Giledhil reacted to Kehl_Aecea in Opinion: FFG Dropped the Ball on the B-Wing (Thematically)
If the E/2 gives a gunner slot, I think that would solve a LOT of potential issues. Heck, I'm sure it would've been a gunner slot in 1.0 had that kind of upgrade been a thing in the day.
Giledhil got a reaction from ClassicalMoser in Opinion: FFG Dropped the Ball on the B-Wing (Thematically)
I really hoped with the reedition of the B-wing, they would do something to add some flavour to this classic ship... but no.
I think our only hope is FFG finally realizing cannons need to be priced depending on your primary weapon value, if you want those 3 attack ships to use them.
In the meantime, B-wings are just beautiful, but boring game-wise.
Giledhil reacted to DexterOnone in Opinion: FFG Dropped the Ball on the B-Wing (Thematically)
I’ve said before that FFG missed a trick with Cannons in 2.0.
There was a opportunity for them to be implemented as upgrades to the primary weapon rather than being independent weapons in their own right. For example, HLC could have awarded a bonus red dice at range 2-3 in the bullseye arc, and tractor beam could give you the option of cancelling one or more results to apply tractor tokens. That would have allowed the effects to stack on a ship with multiple cannon slots, like the B-Wing...
Maybe the option for the B-Wing is a configuration that awards a bonus attack after performing an attack which deals no damage? That would give the option of using a jamming or tractor beam as the first shot and following up with HLC or a Primary attack...
Giledhil reacted to ClassicalMoser in Opinion: FFG Dropped the Ball on the B-Wing (Thematically)
Not meaning to be pessimistic, and purely out of desire to see positive improvement, I have to say that the new B-Wing doesn't feel thematic to the true chassis at all.
To start off, I'm absolutely not going to disagree that it is very well priced, has excellent pilots for the chassis (and will probably get more), and is doing quite well competitively. But it almost seems to me that the developers just forgot what the B-Wing was supposed to be when they redesigned it for 2.0. They made it a beefy 3-attack ship that's slow, but knife-fights pretty well. The linked focus-roll was a great nod to the gyroscopic stabilizers as well. It's also pretty aggressively priced to make up for its poor maneuverability.
But the issue I have is that this kind of misses the mark of its intended role within the Rebel fleet. While it certainly could knife-fight if it had to, its primary role was as a bomber and (especially) a heavy cannon ship. They gave it two cannon slots, which seems nice at first, except that there's really not much that these have to offer a 3-primary ship. HLC certainly can help if the bullseyes line up, and Autoblasters with Marksmanship would push a crit through just fine, but the cost will rarely be justified, and especially taking two cannons on this chassis would be a pretty silly proposition.
Yet according to the Canon section of Wookiepedia:
These things didn't just carry two cannons: They had three. And that was just the standard-issue factory model.
Of course Gameplay > Fluff and I'm not suggesting that we give it a 3rd cannon option, but it doesn't make sense that the cannon-carrier in the game has much less reason to carry a cannon than the Scyk, the Upsilon, or the T-70 (?!?!).
Of course, the damage is done, and there's only so much you can do at this point. The question remains of what they could do to improve the chassis.
The least favorable option would be to errata a ship ability onto the B-Wing. While they obviously aren't going to do this, it makes me wonder why they gave "Linked Battery" to the Upsilon and not to the B-Wing? It would have been a perfectly thematic and balanced fit, at least when priced as high as a B-Wing should be.
Another fairly easy fix, but one that would be fairly unprecedented, would be for FFG to make a change in the point cost document and do one of three things:
1. If the cost of the B-Wing were raised by 5 points across the board, but was then allowed to equip any two cannons for free, suddenly that makes it a toolbox ship that's a bit more expensive than an X-Wing, but has a pretty good variety of options for its armament.
2. Or instead they could keep the cost similar and give a simple discount on the cannons (by 2 points or so) as an incentive to make up for the fact that a 3-primary ship doesn't really need a different arc-locked attack type.
3. Or they could do a "buy one get one free" on the cannons. Buy one cannon and get a second of equal or lower cost for free. Lovely toolbox mechanism.
