...More importantly, it's pushed a lot of the strategy of the game into list-building rather than in-game strategy. Not comprehensively, honestly, but most of the discussions (and flaming) over how to deal with Fat Han have to do with list-building options - bring more guns, use Outmaneuver, etc. Dash is shaping up to be even worse - I consider a classic Garven/Dutch XXXY list, and have a hard time imagining how you'd pin him down. I look at 60 points of Dash and figure it could destroy what used to be a solid 100-point list.

This worries me, and I think this is a bad thing for the game. X-wing provides a great play experience because the game is good. The more we have "Well, there's no point in playing this matchup" matchups which are decided at the list-building phase, the worse the game is going to be...

This is an intriguing point. I have noticed that I don't play what I really want to play but what I have to play to not get trounced. It has bothered me to the point where I won't miss the game if I stop playing (other than the $$$ spent) and I have even been lured into Dust Tactics as a player, I haven't and won't buy more toys. But the point is valid, that a veritable arms race has taken hold where the bottom 80% of us, so to speak, are forced to play rigged up lists just to have a chance. I like the shuttle and tried to make it work but losing every game with it "sours the taste."

My bandaid is to have one list that I play, 2x Sigmas, Mauler and Howl flown as a heavy punching mini-swarm. I forced a fat-Han concession after the 1st round of combat by getting 12 damage through on Han and losing only 2 shields myself. It's an ok list but I probably wouldn't have made it were it not for the string of crushing defeats against my fun "fly casual" lists.

I work alot and don't have a lot of time to devote to flying practice let alone actual games so guys like me are a real casualty. I don't want to have a horrible time the one night a month I have to play X-Wing so I am forced to play what wins, not what is fun.

Just wondering what this list is ^^ Howlrunner, Maurer and 2 Sigmas. . What did you put on them??

Look Phantoms can be beat. Fat Falcon can be beat.

The problem is that non fat falcon lists that deal with phantoms well also are at a distinct disadvantage to fat falcons. These consist of high PS ships that can boost into arc of phantoms and either plain shoot before cloak or stress too prevent cloaking.

Fat Falcons can be beaten as well. The problem with these lists is they deal poorly with phantoms. lists that do well well vs fat falcons are essentially LOTS OF ATT 2 GUNZ. If you bring enough shots vs C-3P0 (the combo of title, C-3PO is the issue) you can get through the combo and place a good deal of damage on the agi 1 falcon. These lists tend to do poorly vs AGI 4 and do not tend to have the ability to concentrate fire on a ship that has the maneuverability of a phantom.

Outrider is going to be the new meta. Super Dash is insano.

We should be watching the results of the TC Open closely to see how the new Outrider Meta Performs.

Has anything changed for squad building? YES! More options! I fly what I want, do what I want, play my ships against my opponents list and win! I don't fret about meta lists, I don't care about the sky is falling threads, and I do just fine. I wonder, what happened to all those SWARMS ARE THE OPEST THING SINCE SLICED BREAD threads from way back. Man, those were the good old days, when people complained about the meta and how you have to build to counter it....oh wait that still happens! Here is a thought, put together a list, play that list, figure out what people like to play, and then learn how to adapt your flying strategy against lists instead of feeling that the game is lost in squad building.

These boards have grown toxic, and not in the way of how people treat each other, they actually seem to get quite good at being more civil. No, more in the fact that it poisons the minds of those reading them. Instead of giving out help and learning new ways of countering a build with a list you enjoy playing, people feel that it is required to build against lists, then complain that they lose because they don't even fight that list in the tournament.Then instead of helping people figure out what they did wrong in a game, they bash other peoples lists and how they follow a certain theme or that the meta is to blame. Don't do this, if you find yourself CONSTANTLY blaming the dice or meta, step back, view the game as if you were an outside presence and see what you did wrong to cause that event to happen. People, the game only turns into a reactive list building game when YOU make it that. Don't let all this talk stifle your creative juices for builds, rather toss them out there, see what people have to critique about the build. Or is you have a hard matchup against certain lists, keep track of what happened that game and learn why it is causing you troubles and how you can better play to your squads advantage. Don't feel, like others have said, pigeon holed into a list.

