I still have to point out that fun can be viable and viable can be fun. Fluff and crunch go well together in this game, and there are very few instances of autoincludes and non viable ships.

You more or less have to either overspecialize a list of build specifically to fail.

Or how about the fact that literally every single ******* Imperial squad has Soontir Fell with the same exact autoinclude loadout?

How about facing a Super Dash without Outrider and PtL and HLC and Engine Upgrade?

I get a lot of games in a week compared to most people and my area is extremely meta oriented. Before the fat turret nonsense finally ended you'd show up to a $5 tournament and the other 5 people would have 6 large base turrets between them.

There are plenty of autoinclude power combos in this game. And if you fly a list that's a solid B (such as 5x Kirahxz) against some palp double ace or regen based list, you're going to lose unless your opponent is terrible. And 5x Kirahxz isn't designed specifically to fail either.

The issue I have with the term 'viable', and it's perhaps coming from a far worse case of the same symptoms in regards to 40k, is that it tends to go hand in hand with a set of assumptions that are not really that helpful. It's come up a few times in this thread that, compared to Worlds-winning lists and (equally importantly, players), there are ships that aren't going to hold up. Fair enough. But 99.99% of the players in this game (or any game) aren't going to come up against either that kind of list or that calibre of player, especially not in combination. What you might see at a local gaming store is likely wildly different to what you'd see at a world, national or even regional tournament, unless you have a permanently competitive local scene.

Then there's the inverse of that; there tends to be an assumption that while your opponent will be both exceptionally skilled, and playing a very powerful list, the person asking about something is neither. Again, this might be something that comes more from 40k, but there's an assumed (and false) correlation between bad units/ships and bad players, which is rubbish. You can be an excellent player who builds lists that aren't built with more than basic thought to 'what works and with what', and you can be a terrible player with a 100% optimised list.

The reality is that the vast majority of players will be somewhere towards the middle of these spectra, and that if you're assuming that of the person asking 'is X viable', you must also assume that of the people they'll be playing. So if someone asks (for example, no idea how relevant this is) 'is an Ion Cannon turret Y-wing viable', it makes sense to assume that (unless stated otherwise) the question is meaning 'can I take this to a game night and have fun with it?', and not 'Can I beat literally the hardest list and the best player in the world with this?', but that's rarely the approach people take. It seems to be that people will assume the best case scenario for the hypothetical opponent and the worst case for the player asking, which I just don't find conducive to helpful conversation.

Lastly, I'd just add that every model in every gaming system ever can be used effectively. So long as you have at least some kind of stat that you can do something with, that is inherently better than playing that many points down. In X-wing's case, imagine a ship with 2 Hull, 1 Attack and 1 Agility. Say it costs 5 points. That's 5 points of utter crap, but it's still better than 5 points unused, so if someone wants to use this ship (for whatever reason;aesthetics, fluff, an idea for a strategy), they should be encouraged to, not told 'don't bother'. In general, I always find that a positive rather than negative approach to stuff like this is always more helpful. If the question is 'how do I run X-wings?', the discussion needs to be about how to get the most from them, flaws though they might have, not the asker being repeatedly told that they're not worth using.

I like this. And I think those who reply to such questions need to be more specific in their advice, as DariusAPB mentioned a bit earlier as well.

If someone asks 'is an Ion Cannon turret Y-wing viable', the answer should be something to the effect of-

1-In a casual setting. Absolutely! And it's great fun!

2- In a competitive setting- It's still pretty effective, but there may be better options depending on what type of lists people run in your area.

3- Hyper competitive (Regionals/Worlds level)- It can still be used effectively, but there are more popular, more effective (many believe) control options such as the Stresshog. But don't put your play style in jeopardy to fly something that you aren't used to.

What I dislike about the idea of "viable" is that it doesn't account for someone building a flying a specific list that hasn't been done yet. Just because a list hasn't made it to Worlds or to another major event doesn't mean it's a bad list. I don't believe that there are that many X-wing players out there that really experiment much with unusual builds. I don't think that the full spectrum of what could be good has been explored by viable players yet. Just because we haven't seen it yet means that it isn't good.

One example is Biophysical's dual Tie Defender list. How many times did good players even TRY to bring these to events before Biophysical? Even still...how many have done it afterwards? Not many. People still want to condemn the Tie Defender as terrible without anyone really trying it.

I still have to point out that fun can be viable and viable can be fun. Fluff and crunch go well together in this game, and there are very few instances of autoincludes and non viable ships.

You more or less have to either overspecialize a list of build specifically to fail.

You haven't played in a ~12 person event where all of the Rebel players had VI, Autothrusters, and R2-D2/R5-P9. 6 Super Poe squads, yay.

Or how about the fact that literally every single ******* Imperial squad has Soontir Fell with the same exact autoinclude loadout?

How about facing a Super Dash without Outrider and PtL and HLC and Engine Upgrade?

I get a lot of games in a week compared to most people and my area is extremely meta oriented. Before the fat turret nonsense finally ended you'd show up to a $5 tournament and the other 5 people would have 6 large base turrets between them.

