I've been trying to think about what has changed in X-wing lately, and have a possible theory.

Prior to Wave 4, list building and meta analysis was mostly proactive, rather than reactive. That is, you built to the ships that were good, and strategy that worked, but there were very few things you had to specifically counter, and those that you did rarely required anything specific. There were far more broad guidelines than specific counters. And even in cases where there were things you had to be aware of - ion threat, for example - the reaction came in the game rather than in the list-building stage. At the absolute worst the things you had prepare against were very general - "swarm" and "high-HP list".

But with the advent of Phantoms especially, and the follow-on development of Fat Han/Chewie, and now the insanity that is a hypermobile HLC Turret that ignores asteroids while getting 3 actions a turn, that's no longer reasonable. Our meta has become reactive. There's now a good long list of ships that in isolation look to be perfectly good, but are useless if they can't beat X or Y. Our reactions have reached the list-building phase.

This is, IMHO, the source of a lot of the recent consternation. It's a new set of constraints which occur at a different level than we're used to, and it's seriously compresses the meta.

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.

While I'm sure the usual suspects will have the usual responses, I'm curious what the rest of the community thinks. Has anyone else felt this shift?

I whole-heartedly agree. I would however add a couple of caveats:

1) the cheap z95s (Talas and bandits) are cheap enough to screen for Han long enough for him to get late game and maximise his potential, whilst at the same time dealing significant enough damage that they cannot be ignored all together.

2) wherever/whoever evolved Phat-Han from HSF list inadvertently discovered a list that in creating a counter to the Phantom is actually on par if not better than most other traditional lists (barring a well flown tie swarm,but even then many feel this is debatable)

I actually believe that the z95 has facilitated Phat Han and I feel the list would have always been viable even without the presence of the phantom.

For what it's worth, this is exactly how i feel about the game right now.

I have had games that were lost before the first dial was set. I also had a game where i was playing Phantom vs PS2 rebel swarm, and my opponent told me he'd never been that bored and it was the first time he didn't enjoy an xwing game.

I hope the designer can bring back player decision as the main tool for victory, rather than your list.

I really don't think Fat Han was created by Phantoms. Perhaps it was popularized as a way to defeat Phantoms, but the CR90 was available before Wave 4.

WAACjobs were going to abuse Fat Han whether Phantoms existed or not.

We shall see which lists consistently top tournaments. Over time, if it seems like a problem, they'll restrict cards. Magic does it because sometimes it needs doing. I think it has more to do with the community than it does with the developers.

It is weird that 4 random green dice and another arc dodge mechanic gets lumped into the same discussion as an endless guarantee of evade tokens, a huge amount of hp, and a free attack reroll.

Our meta has become reactive.

Your meta has become reactive.

Where I live, people still fly what they like and they still enjoy the game.

I've been trying to think about what has changed in X-wing lately, and have a possible theory.

Prior to Wave 4, list building and meta analysis was mostly proactive, rather than reactive. That is, you built to the ships that were good, and strategy that worked, but there were very few things you had to specifically counter, and those that you did rarely required anything specific. There were far more broad guidelines than specific counters. And even in cases where there were things you had to be aware of - ion threat, for example - the reaction came in the game rather than in the list-building stage. At the absolute worst the things you had prepare against were very general - "swarm" and "high-HP list".

But with the advent of Phantoms especially, and the follow-on development of Fat Han/Chewie, and now the insanity that is a hypermobile HLC Turret that ignores asteroids while getting 3 actions a turn, that's no longer reasonable. Our meta has become reactive. There's now a good long list of ships that in isolation look to be perfectly good, but are useless if they can't beat X or Y. Our reactions have reached the list-building phase.

This is, IMHO, the source of a lot of the recent consternation. It's a new set of constraints which occur at a different level than we're used to, and it's seriously compresses the meta.

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.

While I'm sure the usual suspects will have the usual responses, I'm curious what the rest of the community thinks. Has anyone else felt this shift?

I would agree with you entirely, but I think the shift is coming from players, rather than from designers. (Maybe a consequence of the game's broadening appeal, particularly to experienced wargamers of the 40k refugee variety--where list building is a primary emphasis?)

