stuff...

So don't be too worried about your M-3A Interceptors, your TIE Defenders, or your E-Wings. Help is on the way. The future of X-Wing is bright! Thanks FFG designers!

First, let me say that I very much appreciate FFGs willingness to go back an make older ships viable, especially early ships. However, I am going to play Devil's Advocate here and add that I wish they wouldn't need as many fixes and would put out competitive ships from the start, especially small base ships in more recent waves. I think they've been too conservative with them ever since Wave 4.

Wave 4 saw the following small base ships: Defender, Z-95, Phantom, and E-Wing. Wave 5 was just two large base ships. Wave 6 released the small based Starviper and M-3A Interceptor. Wave 7 gave us the K-Wing, Punisher, Kihraxz (and Hounds Tooth). After that, we got the T-70 and TIEfo.

Arguably, the only consistently competitive ships in the bunch is the Z-95, Phantom, Corran Horn, Miranda, and Poe. The Z-95 is the only one of those ships that really is competitive on statline cost alone. The others require other card interactions (upgrades, abilities, etc..) for them to be competitive.

In fact, I think we could argue that what we're seeing competitively right now is not a ship based meta, but an upgrade card meta -- the ships that, in general, are doing well are ships that can carry key upgrades like TLT, Autothrusters, Regen, and Palpatine.

So, while I appreciate the current meta far more than last year and the willingness of FFG to fix things, I do wish we'd see less fixing needed, especially of newer waves.

I for one like what they are doing with updating the ships. They don't take the easy way out and just do a points reduction in an errata, they try to find interesting and creative solutions to make each ship unique. I think only reason they did a points reduction for the a wing is because that was the best way to support the low ps blocker role. Yeah you have to buy something new but it gives us more interesting and varied options each time. I think people get really unrealistic ideas of how quick updates should be put out. I'd rather it take a few years to get the fix (as with the advanced) and it be interesting and fun than just a quick and dirty point change that comes out in an faq online. (Mind you, I say this as someone who is likely to never get a raider).

Thank you to the design team of x wing for making a fun game and taking the time to make fun and thematic updates to the ships that are lacking.

Edit: also just want to point out that it is a testament to how good the game is that so many people who can't bring themselves to do anything but complain still play it and keep up on the latest updates.

Just to add my compliments to the list, but also to make a defence of the design team to those wishing all ships were perfect straight out of the gate. With the wide variety of different pilot and upgrade cards available, calculating an appropriate points cost for new ships when they have new upgrade slots, special abilities, and exponentially increasing interactions is *really* bloody difficult!

The only times ships have been "downgraded" have been the amendments to large ships and the Phantom. These were only possible with a change to the rules as written, something which FFG are understandably reluctant to do regularly. If something is too good it's difficult to amend. If something is a bit lacklustre it's easier to fix in an elegant manner.

If they're erring on the cautious side (and I don't believe they're doing that deliberately) it's preferable to the alternative if we assume perfect points allocation is very, very difficult to reliably and consistently achieve.

I've played a lot of different points based tabletop games, and X-Wing is in the top tier of balanced, fun games that not only survives the rigour applied to it by organised, competitive play, but is enhanced by it. More power to them, I say!

Just to add my compliments to the list, but also to make a defence of the design team to those wishing all ships were perfect straight out of the gate. With the wide variety of different pilot and upgrade cards available, calculating an appropriate points cost for new ships when they have new upgrade slots, special abilities, and exponentially increasing interactions is *really* bloody difficult!

The only times ships have been "downgraded" have been the amendments to large ships and the Phantom. These were only possible with a change to the rules as written, something which FFG are understandably reluctant to do regularly. If something is too good it's difficult to amend. If something is a bit lacklustre it's easier to fix in an elegant manner.

If they're erring on the cautious side (and I don't believe they're doing that deliberately) it's preferable to the alternative if we assume perfect points allocation is very, very difficult to reliably and consistently achieve.

I've played a lot of different points based tabletop games, and X-Wing is in the top tier of balanced, fun games that not only survives the rigour applied to it by organised, competitive play, but is enhanced by it. More power to them, I say!

I agree with much of what you said, but a couple of points.

