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,

If people only chase after "a few very good cards", then mediocre cards are bad cards, at least from the point of view of the OP, which is a complaint about how some cards are used a lot and others aren't.

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

To date, only two ships have been costed so poorly that FFG has felt it necessary to create Upgrades to address the overcharge. They came from Waves 1 and 2.

Formulas give a good starting point, but only if the formula is good, and the result still has to be playtested to make sure it really is good.

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

To date, only two ships have been costed so poorly that FFG has felt it necessary to create Upgrades to address the overcharge. They came from Waves 1 and 2.

Formulas give a good starting point, but only if the formula is good, and the result still has to be playtested to make sure it really is good.

The list is actually slightly longer.

• TIE Advanced (x1)
• Y-wing (BTL-A4 makes them viable)
• TIE Interceptor (autothrusters)
• A-wing (-2 cost refit)

Acknowledged as being overcosted:

• Generic X-wings
• Generic E-wings ("probably" as per Alex last year shortly after wave 4 - my math easily says -3 points)

Other:

• TIE Bombers (problem lies with ordnance, the ship is getting some love somehow in wave 7)
• HWK-290 would be better with 2 native attack

Those are the ones directly addressed by FFG either by design, or interviews. That's actually every ship in wave 1 other than the TIE Fighter (something has to be the best).

I can also add a few more, not addressed by FFG directly, but predicted by MathWing and followed by tournament results:

• Generic TIE Defenders (although Alex did say they will get some helpful upgrades, in an interview way back last year)
• Generic Phantoms (just slightly overcosted -- ironic given recent cloaking nerf)
• All of the Imperial Firesprays to varying extents
• Generic YT-1300
• Generic VT-49 (slightly - simple cost progression strongly favors higher PS)
• Generic StarVipers (slightly, about 2 points)
• Generic M3-A without the title (needs -1 point w/o title)

And of course:

• Horton needs an EPT to go along with his awesome 'stache.

P.S.

Semantics note on bolded section - it is not so much an issue of giving me trouble, as intentionally placing some min / max bands on those ships' total possible values. This could be a very long topic in and of itself, but the approach is working really well. But in general yes, formulas are garbage in, garbage out, and you need to have enough technical ability and critical thinking to know how to apply them.

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.

I mean all they did was multiply combined stats by 2 for ship cost. Regardless of which stats (attack and defense worth the same despite following the same dice probabilities), Action Bar, Arc, Dial, pilot ability, etc.

It was and is sincerely the most lazy effort I've ever seen applied to a major licence.

Nobody does a lot of play testing in the industry and designer are naturally blind to their own faults, about the same mechanism which makes you bad at doing your own proof reading.

X-Wing is not too bad. It works, even on a competitive level, which can't be said most miniature games even considered you always have to exclude the garbage out of Sherwood Forest.

The only serious flaw in the design is ordnance and even that is a forgivable sin in my eyes.

The X-Wing community is quite a play test and that's why I have high hopes for Armada.

Bad cards aren't a bug, they're a feature.

There's a whole article series by the Head Designer of the #1 CCG in the world about why bad cards need to exist in customizable games like X-Wing.

http://archive.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/mm/218

There's an important word there. CCG. Namely the first C.

That article is on why bad cards exist in a CCG, and he also admits there's a financially motivated element of padding out sets in there.

FFG makes LCGs, where every card has a purpose.

The current designers of X-Wing have often mentioned MTG as inspiration for their design process, so I wouldn't be surprised if they adhere to this design philosophy regarding bad card.

No doubt referring to thematic mechanics, something MTG is very good at.

I can also add a few more, not addressed by FFG directly, but predicted by MathWing and followed by tournament results:

You can't use tournament results as confirmation when tournament goers read your predictions. X-wing's a dice game, with sizeable swings in probability and player skill. Unless it's very ineffective player perception is all that's needed to throw something into and out of use.

If you tell everyone the Prototype A-wing's incredible, they'll believe you and it'll appear in more builds. And the more it's entered, the more likely it is to show near the top. The number of people who empirically assess builds is insignificant compared to the number of people who are told what's good and wholeheartedly believe it.