There are plenty of autoinclude power combos in this game.

Soontir fel is the only one i'll agree with. Because there is pretty much only one real way to run him.

Dash, you can change that up quite a lot.

Poe, you can change him up quite a lot. He does like BB8 and PTL though.

Yes, people netlist, but there are other ways to play these builds (except for Soontir, accept he has to have at least PTL).

If someone asks 'is an Ion Cannon turret Y-wing viable', the answer should be something to the effect of-

1-In a casual setting. Absolutely! And it's great fun!

2- In a competitive setting- It's still pretty effective, but there may be better options depending on what type of lists people run in your area.

3- Hyper competitive (Regionals/Worlds level)- It can still be used effectively, but there are more popular, more effective (many believe) control options such as the Stresshog. But don't put your play style in jeopardy to fly something that you aren't used to.

Equally, there is an onus on the people asking the question if they are aiming for a specific level or meta that might change the answers. But in the absence of that, I do think people are just too quick to assume extremes when really, most gamers are going to fall in the middle ground between casual and competitive play.

YUP Yup... and in game I allow for levels of Veterans. Starting at PS 3 you get the option to have another MOD on your ship. This goes up for better pilots.

So in my games Han can have up to four MODS. 1 plus three for his PS.

Of course Boost- Barrel Roll and Hotshot Blaster all come for FREE... (It's THE *****in FALCON Dats Why!) then I pick up to four more specific for missions; because I can do dats.

DAM-Rights!

Oooooh... So you basically play a different game than those who play competitive 100 point who claim to know what is and is not viable. Makes sense.

Well, I am not saying there is any player on these forums who has a true claim to know exactly what is and is not viable. But having said that, you do realize that players who play competitively have to play by the printed rules, correct? And that they choose to because they enjoy the game that way? That really does make some ships much harder to use well compared to others, believe it or not.

I can't express this enough to you Joe- people who enjoy the game differently than you do not enjoy it incorrectly, as topics like this seem to indicate. Their discussion of what is and what is not "viable" is enjoyable to them, and often, when they make comments like that, it's because players are seeking them out, so they can determine for themselves if that is true or not. In fact, it often brings up great debate and ideas concerning the ship which is considered not viable, inspiring players to put it on the board again to try to make it work.

We aren't all here for just theme giddiness. But just so you can see how much I enjoy discussing the competitive side of X-wing, as well as what ships are or are not viable-

DEM 100 POINT BATTLES WHERE YOU FOLLOW DA RULES AND STUFFS AND FLY TO WIN BECAUSE ITS FUNS TO YOU! THEN DISCUSS WHAT YOU BELIEVE TO BE GOOD AND NOT GOOD BASED ON YOUR EXPERIENCE ON A FORUM DEDICATED TO THAT TYPE OF DISCUSSION! :D :wub:

Sorry... Maybe that was a bit much...

The issue I have with the term 'viable', and it's perhaps coming from a far worse case of the same symptoms in regards to 40k, is that it tends to go hand in hand with a set of assumptions that are not really that helpful. It's come up a few times in this thread that, compared to Worlds-winning lists and (equally importantly, players), there are ships that aren't going to hold up. Fair enough. But 99.99% of the players in this game (or any game) aren't going to come up against either that kind of list or that calibre of player, especially not in combination. What you might see at a local gaming store is likely wildly different to what you'd see at a world, national or even regional tournament, unless you have a permanently competitive local scene.

Then there's the inverse of that; there tends to be an assumption that while your opponent will be both exceptionally skilled, and playing a very powerful list, the person asking about something is neither. Again, this might be something that comes more from 40k, but there's an assumed (and false) correlation between bad units/ships and bad players, which is rubbish. You can be an excellent player who builds lists that aren't built with more than basic thought to 'what works and with what', and you can be a terrible player with a 100% optimised list.

The reality is that the vast majority of players will be somewhere towards the middle of these spectra, and that if you're assuming that of the person asking 'is X viable', you must also assume that of the people they'll be playing. So if someone asks (for example, no idea how relevant this is) 'is an Ion Cannon turret Y-wing viable', it makes sense to assume that (unless stated otherwise) the question is meaning 'can I take this to a game night and have fun with it?', and not 'Can I beat literally the hardest list and the best player in the world with this?', but that's rarely the approach people take. It seems to be that people will assume the best case scenario for the hypothetical opponent and the worst case for the player asking, which I just don't find conducive to helpful conversation.

Lastly, I'd just add that every model in every gaming system ever can be used effectively. So long as you have at least some kind of stat that you can do something with, that is inherently better than playing that many points down. In X-wing's case, imagine a ship with 2 Hull, 1 Attack and 1 Agility. Say it costs 5 points. That's 5 points of utter crap, but it's still better than 5 points unused, so if someone wants to use this ship (for whatever reason;aesthetics, fluff, an idea for a strategy), they should be encouraged to, not told 'don't bother'. In general, I always find that a positive rather than negative approach to stuff like this is always more helpful. If the question is 'how do I run X-wings?', the discussion needs to be about how to get the most from them, flaws though they might have, not the asker being repeatedly told that they're not worth using.

