22 hours ago, gamblertuba said:

Sounds good to me.

+1

On 10/17/2018 at 7:42 AM, sharrrp said:

The half points on everything is rough too. I played Wedge, Luke, and Y-Wing Nora against a 7 TIE Swarm a couple weeks ago. I destroyed 4 TIEs and he only destroyed Nora when time was called.

I lost because he got half on both Wedge and Luke, I only got half on one of the remaining TIEs. He scored more points.

So I got 4.5 ship kills he got 2 (1+.5+.5) but because I was flying pricey aces and he had a bunch of cheap throwaways I lost.

I'm reconsidering my overall list building philosophy based on that experience.

You ever try to straiten a busted wing strut on an X-Wing? It's neither easy or cheap. Often it means replacing or retooling the whole mounting in addition.

And the Rebellion is facing a critical hydrospanner shortage because _someone_ couldn't protect the shipment from the Empire's 7 TIE fighters. I'm not naming names. But you know who you are.

10 minutes ago, Punning Pundit said:

And the Rebellion is facing a critical hydrospanner shortage because _someone_ couldn't protect the shipment from the Empire's 7 TIE fighters. I'm not naming names. But you know who you are  .

{Looks at posters avatar pic} Jealous that they sent 7 TIE/LNs and had you hold back?

11 hours ago, Okapi said:

I don't entirely disagree, but by "the Starviper", do you really mean Guri? I've tried the generics a couple of times now, and they seem to work pretty well without it. Besides, AdS locks you out of a pretty decent linked action. The upgrade does make sense on a pilot that a) moves last, so is likely to be blocked and get no actions anyway, and b) gets its mods through its pilot ability/upgrade cards.

IMO, I’d still take AdvS on the lesser pilots. Maybe not the Enforcers, as they’re there to be cheap as chips. But anything above that, I certainly will take it. Just like on Guri, not always do you want to take your (single) action first. So the important reasoning behind having AdvS is to pull those wonky Reposition -> Maneuver turns when you actually need them. Or do a Focus because some cheeky Z-95 blocked your preferred path.

Again, there’s an argument to be made about Collision Detector and being able to boost/roll through obstacles.

On ‎10‎/‎17‎/‎2018 at 6:51 PM, Pewpewpew BOOM said:

I see your points (and have considered similar ones as I wrote that reply). However, I hope that FFG will use the potential lessons from 1.0 as they further expand 2.0.

By the end of 1.0, if you wanted to play and not get crushed, there were plenty of things that you simply never put on the table. If new releases afford a limited number of ships/pilots access to options for more dice, mods, & max initiative, then those will become the meta - to exclusion of everything else.

CCGs solve that kind of issue by using different formats that limit what you can play. I don’t envision that working so well for a minis game.

I don’t see the game as boring now. I think that there is a way forward without making everything about the new hotness and jankiest combo, and I hope FFG walks that path as they add to the game.

Conversely, if you didn't put all the things on the table that were stupid powerful, the rest of the game was pretty dang solid still. It's basically how I always did and still play 1.0 X-Wing.

And XWM could use some sort of rotation, too, except for the ongoing "I want to always have the option of playing with everything I own, although only 1/10th of it will be in the list that I practice with over and over." Cuz in casual, everything always is playable.

On ‎10‎/‎17‎/‎2018 at 7:12 PM, player3137305 said:

I would personally have 2e develop into this. Two reasons:

1. It will differentiate it from 1e.

2. As a competitive game, following skilled players is more interested than following list-building. Skill is what makes a pro a pro, and what makes it interesting to follow.

3. It will keep 1e relevant, since its different.

I wouldn't want 2e to develop into another 1e with just more "balance" and more factions, but into an entirely different experience. This way we can have two games (1e or 2e) and play the one that you are in the mood to play.

Except for the part where the people who like 1.0 have a dead game.

15 hours ago, Jike said:

I think there's a middle ground between the craziness of 1st edition and a game where hardly any upgrades are required. For me list building is more interesting when the first thing you ask is "do I need any upgrades on this at all?" It's even more interesting when the answer to that question is "maybe". That's where I hope the game is going, and it's where it seems to be at the moment.

