Again, Wave 1 and 2 was likely designed by Jay Little, as can be seen by the adherence to a cost formula. Wave 3 tossed that formula out. And then Wave 4 was a complete shift to Alex and Frank, who understand the tournament game a bit better than Jay Little, and probably the Wave 3 designer.

I don't see why it is easier to assume that they make sub-par cards on purpose rather than them being accidents. Quite honestly, Magic designers probably design bad cards because of the sales model rather than any reasonable game design theory. Which is why I have a tough time seeing it being used in FFG games. Especially when you look at their LCGs. Now, somethings may be designed to be more niche than other cards, but niche cards are not necessarily bad cards.

Magic doesn't need bad cards to sell packs, it only needs a sea of mediocre cards and a few very good cards to make the few good cards look good and get people to chase after them, which is exactly what you see in Yu-Gi-Oh and how they drive sales for their packs. The chase rares would sell packs just as well if all the cards below them were on a flat power level. Printing chase rares will sell packs, but the designers of MTG realized not too long ago that it is good design principles that get new players to stick with the game through the learning process and keep the returning players happy.

The differences in the game's business models don't really invalidate the points I made in my first post about why bad cards are good for customizable games and why game designers would want to put bad cards in their game. I'll admit that I am ignorant about the competitive state of FFG's other LCGs, but I seriously doubt that every card in that game gets relatively equal tournament play and that there aren't any cards that never see any play ever outside of casual games and newbs.

You do understand that the Daredevil card was errata'd to function as intended, right? Because with the original wording, you would not take stress, because you only get stress in the step after you perform the maneuver, which doesn't occur with an action. Same result, as that is how most people played Daredevil anyway, but the new wording was needed to make it actually work that way. It is the same reason why poor Night Beast is screwed out of his ability when stressed.

Yes I do. Do you realize that the updated wording on Daredevil means the card works completely different than how it was originally printed, regardless of intent? It's not like the card didn't work at all the way it was originally printed, but the original wording meant Tycho couldn't use the upgrade while stressed, and interacted with certain other crit cards and upgrades differently. It's functional errata if it fundamentally changes what the card does. Citing "designer intent" to call it something that it's not is a cop-out, designers are responsible for correctly communicating their intent through the rules and card text without making the players guess what they actually mean.

Example of errata that isn't functional: Expert Handling. Before the errata, Expert Handling let you take a Barrel Roll as your action and then clear an enemy Target Lock token and then take a stress token if your ship didn't have the Barrel Roll in its action bar. None of that changed after the errata, the wording was just changed to allow the card to do what it says within the rules.

I'm sure they learn from their previous waves, but nothing's perfect

case in point: ******* Bodyguard

I'll go ahead and point to bodyguard as one of those niche cards that look like they suck but can actually be pretty strong in the right instance. Kaato is a pretty fantastic bodyguard and I would imagine a chaardan green would work pretty well too.

I'm sure they learn from their previous waves, but nothing's perfect

case in point: ******* Bodyguard

I'll go ahead and point to bodyguard as one of those niche cards that look like they suck but can actually be pretty strong in the right instance. Kaato is a pretty fantastic bodyguard and I would imagine a chaardan green would work pretty well too.

Sure is lol! I miss good Green Hornet comics...

Example of errata that isn't functional: Expert Handling. Before the errata, Expert Handling let you take a Barrel Roll as your action and then clear an enemy Target Lock token and then take a stress token if your ship didn't have the Barrel Roll in its action bar. None of that changed after the errata, the wording was just changed to allow the card to do what it says within the rules.

Expert Handling was changed because of Vader's existence. Double Barrel Rolls was quite fun on Vader before they made it a free action. And while it wasn't thought of then, Experimental Interface would have also caused double Barrel Rolls.

I'm sure they learn from their previous waves, but nothing's perfect

case in point: ******* Bodyguard

I'll go ahead and point to bodyguard as one of those niche cards that look like they suck but can actually be pretty strong in the right instance. Kaato is a pretty fantastic bodyguard and I would imagine a chaardan green would work pretty well too.

Case in point for why bad cards exist, so that some players can point out corner cases where these bad cards aren't horrible and feel like they've got an edge on the rest of the player base.

Although in this case I have no idea if any of that is true about bodyguard, although I will point out that bodyguard and A-Wings are a nombo since bodyguard is Scum faction only.

I will also say that bad cards do not influence by purchasing habits in the slightest, the presence of a bad card won't dissuade me from buying an expansion that has a good ship or good upgrade that I want. You'll notice that bad cards are distributed pretty evenly across the expansions, with no expansions being packed to the gills with bad upgrades and no good ones, which is another piece of evidence that FFG knows ahead of time which upgrades are the bad ones and makes sure that no expansion gets stuck with too many bad upgrades.

