I think you're understating the maneuverability a little bit.

Not at all. The phantom has a TIE fighter dial with a tridirection barrel roll 2. What makes it unpredictable is that you don't know which maneuver it's selected. But that maneuver is locked in in the blind planning phase. Likewise, the phantom doesn't know the maneuvers of your ships. A phantom player has a choice of three destinations when he decloaks. Usually there's only one he actually wants to do. In that sense, the phantom has much less reactive power than the TIE interceptor.

They both are of course subject to being locked in during the planning phase, since there are typically only a few maneuvers that are logical for any ship during a game. The key difference in the Phantom and interceptor dials is the 5 ahead (which the phantom can mimick), the 2 green turn, and the 4vs5k (which the phantom has open to it as well).

The fact that it can potentially start a maneuver from 3 different positions (4 if you decide to not decloak) I think makes it more manueverable overall, without even adding the possibility of adding a navigator to adjust further.

I don't think your theory is sound. Patently unfun is really an impossibility as what is or isn't fun is going to vary greatly from person to person.

I don't think your theory is sound. Patently unfun is really an impossibility as what is or isn't fun is going to vary greatly from person to person.

It's not a theory, it's an opinion. One that is held by several people, it would seem.

I think the meta is fun and I'm fine with it.

I think the meta is fun and I'm fine with it.

I think post #154 firmly cemented your position on the topic.

I don't think your theory is sound. Patently unfun is really an impossibility as what is or isn't fun is going to vary greatly from person to person.

It's not a theory, it's an opinion. One that is held by several people, it would seem.

You've suggested an idea that you believe to be possibly true but yet is not currently proven to be so. That's quite close to the textbook defenition of a theory. More over what's the difference if I call it a theory, conjecture, hypothesis, your own personal musings, or an opinion? My same counterpoint would still apply to your opinion. That it is shared by some others doesn't much matter as you can certainly find some people to agree to any opinion even ones, unlike yours, that are demonstratebly false.

You're right, you could call it whatever you like and your comment still wouldn't matter a lick to me. This isn't an academic debate we're having, and there's no proof to be furnished on either side, except to say that people have differing opinions. There's certainly nothing 'demonstrably false' about that - no more false than opinions coming from the everything-is-awesome camp, at any rate. Something ain't quite right, and we're discussing potential causes and effects. Would you care to join us, or continue debating semantics with me?

I think it's just world's colliding. Some people really enjoy the competitive aspect and environment of the game and everything it entails. Others just wanna set up some x-wings and y-wings and run the trench or defend the frigate redemption or just play some light games with ships they liked from the movies.

It's like the star ways eu. Some people hate all of it and say if it isn't OT then it's garbage. Others don't mind some of it and like certain parts while some live and breathe it and will tell you for hours about the finer points of the income t-65 x-wings starfighter.

I've never played 40k but just from seeing some articles and reading things I think they have a divide between those who just want the fluff and those who want the crunch. Some want there armies to be 100% true to firm while others min max everything to make them into killing machines.

I don't see that as bad thing honestly because it's just different strokes. But I do see where people could get burned out or have less fun playing against opposite mind sets. I did a summer league where it was all asymmetrical scenarios based on the x wing computer game which was fun but by the end of it I was like dear god I just wanna do standard no nonsense death matches and not have to deal with crazy rules or 300 vs 500 point matches of craziness.

After that league it was time to start getting ready for world's and doing practice matches and going to as many tournaments as possible. Time was spent building hyper competitive squads and seeing how they can deal with phantoms, swarms, double falcons, and fat falcons. After world's was over it was dear god I need some goofy ass scenarios or at least play some fun squads. So I'd get some friends and either do epic or missions or run my fun squads like kyle dutch garven.

I can see both sides of the argument. I can understand some people looking at these ships they've never seen in the movies constantly being played again and again against there faithful yavin 4 red squadron and these guys seeming to only care about winning. I can also see and understand guys wanting to prepare for tournaments so trying to be extra strict to the rules, wanting to practice against common top tier builds, not wanting to worry about if the other guy is fine with the fluff of the match.

So I don't think there's anything wrong with the game. Honestly there's 2 different communities. There's the hard core competitive community and the lighter casual community. Some people go back and forth and some strictly stay in there own world refusing to venture into the other.

