Big shout-out to the devs for holding the recent AMA. I know not all questions weren't answered, and not all questions could be answered, but we really appreciate you taking the time to keep the community in the loop. Keep it up!

You beat me to it!!

I really enjoyed hearing Max and Brooks talk about the game and how they approach things.

They are obviously keeping their eyes on the prize of making every aspect of this game shine, and seem to enjoy it as much as we do. It's also fun to hear how things like generic Torrent pilots seemed just fine, then we proceeded to toss in a hydrospanner.

To FFG in general, thank you for breaking the wall of silence that seemed to surround game design. Letting the community bond with the developers like this is great for the hobby.

Edit: Thank you also for acknowledging that some of us tell stories with our games, and that you are going to help us do that!

P.S. How many Aces and Hotshots packs do I have to buy to ensure another?

27 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

P.S. How many Aces and Hotshots packs do I have to buy to ensure another?

Yes, this... because I shall double it!

56 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

P.S. How many Aces and Hotshots packs do I have to buy to ensure another?

Seriously. The more the merrier.

I agree.

I was particularly pleased to hear Max say that they are concerned with the impact of ships like the nantex on mid-tier play, perhaps even more so than competitive.

The crew did a fine job answering questions. The only one I wish had been answered concerns with the worlds side event in a few weeks.

Also, I hope that preorders via LGS count as ways to see how well the card packs will go - I’ve got one of each card pack on preorder already to help boost the numbers. I can’t quite sell myself on a second Hotshots and Aces pack yet, especially since the only thing I could possibly need in it are the bwing config cards (3 models, pack has 2 configs).

Maybe I can find some locals who don’t want a full pack themselves because they’re single faction or what not to split up the goodies?

Didn't get to watch, but did they address the fast that a huge percentage of games go to time? Why is the primary win condition nearly impossible?

Yes, it was very interesting to hear them talk about things like tournament play and list complexity and wondering if lists that have high ship counts should be discounted in some way because of the mental tax of playing them several games in a row over the course of a tournament.

What I got from the whole stream in general is what I always suspected - the devs are listening, they're reading the forums, etc, and they're aware of all the scuttle and uproar over any aspect of the game. They like (as I do) to see the game develop and the meta change and shake things up.

I'm also excited at two of the grinning non-answers they gave. First, about new huge ships potentially coming for Republic and Seps and then about the potential of an Arturi-type RPG for X-wing. It seems like the huge ships are almost definite (I'd guess they're in production) and it sounds like they're very interested in the campaign aspects of the game moving forward.

8 minutes ago, ConspiracyTheorist said:

Didn't get to watch, but did they address the fast that a huge percentage of games go to time? Why is the primary win condition nearly impossible?

They did address this question at some length, so I'd encourage you to check out the video in that forum pinned at the top of the boards. The gist of some of what they said is that they're well aware of the trend toward more games going to time and that they've been talking about it with Organized Play. But, there are two sides to how they're looking at it. On the plus side, it encourages them that lists may be more balanced in general, and generally, lists that are balanced played by good players will take more time to destroy each other. Also, with fewer guaranteed dice mods, shots miss and that extends time. On the negative side, they're aware of things like re-gen and high initiative repositioning that lead to games where players are just trying to score some points and play to time. Obviously, they're not a fan of that and I'd guess will try and address it moving forward.

One other note - some FAQ forum answers will be forthcoming in the next few days to clear up things like the ability queue and there will be no emergency nerf to the Nantex before worlds. Points are staying the same.

12 minutes ago, dadocollin said:

They did address this question at some length, so I'd encourage you to check out the video in that forum pinned at the top of the boards. The gist of some of what they said is that they're well aware of the trend toward more games going to time and that they've been talking about it with Organized Play. But, there are two sides to how they're looking at it. On the plus side, it encourages them that lists may be more balanced in general, and generally, lists that are balanced played by good players will take more time to destroy each other. Also, with fewer guaranteed dice mods, shots miss and that extends time. On the negative side, they're aware of things like re-gen and high initiative repositioning that lead to games where players are just trying to score some points and play to time. Obviously, they're not a fan of that and I'd guess will try and address it moving forward.

One other note - some FAQ forum answers will be forthcoming in the next few days to clear up things like the ability queue and there will be no emergency nerf to the Nantex before worlds. Points are staying the same.

Excellent, glad to hear they are paying attention to it. Thanks for the summary.

I respect their response on the topic of gas clouds, and their teasing of some of the environmental effects coming with that card pack expansion. It would have been nice if they'd been in a position to announce some small things (I dunno, what the new B-Wing config card does?), but I entirely understand that they are two people attached to a large, legal mechanism.

I have to say that I was pleasantly surprised by the hour of answers. It was a very good idea.

I am only disappointed by one thing: that the environments card will not be part of the tournaments. I would have been more than happy to see that a rule like « the first player will choose between his environment and the one of his opponent which will be played for the game ».

That would have brought so much more in the tournaments, a little bit like IA with their missions, or legion with the choice of cards at the start of the game.

Yeah, environment cards and/or objectives would be a huge boon to the competitive game.

1 hour ago, Silver_leader said:

I am only disappointed by one thing: that the environments card will not be part of the tournaments. I would have been more than happy to see that a rule like « the first player will choose between his environment and the one of his opponent which will be played for the game ».

