Really? Attacking house rules? That has absolutely 0 impact on your games? It's okay to not like house rules. I would prefer not to play with house rules. But that doesn't mean that individual groups can't tweak the game so that it is best for their group. Everyone enjoys things differently. If a group needs to tweak some rules to get more enjoyment out of the game, than go for it. It is better for them to enjoy the game than to not enjoy it in order to satisfy people they don't know.

Where I do take issue with is when people believe their house rules are what is actually best for the game as a whole. This game has an extraordinary balance, that few games have ever hade. Is it perfect, no. Primary weapon turrets hopefully won't become too common. Some ships do need a little help. But not to the extremes of cost reduction and free FCS or a free mod.

And looking purely at the single ships when analyzing the balance of the meta is the 100% wrong way to do it. The metagame is not individual ships. But squads. Now, granted, analyzing squads doesn't fit into a nice mathematical formula, but it gives you a better picture of the game as a whole.

Really? Attacking house rules? That has absolutely 0 impact on your games? It's okay to not like house rules. I would prefer not to play with house rules. But that doesn't mean that individual groups can't tweak the game so that it is best for their group. Everyone enjoys things differently. If a group needs to tweak some rules to get more enjoyment out of the game, than go for it. It is better for them to enjoy the game than to not enjoy it in order to satisfy people they don't know.

Extraordinary balanced? Ehhhhh..... I must have a different standard. I haven't been into Miniature Gaming except for X-wing, but I would hold up something like Starcraft 2 as being extraordinarily balanced. In competitive X-Wing, where four individual pilots get used more than half of the ships combined, I can't see how that can be objectively considered being balanced, let alone "extraordinarily balanced". Maybe relative to other miniature games and war games it's considered balanced. I don't know. I just know that XwM isn't there yet, as awesome of a game as it is. And we can all agree that it is awesome.

I had been saying for a long time that the A-wing needed a cost reduction, and had the numbers to back it up. So in this case at least, according to FFG my house rules were in fact the direction that the game needed to go. Edit: mind you, I hadn't even played that many games anyway, and I can't even remember if an A-wing cost reduction actually came into play or not pre-Refit announcement. But it was certainly very high on the "balance list" that I keep.

The Tie Advanced needs a drastic change because it's drastically overcosted. By 4 points. There is no other way around it. Adding a FCS is more elegant than completely nuking its cost to 17 points at PS2.

That reminds me that I need to include squad types and archetypes in the Regionals lists. But some ships are just fundamentally so broken that they're not going to see effective use in any squad.

Maybe relative to other miniature games and war games it's considered balanced. I don't know.

When you look at it compared to other miniature games, it's extremely well balanced. In many other games, you have effectively one type of list that works well, and everything is a variation on that theme.

Imagine if you would, that the Howlswarm, and HSF were the only 2 competitive lists in XWM. Also imagine that every wave that comes out, the previous list is now 2nd rate at best, because the new stuff outclasses it so much.

That's how us with a background in other games like 40k base our opinion on how well balanced it is. In XWM you can take nearly any list walk into nearly any LGS and have chance at winning with it.

So the fact that a few units or cards aren't used a lot in Tournaments, is not huge problem. The fact that they're used at all in friendly casual games is enough to say that the game is pretty well balanced.

The results of tournaments is great and I appreciate all the work that was done on posting stats from the regionals and store champs. But those results aren't really hard proof of how good or bad something is in every day play, because tournaments tend to require a different mindset and method of play. If I walk into my LGS and lose 1 out of 3 matches that's a good day, at a tournament, that can mean I don't make it into the final 16.

Really? Attacking house rules? That has absolutely 0 impact on your games? It's okay to not like house rules. I would prefer not to play with house rules. But that doesn't mean that individual groups can't tweak the game so that it is best for their group. Everyone enjoys things differently. If a group needs to tweak some rules to get more enjoyment out of the game, than go for it. It is better for them to enjoy the game than to not enjoy it in order to satisfy people they don't know.

Agreed!

