Quite true.

While tournamnet/organised play is the minority of xwing play it is as you say the only type they can control and also the most visual/prominent.

While I can see *potentially* this being a problem/tactic in 1 in 100 organised play games i dont think i'd ever see anyone do this in games in my social group.

Tourny play can be a great advert for the game and its aspirational for many players but its important to remember the vast majority of players are playing on the kitchen table with family and friends.

Semi-related...

I was quite heavily involved in making a persistent world for Neverwinter Nights back in 2002. It was effectively a small MMO, with a couple hundred players. One thing I learned there is that you don't make big changes, you don't make a ton of changes, and that you give all changes time to take effect.

Sure Fat Han and Phantoms are seen as the thing to beat, although at Worlds the top 8 was pretty well balanced really.

But if you put in something to balance the meta, you have to give it time to get into the game and see what people do with it before you make another change. If you don't you will almost always end up over correcting, and now large ships with turrets become completely worthless. Then you release something to help them, and again take the chance of overcorrecting making them too powerful again. This goes on and on...

What's worse, is each round of buffing this or that, means those things become more and more powerful, and by the time you have your YT and Counter fine tuned for each other, those are the only things worth playing because everything else has been left in the dust.

Semi-related...

I was quite heavily involved in making a persistent world for Neverwinter Nights back in 2002. It was effectively a small MMO, with a couple hundred players. One thing I learned there is that you don't make big changes, you don't make a ton of changes, and that you give all changes time to take effect.

Sure Fat Han and Phantoms are seen as the thing to beat, although at Worlds the top 8 was pretty well balanced really.

But if you put in something to balance the meta, you have to give it time to get into the game and see what people do with it before you make another change. If you don't you will almost always end up over correcting, and now large ships with turrets become completely worthless. Then you release something to help them, and again take the chance of overcorrecting making them too powerful again. This goes on and on...

What's worse, is each round of buffing this or that, means those things become more and more powerful, and by the time you have your YT and Counter fine tuned for each other, those are the only things worth playing because everything else has been left in the dust.

Well that's because you're trying to compensate by buffing other elements. In an MMO, you would perhaps nerf the powerful combos. The response time should be much smaller than for buffing, because people are already playing that combo and will notice the differences quickly (this is still in the same time-scale of perhaps months, but a bit quicker ).

It is a very good point for X-wing though, because you can't nerf or take away some of the existing strategies, you can only add to the game (presumably, they've never tried banning cards so far).

It is a very good point for X-wing though, because you can't nerf or take away some of the existing strategies, you can only add to the game (presumably, they've never tried banning cards so far).

Perhaps that's a glass half full vs half empty thing...

But would you consider a card that's sole purpose is to counter something else, a nerf? Take Predator for example, isn't that in a way a nerf to low PS ships? Or an upgrade that gives you a +1 evade vs attacks outside the attackers fire arc?

Again may be an argument of semantics...

But the point is, even if you're going to nerf something, you make small changes and see how it goes before you make another change.

With X-Wing, if they put in an upgrade they shouldn't decide it's not working a week after the card is released.

It is a very good point for X-wing though, because you can't nerf or take away some of the existing strategies, you can only add to the game (presumably, they've never tried banning cards so far).

Perhaps that's a glass half full vs half empty thing...

But would you consider a card that's sole purpose is to counter something else, a nerf? Take Predator for example, isn't that in a way a nerf to low PS ships? Or an upgrade that gives you a +1 evade vs attacks outside the attackers fire arc?

Again may be an argument of semantics...

But the point is, even if you're going to nerf something, you make small changes and see how it goes before you make another change.

With X-Wing, if they put in an upgrade they shouldn't decide it's not working a week after the card is released.

It's definitely a buff for other ships shooting at PS1 ships. It's something the opposing player will use, and it enhances his attack. It's not a direct nerf because not all ships will be able to carry Predator.

I think its clearly a nerf to pilot skill 1 and 2, and a buff to the next level up. But that's fine because there is often little point to spending the extra point or two per ship to get that next level pilot that has the same upgrade bar without predator.

I think that's a pretty conclusive response on the fortressing front.

I think he is still too focused on the tournament scene and the idea that it needs to be "dominant" to be a problem. (I cringed when he said "dominant") I think just being useful enough to sometimes occur is enough, given what a crappy experience it is. Oh well. What do I know. I'll just to go start working on my YT-2400 fortress list.

Tournament play is the only thing FFG can control. In casual play, the solution is to not play with people who play like that (if you think it is a big issue).

And here I was under the impression that FFG wrote the game rules. My mistake.

And here I was under the impression that FFG wrote the game rules.

