Example 1

Push the Limit is a 3 point card.

How many points should it be 'worth' on:

- Soontir Fel?

- Soontir Fel with Autothrusters?

- Darth Vader?

- Chewbacca?

- Tycho Celchu?

Is Push the Limit always going to give 3 points 'worth of value' on every ship?

***

Example 2

Soontir Fel is a 27 point pilot.

Is he 'worth':

- 27 points naked?

- 30 points with Stealth Device?

- 29 points with Autothrusters?

- 30 points with Push the Limit?

- 32 points with Autothrusters and Push the Limit?

Are all of those combinations 'worth' their points?

***

Example 3

Engine Upgrade is a 4 point card.

How many points should it be 'worth' on:

- Outer Rim Smuggler?

- Han Solo?

- Omicron Group Pilot?

- Darth Vader?

- Darth Vader with the ATC fix?

- Gold Squadron Pilot?

Is Engine Upgrade always going to give 4 points 'worth of value' on every ship?

***

Synergy appears to trump any attempt to print a single cost value for any card.

How many points do you think Push the Limit should be 'worth' and why?

How many points do you think C-3PO should be 'worth' and why?

Would a 'balanced' game be better if card costs were printed like the following terrible example?:

Push the Limit costs 2 points to equip, or 1 point to equip to Darth Vader, or 3 points to equip to Soontir Fel, or 4 points to equip to Soontir Fel with Autothrusters.

No. It would suck.

How is it mathematically possible to 'balance' the game when the 'worth' of a card is based on its synergy with other cards?

I am genuinely interested, so please convince me how mathematical modelling can trump synergy, so that all cards are equally 'balanced'.

Thanks.

You can't. Cards are good on some and bad on other ships. Having all cards be equally good would make list building really stale.

That is the whole point!! Working out what works well enough for its points!!!!!!

There are some structural point costing issues but if you go that route you end up having to have massive cards as you change the point cost for literally every different pilot in the game. Oh, Calculation sucks- except when you're Bossk. VI is not very good unless you're PS6-7+ then you can outbid important people.

It's just one of those things.

If the game had a rulebook instead of cards, upgrades could be balanced relative to the ships/pilots. A bit like 40K has different points costs for heavy weapons in heavy weapons squads vs tactical squads. Downside would be that it would be impractical to include all possible upgrades and adding upgrades would be a chore.

The ideal middle would be some kind of official software solution, but for various reasons that was not chosen. So this is what we have.

With regards to your question: I don't think it is possible to balance the upgrades. Some are clearly better than others, perhaps even in all situations. And that is even true if you ignore all pilot/upgrade combinations. Hull upgrade is more worth on a 3 agility ship. Some abilities extend to other ships; Etahn is more valuable next to a Heavy Laser Cannon or Ten Numb.

But when we talk about balance, we talk about ships and pilots. Upgrades are usually ignored in this (except as how they relate to pilots - see the TLT discussions). Nobody is bothered if a particular upgrade is never used in tournaments, but it is considered a problem that Rookie Pilots are rarely fielded. The first "here is my Saboteur fix" thread has yet to be started.

The result is that upgrade costs are strongly unbalanced. Do we expect differently? The whole points system fails to balance lists. It is meant to regulate choices and limit excesses, not to make all choices equally viable.

well, each card could have a category - maneuver, token/action economy, defensive advantage etc; could be an icon, for easy identification. Then you could add extra cost on the pilot cards for certain of those categories - like +1 on Soontir for defensive abilities (just an example). Or simply list the icons of the categories on the pilot card that should have added costs, and apply a fixed extra cost (+1 or even +2 to each card with the icon listed).

It's possible to do, without rulebook or huge charts. It still wouldn't be perfect, but that way certain "no-brainer" combos could be avoided or be less "no-brainer". Not sure if it would add to the game though ;-)

Oh, Calculation sucks- except when you're Bossk.

Or Ten, or Maarek, or imperial Kath...

The short answer is that you can't.

The follow up is, is this a terrible thing? I love a balanced game as much as anyone, but there is always going to be a certain amount of 'noise' with these sort of games.

Part of the fun is working out what goes well with what, both upgrades and pilots and pilots with other pilots, for the effect you wish to create in the game. It doesn't have to be perfect, as long as it's reasonably close.

Otherwise you either; severely limit yourself to specific types of interactions or, make the game overly complicated.

Whether an upgrade is balanced is determined by its optimal application. If a pilot is good at shedding stress, has a good amount of actions on its bar, depends on those actions to stay alive or gets some additional benefit due to the stress token (or removing it) PTL is worth those 3pts. If not, you are better of with a other EPT.

In other words, PTL is balanced on A wings and Interceptors but overpriced on BTL-A4 Y-wings. Being able to reconise that is list building skill which is a large part of the game.

Ships and pilots are designed to be balanced with the upgrades/synergies available to them in mind. A HWK without a turret isn't worth 16pts, it might be worth 10. However if you would decrease its cost and increase the cost of all turrets by 6pts, no-one would ever equip a Ywing with a turret.

Is Push the Limit always going to give 3 points 'worth of value' on every ship?

Easy question. No. Which is why people don't pay it for many ships.

