I am distrustful of those that come here and claim fathan is gimped as I suspect those same people are probably playing fat-han builds themselves and doing what they can to keep their build from getting hit with the nerf bat.

Except the design team spends exactly 0 time perusing these forums, so nothing said here will have any impact on any decision they might make with the Falcon.

I play a four squint list in almost every game so take what i say as you will. I can kill a falcon if I roll above average and my opponent rolls below average. odds will always be in his favor though.

So either accept that you start with a disadvantage or fly another list. Good and bad matchups are a part of every competitive game (by competitive, I mean a game where the object is to win, not necessarily WAAC style play) out there. You accept that any given list will give you a better time in some cases, but will struggle in others.

My first point stands though. people will always try to justify their behavior.

Second point is No, I will play my four squints because that is what is fun. It is not unrealistic for me to expect my four ships to be balanced verses other ships and if I should feel forced to buy new ships in the name of competition than that shows bad game design and possible a bit of manipulation on FFGs part.

100 pts should always be competitive against 100 pts.

Second point is No, I will play my four squints because that is what is fun. It is not unrealistic for me to expect my four ships to be balanced verses other ships and if I should feel forced to buy new ships in the name of competition than that shows bad game design and possible a bit of manipulation on FFGs part.

100 pts should always be competitive against 100 pts.

You, sir, are being naive at best. You build your list knowing it has strengths and weaknesses, whether you admit to it or not. In the case of 4 squints, your strength is your ability to get out of arc. This gives you an advantage (ie. a good matchup) against lists with regular fighters, as you can deny them shots and hammer away at their tails. But your build is disadvantaged (ie. has a bad matchup) against lists with turrets that don't have to worry as much about your arc-dodging shenanigans and can expose your lack of staying power. You must fight up-hill in those matchups, just as the guy without turrets had to fight uphill against you.

And a list being "competitive" does not necessarily mean it has a perfect 50/50 chance to win the game. A list with a 40/60 chance to win the game is still competitive, as there is still a reasonable chance that it will win. Especially since we have the great equalisers, dice and human error, running around.

There is a world of difference between thinking something is overpowered and thinking something is strong. I don't think anyone is saying that the Falcon isn't strong. The question is if it is overpowered. I don't think it is.

And the analysis of squads is really beginning to get to me. Yes, 5 squads featured Falcons in the top 8. But those are 4 very, very different squads. Double Falcon, Han and Corran, Han and Biggs, and Han and Z-95s. All of those play very differently. Peoples view of balance and diversity is going to be impossible to achieve, especially as more ships are added to the game.

I am distrustful of those that come here and claim fathan is gimped as I suspect those same people are probably playing fat-han builds themselves and doing what they can to keep their build from getting hit with the nerf bat.

Except the design team spends exactly 0 time perusing these forums, so nothing said here will have any impact on any decision they might make with the Falcon.

I play a four squint list in almost every game so take what i say as you will. I can kill a falcon if I roll above average and my opponent rolls below average. odds will always be in his favor though.

So either accept that you start with a disadvantage or fly another list. Good and bad matchups are a part of every competitive game (by competitive, I mean a game where the object is to win, not necessarily WAAC style play) out there. You accept that any given list will give you a better time in some cases, but will struggle in others.

My first point stands though. people will always try to justify their behavior.

Second point is No, I will play my four squints because that is what is fun. It is not unrealistic for me to expect my four ships to be balanced verses other ships and if I should feel forced to buy new ships in the name of competition than that shows bad game design and possible a bit of manipulation on FFGs part.

100 pts should always be competitive against 100 pts.

So basically you want everything to have the same exact stats and abilities since that would be the only way to achieve your desired "balance." How else is your desired "balance" going to be achieved since your magic balanced 100 points worth can be comprised of many different units and no designer can balance all the possible permutations without making everything identical? It's obvious you and quite a few others just don't understand the scope of your desires nor the end result.

Far to many people think "balance" in the way that you want will make things better, when in fact all it will do is make things repetitive and boring for everyone who doesn't make winning at a game the measure of their self worth. Maybe if those players would stop worrying about wins and losses, and play the game for the enjoyment of playing, they would find that "balance" is what you make of it!

