Kdub has exposed the meat of the issue here. OP's complaint is valid but there are several other more salient points of contention. I'd like to see Kdub's list broken out into its own discussion.

I think the upgrade that you discard to gain one agility and ditch a lock for one round was garbage at 3. At 2 it might be playable, 1 would make it good.

Kdub has exposed the meat of the issue here. OP's complaint is valid but there are several other more salient points of contention. I'd like to see Kdub's list broken out into its own discussion.

While his list certainly has valid points, I think everything from wave 1 and possibly wave 2 gets a pass. You simply can not achieve the level of balance you guys are talking about before a game is released and played in the wild. No amount of playtesting g is going to catch everything so the first wave or two you have to expect to have some imbalances. I'm frankly shocked that there wasn't anything in wave 1 that was crazy overpowered. Such a mistake could have killed the game right then and the fact that they didn't make it is a testament to the quality of their design and playtesting. If the cost of only getting slightly OP cards occasionally is that we have a few UP cards, I'm OK with that.

I'm looking at the Comm Relay (3), not yet released. It looks like it is garbage. This should be a 1-2 point upgrade easily. Consistently the designers overcost defensive abilities (with the notable exception of C3PO) forgetting that offense is much more important than defense because you can always choose a target.

Comm Relay has essentially the EXACT same benefit as R5-P9. Which costs 3 points. Gee, its like they DO playtest!

i was considering running Red Ace with R5-P90X (as i call it) AND comms relay!

</Sarcasm> DID THEY PLAYTEST THAT?!? </endSarcasm>

Throwing in autothrusters, that Red Ace build is 37 points. Exactly the same as the two more popular Poe builds. I'm pretty sure they play-tested it, because I doubt it is more effective than Poe (perhaps more durable? I haven't tried it myself so not sure).

OP's complaint is valid

Not at all. If defensive abilities were any cheaper, THEN you'd have to wonder if FFG did any playtesting, because hard-to-kill ships would become too effective and break the game...

I honestly think this topic is a good one, even if OP is waaaaaaay off on Com Relay. (In case you missed it, it's great).

Here are cards I am baffled made it through play testing without a squad point change or a change to the card to meet its cost.

Pilots/Ships

• (...)
• Ibtisam
• (...)

I find Ibtisam is quite powerful, as you have tons of red maneuvres on a Bwing. Maybe not powerful enough for tournaments, do not know, I play only casual.

One thing though, Ibtisam today sits in the corner and weeps, looking at Wired.

OP's complaint is valid

Not at all. If defensive abilities were any cheaper, THEN you'd have to wonder if FFG did any playtesting, because hard-to-kill ships would become too effective and break the game...

Sure, it's a contentious point, but I wont say it's invalid. If anything, it's an edge case, but many of the examples in Kdub's list are completely valid and rather painfully obvious examples of lazy implementation.

Blade for 3 more points you can make it Poe with VI super durable. super annoying. makes sure that you save focus for R5-P90X when needed, otherwise stock the evade for when you take more than you're comfortable with.

rather painfully obvious examples of lazy implementation.

Since you weren't there and weren't involved in playtesting using terms like lazy is not appropriate. We could debate if the cards on that list are over or under powered for the price.

But as soon as someone starts throwing terms like lazy around, then the debate dies.

OP's complaint is valid

Not at all. If defensive abilities were any cheaper, THEN you'd have to wonder if FFG did any playtesting, because hard-to-kill ships would become too effective and break the game...

Sure, it's a contentious point, but I wont say it's invalid. If anything, it's an edge case, but many of the examples in Kdub's list are completely valid and rather painfully obvious examples of lazy implementation.

I disagree. A lot of those cards had a valid use at one point in time and some are still valid. The meta changing makes a card unsuited to the current meta, it doesn't make a card bad.

Some cards are more effective in larger points matches or epic play. I don't mind if a card is designed with epic in mind and ends up being too expensive for 100 pt. standard play.

I honestly think this topic is a good one, even if OP is waaaaaaay off on Com Relay. (In case you missed it, it's great).

Here are cards I am baffled made it through play testing without a squad point change or a change to the card to meet its cost.