Fat Falcons win a lot, but how many lose utterly? A Fat Falcon won Worlds, but countless Fat Falcons lost Worlds.

Intimidation, Countermeasures, Greedo, R4-B11, and Bodyguard come to mind.

Bad cards in your opinion, but they have their uses. R4-B11's a cog in the Drea "reroll everything!" machine, Greedo pairs up with Determination and can make an Ion Cannon crit. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with any of them (unlike Expose) it's just that people don't use them because they're not flashy. Scum's pretty new.

But I think it's also fair to say that the number of "bad" upgrade cards we see has gone down to less than 1 per expansion, which is probably the lowest amount of bad cards needed for a well designed game.

No offence, but if you think games need chaff, I hope you never get anywhere near being on the X-Wing design team.

I also like to think that the designers are making these bad cards on purpose because I dislike the alternative explanation that they are creating bad cards due to incompetence.

Or maybe they aren't making bad cards? Hired Gun, Black Sun Vigo, they exist because that's the format the generics work in. Nobody uses them any more (they were a thing in Wave 3), but the option is still there, and it may become useful in the future.

What have we actually got in the "bad card" pool? Fel's Wrath? Wave 2. Original Maarek Steele? Wave 1. Expose? Wave 2.

Some cards turn up underpowered because no matter how much you playtest once it's out there weird stuff happens. It's better to play it safe than break the game.

And let's face it, even if they balanced the game perfectly the groupthink would cast things into oblivion and stick other things on pedestals.

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.

Deadeye also lets you switch target.

It's useful on Lieutenant Blount, and incredible on Nera. It's a pretty much essential part of APT/APT/B-wing E2/Deadeye/Recon Specialist Nera Dantels.

To date, only two ships have been costed so poorly that FFG has felt it necessary to create Upgrades to address the overcharge. They came from Waves 1 and 2.

Formulas give a good starting point, but only if the formula is good, and the result still has to be playtested to make sure it really is good.

The list is actually slightly longer.

• TIE Advanced (x1)
• Y-wing (BTL-A4 makes them viable)
• TIE Interceptor (autothrusters)
• A-wing (-2 cost refit)

Not what he said. He said ships that received upgrades to recost them. BTL-A4 increases the Y-wing's firepower at the cost of its firing arc, it's an option rather than a "fix". Autothrusters is a turret survivability upgrade, without turrets the interceptor is just fine without it. Neither are related to cost.

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.

I think you'd start frothing at the mouth when you got to Borg analysis.

I think it may be worth noting here that the only people who could give detailed answers to the questions posed in the OP are working under a non-disclosure agreement.

I think that if they play tested more we would have use for all pilots, all ordinance, and all ships.

There is, it is called casual play.

I think the only card that really doesn't even get looked at as being remotely useful is Flight Instructor. All others are at the very least intriguing or find use in scenario play.

Not everything needs to be usable in a tournament, to think so is to set yourself up for a disappointment.

I also play a game called summoner wars, plaid hat games uses an extensive approach to play testing, they try to break everything they design by trying everything including sub optimum playing to avoid those "wow I didn't think of that moments" in the end summoner wars if considered to have near perfect balance.

So much of X wing is unused and this could have been avoided don't you think.

You do realize there is other casual environments to playing xwing than just the competitive scene?

I also play a game called summoner wars, plaid hat games uses an extensive approach to play testing, they try to break everything they design by trying everything including sub optimum playing to avoid those "wow I didn't think of that moments" in the end summoner wars if considered to have near perfect balance.

So much of X wing is unused and this could have been avoided don't you think.

You do realize there is other casual environments to playing xwing than just the competitive scene?

That doesn't matter. If the game is designed and balanced around competitive play, it'll be appropriate for casual play as well--but that relationship doesn't run the other way.

I also play a game called summoner wars, plaid hat games uses an extensive approach to play testing, they try to break everything they design by trying everything including sub optimum playing to avoid those "wow I didn't think of that moments" in the end summoner wars if considered to have near perfect balance.

So much of X wing is unused and this could have been avoided don't you think.

You do realize there is other casual environments to playing xwing than just the competitive scene?

