This game is great. But its rules complexity is plain horrible and got worse with 2.0. Some of these rules were better in 1.0

================

Instruction vs action: There should be a phrasing similar to move vs maneuver when you perform something that is like an action but isn't an action. Like being told to "rotate your turret" without doing a Rotate action. I'd call it an instruction. And i'd have in the rules reference similar-linked to move.
Maneuver as a rules-object really also should never have been this hard.

==

Actions should have similar range restrictions:
TL is R0-3
Coordinate only R1-2, not R0 touching
Jam is R1 only, no R0
All of these should be R0.

==

Obstacles should have similar rules.
Both asteroids and Gas Clouds literally say you lose your action
Debris should also simply say this, while also giving you stress.

==

"Only 1 device per System Phase, NOT ROUND" is incredibly hard to remember and needless.
Make it Only 1 device per turn. Or remove the rule altogether. Errata the cards that defy this rule to have reminder/errata text.

==

"Your Activation" is dumb.
Calling it the Activation Phase is dumb, its a poor name that doesn't convey the context well.
I now have new players thinking your Activation means when you make your action.
Having things trigger on your Activation, while it may seem like it reduces ability stacking problems, just makes for more triggers to remember and more confusing places to have abilities. It also makes Initiative strength even more dramatic.
Overall, a good theory, bad in execution and play.

==

All special weapons should be considered special weapons without adding range bonuses. Having turrets be an exception is frivolous, difficult to remember and annoying.
Are cannons also? I shouldn't have to even ask this questions. Its already difficult explaining to a new player what a special weapon vs a primary attack (with turret arcs and all sorts of crazy stuff). This just makes it WORSE.
Balance wise, if these upgrades needed the extra range bonuses (which imo, they really DON'T), they could have simply printed it on the card.

==

Proton Torpedoes/Costs should be much clearer:
Spend 1 energy should be the other side of the COLON!
Proton Torpedoes:
Attack, have a lock on target, spend 1 energy: You may change 1 focus to a critical. Italics: You only need to have the target locked, you may spend the Lock for its standard effect or other effects.

==

Ion change is just confusing... (Though I know why it was done)

==

Asteroids and Debris Fields should be included in the Obstacles section of the Rules Reference.

==

Fore, back, left and right side sections are unnecessary complexity. Instead having a 3 way reinforce token forward, sides, back would have likely been reasonable. This reduces complexity. One should continue to keep the 8 sided divisions on the cardboard baseplate, but rarely need to reference the side and center lines except for executing maneuvers and when there's a special arc like the Hounds Tooth.
Arc lines should have been drawn completely for the Nantex fighter without filling in the arc.

Honestly, most of these just sound like you personally have problems understanding fairly clear rules, not problems with the rules.

4 hours ago, Blail Blerg said:

Ion change is just confusing... (Though I know why it was done)

This one especially.

This is definitely a change that's made the rules easier. If you are ionised, you don't get any actions except focus. No ifs, no buts, no exceptions.

Surely that's easier to remember than "you don't get actions, unless you can do actions outside of the specific perform action step via Fine Tuned Controls or being co-ordinated"?

4 hours ago, Blail Blerg said:

Instead having a 3 way reinforce token forward, sides, back would have likely been reasonable.

How does this make any sense? How is it easier than the current rules?

It would mean that reinforcing to the side gave you twice the coverage of front or back arcs. Unless you meant to say a 4 way token with each side being separate? But then, surely that's more complex than just the front and back rule we currently have?

Arcs are not hard to understand. Reinforce is not hard to understand. The rules are pretty clear on how they all work, and the context of when they're used is pretty consistent.

There's an argument that the weapon firing arc (specifically the turret arc) and how rules interact with it vs the printed arc you're actually shooting out of can get confusing, but that's a separate issue.

in other news, Don Quixote seen charging at windmills...

What @GuacCousteau said.

Also, this:

4 hours ago, Blail Blerg said:

All special weapons should be considered special weapons without adding range bonuses. Having turrets be an exception is frivolous, difficult to remember and annoying.
Are cannons also? I shouldn't have to even ask this questions. Its already difficult explaining to a new player what a special weapon vs a primary attack (with turret arcs and all sorts of crazy stuff). This just makes it WORSE.
Balance wise, if these upgrades needed the extra range bonuses (which imo, they really DON'T), they could have simply printed it on the card.

