On 7/10/2018 at 2:17 AM, Blail Blerg said:

Welcome fellow left-behind enthusiasts,

...

Nerf suggestions:
3. Harpoons - The action to remove loses the damage upon failure. (Becoming harpooned now means loss of actions, from trying to flip the card, but not guaranteed damage.)
...
(6. When defending against secondary weapons at Range 3, roll a die for Range 3 bonus. (This seems like a very drastic power shift, I am therefore hesitant.))

...

3. As others have suggested, just require the lock to be spent to fire. That's usually good for reducing the initial shot damage down by at least a full damage on average.

6. When defending at range 3, roll one additional die. (very simple wording that includes all weapon types) When defending, if you are not in the attacker's arc, roll 1 additional defense die. (Nerfs turret effectiveness but does not hurt aux arced attackers.)

On 7/10/2018 at 5:29 AM, CRCL said:

I've run several altered formats of X-wing 1.0 at our league nights, and I found a really easy way of reining in some of those top-tier ships/lists is to ban the following 3 cards:

I don't know if it really needs a change but maybe change Guidance ships to say: When attacking with a Torp or Missile, you may re-roll attack dice up to your primary weapon value.

This makes it nearly useless except to those weapons that required the lock to be spent.

Otherwise, I like where this is going so far.

8 hours ago, Commander Kaine said:

I think a fair compromise between 1.0 and 2.0 turrets is to make all turret and PWT attacks require a target lock when attacking outside the primary firing arc. Makes them more action dependent (it also makes sense in universe) without inventing a whole new action.

Is there any ship with a turret that DOESN'T have a target lock?

No, I don't think so.

Also, TL idea for 360 is really, really good.

I would recommend that it needs locked, but not spent to fire. A built-in issue here is that lower PS turrets will have a very difficult time "turning" their turret in time (out of range for lock) and then simply get PS arc dodged/murdered. Unless they can equip LR.Scanners.

But then Black One and countermeasures become a huge pain for turrets, since you can't just hold your lock on them all game for your turret.

1 hour ago, ObiWonka said:

I guess we just get a new one of these threads every time the previous one has fallen off the front page for a week or so?

I love it when people think that they have any clue how to design a game, or that ffg will actually apply anything bandied about here with second edition on the horizon.

1 hour ago, ObiWonka said:

I guess we just get a new one of these threads every time the previous one has fallen off the front page for a week or so?

I love it when people think that they have any clue how to design a game, or that ffg will actually apply anything bandied about here with second edition on the horizon.

1 hour ago, ObiWonka said:

I guess we just get a new one of these threads every time the previous one has fallen off the front page for a week or so?

I love it when people think that they have any clue how to design a game, or that ffg will actually apply anything bandied about here with second edition on the horizon.

Oof quintuple post.

My big nerf: Hera crew, R3-A2, and Overclocked R4 all gain the text "if you have three or fewer stress." Perhaps also Ezra should gain the same. Mostly, there shouldn't be unlimited-stress abilities (I'll allow an exception for Tycho). They'd all still be good, but there ought to be a cap, like with Primed Thrusters or Captain Yorr.

This is my main suggestion, and a really simple nerf. All these cards can still work well, but the potential for abuse in edge cases should go away.

If folks stop reading here, but add this, I'd be golden.

//

I'd love a new title for the TIE Phantom which would give it the 2e statline of 3 attack, 3 hull, but also reduce the cost. I'd make it reduce the cost of all upgrades by 1 (or System and Modification by 2, or Modification by 4, etc), and have an additional negative cost on there. I think the Phantom is a fun ship to play with, but the high total cost makes it a hard thing to fit into a list, and a risky one, since it can so easily get swatted by TLTs and higher PS ships. I'd much rather have a 3-red Whisper in the 30-34 point range, than a 4-red Whisper in the 40-44 point range. A comprehensive fix to X-Wing 1e should have a few things which aren't nerfs, but which open up new play options. TIE Phantom never got an aces pack, and this would be an interesting little change.

