17 hours ago, theBitterFig said:

If it was in X-Wing, every attack would need accuracy and damage numbers, as well as evasion and reinforce numbers (not sure how reinforce would work, but maybe just reducing damage dice rolled against you... that said, the reinforce action works a lot cleaner then). The B-Wing rolls a low evasion, but has a higher reinforce number. They're easy to hit, but perhaps that 6 dice Proton Torpedo is reduced to like 3 vs a B-Wing's heavy shielding. TIEs and Interceptors have high evasion numbers, but incredibly low reinforce. I guess that's thematic, but the current system is just so much faster, and so much clearer.

There are two weapons in 1.0 which has a degree of the effect being discussed - the plasma torpedo and the single turbolaser

Essentially, you can make a weapon powerful but inaccurate by either method (or a combination of the two);

• the plasma torpedo attacks normally but adds extra damage 'if you hit'. A putative inaccurate-but-lethal weapon could be three, or even two, attack dice, but if the attack hits could inflict one or more extra damage (or even critical damage)
• the turbolaser has a lot of attack dice but doubles the defender's agility. This means that the difference between agility 0 (still agility 0) and agility 1 (now agility 2) is sizeable, whilst the difference between agility 1 and agility 2 (now agility 4!) is huge, and agility 3 is essentially unhittable.

7 hours ago, Magnus Grendel said:

There are two weapons in 1.0 which has a degree of the effect being discussed - the plasma torpedo and the single turbolaser

Essentially, you can make a weapon powerful but inaccurate by either method (or a combination of the two);

• the plasma torpedo attacks normally but adds extra damage 'if you hit'. A putative inaccurate-but-lethal weapon could be three, or even two, attack dice, but if the attack hits could inflict one or more extra damage (or even critical damage)
• the turbolaser has a lot of attack dice but doubles the defender's agility. This means that the difference between agility 0 (still agility 0) and agility 1 (now agility 2) is sizeable, whilst the difference between agility 1 and agility 2 (now agility 4!) is huge, and agility 3 is essentially unhittable.

Good examples.

Plasma Torpedo is interesting in comparison to Proton Torpedo. On a single action, while Proton essentially adds a damage by converting a focus to a crit, Plasma has naked dice, but adds a damage (maybe) by removing a shield. They're statistically pretty close to the same before you start to stack modifiers and can get that Plasma up to a decent chance of 4 natural hits. The other thing which keeps Plasma reasonable: it can whiff. Shields already down, or never up in the first place? No bonus. It's moderate enough that it doesn't feel like it dramatically breaks something I really like about X-Wing: marginal evade results have meaning. It's not all-or-nothing, each extra evade you roll generally prevents one more damage. Harpoon Missile kinda fits into this, too.

Single Turbolaser is also interesting. In a lot of ways, it isn't that different from a Proton Torpedo or Concussion Missile. They're all 4-dice attacks which can turn one result to a hit. What the Turbolaser really gains is the lack of a TL requirement, the huge range, and almost unlimited uses. But it's Epic-only. I actually haven't ever played with or against it. Haven't played much Epic, and not against this particular weapon. However, I really like the design. The basic mechanic (each evade rolled prevents one more damage) is in place, but it gets easier for some ships to roll extra evades. Zuckuss-ship is kinda like that, as well. And when folks were discussing how a Rebel's show based Blade Wing ought to work, my suggestion was it ought to be a 2-dice attack which can build up and spend energy to add 2 attack dice per, but 1 green die to the defender per energy spent. I greatly prefer this kind of mechanic (adding dice to the defender, but leaving the effects of being hit the same) to ramped-up Plasma Torpedos style effects.

But my hesitation around really leaning into a split between accuracy and damage is that ships already do more damage to low agility ships, and adding new weapons to that seems like a mistake. Maybe this would mean increased HP for low-agility ships, since they'd need it.

Likewise, the flip side: highly accurate but low damage attacks. I'm not super interested in 5-dice attacks that only do 1 damage if they hit. I just don't think that'd be fun, because then the marginal evades rolled really don't matter. On a few rare weapons, OK. But I really like the direction that they've gone in 2E with Ion weapons: they don't just cancel at one damage and an ion, each marginal hit causes an extra Ion token, each extra evade prevents one. The dice matter now against Ion weapons, and that's good.

