I miss the small upgrade cards, they were better for everything besides the Art and space for Words.

As far as Force pick some or all of the following:

1. Disable Force charge use after a bump, stress, ion, or obstacle overlap.
2. Require Focus Action to Regen
3. Require Focus Action to Spend Force
4. Limit # of charges that can be spent per round to 1
5. Force does not recharge at all during games, all you have is what you start with

My favorites are #1, #4, and #5 since they are the least complicated to implement. Still a crazy powerful mechanic just dialed down from 11 to about 4 on the amp.

Lots of options, many of which could be done for 2.0 via rule doc updates and errata or point increases to things like Maul crew and Hate, though thats a separate discussion.

Would do wonders for keeping plot armor pilot prices down over time so people's favorite characters remain more accessible.

Just for the heck of it, I'll describe attacking in Guildball.

The attacker has a "TAC" value, and will roll that many D6, maybe more or less depending on circumstances. 5 or 6 is a pretty average TAC value, depending on guild. The target number is based on your opponent's DEF. They might have "DEF 4+" or such, and any 4+ results are hits. However, ARM reduces the total number of hits an opponent gets by that number. Approximately average will be DEF 3+/ARM 2, DEF 4+/ARM 1, or DEF 5+/ARM 0, but it depends on guild (Blacksmiths have high armor, as you might guess). Some characters have Anatomical Precision, which reduces a defender's ARM.

Now, after the attacker rolls their dice, counts their hits, subtracts the armor, it's time to look at your playbook. Typically, each character has a playbook length equal to their TAC, and you can choose one play on that playbook up to your number of hits (if hits exceed your playbooks length, and you'll pick one of anything, plus something up to the excess hits... 7 hits against a length 5 playbook is anything, and an "up to 2"). There are stronger effects at higher numbers. Not all effects are damage. Push, dodge, knockdown, and tackling the ball away are common effects, and often you can get damage and some extra effect. Some characters have the Tough Hide trait, and they'll reduce the incoming damage by 1.

So there are three major defenses (well, 4... characters have different hit point totals, too): DEF makes your opponent's dice rolls harder: the RNG defense. Maybe someone rolls a tonne of nothing, maybe it's all hits and incredibly impactful. ARM reduces their total hits at the end: the consistency defense. Lower TAC characters can get pretty hosed by high ARM... A TAC 4 character trying to attack an ARM 3 Blacksmith probably can't accomplish anything. Tough Hide , if someone has it, lowers the damage impact of attacks, but won't thwart control stuff like dodges and tackles.

41 minutes ago, Boom Owl said:

I miss the small upgrade cards, they were better for everything besides the Art and space for Words.

As far as Force pick some or all of the following:

1. Disable Force charge use after a bump, stress, ion, or obstacle overlap.
2. Require Focus Action to Regen
3. Require Focus Action to Spend Force
4. Limit # of charges that can be spent per round to 1
5. Force does not recharge at all during games, all you have is what you start with

My favorites are #1, #4, and #5 since they are the least complicated to implement. Still a crazy powerful mechanic just dialed down from 11 to about 4 on the amp.

Lots of options, many of which could be done for 2.0 via rule doc updates and errata or point increases to things like Maul crew and Hate, though thats a separate discussion.

Would do wonders for keeping plot armor pilot prices down over time so people's favorite characters remain more accessible.

Main reason I really hate #1, #3, and #4 is that they're a lot of bookkeeping. I'd rather just take away things to spend the force on, rather than allow the standard uses, but make someone jump through a lot of hoops to spend the force.

That said, changing the force recharge timing to executing a maneuver, and only allowing force regen on fully executed maneuvers (and making obstacle overlap no longer fully executed), gets to a lot of the effect, with a lot less hassle.

2nd edition was a pretty huge screw-up, but FFG hasn't learned the lessons they need to in order to develope a 3rd edition. If anything theyre making things rapidly more complex without fixing the core balance problems, which is basically plastering over rot.