Where I do take issue with is when people believe their house rules are what is actually best for the game as a whole. This game has an extraordinary balance, that few games have ever hade. Is it perfect, no. Primary weapon turrets hopefully won't become too common. Some ships do need a little help. But not to the extremes of cost reduction and free FCS or a free mod.

Extraordinary balanced? Ehhhhh..... I must have a different standard. I haven't been into Miniature Gaming except for X-wing, but I would hold up something like Starcraft 2 as being extraordinarily balanced. In competitive X-Wing, where four individual pilots get used more than half of the ships combined, I can't see how that can be objectively considered being balanced, let alone "extraordinarily balanced". Maybe relative to other miniature games and war games it's considered balanced. I don't know. I just know that XwM isn't there yet, as awesome of a game as it is. And we can all agree that it is awesome.

I had been saying for a long time that the A-wing needed a cost reduction, and had the numbers to back it up. So in this case at least, according to FFG my house rules were in fact the direction that the game needed to go. Edit: mind you, I hadn't even played that many games anyway, and I can't even remember if an A-wing cost reduction actually came into play or not pre-Refit announcement. But it was certainly very high on the "balance list" that I keep.

The Tie Advanced needs a drastic change because it's drastically overcosted. By 4 points. There is no other way around it. Adding a FCS is more elegant than completely nuking its cost to 17 points at PS2.

And looking purely at the single ships when analyzing the balance of the meta is the 100% wrong way to do it. The metagame is not individual ships. But squads. Now, granted, analyzing squads doesn't fit into a nice mathematical formula, but it gives you a better picture of the game as a whole.

That reminds me that I need to include squad types and archetypes in the Regionals lists. But some ships are just fundamentally so broken that they're not going to see effective use in any squad.

Correct me if I'm wrong but that's how I'm seeing it

Maybe relative to other miniature games and war games it's considered balanced. I don't know.

When you look at it compared to other miniature games, it's extremely well balanced. In many other games, you have effectively one type of list that works well, and everything is a variation on that theme.

Imagine if you would, that the Howlswarm, and HSF were the only 2 competitive lists in XWM. Also imagine that every wave that comes out, the previous list is now 2nd rate at best, because the new stuff outclasses it so much.

I agree with MajorJuggler that the overall balance of X-wing has some issues. I think he's abusing his data quite a bit with some of his claims, substituting "major tournament top spots" for "use" and "individual pilots" for "ships". When you picture Wedge, Howlrunner, Biggs, and Fel showing up more than every other pilot combined it sounds horrible - when it's the TIE Fighter, X-wing, B-wing, and TIE Interceptor, it doesn't sound quite so bad.

X-wing is not a horribly unbalanced game, but it does have one element of bad costing which has big impacts: the PS tax. Unique pilots pay through the nose for their PS. That means you either tend towards generics (which have a numbers weight advantage all their own) or need a REALLY good ability to make up for it. FFG has realized this, and is in process of correcting it. Compare the Saber to the Royal Guard, or even Farlander to Ten Numb, and look at some of the new abilities.

Overall, though, X-wing's balance issues are not enough to create a bad environment. Compare to the Star Wars LCG, for example - two years or so into it, the game has been dominated by 3 distinct decks. It was bad enough that at my regional, something like 80% of the players were running the same LS deck - I faced the same deck all 5 rounds. Every one of the Top 16 was running the same deck. THAT'S a balance problem.

So it does depend a lot on what you mean by "balance". Is every pilot of every ship in the game equally viable for its cost? No, and this seems to be what Juggler expects. Are there enough units on the same level to provide a wide variety of play without having a small number of units so overwhelmingly powerful that you can't win without them? Here, X-wing meets the definition better than most games.

Wow, if I didn't want to play tournaments before, I definitely don't now. This threads responses are comically serious. I now feel like the future of this game rests on how my friends play. Do you even imagine the action happening and pretend it's Star Wars, or is it just stats moving across the board getting you bragging rights bc it was organized by some "authority"?

I hope a lot of the vitriol and doom and gloom is just bc it's the internet so peoples points are being over stated and some of you are actually fun to play with.

It's as simple as this, when you play a game you are agreeing to predetermined rules. As long as everyone is aware of all the rules it's a fair game. Some people take the out of box rules and trusts the company, some groups find the rules aren't to their liking for whatever reason rules or flavor and change it accordingly.

