I like a lot of what you're saying, but this is a heckuva assumption resting at the core of your argument. I agree that this is true in a perfect world, where the game balance is ideal and everything is properly costed, but our evidence thus far seems to demonstrate that this is not true.

A Tempest Squadron pilot is not as equally valuable as Rookie Pilot, despite their identical costs. A Blue Squadron pilot is more than 4.7% more powerful and efficient than a Rookie Pilot. These may be minor aberrations, but they matter--especially at higher levels. If all else is equal, the build that can most take advantage of these points will have an advantage.

The thing is that incorporating these aberrations wont make or break the model and will take more work to basically just give you the same results.

In any given match the winner is more likely to be determined by a disparity in skill (and yes list building itself is an important skill) than a ~10% imba between the baseline ships. Most of the time any perceived weakness of a ship is due to the ship not living up to preconceived notions on what makes a good ship rather than an objective analysis of the ship itself and what it brings to the table.

NOTE: I'm not saying you can take a random collection of ships and upgrades with no consideration to strategy and expect to win. I am saying that more ships than the current supposedly blue chip choices are in play if they mesh with your over all strategy. And the only way you can tell for sure if those ships mesh or not is through hard earned experience.

I've had good success with my Ten Numb w/ VI combined with a defensive Etahn and Wedge. I don't add more to Ten Numb and he's great as he is. I don't understand the Ten Numb hate, to be honest. I certainly don't call him "useless" as some have. This combo I've done has worked very well to destroy Phantoms. I've yet to try it vs. a Falcon, though. Even if a crit only turns into a regular hit...it's still a hit.

because all ships are more or less equal due to the costing effect.

This is so incorrect it hurts .

Even if you ignore obvious mistakes like non-Vader TIE Advanced pilots, there's issues like a naked TI being able to keep out of arc of HWKs and Shuttles, but not doing well against anything with a native turret. You simply can't just toss together a bunch of bare ships vs. another grab bag of generics and expect the fight to be balanced.

The rest of your argument falls apart once that keystone is gone.

My personal take on it is that RPS is real, but overstated, and the reason it seems worse than it was is because the old "nuthin' beats rock" swarm was kinda boring to play as, while the new "nuthin' beats rock" fat Han is boring to play against .

• flying skill, (S)
• build match-up, and (B)
• probability/dice. (P)

You can write it like so:

X = βS + βB + βP

where X = the outcome, and each of the βs refers to the coefficient of S, B, and P in determining the outcome.

I am actually arguing that the formula for X is more like ( βB) ^βS / βP where βB = β Sh+ β U

And Sh + U = Ships + upgrades and S is always 0 until the number of points spent on additional bodies exceeds your opponent's spend on baseline bodies, because all ships are more or less equal due to the costing effect. There are some minor aberrations but the nett effect is more or less balance among the ship types. Therefore βB is really just a round about expression for β U.

To express in another way, in the case of the phantom the baseline phantom is not the problem if it were then 4 sigmas would be the dominating list, the problem is the combination of the upgrades options that creates the problem. Therefore if you can develop a strategy that neutralizes/mitigates the effects of these upgrades you solve the problem.

With some minor differences most ships on both sides have access to the same toolbox of options that are commonly used to deal with the phantom menace. Therefore all ships are potentially viable vs phantoms with any disparity potentially covered by βS and βP .

Okay, I understand what you're saying with βB= βSh+βU, but I think you're radically mistaken. We're not playing checkers, where each piece is interchangeable. What we're playing is more akin to chess, where each piece has an array of moves and options which are more or less unique to it. Maybe that's not what you're saying - but if it's not then you have to make yourself more clearly understood.

If you're saying that FFG accomplished perfect points pricing on their ships and upgrades, then you need to say that more clearly as well as back it up with some math. From everything that I've seen, I think FFG did pretty well, but by no means perfect as MJ has demonstrated.

Like I've said elsewhere - and most others, such as WickedGrey just now, are on the same side - there is a R<P<S aspect to this that generates an uneven playing field depending on what you and your opponent choose to deploy. We're not saying that lizards and spocks don't exist.

Maybe I'm just having a really poor time understanding what you're trying to say, but if so I'm not alone. I get that you want us to stop whining about the game and just learn to play better. But that's like telling all countries to export more than they import. Yes, it's generally good advice for particular countries, but globally nonsensical. This discussion is trying to understand the system.

Now, I don't want to say that what you're saying is wrong, because it sounds like you do pretty well at this game and have learned quite a lot. Maybe there's great wisdom there that we're just having a hard time understanding because of the way you're explaining it.

