The xwing is not the worst ship in the game. And if you are using MJ numbers as proof the xwing need a fix realize both his fighter efficiency list and tournament results both show the xwing as being better then the tie bomber. The title and point of this thread is flat out wrong.

Que more threads about the X-Wing being bad now. I think that sometimes it would just be better if a company released only the optimal items for tournament play. Then everyone is playing the same lists. Oh wait....that happens now....

The xwing is not the worst ship in the game. And if you are using MJ numbers as proof the xwing need a fix realize both his fighter efficiency list and tournament results both show the xwing as being better then the tie bomber. The title and point of this thread is flat out wrong.

Oh i did read the thread and i also believe that the Bomber is not exactly in a great spot. You might be right about the title being wrong. But also being right there in the bottom is unacceptable for the X-Wing.

They need to achieve general balance in the game. But the solutions for Bombers must probaby come in a fix for ordnance, unlike the X-Wing which needs a general utility fix like S-Foils i proposed a little higher. I can't repeat enough that creating some OP Astromech can not provide a solution for the X-Wing for reasons also stated higher.

But even if i strongly advocate for the X-Wing here does not mean i don't think some other ships are better off. The Tie Bomber is a bit of a special case as i have not seen many conplaints, i must assume nobody really cares for it. It is also a special case however as personally i feel it should be a lot more limited to being an ordnance and bombing ship... If only ordnance was viable the Bomber would probably instantly work.

I have refrained from this discussion until now, wanting to provide an opportunity for others to express their viewpoints, and allowing me time to digest it all. Having done that, and having read through this entire thread, I want to ask a very simple question ...

Why is it that some people feel that all ships must be perfectly balanced against all other ships?

Quite frankly, if everything was generically the same, I would find this game incredibly boring. In certain situations/match-ups, some ships should be more powerful than others. Some should be weaker. Quite frankly, this more accurately reflects "real life". Some factions have nuclear powered aircraft carriers and submarines. Some still have diesel powered boats. You learn to live and plan with what you got.

It adds immense diversity to the game, and challenges you as a gamer to devise strategies and/or the best possible approach to playing against the list you are facing; in fact, often this has to be done at the spur of the moment, as you may not know what you may be facing until the last moment.

For me, this is exactly what adds spice and challenge to the game. And yes, I get the fact that it may lead to certain ships not being played at all during competitive tournaments - so what? You can still use them during casual play, and you may surprise yourself with what is actually possible when you are "trying them out".

This is a complex game, with billions of combinations of ships/pilots/upgrades, etc. As FFG releases more ships, it will only increase this diversity, and significantly increase the combinations available. I don't want FFG to have to spend a lifetime trying to come up with perfect balance. In fact, I don't want perfect balance.

I want there to be instances of consternation as I try to figure out what to do. I want there to be challenges that are difficult, if not impossible to overcome. In other words, I want there to be fun and excitement in the game.

Just my 1.5 cents worth.

Do we all realize that we've gone from a thread that basically said one X-Wing generic doesn't see much play to asking for am entirely new game?

Am I the only one happy with what we have?

P.S. I'm most often an imperial player; I'd love to see a boost for the bomber, but also I would be just as happy never getting one. Will I see them in tournaments? Most likely not, but I'll see them in Epic and that's fine. The same is true for Steele.

Also if what your saying is true and people get bored if they don't get winery new toys every couple of months then no matter what, the game will end. That model is unsustainable. Either you get power creep; hurt the game; over complicate it; or price it out.

Me if the end is guaranteed I'd like it to end where most ships are great and a few are situational rather than being priced out of an overly complicated game all together. Stop while it's mostly fun.

Besides we all know that monopoly, go, risk and tons of other games didn't vanish because of a lack of monthly releases. It may plateau but if we don't ruin it first it will stay fun.

Let's remember that besides Star War one thing that attracted new players was the ease of the game.

I have refrained from this discussion until now, wanting to provide an opportunity for others to express their viewpoints, and allowing me time to digest it all. Having done that, and having read through this entire thread, I want to ask a very simple question ...

Why is it that some people feel that all ships must be perfectly balanced against all other ships?

Quite frankly, if everything was generically the same, I would find this game incredibly boring. In certain situations/match-ups, some ships should be more powerful than others. Some should be weaker. Quite frankly, this more accurately reflects "real life". Some factions have nuclear powered aircraft carriers and submarines. Some still have diesel powered boats. You learn to live and plan with what you got.