I'm fine with the game being about flying more than list building as I think that makes the game more interesting. Ironically it might make forum discussion more limited because the less effect list building has on the outcome of the game the more difficult it is to discuss things like tournament performance. I'd much rather have a game with fewer upgrades on the board if that leads to more situations where games are close and rely on skills on the board rather than instant wins because one of the players has an uncounterable, broken combo f ships and upgrades.

Sadly, for me, it just makes the game into a glorified version of chess. The pieces have different powers, and moves matter, but in the long run it's just a game about planning your moves several steps ahead to take the opposing player's piece within the confines of a small square board.

Star Wars not required, check your narrative at the door.

On ‎10‎/‎17‎/‎2018 at 4:19 PM, gamblertuba said:

Sounds good to me.

And this is a completely fair answer, but it makes me realize more than ever that I have been buying the wrong **** game for years.

4 hours ago, Darth Meanie said:

Sadly  , for me, it just makes the game into a glorified  version of chess. The pieces have different  powers, and moves matter, but in the long run it's just a game about planning your moves several steps ahead to take the opposing player's pie  ce within the confines of a small square board.

 Star Wars not required, check your   narrative at the door.          

Once your list is built and you put it on the table, couldn’t this same arguement be made about 1.0 or 2.0? Really this could be said of all minis games: they are a collection of mechanics applied to pieces on a field attempting to remove other pieces. I agree, but I guess I don’t get why it is problematic. Sure, at the core, a game’s visual aesthetic and mechanics are distinct and can be decoupled. So why not use a fun aesthetic like SW anyway?

On 10/18/2018 at 10:35 AM, SOTL said:

It's insane to think we won't get rapid power creep.

Lets see if FFG can maintain game balance and still sell expansions. Id love to see their release schedule for ships, even if they were reprints/repaints of the existing ships. Should we expect one new ship for each faction every wave? FFG have put in place the framework for points adjustments for balancing the game wout resorting to 'fixes' included in must buy expansions - Remember the Tie-Advanced title, C3-PO crew card and Imperial Aces expansion?

Hmm, its not a black and white question really.

Sure you can run a lot of the ships with minimal upgrades now, which is fantastic... however some ships really do require upgrades to truly shine. No problems with that though I do question why on earth the tie interceptor has TWO upgrade slots... I don't think anybody has bothered to actually use them as the interceptor can be so fragile and the upgrades can be expensive too! (shield/hull/stealth Scaling)

I think the fact that we were able to make all our ships playable right away (Thank the maker... Like literally, thanks FFG) has fooled many of us into comparing second edition at two months old to first edition at five years old.

This is unfair and silly. I think the designers intentionally toned down the power level of upgrades in the conversion kits. Give the game time to grow and mature.

12 hours ago, Darth Meanie said:

Sadly, for me, it just makes the game into a glorified version of chess. The pieces have different powers, and moves matter, but in the long run it's just a game about planning your moves several steps ahead to take the opposing player's piece within the confines of a small square board.

What's funny about this comment is that I feel ALL war games are just a more complex version of chess. Real warfare revolves around maneuver, attack and defense. Chess represents attrition warfare well, while go represents maneuver warfare a bit better. Checkers is a simplistic game but still has much tactical merit. X-wing is just a version of attrition warfare gaming with more detail to indicate ships flying around and blasting each other. Any other view of this is just you kidding yourself - it's the truth of the game, or any game for that matter (there's no animosity here by the way - it's a common misconception about war games that people make that I'm trying to make you aware of - they're really all the same, just with different flavors). The point of war games is to win via movement to gain advantage and attack in order to overcome defense.

I like X-wing because it's Star Wars, but even more so because it's fun. I like flying ships around and outmaneuvering my opponent. I'm elated when I pull off just the right move to put me in a better position because I planned well and determined what my opponent would do. The list building aspect can also be great fun, but only as long as it supports the primary aspect I love. A game determined by list-building is far less fun - it means you can win via a particular combo that works all the time. That's far too "easy button" for my taste. I want a game that revolves around tactics. 2.0 currently provides that - good tactics trump tricky lists, for the most part.

