3 minutes ago, GuacCousteau said:

Armada style objectives would be a great addition for casual formats, and I'd love to see some asymmetric formats like 'attack and defend'.

Or even stuff like needing to lock an obstacle to get a data uplink and download critical plans or the like while the opposing force has to try and destroy the squad sent to download the data. Anything that helps shake up list building to be about mission objectives rather than straight MDK lists would be great. It would be even better if they could make balanced general objectives and some specific to each faction like how they all have a faction specific Talent.

5 minutes ago, Animewarsdude said:

Or even stuff like needing to lock an obstacle to get a data uplink and download critical plans or the like while the opposing force has to try and destroy the squad sent to download the data.

indeed. The ability to lock non-ship objects being a standard part of the rules opens up a lot of potential mechanics in scenarios.

12 minutes ago, Animewarsdude said:

Or even stuff like needing to lock an obstacle to get a data uplink and download critical plans or the like while the opposing force has to try and destroy the squad sent to download the data.

Yeah, really good shout.

Lot of potential use out of new mechanics, actually. You could be required to use the Jam action on an objective token, implement the docking rules etc.

Not to mention the new reserve rules and Hyperspace escalation formats.

1 hour ago, Magnus Grendel said:

Please cease assuming people's beliefs. Because most of the time, when you do, you'll find you're wrong.

Fair enough. But I had posted my thoughts based on what I thought was genuine interested in my ideas:

18 hours ago, GuacCousteau said:

Well... could you elaborate? That's kinda what I was asking for.

Not so that they could be henpecked line-by-line about Why It Will Never Work And I Think Your Idea Sucks.

21 minutes ago, GuacCousteau said:

It's called the elevator pitch, my man. If you can't boil your concept down into a few, informative sentences you might need to ask whether your concept is really all that worthwhile.

Yeah, well, I'm not part of the twitter generation. I prefer fully-fleshed out thoughts.

Quote

What would be in such a box?

Well....for starters, I would recommend not aiming it at bigger-than-standard-sized games. Because not everyone - tournament player, casual player, or either - has the time or money to invest in epic play .

• A cardboard-only expansion can work. But making it sell - which is important - has to follow the rule of 'everyone wants a piece of it'.
• This is why the epic ships (I suspect) all had at least one 'killer' card and/or were often also used to sell 'fixes' for ships (rebel transport/x-wing, raider/TIE advanced, C-ROC/scyk). Which is not what we're wanting.
• Personally, I would suggest pilots and upgrade cards useable in scenarios and standard play aren't stupid, but - as noted above - using quick builds and 'permitted ship' lists to lock down what you can use in a given scenario.
• I would strongly advise having multiple scenarios in the box, The linked mini-campaigns in the epic ships are good fun - their main problem is the sheer cost of the epic ship expansions compared to buying a full wave of stuff, for a single ship that you can't use outside epic play games.
  • By comparison, a cardboard-only expansion like the corellian conflict lets you add a lot of stuff to the 'core game' by adding new pilots, titles, etc to existing ships.
  • Correllian campaign also provides new scenarios which are also useful for standard games - less relevant where the generic game is basically a 'deathmatch' - but it also included new obstacles. Adding in a nice new swath of different obstructions would be very interesting (let's say; gas/dust clouds and maybe some cargo containers?)
• It needs to feel like a 'premium product' to work - campaign maps and so on.

I will, as an aside, be interested to see what is in the core set. Because the first edition core sets did have scenarios in them. Seeing whether the new core sets do as well will be a big determiner whether it's something FFG still see as important to their business model. Mission control's rather ignominious fate suggests it isn't, unfortunately.

So, I got spitballing beginning with a request to see how the Shuttle Tydirium could see play. I play Epic, so when I wrote the scenario, that's my plug in level; then I just was trying to show how FFG might also make "Battle of" packs that support lore, plus could be a new marketing idea to attract a different breed of player. I simply used the example at hand because I had posted a description of it.

So yeah, 200 point battles is probably a good idea.