That doesn't matter. If the game is designed and balanced around competitive play, it'll be appropriate for casual play as well--but that relationship doesn't run the other way.

And X-wing wasn't. Not originally. From what I've seen of Jay Little and FFG before the onslaught of X-wing and Netrunner, competitive play was not a priority.

I also play a game called summoner wars, plaid hat games uses an extensive approach to play testing, they try to break everything they design by trying everything including sub optimum playing to avoid those "wow I didn't think of that moments" in the end summoner wars if considered to have near perfect balance.

So much of X wing is unused and this could have been avoided don't you think.

You do realize there is other casual environments to playing xwing than just the competitive scene?

That doesn't matter. If the game is designed and balanced around competitive play, it'll be appropriate for casual play as well--but that relationship doesn't run the other way.

And X-wing wasn't. Not originally. From what I've seen of Jay Little and FFG before the onslaught of X-wing and Netrunner, competitive play was not a priority.

Yeah, and it shows in the original rules. Their style and assumptions make a lot more sense if you assume the goal was casual play, rather than competitive tournament play.

(That's not intended as a slur on casual play, or on Jay Little. I love Blood Bowl: Team Manager, for instance. But the demands on the rules are higher for a game that's played by highly competitive rules-lawyers in public for moderate stakes.)

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.

Semantics note on bolded section - it is not so much an issue of giving me trouble, as intentionally placing some min / max bands on those ships' total possible values. This could be a very long topic in and of itself, but the approach is working really well. But in general yes, formulas are garbage in, garbage out, and you need to have enough technical ability and critical thinking to know how to apply them.

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.

Heck, I still remember the job that Wizkids did with Heroclix. The game was (and probably still is) priced disproportinately on what characters could do on their middle and late-game stats. Players could pay a lot for characters who may have been really strong mid-dial, but never got to use it because they would take massive damage up front and shoot right past the good clicks. It pushed the meta towards characters with really front-loaded dials who could launch massive alpha strikes.

I can also add a few more, not addressed by FFG directly, but predicted by MathWing and followed by tournament results:

You can't use tournament results as confirmation when tournament goers read your predictions. X-wing's a dice game, with sizeable swings in probability and player skill. Unless it's very ineffective player perception is all that's needed to throw something into and out of use.

I have seen this theory tossed around several times. I have yet to see someone try and actually prove it, rather than state it as fact, mic drop, and walk off stage. I am certainly open to the idea of testing the theory. If you have any thoughts on how then let me know.

If more people bring [XYZ], then yes in absolute terms more [XYZ] will make the top. That is why you look at the effectiveness of [XYZ] instead: the ratio of how much [XYZ] makes the top vs [XYZ] being represented in the general pool is an incredibly useful figure of merit in a ship's meta-wide overall performance. And those numbers are extremely telling, and they almost always agree with the predictions. So either I am really really really lucky at accurately predicting the performance of every ship in the game so far, or alternatively I'm onto something...

That all being said, there are several examples that disprove your premise:

• If you look at List Juggler statistics, X-wing overall usage is still reasonably high, which directly refutes your theory that people are blindly following the math. However the conditional effectiveness of the X-wing making top tables is extremely low relative to other ships, suggesting that the math is actually correct.
• Conversely, the ships that are predicted to do well according to the math generally have good conditional effectiveness.
• I didn't publish the theory until early 2014, so it doesn't explain how it accurately described wave 1-3 tournament results prior to that point. The burden would be on you to try and show how the math has been constructed to artificially favor certain ships to match pre-existing results. Nobody has successfully demonstrated this argument yet, and the methodology has been published for about a year now.
• Scum Boba Fett. He has the highest jousting value listed of any of the scum ships, yet sees relatively little use compared to other comparable Scum ships. The Scum and Villainy podcast asked me about this directly on their interview series, why he seems to be under performing relative to the math. So, in this case people are also not following the numbers. The answer in this case is that the assumptions used (which are explained but generally not paid much attention to, as you yourself pointed out), are intentionally optimistic and a quick and dirty measurement. If your theory was correct, then everyone would be using him anyway to the exclusion of everything else, because my jousting numbers for him are so high.
• Kenkirk's jousting value actually falls into the same category as Scum Boba but to a lesser extent, his numbers are skewed higher than they should be given the stated quick and dirty assumptions, so he actually a lower value than Rear Admiral. And he is rarely used compared to the Rear Admiral. His usage may pick up after April 15 when the PS war has died down a little, but the Admiral will still be the better overall value, and should continue to see use as the "prime" VT-49.
• Edit: I didn't publish my numbers on C-3P0 until NOVA podcast episode #19, where I concluded that he is easily worth 6 points. (more like 6-10, or even more). That didn't stop everyone from using him as auto-include assuming they bought a CR-90. The math simply explains why.

