We all know it's nothin to do with stratergy and is solely a PR decision on FFG's part to avoid the backlash from the 'I don't wanna buy new stuff to have to play crowd'.

I'd be very wary about playing a list specifically designed to benefit from the old deck as at any given time now FFG could pull the carpet out from under you and enforced the new deck, like we all know they want to from Alex and Franks interviews and comments about how the new damage deck FIXES a lot of issues they had with the old core they couldn't predict vein an issue at wave zero.

Man up and use the fixed deck and play the game the designers intended

No malice in this comment, just the plain old truth of the matter

No one should care...unless your switching out individual cards to make a composite deck that has all the least harmful effects.

The everyone gets to break your ships and toss you from the event.

Forever.

Love it or hate it, FFG has decided that choosing your damage deck is part of list-building. Is it cheating to choose the three largest debris fields when running Dash? It is just choosing what is optimal for you.

My son likes running a 5K list for tourneys. Guess what damage deck he uses.

Would you tell your baseball team not to steal bases because "stealing is wrong?"

I think FFG made a poor choice in allowing either deck in competitive events but it is what it is.

FFG has said you can use either deck. If that's janky, then every rule in the game is too.

Always the new deck. Always.

The right to choose should be removed.

Nice to see that WAAC is alive and well in X-Wing...

Oh leave it out.

Is it WAAC to use all the biggest tournament-legal asteroids?

Is it WAAC to use a stresshog?

Is it WAAC to run Super Soontir?

Is it WAAC to run 4 TLT Ys or 3 Tactician TLT K-Wings or Brobots, or whatever other list you think is strongest... etc?

It's a game, it offers you a choice between things, there are strategic advantages to both, if you have the option, why wouldn't you take it?

Personally, I wouldn't make that choice, but that's mostly because I don't want to waste £25 on an old core set I don't feel that I actually want, and I'm not going to run swarm lists. If either of those things changes, I might well do.

Not quiet. The point of allowing people to keep using the old decks was for people who didn't want to have to buy the new boxed set. They pitched a fit and are allowed to go to tournaments without having to buy the new boxed set.

To then see using the old deck as an option for your benefit isn't the same thing as picking a debris field over an asteroid. It might look like it to you, but the only reason the old deck is an option is because of people who whined about spending money on a game that costs money.

By that logic, shouldn't you be barred from using the old asteroids? What about the original TIE fighters? What about any upgrade card that came in the old core set? Why is the damage deck a special component that is barred, but not any of the other stuff?

Not quiet. The point of allowing people to keep using the old decks was for people who didn't want to have to buy the new boxed set. They pitched a fit and are allowed to go to tournaments without having to buy the new boxed set.

To then see using the old deck as an option for your benefit isn't the same thing as picking a debris field over an asteroid. It might look like it to you, but the only reason the old deck is an option is because of people who whined about spending money on a game that costs money.

By that logic, shouldn't you be barred from using the old asteroids? What about the original TIE fighters? What about any upgrade card that came in the old core set? Why is the damage deck a special component that is barred, but not any of the other stuff?

No, because the old asteroids were never intended to be replacements for the new. They were created to be additional choices. The old deck was meant to be gotten rid of. The old asteroids were never banned from tournament play, and then reinstated by whiners.

Your asteroid scenario is a narrow call about being WAAC. Personally I tend to bring all 6 asteroids and use whatever three the other player didn't select so we don't have 6 giant rocks (casual tourneys, not official).

Your list building scenarios are absurd. Damage deck, asteroids, rules, maneuver templates are not part of your list, they are part of the underlying mechanical structure of the game. Altering those underlying mechanics for a better chance at winning is a textbook case of WAAC.

Your response to heychadwick is also a little ridiculous. The better comparison is to the old rule book, not the old asteroids. Should you be able to use the old rules?

You are also getting significantly heated about this (or you appear to be, hard to tell with text on the Internet). You clearly don't see anything wrong with this, I do, and until FFG changes their minds, I guess you win. Congrats.

It's unfortunate that FFG went back on their decision to require the new damage deck, but the fact of the matter is that they did.

It is tournament legal to use either. There is strategy to using one over the other in some instances. Anyone who says different is, quite simply, wrong. And I can say this, because it's in the rules.

Always the new deck. Always.

The right to choose should be removed.

Not quiet. The point of allowing people to keep using the old decks was for people who didn't want to have to buy the new boxed set. They pitched a fit and are allowed to go to tournaments without having to buy the new boxed set.

To then see using the old deck as an option for your benefit isn't the same thing as picking a debris field over an asteroid. It might look like it to you, but the only reason the old deck is an option is because of people who whined about spending money on a game that costs money.

