First: This isn't a troll post. Some may think so but I'm curious to actual opinions.

I'm just curious if you can put together squads and play for fun or will it be too one sided? X-Wings against TIE fighters for example.

Mathjugglers list of ships is often recommended for new players; but many squads have house rules. Are they really need just to play casually? Many posts about the X-Wing T-65 being unplayable; TIE Defender not worth taking; A-Wing being completely broken; etc. Is it that bad? People ask for a nudge for the X-Wing; they get a nudge and then people say what we need is something that screams fix. I'm so confused. I've been collecting since about wave 2 and yes I have multiples of everything except a few large and huge ships. But I don't play often and now I wonder. How bad is it?

Coming from a war gaming back ground we always had units that filled specific roles. When comparing point for point in a head on firing squad no one ever expected that, for example, jeeps should be able to beat tanks regardless of points. Jeeps were either recon or cic. No one cried that 100 points of jeeps couldn't beat 100 points of tanks if you line them up and fired. That wasn't their job. The same was true for artillery, calvary, etc.

I see a few different types of play in X-Wing: 100 point tournament death match (points); missions; epic. Of course you will always have thematic and house campaigns, etc. The 100 point tournament seems to have pushed everything else to the side and made them almost irrelevant to future releases.

So I guess I'm asking:

A) Is it really that bad and without fixes the game would never work?

A1) Seriously can you sit down and play with X-Wings, Y-Wings, A-Wing, B-Wings, TIE Fighters, Interceptors , Defenders and Advanced and have a balanced game?

B) The game isn't that bad and a few or factional points difference matters more math than is does in play.

B1) If that's the case are these fixes over blown and the ships are not that bad??

C) Something else?

Followup questions:

A) Can we have specific role craft that may not ever compare to a fighter. Can a bomber be a bomber and a freighter be a freighter or must a freighter be on par with even the most capable fighter? Or will tournaments and math be the only thing that decides ship viability?

Look at results from more than a year ago (pre-Wave 4). I'd venture to say that most lists were naked or contained very few upgrades as filler only. Was the metagame unbalanced? Hard to say. Though, I think without upgrades you'd see a lot more emphasis on pilot skill in the middle ranks.

No. I Don't think so.

Advanced needs upgrades to be competitive, Y-wing without either turret or ordnance is both unfluffy and useless, B-wings are on the other hand terrifically efficient despite fluffily having all the bombs and big guns. A-wings have chardaan and prockets, and really neither one or the other, to say nothing about test pilot. same goes for interceptors with ptl/autothrusters, to say nothing of RGI...

Thing get exaggerated bit. The T-65 has a Couple of strong pilots (Biggs, Wedge now that BB-8+PTL gives him mobility and action economy), Generic A-wing's and Jake are solid, and while Defenders are overpriced, the fact that no other ship does quite the same thing allows them to still win if you know exactly what you're doing.

Also, Majorjuggler's list was outdated last I checked and didn't consider thinks like Extra Munitions and Integrated Astromech.

Exit: Stupid Auto-correct.

No, the game is balanced around the option of upgrades. That's the reason you don't see 6 naked HWKs taking Worlds. Some ships need upgrades.

The game state is solid in its base form. I routinely try out generic fighters in an attempt to reconnect to the root of the game, if I feel myself bogging my games down with too many addendums.

bade x-wings versus base interceptors is super fun.

Tie swarm runs pretty well naked, as does bbbbz.

Dedicated tournament players are all about reducing the variance in a list. In the 101 games you take, you will have too much variety in results to want to risk taking things like an X-wing over a B-wing. You want to ensure that you do the utmost of damage each turn and can endure the utmost amount of punishment. Look at what is popular....things like Han Solo with Gunner. I mean, this guy rarely misses! Soontir Fel not only is able to get out of arcs, but he gets so many tokens that it gets hard to shoot him down without concentrated fire. The first step is to reduce the amount of luck that can affect your game. This also means that ordnance is rarely worth it as you need to be able to adjust those dice 100% of the time to make the points worth it.

Next, recall that it's all 3x3 Deathmatch. So, things like speed aren't as important. The game is much different when it's just 3x3. If you play with scenarios, other things become important.

