The reason why you see quantity over quality is fairly simple, and is largely a product of the meta caused by a single list, the TIE swarm. If you field three small ships with quality pilots versus a swarm...

http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/100003-share-your-house-rules/#entry995094

The reason why you see quantity over quality is fairly simple, and is largely a product of the meta caused by a single list, the TIE swarm. If you field three small ships with quality pilots versus a swarm...

Hence my attempt to promote an equalizer for those circumstances.

http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/100003-share-your-house-rules/#entry995094

I don't see why we need an equalizer. It's not imbalanced because taking three small ships is genuinely a bad idea. It's a bad idea in the same way that taking six HWK-290's with no upgrades will see you lose the game. The game is balanced, but it is still possible to write crap lists. A three small ship list will generally only be effective against squads of a similar size. In other situations, it will be weak. This is the trade off for having multiple elite pilots.

The reason why you see quantity over quality is fairly simple, and is largely a product of the meta caused by a single list, the TIE swarm. If you field three small ships with quality pilots versus a swarm...

Hence my attempt to promote an equalizer for those circumstances. http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/100003-share-your-house-rules/#entry995094

I don't see why we need an equalizer. It's not imbalanced because taking three small ships is genuinely a bad idea. It's a bad idea in the same way that taking six HWK-290's with no upgrades will see you lose the game. The game is balanced, but it is still possible to write crap lists. A three small ship list will generally only be effective against squads of a similar size. In other situations, it will be weak. This is the trade off for having multiple elite pilots.

If someone brings a crap list that's their fault. But how many mediocre players placed high in tournaments simply because they chose to fly a swarm? After all, that amount of dice each turn, especially with Howlrunner, goes a long way to averaging out dice rolls. I wonder how much more fun we might have by having the freedom to explore more upgrades on ships?

Happily, the league I'm in promotes list exploration, so if both parties agree to limit ships to 3 or 4, that is fine with us. But that won't help you develop a list for tournament play. Look at most of the comments on squad lists. It is rare that we tell someone that their 3-ship list full of upgrades is a good idea. Usually, the advice, nay, the necessity, is that the list has to be "dumbed down" to provide more ships at a lower quality level, because the list "needs" quantity.

Granted, my house rule won't help anyone prepare a tourney list either, because, thankfully, it's not an official rule. But I feel that some gaming groups might like to introduce this, or something similar, on specific nights/events to shake up the meta by reducing the risk against a swarm.

Note that the rule would only be in effect for a limited amount of time each game anyway, because it won't take more than a round or two for either side to be below the minimum limits.

If you want three-ship builds to be viable you've gotta fly 'em better than anybody else. Which is exactly what I plan to do.

...Or at least have fun trying!

Quantity is a quality of its own! it really doesn't matter if you go with quantity or quality if you are a skilled player. Both can win.

The reason why you see quantity over quality is fairly simple, and is largely a product of the meta caused by a single list, the TIE swarm. If you field three small ships with quality pilots versus a swarm...

Hence my attempt to promote an equalizer for those circumstances. http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/100003-share-your-house-rules/#entry995094

I don't see why we need an equalizer. It's not imbalanced because taking three small ships is genuinely a bad idea. It's a bad idea in the same way that taking six HWK-290's with no upgrades will see you lose the game. The game is balanced, but it is still possible to write crap lists. A three small ship list will generally only be effective against squads of a similar size. In other situations, it will be weak. This is the trade off for having multiple elite pilots.

Oh, don't get me wrong. I know the game is very well balanced. I just think that the meta suffers by having to account for the swarm. If someone cannot field 3 quality ships because they know they might run into a swarm, I feel that does the meta an injustice. If the swarm was not throwing a huge amount of dice into the battle, would we see more 3-ship builds? My guess is, "yes".

If someone brings a crap list that's their fault. But how many mediocre players placed high in tournaments simply because they chose to fly a swarm? After all, that amount of dice each turn, especially with Howlrunner, goes a long way to averaging out dice rolls. I wonder how much more fun we might have by having the freedom to explore more upgrades on ships?

