Then they fundamentally misunderstand the game. Certain ships counter other ships. If I throw 3 Interceptors at Han Shot first I will lose. If I try a squad with too much paper and not enough plastic I will lose. Every player playing this game knows these things. If they didn't they would just throw 100 points worth of stuff together on Random generators and try to win. Instead we see build patterns and optimal combos. We see a whole lot of 100 point lists that stomp all over other hundred point lists. We talk strategy. Because build design matters. And it matters a lot.

I currently am 4 and 0 against HSF with a 3 interceptor only build.

Nobody has said 100 points vs 100 points is even. Builds have counters. Having the ability to sideboard in things on a build only increases build diversity. It would be a good thing for the game, and allow for some fun innitiative gambling.

That said, the point system is X-wing does not work well for sideboarding. Point systems generally don't. What I can see is having alternate card sets for each of you ships. It would really benefit bombers and ships debating between Gunner against Tie-Swarms and Recon Spec against low agility lists where they need an initiative bid.

I think A LOT of people have said, and believe, that ANY 100 point squad is equal to any other 100 point squad. Equal in the since that any squad of equal value has a chance to win. Are there certain upgrades that can be countered by other ships and upgrades? Yes. Can a fleet be built that totally shuts down another fleet? No. Not in this game. Magic, yes.

If I started a "like this post if you agree with me" poll, I'm willing to bet the number of likes would be embarrassingly high.

I don't know. I mean, yes, any build can beat any build officially because there's an element of luck to the game. And there are no rules about what you can attack / what can attack you as there are in Magic. Plus, Magic has thousands of cards. And I'm only talking about the currently legal cards. Whereas X wing only has 12 ships... Sure, they have some differing abilities. And the only interaction dealing with actually doing damage is dark curse vs. blaster turret. Everyone else can shoot everything else without issue.

The truth of the game is, all 100 point squads are equal; the players who use them are not.

(and yes, luck can sometimes be a cruel mistress.)

This is probably the single most misguided thing I've ever seen on this board to date. Bravo.

The game is far from imbalanced, but no, not all 100 point squads are equal. I could easily give you specific examples, but I think I'll just let the meta speak for itself.

Nobody has said 100 points vs 100 points is even. Builds have counters. Having the ability to sideboard in things on a build only increases build diversity. It would be a good thing for the game, and allow for some fun innitiative gambling.

That said, the point system is X-wing does not work well for sideboarding. Point systems generally don't. What I can see is having alternate card sets for each of you ships. It would really benefit bombers and ships debating between Gunner against Tie-Swarms and Recon Spec against low agility lists where they need an initiative bid.

I think A LOT of people have said, and believe, that ANY 100 point squad is equal to any other 100 point squad. Equal in the since that any squad of equal value has a chance to win. Are there certain upgrades that can be countered by other ships and upgrades? Yes. Can a fleet be built that totally shuts down another fleet? No. Not in this game. Magic, yes.

If I started a "like this post if you agree with me" poll, I'm willing to bet the number of likes would be embarrassingly high.

It's weird that I haven't seen a single person agree with you.

5x Rebel Operative

1x Rebel Operative + Flight Instructor

I could probably kill this reliably with just Soontir Fel, Ptl, Shield and Stealth

Another fairly easy to kill list:

x2 Scimitar + APT + APT + AM + AM + PB

x1 Academy + Targeting Computer

I'm sure the list goes on and on.

Boarding out x points, and then boarding in exactly the same x amount of points is a difficult challenge, anyone tried it yet in casual games? Because if you would allow for a squad point total change by sideboarding, you'd be changing initiative as well.

In MtG, sideboarding is relatively easy, you only look at the number of cards to check if there aren't any shenanigans.

It's weird that I haven't seen a single person agree with you.

5x Rebel Operative

1x Rebel Operative + Flight Instructor

I could probably kill this reliably with just Soontir Fel, Ptl, Shield and Stealth

Another fairly easy to kill list:

x2 Scimitar + APT + APT + AM + AM + PB

x1 Academy + Targeting Computer

I'm sure the list goes on and on.

What stone37 said actually holds true as long as the list was thought out and wasn't purposely pumping points into ships that you knew wouldn't hold water. Yes, 5 SUPPORT SHIPS with out armament verse a single nimble dog fighter will fail, you might as well compare 5 cruise ships verse a single battle cruiser if we are going to compare ridiculous things. Sure the cruise ship could hold boarding parties and the like, but more then likely they would not get close to the battle cruiser before they were all sunk. Let's step back and approach this from another angle then OK?

