What if the player using missiles and torps was allowed to adjust their load out between matches? Have a rule that makes assigning missiles bombs and torps part of the deployment step and not purely list construction. I think the side board should be limited to no more than double the points allocated to ordinance so the player still has to plan ahead a little. Placing the stuff as you place your ships also mitigates some of the advantage if the player doesn't have pilot skill.

Finally if you take more than you have points for your opponent gets to re select for you to keep things honest.

If you can swap ordnance used then why not swap pilots as well? Surely it takes less time to have one guy jump out and another jump in than it does to wheel out ordnance and install it. I guess while we're changing those we could also change crew and astromech slots just as fast.

Of course now that we're swapping ordnance and personnel why don't we allow swapping ships too! I mean if its "sitting in the hanger" you could have an entirely new ship ready to go when the previous one gets back. Different ship means it would be easy enough to switch up modifications, cannon, and turret upgrades as well.

The "sideboard" concept really doesn't work all that well in X-Wing. You do NOT get to see what the enemy is bringing and then fly back to base to change your load outs before flying back to engage. To me, the only thing "sideboard-like" which could work is if a tournament allowed you to bring multiple lists (probably two) and you would show these lists to your opponent before the match; after seeing your opponent's lists each of you will secretly determine which of your lists you will actually use and that will be the list you use for the battle.

I was thinking of a way to make a "sideboard" work in x-wing just the other day. I had a few ideas but none I'm sold on, I was thinking along the lines of having a 50 point side board. At the start of the game you can chose to lower your starting pt total by up to 50 and before the planning phase of round 3 you field up to your 100 pts on your starting side of the field. As an example lets say you generally run 4 x-wings 25 points each, at the start of game you decide to just run 2 and during the start of round 3 you decide to field a yt1300 to replace those 50 points you lost at the start. That is an extremly simple example. It could be as simple as dropping a bomber with a proton bomb for a bomber with assault missiles.

This opens up new ways for you to build, like having a solid core 50pts that is gonna hold its own for 3 rounds. Then bring out a ship with a turret you normally wouldn't use to counter that phantom.... or whatever the case.

Fun to think about.

SteveO,

What you can swap depends entirely on the facilities you have available. Then again you knew that and wanted to impress with snark? Problem is you didn't actually address any ideas. All you did was snark. Missiles, and protons, are under-represented. Allowing a little more flexibility could change that by providing an additional advantage. Or did you think that string of hyperbole actually added some reasons why a side board is a bad idea?

Actually, I did "address" the idea in part by suggestion you could come with multiple squadrons and then choose which to use after seeing what you opponent has to choose from.

Now beyond that basically everything I said is just as true. This is another one of those topics that comes up every couple of weeks and the reasons for/against it don't change.

Ordnance and ordinance. Know the difference, your pilots life could be in the balance. Lol

Actually, I did "address" the idea in part by suggestion you could come with multiple squadrons and then choose which to use after seeing what you opponent has to choose from.

Now beyond that basically everything I said is just as true. This is another one of those topics that comes up every couple of weeks and the reasons for/against it don't change.

If want to choose ordnance after you see your opponent's squadron it should cost you. If you think ordnance is already too expensive to play except in specific cases then you probably shouldn't be playing with it anyway. As for how to bring variability into the game maybe FFG could release the following:

Undetermined Missile [missile] X points

- Immediately after setup discard Undetermined Missile and replace it with a [missile] card cost X-1 points or less.

Undetermined Torpedo [torpedo] X points

- Immediately after setup discard Undetermined Torpedo and replace it with a [torpedo] card cost X-1 points or less.

X is a placeholder for the upgrades FIXED cost. IF X is an actual variable then I'd say the replacement should cost X-2. If you want options after building your squadron it will cost you more to get them included.

Actually, I did "address" the idea in part by suggestion you could come with multiple squadrons and then choose which to use after seeing what you opponent has to choose from.

Now beyond that basically everything I said is just as true. This is another one of those topics that comes up every couple of weeks and the reasons for/against it don't change.

Notice your quotes, not mine. You are starting to talk about the actual idea in your most recent post but up till that post you are still just being snarky.

Your idea assumes that missiles and torps are not overcosted. Is that your opinion? I'm mixed myself, I rarely use them but there are times when they work great. Still for a tourney they are not flexible enough. That is my opinion, but it also seems to be consensus. So do you disagree or do you think "realism" is actually something considered in a space ship game with WWII physics?

An upgrade card side deck could be an interesting idea.

Missiles arnt used nearly enough. The risk of taking assault missiles when they are practically useless against non swarm lists is too high. They are such a situational card and it should be acceptable to switch out a cluster for an assault etc, before the actual match.

Real life examples against it are silly. Typically there is a high amount ofreconnaissance before battles in war that help dictate what equipment will be used. I don't see this being much different.

You know what "pre-battle recon" is in X-Wing? It's called "knowing your metagame." If you expect a lot of TIE Swarms then you may consider packing Assault Missiles. If you instead figure to see a lot of ChewieBB squadrons you'd be loading up the Clusters. If both are in the "area" then you just need to take a stab in the dark and hope you get lucky.

Notice your quotes, not mine. You are starting to talk about the actual idea in your most recent post but up till that post you are still just being snarky.

