1 hour ago, Stefan said:

Josh has stated that he's out, basically. He's moved on from HotAC, and he's not involved with FFG in any capacity.

When/where did he state that? It occurs to me that we should probably get his blessing or at least his permission before we fully take on HotAC 2.0. I would to have him come back in a year or two and have there be hurt feelings.

FFG has not and will not take over HotAC. They will likely bring out their own campaign mod, maybe an AI system, but they will not simply buy HotAC. Josh works for other publishers in developing board games, notably the Buffy boardgame and the Terminator Genesys game. He said as much in private conversation and in the HotAC group. I mean, never say never and such, but don't count on it.

So I went through the recent post about the 2.0 damage deck, to make a quick-roll table for enemies.

In general, all the effects which require you to repair it asap count as "1 stress" in hotac- stress being "your action is you dont do an action" for AI. This includes the normal "2 stress" crit.

I'm rolling fuel leaks into direct hits, by assuming it is NEVER repaired and that a crit is rolled sometime before they die.

Loose stabilizer and Disabled power regulator both have effects that limit ships to straight maneuvers, so I'm simplifying them to "this ship is ionized"

Blinded pilot, weapons failure, and structural damage, I'm "simplifying" to 2 jam tokens.

And Engine damage, Hull breach, and Stunned pilot are too complex to be simplified the way the other crits are, so I'm tossing them.

In short, here's the HOTAC 2.0 Critical table

1-2: 1 stress

3: 2 jam tokens

4: 3 Ion tokens

5-6: 2 damage

This is from the damage deck math-

8/33 : 1 stress (console fire, sensor array, Paniced pilot, Wounded pilot)

6/33 : 2 jam tokens (blinded, weap disabled, structural damage)

4/33: Fully Ionize (loose stabilizer, damaged regulator)

9/33: Direct hit/fuel leak

---------------------------------------------------------------

6/33: other (stunned pilot, Hull breach, Damaged engine)

On ‎5‎/‎7‎/‎2018 at 6:37 PM, That Blasted Samophlange said:

HotAC proved to be a great stepping stone for him I think. It was a very good design that landed the eyes of people making games. If I was in charge if FFG, I would have certainly tried to recruit him based on his work. Failing that, I would certainly try to emulate his work - which with an application you could do so many interesting things. Imagine taking a picture/view from the TIE AI ship perspective(or above) and that chooses the maneuver and action? FFG could do that. I would certainly buy that.

Indeed. There's no reason a game-driving app cant exist - and especially with all ship bases now having bullseye, quarters and mid-points marked up you've got an easy way to define position (extend the marked line and determine which one is closer to the closest point on the enemy's base)

Generic TIE fighters won't need too much. I'd avoid giving the 'grunt' fighters anything precisely because they're supposed to be deployed - and destroyed - in droves. Making you track which one has expended crack shot, or is stressed, slows this down and doesn't dramatically improve the game.

Having suitable 'character sheet' options as a template in the FFG app (essentially creating a 'tournament format' to support it) would be great if possible - but that depends if variable initiative pilots is something that can be done. Whilst you can change prices and slots, I suspect you can't create 'fake cards'.

AI quadrents in 2.0

We have:

Bullseye (dead front)
Front corner (Left/right In arc)
Front (left/right) side
Broadside line overlap (use whichever Side quadrent the enemy bullseye points toward?)
Back (Left/right) side
Back Arc (left/right of midline)
Rear line overlap (directly rear)

So an AI card has Bullseye, Front corner, front side, back side, and back arc. Lets say bias overlaps toward rear, except bulseye.

Extra range band- Closing/ Strafing /Fleeing? Idea is that closing reflects enemies that have you in arc, Strafing are enemies moving around you, and fleeing are the high speed catchup maneuvers.

Example Tie advanced AI (missing actions and maneuver probability)

I think HotAC might need some time to feel out 2.0 before it can be fully converted over. X-wing 1.0 has really strong offensive and defensive abilities that you can stack to make very powerful player ships, but 2.0 seems to be cutting back on things significantly. We might need to rethink the way missions are designed and balanced to reflect this potential decrease in power levels.

1 minute ago, Effenhoog said:

I think HotAC might need some time to feel out 2.0 before it can be fully converted over. X-wing 1.0 has really strong offensive and defensive abilities that you can stack to make very powerful player ships, but 2.0 seems to be cutting back on things significantly. We might need to rethink the way missions are designed and balanced to reflect this potential decrease in power levels.

