All this y wing talk is getting to me. I even took a leaf out of someone else post and touched up my 3 paint jobs.

In the current meta I have been wondering how a y wing with a ict will do so I came up with this list.

Wedge 29 with stress droid 2, vi 1

Gold 18, ict 5 x 2 . 46

With 23 points left there are a few options beef one up to Dutch and take a z95 with a few points to splash around, or take tarn mison, or take a rookie with 2 points to splash around or a 3rd gold with itc.

The idea is wedge shoots first gives stress to falcon or phantom, phantom can't recloke falcon uses evade token, itc goes to town. I think Dutch could be the way to go with the boost droid but it's always hard to tell.i won't be able to find out how ell it does against a phantom list for a few weeks but I will let you know how it does against the fat falcon lists

I'd like to see them give engine upgrade to X-wings at a discount, perhaps through a title card or an X-wing only modification. Perhaps they gain the boost option for 2 points. I have found x-wings with EU o be much more effective, but costly.

I'd like to see them give engine upgrade to X-wings at a discount, perhaps through a title card or an X-wing only modification. Perhaps they gain the boost option for 2 points. I have found x-wings with EU o be much more effective, but costly.

R7-T1 comes close to that. It's almost like getting a stressless psuedo-PTL and Engine Upgrade for only 3 points.

Considering you can't swap out pilots to other ships, you can't really divorce the pilot from the ship in this game.

If, for example, we consider Wedge to be amazing (imo he is) then the X-wing has the option of being amazing. The X-wing, and only the X-wing, has the option of being flown by Wedge. It's as simple as that.

If they ever want to shift him over to the E-wing for a nominal points increase, I'd be all over that in the heart-beat (but knowing FFG, he'd cost 45 points or something silly).

Point is, every ship in this game is much much much more than just the base stats. All upgrades/combinations thereof that the ship can uniquely support, at least the unique pilots, have to come into the discussion. Otherwise, all we can say with any sort of credibility is "LOL Rookie Pilots suck" (and I'd agree, only thing they've been able to do better than Bandits or Blues is fly along-side Airen Cracken with a decent dial and 3 attack dice)

I think we're disagreeing on the unit of analysis. For me, the definition of 'a ship' is its statline (and the model, and how cool it looks). The generic pilot is that statline at it's base. (Granted, MJ has a MathWing calculation that calculates the value of that statline at a PS 1, even if that ship doesn't offer you the opportunity to take a PS1.)

For you, the ship seems to be the whole package of possibilities and you seem to feel that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, whereas I am not thinking in such a holistic way. If a pilot's abilities is analytically separable from his ship's stats, then you can think of them separately and consider the opportunity cost of those abilities, EPT, and PS.

I think you need to look at points spent on the ships rather than the number of ships from each wave. I'd have to go dig up the thread for the exact numbers but more than 50% of the points spent in the lists that made the top 32 were on ships from Waves 1 and 2.

I've been looking at MJ's percentages, which does reflect points spent on ships.

For you, the ship seems to be the whole package of possibilities and you seem to feel that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, whereas I am not thinking in such a holistic way. If a pilot's abilities is analytically separable from his ship's stats, then you can think of them separately and consider the opportunity cost of those abilities, EPT, and PS.

Problem is the pilot isn't seperable from the ship's stats by virtue of said pilots' availability (assuming that clones of said pilots would even keep the same abilities and that the same abilities transported onto other ships wouldn't want completely different strategies to properly utilize)

Tarn/Biggs/Luke/Wedge are all X-wings (it even says so on their cards ). If you're using one of them, then you're using the X-wing. There's no way to seperate one from the other.

Trying to claim otherwise would be like lumping ACD Whisper/Echo or Fat Falcon with the far more situational Sigmas/Smugglers. The lack of distinction would be incredibly misleading.

I think you need to look at points spent on the ships rather than the number of ships from each wave. I'd have to go dig up the thread for the exact numbers but more than 50% of the points spent in the lists that made the top 32 were on ships from Waves 1 and 2.