Yes, there are good lists and then bad ones. BUT a thought out list that is play tested by its creator will always do better than a netdeck list meant to counter a specific build. Each ship has their own niches they fill, and once you figure out what each ship grants you and where they perform their best against different ships, the world becomes your oyster for list building.

Back in wave3, when it was still possible to "simply fly better", I would have agreed 100% to your argument, but now it simply is not possible. I would be very interested to see someone take on a Whisper ACD Echo ACD 85pt list using 5 Rookie Xwings, and emerge victorious.

Back in wave3, when it was still possible to "simply fly better", I would have agreed 100% to your argument, but now it simply is not possible. I would be very interested to see someone take on a Whisper ACD Echo ACD 85pt list using 5 Rookie Xwings, and emerge victorious.

That right there is pigeonholing. I will gladly take that challenge, but I will keep it to 100 points, so one less rookie, but I will be swapping a few things around.

Dutch w/ Ion

3x Rookies w/hull

Now this list isn't meant to counter phantoms, rather it was an idea for a buddy of mine that was having an issue with falcons and really enjoys Dutch and X-wings, which it does, beautifully. If you would like to do this I am more than willing to set up a time next week (busy weekend, going camping) to play this via vassal. But if you insist on 5 rookies I am more than willing to oblige.

Back in wave3, when it was still possible to "simply fly better", I would have agreed 100% to your argument, but now it simply is not possible. I would be very interested to see someone take on a Whisper ACD Echo ACD 85pt list using 5 Rookie Xwings, and emerge victorious.

That right there is pigeonholing. I will gladly take that challenge, but I will keep it to 100 points, so one less rookie, but I will be swapping a few things around.

Dutch w/ Ion

3x Rookies w/hull

Now this list isn't meant to counter phantoms, rather it was an idea for a buddy of mine that was having an issue with falcons and really enjoys Dutch and X-wings, which it does, beautifully. If you would like to do this I am more than willing to set up a time next week (busy weekend, going camping) to play this via vassal. But if you insist on 5 rookies I am more than willing to oblige.

ok, but you'll have to bear with me, the last time I used Vassal was way back in wave 1 and I've since forgotten how to navigate the interface

Has anything changed for squad building? YES! More options! I fly what I want, do what I want, play my ships against my opponents list and win! I don't fret about meta lists, I don't care about the sky is falling threads, and I do just fine. I wonder, what happened to all those SWARMS ARE THE OPEST THING SINCE SLICED BREAD threads from way back. Man, those were the good old days, when people complained about the meta and how you have to build to counter it....oh wait that still happens! Here is a thought, put together a list, play that list, figure out what people like to play, and then learn how to adapt your flying strategy against lists instead of feeling that the game is lost in squad building.

These boards have grown toxic, and not in the way of how people treat each other, they actually seem to get quite good at being more civil. No, more in the fact that it poisons the minds of those reading them. Instead of giving out help and learning new ways of countering a build with a list you enjoy playing, people feel that it is required to build against lists, then complain that they lose because they don't even fight that list in the tournament.Then instead of helping people figure out what they did wrong in a game, they bash other peoples lists and how they follow a certain theme or that the meta is to blame. Don't do this, if you find yourself CONSTANTLY blaming the dice or meta, step back, view the game as if you were an outside presence and see what you did wrong to cause that event to happen. People, the game only turns into a reactive list building game when YOU make it that. Don't let all this talk stifle your creative juices for builds, rather toss them out there, see what people have to critique about the build. Or is you have a hard matchup against certain lists, keep track of what happened that game and learn why it is causing you troubles and how you can better play to your squads advantage. Don't feel, like others have said, pigeon holed into a list.