If that's not your bag, I can totally understand that. It sounds as though you may be more of a card game player. They revolve heavily around building combos and don't have much in the way of maneuver - really just attack and defense with greater strength achieved via card combinations. There's plenty of tactics there as well and I hear Destiny is great if you're into that sort of thing.

10 hours ago, Pewpewpew BOOM said:

Once your list is built and you put it on the table, couldn’t this same arguement be made about 1.0 or 2.0? Really this could be said of all minis games: they are a collection of mechanics applied to pieces on a field attempting to remove other pieces. I agree, but I guess I don’t get why it is problematic. Sure, at the core, a game’s visual aesthetic and mechanics are distinct and can be decoupled. So why not use a fun aesthetic like SW anyway?

Absolutely. The main difference would be that 2.0 no longer has a much in the way of listbuilding flavor. So the first part of the game, creating a viable list with ships plus cards to make them work better, no longer matters. To me, that was part of the fun of the game.

Secondly, I (now I would say accidentally) bought this game because it was Star Wars. I think it's down to point where "STAR WARS" is just a sucker punch to get you to buy the game, and then after that the game is nothing more than any other miniature battle scenario could provide. Players thinking the game will let you play battles out of the movies are going to find that the Star Wars element is nothing more than the shape of the ships and the names on the cards.

3 hours ago, Bad Idea Comics said:

What's funny about this comment is that I feel ALL war games are just a more complex version of chess. Real warfare revolves around maneuver, attack and defense. Chess represents attrition warfare well, while go represents maneuver warfare a bit better. Checkers is a simplistic game but still has much tactical merit. X-wing is just a version of attrition warfare gaming with more detail to indicate ships flying around and blasting each other. Any other view of this is just you kidding yourself - it's the truth of the game, or any game for that matter (there's no animosity here by the way - it's a common misconception about war games that people make that I'm trying to make you aware of - they're really all the same, just with different flavors). The point of war games is to win via movement to gain advantage and attack in order to overcome defense.

I like X-wing because it's Star Wars, but even more so because it's fun. I like flying ships around and outmaneuvering my opponent. I'm elated when I pull off just the right move to put me in a better position because I planned well and determined what my opponent would do. The list building aspect can also be great fun, but only as long as it supports the primary aspect I love. A game determined by list-building is far less fun - it means you can win via a particular combo that works all the time. That's far too "easy button" for my taste. I want a game that revolves around tactics. 2.0 currently provides that - good tactics trump tricky lists, for the most part.

If that's not your bag, I can totally understand that. It sounds as though you may be more of a card game player. They revolve heavily around building combos and don't have much in the way of maneuver - really just attack and defense with greater strength achieved via card combinations. There's plenty of tactics there as well and I hear Destiny is great if you're into that sort of thing.

Real warfare revolves around an objective: taking a fort, cutting supply lines, destroying resources. Only the most stupid and callous of commanders fight a war of attrition to the last man, which is all that XWM is right now.

To use a different analogy, XWM is like D&D as a "role playing" game. Sure, you make up a character based on race and class, but in the end it's just a "chop up monsters for points to GUAL." The "role" of being an elf paladin only defines your special abilities, and no real acting is required to play the part at all. You MUST kill the orc and take his treasure to earn XP, and so there is never any incentive to do anything else.

*****

I mean, I guess everyone has really answered my question. No one expects this game to be much more than a move and shoot game, and so it can survive forever at that level. I had hopes in 1.0 that the missions and Epic meant that the game would move in other directions, but 2.0 has reset the dial back to a very basic move and shoot navy game, and it might be years (if ever) before it features any sort of narrative complexity that actually draws on playing battles from the movies.

You achieve objectives in warfare via maneuver, attack and defense. Forces have goals of delay/deny/defeat - these are basic tenets of warfare. Chess, and practically every other wargame, depict attrition warfare at their base: you win by destroying the enemy. Go differs by making you think about surrounding your enemy with the fewest pieces possible.

I'd love a proper mission system for X-wing, but it seems that's easier with a game like Armada in a Star Wars context, though not impossible in X-wing. I'm also a huge fan of the concept of Epic (I own all the Epic ships and have been itchy to use them, but never have). Scenarios would make that game absolutely awesome and one has to think that's what they have in mind, considering rules haven't been released yet.

