Everything in X-Wing is designed to be balanced at the 100 point level. You cannot arbitrarily change that cap without potentially unbalancing the game with future products.

X-Wing is not Warhammer. The army sizes in Warhammer may change, but so do the individual units and their respective costs. X-Wing is static, so the comparison is a poor one. I sincerely hope nobody is suggesting that FFG should follow in GW's footsteps and start issuing revised costs for all the ships every year.

I agree with the fact that it is designed to be balanced at 100, but I do think going up to 120-125 tends to be okay. Its a matter of how much % change you get and how much more effective focus firing is.

Also, as someone else said, raising the total point cap actually makes a few inefficient things more cost effective as the "wasted" points become a smaller percentage of your list, which you can hopefully make up via synergy or changes to flying that take advantage of the unusual choice you've made.

Still, Tie Advanced are for the courageous.

would a points increase breath life into any ships that see little table time, like the bomber or hawk?

The kind of person who thinks HWKs and Bombers aren't worth running at 100 is probably going to make the same mistake at 110 or 125 or 150.

more and more high point ships, more really cool bells and whistles to add to our ships.

if we use these then that leads to fewer ships, we have started playing 150 point games in my group and the play time hasn't really changed due to us using more upgrades then adding more ships.

do you think the time for increasing tournament point limits may be coming?

No.

Why? 12 TIE swarm. Triple Decimator. XXXBBB. And all on a time limit.

It's designed and balanced around 100. More points does mean longer games: your group may just upgrade more but most people will add more ships and with them more health and more gun. Even upgraded ships end up tougher.

In casual I prefer 150 to 100, more room to play with, but tournaments are timed.

@Vorpal Sword

that cuts man, that really cuts (get it, your a sword )

Totally agree with the point made by Steve O, 100 points forces you to make choices, increasing the point value of standard games just seems a bit lazy. However if it's just you and your mates, then you can do what you like, It is supposed to be fun!

There's an 8 ship cap in Epic? wdf??

No, it's a 6 ship of a type cap for large, 12 for small, so you could run 12 Academy pilots, and 6 Omicron group, 2 Bombers, and a Firespray and be ok.

I think there needs to be a midsized tournament but leave the majority at 100. A lot of people have a tough time already finishing a 100 point game in time. Same used to happen in other games. You make it bigger and less people finish (I've run tournaments in multiple systems and it's pretty consistent).

For fun games, weekly groups, etc put whatever points you want. We've run everything from 30 points up.

That's funny. Right now my group has been playing 150 since Gencon. It's really the only fair way to deal with the more expensive ships like the decimator. Plus it does allow for a lot of cool options.

we've found a 'team game' where each player in the team has 80 points for a combined faction of 160 worked really well.

Means you have to choose carefully and either balance your section to be able to fight alone or synchronise with your buddy on your team with the risk that if he gets hit you have to fight with a big hole in your capabilities.

That's funny. Right now my group has been playing 150 since Gencon. It's really the only fair way to deal with the more expensive ships like the decimator. Plus it does allow for a lot of cool options.

The Decimator isn't any more expensive than a YT-1300, and you have a lot of cool options at 100 points too--already more than anyone could feasibly explore, with more options showing up with every wave.

we've found a 'team game' where each player in the team has 80 points for a combined faction of 160 worked really well.

Means you have to choose carefully and either balance your section to be able to fight alone or synchronise with your buddy on your team with the risk that if he gets hit you have to fight with a big hole in your capabilities.

This actually sounds like a lot of fun to me, but it's pretty far from just increasing the point limit. On an individual basis, you're actually more restricted than you are at 100.

Such a change isn't coming. Why, because the 100pt format is quite popular and the designers obviously didn't see an issue with the squads they saw at Gencon. And given the turnout at Regionals, I don't think they want to increase the time to play. Armada and Epic are already a ***** to schedule tournaments for.

I don't see anything wrong with you having more points in games, I just don't see it becoming official.

/signed

OK, then what about static battlefield options for purchase separate from your squad points.

like the mines from TIE fighter and X-wing PC games.

I would like to see a little more dimension to the standard game, such area denial options would add that to the game.

that's why I thought I would ask about a points increase and how the community felt about that as a whole.

just like adding pilot upgrades for different races, this would be primarily rebel since the empire is mostly human only.

I don't know, sometimes I think to much about **** I shouldn't.

or take a look at HordeMachines after the (correct me if I get names wrong please) Colossus and Gargants(I think) are released.

As a big Warmachine/Hordes player (Warhordes or whatever people call it irritates me to no end) this statement is wrong. Colossals and Gargantuans have actually been met with a mild response in competitive play. There are 10 of these and only 2 are worth playing. You are putting all your eggs in one basket and they're surprisingly easy to take down.

