For all you ex 40K players: The X-Wing is the bog standard Space Marine. Great at shaking off hits and laying down massed fire, but kinda slow and pokey and hate getting into CC with clawed gribblies. Maybe what they need is rapid fire at 12"...or an objective with cover to park themselves on.

Seriously though, it wont break the game to let players field 5 of them at this stage of the game.

I wouldn't call the X-wing the space Marine on any accounts.

Whatever,

they're bog standard somethings that could use something like ATSKNF to give them something to keep people happy. To continue the marine analogy, perhaps they have no fear of debris and suffer no stress while passing through them. No fear of asteroids...well no, that would be stepping on Dash's toes. No fear of bumping enemy ships, no that's done already too.

How about no fear of going off the board? Give all X-wings the ability to go off the board and come back on the same board edge next turn. Would they have fear of a reserve roll to get back next turn?

X wing is NOT a fine ship rather is a eh ok ship with couple ok pilots and 1 great pilot.

The GAME of X WING should have xwings that actually don't suck. Its not that hard to wrap ones brain around, even FGD numbies could understand that.

Its amusing to me that so many on here think they can start endless threads bitching about things to try to influence the game designers. Turrets are still in the game..... ships are getting balanced to make the overall gameplay fun for all sides....etc.

I'm not saying any complaining is all bad I do plenty. Its the endless repeaters and the folks who either ignore previous threads and keep whining or maybe recreate accounts to do so that annoy me.

The X wing needs and will get revamped somehow.

Or we could just rename it tie fighter, let's face it that was the better pc game anyway.

Anyone thought of taking the idea from the EU?

That is an X-Wing specific upgrade that sits in the droid slot* that increase agility & adds an action to the action bar (either boost or barrol roll) OR adds agaility and negative sqd cost

*in one of the books the X-Wings are upgraded with a new computer system that sits in the droid compartment... turns out its cheeper than a droid because of 'imperial involvement'

X wing is NOT a fine ship rather is a eh ok ship with couple ok pilots and 1 great pilot.

Mmm-hmm...

Its amusing to me that so many on here think they can start endless threads bitching about things to try to influence the game designers.

Uh-huh...

The X wing needs and will get revamped somehow.

...well OK then.

I like X Wings. I'll continue to use X Wings. It'd just be nice to know I wasn't forgoing ships that are simply better value, in order to use the ships I like.

There's a hundred different ways they could fix X Wings, and none of them need to be drastic. There's even potential there with a Rogue Squadron aces pack, to sell some more Xs and include a 'fix' card as well as some cool new pilots or upgrades. Here's hoping, eh?

Anyone thought of taking the idea from the EU?

That is an X-Wing specific upgrade that sits in the droid slot* that increase agility & adds an action to the action bar (either boost or barrol roll) OR adds agaility and negative sqd cost

*in one of the books the X-Wings are upgraded with a new computer system that sits in the droid compartment... turns out its cheeper than a droid because of 'imperial involvement'

The worst thing that could happen is a fix that eats up the Astromech slot. It is really one of the very few things the X-wing has going for it. Even if most of the astromechs are mediocre.

It's pretty clear that the most common fix is going to be either a title, or a upgrade that takes a slot no one uses.

So for the X-Wing it will either be a title or will be the torpedo slot. I hope they never consider a fix that uses the Astromech slot, because then you might as as well throw away every astromech you have, because you'll never use them again.

Imagine R2-D2 with a actual cost of 6...

I won't disagree or debate the level of "statistical certainty" but it lines up with other analysis (especially when examined with x-wing at large) and, at least in this case, it's far better than nothing. So while I won't disagree that more information and analysis would be better (but very challenging to get), hand-waving it as useless or garbage doesn't strike me as particularly convincing either.

I don't understand what analysis you're drawing from the data. At most it says there are slightly less Rookies in elimination rounds than there are across all lists. Okay, given those stats:

• IG88-B has pretty much the same set of scores (slightly worse before and after actually) across all lists to elimination rounds 1.55% -> 1.26% so the Rookie must be as equally bad or slightly better than that pilot...
• Also, let's look at it this way: the Rookie is the 10th most taken pilot across all lists. In elimination rounds, it is still the 10th most taken pilot. No change in position. What does that statistic say about the Rookie?

First of all, I'm not using ship counts but points invested and it seems you're using ship counts. I'm a bit surprised that you'd be using ship counts over points spent, which I'd agree are the much lesser telling statistic in terms of ship value for a lot of reasons. It also seems odd to compare a individual named pilot to a generic since you could only take one IG-88B in a list.