Your assumption that PS beats all assumes that every point of PS matters more than the last vs. all match ups. PS only matters if you have an ability to change the position of your ship SIGNIFICANTLY vs. all those who went before you. Boost moves you closer: benefit = unless you can kill them first. BR can get you out of range, but that usually puts you out of range to for no benefit. TL is most beneficial! But many ships don't have TL and those that do often Focus or Position instead.

The ships that brutalize you for having higher PS most are the named phantoms, Turr, Jake, Fet. Phantoms have more going on than cloak otherwise they wouldn't survive. Turr and Fet aren't exactly tearing up the meta game right now. Jake has potential, but that remains to be seen and he's pretty low on the list for things people are excited about from Aces.

Every good interceptor pilot knows that your PS only matters if you can do something about it. If your ships can end up where you want them in relation to your opponents, then your opponent isn't up to your level anyway. This game is won way more on the success of your reaction than the success of your origninal action plan.

You are assuming I am espousing a rigid plan of action, I am not. In several posts I mentioned that value changes. The situation is fluid.

And yes its true. If you can put your ships where you need them to be while putting your opponents ship out of play then you are better than your opponent. But that's the point isnt it? If you want to win you need to BE better than your opponent no matter what his list is. If you are expecting your list to auto-play you to the finals at worlds then you should probably be playing that other Attack Wing game.

The only way you can BE better than your opponent is if you practice practice practice.

All skill equal, all dice equal, there are ship combos in this game that have very little chance of success vs. other ship combos. This IS a new thing. Even sub optimal hwk or advanced builds had a shot in the dark vs. more competitive builds if dice or skill was in flux. Now, there exist moments when a better flown list loses or when dice are in thier favor due to builds. All ships are not created equal and you can lose when you shouldn't based on build. That is the change.

I see this getting even worse soon. Practice practice practice all you want... Some are destined to lose without an act of luck gods because now there exists builds which have no chance (not talking 60/40; 85/15 or worse) no matter your piloting or dice (which, at best can double your chances).

I see this getting even worse soon. Practice practice practice all you want... Some are destined to lose without an act of luck gods because now there exists builds which have no chance (not talking 60/40; 85/15 or worse) no matter your piloting or dice (which, at best can double your chances).

What's an example of this 85/15 % match up? I'm curious.

36pts, Shadow ACD recon spec vs 3 academy TIEs for eg.

24pts, Saber PTL vs 2 bandito Z95s

36pts, Shadow ACD recon spec vs 3 academy TIEs for eg.

24pts, Saber PTL vs 2 bandito Z95s

The 24 pt example is doable. We do it all the time. The noobs have to learn fast though.

The 36 pt one seems a little less fair. Thats why we do 24 pts no uniques only. the cheapest phantom is 25.

Your assumption that PS beats all assumes that every point of PS matters more than the last vs. all match ups. PS only matters if you have an ability to change the position of your ship SIGNIFICANTLY vs. all those who went before you. Boost moves you closer: benefit = unless you can kill them first. BR can get you out of range, but that usually puts you out of range to for no benefit. TL is most beneficial! But many ships don't have TL and those that do often Focus or Position instead.

The ships that brutalize you for having higher PS most are the named phantoms, Turr, Jake, Fet. Phantoms have more going on than cloak otherwise they wouldn't survive. Turr and Fet aren't exactly tearing up the meta game right now. Jake has potential, but that remains to be seen and he's pretty low on the list for things people are excited about from Aces.

Every good interceptor pilot knows that your PS only matters if you can do something about it. If your ships can end up where you want them in relation to your opponents, then your opponent isn't up to your level anyway. This game is won way more on the success of your reaction than the success of your origninal action plan.

You are assuming I am espousing a rigid plan of action, I am not. In several posts I mentioned that value changes. The situation is fluid.

And yes its true. If you can put your ships where you need them to be while putting your opponents ship out of play then you are better than your opponent. But that's the point isnt it? If you want to win you need to BE better than your opponent no matter what his list is. If you are expecting your list to auto-play you to the finals at worlds then you should probably be playing that other Attack Wing game.

The only way you can BE better than your opponent is if you practice practice practice.

I assumed no such thing. You have been using "numbers" to try to explain how all ships are equal and I was pointing out the diminishing returns on PS unless that PS matters in that match up AND your ship has the capability of doing something about it.

