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.

I think mostly you'd get an argument from opponents who only own the one deck.

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.

"Shady" isn't really the right word. What I mean is that there's no excuse or other reason to do it--it's just attempting to exploit a piece of the rules to your own advantage. It's like, um...

...well, the only analogy that leaps to mind is that back in the bad old days of 3rd Edition D&D, smart clerics bought wands containing the basic, 1st-level healing spell rather than bothering to cast the spells themselves. The cost of the wand was negligible in comparison to the value of your powerful spell slots, so you did it the obviously cheap and efficient way.

It didn't make any sense in game terms to do it that way, of course: where are all these wands coming from? Why do powerful healing spells even exist in the first place, since it's almost always smarter not to use them? But the efficiency and effectiveness of those stupid, cheap wands was an inescapable conclusion of metagame logic. And refusing to consider the loophole actually made you, and by extension your whole party, less capable--with no compensating advantage except the warm, fuzzy glow of taking the moral high ground on an issue no one but you cares about or is even aware exists.

Anyway, this is like that. I don't look down on someone who makes the decision to use the damage deck that's most advantageous. They're making the most effective choice, given a set of rules that allows them to make it. And given that having the "right" damage deck is a pretty marginal advantage, I'd say the problem caused by the rules--and the responsibility for any unfairness that exists--lies squarely on the people who made the rules, not on the people who are following them.

Yeah, but... how is it different from using *any* other part of the rules to your advantage?

I mean, I can bring the three biggest rocks I own, and I think that will always be to my advantage. How is that any different?

Ffg should at least make regional and national events require the new deck as well but allow store championships to determine if both are allowed. You are much more likely to have a casual player who doesn't have the new deck at a store championship and extremely unlikely to have any at a world, national or even regional event. This would solve most of the issues.

You can use either.

But I will be disapointed in you as a person if you use the old.

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.

It's just as gamey as choosing all debris for a list based around accuracy corrector or something that doesn't care about it.

Old deck is overall better for your probably, however there is the chance of losing the TLT. I'd have to sit down and analyze Both decks OP. I say you use the old deck and if you get a dead draw crit you make specific mention of picking the old deck to get dead draws just to troll opponents that hold heychadwick's view.

Because big rocks weren't introduced to fix issues with the little rocks

I see your point, but your example is poor. Difference is due to the importance that FFG put on the new damage deck for evening out what they stated thenselves was an inherent flaw in the game (this being, as Vorp puts in in his normal elegance, the extreme variance of effect of the old DD crits)

This is why people get upset with others using the old damage deck, FFG public annonouced the old one was flawed and the new one is a fix. Next minute, permission to use the 'flawed' deck due to public outcry.

me, I don't really care. I've not used the old deck since the new came out because I truly beleive the old deck is living on borrowed time, so why bother. But if someone wants to use it then fine, it's in the rules so make use of it if you want. For me I just want to play the game as the designers intend it where crits actually have effects. Maybe it does hamstring me, but no more than playing with the ships I enjoy using does compared to using the current meta busting ships.

You can use either.

But I will be disapointed in you as a person if you use the old.

Yes, how dare he play by the rules!

Because big rocks weren't introduced to fix issues with the little rocks

I see your point, but your example is poor. Difference is due to the importance that FFG put on the new damage deck for evening out what they stated thenselves was an inherent flaw in the game (this being, as Vorp puts in in his normal elegance, the extreme variance of effect of the old DD crits)

This is why people get upset with others using the old damage deck, FFG public annonouced the old one was flawed and the new one is a fix. Next minute, permission to use the 'flawed' deck due to public outcry.

me, I don't really care. I've not used the old deck since the new came out because I truly beleive the old deck is living on borrowed time, so why bother. But if someone wants to use it then fine, it's in the rules so make use of it if you want. For me I just want to play the game as the designers intend it where crits actually have effects. Maybe it does hamstring me, but no more than playing with the ships I enjoy using does compared to using the current meta busting ships.

New deck has dead draws too. The "all damage cards dealt from now on are face up" one always is the second to last damage on a ship, and if it gets put on a high hull ship it's instantly flipped down.

The stress on white manuevers is a dead draw on soontir. Oh no soontir has to do a green hard 2.

Old damage deck punished Y's and HWK's unfairly, and it righteously punished people that put 60 points into one (HLC) fat turret. In other words, unless you had a hwk or a Y it was a non-issue. FFG thinks it's a problem but they don't think wave 5 was a problem either.

