X-Wing as a game should be viable for a number of years. Even when they slow down the release of content, it is still popular enough that there will be people playing it regularly. It can't last as long as other games because it isn't able to generate new content for itself, but the content that it does have is enough to last it a while yet.

Even then, I suspect that this game will continue to be played for some time like a certain fantasy grid iron game that hasn't died despite no longer being supported by the original company for well over a decade.

At the casual level you just want to throw some random ships on the table and have fun with them. But even that is way better when half the ships aren't underpowered / overcosted. When was the last time you flew 5 naked Y-wings even casually? That was the first thing one of my buddies did when we played a couple games. The intent of my House Rules is to make the casual game more fun by opening up the viable meta game.

Philosophy

These House Rules are intended as technical balance fixes to improve the less competitive pilots and upgrades for casual play. This encourages more diversity of pilots and squad archetypes during casual play than is present in the competitive tournament setting.

Aha, I see what you're saying. Basically, balance at competitive is about enlarging the number of viable ships; Casual play comes from the other direction, presuming the diversity of ships allowing those people who make 'bad' choices not to be too hampered in their play.

But doesn't that diminish the need for skill in list building and put greater emphasis on flying skill and the random effects of the dice?

But doesn't that diminish the need for skill in list building and put greater emphasis on flying skill and the random effects of the dice?

Not really, because identifying the most powerful ships usually isn't about skill, it's about reading the forums and doing what everyone else does. If ship X has 10% better jousting efficiency than ship Y then taking ship X isn't really a tremendous feat of skill.

When was the last time you flew 5 naked Y-wings even casually?

But I really don't see why this is a problem. Having balanced rules doesn't mean that deliberately making a bad list has to be impossible. The y-wing is a dedicated secondary weapon platform, complaining that naked y-wings aren't very good makes about as much sense as complaining that naked HWKs aren't very good.

Who said anything about deliberate? The player is new and is throwing stuff onto the table because it looks fun. The base ship is broken out of the box, how are you possibly supposed to know that without playing some games with it? Just because the Y-wing isn't as poor of a performer as the TIE Advanced doesn't mean that it can't use some love too.

And there is no reason that the Y-wing needs to be a dedicated secondary weapon platform. It's currently a "turret is auto-include" platform, but that's a function purely of the cost effectiveness and nothing else. There is no reason why you should have to use an upgrade slot for the ship to be viable, with the obvious exception of the HWK with 1 attack die.

Right now there is one viable way to run the Y-wing: Ion Canon Turret.

After wave 6 you can add "warthog" mode as a viable option, aka the BTL-A4 title + ICT. And those 2 will fly completely differently.

However, you could also have a "naked" version that doesn't use a turret, and costs 2 points less. That would also be viable, and it would fill a completely different role than the other two options.

At the casual level you just want to throw some random ships on the table and have fun with them. But even that is way better when half the ships aren't underpowered / overcosted. When was the last time you flew 5 naked Y-wings even casually? That was the first thing one of my buddies did when we played a couple games. The intent of my House Rules is to make the casual game more fun by opening up the viable meta game.

Philosophy

These House Rules are intended as technical balance fixes to improve the less competitive pilots and upgrades for casual play. This encourages more diversity of pilots and squad archetypes during casual play than is present in the competitive tournament setting.

Aha, I see what you're saying. Basically, balance at competitive is about enlarging the number of viable ships; Casual play comes from the other direction, presuming the diversity of ships allowing those people who make 'bad' choices not to be too hampered in their play.

But doesn't that diminish the need for skill in list building and put greater emphasis on flying skill and the random effects of the dice?

I do not equate "avoiding taking poor ships as designed out of the box" with skilled list building, as iPeregrine points out. That aspect of list building is trivially easy for anyone who really follows the game. For newer players however it is a severe penalty.

With a full set of balanced ships, list building skills are still important, maybe even more so than they are now. The number of viable permutations, meta options, and potential synergies is actually significantly increased compared to what we have right now. There will always be innovate ways to list build.

While I understand the concern (anyone else remember Starship Battles?) I think that this game has at least 5 years in it and, if it falls appart, the models are good enough that I won't feel too bad.

