I’m surprised by number of replies in this topic. I have started it so I feel obliged to explain few things that in my opinion had some influence on the discussion.

First of all - the title. I’ve written it this way to bring your attention and I can see it worked. I didn’t want to insult anyone and if some of you felt insulted – My apology. It’s just that it can be very hard to bring someone attention on this forum because of so many interesting topics that appear almost every hour.

Second – the second hand market. I’m not lucky enough to live in US or even North America. I live in Europe and it can be very hard to get single cards. Of course it is possible to get them by E-bay but the cost of those few cards is most often higher than 50% of a Tantive and that makes them (in my opinion) things I cannot afford. Buying expansions is the only way to obtain new stuff for me and I guess I’m not the only person in such position.

Third - the question : Can we live without those few cards? The answer is as silly as obvious. Of course we can. The lack of TIEx1 won’t destroy the rest of my collection. At this point the game is rich enough to play it without new additions for a very long time. My world will not collapse because I don’t have them. I think there is no need for explanation here.

Finally if I can share my opinion with you once more I’ll say I have plenty of games with FFG logo and I regard myself as a fan but I still think it would be better for us if new cards (especially those created to fix ships)for 100p games could be found in standard or Aces expansions.

And one more thing. This community is one of the best things that can be found on internet. I know this topic saw lots of emotions. We are all talking about our favorite game after all. There are players among us who will buy every single ship no matter the cost and there are players who have their limits. We all just want to play so pretty please let’s respect each other. Fly casual. Drive friendly. Live long and prosper

Editing

However, when i say you should think about why you play the game to help you try to find some enjoyment in this game that you love/hate, i mean that too. Your comments are extremely negative to a game you are supposed to enjoy.

And what makes you think I don't enjoy the game?

Here's the thing... you don't know me. You don't know how often I play X-wing. You don't know how big my collection is. You don't know that I taught my sister to play, and re-bought half my collection (probably still more than you own) so that I could leave her with a full variety to play with when I moved. You don't know how often I run events. You don't know that I eBay game night kit stuff for myself so that what the store has I can give away. You don't know how much money I've spent on everything from custom cards to game night kit stuff to promo cards from Nationals and Worlds to give as prizes. You don't know the mileage I've put in driving to cons to demo, or how many mats I own so we can be sure to have good play surfaces for events.

Are my comments negative? I think of them as honest, personally. And you haven't really seen the negative parts, like how I feel about turrets... Most of what we've been discussing here (game design wise) is pretty objectively true. Now, maybe you can't imagine enjoying a game unless you ignore all those problem points. That's up to you, but I do just fine.

So your little bit of armchair psychoanalysis isn't welcome, and it's so far off base you're trying to steal third from Antarctica. AT BEST, it's based on well-intentioned ignorance. We'll be generous here and assume that's it. And if it is, you need to take a step back and ask yourself if a half dozen posts is really enough to justify deciding that I actually have some deep-seated subconscious hate for the game, and how appropriate it is for you to be opining on what my real enjoyment level of the game is. Because you really, truly, and completely do not know me. So keep it to yourself.

However, when i say you should think about why you play the game to help you try to find some enjoyment in this game that you love/hate, i mean that too. Your comments are extremely negative to a game you are supposed to enjoy.

And what makes you think I don't enjoy the game?

Here's the thing... you don't know me. You don't know how often I play X-wing. You don't know how big my collection is. You don't know that I taught my sister to play, and re-bought half my collection (probably still more than you own) so that I could leave her with a full variety to play with when I moved. You don't know how often I run events. You don't know that I eBay game night kit stuff for myself so that what the store has I can give away. You don't know how much money I've spent on everything from custom cards to game night kit stuff to promo cards from Nationals and Worlds to give as prizes. You don't know the mileage I've put in driving to cons to demo, or how many mats I own so we can be sure to have good play surfaces for events.

Are my comments negative? I think of them as honest, personally. And you haven't really seen the negative parts, like how I feel about turrets... Most of what we've been discussing here (game design wise) is pretty objectively true. Now, maybe you can't imagine enjoying a game unless you ignore all those problem points. That's up to you, but I do just fine.

So your little bit of armchair psychoanalysis isn't welcome, and it's so far off base you're trying to steal third from Antarctica. AT BEST, it's based on well-intentioned ignorance. We'll be generous here and assume that's it. And if it is, you need to take a step back and ask yourself if a half dozen posts is really enough to justify deciding that I actually have some deep-seated subconscious hate for the game, and how appropriate it is for you to be opining on what my real enjoyment level of the game is. Because you really, truly, and completely do not know me. So keep it to yourself.

I have already apologized if I misunderstood your posts.

You are correct, I do not know you. Additionally, I wasn't trying to psychoanalyze your posts. Frankly, how much you have or haven't given to the game doesn't matter.

I really made that post in an attempt to at least try to find common ground, or at the minimum apologize for my behavior, because i certainly see after reading my posts that it wasn't necessarily appropriate, or could be perceived far worse than i intended.

