5 hours ago, ScummyRebel said:

Now, I would really like to see a campaign box set for x-wing. Objectives, missions, new terrain, all of it. Just more ways to play the game. Just like how Legion has multiple different game modes - there’s “standard” which is based off the standard draw deck of game format, there’s ffg operations published online, and there’s a new terrain piece coming out with some specialized linked missions. X-wing could benefit from something like this as another game mode besides standard dogfighting.

All this.

To make it a single wish:

Make non-Standard play options just as standard.

14 hours ago, pickirk01 said:

No Obstacles.

What idiot of a commander would send his forces into a place where you are as likely to die from the terrain as enemy fire.

So, when I first started playing, my brother and I never used the asteroids because of the same feelings. Then, one game when finally added them and we could not believe how much they added to play.

So, realistically, no Obstacles makes sense.

But, as it turns out, the only thing more lame than Standard is Standard Without Obstacles.

7 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:

A thought I had--in relation to @Kieransi and the suggestion of no-more initiative kills--was that a killed pilot ought to get a little weaker.

My first thought for a Yellow Maneuver was this: treated as white if you aren't stressed, but treated as red if you are.

For #1, that's kinda a job the damage deck partially does now, eg Blinded or Weapons Failure.

There's probably a possible version of X-Wing where crits always go through shields, based on how shields work in the movies.

#2 could be a config/ship ability/etc if the number of ships is limited.

Just now, svelok said:

For #1 [weaker killed pilots], that's kinda a job the damage deck partially does now, eg Blinded or Weapons Failure.

Only 4/33 cards impact offense, and that's even presuming there was a crit in the first place. If we're in a world without Init Kills, I don't think it's too unreasonable to have one red die get zapped per attack. They'd have the potential to modify it back, and having one eye go blank, or one hit become an eye, isn't too punishing.

1 minute ago, svelok said:

#2 [new semi-red maneuver difficulty] could be a config/ship ability/etc if the number of ships is limited.

True. That'd be a nice "fix" card to a chassis or two, making a few of their red moves a bit better.

21 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

I'm not sure I'd call six obstacles "an asteroid field".

Personally, I think the main thing I'd change would be to add consistency to abilities to ensure that there's always a trade-off or restriction for the better ones. Han gets his rerolls, but either has to pay a cost to use the ability or it's more restrictive (e.g. only for attack/defense dice). Palob gets to choose between gaining a token or stripping one from the enemy. That sort of thing.

Of course, if it were me, Palob wouldn't be a concern because Scum wouldn't be in the game at all...

Naw, Palob would just be Rebel, then,

Wow there are some ridiculous suggestion here, so much that I can't help but make my own.

And in other stuff make a ground combat game in the same scale as X-wing so that they could be played together. Make the capital ships bring their own objectives to the table as well as a secondary objective to the opponent (i.e. bringing a Star Destroyer which has the objective capture or destroy any rebel huge ship, where the secondary objective is the cripple the Star destroyer).

2 hours ago, Kehl_Aecea said:

I have a gut feeling the new RZ-1 A-Wings will have a new, smaller model ESPECIALLY when you size them against the RZ-2 and even the Delta-7 starfighter. Which means I'm gonna be buying several to replace my old ones like I did with the new X-Wing, B-Wing, and Y-Wing >_>

Don't judge me!

Why pay more money for less plastic?

Mine would be adding a squadron/sub faction mechanics.

I’ve thought for a long time that some sort of squadron mechanics could help with people’s problems with under preforming ships and generics. Subfactions (such as Saw’s Partisans, the Mandalorians, Black Sun, etc) could be similar, but add more themes to areas where a “squadron” doesn’t really come together as well.

Squadron based effects

Accuracy vs Power

Missiles vs Torpedoes

Ordnance, cannons and turrets would add an extra attack and have the cost for that built into their cards.

9 hours ago, SabineKey said:

Mine would be adding a squadron/sub faction mechanics.

I’ve thought for a long time that some sort of squadron mechanics could help with people’s problems with under preforming ships and generics. Subfactions (such as Saw’s Partisans, the Mandalorians, Black Sun, etc) could be similar, but add more themes to areas where a “squadron” doesn’t really come together as well.

Maybe have Commanders who can apply some sort of global effect that can alter the way you'd play a list (e.g. "Decrease the difficulty of your ships' 3-5 speed basic maneuvers. Increase the difficulty of your ships' 1-2 speed maneuvers.")

Just now, JJ48 said:

Maybe have Commanders who can apply some sort of global effect that can alter the way you'd play a list (e.g. "Decrease the difficulty of your ships' 3-5 speed basic maneuvers. Increase the difficulty of your ships' 1-2 speed maneuvers.")

Eh, I’m not really thinking commanders. Technically, we already have that in certain crew options (like Leia) and the CIS Tactical relays.

I’m more interested in a new form of upgrade that’s based on squad composition. Want to fly the Rogue Squadron card, grab some X-Wings. Blue Squadron, well, frankly anything from the alphabet.

