If you have better metrics to offer that aren't anecdotes go ahead and offer them up.

I have pointed out that using this method how unbalanced the TIE Interceptor is/was since Alpha and Avenger pilots are nearly never seen.

This is silly. Soontir Fel is one of the, if not the best pilot in the game.

Also are we assuming that all pilots of a given ship need to see time equally? Should a X-Wing Rookie see as much play time as Biggs or an Alpha see as much time as Soontir? And that FFG can balance a game so well, without breaking it, that we need to fix everything continuously until a naked Roark Garnet can compete against X-Wings and TIE Defenders?

No? It's obvious that a named pilot will have abilities and a pilot skill that make it more desirable over a non named pilot unless the non named pilot is cheap enough to make it desirable.

So what is a good measure?

Tournament results and mathwing seem to be enough, given that the designers of the game have acknowledged the problems with X-Wings.

If you have better metrics to offer that aren't anecdotes go ahead and offer them up.

I don't; that is my point.

I have pointed out that using this method how unbalanced the TIE Interceptor is/was since Alpha and Avenger pilots are nearly never seen.

This is silly. Soontir Fel is one of the, if not the best pilot in the game.

I think you missed my point. Yes Sootir Fel is a good pilot. What does that have to do with Alpha pilots?

Also are we assuming that all pilots of a given ship need to see time equally? Should a X-Wing Rookie see as much play time as Biggs or an Alpha see as much time as Soontir? And that FFG can balance a game so well, without breaking it, that we need to fix everything continuously until a naked Roark Garnet can compete against X-Wings and TIE Defenders?

No? It's obvious that a named pilot will have abilities and a pilot skill that make it more desirable over a non named pilot unless the non named pilot is cheap enough to make it desirable.

So what is a good measure?

Tournament results and mathwing seem to be enough, [...].

YES! You hit the nail on the head and thank you for making my point. If tournaments and mathwing are the only things needed then virtually any ability will push out generics of the same class ship making them undervalued and by this logic requiring a fix. X-Wings, at least according to a post that others offered, do see play time. Perhaps not as much as B-Wings but quite a bit more that some other ships. If tournament play time and mathwing, regardless of abilities or synergies, are the only thing to look at then certainly there are more pressing ships that need fixing.

[...] that the designers of the game have acknowledged the problems with X-Wings.

I thought some at Fantasy Flight said the generics could use a tweak but that was about the extent of it. I don't recall anyone other than some fans saying that the X-Wing as a whole was undervalued. Actually in that same interview I recall them saying that Tarn, an X-Wing, was one of the best pilots in the game.

Can you help me find where the designers "acknowledged the problems with X-Wings"?

Plenty of people won with Interceptors or Darth Vader, but that doesn't mean they didn't need upgrades. Anecdotes don't really prove anything.

Some here are basing the X-Wing being so bad based solely on whether and how often they appear in Tournament results. An environment which encourages using only the most top-notch squads. By its very design this will push out even marginally weaker squads if everything else is balanced/level.

There's actually a lot of room for variation at the Store Championship level.

This same method has shown far more other ship with even fewer appearances and even the rebels as a whole beating the empire nearly 2:1.

60/40 is not the same as 2:1. And according to List Juggler, here's the list of ships appearing less frequently than the X-wing, by points spent:

• A-wing (2.78%)
• Y-wing (2.76%)
• TIE defender (2.00%)
• Lambda-class shuttle (1.97%)
• HWK-290 (1.24%)
• TIE bomber (0.65%)
• TIE Advanced (0.27%)

• E-wing (3.44%)
• Lambda-class shuttle (2.34%)
• Y-wing (1.69%)
• Firespray-31 (1.69%)
• TIE defender (1.46%)
• HWK-290 (1.05%)
• TIE bomber (0.88%)
• TIE Advanced (0.23%)

So of the ships that need help according to this metric, two have upcoming fixes, one was "fixed" very recently, and three arguably could still use fixes or at least new options. What strikes you as bad or inconsistent about that?

I have pointed out that using this method how unbalanced the TIE Interceptor is/was since Alpha and Avenger pilots are nearly never seen.

Bringing up another ship that was commonly understood to have a huge metagame vulnerability and just received a fix doesn't help your case.

Also are we assuming that all pilots of a given ship need to see time equally?

No, and that's a straw man.

And that FFG can balance a game so well, without breaking it, that we need to fix everything continuously until a naked Roark Garnet can compete against X-Wings and TIE Defenders?

No, and that's a straw man.

So what is a good measure?

I'd say a combination of aggregate tournament results, statistical understanding of attack and defense values, and a sizeable dollop of logic and common sense (as exercised by the developers at FFG).