That said, there are a number of ways for them to expand. The easiest would probably be introducing the Clone Wars armies; separatists and republic. With the current climate, that seems unlikely.

The most exciting would be to draw from Rebels and the new movies. Let's hope thier designs hold up, so far the twin engine X looks pretty good, but lets see what else they kick up.

They already started dipping into the EU, including Star Wars Galaxies. That is a pretty deep well to drudge too.

And of course repaints. Aces packs, or scum, gives a near infinite depth of continuation. Honestly, I would love an aces version for almost every ship myself. YMMV

So they got plenty of room to grow imho.

The base ship is broken out of the box, how are you possibly supposed to know that without playing some games with it?

Because you look at the ship and realize that it has a fairly poor base stat line but a giant pile of upgrade options. You know, kind of like how you realize that the HWK is supposed to always have a turret. Will some players take a bit of trial and error to get it? Sure, but overall game balance shouldn't be determined by how clueless newbies fumble through their first games.

And there is no reason that the Y-wing needs to be a dedicated secondary weapon platform.

Sure there's a reason: it's a redundant ship otherwise. The b-wing already has the "lots of HP brawler" role covered, and I don't think there's really any point in having a ship that's just a b-wing but cheaper and weaker. One will inevitably have better jousting numbers than the other, and that's the only one that will be used. On the other hand, if you assume that the y-wing is a dedicated secondary weapon platform it suddenly has a relevant role. And, more importantly, it's a role with plenty of design space available to keep adding interesting things to the y-wing in the future.

There is no reason why you should have to use an upgrade slot for the ship to be viable, with the obvious exception of the HWK with 1 attack die.

This doesn't make any sense. You're essentially saying "there's no reason a ship should have to use an upgrade to be viable, except when a ship should have to use an upgrade to be viable". The existence of the HWK demonstrates that it's just fine to have a ship which is intended to always use an upgrade, and players are capable of understanding that the only reason it's an upgrade slot instead of built into the base stat line is to give you a choice of which upgrade you fill the slot with.

After wave 6 you can add "warthog" mode as a viable option, aka the BTL-A4 title + ICT. And those 2 will fly completely differently.

And the autoblaster turret (both 360* and A4 titled), and possibly the turret that hasn't been previewed yet, and the bomb upgrade. If you want more options you should focus on making torps a viable option to give it more secondary weapon choices. For example, make a title card that costs a fixed price but makes all torpedo upgrades free, so you can carry a full load of torps on the dedicated torpedo boat without making torps too cheap on other ships.

they couldn't possibly redo the minis or adjust the rules like every other mini game /sarcasm

There is so much more to do, have no fear.

Given the way GW is running things into the ground x-wing will be around longer than 40k.

The base ship is broken out of the box, how are you possibly supposed to know that without playing some games with it?

Because you look at the ship and realize that it has a fairly poor base stat line but a giant pile of upgrade options. You know, kind of like how you realize that the HWK is supposed to always have a turret. Will some players take a bit of trial and error to get it? Sure, but overall game balance shouldn't be determined by how clueless newbies fumble through their first games.

The HWK is obvious that you want a turret with it because it has 1 attack die. Otherwise there is no such thing as a "fairly poor stat line", everything has a value and a purpose (more on this in a bit). There are only overcosted and undercosted stat lines.

The Y-wing has 4 upgrade slots:

• Turret
• Droid
• Torpedo
• Torpedo

Torpedoes are almost universally overcosted (which using your line of reasoning we can blame the newbie for not knowing), so that leaves the Y-wing with two useful upgrade slots. And competitively, the droid slot is hardly ever used (which we again would blame the newbie for being stupid and taking XYZ droid for kicks), so that leaves us with one consistently viable upgrade slot. There are a few other ships with two or more useful upgrade slots, and yet those other ships don't need to fill any of them to be viable (B-wing, Firespray, Lambda Shuttle). I.e. I would agree with you in principle on a ship like the TIE Bomber (it's purpose is in its name), but not so much for the Y-wing.

