Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Gadge

In a hypothetical '2nd edition' game, what would you change?

Recommended Posts

My prediction:

The Second edition will be a streamlining and revision of the First edition, but will throw out some controversial but well-loved elements.

The Third edition will return to the roots of the First edition, but with unified mechanics. Unfortunately as it grows the rules bloat will make it much more difficult to attract new players.

Fourth Edition will offer radically new game play, but generally alienate fans of the prior editions, and will be retired prematurely.

Fifth Edition will return full circle to First edition flavor, but with the improved mechanics from Third and Fourth edition, but it will be too late to reunite the fan base.

 

:lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

 

Love it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would give each faction a small points bank, specific, to make them more distinct.

I.e. empire gets 2 points for every 50 points of ships to spend only on ordinance or modifications (100 point game 4 points). Rebeles get """" to spend on mechs or crew. Kind of a thing. Points and upgrades just used for an example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Primary Weapon Turrets only get +1 attack die for range 1 when the target is in the front arc.      

Thats going to seriously hurt a naked yt-2400 and ALL decimators.

 

How?   I keep hearing how this is going to hurt everything so bad.     Decimators have 3 attack all the time.

 

Please explain how it hurts them,   Now one has given a good explanation yet?   In most cases I get shot by decimators and turret ships out of arc 90% of the time.     

 

Those pilots will just have to learn to fly a little better to get the +1, just like everyone else.

 

The Decimator flies like a tank with an extra layer of rocks. very hard to keep a ship in one specific spot all the time. And the YT-2400, along with the generic YT-1300 that nobody uses anyway, only have 2 attack dice. This would make engine upgrade and expert handling even better, for their manuvering capabilities. Plus, what about the K-Wing, the only small ship turret? I could go on and on, but im going to conclude here.

 

 

 

It's pointless to argue with you.   Have you even flown Decimators their dial has no red and lots of maneuver I wish small ships had.     How would it make their engine upgrade and expert handling better?   

 

It's obvious that you are turret player and to argue the point with someone who doesn't want change for balance it pointless.    

 

Fine. I will give u that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

Primary Weapon Turrets only get +1 attack die for range 1 when the target is in the front arc.      

Thats going to seriously hurt a naked yt-2400 and ALL decimators.

 

How?   I keep hearing how this is going to hurt everything so bad.     Decimators have 3 attack all the time.

 

Please explain how it hurts them,   Now one has given a good explanation yet?   In most cases I get shot by decimators and turret ships out of arc 90% of the time.     

 

Those pilots will just have to learn to fly a little better to get the +1, just like everyone else.

 

The Decimator flies like a tank with an extra layer of rocks. very hard to keep a ship in one specific spot all the time. And the YT-2400, along with the generic YT-1300 that nobody uses anyway, only have 2 attack dice. This would make engine upgrade and expert handling even better, for their manuvering capabilities. Plus, what about the K-Wing, the only small ship turret? I could go on and on, but im going to conclude here.

 

 

 

It's pointless to argue with you.   Have you even flown Decimators their dial has no red and lots of maneuver I wish small ships had.     How would it make their engine upgrade and expert handling better?   

 

It's obvious that you are turret player and to argue the point with someone who doesn't want change for balance it pointless.    

 

Fine. I will give u that.

 

But what i meant to say was compared to other turret/large ships...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) turreted ships would have 4 firing arcs and the'd have to choose one as the end of their movement. Then either an Action or an upgrade (mod or crew) that allows them to choose two adjacent arcs to use.

 

2) Large ships should be able to angle their deflector shields to fore or aft, adding 1 defense die to the chosen section but removing one from the other. Requires a minimum of Agility 1.

 

3) Ordnance. There's a lot of good ideas already on the forum; use a couple of those,because anything is better than what we have now.

 

4) Use multi-colored dice like in Imperial Assault & Armada, to represent weak but accurate and strong but inaccurate weapons. Maybe even the Targeting requirement for Ordnance could be added as a die result to a specific die.

 

5) Add speed 4 turns & banks for faster ships.

 

6) Medium bases.

