As for playtesting

I dont really see how working out the balance of a shuttle with one less hull point is that different from working out its balance with one more (hull upgrade)?

TL;DR: there are superficial symmetries between Hull Upgrade and Battle Damage, but in fact they're subject to different consequences and different constraints that make Battle Damage at least much more difficult to balance.

Let me demonstrate with a chart:

If What You Gain is...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

| more valuable | equally valuable | less valuable |

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your List Will...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

| overperform for its cost | be balanced | underperform for its cost |

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'll assume here that the value of +/- 3 build points is fairly easy to judge, but the value of a hit point varies between ships.

With a Hull Upgrade, then, the designers are giving you the option to give up a quantity with a known value (build points) for a quantity with an unknown value (hit points). If the price of +1 hit point is too high for a given ship, the result is that an upgrade that doesn't work well on that ship, and it just won't get used--not really a balance problem.

With a Battle Damage downgrade, however, you're gaining a fixed quantity (build points) in exchange for an unknown quantity (hit points). Accordingly, errors in the "price" of the downgrade fall to the left on the chart: if the refund is too large for a given ship, there are now builds that are systematically more valuable than their cost.

***

To put it another way, if the designers want to minimize the likelihood of an imbalanced upgrade, they can change its price in order to push the result to the right. With a Hull Upgrade, you increase the price; with Battle Damage, you decrease the refund. But there's a lower bound on the amount you earn back from the downgrade--it can't be less than 1.

So if the ship that gets the most value from a Hull Upgrade gets 3 points' worth, then as long as the upgrade costs at least 3 points it doesn't cause a balance issue. But what happens if there's a ship (like the Lambda?) for which that last hit point is worth less than 1 point? Now there's literally no balanced price for Battle Damage.

Additionally, you can look at things from a list perspective instead of the perspective of an individual ship, and now things get really grim. Reducing the price of an Academy Pilot by 1 increases the possible size of a swarm by 1, and likewise -2 means +2 ships and -3 means +3 ships. So as the size of the refund increases, the alpha-strike capability of the swarm grows; a potential -1 discount on the price of the Academy Pilot is a 12.5% increase in that list's initial firepower.

So it turns out we really are--at least for your example--up against that lower bound.

Yes i can see you geta potentially larger swarm but you're also getting one that far more likely to be decimated by the first exchange of fire if you only need two hits to kill it per ship than three.

I'll base that on prior experience of said tantive campaign game where all three black squadron pilots on 2 hull points to start with went down to bandit squadron Z95s who took no damage themselves. It seriously weakened the TIEs who in each case would have got another round of shooting in had they been on full hull.

Therefore i think its a balanced trade off.

I'd love to debate this with you but im off out for dinner now so you wont get a reply til tomorrow. I'm not sulking or being rude, i've just got real life intruding on arguing about toys

Something that would probably be more balanced:

Modification: This ship begins with 1 faceup damage card that cannot be removed or flipped. Cost -2

I was thinking the exact same thing as I was reading the first page of this thread.

It's a neat idea, and just needs thorough testing to find a good balance. In this form, there are some ships you're not going to gamble with, but I don't see a problem with that.

I would imagine that negative value cards like Chaardan Refit (which was clearly intended to specifically improve the options for a particular, sub-par ship) would only be introduced in extreme and very specific cases, and certainly not at a level where every single ship in the game could potentially use them.

So yeah, I agree with Vorpal's analysis of the suggestion.

Hull Upgrade costs 3 points. But what is it actually worth?

Gaining one hull has a value that is variable depending on what ship it is attached to. That value is rarely equal to (or exceeding) 3 points. The common exception is on expensive glass cannons like TIE Interceptors. Not coincidentally Hull Upgrade came with Imperial Aces.

Hull Upgrade is almost always over costed. So conversely, if you allow an "anti" Hull Upgrade at the same cost (but negative), then this would fundamentally be an undercosted "upgrade".