It wouldn’t be attached to any one ship (though could have negative repercussions if a “leader” died in individual cases), so wouldn’t have quite the same weakness as a commander.

2 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

Eh, I’m not really thinking commanders. Technically, we already have that in certain crew options (like Leia) and the CIS Tactical relays.

I’m more interested in a new form of upgrade that’s based on squad composition. Want to fly the Rogue Squadron card, grab some X-Wings. Blue Squadron, well, frankly anything from the alphabet.

It wouldn’t be attached to any one ship (though could have negative repercussions if a “leader” died in individual cases), so wouldn’t have quite the same weakness as a commander.

Yeah, I wasn't thinking Commanders would be attached to a particular ship, either (more along the lines of being in the control room directing the battle).

Whatever they call them, it'd be interesting to see something that could tweak gameplay like that.

2 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

Yeah, I wasn't thinking Commanders would be attached to a particular ship, either (more along the lines of being in the control room directing the battle).

Whatever they call them, it'd be interesting to see something that could tweak gameplay like that.

Eh, still iffy on conferring those bonuses through “commanders”. I don’t think it is a flexible enough convention to accommodate the many different themes and styles in X-Wing factions and lists.

Maybe it would fit better in epic.

9 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

Eh, still iffy on conferring those bonuses through “commanders”. I don’t think it is a flexible enough convention to accommodate the many different themes and styles in X-Wing factions and lists.

Maybe it would fit better in epic.

I guess I'm struggling to see how they would be at all different from squadrons or subfactions, apart from the names and pictures on the cards.

7 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

I guess I'm struggling to see how they would be at all different from squadrons or subfactions, apart from the names and pictures on the cards.

I suppose mechanically, none.

However, thematically, very different. A squadron or subfaction is still based on the ships in play, not an unseen director not represented on the board.

For example, Admiral Ackbar is a good candidate to be a commander. However, you don’t see him directly coordinating the actions of the fighter squadrons in the Battle of Endor. He’s got a fleet to worry about, thus gives directives and expects his squadron leaders to carry them out. Once Fighters got into the Death Star, he couldn’t really provide any aid. X-Wing is a dog fighting game, so a high level “commander” doesn’t feel like a fit for that. Support crew like Leia work because they are in the direct fray, thus have better access to information and can give it better attention. Now, this is less true for the expanded scope of Epic (and definitely Armada), but squadrons/subfactions still fits for both.

Other considerations:

•Not every list is filled with military vessels and soldiers, thus them having a “commander” makes less sense (see some Scum and Jedi centric lists).

•”Commander” level characters are rare, but there are enough squadrons and subfactions to provide multiple options for even the same ships (maybe the Red Squadron upgrade provides a bonus to ordnance use as oppose to Rogue Squadron, who might provide additional blues at higher speeds, for example).

tl;dr less thematic, less options.

10 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

I suppose mechanically, none.

However, thematically, very different. A squadron or subfaction is still based on the ships in play, not an unseen director not represented on the board.

For example, Admiral Ackbar is a good candidate to be a commander. However, you don’t see him directly coordinating the actions of the fighter squadrons in the Battle of Endor. He’s got a fleet to worry about, thus gives directives and expects his squadron leaders to carry them out. Once Fighters got into the Death Star, he couldn’t really provide any aid. X-Wing is a dog fighting game, so a high level “commander” doesn’t feel like a fit for that. Support crew like Leia work because they are in the direct fray, thus have better access to information and can give it better attention. Now, this is less true for the expanded scope of Epic (and definitely Armada), but squadrons/subfactions still fits for both.

Other considerations:

•Not every list is filled with military vessels and soldiers, thus them having a “commander” makes less sense (see some Scum and Jedi centric lists).

•”Commander” level characters are rare, but there are enough squadrons and subfactions to provide multiple options for even the same ships (maybe the Red Squadron upgrade provides a bonus to ordnance use as oppose to Rogue Squadron, who might provide additional blues at higher speeds, for example).

tl;dr less thematic, less options.

Ok, I think you're thinking of it more as Fleet Commanders, whereas I'm thinking more along the lines of Squadron Commanders (e.g. Wedge being commander of Rogue Squadron). Now, I could see some potential issues in that many named Commanders would have corresponding Pilot cards, with potentials for Uniqueness conflicts, but I was just looking for something that could accommodate both squadrons and subfactions. I guess coming up with a one-size-fits-all solution is more complex than it looks.

The Firespray's guns should be a forwards/backwards turret, change my mind.

Mine would be pretty simple:

Reduce the 4-die primary attacks on the VCX-100 and Upsilon Shuttle to 3, and rebalance costs as appropriate.

I think that such firepower with no requirements other than 'I have a shot' doesn't have a place in 2.0, and I am disappointed that they left it in. True, the YT-2400 also has a 4-die primary, but it only gets three dice at R1 as opposed to the five of the other two - and that 'firepower with a blind spot' is a defining feature of the ship. Now that they are in different factions, the Upsilon doesn't need as much to differentiate it from the Lambda. As for the Ghost , there is no reason why its twin medium laser cannon deserves a four-die primary when most other ships with similar or greater firepower get 3 attack dice (and sometimes even two - the Y-Wing and the VCX-100 both have twin medium laser cannons as their forward-firing armament). Furthermore, the VCX-100 has other features that make it different compared to the Rebel's other options - the ability to dock and launch a ship, the reinforce action, and the ability to equip a sensor and/or a turret.

