I expect that most us reading this post have played, or continue to play, a pretty decent variety of miniature (and/or board) games. For some, a few of those games were originally purchased because the game was fun to play and had lots of promise. Unfortunately, instead of growing more fun, or even maintaining the current level of fun, the game jumped the shark, as it were, having introduced new content that ended up sacrificing the former balance the game enjoyed on an altar intended to provide innovation and expansion, but ultimately ended up diminishing the game to the point of making it nigh unplayable.

Many of those who have suffered through the demise of one or more great games would say that they have experienced first hand the old proverb, "Once bitten, twice shy". These are the ones who are especially reluctant to expand and enhance what they regard as a good, solid game. Not that they shun change, but rather that they want to avoid the sort of pitfalls that they have seen other games fall into.

The one thing that I think is more (potentially) destructive than any other thing one could do to erode and eventually destroy game balance, is too introduce too much synergy.

You know what I mean when I say synergy, right? I am talking about card combinations. Abilities which by themselves are fine, but when coupled with certain other abilities become a card-combination that is greater than the sum of its parts. There is a reason why Soontir Fel is played with PTL, because the PTL gives Soontir a free action, and since Soontir's dial is so green, the stress he receives is (for all intents and purposes) negligible. That is an example of synergy. Keyan Farlander with a PTL has a similar synergy, He can PTL for a free action TL, and spend the stress gained to change focus results into hits.

Normally PTL's positive effect (free action) is checked by its negative effect (stress token), but in the case of pilots like Soontir and Keyan, PTL goes from Postive/Negative to Positive/Positive.

That isn't to say that PTL is necessarily an "OP" card. For pilots that can turn its negative effect into a positive one, PTL provides a very effective (both in cost and action economy) synergy. In fact, the only ships you every see using PTL are those ships with the preexisting advantage of a mostly green dial. In other words, an upgrade like PTL is only going to see play in situations where it's negative effect is negligible.

Now, I am using that as an example of what I mean by synergy - the introduction of a game play element that grants unevenly distibuted advantages. Another way of saying that - is the introduction of a game play element whose situational value varies from ship to ship, but whose (point) cost remains constant regardless of usage.

I don't want to bog down this post any further discussing PTL. I love the upgrade, and use it all the time, on pretty much every fleet I field - which itself says something about how "synergy" - instead of increasing your options, it ends up producing "must play" combinations that offer too much of an advantage to sit in the drawer while you field other things.

Now having a few combinations like that doesn't necessarily unbalance the game, since there are all kinds of ways to counter or disrupt that kind of synergy. So I am not suggesting that the ability to produce synergy in the game is bad or game breaking. Good gravy, no!

What I am saying is that the amount of synergy in the game increases exponentially with each new expansion. Think that through. Each new expansion introduces new upgrades which can interact with existing upgrades, to produce new synergies. There are only a few at first, but because the increase is exponential, we can expect each new expansion to introduce a greater "burden" (if you will) to the balance of this game.

I am not saying that if FFG introduces too many upgrades it will necessarily collapse under its own weight, but I am suggesting that this has been the oft repeated pattern I have seen, and the reason isn't necessarily the expansions themselves, but rather the fact that it is increasingly difficult to police the way new combinations interact. Eventually, the number of rulings with regards to card-combinations etc. will become convoluted, and it will take longer and longer to resolve the problems that are introduced, simply because there is a lot more to test with each and every upgrade introduced.

I think that the hardest thing to balance in an expanding game such as X-Wing, is the various synergies introduced through new expansions. I don't think it is impossible to manage them - but I do think it'll take exponentially more work to manage them properly as new expansions are introduced, and I think that if FFG doesn't rise up to meet these coming challenges in a timely way, the game may well suffer the same (albeit predictable) internal collapse we've seen in other similar games (I'm looking at you Star Trek Attack Wing!)

TL;DR - I think that as more expansions are added, the risk of unbalancing the game through a multitude of synergistic card combinations increases, such that I hope FFG is already taking steps to mitigate against a trend that has sidelined other successful games who expanded too quickly.

In general, this is true -- as you add more upgrade cards, the number of possible interactions grows exponentially, and the potential for some of them becoming too good for proper game balance increases. This is more of an issue in games like X-wing where the card costs are fixed. We may still be relatively early in the game, so time will tell in the long term.