Snip

That is an impressive strawman you got going bro. Balance means that 100 pts of ships should be balanced against 100 points of ships and have a reasonable chance of winning given equal player skill and dice rolls. That is all. When you find that some 100 point lists are getting blown out consistently by other 100 pt lists that is evidence of imbalance and bad design. You claim that balancing would lead to sameness and yet 5 of the top 8 were piloting Fat/Falcons with a different choice of sides. Those claiming that those five lists represent diversity because they are not identical are being intellectually dishonest. Fat/falcon + is dominating the tourney seen by raw numbers. Call it what you like but it is a fact.

Second rock paper scissors designs in wargames are bad design but they do force players to buy new pieces as the better rock or bigger paper or sharper scissors are released.

Third. Net listing a squad is not skill.

Forth. people like to win. Claiming that someone should sit back and enjoy losing every game or near every game they play because ..... is silly.

Second point is No, I will play my four squints because that is what is fun. It is not unrealistic for me to expect my four ships to be balanced verses other ships and if I should feel forced to buy new ships in the name of competition than that shows bad game design and possible a bit of manipulation on FFGs part.

100 pts should always be competitive against 100 pts.

You, sir, are being naive at best. You build your list knowing it has strengths and weaknesses, whether you admit to it or not. In the case of 4 squints, your strength is your ability to get out of arc. This gives you an advantage (ie. a good matchup) against lists with regular fighters, as you can deny them shots and hammer away at their tails. But your build is disadvantaged (ie. has a bad matchup) against lists with turrets that don't have to worry as much about your arc-dodging shenanigans and can expose your lack of staying power. You must fight up-hill in those matchups, just as the guy without turrets had to fight uphill against you.

And a list being "competitive" does not necessarily mean it has a perfect 50/50 chance to win the game. A list with a 40/60 chance to win the game is still competitive, as there is still a reasonable chance that it will win. Especially since we have the great equalisers, dice and human error, running around.

I play squints because I like playing squints. I refuse to play ships i am not a fan of based solely on what the meta is or because some ships are better. With fat/falcon the turret is not the issue it is the evades. rerolls, and what not. Squint maneuver dial does not guarantee getting rear arc on an xxbb or other fighter list. good tactics and skill at the game does. many other fighters can maneuver as good as a squint.

Personally I do not really care if each of you plays a fat/falcon every single day.. it will not effect me whatsoever unless it ends up killing the game and even that would not stop me from getting a game in now and again. I do take issue with people trying to argue that fat/falcon is not over represented or trying to blame phantoms.

And the analysis of squads is really beginning to get to me. Yes, 5 squads featured Falcons in the top 8. But those are 4 very, very different squads. Double Falcon, Han and Corran, Han and Biggs, and Han and Z-95s. All of those play very differently. Peoples view of balance and diversity is going to be impossible to achieve, especially as more ships are added to the game.

But surely the fact that there was a single centerpiece for all the lists means something? Yes, people chose different filler to surround it with... But they all started in pretty much the same place. This is a lot like arguing that Howlrunner isn't all that great because some people run her with Academy Pilots and some use Obsidians and some mix Academy Pilots and Alphas.

I think the point cost for the Falcon also argues against this. Howlrunner can drop into a lot of lists and do well, because she's relatively cheap. Han isn't - you don't build a list with the Falcon that doesn't start with the Falcon, and center on the Falcon. Nobody says "Hm, I want to take a Rookie and a Bandit, that leaves me with 67 points... Well, guess I'll just drop Han in there."

And honestly, the fact that Falcon lists did so well, in so many builds, supports the concerns over its power level. There's a common denominator thing going on there.

Once again, is the situation with the falcon not just a reaction to the phantom? So many people were worried the phantom was going to ruin the game that they found a way to beat it but all the others who built a different list to fight phantoms now can't deal with the falcon, it's swings and round abouts people, falcons are very killable I'm sure there are plenty of us out there who have done so. Meta discussions always boil down to "ban this errata that" it happens in every competitive game I've played, for me this is the only one that hasn't needed fixing, everything can be beaten if you fly well enough (*brag* I've beaten fat Han builds with 2 defenders)

The OP's players want to play 100pts competitive games, therefore winning is the aim of the game, if they wanted to play missions and have a laugh I'm sure they're more than capable of doing so, but for competitive play, as has been mentioned above by me and other posters, the OP and his top players need to change their meta to make it more inclusive of people or else they risk losing all their players.