I was almost certain that you would bring this up, but I wanted to give you the chance to say it anyway. This is a common misconception and betrays a lack of understanding about the fundamental statistical nature of the game. Specifically:

... that 2nd statement is categorically incorrect, because it will depend on the matchup you are facing.

There is a statistical "circle of life" in X-wing, that is derived from the fact that low attack ships get better value when they are attacking low agility ships.

2/1/x/x > 3/1/x/x > 3/3/x/x > 2/3/x/x > 2/1/x/x

Therefore, the Y-wing and B-wing are in different quadrants. They are not in opposite corners, so the difference is less noticable than comparing a B-wing and an A-wing. However the fact remains that their relative jousting value will depend on what statline your opponent brings. If your opponent brings 2/3/x/x or 3/3/x/x, then the B-wing is better. If your opponent brings 2/1/x/x or 3/1/x/x then the Y-wing is better.

I'll eventually write a full article on this someday. Balanced baseline ships in each quadrant are key to a healthy and stable metagame.

The HWK is the only ship that requires an upgrade to be viable, and it is also the only ship that has 1 primary attack die with an upgrade slot to increase its damage. As a result, you can't directly compare the HWK to any other ship.

It will always be optimal to take a turret on a HWK to increase its damage, you don't even need to run extensive MathWing scripts to realize that. Note that it is mathematically impossible to balance the HWK based on its primary weapon attack value, because even taking an Ion Cannon Turret that is capped at one damage per shot still roughly doubles its damage output. The difference between 1 attack die and 2 is so large that you couldn't even make a HWK-only turret refit card and arrive at a balanced cost unless you were willing to have more than 8 ships on the table.

THAT is the definition of needing a turret to be viable. A Y-wing only Turret Refit, on the other hand, would only need to cost about -2 points.

Have the wave 1 developers ever stated that they intended for the Y-wing to ONLY ever be used with a turret? If they have, please point me to that statement, because I would be genuinely interested. If not, then your point of the developers' original intent is pure speculation. It is entirely possible (and likely, given the lack of mathematical rigor applied to the other ships), that they intended for the Y-wing to be perfectly viable naked, but got the cost / performance wrong.

Do you have any evidence to support this theory that it will be viable? My numbers for the BTL-A4 + ICT are here.

Baseline Torpedoes are undoubtedly overcosted, and improving them would help any ordnance carrying ship with only 2 attack, not just the Y-wings. I am certainly in favor of that, as you can see in my house rules linked in my signature. Your suggestions is a band-aid fix for one specific ship, and still doesn't encourage you to take Proton Torpedoes over more cost-effective torpedoes. I would rather see a v2.0 that fixes the costs directly to solve the underlying issue.

It accounts for 33% (approximately) of their business. I think FFG is fully vested in making this succeed and keeping it alive for as long as it makes money, which may be another 10 years if the movies are successful.

Otherwise there is no such thing as a "fairly poor stat line", everything has a value and a purpose (more on this in a bit). There are only overcosted and undercosted stat lines.

I consider point cost part of the stat line. A y-wing gives you 2/1/5/3 for 18 points, compared to 3/1/3/5 for 22 points for (b-wing), or 3/2/3/2 for 21 points (x-wing). Even a casual player can figure out that the y-wing is only a bit cheaper than the alternatives (not cheap enough to swarm with it) and but is missing that third attack die. The obvious conclusion is that the y-wing's primary weapon is intended to be a weapon of last resort, and its main damage is intended to come from its upgrade slots.

Torpedoes are almost universally overcosted (which using your line of reasoning we can blame the newbie for not knowing), so that leaves the Y-wing with two useful upgrade slots.

And this is your mistake. The fact that torps are overcosted is a mistake, and doesn't negate the intent that the y-wing was supposed to use them. Just looking at the fact that it has two torpedo slots compared to the single missile/torpedo slot on most other ships should be a pretty strong hint that the y-wing is supposed to be a viable torpedo boat.

There is a statistical "circle of life" in X-wing, that is derived from the fact that low attack ships get better value when they are attacking low agility ships.

2/1/x/x > 3/1/x/x > 3/3/x/x > 2/3/x/x > 2/1/x/x

But where does the 2/2/x/x ship go? And can you really find a point cost where the y-wing is a viable jousting ship in this "circle", but doesn't interfere with the z-95's role and force a "X is better than Y" situation with the z-95 instead of the b-wing?

