While you could get pretty complete coverage with 7 X-wings or 12 Z-95s spread out in a line, I'm not sure that would lead to efficient fire usage.

Me and my group play 150s...I don't think we will be going back.

How much better (worse?) is it?

Waaayyyy better!!!! It eliminates the dominance of any one ship as well as as the weakness of any one ship! Its kind of like large numbers of dice averaging out, more ships average out as well! We've been playing 150 here for over a year as well!

It all started for me playing an escalation tournament and having to get use to 120 and 150 point builds for that! Play with thse builds for a while and see what you think!

My experience of 150 points is you both get to pick one of your opponents ships and destroy it with little they can do about it due to the volume of firepower on the table for either side. After that, it's basically a 100 point game. You could probably save yourself time by both writing 150 points lists, showing it to your opponent, then you both get to veto one ship out of the opponents list before you start playing. Basically the same result

It's not that simple and you know it. Maneuvering still plays a massive role and keeping your opponent from focusing all core on a ship isn't that hard. This has never been am issue for us.

.

No seriously, I'm not trolling that's just my experience of it. Manuevering plays an increasing smaller part proportionately to the increase in points. If you dont believe me you only need to look at how effective the likes of interceptors and starvipers are in the 1 on 1 end game.

It's all to do with what those manoeuvrable ships want; to not bump and be out of arc. Bigger games make both those things harder to do as there's more clutter (I.e ships) to bump and more arcs to try and avoid in the same space.

Maybe increasing map size would help here, but that then massively increases the effectiveness of arc Dodgers so I'd hate to try and find that balance. It's because of these problems arc Dodgers dont work great in bigger games; they're too easy to focus down before they can be effective in the late game. If you hang back then it becomes 150 vs 100-120 points in the opening rounds and because of the amount of firepower 150 points can bring this is not a good situation to be in.

These are just my experience of 150 point games on 3x3 tables. And believe me we've played it a lot before we decided thins work beat and are most balance in regular 100 point or 300 point epic games

So over in armada they raised the point limit to 300, after wave one was released. And they're going to up it to 400 after huge ships arrive.

So X wing. We're getting more and more ships, getting all sorts of price tags including a decimater's 40 for the base model. Does this mean we should change the 100 point limit? Even ten points allows many more options, including quad auto-ceptors and tripple iggys.

The game works fairly well at 100 points. The game is principally designed for 100 points. Why would they increase the point limit?

So over in armada they raised the point limit to 300, after wave one was released. And they're going to up it to 400 after huge ships arrive.

So X wing. We're getting more and more ships, getting all sorts of price tags including a decimater's 40 for the base model. Does this mean we should change the 100 point limit? Even ten points allows many more options, including quad auto-ceptors and tripple iggys.

The game works fairly well at 100 points. The game is principally designed for 100 points. Why would they increase the point limit?

I agree that the tournament level play works well at 100pts and will probably stay there, though it is really fun to put 6-12 ships out there with all kinds of overlapping synergies every once in a while if you have the time and friends that want to use all their ships too..

But to answer the question of why they would increase the point level? One word, money.

If it ever gets to a point where they feel that people are only buying the 8-10 sets they need to get the cards and ships they need for a competitive tournament list, then there might be incentive to raise the point level to try to get those people to buy a few more sets. That seems to be far from an issue at the present time, but who knows what it will be like in a year or two or three.

News update, you already can field a quad autoceptor. 3x rgp w/auto thrusters + Turr phennir w/vi and AT's.

Other note

Howl + 7 obsidians

Autothrusters alone isn't better than PTL on the TIE interceptor. An evade token is better than an autothrust. For interceptors Autothrusters' strength lies in stacking it.

Yes they should raise the point limit, despite people's resistance to change. Ever since about wave 4 the game has been better at 125 pts. than 100 pts. A number of "issues" with the game are less pronounced at higher point levels.

While you could get pretty complete coverage with 7 X-wings or 12 Z-95s spread out in a line, I'm not sure that would lead to efficient fire usage.

My point was more like the lack approach lanes available. You cant flank a turret ıf one sıde has han solo and the other has hlc dash, that phantom/interceptor is coming under fire.

Oh and let me assure you, if we increase point what we will see is not mapwide scrambles, it will be either mass generic ships( 5b wings+ 4 z95) or nukers( triple interceptors or hlc dash+han) which will simply "delete" ships.