The sad part I'm seeing is this aversion to play with anyone who disagrees. There's an intolerance towards difference so much so that a blanket authority has to make everyone the same so they can get along and play together.

When I grew up there were house rules for everything, monopoly, uno, risk, checkers, rummy, gin, poker, life, payday, battleship. You went a long with whatever families house you were at, you didn't demand they played some way you know to bc it's not the same as some tournament you went to, and you definitely didn't take your ball and go home to pout bc you won't play with people who play differently. If there was that much of a to do about, and you weren't a dunce about people not playing official, you would get a second game by the rules you prefer.

I never noticed this problem until this last decade. I assumed it was the internet giving credence to more popular styles but as I'm seeing it's probably tournaments. Turns me off to it really. Glad people have fun with it, but I hope the attitude that you couldn't adopt a house rule or two in a casual game for other people to have fun is just an internet tough guy thing and people really wouldn't refuse to play with people bc a different thing was fun for them.

So why do you care?

I think it's because in the initial post on houseruling, it was worded as if FFG did the wrong thing and houserules were the only way to play the game right.

People can get rather defensive if they think they're being told their way of fun is wrong, as I'm sure you've noticed.

This is exactly how the falcon got a barrel roll in my group:

Friend A (playing with the falcon) I'm going to barrel roll.

Friend B it doesn't have that.

Friend A what do you mean?

Friend B it doesn't have the barrel roll action.

The rest of us - wait what? What do you mean?

Friend B yeah they didn't give it a barrel roll

Friend A but it barrel rolls all the time

The rest of us - that's so stupid

Friend B yeah I guess they didn't want to give it too much

Friend A so I'm just flying a piece of plastic that looks like the falcon?

Friend B you don't have to barrel roll to hit me bc the turret

Friend A yeah but I want to bc it's the falcon

The rest of us - it is a pretty stupid reason to not have a barrel roll, they already killed it's guns

Friend A so do I get to barrel roll?

Friend B there's not really anyway for you to since the game started

The rest of us - why don't we finish this game normal but from now on the falcon has the barrel roll

Not directed at you quote but overall: the idea that the falcon getting a barrel roll is breaking the game is hyperbole at its most extreme. If the barrel roll was so amazingly over powered that the imps didn't stand a chance you would see a falcons with expert handling all over the top of tournament lists but you don't. Bc it's a flavor thing which my group cares more about.

And probably have a lot more fun. From what I gathered in the last 2 pages there are some weak ships stat wise that never get played. How lame is that. I can't imagine feeling like my options were limited by some number crunching and what ship is supposedly more efficient. I fly y wings and a wings mostly bc they're my favorite. We have Darth Vader in his tie advanced in almost any game bc it's Vader.

So I get the feeling you feel as though the game designed and play tested by ffg is broken, and / or unbalanced and that your way is better?

Correct me if I'm wrong but that's how I'm seeing it

Yes.

That is the entire point of making house rules to improve balance. The changes by definition ought to make it more balanced (better) than the out-of-box experience from FFG. Edit: It is of course easy to be a monday morning quarterback and adjust things retroactively after they have been playtested for a year. Many of the balance changes that I have, however, are math driven and therefore have strong predictions before the ships are even released. Sometimes they don't apply like the Defender or Phantom, because they have unique attributes. But other times there's very little wiggle room, so the math is pretty accurate, like the A-wing, TIE Advanced, and, to make predictions again, the upcoming E-wing (over costed) and Z-95 (great value).

I agree with MajorJuggler that the overall balance of X-wing has some issues. I think he's abusing his data quite a bit with some of his claims, substituting "major tournament top spots" for "use" and "individual pilots" for "ships". When you picture Wedge, Howlrunner, Biggs, and Fel showing up more than every other pilot combined it sounds horrible - when it's the TIE Fighter, X-wing, B-wing, and TIE Interceptor, it doesn't sound quite so bad.