What I had hoped to see in a second edition was higher base statlines which would allow for more variation and simpler rules, much like how doubling points values worked.

higher numerical values allow easier balancing of simple, thematic mechanics as opposed to the word salad rules needed for pilot variance in the current game. Increasing those numbers allows things like auto-hits, damage negation, flat buffing/nerfing abilities, and other rules that change raw numbers to work. suddenly you can have a clearer distinction between archetypes too.

If you also differentiate "to hit" from "damage" rolls, cut the rules bloat, then maybe add a few maneuver temtplates... bingo, the game is pretty much perfect.

7 hours ago, Boom Owl said:

I miss the small upgrade cards, they were better for everything besides the Art and space for Words.

I did too, at first, but I've come around. The current upgrades don't take up any more table space than the old ones (since you can just slide the left-side under the next card in line), and it's been nice to have just the one, uniform size to work with for storage and sleeves.

10 minutes ago, DR4CO said:

I did too, at first, but I've come around. The current upgrades don't take up any more table space than the old ones (since you can just slide the left-side under the next card in line), and it's been nice to have just the one, uniform size to work with for storage and sleeves.

Yeah, as a guy coming over from Armada, I hate, HATE the smaller cards. The art is so small you can often barely see what’s going on, they’re difficult to handle, impossible to store... just the worst. The standard-sized cards are better in every way.

At least in Armada the small cards make *some* sense, because there are so many ships with lots and lots of upgrades in Armada, and a 6’ x 3’ table is already a challenge to find (thus leaving little room at the edges), so every centimeter counts when saving space in that game. X-Wing leaves plenty of room by comparison.

I forgot about the extra template I thought we should really get: 4-bank. Von reminded me. I thought they might have had some sneaky plan to release it as a special mechanic of a few ships when they did say ones like the RZ-2, or the Resistance Show ships, to slide it in as a feature.

I'm guessing though that will never happen because again, they don't want to invalidate a previous product, so they can't really add that now and invalidate the template sets people have won and purchased by making them incomplete retroactively. Oh well.

On 5/16/2020 at 4:47 AM, Kyle Ren said:

Before I start, if your comment is "I already paid too much money for this game, I'm not paying for a 3.0" or "2.0 is perfect we don't need a 3.0" you don't need to make it. I've brought up this subject a number of times in a couple places and heard it all already.

There

3 hours ago, ForceSensitive said:

I forgot about the extra template I thought we should really get: 4-bank. Von reminded me. I thought they might have had some sneaky plan to release it as a special mechanic of a few ships when they did say ones like the RZ-2, or the Resistance Show ships, to slide it in as a feature.

I'm guessing though that will never happen because again, they don't want to invalidate a previous product, so they can't really add that now and invalidate the template sets people have won and purchased by making them incomplete retroactively. Oh well.

I think it could work. Especially for very fast ships like A-wings and Tie Interceptors/Defenders. These are from Star Trek Attack Wing.

The thing to me with talk of a 3rd Edition is that it doesn't feel all that much like we've gone fully to a 2nd Edition. It feels like what they did was "fix" first edition (dial back the power-creep mostly) and add The Force while not really getting at the sources of the mechanics issues -- the power of passive dice modifications. This is one of the difficulties with The Force. Pilots using The Force are new designs and they are competing largely against revisions of the other pilots. This has resulted in a bit of a design mismatch and why so much of this thread seem caught up with revising The Force.

And the heart of the problem with The Force is just another version of the trouble around the power of passive modifications which is largely the power-creep dialed back for 2nd Edition. Dice modification is the goal of action economy and the game still doesn't get a good grip on how those combine to things worth more than their points. It does much better in 2nd.

Speaking of points the game needs a way to score points other than killing enemy ships. There needs to be some kind of objective system.

Bid points need to be on the table. You get something for the points spent on a bid while not risking those points unless the entire squad is eliminated. A bid is a better-chance-to-choose-when-a-ship-moves upgrade. It needs to be treated as an upgrade on a card for scoring.

