Hes not really saying that though is he.

Hes saying that because they are perhaps not the *strongest* (yet still a valid) choice for a list they are being sidelined by those seeking 'points maximum efficiency' via mathematical means for ships like the bwing.

While 'on paper' i can see in reality the Bwing being is a much better choice, i've also seen in reality xwings out perform on occasion.

The problem is when a lot of threads are 'tounry centric' and are all 'how do i beat BBBBz' or 'killer bwing list' etc etc then the pervading feel is that 'xwings are rubbish'. So they dont get picked as much by players so less players find decent combos.

I dont think hes saying 'i win with xwings so you're all wrong'. I know im certainly not saying that.

I think we're both saying 'dont write them off because its popular on the forum to write them off'

Generic X-wings are rubbish and there is basically no reason to use them over a blue squadron B-wing. Hell, I can't even recommend them over a green squadron PTL + calculation A-wing for the same points.

unfortunately, so are most of the named pilots despite their amazing abilities. Their expense added to the fact that their frailty can't last against high health, high damage non-sense like fatties or against the ever popular HLC makes them very difficult to justify.

Only a small handful aren't difficult to recommend, and those are the pilots that take the X-wings horrid profile and make it workable (most prominently: Luke)

Again, i'll point out that in a recent epic game the xwings massively outperformed the bwings and were alive at the end of the game, the bwings were not.

It might be because they were less of a threat so ignored. I might be that they ended up facing off against black squadron ties

it might be that outside of 100 point deathmatch games they find their niche.

By all means quote for reference but please dont alter my original post as its a bit rude and the casual reader might not realise the alterations are yours.

So if I have played with them and still think they suck? Am I then allowed to say so, or will you blokes still be around assuming things about people you don't know, judging others, and generally trying to shout down any complaints about how they play?

Of course you're allowed to say so. Just don't expect everyone to agree with you - I certainly don't.

If getting good with them is as simple as "Just play them" shouldn't that same person playing ships that are better in every way simply be more competitive?

In a vacuum between two players of EXACTLY equal skill and all other things being equal, yes. However, we're not playing this game in a vacuum, are we? A player's knowledge of the game and experience playing with multiple ships against a variety of opposition is much more useful than simply writing a list based on what are statistically the most viable ships and upgrades. Or begging/pleasing for fixes to ships which are deemed less statistically viable, for that matter.

Generic X-wings are rubbish

LOL stopped reading there. Myopic viewpoint is myopic.

Generic X-wings are rubbish

LOL stopped reading there. Myopic viewpoint is myopic.

the irony is blinding

let me put it like this

While I give majorjuggler major props, there are several ships that don't give a flying **** about jousting values

turrets don't joust

arc-dodgers don't joust

ships with superior maneuverability don't joust

synergistic ships bounce off each other to become more than the sum of their parts

control is to jousts what tire irons are to knees

etc.

the problem: what the hell does the X-wing do apart from jousting?

It's a stupid stiff bugger without barrel-roll nor boost, and it doesn't even have the decency to be points-efficient like the Z-95. Like a knight riding a mule and wielding a dirty mop, it's a jouster that sucks at jousting.

Until you either shore up its horrible defenses (Luke/Tarn/Biggs plus relevant astros) or transcend its role as an inefficient damage dealer (R3-a2), the B-wing is always the better bet i.t.o gameplay.

If you want to have fun, then it really doesn't matter how useful it is relative to other options. But if you want an effective ship in the context of the game, don't go loading up on generic xs.

I think that the X-wing suffers from a combination of two problems:

1) Poor stats relative to the B-wing.

2) Lack of good upgrades. When you compare the Astromech to Sensor/Crew/Salvaged Mech upgrades, there are not any "good" generic astromechs. While some astromechs are good (R3-A2, R2-D2), the generic R2, R5, and R7 are underwhelming when compared to the R4 Agromech or Fire-control System. Because of this, generic pilots are forced to rely on their base stats, which, as has been noted, are not good.

I would suggest two simple fixes.

1) An "Advanced" X-wing. There are some in the EU, and probably the ones from the new movie. Make it like the X-1 title, where, instead of giving a point break, it discounts an upgrade. This could be torpedoes (which means they might be worth taking on an X-wing), or it could be modifications. Don't think it should be an exact copy of the X-1. Say -3pt on a modification? Hull is free, engine upgrade/shields cost 1 pt. Would give generics a fighting chance vs the B-wing math-wise, and guys like Luke/Wedge would appreciate the cheap engine upgrade.