YES! You hit the nail on the head and thank you for making my point. If tournaments and mathwing are the only things needed then virtually any ability will push generics of the same class ship making them undervalued and by this logic requiring a fix. X-Wings, at least according to a post that others offered, do see play time. Perhaps not as much as B-Wings but quite a bit more that some other ships. If tournament results are the only thing to look at then certainly there are more pressing ships that need fixing.

Plenty of generic ships get played, when they are a good value. Just for Rebels the Y-Wing, B-Wing, Z-95 all have generic pilots that see play. Generic X-Wings aren't a good value. I'm not sure what ships you consider more pressing.

Can you help me find where the designers "acknowledged the problems with X-Wings"?

http://www.jodocast.com/2015/02/22/x-wing-qa-with-designer-alex-davy/

All good points

[...] here's the list of ships appearing less frequently than the X-wing, by points spent:

• A-wing (2.78%)
• Y-wing (2.76%)
• TIE defender (2.00%)
• Lambda-class shuttle (1.97%)
• HWK-290 (1.24%)
• TIE bomber (0.65%)
• TIE Advanced (0.27%)

If you go by ship count instead (which will help account for things like Prototype Pilots being half as expensive as X-wings), you get this:

• E-wing (3.44%)
• Lambda-class shuttle (2.34%)
• Y-wing (1.69%)
• Firespray-31 (1.69%)
• TIE defender (1.46%)
• HWK-290 (1.05%)
• TIE bomber (0.88%)
• TIE Advanced (0.23%)

If you look at those ships which appear on both lists, you get the Advanced (specific fix forthcoming with the Raider), the Bomber (unspecified fix suggested by Alex Davy in interviews), the Y-wing (currently undergoing a renaissance inspired by Most Wanted), Defender (commonly understood as underpowered for its cost), Lambda (good but notoriously hard to use well), and HWK (ditto).

So of the ships that need help according to this metric, two have upcoming fixes, one was "fixed" very recently, and three arguably could still use fixes or at least new options. What strikes you as bad or inconsistent about that?

So what is a good measure?

I'd say a combination of aggregate tournament results, statistical understanding of attack and defense values, and a sizeable dollop of logic and common sense (as exercised by the developers at FFG).

So I wonder if we'll see fixes for some of these as well. I notice the first errata on the tournament rules today. Perhaps this is opening the box, so to speak.

Yes some of my arguments may be a bit rhetorical but not all are rhetorical. One of the earlier points was the generic X-Wing did not see enough play. So my question was 'Also are we assuming that all pilots of a given ship need to see time equally?' not as a straw-man argument but a very real question. The generic's lack of play was the basis for the initial X-Wing 'fix'.

according to List Juggler, here's the list of ships appearing less frequently than the X-wing, by points spent:

• A-wing (2.78%)
• Y-wing (2.76%)
• TIE defender (2.00%)
• Lambda-class shuttle (1.97%)
• HWK-290 (1.24%)
• TIE bomber (0.65%)
• TIE Advanced (0.27%)

The conditional effectiveness is very important too, perhaps even more important than absolute attendance. Eventually I'll help out sozin and help program some better stats algorithms, like being able to filter by meta, but this is still pretty informative for looking at the X-wing.

The numbers pretty much speak for themselves.

Store Championships only, by points

• VT-49 Decimator: 11.18%
• YT-1300: 10.43%
• B-wing: 9.56%
• TIE Phantom: 8.29%
• YT-2400: 7.82%
• Z-95: 6.51%
• TIE Fighter: 6.37%
• Firespray-31: 5.88%
• X-wing: 5.28%
• TIE Interceptor: 4.88%
• E-wing: 4.67%
• Aggressor: 3.76%
• A-wing: 3.14%
• Y-wing: 3.06%
• TIE Defender: 2.56%
• Lambda Shuttle: 1.97%
• HWK-290: 1.96%
• Starviper: 0.9%
• TIE Bomber: 0.75%
• TIE Advanced: 0.52%
• M3-A: 0.49

Store championship only, elimination rounds only, by points

• VT-49 Decimator: 14.77%
• YT-1300: 12.7%
• B-wing: 9.99%
• TIE Phantom: 8.34%
• YT-2400: 7.98%
• Z-95: 7.43%
• TIE Fighter: 6.25%
• E-wing: 4.96%
• TIE Interceptor: 4.43%
• Firespray: 4.22%
• X-wing: 3.24%
• Aggressor: 3.13%
• A-wing: 2.78%
• Y-wing: 2.76%
• TIE Defender: 2.00%
• Lambda Shuttle: 1.97%
• HWK-290: 1.24%
• Starviper: 0.73%
• TIE Bomber: 0.65%
• TIE Advanced: 0.27%
• M3-A: 0.16%