That would have brought so much more in the tournaments, a little bit like IA with their missions, or legion with the choice of cards at the start of the game.

59 minutes ago, Squark said:

Yeah, environment cards and/or objectives would be a huge boon to the competitive game.

I wouldn't be surprised if they gave Environment Cards a year "in the wild," and if they become popular/don't cause major issues start doing it for tournaments.

Also, if you want it, keep asking.

3 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

I wouldn't be surprised if they gave Environment Cards a year "in the wild," and if they become popular/don't cause major issues start doing it for tournaments.

Eh? I got the feeling they’re only going to give it the epic treatment. Super fun, lots of flavor and theme for the funsy player base that’s not worried about uber-competitive gaming, but at the end of the day nothing more than the side events.

12 minutes ago, ScummyRebel said:

Eh? I got the feeling they’re only going to give it the epic treatment. Super fun, lots of flavor and theme for the funsy player base that’s not worried about uber-competitive gaming, but at the end of the day nothing more than the side events.

For now.

But if players would like to see them in tournament play, I wouldn't be surprised to see it happen.

Especially in Hyperspace. The whole point of that format is that it is "artificially" manipulated.

I suspect FFG would like to see them rattled around a bit first. Kinda the same idea as not upsetting tournament play with a rules change or points adjustment. But once people get used to them, and especially if they get good positive feedback, I could see them getting integrated into "standard" play.

6 hours ago, dadocollin said:

On the negative side, they're aware of things like re-gen and high initiative repositioning that lead to games where players are just trying to score some points and play to time. Obviously, they're not a fan of that and I'd guess will try and address it moving forward.

I'm not sure I understand why this is an "obviously" statement. If anything, anybody looking at the game would have to assume it "obviously" goes the other way, wouldn't they?

Anyway, I don't want to detract from the thread. I'm also appreciative that they took so much time to answer questions, and I'm also very happy that they seem to be not just designing for non-deathmatch formats, but enjoying designing for those.

57 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

I'm not sure I understand why this is an "obviously" statement. If anything, anybody looking at the game would have to assume it "obviously" goes the other way, wouldn't they?

If you go to around the 21:00 mark, you can hear the official-speak answer, which is very well worded to try and avoid controversy.

My take is they’re saying they know an increasing number of games are going to time, they’re looking into why, believe it’s a more complex issue made up of several things coming together, and don’t want to make a knee-jerk reaction without fully figuring it out. Again, that’s my interpretation, as the word “obviously” was mine.

I was very happy to hear then actually utter anything to the point that whenever they make a control mechanic, it's incredibly difficult to balance in any way and rarely leads to good play experience. They're finally becoming aware of it and I think, hopefully, coming to grips with some of the larger ramifications of that thinking.

On 10/4/2019 at 12:11 PM, Darth Meanie said:

For now.

But if players would like to see them in tournament play, I wouldn't be surprised to see it happen.

Especially in Hyperspace. The whole point of that format is that it is "artificially" manipulated.

I suspect FFG would like to see them rattled around a bit first. Kinda the same idea as not upsetting tournament play with a rules change or points adjustment. But once people get used to them, and especially if they get good positive feedback, I could see them getting integrated into "standard" play.

Something theoretically intriguing to me: having a set of three environments for a tournament, known well-enough in advance. Maybe even an entire set of Hyperspace Trials will all use the same set of environments. The player who has the larger bid gets to pick either {A} the environment from the pre-selected three {B} who has first player. Then, the player with the smaller bid gets to choose whatever is left: either the environment if the bidder determined first player, or who is first player, if the bidder picked the environment.

Maybe there's some player out there who says "I really don't want to play against Meteor Shower" or whatever, and so takes a bid and still defers choice of first player. I think it'd be an interesting bit of spice for a tournament scene.

2 hours ago, theBitterFig said:

Something theoretically intriguing to me: having a set of three environments for a tournament, known well-enough in advance. Maybe even an entire set of Hyperspace Trials will all use the same set of environments. The player who has the larger bid gets to pick either {A} the environment from the pre-selected three {B} who has first player. Then, the player with the smaller bid gets to choose whatever is left: either the environment if the bidder determined first player, or who is first player, if the bidder picked the environment.

Maybe there's some player out there who says "I really don't want to play against Meteor Shower" or whatever, and so takes a bid and still defers choice of first player. I think it'd be an interesting bit of spice for a tournament scene.

Right. It kinda opens up a whole new (beautiful) can of worms.

If you took the bid to choose the environment, you are likely selecting a list that does well in that environment. There is a new parameter to design for, and theoretically that would only increase list diversity. And to stir the meta, all FFG has to do is change the environment options.

And it makes thematic sense; savvy commanders pick the battlefield and fight where they have the advantage.

I've played the 2 they have spoiled. The meteor shower especially really makes gameplay much more interesting, because you can "block" with a newly placed asteroid.

I'm just here to say I'm pro environments in tournament play, but only if we can first figure out how to finish games in 75 minutes.

I don't think that in the current ruleset going to time is necessarily a problem but I think that it's on the very edge, and adding more complexity will lead us into games where you maneuver a little, futz with the environment stuff, and then have two turns of engagement before time is called.