If Proton Torpedos were a three dice attack that, if it hit, added one critical damage, I think that might not be unreasonable. Against a TIE, there'd be a chance of a fatal direct hit from any successful attack. Against a B-Wing, it's essentially the same as turning a blank to a crit. Going much further than that worries me. A two dice attack which added two critical damage would feel really bad to me. That'd be instant death against a TIE it hit, even if unlikely to hit, but we all know what green dice do. Can a normal 3 or 4 hit attack just pop a TIE? Sure, but the evades you roll against it all matter in a direct 1-to-1 relationship. Against something like a Y-Wing, a 2-dice plus 2 damage attack pretty much at least an automatic 3 damage with next to zero chance of evasion. I think that's really bad for the game, in both senses, but that's just like, my opinion, man.

16 hours ago, theBitterFig said:

Likewise, the flip side: highly accurate but low damage attacks. I'm not super interested in 5-dice attacks that only do 1 damage if they hit. I just don't think that'd be fun, because then the marginal evades rolled really don't matter.

Indeed. Because down that road lies Twin Laser Turret MkII, and that's one of the most hated and widely decried upgrade cards introduced in 1st edition....

16 hours ago, theBitterFig said:

Single Turbolaser is also interesting. In a lot of ways, it isn't that different from a Proton Torpedo or Concussion Missile. They're all 4-dice attacks which can turn one result to a hit. What the Turbolaser really gains is the lack of a TL requirement, the huge range, and almost unlimited uses. But it's Epic-only. I actually haven't ever played with or against it. Haven't played much Epic, and not against this particular weapon. However, I really like the design.

It's an interesting weapon, and a lot more useful now epic mandates that you have at least one epic ship.

Introducing something like the TIE Bizzarro as a ship with a hardpoint into the standard game would be interesting, but aside from my glee at the idea of yelling "Reinforce this you walking carpets!" and shelling Auzitucks with impunity from range 5, I don't think it'd actually be good for the game.

5 hours ago, Magnus Grendel said:

It's an interesting weapon, and a lot more useful now epic mandates that you have at least one epic ship.

Introducing something like the TIE Bizzarro as a ship with a hardpoint into the standard game would be interesting, but aside from my glee at the idea of yelling "Reinforce this you walking carpets!" and shelling Auzitucks with impunity from range 5, I don't think it'd actually be good for the game.

If it was a unique ship without an Elite upgrade, it'd be absolutely hilarious. "After you execute an attack, perform a white 1 [Reverse] move." That turbolaser has a heck of a kick.

with the loss of shields all around i don't even think the Plasma Torpedo is needed.

Objective play being a built in core mechanic. It's rather of to me that it X-wing will remain the only Star Wars game by FFG to not use an objective system of any kind. And no, I don't count the build restriction app function an objective system. As a TO, I'll have to add that after as far as I can tell, and the restriction function will only impact what can be brought to what I or FFG dictate later. So yeah, kind of a fail there. Also interesting because it had some serious traction with the fan base on these forums and in my local group at least. To be fair though, as much as I liked a few of the scenario play option from 1st-ed, I'm not sure how the **** it feasibly could be done anyhow, and suspect it's absence isn't for lack of trying by the devs.

Dice. I like the first edition system. Hands down one of the best mechanics ever put into a game. But after awhile it did fail to hold up. Also, for whatever reason, some fans HATED it (sup fickle). Which is weird, since they also kept playing it. Must mean that it is lovably hateable? Butt What, with all the different missiles, torpedoes, mangle, ion, and on, and on, yeesh. Then the creep of dice and all that, yeah, the system broke. I'm currently benching all my thoughts on what it SHOULD have been, how and why, and just going to see what the new edition does. Also the devs said something somewhere about having tried it but it not testing week with younger crowds. Personally, that is a garbage reason, and kids can do more than you think, but again, whatever.

I'll give this one too. As much as a opponent of the seperate pilot card idea as I was, even cutting it's utterly laughable failure in STAW, ... With the app and all that it brings to the table you could have TOTALLY made that change and made it work. No question about it. I didn't originally want it, but if your building a system that can handle it anyway? Well then why didn't you?

Those actually remind me of other things I was going to mention.