Normalized showing in elimination rounds (effectiveness)

• VT-49 Decimator: 125.2%
• YT-1300: 121.8%
• Z-95: 114.1%
• E-wing: 106.2%
• B-wing: 104.5%
• YT-2400: 102.5%
• TIE Phantom: 100.6%
• Lambda Shuttle: 100.0%
• TIE Fighter: 98.1%
• TIE Interceptor: 90.8%
• Y-wing: 90.2%
• A-wing: 88.6%
• TIE Bomber: 86.7%
• Aggressor: 83.2%
• Starviper: 81.1%
• TIE Defender: 78.1%
• Firespray: 71.8%
• HWK-290: 63.2%
• X-wing: 61.3%
• TIE Advanced: 51.9%
• M3-A: 32.7%

Edit: I completely missed the TIE Advanced and TIE Bomber.

Normalized showing in elimination rounds (effectiveness)

• VT-49 Decimator: 125.2%
• YT-1300: 121.8%
• Z-95: 114.1%
• E-wing: 106.2%
• B-wing: 104.5%
• YT-2400: 102.5%
• TIE Phantom: 100.6%
• Lambda Shuttle: 100.0%
• TIE Fighter: 98.1%
• TIE Interceptor: 90.8%
• Y-wing: 90.2%
• A-wing: 88.6%
• Aggressor: 83.2%
• Starviper: 81.1%
• TIE Defender: 78.1%
• Firespray: 71.8%
• HWK-290: 63.2%
• X-wing: 61.3%
• M3-A: 32.7%

Correct me if I'm translating incorrectly, but that's ratio of how often the ship appears in elimination rounds to how often the ship appeared in all rounds, right? So this tells us that (setting aside the Scyk, about which the metagame doesn't know that much yet) the X-wing has the biggest gap between how often people take it and how likely it is to push them into the championship rounds.

Or in other words, it has the biggest gap between how good people think it is and how good is actually is.

Yes. (edit: other than the TIE Advanced)

Edit: P.S. It has essentially been this way since I started tracking the wave 3 meta.

2x P.S.: I missed the TIE Bomber and TIE Advanced.

You can't tout the Astromech slot as being the saving grace for the X-Wing over the B-Wing and completely ignore the System and Crew slots on the B-Wing, not to mention the Cannon.

The System upgrades on the B-Wing are superior to most Astromech upgrades in the game, especially when you consider that the best astromechs are unique (R2-D2, R5-P9, R3-A2) and are mostly niche effects compared to the straight-up action economy that B-Wings get from FCS and Advance Sensors. Add to that crew and cannon upgrades, and you can do way more with a B-Wing than you can with an X-Wing.

The developers of the game have already stated the X-Wing needs a buff, which means it's most likely already on its way in a future expansion, I don't understand why these threads keep popping up.

To be fair, the crew slot costs extra on the B-wing.

And more Astromechs wouldn't be a bad idea. Especially generic ones. The Unhinged and Argomech are great things for the Scum Y.

To be fair, the crew slot costs extra on the B-wing.

And more Astromechs wouldn't be a bad idea. Especially generic ones. The Unhinged and Argomech are great things for the Scum Y.

Definitely not a bad idea. I would love to see some more diversity in the droid selection. However I don't see how the droid slot can, or even should, save the X Wing. It deserves better than to be the showcase chariot for some intelligent Swiss army knife. The fighter design and capabilities are the thing. The astromech just allows you to slightly tailor the X Wings strengths or to enhance a particular aspect.

"Fixing" the X-wing through its generics:

ok, so i am arriving a lil late to this discussion...Could it be possible to fix the 'broken' inconsistency of proton torpedo's and give the X-Wing a boost in power or affordability?

I kind of like the idea of letting an X-Wing fire torpedo's without having to spend its target lock immediately, letting you use it to reroll attack dice in the same turn it is used. Just like Homing Missiles.

ok, so i am arriving a lil late to this discussion...Could it be possible to fix the 'broken' inconsistency of proton torpedo's and give the X-Wing a boost in power or affordability?

I kind of like the idea of letting an X-Wing fire torpedo's without having to spend its target lock immediately, letting you use it to reroll attack dice in the same turn it is used. Just like Homing Missiles.

Interesting and ties the X-wing into its movie roots. The Torpedo is the weapon that was used to take down the Death Star. It is a shame that we don't see them on X-wings in games.

You know.

I never have a reason not to run Luke with R2. In fact, he's my go-to escort for Kyle.