On the other hand, ship balance is generally improving since the earlier waves, and the developers are dedicated to fixing known balance issues.

It's a rather complicated issue.

In general, this is true -- as you add more upgrade cards and the number of possible interactions grows exponentially, and the potential for some of them becoming too good for proper game balance increases. This is more of an issue in games like X-wing where the card costs are fixed. We may still be relatively early in the game, so time will tell in the long term.

On the other hand, ship balance is generally improving since the earlier waves, and the developers are dedicated to fixing known balance issues.

It's a rather complicated issue.

I think that you bring up the points that are relevant in this specific discussion in that xwing gains a new expansion 2-3 times a year seemingly, and has an active erata/balance engine in place in the form of the faq. They also historically place ships on the safe side of balanced and seem to be careful to avoid unintended combinations pretty hard with rules restrictions. The time and care they take suggests a good level of playtesting which tends to keep expansion from being a problem, and a lack of this care is why some games fail.

In general, this is true -- as you add more upgrade cards and the number of possible interactions grows exponentially, and the potential for some of them becoming too good for proper game balance increases. This is more of an issue in games like X-wing where the card costs are fixed. We may still be relatively early in the game, so time will tell in the long term.

On the other hand, ship balance is generally improving since the earlier waves, and the developers are dedicated to fixing known balance issues.

It's a rather complicated issue.

I think that you bring up the points that are relevant in this specific discussion in that xwing gains a new expansion 2-3 times a year seemingly, and has an active erata/balance engine in place in the form of the faq. They also historically place ships on the safe side of balanced and seem to be careful to avoid unintended combinations pretty hard with rules restrictions. The time and care they take suggests a good level of playtesting which tends to keep expansion from being a problem, and a lack of this care is why some games fail.

I believe this is all true, as it was previously true in other similar games that have since failed.

The concern isn't that the current level of testing is insufficient - it is rather a worry that as the game expands, the level of testing will need to scale up, keeping pace with the rest of it. In games where that hasn't happened, a critical/breaking point is reached, where things begin to slip through, not because there is no testing, but rather because the testing can no longer keep pace with the growth, unless more time is (or resources are) given to testing.

In other words, I think that if such a problem is on the horizon, then the solution would be to either slow down the number of releases until they have been sufficiently tested, or alternately to step up the resources associated with testing to keep pace with the expansion releases.

If that makes sense.

I do have to bring an argument against the notion of PTL only being brought up when the disadvantage is negligible, because that is certainly not true

The amazing greens on the interceptor dial makes the disadvantage minimal, which is an incredible distinction. If only only factor in the greens, Soontir Fell becomes little more mobile than a B-wing (all the 2-manuevers plus the addition of the green 4 straight and the lack of 1-banks and straight) and because he lacks access to sensors, he runs the risk of being blocked and losing his actions (shutting off PTL entirely and becoming incredibly vulnerable to even the most mundane attacks). If he chooses to ignore the greens and carries the stress with him, he will be running the same risk as if he were blocked and will later have to spend time green manuevering back into the fight, leaving the rest of his squad (or just cheri, most likely) out to dry.

When sensors are a factor, the green maneuvers of the ships that can take them are far less impressive (no green hard turns) except in the case of the e-wing with an r2-astro, which never gets fielded because r2-d2 is needed to introduce reliable durability to an otherwise not terribly maneuverable (relative to soonts) ship.

To bring that back to the thread, I think FFG has balanced their synergy quite well around the core rules of the game (such as blocking or obstructions removing actions, or even lock-dependencies on upgrades such as r3-a2 and tactician) to ensure there's always counterplay available regardless of layers of synergy.

Recent trends (i.e waves 6-7) are, however, moving away from stacking synergy to instead introduce new options such as a new faction and an upgrade slot only they have access to, as well as upgrades for previously maligned ships (such as the rare Y-wing and the PWT murdered interceptor) and now, in wave 7, we're getting a much needed expansion to the theme of mines/bombs (and ordnance, but imo they havn't done much to improve it outside Redline)

Now what will happen once we run out of ships/elements to bolster/buff, who knows? For now, however, FFG seems more focused on introducing new options rather than introducing stacking synergy which is, imo, the optimal way to release new expansions. PP also tends to go this route, and warmahordes benefits immensely from it.

Sure. I'll accept minimal over negligible, as a better choice from within the same semantic spectrum.