Your idea assumes that missiles and torps are not overcosted. Is that your opinion? I'm mixed myself, I rarely use them but there are times when they work great. Still for a tourney they are not flexible enough. That is my opinion, but it also seems to be consensus. So do you disagree or do you think "realism" is actually something considered in a space ship game with WWII physics?

Admittedly the tone of my first two paragraphs could have been different but the message is still the same. If you can change ordnance why shouldn't you be able to change other aspects of the squadron as well.

As for the pricing on ordnance is it really overpriced just because it is rarely used? I mean if it was always loaded then I'd say it is underpriced. A big issue with pricing can simply be that one or two points represents vastly different costs; you could conceivably come up with something that works at one price, is never used at +1 cost but is always used/broken at -1 the price. It may be that a lot of ordnance should have a fractional point cost as the "fair" cost could fall between "too good" and "not good enough" and when those are the choices I say error toward not good enough.

When it comes to tournaments and flexibility how long has it taken for Interceptors to actually become a staple? In a lot of way ordnance is like Interceptors in that there can be a big payout and you win with them or you can have some terrible luck and be done before you even get going.

If you want tournament flexibility I really believe the multiple list idea is the only one that should have a chance. Perhaps your lists are the same or just make a few changes; that's great and pretty much what the "sideboard" idea entails. But then just go a step further and why not let someone have two radically different squadrons (say HSF and Swarm) if they want a real challenge. That second player may look at your two similar squadrons and base his choice on which he thinks will do better in the worst case scenario; you're job would the be to make sure to figure out what he's playing and give him that worse case. In a lot of ways this "multiple squad choice" situation allows you to go Rock, Paper, Scissors with your opponent when you can only throw two of them; of course if someone comes with grenades it may not matter what you use.

You know what "pre-battle recon" is in X-Wing? It's called "knowing your metagame." If you expect a lot of TIE Swarms then you may consider packing Assault Missiles. If you instead figure to see a lot of ChewieBB squadrons you'd be loading up the Clusters. If both are in the "area" then you just need to take a stab in the dark and hope you get lucky.

Notice your quotes, not mine. You are starting to talk about the actual idea in your most recent post but up till that post you are still just being snarky.

Your idea assumes that missiles and torps are not overcosted. Is that your opinion? I'm mixed myself, I rarely use them but there are times when they work great. Still for a tourney they are not flexible enough. That is my opinion, but it also seems to be consensus. So do you disagree or do you think "realism" is actually something considered in a space ship game with WWII physics?

Admittedly the tone of my first two paragraphs could have been different but the message is still the same. If you can change ordnance why shouldn't you be able to change other aspects of the squadron as well.

As for the pricing on ordnance is it really overpriced just because it is rarely used? I mean if it was always loaded then I'd say it is underpriced. A big issue with pricing can simply be that one or two points represents vastly different costs; you could conceivably come up with something that works at one price, is never used at +1 cost but is always used/broken at -1 the price. It may be that a lot of ordnance should have a fractional point cost as the "fair" cost could fall between "too good" and "not good enough" and when those are the choices I say error toward not good enough.

When it comes to tournaments and flexibility how long has it taken for Interceptors to actually become a staple? In a lot of way ordnance is like Interceptors in that there can be a big payout and you win with them or you can have some terrible luck and be done before you even get going.

If you want tournament flexibility I really believe the multiple list idea is the only one that should have a chance. Perhaps your lists are the same or just make a few changes; that's great and pretty much what the "sideboard" idea entails. But then just go a step further and why not let someone have two radically different squadrons (say HSF and Swarm) if they want a real challenge. That second player may look at your two similar squadrons and base his choice on which he thinks will do better in the worst case scenario; you're job would the be to make sure to figure out what he's playing and give him that worse case. In a lot of ways this "multiple squad choice" situation allows you to go Rock, Paper, Scissors with your opponent when you can only throw two of them; of course if someone comes with grenades it may not matter what you use.

Allowing list swapping breaks down tournament structure. It defeats the entire point of list construction and adds heinous amounts of time as players move ships and cards around. In a game where 4 player tournaments take 3 and a half hours and 12 players goes for 7 and a half, any time added is bad. Quick ordnance swaps is easy.

I think what it should come down to is you should be able to rearrange lists - say in your 100 point build you have Push the Limit on one ship and Predator on another. You should be able to move those upgrades around to different ships in the fleet if it would help in certain matchups.

Although I would be ok if you could have a 10 point upgrades sideboard (and as long as you are switching exact points for exact points, it should be good). Or they could keep the game the same way - ordinance is meh, but its pretty good in small doses and in Epic play.

There's a Team Covenant tournament going on Vassal where each player has two squads, and knowning what your opponent has to choose from, you choose which one you're using by setting a 1 or 2 maneuver on a dial, then both players reviel their chosen squad. It's worked out really well so far.

I like the multiple squads idea. As for costing, it is not just my opinion or the lack of use. I don't think I have ever seen someone here claim that missiles and torps are at the right price point, heck the new cheaper ones even suggest ff thinks they are overcosted.

The cost makes no sense at all. Why do you get unlimited attacks with cannons and turrets but only 1 with torpedoes and missiles? Munitions Failsafe helps a little bit, but its really not enough to make ordnance worth using most of the time. I'd like a modification that lets you reload your ordnance as an action rather thsn discard, or used a token placed on their card like the CR90 uses for its secondary weapons. Those are the only ways I can see to fix the problem.