People don't put PTL on, say, Black Squadron pilots. Because it's not worth the 3 points it costs on those ships.

A HWK without a turret isn't worth 16pts, it might be worth 10.

Oh, really?

http://geordanr.github.io/xwing/?f=Rebel%20Alliance&d=v3!s!47:54,-1,75:3:-1:

A HWK without a turret isn't worth 16pts, it might be worth 10.

Oh, really?

http://geordanr.github.io/xwing/?f=Rebel%20Alliance&d=v3!s!47:54,-1,75:3:-1:

I would build every single squad as an 82 point build becuase this would be an automatic include for 18 pts.

IMO almost every upgrade seems very well balance if you look at it on its most powerful, synergistic ship but that often makes them look over priced in other builds.

The only card that really bugs me is Engine Upgrade. A large ship should require a much larger engine to move it the same as a small ship which to me means that for the same cost the small ship should move farther, or the small enging upgrade should cost less. All I need to make me happy is this new card:

Upgraded Engine

Modification 2 points

Small ship only.

Your action bar gains the boost icon.

A HWK without a turret isn't worth 16pts, it might be worth 10.

Oh, really?

http://geordanr.github.io/xwing/?f=Rebel%20Alliance&d=v3!s!47:54,-1,75:3:-1:

I would build every single squad as an 82 point build becuase this would be an automatic include for 18 pts.

It was just an example to make a point, but if you want a single evade token and stress relief for 22 points by all means be my guest! (28-16+10=22)

The main issue for me is that they didn't differentiate large base ships early on. Some cards are substantially better on large base ship. They've started making large/small card now at least. You're never going to get complete balance without having a complicated formula. (Like battle value in battletech) and that breaks every time you change the meta.

The fact that FFG decided to make X Wing part miniatures game, part card game is... less than ideal IMO. It's one of the reasons we have this cost vs synergy issue.

If each faction had a booklet of rules instead of cards, then it would have been easy to adjust the cost for each upgrade depending on who the pilot was.

The fact that FFG decided to make X Wing part miniatures game, part card game is... less than ideal IMO. It's one of the reasons we have this cost vs synergy issue.

If each faction had a booklet of rules instead of cards, then it would have been easy to adjust the cost for each upgrade depending on who the pilot was.

You'd have to revise the whole codex every time, instead of just updating a card. It'd be worse.

The fact that FFG decided to make X Wing part miniatures game, part card game is... less than ideal IMO. It's one of the reasons we have this cost vs synergy issue.

If each faction had a booklet of rules instead of cards, then it would have been easy to adjust the cost for each upgrade depending on who the pilot was.

You'd have to revise the whole codex every time, instead of just updating a card. It'd be worse.

There wouldn't be an "every time" because you'd release all pilots, ships and upgrades at once, same as a GW codex. None of this adding new units all the time sillyness.

The fact that FFG decided to make X Wing part miniatures game, part card game is... less than ideal IMO. It's one of the reasons we have this cost vs synergy issue.If each faction had a booklet of rules instead of cards, then it would have been easy to adjust the cost for each upgrade depending on who the pilot was.

You'd have to revise the whole codex every time, instead of just updating a card. It'd be worse.

There wouldn't be an "every time" because you'd release all pilots, ships and upgrades at once, same as a GW codex. None of this adding new units all the time sillyness.

There wouldn't be an "every time" because you'd release all pilots, ships and upgrades at once, same as a GW codex. None of this adding new units all the time sillyness.

But but but...

Adding new ships all the time is one of the most-fun aspects of the game!

Obviously we are both getting some very different things out of this game.

Is any named Hawk worth it's points if you have no other ship? Is the targetlock shuttle worth it's points if you only have acadamy ties?

Synergy value applys to a lot more than just upgrade cards. List building in this game is all about getting the best value for point off every single upgrade and ship.

Is any named Hawk worth it's points if you have no other ship? Is the targetlock shuttle worth it's points if you only have acadamy ties?

Synergy value applys to a lot more than just upgrade cards. List building in this game is all about getting the best value for point off every single upgrade and ship.

Yes, all of the Scum HWKs But yes, you probably are right about the Rebels.

Actually I just got what the OP is saying. When was the last time you saw a y-wing with just torps on the field? In fiction this was very common place with only a handful of y-wings having working turrets.

I mean why would you take a y-wing with two torps when for the same(ish) price you could take a x-wing with one. The Torps are worth more to the more manuverable fighter. (granted torps are overcosted anyway).

A feel there should be an across the board system to give certain ships a incentive to take certain upgrades. Especially where such a upgrade is canon for that ship. Ys should get 1pt off all torps, Xs 1pt off astromechs and Tie-Ds should get cheaper cannons. I'm sure you get my point. Perhaps the little upgrade symbol on the ship should be green to represent this.

The ability to mathematically cost a ship or upgrade is insignificant next to the power of the dice.

Wamahordes and Malifaux have at least 7 factions. 40k has... an absurd number of them post-6th edition. X-wing? 2 to start, now 3. To keep the metagame shifting, regular updtes are necessary, and since there are only 3 faction, you'd be seeing new splatbooks every six months.

So just get the balance right the first time, and don't worry about adjusting the meta all the time. It's not necessary, especially for a game with as short a lifespan as X Wing.