That is, it's clear to me that people are thinking reactively: someone might play this , so I should play that to win. What's not clear is whether or not it's a shift in the game itself. If it were, I would expect to see a new group of players in the top tier: people who, unlike the successful players of Waves 1-3, think and plan reactively rather than figuring out what they want to fly and figuring out how to make it work.

But in fact that's not what I see. Most of the people in the cut at Nationals were people I've met or at least interacted with online in various places--and they're people with lots of practice and a string of solid tournament performances behind them, including high finishes at major events from the past couple of years.

I'm unsure of what I am suspected of but I have 3 other ranked imperial officers that will testify on my behalf that I was no where near the Allied Tion Sector in the past month.

I agree with the OP as well. My additions would be:

Certain builds are requiring certain tactics and targeting priority to beat it. There is no more "how would I handle this tactic" for some builds, now it's "the only way I even have a chance if X shows up is to do Z".

There was, briefly, post wave 3, a time when there was no real "rock paper scissors" match ups. You could still pull a win 40% of the time or so even with a bad match up if dice were even and player skill was close. That is no longer the case. I feel there are some builds right now that CANNOT beat some of the more popular builds even 25% of the time. I also agree with the feeling that moving forward there will be builds that are incapable of beating some builds with any reliability even if the dice go your way and you're a generally a better pilot. THAT REALLY WORRIES ME (and no, I'm not talking about 3+ hwks or advanced in their current states).

I would stress that many choices about the game are starting to be decided before the minis even make it out of storage and even some basic game effects are being warped by new design. I feel both are having a negative impact on DURING game experience. I also feel both can be "fixed" pretty quickly and the new faction will pretty well "refresh" the game (and as soon as the tie advanced gets fixed)

I would agree with you entirely, but I think the shift is coming from players, rather than from designers. (Maybe a consequence of the game's broadening appeal, particularly to experienced wargamers of the 40k refugee variety--where list building is a primary emphasis?)

That is, it's clear to me that people are thinking reactively: someone might play this , so I should play that to win. What's not clear is whether or not it's a shift in the game itself. If it were, I would expect to see a new group of players in the top tier: people who, unlike the successful players of Waves 1-3, think and plan reactively rather than figuring out what they want to fly and figuring out how to make it work.

But in fact that's not what I see. Most of the people in the cut at Nationals were people I've met or at least interacted with online in various places--and they're people with lots of practice and a string of solid tournament performances behind them, including high finishes at major events from the past couple of years.

I would also say that I think practice and experience beats most things...I think that is something that some might be worried is changing with so many choices happening "out of game".

I hope the design team is listening to what people are saying (however loudly, ineffectively, or perfectly) and being mindful of how players are approaching the game AND the game itself.

I think that "I must counter X" mindset is a self-fulfilling internet prophecy. There are plenty of games to be had where none or only a small portion of participants are worried about this change in the meta. Local meta's are also very different, so some people have been facing a similar situation for awhile.

What's not clear is whether or not it's a shift in the game itself. If it were, I would expect to see a new group of players in the top tier: people who, unlike the successful players of Waves 1-3, think and plan reactively rather than figuring out what they want to fly and figuring out how to make it work.

But in fact that's not what I see. Most of the people in the cut at Nationals were people I've met or at least interacted with online in various places--and they're people with lots of practice and a string of solid tournament performances behind them, including high finishes at major events from the past couple of years.

I think this only holds if you assume that the previous top players were incapable of adapting to a newly-reactive environment. I don't see any reason to think that players like hothie or Paul or Dallas aren't able to make that shift as they see things changing. In fact, Paul's TC post about his preparation for GenCon is what planted the seed of this idea.

This is how war works. Someone introduces something better than what you have, and you develop a direct counter. Some things do become out and out, outdated. This has upsides and downsides respectively. Some things end up being used for entirely different roles as well, some stay roughly in the same role.

What you're seeing here, is a flip. It used to be that Rebels had that one really powerful ship that was hard to fight. Then people realized that the falcon with its all but canon crew worked about as good as it did in the films, and started using that. It's an interesting thing to see.

And you know why it's interesting?

