1 hour ago, Captain Lackwit said:

Dude. No it didn't.

Disney purchased Star Wars in October of 2012. Disney Legends'd the EU in April of 2014. The Raider was created in October of the same year.

I don't want to be overtly aggressive, but come on dude, The Raider was always safe in the canon. It was never brought back because it post-dates the acquisition AND the EU retcon. I've been seeing this rhetoric applied to cancelling Battlefront III IN 2008! It's crazy! People want to blame Disney for everything... But Disney had zero hand in SO many things.

Oh, sure. And I suppose next you'll be telling us that Disney's axing of the EU (04/25/14) wasn't a direct cause of Archduke Ferdinand's assassination (06/28/14).

<sigh> Some folks just can't face facts.

When they release the Silmarillion for Star Wars (the 4th trilogy lol) then they might want to reboot and make a similar but separate game.

3 hours ago, Captain Lackwit said:

Dude. No it didn't.

Disney purchased Star Wars in October of 2012. Disney Legends'd the EU in April of 2014. The Raider was created in October of the same year.

I don't want to be overtly aggressive, but come on dude, The Raider was always safe in the canon. It was never brought back because it post-dates the acquisition AND the EU retcon. I've been seeing this rhetoric applied to cancelling Battlefront III IN 2008! It's crazy! People want to blame Disney for everything... But Disney had zero hand in SO many things.

But what they have done is given exclusive rights to one of the worst managerial video game companies in modern times, and worse uses them to promote certain parts of the EU.

My point is given the fiasco around EA recently, had BF-2 flopped hard, you would have been left with either Disney either axe the canon story (leaving a canon ship without a story) or an obscure source that no one knows, which is precisely what this recton of EU was supposed to avoid. And the raider would have been caught in part of that, because that’s the only major source for it so far.

1 hour ago, FlyingAnchors said:

But what they have done is given exclusive rights to one of the worst managerial video game companies in modern times, and worse uses them to promote certain parts of the EU.

My point is given the fiasco around EA recently, had BF-2 flopped hard, you would have been left with either Disney either axe the canon story (leaving a canon ship without a story) or an obscure source that no one knows, which is precisely what this recton of EU was supposed to avoid. And the raider would have been caught in part of that, because that’s the only major source for it so far.

What the ****? Why would they axe the story? You don't actually-...

I'm really not following the thought process

2 hours ago, JJ48 said:

Oh, sure. And I suppose next you'll be telling us that Disney's axing of the EU (04/25/14) wasn't a direct cause of Archduke Ferdinand's assassination (06/28/14).

<sigh> Some folks just can't face facts.

Pfffft.

14 hours ago, papy72 said:

Wait, the Raider was entirely made-up by FFG? I thought it was shown in Rebels?

12 hours ago, Captain Lackwit said:

No sir. It hasn't even appeared there- trust me I'd have noticed. The Raider is 100% an FFG idea.

There's a light cruiser (the...Arquitens, I think?) that's broadly the same size and function, but the Raider doesn't turn up.

It's specifically supposed to be a post-yavin development where after the death star died the Empire went "oh, bugger, small fighters are dangerous after all!" and authorized development of a dedicated escort/fighter hunter corvette.

3 hours ago, Magnus Grendel said:

There's a light cruiser (the...Arquitens, I think?) that's broadly the same size and function, but the Raider doesn't turn up.

It's specifically supposed to be a post-yavin development where after the death star died the Empire went "oh, bugger, small fighters are dangerous after all!" and authorized development of a dedicated escort/fighter hunter corvette.

Essentially it's a replacement for the EU's Lancer-class frigate.

From my perspective, it is impossible the game will maintain this "rate of fire" for more then few years. To be absolutelly honest, I don't think FFG works the way to keep the game alive indeffinatelly. One of the reasons is that with every wave, there is a slight new mechanic. After 13 Waves, it is very hard for the new guys to consider the game "simple".

Example: I started the game in 2015 with wave VIII. That time, the Tech slot was new. Since then we've got Condition Cards, Setup Phase Abilities, Mobile Arc, Reload Action, Coordinate Action, Reinforce Action, Jam Action and maybe I missed something more.