2) Create more generic Astromechs. Something so that, If I want to run 2+ X-wings, I have something to give them both. This would also give a hand to Y-wings and E-wings. One like the Agromech/Fire Control System, that gives action economy to the user. Another that lets the user re-roll blanks when attacking with torps. One that gives PS-shenanigans. And so on.

the irony is blinding

You'll have to excuse me if I choose to address the 2015 whining meta with little more than thinly veiled contempt.

every time a turret hits the table against, my will to continue playing erodes a bit more

oh boy, we've devolved into ad hominems and out of context quotes

Gecko, seriously, if you have nothing constructive to contribute (and no, contempt is not constructive) at least have the decency not to drag the rest of the forums down with you

Hes saying that because they are perhaps not the *strongest* (yet still a valid) choice for a list they are being sidelined by those seeking 'points maximum efficiency' via mathematical means for ships like the bwing.

While 'on paper' i can see the Bwing being a much better choice, i've also seen in reality xwings out perform on occasion.

X-wings are noticeably, measurably less efficient than B-wings: B-wings have the same offensive potential, and they tend to survive about one more attack. But the margin of error in that measurement is huge, because X-wing is a noisy game from a statistical perspective. So the set of all possible games played with both X-wings and B-wings naturally includes a lot of games where the X-wing outperforms the B-wings.

But if you choose just one game out of that set, it's more likely you'll pick one where the B-wings do better. That's what the argument about statistical efficiency says, and that's all it says.

The problem is when a lot of threads are 'tounry centric' and are all 'how do i beat BBBBz' or 'killer bwing list' etc etc then the pervading feel is that 'xwings are rubbish'. So they dont get picked as much by players so less players find decent combos.

If you're a tournament player looking for an edge, then most of the X-wing pilots represent about 1.5 points' worth of waste. If you have a list full of X-wings, you have about a 6-point handicap--that is, it's the equivalent of taking a 94-point list to the tournament.

If you include just one X-wing, you're in much better shape. If you pick the right X-wing with the right upgrades, you might not be wasting any points at all. But you have to think carefully about what the X-wing does that (a) makes up for the X-wing's mathematical handicap and (b) can't be done by a ship without that handicap.

(It ought to go without saying, but if you're not thinking about tournament-style lists and nothing's riding on the outcome, then you don't need to worry nearly as much about whether the X-wing is balanced against the B-wing and Headhunter.)

I dont think hes saying 'i win with xwings so you're all wrong'. I know im certainly not saying that.

I think we're both saying 'dont write them off because its popular on the forum to write them off'

Writing them off because it's popular is a mistake.

But deploying X-wings very cautiously because you've looked at the weight of the evidence, asked questions that help you understand what's going on under the hood, and decided you don't want the handicap... that's smart tournament play.

Again im goingto go back to my most recent game of epic

I had some horrific hits from Red Squadron xwings with proton torps and munitions failsafe.

Might be exceptional but they did pretty well in a bigger game

Hes saying that because they are perhaps not the *strongest* (yet still a valid) choice for a list they are being sidelined by those seeking 'points maximum efficiency' via mathematical means for ships like the bwing.

While 'on paper' i can see the Bwing being a much better choice, i've also seen in reality xwings out perform on occasion.

X-wings are noticeably, measurably less efficient than B-wings: B-wings have the same offensive potential, and they tend to survive about one more attack. But the margin of error in that measurement is huge, because X-wing is a noisy game from a statistical perspective. So the set of all possible games played with both X-wings and B-wings naturally includes a lot of games where the X-wing outperforms the B-wings.

But if you choose just one game out of that set, it's more likely you'll pick one where the B-wings do better. That's what the argument about statistical efficiency says, and that's all it says.

The problem is when a lot of threads are 'tounry centric' and are all 'how do i beat BBBBz' or 'killer bwing list' etc etc then the pervading feel is that 'xwings are rubbish'. So they dont get picked as much by players so less players find decent combos.

If you're a tournament player looking for an edge, then most of the X-wing pilots represent about 1.5 points' worth of waste. If you have a list full of X-wings, you have about a 6-point handicap--that is, it's the equivalent of taking a 94-point list to the tournament.

If you include just one X-wing, you're in much better shape. If you pick the right X-wing with the right upgrades, you might not be wasting any points at all. But you have to think carefully about what the X-wing does that (a) makes up for the X-wing's mathematical handicap and (b) can't be done by a ship without that handicap.

(It ought to go without saying, but if you're not thinking about tournament-style lists and nothing's riding on the outcome, then you don't need to worry nearly as much about whether the X-wing is balanced against the B-wing and Headhunter.)