You are saying that if you could restrict the design space for the ship from 3 options to 2, that it would "suddenly have a relevant role". Just think about that for a minute..

Yes, that's exactly what happens. Think about it this way: if FFG follows one of your suggestions and makes a refit-style upgrade (remove the turret slot for -X points) that creates potential balance issues with the torpedo boat y-wing. A torpedo boat upgrade that is balanced with a base y-wing cost of 18 points might not be appropriate anymore when the y-wing starts at 16 points. Or maybe it causes problems with turret + torpedo setups, much like the a-wing refit causes problems with any non-proton-rocket missiles and effectively removed the a-wing's ability to carry those missiles.

By ignoring the naked y-wing you open up the full design space for the y-wing's primary role, the role that should be much more important.

THAT is the definition of needing a turret to be viable.

Yes, but that's not what I'm talking about. It is theoretically possible to make the naked y-wing (or a new ship with the same stat line and different upgrade slots) viable, but the question is why is it necessary? If the y-wing is intended to carry an appropriate secondary weapon (whether it's torps, a turret, or a bomb) then why do we need to waste any time trying to figure out an appropriate way to make naked y-wings viable? Why not just treat it like the HWK and focus on the upgraded versions and ignore the fact that the naked version isn't a good choice?

Have the wave 1 developers ever stated that they intended for the Y-wing to ONLY ever be used with a turret?

Of course they haven't, which is why you have those torpedo slots and the highest PS y-wing has an obvious "take torps on me" pilot ability.

Do you have any evidence to support this theory that it will be viable? My numbers for the BTL-A4 + ICT are here.

Of course I don't have any clear evidence. The cards aren't out yet, no major events have allowed them, and you can't quantify the value of a 360* turret the same way you can with basic jousting values. But based on my experience with the game and limited playtesting of the autoblaster y-wing it at least has the potential to be a useful option.

And this brings up a very relevant issue with your proposal: remember how the a-wing refit destroyed the a-wing's ability to take any missiles besides proton rockets? If you introduce a turret refit card you do the same with turret y-wings. That nice appealing autoblaster turret (20 points total!) suddenly costs 4 points instead of 2, ion cannons cost 7 points instead of 5 and ion HWKs threaten to replace ion y-wings, etc. Why take that risk just as the y-wing is about to get new turret options, just so you can make a low-priority option a bit better?

Your suggestions is a band-aid fix for one specific ship, and still doesn't encourage you to take Proton Torpedoes over more cost-effective torpedoes.

Of course it does, because it removes cost entirely. Let's say the upgrade costs 4 points. Now a pair of proton torpedoes costs 4 points, a pair of flechette torpedoes costs 4 points, and a pair of APTs costs 4 points. Cost is removed, and the only choice you have to make is which type of torpedoes you want on your torpedo bomber. Do you want raw mid-range damage with proton torps, or less damage but a stress token with flechette torps? Etc.

Do a similar thing with the TIE bomber (and maybe the b-wing) and you've fixed torpedoes as an option for the dedicated torpedo ships without risking any balance issues with x-wings and other random ships taking the new and more powerful options.

So, we both agree that the Y-wing is overcosted. Define "casual". Someone that just picks up the game and plays it once or twice is NOT going to intuitively know that the Y-wing is overcosted. We have a fundamental philosophical difference on the ease of entry into the game, it's fine to just disagree.

Uh, what is my mistake? You have a missing pronoun antecedent....

I know. It's sad. Horton is obviously intended for secondary weapons that don't have a 1 damage cap. My solution for House Rules is to give Horton an EPT, make Proton Torpedoes 3 points, and allow for a -2 cost Turret Refit, so now you can get:

Horton + 2x Torpedo + Refit for 29 points.

Your assertion that A-wing refit destroyed A-wing + Missiles is not true, because the option still exists, and if it were worth taking, then people would take it. If the ship was useful with a turret before, it will still be useful with a turret even if a Refit is available.

