maxam
-
Content Count
806 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by maxam
-
-
PSA: Languages are malleable and the rules are determined by usage not PSA's.
In the context of a game where words are defining rules, that isn't really true is it? If the rules of a game refer to a "die" they are specifically referring to a singular die. When they mention dice, they are generally referring to an unspecified number of dice.
So very much THIS.
Ignore the angry troll - your topic is VERY much appreciated
-
Can someone who either thinks XWing 2.0 is coming and/or wants X Wing 2.0 to tell me what problems they have with the game that would warrant a second edition?
Is Defenders and generic e wings costing 5~ points too many REALLY that big of a problem? Would errataing the X Wing to have an extra hull really be a problem? Would enforcing partial point MoV or not giving turrets the ability to fire at range 3 outside of their arcs really be a problem? And while the damage deck could have one or two cards that could be tweaked a little, it's a non-issue.
What I'm trying to get across is that fixing these problems would be easier than making X Wing 2.0. If your definition of X Wing 2.0 is just a reprinted rule book that comes with new core sets and some errataed cards, that's not X Wing 2.0.
Ok, let me start by saying - I really, really love this game... as it stands mind you, not as it could be or was. I play it. I love it.
From my point of view I would be interested in seeing a 2.0 - but not because I'm apoplectic with nerd rage over the perception that any one ship/costing/mechanic has "broken" the game.
As the game has matured, some inconsistencies and "issues" have become apparent and have largely been addressed, mostly through the outstanding work of Alex Davey and Frank Brooks. Without the need for egregious errata, rather through tweeks provided through upgrades, titles and modifications.
All of which you suggest above could be addressed in a similar way.
However...
I for one would be absolutely excited to see a ground-up reworking of X-Wing (2.0 if you will), especially if it was the work of Alex and Frank given their deep commitment and understanding of the game.
Is it necessary? No I enjoy the game immensely now, as do many, many people...
Is it likely? Who knows? Wanting or Not Wanting it to happen won't affect whether they do it or not.
-
If FFG were to have a release something for the new movies, they'd need to have the product out by year end. Since wave 7 was announced, it doesn't seem likely they will have anything.
Would they have to though?
Sure - if they wanted something in the stores when the movie hits theatres, then yes, but otherwise, Q1 2016 would still work even if the movie is only moderately successful.
What if they shipped a new starter (same rules) with the new X-Wing and TIEs (one of each TIE?) for Christmas and then shipped Wave 8 early 2016 with the same ships included (along with others)...
-
Keeping the core game as the OT is by far the best strategy because those will always be beloved classics.
Core game yes. You must have iconic SW ships.
When was the last OT release? FFG has been digging deeper and deeper into the EU salad. I agree that keeping the game as OT as possible is best, but all OT options are exhausted. Your average Joe Blow wouldn't recognise half the ships or names on the table.
Getting recognisable ships back on the board HAS to be a win for the game if they want to keep existing fans and maybe lure in new ones.
Exactly.
And for the average movie goer and casual star wars fan, the new episode VII X-Wing and TIE Fighters are recognisably "Classic" ships. If you showed them to someone in the street they'd identify them as Star Wars spaceships despite the different paint schemes (and physical shape in some instances)
danicusrex reacted to this -
We don't even know the films any good, what if it's prequel bad that will drive people away.
No, we don't know if they'll be any good, and yes they may be so bad to drive people away.
It could also be the opposite.
With the public announcement by FFG and Lucasfilm of their ongoing licensing commitment, and common business sense, it would seem inevitable that we will see the new ships in X-Wing, no matter how bad the movies may actually turn out to be.
OTOH, even if the new movie is bad, the new miniatures are really not that objectionable are they? I mean - they're still TIE's and X-Wings, still aesthetically "Star Wars" (arguably more so than most EU ships)
Keeping the core game as the OT is by far the best strategy because those will always be beloved classics.
Okay... but if they don't update the rules, but release a new starter with the Episode VII X-Wing and TIE to cash in on the new movie, where's the problem?
If the new movie tanks, they can always revert back to the CT starter at a later date...
-
It's entirely possible that with the release of the new film there will be a new starter set though.
There's zero evidence to even suggest that.
Seriously?
With all the hype and hoopla of the new movie, all the new and old fans, all of the potential new X-Wing players that may come as a result?
It would be common business sense to release a starter set with the new X-Wing and TIE from the new movie.
Will it be a "New Starter" as in 2.0 of the rules - who knows?
But a "New Starter" which is otherwise identical to the current starter but with Episode VII ships? Almost certainly.
Conandoodle and Verlaine reacted to this -
I would quit. I spend my hard-earned money on a bunch of miniatures that are suddenly useless? No thank you.
Why are so many people worried about this? This is not, and never has been, even the remotest of possibilities. A second edition of the game would be a revised rulebook and a new starter set. Absolute worst case scenario would be a bunch of errata for existing cards. Nothing will EVER invalidate the miniatures or even the cardboard inserts.
People really need to get past their delusions of persecution and actually think about what a second edition of the game would actually be.
