Here's another question:

How do you foresee your changes of costs affecting casual games where 100 is not the total point cap?

Say, we enjoy doing 125 and 24 point games. with the occasional 50 pt game.

What about 150 point games which people tend to like, and of course, epic 300 and 400?

Krassis and HLC is a player issue, that can't be fixed. I nearly won a Regional last year (quite competitive, imo) with him. Granted, I was congratulated on getting more HLC than my other semi-finalist had seen before. I don't think it is a bad thing to have Krassis be player dependent. Your fix does put him into another sphere entirely for those good with the HLC.

Here's another question:

How do you foresee your changes of costs affecting casual games where 100 is not the total point cap?

Say, we enjoy doing 125 and 24 point games. with the occasional 50 pt game.

What about 150 point games which people tend to like, and of course, epic 300 and 400?

Not much, really, except that you're more likely to be able to get away with Rookies being 20, and Reds being 21.5.

Force multipliers, AoE, and focus fire all scale up at higher point values, and nothing here really fundamentally changes that.

All you have to do is add 4-5 points to C3PO and 4 points to all Phantoms and you're golden, drop the cost of Tie Advanced by 3 and give them the systems icon. Everything else is close enough to being balanced. Then look at the upgrades which are under or overcosted.

You don't want to lower the basic costs of defender they are balanced as they are.

Personally I like challenge matches sort of like league play where all the achievements are made against the meta such as destroy 2 ships with missiles, or win using pilot A or upgrade B where A and B are cards that doesn't appear in many tournament winning lists. Or you could have a campaign where after playing with a specific Pilot you can modify the stats like up the pilot skill on Turr or giving Marek Steele an equivalent to the A-wing coupon.

If you are tired of seeing the same Howl Swarm, Super Falcon, Phantoceptor list make up scenarios that don't have them.

E-Wing Pilots

Knave Squadron Pilot

Cost reduced from 27 to 24

Blackmoon Squadron Pilot

Cost reduced from 29 to 26

Etahn A'baht

Cost reduced from 32 to 31

I feel as though 3 points is just a tad too much. At that cost you could run 4 and have 4 points to really boost these guys up. R2D2 one or even give Two FCS.

You fixed Gundark but not Night Beast? For shame.

What's wrong with Night Beast? He always struck me as one of the better TIEs.

That is a lot of extensive work you put there Major! I tip you my hat, that is more time and effort than most of us would be willing to do. And for the most part, those changes sounds nice.

But, unless it is a common accord from the entire group and everyone is willing to let you be the authority on future units change, I would advise against such major tweak to the cost system, it always ends up badly.

Once you open the house rule door, especially major ones like these, anything goes from there. You are inviting other players to make their own change that might not be as good as yours (or might actually be better but without the numbers to prove it) and bring a new inbalance. But with so many change already in place, how can we really identify the problem without extensive playtesting. And now you find yourself playing a game in constant evolution; a living rulebook. And this living game must always be revisited and tested everytime a new wave hit with new upgrades that might suddenly reinvigorate and justify some old units.

Also, it doesn't sell the game well. Unless you are only playing at home with some friends and don't really want new blood at your table, you might have trouble selling the game. Presenting a game with 2-3 pages of errata is never a good start; presenting it when the 2-3 pages is made by the player group is even worse. It tells (intended or not) to the new player that you consider that this game has potential, but ultimately screwed up badly and is ''unbalanced without those fixes''.

It can also bring some 'elitism' (not really the best word but I can't find one better to translate what I mean) feeling for some. Surely you will ask people before a game which version they prefer to play. Some will prefer yours, others the official one. But the more you'll play with yours, the more you'll like it and consider it the ultimate more balanced way to play X-Wing (if not, you sure have put a lot of effort into something that doesn't fit your taste). You'll end up prefering to play a game with your modifications over the official version, even moreso with all the playtesting necessary to be sure you got it right and seeing how that new upgrade affect your changes. This will bring a certain detachement to the official version.

TL;DR I applaud your effort and time Major, but I won't personally be using them even if there is a lot of changes that I would like to use if they were official.