I'm not so sure. HOTAC dates back to before Crackshot existed, let alone TLT, Expertise ad the rest. Predator has always been considered OP for Hotac. Xwings were decent (though no Ywings) even before the various Xwing fixes dropped.

I'm thinking the power curve for HOTAC may be lower than you think.

Just now, Rakaydos said:

I'm not so sure. HOTAC dates back to before Crackshot existed, let alone TLT, Expertise ad the rest. Predator has always been considered OP for Hotac. Xwings were decent (though no Ywings) even before the various Xwing fixes dropped.

I'm thinking the power curve for HOTAC may be lower than you think.

It's possible, it's just something that should be considered before anyone wastes too much time trying to design stuff in advance, unless they are willing to potentially have to redo some of their work once 2.0 is out. A lot of the OT rebel fighters are getting a few minor but notable buffs as well, plus missile and torpedo changes.

So, I'm thinking in order to make this easier we might want to make a more detailed schedule of revisions.

1: Update dial AI for core ships (TIE, TIE Advanced, TIE bomber, Lambda, TIE Interceptor)

2: Create "ACE" Cards for core ships

3: Update dial for ACE ships (TIE Phantom, TIE Advanced Prototypes, TIE Punisher, TIE Defender, Striker, Reaper)

4: Create "ACE" cards for ACE ships

5: Update Rebel pilot abilities to reflect assist points

6: Update tier list for rebel ships

7: Create new mission utilizing ships made since release

8: Create multi-faction campaigns.

1-6 would be nice to have finished by September, but only 1-2 are "mandatory" for continued play, and 7+8 are basically my wishlist.

I think that you are on the right track with the AI quadrants @Rakaydos , but I'm not sure about strafing. I think it counts as a nice to have, but not a need to have. As for crits, we normally just played them, and I don't see why that has to change. Maybe make it an optional rule? IT seems balanced and whatnot, I'm just not sure if I want to play it like that.

18 hours ago, Magnus Grendel said:

Having suitable 'character sheet' options as a template in the FFG app (essentially creating a 'tournament format' to support it) would be great if possible - but that depends if variable initiative pilots is something that can be done. Whilst you can change prices and slots, I suspect you can't create 'fake cards'.

I somehow suspect we will have a generic pilot at almost every initiative (and 5+6 can be figured out later).

The big issue with crits on AI is that once you start running Proton Bomb and multiple Manglers, you start to run out of Damage Deck. But fair enough, HOTAC core says do crits normally, so it's a houserule I've gotten used to.

Speaking of Assist points- I dont know how common the houserule is, but I've been intruduced to a rewrite of the assist rules. An assist is worth 1/3 of an XP, but when in doubt, it's an assist.

With some minor revisions...

First damage each turn: 1 XP
Stripping tokens: 1 assist per token, as long as the attack does not damage. (otherwise damage instead)
Harmful token or condition: 1 assist per target
Ally buff (token grant, coordinate, use of a granted reroll or granted benifit): 1 assist per use
Each Basic Tie Kill: 1 XP
Each Nonbasic Tie Kill: 2 XP
Elite kill: 1 xp to everyone
Large ship kill: 1 XP to everyone

With all upgrades costing double in 2.0, on the other hand, perhaps Assists should just be XP, ad have Damage and kills give out multiple XP per trigger?

9 hours ago, Rakaydos said:

Extra range band- Closing/ Strafing /Fleeing? Idea is that closing reflects enemies that have you in arc, Strafing are enemies moving around you, and fleeing are the high speed catchup maneuvers.

I’m not a fan of this idea. Rolling and moving the AI is already the slowest part of HotAC- no need to make it more cumbersome by making the maneuvering chart more complicated.

That being said, I am very much in favor of using the pre-printed hash marks on the ship tokens to determine positioning.

Well HotAC was created to make famous and favourite OT ships that were forced out of the game by power creep of new waves back into action and I like it that way. Look at most of the new additions past wave 5 and tournament metas since then - most of the watchers could not even recoginze it is Star Wars game as the power creep simply favoured those new strange ships that only some can recognize. Adding more ships even in 1.0 past wave 5 would ruin the game for me. FFG has already ruined X-Wing. Please do not ruin HotAC the same way or at least separate time periods.

1 hour ago, JanW said:

Well HotAC was created to make famous and favourite OT ships that were forced out of the game by power creep of new waves back into action and I like it that way. Look at most of the new additions past wave 5 and tournament metas since then - most of the watchers could not even recoginze it is Star Wars game as the power creep simply favoured those new strange ships that only some can recognize. Adding more ships even in 1.0 past wave 5 would ruin the game for me. FFG has already ruined X-Wing. Please do not ruin HotAC the same way or at least separate time periods.