A clean slate. That's what Second Editions are. Wipe it all, new core, do all the expansions again... That's how it works.
True, but look at Descent 1 > Descent 2... clean slate, sure with vastly different rules... but you could still use your old miniatures via an "upgrade" pack. They did something similar when Talisman transitioned also
-
2nd edition core set, than add upgrade kits for all those with the 1st edition.
Given their track record with Descent, this sounds like a good idea, and what I'd hope for, however, the implementation would be interesting...
In Descent you only had one of each "hero" and a set number of "monsters" of each type, in X-Wing, the ships are purchased individually and in varying quantities by each player... how would the upgrade kits cover this? It would seem to me that they would ever have "too many" or "not enough" cards for each (generic) ship type.
For example: Let's say you buy the "Imperials 1.0 > 2.0 Upgrade Kit". Yes it comes with one copy of every unique pilot, but how many Academy Pilots? One? Four? Eight?
Let's assume they're generous and give as many cards for a given Generic that can fit within 100pts... how many ship tokens do they include?
Would there be an updated model/paint scheme for previously released ships?
I would think this would be a possibility... or re-issuing the same ships with "2.0" prominently displayed on the blister
Core set 2nd edition will have 1 imperial 1 S&V and 1 Rebel ship.
Hmmm... or 1 First Order 1 S&V and 1 Resistance...
Given where all the new Star Wars goodness is coming from in the future, this is inevitable surely...
-
Suppose a turreted ship has 4 firing quadrants: Bow, starboard, stern and port. Suppose the activation and movement mechanics are the same. But a subtle difference for turreted ships. At the start of the activation phase, every turreted ship declares which quadrant their turret is going to be facing. When the turreted ship moves It declares its action in its action bar and may be given an additional free turret action (regardless of bumping or obstacles). This free action allows the turreted ship to reposition the turret into another quadrant (in any clockwise/counter clockwise fashion). Consequently subtract the pilots skill relative to the amount of quadrants the player moved (to a minimum of 0). Then combat carries on with this alteration.
So very much this!
In a "2.0" I'd love to see turreted ships with attachable "turret arcs" that fit over the lower peg and could be rotated to the applicable quadrant.
The base ship would be cheap, but the gunner for each turret would increase the cost appropriately. A falcon, could fly with 0, 1 or 2 active turrets depending on how you crew it.
It might make for extra FUN to be flying up against or using a turreted ship ... imagine TIEs wheeling around a falcon, while the falcon tries to get his turrets to cover as many TIEs as he can.
Consequently subtract the pilots skill relative to the amount of quadrants the player moved (to a minimum of 0). Then combat carries on with this alteration.
I'd drop this though as the pilot is not doing the "gunning" - this would be dependent on the crew you purchased to drive the turrets.
-
TBH - I love the way ordnance works, purely from a flavour POV
In the OT (and this /is/ an OT game for now), we really did not see ordnance apart from the protons that took out the death star
If ordnance worked as reliably and lethally as most players seem to want it in the original movies, we would have seen very little laser/blaster fire... it would have been largely missiles/rockets.
At the moment, ordnance is "something extra" you take for special situations or niche cases ... much like in the OT...
-
Stop making assumptions and go read what the SLAM reference card actually says. Nowhere does it look for what maneuver was on your revealed dial; it only cares about what speed maneuver you executed. If you are ionised, you execute a straight-1. You are then free to SLAM into another 1-speed maneuver that appears on the K-wing's dial.
It just won't be a brilliant idea most of the time because you trade attacking for what is basically a generic boost action (as I doubt the K-wing will have hard-1s). Advanced SLAM-ing into an actual boost would make the amount of movement more relevant, but that requires 6 points worth of upgrades to setup.
I appreciate the clarification.
And, as you said - most of the time it won't be worth much, but still, it's something that other ships can't do under similar circumstances.
-
SLAM doesn't care. You choose and execute a maneuver that appears on the dial, with the only restriction being that it must be the same speed as the maneuver you executed this round. Whether or not there was a dial revealed doesn't matter.
What would matter is that you just gave up attacking in exchange for a glorified boost action. Probably not a great idea in most situations.
Ok ... you're going to take a hit from an Ion during the combat phase after all movement and actions have taken place.
On the next turn you do not set or use a manoeuvre dial - you will not be SLAMing on that turn
Radzap and Scarloochie reacted to this -
OK….I’ve spent all morning so far thinking about all of this and the Tie Bomber. I’ve been deflated by the “fix” of Extra Munitions.
Deflated? Disappointed? I was too. I was honestly hoping something really useful would come out of this to encourage more missiles and such on different ships, but I don't see that at all. Really wanted a good reason to equip missiles on my A-Wings...
Yeah, it is not a fix for ordnance overall. It doesn't even fix the old ordnance for those that can take it. It does give some new options, though.
Not that a "fix" for ordnance was ever promised - it was assumed by the community.