I'm sure they learn from their previous waves, but nothing's perfect

case in point: ******* Bodyguard

I'll go ahead and point to bodyguard as one of those niche cards that look like they suck but can actually be pretty strong in the right instance. Kaato is a pretty fantastic bodyguard and I would imagine a chaardan green would work pretty well too.

As game companies, short of releasing the rule on the Internet for everyone to play and respond to, FFG does a pretty great job with their play testing. Their are cards that see a lot more play than others, but that doesn't have to be a problem. It doesn't mean that the cards people don't use are bad, they just aren't the favorites.

I find that cards that aren't used that much really fall into 1 of 3 categories.

Category 1- good cards that just aren't that popular. Before you can you can play a card it has to attract your attention. And if you have favorites you are likely to overlook other cards that may be great, but just haven't gotten the attention.

Example: Sensor Jammers. With such a debate of which is better Fire Control System of Advanced Sensors, I just don't think too many people have even tried Sensor Jammers. But I love this card on my E-wings. It can be just the defensive boost that Coran or Et'han need to survive.

I think catagory is larger than people give it credit for, especially since some cards need to be played well to be worth it. Just because a card isn't great in every situation, doesn't mean it can't be great in some situation.

Category 2 -good cards that are overshadowed by other cards. These are cards that would be great, but there is another card that either does the same thing or takes the same slot that is just (or at least perceived as) better.

Example: Outmaneuver. It is a great card, but I would almost always prefer Predator. It just isn't as situational.

I actually think the difference between this category of card and category 1 is a pretty blurry line. This is evident from all the debate on these forums about Outmaneuver, Marksmanship, or any number of other cards that some people debate over the value of. I think this line comes from the fact that just because I (or anyone else) hasn't found a way to make a card worth taking doesn't mean someone else won't.

Category 3- These are the cards that were a good idea, but didn't really work.

Example: Deadeye Deadeye sounded great since getting those TL is really what makes torpedoes and missiles so hard to use. The problem is it is an EPT and pilots with a high PS don't really have that much trouble getting the TL's and they are also the only pilots who can take EPT.

The only generic pilots who can take both a EPT and a missile/torp are Green Squadron (or X/Y-wings with an extra 1 point droid upgrade). A-wings were a bit overcosts, and so are missiles. Add one more point for the Deadeye upgrade just doesn't seem to make for a very cost effective build.

Before I go on, I guarantee someone will read this and come up with a great use for Deadeye, putting it back into category 1 or 2.

The truth is this last category, the cards that really aren't ever worth taking is pretty small, at least across the whole of the X-wing Gaming community. That is one of the things that makes this game great, cards that I thought were a waist of points someone one else may use to great effect.

Example of errata that isn't functional: Expert Handling. Before the errata, Expert Handling let you take a Barrel Roll as your action and then clear an enemy Target Lock token and then take a stress token if your ship didn't have the Barrel Roll in its action bar. None of that changed after the errata, the wording was just changed to allow the card to do what it says within the rules.

Expert Handling was changed because of Vader's existence. Double Barrel Rolls was quite fun on Vader before they made it a free action. And while it wasn't thought of then, Experimental Interface would have also caused double Barrel Rolls.

But nobody played it that way because back then everyone knew you couldn't do 2 of the same action a turn even with Vader. I will concede that rules-as-written the lack of the word "action" after the header in Expert Handling could have been interpreted to allow double barrel rolls with Vader similar to how Soontir allows double Focus tokens, but in that case I would just consider Expert Handling to be functional errata as well, although I've never heard of anyone doing double barrel rolls with Vader before the errata, which I seem to remember happened after Wave 2 was released.

Please note that I'm not trying to say I know for sure why the designers create bad cards in this game, I was just trying to provide the OP reasons for the existence of bad cards other than "the designers are dumb and/or lazy and don't know how to make cards that are good". While I can't know anymore than the rest of players whether that is true or not, I do know that I find it to be a very unsatisfying and unenlightening answer, and I think it better serves gamers to know that there are valid reasons for having some bad cards in a game other than designer incompetence.

I for one don't think there are many cards 100% useless. Some are obviously more used and successful than others, but let's just take a quick run through just the EPTs:

Adrenaline Rush: Rather useful on Defenders. I've also seen it put to good use on Echo for the unpredictable K turn.

Calculation: Too soon to determine, but should be nice on (imp) Kath and Ten.

Deadeye: Not that good, fringe case for Nera. Should get better if/when ordnance gets better.