The main thing that I would add to your critiques above (all of which I think are important to consider) is that a product like this should be very Star Warsy. I would think that it would be a good way to hook new players into the game because:

• It would feature Star Wars narrative; 2/3 of players start this game because of the IP.
• It could be self-contained and complete with the Core Set. The Core Set is not a complete game. Coupling a product like this to the Core Set would let you play the game at 200 points.
• It would allow new players to experience the game for the first time with a reasonable, but not overwhelming, chunk of the game.
• It might attract the demographic of players that is not interested in Standard Play.
• It could be a gateway to Epic play. Maybe include ideas about how to bring the scenarios up to 600 points. OR, act as a starting point for a similar product that does feature Epic-sized battles.

14 hours ago, Darth Meanie said:

It could be self-contained and complete with the Core Set. The Core Set is not a complete game. Coupling a product like this to the Core Set would let you play the game at 200 points.

Now that is an important concept, and worth digging into.

An X-wing core set plus.....whatever we call this thing...being a 'complete game' is fundamentally restricted by plastic models. But making an 'expansion box' give you a complete 200 point force is going to be very different to anything you've seen before.

On the other, other hand, FFG's approach to X-wing 2nd edition seems to be that you only need to buy one faction, along a 'Legion' model - if you want 'all the cards' you might end up buying ships within a faction you don't want (afterburners is likely to be in the Fang, A-wing and TIE interceptor, for example), but - barring the odd case of cross-faction cards like Maul or 0-0-0 & BT-1, you don't have to buy a faction to get a card for another faction.

Whilst - from the perspective of grey-bearded so-and-sos with the roster of half the battle of endor at their disposal, the Conversion Kit makes sense (people can argue the actual price-per-value back and forth but the actual kit is a sensible move), it isn't relevant for a new starter.

What might work well on an ongoing basis is something akin to the Games Workshop 'Start Collecting' boxes. These are a £50-or-so box with a decent cluster of starting stuff in them, often with a unique formation to make them vaguely useable as an 'army', at significantly less than the cost of buying those models individually.

An X-wing equivalent being a bolt-on to a core set and handing you a 200 point squad seems not ideal - because as a company who wants you to spend more to fill out your squad, I don't necessarily want to hand you a full army in two pre-packaged products as you might stop looking at other things- but there are ways around that. The 1.0 Rebel Aces was a good example of this; because it included a B-wing and an A-wing.

Added to the X-wing you started with (core set), you could make a complete squad - Luke Skywalker w/R2-D2, Keyan Farlander w/Kyle, Jake Farrell, but you didn't have the complete swathe of pilots for any of the three ships, and you were still have a practical desire to get other boxes to give you options. Plus, two ships is enough plastic to justify a decent price point allowing you to get a load of scenarios, upgrades and new terrain in there.

A 'start collecting rebel alliance' with B-wing & A-wing (I only suggest those two because the Y-wing is an early release so a new player might well get it along with the core) plus a load of terrain punch-outs and scenarios could work well - since the player is only going to have 2 TIE fighters, a lot of the scenarios are either going to need to use 'respawning fighters' or non-tournament-legal token enemies*.

Similarly, a 'start collecting galactic empire' with a TIE Interceptor and TIE bomber could do much the same with 'goon squad' turret-less Y-wings.

* one nice thing about a putative 'token-based enemy' is that if they're a generic 'disposable goon' who moves 'before the initiative 0 step', you technically don't need a dial for them, which saves a LOT of cardboard if you want to have 4-5 enemy ships in a scenario pack!

18 hours ago, Darth Meanie said:

Not so that they could be henpecked line-by-line about Why It Will Never Work And I Think Your Idea Sucks.

No, you're right, I was being a ****. I'm sorry.

I wasn't doing a very good job at expressing my opinions and I got a bit mean-spirited about it. You obviously put a lot of time and thought into coming up with the scenario and content ideas, and I was too dismissive of it.

I don't think we really disagree on all that much, tbh. I would love to see FFG put out more content for thematic casual play, I just think we differ on the relative importance of the two sides.