They also made a jump from 35 to 50 points (would be like going from 100 to 125 in X-wing) for most competitive play to promote bringing support to the game.

That said, I don't know if X-wing is balanced for play outside of 100 points. I'm fine with it as-is, but don't expect me to start bringing HWKs anytime soon.

What I'm trying to say is you could call point creep a natural progression of a table top game hobby. I'm just saying don't rush it. Enjoy the skirmishes that seem small to the point where a no name green pilot can still have an effect on the match. Enjoy that you can get 2 factions in the starter kit instead of only one. Because soon enough it will be 4 Ties in the Imperial starter. In a few years you will see 120, 125 or even 150 as the new standard. After a decade from now if it is still popular it will probably be 200 points for a standard squadron (no transports still). So enjoy what you got now.

I think those that say the game is only balanced around 100 points probably haven't played much at higher point levels. I think the game "used" to be well balanced at 100, but as waves 3+ came about the game has actually plays better at higher point levels.

Benefits

• Support ships like the HWK and Shuttle become worth taking without hamstringing your list.
• Taking ordnance and bombers becomes useful without hamstringing your list.
• It reduces the Rock Scissors Paper nature of the game that wave 4 has accelerated.

Common Complaints

• Force multiplier ships become more powerful - to an extent yes, but not as much as some purport. Generally there is only so much space you can pack in to make use of these abilities. It becomes harder to fly (obstacles) and easier target for AOE ordnance or abilities.
• Not enough room to fly ships - up to 125 pts still flies nice on 3x3, 150 plays better on 3x4, and allows for better flanking tactics.

I think those that say the game is only balanced around 100 points probably haven't played much at higher point levels.

Wrong.

I think the game "used" to be well balanced at 100, but as waves 3+ came about the game has actually plays better at higher point levels.

An opinion, with which I strongly disagree.

Support ships like the HWK and Shuttle become worth taking without hamstringing your list.

This isn't a problem at 100 points.

Taking ordnance and bombers becomes useful without hamstringing your list.

This is already better than it used to be, and it's going to get better still.

It reduces the Rock Scissors Paper nature of the game that wave 4 has accelerated.

This is a misreading of the current metagame (although a common one). If it were a problem, however, you don't explain here why increasing the point limit would reduce the effect rather than simply shifting it to new lists or increasing it.

Force multiplier ships become more powerful - to an extent yes, but not as much as some purport. Generally there is only so much space you can pack in to make use of these abilities. It becomes harder to fly (obstacles) and easier target for AOE ordnance or abilities.

This isn't something I would have identified as a problem in the first place, but it's an example of introducing a rock-paper-scissors mechanic: my 12-ship swarm is going to roll over you unless you bring Assault Missiles or Ion Torpedoes, but my Assault Missiles and Ion Torpedoes are not particularly useful against your triple-Decimator list.

Not enough room to fly ships - up to 125 pts still flies nice on 3x3, 150 plays better on 3x4, and allows for better flanking tactics.

Also not really a problem, unless you don't have a 3x4 space--that is, it's fine at home but would likely require adjustment for some tournament venues.

Not addressed above is the fact that increasing the point value likely increases the length of a game (even if that increase isn't proportional), meaning tournaments become more difficult to schedule and

Yeah, you don't see the meta because the higher point games are not being played nearly enough for it to develop. Top squads would emerge, thus leading to the fight about rock-paper-scissors.

Really? Your other answers seem to contradict this.

Incorrect. See how easy it is to refute without evidence? Play test it and you'll see the difference.

Really, how so?

You can deny it, but it doesn't make it not so.

Except that kind of list isn't really an issue and doesn't require Assault Missiles. It's easy to exploit a 12 ship swarm. You can only fly so many in one formation before obstacles and turning becomes a problem. Try it out.

Like any change, there is an adjustment period. Sure 125 pts adds a bit more time, but like you said, it's not proportional to point value. It's about 10 minutes on average.

I think those that say the game is only balanced around 100 points probably haven't played much at higher point levels.

Wrong.

Really? Your other answers seem to contradict this.

I've played the game extensively at lots of point levels from 50 to 150, so yes, you're wrong to say that the people disagreeing with you are doing so out of inexperience.

(thinks HWKs work just fine at 100)

Incorrect. See how easy it is to refute without evidence? Play test it and you'll see the difference.

You're the one making an assertion without evidence: that HWKs and Lambdas don't work at 100 points. Feel free to provide some evidence; until you do, I'll happily (and successfully) continue playing HWKs and Lambdas at 100 points.

(thinks ordnance and Bombers already work at 100 and are getting better)

Really, how so?

Jonus makes a huge difference in the efficiency and effectiveness of ordnance. New pieces of ordnance are being released that are cheaper or more effective than previous pieces, and that design trend appears to be continuing.