I dont think hes saying 'i win with xwings so you're all wrong'. I know im certainly not saying that.

I think we're both saying 'dont write them off because its popular on the forum to write them off'

Writing them off because it's popular is a mistake.

But deploying X-wings very cautiously because you've looked at the weight of the evidence, asked questions that help you understand what's going on under the hood, and decided you don't want the handicap... that's smart tournament play.

I dont think i disagree with any of that. But you know im just trying to say that in my experience i've not found xwings to be that dire.

I dont think im a terrible player, i dont think my opponents are either (as i frequently mention one of my regular weekly games is against a guy who usually wins store tournys he enters or comes up very highly... i win 1 in 3 game against him).

Im just mainly advocating that there are times (namely types of game that are not 100/6) where an Xing is a better choice than a B wing.

Well, true. In epic games, you'll hit the B-wing cap eventually

Anyway, the X-wing will always be the better ship if you enjoy flying it more than the B-wing, and no that's not sarcasm or being snooty. It's a game, and fun > winning unless you're strictly a fun = winning kind of guy

The X-wing also isn't nearly as bad as its other non-tie fighter Wave 1 counterparts were (poor lil A-wing and Advance ) before they got fixed

But in terms of just looking at raw effectiveness on the table-top, the Blue Squadron > Rookie Pilot almost always in every conceivable capacity (I miss the 4k and 3-hard, though ). It's not just the stats, but also the game-changing presence of the barrel-roll action and the hilarious flexibility the B-wing offers (system slot, cannon slot, crew slot via mod...)

The named pilots are a constantly parroted benefit of the X over the B, and with good reason. The B-wing is chunky, but it's not durable per say it just takes at least 8 damage before it dies (compared to tie ships, whose green dice turn into either Chuck Norris from Walker Texas Ranger or Chuck Norris from Way of the Dragon). Luke is freaking durable, especially against 2-dice ships where constantly and reliably canceling half their maximum damage output just isn't fair (Esp not with shield regen...ESP not with lone wolf...). Tarn is durable, so much so that opposing enemy super ships almost always save him for last. Biggs...is Biggs.

I also used to roll with Wedge a ton during Wave 4 when swarm and mini-swarm were all the rage. PS 9 with his ability made him uniquely capable of downing those ships before they ever got a chance to harm your squad. Dude demanded respect.

But sadly, the resurgence of fat han and the arrival of fat chiri and super dash and later HLC aggressors in my local groups made him essentially unplayable. I'd like to think there's more to the game than jousting values, but the X-wing isn't really made for transcending such a concept nor is it really capable of avoiding large firing arcs (or turrets, but then again who can?). As much as I enjoy flying him, I can't be expected to enjoy having him invalidated just by watching my opponent put certain ships across the table.

Wave 5 was the age of Luke for me (tried Wes first, same problem as Wedge even with the debuff because the opponent's 2nd ship would just screw him). V.I, EU, and R3-A2 made Luke a dedicated phantom-hunter. At PS 10 and with his ability, while not as sexy as Wedge's ability, he was also an amazing hunter of mini-swarms. Luke continues to this day to be my favorite X-wing pilot, and the only reason I ever won my first store championship

That's all I got really. The generic X-wings are simply too limited by design too be considered more effective than B-wing outside of exceptional and outstanding circumstances (charmed/loaded green dice could be a very good example) and I've found that almost all of the characters simply can't stand up to these high numbers of dice and health that I keep seeing on the other end of the table. A few of them, however, very much can

Ultimately, though, if the sight of several of those awesome-looking fighters trumps any reservations about their on-table usefulness then really no one can argue against you.

I think the cost arguments have been well made, by people who understand the math much better than I. As fickle and gadge said; I love and still fly the X for what it represents, but in game I dont think it performs as expected for the points you pay for it. I have won plenty of games using Xs and they have their advantages. But as Vorpal said, each one you include in your list adds a small points handicap and I think you notice the difference after a while.

Point is that knowing that the X is overcosted becomes a definite 'hump' you have to cross especially as there is no reason for it to be there.

I would advocate lowering the Xs points (even though I dont think FFG will straight up do that) and I have playtested X wings at 19 and 20 points in several games. They definitely feel like a 19, possibly 20, point ship rather than a 21 point ship to me. A huge difference? No. You end up with one more rookie in 100 points or a few extra points of upgrades. I think they occupy a good space between the B and Z at a lower points cost and I wouldn't say this makes them overpowered.

Alternatively I would be happy with a few points of added goodness stuck to the X.

