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.

I'm not judging, here, but I can't help but note that in this tabulation of your balance changes only one ship (Headhunter) escaped changes entirely, and of those that had changes, all but one ship (YT-1300) had multiple changes.

So while "MajorJuggler wants to change everything" is certainly hyperbolic, I'm not sure it's unfounded.

Some abilities may be impossible to balance, but it'd be wonderful if these sorts of threads were more about tinkering with ideas until they approach some sort of balance than summarily rejecting them.

It's really easy to implement a "battle damage" type of card without ending up with 11 TIE Fighters; just make it unique. This works out fine thematically since it's easy to imagine a squad of undamaged ships escorting a damaged ship back to base and running across an enemy patrol.

Other ways to keep "degrade" cards from getting out of control is to restrict them to large ships and price them accordingly, knowing that you have more hull and shields to work with.

Or something like:

Malfunctioning Shield Generator is a possibility. Unique Modification: Immediately after activating shields, remove 2 shield tokens from this ship. -3 points.

"MajorJuggler wants everything balanced" is a better way of describing the intent. I think that many cards are not balanced, therefore many cards have house rules. Whether this leads to more conclusions about myself or FFG is a matter of eternal debate.

I would add, on a technical note, that the interpretation depends on the definition of the set to which he was referring; i.e. if by "everything" he meant "every single card in the game", or "every single ship in the game".

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

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 took it as the former: "everything in the game" seems to point at the cards themselves. And really it was an excuse for an exercise in statistics, because, well... you know...

Hull points do not cost 3 points, other wise the y-wing would be over 20 points base cost. The ships are costed on a balance between their stats and abilities, not sheer math. Stat values are relative, or seem to be, anyway.

So I think reducing the cost of ships by 3 minus a hull point is no good.

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.

I guess that is one thing that sort of allows X-wing to do is break the narrative. Example Biggs Darklighter flying with Corran Horn in an E-wing even though fluff wise Biggs died before the E-wings were created. Sure movie scenarios help but for the most part when I play X-wing I don't care about the movies as if almost they were an entirely different story.

I liked the Warhammer games when they focused on making your own narrative, when you can have say a small army on a backwater planet fighting and no matter the results it won't effect the major fluff. When 5th ed came out you can no longer tool up your warlord and the special named characters became more of the focus. I got tired of seeing Gahzskull in every Ork army I faced but he was so good and there was no suitable substitute for the Orks. I guess my problem is that I slaved myself to the narrative and did not include any named characters until later in my hobby days during 5th edition. With the new edition focusing more on spectacle creep and now the end times are back as they brought Nagash back into fantasy it almost seems to me as if GWHQ is possesed by a warp storm of chaos or something.

Narrative is nice but I think it is better if they allow you to make your own story. Think of how cool the clone wars sounded before the prequels. To be honest I always thought it was the republics fight against clones that end up weakening it for the emperor to take over, not the republic using the clones.

The ships are costed on a balance between their stats and abilities, not sheer math. Stat values are relative, or seem to be, anyway.

You actually can use math to calculate the baseline stat value of a ship, but the math involved and the resulting equations are significantly more complicated than simply "Hull = 3 points".

The ships are costed on a balance between their stats and abilities, not sheer math. Stat values are relative, or seem to be, anyway.

You actually can use math to calculate the baseline stat value of a ship, but the math involved and the resulting equations are significantly more complicated than simply "Hull = 3 points".

So how would you calculate the value of 1 shield and 2 shields? Because the effectiveness of shields shoots up more going from 1 to 2 thane say 2-3 or even 3-4.

Still in order to keep a game fun you can't just have a 1 point = 1 power otherwise it devolves into a boring game of arithmetic. Putting in intangible values and allowing slight deviations from the point/power curve makes for far more interesting game-play.

The ships are costed on a balance between their stats and abilities, not sheer math. Stat values are relative, or seem to be, anyway.

You actually can use math to calculate the baseline stat value of a ship, but the math involved and the resulting equations are significantly more complicated than simply "Hull = 3 points".

So how would you calculate the value of 1 shield and 2 shields? Because the effectiveness of shields shoots up more going from 1 to 2 thane say 2-3 or even 3-4.

Still in order to keep a game fun you can't just have a 1 point = 1 power otherwise it devolves into a boring game of arithmetic. Putting in intangible values and allowing slight deviations from the point/power curve makes for far more interesting game-play.

Right now, my current method is to brute-force calculate the exact probability density function for the number of shots that are required to kill a target, given a certain set of attacks against it. This includes the extra damage critical hits. Then I add a little bit more value to take into account canceling non-damage crits on shields, proportional to how many shields vs total hit points it has.

Edit: for reference, I'm getting numbers of about 1.43 durability for a B-wing (relative to a TIE Fighter) vs 1.39 for a Y-wing. Both have 8 hit points behind 1 agility, so swapping 2 hull into shields makes a small, but measurable difference.

Points fixing at GW was never a 'formula' when i was there (whether you like their points values or not).

Because the value of a given power or stat is situational. Something that is amazing against one army list can be next to useless against another.

