Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I am surprised so many people here are objecting to or just realizing that these games are CCGs with miniatures. That's how they made money.

Personally, if I was AMG I would have moved X-wing to be a Squadron based game instead of what we have now. I.e. you need to make groups of 2-4 of the same ship type as a core i.e. a squadron of Ties, X-wings, A-wings, Defenders, Z-95s, etc. Then, made some of the one-offs purchasable as singles to "match the fluff".

That would encourage folks to buy multiples of the same fighter for their lists. Like in early editions you had the Tie swarm as a viable tactics and build.

Instead, it played like this strange mish-mash of ships and pilots all scrambling around independently doing "stuff".

 LunarSol wrote:
Most of the time its creatives working within the limitations of the business they're a part of. Blind boxes are mostly a way to provide a limited SKU to make a product viable for large retail chains to get enough volume to make prepainted plastic viable. X-Wings cards were a response for people's demands for rebalancing in an era when digital solutions weren't seen as viable.

Of course, how these systems are used matters quite a bit and we've certainly seen greed push things too far. Increasing chase rarity that's intentionally imbalanced or putting patch cards in risky high priced huge ships for an otherwise niche mode and the like. Noble intentions, but bad outcomes.

X-Wing 2.0 always felt like the nobelist of intestions to me, but it paid for all the greed of 1.0.

The objective for the game from a business point of view is important too. We as wargamers tend to assume longevity is beneficial and desirable - in that context X-Wing was essentially a failure. But if the business objective was to make a metric ton of money over a few years, ride it hot then dump the IP to move onto the next thing, it was a massive success. Not for consumers ofc, but who gives a toss about them.

Honestly considering customers had issues getting hold of game stock and how powerful the SW IP is you could argue its still a failure because they could have ridden that high profit high success margin for a LOT longer if they'd made some improvements.

They could even have continued by dropping pre-painted (or charged a premium) and then sold brushes and paints with branding on them or paired up with an existing paint brand etc...


Of course when your IP is held by another party there's always the issue that you can invest and reinvest and build for the future and then have the whole thing swept out from under you for doing nothing wrong; but the firm wanting more money or taking so much it cripples reinvestment and so forth

I wonder what’s to come now.

Not pooping on the land based Star Wars game, for me it’s always been the space battles that made Star Wars, especially the battle over Endor, the super cut of which I can watch again and again and again. Spesh due to the galaxy’s most destructive “bug on a windscreen” inadvisable interface.

And X-Wing, once you were up to speed, absolutely replicated that really nicely, giving the feel of a dogfight, with preset moves for each ship giving each a potential edge. A newcomer just needed a friendly group willing to walk them through it and go easy the first few games, because the learning curve is steep. So steep that without a guiding hand to talk you through it, you’d get your arse kicked so fast and so squarely, I found myself unable to learn anything.

Also doesn’t help I couldn’t roll for toffee 🤣🤣🤣

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Not pooping on the land based Star Wars game, for me it’s always been the space battles that made Star Wars

Could just be you've never seen the land game done right



This is my local club!

That does look cool! And would certainly make me want to give the land based Star Wars games a try.

Slipspace wrote:

X-Wing had a really well-run competitive scene, supported by FFG, which I suspect had some effect on "forcing" people into 2.0. I'd also argue that the end of 1.0 was an absolutely miserable experience from a balance point of view.

I stopped playing X-wing near to the end and switched to Armada precisely because of how gross the meta was.

FFG basically admitted they were trying to break the game at that point in order to figure out what not to do in 2.0.

Hadn't heard that. It was my understanding that part of the problem was the lag between development and release so that FFG were never playing the same game as us out in the wild. So we'd get these six month gaps of broken mess followed by a different broken mess with fixes coming well after the meta has shifted.

I think they succeeded because 2.0 was a much better game, IMO. The business side of converting from 1.0 to 2.0 was the biggest problem they had. Even then, I never really thought it was all that bad. The individual conversion kits were relatively cheap and FG made an effort to make sure they were generous with the cards in them and the kits remained in production for a long time.

Yes, 2.0 was a much-needed reset. I thought the conversion kits were brilliant and the concern about converting large collections overblown. I only had a large collection of 1.0 stuff because of having to buy out of faction ships to get the cards I needed for my preferred faction. I didn't actually play most of it and so I didn't bother to convert most of it. Even I wanted to it wasn't like I had to convert everything all at once. Not having to buy out of faction for upgrades was a big enough upside that I think would have made 2.0 cheaper in the long run.

 Easy E wrote:
I am surprised so many people here are objecting to or just realizing that these games are CCGs with miniatures. That's how they made money.

Personally, if I was AMG I would have moved X-wing to be a Squadron based game instead of what we have now. I.e. you need to make groups of 2-4 of the same ship type as a core i.e. a squadron of Ties, X-wings, A-wings, Defenders, Z-95s, etc. Then, made some of the one-offs purchasable as singles to "match the fluff".