Lets take 4 hwks with a smattering of upgrades that make them at least battle ready (seeing as it is a support ship and only gains usefulness once equipped to supplement a squadron).Then you could actually do something with them, and as ridiculous as 2x rebel ops with recon and blaster turret and 2x rebel ops with ion turret would be, it still is very viable.

The following lists all get to 99-100 points. 4 x wings with various modifications and pilots will be able to handle a dual YT list, 3 x firespray list, a tie swarm, bomber spam list, B-wing spam, etc. If you at least make an effort to have a squadron that works together and has a balance, it will indeed be able to compete against other 100 point squadrons.

So what it really comes down to then, isnt saying ALL 100 point squads are viable, but rather all 100 point squads with at least some attempt at making a cohesive squad will be competitive. Sure there are cookie cutter squads out there, like any game you will have the players that stick to those because they find them comfortable, then people will compare other none standard lists against these and see if they are "tournament viable". I personally stand by a ship is worth only the amount a player values it by, I am by no means a math-winger and personally not a fan of taking the game in that direction. I find interceptors very tournament viable while others scoff at the idea, its netted me a 1st and 3rd place in store championships (two saber squadron pilots with PtL almost single handily blew up dual falcons, though my BH was great at action denying my opponents YTs).

So really, it is not counter list building in my eyes but rather how you fly your chosen list and how to use your list to counter fly your opponents list. Yes you could have side boards but as other people have pointed out it would break down the flow of the game and what happens when you both pick a counter to the counter? Sure you have to factor in dice and actual synergy between your list, but if you fly a squad you are comfortable with it will fly 100% better then a squad you have no interest in. People need to stop worrying about min/maxing and countering the opponents list (which again, what stops the opponent from recountering your list you just changed?) right off the bat but rather figuring out what ships they personally enjoy flying the best then building off that.

It's weird that I haven't seen a single person agree with you.

5x Rebel Operative

1x Rebel Operative + Flight Instructor

I could probably kill this reliably with just Soontir Fel, Ptl, Shield and Stealth

Another fairly easy to kill list:

x2 Scimitar + APT + APT + AM + AM + PB

x1 Academy + Targeting Computer

I'm sure the list goes on and on.

What stone37 said actually holds true as long as the list was thought out and wasn't purposely pumping points into ships that you knew wouldn't hold water. Yes, 5 SUPPORT SHIPS with out armament verse a single nimble dog fighter will fail, you might as well compare 5 cruise ships verse a single battle cruiser if we are going to compare ridiculous things. Sure the cruise ship could hold boarding parties and the like, but more then likely they would not get close to the battle cruiser before they were all sunk. Let's step back and approach this from another angle then OK?

Lets take 4 hwks with a smattering of upgrades that make them at least battle ready (seeing as it is a support ship and only gains usefulness once equipped to supplement a squadron).Then you could actually do something with them, and as ridiculous as 2x rebel ops with recon and blaster turret and 2x rebel ops with ion turret would be, it still is very viable.

The following lists all get to 99-100 points. 4 x wings with various modifications and pilots will be able to handle a dual YT list, 3 x firespray list, a tie swarm, bomber spam list, B-wing spam, etc. If you at least make an effort to have a squadron that works together and has a balance, it will indeed be able to compete against other 100 point squadrons.

So what it really comes down to then, isnt saying ALL 100 point squads are viable, but rather all 100 point squads with at least some attempt at making a cohesive squad will be competitive. Sure there are cookie cutter squads out there, like any game you will have the players that stick to those because they find them comfortable, then people will compare other none standard lists against these and see if they are "tournament viable". I personally stand by a ship is worth only the amount a player values it by, I am by no means a math-winger and personally not a fan of taking the game in that direction. I find interceptors very tournament viable while others scoff at the idea, its netted me a 1st and 3rd place in store championships (two saber squadron pilots with PtL almost single handily blew up dual falcons, though my BH was great at action denying my opponents YTs).

So really, it is not counter list building in my eyes but rather how you fly your chosen list and how to use your list to counter fly your opponents list. Yes you could have side boards but as other people have pointed out it would break down the flow of the game and what happens when you both pick a counter to the counter? Sure you have to factor in dice and actual synergy between your list, but if you fly a squad you are comfortable with it will fly 100% better then a squad you have no interest in. People need to stop worrying about min/maxing and countering the opponents list (which again, what stops the opponent from recountering your list you just changed?) right off the bat but rather figuring out what ships they personally enjoy flying the best then building off that.