They literally did print it directly on the card, though instead of cluttering the card with a bunch of extra text, they made a little missile icon and defined what it means in the RR. If a special attack has the missile icon then range bonuses do not apply. If it doesn’t have the missile icon then they do apply. It doesn’t get much simpler than that.

These do seem like personal issues, rather than game rule issues. There are some that are fair, but there are also some that seem to be more derived from your own play experience, not the game structure itself. Also, this one, for example, would probably lead to additional complexity:

Proton Torpedoes/Costs should be much clearer:
Spend 1 energy should be the other side of the COLON!
Proton Torpedoes:
Attack, have a lock on target, spend 1 energy: You may change 1 focus to a critical. Italics: You only need to have the target locked, you may spend the Lock for its standard effect or other effects.

Putting that into practice implies that you need to both have a lock and spend a charge to change one focus result to a critical hit. Colons are used to indicate cause-effect statements, and the way they're used in X-Wing makes perfect sense. The italic "helper text" you include actually confuses the issue further.

I'll go a step further than some others here: a lot of these sound like personal issues, caused by the fact you played 1st Edition.

I've literally never had a new player struggle to grasp that cannons and turrets get range bonuses, missiles and torpedoes don't. Because they've started by learning that rule, they don't have to deal with the old habits us 1st Edition veterans have. Same goes for the bomb rule; I promise you new players will pick that up immediately. It's only going to be the old guard who occasionally revert back to their 1st Edition thinking.

To quote a certain little green man: you must unlearn what you have learned.

FFG does need to hire a technical writer, though; because some of their wording is really balls stupid and contradictory.

6 hours ago, Blail Blerg said:

All special weapons should be considered special weapons without adding range bonuses. Having turrets be an exception is frivolous, difficult to remember and annoying.
Are cannons also? I shouldn't have to even ask this questions. Its already difficult explaining to a new player what a special weapon vs a primary attack (with turret arcs and all sorts of crazy stuff). This just makes it WORSE.
Balance wise, if these upgrades needed the extra range bonuses (which imo, they really DON'T), they could have simply printed it on the card.

Turrets and Cannons are NOT the exception. They get range bonuses as normal. The only special weapons that do not get range bonuses are those that are marked with the Ordnance icon :

Those weapons are the exceptions . It is already printed on the card.

You are messing up the rule yourself due to left over knowledge from 1E. Unlearn what you have learned.

1 hour ago, GuacCousteau said:

Honestly, most of these just sound like you personally have problems understanding fairly clear rules, not problems with the rules.

This is not a new thing.

I suggest we now revive an old, old forum meme and discuss what everyone's having for breakfast.

52 minutes ago, FTS Gecko said:

This is not a new thing.

I suggest we now revive an old, old forum meme and discuss what everyone's having for breakfast.

Cheese and chicken sandwiches. Toasted. And apple juice.

54 minutes ago, FTS Gecko said:

This is not a new thing.

I suggest we now revive an old, old forum meme and discuss what everyone's having for breakfast.

Seeing as how it's nearly noon here, I'm having lunch for breakfast.

1 hour ago, enigmahfc said:

FFG does need to hire a technical writer, though; because some of their wording is really balls stupid and contradictory.

This. It does seem like the rules were written by too many different people.

Just now, JJ48 said:

Seeing as how it's nearly noon here, I'm having lunch for breakfast.

Funnily enough, I did the same. A platter of salumi and a pizza should not be breakfast...

7 hours ago, Blail Blerg said:

This game is great. But its rules complexity is plain horrible and got worse with 2.0. Some of these rules were better in 1.0

Oh, this is just great.

I take a beating for almost a year because I think 1.0 was not as broken as everyone says, then if finally play my 1st 2.0 game this summer, and now we're all set to go back to 1.0 was better!

1 hour ago, FTS Gecko said:

This is not a new thing.

I suggest we now revive an old, old forum meme and discuss what everyone's having for breakfast.

A pistachio and rosewater scone with French press coffee.

26 minutes ago, FTS Gecko said:

Funnily enough, I did the same. A platter of salumi and a pizza should not be breakfast...

