See comment below, since I have been maintaining the statistics on the Store Championship thread.

Again, we are looking at the data (Store Championship winners) completely different. If you don't see the variety, than I'm sorry. Compared to last year, which essentially boiled down to double Falcon or Swarm, and it was really, really obvious that was the case, this year is a beacon of variety and balance. Not surprisingly, the Worlds winner is having a high percentage of representation.

Much like ships and elite talents, some ordnance will be better than others. You can't fix them all, without seriously over boosting another. Expect to see the new missiles/torpedoes a lot. Along with some of the older missiles.

The game mechanics are very well balanced, but the particular ships, talents, and upgrades (ordnance etc) are far from perfect. It is extremely difficult to get things very balanced on the first attempt out of the gate, so I am really not docking FFG for this. I haven't played any other miniature games, so it is entirely possible that this is the most balanced miniatures game out there. I don't know. My background on balance type issues is Starcraft 1/2, which is continuously being updated, and that model clearly doesn't apply here. Some things in X-wing may or may not be fixable outside of House Rules. That's fine.

All of the ships are represented to some extent. That does not mean that they are all balanced. The top 3 ships constitute 60% of points used. The B-wing alone sees about the same use (19.47%) as the bottom 7 ships combined (19.91%)! And the B-wing is still the #2 ship, the TIE Fighter clocks in at a whopping 23%. There is a VERY clear line between the 5 ships that are competitively very good, and then everything else.

I haven't pulled in upgrade costs yet, but my sense is that ordnance is not used very often. After I update the thread, I'll bump it and we can all look at the results. The TIE Bomber is hurt most by ordnance cost since it virtually requires it to be useful.

...There is a VERY clear line between the 5 ships that are competitively very good, and then everything else.

I disagree: there's a very clear line between the 5 ships that are competitively very popular and everything else. That is, in order to appear in a substantial proportion of Store Championship winners, a ship certainly has to be effective, but it also has to be played in a similarly large proportion of Store Championship lists. And in turn, that means your results are vulnerable to bias due to both novelty and the bandwagon effect, and those biases are made worse because they occur in a zero-sum context (points spent on B-wings are not spent on A-wings).

I'm not suggesting that you're doing anything wrong in that thread, and I think it's actually very useful. But any population count is irreconcilably confounded with the observation method, and this particular population count is like spending the same two hours every day in front of your window counting and cataloging the animals you see. Those animals with large counts are likely to be successful in the ecosystem outside your window, but it doesn't necessarily follow that you will observe every successful animal.

To be fair, it's harder to qualify what makes every animal successful in said ecosystem than it is to observe why a ship is superior to others.

X-Wing is still too new to ascribe to it the same qualities as a game like Magic, but sooner or later you have to concede that the 'professional' meta (if there is such a thing at this point) exists for a reason, and that reason is because some lists will win more than others. It is not so much a matter of popularity at that level as it is extensive calculation and testing.

To be fair, it's harder to qualify what makes every animal successful in said ecosystem than it is to observe why a ship is superior to others.

X-Wing is still too new to ascribe to it the same qualities as a game like Magic, but sooner or later you have to concede that the 'professional' meta (if there is such a thing at this point) exists for a reason, and that reason is because some lists will win more than others. It is not so much a matter of popularity at that level as it is extensive calculation and testing.

Sure, and I'm not claiming there's no relationship between popularity and effectiveness. But, as an example, we're seeing a lot more Lambdas in Store Championships than I think were represented at Worlds last year. If there was a direct (i.e., unmediated) relationship between a ship's effectiveness and the frequency with which people run it, the only conclusion would be that the Lambda is a better ship now than it was at Worlds.

Of course what's really going on is that the shuttle is as effective now as it was last fall, and players have simply had more time to adapt their thinking and their lists to accommodate it. I don't think exactly the same mechanism applies to every ship, but I do think that we can't rule out the idea that some ships are underperforming in the metagame relative to their potential.

Yeah, I believe there is a learning curve to some ships and squads. At worlds, there wasn't a whole lot of time for most people to acquire and test the new ships. And most would be working on honing ideas they had prior.

In the end, my only issue with the analysis of the Store Championships is that it has been too focused on individual ships and percentage of usage. That is not a meta analysis. You look at squads. On the whole.