Back in the days of 3rd ed and before points formulas *were* used but you ended up with crazy things like a basic human being 7pts but a level 4 wizard (who was just as easy to kill, relatively) was about 300pts.

These days (or rather while i was there) points values were fixed by saying 'what do you reckon this is worth' and then tweaking it after playing each game with it.

For example i did some of the playtesting work on 6th ed dark elves. They were not that great when they came out as they had no studio 'champion' (if one of the main games devs didnt play an army it didnt tend to get much love) but as i played them I chatted to gav a lot about them. Cold one knights (and everything else tbh) was hideously overpointed until we played enough games to have them knocked down in value to reflect their average worth. (the key problem with them being a mandate that had gone down from above that the mount could never be tougher than the rider... so the old T4 W2 fear causing mini dinosaur just became a stupid horse.... compared to Empire Knights they were terrible but more expensive!)

I'd be surprised if FFG pointed things with a formula, i'm sure they do it with the intuitive method. I could ask and find out i guess but like most things in this game.. it works so i dont *really* care how they do it.

as for 'Mj wants to change everything', you know some people don't always *literally* mean every word they say on forums not feel the need to qualify every statement with 'this is figurative' or 'i'm exaggerating for effect/impact.

For future reference and for what it's worth.... i play this (rather excellent) game for fun, i discuss it with like minded individuals on here for fun. I'm not always entirely serious, i'm very rarely that bothered about a discussion... i certainly don't sit behind the screen hitting refresh desperate to carry on an argument. (point in hand being the A wing Y wing thread... no interest in looking at it anymore as everything worth saying seems to have been said)

However I do think that if you feel that *that much* of the game needs adjusting you're effectively better off writing your own game to play with the existing models. I write my own rules for games all the time that never see use outside of my gaming group, some get commissioned, some don't but i think I I were for example playing D&D and decided that the stats per class were all wrong and re wrote them all I'd wonder if i'd not be better off playing another fantasy game.

I think though if i *had* put that much work in, rather than putting it all up on here I'd probably be writing a supplement proposition to FFG and seeing what they thought of it, who knows, could form the basis of a 2nd edition

How about this: There's a standard deck of de-grade cards, you tell you're opponent how many points of Degradation you've taken, and then they choose the de - grades and the ships they apply to. Min - maxing averted.

Thats quite cool actually

Nice one.

Even now, I have more accurate formulas, but they are unpublished, so it's not like FFG can use them unless they recreate what I have done, which seems unlikely given their lack of in-depth MathWing for the first 4 waves. Wave 5 will be the first wave where there won't be a clear "dud" ship, although they are only releasing 2 ships. Hopefully 58 Dash doesn't turn out to be too powerful. The math on it is extremely optimistic.

In any event, rabbit trails...

However I do think that if you feel that *that much* of the game needs adjusting you're effectively better off writing your own game to play with the existing models. I write my own rules for games all the time that never see use outside of my gaming group, some get commissioned, some don't but i think I I were for example playing D&D and decided that the stats per class were all wrong and re wrote them all I'd wonder if i'd not be better off playing another fantasy game.

I think though if i *had* put that much work in, rather than putting it all up on here I'd probably be writing a supplement proposition to FFG and seeing what they thought of it, who knows, could form the basis of a 2nd edition

Well, technical balance fixes can actually be much much easier than coming up with original content, provided you have the technical capability and tools to analyze the specifics in question. You only have to understand the technical aspects of an existing rule's implications. You don't have to be as creative to think up the rules in the first place. FFG does a really good job at coming up with conceptually great game mechanics. Sometimes they just need a little tweak to really make them useful. So I have no interest (right now) in making my own game. Maybe someday, but if/when I start my own business it will likely be not making games, but in something related to my work / school experience.

That all being said, back to the OP, I like the idea of Degrade cards in theory, but in practice I don't see it being balanced at all for normal / epic play, since it would be far too easy to min/max. For custom scenarios, then anything goes.

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.

I'm totally with you on this, but like MJ said - narrative and game balance are not mutually exclusive.

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

Points fixing at GW was never a 'formula' when i was there (whether you like their points values or not).

For example i did some of the playtesting work on 6th ed dark elves. They were not that great when they came out as they had no studio 'champion' (if one of the main games devs didnt play an army it didnt tend to get much love) but as i played them I chatted to gav a lot about them.

Gadge, my friend: you are not doing your case for the brilliance of game designers any favors here. It sounds like you're saying that it was a lengthy process, but it was also a political process, involving game designers' personal preferences. Sure, that's not chucking stuff out, but it doesn't raise my confidence either.

Honestly, I am confident that MJ's point values are superior to FFG's. For starters, because he has the benefit of hindsight that FFG could not have had, given that... well, time is functionally a linear thing. Also, I'm confident that while FFG's people can work a spreadsheet just fine, I don't think they're MJ's equal at the maths which you disparage. I'm confident in this because I'm fairly certain that people with MJ's mathematical prowess have better things to do that to work for game companies. MJ is just currently in that harrowing form of purgatory known by the dreaded initials A.B.D.*

Now, am I going to adopt his points over the printed ones? No, I'm too lazy and I want to play with a wider audience. However, when FFG does get to the point where a second edition becomes necessary, I hope they lock MJ in a room with Vorpal Sword, and the survivor is allowed to determine the new point values.