Ill say it again, if I misunderstood your posts, I'm sorry, and Ill leave it at that.

You have missed the point again: price is only a part of it insofar as £70 is the only way to get these cards. The point isn't that the Raider costs a lot of money, it's that I have no interest in buying it to get them. I'm not sure how I can make that clearer and I really don't want to have to labour the point. There is nothing self entitled about it at all and I'm afraid if you choose to read attitudes or draw conclusions of your own from what I have said then that is entirely on you. FFG has announced this product and I am expressing how I feel about it as a player-unfriendly decision.

If I have missed the point yet again then you have done a dismal job of describing it. I went back and reread a good number of your posts and while you do mention that you dont want to buy a ship you claim you wont use you pretty much ALWAYS attach cost to your argument as well. You dont really seem to divorce the two, see your own argument above.

This is gouging the customer; worse it's taking loyal players/fans (whatever you want to call us) and exploiting them. It's poor practice and it needs to be called out and criticised wherever it's found.

You are also the one who introduced the whole "price gouging" argument to this discussion as well furthering the whole "exploitation" angle that had begun a few pages earlier...that is probably why people, including myself, attach your arguments primarily to cost. Your most inflammatory remark was attached to price...you constantly quote the price and how you dont want to pay it. You are given options to go around said price and you claim you want to "support the company." Now its:

There won't be plenty of ways. There will be the secondary market and no guarantee that the cards will be available or if they are that they will be priced fairly or in stock locally (important), as has been discussed.

You cannot possibly argue from the basis of these assumptions. The only guaranteed way to acquire these cards is to buy the package, unless FFG does change things (which is extremely unlikely).

These cards will also not be available in another package. Why would they be? Was C3PO? It's how they sell the epic ships. There is scant chance they will be prize support (and if they are it won't be for a very long time). Some cards appear in multiple expansions,but not with epic ships. I think it's wishful thinking at best.

So is it you want to "support the company but not pay the asking price and get stuff you dont want?" Is it "I dont think there will be enough in the secondary market?" Or is it "I dont think the price will be fair?" Or is it all three? You have been all over the place.

Firstly you as the consumer get to decide what the best price is for you and the seller gets to decide the best price for them...if you dont agree no sale is made. There is nothing "unfair" about it. Someone has something you want...how much are you willing to part with to get it? "Fairness" as the individual sees it has nothing to do with this. The market will decide what the "fair price" is. And I am getting the feeling that it is also more than you are willing to part with. I could understand the second point if you hadnt harped about "supporting the company" so stringently at first...It looks to me like you are reaching. But I could be wrong...you certainly arent helping me understand you any better. You want to convince me and other supporters you will need to "labour your point," as you put it.

I, too, looked to wikipedia to define "price gouging" as I was unable to find it on dictionary.com and this was the first sentence and a simple definition:

Price gouging is a pejorative term referring to a situation in which a seller prices goods or commodities at a level much higher than is considered reasonable or fair.

Here is another common way to look at it:

In less precise usage, it can refer either to prices obtained by practices inconsistent with a competitive free market, or to windfall profits

While Bulhallin is certainly correct that his definition is one way to look at "price gouging," I feel these simple definitions fit what most people feel it means and are a better indicators of how the word is commonly used (if he wants to engage in a academic debate on the term I am more than happy to spar with him, it would be educational for both of us I am sure...but we should take it to a different thread.) Based on what I have seen in this thread and the excitement over this new ship and new upgrades a good number of people dont see anything "unreasonable" or "unfair" about this. Could they have done it differently? Sure. Are most of us up in arms over this action...no. Only a select few seem to be, and you chief among them.

Could the majority feel the same as you? Its possible, I am sure a great many people are following this topic and not speaking their opinion one way or the other. The only way to know is to see how this box sells...that is the ultimate test. As I have stated before...you are free to speak your voice with your wallet. That is your strongest voice...but you have be willing to have the balls to use it, and take the sacrifice that comes with it.

In short you may not think you sound self entitled...but you do. Weather that was your intention or not. Ill commend you sticking around to try to convince us (outside of your snarky 1 line posts...those were "informative"). But I call them as I see them...as anyone who knows my posting style will attest to. It is difficult to convey complex emotions and read attitudes on an internet forum...so we often draw conclusions and make assumptions based on the opposing posters posting style. You have come off, as I have stated before, as a whiny, self entitled, spoiled consumer who doesnt want to pay what is asked, and I am not the only one who thinks so. Its on you to fix our perception...but at this point in the game it may be too late.

We have posed several options for you to get the cards you seek...you are employing one of two methods to dismiss them. You are either "too good to not buy direct from the company" or dismissing our argument out right by employing the very same assumptive stance (opposite to ours) that you claim we are working from.