 

7) Slave-1 should be Scum only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My prediction:The Second edition will be a streamlining and revision of the First edition, but will throw out some controversial but well-loved elements.The Third edition will return to the roots of the First edition, but with unified mechanics. Unfortunately as it grows the rules bloat will make it much more difficult to attract new players.Fourth Edition will offer radically new game play, but generally alienate fans of the prior editions, and will be retired prematurely.Fifth Edition will return full circle to First edition flavor, but with the improved mechanics from Third and Fourth edition, but it will be too late to reunite the fan base.

That's an epic answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only just got into the game and only read the first page but....

I would like the ships and characters separate. You could print the char card like the ship is now but put the ship stats on and acrylic card that you place over the top.

This would let chars like Corran to fly in multiple ship types but you only get one Corran on the board.

This could be done now as a $40 card only upgrade to the current version too if FFG were interested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My prediction:The Second edition will be a streamlining and revision of the First edition, but will throw out some controversial but well-loved elements.The Third edition will return to the roots of the First edition, but with unified mechanics. Unfortunately as it grows the rules bloat will make it much more difficult to attract new players.Fourth Edition will offer radically new game play, but generally alienate fans of the prior editions, and will be retired prematurely.Fifth Edition will return full circle to First edition flavor, but with the improved mechanics from Third and Fourth edition, but it will be too late to reunite the fan base.

That's an epic answer.

No, all that would be Disasterously Dumb (D&D), you should do what Master Yoda says and Find the right Path, and accept your Fate. And if that doesn't work, just Fudge it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Id like to see FFG ease up on the power creep a bit and somehow reward players for using certain rarely used ships.

What about a theme for certain events where you get bonus squad pts to spend on your squad if it includes ship X for each faction.

This would make the game ore thematic. Rogue Squadron event anyone? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My first big bug bear is to get rid of the major penalty of landing half way across a rock.  Obstacles only affect you women you land on them, and hover affect you moving off them (even if your template goes over the rock).  It is a massively harsh penalty to be affected by the rock twice.

 

More balanced scenario gameplay.  I know there are plenty of scenarios and we tend to just ignore them, but I want to see even more emphasis put into them.

 

Make the Push the Limit action part of the base rules, allowing everyone to take a stress and perform a second action.  Though I would just add it as a function of the perform action step, take a second action, add a stress.  That way you remove some of the combat timing issues (think Isard/Engine), and open up card-based actions as well (rather than just action bar).  The purpose of adding this rule is to make stress functionally more important/useful to the game.  Currently, short of outside sources of stress there is really only K-turns/S-loops and the odd pilot ability which actually add stress.  I don't see why everyone should't be able to pull off some extreme maneuver shenanigans.  I'm sure someone will pop in and say, OMG, Fel will be broken if he gets an EPT as well as a PtL ability, but would he really?  Relative to the rest of the field, he actually gains less.  Generics actually improve way more relative to everything else.

 

Do something for ordnance.  Lots of viable options here.  Missile or Torpedo specific rules to illustrate their uses, i.e. missiles have homing type abilities (less agility), Torpedoes do lots of damage (add damage to any attack that hits).  Make TL have no range (or range 5).  Make ordnance usable out to range 5.  There is no reason a range 5 ruler couldn't go in a new base set.  Introduce new ordnance dice that have multi hits (perhaps a multi hit result, similar to Armada), less focus, or more crit results.       

 

Update the damage deck, though this is a given. 

 

Add a rule that means that all ships obstruct attacks (friendly included) (sort of like Tactical Jammer).  Allowing for protective formations.

 

Speaking of which, obstruction os determined by using the template flat and is always measured centre to centre.  This makes it way easier to determine obstruction bonuses.      

 

 

 

But...most importantly, keep all the ships and pilots and tokens exactly the same, just replace the base rules.  Let's face it, if they try and invalidate all our ships it is destined to fail.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Lower the cost of the X-Wing.

2. Increase the cost of turrets.

3. Every bump does 1 point of damage to both.

4. Have epic ships ignore one hit from beam weapons, as long as they have shields (ordnance fix).

5. Scratch Biggs.

Edited by Rumar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Lower the cost of the X-Wing.

2. Increase the cost of turrets.

3. Every bump does 1 point of damage to both.

4. Have epic ships ignore one hit from beam weapons, as long as they have shields (ordnance fix).

5. Scratch Biggs.

1. And 2. By how much, one or two points? I assume you mean PWT, HLC outrider and secondary turrets already have sufficient cost.