No. If any old list was competitive, there wouldn't be a meta. Yet we see a lot of the same lists dominating major events, with only minor variations between them in some instances. Neither his argument nor yours holds water.

No. If any old list was competitive, there wouldn't be a meta. Yet we see a lot of the same lists dominating major events, with only minor variations between them in some instances. Neither his argument nor yours holds water.

Man, when you are right, you are so right. We should really get a thread on here of different tournaments proving that multiple lists are not winning in different areas or anything like that. Every meta is the same, no one flies differently.

Yes you will have overlap because there are only X amount of list options to use, but you see large variances in squadrons now even with that happening. People will cling to lists that have been proven, even more so to a champions list. But by saying not all thought out lists (again not just filling the list with all support ships with out anything to back them up) are not competitive, that goes against everything FFG is doing with this game. We have cards right now that we find useless because they honestly don't have a lot of comboing potential, but we can see that with every expansion new ways of combining upgrades with ships evolve. How do you think we got to the current meta? People try out new things but you will always have, thankfully, older lists that still do well because of the balance in this game.

Again, I am not saying ALL lists will prove to be competitive, but rather ones that are thought out, planned to fit a persons style of flying, and ones with ships that complement each other (and following some rules of the meta). This by no means, means that every one has to fly the same squadrons for we have enough variance now to not have this happen and we can see that isn't the case either thanks to the 2 people rounding up store championship lists.

Yet we see a lot of the same lists dominating major events, with only minor variations between them in some instances.

That might also have to do with something I've noticed over the past couple of years: see what won, buy the same, play that, don't deviate, don't try anything out yourselves.

Wether it's buying preplayed maxed out characters for World of Warcraft (why anyone would want to play an RPG without actually playing it is beyond me) or straight out copying complete decks for Magic, there seems to have cropped up a mentality that thinks winning is everything, even if you just copy someone else, rather than figuring out on your own.

You see it here on the forum as well, someone suggests a list, someone else will come by and say he is wrong, he should strip out x, y and z and put in a, b and c to create [generic winning list] number 65414.

No. If any old list was competitive, there wouldn't be a meta. Yet we see a lot of the same lists dominating major events, with only minor variations between them in some instances. Neither his argument nor yours holds water.

Man, when you are right, you are so right. We should really get a thread on here of different tournaments proving that multiple lists are not winning in different areas or anything like that. Every meta is the same, no one flies differently.

Yes you will have overlap because there are only X amount of list options to use, but you see large variances in squadrons now even with that happening. People will cling to lists that have been proven, even more so to a champions list. But by saying not all thought out lists (again not just filling the list with all support ships with out anything to back them up) are not competitive, that goes against everything FFG is doing with this game. We have cards right now that we find useless because they honestly don't have a lot of comboing potential, but we can see that with every expansion new ways of combining upgrades with ships evolve. How do you think we got to the current meta? People try out new things but you will always have, thankfully, older lists that still do well because of the balance in this game.

Again, I am not saying ALL lists will prove to be competitive, but rather ones that are thought out, planned to fit a persons style of flying, and ones with ships that complement each other (and following some rules of the meta). This by no means, means that every one has to fly the same squadrons for we have enough variance now to not have this happen and we can see that isn't the case either thanks to the 2 people rounding up store championship lists.

I've seen this same argument a lot on the Magic forums, believe it or not. There are people out there deluded enough to believe that you can make anything work if you just try hard enough. This is true for neither game.

Why not just have a Random 100 point Squad generator for tournaments...lol would make things VERY interesting!! also would make the tournaments far more variable. and as a bonus for FFG it would require everyone to collect every possible 100 point combo!! lol

What I'd like to see tried rather than side boarding is something similar to Warmachine where you bring 2 separate lists. Each player is able to view his opponents 2 list options and picks the one he wants to play in private. Both players then simultaneously reveal.

I think this really opens things up for players. You could use the 2nd list to just provide minor tweaks to the first. Or you could have 2 vastly different lists. Have a list you love to play but faces a couple really bad match-ups? Pair it with a utilitarian list.

Also sometimes over the course of a tournament I get bored playing the same old list. Say I lose round 3 of a 4 or 5 round tournament. If I'm running a swarm (which can sometimes feel like work) I might just be inclined to drop. But if I had another list to choose from it could keep me playing.