All skill equal, all dice equal, there are ship combos in this game that have very little chance of success vs. other ship combos. This IS a new thing. Even sub optimal hwk or advanced builds had a shot in the dark vs. more competitive builds if dice or skill was in flux. Now, there exist moments when a better flown list loses or when dice are in thier favor due to builds. All ships are not created equal and you can lose when you shouldn't based on build. That is the change.

I see this getting even worse soon. Practice practice practice all you want... Some are destined to lose without an act of luck gods because now there exists builds which have no chance (not talking 60/40; 85/15 or worse) no matter your piloting or dice (which, at best can double your chances).

If that's how you feel then the only answer for you in the long run is to quit the game. Which would be a shame for your local meta because despite our disagreement you seem to actually have a good grasp of the game.

Going into the Malaysian Nationals I too was looking at a field allegedly dominated by Phantoms and Falcons (I moved back to KL from Australia) and I spent weeks in the lead up trying to find an answer to it. The answer I came up with was Jan Ors in a HWK and I agonized over which ships I could use to support her. And it worked.

I almost didnt run Jan because it flew in the face of conventional logic and I actually had a more conventional list in my back pocket. Even though I had tested playing both with and against Jan and had other good players critiquing my list. But that is the nature of competition.

All skill equal, all dice equal, there are ship combos in this game that have very little chance of success vs. other ship combos. This IS a new thing. Even sub optimal hwk or advanced builds had a shot in the dark vs. more competitive builds if dice or skill was in flux. Now, there exist moments when a better flown list loses or when dice are in thier favor due to builds. All ships are not created equal and you can lose when you shouldn't based on build. That is the change.

I see this getting even worse soon. Practice practice practice all you want... Some are destined to lose without an act of luck gods because now there exists builds which have no chance (not talking 60/40; 85/15 or worse) no matter your piloting or dice (which, at best can double your chances).

While I understand a lot of the points here, in my experience the #1 factor in the outcome of a game is player skill and has always been, so I think that 85/15 is an extreme situation where someone takes a list that puts themselves at a massive disadvantage (knowingly or unknowingly). Last night, I watched a 5 ship Z missile build beat a "Phantom List" and both players were very good, placing in the top cuts (iirc) of their respective regionals.

I know people used to put out percentages (dice/player skill/list) and I'd agree that those have certainly changed, but I don't think that it's changed that player skill is still the most important even if I do agree with Kinetic Operators point that the notion and breadth of competitive lists has changed (partially deliberately but maybe more than expected). I just don't think we're at the point where the game's been decided to that extent before the first dial is set.

Yeah, well consider what Jan's ability is. It's adding a die to an attack. I'm glad you won with that ship, but your discussion here proves a lot of the point. The argument isn't that you can never beat these monster builds, but that list building has eclipsed flying to a great degree, all else being equal, and your thought process on this, and that you used a ship specifically to counter their ability to soak up shots, proves the larger point.

Yeah, well consider what Jan's ability is. It's adding a die to an attack. I'm glad you won with that ship, but your discussion here proves a lot of the point. The argument isn't that you can never beat these monster builds, but that list building has eclipsed flying to a great degree, all else being equal, and your thought process on this, and that you used a ship specifically to counter their ability to soak up shots, proves the larger point.

The Jan comment was more targeted at the declaration that HWK builds were not viable. Also Jan isn't a counter to the ships ability to soak up shots.

The reason I took Jan is because Jan's ability almost always generates value. It actually takes alot of effort not to be within range band 1-3 of your intended recipient. My list was built around the principle of value maximization. It hinged on my ability not only to protect my massive over investment in two ships through careful flying and target isolation but also being able to maximize the effectiveness of what few guns I had before I get tabled.

If you think this list is an autowin vs the meta you are more than welcome give it a go and let me know how it turns out. In the end I ran it because I was also familiar with running those two ships and high PS low bodycount lists in general.

EDIT: The leading candidates for my support squad were Ten Numb, Corran, Wedge and Horton Salm. The only reason why I ended up going with Han was that it was too difficult to fit a Biggs with engine upgrades in with those dudes. I also opted for Chewbacca over C3p0 because not only was C3p0 not good enough to be worth the cost of the Tantive set just for 1 tournament, but most players would have already worked out how to counter him hard by now.

Going into the Malaysian Nationals I too was looking at a field allegedly dominated by Phantoms and Falcons (I moved back to KL from Australia) and I spent weeks in the lead up trying to find an answer to it. The answer I came up with was Jan Ors in a HWK and I agonized over which ships I could use to support her. And it worked.

Hi Sonova ,

So, according to MJ's data ( here ), the Malaysian nationals were won by a fellow (Nick Wong) flying a HWK. Are you Nick Wood, and did you support that HWK with a Fat Han? (I see you also commented on that thread.)

