With 2.0 so close to release and nothing we can do about changing it, lets have a fun discussion of what ifs and could have beens.

The reason why I thought of this, was looking at the YT-2400, an obvious candidate for an uneven dial like the Jumpmaster.

No

Uneven dials are a gimmick that we really don't need more of

The only real misses opprotunity is they didn't go all in on Armada style range dependent dice + NO GREEN DICE

the yt2400 is not an obvious candidate for an offset dial.

Unlike the JM5K, the huge bulk of its mass is right infront of a rather large thrustor. The side carriage is small enough to not really impact it enough to justify turning one way or the other being more difficult. Sure an experienced pilot might notice it drags a little, but not enough to impact anything.

Armada style dice. I think you still need green die though as some ships are a smaller target than others.

28 minutes ago, Varyag said:

Armada style dice. I think you still need green die though as some ships are a smaller target than others.

Plus pilots are actively attempting to avoid incoming fire. In Armada even the smaller ships like the Raider handle far too sluggishly to evade Turbolaser fire reliably.

33 minutes ago, ficklegreendice said:

The only real misses opprotunity is they didn't go all in on Armada style range dependent dice + NO GREEN DICE

Nah.

The styles of combat being reflected in Armada and X-Wing are way too different. Given how slowly cap ships in Star Wars move, a green dice equivalent makes no sense. Even with the high quality of the Imperial Marksmanship Academy, there's no way a Star Destroyer gunner is missing a massive Mon Cal cruiser moving at 10kph.

This and this are all you need to see that you can be pointed right at a ship in a dogfight and still miss. Green dice do their job in representing that even a seemingly perfectly lined up shot isn't guaranteed to hit while the other pilot is doing all they can to shake you off.

Green dice may be a pain for variance, but they're an important part of the feel of the game. I guess you could do it through an Armada style exhaustible token system, but that might be even more of a pain to balance. I feel like the existing tokens already basically do that job while also tying in to the action balance.

Different Armada style attack dice would have been good, but not for range. The existing range restrictions on certain weapons already do their job. Alternate dice should have been included to allow for things like low accuracy, high damage weapons (fewer painted die faces, but double hits on some of the faces) or high accuracy, low damage weapons by using an Armada style accuracy symbol that cancels an evade but doesn't cause damage. Certain weapons, like Concussion missiles, could use a combination of the two.

That's what the different dice in Armada are supposed to represent too. It's just that starships have way more guns, and way more opportunity to fire all of their weapons at once - that's why you still roll red dice at range 1. Black is ordnance and fast firing, accurate, low damage point defence guns. Blue is ion weapons and laser cannon turrets, red is turbolasers. Each weapon in X-Wing can only be fired individually, so controlling applicable range by upgrade specific rules makes more sense.

38 minutes ago, GuacCousteau said:

The  s  tyles of combat being reflected in Armada and X-Wing are way too different. Given how slowly cap ships in Star Wars move, a green  dice eq  uivalen  t makes no  sens  e.

I would actually argue that the 2 different styles of defense mechanics are thematically backward. In a fighter dogfight, you can deliberately try to avoid only so much incoming fire, if enough attacks are coming at you your dodging and swerving can only avoid so many of them. That would be well represented by a defense token system where you spend a token to dodge an attack, but can only do so a fixed number of times per round before you get overwhelmed.

Conversely, capital ships have huge crews constantly working to mitigate damage, bracing against an impact is going to have the same effect no matter how many hits you take, the structure is still braced. The deciding factor in how much damage a hit causes is really more whether/how many important systems were hit, which is largely random. A cap ship could take hit after hit and get lucky that they all did only superficial structural damage, or it could take one shot that manages to overload critical power relays and does a lot of meaningful “damage”. That is actually better reflected by dice mitigation, that apply equally well to each hit.

Of course, the GAMEPLAY reasons make much more sense as is. Dice are fast and tense, enhancing the feel of fighter combat, while defense tokens require some thought and planning, enhancing the strategic feel of capital ships.

Squadron mechanics.

But, now that they have the "flavor text" in place, maybe this can become a thing.

CAMPAIGN!!!

Although still possible it'll happen, along with Epic; the total lack of Missions in 2.0 is eyebrow-raising ...

Not a huge deal but I think having generic tokens for each ship instead of per pilot was a bit of a missed opportunity. We have to use Ship ID tokens every game now anyhow (in order to associate locks with ships) so it seems like we don't really get much value from the initiative value and pilot name being on the token. This would have saved space in conversion kits for other things!

Speaking of conversions and Ship ID + Locks, I like the new system but I'm disappointed that there aren't any of these in the conversion kits with the core set only having values 1-6 included. Obviously I can use the old tokens/method so it's not like it is a disaster or anything, just feels like a couple more in the core or in each conversion would have been perfect.

