Game balance is important, casual or not. It is about improving the game experience for both players, which can't be a bad thing nonetheless, and trying to push forwards to it shouldn't be discouraged by laid back attitudes in my opinion.

And GW community is very different to the Xwing, specially since GW basically cares nothing about competitive gaming, neither worries about having FAQs in time, or consistent rules (skyfire and nobody has it, genius).

Surely it depends on what your opponent is flying ?

If they have four tempest squadrons pilots with cluster missiles you've got an even chance?

Nothing will ever be perfect, as it stands it's pretty **** good.

i've been wargaming for almost 30 years and its one of the best quickplay games i've had the pleasure to be part of.

its more concise and balanced than some WWII games with ultra detail and hundreds of pages of rules, games in which you have to measure the petrol consumption of each tank every turn... even with that level of detail and rules to cover stuff as ludicrous as that you used to get arguments or claims that T34 85s were too cheap

no you're reducing an argument to the absurd and you know you are.

What i'm saying is that the game as a casual, simple wargame is fine. People want to play at a hyper competetive level for whatever jollies it gives them and thats fine but you have to understand that sometimes 'loose and fast' rules dont always hold up to super scrutiny and when pushed to their limit can break.

It why when we ran GW tournys we'd have grown men burst into tears at a refs decision that lost them a game as the rules to warhammer or 40k had ambiguity that had to be interpreted one way or another.

Given that at the moment the currrent 'the sky is falling' *wahhh* is that the phantom is too powerful and the only counter to it is too prevalent its hardly the biggest deal in the world is it. it's not like somebody gone and totally wrecked the game... it just means that *at the moment* someones only found one viable phantom counter and for a very small proportion of players this is making the game a little stale.

This has approximately nothing to do with what you actually said.

X-wing's rules are weak, overall, but they're not the source of the problem. FFG has done an acceptable job of painting over weak rules with a lot of very specific rulings. That's not the problem, and not what anyone means when they discuss balance.

Your statement was that for anyone who plays casually the game balance is fine. You're saying, very exactly, that the balance is fine as long as nobody tries too hard to win. As I said, that's a weak endorsement even if it's true - which it's not, on a number of levels.

The one saving grace of X-wing is that it has a decent range of "good enough" units, and its problems lie in too many useless units rather than a few overpowered ones. So the game plays well despite the balance problems... but it's not even close to being "well balanced".

No you can see it like that if you like, you're entitled to me wrong

I try to win in every game i play, it would be stupid not to.

I dont always, i'm either out flown, i make a poor list or i have bad dice... whatever the reason i probably win less than half of my games, perhaps a third?

But there is a world of difference between trying to win with a characterful and fun list and squeezing all the joy out of the game by crucnhing stats to find a 'points optimal' but totally 'un star wars' list. I assume the latter is your bag, we're probably not going to see eye to eye on this.

reply if you feel the need but save the finger skin for rolling your dice as i've no interest in saying anything else on this subject and probably wont look at this thread again.

But i'm sure you'll need to argue the toss so after you've typed out a witty or succinct reply can you read it again for me as I probably cant be bothered to and I'm off to bed in a minute.

Honestly, its a game... dont get so het up over it. Is there a list that cant be killed ... no, is the game 'broken' no... if you're frustrated because you're running into the same lists playing ultra competetive games then stop playing them until the force selection changes and play something else for a while or try some scenarios.

I dunno, just stop whining about it

No you can see it like that if you like, you're entitled to me wrong

I try to win in every game i play, it would be stupid not to.

I dont always, i'm either out flown, i make a poor list or i have bad dice... whatever the reason i probably win less than half of my games, perhaps a third?

But there is a world of difference between trying to win with a characterful and fun list and squeezing all the joy out of the game by crucnhing stats to find a 'points optimal' but totally 'un star wars' list. I assume the latter is your bag, we're probably not going to see eye to eye on this.

reply if you feel the need but save the finger skin for rolling your dice as i've no interest in saying anything else on this subject and probably wont look at this thread again.

