The limit is 12 of one type of normal base ships, 6 of large base ships.
increasing standard play points for tournaments
131 points is a bit odd and arbitrary isnt it?
Was that the amount a persuasive person needed to get their list in 
no.
the reason the ships are more expesive in game is that you have to choose, beefy ship that will have a wing man or 2, or 4+ ships with not the greatest pilots, but can still play with the big boys on having more firepower.
You want a 150pt game, go play epic teams. you get your 150pts.
leave 100pts alone, heck, I say drop it down to like 80 pts (well maybe 90) REALLY make people work to get stuff in they want.
The limit is 12 of one type of normal base ships, 6 of large base ships.
8 and 4 are the caps for team epic, so technically 8 is still correct.
You COULD increase points for tournament play, but then we'd just run into the same issues while list building. We'd be 1 or 2 pts short of the really neat idea we have.
Then, some ships would become more viable, some less viable. Idk if this solves any problems, just creates the same problems in a different format.
And, I certainly would try to do more ships in as well as upgrades. 150 pts means toi can take any 100 pt lost and automatically add 4 x Ties or Z95s (unless you hit the a maximum unit cap).
Single ship flying is my favorite. I wish we had more tournies like THAT.
You did ban large bases though, right?
Yes, limited to small base ships only and 2'x2' play area with 4 astroids.
(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.
I base my viewpoints on the following:
- Actual play experience
- Tournament data (which is incomplete to draw definite conclusions, but still evidence)
- Actual effectiveness of a squad (damage output, survivability, maneuverability, etc).
- Online discussion
In terms of support ships, they are appropriately costed, but taking them reduces the output of the squad. They generally take up about 1/4 of the squad points, and making them effective in both combat and support tends to make them take up 1/3 of the squad, which reduces the rest of the squad. Higher point levels reduce the percentage of squad points they take up. All 4 points above have supporting evidence for this.
In terms of rock, scissor, paper, I don't think anyone is claiming it's that black and white, but there is a varying degree to how much of the effect is in lists and the meta game, and it seems to have increased with the tantive and wave 4 releases. Again, all 4 points above have supporting evidence for this. The current main areas of RSP are:
- highly maneuverable ships that escape firing arcs
- extremely durable, tanky large ships
- large quantities of cheap ships
More ships on the table helps mitigate all 3 of these areas. Again people argue that swarms become more powerful the larger they are, however I have not found that so. It becomes hard for a pack of ships to stay focused and in formation in larger numbers.
More ships on the table helps mitigate all 3 of these areas. Again people argue that swarms become more powerful the larger they are, however I have not found that so. It becomes hard for a pack of ships to stay focused and in formation in larger numbers.
That's only assuming that you have to have Howlrunner, which you don't. A mass of ships doesn't have to be flown in formation to be effective.
Though 150 pts DOES mean 5 x Defenders, which would look really scary!
Though, id have to buy 4 more Defenders...
Probably another reason id prefer no change, id want to buy more stuff to try out crazy lists!
7 x Lambdas could be a thing. Thatd be epic. How would you even set that up in the range 1 board edge?!!!
More ships on the table helps mitigate all 3 of these areas. Again people argue that swarms become more powerful the larger they are, however I have not found that so. It becomes hard for a pack of ships to stay focused and in formation in larger numbers.
That's only assuming that you have to have Howlrunner, which you don't. A mass of ships doesn't have to be flown in formation to be effective.
I guess I'm not talking about Howlrunner, but a large number of weak attack ships. As you have more ships, it becomes increasingly harder for all of them to get shots each turn, and more so on the same ship. A low number of higher-powered ships can get targets more easily and more focused.
Considering the fact that you really only need so many ships to focus down another ship, I'm not sure I see where the problem lies. Surely nobody is suggesting that 12 TIE fighters all have to fire on the same target to be effective.
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.
Who said formation? Howlrunner and 11 Academies fits but the six points left over from 12 Academies can be spent in all sorts of ways. TIE swarms don't have to Howl.
Considering the fact that you really only need so many ships to focus down another ship, I'm not sure I see where the problem lies. Surely nobody is suggesting that 12 TIE fighters all have to fire on the same target to be effective.
How many Academy Pilots do you need to focus down a B-wing in a turn? Close to all of them unless you have range 1.
How many Academy Pilots do you need to focus down a B-wing in a turn?
How many turns does a game last?
How many Academy Pilots do you need to focus down a B-wing in a turn?
How many turns does a game last?
Longer than 12 tie-fighters.
How many Academy Pilots do you need to focus down a B-wing in a turn?
Assuming the TIE fighters have focus tokens but not Howlrunner,
8 / ( 0.75 + 0.75 - 3/8 )
an average of approximately 7 TIE fighters.
Edited by LagomorphiaI base my viewpoints on the following:
In terms of support ships, they are appropriately costed, but taking them reduces the output of the squad. They generally take up about 1/4 of the squad points, and making them effective in both combat and support tends to make them take up 1/3 of the squad, which reduces the rest of the squad. Higher point levels reduce the percentage of squad points they take up. All 4 points above have supporting evidence for this.