One would actually expect this to be around 50%, if the waves were even, because they're half the ships released. And it's true - it's actually over 50%, right around 57%.

But "ships from Waves 1 and 2" doesn't actually tell the story here... What's the distribution of ships within that 57%? Falcons and TIEs account for 49% of the 57. That means every other Wave 1 and 2 ship totals out at 8%. And even then, that 8% is totaled in 3 ships - Wedge and Biggs representing the X-wing at 5%, Fel (not Interceptors, just Fel) at 1.5%, and Gold Squadron at 1.5% for the Y. 3 of 8 - the Advanced, Firespray, and A-wing - appear not at all, even with all the help the A-wing has gotten.

That's not a sign that the waves are equally competitive - it's a sign that there's a single borderline-broken (or just excessively flexible) ship in that wave.

Edit: And honestly, even ignoring the whole concept of waves, the fact that we have 16 ships, but HALF the points go to 2 of them, should be a rather glaring issue that all is not well with the game balance.

I think you need to look at points spent on the ships rather than the number of ships from each wave. I'd have to go dig up the thread for the exact numbers but more than 50% of the points spent in the lists that made the top 32 were on ships from Waves 1 and 2.

I've been looking at MJ's percentages, which does reflect points spent on ships.

Those numbers don't show power creep in the ships at all. Here are the waves in order of the the percentage of points spent on them:

Wave 1 30.29%

Wave 2 27.02%

Wave 4 26.41%

Wave 3 16.28%

Those numbers don't reflect any power creep in upgrade cards but that's not quite the same sort of problem that power creep in ships would be.

Here's the full breakdown by wave from Major Juggler's numbers.

TIE Fighter             24.57%
X-wing                  5.15%
Y-wing                  1.57%
TIE Advanced            0.00%
-------------		-------
Wave 1			30.29%


YT-1300                 25.07%
TIE Interceptor         1.95%
Firespray               0.00%
A-wing                  0.00%
-------------		-------
Wave 2			27.02%


B-wing                  11.34% 
Lambda Shuttle          1.48%
HWK-290                 3.46%
TIE Bomber              0.00%
-------------		-------
Wave 3			16.28%

Z-95                     13.16%  
TIE Phantom              9.36% 
TIE Defender             0.00% 
E-wing                   2.89% 
-------------		-------
Wave 4			 26.41%

FWIW, I don't believe we actually have power creep in the traditional sense - we more have a complete lack of quality control when it comes to power levels.

"Creep" would imply that the increases were actually under control from wave-to-wave, where what we actually see is a highly inconsistent balancing process.

Well obviously if you stack on a bunch of upgrades on a generic vs. stock generics of the same point cost, the result is going to be different than generic vs. generic stock. Look at what you had to put on the Ys just to make them comparable. I run mainly named X-wings with great success, but during Wave three, I was all about bloody daggers and I ran it with great success until the Phantom came out. If I didn't have to worry about Phantoms dancing around with an ACD cloak, I would still be all about bloody daggers because they eat falcons and low PS swarms if run well.

I think you need to look at points spent on the ships rather than the number of ships from each wave. I'd have to go dig up the thread for the exact numbers but more than 50% of the points spent in the lists that made the top 32 were on ships from Waves 1 and 2.

One would actually expect this to be around 50%, if the waves were even, because they're half the ships released. And it's true - it's actually over 50%, right around 57%.

But "ships from Waves 1 and 2" doesn't actually tell the story here... What's the distribution of ships within that 57%? Falcons and TIEs account for 49% of the 57. That means every other Wave 1 and 2 ship totals out at 8%. And even then, that 8% is totaled in 3 ships - Wedge and Biggs representing the X-wing at 5%, Fel (not Interceptors, just Fel) at 1.5%, and Gold Squadron at 1.5% for the Y. 3 of 8 - the Advanced, Firespray, and A-wing - appear not at all, even with all the help the A-wing has gotten.

That's not a sign that the waves are equally competitive - it's a sign that there's a single borderline-broken (or just excessively flexible) ship in that wave.