I don’t think you have to worry about that. It seems unlikely that Josh Derksen will update HotAC beyond 0.7. It’s almost 3 years since last update. since second edition x-wing came out the chance of that is even slimmer, I think. If you want to stick to x-wing first edition and HotAC 0.7, you’ll be fine.

I think that second edition x-wing has exposed a lot of things that in first that was awkward design, and if we are to benefit from the improvements in HotAC the ruleset needs to be updated. One thing that might be a problem is how actually an update could be done. There are many, many people playing HotAC and how would we agree on what updates are going in or not? There are also discussions on updating HotAC in the HotAC facebook group aside from this thread. Who will coordinate this? Who has final say on whether Range 4+ is actually necessary or not (see below)?

As for myself, I will create AI’s for my own campaign, Flight Group Alpha where you play as Imperials. I think that first edition x-wing rules are now out of date, and any new development must be made with 2.0 in mind. As it happens, I need a TIE Fighter and TIE Advanced AI for traitor Imperials. So while doing those I added mechanics that I have found are beneficial for the game while working out AI’s for Scum earlier, and made it more future proof by updating the to the new sectors. So, eventually they whole project will be 2.0 compatible, if time allows.

For now, I will publish them on my boardgamegeek and people will be free to use them in HotAC if they wish to.

Here are the latest design btw. Range 4+ is added, Flee mechanic for AI’s originally introduced in Storgars Defenders of the Empire project added. AI stressmechanic from HotAC removed, specific stress tables added instead. And different Action selection based on whether target has moved already in the turn added. Please note that AI’s are in beta, playtesting is needed. These were published in the facebook group earlier, sorry for doubleposting if you have already seen them.

3 hours ago, TreatAsRange2 said:

Here are the latest design btw. Range 4+ is added, Flee mechanic for AI’s originally introduced in Storgars Defenders of the Empire project added. AI stressmechanic from HotAC removed, specific stress tables added instead. And different Action selection based on whether target has moved already in the turn added. Please note that AI’s are in beta, playtesting is needed. These were published in the facebook group earlier, sorry for doubleposting if you have already seen them.

Interesting! A better graphic design than I'm capable of, certiantly. The question is whether the additional range bands and stress mechanics bog down play, or even make the AI dumber (because the AI is unable to think a turn ahead, stress in particular can put it in an unfortunate position by poor play alone.)

2 hours ago, Rakaydos said:

Interesting! A better graphic design than I'm capable of, certiantly. The question is whether the additional range bands and stress mechanics bog down play, or even make the AI dumber (because the AI is unable to think a turn ahead, stress in particular can put it in an unfortunate position by poor play alone.)

The stress mechanic in HotAC deviates from core x-wing rules in such a way that some upgrades, such as flechette cannon and torpedoes become useless, and a TIE can perform K-turns each and every turn, something that is impossible in core rules. Although this is certainly a thing that makes HotAC run fast and easy for TIE Fighters, I find that using the same mechanic on Rebel or Scum AI ships can make them behave very strange.

I would like to have an AI mechanic that is universal for all factions, not something that is specific for HotAC. With this AI I would like to explore removing the stress mechanic in this way. It needs some playtesting for sure to be able to judge if it is good or bad.

As for R4+, I am not sure it will bog down at all. Instead, it would make the maneuvers in the middle range deal with opponents in the R2+fleeing to R3 more optimized, instead of having it to deal with everything from R2+fleeing to map edge.

Edit: I would also like to point out that the new linked actions mechanic in second edition will put even more troubles on the existing stress mechanic’s lap, if someone would want to get HotAC into the second edition rules. How would an A-wing be represented properly, when it now has built-in PTL but the stress AI mechanic also meant the removal of the green (now blue) manuevers from the AI cards? With blue maneuvers in again, it would be able to take linked action almost every turn, since it has such an incredible dial.

Would be super exciting,

personally terrible at game design so would be a bad fit to help ?

1 hour ago, TreatAsRange2 said:

The stress mechanic in HotAC deviates from core x-wing rules in such a way that some upgrades, such as flechette cannon and torpedoes become useless, and a TIE can perform K-turns each and every turn, something that is impossible in core rules. Although this is certainly a thing that makes HotAC run fast and easy for TIE Fighters, I find that using the same mechanic on Rebel or Scum AI ships can make them behave very strange.

