Decreasing points of models as a buff is the GW method of getting you to buy more of the same models.

I mean, it's pretty well established that BBBBZ is a brute of a list.

Sure, but that's because 4 B's are pretty good by themselves, the extra Z is icing on the cake. B's have the advantage of both HP's and more importantly a barrel roll.

By putting in a -2 point astromech, you are increasing the cost of the one thing that makes X-Wings good right now by 2 points. Who's going to spend 6 points on R2-D2?

The Chardian refit works because you're giving up something most people never use as it is. Giving up a Astromech for 2 points is IMO not a fix at all, it's a wash.

I don't think a -2 astromech would leave the ship overpriced terribly, but it would really deter other choices for astromechs. How many pilots would take R2 astros for a point when they can replace it with a -2 point astro?

You get what you see with a-wings: reluctant to take proton rockets, which can be a good value, simply because the opportunity cost is getting your ship discount it needs to justify placing on the table.

Sure, but the idea would be to offset it with a disadvantage for certain play styles - unlike Chardaan, which is just a flat 'here's a discount if you don't plan to use missiles', this would be an outright penalty.

In the proposed case, getting double-stressed whenever you do a red maneuver.

For a player planning on a joust, or using the X-Wings as pure flankers, that's no real disadvantage at all. But it doesn't completely negate the 1-point R2 for players that plan on using the X-Wings with more aggressive maneuvers that might need to shed stress faster - if you are taking a pilot with a Talent and bringing along Push the Limit or something where you are going to be interested in better ways to shed stress...and specifically NOT piling it up...then the R2 makes a lot more sense than the R1 droid, even at a delta of 3 points difference in cost.

Ask yourself, "is it worth taking a PTL x-wing with R2 astromech?" Whatever people may say, from their anecdotes, math, tournament statistics, most evidence says "no," mostly because almost all other options to spend those points on are more worthwhile by whatever measure you might use.

Now, proposing a discounted option that is virtually necessary to make the ship worth using, that does nothing to make your PTL+R2 x-wing worth using, is only adding another option OTHER THAN your PTL+R2 setup that would be more worthwhile.

I mean, it's pretty well established that BBBBZ is a brute of a list.

Sure, but that's because 4 B's are pretty good by themselves, the extra Z is icing on the cake. B's have the advantage of both HP's and more importantly a barrel roll.

By putting in a -2 point astromech, you are increasing the cost of the one thing that makes X-Wings good right now by 2 points. Who's going to spend 6 points on R2-D2?

The Chardian refit works because you're giving up something most people never use as it is. Giving up a Astromech for 2 points is IMO not a fix at all, it's a wash.

But, again, I'm not proposing a flat 2 point discount and nothing else.

The R1 is a crappy droid, falls apart super easy. Reduces cost of fighter by 2 points, but doing any red maneuvers double-stresses you.

That's a pretty big disadvantage that will keep it out of many lists - only something that you'll use if you specifically have a plan for maneuvering without needing to K-Turn, or for dealing with a double-stressed fighter if you do. (EDIT: Initially, I'd had a larger discount, but it also turned the 'hard' turns to red...that seemed like a bit too harsh a change for the fighter, though - forced it into too much of a real 'boom and zoom' sort of role, which its dial doesn't otherwise support)

This is a fairly significant deviation from Chardaan, which was just a flat-out discount.

That's a pretty big disadvantage that will keep it out of many lists

Then what point does it really have? Why put something into the game knowing that most of the time it would never be used by anyone?

The X-Wing needs a 2-3 point buff or reduction, a -2 point buff that falls apart doesn't actually do anything to address the issue.

IMO the best buff is a 2-3 point discount for Modifications only, sorta like the Tie Advanced fix. Lets you truly customize the X-Wing and make it fit the roll you have in mind.

Then what will be done to buff the Bwing?