I think that the Tie Advanced really needed a fix. I have played that ship quite a bit and I think it really could've used it. Besides that, I'm not sure about the rest.

This game was designed for pickup play- I don't think you're going to see "well here's a freighter that's unarmed and just hauls stuff" because it doesn't really make sense in that context. I mean if you're going to make up weird scenarios you can houserule in one in a jiffy, you don't need FFG's blessing for that.

And yes, a lot of generics are excellent with no upgrades on them, from the Bandit Squadron Pilot to the Blue Squadron Pilot to the Cartel Marauder and Binayre Pirate.

NONE of the ships need upgrades to play for fun. In fact the game is more fun when just playing with very basic lists mimicking the movies.

The tournament play is where all the "This ship is broken" comes from. Unless you are hosting a Worlds event at your house all the chatter about upgrades and broken ships is just noise.

Playing a game other than 100 point kill fest is a blast. Tie fighters escorting bombers where the mission objective is to keep the bombers alive is a good throwback to your war gaming background.

P.S. If you do go to worlds 6 naked Hawks will not do well.

X-Wings and other ships that don't do well in a pure math game can still perform just fine, especially for casual play. As the level of competition has increased these small differences have been more and more relevant at competitive events. Also, echo chambers tend to reinforce the belief that some ships are just soooo bad when really use just a little underperforming.

Noo even in casual play the tie advanced was broken, in casual play x-wing's still struggle because they can't alter their final position, against turrets interceptors were still borked before Autothrusters.

Ffg can't get data from casual games though but tournaments and these forums help them understand what's not being used and why.

There are a couple of builds that are legit (triple bounty hunters, BBBBZ, TIE Swarm, possibly 5x Cartel Marauder, etc.) that can be run naked or nearly naked and find success, but pretty much limited to brute force jousting lists. Most arc dodgy and tank lists live and die by the upgrades that magnify their abilities.

First: This isn't a troll post.

Speaking for myself, it doesn't come across that way.

I'm just curious if you can put together squads and play for fun or will it be too one sided? X-Wings against TIE fighters for example.

Mathjugglers list of ships is often recommended for new players; but many squads have house rules. Are they really need just to play casually? Many posts about the X-Wing T-65 being unplayable; TIE Defender not worth taking; A-Wing being completely broken; etc. Is it that bad? People ask for a nudge for the X-Wing; they get a nudge and then people say what we need is something that screams fix. I'm so confused. I've been collecting since about wave 2 and yes I have multiples of everything except a few large and huge ships. But I don't play often and now I wonder. How bad is it?

So my answer here is that the kind of effects you're talking about are relatively small. That is, they'll show up if you look at a year's worth of tournament results (e.g., X-wings don't show up very often, and when they do, it's usually one of a small group of named pilots). In an individual game, though, dice and player decisions are going to have a much bigger effect than a 1.5-point mismatch between the X-wing's value and its cost.

Some things probably are big enough to notice. The TIE Advanced is a good example: a squad that takes a TIE Advanced other than Vader, without implementing FFG's fix, has taken on a minor but noticeable handicap. But those are the exception, not the rule.

Coming from a war gaming back ground we always had units that filled specific roles. When comparing point for point in a head on firing squad no one ever expected that, for example, jeeps should be able to beat tanks regardless of points. Jeeps were either recon or cic. No one cried that 100 points of jeeps couldn't beat 100 points of tanks if you line them up and fired. That wasn't their job. The same was true for artillery, calvary, etc.

This is a different question, I think. X-wing does have some of that: a HWK is not going to play as a front-line combatant. The HWK's price is related to its effect on the rest of the list, but isn't a good reflection of how it would fare in a toe-to-toe matchup. It's an upgrade card, but Emperor Palpatine is sort of the same way: he has an outsized effect on the fight as a whole, but if you're looking at pure efficiency for points he's (sometimes) not a great card.

I also think you can expect that kind of indirect effect to become more prominent as FFG opens up new areas of design space to explore in the game.