It adds immense diversity to the game, and challenges you as a gamer to devise strategies and/or the best possible approach to playing against the list you are facing; in fact, often this has to be done at the spur of the moment, as you may not know what you may be facing until the last moment.

For me, this is exactly what adds spice and challenge to the game. And yes, I get the fact that it may lead to certain ships not being played at all during competitive tournaments - so what? You can still use them during casual play, and you may surprise yourself with what is actually possible when you are "trying them out".

This is a complex game, with billions of combinations of ships/pilots/upgrades, etc. As FFG releases more ships, it will only increase this diversity, and significantly increase the combinations available. I don't want FFG to have to spend a lifetime trying to come up with perfect balance. In fact, I don't want perfect balance.

I want there to be instances of consternation as I try to figure out what to do. I want there to be challenges that are difficult, if not impossible to overcome. In other words, I want there to be fun and excitement in the game.

Just my 1.5 cents worth.

And for that you don't need to make a game where every ship is the same. I think nobody would like that. In fact what every ship needs is a niche within its faction where it can excel. And that's probably even true for the X-Wing which everyone sees as a jack of all trades, but which it isn't at the moment... Well it rather sucks at all trades XD.

And for filling niches, ships indeed need to be diverse, but the real challenge is to still manage to balance this diversity. Of course you will have bad matchups with any list. This is the paper Rock scissors system that all good games need. Sadly at the moment there are ships that have very few bad or unwinnabke matchups while others always feel like fighting an uphill battle pretty much no matter what the opponent brings.

And for that you don't need to make a game where every ship is the same. I think nobody would like that. In fact what every ship needs is a niche within its faction where it can excel. And that's probably even true for the X-Wing which everyone sees as a jack of all trades, but which it isn't at the moment... Well it rather sucks at all trades XD.

The generic Xwing is what everyone keeps mentioning here. And that is what I think he is getting at. As I have stated before the Xwing and Bwing have opposing problems...the Xwing has some of the best pilots in the game in the forms of Luke,Wedge, Wes, and a few others...the Bwing has....Keyan? The Bwings have superior generics and inferior named pilots (even after the introduction of Aces.)

I dont put much stock in tourneys or tourney results (and thusly dont follow the MJ threads) but wasnt the Xwing (in the form of some named pilots) featured in quite a few of the finalists lists at this worlds competition everyone references? I have read your S foils proposal as well as a few other proposals and you yourself mentioned this would provide a decent boost Biggs (who doesnt need boosting in any way) and Tarn (who I believe is used as well.). If this is the case what is this doing to allow the generic see more play? Which I was under the impression was the main goal of this thread? Other ideas have been floated to give the generics only a boost in the form of a +1 hull or adding actions (boost and/or barrel roll). While not an absolutely terrible idea why are we trying to make the xwing more like everything else? These being instituted could see the Bwing fall out of favor for its current purpose and then we will have people clamoring for a Bwing "fix." Is that guranteed to happen? I dont know...but the risk is there and I feel it is rather high.

While I agree with you that perfect balance is the goal I feel external balance (between the factions) is far more important than internal balance (between what ships are good at what in each faction.) Any2cards is quite correct when he states not all ships should be "viable" for so called "high level" play. That level of play is all about min/maxing and most considerations barring points efficiency go out the window. Not all ships will be able to deal with that. I also agree with him that this dynamic allows people to try unexpected things and come up with surprise victories and upsets weather they be in a casual game or a lucky tourney game...this is good for the game.

I find this whole argument funny for the reasons I stated before. The time when people clamoring for high PS uniques to be utilized has passed...I guess we are back to wanting to run tons of generics again. The grass is always greener on the other side.

I will reiterate my point that the Bwing and Xwing have opposing issues...Xwings are iconic for the pilots that flew them, and many of those pilots are used. Bwings...well no one knows of any real Bwing pilots except for Keyan, and for that you needed the expansion.

The xwing is not the worst ship in the game. And if you are using MJ numbers as proof the xwing need a fix realize both his fighter efficiency list and tournament results both show the xwing as being better then the tie bomber. The title and point of this thread is flat out wrong.

Oh i did read the thread and i also believe that the Bomber is not exactly in a great spot. You might be right about the title being wrong. But also being right there in the bottom is unacceptable for the X-Wing.