It takes time to properly weigh any given element in the format, that much is true. Again, X-Wing isn't the kind of competitive juggernaut that something like Magic is, so the rate of discovery here is ponderous by comparison. That having been said, people should take care not to confuse that sort of long term discovery process with the notion that anything is viable at any given time.

I don't think anyone is claiming everything is equal. But all ships have a competitive option. It just isn't the number many seem to want, thus is "unbalanced".

Side note, I was surprised when I first started playing that proton torps didn't ignore shields. That was, after all, the reason they had to be used against the DS.

They were used against the DS because they ignored Ray Shields (only deflect laser weaponry), not Particle Shields (deflect physical particles/projectiles). Most ships had both.

It takes time to properly weigh any given element in the format, that much is true. Again, X-Wing isn't the kind of competitive juggernaut that something like Magic is, so the rate of discovery here is ponderous by comparison. That having been said, people should take care not to confuse that sort of long term discovery process with the notion that anything is viable at any given time.

I'm not championing the idea that every game element is competitively viable. The TIE Advanced is clearly a non-starter, the A-wing doesn't have a lot of representation, Fel's Wrath is a stinker even among the relatively rare Interceptor pilots, etc.

What I mean is more like this: the B-wing is fairly new, it's fairly powerful, and it features prominently in the current World Champion list. What if B-wings are taking up more space than they "normally" would--that is, if the metagame had reached some kind of steady state distant from any release? That space would have to come at the expense of other ships (because of course that's how the game works), meaning it's driving down the representation of other Rebel ships relative to itself.

That doesn't necessarily mean those other ships are out of balance or less effective than the B-wing--it could mean that, but it could also mean that they're surrendering some of their territory to the B-wing because the B-wing and system upgrade toys are new and sexy while (e.g.) the Y-wing is a perfectly serviceable but aging workhorse.

Basically we have a very plausible hypothesis: the observed frequency of each ship in the Store Championships reflects that ship's underlying effectiveness. But there are also plausible alternative hypotheses we can't rule out, which means that causal statements like "we know the HWK is underpowered because it only makes up 1.8% of all ships in winning SC lists" are unwarranted.

I'm not suggesting that you're doing anything wrong in that thread, and I think it's actually very useful. But any population count is irreconcilably confounded with the observation method, and this particular population count is like spending the same two hours every day in front of your window counting and cataloging the animals you see. Those animals with large counts are likely to be successful in the ecosystem outside your window, but it doesn't necessarily follow that you will observe every successful animal.

Hopefully come Regionals we can get enough data to test that theory, if we get Top 16.

Edit: I.e. the top 8/4/2/1 Squads should become more a reflection of ship quality rather than popularity. If you look at Top 4, for example, you can normalize the ship performance to its appearance rate in the Top 16. The issue is then standard deviation due to the decreasing sample size.

That's the best "fix" (better call it "improvement") so far for ordnance I've seen. For easy usage I would go with fixed damage = attack value -1 (-2 for Assault missiles)

Discardable ordinance should roll die as normal based on hit vs evade, but it it hits it should have a set amount of damage. So say you fire assault missiles at a bwing and roll your 4 die against 1 and get a hit the assault missiles just do a set amount of damage to the ship, say 3, and then 1 to surrounding ships at range 1. That way the ordinance has a legit shot at any craft but better at less agile ones but if it manages to hit anyone they just get hit for a set amount. It never made sense that more agility took away from damage that a missile does if it hits. With beams it makes sense that the beam weapon partially missed its shot but there was some damage. Missiles and torpedoes should work a little differently than beams. My 2 cents.

I think ordinance will come into it's own against big ships rather than using them on little ships. Balance of the ordinance does seem to be getting better though.

I have to admit it is strange that FFG (initially?) charged ships for the right to equip a missile/torpedo when they should have incorporated it into the cost of the weapon itself. At the moment some ships are being taxed for the bonuses they don't actually use. It might have been ok if the ordinance was more reasonably priced.

I really don't think the A-wing Test Pilot title is proof that ships are charged a cost for missile/torpedo upgrade slot.

I really don't think the A-wing Test Pilot title is proof that ships are charged a cost for missile/torpedo upgrade slot.

FFG realizing charging for ordnance slots might be a bad idea could explain why A-wing and Advanced are overcosted while the Bomber is very low cost.