Just a side note on balance, I feel this game has done a pretty good job of being balanced, I'm not a maths whizz but I do play a lot with all the ships, human error and dice are the great equaliser, I've made mistakes with good lists and been punished for it, I've capitalised on other people's mistakes only to have the dice let me down, good players not good lists win more in my opinion.

The problem is that X-wing is not a scenario game, but a killpoints game. You win by either preserving your own model points or depleting the opponents. This makes the game revolve around how good models are at killing or surviving. As there are only these two goals players eventually find the optimal setup and fatigue follows. Thus FatHans and Phantom crowds or exiting the game..

The mitigating factor is the movement rules, but I´m not sure that is enough to keep "retention" away. The game is a tad to basic.

Once again, is the situation with the falcon not just a reaction to the phantom? So many people were worried the phantom was going to ruin the game that they found a way to beat it but all the others who built a different list to fight phantoms now can't deal with the falcon, it's swings and round abouts people, falcons are very killable I'm sure there are plenty of us out there who have done so. Meta discussions always boil down to "ban this errata that" it happens in every competitive game I've played, for me this is the only one that hasn't needed fixing, everything can be beaten if you fly well enough (*brag* I've beaten fat Han builds with 2 defenders)

The OP's players want to play 100pts competitive games, therefore winning is the aim of the game, if they wanted to play missions and have a laugh I'm sure they're more than capable of doing so, but for competitive play, as has been mentioned above by me and other posters, the OP and his top players need to change their meta to make it more inclusive of people or else they risk losing all their players.

Just a side note on balance, I feel this game has done a pretty good job of being balanced, I'm not a maths whizz but I do play a lot with all the ships, human error and dice are the great equaliser, I've made mistakes with good lists and been punished for it, I've capitalised on other people's mistakes only to have the dice let me down, good players not good lists win more in my opinion.

I agree. Because the OP's players wanted a competitive environment, they got a competitive environment. They all thought one-dimensionally with regards to lists, and now they are surprised and upset that there is a one-dimensional playing environment. The problem is not with the game, but with their approach. Half of this thread is balance talk and half is trying to get them to play missions. Maybe they just need to take a new list and play it against the "oppressors" until it's manageable.

When I got my core set, we went 8-0 for Imperials. I would always go "again! I have to try to beat this!" A positive attitude would have you looking for any way to get an advantage on the opponent, not claiming you can't beat it and be disappointed afterwards that you are.

I don't want to antagonize anybody, but I think the game is not the problem here.

as much as I'd love to, you must understand that it is players who prefer to play 100pt most of the time. I could try and host all sorts of funny events, but it is their choice to choose not to attend because they prefer standard games you see.

If the overwhelming majority of your local players refuse to play any other format than one that, when played competitively, is designed to produce a handful of dominant squads, and if those same players can't resist bringing those dominant squads when playing casually, but they hate playing against those dominant squads, you're screwed. There's no way to fix that until the meta changes.

yup, you got it exactly on the dot.

this didnt happen in wave 3 because I could successfully convince most players that there really is no such thing as a "best list", so there were a lot of variety back then, and really everybody played what they truly loved, be it bombers or saber squadron or Darth Vader or 3 Xs or what have you

I would suggest trying a 6 TIE Soontir Fel Swarm.

96 points

Soontir Fel + Push the Limit

Howlrunner

4x Academy Pilot

4 points leftover for upgrades / initiative bid. TIEs take care of the Falcon, and Soontir is your ace against PS9 Whisper. ACD Phantoms can either shoot last or move last, both of which Soontir can punish.

Come wave 6 I have a sneaking suspicion we will see something like a 2 point modification that adds +1 defense dice when you are defending an attack from outside the attacker's primary arc. For now try the above. At a minimum it's not a pushover list if flown well.

wouldnt subsituting Whisper for Soontir do the same thing, if not in a much more effective manner?

I would suggest trying a 6 TIE Soontir Fel Swarm.

96 points

Soontir Fel + Push the Limit

Howlrunner

4x Academy Pilot

4 points leftover for upgrades / initiative bid. TIEs take care of the Falcon, and Soontir is your ace against PS9 Whisper. ACD Phantoms can either shoot last or move last, both of which Soontir can punish.

Come wave 6 I have a sneaking suspicion we will see something like a 2 point modification that adds +1 defense dice when you are defending an attack from outside the attacker's primary arc. For now try the above. At a minimum it's not a pushover list if flown well.

wouldnt subsituting Whisper for Soontir do the same thing, if not in a much more effective manner?

