BahnCalamari argues in his My-beef-with-the-huge-ships-and-the-state-of-the-game thread that our game is not competitive at tournaments unless you shell out tons of cash for huge ships with rare upgrades or pilots.

The premise is worthy of debate, and so I'm making a thread for it. (I'm sure it's been debated at length before, and I'm just too lazy to engage in thread necromancy. I'm also not the only offender.) Also, we're now into Wave IV and the huge ships have been bought and played with.

So, on the face of it, the permise is logical in the abstract. If you have fewer choices in your builds, your builds are not likely to be as strong. But what does the evidence say?

I do imagine that people who have spent a lot of money on the game are more likely to be good at it, but that may be because they're more invested into the game in terms of time and effort, and money spent is a byproduct of those.

What say you?

I do imagine that people who have spent a lot of money on the game are more likely to be good at it, but that may be because they're more invested into the game in terms of time and effort, and money spent is a byproduct of those.

What say you?

I think that about sums it up.

I guarantee I spend more time per week reading / playing / squad building / practice flying than someone who has a core set and shows up to a tournament with a few expansions.

There are people who could do that and win just due to amazing spacial awareness and of course, dice randomness, but as a general rule, I can say this:

As someone who enjoys running 4 Red Squad X-Wings with minimal upgrades - pay-to-play does not equal a win in this game.

Well if the ion missile/munitions failsafe combo dosnt put some fear into any large ship im not sure what will.

As someone who enjoys running 4 Red Squad X-Wings with minimal upgrades - pay-to-play does not equal a win in this game.

At the same time, I hazard that you've spent more on this game than the 2 core sets and the two X-Wing expansions in order to get to that build. Would you have learned that that's a winning combination if you hadn't tried the more expensive combinations first?

I feel this game has one of the lowest costs to be competitive of any miniature game out there.

You could easily have multiple competitive squads for less than half of the entry cost to most other miniature games.

I think different builds affect the game and how fun it is to play (choice=good), but I don't think different builds seriously affect competition. There are obviously bad builds, but there isn't really a superb build.

A four x-wing build with unnamed pilots from the core set is probably just as competitive as anything else.

BahnCalamari argues in his My-beef-with-the-huge-ships-and-the-state-of-the-game thread that our game is not competitive at tournaments unless you shell out tons of cash for huge ships with rare upgrades or pilots.

The premise is worthy of debate, and so I'm making a thread for it. (I'm sure it's been debated at length before, and I'm just too lazy to engage in thread necromancy. I'm also not the only offender.) Also, we're now into Wave IV and the huge ships have been bought and played with.

So, on the face of it, the permise is logical in the abstract. If you have fewer choices in your builds, your builds are not likely to be as strong. But what does the evidence say?

I do imagine that people who have spent a lot of money on the game are more likely to be good at it, but that may be because they're more invested into the game in terms of time and effort, and money spent is a byproduct of those.

What say you?

Well if the ion missile/munitions failsafe combo dosnt put some fear into any large ship im not sure what will.

It's strange that those come in a Z-95, which is a rebel ship, whereas the GR-75 and the CR-90 are both rebels.

Does that mean.... an Imperial huge is coming? Quick! Reference the card art to see if we see any potentially huge Imperial ships. Maybe even... a STAR DESTROYER!!!

Okay... back on topic now.

I think the idea is flawed at best.

First off, Pay to Win is a MMO term and IMO has no place here really. The concept is based on the idea that someone simply buy uber gear, rather then having to earn it by playing the game. As such it doesn't work in this context.

I could see that it might fit somewhat into the CCG world, because the older more OP cards are quite expensive. But even then having a Black Lotus doesn't mean you always win. In a non-blind LCG type format like this even that doesn't apply.

Everyone has to buy their stuff or find someone to loan it to them. So is it Pay to Win, if you buy enough Tie Fighters to play a Howlswarm? Lets say 2 core sets and 3 Tie expansions, that will cost you $80 or so. Biggs Walks the Dog, which was given as an example costs about the same... So how is that even remotely Pay to Win?

If there were unbalanced units that cost 5-6 times more then normal ones, then maybe... But as it is, this game is pretty well balanced and there's nothing like that out there. Buying a Transport for the Pilots and Droids doesn't give you an advantage. So no there's really on such thing as Pay to Win in X-Wing or any miniature games really.

Pay to Play... I'm not sure how that applies, of course you have to pay to play, but that's true of all miniature games.

I feel this game has one of the lowest costs to be competitive of any miniature game out there.

You could easily have multiple competitive squads for less than half of the entry cost to most other miniature games.

I agree, but just because the coefficient is modest doesn't mean that there isn't a slope. I think that's what's being debated in the pay-to-win argument.

As someone who enjoys running 4 Red Squad X-Wings with minimal upgrades - pay-to-play does not equal a win in this game.

At the same time, I hazard that you've spent more on this game than the 2 core sets and the two X-Wing expansions in order to get to that build. Would you have learned that that's a winning combination if you hadn't tried the more expensive combinations first?