I'm not asking for perfection, but I think it's clear they haven't released a viably competitive generic fighter since Wave 4. That seems like a deliberate conservative approach. In addition they've had some pretty big misses (Scyk, Starviper, Defender, and probably a couple of others but I understand some recent ones may have been designed with some upcoming expansions in mind). This point may be exacerbated by the current meta that seems to be favoring named pilots.

I'd also argue that with more ships released, they should have a much easier time getting the cost of ships correct. The Scyk has two very close reference points in the TIE fighter and the refit A-Wing. It really isn't a significantly better ship than the TIE, so bringing it in at a higher cost than an obsidian for essentially the same ship, or just a point lower than a refit A-wing (which has a much better dial and an additional shield) seems very conservative to me.

This isn't to say I'm not happy with the game, but I think that to some extent, the direction of design is more conservative knowing they can fix a ship later. However, this has lead to what is sort of like "public playtesting" after a ship is released, while we wait (at least competitively) for the upgrade fixes that will make those ships competitive. I also think it lends itself to more focus on upgrade cards and abilities, which while not a bad thing, it would still be nice if we saw a generic competitive out of the box without having to wait such a long time and purchase another expansion to make a previous one competitive.

K-wing has top tier viability. I think the Hound's Tooth generic has some possibilities as well.

K-wing has top tier viability. I think the Hound's Tooth generic has some possibilities as well.

The YV is simply overshadowed by better options. It's not a bad ship by itself (eg. bossk with tactician is insane), but the same points can get you a brobot, or a pair of Ys. I agree on the K wing, though. It's just a great ship across the board.

The question was on generics.

Thanks, OP, for writing this up (twice!).

The question was on generics.

I was actually even more focused on even small based ships and mostly generics but even the unique pilots that are appearing competitively share some qualities. I'm not convinced on the Kwing yet because I think it's viability is more about TLT+Slam but I am willing to say that the jury is still out there. Even still, that would be two viable since Wave 4.

Again, this isn't a complaint and I appreciate the fixes. I just would like to see more ships viable right away and wonder if the notion of the possibility of "fixing" it later isn't leading to consistently overcosted (even if it's only by a point or two) on small base ships. That conservative approach leads the big misses I mention above. I realize that undercosting ships is harder to fix, but I also think that a base ship undercosted by a point or two isn't going to be game breaking (TIEs, Zs, and Bwings aren't dominating the meta despite being the most effective basic ship for their points). It took the phantom's entire ruleset to be meta warping and that was far more due to overall initial mechanics on the higher PS pilots.

I'm not asking for perfection, but I think it's clear they haven't released a viably competitive generic fighter since Wave 4. That seems like a deliberate conservative approach. In addition they've had some pretty big misses (Scyk, Starviper, Defender, and probably a couple of others but I understand some recent ones may have been designed with some upcoming expansions in mind).

*twitches uncontrollably*

*twitches uncontrollably*

here have some glitterstim, it's on me! ;-)

Thanks WokeUpDead, MUCH appreciated!

in all seriousness and more on topic: FFG and the playtesters do a very good job!

yesterday an idea went through my head that was -so- good (IMO, of course).. "juke" on a deci with Isard.. hell yeah! so off to "yet another.." and while still telling me how genius that is, I click things together and the magic unfolds..

"small ship only".

so they're at least three steps ahead of me. somebody saw an good combo and put a lock on that one. great work!

though my deci is kinda unhappy about it ;-)

I realize that undercosting ships is harder to fix, but I also think that a base ship undercosted by a point or two isn't going to be game breaking

But it can be. Besides, the ships you mentioned as being the best-per-points have other factors preventing them from dominating and may give evidence that these ships are not undercost or best-per-points. TIE Swarm and BBBBZ are two lists made from those ships, however I do not see them played a whole lot, and while some played those at Worlds, it would appear they didn't go far.

However, to address the opinion that a base ship undercosted by a point or two isn't going to be game breaking... I offer another opinion. To do this I must go to another game however, as the developers at X-Wing in their labeled conservative design philosophy have not really given us the same problem. Imperial Assault's Royal Guards. Undercost by a point (some say two), this unit is spammed in almost every single Top 16 build in tournament play. It's a problem. Now Imperial Assault is not as established as X-Wing and therefore doesn't have the sheer breadth of expansions to choose from, nevertheless it does have a wide variety of figures right out of the box. The Royal Guards are so 'cost effective' however, that they dominate lists.