On a personal note, I have my own starship combat game I've been working on that very specifically uses missions for each player because I feel they make the game fun and they really make you play the game differently. There is tons of merit in this and it makes list building matter as well, having to plan for any mission so your fleet must be balanced.

The current state of X-wing is still really solid though. Flying ships around is great fun and yes, it boils down to a dueling game of attrition warfare, but that's fun too. Missions add even more to the game, but it's not what X-wing was designed for - at least not originally. That's not to say they won't add missions down the road.

1 hour ago, Bad Idea Comics said:

I'd love a proper mission system for X-wing, but it seems that's easier with a game like Armada in a Star Wars context, though not impossible in X-wing. I'm also a huge fan of the concept of Epic (I own all the Epic ships and have been itchy to use them, but never have). Scenarios would make that game absolutely awesome and one has to think that's what they have in mind, considering rules haven't been released yet.

Well, this is my baby, and what still keeps me playing X-Wing. This is where I wish XWM would get to officially, but it looks like it's DIY forever.

2 hours ago, Darth Meanie said:

Only  the most stupid and callous of commanders fight a war of attrition to the last man

You do/did play the Empire right? The faction with shieldless fighters, that relies on overwhelming numbers to swarm their enemies with little regard to resources expended to win.

2 hours ago, Bad Idea Comics said:

I'd  love a proper miss  ion system for X-w  in   g

Heroes of the Aturi Cluster worked very well and is being converted to second edition. There’s also a group converting the TIE Fighter PC game missions to X-Wing.... I can’t remember the name of the project though. @heychadwick mentioned it on his podcast, if you could let us know....

1 hour ago, Sasajak said:

You do/did play the Empire right? The faction with shieldless fighters, that relies on overwhelming numbers to swarm their enemies with little regard to resources expended to win.

They are also the faction with the resources to build shock-and-awe weapons of mass destruction that require the economies and populations of entire planets to create.

So, it depends upon what part of Imperial Doctrine you examine.

2 hours ago, Sasajak said:

@heychadwick mentioned it on his podcast, if you could let us know....

Yeah....that would be great if I could remember that......

@Biff Do you remember that info?

34 minutes ago, heychadwick said:

Yeah....that would be great if I could remember that......

@Biff Do you remember that info?

Alpha Flight, or something like that?

6 hours ago, Kleeg005 said:

Alpha Flight, or something like that?

Just what we need Canadian superheroes in space!

2 hours ago, LordFajubi said:

Just what we need Canadian superheroes in space!

Sasquatch is sort of a wookie...Box is a droid...Puck is an ewok?

Ha ha, looks like the Edit I attempted on my phone didn't make it. It's Flight Group Alpha. @Sasajak :

https://boardgamegeek.com/filepage/161035/flight-group-alpha-imperial-co-operative-campaign

On 10/17/2018 at 9:09 AM, BlodVargarna said:

One thing I really like about 2.0 is that all of the various upgrades are now really optional rather than must have. Naked Wedge (oh behave!) is **** good. He doesn’t need anything. Swarm tactics is nice to give a wingman I6, but it isn’t necessary.

I’ve found that when I’m list building for most ships there aren’t any really must have load outs. As my old friend Martha Stewart says “... and that’s a good thing.”

Has that been the case with you guys?

Well let's be fair; a lot of the upgrades you would have played are just stapled onto the ship now as an ability.

On 10/19/2018 at 5:04 PM, heychadwick said:

Yeah....that would be great if I could remember that......

@Biff Do you remember that info?

Yes - as mentioned in another post, it was Flight Group Alpha. Another update to FGA is due to drop soon.

On 10/17/2018 at 10:42 AM, sharrrp said:

The half points on everything is rough too. I played Wedge, Luke, and Y-Wing Nora against a 7 TIE Swarm a couple weeks ago. I destroyed 4 TIEs and he only destroyed Nora when time was called.

I lost because he got half on both Wedge and Luke, I only got half on one of the remaining TIEs. He scored more points.

So I got 4.5 ship kills he got 2 (1+.5+.5) but because I was flying pricey aces and he had a bunch of cheap throwaways I lost.

