many balance issues came about from an unforeseen combination of upgrade cards and pilot abilities. Now consider that a lot of the pilot abilities have more powerful and complex interactions than any single upgrade. The only way you could manage this without making the testing stage even more of a nightmare than it is currently is to make the pilot abilities purposely bland and basic. No more interesting and unique abilities like Palob's token thievery or Corran's doubletap.

You'd be trading unique game mechanics for the superficial flavor of moving your pilots to different ships. Alternatively you'd just be destroying the balance of this game beyond any level it's ever seen before. If they're already having issues with balance than adding even more complex interactions seems like a surefire way to cause the game to implode.

It's not impossible, it's just the trade offs for doing it are far inferior IMO to what we have currently.

I like most the other ideas however. I never considered dropping PS before but that seems like an interesting idea. Not sure if the PS interactions have always been all that positive that they'd be worth keeping in a 2.0. At least simplify it a bit into a hand full of levels like Rookie, Experienced, Veteran, Ace. Rookie would be for discount pilots, experienced for upgraded generics, veteran for the majority of the named pilots, and of course ace as the highest tier should be rare and only for a handful of the best pilots on each faction. If such a change was made I'd change VI to only raise the level to a max of veteran making the ace skill level truly special and valued.

The front and back of bases should not have nubs. You can adjust your flight path by the width of the base, in the same way you can adjust your barrel rolls foreward and back.

32 minutes ago, BomberGob said:

I don't think the people supporting the separate pilots idea have thought it through very well.

Think about how many balance issues came about from an unforeseen combination of upgrade cards and pilot abilities. Now consider that a lot of the pilot abilities have more powerful and complex interactions than any single upgrade. The only way you could manage this without making the testing stage even more of a nightmare than it is currently is to make the pilot abilities purposely bland and basic. No more interesting and unique abilities like Palob's token thievery or Corran's doubletap.

You'd be trading unique game mechanics for the superficial flavor of moving your pilots to different ships. Alternatively you'd just be destroying the balance of this game beyond any level it's ever seen before. If they're already having issues with balance than adding even more complex interactions seems like a surefire way to cause the game to implode.

It's not impossible, it's just the trade offs for doing it are far inferior IMO to what we have currently.

I like most the other ideas however. I never considered dropping PS before but that seems like an interesting idea. Not sure if the PS interactions have always been all that positive that they'd be worth keeping in a 2.0. At least simplify it a bit into a hand full of levels like Rookie, Experienced, Veteran, Ace. Rookie would be for discount pilots, experienced for upgraded generics, veteran for the majority of the named pilots, and of course ace as the highest tier should be rare and only for a handful of the best pilots on each faction. If such a change was made I'd change VI to only raise the level to a max of veteran making the ace skill level truly special and valued.

You know, you're absolutely right. I mean, I still LOVE the idea of customizing ships/pilots, but some WOULD be just pointless or game breaking. There could be ways at avoiding such things like limiting the ships they could go into... but yeah, you're right, I for one never really thought that one through.

Reposted from another thread...

What autoblaster NEEDS is Accuracy Dice, like missiles, and HLC needs Damage dice like torpedos.

14 hours ago, Estarriol said:

I'd like to see separate pilot and ship cards so I can put my favourite pilots into good ships.

This would be so awesome! Imagine searching for janky red dial ships to put Soontir in!

On 9/6/2017 at 11:32 AM, ForceSensitive said:

1) +Granularity gained by raising point cost

2) --+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 at equidistant points all the way around. Abandoned for lack of firing arc clarity. Worth a second look)

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

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

5) --+Base size to maneuver interaction appears to be a sticking point. Should look at that. Rear to _____ common maneuvering is popular idea.

6) --+Modify the secondary positioning actions.

7) +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)

8) +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.)

9) --+Accuracy versus damage and damage type.

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

11) +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.)

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

13) +Alternating initiative. (In a group discussion locally we 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.)

14) +New defense mechanism that has no variance.

15) +More types of upgrades. (Ship titles versus refits kinda stuff. Totally agree. Easy open.)