I see a few different types of play in X-Wing: 100 point tournament death match (points); missions; epic. Of course you will always have thematic and house campaigns, etc. The 100 point tournament seems to have pushed everything else to the side and made them almost irrelevant to future releases.

I think that's... definitely one perspective on things. Here's another one: if the game is balanced around competitive play, all those other kinds of play will be supported and balanced. A release that was balanced primarily around casual, thematic play, though, probably wouldn't be great for tournament play.

So I guess I'm asking:

A) Is it really that bad and without fixes the game would never work?

A1) Seriously can you sit down and play with X-Wings, Y-Wings, A-Wing, B-Wings, TIE Fighters, Interceptors , Defenders and Advanced and have a balanced game?

B) The game isn't that bad and a few or factional points difference matters more math than is does in play.

If you're sitting down for a beer-and-pretzels game with a few friends, you can probably throw just about whatever on the table and have it work fairly well. Even if it doesn't, who cares? You can just swap sides and play another game...

B1) If that's the case are these fixes over blown and the ships are not that bad??

...but I think that's true precisely because FFG is (now) paying attention and trying very hard to build a game that's balanced at more than the level required for casual, thematic play. It's more difficult and costly to do that, but it means the game can support lots of different kinds of players in its audience.

And it also means that you and your friend(s) can sit down and be confident that you're not, through casual play and experimentation, going to uncover something that results in a bad experience.

Followup questions:

A) Can we have specific role craft that may not ever compare to a fighter. Can a bomber be a bomber and a freighter be a freighter or must a freighter be on par with even the most capable fighter? Or will tournaments and math be the only thing that decides ship viability?

I think this is a bit of a straw man. I don't think very many people would seriously say that because the HWK is a pretty bad dogfighter it can't be part of a strong list.

***

It's not in response to the questions in your post, but I'd like to note parenthetically that a game without upgrades is different from a game without fixes. X-wings are less interesting if you can't choose among astromechs. A Y-wing without a turret is a wallowing, ineffective tugboat. Bombers without missiles or torpedoes are boring. A Scyk gets extra options from the Heavy Scyk title, rather than being locked into a single role. And so on.

So yes, you can absolutely play without upgrades. As someone has already mentioned, the early competitive metagame strongly discouraged upgrades of any kind in favor of raw statistical efficiency. But that was (rightly) considered a weakness of competitive play in X-wing: the lack of upgrades meant the game was homogenized. If you get rid of upgrades, there's a much smaller scope to have interesting things to happen.

Plenty of lists work fine without upgrades. I don't think you need to be shy about a few upgrades when teaching new players, though.

In my experience only the pre-ATC TIE advanced has ever been a true shot in the foot in casual. The TIE advanced really, really did need it. The A-wing was getting there but you were probably okay.

As for naked, I wouldn't run the TIE punisher, TIE bomber, TIE advanced, HWK, K-wing or Y-wing naked. The TIE advanced got such an extreme fix because its situation was so dire. The HWK can't fight without its turret and is designed that way, the Y-wing you might get away with but it was designed with a choice of turret in mind. The TIE punisher, K-wing and TIE bomber are ordnance boats which are meant to be loaded up with boom.

5 naked K-rax are pretty effective!!

Coming from a war gaming back ground we always had units that filled specific roles. When comparing point for point in a head on firing squad no one ever expected that, for example, jeeps should be able to beat tanks regardless of points. Jeeps were either recon or cic. No one cried that 100 points of jeeps couldn't beat 100 points of tanks if you line them up and fired. That wasn't their job. The same was true for artillery, calvary, etc.

Followup questions:

A) Can we have specific role craft that may not ever compare to a fighter. Can a bomber be a bomber and a freighter be a freighter or must a freighter be on par with even the most capable fighter? Or will tournaments and math be the only thing that decides ship viability?

