I went ahead and added Oenomaus' suggestion. Some housekeeping updates for today:

February 28, 2015

• R5-K6 card text now reads: "After spending your target lock, immediately acquire a target lock on that same ship. You cannot spend this target lock during this attack."
• R5-P9 cost reduced from 3 to 1.
• Assault Missiles cost reduced from 5 to 4.

I have had my eye on the Patrol Leader since it was spoiled. I expect to reduce its cost by at least a point, but am waiting to see if it becomes a popular platform for Vader crew. I strongly suspect that spending only a few more points to any of the named Decimator pilots will still be the preferred approach, even after Autothrusters Soontir Fel shows up in the meta.

I have been playing around with formulas and I have been starting to get the hang of them. I recalculated that 3 attack die A-Wing with missile ports still open. No real cost change from what Zero9300 gave us but still very cool to crunch. Thanks again for sharing everything with us.

I was curious about the normalized durability value for the house rules x-wing. I was not able to reproduce that number or figure out a way calculate by reworking the variables in your formulas.

I just wanted to see what having a barrel roll built into the house rules x-wing would do to its predicted cost and other values. I think I can run that myself if I had the durability number.

A barrel rolling X-wing would help it be an improvement and differentiate it from the Z-95 beyond its hull and 3 attack die and help it be able to go more toe to the TIE advanced. Also I think it makes it more of well rounded ship as was the X-Wing's theme without stealing glory from the E-Wing with its better dial, systems upgrades and 3 agility, or the A-Wing with its dial, agility, and boost.

This could just be local bias but I also hear people complain about the x-wing stylistically, saying it is dull to fly. I have always enjoyed it myself, enjoying the dial and its no flash but solid approach, but I can see what they mean.

At the same time I don't want to over power the X-Wing and there may be a better solution. So I want to run some numbers, play some trial games and think about it for weeks.

Thanks.

I was curious about the normalized durability value for the house rules x-wing. I was not able to reproduce that number or figure out a way calculate by reworking the variables in your formulas.

It is not easy to directly calculate, since I am no longer simply multiplying each hull and shield by a coefficient corresponding to the ship's agility. A starting point is to look over the last few posts between zero and I in this thread:

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/128417-mathwing-comprehensive-ship-jousting-values-and-more/page-7

Yea that is bit beyond me. If you do ever post up the new calculations for the durability for all ships, could you please post your house rules x-wing durability as well? When I was woking up fun wing I added a shield instead of hull, but I think you fix is better.

I am just about to run the numbers with a change in the normal X-Wing and adding a barrel roll to it non-joust. I'll use it as an estimator to what the same change would mean for a hull 4 ship.

Good luck with ordnance, like you said it seems that only 1 or 2 points is fair with torps. I tried costing them at 3 and giving them 2 ammo and from a play testing point of view they seemed to work better and have more value.

Also I thought about your post and the problem with target locks and delays. A streamlined solution might be to have a house rule where you place your blue target lock normally but all red target locks are placed at the beginning of the combat phase. I suppose you would need another line of text clarifying that if no ships are in range at the start of the combat stage, a ship with a blue target lock that is unable to assign a red then losses its blue target lock. It helps target locks and gets rid of the need for dead eye and the other PS movement problems and should make the base assumptions for ordnance easier.

Hey good luck with the thesis as well, I am finishing up my doctorate myself. But this is more fun...

Yea that is bit beyond me. If you do ever post up the new calculations for the durability for all ships, could you please post your house rules x-wing durability as well?

Ok, fr now you can see the new jousting values with the house rules if you click the spoiler tab under X-wings.

Yeah, I have some more generalized changes that involve deferred actions for some ships with some actions, which may or may not ever get in these house rules, since they fundamentally change the game mechanics.

what if instead of making Major Rhymer cost less you made his ability affect all ships? (but possibly limiting it to ordinance) would that be too powerful? not useful enough?

what if instead of making Major Rhymer cost less you made his ability affect all ships? (but possibly limiting it to ordinance) would that be too powerful? not useful enough?

That is one option, but it could be too powerful. Both Jonus and Rhymer would be the Howlrunner of Bombers at that point. I'm generally too lazy to try and re-write the rules, so I generally just adjust costs until the value seems to be there. It's closest to the original designers' intent.

Ever considered running a Vassal tournament that uses these house rules? (Theorist's rules tweaks in the new TC open brought this to mind). Its probably a ton of work, but so was putting all these house rules together in the first place!

Just a thought.

Ever considered running a Vassal tournament that uses these house rules? (Theorist's rules tweaks in the new TC open brought this to mind). Its probably a ton of work, but so was putting all these house rules together in the first place!

Just a thought.