But i'm sure you'll need to argue the toss so after you've typed out a witty or succinct reply can you read it again for me as I probably cant be bothered to and I'm off to bed in a minute.

Honestly, its a game... dont get so het up over it. Is there a list that cant be killed ... no, is the game 'broken' no... if you're frustrated because you're running into the same lists playing ultra competetive games then stop playing them until the force selection changes and play something else for a while or try some scenarios.

I dunno, just stop whining about it

Uhm... wow. OK then.

Let's settle for a single point out of that mess:

Han, in the Millennium Falcon, with Luke running the turret and C-3PO chattering away is an "un-Star Wars" list? A Phantom with an Advanced Cloaking Device is a lore-shattering combination?

It seems like you're arguing with what you expect people to be doing based on your experience with GW games, because none of what you're saying actually seems to have anything to do with X-wing. It's really hard to take you seriously when your answer to balance concerns is "People should just stop flying lore-breaking builds like a loaded Falcon".

The majority of people dont play like that.

For most people just playing casually its incredibly balanced.

So the game is balanced so long as people don't actually put any real effort into winning? Or just stay as bad players?

That's really not a ringing endorsement.

This is true of all games. All games are inherently flawed in some way. You make peace with it, and you find your dimension of fun. For many of us, fun is not a "win at all costs" mentality. We aren't dumb. We still want to be intellectually challenged. Its about the challenge, not the W.

Honestly, its a game... dont get so het up over it. Is there a list that cant be killed ... no, is the game 'broken' no... if you're frustrated because you're running into the same lists playing ultra competetive games then stop playing them until the force selection changes and play something else for a while or try some scenarios.

I dunno, just stop whining about it

Feedback and constructive criticism shouldn't be given ? Why exactly ?

By the way, whenever somebody says "fun list", i cringe, because by that they just mean "non optimal builds with little thought about game performance put into it", which is perfectly fine, but that is not by definition "fun list", fun for you maybe. Soontir + Yorr + Whisper is a really fun list to play, but it is quite optimal.

The majority of people dont play like that.

For most people just playing casually its incredibly balanced.

So the game is balanced so long as people don't actually put any real effort into winning? Or just stay as bad players?

That's really not a ringing endorsement.

This is true of all games. All games are inherently flawed in some way. You make peace with it, and you find your dimension of fun. For many of us, fun is not a "win at all costs" mentality. We aren't dumb. We still want to be intellectually challenged. Its about the challenge, not the W.

And I don't disagree with that.

Why is the answer to balance concerns "Stop caring about winning?" It's not just about winning - it's about having interesting games. Many people feel that heavy turret-based ships aren't as fun or interesting to play, win or otherwise. Playing turretless Y-wings against Phantoms is theoretically challenging, but you're basically doomed, and there's nothing intellectually challenging about beating your face against a brick wall.

As I said above, X-wing's balance manages to be good enough, because there are enough things in a "good" band and things that are better than good are limited by the system because they're usually fragile. But "good enough" and "good" are two different things.

Only time I've ever felt handicapped was with advances, and that will change shortly. I hate backseat game developers, and would not play a game with "modified" point values. Give me a list that has at least some thought into it (no naked spam of hwks) and I will get you at least a 50/50 win rate against the popular lists right now. People are to quick to the OP trigger. If FFG sees something broken then fix it, like a good game company they patch them up. Things like giving use to "failed cards" is also a nice touch, ie expose.

The game is very balanced and a well constructed list that doesn't play to the "meta" can do really well as no one expects it and probably won't know how to easily counter it.

How do you define "very balanced"?