Vorpal's cited example of eleven 2/3/2/0 (edit: fixed the statline) TIE Fighters being overpowered is correct. This would be horribly broken.

I feel like my earlier post was lost in the flurry.

I'll sum it up.

Illicit upgrade: Damaged hull: -1 hull -2/-3 cost (depending on balance) - but the entire savings would have to be spent on other upgrades to that ship.
Could have others that affect the shield (damage shield generator), defense, or offense.

A. Narrows it down to scum ships only.

B. Thematic as the scum pilot is choosing an upgrade for himself over full repairs to his ship.

C. Would negate the ability to run extra ships (no 11 z-wing swarm)

Yeah, breaking the established limits of how many of a certain ship you can have in a 100pt squad is a very, very dangerous thing to do. There is a reason why the Academy costs 12 pts and the Rookiee costs 21.

After thinking about Vorpal Sword and Major Juggler's posts, I have to agree fully. Trading a known quantity for an unknown quantity is balanced, and in fact a majority of upgrade cards do this (I can't think of a single one that doesn't besides CR). However, trading an unknown quantity for a known one would be terribly unbalanced and could potentially break the game.

Chardaan Refit doesn't break the game because it's specific to a single ship type and it fixes a problem of overcost in the A-wing. Hopefully the TIE Advanced will be given a similar upgrade card in the future.

Battle Damage on the other hand is unbalanced, and Vorpal Sword's first post proves it with the examples of the Lambda class, B-wing, and TIE Fighter.

If you're set on having a card that provides a negative squad cost for everything, there needs to be a known quantity you're trading for, and I don't see anything that would work.

I'm sorry all I could think of was drawing a card that says, "Assign this card to anyone on the enemy team, and call them fat. Pilot receives one stress token for the duration of the round."

I'm sorry all I could think of was drawing a card that says, "Assign this card to anyone on the enemy team, and call them fat. Pilot receives one stress token for the duration of the round."

We already have a Porkins card...

Hey, these are a fun idea!

Another option is to play campaign style and let ships be in battle with damage from previous skirmishes.

Look, it's a valiant effort, but I don't care if every ship starts with a face-down damage card, you're not going to get anyone to play Saboteur.

Look, it's a valiant effort, but I don't care if every ship starts with a face-down damage card, you're not going to get anyone to play Saboteur.

Hey! I would try saboteur. That could actually be really deadly in a B-Wing E..!

Hull Upgrade costs 3 points. But what is it actually worth?

Gaining one hull has a value that is variable depending on what ship it is attached to. That value is rarely equal to (or exceeding) 3 points. The common exception is on expensive glass cannons like TIE Interceptors. Not coincidentally Hull Upgrade came with Imperial Aces.

Hull Upgrade is almost always over costed. So conversely, if you allow an "anti" Hull Upgrade at the same cost (but negative), then this would fundamentally be an undercosted "upgrade".

Vorpal's cited example of eleven 2/3/2/0 (edit: fixed the statline) TIE Fighters being overpowered is correct. This would be horribly broken.

But in fairness you think everything in the game is costed incorrectly.

A 3pt upgrade *costs* 3 points but whats its worth?

To FFG well, 3points

But... having seen your home brew 'fixs' you seem to think that everything is a few points too expensive and want to introduce the 'half point'.

I'm not saying you're wrong but I'm not going to get into a discussion on the value of a card with you in particular MJ as you've got a fairly entrenched position on the games mechanics anyway

(this isnt a dig, im just joking ok?)

(this isnt a dig, im just joking ok?)

Uh... OK? Clowns?

You used the word "everything" twice, which made me wonder exactly how many pilots I have touched up. I am pretty sure it is less than 100%. So I compiled this nifty table.

As you can see, the % of pilots with cost changes and ability/EPT changes is less than 100%. As I thought. Q.E.D.

Yeah my point being is you obviously think you have a better handle on the game balance than FFG. Thats fair enough if you feel that way.