I'm sorry you think it's impossible to analyze the game, and point out its flaws, without hating it. I happen to like the game quite a bit. But that doesn't mean that making Biggs cheaper than Garven was good design. It doesn't mean that the game hasn't spent two years recovering from the overwhelming pain of the PS tax putting most unique pilots in the box forever. It doesn't mean the rules, which barely include timing despite a CCG-like ability structure, are well-designed. And it doesn't excuse FFG increasingly pushing the limits of putting highly desirable game components in increasingly expensive boxes.

What do you mean by Pilot Skill tax?

What fix are you referring to that almost broke the game after wave 1?

If I have missed the point yet again then you have done a dismal job of describing it. I went back and reread a good number of your posts and while you do mention that you dont want to buy a ship you claim you wont use you pretty much ALWAYS attach cost to your argument as well. You dont really seem to divorce the two, see your own argument above.

Again: I do not want to have to buy the Raider to acquire vital cards to make my TIE advanced viable. I'm not sure how many more times I can continue to repeat this. If you want to argue the toss then you'll be arguing with yourself.

If I have missed the point yet again then you have done a dismal job of describing it. I went back and reread a good number of your posts and while you do mention that you dont want to buy a ship you claim you wont use you pretty much ALWAYS attach cost to your argument as well. You dont really seem to divorce the two, see your own argument above.

Again: I do not want to have to buy the Raider to acquire vital cards to make my TIE advanced viable. I'm not sure how many more times I can continue to repeat this. If you want to argue the toss then you'll be arguing with yourself.

So thats the long and the short of it then?

Then dont...its no skin off my back personally...but dont act you are taking some high ground moral stance. Live with your decision and your "un viable" TIE advanced then.

I’m surprised by number of replies in this topic. I have started it so I feel obliged to explain few things that in my opinion had some influence on the discussion.

First of all - the title. I’ve written it this way to bring your attention and I can see it worked. I didn’t want to insult anyone and if some of you felt insulted – My apology. It’s just that it can be very hard to bring someone attention on this forum because of so many interesting topics that appear almost every hour.

Second – the second hand market. I’m not lucky enough to live in US or even North America. I live in Europe and it can be very hard to get single cards. Of course it is possible to get them by E-bay but the cost of those few cards is most often higher than 50% of a Tantive and that makes them (in my opinion) things I cannot afford. Buying expansions is the only way to obtain new stuff for me and I guess I’m not the only person in such position.

Third - the question : Can we live without those few cards? The answer is as silly as obvious. Of course we can. The lack of TIEx1 won’t destroy the rest of my collection. At this point the game is rich enough to play it without new additions for a very long time. My world will not collapse because I don’t have them. I think there is no need for explanation here.

Finally if I can share my opinion with you once more I’ll say I have plenty of games with FFG logo and I regard myself as a fan but I still think it would be better for us if new cards (especially those created to fix ships)for 100p games could be found in standard or Aces expansions.

And one more thing. This community is one of the best things that can be found on internet. I know this topic saw lots of emotions. We are all talking about our favorite game after all. There are players among us who will buy every single ship no matter the cost and there are players who have their limits. We all just want to play so pretty please let’s respect each other. Fly casual. Drive friendly. Live long and prosper

^ This ^

I really appreciate the OP stepped in to clarify the post and its intent in the middle of a heavy discussion.

Agreed with all of the above.

What do you mean by Pilot Skill tax?

What fix are you referring to that almost broke the game after wave 1?

The PS tax is what I call the very, very expensive cost of PS and how it affects unique pilots - base value is 1 point of ship for 1 point of PS. Abilities, on the other hand, were given no value at all. Biggs and Garven are the gold standard for this - Garven is generally an average-to-below average pilot, Biggs is still considered one of the best unique pilots to this day... but Biggs costs 1 less than Garven, because the only different in the ships that matters is the PS.

Unique pilots tend to have high PS. This has changed a little, but generally it's 5 or up. So every pilot with an ability is going to be 3-8 points more expensive than a generic. That means that a given pilot ability has to "earn back" a third to a half of a ship all by itself. That was very hard to do, which is why you saw only a handful of unique pilots seeing use because they just weren't worth it. Ten Numb is one of my favorite examples of this - he has an interesting ability but when you get right down to it, it doesn't do all that much. But he's +9 points over a Blue Squadron B-wing. Some of that is ability cost (see below), but lots is the PS tax. Short version is that X-wing's early incarnation was very heavily skewed to favor ship count, and the swarm ruled.

The fix didn't really break the game, and wasn't just after Wave 1, but the Phantom was intended to screw with swarms. And it succeeded too well, pushing the PS "bid" so far the other direction that competitive players consider Echo to be inferior, despite crazier potential maneuvers, solely because her PS can't get to 9. A great many players think the Phantom was a bad mistake, and has been a major driver of the growth of turrets to counter it. But we can leave that discussion

On the PS tax/ability cost front, there's evidence that FFG has realized it and started trying to fix it, although sometimes clumsily. Royal Guard TIEs pay only 1 point for +2 PS over the Saber, with no other difference. Tarn is +2 points over a Rookie despite only getting +1 PS, which means his ability counts for a point (or two, and the PS increase is free). Some times they get overly cautious - poor Rhymer pays 4 points for an ability that may or may not even see use. But in general, they're shifting the right direction on cost, and we're also starting to see unique pilots with stunningly impressive abilities compared to earlier ships.