I never intended to make this about casual vs competitive either, just wanted to take a stand that any game using dice, mechanics and alternating turns is never going to be a perfect representation of book or film fluff, and I don't believe it should have to either. I'm here because I love Star Wars and because the gameplay itself is fun, and I want to see the game be the best at both it can be.

I do wish you weren't so down on 2e, though. I honestly think you're going to be missing out even from a casual perspective.

Even playing casually, I found it frustrating in 1e that I couldn't really make X-Wings and A-Wings - the ships I really want to fly - work. Even against people who were also only interested in fluffy, casual games. Y-Wings felt crap as torpedo carriers as well, and ICT never felt worth the massive points investment. There was just so much about the OT content I felt had been left behind, or barely ever got out the gate in the first place (I can't tell you how many different ways I played the core set game and still never won with the X-Wing and always won with the TIE Fighters)

Even after just a quick proxy job, I can tell you that X-Wings and Intimidation Arvel are waaaay more fun and viable than they ever were in 1e.

I know there's no epic, and I know there is initially less content and fewer pilots but they will come.

What is lore, anyway? is it the movies? are the books, but only ones that the OP/the designers think cool?
Do we need little bear people to win the empire all over again?

4 hours ago, GuacCousteau said:

I don't think we really disagree on all that much, tbh. I would love to see FFG put out more content for thematic casual play, I just think we differ on the relative importance of the two sides.

I never intended to make this about casual vs competitive either

A lot of players do want something more than "standard," at least sometimes. The disagreement is how to get there. So, yeah, we do agree.

Also, it's hard not to make a casual/competitive comparison, because the line is so fuzzy--anything different is clearly casual, and anything that sticks with 400/6 seems competitive (or not moving far enough away as to offer a different experience).

Quote

I do wish you weren't so down on 2e, though. I honestly think you're going to be missing out even from a casual perspective.

Even playing casually, I found it frustrating in 1e that I couldn't really make X-Wings and A-Wings - the ships I really want to fly - work. Even against people who were also only interested in fluffy, casual games. Y-Wings felt crap as torpedo carriers as well, and ICT never felt worth the massive points investment. There was just so much about the OT content I felt had been left behind, or barely ever got out the gate in the first place (I can't tell you how many different ways I played the core set game and still never won with the X-Wing and always won with the TIE Fighters)

Right my relationship with XWM is akin to a long-time girlfriend who just did something pretty bad--not unforgivable, but bad. Like miss your grandmother's funeral. Maybe she had a good reason. Maybe it was unavoidable. But you feel betrayed, nonetheless. You can let it go and move forward, or you can wonder if this is the way things will be in the future.

For me, I have always been frustrated by the TIE Interceptor. And current rumors are that said ship remains underserved in 2.0. So not an auspicious start for me and 2.0

To quote myself from elsewhere:

Quote

I think 2.0 has opened up a ton of design space. I like some of the new game mechanics. The Force is cool. Calculate as a way to define droids is cool. 7 factions and the Prequels is cool.

I'm neutral on the app, because I freely admit I would use an online builder anyway.

But I'm pissed Epic was left in the dust. I don't like that, for the moment, the game got smaller rather than larger. I don't like that new ship design has slowed to a crawl with the need to rerelease everything as a 2.0 product. I also think 2.0 has made it clear that FFG only cares about one kind of player--and it isn't the players that play this game the way I do. I also am very mistrustful of the fact that no game component is ever finished. I mistrust that the problems of 1.0 won't simply creep I to the game again. As a casual player, my 1.0 game wasn't broken, I think bans would have helped 1.0 a ton, and I think 2.0 might have been more heavy-handed than it needed to be in terms of letting players blend the two together. Not all of us want to jump--but the message is more "convert or die."

So, in the moment, all I can say is that I have preordered a 2.0 starter set, and there are moments when I regret that. 