Determination: Great 1 point EPT and one of the few ways to get rid of hull damage.

Draw Their Fire: Great 1 point EPT to protect a high priority target. Even more useful now with all of these crit mechanics.

Veteran Instincts: The best EPT on Whisper.

Decoy: Kinda like Swarm Tactics but works at R2. Down side is you don't both shoot at higher PS. Seem some use on Corran and Luke (protected by Biggs).

Elusiveness: Truly useless!

Expert Handling: Only way to give non-BR ships the action.

Intimidation: Couples nicely with Arvel and Oicunn since they like to be in contact with ships.

Lone Wolf: One of the best defensive upgrade cards in the game. Great on Luke who natively changes <eyes> to <evades> anyways.

Squad Leader: Was pretty useful on Vader during W1+2, could see some more use once the Dark Lord returns to power.

Stay on Target: Very useful on Keyan (especially with AdvS)

Swarm Tactics: Great tool to put on a high PS ship surrounded by low PS ships

Wingman: Can turn a Black Squadron TIE into quite the cheap support ship

Daredevil: AWESOME on Tycho. Not really useful on anyone else

Marksmanship: Great if you have a method of dual shots

Outmaneuver: One of the easiest ways to make an A wings 2 attack dice matter.

Predator: Huge offensive boost

Push the Limit: 2 actions = awesome.

Expose: Pretty good on RAC w/ EI and Ysand

Opportunist: Great way to get an extra die, especially if coupled with Wes.

Edit: Just noticed I pulled the list from a Rebel Voidstate, so it doesn't include Scum/Imp exclusive EPTs.

The game is not purely a competitive game. It may be for *you*, but that is not the only design goal. You are applying your design philosophy and goals and ignoring any you do not value. That is why you fail.

Some cards may not be meant for competitive play. There is nothing incompetent about that.

There are 71 play testers credited in the Aggressor/IG2000 booklet, plus the designers. That's a lot of people banging away at that ship to see how it works before the general gamers ever see it. I'll have to assume the same people worked on all of wave 6.

As game companies, short of releasing the rule on the Internet for everyone to play and respond to, FFG does a pretty great job with their play testing. Their are cards that see a lot more play than others, but that doesn't have to be a problem. It doesn't mean that the cards people don't use are bad, they just aren't the favorites.

I find that cards that aren't used that much really fall into 1 of 3 categories.

Category 1- good cards that just aren't that popular. Before you can you can play a card it has to attract your attention. And if you have favorites you are likely to overlook other cards that may be great, but just haven't gotten the attention.

Example: Sensor Jammers. With such a debate of which is better Fire Control System of Advanced Sensors, I just don't think too many people have even tried Sensor Jammers. But I love this card on my E-wings. It can be just the defensive boost that Coran or Et'han need to survive.

I think catagory is larger than people give it credit for, especially since some cards need to be played well to be worth it. Just because a card isn't great in every situation, doesn't mean it can't be great in some situation.

Category 2 -good cards that are overshadowed by other cards. These are cards that would be great, but there is another card that either does the same thing or takes the same slot that is just (or at least perceived as) better.

Example: Outmaneuver. It is a great card, but I would almost always prefer Predator. It just isn't as situational.

I actually think the difference between this category of card and category 1 is a pretty blurry line. This is evident from all the debate on these forums about Outmaneuver, Marksmanship, or any number of other cards that some people debate over the value of. I think this line comes from the fact that just because I (or anyone else) hasn't found a way to make a card worth taking doesn't mean someone else won't.

Category 3- These are the cards that were a good idea, but didn't really work.

Example: Deadeye Deadeye sounded great since getting those TL is really what makes torpedoes and missiles so hard to use. The problem is it is an EPT and pilots with a high PS don't really have that much trouble getting the TL's and they are also the only pilots who can take EPT.

The only generic pilots who can take both a EPT and a missile/torp are Green Squadron (or X/Y-wings with an extra 1 point droid upgrade). A-wings were a bit overcosts, and so are missiles. Add one more point for the Deadeye upgrade just doesn't seem to make for a very cost effective build.

Before I go on, I guarantee someone will read this and come up with a great use for Deadeye, putting it back into category 1 or 2.

The truth is this last category, the cards that really aren't ever worth taking is pretty small, at least across the whole of the X-wing Gaming community. That is one of the things that makes this game great, cards that I thought were a waist of points someone one else may use to great effect.

I think it's a good analysis, even if I think deadeye doesn't fall into the last category as much as say, expose or proton bombs. (Deadeye is great on Nera and Blount, for example).

The game is not purely a competitive game. It may be for *you*, but that is not the only design goal. You are applying your design philosophy and goals and ignoring any you do not value. That is why you fail.