Here's another question:

How do you foresee your changes of costs affecting casual games where 100 is not the total point cap?

Say, we enjoy doing 125 and 24 point games. with the occasional 50 pt game.

What about 150 point games which people tend to like, and of course, epic 300 and 400?

Not much, really, except that you're more likely to be able to get away with Rookies being 20, and Reds being 21.5.

Force multipliers, AoE, and focus fire all scale up at higher point values, and nothing here really fundamentally changes that.

ummmm no? rookies are 21 for a reasons, one being that you cant take 5 of them

The only thing Ewing pilots need is the option to get an EPT. If you could get advanced sensors + PtL + R2 builds on them, they would be perfectly fine.

I do disagree with lowering the cost of etahn though. With everything coming down in cost I feel like we should keep etahn at the same value. He has a very very good ability and it's incredibly powerful in games that are above 100 points. Even at 125. At 300 it's ridiculous.

Delayed response: Etahn is good in Epic no matter what, really. Changing his cost from 32 to 31 has almost no impact on the game when the point cap is 300 or 400. As for his ability being good for its cost, I am still waiting to see it myself, after watching 25 wave 4 tournaments. It still hasn't happened yet.

I always wanted: You may fire secondary weapons out of your auxillary arc.

Might have to increase his cost though.

Kath needs a fix though. Most overrated ability in the game.

That's a fun idea for Krassis, and almost certainly worth more than his current ability. However I am trying to keep the mechanics as close to the original as possible. Good idea though.

Kath having one of the most overrated abilities is something that I hear often, and this is reflected in her stats in tournament usage. Even when she was more heavily used in wave 3, she was still merely OK. At this point I believe I am simply debating if her ability should be triggered on also cancelling 2 hits, or just 1. Feedback is welcome.

E-Wing Pilots

Knave Squadron Pilot

Cost reduced from 27 to 24

Blackmoon Squadron Pilot

Cost reduced from 29 to 26

Etahn A'baht

Cost reduced from 32 to 31

I feel as though 3 points is just a tad too much. At that cost you could run 4 and have 4 points to really boost these guys up. R2D2 one or even give Two FCS.

So, I "liked" this even though I think that 24 points is still the right value, because I respect the perspective. So here are some numbers that I have calculated on normalized durability of various ships (based on shots to kill, not average damage divided by hull + shields)

TIE Fighter 1 (reference)

X-wing 1.20

B-wing 1.43

E-wing 1.65

So, comparing the three rebel ships is the most relevant.

The B-wing gains about 20% durability over the X-wing, and some nice upgrades to boot. The durability boost alone makes the B-wing an almost automatic upgrade over the X-wing at 22 points vs 21 points in the retail game. When you consider the System Upgrade slot it is certainly a better value for only 1 point more. We have been seeing this trend since wave 3. Realistically, there is probably about a 2 point jump in actual value going from the X-wing to the B-wing, which would place the X-wing at 20 points, except this would let you get 5 in a list. (This is one of many ways to reach the same conclusions that X-wings should be 20 points if not for the 100 point cap).

The E-wing gains about another 15% durability over the B-wing, and also has a better dial and better upgrades (droid slot). So the analogy of going from B-wing to E-wing is very similar to going from an X-wing to a B-wing. If going from the X-wing to the B-wing is worth 1.5 to 2 points, then going from the B-wing to the E-wing should be 2.5 to 3 points. A 22 point PS2 B-wing vs a 24 point PS1 E-wing is a 3 point jump when considering PS cost, so I think that it's just right.

I think the reaction over E-wings costing 24 points is mostly from the shock of realizing that they would actually be legitimately competitive in a 4 E-wings in a list. I think 4 E-wings, 2 of them with FCS would be optimal. It's a very straightforward squad, and what it gains in brute force power, it lacks in PS and named pilots. I think that it would be right about on par with other 4 ship rebel builds. Testing it against Biggs Walks the Dogs (or especially Biggs + 3 blues + sensors) with equally skilled players would certainly be interesting.