6 minutes ago, DarthHenryAllen said:

Not a huge deal but I think having generic tokens for each ship instead of per pilot was a bit of a missed opportunity. We have to use Ship ID tokens every game now anyhow (in order to associate locks with ships) so it seems like we don't really get much value from the initiative value and pilot name being on the token. This would have saved space in conversion kits for other things!

Speaking of conversions and Ship ID + Locks, I like the new system but I'm disappointed that there aren't any of these in the conversion kits with the core set only having values 1-6 included. Obviously I can use the old tokens/method so it's not like it is a disaster or anything, just feels like a couple more in the core or in each conversion would have been perfect.

You answered your own question there sort of. First if the ship tokens were generic and ship indicators had the pilot name, then we would need a target lock for each pilot as well.. far more to print. And I already have to find the dial and baseplate for each ship. Now you want me to locate the specific indicator and target lock as well? No thanks!

Also the base kit comes with 6 ship indicators/target locks. This is all you need except 1 situation, an 8 ship TIE swarm. In that instance, you can have 1 blank, and use a crit token or something for the odd man out. No need to worry about having only 6 locks, since they can't lock. Though it would have not been absurd to ask for 8 ship indicators / target locks, as well as 10 - 15 shield tokens in the base set. That would be enough for any situation. I do find it odd that they only included 4. If they gave enough in the base set, they could have forgone putting them in the expansions. I'd rather not have to start a new shoebox full of spare tokens for 2.0 lol.

This likely won't make me popular, but ditching all of the noncanon stuff - the ships especially.

8 minutes ago, xbeaker said:

You answered your own question there sort of. First if the ship tokens were generic and ship indicators had the pilot name, then we would need a target lock for each pilot as well.. far more to print. And I already have to find the dial and baseplate for each ship. Now you want me to locate the specific indicator and target lock as well? No thanks!

Also the base kit comes with 6 ship indicators/target locks. This is all you need except 1 situation, an 8 ship TIE swarm. In that instance, you can have 1 blank, and use a crit token or something for the odd man out. No need to worry about having only 6 locks, since they can't lock. Though it would have not been absurd to ask for 8 ship indicators / target locks, as well as 10 - 15 shield tokens in the base set. That would be enough for any situation. I do find it odd that they only included 4. If they gave enough in the base set, they could have forgone putting them in the expansions. I'd rather not have to start a new shoebox full of spare tokens for 2.0 lol.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply the names would exist on any token. I meant, say you have a generic X-Wing Ship token under your X-Wing (that just shows the arcs and related hash marks) and you put a Ship ID on there (let's say '5'), then you put a Ship ID '5' token on your Luke Skywalker Card, you now know that X-Wing is Luke Skywalker. There is no need to have his initiative and name printed on any token with the model.

I agree there are only limited situations where lack of IDs/Locks will come up but, as you point out, just a couple more sets would have eliminated those cases.

How about Drifting for a missed opportunity? This may not be a popular opinion (and could be a terrible idea) but I've always been curious if the game could be improved by a 'drifting' mechanic. The idea would be to allow ships to, instead of always aligning the rear guides around the maneuver template to complete the maneuver, have the option to offset the ship. For example, align the right front corner of the maneuver template with the outside of the back left guide of the ship to drift right.

Of course, this affects the balance/strength of re-positioning like barrel rolls and boost and if you allowed this for all maneuvers for all ships it would dramatically expand the flexibility in movement across the board. Maybe that would be too much? If so, you could limit it in various ways to control this; Only certain ships? Only straight maneuvers? Only speed 3-5 maneuvers? Only blue maneuvers? Some combination of these? Different restrictions per ship? Heck, you could even make it cost an action and essentially be a 'mini-barrel roll' that can only be performed during the perform action step. They added the Red Barrel Roll to some ships (which is fantastic) but it's the same move, just with stress. Having a smaller variation of the move just seems like it could create a lot of design space for new abilities and differentiating ships (and give us a bit more control for lining up those bulls-eyes ).

Don't get me wrong, I think the game is great as-is, but I've always felt the extremely limited/discrete maneuver set was less of a feature and more of a side-effect of keeping our maneuver template set practical/manageable. S-Loops and T-Rolls are great because they gave us more options for controlling our ships without having to add more templates. Ships with barrel roll and boost are a ton of fun to fly because, though you have to commit to your 'macro-move' (the maneuver) during planning, you get to make an smaller adjustment (barrel roll or boost) at the last minute based on some more up-to-date information. S-Loops, T-Rolls, barrel roll and boost all give you a bit more control but there is still plenty of skill involved here in both planning and choosing when/where to use these. Having a micro-adjustment available on more ships and in more situations seems like would be fun and, I don't think, would dramatically reduce the skill involved in maneuver selection and flying.

15 minutes ago, redxavier said:

This likely won't make me popular, but ditching all of the noncanon stuff - the ships especially.

No, it wouldn't. I'm already sad at the loss of a few Imperial crew thanks to that notion.

Plus, I think that would end Brobots, and make most of the other Bounty Hunters crew only.