An entirely different route they could take, on the other hand, would be a gunboat-style configuration suite. Two different configurations makes up for the lack of a ship ability, and could be costed like the Aethersprite's configs to maintain balance. For example:
Linked Battery: When you perform a (cannon) attack, roll 1 extra die. – 7 points
Advanced Avionics Package: After you perform a non-(ordnance) attack, you may perform a bonus attack from an equipped (cannon) you have not used this round. - 12 points
This is kind of spitballing, but I'm curious what the community has to say. What do you think would help the B-Wing find its own niche? I really love the B-Wing. It's just about my favorite Star Wars ship, but I find the way it plays right now fairly boring.
Giledhil reacted to PorgLeader in X-Wing: Bad Game Design - Focus
Gripe about Focus all you want, but the real downfall of X-Wing was the 2 Bank Left maneuver. 2 Bank Right was powerful enough as it was, but pairing it with a Left took things too far. Now every dial in the game has to have it just to be competitive. Ridiculous!
Giledhil reacted to DXCrazytrain in Let's fix turn one.
Rule change proposal, on turn one and only on turn one, if you dial in a maneuver that flies a ship off the board, you are allowed to change that maneuver. FFG has made quality of life erratas to deal with NPEs before and I think a change like this would be good for the health of the game and for sportsmanship in general. We're supposed to "Fly Casual" after all.
Giledhil reacted to Bucknife in A fix for epic?
I've posted this idea in various forms in other threads, so here's the scoop.
In my fairly limited experience, Epic's biggest issues were :
1. Cumbersome/slow gameplay.
2. Piles of cards were a nightmare.
3. Abilities/upgrades/ordinance becoming horribly imbalanced on a larger pionts scale.
I'm no genius, but this is what I'd propose:
Use all the same dials and pilots from X-Wing 2.0, but entirely different upgrades, points and stats (which would all be handled by the ffg app).
1. All non-epic ships use 1/2 HP of their normal X-Wing HP, ROUND DOWN. (T65=2hull+1s, TIE=1hull, etc).
2. All generics would track damage with on-board tokens rather than drawing damage cards. (Easy to do when most ships have 1 or 2 HP.)
2.1. Each player would only draw damage cards for their command ship and/or squadron leader (like Luke/Vader).
This would probably necessitate an alternate damage deck, which I'd be totally fine with as long as it was also fair and usable for the epic ships. this alone, I believe would be a solid foundation for a quick and exciting larger scale dogfight, without changing attack values or agility
3. Alternate balanced ordinance and massively changed upgrades, only accessible to your Aces and Command Ships. (Seriously... generics shouldn't ever get upgrade...unless they're scum, but that's another argument for another topic).
That's it! That's basically how I'd do it, anyway.
Giledhil reacted to thespaceinvader in Unpopular Opinion Thread
If you have the better tactics, winning even harder doesn't help much (especially in a non-tournament situation).
With zero variance (assumign equal lists, which is a dubious assumption to be fair, though, with equal lists, the variance of a single die roll at the start of the game makes the single biggest difference to how likely you are to win...), there are two options: you outplay your opponent and win, or your opponent outplays you and you lose.
With any amount of variance there are four options: Outplay and win, outplay and lose, be outplayed and win, be outplayed and lose.
Two of those options reduce the impact of skill on the game.
This argument isn't about skill and risk mitigation, it's an argument about the game having options which reduce the impact of skill in it. ANd that's not incorrect, but variance makes that worse, not better. If you manage to catch Soontir at range 1 (with a block, say, or with a move that he thought he could boost roll out of but failed to), with target lock and focus, and you blank out, reroll, and blank out, variance has made nothing of your skill.
Except not all rolls are equal. The single roll that lucks into killing one of your ships that statistically would have survived average rolls (or conversely, fails to kill one of theirs that average rolls would have killed) makes way more difference than any other roll. Losing your Soontir in the opening engagement at range 3 makes way more difference than losing him at the bottom of round 10 when you have a significant advantage in ship trades.
In short, making games dicier doesn't make them skillier, and I really don't understand the assertion that it does.
Giledhil reacted to Bucknife in So Adepticon is getting some announcements... But which ones!?
A revamp for epic would be so easy since they've got the app now.
Make it a new game that can use the exact Xwing models and dials, but has completely different points and stats:
X-Wings with only 2 hull and 1 shield.
TIEs with only 1 hull.
New Epic only damage decks. New pilot cards and abilities.
It'd be super easy to revamp.