Objective play wasn't on my mind when it came to edition shifts, but it's definitely something I'd get behind. Personally, the idea that this game is "supposed" to be played as a dogfight in the middle of an asteroid field has always been... weird to me (asteroid fields were involved in iconic movie scenes, but they weren't ubiquitous, especially not in dogfights). I never got around to playing any of them, but I really liked the idea of the missions that came with certain releases. It definitely would have been nice for such a system to become more standard.

Dice bug me and actually did contribute to me abandoning the game (I haven't played in a long time, I just hover for news that interests me, like Second Edition). I can't really articulate it, especially without remembering a specific example, but there was one game my friends and I played during our boardgame night that just solidified it for me. There's just something binary about dice that make them frustrating to rely on, especially with standard result spreads.

Finally, I don't think anyone was necessarily referring to me, but I just want to clarify that when I said I wanted character art on my pilot cards, I just meant the pilot cards we already have. The idea of separate pilot and ship cards is an interesting one, but it's not necessary for me and not something I was personally hoping for in a Second Edition. I just wish the cards we already have showed the characters they were representing, rather than the ships which are already represented through the miniatures.

Also, I again don't want anyone to think I hate Second Edition because of these things. I'm optimistic about it, which is why I'm even here right now, there are just things I thought we might see if it happened.

Spoiled 2.0 homing missile is interesting - the defender can choose to cancel all results and take one damage - meaning it has significantly reduced effectivness against low agility ships which can just choose to only take one damage.

But only if the attacker spends a surge it looks like. So when firing at big low agility heavies, go for broke on four dice, when going at high agility, guarantee at least one damage or gamble for more? Am I reading this right?

16 minutes ago, ForceSensitive said:

But only if the attacker spends a surge it looks like. So when firing at big low agility heavies, go for broke on four dice, when going at high agility, guarantee at least one damage or gamble for more? Am I reading this right?

The new mechanic for munitions is to spend a charge to fire and you get 2 charges, so what they did there was build in extra munitions.

Homing says the "Defender" chooses whether to take one damage or face the attack normally. So If I am the defender of a 0-2 agility ship, I will almost always take the 1 unless 1 would kill me. If I am 3 or more agility with modifiers, then I might decide to face the attack. The charge is spent either way just to declare the attack.

Edit: I really like the design of new Homing missiles. Both the attacker and defender have decisions to make regarding its use and that makes for an interesting game:

• Attacker, "Do I waste it on a Ghost knowing I will only do 1 damage or do I save it for Corran knowing he has 3 agility and tokens and may take none?"
• Defender, "Do I take a sure 1 or gamble that I can beat the dice?"

Not a change, but I do regret that we went the entire first edition of the game without getting Hondo Ohnaka for Scum.

He's arguably the biggest no-brainer inclusion for the faction. That we got Latts Razzi before him is a heinous crime. And Hondo knows of heinous crimes!

Things I wish for

a-wing swivel guns.

Mexhanically, use an action to flip the cardboard around on the small base.

Shooting behind you as you fly, but taking an action to flip.

8 hours ago, pickirk01 said:

The new mechanic for munitions is to spend a charge to fire and you get 2 charges, so what they did there was build in extra munitions.

Homing says the "Defender" chooses whether to take one damage or face the attack normally. So If I am the defender of a 0-2 agility ship, I will almost always take the 1 unless 1 would kill me. If I am 3 or more agility with modifiers, then I might decide to face the attack. The charge is spent either way just to declare the attack.

Edit: I really like the design of new Homing missiles. Both the attacker and defender have decisions to make regarding its use and that makes for an interesting game:

• Attacker, "Do I waste it on a Ghost knowing I will only do 1 damage or do I save it for Corran knowing he has 3 agility and tokens and may take none?"
• Defender, "Do I take a sure 1 or gamble that I can beat the dice?"

Yeah, but on average, it's never worth not taking that guaranteed 1 damage.
4 dice attack, with 1 mod. A good player can get 2, certain builds will guarantee it.

Against, best case scenario: 3 dice green dice and 1 mod. Maybe two if you are a defender. And evade was nerfed. When will you get more than 2 evade results on 3 dice? Not very often. You most likely take 1 damage anyway... And then green dice are notoriously.... capricious