By that logic, shouldn't you be barred from using the old asteroids? What about the original TIE fighters? What about any upgrade card that came in the old core set? Why is the damage deck a special component that is barred, but not any of the other stuff?

No, because the old asteroids were never intended to be replacements for the new. They were created to be additional choices. The old deck was meant to be gotten rid of. The old asteroids were never banned from tournament play, and then reinstated by whiners.

As someone that thinks they should get rid of the old deck for tournament play, turning this into some sort of moral choice is a bit over the top. It doesn't matter why FFG arrived at the decision they did, they introduced a rule that made it a strategic choice. Just like the 75 minute limit, which is only there because people need a reasonable "end point" for the game, it changes the way people play and I would never berate someone for choosing a strategy that fits with the ruleset we are playing under.

https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2015/10/30/a-pilots-options/

After careful review of the impact on tournament play, we have modified the policy on the legality of damage decks in X-Wing. Each damage deck provides advantages and disadvantages to certain ships, and by extension, certain squadrons. The existence of two different decks creates a healthier metagame, further bolstering the current environment of creativity and amazing customization that X-Wing offers to its players. Toward that end, for the foreseeable future, players will also be able to choose which damage deck to use when building their squadron. TheX-Wing tournament rules have been updated to reflect this change.

While I would probably like to see the new damage deck exclusively, when FFG backtracked on their decision, they made it clear that you could choose based on your squad.

Just fly the new as it's the one everyone should be using. Don't game the system by trying to pick the one that will give you an advantage.

FFG has stated that player can choose which damage deck they want to use. And yes, picking the one that gives you the greatest advantage is not only allowed, FFG encorages it! They have stated that they want a healthy, varied meta and made clear that two damage decks help with that.

For everyone saying you have to use the new deck - you don't, for the time being both are legal.

Make sure you are 100% certain before making declarative statements that are fundamentally misleading

The new deck is designed to be as debilitating to everyone as possible and to fix some of the problems with the original one.

In my opinions it should be mandatory to use the new one.

Just for the record, I know it's tournament legal. Never said it wasn't.

The worst you'd get from me at a tournament is an eye roll and maybe a nudge to my buddy.

I'm done with this thread as I've said my peace. Don't want to ruin a Friday by arguing with people who disagree with me about something as low as this. I still stick with my opinion that you should just always drop the old deck.

Have a good weekend.

Both are legal, and you're entirely welcome to use whichever deck is least painful for your ships. Nobody at a tournament is likely to care.

I would. I say it's gamey.

FFG should have stuck to their guns and made the new damage deck THE damage deck, but I assume people complained about being forced to buy the new core set to continue playing competitively, and FFG bucked.

It's their mistake, as this only effected competitive level gamers, and at that level, you can shell out $25 for a fun box (which included Poe) that substantially improves the game.

Now that FFG has botched it, you really can't blame anyone for bringing the old damage deck if it suits their squad better. In fact, if they're trying to play at the highest level, they're putting themselves at a disadvantage by not taking the optimal damage deck for them, whenever they play somebody without this weird hangup.

FFG made the wrong choice; now we live by it. Fly the damage deck that best fits your squad.

It's no more gaming the system at this point than picking the best obstacles for your squad.

Always the new deck. Always.

The right to choose should be removed.

Not quiet. The point of allowing people to keep using the old decks was for people who didn't want to have to buy the new boxed set. They pitched a fit and are allowed to go to tournaments without having to buy the new boxed set.

To then see using the old deck as an option for your benefit isn't the same thing as picking a debris field over an asteroid. It might look like it to you, but the only reason the old deck is an option is because of people who whined about spending money on a game that costs money.

By that logic, shouldn't you be barred from using the old asteroids? What about the original TIE fighters? What about any upgrade card that came in the old core set? Why is the damage deck a special component that is barred, but not any of the other stuff?

No, because the old asteroids were never intended to be replacements for the new. They were created to be additional choices. The old deck was meant to be gotten rid of. The old asteroids were never banned from tournament play, and then reinstated by whiners.

As someone that thinks they should get rid of the old deck for tournament play, turning this into some sort of moral choice is a bit over the top. It doesn't matter why FFG arrived at the decision they did, they introduced a rule that made it a strategic choice. Just like the 75 minute limit, which is only there because people need a reasonable "end point" for the game, it changes the way people play and I would never berate someone for choosing a strategy that fits with the ruleset we are playing under.