What do you mean by Pilot Skill tax?

What fix are you referring to that almost broke the game after wave 1?

The PS tax is what I call the very, very expensive cost of PS and how it affects unique pilots - base value is 1 point of ship for 1 point of PS. Abilities, on the other hand, were given no value at all. Biggs and Garven are the gold standard for this - Garven is generally an average-to-below average pilot, Biggs is still considered one of the best unique pilots to this day... but Biggs costs 1 less than Garven, because the only different in the ships that matters is the PS.

Unique pilots tend to have high PS. This has changed a little, but generally it's 5 or up. So every pilot with an ability is going to be 3-8 points more expensive than a generic. That means that a given pilot ability has to "earn back" a third to a half of a ship all by itself. That was very hard to do, which is why you saw only a handful of unique pilots seeing use because they just weren't worth it. Ten Numb is one of my favorite examples of this - he has an interesting ability but when you get right down to it, it doesn't do all that much. But he's +9 points over a Blue Squadron B-wing. Some of that is ability cost (see below), but lots is the PS tax. Short version is that X-wing's early incarnation was very heavily skewed to favor ship count, and the swarm ruled.

The fix didn't really break the game, and wasn't just after Wave 1, but the Phantom was intended to screw with swarms. And it succeeded too well, pushing the PS "bid" so far the other direction that competitive players consider Echo to be inferior, despite crazier potential maneuvers, solely because her PS can't get to 9. A great many players think the Phantom was a bad mistake, and has been a major driver of the growth of turrets to counter it. But we can leave that discussion

On the PS tax/ability cost front, there's evidence that FFG has realized it and started trying to fix it, although sometimes clumsily. Royal Guard TIEs pay only 1 point for +2 PS over the Saber, with no other difference. Tarn is +2 points over a Rookie despite only getting +1 PS, which means his ability counts for a point (or two, and the PS increase is free). Some times they get overly cautious - poor Rhymer pays 4 points for an ability that may or may not even see use. But in general, they're shifting the right direction on cost, and we're also starting to see unique pilots with stunningly impressive abilities compared to earlier ships.

just as a question,

do you think maybe one of the reasons piloting skill has yo-yo'd between low swarm generics and incredibly high peaks (or as i understand it, i didn't play but maybe one game in a 6 month period in wave 1,2, and 3) is because they immediately established a cap, and a minimum, and it felt like nothing was in between in terms of PS, and were and still do hand out "8's" like candy?

i remember playing games where it just felt like almost anyone that was named or played was always 8 or 9 PS. It seems like if the scale was more gradual, like bumping everyone save one or two pilots down a few notches in PS would create more diversification in PS, and force players to play on the tactical end of things by using their respective PS as best they could?

i don't know, its just an observation, but it seems like the upper limit was established too quickly, and now every ship has to have a "super pilot". It seems that maybe only like 1 "9" per faction, and maybe a few 8's and everyone else being a 1-7 with rarity increasing as the piloting skill increased would create a more dynamic mix of piloting abilities.

just an OT observation.

Not really... For one thing, there's never really been much of a yo-yo. The low PS swarm dominated pretty much right until Phantoms showed up and pushed it right to 9. There was a phase where lower end PS mattered and there was some interesting bidding especially around PS 4, but I don't think it was ever a dominant thing.

Putting more pilots at the lower end of the PS scale would have alleviated the problem with the tax, but I honestly think they would have been better off making PS run from 1-5 rather than 1-9. It would have allowed the one point per PS to have a lower cost impact while still giving a broad enough range to differentiate it. I think it would actually make the PS bidding a more interesting part of the game too, as the smaller range would mean each increase would have a better chance of paying off. It might have made initiative a bigger deal, but I don't think it would have broken anything.

Points values probably play a part. Four X-Wings or four Interceptors are tricky to do within 100 points, and if you're running three you might as well use 28-29 point pilots over 25-26 point ones, since typically have better abilities as well as higher pilot skill, and once you get past the middling threshold you usually get access to an EPT as well. Below and above the twenties you see lots of PS4-6, cf. Chewbacca, Leebo, Oicunn, Kenkirk, Night Beast, Dark Curse, Backstabber, Eatin Aboat, Jendon, Trelix, Blount.

Not really... For one thing, there's never really been much of a yo-yo. The low PS swarm dominated pretty much right until Phantoms showed up and pushed it right to 9. There was a phase where lower end PS mattered and there was some interesting bidding especially around PS 4, but I don't think it was ever a dominant thing.

