(i bolded the beginning of my theory in case you're a TL;DR person)

*TL;DR = too long didn't read

Named pilots are wonderful things. We all love playing them in friendly games. We argue if you this named person or that named person is priced accurately, or what EPT provides the most synergy. We love them hands down.

But when it comes to competitive play, and your win loss record is at steak, named pilots pose too many issues. They have large targets on their back, and most EPT's work only in circumstantial situations. Essentailly making the named pilot creat too many "what if's" to hold your confidence in fielding them.

There are some exceptions to this.
-Howlrunner: is a prime example give her cost, PS and ability that has no negative repercussion.
-Soontir: 1 of 4 PS 9's, and an ability that rewards you for a negative effect and increases his surviveability
-Biggs: an ability that has no negative set back, and controls your opponents choice creating issues on their end for 25pts
-Tarn:, 2 points more than a rookie, he has an abiliy the is exceedingly well late game.

I could list a few more but, like i said most named pilots suffer to very heavy counters on and off the feild.So i would propose this idea if i ever had FFG ear.

A tournament substitution list
in a standard tourny you have your set max 100 point squad, that is locked in and having to deal with any thing from 2 falcons to 8 tie fighters. which is the reason why 100% of competitive X-wing players loose sleep at night.

But I think this game could expand on the creativity of the available upgrades if there were a few things that could be subbed out when setting up against your opponent. This would make upgrades a lot more appealing to competitive players. and any of your substitutions are already pre listed at the beginning of the tourny. so there is some level of balance.

you would be allowed 1 alternate pre determined substitution to 2 of the following items. the substitution would also be locked in on one specific pilot.
-EPT
-Bomb
-Missile
-Cannon

-Modification

to give you an example: the items in parenthesis are substitutions

Wedge- R2 astromech, PTL (preaditor)

Chewbacca- Determination, Assault missile (Ion pulse missile)
Airan Cracken

100pts max
(98pts min)

you now have options when facing swarms or big ships, or a chance at lowering your squad points to get initiative.
and when writing down your squad, the highest costing upgrades have to be fielded in your main squad list. it would prevent something like your B-wing has to switch from HLC to Auto balster so that Lando can switch his determination to PTL so you can stay at under 100pts

Feedback / ideas?

The reason i feel this theory helps named pilots the most is the EPT's mostly. there are a lot of good ones out there, but very circumstantial, but this also can be good for people who want to run swarm-type builds as well.

Eh, just learn a list you like and play it. Yes some lists will be harder for you, but that person will have to fight something that is hard for them later on. Between regionals and the 2 AoIA I went to over this past week you see a slathering of different lists and upgrades and named pilots. I run a list most people say is to dice dependent and glass cannon-y but I am now 37-4 with the list and the tournament yesterday only lost 60 points of ships out of 4 games (went 4-0 in the swiss) and regionals I lost just a bit more over 6 games including a full lose, and that was going against multiple counters to the list. Yes some EPTs and Pilots are better at other things but you need to just find your niche and go with it, find the pilots you enjoy and can fly and that will get your more mileage then just swapping out EPT and pilots, because remember if you can do it, so can the other guy which could make it even a worse counter to you.

There's a pricey pilot problem?

There's a pricey pilot problem?

One of the top two at my local Imdaar event ran Wes/Wedge/Ibtisam, and he flattened me on the way up. Doesn't really seem like a problem after all.

But when it comes to competitive play, and your win loss record is at steak, named pilots pose too many issues.

FFG came up with a pretty **** clever fix to this.

While I agree that Named Pilots need a boost, I think that Boost is sort of here. Tie Swarms recieved 3 major Checks in the newest ships. 3 high agility high firepower ships have entered the meta. Phantoms should EAT tie swarms. They can move like nobodies business, approaching in a variety of unexpected ways and being impossible to focus a tie brick on, while having the firepower to devour ties.

Same goes for just about any low PS list.

Named YT's will be used more in response, and Fettigator might have a reason to rear his head again, as with Vet Instincts, Navigator and a Proton Bomb he can basically drive Phantoms to distraction avoiding him.

That said, low PS ships, and high PS ships without positioning abilities are still going to be in trouble because they can't make the most out of their high PS.

Still, Pilot Skill matters more than it ever has. That's a good thing.