I'm reconsidering my overall list building philosophy based on that experience.

that right there is in my opinion a major problem, it's unfair to have to chew through 5-8 HP to get half points on a chunky ship and your opponent only needs 2 dmg on a Tie fighter or say the Grand Inquisitor

On 10/17/2018 at 5:08 PM, Darth Meanie said:

Or is everyone fine with XWM as Dials, Templates, Dice, Damage, Repeat? That is, flying is everything, who cares what the list is.

I don't really see the problem with this. I choose a list because I like the ships. I shouldn't win or lose at that stage.

On 10/18/2018 at 10:12 AM, Church14 said:

The trouble for me isn’t that I can’t run something lean. I want to play 4 Xwings or some wierd AXBY list. The trouble is that I don’t like facing a fat anything. It’s just a drag to play against.

I don’t love XWMG, I just like to play it for a night every few weeks. When I walk in and see that a significant portion of the fleets people brought have a fat something, I don’t even bother getting the kit out of the car.

I got out of XWMG 1e for a few reasons, one big one being that every ship seemed to need 5-10 upgrades. Trying to remember all 14 effects that were happening on each ship got in the way of enjoying playing the game.

I hear ya. I started collecting X-Wing because I liked the ships, and was disappointed when I eventually played the game and found that my least favorite ships were really the only way to actually accomplish anything.

2.0 has been a bit better in that regard.

On 10/18/2018 at 12:45 PM, KburgBob said:

I think there will have to eventually be more ship type specific cards, to help keep the balance, like cards that give linked actions, but also, always, comes with a negative. I really like how R2-D2 will regenerate shields, but gives you a weapons disabled token. Things like that.

Tradeoffs are a great way to balance cards. I am a little disappointed in a few cards that seem to lack meaningful tradeoffs, though.

<cough><cough>Palob<cough>

On 10/18/2018 at 8:07 PM, Darth Meanie said:

Sadly, for me, it just makes the game into a glorified version of chess. The pieces have different powers, and moves matter, but in the long run it's just a game about planning your moves several steps ahead to take the opposing player's piece within the confines of a small square board.

Well, as someone who likes Lord of the Rings Risk or Betrayal at Baldur's Gate, I can't say I terribly mind a skin I like placed on mechanics I enjoy.

On 10/19/2018 at 8:36 AM, Bad Idea Comics said:

If that's not your bag, I can totally understand that. It sounds as though you may be more of a card game player. They revolve heavily around building combos and don't have much in the way of maneuver - really just attack and defense with greater strength achieved via card combinations. There's plenty of tactics there as well and I hear Destiny is great if you're into that sort of thing.

If he wants to play a dead game anyway, might I suggest Star Wars CCG?

On 10/19/2018 at 11:42 AM, Darth Meanie said:

To use a different analogy, XWM is like D&D as a "role playing" game. Sure, you make up a character based on race and class, but in the end it's just a "chop up monsters for points to GUAL." The "role" of being an elf paladin only defines your special abilities, and no real acting is required to play the part at all. You MUST kill the orc and take his treasure to earn XP, and so there is never any incentive to do anything else.

Some groups do that, sure. Others have a lot more RP, and actually reward players for handling interactions nonviolently. That depends more on the DM and the players than the system.

2 hours ago, JJ48 said:

I don't really see the problem with this. I choose a list because I like the ships. I shouldn't win or lose at that stage.

And you shouldn't. But if your Luke Skywalker is the same as everyone else's Luke Skywalker, I think the game loses something.

Quote

Some groups do that, sure. Others have a lot more RP, and actually reward players for handling interactions nonviolently. That depends more on the DM and the players than the system.

But some systems support roleplay better than rollplay. XWM is fine for the latter, terrible for the former. And it doesn't have to be, IMHO.

As I've said elsewhere, I find it ironic than MTG, which could just be a game with pretty cards, works hard to create a storyline and universe. XWM is handed exactly that, and then does it's best to dumb itself down into a vanilla combat game.

Quote

If he wants to play a dead game anyway, might I suggest Star Wars CCG?

Funny you should say that; I'm actually selling off my cards just now.

At least that game tried to play off the lore (****, it even created a ton of lore) and make the game relevant to the universe it is set in. I just don't get that feeling from XWM other than the "skin" of names and models.