And make things like Wraith Squadron impossible.

15 minutes ago, redxavier said:

This likely won't make me popular, but ditching all of the noncanon stuff - the ships especially.

Can I ask why? Got some fan favorites in there, like Guri. Plus, it would leave some canon ships undermanned, such as the HWK.

I think there are half a dozen additional maneuver options that they could have added in.

forward-facing talon rolls

Red 90-degree turns at the end of a straight or bank

I also still think laser mines should be added in.

12 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

Can I ask why? Got some fan favorites in there, like Guri. Plus, it would leave some canon ships undermanned, such as the HWK.

My main issue is with ships like the Punisher, Aggressor, Decimator, E-wings and a lot of the scum ships - put it simply, I don't much like the designs. I feel that with the Legends wipe these should have all gone as well (I also believe there are too many ships in the game).

Even though it would also mean elimination of things I do like like Soontir Fel. I just figure that to be fair, all of it should go rather than electing to decide for myself what's 'worthy' to stay or go.

I would have liked to see Shield Dials (Armada style). Just to prevent token clutters a little, it`'s so elegant to have that all on the base. Larger bases could justify two different shield values (maybe) if you wanted that, mechanically, but despite the "all power to forward deflectors" line, I wouldn't mess with it for fighters.

I can also see the pros for generic ship-based cardboard rather than pilot specific cardboard, as mentioned above.

There's a case to be made for different dice colours for different weapons, but it also is reasonably represented by weapon-specific cards, so OK.

Not allowing ships to obstruct other ships (and actually add an evade die) seems like a shame, given the way we saw the fighters act to screen others in the trench run.

In an environment where there is no cost or consequence to being "inverted" compared to everyone else, the asymmetrical dial makes no sense. If I want to turn right in my JumpMaster, I should be able to flip 180º and turn to my new left without much trouble. I could even stay "inverted" to continue my pursuit to the "right."

The new Battlestar Galactica game has rules for changing your facing without changing your vector. I've seen Darth Vader and Hera pull off this technique in Rebels. Could have been a great addition!

5 minutes ago, redxavier said:

My main issue is with ships like the Punisher, Aggressor, Decimator, E-wings and a lot of the scum ships - put it simply, I don't much like the designs. I feel that with the Legends wipe these should have all gone as well (I also believe there are too many ships in the game).

Even though it would also mean elimination of things I do like like Soontir Fel. I just figure that to be fair, all of it should go rather than electing to decide for myself what's 'worthy' to stay or go.

Well aside from the obvious argument that other people like those ships, your suggestion doesn’t even fully do what you want. Ships like the E-Wing and the Decimator have made it back into canon, even if in small ways currently. And we don’t know what will be reintroduced later, like the HWK and the YT-2400.

3 hours ago, ficklegreendice said:

The only real misses opprotunity is they didn't go all in on Armada style range dependent dice + NO GREEN DICE

That's not a missed opportunity.

24 minutes ago, skotothalamos said:

The new Battlestar Galactica game has rules for changing your facing without changing your vector. I've seen Darth Vader and Hera pull off this technique in Rebels. Could have been a great addition!

Actually, Hera basically pulled a Talon Roll, which is why I was so elated when the X-wing got a T-Roll on its dial. Star Wars physics doesn't really jibe with proper Newtonian physics, nor should it. Michael Stackpole described the way ships moved beautifully in the X-Wing series with the term "ethereal rudder". I've tried to find some sort of science to back it up - a planar gravitic field that permits rapid rotation perpendicular to the field. S-foils emit the fields, which is why "flight" characteristics change with S-foil position. Yeah...I probably have too much time on my hands.

As far as missed opportunities, I have trouble finding many. I'd love to see real dogfighting maneuvers, akin to "Squadrons" but without stall and altitude mechanics it all get a bit too "easy". Barrel rolls don't actually function the way they are depicted in X-wing - their purpose is to slow your aircraft to get behind someone on your tail. An Immelman would be an interesting mechanic and you can sort of pull one off by performing a variety of odd maneuvers and actions chained together with certain ships, sort of (the Starviper could pull something like an Immelman off with an Advanced Sensor Broll followed by a 1bank, and I suppose stop maneuvers can kind of be considered Immelmans).

Overall though, I'm really happy with 2.0. There's still plenty of room to grow. They could add a campaign system at any time and I look forward to new Epic rules. There's time for all of this in the future (hopefully NEAR future).

(This was my 300th post!)

33 minutes ago, skotothalamos said:

In an environment where there is no cost or consequence to being "inverted" compared to everyone else, the asymmetrical dial makes no sense. If I want to turn right in my JumpMaster, I should be able to flip 180º and turn to my new left without much trouble. I could even stay "inverted" to continue my pursuit to the "right."

True, but meh. We all gave up that argument when we agreed to play a 3D space game in 2D.

Thus, I like the asymmetrical dial idea.

I would also like to see specific ships get special maneuvers like U-turns, 4 banks, etc.