Fake IDs The Mining Guild (in compliance with Imperial regulations) issues salvage rights to reputable companies, and these companies are hostile to unlicensed scavengers. The PCs could also be mistaken for enemy combatants by mop-up patrols after the battle. In either case, things should go easier for them if they appear to be running a legitimate operation. A PC with Underworld knowledge might know of a shady Rodian who can get them a forged salvage company license that would pass cursory inspection. Stopping by to meet up with this NPC could be a fun detour. Of course, a more permanent solution would be to incorporate and apply for an actual license. Navigating the world of Star Wars bureaucracy ought to be good for an encounter or two. Star Wars: Gold Rush Another long-term idea might be that the PCs hear about a legendary space hulk called the Dawn Fire -- an ancient ship of enormous dimensions. Depending on who's telling the story, the ship was lost thousands of years ago and carried an atmosphere-burning megaweapon, an ancient mystical artifact of unimaginable power, a cyborg army in deep freeze, and that sort of thing. But the latest sighting appears to be more than just a rumor, as salvage crews from across the galaxy are converging on a particular uninhabited system. As it turns out, the Dawn Fire is in lots of pieces drifting within an asteroid field, so different crews are racing to find the pieces and stake their claims, always fighting the sensor interference from the asteroid field (and fighting other crews). Boomtowns (asteroid space stations) will pop up to support the salvage crews, and will have all sorts of interesting problems -- structural leaks in hastily-constructed compartments, bank heists, bar fights, delayed resupply ships, parasitic infestations. Both the Empire and the Alliance will be interested in the space hulk's secret cargo (but might have very different ideas about what it is), and both of them will plant some spies, which could be fun as NPCs.

The N-1 is clearly a Rebel ship. FFG would just invent another Rebel subfaction if they wanted to make sure this ship had an unquestionable entrance to the game. Something like "Freedom Fighters" might be a good name for a new Rebel subfaction for ships like this one, and they wouldn't have to justify what era they come from. Done. Package it. Get paid.

I'm more interested in these than Wave 8 ships and I'm not entirely sure why. Maybe I like what they're going to do to my storage solutions, and I don't like what Wave 8 ships are going to do to my storage solutions. Gaming is hard, you guys.

I can create all that stuff, but the game needs to be tested a bunch before taking that step. It's printed lists for the time being.

This thing is pretty much complete and playable. It just needs lots of playtesting, balancing and refining. But it has zeppelins able to get in the fight (and can dock smaller ships, repair and relaunch them), a bunch of scenarios for much variety, larger point battles so zeps can fight zeps, and tons of upgrade options. Whew. Google doc here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ttJd1ylzFHOQPm55zSQ0MqwnhJqCad2CH88oDk9_GEQ/edit?usp=sharing Most of my X-Wing 2.0 wishes are in here: Initiative switches to the other player at the end of each round. Pilot skill ranges from 1 (rookie) to 5 (aces). This results in more PS conflicts, making for more dynamic activation/combat timing. Maneuver dials are quirky (limited, sometimes asymmetrical). Very few ships can take a 1-speed maneuver (gotta keep moving if you want to maintain lift), but every ship has at least one kind of post-maneuver repositioning action (barrel roll, boost, drift, slam). Some ships have narrower primary firing arcs than the standard arc, requiring more careful maneuvering. All attacks are affected by range combat bonuses. Having secondary weapons be exempt from range combat bonuses is counter-intuitive, so it's just not a rule here. If a weapon is exempt from range combat bonuses, it will say so as a special rule. So all missiles and turrets and cannon get that extra 1 attack die at Range 1, and everybody always gets an extra defense die at Range 3, no exceptions. And it kinda works great, because it makes maneuvering just that much more important. Every ship has blind spots. (Except zeppelins, but they're special.) No small ships have 360 turrets. Maneuvering is importanter.

Ideally, you shouldn't be able to move your template once you've placed it, and that you should be committed to that move if you can make it. That seems consistent with the spirit of the rules in most other cases. But the rules don't say that, and until they do, I don't have a problem with adjusting, backing up, readjusting. You have to pick a side, but you can move your template around on that side until you're happy with it.

It's a highly expandable and customizable board game that happens to use miniatures and cards.

Thanks for all the ideas! Here's the Google doc I've been putting together. Feel free to comment here or in the doc itself: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ttJd1ylzFHOQPm55zSQ0MqwnhJqCad2CH88oDk9_GEQ/edit?usp=sharing Had a chance to playtest with a live opponent yesterday. My buddy Derek was the Red Skull Legion (2 Devastators, 2 Vampires). I was the Broadway Bombers (1 Brigand, 4 Avengers). Other than the usual familiarization issues, everything went pretty smoothly and we had a blast.