It takes time to properly weigh any given element in the format, that much is true. Again, X-Wing isn't the kind of competitive juggernaut that something like Magic is, so the rate of discovery here is ponderous by comparison. That having been said, people should take care not to confuse that sort of long term discovery process with the notion that anything is viable at any given time.

I'm not championing the idea that every game element is competitively viable. The TIE Advanced is clearly a non-starter, the A-wing doesn't have a lot of representation, Fel's Wrath is a stinker even among the relatively rare Interceptor pilots, etc.

What I mean is more like this: the B-wing is fairly new, it's fairly powerful, and it features prominently in the current World Champion list. What if B-wings are taking up more space than they "normally" would--that is, if the metagame had reached some kind of steady state distant from any release? That space would have to come at the expense of other ships (because of course that's how the game works), meaning it's driving down the representation of other Rebel ships relative to itself.

That doesn't necessarily mean those other ships are out of balance or less effective than the B-wing--it could mean that, but it could also mean that they're surrendering some of their territory to the B-wing because the B-wing and system upgrade toys are new and sexy while (e.g.) the Y-wing is a perfectly serviceable but aging workhorse.

Basically we have a very plausible hypothesis: the observed frequency of each ship in the Store Championships reflects that ship's underlying effectiveness. But there are also plausible alternative hypotheses we can't rule out, which means that causal statements like "we know the HWK is underpowered because it only makes up 1.8% of all ships in winning SC lists" are unwarranted.

So the B-Wing might be taking up space in the current meta because of its relative novelty, and not simply because it provides far and away more point-for-point value? I'm not sure I buy that. If older (and lesser) ships were equally viable they would see a greater share of the tournament scene, rather than being displaced almost entirely. Again, professionals are less concerned about novelty than they are winning. If they perceived advantages elsewhere, we'd be seeing more of it reflected in results at the higher levels of play. I will concede that the popularity theory works for 'netdecks' (or, in this case, netlists), but that doesn't apply to professionals. They shape the format, not the other way around.

Because the 2 attack isn't the issue with the A-wing and TIE Advanced, it's the Missile slot.

It takes time to properly weigh any given element in the format, that much is true. Again, X-Wing isn't the kind of competitive juggernaut that something like Magic is, so the rate of discovery here is ponderous by comparison. That having been said, people should take care not to confuse that sort of long term discovery process with the notion that anything is viable at any given time.

I'm not championing the idea that every game element is competitively viable. The TIE Advanced is clearly a non-starter, the A-wing doesn't have a lot of representation, Fel's Wrath is a stinker even among the relatively rare Interceptor pilots, etc.

What I mean is more like this: the B-wing is fairly new, it's fairly powerful, and it features prominently in the current World Champion list. What if B-wings are taking up more space than they "normally" would--that is, if the metagame had reached some kind of steady state distant from any release? That space would have to come at the expense of other ships (because of course that's how the game works), meaning it's driving down the representation of other Rebel ships relative to itself.

That doesn't necessarily mean those other ships are out of balance or less effective than the B-wing--it could mean that, but it could also mean that they're surrendering some of their territory to the B-wing because the B-wing and system upgrade toys are new and sexy while (e.g.) the Y-wing is a perfectly serviceable but aging workhorse.

Basically we have a very plausible hypothesis: the observed frequency of each ship in the Store Championships reflects that ship's underlying effectiveness. But there are also plausible alternative hypotheses we can't rule out, which means that causal statements like "we know the HWK is underpowered because it only makes up 1.8% of all ships in winning SC lists" are unwarranted.

So the B-Wing might be taking up space in the current meta because of its relative novelty, and not simply because it provides far and away more point-for-point value? I'm not sure I buy that. If older (and lesser) ships were equally viable they would see a greater share of the tournament scene, rather than being displaced almost entirely. Again, professionals are less concerned about novelty than they are winning. If they perceived advantages elsewhere, we'd be seeing more of it reflected in results at the higher levels of play. I will concede that the popularity theory works for 'netdecks' (or, in this case, netlists), but that doesn't apply to professionals. They shape the format, not the other way around.

Because the 2 attack isn't the issue with the A-wing and TIE Advanced, it's the Missile slot.

No. It's the 2 attack relative to the cost. But the 2 attack is not inflating the cost of the ship. Something else is.

Both sides are even. Player skill is not. The best way to prove they are even, when you lose swap models and play again.