It utterly confirms how much of a threat the TIE Phantom was, and how impossible for The Empire it was to defeat the Falcon. The TIE Phantom had to be stopped then and there to prevent a decisive loss for The Rebellion. Imagine, if you will, we were playing this as a ground game.

Imagine again, if suddenly Imperials got Dark Troopers, and what you usually use doesn't work.

That's what's happening here. You find the one strong counter to the enemy, and you use it. You use it until the enemy finds another counter- because let me tell you, the Rebellion didn't have YTs in spades. But they did have fighters. Precious ones. We look at it canonically, TIE Phantoms were a greater threat to The Rebellion than Defenders ever, EVER could be.

What we're seeing here.

Is the single most canonical, fluff/EU friendly thing to ever happen to the X-Wing Miniatures game. Except this time, it's a, "What if" scenario, where Ru Murleen and Rookie One failed to destroy Imdaar Alpha.

If you ever wondered what would have happened? This proves it. A systematic destruction of Rebel tactics based on individual fighters, forcing them to turn to larger, more durable and powerful ships. Kitting out old freighters with turrets to do their job. And that is the most deadly thing in the galaxy. A 30m-ish ship that can shoot in any direction, but move with unprecedented speed and agility, with a tough crew.

But who knows what will happen when The Empire turns to Scum And Villainy to counteract these behemoths The Rebellion has. Or even, when The Rebels turn to such people for assistance.

It will change the galaxy as we know it.



And that is the reality of Phantoms and Fat Han.

I think it's pretty clear that there is a difference in the regional results from Wave 3 to Wave 4 and that lists seem more narrow and it's easy to think of Wave 3 as "the good old days," but I actually think MajorJuggler's statistics show that both are Waves have been dominated by just a few ships, though in different ways and with different ships. Before I go into detail, I should once again say thanks for his hard work on this.

If we look at the Wave 3 usage statistics ( http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/105107-2014-regionals-results/?hl=%2Bregional+%2Bresults ), 4 ships made up roughly the top 70% of ships. Those were the TIE fighter, X-Wing, B-Wing, and Interceptor in that order.

Beyond that 25% made up the next group of 4 ships (YT, Firespray,Lambda, Tie Bomber) and the last clutch, the lowest tier of 4 ships (Y-Wing, HWK, A-Wing, Advanced)

Looking at the numbers after Wave 4 ( almost exactly the same spread just with a different group of ships, though MajorJuggler can probably point out some nuances I'm missing. Seriously, it's almost uncanny in the similarities between the usage of the ships, obviously with the Tiers expanding a bit to incorporate the additional ships from the Wave.

In Wave 4 , 5 ships are used 69% of the time. YT, TIE, Z-95, Phantom, and the B-wing, that's actually more ship taking a smaller percentage of the top slice of the pie. It is worth noting that the top Tier of Wave 4 is slightly more effective (+4%) and more often part of winning effective squads (+13%) over the Wave 3 squads, but it's a small difference, imo.

When we look beyond the first Tier, Wave 4 ships in the 2nd Tier (6 ships) were used 27% of the time, though these ships take a definite hit in effectiveness (-9%) and winning effectiveness (-23%). The bottom 5 ships are around 4% again but are far less effective. (-8%) and far less winning effectiveness (-31%).

So, while things have certainly changed, it's not quite as much as people think. I'm actually surprised at the numbers when you look at it from a Tiered perspective. The meta itself isn't as compressed, as ships are still being widely used and having good success (remember these are, at most, the top third of squads). The upper tier of ships is slightly more effective in Wave 4 than it was in Wave 3 when you get to the peak of competition. The middle Tier takes a bit of a hit in those categories, but not much of one, and the bottom Tier has never been particularly effective in either Wave.

*from MJ's post describing the term winning effectiveness and effectiveness.

Description: Overall effectiveness. Calculates the effectiveness of how well squads do, taking into account how often they are used vs how well they do.

Description: Winning effectiveness. Calculates the effectiveness of how often squads win 1st place, taking into account how often they are used vs how often they win 1st place.

**TLDR: Based on MJs statistics and the way I read them, If you think Wave 4 is dominated by a few ships, Wave 3 wasn't really much better.