Au contraire! Pizza for breakfast is excellent!

4 hours ago, DR4CO said:

Same goes for the bomb rule; I promise you new players will pick that up immediately;

The bomb rule change (from one per round to any number per round but only one per System Phase) was made so FFG wouldn't have to reverse the fiat ruling that cards that let you place a bomb break the "one per round" rule even if they don't say so, which is the opposite of how card/rules interactions usually work. It's a bad rules change because it fixes a problem the wrong way.

1 hour ago, Gilarius said:

Au contraire! Pizza for breakfast is excellent!

...as long as it's not pizza with breakfast based toppings, because that would be an abomination

1 hour ago, Darth Meanie said:

Oh, this is just great.

I take a beating for almost a year because I think 1.0 was not as broken as everyone says, then if finally play my 1st 2.0 game this summer, and now we're all set to go back to 1.0 was better!

All I'm saying is that a lot of rules in 1.0 were simpler and cleaner.

The balance is much better in 2.0.

--

The Ion change is difficult to understand because of how it now impacts both move and action, as again, opposed to just move in 1.0, which is cleaner. The action then has a caveat, only focus. Which is simply more exceptions to remember. And now one has to also ask, what about calculate?

All of these are questions that arise from the rules, they don't make the rules easy to understand, quick to summarize.

Say what you want about unlearning, but you can't deny the change in complexity.

1 minute ago, Blail Blerg said:

The Ion change is difficult to understand because of how it now impacts both move and action, as again, opposed to just move in 1.0, which is cleaner. The action then has a caveat, only focus. Which is simply more exceptions to remember. And now one has to also ask, what about calculate?

Fortunately, the answer is easy. Calculate is not Focus.

The ion change makes balance a lot better, and is much more flavourful, AND is very simple.

It's just difficult to remember because it's changed.

I'm in agreement with the majority; whilst FFG is pretty bad at writing clear, unambiguous rules in edge cases, most if not all of the cases you cite here are perfectly clear, they're just different from 1e.

You must unlearn what you have learned.

Also, toast and jam, an apple, orange juice.

But cold pizza is a very valid breakfast.

Just now, thespaceinvader said:

I'm in agreement with the majority; whilst FFG is pretty bad at writing clear, unambiguous rules in edge cases, most if not all of the cases you cite here are perfectly clear, they're just different from 1e.

Far too many exceptions.

1 minute ago, Blail Blerg said:

And now one has to also ask, what about calculate?

You can’t calculate while Ioned. Which, when you consider that Ionization affects droids as it does your ships systems, it is actually quite thematic.

Even as a 1.0 vet, I’ve never had a problem remembering the action limitation of Ion 2.0 and didn’t fly Jedi enough to consider the work around the new RR closed off.

Just now, Blail Blerg said:

Far too many exceptions.

I mean, exceptions is how exception based rules systems work.

If exceptions are confusing this really isn't the game for you, literally every named pilot and upgrade provides some sort of exception to the core rules.

11 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

I mean, exceptions is how exception based rules systems work.

If exceptions are confusing this really isn't the game for you, literally every named pilot and upgrade provides some sort of exception to the core rules.

Having exceptions in the rules AND in the cards makes more things to remember.

You can't deny the complexity increase.

2 minutes ago, Blail Blerg said:

Having exceptions in the rules AND in the cards makes more things to remember.

You can't deny the complexity increase.

By definition the rules cannot be exceptions to themselves.

I'm genuinely not sure what you mean.

1 minute ago, Blail Blerg said:

Having exceptions in the rules AND in the cards makes more things to remember.

You can't deny the complexity increase.

That's... a lateral move at worst? Remember the dozens of fix cards you had to tack on to a ship to make it usable after a while?

Okay, so, confirmed! Cards are too complex. Let's remove all cards.

But now... we need to remember all the stats for the ships! NO MORE MODELS! We're just rolling red and green dice!

But the dice go every where and we need to keep track of multiple dice... OKAY! One die each!

Wait... who just rolled red dice? Me? You? Rolling a die is too complex! Let's just tell each other what we want to happen!

Wait... wait wait wait, language barriers are thing and learning each other's language is too difficult!

Let's just sit in silence...