Here are my observations. The balance is generally OK, but there is a lot of room for improvement. Out of 18 wave 4 Regionals, and 7 wave 4 Nationals tournaments (France, Nordic, United States, Australia, Germany, Poland, Netherlands), only 5 of the 16 ships have had their generic pilots represented in the winning lists:

• Z-95s
• TIE Fighters
• B-wings
• Lambda Shuttle
• Firespray

Of those 5, the Firespray and Lambda shuttle only made one appearance each, in the winning list in German Nationals. That's out of 25 highly competitive tournaments, so the sample set is plenty large enough. If you look at the conditional effectiveness of the generic pilots through wave 4 Regionals, it is clear that the first 4 in the above list are easily a cut above everything else in the game.

Edit: this is why I am building a full set of technical balance fixes for my House Rules, so that when playing casually you can take any ship, pilot, or upgrade, and not feel handicapped. It increases the squad building variety so much, and is so much more thematic when you're not just playing the same set of lists over and over.

I see a rookie in the top 16 USA Nationals also...

But really, how much of what's taken at a tournament is actually balance-oriented and not just popularity, or countering that popularity (sometimes becoming popular in itself)?

I have two play styles. At our weekly games I play whatever seems fun, last week it was 2 Interceptors and 2 Bombers, the week before 3 Lambdas.

At a tournament I'm going to play to win though, but I play to win with a force that I like. I came in second the last two tournaments running 3 B-wings.

To the new players, just figure out what works for you.

But really, how much of what's taken at a tournament is actually balance-oriented and not just popularity, or countering that popularity (sometimes becoming popular in itself)?

Popularity is certainly a factor.

But if the units aren't good, they don't stay popular. If Fat Han builds got demolished by every non-Phantom list that came along, their popularity as a way to beat Phantoms would fade because they're not a good choice otherwise. Ion Y-wings are theoretically a decent option against Phantoms, but fall apart fast against many (even most) other builds.

Han isn't popular because he's a good counter to Phantoms - he's popular because it's a very solid build that happens to be very good against something that dominates a lot of other builds.

I hate backseat game developers, and would not play a game with "modified" point values.

Hate is a strong word. I am compiling a list of technical balance fixes for House Rules, so I guess that makes me a backseat game developer.

Do you allow for the possibility that some in the community can potentially have an equal, or even better handle on game balance than the developers themselves in some areas? For example, it appears that I have performed significantly more numerical analysis than any of the FFG designers that have ever worked on the game. This isn't meant as a dig at them at all. You can't expect your company's game designers to also be math nerds that understand differential equations and calculus, and have the capability to perform complex statistical analysis. So occasionally some mistakes have gotten through their playtesting that would never have made it past a more rigorous numerical approach. My numerical approaches have been able to pretty accurately predict of all of the ships' performance before they were released. That's more than can be said for FFG themselves, unless you think their intent was to intentionally limit the effectiveness of about half their ships.

But really, how much of what's taken at a tournament is actually balance-oriented and not just popularity, or countering that popularity (sometimes becoming popular in itself)?

I have compiled those stats (conditional effectiveness) for the Regionals. Check the thread, the multi-column stats tracking method is explained. Generic X-wing conditional effectiveness for wave 4 Regionals was very poor.

While I agree that the game is generally balanced, dismissing clear issues because it's a "beer and pretzel game" is disingenuous. Casual games can (and should) be balanced. Hyper competitive games in billion dollar industries (MLB, NHL, NFL) are often not. There is no correlation between competition level and balance. A balanced game can be played at all levels. A unbalanced game, generally, can't be.

I know it's bad form to quote yourself, but this needs to be addressed by the crowd that objects to tourney players. Balance and competition level have nothing to do with each other. Fun and competitive have no relation. Fun and balanced aren't even, necessarily, related.

The opposite of fun is unfun.

The opposite of balanced is unbalanced.

The opposite of competitive is uncompetitive.