Mine is more abstract, but I'd clean up the rules around attack arcs and bonus attacks.

First of all make the symbols for 'Attack Location' and 'Attack Type' different (even as simple as shaded/non shaded arcs). This wouldn't change any rules, but would make rulings like Outmaneuver YV-666 not working easier to understand.

The bigger part is to clean up bonus attacks. Why they got rid of the term 'Free Action', but then added 'Bonus Attack', using it inconsistently (see Han gunner) is beyond me. For consistency and intuitivity I'd increase the parallels between actions and attacks.

During the perform action step, a ship gets an opportunity to perform 1 action. A ship can perform more actions than this with abilities, but not the same action more than once per turn. I'd make attacks the same. During it's engagement, a ship gets an opportunity to perform 1 attack. A ship can perform more attacks than this with abilities, but cannot use the same weapon more than once per turn. This (coupled with the first part) would clear up some wording, would smooth the power of multi-attack ships like Quickdraw a little , and give a use to weaker missiles/torps. Some cards and a bunch of points would need to be changed of course.

But the coolest design space this would open up is the possibility for 'linked attacks' . Cluster missiles could be simply be a 3 dice ordnance attack linked into another, with the text 'This weapon's second attack must be against a target at range 1 of the first. Ignore the [lock] requirement for this attack.'

Heavily armed ships like the starfortress or maybe the decimator could have linked attacks on their pilot cards. For example [3 dice bowtie] > [2 dice bow tie]. Essentially a built-in weaker VTG.

Lots of cool stuff you could do with that.

Kanan's ability to work on himself. Also no ship limit

On 5/31/2019 at 10:07 PM, pickirk01 said:

No Obstacles.

What idiot of a commander would send his forces into a place where you are as likely to die from the terrain as enemy fire. And if the enemy went in, I would just wait for them to come out after they have battered half their own ships to bits. Seeing as they would be looping and dodging around to get through, you could just put the throttle down and go around, beating them to the other side.

Even if you want to say its fluff from the movie, let us recall the dialog on the Falcon when they do go into an asteroid field:

Leia - "You're not actually going INTO an asteroid field!?"

Han - "They'd be crazy to follow us wouldn't they?"

Threepio - "Sir, the odds of successfully navigating an asteroid field are 3720 to 1!"

Of course you would stop the scene there.... THE GOOD Pilots go

Han : NEVER TELL ME THE ODDS!

7 hours ago, JJ48 said:

I guess I'm struggling to see how they would be at all different from squadrons or subfactions, apart from the names and pictures on the cards.

My thoughts on this were a card that sat off the battlefield and allowed for some single limited "whenever I wanted" effect that created a theme for your list. I had envisioned it having 6 counters, which could now be called charges. For example, a Commander might allow you to give a ship a lock at any point in the turn--which would allow you to build a fleet around low Init torpedo carriers.

Thematically, it would be a great way to get Admirals into the game, which really still have no business being on a ship as small as a corvette.

And, I would print them on those outsized cards like Commanders in Magic.

7 hours ago, SabineKey said:

Maybe it would fit better in epic.

And yeah, probably.

7 hours ago, JJ48 said:

Ok, I think you're thinking of it more as Fleet Commanders, whereas I'm thinking more along the lines of Squadron Commanders (e.g. Wedge being commander of Rogue Squadron). Now, I could see some potential issues in that many named Commanders would have corresponding Pilot cards, with potentials for Uniqueness conflicts, but I was just looking for something that could accommodate both squadrons and subfactions. I guess coming up with a one-size-fits-all solution is more complex than it looks.

Okay. I still think a squadron commander, if not on the field, has many of the same thematic problems as a fleet commander. Perhaps more so, if thematically, they are also fighting for their life.

In my mind, the mechanic should be based on what’s on the mat, not who might be trying to direct things just off it.

3 hours ago, SabineKey said:

In my mind, the mechanic should be based on what’s on the mat, not who might be trying to direct things just off it.

Well, if you took my idea and made the card Crew, it could still work.

It would add a new type of Crew (that could be limited--or is the new keyword Solitary?) and would add a subtext to the game of Kill the Leader.

Also, the number of commands that could be issued (charges on the card) could be based on points in your list, so the Commander would be scaled to the size of the battle.

1 hour ago, Darth Meanie said:

Well, if you took my idea and made the card Crew, it could still work.

It would add a new type of Crew (that could be limited--or is the new keyword Solitary?) and would add a subtext to the game of Kill the Leader.

Also, the number of commands that could be issued (charges on the card) could be based on points in your list, so the Commander would be scaled to the size of the battle.

Yeah, but that already kind of exists. See cards like Leia and Palp.