Playing casually, what you describe is true. I would prefer to play with a more balanced ruleset, which I think is more fun, as I stated in the opening paragraph of the OP. But it really doesn't have any impact on competitive play, since competitive players that make it into the Finals or even top Third tend to avoid all of the cards here like the plague anyway. The list of pilots and upgrades on this list that have been used to any consistent success at tournaments is extremely small, and those have, have received (or should have received) the smallest changes here.

ummmm no? rookies are 21 for a reasons, one being that you cant take 5 of them

As was stated in my post, I was answering in the context of what would happen if the point cap was raised above 100 points, in which case this would not be an issue, especially in Epic.

The only thing Ewing pilots need is the option to get an EPT. If you could get advanced sensors + PtL + R2 builds on them, they would be perfectly fine.

I assume you mean the PS3 would gain an EPT. So you are proposing:

PS3 E-wing + PtL + Advanced Sensors + R2

That is 36 points, and is points comparable to:

• 3 TIE Fighters
• 3 Bandit Squadron Pilots
• Soontir Fel + PtL + Shield Upgrade + Targeting Computer
• Dash Rendar
• Keyan + Advanced Sensors + Opportunist
• Biggs + Bandit Squadron Pilot (37)
• Whisper + VI + ACD (37)
• Corran Horn + FCS (37)

I don't see a 36 point PS3 E-wing being anywhere near comparable to any of those.

You fixed Gundark but not Night Beast? For shame.

What's wrong with Night Beast? He always struck me as one of the better TIEs.

The fact that you don't get the free action if you're stressed before executing the green maneuver.

I meant all of them Major Juggler. Maybe a few point less sure. But i really don't like the idea of just to reduce points to improve their jousting efficiency, they are more like upgrade friendly ships which happen to be nice hybrids between regular fighters and an interceptor. Making it just a bit beefier Xwing seems boring to me.

The only thing Ewing pilots need is the option to get an EPT. If you could get advanced sensors + PtL + R2 builds on them, they would be perfectly fine.

I assume you mean the PS3 would gain an EPT.

I meant all of them Major Juggler.

Well, I seriously doubt we will ever get an EPT on a PS1 or PS2 ship, so that leaves just the PS3 as the only option.

The points adjustment is aimed at improving their overall points efficiency, so that they are actually worth taking. At 27 points they are not worth taking. Jousting value is one factor in that. With these point changes the jousting efficiency for these 3 rebel ships are:

The X-wing efficiency should be higher, but then it would have to cost less than 20.5 points. The E-wing at 24 points is still paying for its dial, and upgrade potential. If the E-wing were 25 points at PS1, then its jousting efficiency drops to 83.5%, which is verging on hopelessly low. For reference, that's the same efficiency as a naked Y-wing. Would you take a Y-wing for 18 points without a turret if it had a System Upgrade slot and the E-wing dial? Probably not.

Again, I thank you for your effort Major and all the data that you bring to the community. What we do with those are up to us of course but you still take the time to compile it and that is priceless.

As funny as it looks, your results has been more like a challenge to me than a guide. If you consider a unit overcost or tournament play is minimal, I'll tend to try to make it work instead of avoiding it. As someone that like to build lists and challenges, I thank you for those statistics.

Again, kuddos for your work!

Back during Galactic Civil War 2, we debated "fixing" various cards for the campaign in a manner similar to what you have done here. Small point changes only as much as possible (apart from fundamentally broken things like Expose and Autoblaster). Ultimately the players voted not to do it. I do not like using fractions, so I was considering inflating the point system to three, four or five hundred points for a standard game and tripling/quadrupling/quintupling the cost of all cards to match before making point adjustments. That would have expanded the available whole number space to reduce "this card is too good at X points, but not good enough at X+1," and made it obvious at a glance if we were using the stock rules or our custom "fixed" ones.

Letting "Fel's Wrath" attack twice in the same turn (if killed by a lower PS pilot) seems excessive, especially on top of the cost reduction and free focus.