I suppose the same thing did happen in X-Wing with the TIE Phantom and the original decloaking rules. Looked at from a certain point of view, one could say that the decloaking rules weren't broken as written, but that the ship was simply horrifically underpriced in terms of points. Perhaps if that ship were priced at (hyperbole alert) 15 points higher across every model, it would not have enjoyed the popularity it did. However, for what it did, it was a small based ship that was very much undercost, and thus dominated the lists so badly that they had to change the rules.

Sorry to hear that about Imperial Assault. If anyone can fix that though, it will be FFG.

If you think about it, one could argue that even the TIE fighter was underpriced by a point or two in the Core Set when it came out. Two APs vs 24 points of X-wing is hardly a fair fight.

As more ships were released, it's clearer now that it was in fact the X-wing that was overpriced. Bit of a shame that the X-wing fix has taken so long, but I guess Heaver's performance with Biggs didn't help its plight.

I realize that undercosting ships is harder to fix, but I also think that a base ship undercosted by a point or two isn't going to be game breaking

But it can be. Besides, the ships you mentioned as being the best-per-points have other factors preventing them from dominating and may give evidence that these ships are not undercost or best-per-points. TIE Swarm and BBBBZ are two lists made from those ships, however I do not see them played a whole lot, and while some played those at Worlds, it would appear they didn't go far.

However, to address the opinion that a base ship undercosted by a point or two isn't going to be game breaking... I offer another opinion. To do this I must go to another game however, as the developers at X-Wing in their labeled conservative design philosophy have not really given us the same problem. Imperial Assault's Royal Guards. Undercost by a point (some say two), this unit is spammed in almost every single Top 16 build in tournament play. It's a problem. Now Imperial Assault is not as established as X-Wing and therefore doesn't have the sheer breadth of expansions to choose from, nevertheless it does have a wide variety of figures right out of the box. The Royal Guards are so 'cost effective' however, that they dominate lists.

I suppose the same thing did happen in X-Wing with the TIE Phantom and the original decloaking rules. Looked at from a certain point of view, one could say that the decloaking rules weren't broken as written, but that the ship was simply horrifically underpriced in terms of points. Perhaps if that ship were priced at (hyperbole alert) 15 points higher across every model, it would not have enjoyed the popularity it did. However, for what it did, it was a small based ship that was very much undercost, and thus dominated the lists so badly that they had to change the rules.

That's interesting analysis and comparison, but I already mentioned the issue with the phantom was more the timing of a brand new game mechanic than the base ship (we didn't see the generics as overpowered or even played much at all by comparison). The change to the timing fo that mechanic brought the phantom back into the fold without adjusting the cost or base statistics. I definitely think it would be unfair to expect accurate point value on that kind of ship's introduction, but I don't think that quite compares to ships like the scyk, starviper, etc.., where there are ships with comparable abilities.

With regard to the Bwing and Tie, I agree to a point (though we saw a handful of TIEs in the top 16), but it's because the game has become more focused on other upgrades and or combinations than on ships themselves, at least part of which I think, is a result of some a couple of the recent upgrade cards that brought life to older ships, even if they weren't direct fixes. For example, autothrusters definitely devalues cheap two attack ships and TLTs make the Y-Wing a more efficient choice than the B.

I can't speak to IA very much, especially with regard to how much additional mechanics affect the game (the RG has a couple, right?) as compared to the Phantom in X-Wing. However, I will point out that 1 point in IA is worth over 2x that in X-Wing. So, if the RG is undercosted by 2 points, that equates to 5 points in X-wing. Undercosting a ship that should be 25 points at 20 would be very significant, but we've not really even seen them come close to that on a basic ship in X-wing.

I'll add again, that I don't think there's anything necessarily wrong with this direction and I love this game, but I think it is a pattern of the evolving game and is, at least in part, tied to a conservative approach with ships.

I'm not asking for perfection, but I think it's clear they haven't released a viably competitive generic fighter since Wave 4. That seems like a deliberate conservative approach. In addition they've had some pretty big misses (Scyk, Starviper, Defender, and probably a couple of others but I understand some recent ones may have been designed with some upcoming expansions in mind).

*twitches uncontrollably*

I know you've been firm in the stance that the scyk is a good ship and I would love to see it do well at a decent sized tournament on a consistent basis (I assume this is the twitching?).