- Actual play experience
- Tournament data (which is incomplete to draw definite conclusions, but still evidence)
- Actual effectiveness of a squad (damage output, survivability, maneuverability, etc).
- Online discussion
I'm saying the online groupthink about HWKs--that is, points 2-4--is wrong. Obviously your play experience differs from mine:
- Rebel Operative is the hardest to use, since it has all the drawbacks of the HWK with no pilot ability to compensate. (Hopefully the release of more turrets will eventually help them out.) I have, however, flown them competitively, and in Wave 3 my list that included them was 7-1 in competitive play (2x Rebel Operative + Ion Cannon Turret, 2x Blue Squadron Pilot + Heavy Laser Cannon).
- Roark + Ion Cannon takes up 1 more point than Gold Squadron + Ion Cannon, and is a generally excellent support piece.
- Kyle + Ion Cannon + Recon Specialist + Moldy Crow takes up 32 points, or 6 points more than Garven Dreis. If you're looking to boost the offense or defense of a ship on PS7-9, and you don't want to or can't use Push the Limit, then 6 points may be a reasonable price to pay for an extra action with no stress. (I will say that Kyle + High-PS Wingman essentially limits you to three ships or four with two Headhunters, and as a result I don't run him often.)
- Jan + Ion Cannon is just 30 points (31 with Nien), and is frankly a very good investment. In comparison to Gold Squadron + Ion Cannon you pay an additional 7 points, and those 7 points get you nearly the functionality of that Gold Squadron Pilot, plus PS8, plus Jan's ability--which, given a squadmate with 3 Attack, is the equivalent of an HLC that can crit and works at Range 1. I have never regretted including her in any list.
In terms of rock, scissor, paper, I don't think anyone is claiming it's that black and white, but there is a varying degree to how much of the effect is in lists and the meta game, and it seems to have increased with the tantive and wave 4 releases. Again, all 4 points above have supporting evidence for this. The current main areas of RSP are:
More ships on the table helps mitigate all 3 of these areas. Again people argue that swarms become more powerful the larger they are, however I have not found that so. It becomes hard for a pack of ships to stay focused and in formation in larger numbers.
- highly maneuverable ships that escape firing arcs
- extremely durable, tanky large ships
- large quantities of cheap ships
First, I think even a cursory review of threads with the phrase "rock paper scissors" over the past four weeks or so will reveal a lot of people making black-and-white arguments.
Second, in your RPS analysis, in which of those three categories does each of the following lists fall?
- 4x Rebels
- 3x elite Rebels
- Jonus/2x Delta+HLC
- Etahn/4x Headhunter
- 2x Firespray/misc. escort
- Chewbacca/4x Headhunter
- Phantom/5x TIE Fighter
- Soontir Fel/Howlrunner/4x TIE Fighter
But even if everyone keeps talking about it, it's still a really shaky foundation for an argument that the point limit should increase.
Rebel Operative
Support ship with no support ability. 
It can kind of substitute for a Y-wing but I'd prefer a Y-wing. If I'm HWKing instead I really want one of the support pilots. Rebel Aces and Most Wanted will be very interesting for the space birdie.
And considering Phantoms have defeated Falcons, the RPS situation is not nearly as dire as some think. Having a disadvantage does not equal a loss.
It can kind of substitute for a Y-wing but I'd prefer a Y-wing.
It's iffy, for 2 less points, the HWK is pretty good, and those 2 points may open quite a few new options.
Now as far as the thread topic. I don't see any official events ever changing from 100 points. That point value works, and there's no real reason to change it. You don't really gain anything by having a 150 list, other then more ships and more options.
But it doesn't make the game more competitive, in fact it makes it less so in a way, by making take longer on avg. So it really adds nothing to the tournament play, but does take away.
That said, if you want to play 150 or higher games go for it, no one is going to stop you. I have a few 150 point lists myself, and they can be fun to play, just because you have more ships on the table. That doesn't make them more fun, or better in some objective sense.
125 points, 8 ships max, and no ships that require two bases. That's the sweet spot I think for dogfights with fun options on named pilots.
I base my viewpoints on the following:
In terms of support ships, they are appropriately costed, but taking them reduces the output of the squad. They generally take up about 1/4 of the squad points, and making them effective in both combat and support tends to make them take up 1/3 of the squad, which reduces the rest of the squad. Higher point levels reduce the percentage of squad points they take up. All 4 points above have supporting evidence for this.
- Actual play experience
- Tournament data (which is incomplete to draw definite conclusions, but still evidence)
- Actual effectiveness of a squad (damage output, survivability, maneuverability, etc).
- Online discussion
I'm saying the online groupthink about HWKs--that is, points 2-4--is wrong. Obviously your play experience differs from mine:
You're on stronger ground when you imply that Lambdas don't work well, as there the situation is the opposite of the HWK: only the generic pilot really works, with the others limited to a specialist role or nearly unusable. But even there, the fact that there were two Lambda lists in the top 8 at Nationals--not to mention one in the top 1--strongly suggests that in general the shuttle is by no means unusable at 100 points.