Edit: And honestly, even ignoring the whole concept of waves, the fact that we have 16 ships, but HALF the points go to 2 of them, should be a rather glaring issue that all is not well with the game balance.

I don't actually think that looking at the top 32 results from Worlds is a good way to judge power creep and the general viability of ships. The specific requirements of that tournament will skew the results in favor of consistently performing upgrades and ships and ships that fit nicely into whatever the current meta is.

When people say B-wings are better than X-wings, are they assuming B-wings with upgrades vs. X-wings with upgrades?

B-wings are great, but I find them very hard to use without advanced sensors. At 22 points, I'd rather take a rookie with a 1 point astromech than a naked b-wing.

I don't actually think that looking at the top 32 results from Worlds is a good way to judge power creep and the general viability of ships. The specific requirements of that tournament will skew the results in favor of consistently performing upgrades and ships and ships that fit nicely into whatever the current meta is.

Two things here:

First, if performance in competitive events in the hands of skilled players isn't a way to judge the ships, what is?

Second, this seems to be a very strange observation, given that you're the one who suggested the numbers in the first place and just used them yourself. They're either meaningful or not, but you should make up your mind which it is.

Edit: to expand the first point a bit, I think it's one of the better ways, because it controls for a number of variables. We know all the players will be of a solid skill level. It's an event which covers a large number of games. Given that any evaluation will be hard to control for, this seems better than most.

When people say B-wings are better than X-wings, are they assuming B-wings with upgrades vs. X-wings with upgrades?

B-wings are great, but I find them very hard to use without advanced sensors. At 22 points, I'd rather take a rookie with a 1 point astromech than a naked b-wing.

Exactly why we need to replace "X-wings" and "b-wings" with more specific identifiers (Rookies vs Blues, for example)

For my money, I'd actually rather have the naked Blue Squad but that's because you can see from my handle how well I do with green dice of any number. The extra 3 shield generally translates into an extra turn of shooting for me, which is well worth the inferior dial, imo.

For a nominal upgrade to 24 points, the Rookie doesn't have much to offer (R7-T1? TLs on low Ps rarely work out right, imo) while the Blue Squadie becomes a hyper accurate 3 dice ship (FCS) or a pair of Bandits provide far more bulk/blocking capability.

When we start talking about characters, though, things go completely up in there air because the X, B, and Z have wildly different capabilities in that regard.

"Creep" would imply that the increases were actually under control from wave-to-wave, where what we actually see is a highly inconsistent balancing process.

I agree, although I think you may state it in terms a bit stronger then I would. FFG has not balanced things as well as they could, but I think in general Wave 4 is better than Wave 1 was.

But the E-Wings and IMO ACD are examples of them still getting it wrong.

Powercreep in the traditional sense is that each new unit produced is better than older ones, so you feel compelted to go buy it, otherwise you will be outclased.

So in X-Wing that means if X's and Tie Fighters were a 5, A's and Interceptors would be a 6 or 7, B's and Bombers would be a 8, and E's and Z's would be a 10... But that's not what's happening here.

I don't actually think that looking at the top 32 results from Worlds is a good way to judge power creep and the general viability of ships. The specific requirements of that tournament will skew the results in favor of consistently performing upgrades and ships and ships that fit nicely into whatever the current meta is.

Two things here:

First, if performance in competitive events in the hands of skilled players isn't a way to judge the ships, what is?

Second, this seems to be a very strange observation, given that you're the one who suggested the numbers in the first place and just used them yourself. They're either meaningful or not, but you should make up your mind which it is.

Edit: to expand the first point a bit, I think it's one of the better ways, because it controls for a number of variables. We know all the players will be of a solid skill level. It's an event which covers a large number of games. Given that any evaluation will be hard to control for, this seems better than most.

1. I don't think it's a great indicator of power creep (at least with the numbers that we are seeing, if > 50% of the points spent were from the most recent wave, it would be different). It is a measure of what is effective in the current meta. Once Wave 5 becomes legal I expect that we will see an increase in A-Wings, Interceptors and Firesprays over what we had this year.