Are you actually reading what other people are saying? Or are you simply trying and I might add failing to make a point here?Seeing how people use the B-Wing twice as often, there's no need to buff it, because even if the X-Wing was on par with it that would simply even them out.People would still use the B-Wing because it offers things the X-Wing wouldn't.As far as a Astromech fix, that's IMO the worse way to fix it. Because then you're adding the opportunity cost of the loss slot to it, which with a 2-3 point discount makes the X-Wing still overpriced.

Because I've never felt the Xwing was underpowered, hence why I agreed with the OP's sentiment. It's a middle of the road fighter, it's not an arc dodger, it's not a missile platform, and it's not a tank. Newer ships had different stats and upgrades so people would buy them, now that sales are up they'll include an Xwing upgrade in a future SKU to help drive more sales.

I use Xwings so any buff would help me since I buy everything they sell but I just didn't see it as critical to the game.

At what point do you actually believe in the tournament data and realize that your personal experiences might not be matching up with the reality that other people are dealing with?

As an example, nobody in my family or friends has ever died of cancer, but that doesn't mean I can tell everyone cancer isn't a problem. In a similar way, you are ignoring the hard data and basing your opinion only on your own personal experience.

What is more reliable, the results of months of tournament data played by hundreds of players, or the experiences of a few players? List Juggler is an amazing tool that other competitive games wish they had access to, and it clearly shows us the truth about how ships are performing in relation to how popular they are.

That's a pretty big disadvantage that will keep it out of many lists

Then what point does it really have? Why put something into the game knowing that most of the time it would never be used by anyone?

The X-Wing needs a 2-3 point buff, a -2 point buff that falls apart doesn't actually do anything to address the issue.

The X-Wing only has one red maneuver without any crits - it's a big disadvantage to certain types of lists. It's not any kind of disadvantage to other play styles.

If you want a swarm of X-Wings to head-on joust the enemy, fly past them and take their time turning around to repeat the effort...this is no disadvantage at all, it's just a discount that lets you increase the number of fighters you can take into battle from 4 to 5.

Unlike Chardaan, though, it's not an auto-include. Wedge with PtL and an Engine Upgrade would be *insane* to take it over at least the generic R2. Ditto any of the pilots taking 'Opportunist' - much smarter for them to take the generic R2 (or anything else) than the R1.

It's not an auto-include, but it's also not an insurmountable penalty. It instead simply provides more options for certain types of lists (which need the help) while not providing crazy buffs to pilots and lists that DON'T seem to need the help (Wedge, Corran, etc).

Doesn't just looking at list composition take player skill out of the equation? Does a competitive tournament setting really play to the flexibility of a jack-of-all-trades ship?

For a long time in WH40k the Space Marine was the average, jack-of-all trades infantry unit but you didn't see tournament lists using tons of them. Tournament winning lists were very specialized rock-paper-scissors affairs that tried to make sure your rock crushed scissors and tried to mitigate the effect of paper.

Doesn't just looking at list composition take player skill out of the equation? Does a competitive tournament setting really play to the flexibility of a jack-of-all-trades ship?

For a long time in WH40k the Space Marine was the average, jack-of-all trades infantry unit but you didn't see tournament lists using tons of them. Tournament winning lists were very specialized rock-paper-scissors affairs that tried to make sure your rock crushed scissors and tried to mitigate the effect of paper.

No, it doesn't take player skill out of the equation because we're looking at the lists that made it to the elimination rounds of a Store Championship, which means they had to win the majority of their swiss matches.

That's why it's important to compare overall population to the winning population. And I wouldn't make assumptions based on what happens in a completely different game with a completely different ruleset. 40k and X-Wing are not similar in anyway.

Doesn't just looking at list composition take player skill out of the equation? Does a competitive tournament setting really play to the flexibility of a jack-of-all-trades ship?

What people looking for a fix are up to--some intelligently, and some ineptly--is trying to find something that will give the X-wing a more equitable share of Rebel points. The X-wing doesn't need to be the best at everything, but it needs to be approximately as cost-effective as a B-wing or Headhunter. Right now it isn't, by a small but noticeable margin.

