One of the local shops ran a 150pt dogfight tourney back in December of last year and it was an absolute blast. Great change of pace from the 100pt format IMO.

On one hand I know the game balance could handle a boost in points (from 5 to 50) with no problems. The reality is that the game doesn't 'need' to add points to the standard format. There's plenty of variety at 100 pts and you are forced to make some hard choices (as evident by the number of perfect 101 or 102 pt squads I come up with, but can't legally run). I think this is a good thing in the long run.

So I think the occasional 'fun' tourney with more points and casual games is the place for 100+ pt dogfights. And then there is epic DF if you want to use more ships w/ more stuff in an official tourney.

nope.

100pts is where it is at.

No need to change it just because some ships cost alot. thats the whole point to the point limit. Make it fit.

to add to this, I'd like to bring up ye ole article from when FFG made bombers and b-wings:

“The TIE bomber and B-wing feature a staggering array of offensive upgrades, but savvy players will realize that these upgrade options favor customization over maximization. A TIE bomber may be able to equip two Proton Torpedoes and two Cluster Missiles , but will it be able to fire all four of those weapons during a single match? The real value is in the ship’s flexibility, allowing players to equip it with just the right assortment of missiles and torpedoes to fit any build. The same is true for the B-wing."

with Wave 7 bringing us the even more cumbersome upgrade bars of the Punisher and K-wing, this quote is now more valuable than ever

Basically, not being able to use everything in a game is a good thing; it lets you make actual choices

150 is WAY, WAY more fun.

For times at tournaments I'm not sure if 150 is good. It might be or not I'm not sure if it would slow down things much or not. In casual play an extra 15-20 minutes is not a big deal. But it would be in tournament timed play.

15 minuets has been added on. Rounds are now set to 75 minuets from 60 minutes. So in a way there already is some sort of point creep although the purpose of this change was to reduce the impact MOV has in timed rounds and lists that are built around them.

75 minutes was always the intended, and best, time limit. They merely got rid of the option to cut down the time, which was a concession to venues who might not be able to due all the rounds needed with 75 minute rounds.

Once upon a time... a 100pt tournament was run with 60minute rounds.

Then that became 75minutes.

I see no real issue with running say a 110 or 120pt tournament with 75 - 90 minute rounds.

Actually it kind of is a big deal.

The more popular this game has gotten the larger turnouts you have at tournaments. With those larger turnouts there is an increasing difficulty in actually completing some tournaments in a reasonable amount of time. At this stage of the game's growth it is almost critical to have an experienced tournament organizer running any Regionals or above. FFG has clearly wanted to spread things around to different shops from one year to the next but you run the risk of having someone ill-prepared for what's coming.

Last year I attended the Milwaukee Regional which had roughly 50 participants. One of my friends ended up winning the tournament and if I recall correctly they finished up somewhere around 4:00 am, give or take. This year, I heard they had about double the number of participants yet completed the event several hours earlier (by midnight perhaps?).

Conversely, I attended a GSC in South Carolina this past spring that had 22 participants and I left after my top 8 loss. I heard they finished well after midnight. The store owner applied for the GSC because the local group wanted a GSC and they got way more people than they expected. It was a nice clean store and they did their best but they were simply unprepared to handle that tournament. They were nice people and it wasn't really their fault. They were just trying to do something for their regular X-Wing players and they just got something completely different than what they expected.

This game has no signs of slowing down in terms of growth. Moving forward I think FFG is going to need to tweak their organized play for the benefit of their players. Regardless, the one thing that is 100% clear to me is that they cannot afford to add any additional time to tournaments. 75 minutes is the absolute max. More than that is going to create significant issues for tournament play particularly when you don't always have experienced TO's running events.

Because my mate went mad he insisted we play at 150 when we started and if anything it really harms people using phatturrets there's so much firepower on the other side they wither and die fast then the escorts follow quickly.

Though clusters in the middle were a frequent issue.

I prefer the more limited 100.

Basically, not being able to use everything in a game is a good thing; it lets you make actual choices

This argument is fallacious. Why do you think "overpowered" things like fat turrets and phantoms/Soontir Fel tend to dominate? Because point for point they far outstrip their points costs in value. The argument has always been, they are killable with the right list/meta game choices. Only restricting points costs so severely prevents anyone including meta game choices versus the field, typically you can counter one archetype at best in a given 100 point list. Fel, or Fat turrets are not fond of Autoblasters/torpedoes respectively, but the points limits actually prevent these choices from being being viable, whereas with higher limits you are actually rewarded with making a well rounded squad that can handle all opposition, as opposed to going for all the "best" choices (though these are viable also).