I think the primary reason Warmachine went to this format was that some of their Warcasters faced nearly impossible match ups. That isn't exactly the case here. What we have here though is the initial problem the OP stated. While winning with a variety lists is entirely possible (as has been proven by the SC results) there are going to be a ton of TIE swarm, un-named b-wing, Biggs, and Chewie lists out there. If you aren't bringing something that can contend with those builds you are really relying on getting some help from favorable luck. In a 2 list system you'd have the ability to take a list that is competitive in the current meta and pair it with something else.

Would be interesting to play test and see how it worked out. Maybe vassal would be a good place to give it a try?

The game is fantastic the way it is. You bring your one list, and so does everybody else. Your list is displayed publicly, like a prizefighter on a poster, and you declare you can beat all challengers with no excuses. There is no "well I would have won had I brought the right side board" at the end.

The game reminds me of the Japanese game Go in that respect. Go takes this to the extreme; as either opponent may ask for the game to be restored to any condition it was previously in (undo moves) at any time. At the end of the game, there is no excuses, just a clear winner who is a better Go player.

At the end of the X-wing tournament, there should be no excuse. Just a player who put together a list and a strategy that no one could beat.

Fly Casual

The game is fantastic the way it is. You bring your one list, and so does everybody else. Your list is displayed publicly, like a prizefighter on a poster, and you declare you can beat all challengers with no excuses. There is no "well I would have won had I brought the right side board" at the end.

The game reminds me of the Japanese game Go in that respect. Go takes this to the extreme; as either opponent may ask for the game to be restored to any condition it was previously in (undo moves) at any time. At the end of the game, there is no excuses, just a clear winner who is a better Go player.

At the end of the X-wing tournament, there should be no excuse. Just a player who put together a list and a strategy that no one could beat.

Fly Casual

So what do people think of crew, modifications, or pilot abilities that allow Modification swaps? You are paying points to get it and I would set it up so you don't get to shift exact point values (you lose a little points for the flexibility, and Init is based off of your original pt totals).

It's weird that I haven't seen a single person agree with you.

5x Rebel Operative

1x Rebel Operative + Flight Instructor

I could probably kill this reliably with just Soontir Fel, Ptl, Shield and Stealth

Another fairly easy to kill list:

x2 Scimitar + APT + APT + AM + AM + PB

x1 Academy + Targeting Computer

I'm sure the list goes on and on.

What stone37 said actually holds true as long as the list was thought out and wasn't purposely pumping points into ships that you knew wouldn't hold water. Yes, 5 SUPPORT SHIPS with out armament verse a single nimble dog fighter will fail, you might as well compare 5 cruise ships verse a single battle cruiser if we are going to compare ridiculous things. Sure the cruise ship could hold boarding parties and the like, but more then likely they would not get close to the battle cruiser before they were all sunk. Let's step back and approach this from another angle then OK?

Lets take 4 hwks with a smattering of upgrades that make them at least battle ready (seeing as it is a support ship and only gains usefulness once equipped to supplement a squadron).Then you could actually do something with them, and as ridiculous as 2x rebel ops with recon and blaster turret and 2x rebel ops with ion turret would be, it still is very viable.

The following lists all get to 99-100 points. 4 x wings with various modifications and pilots will be able to handle a dual YT list, 3 x firespray list, a tie swarm, bomber spam list, B-wing spam, etc. If you at least make an effort to have a squadron that works together and has a balance, it will indeed be able to compete against other 100 point squadrons.

So what it really comes down to then, isnt saying ALL 100 point squads are viable, but rather all 100 point squads with at least some attempt at making a cohesive squad will be competitive. Sure there are cookie cutter squads out there, like any game you will have the players that stick to those because they find them comfortable, then people will compare other none standard lists against these and see if they are "tournament viable". I personally stand by a ship is worth only the amount a player values it by, I am by no means a math-winger and personally not a fan of taking the game in that direction. I find interceptors very tournament viable while others scoff at the idea, its netted me a 1st and 3rd place in store championships (two saber squadron pilots with PtL almost single handily blew up dual falcons, though my BH was great at action denying my opponents YTs).

So really, it is not counter list building in my eyes but rather how you fly your chosen list and how to use your list to counter fly your opponents list. Yes you could have side boards but as other people have pointed out it would break down the flow of the game and what happens when you both pick a counter to the counter? Sure you have to factor in dice and actual synergy between your list, but if you fly a squad you are comfortable with it will fly 100% better then a squad you have no interest in. People need to stop worrying about min/maxing and countering the opponents list (which again, what stops the opponent from recountering your list you just changed?) right off the bat but rather figuring out what ships they personally enjoy flying the best then building off that.