But despite this, let's look at it closer. First, it's not surprising that IG-88s don't see the same or more frequency in elimination as they appear swiss. They're a new, popular ship that is very tough to fly and has have some very, very challenging match-ups. Of course, it's not surprising that their ship count is similar to Rookie X-wings since they are usually at least double the cost of a rookie. So, if they were equal, we'd be seeing about double the rookies in terms of ship count. This is of course, an even more odd comparison when you realize Wave 6 was only out for some of the store championships and the Rookie has been in the system since November (so there are a lot more opportunities for it to show) and IG 88B has both a comparable number of appearance to the rookie over the total of all tourneys since November and has seen elimination rounds just as much (and in terms of points spent, more) despite their late appearance.

Also, in terms of the Rookie's 10th position in ship count (and I still don't see the value of using that, but we'll go with it), I think it's 10th and only if you look at rebels. In terms of rebel small base generics, it's only ahead of the E-wing while every other generic has at least one ship represented (Zs have two) -- Oh, and the HWK. Every other rebel generic is essentially a better choice, and the two options that are closest in terms of role, (2x bandits or a blue). It's really only above the E-Wing/HWKs in terms of which generics, both of which people agree are in even worse shape. So, in terms of of the concerns people have, I think that the statistics we're talking about put it about where you think it should be -- not in need of a huge fix, but in need of one.

The idea is that we're trying to eliminate confounds - other factors that influence the data. We want to elminate upgrades, we want to eliminate various pilot abiities. That's why you should use the ship counts. The idea isn't to compare in between ships either, since how often a ship is taken can mean more than just it's ships effectiveness - more confounds. So the idea is to compare a pilot to itself, how often is it taken overall, compared to how often does it show up in elimination rounds (such as what Vorpal was saying before). If there is a drastic decrease, we might be able to correlate that to ship performance, might...

I bring up to IG88-B not to actually compare directly with the Rookie, but despite being considered a good ship, it has about the same ratio as the Rookie. It's more in support that those numbers aren't really statistically significant. If you are using those numbers to support a Rookie's effectiveness, it could potentially mean the same for IG88-B.

I bring up the 10th place position (for Rebels) to support that although the Rookie is considered a weak choice it's still being picked up in the same frequency in elmination rounds.

The whole point of what I'm saying isn't that the Rookie is conclusively good or bad, but that those statistics aren't meaningful (yet) in terms of the Rookie's effectiveness, If you do believe in the potency of those statistics (I don't yet), they point out that the Rookie is a pretty effective ship.

I think it's pretty clear on these boards that we don't want a fix to take up the astromech slot. There has not been any official announcement of any fix for the X-wing, aside from a few comments made during interviews that hinted at a possibility. I'm 100% behind a fix.

Just so I don't have to double up on posts, here is something else that I thought about. Why is it that all of the shield and hull repair astromechs (aside from R2-D2) require a funky gimmick? Damage reduction is free in the form of the Evade action for TIE Fighters, so why is it so hard to justify cheap shield replacing astromechs that require nothing other than doing a green maneuver like R2-D2? If the fix did come as a title I would hope that it followed with the 3 point reduction choice in modifications or in the astromech slot. I would also hope for some R2-D2 clones reskinned as some of the other famous Astromechs like Whistler and Gate or maybe a generic astromech that can repair shields using an action. Release some generic astromechs that cost and function exactly like FCS and there will still be a competition for choice of what to put in the astromech slot while allowing the ship to not become a giant point sink by taking a hull or shield upgrade with it. Making the astromechs better will definitely improve more than just the X-wing without breaking the game, as 2/3 ships that can take astromechs really need a bit more help than other ships anyways.

I have and I've gone around in circles with MJ on it. His math is fine but his inferences can at times be flawed.

Inferences such as what? The math fundamentally dictates the required efficiency that a given ship needs to have to break even. Quantifying that on a per-ship basis (generally) goes well beyond MathWing 2.0.

The X-wing's conditional effectiveness has been steadily decreasing or poor since I started tracking it for 2014 Regionals in wave 3 of last year. You can look up the numbers. This was predictable back in wave 1 with the appropriate tools.

We've talked about this before if you really want look it up. Most of the older data only tracks the top tables, and direct inferences to various ships effectiveness had and continues to be made (as seen above) by incomplete data such as that. Despite harping on the List Juggler data, I applaud what you are doing. You are receiving more complete data than before that can be used to do actual statistics with. It's just in its infancy right now and shouldn't be used as evidence one way or another.

The statistical analysis of tournament data has been misleading and actually has very little to do with actual statistics.