Happily, the league I'm in promotes list exploration, so if both parties agree to limit ships to 3 or 4, that is fine with us. But that won't help you develop a list for tournament play. Look at most of the comments on squad lists. It is rare that we tell someone that their 3-ship list full of upgrades is a good idea. Usually, the advice, nay, the necessity, is that the list has to be "dumbed down" to provide more ships at a lower quality level, because the list "needs" quantity.

Granted, my house rule won't help anyone prepare a tourney list either, because, thankfully, it's not an official rule. But I feel that some gaming groups might like to introduce this, or something similar, on specific nights/events to shake up the meta by reducing the risk against a swarm.

Note that the rule would only be in effect for a limited amount of time each game anyway, because it won't take more than a round or two for either side to be below the minimum limits.

The only issue with limiting ship numbers, is playing imperials becomes VERY difficult.

All quantity limiting does is put different squads on top, not even them out. I am not sure how to win with 4 Tie fighters, so that means I now Can not fly an only Tie fighter list when quantities are limited. See what I mean? This just shifts the power to something else, which is helpful for the die hard 3 ship rebel players, but not for the people who love Tie fighters.

The game has the point based design for a reason.

And I think there is some incorrect mentality here. You don't have to build in a swarm counter to your lists to beat a swarm. A lot of it comes down to the in game flying and tactics you use. It's not the swarm's fault if you rush head on to meet them!

Just my 2 cents.

The only issue with limiting ship numbers, is playing imperials becomes VERY difficult.

All quantity limiting does is put different squads on top, not even them out. I am not sure how to win with 4 Tie fighters, so that means I now Can not fly an only Tie fighter list when quantities are limited. See what I mean? This just shifts the power to something else, which is helpful for the die hard 3 ship rebel players, but not for the people who love Tie fighters.

The game has the point based design for a reason.

And I think there is some incorrect mentality here. You don't have to build in a swarm counter to your lists to beat a swarm. A lot of it comes down to the in game flying and tactics you use. It's not the swarm's fault if you rush head on to meet them!

Just my 2 cents.

You have great points. If you had to fly only a max of 6 TIE Fighters, would it be possible to create a variety of lists that would fit within a 100 point cap (using upgrades), and still be both fun and competitive? I don't really know the answer to that and I would guess that many of us here couldn't answer that either. Which points to some room to explore within the meta, doesn't it? After all, we are only talking about one less ship from the current 7-ship swarms (8 seem less common to me now).

The only issue with limiting ship numbers, is playing imperials becomes VERY difficult.

All quantity limiting does is put different squads on top, not even them out. I am not sure how to win with 4 Tie fighters, so that means I now Can not fly an only Tie fighter list when quantities are limited. See what I mean? This just shifts the power to something else, which is helpful for the die hard 3 ship rebel players, but not for the people who love Tie fighters.

The game has the point based design for a reason.

And I think there is some incorrect mentality here. You don't have to build in a swarm counter to your lists to beat a swarm. A lot of it comes down to the in game flying and tactics you use. It's not the swarm's fault if you rush head on to meet them!

Just my 2 cents.

You have great points. If you had to fly only a max of 6 TIE Fighters, would it be possible to create a variety of lists that would fit within a 100 point cap (using upgrades), and still be both fun and competitive? I don't really know the answer to that and I would guess that many of us here couldn't answer that either. Which points to some room to explore within the meta, doesn't it? After all, we are only talking about one less ship from the current 7-ship swarms (8 seem less common to me now).

The three small ship list is a scissor to the swarm's rock. You auto lose because of a bad match up. It doesn't indicate that the swarm is all powerful and will destroy all. There is no need to limit the swarm just because an under powered list can't beat it.

You auto lose because of a bad match up.

When the majority of responses to the (age old) question of quality vs. quantity strongly advocate quantity and folks perceive an "auto lose", that is a problem. A problem large enough to require changes in the tournament rules? Hell, no!

I love the point system. I love the PS balance. I love the positive/negative effects of initiative. What irritates me is that I need to build lists to accommodate swarm spam because it means I cannot field more than two named pilots in most lists. Granted, there are some lists that can field more than two, ironically mostly on the Imperial side.

I just can't help but feel we are missing out on some great opportunities by settling for quantity.