Higher points limits actually produce more tactical list building, not less.

As an aside I think the best format is (2D6+3)*100 but this obviously only works for casual play, but it is a lot of fun and gives you new list options not normally possible.

This is something that needs larger scale testing. But people are way too entrenched in the standard to try anything new.

Yeah, the time limit is going to significantly hold Armada and Epic back as tournament games.

Basically, not being able to use everything in a game is a good thing; it lets you make actual choices

This argument is fallacious. Why do you think "overpowered" things like fat turrets and phantoms/Soontir Fel tend to dominate? Because point for point they far outstrip their points costs in value.

the correct answer is "m.o.v" (lack of partial scoring)

Holy hell, this popped into my head earlier today while considering a second IG2000. I genuinely believe 150 would help with fat lists, and now that ship selection is so diverse it is a good time to implement such an idea.

Actually the fact that X-wing doesn't have to up the limit unlike a more recent game from FFG cough*Armada*cough* is a testament to the structure and balance of X-wing.

Armada is 400 points. It is currently lower because wave 2 is not arrived yet. Just like X-Wing, during wave 1 the limit was 40 points.

Yeah...you should see a doctor about that cough. It seems to make ill informed comments come out by mistake

This is something my group has been playing around with. We've run two 150 pt. tournaments so far and it was a lot of fun. We did three, ninety minute rounds each time and it went smoothly with ten and twelve players respectively.

Observations:

Swarms are a bear as much for either side.

Howlrunner and Etahn become even better.

Tripple aggressors is an issue, though mostly because of the time limit. With all those bonuses it's REALLY hard taking down all three.

On the whole very few matches went to time.

This is something that needs larger scale testing. But people are way too entrenched in the standard to try anything new.

True!! The lack of people willing to try something new is a bigger holdup than the perceived issues of the change itself!

This is something that needs larger scale testing. But people are way too entrenched in the standard to try anything new.

True!! The lack of people willing to try something new is a bigger holdup than the perceived issues of the change itself!

To be fair playing x-wing while surfing on an ironing board was always doomed to fail, tokens kept getting washed off.

Basically, not being able to use everything in a game is a good thing; it lets you make actual choices

This argument is fallacious. Why do you think "overpowered" things like fat turrets and phantoms/Soontir Fel tend to dominate? Because point for point they far outstrip their points costs in value.

the correct answer is "m.o.v" (lack of partial scoring)

Basically, not being able to use everything in a game is a good thing; it lets you make actual choices

This argument is fallacious. Why do you think "overpowered" things like fat turrets and phantoms/Soontir Fel tend to dominate? Because point for point they far outstrip their points costs in value. The argument has always been, they are killable with the right list/meta game choices. Only restricting points costs so severely prevents anyone including meta game choices versus the field, typically you can counter one archetype at best in a given 100 point list. Fel, or Fat turrets are not fond of Autoblasters/torpedoes respectively, but the points limits actually prevent these choices from being being viable, whereas with higher limits you are actually rewarded with making a well rounded squad that can handle all opposition, as opposed to going for all the "best" choices (though these are viable also).

Higher points limits actually produce more tactical list building, not less.

As an aside I think the best format is (2D6+3)*100 but this obviously only works for casual play, but it is a lot of fun and gives you new list options not normally possible.

Speaking of fallacious arguments, you have presented a wonderful one. You are telling me that at 100 points people only take the ships that are above value and at 150 points they somehow won't just do the same thing with more ships? That makes no sense at all. Competitive lists will be the same, just with more over value ships added in the extra 50 points.

Additionally, 'I can handle any build' doesn't really seem like a more tactical decision at all. How is 'I'm prepared for anything' more tactically interesting than having weak matchups one must plan around? Sure it's easier and not having a bad matchup is fun, but it's not an interesting choice from a list design or gameplay perspective. More limitation is almost always more interesting and better design than having less limitation, assuming there is still freedom at the more restrictive level.

15 minuets has been added on. Rounds are now set to 75 minuets from 60 minutes.

Tournament rounds have always been 75 minutes, with an option for the organizer to add or subtract 15 minutes at his/her discretion. Apparently that option has been removed, but that is all.

