Hi all,

this thread is not meant for posts stating that one ship is overpowered or not, there are enough other threads out there for that.

With that being said, what is this thread for? X-Wing is the only miniatures game I play. And I've read enough on this forum about wether X-Wing is balanced or not. But I haven't read what balanced for such a game means. So, in general, when is a miniatures game like X-Wing balanced? I can see three possibilities:

1. There is just one list. Everyone fields the same units, with the same capabilities.

2. No matter which list my opponent fields, there are other lists which can beat it.

3. No matter which list I and my opponent field, both can win.

So, which on is it? I'm sure I've overlooked some other possibilities, but that's what I've got. What do you think?

I think 2 and 3 are both pretty close. Basically, a ship being balanced means it's not too powerful and it's not too weak. It has to be useful, but not to the point where you need it to win. No one ship or one squad should ever be unbeatable.

When it comes to teams, you shouldn't always want to play either Empire or Rebellion because it's "better." You should fly them because you like how the ships feel (or because you're a fanboy of either side). No team should be a tactically superior choice, yet each should stay unique

Its a nebulous and ill defined goal.

For me, it means that every ship/unit can have a meaningful roll to play in the game and that no specific ship/unit should be either so weak that taking it hurts your chances or so powerful that not taking it hurts your chances.

It does not mean that any randomly generated list has an equal chance of winning. Some ships can fill a good role with just a single one of them but suck if your whole list is them (HWK), other ships can be meant to be taken en masse but be weaker on their own (TIEs, to an extent). And that is good.

It does not mean that each faction has 1 good list. That is a false balance. That still means that large chunks of the game are not worth playing and it leads to monotony.

It should not mean a rock/paper/scissors meta. That is also false balance, but not as egregiously so. Such a meta results in games being decided in the list building phase, not during actual game play. Taken to extreme (as with actual rock paper scissors), such a game might be described as balanced, but just a bad game.

In all cases, the question of balance assumes players of relatively equal skill.

I leave that up to the game developers to figure out. I just worry about how I'm going to win my next game.

If mirrors were not allowed it would mean the factions were all equally powerful.

As for what it means here, it usually means that every ship is competitively viable.

What people seem to want is for the game not be be decided in the metagame: that two balanced flights of ships have an equal chance of winning if both players can adapt tactics: that the game doesn't have many really bad matchups where one side is at a massive disadvantage from the start.

That's why I find it so astounding that I've only ever come across one thread (Sable's Lambda schools) on flying tactics. We need more of those.

Balanced: All choices are viable choices under the right conditions. There are no "instant win" choices that clearly dominate everything else, or are "must have" in order to make something viable.

Skill in play must be more valuable than skill in selecting components; simply buying more stuff should never guarantee wins.

I've been sitting on this one for weeks.

Watch this Youtube Video, for my reply

For me it is that the points on one card have the same value as the points on another. The points on these cards seem pretty close.

Basically point 3, that any list should have a reasonable chance against any other list, assuming they are well made lists, not something made at random or just plain poorly made.

There will always be "counter" squads, but I think at worst when playing your counter with a similarly skilled opponent, your odds to win should be no lower than 40%ish.

For me:

The game is balanced when any reasonable squad has the tools it needs to deal with any other reasonable squad.

Ships are balanced when any given ship can find a place in a list that has the ability to win against an opponent of equal skill.

I'm defining "reasonable list" as a list which does not include unbalanced ships. As an example of a non-reasonable list, I'd offer: 4 Storm Squadron Pilots with Stygium Particle Accelerator. No title.

It's obvious to me that if I win a game, the game is clearly balanced and I won because of my superior skill. If I lose at a game, it's because it is unbalanced and I was unfairly disadvantaged.

I've been sitting on this one for weeks.

Watch this

, for my reply

I've been sitting on this one for weeks.

Watch this Youtube Video, for my reply

Hm, that's an awesome analysis.

There are quite a few bald statements in that vid. What did you use as sources?

Were there any particular statements that you're taking issue with?

I've been sitting on this one for weeks.

Watch this

, for my reply

There are quite a few bald statements in that vid. What did you use as sources?

I am not one of the guys from that show: merely a fan.

They are, however, folks who work in the videogame design industry, and know what they're talking about. This is an illustration of the concept of imperfect balance, and how it leads to an interesting multiplayer experience.

So a summary would be:

If two player with equal skill in list bulding, asteroid placement, deployment and dice rolling play against each other, everyone has a fair chance? So if they did not choose two lists, where one counters the other, the chances should be about 50-50, right? And after that, the player wins who makes fewer mistakes than his opponents.

Thanks for clearing that up.

@Tie Fighter: For flying with a tie swarm, here's some tactics http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/134251-my-evolving-the-shark-series/

Were there any particular statements that you're taking issue with?

I am not one of the guys from that show: merely a fan.

I've been sitting on this one for weeks.

Watch this

, for my reply

There are quite a few bald statements in that vid. What did you use as sources?

I am not one of the guys from that show: merely a fan.

They are, however, folks who work in the videogame design industry, and know what they're talking about. This is an illustration of the concept of imperfect balance, and how it leads to an interesting multiplayer experience.

The information presented was right on, comparative to my years of experience working in game stores.

Nice post.