I spent a crap-ton of money on 1.0. I need to decide if that was a wise investment, and more importantly if spending money on 2.0 is prudent given that FFG doesn't seem to care about casual, non-standard, thematic, narrative play. 2.0 and the app are about manipulating the meta; I'm less certain it will cater to homebrew, end-user driven, "relive the movie battles," Star Wars play.

The App is likely to be a big make-it-or-break-it moment for me. If all it does is make sure tournament players have a legal list, that sucks.

If it lets players explore the game in ways that are not necessarily geared to tournament play, that will be awesome.

But on some level I need to know that FFG thinks of this game as more than Sport-Wing For Alt Art and Prizes.

On ‎8‎/‎21‎/‎2018 at 10:36 AM, Animewarsdude said:

That and the Y-Wing was pretty much the cheapest turret carrier that could actually tank hits. Its just a numbers game, one that based on having the list survive the initial round of combat and then dull out 8 damage to the opposing list. I suspect that the Devs were thinking that TLT would be something used like on one ship as a counter to arc dodgers, not turned into a min maxed monstrosity.

I am far from the best player, but as someone who frequently played quad-TLT Y-Wing, I can safely say that I NEVER got 8 damage per turn. Eight damage per turn worked ON PAPER. On the tabletop, unless I were facing 0-evade ships (a very rare match-up), I would NOT reliably get 8 damage, and if I were facing 2- or 3- (or more) evade ships, like I typically faced, I was lucky to get 4+ damage. Even with TL and focus. And that's not even accounting for Autothrusters. And that's before my 1-evade PS 2 Y-Wings drew concentrated fire that quickly turned quad-TLT into tri-TLT into bi-TLT into game over.

I find that most of the TLT whining came from WAAC tournament players who BMW'd whenever they came up against a build they couldn't curb-stomp with their PS 10 Aces.

I'm no fan of 2.0 (a very reluctant converter at best), but if nothing else, 2.0 MAY cut down on WAAC tournament player saltiness.

3 minutes ago, Firebird TMK said:

I am far from the best player, but as someone who frequently played quad-TLT Y-Wing, I can safely say that I NEVER got 8 damage per turn. Eight damage per turn worked ON PAPER. On the tabletop, unless I were facing 0-evade ships (a very rare match-up), I would NOT reliably get 8 damage, and if I were facing 2- or 3- (or more) evade ships, like I typically faced, I was lucky to get 4+ damage. Even with TL and focus. And that's not even accounting for Autothrusters. And that's before my 1-evade PS 2 Y-Wings drew concentrated fire that quickly turned quad-TLT into tri-TLT into bi-TLT into game over.

I find that most of the TLT whining came from WAAC tournament players who BMW'd whenever they came up against a build they couldn't curb-stomp with their PS 10 Aces.

I'm no fan of 2.0 (a very reluctant converter at best), but if nothing else, 2.0 MAY cut down on WAAC tournament player saltiness.

Fair enough, I was looking at it on paper, with it being the sturdiest, and cheapest ship to use TLT as a platform.

2 hours ago, Firebird TMK said:

I'm no fan of 2.0 (a very reluctant converter at best), but if nothing else, 2.0 MAY cut down on WAAC tournament player saltiness.

Don't bet on it. Competitive gamers can be some of the most exploitive and some of the saltiest people you'll ever encounter. Regardless of the game or its mechanics.

So I’ve been watching this thread and mulling over what I want to say and how. Sadly I have never been great at expressing my thoughts but I will give it a shot. For context I do have a degree in game design. I mention that not to say that my opinion means more but to offer context that I have some basis for my thoughts beyond just my personal opinion.

Lore should inform game design, but adaptation of that lore into a working game requires mechanical game design and at the end of the day what works best in the context of a game needs to trump lore.

I’m not saying lore is meaningless, because it is a factor, most games are sold on the marketability of the property and theme. However, it has to be a good game to inspire those people to keep playing in most circumstances. I got into this game because I am a big Star Wars fan, but I continued to invest in it because it was an enjoyable game.