Once upon a time... a 100pt tournament was run with 60minute rounds.

Then that became 75minutes.

As others have said (but it's worth double-tapping), the rule has always been 75 minutes. Venues were allowed to cut it down or increase it to accommodate their players, and that rule is what went away.

On one hand I know the game balance could handle a boost in points (from 5 to 50) with no problems.

I understand the overall point of your post and I agree with you for the most part, but I don't think this is strictly true. The game doesn't balance perfectly even at 100 points, but it's designed for 100 points. Changing a ship's cost by 5% doesn't seem like a big deal, and most of the time it isn't. But changing a ship's cost from 20 to 21 means you go from fielding 5 in a list to fielding 4 with a bunch of upgrades, and that's has the potential to change a lot of things.

Basically, not being able to use everything in a game is a good thing; it lets you make actual choices

This argument is fallacious. Why do you think "overpowered" things like fat turrets and phantoms/Soontir Fel tend to dominate? Because point for point they far outstrip their points costs in value.

That's just as true at 150 points (or 300 points) as it is at 100 points.

Also, you seem to be using "fallacious" as a synonym for "wrong". That's a mistake, although I suppose I should note that it isn't a fallacy.

Higher points limits actually produce more tactical list building, not less.

Because reasons!

This is something that needs larger scale testing. But people are way too entrenched in the standard to try anything new.

True!! The lack of people willing to try something new is a bigger holdup than the perceived issues of the change itself!

The assumption that no one is willing to try a nonstandard formats would be a silly one even if this thread wasn't already full of people who are announcing the results of trying them out.

You couldn't be more wrong. Partial scoring fixes nothing... partial points is only going to be a factor in games that go to time, which is by far in the minority of games...

Suppose only 1 game in 10 goes to time--that is, 10%. If a tournament has 6 rounds of qualifying play, what proportion of players will have had at least one game go to time? The answer is 47% (=1-(1-0.10)^6). So even if just 10% of games are affected, approximately half of players in a tournament will be affected.

Moreover, it's not true that only game that go to time would be affected by partial scoring. Think about this: if you had a hypothetical 100-point ship, you'd win every single match that went to time, which isn't fair. But in games that don't go to time, without partial scoring your opponent can only score 100 points or 0 points, with nothing in between.

I think that people are over selling the brobot threat here. You can't just run them naked, and that's what you'd be doing if you had 108 points of brobots with 12 points of upgrades? Meh.

Actually the fact that X-wing doesn't have to up the limit unlike a more recent game from FFG cough*Armada*cough* is a testament to the structure and balance of X-wing.

Armada is 400 points. It is currently lower because wave 2 is not arrived yet. Just like X-Wing, during wave 1 the limit was 40 points.

And increasing the limit past 100 points open the door for very too much broken combos.

Only the learning missions in the core set were 40 points. Saying that X-wing had a 40 point limit is like saying Armada had only a 180 point limit throughout wave 1.

However I noticed that the 300 point limit for wave 1 Armada matches the 300 point limit for X-wing Epic. Mere coincidence, maybe however I think the designers intended for matches to be at 300 and had to increase it because the gameplay wasn't working as intended. However that is just my theory.

Actually the fact that X-wing doesn't have to up the limit unlike a more recent game from FFG cough*Armada*cough* is a testament to the structure and balance of X-wing.

Armada is 400 points. It is currently lower because wave 2 is not arrived yet. Just like X-Wing, during wave 1 the limit was 40 points.

And increasing the limit past 100 points open the door for very too much broken combos.

Only the learning missions in the core set were 40 points. Saying that X-wing had a 40 point limit is like saying Armada had only a 180 point limit throughout wave 1.

However I noticed that the 300 point limit for wave 1 Armada matches the 300 point limit for X-wing Epic. Mere coincidence, maybe however I think the designers intended for matches to be at 300 and had to increase it because the gameplay wasn't working as intended. However that is just my theory.

300 is a nice round number

In the case of swarms, I believe epic has a rule that says no more then 8 of any one type of ship? If you do play 150 pts a similar ruling seems like a good idea.