3. Rocks make you roll for damage, but bumping is automatic hits? Someone doesn't like being blocked all the time.

4. Too fiddling, is this basically blaster armor or rating one? Rating of two cancels two hits, for extra tough huge Ships? I almost want to say it might be better that Torps do one more hit per attack on large and huge, and missiles do one more on small ships.

5. No more Biggs? But he would be even better if he were 24 or 23 points!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I already started writing a 2nd edition.

 

Biggest changes are:

removing the nubs so piloting is better for avoiding bumps, and forming up.

Allowing pilots to transition to other ships where appropriate

fixing the Falcon Uniqueness 

fixing turrets with a blind spot or soft spot so that flying ships can fight them 

fixing obstacle placement and leaving the board

fixing action abuse like target lock and boost/barrel roll

fixing weapons systems like Ion cannon on the defender, synchronised fire systems, torpedo hit/damage ratios, Missile hit/damage Ratios

 

All on a release system that allows seasonal meta adjustments to points

retention of current models and that ability to continue to sell product.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a second edition game, I would make missiles and torpedos work like Bombs that can fly for multiple turns.

 

Have some templates like the Senator's Shuttle from the starting scenerio for munitions, with an agility, PS, and maneuvers that you choose when it's the missile's activation phase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I already started writing a 2nd edition.

 

Biggest changes are:

removing the nubs so piloting is better for avoiding bumps, and forming up.

Allowing pilots to transition to other ships where appropriate

fixing the Falcon Uniqueness 

fixing turrets with a blind spot or soft spot so that flying ships can fight them 

fixing obstacle placement and leaving the board

fixing action abuse like target lock and boost/barrel roll

fixing weapons systems like Ion cannon on the defender, synchronised fire systems, torpedo hit/damage ratios, Missile hit/damage Ratios

 

All on a release system that allows seasonal meta adjustments to points

retention of current models and that ability to continue to sell product.

I'm sorry but there's a lot of stuff on this list that I didn't think had problems. Are people abusing TL? It's a basic action! BR is the standard post maneuver movement, it already got a fx for large ships. Large ship boosting remains an issue.

I guess by Falcon Uniqueness you are meaning why is there a difference in stats between ORS and the named pilots. Yeah I guess the Falcon title should have included an extra mod slot, with a mod upgrade like the Transport gets (two hull, one shield, and plus one attack (and missile) for like 15 points or so.

How are the rules about obstacles and leaving the board broken?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if GrimmyV is referring to this or not but a failed Target Lock, and Boost can be done intentionally in order to pre-measure range and maneuvers, and some people exploit this to gain an advantage. I don't recall any way BR can be exploited like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well as I said before if I do any changes with the core set I will also released an update pack for all core sets sold so that people with the first core set can simply convert their 1st edition to a second edition.

 

So some things I would include, how about new damage cards. This is what I will add to the damage deck

 

Ship- some are no brainers but how about 

  • Astromech Lost Discard one <astromech> or <salvaged astromech> upgrade card then flip this card over
  • Passenger Hit Discard one <crew> upgrade card then flip this card over
  • Stabilizer Loose Cannot perform K-turns or S-loop maneuvers. Action: roll an attack die, on a <hit> or <focus> result flip this card face down.

Also to keep the ration the same here is a new pilot damage card

  • Wounded Pilot You cannot spend focus or evade tokens

and I would add 2 more direct hit cards to keep the ratio in the damage deck fairly the same as it is now.

 

As for obstacles I would add in the debris clouds in the core set.

 

That's all I can think of for now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3. Rocks make you roll for damage, but bumping is automatic hits? Someone doesn't like being blocked all the time.

4. Too fiddling, is this basically blaster armor or rating one? Rating of two cancels two hits, for extra tough huge Ships? I almost want to say it might be better that Torps do one more hit per attack on large and huge, and missiles do one more on small ships.

 

3. I don't mind the possibility to block your opponent, but I want to punish blocking your own ships and I see no other way to do it.

4. The shields of huge ships block 1 point of damage from non-ordnance attacks. Not that complicated, is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

- Attack and defense dice should have extra symbols like those in Edge of the Empire or Imperial Assault, that let you do other things unique to your ship, pilot or upgrades. That opens up more design space, while not requiring extra rolls. (For example, this would allow for decoupling accuracy from damage while rolling just once)

- All cards should stop using the confusing ambiguous version of English they currently use, and instead use a more formal English, so that a sentence states what it means, without any ambiguity. Then get rid of the FAQ.