Arguments that mix these terms are, at best, illogical and unpersuasive. At worst, they are rhetorically dishonest. Please realize the people have different ideas of fun, casual, and competitive. The question of balance is only "can any reasonably built 100 point squad beat any other 50% of the time when fielded by opponents of equal skill?" The answer to this is the only thing pertinent to balance and applies whatever the level of competition.

Why is the answer to balance concerns "Stop caring about winning?" It's not just about winning - it's about having interesting games. Many people feel that heavy turret-based ships aren't as fun or interesting to play, win or otherwise. Playing turretless Y-wings against Phantoms is theoretically challenging, but you're basically doomed, and there's nothing intellectually challenging about beating your face against a brick wall.

Well, this is where we disagree. Have you never heard of purposely handicapping yourself? These are all just variations on challenge, and just because you prefer different challenges than me, doesn't mean that your challenges are inherently better.

Why is that meta-focused individuals happen to be those that define "meta" as the pinnacle of intellectual challenge? If that is your challenge, great. But don't begrudge me my choice of challenge and how I craft balance in my gameplay.

I define adhering strictly to meta-gaming as the very definition of beating ones face against the brick wall. Variety is the spice of life for me. It is in BREADTH that I like to game, not DEPTH. You prefer depth and I prefer breadth. But to claim that BREADTH is inherently inferior, intellectually, than depth, is simply untrue.

This is why this thread has been posted. Competitive games tend to have two camps of people: advocates for depth and breadth. Neither is inherently inferior to the other. Yet, the depth crowd consistently insists that they are the true thinkers. Heck, there was some blowhard on the Eastern Nebraska X-wing FB group recently railing against "casuals" as if they were an inferior species of human.

The truth, in my mind, is that competitive gaming attracts individuals who think they can define themselves by their success on the gaming table. And when they do, they begin to develop arguments as to why their personal preferences, which are essentially opinions about intellectual discourse, are better than others personal preferences. I've seen it time and time again.

I don't begrudge anyone their ability to gain satisfaction from a game in any way they wish. But I do resist, vehemently, the intent of some people to categorize the experiences of others as inferior simply because it is a different style of thinking.

Only if you think in dualities. Dualistic thinking can get you into a lot of trouble. Is or isn't? Yes or no? Right or wrong? Rarely do real problems and things worth debating come in dualities like this. If you aren't viewing the world in shades of grey, you're missing out on a lot of interesting puzzles. But to each their own. Just know that some people don't think in extremes like this. That doesn't make those other modalities inherently "illogical". It makes them different.

Heck, there was some blowhard on the Eastern Nebraska X-wing FB group recently railing against "casuals" as if they were an inferior species of human.

Yup, its very very important to remember that 'tournament play' is NOT *the* game.

Its a small aspect of the game. For every guy in your town who plays ultra competetively with a list designed to win a tourny there will be ten people who just want to have fun and make games up around stories or see if Han solo and luke can escape from six pursuing TIEs

Nowt wrong with playing in a tourny but dont be put off by posts saying 'only this list is viable', they mean only that list is viable to someone playing to win the prizes.

If you're playing with mates, the odds are they will not have micro scrutinised the odds of 'card x' and will just be playing with stuff they like the look of... just like you.

Dude! There are 10 people in my town that play?!?!? I wish!!!

The opposite of fun is unfun.

The opposite of balanced is unbalanced.

The opposite of competitive is uncompetitive.

Arguments that mix these terms are, at best, illogical and unpersuasive.

Only if you think in dualities. Dualistic thinking can get you into a lot of trouble. Is or isn't? Yes or no? Right or wrong? Rarely do real problems and things worth debating come in dualities like this. If you aren't viewing the world in shades of grey, you're missing out on a lot of interesting puzzles. But to each their own. Just know that some people don't think in extremes like this. That doesn't make those other modalities inherently "illogical". It makes them different.

Did you even read the rest of the post? I don't ask this to snark, but I genuinely don't understand how you can read the argument and come away with concerns over my "dualistic thinking."

