It's always easy to spot who doesn't spend much time on Vassal. Every time I see someone dismiss the triple-uboat list with comments like "it's just a 2-attack turret" or "stressbot ftw", it becomes very obvious that not only have they not played against this, they haven't even seen it in action.

• The list is PS3, so your stressbot dies before it takes a shot.
• The list often includes Feedback Arrays, so good luck keeping Fel out of range of 3 large base R1 bubbles.
• The list is very likely to get full value out of that ordnance, thanks to agromechs and guidance chips
• The list doesn't care about lack of TL for the torps, thanks to Deadeye.

If Torpedo Boats are what you want to see, you're about to be very, very happy. I'm not saying it can't be beat, but it is VERY strong, and more than a little scary. There are some top lists in the meta right now that I think this is likely to erase.

So you're running Contracted Scouts with Deadeye, R4 Agromech, Feedback Array, and some kind of torpedo. I guess you can shoehorn three of those into a list if you use Overclocked Agromech instead of R4 and either run Flechette Torpedoes or drop Extra Munitions out of the build, but that seems... like betting a little too much on the alpha strike.

Every time I try to put together a 3x Scout list, I end up with two Scouts at 34-36 points and 30-ish points to spend on a third ship.

The version I've seen the most doesn't include Extra Munitions. And you're right, it's betting a lot on the alpha-strike. But with the TL and GC, it's not a sucker bet.

Power Creep is not when they produce cards that are strictly better than cards that are never played.

​Power Creep is when they produce cards that are so good they redefine what is worth playing.

The ORS was slightly playable around it's initial release, because it could fulfill a role that was worthwhile, a big body blocker. Nothing came out that usurped that role, the role just ceased to be useful. Additionally slightly playable is not much of a feather in it's cap. It's like saying the pre-Raider Vader is "decent".

It's folly to want FFG to design ships to reach the bar set by ships that already don't see play. We see so many complaints about buying ships solely for upgrades that it just seems nuts that people want FFG to hold ships to the standard of previously released ships, when that standard amounts to collecting dust in a box.

No disagreement here. I was just wondering if our definition of Power Creep is either out of context or possibly a bit too narrow for what we are seeing. We may not see power creep in the traditional definition which may be the correct one, I'm just asking. We are continually buying upgrades; we justify this by saying it reinvigorate older ships. To which I say YES, YES, YES, I agree and I'm all for it. But at the same time if it does not stop this continuous process of upgrading is really no different than Power Creep in reality.

There is baseline and there is stuff above and below this baseline. Power Creep is when that base-line gets moved. In X-Wing it seems that the base-line for a good card was the TIE-Fighter. Once that TIE-Fighter starts to get in trouble itself, we really getting into power creep territory.

And btw, changes in the meta which make a good card not valid anymore do not count for power creep, it when the stats itself escalate, not when certain combination or special abilities strong because of the current meta or we get counters for other cards.

I thought the base line has already been moved to Z-95s?

And btw, changes in the meta which make a good card not valid anymore do not count for power creep, it when the stats itself escalate, not when certain combination or special abilities strong because of the current meta or we get counters for other cards.

I think you miss understood. I didn't not say when a good card is not valid I referred to when a ship is no longer valid without new upgrades. Also I'm not debating the current definition of Power Creep, I'm really not making myself very clear.

I was simply wondering based on how the X-Wing meta evolves if it might make sense to redefine it or come up with another name for what is happening.

Meta re-shape, that's what happens.

except for it doesn't "shift" from one side to another, it's a landsline

WHOOOSH and phantom appears, eating everything PS8 and down

WHOOOOSH and he dies, but PWTs stay, because they work better than jousters, after the damage mitigation arrives

WHOOOOOSH and TLTs arrive, telling PWTs their end is nigh

WHOOOOOOSH and AT aces come on top, with new extra cheesy protection against their "game design counter-matchup" turrets

we must see what happens now!