It's because of this shift in the meta that I'm not going to Worlds, despite only living a few hours away. I find myself thinking more and more of "is this an efficient list" and less of "is this a list I would enjoy flying?" and that's not the game I want to play. X-Wing has become like Magic in the latest tournament season: if you don't play one of three lists (Phantom, Fat Falcon, or TIE Swarm), you have no chance at the competitive level, and that's just no fun.

It's because of this shift in the meta that I'm not going to Worlds, despite only living a few hours away. I find myself thinking more and more of "is this an efficient list" and less of "is this a list I would enjoy flying?" and that's not the game I want to play. X-Wing has become like Magic in the latest tournament season: if you don't play one of three lists (Phantom, Fat Falcon, or TIE Swarm), you have no chance at the competitive level, and that's just no fun.

Only one of those is actually a list archtype, and even it has variety within it.

I whole-heartedly agree. I would however add a couple of caveats:

1) the cheap z95s (Talas and bandits) are cheap enough to screen for Han long enough for him to get late game and maximise his potential, whilst at the same time dealing significant enough damage that they cannot be ignored all together.

2) wherever/whoever evolved Phat-Han from HSF list inadvertently discovered a list that in creating a counter to the Phantom is actually on par if not better than most other traditional lists (barring a well flown tie swarm,but even then many feel this is debatable)

I actually believe that the z95 has facilitated Phat Han and I feel the list would have always been viable even without the presence of the phantom.

Nice theory, why blame it all on echo. There are many factors involved in the current meta. Still why the forums are focused on Falcons what do you think about Shuttles? They can HLC and with engine upgrade FCS + Gunner they have been able to chew through allot of stuff. Or the Doomshuttle (Or doommator)? They have the turret weapons too with allot of health to chew through. THe meta is about to go for another shift.

I cannot disagree with what is being said here. I enjoy flying Vader in the Tie Advanced and in our local league I often do so - basically our group enjoy changing and tinkering with what we like to fly; in my squads I try to incorporate Vader.

This weekend I have a tournament and I am building a squad around the Phantom so that I can compete. I have a 4 hour round trip and also funding food and drink, when taking all those facts into consideration I really want to have a worthwhile trip and get beyond the swiss pairings.

i agree completely, OP.

the meta coming into wave 5 is NOT looking enjoyable. I'd even be as blasphemous to say that the game is actually not in a good shape balance wise currently. (Even though it is more lucrative than ever and still totally fun to play.)

60 points of Dash really does look like the end of many 100 point old lists. The Phantom has already killed a bunch of other ones.

Dash is gonna be even more frustrating to fly against. Maybe not OP (shh, I do think it will be), but certainly frustrating. really really really frustrating.

It's because of this shift in the meta that I'm not going to Worlds, despite only living a few hours away. I find myself thinking more and more of "is this an efficient list" and less of "is this a list I would enjoy flying?" and that's not the game I want to play. X-Wing has become like Magic in the latest tournament season: if you don't play one of three lists (Phantom, Fat Falcon, or TIE Swarm), you have no chance at the competitive level, and that's just no fun.

Though I agree with you in principal regarding the meta shift, the fact that you aren’t going to the “World Championships” because you perceive it to be too competitive, even though many of us would sacrifice an Ewok to be able to go, is a bit naive.

Believe me if it wasn’t for the gapping pacific ocean in the way I would be there in a heartbeat, a few hours’ drive to play in the world championship should be a given.

Edit:

Though I will say this about worlds, with barely 6-7 weeks to go, the complete and utter lack of information from FFG regarding the eligibility of wave 5 ships and upgrades (and indeed the availability) as well as the possibility of incorporating debris fields into standard tournament play would lead me to suggest that Wave 5 should not be legal for the event.

If it is there will have been too mach advantage given to the privileged few who obtained them at GenCon and will have had the better part of 2 ½ months to test with leading to an unfair advantage for those players.

The REALLY good players have proven that they do modify and change lists and are capable of playing lists the rest of us aren't even capable of theorizing.... so I'd definitely watch Worlds.

I'm really glad the tip top are innovative, but the large "general tournament" winning tier of players who are good but not amazing are mostly firmly entrenched in the meta-game.