Also, from what Duraham tells us about the Malaysian nationals, there was a revolt against the meta by the players who had done well the previous year. They flew anti-meta lists and were wiped out, with the exception of Riznal Abidin, who flew a TIE swarm, which... is not all that anti-Meta, if you ask me.

So... doesn't the Malaysian nationals case actually strongly reject your thesis?

Jan isn't the hardest of counters, but that extra die that doesn't require you to spend an action, thus allowing you to use that ship's action for modification, is pretty handy for getting damage past C3PO and a high-defense cloak. It's at least how I used Jan in the Wave 3 meta. I agree, a bit underrated, but also just hard to fit into lists for the points.

Riznal played a very strong game. He won his matches vs both Falcons (a match up he is admittedly favoured to win) and against Phantoms (a match up he is not supposed to win) with a pretty vanilla Howl + Obsidians swarm. While I was playing my round 5 game he opted not to play vs Chris Choy because he had already made top 8 and didnt want the additional stress, effectively conceding top seed to him.

I did not watch his semi final match because I was busy playing my own but from the glances I stole it did not seem completely one sided to Chris... but you'll have to ask him for what went down. Its possible that if he had played their round 5 match it would have gone down differently because he would have had more insight into Chris' play.

In casual conversation with Chris between matches he was especially relieved that one of the rogue lists piloted by James Leu was knocked out of contention by Tan Jia Yit's Roark-centric list and he didnt have to face it. Which was basically the theme of the day it seemed. The rogue lists were knocking each other out between rounds 2-4. I myself mainly fought lists that I wasn't specifically trying to counter up until I hit Top 8.

Jan isn't the hardest of counters, but that extra die that doesn't require you to spend an action, thus allowing you to use that ship's action for modification, is pretty handy for getting damage past C3PO and a high-defense cloak. It's at least how I used Jan in the Wave 3 meta. I agree, a bit underrated, but also just hard to fit into lists for the points.

Actually I opted to solve the C3pO/phantom problem by shooting first because there's no actual way to 'shut off' VI and I correctly worked out that a phantom heavy meta doesnt bid past 9. I chose Jan because she was PS 8 native and the Moldy Crow is actually a pretty solid dog fighter with Engine upgrades once you've rolled on enough focus.

Honestly, with the increased damage mitigation and the way Predator insulates Falcons from blocking, sort of like a Han getting to re-roll a whole attack if he doesn't like it without needing an action, it's quite possible for a swarm to go down hard. If you don't get a lot really high quality rolls early on, your ability to do damage to a Falcon plummets.

Most of the time any perceived weakness of a ship is due to the ship not living up to preconceived notions on what makes a good ship rather than an objective analysis of the ship itself and what it brings to the table.

* ahem *

I'm slightly confused by the intent behind that statement, so I'm actually not sure if you will agree or disagree with the following statement:

MathWing has been correct in accurately predicting how well almost all of the ships will do in the competitive tournaments, before the ships have even been released , based on objective numerical analysis . For example:

If you're saying that FFG accomplished perfect points pricing on their ships and upgrades, then you need to say that more clearly as well as back it up with some math. From everything that I've seen, I think FFG did pretty well, but by no means perfect as MJ has demonstrated.

Yes, I really wish that they had strong analytical math skills. While it would not change the paper / rock / scissors dynamic, there would at least be relative balance between all of the ships. In each of waves 1-4, there has been at least 1 strong "dud" ship that was entirely preventable.

• wave 1: TIE Advanced. overcosted by 4 - 4.5 points relative to a TIE fighter, and lacks a useful role.
• wave 1: generic X-wing: overcosted by 1 point, relatively minor effect in waves 1-2, but now obsolete by B-wings and Z-95s.
• wave 1: Y-wings: overcosted by 2 points if they don't equip a turret. A better implementation would have been to drop Y-wing costs by 2 points across the board and then make a Y-wing only turret slot upgrade that costs 2 points, or equivalently a -2 cost turret "refit" that eats the turret slot.
• wave 2: A-wings: overcosted by 2 points before Refit in Rebel Aces.
• Outer Rim Smuggler: clearly overcosted by several points based on its jousting value relative to the named (different stat line) YT-1300, and inherently lower upgrade utility on a cheaper ship.
• wave 2: TIE Interceptor: low PS generics pay too much for boost action, since they can't really take advantage of it.
• wave 3: Bombers: the ship itself isn't terrible, but it needs cost effective ordnance to be useful, which doesn't exist. This problem stems to wave 1.
• wave 3: Rebel Operative: definitely pays a huge price for its crew slot compared to a generic Y-wing.
• wave 4: generic E-wings: overcosted by 3 points.
• wave 4: TIE Defender: generics are slightly overcosted, although admittedly the white K-turn is hard to place a value on.