Having worked in the wargames industry you'd be amazed at the amount of fans we had at GW who clearly knew what they were doing better than our studio... in fairness some of them did

Yeah my point being is you obviously think you have a better handle on the game balance than FFG. Thats fair enough if you feel that way.

Having worked in the wargames industry you'd be amazed at the amount of fans we had at GW who clearly knew what they were doing better than our studio... in fairness some of them did

Hindsight is 20/20. It's harder to balance by play-testing when you don't have months or years of Regionals / Nationals data to look at.

But on the theory side of it, Math for the Win.

Nah narrative for the win, I've no interest in games when they are a maths exercise with pieces of plastic and card... and without a story that's all they are.

in fairness some of them did

The jury is still out in my mind if MJ has a better grasp on balance then FFG or not. But one thing I will say about him, I think he's done more detailed and exhaustive mathematical analysis on it then they have.

On the other hand, he's maybe done more exhaustive mathematical analysis on it then any sane person should... But who am I to judge.

There is a common misbelief that companies just chuck stuff out without playtesting but in reality the development time is pretty lenghty.

I went for my job with GW group studio in the winter of 99 and during our interviews we were shown Andy Chambers working out the finer details of Kroot carnivore squads as part of a core choice for Tau.

I joined workshop the start of 2000, they were still working on it for some time. I remember Tau coming out about august/september 2001? I seem to recall it being a games day release because i designed the staff t-shirts that year to have tau text on them.

Two or three years in the making but if you read and believed the forums you'd have thought someone dreamt them up after too much toasted cheese one night, made the jig and tooling kit in their lunchtime and bunged them out the next day.

Nah narrative for the win, I've no interest in games when they are a maths exercise with pieces of plastic and card... and without a story that's all they are.

Great narrative is awesome. Thankfully balance and narrative do not have to be, nor should they, be mutually exclusive. I was only referring to math for balance purposes.

The jury is still out in my mind if MJ has a better grasp on balance then FFG or not.

Me too, but it's not something that I worry about either way.

Definitely! I have a lot more ideas too, and no time to implement them yet. I'll be the first person to be diagnosed with MathWing insanity!

I'll be the first person to be diagnosed with MathWing insanity!

Insane or no... I appreciate all the work you've done and will send a care-package to you if you're ever stuck in padded room.

There is a common misbelief that companies just chuck stuff out without playtesting but in reality the development time is pretty lenghty.

Most of us don't doubt that here. I don't think any reasonable person has accused FFG of pushing stuff out the door with zero play testing. Which isn't to say it doesn't happen, but we tend to ignore those people.

But that also doesn't mean that we can't see what are clear mistakes made in terms of balance. The Tie Advanced being a prime example of it, even FFG admits that they didn't get that one quite right.

Not bad though as an average of hits to misses is it?

I mean *personally* i think its an incredibly well put together game and thats based on 30 years of playing various wargames and ten years in the industry working on them.

Compared to some stuff i've worked with its the holy grail of balance

Ever play 'inquisitor' , i loved that but it was so misunderstood as it had no points system at all as you were supposed to use a GM, when we playtested it and wrote the campaign weekends we had GMs.... unfortunately everyone else played it like macro 40k

You can get a Corelean corvette for only 40 points just start with the fore section crippled and you got a 40 point huge ship.

Of course this is only good for scenarios.

To be honest the negative point card for A-wings makes perfect sense. It is a light fighter so in order to keep it at top maneuverability mechanics and technicians often strip off all unnecessary components. Reducing the cost also makes sense with rebel alliance as they are on limited supplies so in order to conserve resources they often only give pilots enough fuel for the mission and so on.

Now as for what other ship can have thematic downgrade cards none really come to mind with the exception of the Tie Fighter but that would be a big NO! 8 is enough in a standard point game and when the limit expands to 150 you can end up having 12 Tie Fighters so they don't need it.

I could maybe see sort of a side grade such as for the Tie Bomber in an upgrade that takes the bomb slot in order increase the agility by 1. Other than that nothing much of upgrades that take other non-universal upgrade slots.