They need to achieve general balance in the game. But the solutions for Bombers must probaby come in a fix for ordnance, unlike the X-Wing which needs a general utility fix like S-Foils i proposed a little higher. I can't repeat enough that creating some OP Astromech can not provide a solution for the X-Wing for reasons also stated higher.

But even if i strongly advocate for the X-Wing here does not mean i don't think some other ships are better off. The Tie Bomber is a bit of a special case as i have not seen many conplaints, i must assume nobody really cares for it. It is also a special case however as personally i feel it should be a lot more limited to being an ordnance and bombing ship... If only ordnance was viable the Bomber would probably instantly work.

The main issue with xwings and many of the ships that needed a fix like the advanced, awing, ywing, is that ordinance weapons were initially overvalued and are still not efficient use of points. Honestly the most iconic vision of xwings is luke firing a proton torpedo into the Death Star with a targeting lock missing and then firing them again without a target lock.

Doing something like giving xwings boost I garauntee you only means awings are even more redundant. And it's not like they are currently popular even after thier fix. Heck wave 6 give them another minor fix and it still won't make them much better.

The only idea I like to see is xwings given some title fixing torpedoes. Allow them to fire twice even in the same turn at the same target and This title should cost zero.

This is pretty freaking powerful but limited, fixes xwing to a point by increasing thier points cost with a torpedo but makes them a 1 shot specialist. At the same time this fix is a large ship killer and helps solve that issue with the meta and finally this fix does not effect any other ship in the rebel lineup by stepping into other ships roles.

"Creating a balancing that is as close as possible to making every option viable." It seems like this is already the case. An xwing is a viable option in any list (as is any other ship).

Well my S-Foils would boost Biggs and Tarns Survivability, but they would still be a lot less survivable than other ships like Phantoms or the new Advanced, Falcons or even pimped up Interceptors. So the X-Wing still keeps some kind of middle ground. Just keep in mind that you also sacrifice a third of the X-Wings Firepower on S-Foil turns.

The mobility would honestly benefit high PS pilots because any repositioning tool in this game is pretty much best used when you already have a complete picture of the board. In other words if you move last you know where to barrel roll or boost. But nonetheless the added defense on S-Foil turns would be a good thing for any X-Wing, named or not.

Quite honestly if you don't follow the MJ threads you probably don't know that the X-Wing as a whole is 1-2 points overcosted if we believe him. That's what i pretty much aim for with this upgrade in utility gain. And if i understood the calculations right it was not only the generics that were overcosted by 1-2 points, but all X-Wings.

Also there are not many X-Wings to be seen in any of the competitve lists. Not a lot of named, nor Rookies. I don't think it's only a Rookie or Red squadron problem.

Would you honestly think that with the S-Foils the X-Wing would be a better choice than B-Wings or Y-Wings that they would push them aside? I think not. But it would make them slightly better than they are and different from the other 2.

I would agree that if you close S-Foils the X-Wing would come close to an A-Wing, but remember they still cost a lot more than A-Wings, so if you always want 2 Attack 3 Agi with boost, you will be much better off with Greens and Prototypes. The A-Wing also has access to Evade which does add to it's tankiness on top of that.

Quite honestly if you don't follow the MJ threads you probably don't know that the X-Wing as a whole is 1-2 points overcosted if we believe him. That's what i pretty much aim for with this upgrade in utility gain. And if i understood the calculations right it was not only the generics that were overcosted by 1-2 points, but all X-Wings.

Lies, **** lies and statistics. LOL.

The xwing is not the worst ship in the game. And if you are using MJ numbers as proof the xwing need a fix realize both his fighter efficiency list and tournament results both show the xwing as being better then the tie bomber. The title and point of this thread is flat out wrong.

Oh i did read the thread and i also believe that the Bomber is not exactly in a great spot. You might be right about the title being wrong. But also being right there in the bottom is unacceptable for the X-Wing.

They need to achieve general balance in the game. But the solutions for Bombers must probaby come in a fix for ordnance, unlike the X-Wing which needs a general utility fix like S-Foils i proposed a little higher. I can't repeat enough that creating some OP Astromech can not provide a solution for the X-Wing for reasons also stated higher.

But even if i strongly advocate for the X-Wing here does not mean i don't think some other ships are better off. The Tie Bomber is a bit of a special case as i have not seen many conplaints, i must assume nobody really cares for it. It is also a special case however as personally i feel it should be a lot more limited to being an ordnance and bombing ship... If only ordnance was viable the Bomber would probably instantly work.