Some cards may not be meant for competitive play. There is nothing incompetent about that.

There are 71 play testers credited in the Aggressor/IG2000 booklet, plus the designers. That's a lot of people banging away at that ship to see how it works before the general gamers ever see it. I'll have to assume the same people worked on all of wave 6.

I'm glad somebody finally cited the credits from the packaging, I knew it was on there I just couldn't find it anywhere online. I'm sure if you took all the people credited for playtesting a single ship and cross-referenced them with all the people credited with playtesting the other ships in that wave, the number of unique playtesters that worked on any given wave from 4-6 would number in at 100-200 people per wave.

The OP asked a good question. It could have been articulated better, but I don't see a reason to treat it as anything but an honest question. It's a game and there is no "wrong" way to play it, so what if his preference is that all the cards be useful? I don't understand the accusation that he "failed" in anything by asking a question. You kind of come across in this thread that anyone who has a different design philosophy than you is wrong... I don't know if that's what you intend but it does come across a little hostile.

Some cards may not be meant for competitive play.

Or maybe they are all meant for competitive play. Who knows? The only authoritative people on this subject are the designers themselves. Everything Alex has said publicly to this point, he is very pro-balance at both the ship and card level, striving for that "just right" balance. So that's what we have to go on.

But lets go down that rabbit trail. What if FFG intentionally did release ships and cards that were bad? Then what? You still have the right to express your displeasure with XYZ not being useful. In reference to changing the game with house rules or scenarios, Alex Davy said that the game is what you make of it, so there's certainly nothing wrong with house rules. If you can come up with new/tweaked rules to make the game more fun/balanced/enjoyable, then more power to you.

I have noticed that the playtester names are ordered alphabetically, continuing from one product to the next, so, if you want to know who playtested a particular wave, you only have to piece together the entire list. Speaking of, isn't your name listed?

some of the "lower tier" upgrades are just missing their proper home

for example, Expert Handling was hilarious back in the day of the large-ship barrel-roll (dat displacement) before the template got turned on its side and after that I never saw it again because it stresses you, takes up your ept (so no predator) and there are no other slots which compensate for your lack of action apart from the system slot (and every ship with a system slot can barrel roll except for the shuttle which has no EPT...probably because of expert handling)

but now, we have scum and the K4 Security Droid. Expert Handling, K4 Firesprays are something you have to experience at least once in your life

For the record: Jay Little designed wave 1, James Kniffen designed 2 & 3, Alex & Frank took over at around wave 4.

And you can really see a stark contrast between 1-3 and 4-6. The How many wave 3 named pilots do you ever see? Wave 6 has very few true duds and is a larger wave.

Especially now, I think xwing is very well designed and balanced, and are always looking to make it better.

Just look at the store championship meta for how well this game is balanced.

STAW had 80%+ Borg in the top 4 of ALL 8 regionals it held.

Deadeye is pretty awesome with Kavil and an r4 aggromech.

Something that no amount of designer play testing can root out- and one that I think we can see evidence for in this game- is the blindspots that come from being overly familiar with too many versions of a given card.

Take Daredevil, for instance. We all know how this card has been errata'd to work. We all know how it was _supposed_ to work. It seems very likely that the designers and play testers played the card how it was meant to work, rather than how it was written to work. I'd guess something similar happened with Stay on Target and Navigator.

It also seems entirely plausible that ships and cards are (or, at least were) play tested in isolation from one another. Push the Limit is good on Tycho, and Daredevil is good on Soontir. And if you don't play test either of those packs against the Falcon, you might not realize how totally the Falcon shuts down Wave 2 A-Wings and Tie Interceptors.

This happens when you are play testing an entire SKU in isolation from the rest of the Wave, and everything about the exact wording of any given card is in flux. So you've got lots of ways to playtest Soontir Fel with Daredevil against a Y-Wing with an Ion cannon-- and you _love_ that interaction. And: "hey? The Falcon is going to have a turret... how different can it be from the turret on the Y-Wing?"

I think the last few waves have seen a bit of a shift from thinking about any given SKU, to thinking about the Wave and Game as a whole. If they're not doing this already, I'd like to see them start creating the various upgrade cards separately from the ships they will be sold alongside, so that they can be playtested in combination with everything in that Wave, and in past Waves. Also: they should call people who haven't seen the cards, so those people can come in fresh and tell them what the card will _actually_ do, rather than what the designers _want_ it to do. It's nearly impossible for someone to get that level distance from their own work.

But remember, Wave 1-2 were followed a point cost formula far closer than anything after did.

But remember, Wave 1-2 were followed a point cost formula far closer than anything after did.