Yes, there are good lists and then bad ones. BUT a thought out list that is play tested by its creator will always do better than a netdeck list meant to counter a specific build. Each ship has their own niches they fill, and once you figure out what each ship grants you and where they perform their best against different ships, the world becomes your oyster for list building.

I think the point of the OP is a well thought list must deal with the Phantom and to a lesser extent falcon.

if you're a standard fighter like an X-wing head-to-head with it at range 3, come next turn you have two choices: Collide, or have no shot.

I think this thought may be a key in the game... If you're in this matchup, why fly the xwing head to head? Wave 4 has really affected the jousting meta, the game is now more about getting behind, ahead, out, or coming in sideways than it ever has been before.

Additionally, while we don't want to take a round of fire without giving back in return, it's maybe more important than ever to plan on no shot turns, trading for beneficial positioning in future turns. A real part of the game is in the reading of the opponent, knowing when they will hard 1 vs pull ahead 4 and boost. Stay on target + pilot skill is going to be a great tool for those who have a harder time reading the opponent.

Back in wave3, when it was still possible to "simply fly better", I would have agreed 100% to your argument, but now it simply is not possible. I would be very interested to see someone take on a Whisper ACD Echo ACD 85pt list using 5 Rookie Xwings, and emerge victorious.

That right there is pigeonholing. I will gladly take that challenge, but I will keep it to 100 points, so one less rookie, but I will be swapping a few things around.

Dutch w/ Ion

3x Rookies w/hull

Now this list isn't meant to counter phantoms, rather it was an idea for a buddy of mine that was having an issue with falcons and really enjoys Dutch and X-wings, which it does, beautifully. If you would like to do this I am more than willing to set up a time next week (busy weekend, going camping) to play this via vassal. But if you insist on 5 rookies I am more than willing to oblige.

I'd be willing to do a whisper/echo list vs either of those lists.

Back in wave3, when it was still possible to "simply fly better", I would have agreed 100% to your argument, but now it simply is not possible. I would be very interested to see someone take on a Whisper ACD Echo ACD 85pt list using 5 Rookie Xwings, and emerge victorious.

That right there is pigeonholing. I will gladly take that challenge, but I will keep it to 100 points, so one less rookie, but I will be swapping a few things around.

Dutch w/ Ion

3x Rookies w/hull

Now this list isn't meant to counter phantoms, rather it was an idea for a buddy of mine that was having an issue with falcons and really enjoys Dutch and X-wings, which it does, beautifully. If you would like to do this I am more than willing to set up a time next week (busy weekend, going camping) to play this via vassal. But if you insist on 5 rookies I am more than willing to oblige.

I'd be willing to do a whisper/echo list vs either of those lists.

me too, I wouldnt even need to VI either Whisper or Echo, and could use other stuff like Ruthlessness or Outmaneuver

Has anything changed for squad building? YES! More options! I fly what I want, do what I want, play my ships against my opponents list and win! I don't fret about meta lists, I don't care about the sky is falling threads, and I do just fine. I wonder, what happened to all those SWARMS ARE THE OPEST THING SINCE SLICED BREAD threads from way back. Man, those were the good old days, when people complained about the meta and how you have to build to counter it....oh wait that still happens! Here is a thought, put together a list, play that list, figure out what people like to play, and then learn how to adapt your flying strategy against lists instead of feeling that the game is lost in squad building.

These boards have grown toxic, and not in the way of how people treat each other, they actually seem to get quite good at being more civil. No, more in the fact that it poisons the minds of those reading them. Instead of giving out help and learning new ways of countering a build with a list you enjoy playing, people feel that it is required to build against lists, then complain that they lose because they don't even fight that list in the tournament.Then instead of helping people figure out what they did wrong in a game, they bash other peoples lists and how they follow a certain theme or that the meta is to blame. Don't do this, if you find yourself CONSTANTLY blaming the dice or meta, step back, view the game as if you were an outside presence and see what you did wrong to cause that event to happen. People, the game only turns into a reactive list building game when YOU make it that. Don't let all this talk stifle your creative juices for builds, rather toss them out there, see what people have to critique about the build. Or is you have a hard matchup against certain lists, keep track of what happened that game and learn why it is causing you troubles and how you can better play to your squads advantage. Don't feel, like others have said, pigeon holed into a list.