Hm. I think it would fly completely differently.

Whisper + VI + ACD = 37 points

You would have to downgrade Howlrunner or drop an Academy to make it fit, so I don't think you would have nearly as much of a counter to the Fat Falcon lists. Whisper is still going to go down in flames vs. a PS11 Han. 2x focus + evade Soontir will last much longer, and for far fewer points.

Soontir can also be a good counter to Whisper for the point cost. Assuming Whisper shoots first, you should try to get out of Whisper's Arcs with Soontir. Ideally, you can find 2 points to load him up with Targeting Computer, and you can find a way to get range one, 4 dice TL+F attacks on Whisper. Against 4 evade dice + focus that's an average of 1.3 damage, with only a 24% chance of completely missing. Once Soontir gets behind Whisper it can be hard for Whisper to shake him. Moving last with Boost + Barrel roll is still very good.

So, I like to think of Soontir as a "soft" Phantom counter. You can't necessarily just lay down point blank and roll dice at each other, because a 4/4/2/2 stat line is very powerful, but if you can arc dodge then you can keep Soontir whittling down Whisper. It's still a TIE Swarm at heart, you're just looking to cover the Phantom counter.

Ok there are several issues here, game balance as represented by available pieces I am not going to address. But I will discuss what is fun, and why we pay games.

What is fun? In a game like this winning is fun,but if that is your metric then half of all players are not having fun in each game. Ok we don't expect to win them all.but we do expect a certain chance of winning. The kid playing on the perpetual losing side might give up on football for example, because who wants to be beat down all the time. So you could try to be better, improving or mastering a skill can be its own reward. However with out some small rewards along the way you are probably not going to make it. So aside from winning for me what is fun is the tension the idea that it hangs in the balance it can go either way and you don't know which way it is going to go. Both parties feel they could have won if only they had made a different choice or the dice gods where not against them. A blue or might be fun fun once, but every time would be boring. If all you care about I'd winning you can always beat 5 year Olds, but that ain't much of a challenge.

When it comes to the same list all the time if we wanted a game whet it would new the same each time w have a choice in those, chess, checkers etc. games rich in history and strategy, however maybe we selected this game for its diversity and sorry telling potential.so to then reduce to a few similar options seems to diminish the possibilities available. If people are no longer having fun that is a genuine problem, and we as a community can help prevent it, if we care about this as our hobby, if you only care about winning you can always move on to the next thing until you have sucked the life blood out of that a well.

A recent study showed that people who drink moderately live longer than those who don't the reason being that the socialising was the important point, so if you are the kind of gamer who puts others of you could actually be negatively effecting your own health.

Winning isn't the definition of fun. Engaging in the fighting chance to win is where the fun comes from, and sharing that with an affable opponent is fun.

I think I might just go back to the TIE swarm and see if I can't figure out a formula to use it to beat the Phantom menace.

wouldnt subsituting Whisper for Soontir do the same thing, if not in a much more effective manner?

Wasn't the point to try and not use phantoms? Is this not part of the problem? "Surely using a phantom would be better?" MajorJuggler came up with a perfectly good none falcon none phantom list and the first suggestion was "...but, phantom".

wouldnt subsituting Whisper for Soontir do the same thing, if not in a much more effective manner?

Wasn't the point to try and not use phantoms? Is this not part of the problem? "Surely using a phantom would be better?" MajorJuggler came up with a perfectly good none falcon none phantom list and the first suggestion was "...but, phantom".

if using the phantom would be a much more effective alternative, how do you think I can use this list to convince people?

I find it a little sad that someone (not you OP) would buy in to this amazingly fun hobby and then only ever play Falcon/Phantom because they have to win. Even (as you say) in CASUAL. No wonder they are leaving...what a boring community ethos.

Welcome to competitive gaming.

Hardcore players are the games best friend and their worst enemy.

It is easy to go for a W for personal satisfaction, and not so easy to dial it back for the sake of the group.