What do you mean by "nefarious use of this"? All I'm hearing is how it's totally fine to agree to intentionally draw for any reason. You can fix tournament scores with it, and that's fine. You can avoid playing a whole round of Swiss (rather than faking it) and still advance, and that's fine too. As long as you pretend to have come up with the idea to intentionally draw after you call the TO over to your table, what's the problem? It's all allowed. There's no point having a rule against collusion because it's going to happen anyway. If it doesn't happen by a verbal agreement before a match, it'll happen with an unspoken understanding at the top table in the final round of Swiss. What could be wrong with any of that? It's fine.

I always deploy my ships at a slight angle, unless I'm running a formation and don't have the room to do it well.

No, you can't force players to play X-Wing normally. But the tournament rules allow TOs to disqualify anyone based on unsporting conduct. You don't want to play your next match? Fine. Go home and don't come back. I won't force anyone to play a game they clearly don't want to play. That game is called X-Wing, not "tournament points". If you want to play "actually don'y play X-Wing in order to rig the tournament points system to improve chances of winning trinkets" by all means do that on your own time. Not in an X-Wing tournament. If you're not there to play X-Wing, you've lost the plot.

What if I let the rest of the room decide whether you should be allowed to take that intentional draw, since you're being so honest about it. I mean, it sounds totally anti-competitive to me, but nobody's judgment is perfect. So I'll pose the question to the rest of the players in this hypothetical tournament. How would you explain it to them?

The interpretation expressed by the second sentence above doesn't seem to be supported by the rules. Consider: Player 1: "Hi, I'm your opponent this round." P2: "Hi, I'll be right back." P1: "O...kay?" P2 gets TO. P2: "Now that the TO is here, I'd like to propose an intentional draw." P1: "Sounds good to me." Certainly seems like a draw is the reason for the discussion. What about that violates the rules? The part when players agree to manipulate tournament scoring in front of a TO. My question to you would be, "Why? What would be the purpose of that? More to the point: Why did you ask me to come over to the table in the first place if you didn't have a problem to discuss?"

I don't think we'd want 4-dice TLTs at Range 1.

I think permissible intentional draws would be situations like where one player has to deal with something outside of the game, but may be able to return later. Their opponent may be very sporting and offer them a draw rather an a concession, since it won't necessarily knock either of them out of the running. Because sportsmanship. The details matter. This sort of thing won't be suspicious if it happens to some middle-of-the-pack players in the second round. It will be very suspicious if it happens at a top table in the final round of Swiss. That's why it's important to have good tournament organizers, and why it's important for us to have these discussions publicly so players are not surprised when they confront a standard of sportsmanship that they aren't used to in other competitive scenes.

Nevermind interpreting FFG's intent. Read the rules. The rule is that players can't discuss an intentional draw before the TO is called over. So intentionally drawing cannot be the reason for your discussion. It can be the outcome.

Why do you think you deserve to not be left to the mercy of tiebreakers while everyone who chooses to play their match will be? Sounds like the smart move for everyone is to intentionally draw in the final round of Swiss instead of wasting time, since we already know who really deserves to make the cut, right? When do they make this agreement? They're not allowed to do it without the TO present. How would you present this to the TO? Pretend I'm your TO. You've called me over to your table for some reason. What's up?

That word "fix" is a problem for me in this sense. It's synonymous with "manipulate". Another word that comes to mind is "rig". You can call it something else, but it still seems like it's the sort of thing that FFG has "expressly forbidden" when it comes to intentional draws.

Nobody bothers with that combo at 7 dice. Maybe they would at 8.

Dash doesn't have much trouble getting into Range 1 of things. Mangler might be great on him.

Let's pretend attack range bonuses (+1 attack die at Range 1 / +1 defense die at Range 3) applies to all attacks, not just primary weapon attacks. Missiles, torpedoes, cannon, Hot Shot Blasters, turrets, the whole gamut. What gets nerfed? What gets buffed? What gets overpowered? What becomes useless? How do squad tactics change? And other questions.

What is tournament integrity? Do players also have any responsibility regarding tournament integrity? What are some things that would damage a tournament's integrity? And what should a tournament organizer's response to them be?

You're not the only one, and I think FFG's introduction of subfactions to the game should make it really easy to add prequel ships if they want to. Personally, I want to see all of these: N-1 Starfighter (Rebel Alliance) Eta-2 Jedi Starfighter (Jedi, subfaction of Rebels) Delta-7 Aethersprite (Jedi, subfaction of Rebels) BTL-B Y-Wing (Rebel Alliance) Belbullab-22 (Separatists, subfaction of Scum) Droid Tri-fighter (Separatists, subfaction of Scum) ARC-170 (Galactic Republic, subfaction of both Rebels and Imperials, making our first dual-faction subfaction waaaaaat) Sith Infiltrator (Sith, subfaction of Imperials)

I suspect that Wave 9 was designed so long ago (probably more than a year ago at this point) that the TIE/sf wasn't seriously considered. But it's likely that it will be in Wave 10. It would be fascinating if something like the Mining Guild TIE showed up in Wave 9. It would mean that FFG has been in the loop on Rebels stuff way in advance of the rest of us. But I wouldn't count on it.