So are you saying the Rookie dropping from 1.49% to 1.26% in elimination rounds of 2800 total lists is statistically significant? Even if the data wasn't skewed that would probably amount to 1-2 lists deciding the effectiveness of the Rookie. That doesn't sound like a strong degree of statistical certainty to me.

Math check: 2800*(0.0149 - 0.0126) = 6.4.

Not going to debate the particulars of whether or not it is statistically significant or not. Rather, rather making the observation that you lose all technical credibility of discussing/attacking higher level statistical analysis when you fail much simpler math yourself, either by lack of rigor or lack of understanding.

Statistical reasoning check: how many of those lists make up elimination rounds? We're talking about a smaller subset of lists that influence the meaningfulness of those numbers. My rough calculations were about 25%, but honestly is a guess. I don't care enough to do an actual calculation, nor am sure what lists/tourney's are making it into the overall chart numbers (all of them?). So 6.4 * 0.25 = 1.6. Right between 1 and 2 lists that could directly influence the statistical conclusion. This doesn't take into account the taking of multiple Rookies in a list, so the influence of each individual list could be even more weighted.

I have and I've gone around in circles with MJ on it. His math is fine but his inferences can at times be flawed.

Inferences such as what?

Most of the older data only tracks the top tables, and direct inferences to various ships effectiveness had and continues to be made (as seen above) by incomplete data such as that. Despite harping on the List Juggler data, I applaud what you are doing. You are receiving more complete data than before that can be used to do actual statistics with. It's just in its infancy right now and shouldn't be used as evidence one way or another.

OK, the direct context was the underlying math, not looking at the tournament results, so it seemed like you were saying that the MathWing inferences were flawed.

Your points might have some merit, but without taking the time to actually do the calculations, it doesn't add much to the conversation.

That said, there is always room for improvement on data collection and analysis, and hopefully we get much better data this year with List Juggler than last year -- ideally we can get almost all of the lists, not just Final Cut or Top Third. But even without that level of detail, there is still plenty of evidence to back up the X-wing's obsolescence outside of Biggs.

Edit: OK, read again, I see your point:

[Edit]: Egg on face, math fail myself, this is what I get for posting late at night. Since the elimination round subset is much smaller, it probably does in fact amount to only a couple of lists. {elimination lists}*(0.0149 - 0.0126) = ???. Formal apologies for being stupid myself!

That said, the trends have been going back since 2014 using wave 3 data, and especially if you weight the lists by how far they progress, and not just a flat weighting for making Final Cut or not, the evidence is much more compelling.

[/Edit]

The fact that so few generic X-wings get taken is evidence in and of itself. The small sample size is indicative of the ship's poor performance, in the same way that TIE Advanced and TIE Bombers rarely show either.

Eventually I'll get around to writing some scripts to parse the List Juggler data in more detail.

So, lately I know there's been a lot of complaining about the x-wing and how it needs a fix. While I can sort of understand this, I disagree with this for several reasons:

1. Several of the named pilots are very good, and leave for numerous synergistic opportunities.

-Today I flew an extremely successful squad with two X-wings and a B-Wing. The B-Wing was a generic PS 2 sporting Jan Ors, Deadeye and two pairs of Adv. Proton Torpedoes ( a lot of points for just one ship, eh?). Second I had Biggs Darklighter with R2-F2 and Garven Dreis with Proton Torpedoes. So the basic idea (The list still needs a lot of work) is that Garven can either give his focus to Biggs, which Jan Ors can convert to an evade, or Garven can hand off his focus to The B-Wing so that it can unleash its payload (using a focus instead of a TL) and make use of the three blank results flipping to focus, ensuring AT LEAST 3 damage when The B-Wing sits at Range 1!

In addition, enemies are forced to shoot at Biggs, who can use R2-F2 and do some hiding behind asteroids to boost his agility way up. But because of the X-Wing's strong primary weapon, Biggs can also get lots of shots in on the enemy, even as he dodges their attacks with R2-F2 and focus/evades from Garvin/Jan Ors.

2. I cannot reiterate this enough: BIGGS IS SOOO USEFUL! Boost his agility and he can really help make an annoying squad to face.

So, in short, the X-Wing may not seem like much but due to its well-rounded stats and great unique pilots (Don't forget Wedge :-)), the X-Wing will always have a place in my lists.

You can´t put deadeye on a Blue Squadron Bwing, so your strategy is based on a non legal list.

The fact that so few generic X-wings get taken is evidence in and of itself...

It's evidence of something, alright...

What the X-wing really needs are much better or cheaper droids.

The fact that so few generic X-wings get taken is evidence in and of itself...

It's evidence of something, alright...

Aliens!

It's pretty clear that the most common fix is going to be either a title, or a upgrade that takes a slot no one uses.