Yes, there are good lists and then bad ones. BUT a thought out list that is play tested by its creator will always do better than a netdeck list meant to counter a specific build. Each ship has their own niches they fill, and once you figure out what each ship grants you and where they perform their best against different ships, the world becomes your oyster for list building.

I think the point of the OP is a well thought list must deal with the Phantom and to a lesser extent falcon.

I guess I can't do much but reiterate.

We have good evidence that players have become more reactive. We don't have the same kind of evidence that the game overall has become more reactive, though.

In Wave 1, it was necessary to plan how you would deal with a TIE swarm and how you would deal with four X-wings. In Wave 2, you had to know how you were going to deal with TIE swarms and with HSF. In Wave 3, you had to know how you were going to deal with TIE swarms, with B-wing variants on HSF, and with BBXX. In Wave 4, you have to know how you'll deal with Phantoms and with Fat Falcons (which are just another variation on HSF).

As I said upthread, I'm perfectly willing to entertain the idea that the pressure in Wave 4 (particularly from Phantoms) is stronger than it has been before. And if that's all that's meant by "more reactive", then that's fine. But in general, you've always had to plan how you would deal with the biggest fish in the pond, and Wave 4 isn't categorically different in that way.

What if you were able to fly your XXXY in waves of 2? Send one in hard and fast while the other hangs back and covers the angles. You keep looping that and hope you get at least 2 shots a turn on the Phantoms. 3 red dice vs 4 green isn't great, but you can crack through them. Just hope their dice aren't hot and yours are. Using Dutch and Greives can help with that, too.

Just want to agree with Vorpal's points there. We've always had to "react" to lists, at least in any competitive context. This has been, is, and will always be part of the competitive game.

I wonder if the fundamental change to the game that some see is largely a change in player base, rather than the introduction of certain ships or combos. I don't mean just the GW WAACers that some describe and blame. Instead, I suspect that the games original player base has simply gotten more skilled at all aspects of the game: list building, ship flying, and target priority. We're learning how to more properly value things and thus lists move to extremes that reflect these values (high attack, HP, dice mitigation). The new ships help us move in these directions, but they are not the cause.

EDIT: As an aside, why is a 4 AGL Phantom hard as nails and impossible to hurt, but Fel + SD is a vulnerable target that's always going to be automatically one shot?

me too, I wouldnt even need to VI either Whisper or Echo, and could use other stuff like Ruthlessness or Outmaneuver

That kinda taints the whole experiment then. Because no one is going to take a phantom list to a tournament and not use VI.

me too, I wouldnt even need to VI either Whisper or Echo, and could use other stuff like Ruthlessness or Outmaneuver

That kinda taints the whole experiment then. Because no one is going to take a phantom list to a tournament and not use VI.

I frequently use Phantoms without VI.. Veteran Instincts is the answer to a problem that isn't always a problem. It seems so many people think they need to shoot first that it's almost an auto-include nowadays, but that really isn't the case. I've seen and used Falcon and Phantom lists that didn't require VI. There were a few times I included it, and it turned out to be a waste of a point. Yeah, they're cost-effective, but I don't think they ALWAYS need to be included.

but I don't think they ALWAYS need to be included.

Sure, but how many lists at the major tournaments with phantoms didn't have VI on Echo or Whisper? Point is, if you know what the other guy is going to play and change your list based on that knowledge... like not taking VI because you know everything will be lower PS. That isn't a true test.

Vorpal Sword -

I appreciate that you chose your wording very carefully, especially since it does such an excellent job of conveying the substance without the hysteria. I agree with you completely, including your take on upcoming changes. I do believe that the Phantom or something like it was necessary to move the meta away from base line efficiency, as you put it. I also believe it may have gone just a bit too far.