I think the biggest problem people are having is being a casual player in competitive environment or a competitive player in a casual environment. As far as fixing it I would just try to create the preferred environment through introducing the game to others or maybe have events that encourage a certain playstyle.

Maybe if you're tired of seeing the ultra competitive lists see if you can get a tournament going using a scenario or mission. You then can put as many special rules or restrictions as you want. Maybe offer up a painted ship as a prize or set of templates or something to draw participation.

All in all I don't think x wing is broken or going down the wrong path. I think it's a great solid game that's easy to get into but offers a ton of depth. I think we are better off trying to come up with solutions instead of just ranting and throwing out hyperbole about how everything is broken now. Just my 2 cents

I think you're understating the maneuverability a little bit.

Not at all. The phantom has a TIE fighter dial with a tridirection barrel roll 2. What makes it unpredictable is that you don't know which maneuver it's selected. But that maneuver is locked in in the blind planning phase. Likewise, the phantom doesn't know the maneuvers of your ships. A phantom player has a choice of three destinations when he decloaks. Usually there's only one he actually wants to do. In that sense, the phantom has much less reactive power than the TIE interceptor.

They both are of course subject to being locked in during the planning phase, since there are typically only a few maneuvers that are logical for any ship during a game. The key difference in the Phantom and interceptor dials is the 5 ahead (which the phantom can mimick), the 2 green turn, and the 4vs5k (which the phantom has open to it as well).

The fact that it can potentially start a maneuver from 3 different positions (4 if you decide to not decloak) I think makes it more manueverable overall, without even adding the possibility of adding a navigator to adjust further.

The interceptor has boost/barrel (with Soontir retaining combat focus), the phantom just has the tridirectional decloak. In terms of reactive ability, the Interceptor's winning. The phantom's party piece is its higher agility and the cacaphonic waling of people that buy into that its some sort of god ship. I hope they never have to deal with something that's actually a broken gameplay element.

I think you're understating the maneuverability a little bit.

Not at all. The phantom has a TIE fighter dial with a tridirection barrel roll 2. What makes it unpredictable is that you don't know which maneuver it's selected. But that maneuver is locked in in the blind planning phase. Likewise, the phantom doesn't know the maneuvers of your ships. A phantom player has a choice of three destinations when he decloaks. Usually there's only one he actually wants to do. In that sense, the phantom has much less reactive power than the TIE interceptor.

They both are of course subject to being locked in during the planning phase, since there are typically only a few maneuvers that are logical for any ship during a game. The key difference in the Phantom and interceptor dials is the 5 ahead (which the phantom can mimick), the 2 green turn, and the 4vs5k (which the phantom has open to it as well).

The fact that it can potentially start a maneuver from 3 different positions (4 if you decide to not decloak) I think makes it more manueverable overall, without even adding the possibility of adding a navigator to adjust further.

The interceptor has boost/barrel (with Soontir retaining combat focus), the phantom just has the tridirectional decloak. In terms of reactive ability, the Interceptor's winning. The phantom's party piece is its higher agility and the cacaphonic waling of people that buy into that its some sort of god ship. I hope they never have to deal with something that's actually a broken gameplay element.

I hope none of us do, not in X-Wing. This isn't the kind of game that can rebound well from that sort of thing.

On the other hand who is to say it won't get better? We have no reason to believe that it won't.

The game will change, it isn't going to stand still no matter what we the people think the perfect spot is (and by the time that sweet spot has been identified its usually with hindsight as the game has moved on). FFG have done a great job of balancing things so far given the complexity of the game as it has grown. There are a few wrinkles, sure, but greater diversity (more possibilities) is the best antidote to most of the issues. Especially as FFG aren't going to hard errata anything anytime soon.

I don't think we need to change the title of the forum to "Abandon hope all ye who enter here" just yet.

I, personally, am not complaining about what's "the best," I'm merely observing that some lists are patently unfun. When you suffer through that for long enough, even veterans will be driven away. Surely that can be seen as a mark against the game.

Promises of "it will change" are a bit disingenuous, don't you think? Especially since you just pointed out that Falcons have been a problem for quite a while now. If the people designing the game had the foresight to circumvent these issues, then we probably wouldn't be having this conversation at all. To pretend like you or I can foretell the future at this point - for better or for worse - is more than a little arrogant. Who's to say the game won't take another turn for the worse come wave 6?

shrug

Even when the original Double Falcon issues were popping up, I had fun fighting those lists. And I have enjoyed fighting Phantoms. And look forward to it even more once I have super Vader.