If you think quantity beats quality, watch the 2013 championship video that was just posted on FFG. The guy won because he shot first. PS matters.

If you think quantity beats quality, watch the 2013 championship video that was just posted on FFG. The guy won because he shot first. PS matters.

Yup, that's Paul's victory I mentioned in my last post.

If you think quantity beats quality, watch the 2013 championship video that was just posted on FFG. The guy won because he shot first. PS matters.

Yup, that's Paul's victory I mentioned in my last post.

Though Paul did start with a four ship list.

This was discussed specifically with rebels a few days back, and I will still stick with the idea that skill being equal, quantity can provide an edge, especially when that quantity has a mix of pilot skills (and not just low PS). It's one of the reasons I think Swarm Tactics is such a great upgrade.

Though Paul did start with a four ship list.

This was discussed specifically with rebels a few days back, and I will still stick with the idea that skill being equal, quantity can provide an edge, especially when that quantity has a mix of pilot skills (and not just low PS). It's one of the reasons I think Swarm Tactics is such a great upgrade.

The three small ship list is a scissor to the swarm's rock. You auto lose because of a bad match up. It doesn't indicate that the swarm is all powerful and will destroy all. There is no need to limit the swarm just because an under powered list can't beat it.

How exactly does your rock, paper, scissor analogy work if you also assert that scissor is underpowered? Are you claiming bad match-up or just asserting underpowered? Because if your scissor is underpowered then your system is broke to be honest.

I see the mention of limiting squad size to 4 ships in an effort to promote "quality". If you play Rebels that's fine because you could basically take any four ships and easily figure out how to make a squadron with them. If you play the Empire that becomes LOT harder as you basically eliminate the TIE Fighter from the game while still having the under performing Advance and the glass cannon Interceptors being on shaky ground. Not a lot of four ship Imperial lists out there that use TIE fighters as anything more than filler.

I don't think the rock-paper-scissors mentality is that bad, nor is it likely avoidable without watering down the game.

There are plenty of other cases where an "auto win" (advantage) can happen. Just think of what happens when you run Dark Curse vs Blaster turret, basically an auto win.

Or you build a solid 4 ship PS2 rebel squad, only to get matched up against a 4 ship PS4 rebel squad, a VERY difficult matchup for the PS2. You can then match your PS4 squad against a PS6 Swarm, and get stomped due to PS.

This sort of bad matchup scenario is going to happen in a game with so many decisions.

The three small ship list is a scissor to the swarm's rock. You auto lose because of a bad match up. It doesn't indicate that the swarm is all powerful and will destroy all. There is no need to limit the swarm just because an under powered list can't beat it.

How exactly does your rock, paper, scissor analogy work if you also assert that scissor is underpowered? Are you claiming bad match-up or just asserting underpowered? Because if your scissor is underpowered then your system is broke to be honest.

Let me put a question to you. If I take a "Rebel Swarm" list consisting of six HWK-290 Rebel Operatives to a tournament (they have no upgrades), it will go.... poorly. Do you think there should be restrictions placed on other lists because you feel my list doesn't do well and should be able to do better?

Taking six HWK-290 Rebel Operatives is an inefficient use of points. I see taking three small elite ships in the same light, and whilst the three small elite ships can hold its own against some builds, others will be able to capitalise on it's lack of hit points effectively.

Edit: Wave Four may change this situation but for now I think it stands.

The point system already limits squad size. There are ways to beat swarms; they're still strong but they're no longer a completely unstoppable juggernaut list that you have to play if you want to win. We've already got some tools to thwart them, and I'm sure if they continue to stay strong you'll just see MORE anti-swarm options down the road until the balance they want is achieved. There are a lot more nuanced ways to balance out something like a swarm than straight up banning them.

I don't think the rock-paper-scissors mentality is that bad, nor is it likely avoidable without watering down the game.

There are plenty of other cases where an "auto win" (advantage) can happen. Just think of what happens when you run Dark Curse vs Blaster turret, basically an auto win.

Or you build a solid 4 ship PS2 rebel squad, only to get matched up against a 4 ship PS4 rebel squad, a VERY difficult matchup for the PS2. You can then match your PS4 squad against a PS6 Swarm, and get stomped due to PS.