I almost didnt run Jan because it flew in the face of conventional logic and I actually had a more conventional list in my back pocket. Even though I had tested playing both with and against Jan and had other good players critiquing my list. But that is the nature of competition.

First off, congratulations on your win!

The winning lists are usually the ones that run slightly counter to the current meta, and then get favorable matchups in the elimination rounds. After tracking over 2 dozen high level wave 4 tournaments this has been a consistent trend. In elimination you faced 2 Phantom builds (2nd place was a dual Phantom list!), and a 4 ship rebel with chained PS12 and an Ion Cannon Turret. Your Top 4 game against the 4 ship rebel should have been pretty even as far as squad list counters is concerned, but you had a distinct advantage in your Top 8 and Final Table match that included 2 glass cannons in each build. (2 ACD Phantoms, and ACD Phantom + Soontir). If you had faced either the Han + 3Zs (which predictably lost to the 7 TIE Swarm), or the 7 TIE Swarm (which predictably lost to the 2nd place dual ACD Phantom list), then your squad advantage would have been a disadvantage instead, and you would have had a much more difficult time progressing through elimination.

Again, I'm not trying to take anything away from you. To get a win at Regionals or especially Nationals you have to consistently play very well, especially in elimination, so congratulations!

Honestly, with the increased damage mitigation and the way Predator insulates Falcons from blocking, sort of like a Han getting to re-roll a whole attack if he doesn't like it without needing an action, it's quite possible for a swarm to go down hard. If you don't get a lot really high quality rolls early on, your ability to do damage to a Falcon plummets.

Most of the time any perceived weakness of a ship is due to the ship not living up to preconceived notions on what makes a good ship rather than an objective analysis of the ship itself and what it brings to the table.

* ahem *

MathWing has been correct in accurately predicting how well almost all of the ships will do in the competitive tournaments, before the ships have even been released , based on objective numerical analysis . For example:

If you're saying that FFG accomplished perfect points pricing on their ships and upgrades, then you need to say that more clearly as well as back it up with some math. From everything that I've seen, I think FFG did pretty well, but by no means perfect as MJ has demonstrated.

Yes, I really wish that they had strong analytical math skills. While it would not change the paper / rock / scissors dynamic, there would at least be relative balance between all of the ships. In each of waves 1-4, there has been at least 1 strong "dud" ship that was entirely preventable.

• wave 1: TIE Advanced. overcosted by 4 - 4.5 points relative to a TIE fighter, and lacks a useful role.
• wave 1: generic X-wing: overcosted by 1 point, relatively minor effect in waves 1-2, but now obsolete by B-wings and Z-95s.
• wave 1: Y-wings: overcosted by 2 points if they don't equip a turret. A better implementation would have been to drop Y-wing costs by 2 points across the board and then make a Y-wing only turret slot upgrade that costs 2 points, or equivalently a -2 cost turret "refit" that eats the turret slot.
• wave 2: A-wings: overcosted by 2 points before Refit in Rebel Aces.
• Outer Rim Smuggler: clearly overcosted by several points based on its jousting value relative to the named (different stat line) YT-1300, and inherently lower upgrade utility on a cheaper ship.
• wave 2: TIE Interceptor: low PS generics pay too much for boost action, since they can't really take advantage of it.
• wave 3: Bombers: the ship itself isn't terrible, but it needs cost effective ordnance to be useful, which doesn't exist. This problem stems to wave 1.
• wave 3: Rebel Operative: definitely pays a huge price for its crew slot compared to a generic Y-wing.
• wave 4: generic E-wings: overcosted by 3 points.
• wave 4: TIE Defender: generics are slightly overcosted, although admittedly the white K-turn is hard to place a value on.

I almost didnt run Jan because it flew in the face of conventional logic and I actually had a more conventional list in my back pocket. Even though I had tested playing both with and against Jan and had other good players critiquing my list. But that is the nature of competition.

First off, congratulations on your win!