B) Is is even possible that all types of play can be accommodated or is the 100 razor's edge balance the only driving force?

you'll have to take that distinction out of your head, because it is irrelevant here

every ship in the scale of X-wing can be reasonably expected to kill every other ship. This isn't Armada, where a single squadron of Tie fighters has a chance in hell of downing a Cr-90, or Warmachine where your dinky little ranger knives will do no more than scratch the paint off of a warjack

the dice mechanics in this game allow for every ship to kill every other ship. If they reliably cannot, then something has gone wrong

a.) the roles in this system have a bit of overlap and they're not as clear cut as in most games

When taking into account mathwing, we can see efficient and inefficient ships. Those inefficient ships better do something to justify their inefficiency

big fat turrets? well, they have turrets. They go fast and they shoot in all directions; avoiding sustained engagements with larger numbers of more efficienct enemies. That's their "role"

bombers, particularly K-wings? similar, you avoid relying on a horribly inefficient gun-per-points and you abuse their maneuverability (plus mines) to the absolute maximum to win games. With intelligence agent and conner nets, they're particularly suited to crippling enemy arc-dodgers. That's their role.

hell, A-wings (whose only "upgrade" is "charidaan refit" which isn't an upgrade as much as ffg acknowledging they ****** up their initial pricing) are inefficient relative to tie fighters, but they're incredibly maneuverable and you can exploit that maneuverability to overcome their inefficiency (particularly through blocking the enemy)

The X-wing?...it can focus + evade...has jack **** else

that's how you interpret game balance. The less efficient something is, the more it'll need a special upgrade or ability to do something other than just throw dice at a more efficient enemy, because said enemy will be far more favored by the odds

and yet, we have Han Solo being one of the most infuriating pieces of **** in the game. Why? because you never tell Han the odds

B) yes ,100 points is the official mark for balance

First: This isn't a troll post. Some may think so but I'm curious to actual opinions.

This doesn't come across as a troll post. In fact you are putting your finger on an essential issue in this game (at least as predominately discussed in this community).

I'm just curious if you can put together squads and play for fun or will it be too one sided? X-Wings against TIE fighters for example.

And the issue is the very large bias towards 100 point competition 'dogfights', compared with playing missions or scenarios (sometimes referred to as 'fun' play).

Mathjugglers list of ships is often recommended for new players; but many squads have house rules. Are they really need just to play casually? Many posts about the X-Wing T-65 being unplayable; TIE Defender not worth taking; A-Wing being completely broken; etc. Is it that bad? People ask for a nudge for the X-Wing; they get a nudge and then people say what we need is something that screams fix. I'm so confused. I've been collecting since about wave 2 and yes I have multiples of everything except a few large and huge ships. But I don't play often and now I wonder. How bad is it?

It's only bad if your view of 'playable' is limited to the 100 point list.

Coming from a war gaming back ground we always had units that filled specific roles. When comparing point for point in a head on firing squad no one ever expected that, for example, jeeps should be able to beat tanks regardless of points. Jeeps were either recon or cic. No one cried that 100 points of jeeps couldn't beat 100 points of tanks if you line them up and fired. That wasn't their job. The same was true for artillery, calvary, etc.

In the several responses you have received nobody has mentioned that X-Wing can very easily be played in the context of a tactical level wargame (that you are probably more used to playing). IMHO this community seriously undervalues this type of play in deference to the 100 point competition.

I see a few different types of play in X-Wing: 100 point tournament death match (points); missions; epic. Of course you will always have thematic and house campaigns, etc. The 100 point tournament seems to have pushed everything else to the side and made them almost irrelevant to future releases.

I hope that FFG does not consider the 100 point list mentality as the only criteria for future releases. I want to be able to see if I can do the Kessel Run in less than twelve parsecs with my Hound's Tooth against a force of Tie's.

So I guess I'm asking:

A) Is it really that bad and without fixes the game would never work?

A1) Seriously can you sit down and play with X-Wings, Y-Wings, A-Wing, B-Wings, TIE Fighters, Interceptors , Defenders and Advanced and have a balanced game?

Maybe not balanced, but what is wrong with playing an asymmetrical mission?

B) The game isn't that bad and a few or factional points difference matters more math than is does in play.

B1) If that's the case are these fixes over blown and the ships are not that bad??

Bad is 'bad' only in the limited context of a head-to-head dogfight.

C) Something else?

The 'something else' is only limited by your imagination (and maybe George Lucas's).