Plus, just because you have a point cost formula doesn't mean it's right.

Don't forget about observer bias either. If we were to take all the cards and just as an experiment, divide them into Tiers One and Two, and then give all of Tier One to Group A and all of Tier Two to Group B where Groups A and B have no knowledge of X-wing. It could be hypothesized that each group individually after some time could take their given product and rate it into two new tiers. If then told that there was another group they might even believe the other groups neo-tier-one-A equivalent to their own tier-one-B. Perception, how does it work!?

Also, as we probably all have heard of, see Jedi Curve. Wizards initial valuing system. But after a time, which probably came after far fewer game components for X-wing than it ever could have for Magic, in order to innovate you must abandon your Jedi Curve. If for no other reason the Supercomputing Internet will manage to process data we basically consider intangible. Once it does the curve becomes less relevant as the hidden strings between values that create positive efficiency become highlighted by success. Hopefully that was understandable. Sounds right in my head but not when I read it.

Lastly, there is also the designers tool of 'seeding' expandable games. It's when you throw something in that you know doesn't work for anything, because it got kicked out of testing more than likely, but you have this feeling that it will be good somewhere else and you want to come back to it. So what do you do? THROW IT IN THE SUPERCOMPUTER! You drop it into the game and let the players guide you to the design connection you didn't have that they want to play with. In magic it would be when players start asking around "Hey, is there anyway to damage yourself in the combat phase before combat damage resolves using blue cards that cost three or less and cantrip? I really want to pair an ability like that with this wonky janky crap rare" That's basically the blueprint for some new future card! Unknowingly, by looking for very specific ways of using a card, they just designed a card! Fortunately when you seeded the card into the game, knowing it was going to be good just not sure how, you made it a rare so it shouldn't washout your meta you have carefully crafted as an evil WOTC game designer under the debatable leadership of Maro.

But all things truly. No matter how well you designed the game, as long as there is asymmetry, perfect balance is the thing you strive for but know you can never achieve. That's when you reach Designer-vanna and start floating four feet off the ground as if sitting crosslegged on thin air chanting "ouuuuuum" and then spouting off a fantastically fun gamepiece concept that your interns scramble to jot down that your brilliance will reach the many and reward the faithful with beer and pretzels.

Something that no amount of designer play testing can root out- and one that I think we can see evidence for in this game- is the blindspots that come from being overly familiar with too many versions of a given card.Take Daredevil, for instance. We all know how this card has been errata'd to work. We all know how it was _supposed_ to work. It seems very likely that the designers and play testers played the card how it was meant to work, rather than how it was written to work. I'd guess something similar happened with Stay on Target and Navigator.It also seems entirely plausible that ships and cards are (or, at least were) play tested in isolation from one another. Push the Limit is good on Tycho, and Daredevil is good on Soontir. And if you don't play test either of those packs against the Falcon, you might not realize how totally the Falcon shuts down Wave 2 A-Wings and Tie Interceptors.This happens when you are play testing an entire SKU in isolation from the rest of the Wave, and everything about the exact wording of any given card is in flux. So you've got lots of ways to playtest Soontir Fel with Daredevil against a Y-Wing with an Ion cannon-- and you _love_ that interaction. And: "hey? The Falcon is going to have a turret... how different can it be from the turret on the Y-Wing?"I think the last few waves have seen a bit of a shift from thinking about any given SKU, to thinking about the Wave and Game as a whole. If they're not doing this already, I'd like to see them start creating the various upgrade cards separately from the ships they will be sold alongside, so that they can be playtested in combination with everything in that Wave, and in past Waves. Also: they should call people who haven't seen the cards, so those people can come in fresh and tell them what the card will _actually_ do, rather than what the designers _want_ it to do. It's nearly impossible for someone to get that level distance from their own work.

I can tell you at the very least Waves were not being tested in isolation in the time period you were suggesting.

But remember, Wave 1-2 were followed a point cost formula far closer than anything after did.

Point cost formulas are useful, but they are not laws. They also don't work well with intangibles (See a few of the ships that give major juggler trouble).

Plus, just because you have a point cost formula doesn't mean it's right.

In fact it likely means it is wrong.

The slavish adherence to it is why STAW is so horribly balanced.

But remember, Wave 1-2 were followed a point cost formula far closer than anything after did.

Point cost formulas are useful, but they are not laws. They also don't work well with intangibles (See a few of the ships that give major juggler trouble).

Plus, just because you have a point cost formula doesn't mean it's right.

In fact it likely means it is wrong.

The slavish adherence to it is why STAW is so horribly balanced.

I would probably have a field day if I did MathTrek on STAW.