2. I didn't suggest that we should look at the top 32 to evaluate power creep. I was responding to Mikael Hasselstein to let him know that if you are going to look at ship usage in the top 32, using percentage of points spent instead of number of ships present is probably what you should be looking at. When he responded that he was looking at percentages of points spent, I replied that the numbers didn't support his argument.

When people say B-wings are better than X-wings, are they assuming B-wings with upgrades vs. X-wings with upgrades?

B-wings are great, but I find them very hard to use without advanced sensors. At 22 points, I'd rather take a rookie with a 1 point astromech than a naked b-wing.

Exactly why we need to replace "X-wings" and "b-wings" with more specific identifiers (Rookies vs Blues, for example)

For my money, I'd actually rather have the naked Blue Squad but that's because you can see from my handle how well I do with green dice of any number. The extra 3 shield generally translates into an extra turn of shooting for me, which is well worth the inferior dial, imo.

For a nominal upgrade to 24 points, the Rookie doesn't have much to offer (R7-T1? TLs on low Ps rarely work out right, imo) while the Blue Squadie becomes a hyper accurate 3 dice ship (FCS) or a pair of Bandits provide far more bulk/blocking capability.

When we start talking about characters, though, things go completely up in there air because the X, B, and Z have wildly different capabilities in that regard.

Are we really just asking what's the best 21pt option? 24pt option, etc?

When people say B-wings are better than X-wings, are they assuming B-wings with upgrades vs. X-wings with upgrades?

B-wings are great, but I find them very hard to use without advanced sensors. At 22 points, I'd rather take a rookie with a 1 point astromech than a naked b-wing.

Exactly why we need to replace "X-wings" and "b-wings" with more specific identifiers (Rookies vs Blues, for example)

For my money, I'd actually rather have the naked Blue Squad but that's because you can see from my handle how well I do with green dice of any number. The extra 3 shield generally translates into an extra turn of shooting for me, which is well worth the inferior dial, imo.

For a nominal upgrade to 24 points, the Rookie doesn't have much to offer (R7-T1? TLs on low Ps rarely work out right, imo) while the Blue Squadie becomes a hyper accurate 3 dice ship (FCS) or a pair of Bandits provide far more bulk/blocking capability.

When we start talking about characters, though, things go completely up in there air because the X, B, and Z have wildly different capabilities in that regard.

Are we really just asking what's the best 21pt option? 24pt option, etc?

Not really, because they'll all have their place in different lists

For example, I'll take FCS Blues over two Bandits in a heart-beat if I'm running something that capitalizes on their accurate 3 dice (like Roark), but I'll go for two Bandits if I have two or one super-ships (Wedge + Farlander, or fat Dash) that needs escorting

The discussion is that the Rookie doesn't seem to have much of a place in most lists because it seems outclassed by Blues/Bandits in basically every situation (and now titled Golds are stealing the spotlight).

Personally, the only time I've ever found the Rookie to be particularly useful was with Swarm Cracken (similar dial on 3 dice, making it easier to fly with Cracken and become a PS 8 elite pilot on the cheap).

When people say B-wings are better than X-wings, are they assuming B-wings with upgrades vs. X-wings with upgrades?

B-wings are great, but I find them very hard to use without advanced sensors. At 22 points, I'd rather take a rookie with a 1 point astromech than a naked b-wing.

Exactly why we need to replace "X-wings" and "b-wings" with more specific identifiers (Rookies vs Blues, for example)

For my money, I'd actually rather have the naked Blue Squad but that's because you can see from my handle how well I do with green dice of any number. The extra 3 shield generally translates into an extra turn of shooting for me, which is well worth the inferior dial, imo.

For a nominal upgrade to 24 points, the Rookie doesn't have much to offer (R7-T1? TLs on low Ps rarely work out right, imo) while the Blue Squadie becomes a hyper accurate 3 dice ship (FCS) or a pair of Bandits provide far more bulk/blocking capability.