Followup questions:

A) Can we have specific role craft that may not ever compare to a fighter. Can a bomber be a bomber and a freighter be a freighter or must a freighter be on par with even the most capable fighter? Or will tournaments and math be the only thing that decides ship viability?

In a mission/scenario a bomber can surely be a bomber if you are playing a bombing mission.

B) Is is even possible that all types of play can be accommodated or is the 100 razor's edge balance the only driving force?

I sure hope that there is room in this game for all types of play and that it does not become totally dominated by the 100 point tournament dogfight. I don't believe that the FFG philosophy is so single-minded. Look at the 'Mission Control' tool = http://tools.fantasyflightgames.com/xwing/ This doesn't get much coverage in the discussions of this community though.

Okay I re-read this before posting any maybe it comes off like a rant. But I still say these are serious questions and I'm curious what the community has to say.

Thanks,

I hope that FFG does not consider the 100 point list mentality as the only criteria for future releases. I want to be able to see if I can do the Kessel Run in less than twelve parsecs with my Hound's Tooth against a force of Tie's.

...the Kessel Run is a hyperspace route. Realspace combat is kind of irrelevant.

4 phantoms would be perfect.

I hope that FFG does not consider the 100 point list mentality as the only criteria for future releases. I want to be able to see if I can do the Kessel Run in less than twelve parsecs with my Hound's Tooth against a force of Tie's.

...the Kessel Run is a hyperspace route. Realspace combat is kind of irrelevant.

Yup - and a parsec is 19 trillion miles. It was a metaphor for adventurous space travel.

I think others have covered a lot of this better than I could, but the one thing I wanted to point out.... having come from wargaming [40k and Fantasy]....

I don't think that this game has that finite interesting element or purpose for scouts and utility ships. Basically, every ship really does need to hold its own and contribute to the damage out put, or they're a wasted ship... Or, they need to have such a critical and amazing rule change they bring to the table that they are worth the points. Where as with Warhammer, it wasn't really about how much damage your troops were bringing to the table, and a lot more about how effectively they fill a needed roll in that army list.

Remember too, most war games play via objectives and not completely by "who can trash the other guy the most." I think this is why I love Armada just a touch more, because it's not completely about how well I smash the other ships, there are other things to worry about that.... even if I do smash the other guys ships, he could win because he was doing the objective itself while I ignored it. Because of this objective play, you have even more reason to bring in some support units that might be able to handle those things in a pinch.

There's quite a few 0 upgrade builds you can run that are really solid- 4BZ is the obvious one that comes to mind, but my very first tournament win, almost 2 years ago now, was with Han, Wedge and Biggs, no upgrades on any of them. My second was running the Rebel SNES team- Dutch, Arvel, Ibtisam and Garven, all very, very naked.

Sometimes it depends on the ship, sometimes it depends on the build, but there's a lot of flexibility when it comes to building a good squadron.

I do think support ships really come into play in epic games- characters like Biggs, Jonus or Serrisu get a lot more powerful the more ships there are on the table.

it plays quite well without upgrades - if you want to play ultra competitively - you start losing efficiency with some of the non upgraded ships - Tie ADV and A-wing - but you also lose the insane efficiency from some other ships Soontir Fel, Corran Horn. The whole metascape of the game changes, but still functions. There are also some wacky effects too - for example the Tie adv and A-wing are actually pretty good vs low agi, even at the pre-fix cost ranges. Especially when you look at the game more casually.

People get all up in arms over the efficiency and cost of ships - and find some things are off cost by 1-2 points. The worst offenders maybe 4 points. That's 4% in your list - and in some ways of list building (the ship tier theory) really don't affect the output that much. The question becomes more important in the comparative mindset - why take 3 academy ties when I could take SuperSoontir? Why take X when I can take Y. - This aspect is magnified by upgrade cards. Where we can build synergies that can give us efficiency that is higher than the base ships.

Also - look at the game rebalanced to another point level - the whole metascape changes again. What's not viable at 100 points can be super useful at 300, or even at 47. Other things run wild at 300 points (usually those that you can't spam at 100 points)

When you start playing with objectives - the game changes yet again. It's actually amazing how many ways there are to play - that function reasonably well. I'd love to see more campaign / mission support.