I have thought about it, but haven't had anywhere near the time to set one up. I would also want to re-visit a few things first and touch up Scum while I am at it. Some cards that were not useful now have uses, like Sensor Jammer which has finally found a home on IG88's, and Blaster Turret because Palob's ability is absurdly good, and Kavil's isn't bad either. Although that's more a reflection on pilot ability creep than the blaster turret itself suddenly becoming awesome.

Someday I'll see about running a tourney with all these rules though. They are pretty comprehensive and it would be fun to see what people could come up with. I would love to see Fel's Wrath take the whole thing.

Also FYI I finally replaced the "X-wing Hull Refit" here to "X-wing Refit". Instead of slapping on a free Hull Upgrade, you get -3 cost on any upgrade - so you can do something like a discounted Engine or R2-D2 instead.

It still costs 1 point for Biggs and Wedge as a backdoor way of balancing them, because even with house rules to boost the other named pilots Biggs and Wedge are still better than anyone else. Especially Biggs.

Also FYI I finally replaced the "X-wing Hull Refit" here to "X-wing Refit". Instead of slapping on a free Hull Upgrade, you get -3 cost on any upgrade - so you can do something like a discounted Engine or R2-D2 instead.

It still costs 1 point for Biggs and Wedge as a backdoor way of balancing them, because even with house rules to boost the other named pilots Biggs and Wedge are still better than anyone else. Especially Biggs.

I like this so much better.

--

I've said before that I thought the Xs value was their versatility. After playing with them a while, I've come to realize that in a way, MJ, you were right... I was wrong.

The X would really benefit I think from another hull. When playing with them, I was noticing a distinct lack of survivability. The problems also get exacerbated as you add more Xs.

At the same time, I didn't like your hull refit idea as I thought it made them feel more like Bs or tankier ships. Yet, I think they do need it.

This fix however, is a lot more clean.

Also, while Biggs I agree with, with some testing on Wedge, I'm of the opinion he's very good, but possibly also overcosted by about 1 point? What do you think after testing?

about why I think I was wrong:

100pt lists simply cant afford enough to spend on more customization of the Xs when they die so fast. Thus, they are in a way, balanced against their own customization.

Also, a lot of the customization didn't matter. For one, I had a very hard time making any of them more tanky.. my mod slot was already taken because I felt a need for some Boost to get better mobility from the X's average dial vs large ships and high PS dodgers.

The astromech slot provides very few cost and action worthy defensive options beyond R2D2.

Theorist's rules tweaks in the new TC open brought this to mind.

I suppose I shouldn't feel shocked; it's not as if it's out of character, after all. But honestly, he's doing what to the X-wing?

Also, while Biggs I agree with, with some testing on Wedge, I'm of the opinion he's very good, but possibly also overcosted by about 1 point? What do you think after testing?

Wedge is actually one of the easiest pilots in the game to evaluate, because his ability directly translates into more damage. Compute the higher jousting value, account for PS9 with an EPT, and you're done. My total predicted value for him stock, including stuff like dial and actions is 28 points. I think that's pretty accurate. X-wings don't have much special going on, so the error bands for calculating their total value based on their jousting value is pretty low.

So yeah, I would agree that he is overcosted by about a point right now, and tournament results certainly seem to bear that out. He is in a particularly rough spot not being able to use boost or barrel roll at PS9.

But if you give him a Hull Upgrade for 1 point, then he should be worth 30 points pretty much dead on. So making the "fix" cost 1 point for him is still fair. I'm sure if FFG did a similar X-wing fix they would make it the same for all pilots across the board, and he would be very good - like Vader is going to be very good for the TIE Advanced.

Just for kicks here are the X-wing tweaks and resulting cost metrics again, copied from the first page. Biggs is an oddball because his ability is so disruptive, I use a placeholder value of 4 points for his ability and call it a day.

X-wing Pilots

------------------------------------- X-wings (stock) ----------------------------------

X-wing Refit (testing)

• Title: X-wing only.
• Reduce the cost of one upgrade by 3, to a minimum of 0.
• Cost: +1 (Biggs and Wedge) / 0 (all others)

Red Squadron Pilot

• Cost reduced from 23 to 22.5

"Hobbie" Klivian

• Cost reduced from 25 to 24

Garven Dreis

• Gains the Elite Pilot Talent slot

Wes Janson

• Cost reduced from 29 to 28

Theorist's rules tweaks in the new TC open brought this to mind.

I suppose I shouldn't feel shocked; it's not as if it's out of character, after all. But honestly, he's doing what to the X-wing?

I'm very confused about what he is allowing for the X-wing. He is making upgrades cost 4 less, which makes sense (although I settle on 3 which is probably better), but I think he is allowing any upgrade in the game to be taken, even things like the GR-75 Combat Retrofit. On an X-wing. //confused.