Doesn't just looking at list composition take player skill out of the equation? Does a competitive tournament setting really play to the flexibility of a jack-of-all-trades ship

The X-Wing does not perform as a jack of all trades ship. It does a single thing - joust. This is largely because it does not have a good turning dial and has no post-maneuver options.

The B-Wing is perhaps a better example of a jack of all trades ship - it's a fine jouster if run alone, but can be kitted into a pretty decent close range knife fighter / arc dodger with Adv. Sensors. Note that this means the B-Wing is not somehow invalidated by buffing the X-Wing's jousting value. as even if the X-Wing were a slightly better jouster, the B-Wing would be in a position where the lower jousting efficiency is a trade-off in exchange for it's better upgrade and close-in maneuverability options. Contrast this to the current reality, where the B-Wing doesn't need to make any such compromise - it's just flat-out better in the joust in addition to having the option for better maneuverability.

How bout just do what they did with the advanced and sensor slots being cheaper and make astromechs cheaper?

Doesn't just looking at list composition take player skill out of the equation? Does a competitive tournament setting really play to the flexibility of a jack-of-all-trades ship?

For a long time in WH40k the Space Marine was the average, jack-of-all trades infantry unit but you didn't see tournament lists using tons of them. Tournament winning lists were very specialized rock-paper-scissors affairs that tried to make sure your rock crushed scissors and tried to mitigate the effect of paper.

A big distinction that I am not sure many players understand about the mathwing you see in MJ's thread is that answering whether a ship is a good value or not doesn't answer how exactly a ship is best played. Ships are far from one-dimensional. However, whatever kind of list you are building, you need to make sure that what you are bringing is giving you enough utility for its points. Plenty of matches have some phase - a turn or two or the entire length - where ships end up slugging it out, or "jousting," and so is a good place to start looking when there aren't any other tricks to start valuing a ship by. For example, the x-wing has no repositioning ability out of the box, so it has some need to be efficient in a situation where they are firing and also taking damage (which they currently fail to do). Without some improvement in its capability that makes the x-wing a good deal, it effectively needs some sort of discount [or else it will continue to decline in use].

Does a competitive tournament setting really play to the flexibility of a jack-of-all-trades ship?

The X-Wing is supposed to be a multi-role fighter. What roles do ships in this game usually fit? And how is this accomplished on a small ship with a front arc?

Offensive Firepower- focus, target lock, 3+ Attack dice, multiple ordnance slots, cannons.

Maneuver/Defense- focus, arc dodging, with barrel rolls & boost; 3+ Agility dice and evasion action.

Utility- astromech slots, systems upgrades, solid maneuver dial.

*Unique- cloak action, white K-turns, SLAM, or other abilities no other ship can duplicate.

So what does the X-Wing offer?

Offensively, it does have a Target Lock, focus and 3 Attack dice. Not too many people complain about the offensive output of the X-Wing.

In terms of manuever, the X-Wing offers nothing. It cannot boost or barrel roll, and its dial is average.

The X-Wing lacks the ability to defend itself other than a focus action. 2 Agility dice are not good enough for Tournament play, and math will back that up.

The X-Wing's astromech slot does offer utility, and although its not good the X-Wing does have an average maneuver dial.

There are any number of potential fixes, but it has to be along the lines of making the ship more maneuverable, or more able to evade damage.

It needs access to either a boost or barrel roll, and probably also an evade.

Doesn't just looking at list composition take player skill out of the equation?

I'll disagree with my friends Vorpal Sword and Tvboy here. Yes, it does take player skill out of the equation, which is exactly the point. If you want to understand something, you need to look at it in isolation of other factors.

By looking at mass data, you're not eliminating player skill (that data was compiled from instances of lots of games with lots of different level of skill, so by getting a larger number of datapoints, you're minimizing the effect of individual outliers - people like Paul Heaver who are awesome and people like me who... aren't), but you're able to see the forest regardless of individual trees.

I'm not sure why some feel that buffing the X would somehow make the B lose its place. Sure, you'll see less Bs relative to now because there will be more options, but that's kinda the point isn't it ?