I would always add an example of what your talking about and Fel has been around for a long time with PTL (Wave 2) which is pretty darn early in the game; he was probably designed and tested since the onset.

An example that I can think of is the Dauntless title with daredevil combined with a green and counting stress etc. Plenty of discussions there where I am not sure it is worth running in the tournament if you have to spend 10 minutes explaining each round.

it is a very important distinction

negligible implies the drawback might as well not be there

minimal means that, relative to every other option in the game, the pilots who use PTL suffer the least from the drawbacks (but still suffer from them, and significantly so)

granted, it is a nitpick, but the fact that the distinction can be made in Xwing shows that FFG plans ahead nicely when it comes to introducing upgrades and counterplay against them

sure, there are very slanted returns for the same 3 points (compared what an X-wing gets out of PTL to what an interceptor gets) but there are also very slanted returns when said upgrade is not enabled (even the paper mache X-wing tends to survive longer than an actionless soontir)

by contrast, a company that introduces negligible drawbacks (either initially or through interactions with another rule/upgrade) might not have the best mindset when it comes to game design (looking at you, GW ) and then you really have to start worrying about stacked synergy.

PTL is a must-include card on exactly one ship. In almost every other case there are other options of comparable utility (depending on your play style, your list and the rest of the ship's load-out, natch). Even Keyan, the other obvious PTL-caddy, is seen with Stay On Target a sizeable minority of the time. It's a strong card, but then there are always going to be some cards that are stronger than others.

I understand that you're only using Push The Limit as an example of what you're talking about, but given that it's not even that strong an example I can't get worked up about what might or might not happen to game balance in the hypothetical future.

PTL is a must-include card on exactly one ship. In almost every other case there are other options of comparable utility (depending on your play style, your list and the rest of the ship's load-out, natch). Even Keyan, the other obvious PTL-caddy, is seen with Stay On Target a sizeable minority of the time. It's a strong card, but then there are always going to be some cards that are stronger than others.I understand that you're only using Push The Limit as an example of what you're talking about, but given that it's not even that strong an example I can't get worked up about what might or might not happen to game balance in the hypothetical future.

There are even interceptors that it isn't must include on. Carnor likes it but doesn't require it, and Turr honestly likes VI better imo.

imo, it's autoinclude on carnor too

but, because it's me, you probably can imagine why I feel that way

I've said this before...but I think the best example is r2d2 droid.

Originally only xwings and ywings could take it. Luke was considered the best pilot to take r2 because of his ability. But even then it wasn't OP by any means.

Enter the Ewing. Now you have a ship that can take r2 that has 1 more shield, 1 more agility, and one more green move than the xwing. Not to mention it has the evade and barrel roll actions to add to defense and ptl makes it even tankier. Put him on a high ps ship like corran with a great pilot ability and he becomes God like for many matchups.

I actually thought of a new nerf idea for r2d2 today. What if he worked like his crew card...meaning you can't use him until all shields are gone and you can't regen all your max shields back. It would still be a solid upgrade for corran, but now not so OP anymore.

I understand that you're only using Push The Limit as an example of what you're talking about, but given that it's not even that strong an example I can't get worked up about what might or might not happen to game balance in the hypothetical future.

It's just an example. If he would have taken Falcon title + C3PO + R2D2 as an example this thread would have been on fire with people agreeing.

This is definitely happening though, synergizing upgrade cards is why the current meta is all about high end ships. Decimators, Phantoms, Interceptors, Falcons, Outriders, E-wings, Brobots. Only a few 'efficiency' ships still stand, while the meta up to Wave 3 was all about that.

Tangent: I have to say, you've got to love a game where Millennium Falcon + C3P0 + R2D2 isn't just great from a fluff perspective, it's also a winning combo. Imagine if one of those droids was only worth taking on board the Rebel Transport, or the Outrider, or something equally unfluffy. /end tangent

I understand that you're only using Push The Limit as an example of what you're talking about, but given that it's not even that strong an example I can't get worked up about what might or might not happen to game balance in the hypothetical future.

It's just an example. If he would have taken Falcon title + C3PO + R2D2 as an example this thread would have been on fire with people agreeing.