--

Again, I agree with those of you that appreciate the fixes and think that FFG is doing a great job. I just know that I'm nowhere near as eager to buy as multiples of ships when they are first released as I was earlier in the game, or I find myself doing so in order to get multiple upgrade cards and not for extras of the ship themselves. I've made all the points I think I can at this point that I think that's based on a general approach they have on point costing basic ship statlines, so I'll let the compliments continue from this point on and bow out

One thing I will admit that I hope they don't take to heart is that it would seem to make them more money to make a really good generic ship that you have to buy 6 of rather than a really good ship that you only have to buy once.

But then.... with Rebellion coming out and my foray into Armada, it's not like they aren't getting every dime out of me that I can possibly give them already.

Translating what you just said

FFG, blessed be thy Printer Altar!

Grant us, thy worshippers, some awesome Scyk upgrades so that we might buy ourselves 5-man squads and relish in thy golden light!

Sorry to hear that about Imperial Assault. If anyone can fix that though, it will be FFG.

If you think about it, one could argue that even the TIE fighter was underpriced by a point or two in the Core Set when it came out. Two APs vs 24 points of X-wing is hardly a fair fight.

As more ships were released, it's clearer now that it was in fact the X-wing that was overpriced. Bit of a shame that the X-wing fix has taken so long, but I guess Heaver's performance with Biggs didn't help its plight.

Looking at it differently: _something_ was always going to have the best price/value ratio in the core set. So if they'd been set on having the X-Wing at 21 points (to keep people from being able to run 5 of them), I'm glad they didn't decide to bump the TIE fighter up to 13 points for a more even fight.

It seems like we're better off having the lowest point ship also be the best value ship- and having that ship be set at the lowest possible price also seems like it gives more room to play with values.

To be honest, I would not at all have minded if they'd set the AP at 10 points, and reduced everything else down to be balanced against that. Having a 10 ship squad of TIEs would have been... nice.

To be honest, I would not at all have minded if they'd set the AP at 10 points, and reduced everything else down to be balanced against that. Having a 10 ship squad of TIEs would have been... nice.

Or better let's hope FFG stops clinging to the "original" trilogy

and FINALLY GIVES US TEH CLONE WARS

2-3-2-0 vultures, anyone?)

I know you've been firm in the stance that the scyk is a good ship and I would love to see it do well at a decent sized tournament on a consistent basis (I assume this is the twitching?).

--

Again, I agree with those of you that appreciate the fixes and think that FFG is doing a great job. I just know that I'm nowhere near as eager to buy as multiples of ships when they are first released as I was earlier in the game, or I find myself doing so in order to get multiple upgrade cards and not for extras of the ship themselves. I've made all the points I think I can at this point that I think that's based on a general approach they have on point costing basic ship statlines, so I'll let the compliments continue from this point on and bow out

More the "haven't competitively viable generic since Wave 4" comment. I think the vast majority of them have been competitively viable, but people need to be willing to take the risk and give them a go - and not just as a one off, either. Actually put the effort in, see what they're capable of, find their niche. As always though, the tournament scene tends to follow and feed off the meta, so ships which are seen to do well (i.e. win) are picked up and used by others. It's easier to pick a list that someone else has done well with and try to learn how to use it than it is to come up with your own.

Very few people were expecting to see Kinetic Operator's 3 x K-Wing list, but it proved to be not only viable but pretty spectacular at Worlds, and gave a lot of people food for thought in the process. Wave 6 (and 7) have also completely reinvigorated the Y-Wing and brought it back into serious consideration.

The Kihraxz generics offer amazing value, both in terms of what they're capable of and what comes in their box. Yeah, I'm a fan of the humble Scyk. I believe they're underrated for what they can offer. (for what it's worth, I'm currently 7-1 with my Scyk/Kihraxz list, including a 5-0 store championship win - not saying this as a boast, just that it came out of nowhere and surprised a lot of people on the day).

Of all the ships that have come out since Wave 4, I'd say only the generic StarVipers are in a tricky spot, and they still probably do better than generic E-Wings. But then, only because I've rarely seen them and have very little experience list building or flying them myself. I'm not going to discount the possibility that other players out there have good results with them. YMMV.

So I'd prefer to turn that "FFG haven't released a competitively viable generic fighter since Wave 4" on it's head, and say "FFG haven't released an overpowered meta-defining ship since Wave 4"... which would be a good thing, right?