Putting more pilots at the lower end of the PS scale would have alleviated the problem with the tax, but I honestly think they would have been better off making PS run from 1-5 rather than 1-9. It would have allowed the one point per PS to have a lower cost impact while still giving a broad enough range to differentiate it. I think it would actually make the PS bidding a more interesting part of the game too, as the smaller range would mean each increase would have a better chance of paying off. It might have made initiative a bigger deal, but I don't think it would have broken anything.

gotcha, the lower the variance, the more important the min/max become without creating a huge disparity in the middle. its playing to the mean, not the average.

I think discussions like this are where I am glad I never did the tournament scene. When I had to analyze my points and abilities for "optimal" results, then the game became boring and felt like my current career. My entertainment should not be my career. EVER. I see the arguments and sometimes vitriol that gets spewed from the domination of competitive players, and feel sad that THIS is the definition of fun.

I have one of every ship that was made...because I am a fan of Star Wars. I can honestly say I have played (WHEN I have played) more with generics than the elite pilots. I don't care what is or isn't broken to be honest. I also haven't played in over three months. I don't regret my decision. When every discussion is tournament tournament tournament, then I clearly am playing the wrong game with the wrong community. The worst part is that that mind set seems to be the only one out there. People say "Fly Casual", but I sure as hell don't see it.

I think discussions like this are where I am glad I never did the tournament scene. When I had to analyze my points and abilities for "optimal" results, then the game became boring and felt like my current career. My entertainment should not be my career. EVER. I see the arguments and sometimes vitriol that gets spewed from the domination of competitive players, and feel sad that THIS is the definition of fun.

I have one of every ship that was made...because I am a fan of Star Wars. I can honestly say I have played (WHEN I have played) more with generics than the elite pilots. I don't care what is or isn't broken to be honest. I also haven't played in over three months. I don't regret my decision. When every discussion is tournament tournament tournament, then I clearly am playing the wrong game with the wrong community. The worst part is that that mind set seems to be the only one out there. People say "Fly Casual", but I sure as hell don't see it.

I play in what I would say is a fair amount of tournaments (events of 16-24 people roughly twice a month or more with dozens of casual 100pt skirmishes throughout the month using tourney rules with the group) and I do not think looking at cards to decide which ones are good and which ones are bad is somehow boring or not entertaining or in any way diminishing of my enjoyment of the tactical fun that is X-wing. I also enjoy star wars and do not think the existence of a tournament scene and discussions about tournaments is somehow preventing me from flying awful lists or bad ships if I want to. I'm also free to enjoy that experience, if that's what I choose.

I think your post attempts to create some sort of moral high ground by casting aspersions on people that have discussions about topics you don't want to be a part of. I think the attitude conveyed by your post is far worse than the attitudes you're decrying, as you are effectively declaring "I opt out of something you care enough to talk about, but I only want to opt out of it after letting you know that I feel superior to your behavior"

I think discussions like this are where I am glad I never did the tournament scene. When I had to analyze my points and abilities for "optimal" results, then the game became boring and felt like my current career. My entertainment should not be my career. EVER. I see the arguments and sometimes vitriol that gets spewed from the domination of competitive players, and feel sad that THIS is the definition of fun.

I have one of every ship that was made...because I am a fan of Star Wars. I can honestly say I have played (WHEN I have played) more with generics than the elite pilots. I don't care what is or isn't broken to be honest. I also haven't played in over three months. I don't regret my decision. When every discussion is tournament tournament tournament, then I clearly am playing the wrong game with the wrong community. The worst part is that that mind set seems to be the only one out there. People say "Fly Casual", but I sure as hell don't see it.

I play in what I would say is a fair amount of tournaments (events of 16-24 people roughly twice a month or more with dozens of casual 100pt skirmishes throughout the month using tourney rules with the group) and I do not think looking at cards to decide which ones are good and which ones are bad is somehow boring or not entertaining or in any way diminishing of my enjoyment of the tactical fun that is X-wing. I also enjoy star wars and do not think the existence of a tournament scene and discussions about tournaments is somehow preventing me from flying awful lists or bad ships if I want to. I'm also free to enjoy that experience, if that's what I choose.

I think your post attempts to create some sort of moral high ground by casting aspersions on people that have discussions about topics you don't want to be a part of. I think the attitude conveyed by your post is far worse than the attitudes you're decrying, as you are effectively declaring "I opt out of something you care enough to talk about, but I only want to opt out of it after letting you know that I feel superior to your behavior"

I completely agree with your post. I find the attitude you are speaking towards just needlessly demeaning.

I think discussions like this are where I am glad I never did the tournament scene. When I had to analyze my points and abilities for "optimal" results, then the game became boring and felt like my current career. My entertainment should not be my career. EVER. I see the arguments and sometimes vitriol that gets spewed from the domination of competitive players, and feel sad that THIS is the definition of fun.