I'll be honest, I read very little of the thread prior to posting, but I don't intend to start any fires. I think the consistency of the new deck is the better choice for the game. That is all. I have been vocal and clear on this in the past. I don't want to anger anyone. I definitely understand the frustration of some who have only bought the original core set and then find out that components of it would then be illegal, especially considering the financial requirements of the game and that the TFA Core Set has been yet another victim of stock shortages. It is simply my opinion that all players should be required to use the same basic components, and that the updated damage deck affects all lists equally, whereas the old deck does not. I should not be able to draw a card that affects me any more OR any less than my opponent.

Until such time as the decision is revisited, however, the ability to choose is a legal part of the game and your preparation for a match and for a tournament. Therefore, the relevance of my opinions is, at this time, admittedly dubious. Should any player choose to use the original damage deck, it is their prerogative to do so, and I don't intend to refute that. But, any time that a player asks which deck they should use, I will always choose the TFA deck.

The worst you'd get from me at a tournament is an eye roll and maybe a nudge to my buddy.

Why would you even need to do that?

The worst you'd get from me at a tournament is an eye roll and maybe a nudge to my buddy.

Why would you even need to do that?

Certainly not because he's trying to "fly casual".

... Though I do the same whenever I see someone setting up 4 TLTs across from me.

About the only good thing about FFG's refusal to support gaming clubs is that we don't have to allow the use of the old damage deck. We even have spare copies in case someone without one wants to play.

FWIW, if they changed the rules and said new deck only, I'd be perfectly happy with that. But the idea that there's some sort of honour judgement about one rules-legal thing being fine and the other being WIN AT ALL COSTS BAD is really irksome.

It's a game, I've paid good money to attend a tournament, why wouldn't I try my best to win? I'd be slightly insulted to face an opponent who *didn't* use all the rules-legal options available to them to win - and at this point, I should note, if you don't own a thing, I won't care if you don't use it, though if I do and I'm not using it I might well offer to lend it to you for the day if I know you well enough.

But if you do own it, I'd find it a little patronising if you chose to use something bad for you out of honour. I don't need your honour. Play to your best ability with the best components you have for your list.

It's repeating what other people have said, but I'm bored this morning.

No, FFG shouldn't have backtracked on requiring the new damage deck. The constituency of players who are (1) interested and invested in tournament play, but (2) not willing to purchase the FA Core Set is so small that it's basically imaginary.

Yes, it's a little bit shady for players to attempt to squeeze a little extra power out of their list by using the "right" damage deck. The old deck had cards that varied from catastrophic (your Outrider is now without a cannon! kthxbai) to completely ineffective (oh, gosh, all players now have to ignore my Academy Pilot's ability and EPT). The new deck was deliberately designed to smooth out that variance, and choosing to use the old deck instead is nothing but taking advantage of an outdated element of the game.

But it's not only entirely legal to pick the "best" damage deck, it's what FFG is explicitly encouraging players to do by making both decks legal for tournament play. I really don't think there's a moral dimension to the choice, and I'm confused about why anyone would.

I was wondering which Damage deck the forums would recommend to use if I was flying a 3 Blue & 1 TLT, Tactician, Prox mine, Warden in a store Championship.

I have played it 3 times now with the "New" damage deck, but was wondering if I should be using the "old" one.

I'm leaning toward the old deck for you. It's going to be really annoying if you pull a Munitions Failure on your Warden, but K-wings are fairly resilient and your B-wings don't care. Moreover, the pilot crits in the old deck are fairly friendly to your list, since you have all generics.

Yes, it's a little bit shady for players to attempt to squeeze a little extra power out of their list by using the "right" damage deck.

But it's not only entirely legal to pick the "best" damage deck, it's what FFG is explicitly encouraging players to do by making both decks legal for tournament play. I really don't think there's a moral dimension to the choice, and I'm confused about why anyone would.

Sorry Vorp, not to bust your chops, but just for my own clarification; How can something be "a little bit shady" if it's a decision that involves no moral dimension?

I like most of what you're saying here, but either I'm misunderstanding you, or these two pieces are contradicting each other.

Ignore the naysayers don't let them dissuade you from using the deck you like.

Yeah, the decision to roll back on damage decks was pants-on-head stupid, but FFG has a history of going for the hard-on-player decision first (the Scum dial fiasco) and changing it to be the most accommodating to everyone.

I still think the ideal way to handle it would be to have players assign damage decks to their opponent, to represent their ships choosing a target priority ("Target their secondary weapons!"). It'd be more thematic than simply choosing the deck that is least painful to them. However, I also appreciate the counter-argument from people who don't want to have to share their decks with opponents who may not have the best hygiene.