This sort of bad matchup scenario is going to happen in a game with so many decisions.

I think avoiding the term "auto win" would be a very good start for any informed discussion.

There are good match ups and bad match ups for any squad. Every squad is going to have strengths and weaknesses, and come up against squads that seem tailor made to beat it.

Is that an advantage? Yes. Is it an auto win? Far from it. That's where player skill, smart flying, and luck of the dice can all affect the outcome of the game. If two players of similar skill meet up and one of them has a list tailor made to beat the other, yes; more often than not he probably will. But he might make a mistake the other player capitalizes on. He might get outflown that day. The dice may turn against him. Any number of things can have an impact on the final result.

But I guarantee you, that there's some other squad out there tailor made to beat that one. A lot of it comes down to smart squad building. Most good squads are pretty well balanced. They don't rely on a single ship or combo of abilities to succeed. They're geared to beat a variety of squads, rather than one particular 'nemesis' squad. And a smart player knows both the strengths and weaknesses of his squad, and flies them to maximize their strengths and minimize their weaknesses, whatever those may be. That goes a long way towards having a chance at defeating an unfavorable matchup.

The three small ship list is a scissor to the swarm's rock. You auto lose because of a bad match up. It doesn't indicate that the swarm is all powerful and will destroy all. There is no need to limit the swarm just because an under powered list can't beat it.

How exactly does your rock, paper, scissor analogy work if you also assert that scissor is underpowered? Are you claiming bad match-up or just asserting underpowered? Because if your scissor is underpowered then your system is broke to be honest.

Let me put a question to you. If I take a "Rebel Swarm" list consisting of six HWK-290 Rebel Operatives to a tournament (they have no upgrades), it will go.... poorly. Do you think there should be restrictions placed on other lists because you feel my list doesn't do well and should be able to do better?

Taking six HWK-290 Rebel Operatives is an inefficient use of points. I see taking three small elite ships in the same light, and whilst the three small elite ships can hold its own against some builds, others will be able to capitalise on it's lack of hit points effectively.

Edit: Wave Four may change this situation but for now I think it stands.

Your question is disingenuous. The squadron you are postulating isn't the "scissor" to anything. It is just plain bad, it does not have some bad match-ups and some good match-ups, it just has bad match-ups. It, and other just plain underpowered squadrons, don't fit into the rock/paper/scissor analogy because of that reason. That was my exact point. I said nowhere in my post that I believe there needs to be any restrictions placed on other lists. My post was that your statement is and was inconsistent in it's logic. You view 3 ship builds as just plain underpowered, not as the scissor in a rock/paper/scissor situation.

I don't think the rock-paper-scissors mentality is that bad, nor is it likely avoidable without watering down the game.

There are plenty of other cases where an "auto win" (advantage) can happen. Just think of what happens when you run Dark Curse vs Blaster turret, basically an auto win.

Or you build a solid 4 ship PS2 rebel squad, only to get matched up against a 4 ship PS4 rebel squad, a VERY difficult matchup for the PS2. You can then match your PS4 squad against a PS6 Swarm, and get stomped due to PS.

This sort of bad matchup scenario is going to happen in a game with so many decisions.

I think avoiding the term "auto win" would be a very good start for any informed discussion.

There are good match ups and bad match ups for any squad. Every squad is going to have strengths and weaknesses, and come up against squads that seem tailor made to beat it.

Is that an advantage? Yes. Is it an auto win? Far from it. That's where player skill, smart flying, and luck of the dice can all affect the outcome of the game. If two players of similar skill meet up and one of them has a list tailor made to beat the other, yes; more often than not he probably will. But he might make a mistake the other player capitalizes on. He might get outflown that day. The dice may turn against him. Any number of things can have an impact on the final result.

But I guarantee you, that there's some other squad out there tailor made to beat that one. A lot of it comes down to smart squad building. Most good squads are pretty well balanced. They don't rely on a single ship or combo of abilities to succeed. They're geared to beat a variety of squads, rather than one particular 'nemesis' squad. And a smart player knows both the strengths and weaknesses of his squad, and flies them to maximize their strengths and minimize their weaknesses, whatever those may be. That goes a long way towards having a chance at defeating an unfavorable matchup.