I have one of every ship that was made...because I am a fan of Star Wars. I can honestly say I have played (WHEN I have played) more with generics than the elite pilots. I don't care what is or isn't broken to be honest. I also haven't played in over three months. I don't regret my decision. When every discussion is tournament tournament tournament, then I clearly am playing the wrong game with the wrong community. The worst part is that that mind set seems to be the only one out there. People say "Fly Casual", but I sure as hell don't see it.

I play in what I would say is a fair amount of tournaments (events of 16-24 people roughly twice a month or more with dozens of casual 100pt skirmishes throughout the month using tourney rules with the group) and I do not think looking at cards to decide which ones are good and which ones are bad is somehow boring or not entertaining or in any way diminishing of my enjoyment of the tactical fun that is X-wing. I also enjoy star wars and do not think the existence of a tournament scene and discussions about tournaments is somehow preventing me from flying awful lists or bad ships if I want to. I'm also free to enjoy that experience, if that's what I choose.

I think your post attempts to create some sort of moral high ground by casting aspersions on people that have discussions about topics you don't want to be a part of. I think the attitude conveyed by your post is far worse than the attitudes you're decrying, as you are effectively declaring "I opt out of something you care enough to talk about, but I only want to opt out of it after letting you know that I feel superior to your behavior"

I completely agree with your post. I find the attitude you are speaking towards just needlessly demeaning.

But you guys do have to admit that most of the people here ascribe worth and value to our ships based almost SOLELY on what happens at tourneys and what ended up in "top 32" (or whatever the number was) right? Most discussions on this site do end up as "Well in a tourney..." or "the world champ did this..." or "well the top 32 lists..."

I think that is what he is getting at because I see it around here too...I will play in my very first tourney tomorrow at my FLGS. But I watched a tourney there first to scope out the general attitude of the guys who play...fearing they might be like so many of the people I have read about here (not posters neccessarily but some of the people they have played against.) I dont like hyper competitive people and dont want to play with them...my goal in a game is for both me and my opponent to have fun. If some one is playing to win regardless (my enjoyment be damned) and running the same stagnated netlists I read constantly about in here how is that fun? I saw this constantly in 40K...and tend to avoid the tourney scene for that reason. It isnt the place for me...but that doenst make my opinion any less valuable. Ill be joining this tourney tomorrow because I didnt pick up on that attitude and didnt see a single "netlist" there...no fat falcon and someone even ran an Advanced and did pretty well!

We constantly have to hear about this mythical 'meta' that we may or may not see. The game does get boiled down to what a few people did somewhere up in Minnesota. These discussions contribute to that and I think that is what he is getting at. Not that these discussions are bad...just that if some of us dont play at a "competitive level" our opinions are somehow worth less.

Perhaps people dont mean come off that way but alot of the tourney people here have the same superiority complex (not saying you do...you dont seem to.) But that is human nature I think. We are hard wired to think our opinions are superior (I know FOR A FACT mine are =P).

Most people ascribe value to things that do well in competitive play. I certainly agree with that. But that is because competitive play provides a more consistent basis for comparison and discussion. I can't say what you are going to have more "fun" playing but I can have a reasonable discussion on what is "better" in a given situation. Discussion is pushed into an area where it can occur.

I hate when tournaments become such a force. They are fun. They have cool prizes. It's great to match your mettle vs. good opponents. I have found in other game systems that I get hyper competitive, as to others. If I'm not at a tournament, I'm prepping for one. So, all my games are with my fat free elite lists. I tend to lose focus that I can just have fun with the game. I find myself and everyone I play with with rather fierce attitudes of playing the game and I find that it somehow sucks lots of fun out of the game.

And contra TIE Pilot, this could easily have been part of an Aces pack, even with all 4 pilots in there. Standard ships have come with 2-3 unique pilots each since the very beginning. The idea that it's somehow impossible to put a fourth in a big box like an Aces pack, or that an Aces pack wouldn't have done just fine with only unique 3 Advanced pilots instead of 4, doesn't really hold up.

It still could. We're talking about a not-yet-released expansion pack.

Here's a hypothetical, just as valid as anyone's.

FFG saw the Raider as a chance to get these upgrade cards out faster. They may very well turn up in a future Aces pack, or even a card expansion pack.

And until then, we're all discussing cards and ships that haven't been released yet.

There's nothing wrong with that discussion, but there's a certain level of hyperbole going on that makes it difficult.

I think discussions like this are where I am glad I never did the tournament scene. When I had to analyze my points and abilities for "optimal" results, then the game became boring and felt like my current career. My entertainment should not be my career. EVER. I see the arguments and sometimes vitriol that gets spewed from the domination of competitive players, and feel sad that THIS is the definition of fun.

I have one of every ship that was made...because I am a fan of Star Wars. I can honestly say I have played (WHEN I have played) more with generics than the elite pilots. I don't care what is or isn't broken to be honest. I also haven't played in over three months. I don't regret my decision. When every discussion is tournament tournament tournament, then I clearly am playing the wrong game with the wrong community. The worst part is that that mind set seems to be the only one out there. People say "Fly Casual", but I sure as hell don't see it.