No, I don't expect that everything is "equally" viable for its cost, because that's an impossible goal. But some ships and cards / abilities are very strong statistical outliers. Thankfully they are all negative outliers, which means that fundamental balance is not broken, as you pointed out, by everyone having to take the same cookie cutter build.

But there are some things that are undisputably underpowered:

• A-wings by 2 points relative to a TIE Fighter. There has been a lot of debate on exactly how overcosted they are. FFG overrode everyone by simply adding a 2 point cost adjustment, and at some level vindicating the mathematical predictions that I have been making.
• TIE Advanced by 4 points relative to a TIE Fighter, except for Vader who has arguably the best ability in the game. Again, some debate over the exact value, but it is virtually universally recognized as being very over costed. If FFG gives it the same relative treatment as the A-wing to bring it in line to just underneath the TIE Fighter, it'll be a 3 or 4 point effective cost reduction. The best solution I have seen is a free FCS and -2 point adjustment, with Vader only being -1. It'll be interesting to see if / when FFG touches this one.
• Fel's Wrath: nearly useless ability, especially for its cost. Simplest fix: when he would normally be destroyed, he may immediately perform an attack. Then remove the ship from play. This guarantees an extra attack unless he's staring out into space.
• Expose: mathematically proven to be inferior to the focus action in virtually all circumstances. Simplest fix: allow a free action after performing the Expose action, essentially removing the action tax.
• Horton: (I'll add this one now): needs an EPT.

There are more. The point is that there is quite a bit of low-hanging fruit that is "easy" to improve balance on. It'll never be "perfect", but it doesn't need to be. Just reduce the standard deviation and it's more enjoyable for newer players. For more experienced players the game has far more viable variety of lists building options and tactics. That's a good thing.

And its just house rules, so if you're super-competitive and training for Worlds, then obviously you already know what you're doing, and probably won't be using any house rules, for the sake of consistency.

Rules are what separate games from the world of make believe. I remember running around the yard when I was nine years old, pretending that I was a ninja and fighting the other children. We'd get into hypothetical fights about who beat who, and things like that. "Yes I did!" "No you didn't!"

I'm an adult now, so I don't do that anymore. Rules are what make games worth playing, because it makes (or tries to make) them balanced and uniform. Play the game however you like, I see nothing wrong with house rules. But please don't pretend that FFG got it wrong because "immersion" should be the ultimate goal. This is a miniatures game, not an RPG.

I'm no math wiz by any means but I believe that ffg has creative and intelligent people who work, produce and design their games.

They also play test their games, and any ffg game I every played was fun and for the most part well balanced. Nothing will ever be perfect, and it's impossible to please everyone, but I think there is more to it than what you suggest.

I don't know if they use equations, or what type of formulas, or put ideas in a hat and draw straws while spinning on chairs repeating the alphabet backwards.

They are very competentin making their games and I'm sorry but I think their rules are better than the ones you have stated.

Also keep in mind that when ships like the advance were release it was still in its early stages and for that time with what is out may have been used more. As time goes on and more ships, rules, and upgrades are released some older ships may look expensive, where as during their release are in par with the game.

Does that mean older ships are no good, or new ships are broken?

I don't think so. I would think that when they release new ships they take into consideration the older ones as well.

They probably do have some sort of formula for how they come to their conclusion and for the most part it all coincideso with everything pretty well.

If down the road they feel a specific ship needs adjusting, then they will readjust when needed.

With all that said I still consider the house rules you've mention game breaking and one sided.

With those type of rules you make up on your own, how can you really feel you beaten someone in a fair game.

To me I'd feel as though I cheated.

I really don't see that there are "right ways" and "wrong ways" to play the game, really, after all it is just a game.

• If you prefer to play by standard play, then use the tournament rules.
• If you prefer to play by more balanced rule that doesn't gimp certain ships etc, then use custom house rules.
• If you prefer to play more thematically or have custom scenarios, then use custom rules for that too.

There's really just one rule:

They are very competentin making their games and I'm sorry but I think their rules are better than the ones you have stated.

...

With all that said I still consider the house rules you've mention game breaking and one sided.

Like the A-wing change that FFG implemented that was virtually identical to what I said it needed?