Pilots/Ships

• (...)
• Ibtisam
• (...)

I find Ibtisam is quite powerful, as you have tons of red maneuvres on a Bwing. Maybe not powerful enough for tournaments, do not know, I play only casual.

One thing though, Ibtisam today sits in the corner and weeps, looking at Wired.

Last year I was the first person to bring a 2 ship build to our meta (people were shocked that I brought just a Falcon and a B-Wing, innocent times).

It was Han and Ibisam with Sensor Jammer, Elusiveness, and Kyle Crew. Sensor Jammer and Elusiveness did really, really well. I believe I lost her in just one game. I haven't really checked that build of Ibisam out again, I am not convinced that it wouldn't work.

I ended up winning that small tournament.

I honestly think this topic is a good one, even if OP is waaaaaaay off on Com Relay. (In case you missed it, it's great).

Here are cards I am baffled made it through play testing without a squad point change or a change to the card to meet its cost.

Pilots/Ships

• (...)
• Ibtisam
• (...)

I find Ibtisam is quite powerful, as you have tons of red maneuvres on a Bwing. Maybe not powerful enough for tournaments, do not know, I play only casual.

One thing though, Ibtisam today sits in the corner and weeps, looking at Wired.

Last year I was the first person to bring a 2 ship build to our meta (people were shocked that I brought just a Falcon and a B-Wing, innocent times).

It was Han and Ibisam with Sensor Jammer, Elusiveness, and Kyle Crew. Sensor Jammer and Elusiveness did really, really well. I believe I lost her in just one game. I haven't really checked that build of Ibisam out again, I am not convinced that it wouldn't work.

I ended up winning that small tournament.

I have an epic build with ibby and keyan. really nasty =)

anyway.

I took an old wonder, silly build out from retirement that included Keyan. WOW. he hits like a truck. Just gotta get things in arc.

Kdub has exposed the meat of the issue here. OP's complaint is valid but there are several other more salient points of contention. I'd like to see Kdub's list broken out into its own discussion.

While his list certainly has valid points, I think everything from wave 1 and possibly wave 2 gets a pass. You simply can not achieve the level of balance you guys are talking about before a game is released and played in the wild. No amount of playtesting g is going to catch everything so the first wave or two you have to expect to have some imbalances.

You absolutely can achieve that level of balance, but it requires some properly applied advanced mathematics.

Unfortunately that capability is not cheap in the marketplace. Most game companies (FFG absolutely included) are not known for hiring technical eggheads with the corresponding salary.

Han Solo crew seems a bit pricey for what he does; he's basically just insurance for when a Focus is superior to a Target Lock and you don't have a Focus, which is nice but doesn't seem 2 points and a crew slot nice to me.

Han + Weapons Engineer is a phenomenal combo. It lets you take actions _now_, and store them for future turns. That's something you can almost never do with a focus token.

The other thing about Han: the card was designed for Huge ships- those ships can't take, use, or hold Focus tokens. But there was simply no way they were going to limit Crew!Han to Huge only.

I expect that Han crew might see some more play when a Rebel ship (other than the B-Wing) that has both a crew slot and a system slot gets released. The four point combo of Han and FCS will be strong.

Ghost + Phantom + Han + Weapons Engineer + FCS + TLT.

Ladies and Gentlemen, you may start your disgusted engines.

I think the upgrade that you discard to gain one agility and ditch a lock for one round was garbage at 3. At 2 it might be playable, 1 would make it good.

Countermeasures is what you are thinking of. And yes, I agree with you. FFG seems to have consistently over valued an additional green dice, and this case is no different. Sad because it is a very interesting upgrade that could create some interesting interactions if it was viable.

Considering the cost and effects of other single use EPTs, I don't believe it being 1 point would be asking too much, especially considering the large amount of viable upgrades found in the modifications slot.

Kdub has exposed the meat of the issue here. OP's complaint is valid but there are several other more salient points of contention. I'd like to see Kdub's list broken out into its own discussion.