My argument is exactly the opposite: Fun is opposed to unfun, not competitive or balanced. There are lots of variations within and people can make their own fun. You are absolutely allowed to make your own challenges; I'm thrilled that you can and find fun doing so. That has nothing to do with whether or not the game is balanced. It is a separate category.

So I want to stand in defense of the balance that this game has. Much has been said about how there are not that many competitive list archetypes. But I will contend that at the highest level of the game....there are at least 3 competitive builds right now, and about a half a dozen tier 2 lists with a reasonable chance to beat the 'big 3'.

In all of war gaming I think you would be hard pressed to find that kind of diversity at the top level.

I also want to address the point that was made, that you should be able to field any list, and have a 50/50 shot against any other list. This is of course not possible with the complexity of this game. The only way to accomplish that is to have very few options.

The most balanced game in the world is chess. And white has a 51-49 advantage.

At the top end, the game is not very well balanced. If newer players haven't yet recognized that yet, then it speaks more to their experience, and not the state of the game itself. It makes for an even stronger argument for this, especially for casual play:

I would have to say that I disagree with this. All players have access to all factions and list building options in tournaments making it completely balanced, from that point of view anyhow. Certain ships are definitely unbalanced, but its each players choice as to which ships they play.

The unbalance I believe most people refer to in the game is just the nature of any kind of game like this. I don't think there is any way you could create a game like this with complete balance without making all the units the same. In order to have a variety in game play the ships have to have different strengths and weaknesses. Those varieties coupled with by chance match pairings means those unbalances will always be unavoidable. So yes you can call it an unbalance, but is it really if its in the nature of the game? But I do also think that some certain ships (TIE Ad, I am looking at you) could use some tweaking in the balance department.

I think that if no matter what you built your list out of, if it was always an equal match to any other list, then I think this game would get boring really fast.

Well, this is where we disagree. Have you never heard of purposely handicapping yourself? These are all just variations on challenge, and just because you prefer different challenges than me, doesn't mean that your challenges are inherently better.

Why is that meta-focused individuals happen to be those that define "meta" as the pinnacle of intellectual challenge? If that is your challenge, great. But don't begrudge me my choice of challenge and how I craft balance in my gameplay.

I define adhering strictly to meta-gaming as the very definition of beating ones face against the brick wall. Variety is the spice of life for me. It is in BREADTH that I like to game, not DEPTH. You prefer depth and I prefer breadth. But to claim that BREADTH is inherently inferior, intellectually, than depth, is simply untrue.

This is why this thread has been posted. Competitive games tend to have two camps of people: advocates for depth and breadth. Neither is inherently inferior to the other. Yet, the depth crowd consistently insists that they are the true thinkers. Heck, there was some blowhard on the Eastern Nebraska X-wing FB group recently railing against "casuals" as if they were an inferior species of human.

The truth, in my mind, is that competitive gaming attracts individuals who think they can define themselves by their success on the gaming table. And when they do, they begin to develop arguments as to why their personal preferences, which are essentially opinions about intellectual discourse, are better than others personal preferences. I've seen it time and time again.

I don't begrudge anyone their ability to gain satisfaction from a game in any way they wish. But I do resist, vehemently, the intent of some people to categorize the experiences of others as inferior simply because it is a different style of thinking.

This is different than what you said before, and I may have keyed too much on a specific sentence.

If you're intentionally handicapping yourself, or "crafting your balance", then you're "going for the W". You're redefining what that W means - often on the fly, I suspect - but you're still competing for it just as surely as anyone else. That's a different thing than what was being said earlier - which is that there's no problem with balance as long as your friends are too stupid to find the good combos.

If you like to play differently, that's fine - I often push myself to win with suboptimal builds, and rarely play the same build twice, so I don't think we're as different as you might think. But that said, there is a baseline for the game, and the tournament system defines that baseline. My work has a few soccer fields, but they're small, and the players usually use a small goal and no keeper. That's fine and fun, but it doesn't become relevant for a discussion about whether FIFA should try and do something to discourage bunkering.