1) Absolutely. I'm pretty sure 200 points is all that's necessary.

2) You'll have to explain to me why this would be necessary. I assume something to do with #6.

3) May be worth it, may not be, but I'm intrigued by the idea of "wide" (small base length, large base width) for K-Wing type ships and "long" (small width, large length) for U-Wing types.

4) Actually not a fan of this one. I think blocking and precision eyeballing of maneuvers are important to X-Wing, things that adjustable tools would seem to mitigate. Though to be fair I have zero experience with Armada.

5) Interesting idea. Rear to front/rear sounds nice, but also a bit more fiddly. Perhaps just adjusting the speed of maneuvers available to large ships or using a different set of templates would do the trick.

6) As with #2, you'll have to give me more detail on this. It doesn't seem necessary to me (though large base Boost could use adjustment).

7) I'm surprised games haven't moved more in this direction already. I'm curious how you see it being useful to X-Wing, outside of scenarios or solo play.

8) Different dice for Torpedoes and Missiles I could see (maybe even Cannons, etc.).

9) This I really don't want. The simplicity of one attack roll, one defense roll, hits, and crits works for me.

10) I'm not as appalled by primary weapon turrets as some people are (they add variety), though at the same time I can see where being able to shoot anyone who can shoot you can be a bit 'boring'.

11) Hard no. You'll either end up with pilots that are so good on one ship they may as well have been attached to that ship anyway, or way too many fiddly rules about who can fly what and at what price.

12) On the fence on this until I see something more concrete. I take it the basic premise is "get an additional action of some kind by taking a penalty of some kind."

13) Yes, 100% on board with alternating initiative. I'd much rather see lists built to their full point potential and players and pilots having to re/act differently each round than bidding that's sometimes useless, sometimes make-or-break.

14) We already have Evade tokens, Reinforce, etc. Again, simplicity works for me.*

15) There is no word to describe my loathing for some of the things FFG considers "Titles".

*In fact, anything that deviates too far from the relative simplicity of X-Wing would put me off a "2.0" altogether.

5 hours ago, BomberGob said:

I don't think the people supporting the separate pilots idea have thought it through very well.

On the contrary, I maintain that my detractors lack imagination. I'm kidding, haha. [Edit: I was talking about myself in the sentence formerly occupying this space, but it could have been taken wrongly if that wasn't understood]. Anyway, we're just theory-crafting, this isn't politics or anything we should take to heart and get heated over. BUT I really want to point out how well thought-out this could be if we gave it a chance.

5 hours ago, BomberGob said:

Think about how many balance issues came about from an unforeseen combination of upgrade cards and pilot abilities. Now consider that a lot of the pilot abilities have more powerful and complex interactions than any single upgrade.

6 hours ago, Darth Meanie said:

It would be very hard to make it a good idea. It's twice the number of elements in the game.

And (Pilots)^(Ships) combinations.

So, just for Rebels, that's 58^18 = 6.3x10E72 possibilities. Good luck in play test.

So, the argument is that playtesting will be a nightmare and the combinations are limitless. But let's take a closer look at this. The numbers presented are grossly exaggerated in the situations I posed. If limitations such as Small ship only and X-Wing and A-Wing only were imposed, you would not include that ship in your calculation in the same way. Furthermore, we would have no need for such a ridiculous amount of pilots. The "Pilot" upgrade card would be treated just like any other upgrade card. We have only 11 Missiles. 28 non-Epic Modifications. 17 Astromechs. Do we really need to have 58 pilots? Would anybody miss Esege Tukutu or Garven Dreis or Arvel Crynyd? (Had anybody heard of any of these characters before FFG added them to the game?) On the contrary--this is the right time to trim the fat. This is the chance to reboot and limit the game to pilots Star Wars fans have heard of and love. In its current form, each new ship gets a minimum of four pilots (but often more), and yet only about 1 or 2 EPTs, 1 or 2 Missiles or Torpedos, and maybe 1 Modification or such. Would it be so bad to get only 1-3 pilots in an expansion rather than 4-7 (with a guaranteed 5 that will never see gameplay)?