- Decouple pilots and ships. Let pilots bring their own actions that are added to those of the ship. For example, X-Wing has Target Lock. Wedge has Barrel Roll. Luke has Focus. Luke on an X-Wing can Focus and Target Lock. Wedge can Target Lock and Barrel Roll.

- Cooperative scenario mode. Make some kind of Enemy AI maneuver deck and event deck and let human players cooperate against the game or scenario deck, like in FFG's The Lord of the Rings Card Game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3. Rocks make you roll for damage, but bumping is automatic hits? Someone doesn't like being blocked all the time.

4. Too fiddling, is this basically blaster armor or rating one? Rating of two cancels two hits, for extra tough huge Ships? I almost want to say it might be better that Torps do one more hit per attack on large and huge, and missiles do one more on small ships.

3. I don't mind the possibility to block your opponent, but I want to punish blocking your own ships and I see no other way to do it.

4. The shields of huge ships block 1 point of damage from non-ordnance attacks. Not that complicated, is it?

Oh, huge ships get a free Evade token per attack if their shields are still up when being attacked by primary weapons (and cannon and turret upgrades).Ok. But only from non-huge ships, right? A little fiddley but I supposed not any more complicated than remembering the range bonuses.

Well maybe not an evade token, because there's some ships that ignore those or streal them and stuff. I guess you just have to set aside a green die that has the evade facing up before rolling for defense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

- Attack and defense dice should have extra symbols like those in Edge of the Empire or Imperial Assault, that let you do other things unique to your ship, pilot or upgrades. That opens up more design space, while not requiring extra rolls. (For example, this would allow for decoupling accuracy from damage while rolling just once)

- All cards should stop using the confusing ambiguous version of English they currently use, and instead use a more formal English, so that a sentence states what it means, without any ambiguity. Then get rid of the FAQ.

- Decouple pilots and ships. Let pilots bring their own actions that are added to those of the ship. For example, X-Wing has Target Lock. Wedge has Barrel Roll. Luke has Focus. Luke on an X-Wing can Focus and Target Lock. Wedge can Target Lock and Barrel Roll.

- Cooperative scenario mode. Make some kind of Enemy AI maneuver deck and event deck and let human players cooperate against the game or scenario deck, like in FFG's The Lord of the Rings Card Game.

Something tells me the FFG folks are not English majors, but maybe they need to hire some grammarians or lawyers to edit their card text. Maybe even an IT coder. I do agree that some cards and rules can have multiple interpretations, but it's not like the game was written in a different language. Sometimes all the cards need are a few punctuation marks and things become much clearer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something tells me the FFG folks are not English majors, but maybe they need to hire some grammarians or lawyers to edit their card text. Maybe even an IT coder. I do agree that some cards and rules can have multiple interpretations, but it's not like the game was written in a different language. Sometimes all the cards need are a few punctuation marks and things become much clearer.

 

It's not a different language, but like all natural languages, it is quite prone to ambiguities.

If you are writing something and your intention is not to make it look pretty or poetic, but 100% clear because what you are writing is rules text (and cards count as rule overrides), you cannot use the grammatical constructions that FFG use in most of their cards. You need to write it as methodically and aseptic as possible.

 

When they write "At [certain phase] when [condition 1], if [condition 2], you may [effect 1]. Then [effect 2]."

- maybe 33% of us understands that if [condition 1] is met, [effect 2] always triggers because it's out of the first sentence that has the "if".

- another 33% of us understands that you need both condition [1] and [2]. And then effects [1] and [2] trigger. But the effects are optional because "may" affects both.

- another 33% of us understands that both conditions must be met, then the first effect is optional, but the second is not.

- and the final 1% is the developer that wrote that card, the QA people that let that wording pass, and the guy whose job is to write the FAQ.

 

FGG use that sentence structure all over the place. And an evidence that it is a bad choice of "English" is that almost all new cards they release have an entry in the FAQ.

Would it really harm sales if they worded it like:

"At [certain phase], if [condition 1] and also [condition 2], then you may [effect 1] and also [effect 2]."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said, punctuation. It's important. For some reason they seem adverse to using commas. Or maybe they are under the impression that periods aren't a full stop to a single thought. It does need to stop. Why do they continue to use that structure?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I already started writing a 2nd edition.