They do. But the only time they can really make sure the rules are actually enforced is at tournaments. If people want to, they can come up with all kinds of house rules and FFG can't really do a thing about it.

I think that's a pretty conclusive response on the fortressing front.

I think he is still too focused on the tournament scene and the idea that it needs to be "dominant" to be a problem. (I cringed when he said "dominant") I think just being useful enough to sometimes occur is enough, given what a crappy experience it is. Oh well. What do I know. I'll just to go start working on my YT-2400 fortress list.

Tournament play is the only thing FFG can control. In casual play, the solution is to not play with people who play like that (if you think it is a big issue).

And here I was under the impression that FFG wrote the game rules. My mistake.

As he meantioned, adding rules to make it illegal may cause more problems that it fixes. In tourneys, it isnt an issue becuase it isnt good, so adding rules to fix it makes little sense.

the one thing that stuck out to me was that if they ever feel that the format becomes a 1 horse race again similar to Swarm has been previously, one of the mechanisms they are willing to explore was "Card restrictions" which presumably means that they would be willing to ban cards from tournament play if they ever feel they are impacting the format.

Very interesting

i think the combo of cards used to make FatHan so deadly will likely be limited and nota allowed on the same ship. thematically thats hard to justify but if one list is killing the meta there isnt much choice i guess.

Falcon Title and C3-PO together are very strong

so is engine upgrade on the Falcon - i guess they could increase the cost of putting Engine on large ships?

the one thing that stuck out to me was that if they ever feel that the format becomes a 1 horse race again similar to Swarm has been previously, one of the mechanisms they are willing to explore was "Card restrictions" which presumably means that they would be willing to ban cards from tournament play if they ever feel they are impacting the format.

Very interesting

i think the combo of cards used to make FatHan so deadly will likely be limited and nota allowed on the same ship. thematically thats hard to justify but if one list is killing the meta there isnt much choice i guess.

Falcon Title and C3-PO together are very strong

so is engine upgrade on the Falcon - i guess they could increase the cost of putting Engine on large ships?

I don't think we will ever get to banning something even cards that make the Fat Falcon so good.

Heck, we already have ships that can counter the Falcon in the limited preview of wave 6. The HWK that can ****** evades and focuses will essentially making that MF title useless. There are more cards now that do damage without an attack. I will be surprised if we see as many Phantoms and Falcons this time next year.

While C-3PO is powerful, what you didn't see is all the Fat Hans that were knocked out of the tournament. Fat Han is a solid build, but hardly unbeatable. No build is unbeatable. Paul took a risk running R2-D2, against high agility ships he can struggle to put out damage. Against other Fat Han builds he has the advantage. Paul took a lot of time and thought about what he expected people to play at worlds and was rewarded by his observations. In the Final Morgan had a very good shot at taking the title, but Paul made some bold moves and out played Morgan. He won because of how he played not because of his squad.

Agreed. A lot of people scream that Fat Han is OP, phantom is OP, but the distribution of lists in the final bracket simply doesn't support this. The top 8 were split evenly between Han, Whisper, TIEswarm, and 4 ship rebel. People have figured out how to beat Han and Phantoms with what exists now, and it showed. When compared to things banned or restricted in MTG, that only occurs when something is so strong that a high proportion of winning decks are either that thing or a hard counter to that thing. Fat Han is certainly strong, but he doesn't warp the meta to that extent.

What makes Fat Han strong is that it is excellent at evading and then can straight up cancel 2-3 hits per round. He runs around, limiting incoming fire while being able to get some shots back in return. If you can land shots with more than a few ships per round, it will die. If it gets blocked, it loses 1 of those cancels. FFG has counters made (possibly playtested?), but are holding off on release right now. I think this is wise with a new hard hitting faction coming out. Fat Han does not like HLCs, and Scyks will be the cheapest platforms available. Various illicit upgrades give the cheap Z95 some options to always do damage, even past MF+C3PO. Scum Ys have access to brutally powerful astromechs. The HWKs and Firesprays are not slouches either. Holding off on releasing hard counters is prudent.

Han might not be breaking the meta, but the powerful turret does suppress positional builds, namely interceptors. But wait, FFG is releasing autothrusters, which apparently will help. I know speculation there is rampant, but some sort of positive defensive effect with a bonus if you are out of an opponent's arc will likely solve most of the issues without affecting already strong lists.

Back on topic, I thought Alex did an amazing job showing why he is a lead developer. I was particularly impressed with his thoughts on fortress tactics was spot on. "I have seen this tactic a few times and it doesn't generally work. I saw it this time, and it was lucky that it worked. This is Worlds Rof16, the player used it once the whole tourney, and the player did not slow play, so I don't see an issue here. I understand the controversy, and I am paying attention to it. At this time, I do not feel the rules need to be changed." Agree or disagree with his views, he explained why he felt that way excellently.