The entry into the game (if you want to go play the standard with strangers) is very difficult. There is enormous amount of cards and abilities and to me, this bloat threatens to kill the game. Back to basics is my idea how to solve the longevity of the game. Cut the amount of paper you need to play.

Example: Yesterday I played with my friend a game with no upgrades. It was 100 points, 6 Asteroids but you could only field a Pilot Card. It was extreme fun! Why? You have to fly better as you either have reposition or modification. You must better consider your pilot abilities and use them to your best.

So, in this rate of evolving the game:
-5 years from now, the game will be here and it will only be playable on Extreme Competetive of Extreme Casual
-10 years from now, I hope the game won't exist anymore

Major change must come to make this game survive long term.

PS:
I must point out that any comparison with Games Workshop is irrelevant. Games Workshop opened the miniature hobby to the much wider market and became a pioneer of Fantasy and Sci-fi wargaming. In the 30 years of it's existence it created impressive fanbase. In Europe there is plenty of people who "belive GW makes the best games" even though they have never tried out anything else. When you have fanbase like this and you manage not to screw up (as they did about 4 years ago), you just don't have to take the risks. I see this especially because I am not the fan of Games Workshop.

I've not read the entire thread.

That being said, there is exactly one way for this game to survive that long.
5 Years might be doable on the current model, but it is going to push the limits to the breaking point. The game already desperately desperately needs a second edition. [This will probably require an entire rethink of the business model, a consolidation of the rules along with a streamlining, a change in squad building and points, and probably more... simple 'scenario packs' can't fix the core of the game.]

10 years is impossible without at least a 2nd Edition (preferably a 3rd Edition). I'm not even going to think beyond that.

On 12/3/2017 at 9:39 AM, 235711 said:

Will it be around in 5, 10, 20 years?

You forgot 15 years.

14 hours ago, FTS Gecko said:

Just asked Google this question. It says yes:

http://www.starwars.com/news/star-wars-x-wing-20-years-later-and-still-awesome

Reposting because I've just noticed the first image on the page has a Gunboat on it...

2 minutes ago, KryatDragon said:

I've not read the entire thread.

That being said, there is exactly one way for this game to survive that long.
5 Years might be doable on the current model, but it is going to push the limits to the breaking point. The game already desperately desperately needs a second edition. [This will probably require an entire rethink of the business model, a consolidation of the rules along with a streamlining, a change in squad building and points, and probably more... simple 'scenario packs' can't fix the core of the game.]

10 years is impossible without at least a 2nd Edition (preferably a 3rd Edition). I'm not even going to think beyond that.

What do further editions do for the longevity of the game? I keep hearing people say this. Just implement the change in the current system.

Just now, AceWing said:

What do further editions do for the longevity of the game? I keep hearing people say this. Just implement the change in the current system.

For the best answer - ask GW. They've maintained a game that has been roughly the same, but with edition tweaks, refinements, changes, and alterations, for 30 years (actually it has been exactly 30 years). If you own an old 2nd Edition Space Marine army, you can play it today just like you could play it in the early 90s (sure the models might look a lot worse in 2nd, but that's an aesthetic issue not a rules one). There are of course rules changes (No more "Foot of Gork" or Vortex Grenades).

But essentially, new additions revitalize a game in that they allow the company to go back and make changes to every unit in the game in order to align with the rule changes, and to re-balance them all at once. Less patch cards, more fundamental re-balancing. Something that X-wing has needed for more than a few waves.

17 minutes ago, KryatDragon said:

For the best answer - ask GW. They've maintained a game that has been roughly the same, but with edition tweaks, refinements, changes, and alterations, for 30 years (actually it has been exactly 30 years). If you own an old 2nd Edition Space Marine army, you can play it today just like you could play it in the early 90s (sure the models might look a lot worse in 2nd, but that's an aesthetic issue not a rules one). There are of course rules changes (No more "Foot of Gork" or Vortex Grenades).