They are very competentin making their games and I'm sorry but I think their rules are better than the ones you have stated.

...

With all that said I still consider the house rules you've mention game breaking and one sided.

Like the A-wing change that FFG implemented that was virtually identical to what I said it needed?

However you mentioned something a few pages back about giving xwings an advantage over tie fighters cause yout feel that ties should be one shooted.

Giving the Falcon the barrel roll action without having to equip expert handling?

All because it fits in with that movies better?

Plus I believe it was you who also said you were going to make it a house rule that if someone uses the Phantom either it gets one less attack dice, or the defender gets one extra evade?

That to me sounds pretty broken

Plus ties can easily get one shooted without having to modify any existing rules, and the rebellion was always at odds with the empire as they were out gunned, out manned, and technologically behind the empire.

They resorted to stealing tech and hit and run tactics.

Plus xwings were not indestructible by any means. They had shields which gave them a little extra durability

I really feel ffg did an excellent job in portraying the star wars feel with their design. As when I introduced this game to my friends who are huge star wars fans (I can't even beat at star wars trivial pursuit) thru loved it right away and really felt like we were flying like in the movies

However you mentioned something a few pages back about giving xwings an advantage over tie fighters cause yout feel that ties should be one shooted.

Giving the Falcon the barrel roll action without having to equip expert handling?

All because it fits in with that movies better?

Plus I believe it was you who also said you were going to make it a house rule that if someone uses the Phantom either it gets one less attack dice, or the defender gets one extra evade?

I didn't suggest any of those.

Edit: random response:

As time goes on and more ships, rules, and upgrades are released some older ships may look expensive, where as during their release are in par with the game.

This has never been my experience. With the TIE Advanced I think the game was new and they just didn't know what they were doing as well as they do now. Math Wizardy assuredly would have caught it during development.

However you mentioned something a few pages back about giving xwings an advantage over tie fighters cause yout feel that ties should be one shooted.

Giving the Falcon the barrel roll action without having to equip expert handling?

All because it fits in with that movies better?

Plus I believe it was you who also said you were going to make it a house rule that if someone uses the Phantom either it gets one less attack dice, or the defender gets one extra evade?

That to me sounds pretty broken

Plus ties can easily get one shooted without having to modify any existing rules, and the rebellion was always at odds with the empire as they were out gunned, out manned, and technologically behind the empire.

They resorted to stealing tech and hit and run tactics.

Plus xwings were not indestructible by any means. They had shields which gave them a little extra durability

I didn't suggest any of those.

That is my bad

Guess I got your and another mixed up.

No worries, it's a super-long thread, which we are helping to now keep derailed.

There will be a quiz at the end though.

Buwhahahaha!

I now feel like the future of this game rests on how my friends play.

Words fail me.

Wait, no they don't:

No. Get over yourself. Regardless of any response you get here, you and your friends represent a tiny, TINY portion of the overall game, most of which is perfectly happy with the game as it is. You're not the future of the game - you're irrelevant. Whether you play or how you play is going to have absolutely zero impact on the success of failure of this game.

That's not mean, it's just realistic. Some of the responses you got may have been a bit harsh, but this "Help me Obi-Rebelarch-Kenobi, you're my only hope" ego trip is utterly unfounded.

FFG did get it wrong for my group. They chose mechanics over flavor. My group plays for flavor to feel like Star Wars and don't want anything breaking that immersion. We realize the falcon is pretty powerful mechanics wise bc the 360 turret standard but that doesn't make it the falcon on its own. The falcon is heavily nerfed from the movies, the same attack as fighters is not the impression any of us ever got, but hey it does attack I've seen it do that in the movies at least it does everything I've seen it do. Oh wait except a barrel roll.

This is exactly how the falcon got a barrel roll in my group:

Friend A (playing with the falcon) I'm going to barrel roll.

Friend B it doesn't have that.

Friend A what do you mean?

Friend B it doesn't have the barrel roll action.

The rest of us - wait what? What do you mean?

Friend B yeah they didn't give it a barrel roll

Friend A but it barrel rolls all the time

The rest of us - that's so stupid

Friend B yeah I guess they didn't want to give it too much

Friend A so I'm just flying a piece of plastic that looks like the falcon?