I play in what I would say is a fair amount of tournaments (events of 16-24 people roughly twice a month or more with dozens of casual 100pt skirmishes throughout the month using tourney rules with the group) and I do not think looking at cards to decide which ones are good and which ones are bad is somehow boring or not entertaining or in any way diminishing of my enjoyment of the tactical fun that is X-wing. I also enjoy star wars and do not think the existence of a tournament scene and discussions about tournaments is somehow preventing me from flying awful lists or bad ships if I want to. I'm also free to enjoy that experience, if that's what I choose.

I think your post attempts to create some sort of moral high ground by casting aspersions on people that have discussions about topics you don't want to be a part of. I think the attitude conveyed by your post is far worse than the attitudes you're decrying, as you are effectively declaring "I opt out of something you care enough to talk about, but I only want to opt out of it after letting you know that I feel superior to your behavior"

I completely agree with your post. I find the attitude you are speaking towards just needlessly demeaning.

But you guys do have to admit that most of the people here ascribe worth and value to our ships based almost SOLELY on what happens at tourneys and what ended up in "top 32" (or whatever the number was) right? Most discussions on this site do end up as "Well in a tourney..." or "the world champ did this..." or "well the top 32 lists..."

I think that is what he is getting at because I see it around here too...I will play in my very first tourney tomorrow at my FLGS. But I watched a tourney there first to scope out the general attitude of the guys who play...fearing they might be like so many of the people I have read about here (not posters neccessarily but some of the people they have played against.) I dont like hyper competitive people and dont want to play with them...my goal in a game is for both me and my opponent to have fun. If some one is playing to win regardless (my enjoyment be damned) and running the same stagnated netlists I read constantly about in here how is that fun? I saw this constantly in 40K...and tend to avoid the tourney scene for that reason. It isnt the place for me...but that doenst make my opinion any less valuable. Ill be joining this tourney tomorrow because I didnt pick up on that attitude and didnt see a single "netlist" there...no fat falcon and someone even ran an Advanced and did pretty well!

We constantly have to hear about this mythical 'meta' that we may or may not see. The game does get boiled down to what a few people did somewhere up in Minnesota. These discussions contribute to that and I think that is what he is getting at. Not that these discussions are bad...just that if some of us dont play at a "competitive level" our opinions are somehow worth less.

Perhaps people dont mean come off that way but alot of the tourney people here have the same superiority complex (not saying you do...you dont seem to.) But that is human nature I think. We are hard wired to think our opinions are superior (I know FOR A FACT mine are =P).

Thanks. I figure that my opinion would count since I am not a hardcore tourney player. That's been my take away from this forum for a long, long time. Some of the responses back that up. It's part of the reason why I am not playing right now. I will again eventually. I just need to find people who don't net list for pickup games. That's the rare thing.

The problem is (as with 40k and other hobbies) is that you are on the website for the game. This means you, and everyone else on here, has already gone one step beyond merely PLAYING the game, and are looking to IMPROVE at the game. People who simply buy the models, chat bollocks with their mates, and have fun once a week on a dining room table are ABSOLUTELY having just as much fun as people who play competitively, and getting as much out of the hobby, and so on.

But you won't see them on the forums, because unless they want to ask a rules question they can't work out themselves, they won't ever come online. It's not something that either enters their head, or that they want to spend time doing.

That means the forums tend to be skewed (however heavily, depending on the hobby in question) towards those who take it more seriously, and consequently there is less focus on designing plot-central lists such as Rogue Squadron, or building the second Death Star run with Tycho, Wedge and Lando, or the Imperial 181st over Brentaal, and more focus on abusing Whisper, Fat Dash and Howlrunner. That's what I've picked up from spending just a couple of days on here.

So long as people remember that everyone has a valid view of the game, whether it's efficiency or narrative, we can all get along and have a good time. Start threads that interest you, or contribute to others. Ignore ones that don't. When someone posts something that runs counter to your outlook, say "Thanks very much for your input, but..." instead of getting all elitist about it. You can all have different opinions and no-one has to be right or wrong, unless you're talking mathematics.

The problem is (as with 40k and other hobbies) is that you are on the website for the game. This means you, and everyone else on here, has already gone one step beyond merely PLAYING the game, and are looking to IMPROVE at the game. People who simply buy the models, chat bollocks with their mates, and have fun once a week on a dining room table are ABSOLUTELY having just as much fun as people who play competitively, and getting as much out of the hobby, and so on.

But you won't see them on the forums, because unless they want to ask a rules question they can't work out themselves, they won't ever come online. It's not something that either enters their head, or that they want to spend time doing.

That means the forums tend to be skewed (however heavily, depending on the hobby in question) towards those who take it more seriously, and consequently there is less focus on designing plot-central lists such as Rogue Squadron, or building the second Death Star run with Tycho, Wedge and Lando, or the Imperial 181st over Brentaal, and more focus on abusing Whisper, Fat Dash and Howlrunner. That's what I've picked up from spending just a couple of days on here.