While his list certainly has valid points, I think everything from wave 1 and possibly wave 2 gets a pass. You simply can not achieve the level of balance you guys are talking about before a game is released and played in the wild. No amount of playtesting g is going to catch everything so the first wave or two you have to expect to have some imbalances. I'm frankly shocked that there wasn't anything in wave 1 that was crazy overpowered. Such a mistake could have killed the game right then and the fact that they didn't make it is a testament to the quality of their design and playtesting. If the cost of only getting slightly OP cards occasionally is that we have a few UP cards, I'm OK with that.

Looks like MajorJuggler already referenced this post with a similar comment as I was going to give.

Just wanted to note as well though that I only listed cards which felt to me were under/over costed with in the game in its current state with no regard to which wave cards were released in. I do understand your thoughts though, and I initially felt that way as well. But after looking over the list, my feelings have changed a bit. Yes, some of the most grievous errors of under costed ships and upgrades came from the earliest of waves (Lots of the munitions, Rhymer, R2-F2, etc.), but there honestly seem to be just as many errors in later waves as well. Scyk title, IG-2000 title (these two have their prices mixed up it seems), generic Tie Punishers, more crummy munitions (although I believe FFG is taking a "they will improve as more upgrades trickle into the game which help them" approach with munitions), generic Starvipers...

But like you, I am also more than happy to have a plethora of under powered cards if it means the game does not become a power creeper. Just as long as it isn't a large majority of the cards, because then you have the same problem a different way, as the few cards which accidentally are OP are still just as necessary as the metaphorical power creep cards would be.

I honestly think this topic is a good one, even if OP is waaaaaaay off on Com Relay. (In case you missed it, it's great).

Here are cards I am baffled made it through play testing without a squad point change or a change to the card to meet its cost.

Pilots/Ships

• (...)
• Ibtisam
• (...)

I find Ibtisam is quite powerful, as you have tons of red maneuvres on a Bwing. Maybe not powerful enough for tournaments, do not know, I play only casual.

One thing though, Ibtisam today sits in the corner and weeps, looking at Wired.

Ibtisam's trouble is not so much getting the stress as it is getting rid of it. Keyan Farlander has proven there are plenty of great ways to get stress on an EPT B-wing, the dial being one of them. The trouble with Ibtisam is the removal of that stress. While Keyan gets to toss the stress anytime he has arc on an enemy ship, Ibtisam holds on to that stress through to the next activation. Then she's forced to do a highly predictable 1 of 4 green maneuvers, or keep the stress. And if she's keeping the stress, it's not like her ability is earth shattering. She's still going to get creamed even is that re-roll does result in an evade more times than not, and a single re roll on attack with no other modifiers will leave you wanting more.

Not sure exactly what you mean by Wired keeping Ibtisam in a corner weeping, as it may just be her saving grace. Getting a guaranteed re-roll on a blank and all eyes may not be enough for me to consider taking her (lots of other ways to spend 29+ points), but it certainly makes her interesting.

Here are cards I am baffled made it through play testing without a squad point change or a change to the card to meet its cost.

Pilots/Ships

• Arvel Crynyd

I'm going to disagree slightly here. Not much, but a tiny bit.

Arvel is appropriately costed for his ability and PS. The problem is that his PS is too high.

Imagine a PS 1 Arvel with an EPT slot for 18 points (before you put Chardaan refit on him). That would be 1 point more than a Prototype Pilot, and he'd become the most annoying blocker in the game.

PS 1 Arvel with Chardaan and Intimidation for 18 total points might well have single handedly ended the Fat Han era. But that build at 23 points for a PS6 blocker is just a nonstarter.

Kdub has exposed the meat of the issue here. OP's complaint is valid but there are several other more salient points of contention. I'd like to see Kdub's list broken out into its own discussion.

While his list certainly has valid points, I think everything from wave 1 and possibly wave 2 gets a pass. You simply can not achieve the level of balance you guys are talking about before a game is released and played in the wild. No amount of playtesting g is going to catch everything so the first wave or two you have to expect to have some imbalances.

You absolutely can achieve that level of balance,

No, you can't.

Even you have admitted that your math wing dies not take into account all factors (such as the value of a ship's dial) and you've had 3 years to work on it. I've also seen you comment that you tweak your model based on major tournament results, which is not something that can be done until a game has been released.