Friend B you don't have to barrel roll to hit me bc the turret

Friend A yeah but I want to bc it's the falcon

The rest of us - it is a pretty stupid reason to not have a barrel roll, they already killed it's guns

Friend A so do I get to barrel roll?

Friend B there's not really anyway for you to since the game started

The rest of us - why don't we finish this game normal but from now on the falcon has the barrel roll

Not directed at you quote but overall: the idea that the falcon getting a barrel roll is breaking the game is hyperbole at its most extreme. If the barrel roll was so amazingly over powered that the imps didn't stand a chance you would see a falcons with expert handling all over the top of tournament lists but you don't. Bc it's a flavor thing which my group cares more about.

But... but... why not just take Expert Handling as an EPT if you want the Falcon to barrel roll? Wouldn't it be more simple?... no need to create a house rule that make the ship even more powerful than it already is.... why not give it to every ship while your at it.... ah nevermind..... your house your rule....

From now on, every ship blows up from the first hit they get... it happens all the time in the movie! Hit point and Shields just break immersion...

However you mentioned something a few pages back about giving xwings an advantage over tie fighters cause yout feel that ties should be one shooted.

Giving the Falcon the barrel roll action without having to equip expert handling?

All because it fits in with that movies better?

Plus I believe it was you who also said you were going to make it a house rule that if someone uses the Phantom either it gets one less attack dice, or the defender gets one extra evade?

That to me sounds pretty broken

Plus ties can easily get one shooted without having to modify any existing rules, and the rebellion was always at odds with the empire as they were out gunned, out manned, and technologically behind the empire.

They resorted to stealing tech and hit and run tactics.

Plus xwings were not indestructible by any means. They had shields which gave them a little extra durability

I didn't suggest any of those.

Well then I apologize as I thought that it was you who were using those house rules

That is my bad

Guess I got your and another mixed up.

Ya. There was definitely a mix-up here. MJs house rules make sense (except maybe—MAYBE—Horton) and aren't really breaking the game in any way or giving one side a huge advantage. TBH Rebelarch (and please don't take this the wrong way, this is just the way it seems to me) I can't see why anyone would have any fun flying the Empire against the house rules you made here.

I now feel like the future of this game rests on how my friends play.

Words fail me.

Wait, no they don't:

No. Get over yourself. Regardless of any response you get here, you and your friends represent a tiny, TINY portion of the overall game, most of which is perfectly happy with the game as it is. You're not the future of the game - you're irrelevant. Whether you play or how you play is going to have absolutely zero impact on the success of failure of this game.

That's not mean, it's just realistic. Some of the responses you got may have been a bit harsh, but this "Help me Obi-Rebelarch-Kenobi, you're my only hope" ego trip is utterly unfounded.

Lol aren't you the poster who went on a diatribe about how making house rules poisons new players and such be avoided bc you ruin their game future? But by all means switch to the ad hominem attacks on one sentence taken out 6 bc that's the only sentence you can effectively continue to argue.

I now feel like the future of this game rests on how my friends play.

Words fail me.

Wait, no they don't:

No. Get over yourself. Regardless of any response you get here, you and your friends represent a tiny, TINY portion of the overall game, most of which is perfectly happy with the game as it is. You're not the future of the game - you're irrelevant. Whether you play or how you play is going to have absolutely zero impact on the success of failure of this game.

That's not mean, it's just realistic. Some of the responses you got may have been a bit harsh, but this "Help me Obi-Rebelarch-Kenobi, you're my only hope" ego trip is utterly unfounded.

Lol aren't you the poster who went on a diatribe about how making house rules poisons new players and such be avoided bc you ruin their game future? But by all means switch to the ad hominem attacks on one sentence taken out 6 bc that's the only sentence you can effectively continue to argue.

However you mentioned something a few pages back about giving xwings an advantage over tie fighters cause yout feel that ties should be one shooted.

Giving the Falcon the barrel roll action without having to equip expert handling?

All because it fits in with that movies better?

Plus I believe it was you who also said you were going to make it a house rule that if someone uses the Phantom either it gets one less attack dice, or the defender gets one extra evade?

