As the games moves forward into the expanded U, are the older ships less relevant? Will the x-wing and Tie- fighter become obsolete ?

Or do we always have to rebalance the game?

Does a 52 Chevy need to be rebalanced in GMs terms in comparison to a 2014 Chevy Vette?

At some point an older ship is just that, obsolete.

Just my opinion.

So, you're saying you're for power creep?

Thematically speaking, yes old models of ships should be scrapped and abandoned. Realistically speaking, with the addition of the TIE Punisher, there should be no more TIe Bombers, as it fits its role better in the overall scheme of all things Star Wars.

But I'm a game like this you cannot, under any circumstances, elevate one ship above the rest, otherwise whats the reason to use (or buy, for the makers of the game) any other ship in the game? All ships should have their own unique roles and niches, so that they could be used to fulfil different styles of play and flying.

People already complain about the current meta, removing balance multiples that problem by 100.

In a word, yes.

better question: why the hell are we even asking this question?

yes

unless FFG turns into a scum-bag company like GW, your older options should always be relevent

We have a term for what happens to games that leave their older options behind. It's called "Power Creep." It's not a good thing.

The X-wing's already obsolete, though. It got its ass kicked by the head-hunter (which, ironically, is obsolete in the fluff because it was replaced by...the X-wing). Only a few of the named pilots keep it kicking.

Power creep leads to anger

anger leads to hate

hate leads to suffering

Power creep leads to anger

anger leads to no one buys x-wing

no one buys x-wing leads to armada selling better

armada selling better leads to ???

??? leads to profit

Let me ask you a few questions before you posit questions that question the wisdom of currently accepted ideas.

In Eastern cultures we do not revere the privilege to ask questions willy nilly because the lesson is to first think about what is good of the old system and why its there before you throw everything away.

I only have to point you to the Cultural Revolution of China and the Westernization of Japan to show you examples of that.

1. How do asteroids balance the game?

2. How does the board size balance the game?

3. What does a limited set of take-able options do for the game? (Heart of the Swarm beta Starcraft 2)

4. How does asymmetrical balance work? (Magic 5 colors, Starcraft 3 colors, Xwing 2 different factions [now3])

5. Why do you want my Tie Bomber to suck?

6. Are you thinking about me or other people who are not you when you answer the previous question?

I'd love to see a variant, almost like pauper in mtg, where your individual pilots have max point totals. Pretty much forcing you to use "lesser" pilots or be very very picky about upgrades. The only problem I can see with this is rebel and imperial would have to have different ceilings. Just seems like it would give people more freedom in ship choices if they knew for sure certain pilots or combos do not exist in this specific universe. I also have no idea how this would work for scum because I never play them but just a thought I had. We need more missions too, maybe sell a mission pack with no ships just new tokens and rules to use them.

Depends on what type of balance do you mean? Now there are some players who believes it should be points in to power out or J(v)=pv. Me on the other hand thinks there needs to be variation on it so it is not just 24 points = 2 academy pilots worth of power.

OP: I can recommend Star Trek Attack Wing if that's the game you want to play.

You refer to the prophesy of the one who will bring balance to the game...

Power creep is bound to happen at some point. If the new releases are weaker (less power at higher cost) than what's already released, then why would you buy them? (Well besides fans of a particular new ship design maybe, but that can't be a large crowd.)

Or do we always have to rebalance the game?

Does a 52 Chevy need to be rebalanced in GMs terms in comparison to a 2014 Chevy Vette?

At some point an older ship is just that, obsolete.

Just my opinion.

That's why you have points. The goal IMO is that an X-wing would be a stronger ship than its Z-95 predecessor, but the point values would be such that 100 points of X-wings are fairly matched vs. 100 points of Z-95s.

I dont really care if an X-Wing is an older ship than an E-Wing.

The game is called X-Wing. It THE Star Wars fighter together with the TIE-Fighter.

Do i want to throw those minis away because newer ships are released? NO!

I think its good to get some rebalancing. Latest example beeing the TIE Advanced which is just not worth it compared to other ships in the game. So why not bringt it back to a playable status?

Do you really want only the latest releases to be playable? That wouldn'nt be any fun in my opinion.

Alot of us quit 40k precisely because it's an imbalanced mess, ffg has consistently shown they want every ship to be viable but they won't rush out and make a sloppy fix.

Nothing peeved me more than getting a new codex for 40k and finding one of my favourite units had become useless, take space wolves for example the simple bloodclaw was the mainstay of my army from 2nd ed to 5th not because they were OP but it was thematic while still working then 6th ed hits and those 50 models become worthless overnight.

Power creep is bad and will ruin a game.

better question: why the hell are we even asking this question?

yes

unless FFG turns into a scum-bag company like GW, your older options should always be relevent

We have a term for what happens to games that leave their older options behind. It's called "Power Creep." It's not a good thing.

The X-wing's already obsolete, though. It got its ass kicked by the head-hunter (which, ironically, is obsolete in the fluff because it was replaced by...the X-wing). Only a few of the named pilots keep it kicking.