In summary, the notion that people's play choices are dictated by "some math guy on the internet" and not their own experience vastly underestimates players' collective aptitude, and no actual evidence in support of this has ever been presented.

I think you are splitting hairs on semantics, but I do think that it is actually what he said. Maybe he didn't mean it that way, but it does fit, and those ships all needed buffs, that's really the point. (Although sadly the cheap Interceptors are kind of left out in the cold with the thrusters fix, it helps them the least of any of the Interceptors, and they already needed the most help.)

1. Every single ship in the game would be good at the right point value.
2. If a ship is not good, it is because it is "overcharging" for the capability.
3. A ship may be made more viable by decreasing it's cost (refit), increasing it's value (BTL-A4), or even increasing its cost and value (advanced targeting computer, autothrusters). All of these "address the overcharge" as he stated, and they are all via upgrade cards.

In regards to the BTL-A4 title, it is not merely a different option, it actually makes the ship have significantly more value. It reduces the required efficiency (beyond it's statline/turret DPS) to break even by about 6:1. ~+25% (new) vs ~+150% (old). That is why we so rarely saw turreted Y-wing Ions, but we are now seeing them with the BTL-A4 title. The ion out of arc is good, but it is not 6x better having it only in arc. Incidentally, this was predicted by the math, and now the tournament results are following the prediction. It is an ironic point for you to bring up given your earlier assertion that everyone blindly follows my math, given that you didn't really understand what it was saying in this case -- and if this is true for you then I am sure it is true for many others -- but as a whole people are still following the predictions.

Honesty, I think it is great that every card has at least one usage scenario. I mean, you can't expect ever card to be useful on every ship or build (eg autothrusters on a shuttle).

Yes, some of those cards do only shine with one named pilot. That sounds great (and thematic) to me.

I think the fact that FFG is currently improving the old ships is a wonderful sign. Unlike one other company, FFG is not just focused on sales of new models via power creep.

If the game is designed and balanced around competitive play, it'll be appropriate for casual play as well--but that relationship doesn't run the other way.

This x1000!

That doesn't matter. If the game is designed and balanced around competitive play, it'll be appropriate for casual play as well--but that relationship doesn't run the other way.

Nor does it have to be.

The original poster claimed Summoner Wars to be almost perfectly balanced but a quick scan of some decks show the same cards propping up again and again, enough so I might think that if you'd really dig into it you'll find completely unused cards and combinations as well.

And looking at X-Wing, the balance is almost 50/50 Rebel/Imperial with Scum moving in, that's pretty balanced as well.

But taking casual into account, as you must, I think you'll find hardly anything in X-Wing goes unused.

The real key here is that the older cards are not strictly bad. Certain cards are not ideal or very niche competitively, but it ultimately comes down to the playerbase and meta. Secondly, new cards or ships may be released that retroactively make old underused cards suddenly really good or at least viable, a la Marksmenship and Corran Horn, for example.

Additionally, there are many casual players who can play effectively with even the worst cards and have a fun time against other casual players. Things like Saboteur and Daredevil... And the underused astromechs, come to mind there. Competitive players will gravitate towards more efficient cards in general. However, which cards they gravitate to will also change over time even without new releases as players discover or popularize new ways to play that beat the old way. This gravitation does not indicate an imbalance.