//

I'd probably specify that ISB Slicer has to jam a ship *other* than the initial target.

I like the Harpooned! condition losing the chance of taking damage, but I'd also make them cost 5 points. I don't think Harpoons are fundamentally an unfair mechanic, but they're just too cheap. At 5 points, they'd be the same as Homing Missiles, so it'd be a trade-off on whether you want to prevent Evade tokens, or fish for crits and maybe get splash damage, and there would be Concussion for budget reasons (and not that much worse, in terms of initial hit damage), or Cruise for the daring. At a 1-point discount, the tricky maneuvers needed to get a strong Cruise attack isn't worth it. At a 2-point discount, perhaps it's a valid alternative.

//

That's the real issue. I don't think things like TLTs, the Phantom I title, Sheathipedes, are fundamentally unfair, they just cost too little. The best fix to most problem cards in this game is a points fix. Not always, but most. If TLTs gain a point of cost, the VCX gains a point of cost, the Ghost/Phantom I title pair gains a point or two of cost, and Fenn Rau gains two points of cost (and maybe drops a PS or two), that adds up. Increase the cost of Ghost/Fenn by 6 points, drop Fenn to PS 7 baseline, and then the list has to make hard choices.

Phantom I is something that I really think should be fixed this way, and not through "use the turret on the Attack Shuttle." I think that opens up a massive new problem by allowing the Ghost to switch from a TLT to an Autoblaster turret, and all of a sudden the ship doesn't have a blind spot and is doing unpreventable damage. The cost increases matter, since you have to buy two instead of one turret, but it's not a nerf , it's a change . It'd be better at some things, worse at others, but a straight point cost increase on the cost of turrets, on the cost of the title, on the cost of the baseline ships would be so much better.

4 hours ago, Force Majeure said:

Next, re-visiting Veteran Instincts & Adaptability would be nice. Limiting them to PS 7 & under OR make them unique.

I think making them a temporary boost to PS would be acceptable, like with the Heightened Perception upgrade for 2.0, so use either at the beginning of Activation or Combat. Or they could simply be banned. I think ships like Dash would be cut back a bit in their effectiveness, Nym could be played around, and Soontir wouldn't be as afraid to be on the board.

Adaptability could potentially be buffed, in a way. When you declare that you are using Adaptability, you could lower or raise PS by 1. You could get some really strange things happening by really shaking up the order of activation.

3 hours ago, ObiWonka said:

I guess we just get a new one of these threads every time the previous one has fallen off the front page for a week or so?

1 hour ago, nikk whyte said:

I love it when people think that they have any clue how to design a game, or that ffg will actually apply anything bandied about here with second edition on the horizon.

48 minutes ago, Praetorate of the Empire said:

I think making them a temporary boost to PS would be acceptable, like with the Heightened Perception upgrade for 2.0, so use either at the beginning of Activation or Combat. Or they could simply be banned. I think ships like Dash would be cut back a bit in their effectiveness, Nym could be played around, and Soontir wouldn't be as afraid to be on the board.

Adaptability could potentially be buffed, in a way. When you declare that you are using Adaptability, you could lower or raise PS by 1. You could get some really strange things happening by really shaking up the order of activation.

Reminds me of Armada where you can circumvent the activation order with Bail and Pryce.

1 hour ago, Azrapse said:

I don't know why I got quoted for this. I was just commenting on the fact that there are several other threads already like this and they just keep coming.

I'm all for everyone finding their own "perfect balance" for 1st Edition, given FFG won't be doing it (and may or may not do so myself at some point).

4 hours ago, Bucknife said:

No, I don't think so.

Also, TL idea for 360 is really, really good.

I would recommend that it needs locked, but not spent to fire. A built-in issue here is that lower PS turrets will have a very difficult time "turning" their turret in time (out of range for lock) and then simply get PS arc dodged/murdered. Unless they can equip LR.Scanners.

But then Black One and countermeasures become a huge pain for turrets, since you can't just hold your lock on them all game for your turret.

Yeah that's what I meant.

Also the black one and countermeasures thing is deliberate