And then the K-wing happened.

You refer to the prophesy of the one who will bring balance to the game...

Our Lord and Savoir Jackson Howard?

As the games moves forward into the expanded U, are the older ships less relevant? Will the x-wing and Tie- fighter become obsolete ?

Or do we always have to rebalance the game?

Does a 52 Chevy need to be rebalanced in GMs terms in comparison to a 2014 Chevy Vette?

At some point an older ship is just that, obsolete.

Just my opinion.

As the games moves forward into the expanded U, are the older ships less relevant? Will the x-wing and Tie- fighter become obsolete ?

Or do we always have to rebalance the game?

Does a 52 Chevy need to be rebalanced in GMs terms in comparison to a 2014 Chevy Vette?

At some point an older ship is just that, obsolete.

Just my opinion.

Are you advocating the actual film ships becoming useless as just about passable EU ships come out? That your ship purchases are only good for a few years and then are power crept out?

No offence, but if you think that's a good thing I'd rather you get nowhere near the design department.

The "newer" EU ships are more powerful, but their point costs reflect that.

better question: why the hell are we even asking this question?

yes

unless FFG turns into a scum-bag company like GW, your older options should always be relevent

We have a term for what happens to games that leave their older options behind. It's called "Power Creep." It's not a good thing.

The X-wing's already obsolete, though. It got its ass kicked by the head-hunter (which, ironically, is obsolete in the fluff because it was replaced by...the X-wing). Only a few of the named pilots keep it kicking.

And then the K-wing happened.

What the hell are you talking about? We still don't know everything about the K-Wing (dial, which is pretty important) and not a single one of its other stats are the same as the X-Wing, so there is hardly a way to compare the two let alone say one obsoletes the other.

Why would you advocate for a fraction of your ships being useless?

The costs reflect the relative effectiveness of the craft, so the newer=better is already in the game. No need to make it into older=terrible.

The only credible way to allow some ships to become obsolete is to have 'timelines' in the games organised play set ups.

Just as in WWII gaming no one plays a 'whatever you like' game, you play 'early war, battle of France'. it limits what you can take , you take Matilda 2s against Panzer IIs and PanzerIIIs etc.

It would be frankly mental to play a WWII 'france' game where you bring along a force that consists of a 1938 model Panzer 1, a king tiger and and 'elephant' tank destroyers (only used in Russia) and i took along some bren carriers, some motorcycle and sidecar recce units, 2 comets and a just post war centurion.

Its just bonkers to imagine the above ever happening but we accept it in xwing as xwing has no 'timeline'

Pilots who were never alive in the same year can fight each other, the same *person* can fight themselves etc. It just makes no sense.

If you allow things to become obsolete then you have to have criteria for games like 'pre yavin', pre endor', 'post endor' etc and allow only ships around then, if you take stuff thats ancient by that point and it does badly then you've met your criteria for introducing 'historical' obsolescence. If you have an old ship that works well because the pilot is amazing then you again meet a historical precedent with people like 'hans ulrich rudel' being an 'ace' in a stuka years after it was obsolete.

But the way the game is geared to a 'bring what you like' tournament setting (well on these forums anyway, the vast majority of games are not played in OP environments) then its never going to happen.

Recently simon and I played an 'ships only at the battle of endor' 600 point game. Nothing felt overpowered or underpowered.

At some point i want to run an 'end of the empire' game (probably when punished and kwing are out) and see how only 'late war' stuff holds up against itself.

A battletech style era system could work bby,aby,abe and then whatever we call the new era.

But even 3039 mechs still work in 3090 they are less advanced but also alot cheaper.

A lot of "old" models are still very competitive in-game. Nothing is explicitly keeping OG tie fighters off the board. The addition of the outrider and decimator as big turret ships didn't obsolete the falcon, but provided other options. Soontir fel is still seen on the board as best in class even after aces. B-wings are not new ships at this point, and they do quite well. Y-wings got the update they need to be good substitutes for b-wings with BTL-A4, with some tradeoffs to consider.

A lot of the newer models are not super competitive or game-changing on their own. Starvipers aren't seeing too much use. M3As don't seem to have quite the impact that was probably expected of them. IG-2000 is great, but I don't see it forcing entire lists out of meta right now.

Most of what is part of the "in-crowd" now has been around for a while, maybe with some updates to help them reach par (refit, BTL-A4, autothrusters, C3-p0, etc.)

A battletech style era system could work bby,aby,abe and then whatever we call the new era.

But even 3039 mechs still work in 3090 they are less advanced but also alot cheaper.

The massive problem we had with battletech was the 'tonnage' points system.

Clan mechs when they came out massively outperformed inner sphere mechs of the same tonnage.

We fixed it in true narrative style.

We'd set a 'tonnage value' of inner sphere mechs and then both of us would 'bid' to see what the least amount of clan we coudl counter it would be (as both of us had clan and IS mechs). Whoever bid loweset got the battle as clan.

Id did mean you could find yourself figghting 250 tons of IS mechs with a madcat on its own though