The B-wing will be fine because it has a lot of versatility.

1.) It's an efficient, flexible (barrel-roll) ship even when naked which is strangely hard to find on innate 3-attack ships

2.) it has system slots to boost attack damage (FCS, AC if you're into that) or maneuverability/knife-fighting (sensors)

3.) cannon and modded crew slot let it function as an ion or stress control ship

4.) cannon slot gives it access to hard hitting 2ndary weapons (as do double torps if Wave 7 miraculously fixes them)

5.) modded crew slot gives defensive utility (3po/chewie/jans/lando...) or maneuvering utility (intelligence agent + barrel-roll = hilarity)

6.) the fluffer can arc-dodge (as Keyan)

What does the X-wing, as a simple jouster, have to compare? Seems to me the Z-95 does that far more effectively plus more bodies double it as a great blocker, though imo the A-wing is far more effective/annoying in that role).

The only times I've specifically reached for an X-wing is, ironically, for durability (Luke's ability means he lasts a lot longer against low dice attacks whereas B-wings get picked apart, and Tarn pisses off single, heavy modded attacks), Stress Wing (anti-high PS Phantom or PTL, because it's the only R3-A2 ship with an EPT for V.I and a reasonable cost), and Biggs (Biggs), which I'm actually not too fond of.

For some, this is enough. I myself do like the fact that I personally find a core set pilot to be so effective even to this day, but that is only because Luke can co can overcome the horrendous profile + lack of mobility offered by the ship. If would love to also use the X-wing as a debuff bot (Wes), a support ship (Garven), and just a straight up monster (Wedge) but in this current environment of fat turrets and HLCs (and B-wings ) the poor X-wing is lucky to last a round.

I am currently conflicted about how one should go about fixing the ship because it lacks in both maneuverability and stat efficiency.

My very simplistic (probably short-sighted) solution would be to slap on innate boost for auto-thrusters, but my anti-turret bias shines strong there in the form of auto-thrusters (but really, **** turrets).

Decreasing points of models as a buff is the GW method of getting you to buy more of the same models.

well, you missed a few crucial steps

1.) make new, slightly improved models

2.) include half of them (if a unit)

3.) charge the same (if unit) or a lot more (if vehicle)

I had a slow day at work, it was fun.

I've never had the time to spend all day playing in an Xwing tournament but if I do I'm going to play an Xwing list.

The only ships in X-Wing that I would say are truly Jack-of-all-trades are Whisper (now with Intel Agent), Soontir and 62 point Fat Han. Those are ships that can joust, arc-dodge and maneuver all equally well.

By comparison the X-Wing is limited to jousting because of it's poor action bar and medium maneuver dial (no 5 straight or 1-turn or 3-k), which makes it a very one-dimensional ship unless you spend a ton of points on it for upgrades.

Doesn't just looking at list composition take player skill out of the equation?

I'll disagree with my friends Vorpal Sword and Tvboy here. Yes, it does take player skill out of the equation, which is exactly the point. If you want to understand something, you need to look at it in isolation of other factors.

By looking at mass data, you're not eliminating player skill (that data was compiled from instances of lots of games with lots of different level of skill, so by getting a larger number of datapoints, you're minimizing the effect of individual outliers - people like Paul Heaver who are awesome and people like me who... aren't), but you're able to see the forest regardless of individual trees.

Perhaps I was confusing performance/results with skill. The data definitely accounts for results. As for the skill of the player using the X-Wing, that's irrelevant to how you judge the ship itself.

If the argument is that a skilled player with an X-Wing could beat a less skilled player flying a "better" ship, then that's just an arbitrary set up that doesn't prove anything about the ships themselves. Paul Heaver could beat probably someone who's never played before with 6 Rebel Operatives with Saboteurs, that doesn't prove anything about Rebel Operative or Saboteur, it just proves how skilled Paul Heaver is.

I had a slow day at work, it was fun.

I've never had the time to spend all day playing in an Xwing tournament but if I do I'm going to play an Xwing list.