This is a misreading of the current metagame (although a common one). If it were a problem, however, you don't explain here why increasing the point limit would reduce the effect rather than simply shifting it to new lists or increasing it.

You can deny it, but it doesn't make it not so.

You initially asserted (again, without any evidence) that the current metagame is based on rock-paper-scissors. I've discussed extensively in other threads why I think it's a mistake to interpret it that way, but here's the short(ish) version: not all Falcon lists are the same, and in fact a Chewie/Lando list has very little in common with a Han + Talas list. The same is true for Phantom lists, swarms, etc., and it's trivial to create examples: Whisper/Echo/Sigma flies very differently from Echo + Howlrunner + Adacademy Pilots, and they have very different matchups.

Furthermore, there are builds that aren't really counters to other builds but that nevertheless have acceptable win rates, like Triple Firesprays versus HSF; there are also "oddball" lists that don't really conform to any archetype, but also have acceptable win rates against an array of archetypes (like three Lambdas and a Firespray).

Accordingly, calling the current metagame an RPS is such an oversimplification that it doesn't retain a lot of meaning, which means it's a very weak premise for the superiority of the 150-point game.

And you still haven't explained why increasing the point limits would reduce any RPS mechanic that does exist.

...and now I'm out of quotes, and out of time too.

Yeah, I think 120 - 125 points would be the max. 150 is too much, 100 is just a smidge too low. Hell, I could probably get by with 110 points.

We have Tournaments with 100 Points and with 131 Points.

I Like more Squadpoints...more Fighters, more Combinations.... But the most Player only Like play the FFG Rules! We play Escalation last Year with HouseRules... Most Player hate it..some Weeks later, FFG change the Rules (same as our HouseRules) and tadaaaa all like it and join our Tournament.

I think those that say the game is only balanced around 100 points probably haven't played much at higher point levels.

Wrong.

Really? Your other answers seem to contradict this.

I've played the game extensively at lots of point levels from 50 to 150, so yes, you're wrong to say that the people disagreeing with you are doing so out of inexperience.

(thinks HWKs work just fine at 100)

Incorrect. See how easy it is to refute without evidence? Play test it and you'll see the difference.

You're the one making an assertion without evidence: that HWKs and Lambdas don't work at 100 points. Feel free to provide some evidence; until you do, I'll happily (and successfully) continue playing HWKs and Lambdas at 100 points.

(thinks ordnance and Bombers already work at 100 and are getting better)

Really, how so?

Jonus makes a huge difference in the efficiency and effectiveness of ordnance. New pieces of ordnance are being released that are cheaper or more effective than previous pieces, and that design trend appears to be continuing.

This is a misreading of the current metagame (although a common one). If it were a problem, however, you don't explain here why increasing the point limit would reduce the effect rather than simply shifting it to new lists or increasing it.

You can deny it, but it doesn't make it not so.

You initially asserted (again, without any evidence) that the current metagame is based on rock-paper-scissors. I've discussed extensively in other threads why I think it's a mistake to interpret it that way, but here's the short(ish) version: not all Falcon lists are the same, and in fact a Chewie/Lando list has very little in common with a Han + Talas list. The same is true for Phantom lists, swarms, etc., and it's trivial to create examples: Whisper/Echo/Sigma flies very differently from Echo + Howlrunner + Adacademy Pilots, and they have very different matchups.Furthermore, there are builds that aren't really counters to other builds but that nevertheless have acceptable win rates, like Triple Firesprays versus HSF; there are also "oddball" lists that don't really conform to any archetype, but also have acceptable win rates against an array of archetypes (like three Lambdas and a Firespray).Accordingly, calling the current metagame an RPS is such an oversimplification that it doesn't retain a lot of meaning, which means it's a very weak premise for the superiority of the 150-point game.And you still haven't explained why increasing the point limits would reduce any RPS mechanic that does exist....and now I'm out of quotes, and out of time too.

Vorpal Sword is correct, he has 2,494 posts and Gather only has 132.

I've had some great lists clock in at 101-105 points. But that's not enough reason to change the points. Expensive ships weren't made expensive by accident. There's a reason you can only fly 3 generics of some ships.

Before we all tear this thread apart lets look at something. A TO can make any rules they wish for events. Only the Official Tournaments have to follow the 100pt rule. If you want to have an event at 150pts just ask your local shop or TO to host the event. I don't think the game breaks down at 150pts it just changes what ships are more viable vs 100pts. I TO events at my local shop and we are having a single ship 35pt tourney tomorrow, why, it just seems fun!

Single ship flying is my favorite. I wish we had more tournies like THAT.

You did ban large bases though, right?

yeah, 8 ship cap just like in epic play, that's what I was thinking

uh, did I miss something? From what I know the cap was 12 ships... heck, have to check the "current" rules again it seems