Why are you escorting a Support ship? Who's the support ship supporting?

ok, so i am arriving a lil late to this discussion...Could it be possible to fix the 'broken' inconsistency of proton torpedo's and give the X-Wing a boost in power or affordability?

I kind of like the idea of letting an X-Wing fire torpedo's without having to spend its target lock immediately, letting you use it to reroll attack dice in the same turn it is used. Just like Homing Missiles.

Interesting and ties the X-wing into its movie roots. The Torpedo is the weapon that was used to take down the Death Star. It is a shame that we don't see them on X-wings in games.

small problem is that the B-wing gets them, too ( they get Nera!)

though the torps would be powerful, im not sure it would be worth bringing the stiff X-wings along

Why are you escorting a Support ship? Who's the support ship supporting?

Bro you're pulling my leg here right?

The support ship is supporting Luke, and the Support ship has 3 firepower it can pretty much always use with moldy Crow / Kyle. It's meant to augment both Kyle and Luke's firing radius. Kind of acts like one ship. It was really deadly when I used it.

I've realised recently that the issue I have with X-wings, and this may be others' experience as well, is that so many of the squad combinations look great on paper but in practice fail to deliver, mostly due to how situational some of the pilot abilities and/or droids are. I love the ship, and will keep playing around though.

I dont have the time to dig through the thread again, but didn't someone have the idea of a title or mod that involved linked-fire? Something like: after you perform an attack you may perform a 2 dice Attack targeting the same defender.

I think that or my previous T-65B title or Rogue Squadron title ideas (which I think are in this thread) would do a lot without being broken.

Or any combination of the three.

I think one of the main drawbacks is lack of maneuverability outside of its movement phase (boost/BR) it's supposed to be a multi role fighter and the only role it plays is a meat shield (Biggs) and a few Luke's and wedges sprinkled here and there but to little or no effect. While a straight upgrade to the ship would be ideal., I don't think FFG wants to make a habit of just retconning their early mistakes. The most popular idea is a title giving a certain upgrade, but what about a title that gives multiple options to upgrade?

A rouge squadron title could not only reduce points, but give a boost also. The wording could be something like a point reduction plus a hull or boost option. It could solve a couple problems at once. This way it accomplishes a little bit of everything really living up to the multi role description of the craft

ok here are two overpowered title cards just for fun...

Rogue Squadron Title Card - X-Wing only

Cost 2 - This pilot must have pilot skill 4 or higher.

Equip one free Engine Upgrade or Shield Upgrade modification.

This ship does not discard its target lock when firing Proton Torpedo's or Advanced Proton Torpedo's.

Free Action - Remove one stress token from a friendly ship at range one. (Use this once per turn).

Rogue Squadron Leader Title Card (Unique) - X-Wing only

Cost 3 - This pilot must have pilot skill 8 or higher.

Your action bar contains the boost and barrel roll actions.

This ship does not discard its target lock when firing Proton Torpedo's or Advanced Proton Torpedo's.

Free Action - After you perform an attack you may perform one free boost or barrel roll action.

I dont have the time to dig through the thread again, but didn't someone have the idea of a title or mod that involved linked-fire? Something like: after you perform an attack you may perform a 2 dice Attack targeting the same defender.

I think that or my previous T-65B title or Rogue Squadron title ideas (which I think are in this thread) would do a lot without being broken.

Or any combination of the three.

Why not do what the military does in real life, modify the air frame for a new mission. The F15 is a great example. When first designed and produced the F15 A was considered the supreme dog fighter for jet fighters. As time grew and variants came out you now have the F15E strike fighter which has lessened the dog fighting ability but has added the strike ability. Take an X-Wing modification that removes the torpedo ability and adds either a barrel roll or boost to give it an increased dog fight ability. Have it cost 2 to 4 points which would still keep it in the same ball park as a base X-Wing armed with torpedoes.

Why not do what the military does in real life, modify the air frame for a new mission. The F15 is a great example. When first designed and produced the F15 A was considered the supreme dog fighter for jet fighters. As time grew and variants came out you now have the F15E strike fighter which has lessened the dog fighting ability but has added the strike ability. Take an X-Wing modification that removes the torpedo ability and adds either a barrel roll or boost to give it an increased dog fight ability. Have it cost 2 to 4 points which would still keep it in the same ball park as a base X-Wing armed with torpedoes.

Doesn't really fix the issue, the base X-Wing is overpriced slightly, however FFG obviously don't want people to run 5 Rookies. I still think the solution is a title that reduces the cost of Astromechs by 2-3 points, giving every X-Wing an upgrade (based on droid) and keeping in line with the fluff. It allows those points to be spent on Modifications or pilots instead.