• Missiles have never been useful on A-wings, and with the exception of Proton Rockets would still not be worth taking even if the -2 cost adjustment didn't consume the missile slot.
• Turrets on Y-wings have always been useful, and would continue to be useful even with the option of a Turret Refit.

I honestly don't like the refit on the A-wing, and would have rather had a straight up cost reduction without consuming the missile slot, and not making Proton Rockets so powerful. But it is what it is.

Of course it does, because it removes cost entirely. Let's say the upgrade costs 4 points. Now a pair of proton torpedoes costs 4 points, a pair of flechette torpedoes costs 4 points, and a pair of APTs costs 4 points. Cost is removed, and the only choice you have to make is which type of torpedoes you want on your torpedo bomber. Do you want raw mid-range damage with proton torps, or less damage but a stress token with flechette torps? Etc.

Do a similar thing with the TIE bomber (and maybe the b-wing) and you've fixed torpedoes as an option for the dedicated torpedo ships without risking any balance issues with x-wings and other random ships taking the new and more powerful options.

Oh, got it, I misread - you want everything to be flat out free. An interesting idea, but in that case it discourages the use of low-value ordnance instead, and you have to point cost the upgrade to be balanced for the expensive ordnance. There is no free lunch, and it's still a band-aid solution, which I personally don't like.

It accounts for 33% (approximately) of their business. I think FFG is fully vested in making this succeed and keeping it alive for as long as it makes money, which may be another 10 years if the movies are successful.

My worry there is that if a single line you dont own the IP to is 33 per cent of your business you're in deep doo dah if someone pulls the plug on your licence.

While they get panned a lot a certain 'giant workshop of games' have a policy of not being responsible for more than 25 per cent of a licensees revenue so if things change and they have to revoke their licence they dont bring a company down with it. Its a fairly ethical policy in my mind.

Mind you with FFG being bought out by the French company i think they are pretty safe even if they lost the licence. I cant see our gallic chums doing anything to upset FFGs very succesful business model. The only thing that might *really* hurt FFG would be a severing of connections with GW as a *lot* of their stuff is reprints of older GW games or RPGs based on GW IP.

I'm still hoping ffg will get big enough to buy out gw, imagine those IP`s with decent rules properly playtested and mostly balanced, they'd also get a manufacturing base they could use to make stuff in house.

It's a pipe dream I know.

I think from talking to chums still there that the wheel is turning and GW are trying to move back to their roots a bit having realised they have alienated a large chunk of their fanbase.

ForgeWorld certainly are running with a real 'rogue trade' vibe. its still expensive but its dman 'quality' stuff FW are making with a lot of very solid designs and styles.

I was recently tempted into painting up a horus heresy 'lunar wolves' army using my large collection of pre 1989 GW lead marines as i was given the first horus heresy book as a gift.

its really well written and totally old school.

Almost sucked me back in!

Yeah they seem to be doing their best again with the end times for warhammer. (yes it's a retcon of the previous one, but it's a good 'un!)

Ok Nagash is still a 85 euro model, but you can almost believe it's worth that much. Almost.

No one really ******* about forgeworld because you know going in their the premium priced option or they used to be now they are a bargain because of how plastic kits have risen in price.

The production value of the HH books are clear to see and only serve to make the overpriced hard cover books look even worse bloated as they are with page after page of pictures instead of the interesting background we used to get.

I've been waiting for the burning of Prospero but rumour says it's being changed to work with 7th so I probably won't bother with it.

We have just started to see the Star Wars marketing machine start up. With new movies and shows being produced, it will bring new players in. As long as new players are joining the fight the game will last indefinitely.

Indeed.

expect rebels to give us eight to ten new ships or new characters at least, by the time those are done with we'll be running into EPVII

Personally i was always struggling to think of an iconic imperial huge ship.

Those Gonzanti(sp?) tie carriers are *perfect* IMO and with them being in rebels it means that if they were on a gaming shop wall you wouldnt have most people going WTF is that? Because rebels marketting will have them *everywhre*

I also think they open up a gaming niche as well.

Imagine if it came with two ties and while the ties are 'docked' they are covered by the ships shields... means you coudl get your tie swarm really close shielded then dropped off to attack.