It's because of this shift in the meta that I'm not going to Worlds, despite only living a few hours away. I find myself thinking more and more of "is this an efficient list" and less of "is this a list I would enjoy flying?" and that's not the game I want to play. X-Wing has become like Magic in the latest tournament season: if you don't play one of three lists (Phantom, Fat Falcon, or TIE Swarm), you have no chance at the competitive level, and that's just no fun.

I can't find words right now to describe how... let's say "self-defeating" this is. There is no rock-paper-scissors, and there is no "play one of these netdecks or go home early". There was a list in the top 8 at Nationals with three Omicron Group Pilots and a Bounty Hunter. Was Dom playing the same thing as everyone else? The winner, D4rkT3mpl4r, was playing a Phantom list--but he also brought an Interceptor and a Lambda, both of which "should" have been in the "not good enough for prime time" category.

There is absolutely room for you to play something other than those three lists (which, as AlexW says, aren't very specific anyway). Find something you like, something you're going to have fun with, and then play the way you want to play.

Because the other option is to huddle into the narrow box the netdeckers are building for all of us, and to buy into the grim fantasy that there's nothing outside it. I don't want to play that way... so I don't . And I still win games!

You guys worry too much about lists and less on how to fly them.

If we look at the Wave 3 usage statistics ( http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/105107-2014-regionals-results/?hl=%2Bregional+%2Bresults ), 4 ships made up roughly the top 70% of ships. Those were the TIE fighter, X-Wing, B-Wing, and Interceptor in that order.

...

Looking at the numbers after Wave 4 ( almost exactly the same spread just with a different group of ships...

In Wave 4 , 5 ships are used 69% of the time. YT, TIE, Z-95, Phantom, and the B-wing, that's actually more ship taking a smaller percentage of the top slice of the pie. It is worth noting that the top Tier of Wave 4 is slightly more effective (+4%) and more often part of winning effective squads (+13%) over the Wave 3 squads, but it's a small difference, imo.

I think there are a few things wrong with this comparison.

For one, the points cost of the relative ships are dramatically different. 12, 21, 22, 18 vs. 45+, 12, 12, 40+, 22. Even normalized for points, the Falcon and the Phantom mark a large commitment of points in any list, which means they're central elements. I'm also not sure I agree that a 13% jump in winning squad appearance is a small difference. And, finally, as helpful as the data is, I've never been comfortable with laying everything solely on big events - that's what we have data for, but if big events are perfectly balanced and the mass of local events aren't, it'll kill the game.

But more importantly, I think this misses the point I'm trying to make. It's less about which specific ships are dominant and far more about the emergence of ships that are so dominant you cannot have a competitive game without actively accounting for them as part of your own build. When you've got the potential to face a Phantom or hypermobile Dash, you cannot deal with them via flight tactics - you must address them as part of your build. As our group starts facing and discussing Dash, the only option we see for dealing with him is blocking or high-PS ships with repositioning abilities. That closes off a TON of build options right there.

I believe that's new to X-wing as of Wave 4, but it shouldn't be a surprising idea - it's something even those who have been arguing the Falcon is fine have said over and over: The Falcon is only popular because it's a way to deal with the Phantom. Did we even hear anyone arguing that the B-wing was only popular because it was the only way to deal with a swarm? Ships pre-4 stood on their own merits as a positive evaluation, not a counter.

_{No! No different! Only different in your mind. You must unlearn what you have learned.}

And I thought it smelt bad on the outside!

It wasn't long ago that I felt refreshed reading these forums. Vorpal is right on. The grim darkness of the far future seems to have firmly entrenched itself here. So much the pity, although the salty tears of the fatalists are ambrosia for the soul.

And I thought it smelt bad on the outside!

It wasn't long ago that I felt refreshed reading these forums. Vorpal is right on. The grim darkness of the far future seems to have firmly entrenched itself here. So much the pity, although the salty tears of the fatalists are ambrosia for the soul.

Has it ever dawned on you that there might be a good reason for all these complaint threads? The complainers might -gasp- have a leg to stand on maybe?

Or you could just stick your head in the sand and tell yourself everything is fine, we've seen what good this has done to other wargaming companies (from a competitive point of view, you can make anything work in friendlies).