Epic Play will also favor PS5 and above to get shots off before the Tantive.

While I agree that Named Pilots need a boost, I think that Boost is sort of here. Tie Swarms recieved 3 major Checks in the newest ships. 3 high agility high firepower ships have entered the meta. Phantoms should EAT tie swarms. They can move like nobodies business, approaching in a variety of unexpected ways and being impossible to focus a tie brick on, while having the firepower to devour ties.

Same goes for just about any low PS list.

Named YT's will be used more in response, and Fettigator might have a reason to rear his head again, as with Vet Instincts, Navigator and a Proton Bomb he can basically drive Phantoms to distraction avoiding him.

That said, low PS ships, and high PS ships without positioning abilities are still going to be in trouble because they can't make the most out of their high PS.

Still, Pilot Skill matters more than it ever has. That's a good thing.

Epic Play will also favor PS5 and above to get shots off before the Tantive.

Someone did really well with two Firesprays (HLC) and a Mauler at my local venue.

Don't forget the Blount automatic damage cards across the board to a TIE Swarm.

This reminds me that in the 2014 Regionals thread statistics, I forgot to break down the points spent on named vs not named. I just added it up, 43.5% points are spent on named pilots (using a weighted average). So, it's not a problem. X-wings in particular tend to have most of their points spent on named pilots, not generics.

See here:

http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/105107-2014-regionals-results/?p=1066846

IMO the biggest problem isn't situational upgrades, it's bad dice and tight point costs. Unlike a game like MTG where matches are best of three games and you can make the top-8 cut with a match loss (and sometimes even two losses!) winning an X-Wing tournament requires winning every game. So that means you have no margin for bad dice, and three-ship elite lists are way too vulnerable to bad dice. Wedge may be awesome, but he dies just as fast as a rookie and you're probably going to lose the game if he rolls badly in the opening turn and dies immediately.

The bad dice strongly encourages lists with 4+ ships that can survive bad luck and still have ships on the table, and those lists get extremely tight on points. Once you've bought your four rookie pilots (the cheapest viable rebel option in a four-ship list) you only have 16 points to spend on upgrades, including PS and character upgrades. Upgrading to a character means spending a huge part of your limited budget, especially if you want to buy them any other upgrades to make use of their talents. So instead the better option is usually to balance your upgrade points across your four ships, and that means generics with 0-1 upgrades each, or maybe a cheap but effective pilot like Biggs.

Your proposed solution doesn't fix this issue at all. You still have the same "must win everything" tournament structure, so you're still going to see the same pressure to take generics over characters.

This all assume that there's a problem with taking generic pilots in the first place. That they shouldn't be the mainstay of peoples list.

I don't really agree with that basic premise, there's nothing 'unfluffy' about Bloody Daggers or the like.

Reminds me of Stalin's quote: "Quanity has a quality all its own."

I think the point you are trying to make is the cost over what you are investing in. Some ships, like wedge, build a great amount of value in removing defense die. You have to look at your build and see where your damage potential is and where your incoming threshold is. Sometimes I will use stats to run a game with just numbers, where am I after turn 3 with health...turn 8?

Some named pilots, like garvin, don't offer a lot of added potential to the squad. Making the points invested useless. The ships like biggs add value by ensuring your other ships are not shot for a turn or two. Giving your other ships free use of more offensive actions.

Imperial wise, you have to look at your skill with the ships more than numbers, this is kind of a kicker. Numbers are much tighter with imperials but that can be negated with good piloting. If your opponent never gets a shot on Turr then his investment was well spent. If you are unable to effectively predict your opponents movements and turr gets blasted first turn, your investment vs skill wasn't worth the point cost.

IMO the biggest problem isn't situational upgrades, it's bad dice and tight point costs. Unlike a game like MTG where matches are best of three games and you can make the top-8 cut with a match loss (and sometimes even two losses!) winning an X-Wing tournament requires winning every game. So that means you have no margin for bad dice, and three-ship elite lists are way too vulnerable to bad dice. Wedge may be awesome, but he dies just as fast as a rookie and you're probably going to lose the game if he rolls badly in the opening turn and dies immediately.