But essentially, new additions revitalize a game in that they allow the company to go back and make changes to every unit in the game in order to align with the rule changes, and to re-balance them all at once. Less patch cards, more fundamental re-balancing. Something that X-wing has needed for more than a few waves.

How would they implement this in X-Wing? They've already said they wouldn't print packs of cards, let alone cardboard. And what are we to do then, buy codexes? If they made this game like Warhammer, I'd be out.

The game has some balance issues but they're not usually egregious. Some slight tweaks to some mechanics and the game is dialed in. We don't need another edition.

No, it wont be around in 25 years.

There will be some other game, that scratches the same itch, for a similar but slightly different type of player's, aged 25 years or born sometime around now.

X-wing will be a largely forgotten, Vampire-the masquerade -esque franchise that's played by a bunch of 40-something weirdoes in their garages.

My point is, no game lasts 25 years, a franchise might survive but a single game wont ever without being updated. 25 years from now it might be X-wing 2 or 3, but not the X-wing as we play it today. But there is no use in trying to wait or worry, X-wing still has 2-3 years of life in it (minimum) and right now is a good time to be a member of the hobby, so go out there buy tonnes of ships and have fun.

8 hours ago, Magnus Grendel said:

There's a light cruiser (the...Arquitens, I think?) that's broadly the same size and function, but the Raider doesn't turn up.

It's specifically supposed to be a post-yavin development where after the death star died the Empire went "oh, bugger, small fighters are dangerous after all!" and authorized development of a dedicated escort/fighter hunter corvette.

Yep! That's the lore on it, and you can really tell what it aims for just by the design alone, which makes it a great design.

4 hours ago, JJ48 said:

Essentially it's a replacement for the EU's Lancer-class frigate.

And good riddance. While it was definitely different looking, it was ugly as all sin.

47 minutes ago, Captain Lackwit said:

And good riddance. While it was definitely different looking, it was ugly as all sin.

To each his own, I guess. Lancers aren't terribly attractive, true, but it looked a lot less ridiculous than the Raider, in my opinion. It's like some engineers were sitting around one day,

Engineer 1: Ok, so we'll take a Star Destroyer, make it narrower and smaller so that it'll have a rather large bit of unusable space in the bow, and then give it jumbo TIE Interceptor wings that don't seem to serve any purpose other than to potentially block views and firing arcs!

Engineer 2: Could we instead go with a boring, but highly functional blocky tube?

Engineer 1: (incredulously) Make a capital ship that's not a giant wedge?! What next, a starfighter that's not a TIE?

Though at this point, I suppose we should just be happy they didn't try to retcon TIE panels onto the Lambda and the Starwing.

9 hours ago, Magnus Grendel said:

There's a light cruiser (the...Arquitens, I think?) that's broadly the same size and function, but the Raider doesn't turn up.

It's specifically supposed to be a post-yavin development where after the death star died the Empire went "oh, bugger, small fighters are dangerous after all!" and authorized development of a dedicated escort/fighter hunter corvette.

No, the Aquitens is 2-3x larger than the Raider.

4 hours ago, AceWing said:

What do further editions do for the longevity of the game? I keep hearing people say this. Just implement the change in the current system.

Implementing a significant change to the current system IS creating a new edition. The long-term accrual of changes to9 the game is going to create a "new edition" whether you want to call it that or not. But that's why further editions increase the longevity of the game.

3 hours ago, KryatDragon said:

But essentially, new additions revitalize a game in that they allow the company to go back and make changes to every unit in the game in order to align with the rule changes, and to re-balance them all at once. Less patch cards, more fundamental re-balancing. Something that X-wing has needed for more than a few waves.

Exactly this.

3 hours ago, AceWing said:

We don't need another edition.

We already have another edition. It's why the first waves of ships don't fly that well anymore. . .they are the first edition of the game. We are on 2nd edition, it's just unwritten. What we really need is 3rd edition that looks at the current game as a comprehensive whole and decide how to keep everything relevant moving forward.

As far as complexity goes, it should be a natural part of the game. When it gets too complex for new players, you simply need to offer a beginners set to help people get into the game.