So long as people remember that everyone has a valid view of the game, whether it's efficiency or narrative, we can all get along and have a good time. Start threads that interest you, or contribute to others. Ignore ones that don't. When someone posts something that runs counter to your outlook, say "Thanks very much for your input, but..." instead of getting all elitist about it. You can all have different opinions and no-one has to be right or wrong, unless you're talking mathematics.

This is pretty much it, I think. What is going to be "fun" for you to play with is incredibly subjective. People on the fora are going to talk about what is mathematically best because that is something you can concretely analyse. I'm a tournament player, but I've played way more games using lists that have elements which are considered "bad" than ones which are completely optimised. Even without the fix I've run TIE Advanceds plenty of times; I use Bomber and low-PS generic squint lists; I run all-turret lists that are just Y-wings and HWKs. Then I go to a tournament and Whisper comes out of the box

If you think that the fora are an accurate representation of what people are using generally, you'll get a bit of a skewed viewpoint. Yes, everyone knows Falcons are tough but I only know two people that regularly use them outside of tournaments (and only one of them often uses C3P0). Anything you read online needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

I think discussions like this are where I am glad I never did the tournament scene. When I had to analyze my points and abilities for "optimal" results, then the game became boring and felt like my current career. My entertainment should not be my career. EVER. I see the arguments and sometimes vitriol that gets spewed from the domination of competitive players, and feel sad that THIS is the definition of fun.

I have one of every ship that was made...because I am a fan of Star Wars. I can honestly say I have played (WHEN I have played) more with generics than the elite pilots. I don't care what is or isn't broken to be honest. I also haven't played in over three months. I don't regret my decision. When every discussion is tournament tournament tournament, then I clearly am playing the wrong game with the wrong community. The worst part is that that mind set seems to be the only one out there. People say "Fly Casual", but I sure as hell don't see it.

I play in what I would say is a fair amount of tournaments (events of 16-24 people roughly twice a month or more with dozens of casual 100pt skirmishes throughout the month using tourney rules with the group) and I do not think looking at cards to decide which ones are good and which ones are bad is somehow boring or not entertaining or in any way diminishing of my enjoyment of the tactical fun that is X-wing. I also enjoy star wars and do not think the existence of a tournament scene and discussions about tournaments is somehow preventing me from flying awful lists or bad ships if I want to. I'm also free to enjoy that experience, if that's what I choose.

I think your post attempts to create some sort of moral high ground by casting aspersions on people that have discussions about topics you don't want to be a part of. I think the attitude conveyed by your post is far worse than the attitudes you're decrying, as you are effectively declaring "I opt out of something you care enough to talk about, but I only want to opt out of it after letting you know that I feel superior to your behavior"

I completely agree with your post. I find the attitude you are speaking towards just needlessly demeaning.

But you guys do have to admit that most of the people here ascribe worth and value to our ships based almost SOLELY on what happens at tourneys and what ended up in "top 32" (or whatever the number was) right? Most discussions on this site do end up as "Well in a tourney..." or "the world champ did this..." or "well the top 32 lists..."

I think that is what he is getting at because I see it around here too...I will play in my very first tourney tomorrow at my FLGS. But I watched a tourney there first to scope out the general attitude of the guys who play...fearing they might be like so many of the people I have read about here (not posters neccessarily but some of the people they have played against.) I dont like hyper competitive people and dont want to play with them...my goal in a game is for both me and my opponent to have fun. If some one is playing to win regardless (my enjoyment be damned) and running the same stagnated netlists I read constantly about in here how is that fun? I saw this constantly in 40K...and tend to avoid the tourney scene for that reason. It isnt the place for me...but that doenst make my opinion any less valuable. Ill be joining this tourney tomorrow because I didnt pick up on that attitude and didnt see a single "netlist" there...no fat falcon and someone even ran an Advanced and did pretty well!

We constantly have to hear about this mythical 'meta' that we may or may not see. The game does get boiled down to what a few people did somewhere up in Minnesota. These discussions contribute to that and I think that is what he is getting at. Not that these discussions are bad...just that if some of us dont play at a "competitive level" our opinions are somehow worth less.

Perhaps people dont mean come off that way but alot of the tourney people here have the same superiority complex (not saying you do...you dont seem to.) But that is human nature I think. We are hard wired to think our opinions are superior (I know FOR A FACT mine are =P).

Thanks. I figure that my opinion would count since I am not a hardcore tourney player. That's been my take away from this forum for a long, long time. Some of the responses back that up. It's part of the reason why I am not playing right now. I will again eventually. I just need to find people who don't net list for pickup games. That's the rare thing.

Think nothing of it. It's a shame you don't live in the OC SoCal area. You sound like the kind of guy Winfield fit right in w us.