DEM 100 POINT BATTLES WHERE YOU FOLLOW DA RULES AND STUFFS AND FLY TO WIN BECAUSE ITS FUNS TO YOU! THEN DISCUSS WHAT YOU BELIEVE TO BE GOOD AND NOT GOOD BASED ON YOUR EXPERIENCE ON A FORUM DEDICATED TO THAT TYPE OF DISCUSSION! :D :wub:

Sorry... Maybe that was a bit much...

It's called competitive play.

Sadly it;s considered something bad on these forums

I still have to point out that fun can be viable and viable can be fun. Fluff and crunch go well together in this game, and there are very few instances of autoincludes and non viable ships.

You more or less have to either overspecialize a list of build specifically to fail.

You haven't played in a ~12 person event where all of the Rebel players had VI, Autothrusters, and R2-D2/R5-P9. 6 Super Poe squads, yay.

Or how about the fact that literally every single ******* Imperial squad has Soontir Fell with the same exact autoinclude loadout?

How about facing a Super Dash without Outrider and PtL and HLC and Engine Upgrade?

I get a lot of games in a week compared to most people and my area is extremely meta oriented. Before the fat turret nonsense finally ended you'd show up to a $5 tournament and the other 5 people would have 6 large base turrets between them.

There are plenty of autoinclude power combos in this game.

Soontir fel is the only one i'll agree with. Because there is pretty much only one real way to run him.

Dash, you can change that up quite a lot.

Poe, you can change him up quite a lot. He does like BB8 and PTL though.

Yes, people netlist, but there are other ways to play these builds (except for Soontir, accept he has to have at least PTL).

And all of those alternative builds are sub-par. That's why no one runs them.

I'm not no-one. I've defo ran Mangler dash. Fairly sure i've done it without EU on occasion.

I've also Ran captain kirk with both isard and jade. But that was more as a kirk pimpin' joke.

He also had ruthless.

Point is, there are different ways to kit most ships out. Yes, there are favourites but very rarely is a ship card really locked in . (Soontir till proved otherwise).

Even Turr doesn't necessitate PTL. (I actually like VI on turr).

I'm not no-one. I've defo ran Mangler dash. Fairly sure i've done it without EU on occasion.

I've also Ran captain kirk with both isard and jade. But that was more as a kirk pimpin' joke.

He also had ruthless.

Point is, there are different ways to kit most ships out. Yes, there are favourites but very rarely is a ship card really locked in . (Soontir till proved otherwise).

Even Turr doesn't necessitate PTL. (I actually like VI on turr).

If you're running Turr at all you're no longer flying some stupid auto include power list.

Your semi-unique Kirk build is still a fat Decimator. It's also sub-par, you'd be better off with a RAC and Predator.

A player I know placed second at nationals with a Soontir Oiccun build that had a Prox mine in it. I wouldn't exactly consider his list creative, same meta **** as before with 3 points left over for a prox mine.

My point is that they are all viable. If your meta is 6 guys running the same thing, then running something that'd counter that same thing will probably all but guarantee you victory. I dislike netlisting because by definition builds will be made that will counter the netlist, so keeping it fresh is a survival style of my own. Yeah, some builds are super-optimal. But with the right counter (how many pages is that stresshog debate on now?) are just overexpensive liabilities.

DEM 100 POINT BATTLES WHERE YOU FOLLOW DA RULES AND STUFFS AND FLY TO WIN BECAUSE ITS FUNS TO YOU! THEN DISCUSS WHAT YOU BELIEVE TO BE GOOD AND NOT GOOD BASED ON YOUR EXPERIENCE ON A FORUM DEDICATED TO THAT TYPE OF DISCUSSION! :D :wub:

Sorry... Maybe that was a bit much...

It's called competitive play.

Sadly it;s considered something bad on these forums

I wouldn't say bad, but rather not nearly as pervasive and ubiquitous as its proponents would like the general forum to believe.

To the point that even in a normal game I make a habit of rolling to see if a pilot ejects or dies in flame.

Dude, that's awesome!

3 main ways of doing it.

Top half lives, bottom half dies (any dice)

Crit dies, hit injured, focus injured/misses next game/blank fine.

Dice roll + mitigating factors (hits with a crit add more chance of dying, ion less, hits or crit effects putting hull into negative values causing more etc).

I've wrote up a bunch of methods now.

My favourite is the below dice roll defaulting at half chance but modifyable, and placing a token at R1 of destruction. Then if they want the pilot back they have to S&R...

Couldn't agree more sir! "Viable", "competitive", "autowin/autolose" & "flies itself" annoy me no end. Play what you enjoy. If you lose, who cares, it's just a game. Surely the fun is playing not winning!

Unless you go to a tournament. Then winning is (at least part of) the fun.

Winning is always fun but it's not the most important thing.