The bad dice strongly encourages lists with 4+ ships that can survive bad luck and still have ships on the table, and those lists get extremely tight on points. Once you've bought your four rookie pilots (the cheapest viable rebel option in a four-ship list) you only have 16 points to spend on upgrades, including PS and character upgrades. Upgrading to a character means spending a huge part of your limited budget, especially if you want to buy them any other upgrades to make use of their talents. So instead the better option is usually to balance your upgrade points across your four ships, and that means generics with 0-1 upgrades each, or maybe a cheap but effective pilot like Biggs.

Your proposed solution doesn't fix this issue at all. You still have the same "must win everything" tournament structure, so you're still going to see the same pressure to take generics over characters.

I agree with most of this, now I don't thin we should go to a best of 3 system (that would make tournaments take forever(not saying you are suggesting that either just throwing it out their)

That said a "side deck" is something that could be interesting much like the escalation tournaments build a 66-75 pt "core" squad and then have the remaining pts for 1 of 2 side decks, these could be the same ships with different upgrades or it could be different ships completely(note that this means their is no modification of the core list even if you have extra points available in your side deck. Then at the beginning of each round you share whats in your core list, then each player selects either of their side decks at the same time, and then the games commence as normal

When it comes to make "selectable options during a tournament" my thought is going with "pick a pair" as a form of "sideboard." You bring two lists and show them both to your opponent while you look at his lists; once you've seen the other guy's list you pick which of your lists you'll actually use while he does the same and then reveal the "used" list at the same time.

Those two lists could be very similar (and could have rules to make them such) or could actually be wildly different. I'm sure you're looking at two variations on something like an XXX list but I'm saying one list could be a full swarm and the other dual Falcons.

This game isn't anywhere near where a sideboard is viable or a good idea. Attack Wing perhaps, but not X-wing, with ships tending to be more important than upgrades.

As a rebel player I love to find those cheap and effective named pilots and cram 3 or 4 of them in a list. IF they are lucky they can have minimal upgrades!

Since I've got my transport I'm trying to somehow fit Hobbs+A3, Biggs, Tarn+R7 and Roark+ICT (101! dammit) togheter.

The best pilots often codemn you to a 3 ship build and that, as explained by iPeregrine, might screw you on dice. Though, with the new high end ships (E-wing, mr. Farlander) this may become more viable. Maybe when you can beef up your squad with a couple of Z's to still get 4 ships on the table.

Reminds me of Stalin's quote: "Quanity has a quality all its own."

I think WonderWAAAGH has to take a shot now, right?

Reminds me of Stalin's quote: "Quanity has a quality all its own."

I think WonderWAAAGH has to take a shot now, right?

Here I am two knuckles deep in an essay, and all of a sudden my green ears start burning.

Honestly, I almost didn't make it this far down the list of comments. X-Wing is so far removed from being broken that any notion of "curing" things at this point is as ludicrous as a thread that begins with having my win loss record "at steak." Unless, of course, we're talking about curing steaks, which is a cow of a different color. Mmm, steak...

I suppose that's neither here nor there. I just wish that when people use Stalin's now famous (or infamous) epigram that they remember we're talking about a man who killed far and away more civilians and ethnic minorities than Hitler ever did.

I suppose that's neither here nor there. I just wish that when people use Stalin's now famous (or infamous) epigram that they remember we're talking about a man who killed far and away more civilians and ethnic minorities than Hitler ever did.

Agreed, and besides I far and away prefer Marshal Foch's quote: "Mon centre cède, ma droite recule, situation excellente, j'attaque." (My centre is giving way, my right is retreating, situation excellent, I am attacking.)

IMO the biggest problem isn't situational upgrades, it's bad dice and tight point costs. Unlike a game like MTG where matches are best of three games and you can make the top-8 cut with a match loss (and sometimes even two losses!) winning an X-Wing tournament requires winning every game.

Your proposed solution doesn't fix this issue at all. You still have the same "must win everything" tournament structure, so you're still going to see the same pressure to take generics over characters.

Wait, really? I think the tournament system is exactly as you describe (except for the two of three) and doesn't actually require winning every game.

Here's an example from Sable Gryphon's report, where he went 3-2:

3-2

So, I expected to be cut from the tournament, but I managed to squeak into the Top 8 based on strength of schedule. I was surprised.

Are things being run differently in your area?