I don't think the Phantom is too powerful by much, but because of its power it has flattened the meta dramatically. I believe the ACD could be worded to simply allow a recloak during the end phase and that would cure most of what ails us, allowing a more significant reward for managing to (finally) get one of those dodgy gits in your sights without altering the substance of what makes the Phantom tick. I actually really enjoy flying them in a general sense, but they just seem to have one advantage too many.

What I don't like about the current phantom thought is that there really is only one way to play them: VI + ACD. Other build options are pretty much just tweaks. That's all the phantom does. It has a ton of really interesting upgrade slots but 2 of them are spoken for and there isn't anything "better" to do with them.

Vorpal Sword -

I appreciate that you chose your wording very carefully, especially since it does such an excellent job of conveying the substance without the hysteria. I agree with you completely, including your take on upcoming changes. I do believe that the Phantom or something like it was necessary to move the meta away from base line efficiency, as you put it. I also believe it may have gone just a bit too far.

I don't think the Phantom is too powerful by much, but because of its power it has flattened the meta dramatically. I believe the ACD could be worded to simply allow a recloak during the end phase and that would cure most of what ails us, allowing a more significant reward for managing to (finally) get one of those dodgy gits in your sights without altering the substance of what makes the Phantom tick. I actually really enjoy flying them in a general sense, but they just seem to have one advantage too many.

What I don't like about the current phantom thought is that there really is only one way to play them: VI + ACD. Other build options are pretty much just tweaks. That's all the phantom does. It has a ton of really interesting upgrade slots but 2 of them are spoken for and there isn't anything "better" to do with them.

And FCS. Dont forget FCS

also, Recon Spec on Echo

Just want to agree with Vorpal's points there. We've always had to "react" to lists, at least in any competitive context. This has been, is, and will always be part of the competitive game.

I wonder if the fundamental change to the game that some see is largely a change in player base, rather than the introduction of certain ships or combos. I don't mean just the GW WAACers that some describe and blame. Instead, I suspect that the games original player base has simply gotten more skilled at all aspects of the game: list building, ship flying, and target priority. We're learning how to more properly value things and thus lists move to extremes that reflect these values (high attack, HP, dice mitigation). The new ships help us move in these directions, but they are not the cause.

EDIT: As an aside, why is a 4 AGL Phantom hard as nails and impossible to hurt, but Fel + SD is a vulnerable target that's always going to be automatically one shot?

Agreed. Further, I'd say that a lot of the improvement in skill comes from knowing how to deal with the various list archetypes (maneuver, target priority, etc), and is at least as important as constructing a list that synergizes well.

As to the 'impossible to kill' phantom, mine die to 4 blank greens at least as often as my squints do. Yes, it's easier to position a phantom so they won't need to roll at all... but as soon as the dice come out, they die as easy as anything else.

4 green dice is 100%, absolutely, far from invincible as evidenced countless times ever since the Interceptor with stealth were released. The Phantom is hyper mobile - yes, but the Phantom is dies just as easily as a stealthed Interceptor.

What if the interceptors were 4 hp, and if the first 2 damage they would receive were crits they could flip them to hits, negating the critical text.

We have good evidence that players have become more reactive. We don't have the same kind of evidence that the game overall has become more reactive, though.

Let's assume that the underlying theory here is true - that the game is still fine, still perfectly balanced, and everything we're seeing is entirely due to players all being mindless internet drones who can't think their way out of the box the FFG forums put them in.

Well... what does that actually change? IMHO, absolutely nothing.

I have a humorous software saying - "The system will be much more stable if we don't let the users touch it!" It's a joke, but it reveals a truth about software that I believe applies equally here. Software doesn't exist separate from its users, and games don't exist separate from their players.

The game is realized through the lens of its players. Take them away, and the game is meaningless. You can't divorce the game from the players in any real sense - it doesn't matter if I make the perfect interface or not, if my users can't figure it out, it's a bad interface.