* A.B.D. purgatory years can be horribly productive for dilatory pursuits. During my time served, I produced an online engine to determine how long it would get from any of roughly 2500 systems in the Star Wars galaxy to any of the other roughly 2500, by way of a shortest-path walk over the hyperroute network depicted in the Essential Atlas as well as any of the RPG source material that I could lay my hands on. I'm still quite proud of that. However, it did delay me getting gainful employment, thus adding a few figures to my school and credit-card debt, and somewhat stressing my marriage.

Now, am I going to adopt his points over the printed ones? No, I'm too lazy and I want to play with a wider audience. However, when FFG does get to the point where a second edition becomes necessary, I hope they lock MJ in a room with Vorpal Sword, and the survivor is allowed to determine the new point values.

That would never work. We would just keep playing X-wing.

Now, am I going to adopt his points over the printed ones? No, I'm too lazy and I want to play with a wider audience. However, when FFG does get to the point where a second edition becomes necessary, I hope they lock MJ in a room with Vorpal Sword, and the survivor is allowed to determine the new point values.

That would never work. We would just keep playing X-wing.

Not if someone prompted you two with a methodological quandary.

However, when FFG does get to the point where a second edition becomes necessary, I hope they lock MJ in a room with Vorpal Sword, and the survivor is allowed to determine the new point values.

Points fixing at GW was never a 'formula' when i was there (whether you like their points values or not).

Because the value of a given power or stat is situational. Something that is amazing against one army list can be next to useless against another.

I'd be surprised if FFG pointed things with a formula, i'm sure they do it with the intuitive method. I could ask and find out i guess but like most things in this game.. it works so i dont *really* care how they do it.

I'm not familiar with 40k rules at all. In X-wing, most cases are much more cut and dry though, especially the ship fundamentals.

I'm not a playtester and have never been contacted by FFG, but I am sure that they have a variety of different kinds of mechanisms for checking balance. I'm sure its part internal playtesting, part external playtesting with players that have signed NDAs, and some MathWing perspectives I'm sure are brought to the table as well, potentially including mine indirectly. And obviously the designers have the final say. In addition, the development cycle is not instantaneous, and I only published my costing methods in March 2014, if I recall correctly. Wave 4 may already have been locked in by that point, or close to it. So who knows if they use a formula, and if they do what it is. All I know is that I'm pretty sure it wasn't mine for waves 1-4.

Even now, I have more accurate formulas, but they are unpublished, so it's not like FFG can use them unless they recreate what I have done, which seems unlikely given their lack of in-depth MathWing for the first 4 waves. Wave 5 will be the first wave where there won't be a clear "dud" ship, although they are only releasing 2 ships. Hopefully 58 Dash doesn't turn out to be too powerful. The math on it is extremely optimistic.

In any event, rabbit trails...

However I do think that if you feel that *that much* of the game needs adjusting you're effectively better off writing your own game to play with the existing models. I write my own rules for games all the time that never see use outside of my gaming group, some get commissioned, some don't but i think I I were for example playing D&D and decided that the stats per class were all wrong and re wrote them all I'd wonder if i'd not be better off playing another fantasy game.

I think though if i *had* put that much work in, rather than putting it all up on here I'd probably be writing a supplement proposition to FFG and seeing what they thought of it, who knows, could form the basis of a 2nd edition

Well, technical balance fixes can actually be much much easier than coming up with original content, provided you have the technical capability and tools to analyze the specifics in question. You only have to understand the technical aspects of an existing rule's implications. You don't have to be as creative to think up the rules in the first place. FFG does a really good job at coming up with conceptually great game mechanics. Sometimes they just need a little tweak to really make them useful. So I have no interest (right now) in making my own game. Maybe someday, but if/when I start my own business it will likely be not making games, but in something related to my work / school experience.

That all being said, back to the OP, I like the idea of Degrade cards in theory, but in practice I don't see it being balanced at all for normal / epic play, since it would be far too easy to min/max. For custom scenarios, then anything goes.

I think point fixing has a much more dramatic impact on games of X-wing and squadron building than games of Warhammer. For example being 1 point less means you get to choose to have initiative or not unless some one under cuts you with a 98 point squadron in which for 2 points there are many good upgrades that you could use so you end up sacrificing allot with those meager 2 points.

in warhammer for one the point limit is up to 2000 which is 20 more than the point cost on x-wing. Sure there are more models but you get units in groups so a squad/regiment is equivalent to a single ship. Also with that many points there is allot more leeway. It is more than common to have a 1998 point list for a 2000 point limit. One there are not that many upgrade options for only 2 points (maybe you could give your hero or commander a cheap upgrade but that would be it), also 2 points out of 2000 is not a big chunk missing, so there is no such thing as who ever has the lowest point cost army gets initiative.

In Warhammer it is very common to see army list that are 1, 2, or even 6 points under the limit. In X-wing you won't ever see a squadron that is 3 points under the limit.