Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Not entirely sure, but after watching the Clone Wars TV series a while back, I can't recall any of the ships having deflector shields. Seemed to me every time they were hit it looked their hull took the impact. Perhaps the Rebels added shields later, which would make sense, at least on the Y-Wing, to remove armour/aerodynamic panels since they won't be needed any longer. EDIT: The republic Y-Wing could have no shields, but a healthy dose of hull.
  2. Buying the limited-edition vulture ship to sell it later for a profit is exactly the same as buying stocks (or any other good) and then selling it later for a profit. This is, unfortunately, how today's twisted economic system works. The interesting thing is that some people think doing this on a plastic ship is evil, while doing it on a larger economic scale is not.
  3. OoALEJOoO

    Do I need it?

    I think its possible to remain 1ed, then only buy 2ed ships you like and "down-convert" for casual play. I haven't bought any 2ed ships but am contemplating buying the new 2ed A-Wing and mixing it with 1ed ships. Homebrew a 1ed conversion. The dial will remain 2ed and then assign some cost points to each pilot and which upgrades it can equip.
  4. I can't believe people are flaming Lance Jet Streamer only because he posts his opinion, well written and based on evidence. I feel he is a gamer who has spent enough time and money on X-Wing to care about the future of the game, just as I am, just as anybody is. Seeing things you don't like about the game and posting about it doesn't warrant people to ask you to go away. Posting comments like his only encourages FFG to do better and improve the game. Every time someone flames a comment like his, all you are doing is contributing to make X-Wing a worse game. You are the ones that are negative and making the game die, not Jet Streamer. I used to visit this forums very regularly while developing the Tactical Droid A.I. system for 1e. I just started visiting the forum again. I am very sad to see that the X-Wing community is getting more toxic by the minute.
  5. I think MathWing is a great tool but it still falls under the category of player theories (albeit a very elaborate one) because it lacks play-testing! Please correct me if I'm wrong here. MathWing's data can indeed give pointers on what ships feel overcosted, and therefore suggest guidance on better values. However, it just remains a very elaborate theory/model since there is no play-testing. In the modeling world, a model you have not validated remains uncertain. Furthermore, given the amount of variables, any model (MathWing) included would necessarily need to make a ton of assumptions. MathWing's assumptions are not even documented, but can be deduced following its author's work and results. Seriously, unless there is play-testing, it's just theory. I see zero play-testing. If players would spend 10% of the time they spend theorizing in actual play-testing, there would be much better discussions here. This is why FFG gives zero credibility to much of the stuff discussed here, including MathWing. I can't comment on who is right and who is wrong as far as point costs go. All I can comment is that I see a huge hole in the entire discussion: the feedback loop is not closed between the theory and the validation.
  6. There is literally thousands of threads where people share opinions about point cost changes and what not. The problem I see is that all this is just theory, speculation and what ifs... If a dedicated player, or better yet group of players, wants to throw some weight on suggestions and/or opinions on point costs, the best credible way to do so is implement some local changes, and play-test them. Find evidence, draw conclusions, post results. Otherwise, what makes you think your ideas/suggestions are in a better position that the ones from FFG? They are the actual game designers, that while not perfect, I assume at least do some play-testing of adjustments. Players do none, just post theories on forums. Not trying to start a war here, this is what I see on the forums. I would love to see player theories backed by play-testing. I understand the are practical limits to this such as time, but this is really the best way to make a point. I also understand the stance of why should be play-testing, is that why we are paying FFG to do? At the same time play-testing can be fun, so why not? All in all, a community can build the game together with FFG. At the end we all win.
  7. Quoting myself here. I guess a counter-argument would be that if they really wanted to have 10 levels that fit, they could have used 0-9 instead of 1-10.
  8. All this time I thought 1ed had IN 1-9 only because the number 10 wouldn't fit in the card...🤔
  9. OoALEJOoO

    gaming 'online'??

    May I suggest the Tactical Droid A.I. system. It can provide quite the challenge, follows all standard rules (no A.I. cheating), supports any pilot/upgrade and it has quick build pilot and squadron cards. It is a significant improvement over the HoTAC A.I. It currently fully supports 1ed but you can make it work for 2ed with minor tweaks. You can find it here: https://boardgamegeek.com/filepage/161995/tactical-droid-i-x-wing
  10. The guy who made a fool of himself with his "trade war" theories strikes again... You are correct my friend. Over and out.
  11. ...and you need to consult a neurologist and perhaps also a psychiatrist 😛
  12. The only conclusion I can draw from this thread is that people have mixed experiences. It could be that manufacturing variability is higher and some batches are better than others. I assume the ships are painted by hand in a systematic way. Perhaps the level of training and/or experience of some painters are better than others and thus consistency has dropped. I can speak only from the 2ed samples I saw at B&N last week. They looked inferior to the 1ed ships they had on the shelf right there.
  13. Did a trip to Barnes & Noble and saw 2ed product on the shelf. There is definitely a drop in quality on the 2ed ships. They also had 1ed ships on the shelf so I could compare side-by-side. The 2ed Firespray is probably the worst offender. It's paint-job seems done by an amateurish painter at best, same with the Fang. Even the 2ed TIE Fighter looked noticeably less well painted. The 2ed Y-Wing looks odd in a toyish way. I was on the fence for a long time. Too much BS going on with 2ed, I have now decided remain 1ed indefinitely. I will spend my table-top $$ on other games.
  14. ...and still labeled version 1.1 like the previous one. Talk about confusing players. Why bother creating revision numbers if not even the manufacturer respects them?
  15. My original idea for tracking was to have a printed power card like in the picture and placed next to the pilot card. Tokens would be placed on top of this card to track power. The fact that there is no tracking on the board might make it difficult. This is where @Azrapse's idea comes in. Ships without Shields would only use E and L.
  • Create New...