I've lost count how many games on vassal, or playing with my friends how many kills I've gotten with prox mines. I've gotten a lot. Best to have at least 2 to make it work well, but killing a ship before the attack phase is huge

I've been substituting bombers for ties because they live a lot longer.

Once they use their prox mine their usefulness is gone, bu it's still a tanky ship.

I would love to see more bomber lovin

I've been preaching this but the decimator, 2 bombers and prox mines with a tie is an excellent list. Tanky at 31 hp

My fix? Get X-Wings shooting torps at Tie Fighters again. Yes, I realize that flechette torps become auto include at this point.

T-65C-A2

Title, X-Wing Only

Your cost for ordnance is reduced by 2 points.

My fix? Get X-Wings shooting torps at Tie Fighters again. Yes, I realize that flechette torps become auto include at this point.

T-65C-A2

Title, X-Wing Only

Your cost for ordnance is reduced by 2 points.

Why? Because any boost or sfoil ability that makes an xwing into an awing would make the awing more pointless then it already it and just require another fix for the awing,

Also the most iconic xwing shot in the trilogy is luke firing a torpedo missing the first shot with a target lock at the Death Star and firing without a target lock a second time and hitting.

And finally torpedoes are a large ship killer fixing them would help steer the meta away from the issue the game has right now with large base turret ships.

Ffg could even do some combo of title and mod with a modification that helps all torpedo ships such as the bwing and bomber and fix that issue since every ship with torpedo slots could use the fix.

Bomber is not in a good spot, for the same reason the Y-wing was shoehorned into one role. Ion turret.

Ordenance is too expensive or removes dice modification to be worth it, but if you improve it, the potential alpha strike would be too good. There is no middle ground in between.

Bomber is not in a good spot, for the same reason the Y-wing was shoehorned into one role. Ion turret.

Ordenance is too expensive or removes dice modification to be worth it, but if you improve it, the potential alpha strike would be too good. There is no middle ground in between.

There are three ordinance right now. Missiles, bombs, torpedoes

Out of the three torpedoes are the least used need the most help.

I also don't believe fixing them will cause an issue with alpha strike.

Let's take the adv proton torpedo at 5 points for a single powerful strike.

It requires range 1. You are more then likely to be focus fired and killed before you get into range.

Thus wasting 5 points. Also the limit to range 1 means you likely require 2-3 turns to get into range.

Nearly ever other ordinance is a 2-4 atk at various range requirements and hardly anymore of an alpha strike then current ships.

All ordinance requires you to have the target in your arc. Now compare this to phantoms and dash or Han and you quickly realize that most ordinance especially torpedoes are no more an alpha strike then the current meta of 4 atk phantoms or 4 atk turrets or highly reliable 3 atk Han. So No I don't believe or fear ordinance being overpowered or to much of an alpha strike if they are fixed.

Those ships cost between 40/60 points. A bomber with ordnance is quite cheaper Gungo, so i don't really understand the comparison, when i am talking about an alpha strike. If you point out how people could arc dodge, it would make anything that doesn't use ordnance, but is not an arc dodger, even more irrelevant.

My point being other then the adv proton torpedo which is stacked with its own limitations no other torpedo remotely comes close to increasing an alpha strike. All of which have additional stacked limitations of using target locks and or focus, arc limitations and range limitations on top of what is universally considered overcosted pricing for a one time marginal increase in atk between 2-4. None of which has a stronger impact on alpha strikes then those more expensive ships. By the time we get a torpedo fix you already have ywings double firing primary and secondary weapons, 4 atk phantoms, 4 atk hlc, and heavily modified 3 atk ships and turrets owning the meta. Single shot ordinance with 2-4 value that add 2-5 points to the cost of 22+ point ships is hardly going to make a dent in alpha strikes. Heck the xwing torpedo fix could be as simple as the ywing fix and allow the xwing to fire both thier primary and secondary weapon. The point I'm making is I do not agree with your claim fixing torpedoes will have any more of an impact on the meta with alpha strikes considering the current proliferation of highly modified 3 atk and 4 atk ships currently overpopulating the meta. And when you talk about these more expensive ships I hope you realize it's not just the atk value that overshadow torpedoes and your so called alpha strike issue but they are all greatly more defensive and maneuverable and have the ability to use thier strong atk every turn making any torpedo fix on an xwing or bomber irrelevant. While the xwing has very slight issues the real problem is ordinance especially torpedoes are highly inefficient.