That would encourage folks to buy multiples of the same fighter for their lists. Like in early editions you had the Tie swarm as a viable tactics and build.

Instead, it played like this strange mish-mash of ships and pilots all scrambling around independently doing "stuff".

The Epic Battles Multiplayer Expansion did that. Squadrons and Wing Leaders are a thing.

You are a wing leader.
Your wingmates must be 2, 3, 4, or 5 other ships of your ship type.
While you defend, up to 2 of your wingmates in the attack arc may suffer 1 Hit or Critical Hit damage to cancel a matching result.

That didn't seem to sell well, and I never really heard anything about anyone playing using it much.
And the marketing didn't push it at all.

Well, I was not following super-close but sounds like I missed it then, Skinnereal.

I am still pretty convinced that trying to design a competitive game is a bad idea. Short term it works great, but mid to long term it is a flop.

As the developer, you run out of design space, can't keep up with the Meta, your design to production window is too long, and the Comp players have 0 loyalty to your game. As soon as they perceive it as broken, they are onto the next "Great" thing.

Meanwhile, basement and Non-Comp gamers keep on chugging along and buying stuff because they like the idea of playing games in your setting better than actually playing the games. Ultimately, as a Developer I would prefer that steady income stream and profit margin to plan with.

 Easy E wrote:
Well, I was not following super-close but sounds like I missed it then, Skinnereal.

I am still pretty convinced that trying to design a competitive game is a bad idea. Short term it works great, but mid to long term it is a flop.

As the developer, you run out of design space, can't keep up with the Meta, your design to production window is too long, and the Comp players have 0 loyalty to your game. As soon as they perceive it as broken, they are onto the next "Great" thing.

Meanwhile, basement and Non-Comp gamers keep on chugging along and buying stuff because they like the idea of playing games in your setting better than actually playing the games. Ultimately, as a Developer I would prefer that steady income stream and profit margin to plan with.

There’s a reason that every game or company that is successful in this niche is because the understand the churn.
As much as you might think that the basement dweller can sustain a successful company, there’s a reason why those kinds of companies remain small.
My buddy did that exact thing and I’ll tell you right now, it’s not enough to sustain making a living for a single proprietor let alone a profitable game.
That’s why every large company keeps the churn going with new games, models and editions.

One can’t turn a healthy profit and remain sustainable otherwise.
The gaming niche has always had the aspect of chasing the new shiny.
I honestly doubt that will ever change.

I don’t think he’s saying what you think. Chasing new shiny models and rules are different from chasing the tournament scene and catering to meta-chasing gamers. One churn is adding to the whole experience while the other only adds crunch for the crunch fans while making the game less enjoyable for the casuals and narrative players.

Frostgrave has its 17th expansion released or something, and you can hardly get more narrative than Frostgrave.
So I think Easy E is up to something. But I don't think that's the main problem of X-Wing, or it wouldn't have to be. Star Trek Attack Wing always strongly supported the narrative side and stopped official support for tournaments at some point, Armada has two narrative campaigns to work with and both are similar games.
All of these would do better with stronger support from the companies producing them, you could churn out X-Wing scenarios for years if you wanted to. (Did they ever? I haven't been really following X-Wing that much, all I heard back in 1st edition was that people saw Attack Wings narrative approach as a plus compared to X-Wing).

Yeah, somehow Attack Wing is still around but X-wing/Armada is dead. Interesting.



All that said, for a product line/business to last more than 5 years is unusual. Something like 95%+ fail before the 5 year mark. The fact that these lasted as long as they did is an outlier.

Has Attack Wing gotten any better with the scaling issues? I remember they were pretty extreme

If I was really cynical person, I should release a Castle in the Sky PDF booklet that stats up Armada ships for use in Castles in the Sky rules system.

Hmmm.... Sorry, I have to go; right now!

 Hulksmash wrote:
Has Attack Wing gotten any better with the scaling issues? I remember they were pretty extreme

Unfortunately not, they just continued to produce their Heroclix models that were all over the place, even the Xindi ships they produced for STAW specifically and were within one faction had a different scale.
They're doing Into the Unknown now in a different but apparently consistent scale.

I don’t get the scale problem. The ships are all sized to put on a board, whereas in scale, fitting the Defiant and the 5km Dominion battleship on the same board would be a pain. And think of the cost.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I don’t get the scale problem. The ships are all sized to put on a board, whereas in scale, fitting the Defiant and the 5km Dominion battleship on the same board would be a pain. And think of the cost.