And I think you are putting more knowledge than intended. The top tier shifts and changes. Sometimes more than others. Whether it is better or not is up to the individual. Wave 5 introduced minor changes. And while Wave 6 will cause more changes, it won't be the kind of changes people are really wanting (ie no more Phantoms or Turrets as viable competitive options). Personally, Wave 6 is the kind of shifts one wants to see, where more options are added, rather than cut down. But, if these changes are good or not remains to be seen and up to the individual's opinion. Like I said, if the game isn't fun for you right now, take a break. Check back when things have shifted to see if it is more to your liking. It isn't guaranteed, of course, but taking a break is better than continuing to be bitter about the stuff you don't like.

People will find a reason to complain about anything on the internet, but I have to say, if X-Wing was 100% healthy I don't think we'd see this level of grumbling. Something isn't kosher, but whether or not it's another sky-is-falling climactic event remains to be seen.

Then the game has never been healthy. The only difference is that the meta has shifted (as it will always do) to a place where the Falcons are actually a top tier option (again). Am I the only one to remember the bitching about the Summer of the Double Falcons???

I think that only underscores my point. Fool me once, right? How many consecutive metas of unfun lists do we have to compete against before it's fair to say "enough is enough"?

The thing about the Great Double Falcon Panic of 2013 is that it... wasn't, really. A lot of people got very upset online, took their unbeatable, metagame-warping lists to Nationals, and for the most part, lost.

Some of the other differences between that metagame and this one:

(1) It was never clear who was actually running those lists, or exactly how successful they were. It was a bubble founded on much less evidence than we have these days.

(2) There were fewer players, with local and regional metagames more isolated from one another.

(3) The game itself was exponentially simpler, with just seven ships plus the TIE Advanced.

The most important difference was that double Falcons represented something much closer to a true bubble, with very little driving it except speculation and tests performed in relative isolation. What we have now is more sustained and much better supported: it's incontrovertible that if your list doesn't address a high-PS Phantom with Advanced Cloaking Device, the Phantom is more likely to win than it is to lose.

What hasn't changed, and makes the example still relevant, is the breathless and credulous response online. The panicked are always with us, spinning anecdotes into narratives that accept no controversion. We can't have a measured conversation about the effect of the Phantom on the metagame and what, if anything, FFG can and should do about it because someone is guaranteed to wander in and start screaming that the game isn't what it used to be and, in fact, is teetering on the brink of ruin.

Yeah, the situation is a bit different. But the reaction, not so much...

EDIT: Also, never forget the Assault Missile-pocalypse...

I, personally, am not complaining about what's "the best," I'm merely observing that some lists are patently unfun. When you suffer through that for long enough, even veterans will be driven away. Surely that can be seen as a mark against the game.

Promises of "it will change" are a bit disingenuous, don't you think? Especially since you just pointed out that Falcons have been a problem for quite a while now. If the people designing the game had the foresight to circumvent these issues, then we probably wouldn't be having this conversation at all. To pretend like you or I can foretell the future at this point - for better or for worse - is more than a little arrogant. Who's to say the game won't take another turn for the worse come wave 6?

shrug

Even when the original Double Falcon issues were popping up, I had fun fighting those lists. And I have enjoyed fighting Phantoms. And look forward to it even more once I have super Vader.

And I think you are putting more knowledge than intended. The top tier shifts and changes. Sometimes more than others. Whether it is better or not is up to the individual. Wave 5 introduced minor changes. And while Wave 6 will cause more changes, it won't be the kind of changes people are really wanting (ie no more Phantoms or Turrets as viable competitive options). Personally, Wave 6 is the kind of shifts one wants to see, where more options are added, rather than cut down. But, if these changes are good or not remains to be seen and up to the individual's opinion. Like I said, if the game isn't fun for you right now, take a break. Check back when things have shifted to see if it is more to your liking. It isn't guaranteed, of course, but taking a break is better than continuing to be bitter about the stuff you don't like.

I'm used to taking breaks from games. Scars block broke me on Magic for well over a year, but Wizards has mechanics in place for that sort of thing. What do we do in a game without rotations? Hope that releasing more things will resolve the situation? You don't trump something good by creating better options; that's how you end up with genuine power creep.