I'm very confused about what he is allowing for the X-wing. He is making upgrades cost 4 less, which makes sense (although I settle on 3 which is probably better), but I think he is allowing any upgrade in the game to be taken, even things like the GR-75 Combat Retrofit. On an X-wing. //confused.

I have to admit I was excited about the new tournament until I read that rule. I'll probably be sitting this tournament out just because of it. His argument that everyone should still sign up because "hey it's still a chance to play X-Wing" doesn't really fly for me. I'd be perfectly fine with a few small tweaks to the rules, but with a change that drastic it's just not X-Wing anymore. :\

I'd be perfectly fine with a few small tweaks to the rules, but with a change that drastic it's just not X-Wing anymore. :\

So, follow-on question: would playing a tournament with these House Rules be OK? I may run one someday if there is interest.

I'd be perfectly fine with a few small tweaks to the rules, but with a change that drastic it's just not X-Wing anymore. :\

So, follow-on question: would playing a tournament with these House Rules be OK? I may run one someday if there is interest.

Your rules are much more down to earth (coruscant?) than "every x-wing may equip ANY upgrade in the game at a discount of 4 points." However, you have made a TON of tweaks- it's a lot to take in and keep track off, especially in a tournament setting. I would be more than happy to join a tournament that included, say, up to a half dozen of your fixes in it.

By the way, I noticed you had a placeholder for Autoblaster. I don't think it's broken or even crappy, just over costed. I imagine a simple discount to its cost is all it needs. I imagine a mathematical comparison (which I will leave to the experts. Aka: you) of autoblaster vs autoblaster turret and ion cannon vs ion cannon turret would tell you exactly how much of a discount it needs.

you have made a TON of tweaks- it's a lot to take in and keep track off, especially in a tournament setting. I would be more than happy to join a tournament that included, say, up to a half dozen of your fixes in it.

Yeah, I'm trying to adjust everything all at once. In the overwhelming majority of cases everything is independent, so the less useful pilots should simply become more playable.

Yeah autoblaster cannon is a weird one, I agree that at 5 points it seems pricey. Functionally it is very different from the ion weapons though, so it needs more than a direct comparison. The real question is how to balance ordnance. That is a fun one, and I have some ideas.

Yeah that's one I'm interested in too. I'm curious what your thoughts are on the idea of making it so that when ordinance hits all the defense dice are cancelled. It been brought up several different times by different people, but I don't recall if you've weighed in on the idea yet.

I'm curious what your thoughts are on the idea of making it so that when ordinance hits all the defense dice are cancelled. It been brought up several different times by different people, but I don't recall if you've weighed in on the idea yet.

I haven't weighed in yet. In general not such a fan because it is skewed so heavily against high AGI targets. Eventually I'll do a comprehensive Math-Fu review of all ordnance.

So I've been tinkering with Stygium Particle Accelerator in light of the FAQ, and it seems that the biggest problem is that it makes you take an Evade Action to do it. What about changing it to gaining a free Evade token when you cloak/decloak? lets you do some nifty things with PTL, and lets you actually tank up if you made a bad decloak when its your turn to activate.

Cloak is just really hard to make work period without ACD. You get more durability, but this is generally more than offset by the loss in firepower. I would say wait for some tournament results after the April 15th FAQ ruling and see where things stand.

Oh ACD is better by a mile, yeah, but i'm merely wondering if this change would make it more palatable. You could Decloak, get an Evade, then Evade again for you action if you were facing off with a nasty threat, where as currently you just get the single evade token. You could even Decloak, then Cloak again if you were just setting up for next turn. Just seems it would give you more options without being broken.

I'd be perfectly fine with a few small tweaks to the rules, but with a change that drastic it's just not X-Wing anymore. :\

So, follow-on question: would playing a tournament with these House Rules be OK? I may run one someday if there is interest.

Your rules have a lot more justification, even if I don't agree with all of them. The problem, as Herowannabe says, is the scope of the changes: it's a lot to absorb and process.

Additionally, one of the things a lot of people look for in a non-sanctioned tournament is practice for the "real" tournaments, particularly this time of year. And from that perspective, a lot of small changes are just as bad as a single big change like Theorist's X-wing "fix": no sanctioned tournament will feature 26-point Biggs + Hull Upgrade any more than they'll feature a 35-point Biggs + R2-D2 + Combat Refit.

I'd be perfectly fine with a few small tweaks to the rules, but with a change that drastic it's just not X-Wing anymore. :\

So, follow-on question: would playing a tournament with these House Rules be OK? I may run one someday if there is interest.

I think there would be enough interest to have a decent Vassal tournament. I'd love to try out some of the fixes, personally.