3 hours ago, tsuruki said:

My point is, no game lasts 25 years, a franchise might survive but a single game wont ever without being updated. 25 years from now it might be X-wing 2 or 3, but not the X-wing as we play it today. But there is no use in trying to wait or worry, X-wing still has 2-3 years of life in it (minimum) and right now is a good time to be a member of the hobby, so go out there buy tonnes of ships and have fun.

Magic: The Gathering begs to differ.

1 hour ago, JJ48 said:

To each his own, I guess. Lancers aren't terribly attractive, true, but it looked a lot less ridiculous than the Raider, in my opinion. It's like some engineers were sitting around one day,

Engineer 1: Ok, so we'll take a Star Destroyer, make it narrower and smaller so that it'll have a rather large bit of unusable space in the bow, and then give it jumbo TIE Interceptor wings that don't seem to serve any purpose other than to potentially block views and firing arcs!

Engineer 2: Could we instead go with a boring, but highly functional blocky tube?

Engineer 1: (incredulously) Make a capital ship that's not a giant wedge?! What next, a starfighter that's not a TIE?

Though at this point, I suppose we should just be happy they didn't try to retcon TIE panels onto the Lambda and the Starwing.

There was never any reason to believe they would retcon TIE panels into beloved designs. They have never done that.

6 hours ago, tsuruki said:

X-wing will be a largely forgotten, Vampire-the masquerade -esque franchise that's played by a bunch of 40-something weirdoes in their garages.

...carry on...

2 hours ago, Captain Lackwit said:

There was never any reason to believe they would retcon TIE panels into beloved designs. They have never done that.

Actually, there is some TIE-style solar panelling on FFG's Gunboat wings.

I blame @Fractalsponge and his ridonkulously beautiful designs.

1 hour ago, FTS Gecko said:

Actually, there is some TIE-style solar panelling on FFG's Gunboat wings.

I blame @Fractalsponge and his ridonkulously beautiful designs.

Yeah that's entirely his doing. But that's not anywhere near the same as straight up TIE Wings. Believe me, I noticed- not a lot of details on vessels go unseen by me.

23 hours ago, ScummyRebel said:

Agreed. A glut of used stuff going cheap on eBay is a bad sign not a good one.

Xwing is alive and well for quite some time.

lol, what? I've checked ebay prices most mornings for almost 3 years. people where paying 70% to 90% of retail value for used ships right up until the jumpmaster came out and the boards got seriously negative. then prices began to drop. Its a great metric for enthusiasm of the playerbase.

More importantly though, I design miniature games with my gaming group. While i'm not the high-profit of miniature knowledge, I have spent a lot of time researching design theory and game mechanics. X-wing has a critical issue of limited design space, where really there needs to be at least one more core stat on the ships to allow for variation on the scale X-wing needs for its number of ships. otherwise the only way to make a new ship different from an old ship is to make it better for its cost. when you do that you end up with the arc dodgin tanks and talon rolling bombers, with no room for a humble X or B wing to shine. X-wing 2.0 is the only only hope that keeps me coming back to this board, that maybe an app with recosted pilot cards or a new game mode will save it. alas

31 minutes ago, Captain Lackwit said:

Yeah that's entirely his doing. But that's not anywhere near the same as straight up TIE Wings. Believe me, I noticed- not a lot of details on vessels go unseen by me.

Did you noticed these vessels?

They are not TIEs.

On 04/12/2017 at 0:09 AM, RedHotDice said:

Considering, Star Trek attack wing is at wave 31 - don’t loose any more sleep, we are safe for the time being.

Considering Attack Wing’s quality - both rules and minis - is just awful; I’m not sure using it as an example of anything is a good idea.

6 hours ago, Odanan said:

Did you noticed these vessels?

They are not TIEs.

Huh, weird, you know, I don't recall saying FFG/Disney made only TIEs, in fact, I firmly recall stating that there's no real reason to thing they have a desire to ONLY MAKE TIES.

Like, I dunno what to make of this rebuttal, is this a passing insult to my intelligence or something?