I have seen this in escalation; and i know escalation list building is different but 150 points on a 3x3 board will be a different game. Not a bigger version of the "X-wing" we play but more like "X-WING", similar yet different.

I don't think an official point increase will ever come. If anything an additional format on top of 100pts and Epic.

However it really doesnt matter because everyone is free to play what he wants as long as he finds 1 other player who likes it.

If 150 point games become the standard, I'm going to fly nothing but 6 Phantoms.

I'm surprised they haven't varied the points annually to shake things up like Flames of War! Each tournament season starts with new points values so the "army" that was strong last year may have to be totally rebuilt because the points were lowered! Now I know the new waves change things up on their own, but varying the points from 90-130 from one season to the next would really make guys think!

I know a 90 point escalation build is way different from a 100 point regular build and adding 20 points to that really shakes things up!

Playing with 150 point builds is a blast and it allows enough extra points for me to "handicap" myself, usually at 120-130 when playing against my son with 150 points and it becomes a 'fair fight!'

If 150 point games become the standard, I'm going to fly nothing but 6 Phantoms.

I'd just use Howlrunner and 11 Academy TIEs. It's a very tightly packed swarm that really only needs one pass at you.

If 150 point games become the standard, I'm going to fly nothing but 6 Phantoms.

I'd just use Howlrunner and 11 Academy TIEs. It's a very tightly packed swarm that really only needs one pass at you.

And these are the goofy conversations that pop up when people discuss higher point games. The reality is that spam lists become less powerful unless they are well-rounded ships. 12 ties are strong, but Howlrunner's ability diminishes rapidly after 6 ships, and becomes a liability if you try to cram all 12 ties near Howlrunner. 6 phantoms at 150tps. is generally worse than 4 phantoms at 100pts unless you also increase table size.

The cool benefits that happen with higher point games:

• Support ships become more valuable.
• Ordnance becomes more valuable.
• Utility upgrades become more valuable.
• Rock-Scissors-Paper aspects are less effective - leading way to more "combined arms" effectiveness.
• The "need" for a partial points system is less needed as larger ships make up less percentage of a list.
• Big-ship turret spam becomes less effective (unless you increase board size).

If 150 point games become the standard, I'm going to fly nothing but 6 Phantoms.

I'd just use Howlrunner and 11 Academy TIEs. It's a very tightly packed swarm that really only needs one pass at you.

And these are the goofy conversations that pop up when people discuss higher point games. The reality is that spam lists become less powerful unless they are well-rounded ships. 12 ties are strong, but Howlrunner's ability diminishes rapidly after 6 ships, and becomes a liability if you try to cram all 12 ties near Howlrunner. 6 phantoms at 150tps. is generally worse than 4 phantoms at 100pts unless you also increase table size.

The cool benefits that happen with higher point games:

• Support ships become more valuable.
• Ordnance becomes more valuable.
• Utility upgrades become more valuable.
• Rock-Scissors-Paper aspects are less effective - leading way to more "combined arms" effectiveness.
• The "need" for a partial points system is less needed as larger ships make up less percentage of a list.
• Big-ship turret spam becomes less effective (unless you increase board size).

Agreed Gather. I don't get to play as often as I like, and neither do my friends - not too close to a FLGS. When we get together for an evening, we often will play a quick 100pt game but then we will do a 150 or 200pt game to get our seldom used pilots some flight time. Your points about support, ordnance and utility are more true the more points you use. You're right about this applying only if you keep the 3X3 play area. We played an epic match on a 5'X9' table tennis table and the arc dodgers and flankers cleaned house. It took about 8 turns for my 3 interceptors to get Corran pinned near a corner long enough to focus fire him down. Colonel Jendon in his ST-321 was a beast on that play area though.

If I am remembering correctly, the game designers initially intended for the 100 point death matches to be a stopgap, but everyone liked them so much they just never created new objectives other than the missions included with the large ships.

Basically, they were going to introduce an objective system similar to what was ultimately included in Armada, but stopped.

I think 150 would open all kinds of options without extending the games by more than a bit. I would dread a turret swarm though...

I take that back about the 6 Phantoms. 6 Lambdas and 12 Tacticians. Good luck having the will to live lol.

In larger games fat turrets are much less of a problem as they can't arc dodge with their boost as well as they could against 100 points of ships. Soontir is pretty good in epic, but everytime someone wants to fly Soontir or Super Whisper someone brings a Vader Deci and takes it off the board. So as long as that doesn't happen they're pretty good.