Greetings

Knowing precious little about X-Wing I bought a copy of the original core set plus some expansions in January. I was more interested in the original models than the FA ones.

I then realised that the rules had been updated - online so not an issue - and that the damage deck had changed. I was not intending to play in tournaments, so I could just have ignored this. It did bug me slightly to buy a new game and have 'outdated' components - though this was an emotional reaction as the game played fine out of the box.

I've bought the TFA core set now (as much for the T-70 and TIE f/o as anything else) so for me the problem has gone away for myself. If I host a casual game at home I would have to provide any player who did not have components with the old damage deck (though this would not be affected by the FFG decision) which seems to introduce some inconsistency. But it's a niggle not a problem in a casual situation.

I do wonder why FFG did not produce a damage deck pack (like the dice pack) if they wanted people to use the new deck in a more formal environment. Maybe they will do so and then change the ruling.

Regards

Edward

Because big rocks weren't introduced to fix issues with the little rocks

I see your point, but your example is poor. Difference is due to the importance that FFG put on the new damage deck for evening out what they stated thenselves was an inherent flaw in the game (this being, as Vorp puts in in his normal elegance, the extreme variance of effect of the old DD crits)

This is why people get upset with others using the old damage deck, FFG public annonouced the old one was flawed and the new one is a fix. Next minute, permission to use the 'flawed' deck due to public outcry.

me, I don't really care. I've not used the old deck since the new came out because I truly beleive the old deck is living on borrowed time, so why bother. But if someone wants to use it then fine, it's in the rules so make use of it if you want. For me I just want to play the game as the designers intend it where crits actually have effects. Maybe it does hamstring me, but no more than playing with the ships I enjoy using does compared to using the current meta busting ships.

People would get upset? Doubt that, went a few months using the old deck because never got around to sleaving the new deck and the old one damaged me just fine. No one cared in my area.

I see this issue as as something of 'value'. It seems the only reason FFG rescinded the decision to exclusively use the new deck was because some fellas didn't want to buy the TFA core set just for the deck. We'll buy an Epic Ship which might cost more for a single upgrade but that upgrade is optional .. it's our choice whether or not to include it. Being forced to buy a whole new core in order to play is a bit wrong, and many players see no value in that purchase.

I argue that FFG should have sold the damage deck separately and made it compulsory. I understand this is still forcing players to buy something in order to play, but we can find value in a $4.99 purchase which we might not find in an entire new core.

I've seen a few beefs kick up over it so far this year.

I even had a TO try and force someone to use his new DD be use he bought the old one. I was first in line with the FAQ and tourney pack to point out to the TO the player in question was fine to use the old deck.

I myself have no issue with it. Dem rules be the rules and we have to live with it. But it doesn't mean people have to like it and I think both camps have a fair point. The sooner the old DD fades into existence, I personally believe that the game will be in a better place

Use whichever one you want.

I still get the same joy blowing up your ships, regardless of which one you think is giving you some kind of edge.

It really doesn't matter that much. Both decks contain effects that, depending on the squad and situation, don't change the game state at all.

Knowing the differences in the decks, I would take the new one with the OP's squad to make sure that TLT doesn't get blasted away. But I'm not convinced there's any real advantage to taking one deck over the other. Something else in the new deck could be exactly what I don't want to see, depending on circumstance.

It's really the only decision FFG could have made. Forcing players to buy the new Core set wouldn't just be a matter of folks be disgruntled about needing to drop $30 to play again; that's also enabling FFG to obsolete any material component they want, and force players to buy new ones if they want to compete.

Oh, we revised the maneuver templates, here's a third Core set at $30.

Oh, we revised the damage deck again, as well as dials for these ships.

And you're probably sitting there frowning thinking "That's absurd, they'd never do that". Their decision to perform actions like that are based upon how they affect the bottom line ($$$), determined by customer/fan reception and sales. It's always and only about money in the end, and, if the company determines that it's a profitable course of action to purposefully obsolete material components of the game and force consumers to make purchases to stay current and compete, they can and will. But, this game is not Warhammer, and I do not want it to become Warhammer.

I don't hold FFG wholly responsible for being unable to predict how the course of X-Wing's development would pan out, so frankly, it seems they made the best decision they could have. If you want to require the new deck, it should be provided. I'm one of those folks that only just got into the game this past January, and bought the original Core set (largely due to disdain for the new movie/content, and love of the old X-Wing design). I don't have any compunction to purchase it. I would consider a separately packaged damage deck for a couple bucks, but as of now I don't feel the need. I participated in a tourney about a week ago and no one there minded my damage deck, though that could have been due to my squad of Vader and RAC.