It's time for this "blame the user" stuff to stop. At the very least it's insulting, but when you go deeper it's an invalid argument. The developers have a responsibility to make more than a good game - they have a responsibility to make a game that is good even once the players - yes, even the mindless masses of the internet - are done with it. If they've created an environment that allows such a skewed perspective to dominate, that's their responsibility too.

I've been unhappy with this argument since it started emerging, and it took me a long time to figure out why, but I think this is it. "Blame the user" is a total cop-out by bad engineers who should have done better work, and try to pawn that bad effort off on users who are obviously just too dumb to avoid the error. It's just as inappropriate here, even by proxy.

EDIT: As an aside, why is a 4 AGL Phantom hard as nails and impossible to hurt, but Fel + SD is a vulnerable target that's always going to be automatically one shot?

Several reasons: Shields avoid at least some crits that sneak through. One more overall HP (plus shields) means that a Hit+Crit that could kill Fel just takes shields from a Phantom. Phantoms don't lose that 4th agility the first time they take a hit. Phantoms have more ability to relocate than Fel, meaning they should be shot at less.

Honestly, anyone who focuses on the 4 agility when cloaked is missing the real strength of Phantoms.

Speaking personally I didn't feel the Phantom was as game-breaking as some people let on in forums like this. It's a neat tool for the Empire to turn to other than running their TIE swarms or 2 ace + Bounty Hunter builds. When I took Phantoms to the table they never felt like an auto-win button for me. I definitely had to steer them right.

But I am worried about Dash because he does feel like an easy button. I'm the one who ran that list against Buhalin this past evening, taking Jan Ors in a support role, and was slamming out 5 attack dice at chosen targets. In our first game I pegged Farlander with an Ion cannon and then vaporizing him two turns later with the HLC. On our second game I threw Buhalin off completely in turn 2 by essentially going horizontal from where I started, keeping a shot but far out of his arc. Later I blasted a cloaked Whisper out of the sky with 5 hits and we decided to call it there. I felt bad doing it, but I was making the competitive calls to see what this thing can do.

About the only drawbacks for that setup is locking Dash at PS7 and his need to stay stressless after his activation. He's got 42 points of other things to play with after setting up this build.

I'm hoping my local group and the community can develop some not-han counters before the Outrider makes a splash on the competitive scene because I don't want to see us looking like the Attack Wing meta with their Borg epidemic. At worst this Outrider build is going to feel like TIE Swarms all over again... if we don't have some counter-stratgies in mind before it shows up, it's going to be showing up often at local tournaments. X-Wing's survived it before, with the TIE Swarm, but it means a few months of dealing with it before some better counters come along to soften the blow.

Wave 6 is suppose to be all about control. I think that should help alot.

I really appreciate the statistics of the regionals and nationals threads but I don't believe it shows the best ships so much as what most players think will take them all the way and then statistics for that. For instance not a lot of people are good at flying the shuttle I myself am only mediocre but its a great ship. So not alot of them show up because people don't think they can go all the way with it.

The Regionals thread does now in fact include conditional effectiveness statistics as well as "popularity" and "prevalence" statistics. Incidentally, the Shuttle's effectiveness is very high.

I must have not checked it out after that was added or just missed reading it, I appologize. I knew about how well the shuttle had done but isn't it also fairly rarely used too? Maybe I should check out the thread again instead of asking questions or commenting on it.

So while I should have taken more time to think out what I previously said; what I probably should have said is tournament statistics can only be based on what is brought to a tournament, which tends to be what people perceive will give them the win. For example John smith(he's made up) is having problem with phantoms he hasn't been able to get alot of games in against them and the tournament is tomorrow. So he decides to use a falcon instead of what he originally planned to bring because he thinks there will be alot of phantoms. Since it has a 3 attack turret he feels he doesn't have to worry as much about predicting where the phantom will be to have a shot at it. I am not saying that is why everyone fly's a falcon it is a good ship but it is a good counter to hyper mobile ships. As a note my local meta has been filled with falcons since well before wave 4 so not too much has really changed.