Will designers manage to end the reign of aces?
Will jousters return or is it just defender being awesome?

Will S&V finally stop being an IG-4000 faction?

Watch the next episode "WAVE 8.5" IN FULL 3D ON EVERY FLGS TABLE THIS SPRING!

None of the above

We wont even see it coming: the domination of Bombs and Blockers

Power Creep is not when they produce cards that are strictly better than cards that are never played.

​Power Creep is when they produce cards that are so good they redefine what is worth playing.

The ORS was slightly playable around it's initial release, because it could fulfill a role that was worthwhile, a big body blocker. Nothing came out that usurped that role, the role just ceased to be useful. Additionally slightly playable is not much of a feather in it's cap. It's like saying the pre-Raider Vader is "decent".

It's folly to want FFG to design ships to reach the bar set by ships that already don't see play. We see so many complaints about buying ships solely for upgrades that it just seems nuts that people want FFG to hold ships to the standard of previously released ships, when that standard amounts to collecting dust in a box.

No disagreement here. I was just wondering if our definition of Power Creep is either out of context or possibly a bit too narrow for what we are seeing. We may not see power creep in the traditional definition which may be the correct one, I'm just asking. We are continually buying upgrades; we justify this by saying it reinvigorate older ships. To which I say YES, YES, YES, I agree and I'm all for it. But at the same time if it does not stop this continuous process of upgrading is really no different than Power Creep in reality.

Then as MJ said:

Long term consistent power creep will eventually convince me to give up on the game.

So do you only define power creep if it comes in the way of new units? And if so what label would you give to constant upgrades required to keep old ships relevant in a game where the power level is increasing via, post maneuver movement, regen shields, out of arc boosts, etc...

short version: I agree with you but what do you call what is going on?

My definition of power creep is when the previous ceiling of top-end ship(s) are now nearly universally inferior to new ships / upgrades. This can be in the form of:

1) a more efficient new ship (which we generally haven't seen in X-wing; the Z-95 is the closest we have)

2) Named pilot abilities that make this particular ship with specific upgrades universally better than generics (a LOT of pilots fall into this category)

3) Upgrades that elevate existing ships above the previous ceiling of the power curve (think TLT)

4) other miscellaneous stuff I'm not thinking up offhand

Note that mild power creep is generally inevitable. As they release new stuff, inevitably some of it will be more powerful than they intended and will push the previous boundaries of the power curve. The only way to mitigate this is to either intentionally make new stuff slightly sub par, or to be really effective at predicting game balance before ships hit the shelves.

FFG cannot afford to do either.

I thought the base line has already been moved to Z-95s?

Power Creep is not when they produce cards that are strictly better than cards that are never played.

​Power Creep is when they produce cards that are so good they redefine what is worth playing.

The ORS was slightly playable around it's initial release, because it could fulfill a role that was worthwhile, a big body blocker. Nothing came out that usurped that role, the role just ceased to be useful. Additionally slightly playable is not much of a feather in it's cap. It's like saying the pre-Raider Vader is "decent".

It's folly to want FFG to design ships to reach the bar set by ships that already don't see play. We see so many complaints about buying ships solely for upgrades that it just seems nuts that people want FFG to hold ships to the standard of previously released ships, when that standard amounts to collecting dust in a box.

No disagreement here. I was just wondering if our definition of Power Creep is either out of context or possibly a bit too narrow for what we are seeing. We may not see power creep in the traditional definition which may be the correct one, I'm just asking. We are continually buying upgrades; we justify this by saying it reinvigorate older ships. To which I say YES, YES, YES, I agree and I'm all for it. But at the same time if it does not stop this continuous process of upgrading is really no different than Power Creep in reality.

Then as MJ said:

Long term consistent power creep will eventually convince me to give up on the game.

So do you only define power creep if it comes in the way of new units? And if so what label would you give to constant upgrades required to keep old ships relevant in a game where the power level is increasing via, post maneuver movement, regen shields, out of arc boosts, etc...

short version: I agree with you but what do you call what is going on?