TC, You are trying your best to get creative and retain players. Be thankful your group isn't in a situation all too common in competitive gaming: hardcore players use their skills as a weapon to bully "the other" or "casuals"

I wrote a blog post about "Common Pitfalls" that tend to destroy game groups. It doesn't sound like the problem at your table is you TC, but increasing awareness of these things doesn't hurt. Maybe this won't help, I don't know.

http://klecser.wordpress.com/2014/04/26/teaching-games-part-2-common-pitfalls/

X-wing has quite a few "Win-At-All-Costers". The article is that if you have a competitive environment, there is a difference between teaching mechanics and teaching tactics and strategy. The Win At All Costs" player will sometimes sabotage new players by teaching them how the game works, but purposely withhold information that could help them be really successful. They have constructed a castle around themselves that makes them feel safe ("I'm a TOP X-wing player"), and anything that jeopardizes that will be consciously or unconsciously sabotaged.

TL;DR Make sure you teach players how to be better players, not just how to play the game. I know that's easier said than done. There is other great advice here that could help you accomplish that.

TL:DR

The meta will be changing with each new release and new tricks with be available to deal with the meta of today.

The hard counters to Phantoms are stress and turrets. Nera, of the new Rebel Aces, can 360 fire a flechette torpedo. That stops a Phantom from pulling its ACD.

Fat Han won't stand with outmaneuver around. Fat Han also lines up for a bomber alpha really well.

Add into this that the developers hinted at a fix for ships against turreted ships.

Duraham, you are worried about perception at the moment. There have been more than one instance of the meta being dominant by a particular build. I remember when YT's made interceptors irrelevant, but they bounced back with Aces. Shuttles weren't in imperial lists because they were so hard to fly, now they are popping up in tournament lists as people are starting to find their value.

The meta does have counters, we just have to either be patient and see them and how they work, or wait for a new wave and upgrades that will change the meta again.

The meta is always changing, that's the nature of the game. I would say just be patient. People can walk away from a game, only to come back with renewed interest later on.

I thought you asked for lists to beat the meta while remaining over all competative? I just think MajorJuggler hit the nail on the head and without trying it you wanted to put a phantom in it (you may have tried it I don't know?) There are a lot of very good lists, they just require putting some thought into playing them, as has been mentioned above and elsewhere, falcons are pretty easy to master and phantoms (IMHO) are also easy mode. Try getting your players to get good with the likes of Biggs walks the dogs or elite interceptors, teach people how to fly against these dreaded meta breakers and folks will start to have fun again. The above list is a good starting point and there's even an explanation of what to do and how to do it.

I'll add my own list or two after work one in particular has done well against both

TL:DR

The meta will be changing with each new release and new tricks with be available to deal with the meta of today.

The hard counters to Phantoms are stress and turrets. Nera, of the new Rebel Aces, can 360 fire a flechette torpedo. That stops a Phantom from pulling its ACD.

Fat Han won't stand with outmaneuver around. Fat Han also lines up for a bomber alpha really well.

Add into this that the developers hinted at a fix for ships against turreted ships.

Duraham, you are worried about perception at the moment. There have been more than one instance of the meta being dominant by a particular build. I remember when YT's made interceptors irrelevant, but they bounced back with Aces. Shuttles weren't in imperial lists because they were so hard to fly, now they are popping up in tournament lists as people are starting to find their value.

The meta does have counters, we just have to either be patient and see them and how they work, or wait for a new wave and upgrades that will change the meta again.

The meta is always changing, that's the nature of the game. I would say just be patient. People can walk away from a game, only to come back with renewed interest later on.

Yes!

I thought you asked for lists to beat the meta while remaining over all competative? I just think MajorJuggler hit the nail on the head and without trying it you wanted to put a phantom in it (you may have tried it I don't know?) There are a lot of very good lists, they just require putting some thought into playing them, as has been mentioned above and elsewhere, falcons are pretty easy to master and phantoms (IMHO) are also easy mode. Try getting your players to get good with the likes of Biggs walks the dogs or elite interceptors, teach people how to fly against these dreaded meta breakers and folks will start to have fun again. The above list is a good starting point and there's even an explanation of what to do and how to do it.

I'll add my own list or two after work one in particular has done well against both

So far Bwing FCS seems to be making a comeback, especially with the newer players, but they are still getting whacked very hard by the falcon 4 Zs lists, since the Bwings really melt when ganked by the Zs

4) Offer a really juicy bonus prize for the first player to beat a Falcon/Phantom list without using either ship. This will help readjust the meta, and get people thinking.

This is the BEST idea I've seen!

One could followup with a tournament where the best prize goes to the build that performs the best with a "less than optimal" ship, like a naked HWK or non-Vader Tie Advanced!