As for generics dominating or people just taking 1 or 2 more aces, that's fine. The current meta seems to be about the 1 turret and 1 ace build or running as many cost efficient generics as you can fit, so in that regard nothing changes. What does change is that support ships and ordinance suddenly become more viable. In the current meta it comes down to the simple formula of how much damage I can reliably expect out of a ship in its lifespan, this leaves little room for situational support abilities like we see on the shuttle or HWK or other specific pilots.

Adding more ships quite simply gives you more targets to work with and thus the chances of you not having a target to sync up with are significantly lower, this is turn can justify the use and cost of suchs ships that rarely if ever see use in the 100 pt level.

With a bigger battle field ordinance would see more play as suddenly a powerful alpha strike starts to be comparably useful to other upgrades when there is a good chance your ship will die in the first or second volley and get minimal use out of a EPT or system slot. Also with a bigger battle field anything with AOE becomes alot more viable as it actually starts to return the value of its points. Not to mention you could actually afford it without gimping your ships.

Over all I know it's not perfect, but neither is 100. It'd be nice if we could see some support for other formats like this and epic so we could observe what truly offers more variety of play.

In the case of swarms, I believe epic has a rule that says no more then 8 of any one type of ship? If you do play 150 pts a similar ruling seems like a good idea.

As for generics dominating or people just taking 1 or 2 more aces, that's fine. The current meta seems to be about the 1 turret and 1 ace build or running as many cost efficient generics as you can fit, so in that regard nothing changes. What does change is that support ships and ordinance suddenly become more viable. In the current meta it comes down to the simple formula of how much damage I can reliably expect out of a ship in its lifespan, this leaves little room for situational support abilities like we see on the shuttle or HWK or other specific pilots.

Adding more ships quite simply gives you more targets to work with and thus the chances of you not having a target to sync up with are significantly lower, this is turn can justify the use and cost of suchs ships that rarely if ever see use in the 100 pt level.

With a bigger battle field ordinance would see more play as suddenly a powerful alpha strike starts to be comparably useful to other upgrades when there is a good chance your ship will die in the first or second volley and get minimal use out of a EPT or system slot. Also with a bigger battle field anything with AOE becomes alot more viable as it actually starts to return the value of its points. Not to mention you could actually afford it without gimping your ships.

Over all I know it's not perfect, but neither is 100. It'd be nice if we could see some support for other formats like this and epic so we could observe what truly offers more variety of play.

Didn't read thread, but I will say that 150 offers a ton of fun alternatives without causing a total clusterbumble of the play space. I just think there should be a 7-ship limit per side if this were a pseudo-official play style. Otherwise games would NEVER play to conclusion and the maneuvering would be a nightmare.

I also really dislike the speed at which ships are being released, and I believe that oversaturation WILL ruin this game. Too many options and ships is not necessarily a good thing, and I really think that a much slower pace of release would be much safer to maintain this game's integrity. Not to mention the fact that it just looks like a greedy money play to constantly crank out more and more ships at higher costs. That said, since there ARE so many ships and upgrades and everything now (or by year's end), I would think it reasonable to allow for more creative flexibility in squad-building by releasing official rules for 150 (or 125 or whatever) point play.

In the case of swarms, I believe epic has a rule that says no more then 8 of any one type of ship? If you do play 150 pts a similar ruling seems like a good idea.

As for generics dominating or people just taking 1 or 2 more aces, that's fine. The current meta seems to be about the 1 turret and 1 ace build or running as many cost efficient generics as you can fit, so in that regard nothing changes. What does change is that support ships and ordinance suddenly become more viable. In the current meta it comes down to the simple formula of how much damage I can reliably expect out of a ship in its lifespan, this leaves little room for situational support abilities like we see on the shuttle or HWK or other specific pilots.

Adding more ships quite simply gives you more targets to work with and thus the chances of you not having a target to sync up with are significantly lower, this is turn can justify the use and cost of suchs ships that rarely if ever see use in the 100 pt level.

With a bigger battle field ordinance would see more play as suddenly a powerful alpha strike starts to be comparably useful to other upgrades when there is a good chance your ship will die in the first or second volley and get minimal use out of a EPT or system slot. Also with a bigger battle field anything with AOE becomes alot more viable as it actually starts to return the value of its points. Not to mention you could actually afford it without gimping your ships.

Over all I know it's not perfect, but neither is 100. It'd be nice if we could see some support for other formats like this and epic so we could observe what truly offers more variety of play.

You managed to much more succinctly express my exact thoughts on 150-point play. I love it, and this is basically all the reasons why.