 

Biggest changes are:

removing the nubs so piloting is better for avoiding bumps, and forming up.

Allowing pilots to transition to other ships where appropriate

fixing the Falcon Uniqueness 

fixing turrets with a blind spot or soft spot so that flying ships can fight them 

fixing obstacle placement and leaving the board

fixing action abuse like target lock and boost/barrel roll

fixing weapons systems like Ion cannon on the defender, synchronised fire systems, torpedo hit/damage ratios, Missile hit/damage Ratios

 

All on a release system that allows seasonal meta adjustments to points

retention of current models and that ability to continue to sell product.

I'm sorry but there's a lot of stuff on this list that I didn't think had problems. Are people abusing TL? It's a basic action! BR is the standard post maneuver movement, it already got a fx for large ships. Large ship boosting remains an issue.

I guess by Falcon Uniqueness you are meaning why is there a difference in stats between ORS and the named pilots. Yeah I guess the Falcon title should have included an extra mod slot, with a mod upgrade like the Transport gets (two hull, one shield, and plus one attack (and missile) for like 15 points or so.

How are the rules about obstacles and leaving the board broken?

 

 

 

Yes Target Lock, Boost, Barrel Roll are often abused allowing a player to check range or jump into a position without risk and let it roll back and take another action if for some reason It cannot be completed. Its often especially powerful to do amongst rocks where you want that range 1 but didn't want to risk flying onto the rock. At all levels of play I've seen players attempt a Target Lock against a ship out of range just to measure.

The common consensus has been you declare the action, it happens, if it couldn't happen then too bad the action is lost. No abuse.

For Boost and Barrel Roll you can fall off the table but somehow not hit rocks wtf? Common feeling has been if you roll or boost onto a rock you should suffer the consequences. Boosting into a Bump is fine, no different than a normal 1 manoeuvre but barrel roll is a bit trickier. Currently I have been declaring that if you barrel onto another ship your barrel falls off the side they are hanging off or stop on the near side if the barrel into a large base. Leave the ships touching as there was an overlap and give the Barrelling ship a stress.

 

Table edge rules just suck. 1mm on the edge and you're dead. Obstacles always have a 2 wide corridor up a side. Its unnecessary to be so explicit and forces a particular behaviour on table edges.

Thoughts among the people I have talked about it with like the idea that a ship is only lost if it has more than 2 corners off the mat OR if it is off the mat and cannot move wholly back into the play area with its next move.

Then with the no nubs movement and the rule that you cannot voluntarily make a ship leave the table in anyway fixes a lot of table edge drama.

 

Dual Falcon was so very bad for the game. It killed the uniqueness of the ship and then with the turrets issues became an extreme Negative Play Experience. Dual Decimator has a bad feeling but nothing so bad as Dual Falcon. Yes as you said it could have probably had a fat title card. My thoughts on the game have always been to have a single ship base with base stats and then you add pilots, saves a lot of cardboard, and points listings could have been online for meta and game balance updates. There was probably some business reason that forced them this way, but the lack of adaptability that could exist has and will hamper growth and game maintenance.

 

Turrets, particularly Outrider, Falcon and Decimator all have 2 weapons systems that aim and fire independently, but game wise those guns where jammed into one attack even when in only about a 3 degree window to the front can both those guns hit the same target. It was a neglectful design to try and match the way fighters worked. The Slave1 with its rear arc at full power and the Lambda with no rear arc are more examples of weapons system failures. Finally there is the B-wing and Tie Defender, ships designed to use and fire multiple weapons systems in fire arrays but always seem to be stuck gamewise with a 3-4 dice attack and nothing special.

 

Building the Falcon under these 'NEW' 2nd ed rules, it would have a crew requirement to fire a 2nd weapon, 2 pilot options that can't also fire weapons, the Quad Laser Cannon Pods would fire as 2 shots, Range 2-3 with 1 dice that does +2 Damage if they hit. If you are shooting the defenders front arc then the defender rolls 1 less defence dice. The Falcon itself runs Lando, Nein, Blount and Cracken + a systems crew at Death Star 2. The Falcon has a stupid amount of unique mods including a 3brained AI with high end slicer capabilities. The Falcon has system jammers  No way should there ever be two with the same game stats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...