What hasn't changed, and makes the example still relevant, is the breathless and credulous response online. The panicked are always with us, spinning anecdotes into narratives that accept no controversion. We can't have a measured conversation about the effect of the Phantom on the metagame and what, if anything, FFG can and should do about it because someone is guaranteed to wander in and start screaming that the game isn't what it used to be and, in fact, is teetering on the brink of ruin.

Let's be a little fair and consider the other side, too. For everyone who screams about brink of ruin, there's someone who'll shout down anyone who expresses a concern, insult them for being incompetent scrubs who just need to L2P, or should just leave the perfection that is X-wing alooooone, no matter how reasoned the concerns may be.

Both sides have elements that do their best to squash any hope for reasonable conversation.

In your opinion Wonder, what list(s) present the most unfun scenarios? You've operationally defined this argument as one of different opinions and I was just curious what yours was.

It's my opinion that some lists are more difficult to fly against than others. Flying against those lists isn't unfun it's just I'm a lazy human and would prefer not to work so hard playing a game. But whatever, I guess I'm in the minority of causal/tournament players who think the game is fine and always has been... Sort of.

Agree with the OP. Phantoms are bad design. A good game makes you plan your listbuilding for opposing lists, not units. That´s a fail by FFG.

Agree with the OP. Phantoms are bad design. A good game makes you plan your listbuilding for opposing lists, not units. That´s a fail by FFG.

And I disagree; from 40k to X-Wing every miniature game I've played, even Axis and Allies miniatures (and I'm looking at you Panther tank) has had units that call for list building to deal with them specifically.

For those of you who are tired of the highly competitive tournament and builds, you should try some of the more casual/fun events. At the 2015 NOVA Open (in the Washington, DC area), we're running multiple Hunger Games events that were huge fun last year and are almost sold out this year. Imagine an A-wing flying around the table with an HLC. This happened last year as well as many other crazy combos. We are also running a 4 day X-wing Narrative Campaign (currently sold out) that we may be opening up more slots for soon. We'll be creating our own alternate story within the Star Wars universe that will also be a lot of fun and a nice departure from the highly competitive tournaments. If this interests you, I recommend you get on the waiting list.

We will, of course, be running a Championship tournament that is your standard 100pt competitive tournament. However, we are trying to appeal to all X-wing players no matter what level of competition they prefer.

Check out www.novaopen.com for details.

Agree with the OP. Phantoms are bad design. A good game makes you plan your listbuilding for opposing lists, not units. That´s a fail by FFG.

The Phantom uses so many points in a list that it tends to define that list. Once a player decides to use a Phantom, they have also have decided on a general play style and strategy.

I'm actually ok with this, from a list building perspective. I've been thinking about lists in terms of centerpieces and support, and so generally I will put _some_ ship in the mental catagory that the Phantom fills in a list it goes into.

Other list center pieces include: Han, Chewie, Dash, Corran, a pair of Buzzsaw B-Wings.

As an Imperial player, the problem has long been that lack of a centerpiece. We had... Howlrunner. Everything else that might have held centerpiece status was simply under performing for the points. Soon Whisper will be joined by Vader and Fel. And Whisper has already been joined by various Decimator pilots.

So yes: we agree that you should have to think about which lists you will have trouble beating. But I don't see that as a Phantom problem, I see the Phantom as the name of a type of list. And I'm trilled that over the next year, we're going to see more than the 1 list type we saw in waves 1-3. And more than the 2 types we saw in wave 4.

Agree with the OP. Phantoms are bad design. A good game makes you plan your listbuilding for opposing lists, not units. That´s a fail by FFG.

And I disagree; from 40k to X-Wing every miniature game I've played, even Axis and Allies miniatures (and I'm looking at you Panther tank) has had units that call for list building to deal with them specifically.

Any game with a tournament scene has this. You have to have a plan to deal with what is at top. The thing I have found is, that the advantage some squads have is exaggerated.

And to be fair, a Fat Falcon should be able to take out 60% of your list by itself, because it's 60% of their list.

You know what's not fun a chewie falcon with falcon title and 3PO, it's got zero offense but it is a grind to kill it when it's ignoring two attacks and all your crits.

You'll win but you won't feel happy after.

Brath will. >

I think we can all safely say the phantom didn't turn out as FFG wanted or expected it to. However, the hysteria over it is something of a self-fulfilling prophecy.