Yes, slow work days are fun forum days. =)

The only ships in X-Wing that I would say are truly Jack-of-all-trades are Whisper (now with Intel Agent) and 62 point Fat Han.

Doesn't just looking at list composition take player skill out of the equation?

I'll disagree with my friends Vorpal Sword and Tvboy here. Yes, it does take player skill out of the equation, which is exactly the point. If you want to understand something, you need to look at it in isolation of other factors.

By looking at mass data, you're not eliminating player skill (that data was compiled from instances of lots of games with lots of different level of skill, so by getting a larger number of datapoints, you're minimizing the effect of individual outliers - people like Paul Heaver who are awesome and people like me who... aren't), but you're able to see the forest regardless of individual trees.

If anything, the data shows that newer/inexperienced players like the X-Wing more than the skilled/experienced players that know better than to bring it to a tournament.

If the argument is that a skilled player with an X-Wing could beat a less skilled player flying a "better" ship, then that's just an arbitrary set up that doesn't prove anything about the ships themselves. Paul Heaver could beat probably someone who's never played before with 6 Rebel Operatives with Saboteurs, that doesn't prove anything about Rebel Operative or Saboteur, it just proves how skilled Paul Heaver is.

I had a slow day at work, it was fun.

I've never had the time to spend all day playing in an Xwing tournament but if I do I'm going to play an Xwing list.

Yes, slow work days are fun forum days. =)

I wonder if that is an experiment Paul Heaver would be willing to be subjected to.

I'm cocky enough to think I might be able to do it against a brand new player that built their own 100 point list without ever playing a single game. The problem would be actually bringing all those conditions together. It would be pretty rare to have 6 HWKs and a brand new player with their own list together in the same room.

Hmm... maybe not. I don't know, but it would be fun to try.

And so we're clear so you understand my personality: I'm rarely the guy at the game store lamenting how something is underpowered and mostly the guy poking fun at his own skill. If I lose with a list using an Xwing I'll blame my own play before I blame a ship.

And so we're clear so you understand my personality: I'm rarely the guy at the game store lamenting how something is underpowered and mostly the guy poking fun at his own skill. If I lose with a list using an Xwing I'll blame my own play before I blame a ship.

I cope mostly by building x-wing lists in secret that I just want to play but never actually go through with it.

If you haven't tried Wedge, Wes, and Dutch then you're missing out. VI on Wes, Opportunist on Wedge, a nice ion turret on Dutch...

How bout just do what they did with the advanced and sensor slots being cheaper and make astromechs cheaper?

Opportunity cost, same principle as chaardan. You HAVE to take an astromech rather than anything else or get stuck with a overcosted basic X Wing. Fine, it might be fluffy, but there isnt an astromech out there that could solve the issue with all X Wings. Even a basic R2 (about as close to a generic solution as you are going to get) only improves the dial, it doesnt improve action efficiency, durability, repositionability (is not a word) or any of the other issues that have been raised.

If you look at adding more droid upgrade choices then you would need a REALLY good droid upgrade to fix the X and therein lies the problem. A generic droid wouldnt be that good for approximately 2 points (which seems to be the consensus from mathwing of what the X needs a boost by). Also there is the question of how you add what the X eventually gets/needs.

I dont buy any of the arguments that simply adding a droid would make the X wing tougher, or somehow grant it the barrel roll action (how does a droid do either of these things?). Droids can add tricks of versatility and can improve the basics of an fighter - as they do in the canon - assisting with systems, power and engine management etc. They dont add capabilities by themselves. Your fighter is manoeuverable enough to barrel roll or it isnt, for example.

I'm cocky enough to think I might be able to do it against a brand new player that built their own 100 point list without ever playing a single game. The problem would be actually bringing all those conditions together. It would be pretty rare to have 6 HWKs and a brand new player with their own list together in the same room.

Hmm... maybe not. I don't know, but it would be fun to try.

Beware the unsuspecting poor schlepp who walks into Guardian Games the next time you have 6 HWKs with you.