All that was said was that fans of TIE Bombers are going to love wave 7 ... which is exactly what happened (TIE Bombers got a shot in the arm)
-
The way I see it, the TIE Punisher is a TIE Bomber Aces expansion without new Bomber pilots, but instead of a repainted mini that I already have four of, I get a NEW ship with 4 pilots that is aesthetically complimentary in a big-brother kind of way to the Bombers I already have...
-
the episode ends on a note that suggests we won’t be seeing the planet for a while after this.
Thank the maker!
Conundrum Eternal reacted to this -
I'm still hoping for an Aces Pack for the Tie Bomber with new pilots.
One of the key things that Aces packs bring to the table is new upgrade cards ... tbh, while it would be nice to have new bomber pilots, I think that with the TIE Punisher, we just got the upgrade cards that would have been in a bomber aces pack...
-
They frequently refer to 'the games 1:270 scale'
Indeed they do - and the ship measurements they use are supplied by Lucasfilm who have defined/designated a size for each ship.
This has come up many, many times before... FFG has stuck to Lucasfilms official sizes despite the perceived weirdness (see A-Wing, and TIE sizes for starters). Arguably it comes down to a possibility that someone at Lucasfilm who did not know that the actual /models/ used in the films were made at different scales caused the issue when decreeing official measurements.
If you look at modern Star Wars properties, such as Rebels season two (A-Wings) and episode VII (TIEs), you will see the Lucasfilm sizes in action.
In short, FFG is doing the right thing following the official sizes ... any problems with those measurements need to blamed on Lucasfilm.
Forgottenlore reacted to this -
So, either the Pup's tile is also an early mockup or misprint, or the pack comes with multiple tiles - one for each potential Hound pilot.
So this.
At first I thought it would be just for named pilots, i.e. the other side of the Bossk tile would have the other named pilot, but there's no limitation on the modification, so it's possible to have it on a generic...
Plus the card is called Nastah Pup pilot, which is very generic...
-
Or not, not, not true!The First World War, for example, was named as early as 1918 per:
http://qi.com/infocloud/the-first-world-war
British Officer Lieutenant-Colonel Charles à Court Repington recorded in his diary for 10 Sep 1918 that he met with a Major Johnstone of Harvard University to discuss what historians should call the war. Repington said it was then referred to as The War, 'but that this could not last'. They agreed that 'To call it The German War was too much flattery for the Boche.' Repington concludes: 'I suggested The World War as a shade better title, and finally we mutually agreed to call it The First World War in order to prevent the millennium folk from forgetting that the history of the world was the history of war.' Between the wars most people did refer to the war as the Great War, even though that had originally referred to the Napoleonic War. In the US, it was ‘The World War’.
Or as late at 1933:
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/feb/19/who-named-first-and-second-world-wars
In English, the term "First World War" was used in the book The First World War: A Photographic History, edited by playwright and war veteran Laurence Stallings and published in 1933.
Ok, mind blown - wow!
-
Personally, I rather doubt that we'll be getting any of the new TIEs, X-wings or Lambdas any time soon, unless there is something to make them seriously different from what they already are. If there are any legitimately new ships, those I would expect (The aforementioned escort might fill the bill).
You're kidding right?
I mean, I understand what you're saying from a gameplay perspective ... totally.
But do you seriously think that FFG will not release new models from the new movies, even if they're fundamentally the same stat-wise? (Which they're unlikely to be - see other threads re: rear arc firing TIEs and T-70 X-Wings)
From a marketing and business perspective it is pretty much obligatory, and may even be required under their newly extended licensing terms.
Even all of that aside, who's not going to want to see the new designs on the table in miniature form?
-
The Rebels are the Resistance now, and the Empire is the First Order now.
This has huge implications for our favourite game!
Is your favorite game The Resistance, too?
LOL! (or is that Callooh, Callay!?)
-
The Rebels are the Resistance now, and the Empire is the First Order now.
This has huge implications for our favourite game!
Could we be looking at having the one game with different time periods (as Imperial Assault is designed to be), or will we be looking at a separate new game?
-
Not liking this so much. Things don't get named "first" or "one" until there is a second. Calling something the "first order" implies that there have been additional orders since then, but that text is in the present tense.
So, so, so very true!
-
This guy, right here.
It's not super clear in this grab, but if you look closely when the shot is moving, the helmet has some interesting bumps on top(!)
PSA: The word "die" is singular, "dice" is plural.
in X-Wing
Posted · Edited by maxam
Yes it is, I could not agree more as far as day to day conversational language is concerned.
HOWEVER - in some cases, particularly legal or rules systems specific definitions are important.
In these cases, clearly defined terms give a common ground for rulings and judgments to be made.
Irrespective of how a given term is used in general parlance - the given legal system or ruleset overrides this within it's context.
If a game system uses "Dice" to refer to single or multiple polyhedral random number generators, then within the context of that system any ruling or rules interpretation is obliged to abide by said usage.
In the context of X-Wing, FFG repeatedly uses the term "Die" for singular and "Dice" for multiple.
Regardless of how you, I, or the public at large use the terms, in the context of X-Wing miniatures the "Die" means singular and "Dice" mean multiple.
EDIT: Reformatted paragraph