So several different issues flying around there, but I don't think we disagree as much as you might think. I do think that any playstyle starts from a balanced baseline of points - measurement becomes impossible otherwise, and I'm not sure you're actually challenging yourself if you have no way to measure anything.

Shado, um, where do I start?

1. Using that initial definition of balanced, it would be balanced if everyone could choose either a) cavemen with sticks, or b) a Death Star. Since both players have access to the same lists....

2. There are many games that have asymmetrical unit composition but are still very well balanced. For example StarCraft 2.

3. Who said anything about all lists being equal if the game was balanced better? There are obviously very strong paper rock scissors dynamics in place. If the game were balanced better then the reverse is true there would be more build diversity. And that would be a good thing.

I don't really get your post. It amounts to saying "The game is not balanced... but it would be worse if it was balanced!"

I hate backseat game developers, and would not play a game with "modified" point values.

Hate is a strong word. I am compiling a list of technical balance fixes for House Rules, so I guess that makes me a backseat game developer.

Yeah it does. I enjoy your compiling of information and of statistical data, it does help find the amount of usage you might get out of a card when in combo. I find your jousting method of determining ship value and fixing things based in a vacuum, relatively flawed. So just because there are parts of a person that I hate doesn't mean I have to not like the person. You do good work on a few things, but not all. I still respect you for that work.

I don't protest to know the numbers as well as you, but I have taken some of your "fixes" and made lists that just decimate, current lists that are "op". That is the problem, you fix a ship for a 1v1 system, you will unbalance something else. You propose fixes that cause other things to become a problem. You also apply that all ships must be worth the same value as all other ships and not be able to pick up nuances in the play style of the ships. Why on earth would I take 3 academies for 36 points instead of 2 Alphas for 34? Sure I get 3 more health but I also gain much more versatility with boost and more potent attack (I find 2 x 3 dice to be more valuable than 3 x 2 dice even at range 1). Hell, screw the current tie swarm, I'll take 4 Alphas, 1 Academy, and 1 Howlrunner with determination over the norm right now, that is down right terrifying.

Seeing as you like using starcraft as an example, which is by far a TERRIBLE analogy to a balanced system because it is ALWAYS evolving to fix the issues, something board games just can't do without erratas left and right. I give you this example of using a balanced unit, but using player skill to wield an advantage over someone even though that person should of won (and yes I know this can be used as an example for a counter argument but I find it enjoyable none the less):

http://youtu.be/lSgnq60ictU?t=5m10s

I find ships more a pay for the learning curve, the amount of that ship you can take and with certain upgrades out to the field, than a static point value. That is just my opinion though.

Now I am not saying FFG isn't without fault. Some cards like expose were completely useless but that isn't such a problem now. I trust that the game designers that are now in control are learning from the environment and fixing the game up into a much more balanced situation.

Back to the thread:

Don't worry about the meta as a new player, learn the ships, learn what you like, fly what you like, and you will win. Meta lists and netdecking doesn't help you become a better player.

Don't worry about the meta as a new player, learn the ships, learn what you like, fly what you like, and you will win. Meta lists and netdecking doesn't help you become a better player.

That being said, doing your research doesn't hurt. There's little point wasting time trying to get a bad card to work when a quick forum search will tell you it won't.

Don't worry about the meta as a new player, learn the ships, learn what you like, fly what you like, and you will win. Meta lists and netdecking doesn't help you become a better player.

That being said, doing your research doesn't hurt. There's little point wasting time trying to get a bad card to work when a quick forum search will tell you it won't.

And that is the part that I enjoy on the statistical side of things. It helps new players learn that some cards, while cool sounding just don't pan out, which will more then likely change. Again I will go back to what I said before, a thought out list will do just fine against almost everything, but a randomly thrown together one will not.