I also don't agree that you can't build consistently better squads that will win tournaments. There is a reason meta exists and in a well balanced confrontation any little edge you can generate will help. Skill matters, but at some point, especially in higher end tournament play that levels out and having a fleet that is marginally better will matter.

I'm not saying a 3 interceptor build can't beat any squad you throw at it. However, when you play 20 games enroute to a championship you're going to have a moment where the green dice betray you and it costs you a win, that's when the consistent players have the advantage, which is why total hit points is so huge in the meta right now. It can absorb more bad luck without costing you a game.

The game is fantastic the way it is. You bring your one list, and so does everybody else. Your list is displayed publicly, like a prizefighter on a poster, and you declare you can beat all challengers with no excuses. There is no "well I would have won had I brought the right side board" at the end.

The game reminds me of the Japanese game Go in that respect. Go takes this to the extreme; as either opponent may ask for the game to be restored to any condition it was previously in (undo moves) at any time. At the end of the game, there is no excuses, just a clear winner who is a better Go player.

At the end of the X-wing tournament, there should be no excuse. Just a player who put together a list and a strategy that no one could beat.

Fly Casual

Well in that case let's stop getting new ships. The game is fantastic the way it is. Let's not try new things or try to fix the fact that ordnance is extremely overcosted. Let's not try to increase build diversity for giving situational upgrades a chance to shine. You can say every ship has a purpose, but every card? No. In tournament play most cards are useless. Most squads have maybe 10-15 points of upgrades and even those will be a specific subset of very useful cards that focus on attack dice modification or action efficiency.(Read dice modification) When was the last time you saw Luke Skywalker? How about any of the die roll astromechs. Proximity mine? I have never seen Proximity mine run. Not once ever, and Firesprays are all over my meta. And that list goes on and on. It covers most of the missiles. It covers at least half the crew cards for being too situational. Same with Astromechs.

You're posing a different argument. I'm arguing against side boards, and have no problems with expansions of the game. New ships and upgrade cards? Absolutely. Change the tournament format? No. At least, I think side boards are a bad idea.

So what do people think of crew, modifications, or pilot abilities that allow Modification swaps? You are paying points to get it and I would set it up so you don't get to shift exact point values (you lose a little points for the flexibility, and Init is based off of your original pt totals).

This could be possible as the points you spend for the ability could account for someone with extreme cunning. How it is worded would be important. I'd guess the "problem" with this would be how much is the ability to "switch things up" worth if it amounts to something like "after seeing your opponent's squad you may exchange X for some other X of equal or lower value." It would either be relatively cheap or the impact will need to be major.

I'm almost getting a kick out when this is compared to the MtG sideboard. Do people forget how it works in that game? Matches are played best 2/3 but you always have to play the first game with the same deck; the sideboard only comes in for the last two games but even then you don't know what your opponent may have done now that he has seen your deck. There is not a good way to do that in X-Wing unless you go with the "bring two lists then decide which to play after seeing which two lists your opponent could play."

We're not making a direct copmparison to magic. Or at least I'm not. What most pro-sideboardin arguments have hinged on is that certain upgrades do jack against certain lists. The best examples are Assault Missiles against Han Shot First and Gunner against anything with agility 1. You aren't going to miss so you wasted 5 points. But sticking a Recon Specialist instead offers some huge advantages. But Gunner will be better at stripping tokens against Tie-Swarms. And the list of situations liek this goes on and on. My favorite is still the idea of initiative bidding pre-game. Where you and yopur opponent are both trying to cut a few points here or there to get Initiative. It sounds a whole lot more fun than a random roll off or coming in with a 98 or 99 point squad just to get innitiative.

We're not making a direct copmparison to magic. Or at least I'm not. What most pro-sideboardin arguments have hinged on is that certain upgrades do jack against certain lists. The best examples are Assault Missiles against Han Shot First and Gunner against anything with agility 1. You aren't going to miss so you wasted 5 points. But sticking a Recon Specialist instead offers some huge advantages. But Gunner will be better at stripping tokens against Tie-Swarms. And the list of situations liek this goes on and on. My favorite is still the idea of initiative bidding pre-game. Where you and yopur opponent are both trying to cut a few points here or there to get Initiative. It sounds a whole lot more fun than a random roll off or coming in with a 98 or 99 point squad just to get innitiative.