The moralizing and demonization throughout here is borderline histrionic, by the way. Completely absurd.

When the new deck was introduced with the 1/1/16 cutover date, I was the first one to notify my group. We're mostly casual players, meeting at a house each week to play a group game, but we still play by the rules.

However, I never saw a problem with a player choosing to use either deck after the ruling was reversed. The designers specifically stated that they think the choice of which deck to use creates a healthier meta. The press release is quoted earlier in this very thread. I'm not sure why folks are doubting that statement or the intentions behind it, but I'm more inclined to follow the spirit of that quote. I've played a lot with both decks, and both have their pluses and minuses. I use the new deck exclusively, but that doesn't mean I would never consider using the old deck, or would turn up my nose at someone doing so. That kind of attitude is, to me, the antithesis of "fly casual". In fact, at least one member of my regular group uses the old deck pretty regularly, though it's more because he hasn't bothered to dig out the new one though (we all have the new starter).

I've played a few tournaments, and I have to say it wouldn't bother me in the slightest which deck my opponents chose to use.

Essentially once you've taken a crit or two I'm going to hit that ship until it's destroyed so the effect should only be in play for one more round, two at the absolute most.

Rikk

Has it ever occurred to anyone that this might have actually be a game balancing move?

Old deck favors generics with few/no upgrades. Generics are already rarely seen. Allowing the old deck would therefore be a generic buff.

Because big rocks weren't introduced to fix issues with the little rocks

I see your point, but your example is poor. Difference is due to the importance that FFG put on the new damage deck for evening out what they stated thenselves was an inherent flaw in the game (this being, as Vorp puts in in his normal elegance, the extreme variance of effect of the old DD crits)

This is why people get upset with others using the old damage deck, FFG public annonouced the old one was flawed and the new one is a fix. Next minute, permission to use the 'flawed' deck due to public outcry.

me, I don't really care. I've not used the old deck since the new came out because I truly beleive the old deck is living on borrowed time, so why bother. But if someone wants to use it then fine, it's in the rules so make use of it if you want. For me I just want to play the game as the designers intend it where crits actually have effects. Maybe it does hamstring me, but no more than playing with the ships I enjoy using does compared to using the current meta busting ships.

New deck has dead draws too. The "all damage cards dealt from now on are face up" one always is the second to last damage on a ship, and if it gets put on a high hull ship it's instantly flipped down.

The stress on white manuevers is a dead draw on soontir. Oh no soontir has to do a green hard 2.

Old damage deck punished Y's and HWK's unfairly, and it righteously punished people that put 60 points into one (HLC) fat turret. In other words, unless you had a hwk or a Y it was a non-issue. FFG thinks it's a problem but they don't think wave 5 was a problem either.

Structural Damage on a Decimator. My favourite crit.

No one ever said that there weren't situations in which some crits wouldn't be completely debilitating, just that the variance was greatly reduced.

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.

Oh and don't use any b wings because they are more points efficient than the ships the other guy might be flying. Seriously dude? "Don't break down your list and bring will give you the best competitive edge to a tournament you paid for." Is essentially what you just said. You can be competitive and still fly casual.

That being said I usually lean towards the new decks don't have munitions failure but realistically you're probably slightly better off with the old deck, more stuff that doesn't affect you.

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

...Along "Fly casuals" to whom the very idea of making a list more competitive is blasphemous. Chill dude, the guy came here for advice on which of the two decks he should bring to a competitive event that allows the option for either. I won't speak for him but I am doubtful he came he for a lesson on the "Morality of X-wing."

I'd rather see my tournament buddy, who has been gaming on a pretty tight budget since W2, buy that kick ass Lambda which he has been eyeballing for half a year, than to buy a couple of FO's and a T70 he has very little or no interest in flying.

I'd rather see my tournament buddy, who has been gaming on a pretty tight budget since W2, buy that kick ass Lambda which he has been eyeballing for half a year, than to buy a couple of FO's and a T70 he has very little or no interest in flying.

This seems reasonable.

But apart from that; this was your buddy? And he could not afford a Lambda for 6 months? Has he not had a birthday during that time, or some celebration? Come one, be a sport - buy him that Lambda shuttle!

(On the subject: I too think the new deck is better, but I do not believe that 'a couple of whiners' forced the decision. Rather, I suspect that FFG was reluctant to invalidate, for tournaments, a complete deck of cards that they still intend to sell.)