A miniatures wargame has too many variables that need to be accounted for in order to prevent minor mis-costings like kdub listed.

Here are cards I am baffled made it through play testing without a squad point change or a change to the card to meet its cost.

Pilots/Ships

• Arvel Crynyd

I'm going to disagree slightly here. Not much, but a tiny bit.

Arvel is appropriately costed for his ability and PS. The problem is that his PS is too high.

Imagine a PS 1 Arvel with an EPT slot for 18 points (before you put Chardaan refit on him). That would be 1 point more than a Prototype Pilot, and he'd become the most annoying blocker in the game.

PS 1 Arvel with Chardaan and Intimidation for 18 total points might well have single handedly ended the Fat Han era. But that build at 23 points for a PS6 blocker is just a nonstarter.

No problem with this at all. Arvel is a pretty tragic case, because it's not like his design was terrible, he just needed a couple of tweaks and he would be golden. I personally think a drop to 3 or 4 PS would do the trick (he's going to want to be blocking aces or Fatties anyways). And along with that, add an inherent EPT slot, and maybe change his pilot ability to allow him to perform actions when a maneuver causes him to overlap another ship.

All of that may be a little too much of a buff for him, so lets pretend you can only pick 1 of the 3 options. In that case, I would without a doubt give him the EPT slot. Of all the A-wings who would love 2 EPT slots, he would love it the most. Intimidation + Daredevil. Daredevil + Push the Limit. Stay on Target + Wired... URRGGG it's so frustrating that Tycho and Jake are the ones who get the 2 EPTs, and all they run is the same few EPTs. Arvel would've had so many fun combinations.

Kdub has exposed the meat of the issue here. OP's complaint is valid but there are several other more salient points of contention. I'd like to see Kdub's list broken out into its own discussion.

While his list certainly has valid points, I think everything from wave 1 and possibly wave 2 gets a pass. You simply can not achieve the level of balance you guys are talking about before a game is released and played in the wild. No amount of playtesting g is going to catch everything so the first wave or two you have to expect to have some imbalances.

You absolutely can achieve that level of balance,

No, you can't.

Even you have admitted that your math wing dies not take into account all factors (such as the value of a ship's dial) and you've had 3 years to work on it. I've also seen you comment that you tweak your model based on major tournament results, which is not something that can be done until a game has been released.

A miniatures wargame has too many variables that need to be accounted for in order to prevent minor mis-costings like kdub listed.

I agree you can't get the perfect figure from just advanced mathematics, but they could certainly get closer to the mark.

As MJ seems to be pointing out, the issue is largely moot. Not only would they need to employ those high-salaried eggheads, but they'd need to do considerably more play-testing than an unreleased title can justify.

But I think people are looking at this from the wrong angle. This game was never really expected to be as successful a tournament game as it is. A fun, and popular game they hoped, but I doubt they expected this level of success.

So instead of asking "why weren't things balanced correctly at the beginning?" We should be celebrating that it was as balanced as it was so it could achieve this level of success.

Here are cards I am baffled made it through play testing without a squad point change or a change to the card to meet its cost.

Pilots/Ships

• Arvel Crynyd

I'm going to disagree slightly here. Not much, but a tiny bit.

Arvel is appropriately costed for his ability and PS. The problem is that his PS is too high.

Imagine a PS 1 Arvel with an EPT slot for 18 points (before you put Chardaan refit on him). That would be 1 point more than a Prototype Pilot, and he'd become the most annoying blocker in the game.

PS 1 Arvel with Chardaan and Intimidation for 18 total points might well have single handedly ended the Fat Han era. But that build at 23 points for a PS6 blocker is just a nonstarter.

No problem with this at all. Arvel is a pretty tragic case, because it's not like his design was terrible, he just needed a couple of tweaks and he would be golden. I personally think a drop to 3 or 4 PS would do the trick (he's going to want to be blocking aces or Fatties anyways). And along with that, add an inherent EPT slot, and maybe change his pilot ability to allow him to perform actions when a maneuver causes him to overlap another ship.