This is definitely happening though, synergizing upgrade cards is why the current meta is all about high end ships. Decimators, Phantoms, Interceptors, Falcons, Outriders, E-wings, Brobots. Only a few 'efficiency' ships still stand, while the meta up to Wave 3 was all about that.

considering all those ships are more than beatable, it is possible that synergy is less the factor than m.o.v and a baffling lack of partial scoring.

When even your 1 hull Han isn't worth jack **** to your opponent, it makes sense to load on the upgrades and go as defensively as possible.

But given the popularity of reliably defensive ships such as turtle-tir and Corran-d2, many would say Gunner is the far more useful buy than R2-D2 (crew)

the reason R2-D2 gained infamy was because of Heaver's victory at World's, and apparently he ran that configuration specifically to counter the deluge of gunner + c3po hans he knew he would run into. Against the aforementioned small ships, it is far less useful because they really don't give two ***** about a single 3-dice primary. Hell, Corran by himself is almost invincible 1-on-1, gunner be damned.

Not that I wouldn't mind seeing anything that inordinately favors boring PWTs taken right the **** out of the game, mind. It's just that they aren't a great example of synergy stacking as much as poor scoring practices or, at the absolute worse, C3po just being way too good by himself.

But IMO its not a balance issue. I've repeatedly run into han + corran or cheri + soontir often even twice in one tournie. I've taken them out routinely with Jake, a ptl greenie, and 3 protos sometimes even going 200-0. Problem iS I lose one game, Either through being genuinely outplayed or my typically, legendarily sh*tty green dice and I end up placing below the squads I handily beat.

There are very few games that recieve continuous updates or additions that don't fail from thier own success. I've played to many card games, Mmo's, and miniature games that get bogged down by thier own expansions that it basically kills thier own recruitment and slowly dwindles it's player base. Xwing will be the same. Take a look at games in the above genres that continue to succeed such as MTG but the reason that game stays relevant is it continually invalidates older expansions. Now compare that to the once extremely successful Star Wars ccg from decipher after almost a dozen expansion the game died.

Mein Got! There's somebody else who gets it! Plus one for taking the time to say what so few realize?

I understand that you're only using Push The Limit as an example of what you're talking about, but given that it's not even that strong an example I can't get worked up about what might or might not happen to game balance in the hypothetical future.

It's just an example. If he would have taken Falcon title + C3PO + R2D2 as an example this thread would have been on fire with people agreeing.

This is definitely happening though, synergizing upgrade cards is why the current meta is all about high end ships. Decimators, Phantoms, Interceptors, Falcons, Outriders, E-wings, Brobots. Only a few 'efficiency' ships still stand, while the meta up to Wave 3 was all about that.

considering all those ships are more than beatable, it is possible that synergy is less the factor than m.o.v and a baffling lack of partial scoring.

When even your 1 hull Han isn't worth jack **** to your opponent, it makes sense to load on the upgrades and go as defensively as possible.

But given the popularity of reliably defensive ships such as turtle-tir and Corran-d2, many would say Gunner is the far more useful buy than R2-D2 (crew)

the reason R2-D2 gained infamy was because of Heaver's victory at World's, and apparently he ran that configuration specifically to counter the deluge of gunner + c3po hans he knew he would run into. Against the aforementioned small ships, it is far less useful because they really don't give two ***** about a single 3-dice primary. Hell, Corran by himself is almost invincible 1-on-1, gunner be damned.

Not that I wouldn't mind seeing anything that inordinately favors boring PWTs taken right the **** out of the game, mind. It's just that they aren't a great example of synergy stacking as much as poor scoring practices or, at the absolute worse, C3po just being way too good by himself.

But IMO its not a balance issue. I've repeatedly run into han + corran or cheri + soontir often even twice in one tournie. I've taken them out routinely with Jake, a ptl greenie, and 3 protos sometimes even going 200-0. Problem iS I lose one game, Either through being genuinely outplayed or my typically, legendarily sh*tty green dice and I end up placing below the squads I handily beat.

It's not about 1 single ship or combo of cards and not about Gunner vs R2D2 on a Falcon. It's about a trend that's noticeable in the entire spectrum of the game, a trend that will grow exponentially if FFG isn't carefull.

In W3 there also was no partial MOV scoring, yet Tie swarms and XXBB reigned supreme. Large ships where few and far between. Now it is the other way around, and it has nothing to do with MOV and everything with the amount of (useful) upgrade slots on a ship.