I could see possible ordnance swap outs, but that posses the question, what happens when the other team has no ordnance to swap out? An assault missile still carries a lot of oomph against a HSF list, mostly because people tend to fly it in formation, and since the falcon is only 1 evade die ship, it tends to hit and get the secondary damage to effect its escorts, meaning each assault missile is still gaining a net of 3 minimum and 6 damage maximum which is still good when it comes to terms of damage. Now for gunner, I could see this. Taking gunner against a mainly 1 evade ship list means it wont be getting much use, though it still helps for those whiffs that we all know can happen but again you went into a tournament knowing you will be fighting multiple lists, and that gunner will indeed help a lot against those 3 evade ships.

Ordnance is very arguably overcosted even before you consider that most of the cards are situational. If I'm paying for an assault missile I want an assurance it's doing way more than an ordinary attack.(Basically I think missile's suck and think this could help.)

Ordnance is very arguably overcosted even before you consider that most of the cards are situational. If I'm paying for an assault missile I want an assurance it's doing way more than an ordinary attack.(Basically I think missile's suck and think this could help.)

Fair enough, I don't use ordnance a lot myself but I think its more due to the possibility of it failing then anything, so I could see it being used more once the fail safe is released. I don't think a side deck would help increase the usage of the ordnance though, because it would still be a large point investment that might not be used or be destroyed before being useful, it can be quite detrimental to the enemy team though if you can get a successful volley off.

For an unofficial event, I don't see any problem with allowing players to bring up to 150 points (or whatever) worth of cards and paring it down to 100 or less before each match. It complicates things, and brings new kinds of spying and homework and politics into events, but it's not like it's going to break the game.

I'm almost getting a kick out when this is compared to the MtG sideboard. Do people forget how it works in that game? Matches are played best 2/3 but you always have to play the first game with the same deck; the sideboard only comes in for the last two games but even then you don't know what your opponent may have done now that he has seen your deck. There is not a good way to do that in X-Wing unless you go with the "bring two lists then decide which to play after seeing which two lists your opponent could play."

Not only that, but those best 2-out-of-3 matches are played within the confines of a 50 minute round. A round of X-Wing is 75 minutes, and sometimes even that isn't long enough to finish a single game. I really like the idea of a sideboard, and, despite what a few ignorant posters believe, the ability to swap out a few cards on the fly would bring a lot more depth to the tournament scene, where not every list stands an equal chance of winning. Unfortunately, I just don't see a practical way of that happening.

I'm almost getting a kick out when this is compared to the MtG sideboard. Do people forget how it works in that game? Matches are played best 2/3 but you always have to play the first game with the same deck; the sideboard only comes in for the last two games but even then you don't know what your opponent may have done now that he has seen your deck. There is not a good way to do that in X-Wing unless you go with the "bring two lists then decide which to play after seeing which two lists your opponent could play."

Not only that, but those best 2-out-of-3 matches are played within the confines of a 50 minute round. A round of X-Wing is 75 minutes, and sometimes even that isn't long enough to finish a single game. I really like the idea of a sideboard, and, despite what a few ignorant posters believe, the ability to swap out a few cards on the fly would bring a lot more depth to the tournament scene, where not every list stands an equal chance of winning. Unfortunately, I just don't see a practical way of that happening.

In X-Wing the "sideboard" would be more of the "onboard" setup. All changes would need to happen before you leave the mothership to meet your opponent. You may have "intelligence" telling you what your ships are likely to face so you may prepare for that but once they've launched and engaged the enemy there is no "going back" to pick something else.

People often like to treat this as a "real" battle and if you bring the wrong gear you're SOL. To me the only suggestion that makes any sense is to bring two lists, and there could be rules governing these lists, which would essentially be choosing which squadron makes the engagement.

What "rules" would have have for these two lists? For starters I'll say they need to be on the same side just to help keep the "illusion" of a fair battle. The next rule I'd use is that unique applies across BOTH lists; if you use HAN or R2S2 in one list you could not use him in the other. Now to be honest, after those two rules I'm not sure I care if the two lists are 99.9% different such as an 8 ship TIE Swarm and a 3 Bounty Hunter pack. For simplicity it would be nice if the lists both shared ship types (and that could be the 3rd construction rule if desired) but if you want "customization" this is how you'd get it.

I still play a bit of Star Fleet Battles, and while I was never into the SFB tournament scene, I do know they allowed players who use ships with option mounts to prepare two "packages" of options for their ships and they had to declare which one they were using depending on the opponent.

Perhaps something similar could work here. Your ships would stay the same, but you could have two sets of upgrades to choose between when you find out who your opponent is.