That to me sounds pretty broken

Plus ties can easily get one shooted without having to modify any existing rules, and the rebellion was always at odds with the empire as they were out gunned, out manned, and technologically behind the empire.

They resorted to stealing tech and hit and run tactics.

Plus xwings were not indestructible by any means. They had shields which gave them a little extra durability

I didn't suggest any of those.

Well then I apologize as I thought that it was you who were using those house rules

That is my bad

Guess I got your and another mixed up.

Ya. There was definitely a mix-up here. MJs house rules make sense (except maybe—MAYBE—Horton) and aren't really breaking the game in any way or giving one side a huge advantage. TBH Rebelarch (and please don't take this the wrong way, this is just the way it seems to me) I can't see why anyone would have any fun flying the Empire against the house rules you made here.

Lol. So you just give up when someone comes to the table with a falcon and expert handling attached?

However you mentioned something a few pages back about giving xwings an advantage over tie fighters cause yout feel that ties should be one shooted.

Giving the Falcon the barrel roll action without having to equip expert handling?

All because it fits in with that movies better?

Plus I believe it was you who also said you were going to make it a house rule that if someone uses the Phantom either it gets one less attack dice, or the defender gets one extra evade?

That to me sounds pretty broken

Plus ties can easily get one shooted without having to modify any existing rules, and the rebellion was always at odds with the empire as they were out gunned, out manned, and technologically behind the empire.

They resorted to stealing tech and hit and run tactics.

Plus xwings were not indestructible by any means. They had shields which gave them a little extra durability

I didn't suggest any of those.

Well then I apologize as I thought that it was you who were using those house rules

That is my bad

Guess I got your and another mixed up.

Ya. There was definitely a mix-up here. MJs house rules make sense (except maybe—MAYBE—Horton) and aren't really breaking the game in any way or giving one side a huge advantage. TBH Rebelarch (and please don't take this the wrong way, this is just the way it seems to me) I can't see why anyone would have any fun flying the Empire against the house rules you made here.

Lol. So you just give up when someone comes to the table with a falcon and expert handling attached?

One last bit on this current trend of discussion.

I am going to use Expose, as it is the most obvious example to my mind. Expose doesn't need to be fixed. I don't like it, and don't expect to use it, but I don't think it is poorly designed as it currently is. Yes, mathematically it is worse that Target Lock or Focus (which is one reason I shake my head of putting the Advanced up against an Interceptor in cost with a Fire Control System). But Expose isn't for those mathematical players, or even those that prefer TL/Focus based on experience. It was made for those that realize that this game involved DICE. And we all are subject to the dice gods whims. People take it and try to make it work for the damage potential, not the odds. I mean, I would think we are all familiar with the Han Solo quote.

The game is amazingly balanced. We are out of the Wave 2 era of Double Falcon or TIE Swarm. Diversity has entered the meta, with a nice variety of squads. Yes, some ships and/or pilots are lagging a bit. But, you can't expect perfection. You will never be able to switch out some ships for an equal amount of points for a different ship and work the same. The math focuses too much on the individual ship. It cannot analyze ship synergies in a squad, as the psychological element of how a player flies his squad cannot be quantified.

And to bring this post around back to the original topic. The psychological element of the Phantom is why there is going to be an adjustment period to the Phantom, and why you shouldn't just dismiss complaints about it. When flown well, and the dice are with the Phantom, it can just murder squads by itself. And being beaten that badly by a ship is bad for the game, as it can discourage players. And I understand it can be tough for some posters (I'm as guilty as anyone). I'm confident that the Phantom is balanced. But I can easily see why people would be worried about it. I don't like house rules, but neither do they affect me. Sadly, my personality makes it tough for me to accept house rules when I play, but I don't begrudge others for doing what they need to do for their personal playgroup.

Yes, I agree; in the end I guess if your group wants to play that way that's just the way they will play. If they have fun good for them, I suppose. However, before I leave this thread I have a new house rule that (sarcasm) I am going to institute:

TIE Interceptors have six laser cannons, thus their red dice will be upped to 5 red dice for the same price.