So for the X-Wing it will either be a title or will be the torpedo slot. I hope they never consider a fix that uses the Astromech slot, because then you might as as well throw away every astromech you have, because you'll never use them again.

Imagine R2-D2 with a actual cost of 6...

You mean, imagine R2-D2 with a realistic cost?

The fact that so few generic X-wings get taken is evidence in and of itself...

It's evidence of something, alright...

Aliens!

Wait for it...

Wait for it.

Just to draw attention to something that got brought up earlier, imagine if R2D2 had some other effect, and R5's ability was "Action: you may recover 1 shield up to your Hull Value" (2 points).

X-Wings, Y-Wings and E-Wings get a lot more survivable, and PTL becomes a much better option for the pilots that can take them.

I wonder if that action would work as a 2 point E/X-Wing title? And obviously it could stack with R2D2 and R5P9. It would be a nice defensive upgrade for 2 ships that need them, don't take away options by creating an overwhelmingly better option, and doesn't tread on the uniqueness of another ship.

The more I think about it, the more I like idea of it...

Just to draw attention to something that got brought up earlier, imagine if R2D2 had some other effect, and R5's ability was "Action: you may recover 1 shield up to your Hull Value" (2 points).

X-Wings, Y-Wings and E-Wings get a lot more survivable, and PTL becomes a much better option for the pilots that can take them.

I wonder if that action would work as a 2 point E/X-Wing title? And obviously it could stack with R2D2 and R5P9. It would be a nice defensive upgrade for 2 ships that need them, don't take away options by creating an overwhelmingly better option, and doesn't tread on the uniqueness of another ship.

The more I think about it, the more I like idea of it...

Any fix in the way of upgrades (even a free Hull to an extent) is going to favor the named pilots over generics, because they will get more mileage out of them. And it's the generics that really need the help most.

Any fix in the way of upgrades (even a free Hull to an extent) is going to favor the named pilots over generics, because they will get more mileage out of them. And it's the generics that really need the help most.

I had a realization earlier that most of the best upgrades are X-Wing pilot skills remixed for general use. Those X-Wing pilots are _good_.

X-Wings are fine ships, in a game full of better ships. They are good enough to play, good enough to win even, but nowhere near good enough to win consistently (with the possible exception of one or two specific named pilots). If you just want to play some X-Wing, grab them and have a good time. You will have a reasonable chance of winning any games you play. But if you are trying to go to a tournament, where you need to win 6-7 games in a row, the X-Wing is not going to get the job done.

My preferred fix would be to just give the X-Wing 4 attack dice in order to make them "fit" their appearance and the exceptionally heavy armament they carry. Those aren't just 4 lasers, they are 4 big ones. and I don't think the 4 attack would be OP on a ship with the limited survivability and maneuverability of an X-Wing. It would also give the X-Wing a specific role within the Rebel lineup (generic big guns) that the other ships do not have.

Alternately, we could put out "leader" titles, like "Rogue Leader" or "Red Leader" that replaces the pilot ability of all friendly ships of type X (whatever the squadron is for, in this case X-Wings) with the pilot ability of the leader. It would be of the most use on generics (who need the help) because they wouldn't be giving up anything, but would be interesting to see on skilled ships whose ability would revert once the leader goes down. On ships like the X-Wing that have a wide variety of interesting pilot abilities it would make for a very flexible ship.

remarkable input. Cheers.

Increasing the firepower of the X might help Red Squadron Xs in particular because of the PS element of their cost. Rookies would benefit too, but would have to deal with being lower in the PS chain.

Just to draw attention to something that got brought up earlier, imagine if R2D2 had some other effect, and R5's ability was "Action: you may recover 1 shield up to your Hull Value" (2 points).

X-Wings, Y-Wings and E-Wings get a lot more survivable, and PTL becomes a much better option for the pilots that can take them.

I wonder if that action would work as a 2 point E/X-Wing title? And obviously it could stack with R2D2 and R5P9. It would be a nice defensive upgrade for 2 ships that need them, don't take away options by creating an overwhelmingly better option, and doesn't tread on the uniqueness of another ship.

The more I think about it, the more I like idea of it...

Any fix in the way of upgrades (even a free Hull to an extent) is going to favor the named pilots over generics, because they will get more mileage out of them. And it's the generics that really need the help most.

there's not much to be done about that unless you exclude the named pilots, and almost all of them need help as much as the Rookies.

Any fix in the way of upgrades (even a free Hull to an extent) is going to favor the named pilots over generics, because they will get more mileage out of them. And it's the generics that really need the help most.

The named pilots often have ideal astromech combinations, so a non-unique astromech might be the way to go here.