My definition of power creep is when the previous ceiling of top-end ship(s) are now nearly universally inferior to new ships / upgrades. This can be in the form of:

1) a more efficient new ship (which we generally haven't seen in X-wing; the Z-95 is the closest we have)

2) Named pilot abilities that make this particular ship with specific upgrades universally better than generics (a LOT of pilots fall into this category)

3) Upgrades that elevate existing ships above the previous ceiling of the power curve (think TLT)

4) other miscellaneous stuff I'm not thinking up offhand

Note that mild power creep is generally inevitable. As they release new stuff, inevitably some of it will be more powerful than they intended and will push the previous boundaries of the power curve. The only way to mitigate this is to either intentionally make new stuff slightly sub par, or to be really effective at predicting game balance before ships hit the shelves.

FFG cannot afford to do either.

I thought the base line has already been moved to Z-95s?

For generic ships, that is actually correct; the Z-95 has an ever so slightly better dice value (better action economy on offense with only 2AGI), but the real kicker is the +1PS. That has a tangible value to jousting as well. You could argue that the TIE's dial and actions offset this, plus they can get Howlrunner.

The ties dial and actions most certainly offset this. A tie fighter is a better ship. Your jousting numbers are not the be all end all.

Uh, you're strawmanning here. Have you actually looked at Major Juggler's methodology?

A) Jousting is used as a baseline, making the most efficient jouster the logical starting point

B) His more advanced work actually does look at dials and action bars.

Edit: Came off way to snippy originally.

The problem isn't that the ORS is too expensive, it's the fact that all of the Jumpmaster 5000s are underpriced by alot (IMO by about 5 points). If you think I'm wrong, just compare the Scout to an T-70 X-wing (Red Squadron Vet.), the X-wing costs one point MORE than the Scout.

Edit: Why hasn't anyone been complaining about the fact you can now get THREE(3) large-based ships, loaded, in a standard list. That should tell you that the Jumpmaster 5000s should be priced higher.

We'll just have to take more TLT's,

To be perfectly honest I think the tlt needs a fix, probably 3 points cheaper...

The ties dial and actions most certainly offset this. A tie fighter is a better ship. Your jousting numbers are not the be all end all.

Besides that does baseline not mean best, but the value you balance around your cards. Some are intentional above baseline and others are below. Have not heard anyone saying that TIEs are overpriced yet. *g*

Havings above baseline is optimal to have, especially if you implement counters against the. The same applies for "bad" cards, if you implement combinations for those. Speaking of bad cards and upgrades to make them good. Had the Y-Wing not a reputation of being overcost and useless for a long time?

The scum version is stupid cheap, and the Falcon has always been overpriced, but stop hating on the 2400. MANGLER TURRET. Sure, it is expensive but if you put a hwk on the list, then you will be shooting at PS 12, have wrecked with that combo. Rebels are about synergy, scum is about Independence. Stop comparing apples to oranges. Each faction has its own design principles and uses.

Besides that does baseline not mean best, but the value you balance around your cards. Some are intentional above baseline and others are below. Have not heard anyone saying that TIEs are overpriced yet. *g*

Havings above baseline is optimal to have, especially if you implement counters against the. The same applies for "bad" cards, if you implement combinations for those. Speaking of bad cards and upgrades to make them good. Had the Y-Wing not a reputation of being overcost and useless for a long time?

You give me 60 points of AP ties vs 60 points of Bandit Zs, I'll give you a full win with high MoV favoring the empire. Jousting, and well most of jugglers math, is only one part of the story. It helps layout ground work to help base yourself on, but it truly comes down to how you use it. I was, and still am, a big hater on math wing, but not because of the min/maxing, I like that aspect. What I hate about it, is some people use it as gossiple for building a list. I think if people actually tried stuff with their own hands instead of basing it off numbers computed by a theory of another player, you would see much better results.