I think overall the issue with dice is they are heavy and likely one of the more expensive components in the core set. Increases in the number of dice is a difficulty not simply in an how to implement but in a fundamental get the game to market in a good entry set of components and attractive price point and logistical aspect. There isn't just gameplay behind some of these choices.

Some folks have mentioned needing more maneuver templates. I think a new edition of the game needs several more templates and a more serious re-thinking of the maneuvers a chassis and a pilot has access to.

On 5/16/2020 at 2:51 AM, Kyle Ren said:

COMPLEXITY CREEP

There's so many rules! It gets really overwhelming for new players. As an example I really don't think we need all these different tokens, we could probably yeet all the orange tokens, cloak, and reinforce right out of the game and it wouldn't even matter that much

Complexity creep I am fine with as long as it doesn't ruin current interactions. Clarifications on Cova Nell ruined a lot of other interaction because of how they worded Cova. Clarifications and rule changes on Nantex ruined other ships interactions. Calrifications on TA-175 timing ruined a couple of other timing interactions. As someone pointed out before, if they had a technical writer/editor that would look at how they worded things in the past so they don't conflict it would help tremendously.

PIPS

Putting pips in the squad builder sound fantastic. This would allow for cheaper ships that would be too good if you had another on the field but are to costly to field otherwise. It would also allow control over upgrades that are too powerful to have multiple copies (Hyperspace Tracking Data was one). Additionally, you could set different limits for different game mode, allowing Epic to have more Precise hunter for instance.

19 hours ago, Boom Owl said:

Limit # of charges that can be spent per round to 1

If you limit to one charge spent per round, anyone with multiple charges could never use them. My solution was that you can only use one force per defending/attacking instance. That way if you roll 3 eyeballs, you can only change 1 without a focus.

1 hour ago, IceManHG said:

I think it could work. Especially for very fast ships like A-wings and Tie Interceptors/Defenders. These are from Star Trek Attack Wing.

One thing that still annoys me in X-wing. A-wings/Interceptors do not feel as fast as they really should. A lot of it is the Small base vs. Large base making dopey Freighters seem pretty fast in comparison.

force 👏 only 👏 regens 👏 on 👏 focus 👏 actions 👏

3 hours ago, 5050Saint said:

If you limit to one charge spent per round, anyone with multiple charges could never use them.

Not in one round no. They could across multiple rounds though, so still very powerful with multiple charges.

11 minutes ago, Boom Owl said:

Not in one round no. They could across multiple rounds though, so still very powerful with multiple charges.

I think I must be misunderstanding you. If Obi-Wan starts with 3, and spends his max one force this round, he will regain that one force next round and be at 3. If he can only spend one force per round, and regains one per round, how will he ever drop below 2 force? Are you meaning you can only spend one force per phase? If not, could you explain further? My brain isn't catching on.

18 minutes ago, 5050Saint said:

I think I must be misunderstanding you. If Obi-Wan starts with 3, and spends his max one force this round, he will regain that one force next round and be at 3. If he can only spend one force per round, and regains one per round, how will he ever drop below 2 force? Are you meaning you can only spend one force per phase? If not, could you explain further? My brain isn't catching on.

The 5 options i listed weren't necessarily related.

My preferred force would not be usable while blocked rocked stressed, would not regen at all during games, and could only be spent as 1 charge per round of phases.

No regen at all, if you start with 3 you can spend 3 within the game, but only 1 per rd cycle.

Hope that clarifies.

Basically applies BB8 style charge logic to cards like Supernatural or Snoke or Palp etc.

Ya I'm not gonna buy everything again. Third edition would have to be purely a rules update.

4 hours ago, All Shields Forward said:

Ya I'm not gonna buy everything again. Third edition would have to be purely a rules update.

when third edition happens you're allowed to keep playing second edition, nobody's stopping you

heck pathfinder is just people who are two editions behind regular DND right?

52 minutes ago, Kyle Ren said:

when third edition happens you're allowed to keep playing second edition, nobody's stopping you

heck pathfinder is just people who are two editions behind regular DND right?