All of that may be a little too much of a buff for him, so lets pretend you can only pick 1 of the 3 options. In that case, I would without a doubt give him the EPT slot. Of all the A-wings who would love 2 EPT slots, he would love it the most. Intimidation + Daredevil. Daredevil + Push the Limit. Stay on Target + Wired... URRGGG it's so frustrating that Tycho and Jake are the ones who get the 2 EPTs, and all they run is the same few EPTs. Arvel would've had so many fun combinations.

Arvel with an EPT at PS4 would be a monster.

I would be quite okay with this monster.

While his list certainly has valid points, I think everything from wave 1 and possibly wave 2 gets a pass. You simply can not achieve the level of balance you guys are talking about before a game is released and played in the wild. No amount of playtesting g is going to catch everything so the first wave or two you have to expect to have some imbalances.

I'd be much more forgiving of this if the Wave 1 failings weren't so blatantly obvious. Did they truly believe that pilot abilities had zero cost associated with them? That PS increase was appropriately valued at a point per? Did nobody say "Hey! MY ships here are 21 points, and YOUR ships there are 21 points, let's just take 4 of each and see what happens!"? Or at least do it often enough to expose one of the most gaping holes in the entire system?

Mass testing may expose weird combos or interactions that nobody really thought of, but that's not what this is. This is a complete failure to understand key elements of their own system. Contrary to MJ's point, I don't think you need an advanced mathematics degree to identify these issues. They're things that can and should have been caught even with the dev team they did have, and they most certainly don't get a pass.

You simply can not achieve the level of balance you guys are talking about before a game is released and played in the wild.

You absolutely can achieve that level of balance,

No, you can't.

Even you have admitted that your math wing dies not take into account all factors (such as the value of a ship's dial) and you've had 3 years to work on it. I've also seen you comment that you tweak your model based on major tournament results, which is not something that can be done until a game has been released.

With respect, you don't know what you don't know.

There are multiple models and processes that can be used. I have only published one. Maybe I don't want my competition getting too many good ideas from me if I start my own game company or do some consulting someday.

While his list certainly has valid points, I think everything from wave 1 and possibly wave 2 gets a pass. You simply can not achieve the level of balance you guys are talking about before a game is released and played in the wild. No amount of playtesting g is going to catch everything so the first wave or two you have to expect to have some imbalances.

I'd be much more forgiving of this if the Wave 1 failings weren't so blatantly obvious. Did they truly believe that pilot abilities had zero cost associated with them? That PS increase was appropriately valued at a point per? Did nobody say "Hey! MY ships here are 21 points, and YOUR ships there are 21 points, let's just take 4 of each and see what happens!"? Or at least do it often enough to expose one of the most gaping holes in the entire system?

Mass testing may expose weird combos or interactions that nobody really thought of, but that's not what this is. This is a complete failure to understand key elements of their own system. Contrary to MJ's point, I don't think you need an advanced mathematics degree to identify these issues. They're things that can and should have been caught even with the dev team they did have, and they most certainly don't get a pass.

Remember this wasn't intended to be a highly compeditive wargame, and balance was done in a much more primitive fashion accordingly, including an outright formula (Which is where the PS thing being 1pt per came from).

X-wings cost 21points because they felt that 5 X-wings was too good for 100pts, not because they were worth 21points. As noted, only limited playtesting in the first wave or two (Where the focus would have been on rules streamlining more than pointbuy balance, at that!) before they realised what a juggernaught they were breeding... well, they're better at it now.

And regarding upgrade cards - they've got some that very clearly run to 'internal logic' formulas - adding a die is 4 points, even if the trigger condition is awful (Opportunist vs Expose, for instance); getting a free-action-with-caveats is 3pts; this includes second-action-with-stress (PTL-alikes), conditional-frees (K7), two-actions-in-one (R7-T1, Recon Spec) and saving-actions-for-later (Moldy Crow, Comm Relay).

Given that saving-an-action-for-later is simply a way of spending an action when you don't need it so you can use it when you do, it seems a reasonable approach to it.

But every single one of those is worth 3pts, and this sounds like it was very much intentional.