I would like to have an AI mechanic that is universal for all factions, not something that is specific for HotAC. With this AI I would like to explore removing the stress mechanic in this way. It needs some playtesting for sure to be able to judge if it is good or bad.

As for R4+, I am not sure it will bog down at all. Instead, it would make the maneuvers in the middle range deal with opponents in the R2+fleeing to R3 more optimized, instead of having it to deal with everything from R2+fleeing to map edge.

Edit: I would also like to point out that the new linked actions mechanic in second edition will put even more troubles on the existing stress mechanic’s lap, if someone would want to get HotAC into the second edition rules. How would an A-wing be represented properly, when it now has built-in PTL but the stress AI mechanic also meant the removal of the green (now blue) manuevers from the AI cards? With blue maneuvers in again, it would be able to take linked action almost every turn, since it has such an incredible dial.

yea, the linked action mechanic makes green maneuvers something to consider. I think you're understating the effectiveness of Flechette in 1.0 Hotac, though- without green maneuvers, 1 stress cancels 1 turns worth of actions, which you can follow up by applying a new stress, unlike actual play where you needed double stress to do anything but limit maneuvers.

My biggest issue, with regards to 2.0, is giving the AI some idea that stressing for a barrel roll or boost that puts you in a danger green moves cant clear is a bad thing. That's what I mean by "making the AI dumber."

@TreatAsRange2 I've posted my thoughts and ideas to you on the facebook page already, so I won't fully reiterate them here.

My thoughts about what has to be done with a new version of Aturi Cluster are getting the new ship dials and AI and elite cards. Inserting these into the current missions to play test.

Another big issue is the upgrade and experience system needs a complete overhaul - The current system is so hardwired with the original mechanics that 2.0 ships won't work so well. The way xp is earned currently would be way too much for 2.0 I feel, though this has no basis as I haven't played 2.0 yet, just a gut feeling.

The current hero progression is split between improving pilot skill (now initiative), Talents, and other upgrades.

So many of the previous modifications are eliminated - we don't see extra munitions.

I know my design philosophy would be to have a bit more organic feel to flying missions and less about spending xp - I admit this is a personal bias.

For example, I would make mission rewards let you reset charges on ordnance - something I would say doesn't reset between missions - or not fully anyways, as the alliance is strapped for supplies.

51 minutes ago, Rakaydos said:

yea, the linked action mechanic makes green maneuvers something to consider. I think you're understating the effectiveness of Flechette in 1.0 Hotac, though- without green maneuvers, 1 stress cancels 1 turns worth of actions, which you can follow up by applying a new stress, unlike actual play where you needed double stress to do anything but limit maneuvers.

My biggest issue, with regards to 2.0, is giving the AI some idea that stressing for a barrel roll or boost that puts you in a danger green moves cant clear is a bad thing. That's what I mean by "making the AI dumber."

My apologies, you are right that stress cripples the action economy for the AI. What I mean is that you cannot force the TIE to move in some other way, as is the case in vanilla-first edition x-wing. It will move the same unpredictable way as always, even with stress, because green/blue maneuver mechanic is disabled in HotAC.

30 minutes ago, That Blasted Samophlange said:

@TreatAsRange2 I've posted my thoughts and ideas to you on the facebook page already, so I won't fully reiterate them here.

My thoughts about what has to be done with a new version of Aturi Cluster are getting the new ship dials and AI and elite cards. Inserting these into the current missions to play test.

Another big issue is the upgrade and experience system needs a complete overhaul - The current system is so hardwired with the original mechanics that 2.0 ships won't work so well. The way xp is earned currently would be way too much for 2.0 I feel, though this has no basis as I haven't played 2.0 yet, just a gut feeling.

The current hero progression is split between improving pilot skill (now initiative), Talents, and other upgrades.

So many of the previous modifications are eliminated - we don't see extra munitions.

I know my design philosophy would be to have a bit more organic feel to flying missions and less about spending xp - I admit this is a personal bias.

For example, I would make mission rewards let you reset charges on ordnance - something I would say doesn't reset between missions - or not fully anyways, as the alliance is strapped for supplies.

I am of course also biased: I want a ruleset that can be a toolbox for any campaign imaginable, be it scum vs Imperials, Imperials vs Rebels, First Order vs Resistance, not just making the existing Aturi campaign work with the new basic rules.

I agree with you that the levelsystem for HotAC in the age of second edition needs a rehaul. It does not fit currently. At the same time, it seems HotAC 0.7 becomes too easy when entering PS7 and beyond. I think mainly that is because the pilots becomes too imbalanced when combining several rebel pilot abilities at the same time.