As a side experiment, let's take bodyguard for example with the upcoming buff to ordnance. If one of those buffs disallows the use of tokens and skips the evade "die modification" step to disallow abilities like autothrusters and C3P0 to be used, then we have to reexamine our options. If that card becomes very popular and used a lot, then there may be a general shift towards abilities like Bodyguard and Stealth Device that increased raw dice. Kind of an extreme example, I know. But my point is that we don't know, and no card is beyond becoming viable again.

A second example is saboteur. Someone suggested a crew card that allows you to reroll or add a result to any attack die roll in that c3po can be used on Landos crew card. If you could make any one attack die always become a hit, or add a hit result to any attack die roll, saboteur becomes, at least, usable.

I have not seen any cards that are entirely unredeemable. The balance in this game is superb, even if there are dominate strategies and an ever shifting meta. When one thing can win almost every time regardless of the factors against it, then there is a big problem. Even the phantom doesn't meet that. Even if it is high on the power scale, it's counters are able to beat it with consistency between two players of comparable skill and good play.

The general population generally favoring this or that is largely outside the designers control. They can influence it, but they can't control it.

I think you are splitting hairs on semantics, but I do think that it is actually what he said. Maybe he didn't mean it that way, but it does fit, and those ships all needed buffs, that's really the point.

Now, obviously, an overcharge on points can be addressed by either reducing cost or adding power. And a ship might underperform because it's overcosted in a vacuum or because it's situationally weak against something that turns out to be really common. But I was, in fact, approaching this from the standpoint of "get the point cost right" rather than "match the cost and strength", since I was responding to someone who feels the later Waves aren't designed as well because costs go "off curve" more..

Now remember, over all I think they did a great job on the game, and my gaming fun would suffer greatly with out it, but how did so many things make it through play testing that players find little to no use for

All I am suggesting is that perhaps something could be improved in the play testing process so we use all the stuff we buy.

I will name a few unused pilots.

Yt 1300 ORS

Advanced all but Vader and even he sees little action.

Y wing rebel all but gold squadron see table time and that was only with ion, not sure BTL A3 will get the pilots back out.

Hwk RO

B wing Nera Dantels

Defender (99% of players say it over priced)

Avenger Squadron Pilot

How much do you see ordinance do you see at the table?

I have seen mention of useless astromechs ect.

The thing you have to realize is there different designers now. Honestly, just look at Wave 4-6 to see how well the current designers are doing. Is everything super useful, no. But most of what has been released have niche uses. Which is okay. And experimenting is not a sure science. Some things will work out, some will not.

And the mid PS pilots is more of an overall game issue than playtesting issue. If they make those mid PS bids worthwhile, would you want them to have not made those pilots?

Perhaps, that some cards such as C3PO is undercosted to an extent. But. lets suppose FFG wants to see certain builds such as a Han Solo do statistically superior than other ships. How interesting is it when you can bring in a perfectly balanced game of these unnamed alpha squadron pilots do statistically as well as any other build with the same number of points? Perhaps, the designers are making other thematic valuations that are not picked up in simple josting values- such as they want to see certain ship in play MORE than other ships B. I think by DESIGN some ships are simply made to not be as efficient by the point cost. I think that is a totally appropriate decision in my eyes.

That doesn't matter. If the game is designed and balanced around competitive play, it'll be appropriate for casual play as well--but that relationship doesn't run the other way.

Nor does it have to be.

The original poster claimed Summoner Wars to be almost perfectly balanced but a quick scan of some decks show the same cards propping up again and again, enough so I might think that if you'd really dig into it you'll find completely unused cards and combinations as well.

And looking at X-Wing, the balance is almost 50/50 Rebel/Imperial with Scum moving in, that's pretty balanced as well.

But taking casual into account, as you must, I think you'll find hardly anything in X-Wing goes unused.

Very true, as it all depends what "balanced around competitive play" means... What does balanced mean? That every ship has equal representation in your store tournament? At regions? Current meta? etc. Is that the only way to balance a game? Like you said, a 50/50 Rebel Imperial suggests at minimum perfect faction balance. So what balance is 'best"? Is there a correct answer?

Besides, an expensive card today may the perfectly priced card for future upgrade combo XYZ tomorrow.