Both sides are even. Player skill is not. The best way to prove they are even, when you lose swap models and play again.

Interestingly enough, I don't think it's a balance thing, but I would really like for ion cannons to ignore shields.

I was a little irked when the game first came out and ion cannons didn't bypass shields, or prevent firing for a turn. That's the entire point of them in-universe.

I understand now that preventing firing for a turn would be absolutely overpowered, but I still think that they should deal direct hull damage. And I don't think it would break the game because they are all capped at one damage per turn. Certain ships would suffer (Z-95 and B-Wing, I'm looking at you) but it would really appeal to my sense of fluff.

And Regional Championships are professionals?

Not necessarily. The game is still a bit young to be making clear distinctions along those lines, unfortunately.

Back on topic for me...

The way I see it there are two critical issues with most ordnance:

• Cost for something that is usable only once
• What it takes to successfully fire it

Issue 1 appears to have a viable solution with Munitions Failsafe. Granted, there are the concerns on how if you miss you might not have a good chance to try again. But that concern relates somewhat to issue 2.

For issue 2 I would love it if spending your target lock to fire the ordnance also meant that you were able to modify the dice results per normal target lock expenditure. It seems a little silly that the target lock acquires the the target to make the shot but as soon as the birds are in the air there is no more guidance.

Granted, modifying results with only traditional target lock expenditure is not as effective as target lock+focus, but its better than the current system. So if your results are so crappy after your first attempt (with a target lock reroll) that Munitions Failsafe kicks in, you might still get the chance for a 2nd shot if you only need a single target lock for shot+reroll.

Personally, I don't want to see fixed damage because that is unrealistic. A real missile hit could either cripple a ship or just do minor damage depending on what it hit. I think damage still needs to be variable.

Ordnance requires its own play style that might not suit a lot of players. If you're not happy with ordnance, don't play it. (Personally, I enjoy using it.)

The game rules can't (and shouldn't) be retroactively rewritten to change how ordnance works, wishing so is pointless.

Munitions Failsafe is a great, ship-neutral fix, to ordnance being (slightly) overcosted. It can't be confused with trying to fix individual ships that happen to use ordnance. Fixing ordnance and fixing individual ships are two separate matters, although they can compete for design space (Chardaan Refit).

MajorJuggler's suggestion is one good example of how to fix an individual ship:

Factory Munitions (0 points)

Modification. TIE Bomber only.

All Missiles and Torpedoes equipped on this ship have their cost reduced by 1.

However, this fix competes with Munitions Failsafe for the Modification slot. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Given that Munitions Failsafe is a real card, maybe the TIE-Bomber could have a unique title to give one ship a decent buff. For game balance, you need to be careful about being able to buff every TIE-Bomber, so a unique restriction would seem reasonable.

Enola *** (unique) (0 points)

TIE-Bomber only. Title.

All Missiles, Torpedoes and Bombs equipped on this ship have their cost reduced by 1.

This will permit the Enola *** to have the Unique Title and the Munitions Failsafe Modification (making it a lot more ordnance friendly), while any other TIE-Bombers flown in the same squad will only be able to have Munitions Failsafe. The Enola *** gets to have its cake and eat it too.

(I'm not well versed in the EU to pick a suitable name for a unique, elite TIE-Bomber. Enola *** is a bad example for a TIE-Bomber's name, obviously. No offence intended to anyone.)

(EDIT: It's a sad world when the word gay is auto-censored on a forum. Maybe I should change the unique name to be Enola Happy instead and it will bypass the censors!)

In all seriousness people just need to accept one thing.

You are either Play to Win (PtW) or your are Play for Fun (PfF).

If you are PfF (ie you are using models/upgrades that you like, not exclusively models/upgrades that are good exclusively) then you should not expect to win against someone who is PtW with any amount of regularity. This is the nature of 'The Game'. This is the nature of ALL games.

And you know what? In the current meta red dice are king. He who brings the most red dice will most likely win. This is because FFG have arbitrarily dictated that 1 hour matches are a thing. And because of this RD/pts efficiency is THE thing. That means the TIE Fighter and the Bwing are THE things with everything else being slotted in just to provide sub-meta tricks.

So yes. You can be PfF and try to fight The Thing. Just dont come here crying when you get smashed in the face by a iron girder.