Does anyone know what was in the Sigma/Echo list Alex mention?

2x sigma+ intel + Stygian

Loaded Echo. FCS + rebel captive + AcD... Maybe more.

Six Sigma:

2 x Sigma (Intel Agent, Enhanced Scopes, Stygian Particle Accelerator)

Echo (Sensor Jammer, Advanced Cloaking Device, Vet Instincts, Rebel Captive).

100 points.

Yep. Knew I missed something.

Six Sigma:

2 x Sigma (Intel Agent, Enhanced Scopes, Stygian Particle Accelerator)

Echo (Sensor Jammer, Advanced Cloaking Device, Vet Instincts, Rebel Captive).

100 points.

thank you

a simple and elegant solution to fortressing is forbiding it when one of the ships involved is still within or touching the deployment zone. Fortressing is so much harder when you have to maneuver into it, and if you have to be outside deployment for it there will be 3 side where you can attack it...

Sad that it was about the only tactic he could use in that game, says everything about the phantom (I love X-Wing, and I own 2 phantoms myself but rarely play them as I experienced them to be too strong vs non-turrets)

Good to hear him acknowledge that fortressing isn't what is envisioned for the game. Hopefully they come up with a clever, elegant solution to the problem if it gets out of hand.

I am pleased to gather from the interview that Alex Davy won't do anything rash. X-Wing clearly has some balancing issues, as some options are over- and underused, but those are fiendishly hard to iron out, if you give the player so much freedom to build their forces. I cherish that freedom. Who needs perfect? The game works, it is not too complicated, and that should stay that way. Alex Davy is spot on, when he declares that the cure should not be worse than the disease. I am not happy about ACD and the Fat Falcon, but not unhappy enough to demand to drop the hammer.

As for the fortressing problem: All we need is some videos which show in excruciating detail how the fortress looses. Depending on your opponent rolling 7 (seven) blanks is poor tactics.

The more interviews I watch with the designers the more I have complete faith in the game going forward.

Exactly what I wanted to say. The game is in good hands.

Agreed. A lot of people scream that Fat Han is OP, phantom is OP, but the distribution of lists in the final bracket simply doesn't support this. The top 8 were split evenly between Han, Whisper, TIEswarm, and 4 ship rebel.

Here's another cherry picked stat - In 10 Nationals Finals games, 70% of the squads had either a Phantom or a Falcon. Misleading statistics are just that.

Agreed. A lot of people scream that Fat Han is OP, phantom is OP, but the distribution of lists in the final bracket simply doesn't support this. The top 8 were split evenly between Han, Whisper, TIEswarm, and 4 ship rebel.

Everyone who wants to point out how diverse things are points to the top 8. Everyone who wants to do the reverse points to the top 16 or top 32. It's just cherry picking the data to support whatever claim you have, but neither is really conclusive.

For the record I'm pretty neutral on the issue, but it seems to me that the top-8 data is more important to consider. After all, the point isn't to identify which builds are popular, but rather, which builds are too powerful.

Agreed. A lot of people scream that Fat Han is OP, phantom is OP, but the distribution of lists in the final bracket simply doesn't support this. The top 8 were split evenly between Han, Whisper, TIEswarm, and 4 ship rebel.

Everyone who wants to point out how diverse things are points to the top 8. Everyone who wants to do the reverse points to the top 16 or top 32. It's just cherry picking the data to support whatever claim you have, but neither is really conclusive.

For the most part! Lies, lies, and statistics, right?

I've been lurking in case someone manages to find a complete listing of both Flights from Thursday and Friday, but haven't seen it yet. That's what I'm interested in! Not to discount the skill and perseverance of the Top 8 et al, at all.

Agreed. A lot of people scream that Fat Han is OP, phantom is OP, but the distribution of lists in the final bracket simply doesn't support this. The top 8 were split evenly between Han, Whisper, TIEswarm, and 4 ship rebel.

Everyone who wants to point out how diverse things are points to the top 8. Everyone who wants to do the reverse points to the top 16 or top 32. It's just cherry picking the data to support whatever claim you have, but neither is really conclusive.

For the record I'm pretty neutral on the issue, but it seems to me that the top-8 data is more important to consider. After all, the point isn't to identify which builds are popular, but rather, which builds are too powerful.

I'm not trying to argue diverse or not, just that both data sets are valid and contradict, so let's quit trotting them out as the end-all be-all of conclusive proof of something. They're not.