I would agree that (bar inevitable internet hyperbole) X Wings aren't dire, unusable, or the worst choice you can make since Ebola flavored ice cream. But if you are playing at your highest level - either competitively in tourneys or simply in a casual game against a really good player you want to beat, the X's value difficulties are an obstacle.

The ewing is the hardest ship to fix as a whole I think because corran is so good and already gets used a ton. Not easy to fix every other one without boosting him.

The ewing is the hardest ship to fix as a whole I think because corran is so good and already gets used a ton. Not easy to fix every other one without boosting him.

A responsible E-Wing fix will avoid buffing Corran. This could be accomplished by restricting it to lower PS values, or through some mechanism that makes it ineffective for Corran, perhaps by coming in the form of an astromech upgrade, since Corran loves R2-D2 so much. Generic E-Wings are among the most fix-needy ships at the moment, on par with generic defenders and pre-fix TIE advanceds.

a responsible E-wing fix would be to slash the point value of the generics

but FFG doesn't like working in post

Could you do a similar fix to what juggler proposed for the X, i.e. add +1 Hull? A generic E at 3 Hull would be nice. I never quite understood why the E was flimsier than the X. With 3 greens and evade behind it that would be much tougher.

That would make the E straight up better in stats, action bar, upgrade slots and dial selection than the X. I dont know what else the E was supposed to be, other than an X Wing with an A Wings dial.

Not sure what mathwing would make of this.

I think given the cards+ships marketing of the game even an online FAQ is limiting as im still staggered by the amount of people in hobbies who are not on the internet or could be but dont want to be.

I used to be heavily involved with the WWII 'living history' scene in the Uk (its not re-enactment, no one actualluy ever re0enacts anything they just stand around in old clothes talking about guns) and you'd meet people either interested in joining the group or people dressed in our regiments kit and say 'oh find us on poorbloodyinfantry.com' and they'd say 'oh i dont use the internet.

And this is people in their 20s, not 80 year olds.

I think the best thing FFG could do would be to publish a compiled 'card effects + FAQ + a sheet of replacement bomb markers/tokens etc' 'rulebook' every year or so to keep it all in one place and allow 'retro' fixs.

The only other likely thing i can see is a '2nd edition' with the same core mechanics but revised points values

Well tie platform ships are apparently getting a new shtick with a title (TIE-tle?) in the punisher expansion, so hopefully the ship the game's named after will get similar love soon enough.

New astromechs would be nice. They are the only thing an X can carry that a B can't. Unless you count R2-D2 as crew. "[whatever] squadron" titles would also be cool.

One critical failing still is pricing PS as being worth a fixed number of points when it's obviously not. An Interceptor benefits from PS a billion times more than a HWK or a Shuttle for example.

This is why E-Wings are in such a bad spot too. They rely on PS and dodging to be more than just 'an x-wing with +1 AGI'. So to actually take advantage of that, you need PS. And that's why generic E-Wings aren't around.

Meanwhile, B-Wings while they can use good PS to barrel roll and shoot first, they're still useful without it. They're blunt enough instruments that it's OK to be in enemy arc for a turn exchanging fire.

Honestly, pilot abilities should be what costs points for the most part, and most non-generic PS needs to be lower.

I think the E-Wing's PS reliance is also why Corran's the only E-Wing you really ever see on the table. Ehtan's got what I think is a pretty slick ability, but he's at such a terrible place, PS-wise (low-middle of the pack) that it's hard to use AND hard to fly him defensively, while he still costs so much it's hard to throw in enough friendlies to maximize his ability, anyways.

It's really unfortunate. For all that I love Corran from the books and stuff, it's a bummer that "E-Wing = Corran Horn," and that's that.

Points inherently dont work.

They are a necessary evil if you want competitive games with people you dont know.

Lots of very good historical systems simply dont have them, they expect you to know the relative merits of a unit against a variety of other units, there scarceness or frequency in an armies structure etc etc

Because points are situational.

Against a B wing an Ion turret is well worth the points because its nearly always guaranteed to ionizeit. Against an evadig cloaked phantom that turret isnt worth those points as its nearly never going to work.

A good GM (and the problem with all games like warhammer, xwing etc that dont have a GM is that this happens)will work out the forces for a game before hand and run it for mates. Knowing that lets say *generally* ewings are over priced but in the situation hes about to put them in they are ideal *or* he gives them a few points more and 'handicaps' the other side so its 100 vs 115 in reality.