The winning lists are usually the ones that run slightly counter to the current meta, and then get favorable matchups in the elimination rounds. After tracking over 2 dozen high level wave 4 tournaments this has been a consistent trend. In elimination you faced 2 Phantom builds (2nd place was a dual Phantom list!), and a 4 ship rebel with chained PS12 and an Ion Cannon Turret. Your Top 4 game against the 4 ship rebel should have been pretty even as far as squad list counters is concerned, but you had a distinct advantage in your Top 8 and Final Table match that included 2 glass cannons in each build. (2 ACD Phantoms, and ACD Phantom + Soontir). If you had faced either the Han + 3Zs (which predictably lost to the 7 TIE Swarm), or the 7 TIE Swarm (which predictably lost to the 2nd place dual ACD Phantom list), then your squad advantage would have been a disadvantage instead, and you would have had a much more difficult time progressing through elimination.

Again, I'm not trying to take anything away from you. To get a win at Regionals or especially Nationals you have to consistently play very well, especially in elimination, so congratulations!

I would have rather faced the ZZZHan or Riznal than the 4 ship Roark fest to be honest. I know how to beat ZZZ Han (I spent weeks play testing both with and against this) and I know how to beat swarms as they are straight forward and uncomplicated.

Versus the Roark build, my 2 ship build was hard countered by those 4 ships because not only did they pack more guns, they were pseudo-superior guns because of Roark AND most importantly, Biggs removed my ability to dictate the engagement. The only reason why I won was I baited him into a corner from which he could not recover quickly enough and sacrificed Han to do the most damage he can. If he did not take the bait and instead pounced on Jan then I probably would have lost the match.

It should also be pointed out that I despite all my meta countering I could have easily lost the finals. The turning point was Chris opted to turn a wounded Whisper out of the fight to deal with a console fire. This allowed me to take down Backstabber with a 1-2 Han-Jan punch and then it was just down to Echo vs my 2 ships. He left Echo in the primary fire arc of Jan and that's all it took to end the game.

If he had opted to sacrifice Whisper, both Echo and Backstabber would have been able to take a shot and even if Backstabber bit the dust the next turn, Han probably would have died leaving an already wounded Jan to deal with a full health Echo.

Similarly my Top 8 match I was able to isolate Whisper because he opted to try to lure me into a corner trap with his shuttle thinking that I would be overconfident with my turrets and allowing him to attack me from multiple sides. It didnt work on me because I already played so many games lists that use the corner gambit. If we were to play that match again I doubt it would have gone as smoothly as it did because he would have rammed both the shuttle and Soontir Fel down my throat from the get go.

LONG EDIT:

Part of the reason why I was successful was that I was an unknown. I had come from another meta and no one really knew how I played. And because I was running a 2 ship list I think it was underestimated.

I also chose the super high PS list to capitalize on this by avoiding giving away any information through my deployment or early moves and maximize the information I got from my opponents early plays. Knowing how your opponents play and react is part of being a skilled player and familiarity with them is double edged sword that I was sort of glad I didn't have to deal with.

I learned all of this during my Regionals run when I lost in the semi finals to a list played by a friend who rarely played X-wing simply because I couldn't be 100% sure that he was following an optimal course of action or simply just doing stuff 'just cause'. All the while he was just playing according to his own internal plan. Mistakes were made.

And yeah you are right, luck of the draw and smaller metas makes for easier games. But thats not fair to the players in that meta and I actively want to get better. I want to play the best game I can with the best lists I can possibly make. I believe that list building is so open right now all that it takes to revitalize any meta is for people to realize that there are more options than simply the blue chips. Which is why I will keep playing this game despite all the whining that the meta is getting stale. And the blue chips aren't even particularly good on their own without solid players/conditions backing them up.

I was one of the first players to get a Phantom having won mine at the Imdaar event. I physically own 3. I know why they win and more importantly I know how they die. And my conclusion was that they are only good if your opponent does not know how you play or how phantoms work in general. Phantoms are a play that capitalizes on your opponents ignorance and once people catch on to how they play then you are done. Your win rate goes from 85/15 to 60/40 at best vs your most 'favored' match up and its usually much worse because even a stray fart from a nun can kill a Phantom if the green dice gods decide to be cruel. ACD isn't an overbearing advantage, its a crutch. Advanced sensors with cloak/recloak was the stronger combo which is why it had to be nerfed into the ground. Phantoms didnt even make the final rounds of deliberation for my lists because assuming that your opponents will be worse than you is how you lose in the long run.

Similarly I played the bejesus out of C-3p0 Falcons and I know that no matter what you think the actual problem is with the Falcon, the entire list actually lives and dies on the points NOT invested in the Falcon. If those points are spent poorly, you will lose because the Falcon WILL die and all C-3p0 does is extend its lifespan. Which is why Chris Haak went with 2 ships to the Australian Nationals and why I went with my list even though conventional thinking has declared that 2 ships should not work.