We are seeing a similar Thing happen in the video game industry. Battlefield V is being criticised due to the inclusion of female characters with the argument being that is not historically accurate. Whether that is true or not is neither here nor there for me as I feel that player choice is key and the game already has departed from its source material with how thst game is made. Historical accuracy is a noble argument...but means nothing in a game beyond setting. If you want to learn history go read a book or watch a documentary. More choice has been granted to the player and that is a good thing.

Anyway, getting back on track. I saw there was an argument regarding the TIE Phantom and that because it couldn’t have had its cloaking device accurately represented, then why even have it in the game at all, why not have the V38 Assault craft that it was based on.

Well...because we never saw the V38 as far as I know and only saw the Phantom. Furthermore, the introduction of the cloaking device would introduce a ship with a unique aspect and play style.

It is the job of a game designer to design a set of rules and to craft those rules through interpretation and translation. If something doesn’t work you either rework it until it does....or discard it. In the instance of the Phantom the were able to eventually end up with something that gives the feel of a cloaking device without actually introducing complications that would make the ship entirely invisible and untrackable the the enemy which would have been impossible to fight against.

Going back to my video game analogy, headshots are instant kills. Don’t get me wrong, in 99 out of 100 instances a shot the the head will kill you. However there are reports of a few survivors. However if you were to accurately represent that in a game it would remove the risk factor of going for a headshot since there is the chance it wouldn’t work. Whereas if you have the hard rule of headshots are one hit kill for everyone, then you create a consistent rule that players can use.

Like meanie, I would love to see some kind of themeatic campaign kit for X-Wing. The only issue with making missions is ensuring it is balanced for both sides and that either side has a chance of winning. One of the few things Star Trek Attack Wing got mostly right is the organized play tournaments which are all mission based. Sure, you can still win by defeating your opponent but in the later missions, if you played to the mission you could get so many mission points that if all your ships were destroyed, you’d still win.

Game design is not easy and while lore should definitely inform the mechanics of the game, in the end it needs to be a great game first because that’s what it is, a game.

9 hours ago, Ebak said:

Like meanie, I would love to see some kind of themeatic campaign kit for X-Wing. The only issue with making missions is ensuring it is balanced for both sides and that either side has a chance of winning. One of the few things Star Trek Attack Wing got mostly right is the organized play tournaments which are all mission based. Sure, you can still win by defeating your opponent but in the later missions, if you played to the mission you could get so many mission points that if all your ships were destroyed, you’d still win.

First of all very nice post. Second I am loving the idea of a mission escalation tournament setting. A tournament could be akin to war you don’t fight one battle and it’s over. Infact a lot wars are not even started by fighting, some, but I believe several are started at a political level.

I think it would be kind of neat to have the first round be a total objective match. Something like who can control a resource for x rounds, winner could still be chosen for best overall length of possession. Round 2 could be something like a messenger mission, ie you have to hit all 4 corners and get home with your intel. Then finally the cut could be decided by death match. Give the players a reason to destroy the scum across from them ?

In short if you bring a team that does nothing but kill you’d lose and that overall I think is what many people want. Make a tournament an event not friday night mtg where you fight a stranger or friend to the death for no reason other than they said so.

I am actually very surprised FFG hadn't thought to bring over Armada objectives and campaign box

I guess Armada objectives are slightly less "pick-up-and-play", but they do add a lot of variety to games. The size of the table might limit things, though

Given the conversion kits, and don't see why we couldn't get a cardboard + card only campaign box soon

5 hours ago, LordFajubi said:

I am loving the idea of a mission escalation tournament setting. A tournament could be akin to war you don’t fight one battle and it’s over. In fact a lot wars are not even started by fighting, some, but I believe several are started at a political level.

The new approach to Tournament Escalation:

Round 1: Political Dilemma (a.k.a. The Phantom Menace)

Each player picks a faction and argues for 30 minutes each about why they are better. Best orator wins!!

Round 2: The Cold War

Each player places their list like normal. Then stares. Most blinks loses. 1/2 MOV for threatening body language.

Round 3: Wipe Them Out. All Of Them.

Ya know, 100/6 style.