In my personal case, I enjoy the ships from both aspects.

I like flying them because I like Star Wars and I like the ships, and I like finding competitive builds, so I would have bought them all regardless, but your counterpoint is not untrue.

Would you have learned that that's a winning combination if you hadn't tried the more expensive combinations first?

What more expensive combinations? This isn't like Magic where you can spend $150 on a single deck vs $25, and know the expensive one will have a huge advantage. It's also not like Magic where a % of the cards in that deck are completely worthless out of it.

If I buy a shuttle for the AdvSen, it's not like I throw the shuttle out because all I wanted is that card.

Everyone has to buy their stuff or find someone to loan it to them. So is it Pay to Win, if you buy enough Tie Fighters to play a Howlswarm? Lets say 2 core sets and 3 Tie expansions, that will cost you $80 or so. Biggs Walks the Dog, which was given as an example costs about the same... So how is that even remotely Pay to Win?

Seeing as Biggs walks the dogs requires 2 advanced sensors, only available on the shuttle which isn't a part of the squad and costs $20-$30, I think that point is in the pay-to-win category.

only available on the shuttle which isn't a part of the squad and costs $20-$30

You can get it in the E-Wing now, not just the Shuttle. Also as I said, it's not like the shuttle is worthless to you just because you don't use it in that list. By that logic then I should tally the cost of my whole collection and say that's how much X list cost...

Also Biggs Walks the Dog is not some OP list that can't be beat with a 4 X list, so by any definition of the phrase it's not Pay to Win, since it doesn't really give you an advantage.

Would you have learned that that's a winning combination if you hadn't tried the more expensive combinations first?

What more expensive combinations? This isn't like Magic where you can spend $150 on a single deck vs $25, and know the expensive one will have a huge advantage. It's also not like Magic where a % of the cards in that deck are completely worthless out of it.

If I buy a shuttle for the AdvSen, it's not like I throw the shuttle out because all I wanted is that card.

I think you make a great point.

The difference between the two is that in our game you know what you're buying. Now, it may take some money to figure it all out, but that is mitigated by more open information in the gamer community. People can come here and ask: "what is a good build?" (they do it all the time. I may have done it. I don't recall.) We give them advice, they get onto the wiki and figure out how to get that build fairly cheaply.

So that means that the slope between money and competitiveness is lessened by open information.

The generation after mine (and mine to a certain degree) is notorious for wanting something for nothing.

Remember - this is a business model for FFG. The fact that it's a well designed game to keep you buying the ships is not an afterthought.

If you want to "hang out with the big boys" or whatever colloquialism you want to employ, you have to lay out the cash for the expansions that have the cards you want.

More likely, however, as has already been pointed out - you could print a copy of the cards and play at your leisure.

The "I don't want to buy X ship to get Y card" argument reeks of someone who wants to play in the tournament scene but doesn't want to / can't lay out the resources to make it happen.

That's not the same as pay-to-win.

I'd say it could be seen as a pay-to-play. Like others have said its still vastly cheaper then other miniatures games(Warhammer). Still true you could spend multitudes of money putting together the "perfect" squad and still lose horribly cause either you roll terribly and/or your opponent rolls fantastically. In my limited experience in the game I've pulled wins out of seemingly hopeless situations and lost games I thought I had no chance of losing due to dice roles. And for the most part you can't throw money at better dice rolls.

BahnCalamari argues in his My-beef-with-the-huge-ships-and-the-state-of-the-game thread that our game is not competitive at tournaments unless you shell out tons of cash for huge ships with rare upgrades or pilots .

This isn't Magic or Pokemon, where you have to buy dozens of packs or pay after-market prices to get that rare powerful card. If I want Howlrunner, I don't have to keep buying TIE Fighter expansions hoping I finally get her. She's in every single box. So with a little research, you can figure out which pilots and upgrades you want and buy only those expansions. You're not even obligated to buy every ship in the game if you don't want to.

The "I don't want to buy X ship to get Y card" argument reeks of someone who wants to play in the tournament scene but doesn't want to / can't lay out the resources to make it happen.

I agree and disagree.

There's a point where someone is looking to get a freebie, and those don't really exist in the miniature game world. If someone wants to play this game, shelling out some cash is just part of the deal. If you want to run a given list, it's the same thing.

If you can't afford or don't want to buy the ships for Biggs walks the Dogs, then play another list. It's not like some games where you can netlist and roll over someone no matter how well they play.

But on the other hand, I can understand not wanting to spend $60+ for 3 more AdvSen that come with ships you don't really want 4 of. But again it's not like those 3 cards are going to give you some massive advantage that lets you skip to the final 8 in a tournament.

The generation after mine (and mine to a certain degree) is notorious for wanting something for nothing.

I don't think 'wanting' is generation specific. Maybe 'expecting' is what you're thinking.

I'm not sure I agree. The GenY/Millennials came of age in the teeth of a brutal recession. I expect that they will not have any more unrealistic expectations than any other generation, except where those expectations are valid because information is a LOT freer to come by.