You have to have points for tournament play but they are inherently flawed becasue of the fact that they just dont work out to be worth that value against every oponent. You can playtest loads, average it out etc but you'll ALWAYS get sistuations where a 'useless' upgrade is killer in some situations and not worth taking in others. If you make it 1 point because its generally useless then someone will play a game in that one situation where its absolutely killer and claim its undercosted.

I think the E-Wing's PS reliance is also why Corran's the only E-Wing you really ever see on the table. Ehtan's got what I think is a pretty slick ability, but he's at such a terrible place, PS-wise (low-middle of the pack) that it's hard to use AND hard to fly him defensively, while he still costs so much it's hard to throw in enough friendlies to maximize his ability, anyways.

It's really unfortunate. For all that I love Corran from the books and stuff, it's a bummer that "E-Wing = Corran Horn," and that's that.

Have you tried

corrran , FCS, Swarm tacs

Etahn, Swarm

Knave

worked a charm for me in a fair few games.

Points inherently dont work.

They are a necessary evil if you want competitive games with people you dont know.

Lots of very good historical systems simply dont have them, they expect you to know the relative merits of a unit against a variety of other units, there scarceness or frequency in an armies structure etc etc

Because points are situational.

Against a B wing an Ion turret is well worth the points because its nearly always guaranteed to ionizeit. Against an evadig cloaked phantom that turret isnt worth those points as its nearly never going to work.

A good GM (and the problem with all games like warhammer, xwing etc that dont have a GM is that this happens)will work out the forces for a game before hand and run it for mates. Knowing that lets say *generally* ewings are over priced but in the situation hes about to put them in they are ideal *or* he gives them a few points more and 'handicaps' the other side so its 100 vs 115 in reality.

You have to have points for tournament play but they are inherently flawed becasue of the fact that they just dont work out to be worth that value against every oponent. You can playtest loads, average it out etc but you'll ALWAYS get sistuations where a 'useless' upgrade is killer in some situations and not worth taking in others. If you make it 1 point because its generally useless then someone will play a game in that one situation where its absolutely killer and claim its undercosted.

I guess 'value' for anything is always a relative concept. A bowl of food is more valuable to a starving man than to someone who has just eaten their fill. Points, like market prices represent an average across the spectrum of possible scenarios.

Against large ships the B suffers due to its 2 K turn, which wont bracket a large ships base with its start and end positions. A 4 K turn, like the X Wing's, or a 3 K like the Z95's are possibly more valuable, but then there is everything else to add to the equation: red dice, HP, dial, etc.

Points are subjective, which is why they sometimes need to be changed. HINT: FFG if you are listening cough X wing cough.

But because they are situational/subjective... essentially changing them just creates new problems where they are now under or over costed in other situations.

Points is just the best balance you can do to allow strangers to play games.

As i've said i dont think i've ever used 'points' to work out a WWII skirmish with mates. We've just said 'Elite British Airborne platoon with AT support attacked by conscript panzergrandier company with a panzer IV and a few hanomags... ok? Brill, lets crack on.

Because we know that situationally thats a realistic and fairly balanced match up.

The brits are outnumbered 3:1 and are much less mobile, but they have morale advantage, are hidden at first until they fire or are spotted etc etc

But you know thats 25 years of reading military history, 3 years of being a soldier and 20 odd years of playing WWII games that lets you instantly pick balanced forces.

Had i ran that scenario 'on paper' via a lot of systems that use points the brits would probably have a lot more men as the points values dont take into account they will be figthing dug in.

Obviously xwing isnt like that but points not being absolute fixs still applies.

Yep we could make B wings 2 points more expensive and xwings 2 points cheaper. Make rhymer a little less costly and a lot of people would be happy but you'd still get situations then where they became too good or too poor... just different situations from what we have now.

To be honest, compared to a lot of points value based games Xwing has very few problems,. Those very few problems effect a very small proportion of the player base who obsess about winning organised play.

For the vast majority of 'mates playing on a mat on the kitchen table on a thursday night' type gamers no one really cares... people use ordnance because its fun, they use Xings cos they look cool etc.

A friend of mine said he was having great success with a Tie Advanced, and didn't understand the Raider making it better. He's been running Darth and T/Fs against Luke and Biggs, you see, and the 3 point disadvantage that Darth is at equals the 3 point deficit of 2 X-Wings. Which is a) why it took so long to notice the problems they both had and b) makes for a balanced and fun game.

But yes: when flying with X-Wings, you pretty much have to have your opponent taking a handicap of some sort.

I'm looking forward to the day that the X-Wing has a number of interesting options to kit it them in several different ways- many of those even being competative.