Well, most ships would fit in the 1:7000-9000 scale good enough. From the reactions I read and have also seen in real life when showing the game to people the scale is really what's putting people off. You want to recreate scenes from the shows but when that Bird of prey is larger than the D it breaks the immersion for many. Imagine an imperial knight having the same size as a Space Marine. Personally I've rescaled my collection on the extreme ends, yes, that Dominion battleship cost me more than 100$ in pre-3D printing times and needed shipping and taxes from the US, but it's a beauty now and not smaller than the bug ships

 Ghool wrote:

There’s a reason that every game or company that is successful in this niche is because the understand the churn.
As much as you might think that the basement dweller can sustain a successful company, there’s a reason why those kinds of companies remain small.
My buddy did that exact thing and I’ll tell you right now, it’s not enough to sustain making a living for a single proprietor let alone a profitable game.
That’s why every large company keeps the churn going with new games, models and editions.

One can’t turn a healthy profit and remain sustainable otherwise.
The gaming niche has always had the aspect of chasing the new shiny.
I honestly doubt that will ever change.

Well you have two models - product churn to keep customers buying, and customer churn to keep new people buying. A company like GW plans for both. Long term historical traditional wargame companies (often 1-3 man bands) will rely on a churn of customers as new people get into their period and scale, but only a few are stalwarts and the rest part time.

I do think it's unlikely we won't have any Star Wars space combat game out there. And maybe we'll see the core of the game end up back with FFG, and sold under a board game model instead.

(So a big box with a full game for two people, fixed lists, and future expansions that add scenarios and new lists with their attendant ships).

 ingtaer wrote:
It increased in popularity to be the second most sold wargame behind 40k...

For a brief period when they had the Force Awakens Starter in conjunction with the Force Awakens movie release and that starter was available in stores like Walmart and Waterstones and such at the peak of nu-Star Wars anticipation.

Ironically, GW tried to tap into that with very basic 40K-/AoS-themed board games that could also go through these big chains alongside stuff like Monopoly and Codenames, rather than traditional hobby stores. But it was more a blip of Star Wars than a genuine long-term strategy for hobby/wargames (even X-wing).

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 ingtaer wrote:
It increased in popularity to be the second most sold wargame behind 40k...

For a brief period when they had the Force Awakens Starter in conjunction with the Force Awakens movie release and that starter was available in stores like Walmart and Waterstones and such at the peak of nu-Star Wars anticipation.

Ironically, GW tried to tap into that with very basic 40K-/AoS-themed board games that could also go through these big chains alongside stuff like Monopoly and Codenames, rather than traditional hobby stores. But it was more a blip of Star Wars than a genuine long-term strategy for hobby/wargames (even X-wing).

During 2nd edition.

On a more positive note?

Is there a community effort starting to emerge?

Aren't the cards free to print nowadays?

And for sure most of the ships are available as STL, even if they need to be rescaled. I know I printed myself an Assault Gunboat (what children nowadays call Star Wing) before they even released a model for it and it had the correct peg for X-wing bases and everything.

I imagine the dials will be by far the most annoying bits to make, unless someone makes bespoke STLs with engraved icons for each ship.

Dials could be replicated with cards for a low tech solution? Make one card listing all the ship’s dial options. And one card corresponding to each option. Place chosen card face down next to the ship.

Not as neat and tidy I’ll grant you, but seems practicable in a pinch, and just a little trust your opponent has been honest about the original dial’s actions.

I've seen producers make generic plastic dials with all the maneuvers on them. You'd just need the appropriate card that shows you the allowed maneuvers of the ship in question. Not the best solution maybe, but it also means you don't need unique dials for all the ships.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
On a more positive note?

Is there a community effort starting to emerge?

Pretty much all of the big name community leaders have banded together to announce they are keeping the game going, including tournament support.

From what I've seen in Armada circles the community leaders are all saying they won't back any community balancing/homebrew efforts until at least 2025, when the final (US only) Worlds competition is over. I don't love it, it's wasting all the momentum for the sake of one tourney scene. There's stuff in need of balancing and work now that won't happen til then (and likely won't at all, as interest dies off).

Billicus wrote:
From what I've seen in Armada circles the community leaders are all saying they won't back any community balancing/homebrew efforts until at least 2025, when the final (US only) Worlds competition is over. I don't love it, it's wasting all the momentum for the sake of one tourney scene. There's stuff in need of balancing and work now that won't happen til then (and likely won't at all, as interest dies off).

X-Wing is the same. It's brilliant to see the community take over so quickly, but really disappointing to stick to the current status quo for the next 9 months. AMG may call the current GT system "official" but the whole tournament scene has continued in spite of them, rather than because of them, over the last few years. X-Wing in particular has some balance issues with the current points. Putting aside the systemic issues of the lack of granularity in a 20-point system, there are a lot of Standard Loadout cards that are too cheap, mainly because they provide far too much health per point. I don't really understand not making some changes there within a reasonable timeframe as a stopgap to improve the health of the game before potentially bigger changes later.

Well, at least there’s something brewing in these earlier days. That has to be a positive?