Yeah, I can't believe he made Wrath too good. Maybe drop the free focus. So his last-ditch attack isn't modified... well unless you kept a focus on him.

I have thought about this quite a bit. He already costs 5 points more than an Alpha Squadron Pilot, and that's really all he is. Ultimately it felt more appropriate for him to gain the focus for attack. This was the difference between him feeling like "Fel's Wrath " and "Fel's Splat ".

I do not have a problem with giving him the focus, and I can get behind the point reduction. However, I do not think he should have both of those on top of an additional attack. Something like this would be more reasonable.

When the number of Damage cards assigned to you equals or exceeds your hull value, you may immediately assign a focus token to your ship and perform an attack before you are destroyed. You may only do this if you have not already attacked this turn.

Now Fel's Wrath still does what he was intended to do (plus focus boost), but you do not get wonky effects when Corran kills him in the End Phase. He also get the additional boost of effectively jumping his PS to whatever killed him, rather than waiting around until his normal time to fire.

I'm surprised out of the list of proposed changes isn't modifying the Millennium Falcon title. Reducing the hull, firepower, and shields on all of the pilots to that of the ORS, and then increase the falcon title cost and effect to Evade, +Attack, Shields, and Hull.

I'm surprised out of the list of proposed changes isn't modifying the Millennium Falcon title. Reducing the hull, firepower, and shields on all of the pilots to that of the ORS, and then increase the falcon title cost and effect to Evade, +Attack, Shields, and Hull.

Philosophy

The general philosophy is to BUFF, and not NERF. I explicitly want to avoid nerfing existing powerful cards / combos, as these are already well established in the game, and are fun to fly.

I guess it doesn't really change much outside of limiting the Chewie + Lando combination. Given the relatively minor impact, it seemed like an easy and common sense change, but i can respect the intent.

MJ, that is some fine work. I personally would like to see FFG adopt a lot of it. I especially like ordnance changes, obviously the tie advanced, and a couple of other things. In general, the problem with house rules I have is that they create another version of the game and have the potential to create a lot of confusion. I'd be happy to see FFG erratta some of these changes and costs, though if they did we have to put decals on all our cards or something. Good work, like your line of thinking over all.

I am always open to suggestions.

I thought the same thing, Night Beast is mentally " TBD " even though I didn't mark him that way.

It's all in the wording. I got yah, bro:

"Whenever Night Beast executes a green maneuver, you may perform a free focus action during the Perform Action step."

More in line with the original, but without the obnoxious stress issue: "After you execute a green maneuver, assign 1 focus token to your ship."

Sounds good to me, the list has been updated with a fix for Night Beast! Not that it really matters, but I used the "may" wording like on the Kyle Katarn Crew card.

I love almost all of your changes, and love Darthfishes ideanto re-cost old cards with decals. But I don't like half point costs.

I love almost all of your changes, and love Darthfishes ideanto re-cost old cards with decals. But I don't like half point costs.

Yeah, the half-point cost is a preference. It does more accurately reflect the value of many of the PS3/4 pilots, but is more of a nuisance to keep track of the point total.

"Fel's Wrath" fix is awesome!

Colonel Jendon's ability should get range 1-2, leaving points costs untouched

Gamma Squadron Pilot should be given the Elite Pilot Talent slot, leaving points untouched.

Krassis Trelix fix is awesome!

Squad Leader fix is awesome!

"Night Beast" fix is awesome!

All other fixes are OK!


------------------------------
Daredevil:
Cost reduced from 3 to 1
(this would encourage some usage; 5 points together with Engine Upgrade)

Autoblaster:
Cost reduced from 5 to 3
(thats a lot, I know)

Ion cannon:
Cost reduction from 3 to 2

Heavy Laser Cannon:
Ion cannon:
Cost reduction from 7 to 6

----------------------------------------------
I'm missing a 'real' Maarek Stele ability fix.

As far as Ordinance goes, how about changing it so none of them require you to discard your Focus/TL when firing? Biggest problem seems to be reliability for the cost you pay. Making them more reliable seems a better fix than a 1 pt decrease.