I agree. Hence, the quotations and parentheses

Though Paul did start with a four ship list.

Thanks for pointing that out. Corrected my post.

No problem, and while I didn't have time to go into it last night, part of the reason I mentioned it is that there is a significant difference between a rebel 3, 4, and 5 ship list. Once you get to four, you're no longer outnumbered by more than 2-1 vs. swarms and often not even that. I also think that Paul's list actually had more health than the swarm.

The difference between a 3 rebel list is that it usually features elite pilot skill and a high number of upgrades (that are, as someone pointed out, diminishing returns) while a four ship rebel list can have a lot of variety and flexibility and is a balance between quantity and quality where a five ship rebel list (currently) is about quantity almost exclusively.

All this is to say that that example might not be the best example, especially considering it was an extremely well fought match on both sides with luck swinging back and forth that was decided by one hull point. Had his list been built with three elite ships, he wouldn't have stood a chance, but sacrificing that and adding quantity, even in the form of one ship, got him where it did.

I fly 3 small ship lists all the time against many types of opponent and probably have an 80% win record. Against 3 and 4 ship builds, high PS, 3 ship builds do very well.

I have flown against Fett and 4 ties and won with it, I have flown against 6 tie swarm and won with it. I have taken out Han Shoots first with it.

I have never faced the 7 or 8 tie list, no one in my meta flies em, so I can't comment there. I find knowing your list and what it can do can hand you a victory where you might normally see a defeat. I have flown 3 ship rebel vs 3 firesprays and won.

It all comes down to what you work best with.

I don't think the rock-paper-scissors mentality is that bad, nor is it likely avoidable without watering down the game.

There are plenty of other cases where an "auto win" (advantage) can happen. Just think of what happens when you run Dark Curse vs Blaster turret, basically an auto win.

Or you build a solid 4 ship PS2 rebel squad, only to get matched up against a 4 ship PS4 rebel squad, a VERY difficult matchup for the PS2. You can then match your PS4 squad against a PS6 Swarm, and get stomped due to PS.

This sort of bad matchup scenario is going to happen in a game with so many decisions.

I think avoiding the term "auto win" would be a very good start for any informed discussion.

There are good match ups and bad match ups for any squad. Every squad is going to have strengths and weaknesses, and come up against squads that seem tailor made to beat it.

Is that an advantage? Yes. Is it an auto win? Far from it. That's where player skill, smart flying, and luck of the dice can all affect the outcome of the game. If two players of similar skill meet up and one of them has a list tailor made to beat the other, yes; more often than not he probably will. But he might make a mistake the other player capitalizes on. He might get outflown that day. The dice may turn against him. Any number of things can have an impact on the final result.

But I guarantee you, that there's some other squad out there tailor made to beat that one. A lot of it comes down to smart squad building. Most good squads are pretty well balanced. They don't rely on a single ship or combo of abilities to succeed. They're geared to beat a variety of squads, rather than one particular 'nemesis' squad. And a smart player knows both the strengths and weaknesses of his squad, and flies them to maximize their strengths and minimize their weaknesses, whatever those may be. That goes a long way towards having a chance at defeating an unfavorable matchup.

I agree. Hence, the quotations and parentheses

Sorry, I'm with you - I thought someone else earlier in the thread used auto-win un-ironically.

Ah - they were saying auto-lose, and then you flipped it around and I kind of mixed the two together.

I fly 3 small ship lists all the time against many types of opponent and probably have an 80% win record. Against 3 and 4 ship builds, high PS, 3 ship builds do very well.

I have flown against Fett and 4 ties and won with it, I have flown against 6 tie swarm and won with it. I have taken out Han Shoots first with it.

I have never faced the 7 or 8 tie list, no one in my meta flies em, so I can't comment there. I find knowing your list and what it can do can hand you a victory where you might normally see a defeat. I have flown 3 ship rebel vs 3 firesprays and won.

It all comes down to what you work best with.

While I completely with your last statement, I think your experience is a microcosm of a much larger and wider meta.

I could certainly see a 3 ship list being successful when they only need to face 3-5 ship lists, but most people building a list have to consider the larger numbers they might face against a TIE swarm.