- Rebel Operative is the hardest to use, since it has all the drawbacks of the HWK with no pilot ability to compensate. (Hopefully the release of more turrets will eventually help them out.) I have, however, flown them competitively, and in Wave 3 my list that included them was 7-1 in competitive play (2x Rebel Operative + Ion Cannon Turret, 2x Blue Squadron Pilot + Heavy Laser Cannon).
- Roark + Ion Cannon takes up 1 more point than Gold Squadron + Ion Cannon, and is a generally excellent support piece.
- Kyle + Ion Cannon + Recon Specialist + Moldy Crow takes up 32 points, or 6 points more than Garven Dreis. If you're looking to boost the offense or defense of a ship on PS7-9, and you don't want to or can't use Push the Limit, then 6 points may be a reasonable price to pay for an extra action with no stress. (I will say that Kyle + High-PS Wingman essentially limits you to three ships or four with two Headhunters, and as a result I don't run him often.)
- Jan + Ion Cannon is just 30 points (31 with Nien), and is frankly a very good investment. In comparison to Gold Squadron + Ion Cannon you pay an additional 7 points, and those 7 points get you nearly the functionality of that Gold Squadron Pilot, plus PS8, plus Jan's ability--which, given a squadmate with 3 Attack, is the equivalent of an HLC that can crit and works at Range 1. I have never regretted including her in any list.
In terms of rock, scissor, paper, I don't think anyone is claiming it's that black and white, but there is a varying degree to how much of the effect is in lists and the meta game, and it seems to have increased with the tantive and wave 4 releases. Again, all 4 points above have supporting evidence for this. The current main areas of RSP are:
More ships on the table helps mitigate all 3 of these areas. Again people argue that swarms become more powerful the larger they are, however I have not found that so. It becomes hard for a pack of ships to stay focused and in formation in larger numbers.
- highly maneuverable ships that escape firing arcs
- extremely durable, tanky large ships
- large quantities of cheap ships
First, I think even a cursory review of threads with the phrase "rock paper scissors" over the past four weeks or so will reveal a lot of people making black-and-white arguments.
Second, in your RPS analysis, in which of those three categories does each of the following lists fall?
Again, I'm not denying that RPS is the conventional wisdom, but rather that the groupthink here is wrong. The problem with treating the metagame like an RPS is that there are too many lists that cross categories or live entirely outside them; calling it an RPS doesn't indicate anything important about matchups, and suggests things about matchups that aren't true. That makes it both meaningless and misleading, and I'd like to see people stop using it entirely.
- 4x Rebels
- 3x elite Rebels
- Jonus/2x Delta+HLC
- Etahn/4x Headhunter
- 2x Firespray/misc. escort
- Chewbacca/4x Headhunter
- Phantom/5x TIE Fighter
- Soontir Fel/Howlrunner/4x TIE Fighter
But even if everyone keeps talking about it, it's still a really shaky foundation for an argument that the point limit should increase.
Hmm, I feel like you are trying to place what I'm saying into other arguments you are having.
I'm not saying all HWK's and all Lambda's, but ships that have a high degree of support capabilities. An ion turret is mildly supportive I suppose, but more about control. Out of the HWKs, I would say Jan and Kyle have a high degree of support, but in order to get to that point and still be somewhat effective I'm spending almost a 1/3 or more of the list on that one ship. If that ship has an ion turret, then a 1/3 of my list is only doing 1 dmg a turn. For the shuttles, the named Lambda's can be geared to be a more supportive role, but again you end up spending quite a bit of points for that. For instance Jendon + ST321 + Weapons Engineer is 31pts. Add in something to help with shooting or maneuverability so that you are effective in the damage front and it starts to take up a high percentage of the list quick.
In terms of RSP, I'm not talking about lists, but individual ships that have hard counters. If I have a phantom that makes up 40%+ of my list and my opponent takes something to hard counter it. Well, that's a very uphill battle that most likely be determined by ship selection and not skill. In a 125pt list that phantom is only making up 32% of the list. In 150, about 27%, so I have more room to make the rest of the list more well-rounded.
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.
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.
There's a reason why 100 points sometimes seems a "smidge" low. That is because certain pieces are priced just high enough that they may not work with other pieces at 100 points. Are eight TIE Swarms effective? How much more effective could they be with just two more points? I highly doubt Rookie Pilots coming in at 21 points is a mistake either.
It can be amazing what a couple extra points could do to squad building but when you start messing with points you also start messing with balance. When the things you are trying to balance aren't the same changing the total "weight" can radically favor one side when it is easier to adjust to the new limit.
Support ship with no support ability.Rebel Operative
As for the Hawk there is no doubt it is a support ship that has more agility for less health, and instead of an astromech it has a crew slot.
For a few more points you can get the uniques with great abilities (I don't see Ors that much) but questions is what support builds can you make with the RO. The Outer Rim can still be a blocker with Anti Pursuit and supported by Ion. With the RO you could say make it a spy with intelligence agent or mini falcon with recon and blaster turrets. However generally you only see an RO if there is already a unique hawk on the table.