Btw, one idea is to keep it as it is and cap it at Init 7. I find HotAC most enjoyable in the range PS 3-5 anyway.

36 minutes ago, TreatAsRange2 said:

I am of course also biased: I want a ruleset that can be a toolbox for any campaign imaginable, be it scum vs Imperials, Imperials vs Rebels, First Order vs Resistance, not just making the existing Aturi campaign work with the new basic rules.

I agree with you that the levelsystem for HotAC in the age of second edition needs a rehaul. It does not fit currently. At the same time, it seems HotAC 0.7 becomes too easy when entering PS7 and beyond. I think mainly that is because the pilots becomes too imbalanced when combining several rebel pilot abilities at the same time.

Btw, one idea is to keep it as it is and cap it at Init 7. I find HotAC most enjoyable in the range PS 3-5 anyway.

I fully agree with HotAC becoming too easy. Considering the max Initiative in 2.0 is 6 (that we have seen so far, except for Gunner upgrade Han attacking at Initiative 7)

I know I was working in a requisition system for an Imperial campaign, and I think I would continue with that idea.

Each Initiative rank would also represent charges to spend on things. I would make each faction spend these charges between missions on slightlt different ways. Now this is off the top of my head mind you, but Rebels will use it to repair hull of craft between missions, reset charges on Ordnance or non talent upgrades - once again the Alliance is strapped for cash/resources

The Empire would spend charges each mission to requisition something beyond the standard TIE - the empire doesn't have to repair but has requisition every mission.

Scum, I'm not sure what to do - it should be all about making profit - and any campaign made for this will have to be a cutthroat cooperation. Basicially you only work together to further your own goals and come out ahead.

Resistance and First Order are likely the same as Rebel and Empire

16 hours ago, Rakaydos said:

The big issue with crits on AI is that once you start running Proton Bomb and multiple Manglers, you start to run out of Damage Deck. But fair enough, HOTAC core says do crits normally, so it's a houserule I've gotten used to.

Typically what we do is use a die to track facedown damage and only flipping cards when needed. Saves on deck there.

2 hours ago, TreatAsRange2 said:

I am of course also biased: I want a ruleset that can be a toolbox for any campaign imaginable, be it scum vs Imperials, Imperials vs Rebels, First Order vs Resistance, not just making the existing Aturi campaign work with the new basic rules.

I agree with you that the levelsystem for HotAC in the age of second edition needs a rehaul. It does not fit currently. At the same time, it seems HotAC 0.7 becomes too easy when entering PS7 and beyond. I think mainly that is because the pilots becomes too imbalanced when combining several rebel pilot abilities at the same time.

Btw, one idea is to keep it as it is and cap it at Init 7. I find HotAC most enjoyable in the range PS 3-5 anyway.

I think a universal ruleset would be nice, but I also think that we might want to make completely different upgrade mechanics for rebel and scum and imperial because of their faction identities. I also think that once the app comes out, we need to explore exactly what limits we can set, as well as how many mods and stuff there are. I think in terms of leveling up, make it two PS per int. for most of them, and maybe making it harder to level up in the long term? Because I agree, a high PS squadron is boring. The problem I've found is limiting that while also finding a fun way to keep a prize at the end. Maybe a universal "upgrade maximum" where a ship can only have a set number of upgrades total (Probably around 8 ) so things don't get too broken? A thought for another time.

1 hour ago, That Blasted Samophlange said:

I fully agree with HotAC becoming too easy. Considering the max Initiative in 2.0 is 6 (that we have seen so far, except for Gunner upgrade Han attacking at Initiative 7)

I know I was working in a requisition system for an Imperial campaign, and I think I would continue with that idea.

Each Initiative rank would also represent charges to spend on things. I would make each faction spend these charges between missions on slightlt different ways. Now this is off the top of my head mind you, but Rebels will use it to repair hull of craft between missions, reset charges on Ordnance or non talent upgrades - once again the Alliance is strapped for cash/resources

The Empire would spend charges each mission to requisition something beyond the standard TIE - the empire doesn't have to repair but has requisition every mission.

Scum, I'm not sure what to do - it should be all about making profit - and any campaign made for this will have to be a cutthroat cooperation. Basicially you only work together to further your own goals and come out ahead.

Resistance and First Order are likely the same as Rebel and Empire

Rebels pool resources, scum compete for bounties, and imperials only get what the mission gives them.