Often times in 300 point Epic games what will end up happening is that there will be a few stragglers off in the distance that Soontir can pick off. In Epic games there might be more than one battle going on, so arc dodgers can skirt the edges of one battle, or jump from one to the other. So they don't suddenly get less good as point totals go up. Well, I suppose as point totals rise the likelihood of gunner Decivader approaches one lol.

As an additional format with an added balancing agent it would be an interesting side event. Just borrow from epic points.

150pt "Battle" format: Players are allotted 8 'material' points. Small ships are worth one material point, large ships are worth 3 material points.

Can't swarm more than eight of anything, can't field more than two large ships, balance field stays mostly the same you just have more room for game effects... For one in the morning that was rather brilliant of me.

Admittedly it also nixes some interesting builds that would have otherwise been available. Probably could fix that real quick though.

Been doing 150-point games locally, and it really is awesome. You can field several high-skill pilots and load them all up with upgrades, instead of sending one ace out there with a few scrubs. I do like the idea of a ship number cap, luckily nobody has been a tool and pulled out 10 TIEs, and I'd prefer it stay that way for time and map clusterf*ck's sake.

If I am remembering correctly, the game designers initially intended for the 100 point death matches to be a stopgap, but everyone liked them so much they just never created new objectives other than the missions included with the large ships.

Basically, they were going to introduce an objective system similar to what was ultimately included in Armada, but stopped.

I wish they would do that. Not that I don't love the death-matches, but variety's always welcome isn't it?

As for upping the points limit, hmm, I dunno. I myself have played 120 and 150pnt matches and enjoyed them, but I wonder if the balance of the game is specifically aimed at 100pnts?

I honestly would like to see x wing go to 150 standard it would allow you to use ships such as defenders and bombers that don't see a lot of competitive play now because of high costs to field in 100 pts. Also it might move us away from the current 2 ship heavy meta.

If I am remembering correctly, the game designers initially intended for the 100 point death matches to be a stopgap, but everyone liked them so much they just never created new objectives other than the missions included with the large ships.

Basically, they were going to introduce an objective system similar to what was ultimately included in Armada, but stopped.

I wish they would do that. Not that I don't love the death-matches, but variety's always welcome isn't it?

As for upping the points limit, hmm, I dunno. I myself have played 120 and 150pnt matches and enjoyed them, but I wonder if the balance of the game is specifically aimed at 100pnts?

100 was pretty good until about Wave 3 I feel, after that the Rock/Scissors/Paper effect got a lot stronger, along with more and more higher-point valued ships, really cramping lists. Now in wave 6, with autothrusters and the phantom change, things have gotten a bit better, but the balance is still too much around R/S/P, still cramping lists.

If I am remembering correctly, the game designers initially intended for the 100 point death matches to be a stopgap, but everyone liked them so much they just never created new objectives other than the missions included with the large ships.

Basically, they were going to introduce an objective system similar to what was ultimately included in Armada, but stopped.

I wish they would do that. Not that I don't love the death-matches, but variety's always welcome isn't it?

As for upping the points limit, hmm, I dunno. I myself have played 120 and 150pnt matches and enjoyed them, but I wonder if the balance of the game is specifically aimed at 100pnts?

100 was pretty good until about Wave 3 I feel, after that the Rock/Scissors/Paper effect got a lot stronger, along with more and more higher-point valued ships, really cramping lists. Now in wave 6, with autothrusters and the phantom change, things have gotten a bit better, but the balance is still too much around R/S/P, still cramping lists.

You may be right there...

100 was pretty good until about Wave 3 I feel, after that the Rock/Scissors/Paper effect got a lot stronger, along with more and more higher-point valued ships, really cramping lists. Now in wave 6, with autothrusters and the phantom change, things have gotten a bit better, but the balance is still too much around R/S/P, still cramping lists.

If you think upping the point limit will change the R/P/S of the meta gatekeepers, you are sadly mistaken. Something will always be the best. Would there be more variety of squads, impossible to know, since 150 has not gotten the heavy play that 100 gets.

I like the 150 point idea if they implemented a side ruling that no one kind of ship could take up more than 50% of the available pool. Basically, there would be no 12 academy tie swarms which I think is crazy anyway, but it would also require some more creative squad compositions.