EVERY whine thread about the Phantom or Falcon/3p0 assumes that players wont get better at solving these problems. That these problems will dog the game until the end of time until they are solved by the powers that be. They assume that players wont wake up and say to themselves "Hey, even though there are 3 directions he can decloak in, there's really only a small number of possible dial settings that will allow him to do something this turn given where my ships are and where he most likely thinks they will be". They assume that no one will realize that if you even have 1 ship with outmaneuver or HLC or any number of possible solutions to make stuff die faster, 3p0 is essentially just a minor nuisance on a really really expensive ship.

If you hit a wall you can choose to climb it, go around it or grab a hammer and smash your way through it. But if you choose instead to be stopped by it and simply walk away? That's on you not the wall.

Problem with game design is you playtest in a bubble it's not until you let the public play you discover the big issues.

Take halo 3 they made the online arenas with invisible walls all around and tested until they were sure you could not get out, three hours after release there is a video on YouTube showing someone outside the map.

Unlike video games you can't easily patch in a fix, I'm sure the current devs are aware of past mistakes but rushing out a fix can be worse than leaving well alone.

They've released the a-wings fix we know advanced is being looked into etc, if they were GW we'd be waiting five years to pay £30 for the changes only to be faced with a whole new mess.

I would have rather faced the ZZZHan or Riznal than the 4 ship Roark fest to be honest. I know how to beat ZZZ Han (I spent weeks play testing both with and against this) and I know how to beat swarms as they are straight forward and uncomplicated.

Versus the Roark build, my 2 ship build was hard countered by those 4 ships because not only did they pack more guns, they were pseudo-superior guns because of Roark AND most importantly, Biggs removed my ability to dictate the engagement. The only reason why I won was I baited him into a corner from which he could not recover quickly enough and sacrificed Han to do the most damage he can. If he did not take the bait and instead pounced on Jan then I probably would have lost the match.

It should also be pointed out that I despite all my meta countering I could have easily lost the finals. The turning point was Chris opted to turn a wounded Whisper out of the fight to deal with a console fire. This allowed me to take down Backstabber with a 1-2 Han-Jan punch and then it was just down to Echo vs my 2 ships. He left Echo in the primary fire arc of Jan and that's all it took to end the game.

If he had opted to sacrifice Whisper, both Echo and Backstabber would have been able to take a shot and even if Backstabber bit the dust the next turn, Han probably would have died leaving an already wounded Jan to deal with a full health Echo.

Similarly my Top 8 match I was able to isolate Whisper because he opted to try to lure me into a corner trap with his shuttle thinking that I would be overconfident with my turrets and allowing him to attack me from multiple sides. It didnt work on me because I already played so many games lists that use the corner gambit. If we were to play that match again I doubt it would have gone as smoothly as it did because he would have rammed both the shuttle and Soontir Fel down my throat from the get go.

No plan survives contact with the enemy...

Problem with game design is you playtest in a bubble it's not until you let the public play you discover the big issues.

Unlike video games you can't easily patch in a fix, I'm sure the current devs are aware of past mistakes but rushing out a fix can be worse than leaving well alone.

This makes it even more important to have all of the best tools at your disposal during the development process! With zero playtesting before release, I was to accurately predict ship performance better than the developers in the above cited instances (I am judging that I did a better job in these instances than the developers because I am assuming that they intended for the ships to be costed / balanced appropriately). I'm obviously not saying to throw playtesting out the window, on the contrary. But rather you really want a more well-rounded set of tools to analyze balance than simply throwing ships on the table and getting a relatively small sample size of empirical performance.

Thank goodness!

Going into the Malaysian Nationals I too was looking at a field allegedly dominated by Phantoms and Falcons (I moved back to KL from Australia) and I spent weeks in the lead up trying to find an answer to it. The answer I came up with was Jan Ors in a HWK and I agonized over which ships I could use to support her. And it worked.

I almost didnt run Jan because it flew in the face of conventional logic and I actually had a more conventional list in my back pocket. Even though I had tested playing both with and against Jan and had other good players critiquing my list. But that is the nature of competition.

You fail to mention what the rest of your list was here. What was Jan supporting?

I'll save the suspense: A Falcon.

6 of the Top 8 lists included either Phantoms or Falcons, including yours. There was one swarm, and one list that was truly creative. One.