When we start talking about characters, though, things go completely up in there air because the X, B, and Z have wildly different capabilities in that regard.

Are we really just asking what's the best 21pt option? 24pt option, etc?

Not really, because they'll all have their place in different lists

For example, I'll take FCS Blues over two Bandits in a heart-beat if I'm running something that capitalizes on their accurate 3 dice (like Roark), but I'll go for two Bandits if I have two or one super-ships (Wedge + Farlander, or fat Dash) that needs escorting

The discussion is that the Rookie doesn't seem to have much of a place in most lists because it seems outclassed by Blues/Bandits in basically every situation (and now titled Golds are stealing the spotlight).

Personally, the only time I've ever found the Rookie to be particularly useful was with Swarm Cracken (similar dial on 3 dice, making it easier to fly with Cracken and become a PS 8 elite pilot on the cheap).

Except that aside from the Gold, you can't get them for 21 points.

And yes, every ship has a place where it shines most.

A 21pt rebel Y wing is not superior to a 21pt rebel X wing. One-on-one, I'm giving that fight to the Xwing. Superior dial, superior firing range

Though I might give the overall edge to a 21pt Green.

Generic X-Wings are pretty weak in comparison to some of the other generics, but most of the named are pretty good. I think the devs knew this, which is why they released so many new named ships with the Transport. I mean, why would you ever take a Red Squadron Pilot, when you can take Tarn Mison for the same points?

I mean, why would you ever take a Red Squadron Pilot, when you can take Tarn Mison for the same points?

That's easy. It's because you've already taken Tarn.

I mean, why would you ever take a Red Squadron Pilot, when you can take Tarn Mison for the same points?

That's easy. It's because you've already taken Tarn.

Bah-dum-Tiss!

(Sorry thought that was a funny quip)

1. I don't think it's a great indicator of power creep (at least with the numbers that we are seeing, if > 50% of the points spent were from the most recent wave, it would be different). It is a measure of what is effective in the current meta. Once Wave 5 becomes legal I expect that we will see an increase in A-Wings, Interceptors and Firesprays over what we had this year.

You say "effective in the current meta" like it's completely divorced from the actual game state. Yes, there is a bit of perceptive and local bias to a metagame state, but overall it is reflective of the underlying power level. That's especially true at a broad national event - a game state which is dependent on a corrupt local meta doesn't survive in a melting pot like Worlds.

Is it possible there's perfect list of TIE Advanced out there which is just being obscured because of a corrupt meta? It's possible, I suppose, but there's very little evidence to support that.

Again, I agree that what we have is not power creep in the traditional sense - in a way, I'd feel better if it were, because it would indicate that the devs had firm control of the game, which I'm not convinced they do... But the top squads at Worlds certainly is a meaningful data point, and if you're going to argue the competitiveness of a given wave, doing so without acknowledging that more than 90% of Wave 1 comes from TIEs, and 90% of Wave 2 comes from Falcons, is missing the point, at best.

For you, the ship seems to be the whole package of possibilities and you seem to feel that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, whereas I am not thinking in such a holistic way. If a pilot's abilities is analytically separable from his ship's stats, then you can think of them separately and consider the opportunity cost of those abilities, EPT, and PS.

Problem is the pilot isn't seperable from the ship's stats by virtue of said pilots' availability (assuming that clones of said pilots would even keep the same abilities and that the same abilities transported onto other ships wouldn't want completely different strategies to properly utilize)

The pilot may not be separable from the ship, but the ship is separable from the pilot. All you need to do is to take the generic pilot, and voilá, you have the ship without the pilot. Therefore, you can assess them separately. It's kind of like a title card in that way.

It's kind of like a title card in that way.

Effectively we have two types of ships in the game, and this has really been pretty much how we've always looked at it.

You have Generics and Named. Both are used for different reasons in different ways, and it's hard to compare the two really.

I don't think anyone really thinks you can compare a Rookie to Wedge accurately.

You can compare them accurately. Go to Major Juggler. Ask him to compare them. review results.