So, let's not be grumpy old men, telling these kids to geddoff our lawns, dangnabbit.

That said - information is a real cost saver in this game.

Still true you could spend multitudes of money putting together the "perfect" squad and still lose horribly cause either you roll terribly and/or your opponent rolls fantastically.

Honestly... I'm not sure that even the most expensive list in XWM is that expensive. Maybe $150ish... Even then, it's not like you spent that $150 and the only thing you can do with the stuff is make that one list. That is IMO one of the great features of XWM.

If want to build a $1500 point list for 40k, it will cost me around $600, and I can take the stuff I got and make maybe 1 other list... I spend $300 on XWM stuff, and I can make 20 different lists.

Everyone has to buy their stuff or find someone to loan it to them. So is it Pay to Win, if you buy enough Tie Fighters to play a Howlswarm? Lets say 2 core sets and 3 Tie expansions, that will cost you $80 or so. Biggs Walks the Dog, which was given as an example costs about the same... So how is that even remotely Pay to Win?

Seeing as Biggs walks the dogs requires 2 advanced sensors, only available on the shuttle which isn't a part of the squad and costs $20-$30, I think that point is in the pay-to-win category.

Advanced Sensor still does not make your "squad" unbeatable.. i dont see why this is pay-to-win.. also... Buy E-Wings if you need AS.

Seriously.. that is crap...

I still can buy 2 or 3 Core sets and still have a valid and also (depending on setup) sometimes dangerous squad...

(2 or 3 sets so you get your 100 points as imp)

This game is far away from buy-to-win.

I have the Transport and NEVER used any of its pilots yet... i dont need them... but i used the X-Wing that came with it cause it looks cool...

When i play imp... i actually whould have been okey just buying the Aces and one Interceptor.

That i buy more.. that is a total different story...

I think some of these people confuse Pay to Win with their own drive to be a Completist. Obviously you're going to need more than a core set to play, so where do you draw the line? You can build a very competitive squad for $60-80 (including the core). Maybe you can't trick your squad out with any number of upgrades or pilots you might imagine, or use the hot new flavor of the month squad, you can still win if you're good at using what you have. I own both huge ships, but I still use all my older pilots and upgrades just as much as I alway did. Sure, I'd like to have 5 copies of predator for my BSPs, but I don't NEED them.

only available on the shuttle which isn't a part of the squad and costs $20-$30

You can get it in the E-Wing now, not just the Shuttle. Also as I said, it's not like the shuttle is worthless to you just because you don't use it in that list. By that logic then I should tally the cost of my whole collection and say that's how much X list cost...

Also Biggs Walks the Dog is not some OP list that can't be beat with a 4 X list, so by any definition of the phrase it's not Pay to Win, since it doesn't really give you an advantage.

I agree with you, except that I think cards people feel are "necessary" (and I use the term very loosely) for competitive builds require additional purchases outside of the ships you intend to fly, is kind of the idea behind the statement: pay-to-win.

That said, I feel that X-wing isn't a pay-to-win game. Yes you pay you play, but the game is much more about dice and skill than money spent. The guy who spends more is not more likely to win than the guy who hones his skills with his lower cost squad or the guys with hot dice.

Edit: bolded the mistype in my original post

is kind of the idea behind the statement: pay-to-win.

Ok, but the whole idea of Pay-to-Win, unless it has a completely different meaning here then I'm used to, means you are able to buy an advantage or increased chance to win over someone else.

You quite literally spent money in order to improve your chance to win. I fail to see how that's even remotely true of X-Wing since no amount of money is going to give you an unbeatable list.

Everyone has to buy their stuff or find someone to loan it to them. So is it Pay to Win, if you buy enough Tie Fighters to play a Howlswarm? Lets say 2 core sets and 3 Tie expansions, that will cost you $80 or so. Biggs Walks the Dog, which was given as an example costs about the same... So how is that even remotely Pay to Win?

Seeing as Biggs walks the dogs requires 2 advanced sensors, only available on the shuttle which isn't a part of the squad and costs $20-$30, I think that point is in the pay-to-win category.

Advanced Sensor still does not make your "squad" unbeatable.. i dont see why this is pay-to-win.. also... Buy E-Wings if you need AS.

Seriously.. that is crap...

I still can buy 2 or 3 Core sets and still have a valid and also (depending on setup) sometimes dangerous squad...

(2 or 3 sets so you get your 100 points as imp)

This game is far away from buy-to-win.

I have the Transport and NEVER used any of its pilots yet... i dont need them... but i used the X-Wing that came with it cause it looks cool...

When i play imp... i actually whould have been okey just buying the Aces and one Interceptor.

That i buy more.. that is a total different story...

You really misunderstand me. I am not say that x wing is pay-to-win, just that I have seen this complaint before and is comes down to b-wings "needing" AS to be competitive, but they don't come with the upgrade card.

I don't agree with that philosophy, but it's one of the often cited examples.