Lol. Just one in my book. (Pun intended) Pathfinder is alternate reality 4th Ed. It came out after 4th did anyway right? Meh, who's counting 😁

5 hours ago, Kyle Ren said:

when third edition happens you're allowed to keep playing second edition, nobody's stopping you

Right but the thing is if 3e required another conversion kit I do suspect it would just fail super hard, unless it took a long time to come out.

In most Wargames, you need to buy a new rulebook or two to maintain editions, and don't need to buy a ton of new bits and bobs just to stay in the current edition. The emotional cost of throwing away or storing a bunch of cardboard is way higher than throwing away an old rulebook as well, which is part of the cost of X-wing using cards rather than a centralized book for factions and their abilities. X-wing just is at a massive disadvantage for edition updates in this regard, and edition changes are already a huge point at which people only habitually keeping in a game or hobby tend to 'jump off.'

What I could see happening is a sort of 2.5 "Ok we are changing a ton of core systems because we have a living rules reference" deal, which would hopefully keep most cardboard legal. Stuff like changing entirely how ionizing, jams, and tractor tokens so that they can be a bit more casual about allowing abilities to control, changing the player initiative system to be non-static, and changing force up so that it A: is more thematically synergistic with focus rather than target locks, and B: Isn't so powerful in its basic use without force upgrades, as the native power of force heavily limits both what they can allow force users to do and how minor a force upgrade can be.

Man, if they could do a tractor fix I'd be over the moon. Boy do I hate those rules right now.

20 minutes ago, ForceSensitive said:

Man, if they could do a tractor fix I'd be over the moon. Boy do I hate those rules right now.

I remain unconvinced any tractor rules should be in the game at all. Tractor rules in 1st Edition almost had me quitting just as I started or maybe that was just the TIE Defender. Either way I despise the tractor rules.

1 hour ago, Frimmel said:

I remain unconvinced any tractor rules should be in the game at all. Tractor rules in 1st Edition almost had me quitting just as I started or maybe that was just the TIE Defender. Either way I despise the tractor rules.

I think tractoring could justifiably remain in the game if it was reworked.

Self-tractoring is neat and mostly fine, and there's a version of tractoring somewhere that's less obnoxious than "immediately get moved". Tokens could linger until the end phase, say, and then have some effect going into the next turn that you can plan/dial around. "Next turn, your 3/4/5 forwards and 3 turns/banks increase in difficulty by one step", for example, would be much less obnoxious than getting thrown onto a rock or whatever. ****, even just removing the movement and keeping the -1 agility would be pretty reasonably ok.

Somehow we've avoided the great ion menace, mostly, so that could be a way to lean towards too.

4 minutes ago, svelok said:

I think tractoring could justifiably remain in the game if it was reworked.

Self-tractoring is neat and mostly fine, and there's a version of tractoring somewhere that's less obnoxious than "immediately get moved". Tokens could linger until the end phase, say, and then have some effect going into the next turn that you can plan/dial around. "Next turn, your 3/4/5 forwards and 3 turns/banks increase in difficulty by one step", for example, would be much less obnoxious than getting thrown onto a rock or whatever. ****, even just removing the movement and keeping the -1 agility would be pretty reasonably ok.

Somehow we've avoided the great ion menace, mostly, so that could be a way to lean towards too.

Yeah, I always though they should give you some movement penalty not throw you around the mat. Fighter based tractor weapons shouldn't be that powerful. Maybe only give that to the Jumpmaster as that's its "thing".

One thing I totally forgot in my earlier comment (and what I wished already in the discussions about a possible 2nd ed back then):

Pilots with ini 5 should have bad or no abilities, ini 6 should not have any ability at all. Ini 3 and 4 "aces" should have the cool abilities!

The way X-Wing fundamentally works is such a big advantage for high Ini so they do not need abilities in addition to already moving with full board knowledge. And with abilities only the 5s and 6s get fielded, you seldomly see any Ini 4.