I'm not sure if it's rank hypocrisy or people just don't understand what some of us are trying to say, but this is getting old. I was checking over TC and saw an announcement for Hujoe's game starting, and decided to take a look at his lists. You know what Mr. "There's nothing wrong with the game you just have to fly what you want Phantoms and Freighters aren't all that good!" is flying for his two lists? One with a Phantom, and one with a -2400.

The apologists love to say that it's all about the players, that there's nothing wrong with the balance, that it's all just perception and mindless netdeckers. But when the chips are down, they go to the same ships that everyone else is concerned with.

This makes it even more important to have all of the best tools at your disposal during the development process! With zero playtesting before release, I was to accurately predict ship performance better than the developers in the above cited instances (I am judging that I did a better job in these instances than the developers because I am assuming that they intended for the ships to be costed / balanced appropriately). I'm obviously not saying to throw playtesting out the window, on the contrary. But rather you really want a more well-rounded set of tools to analyze balance than simply throwing ships on the table and getting a relatively small sample size of empirical performance.

I do not want to be rude or anything else, but I have the impression that you feel the need that you are good at stats/that your model has predicted things very often. You do not need to state it at every post, despite the obvious interest that you work has (and that I recognize). Thanks.

You fail to mention what the rest of your list was here. What was Jan supporting?

I'll save the suspense: A Falcon.

6 of the Top 8 lists included either Phantoms or Falcons, including yours. There was one swarm, and one list that was truly creative. One.

1. What was the truly creative list? (Pure curiosity)

2. What are your criteria for a list to be "creative"? (I ask because, in my humble opinion, adding Jan to a Falcon list is a creative twist on a well-known list archetype, does that make it creative enough?)

And then, because I'm a liar, I have one more question:

Although there's in principle hundreds of thousands of list combinations, there's a small number of list archetypes.

Are you (or is anyone) invested enough in the question of whether games are won or lost for the most part before the ships hit the table to get behind an empirical test that would help illuminate the answer?

Problem with game design is you playtest in a bubble it's not until you let the public play you discover the big issues.

Unlike video games you can't easily patch in a fix, I'm sure the current devs are aware of past mistakes but rushing out a fix can be worse than leaving well alone.

This makes it even more important to have all of the best tools at your disposal during the development process! With zero playtesting before release, I was to accurately predict ship performance better than the developers in the above cited instances (I am judging that I did a better job in these instances than the developers because I am assuming that they intended for the ships to be costed / balanced appropriately). I'm obviously not saying to throw playtesting out the window, on the contrary. But rather you really want a more well-rounded set of tools to analyze balance than simply throwing ships on the table and getting a relatively small sample size of empirical performance.

I only cited the ships that are underpowered , but it is possible that some of the ships / combos are slightly overpowered . Mathematical modeling would also be very useful in this regard. The math does predict that ACD Phantoms are extremely cost efficient until they are out-PSed, or you bring 3+ attack gunner turret against them. I haven't MathWinged C-3P0 yet, but in conjunction with MF title and upgrades that don't require actions (Predator, Luke), it is obviously a very good card. I think the lack of mathematical modeling has contributed to some extent to the strong paper / rock scissors dynamic that we currently have.

Basically, what I am saying is that you need to be able to analyze balance both analytically and empirically . You can't use only one or the other and expect optimal results. Unfortunately, the analytical approach requires mathematical proficiency, and the empirical approach requires a large data sample of games played by good players.

And by the way, the HLC Outrider is going to be the new "lizard" or "Spock", and it will be worse than the ACD Phantom or C-3P0 Falcons. The only real counters to it will be higher PS maneuvering, and possibly swarms.

And here we go again with the armchair game designing. It's not to say that FFG doesn't make mistakes, but your analysis is a small vacuum of what's currently releasing now or in the near future, and at the 100 pt level.

A release cycle probably takes in the neighborhood of 1-2 years and so there are a number of things of future waves and versions of the game that aren't really known to us that are also taken into account. When wave 1 was being set into stone, I'm sure wave 2 was actively being developed, along with concepts and directions for wave 3 and epic play.

I think the Rock Scissors Paper increase is due to attempting to grow the game's design space. We have more ships that take up larger percentages of lists, and these ships have harder counters. The phantom is a prime example. It's a glass cannon that has very unique maneuverability. If you look at it in it's wave 4 vacuum, it looks extremely under-costed (and it still might be somewhat now), but if you play in larger games or take wave 5 into account (beefy turreted ships), it doesn't do as well. It's still good but there will be even more hard counters coming along.

The game has to expand, either by unique abilities (such as cloaking), and/or by size, otherwise we have the same old pre-wave 4 jousting game that is easily predicted by calculating jousting values.