Secondly, if you want to calculate combinations and play out impossible playtesting scenarios, look at what FFG are already doing with the currently 39 EPTs (+ more in the next two waves). EPTs on every ship, every faction, and even two on A-Wings (and in the latter, you have to add the 39 x 39 different combinations of EPTs, because of A-Wing Test Pilot). Something tells me that FFG doesn't playtest every possible combination and scenario. Do they then test that against the possible combinations of Astromechs, Salvaged Astromechs, and the 70+ Crew? FFG have already worked themselves into a situation in the current system. Separating the pilots helps to simplify, if anything.

5 hours ago, BomberGob said:

The only way you could manage this without making the testing stage even more of a nightmare than it is currently is to make the pilot abilities purposely bland and basic. No more interesting and unique abilities like Palob's token thievery or Corran's doubletap.

That's a bit overdramatic. "No more interesting and unique abilities." "No more fun. Let's all go home and stare at the wallpaper." Again, the separation of pilots from ships allows the game creators to revisit mechanics and see if they're actually appropriate for a pilot to have. This allows us to get a better thematic experience and a more realistic presentation of what parts of a ship do what things. For example, why does Miranda get regen? Is she a Force-user who can convert weapon energy into shield energy? Why is this a pilot ability, rather than a unique, technologically-based ability? We could keep the regen in the game as a unique, K-Wing only modification, tech, or title slot, just for the K-Wing. Why does Palob get to steal Focus tokens? Is he a Force-user who is robbing the concentration out of nearby opponents' brains? This could be a unique Illicit, tech, mod, or title slot ability, unique to the HWK, and this "Palob" guy (had you ever heard of him before he was introduced into this game?) could remain in obscurity so we can use the pilots we know and love from the movies, comics, and video games.

Let's say you want to keep Arvel Crynyd (it's actually pretty funny--props to FFG even though he has never seen use in the game). Give him the A-Wing only . restriction and call it a day. He only appears in an A-Wing, so it's true to lore, and we wouldn't necessarily want that ability on a 3-die ship (although maybe if it were, he might actually have seen some use in the past four years).

So let's take this particular branch of theory-crafting further. If we were to look at what should and what shouldn't be a pilot ability, thematically speaking, we could narrow it down to probably: skills in performing expert maneuvers, skills in performing actions/concentrating, skills in handling stress, skills in accuracy (but not damage--that's for the weapons upgrades. And this assumes that 2.0 does something to separate the accuracy from the damage), skills in formation flying, teamwork, etc. (like Airen Cracken). Anything that is currently a pilot ability that is not one of these things could possibly be moved onto a unique title, mod, tech, system, etc., so that it stays with the ship.

But let's imagine we did separate all these pilot abilities from ships. If this were to happen, the game designers would then have to take a long, hard look at what's left on the ship (and so would we). What essentially is a naked ship? A dial, a stat line, a firing arc, upgrade slots, and actions. Basically, every generic pilot out there. Has anybody ever seen a Knave or Blackmoon pilot on the table? Or a Gand Findsman, or a Shadow Squadron Pilot?

2 hours ago, ObiWonka said:

You'll either end up with pilots that are so good on one ship they may as well have been attached to that ship anyway.

This is exactly my point. This is what is happening anyway. We have pilots that are so good that we don't see any other iterations of that ship. I've never seen a K-Wing that wasn't Miranda, a E-Wing that wasn't Corran, or a YT-2400 that wasn't Dash. You won't see over two-thirds of the existing TIE Fighter pilots, if you're lucky to see a TIE Fighter at all anymore. By splitting everything up, we get to look at the ships themselves and see what is lacking in them. What makes an E-Wing special? What makes a K-Wing special? Why would someone want to fly one of those besides a really good pilot ability that could be thrown on any old ship? These are the questions one is forced to ask when separating them out--and I think having to address those questions gets at a lot of the underlying problems extant in the current game. [Edited to add:] The game designers can actually fix the ships themselves and make the ships interesting and fun and have a reason to fly besides that one pilot with a really cool ability.