I'm not sure who this guy is but he has but alot of thought into his article.

http://teamcovenant.com/star-wars-x-wing/the-paradigm-shift-of-red-dice

I get the impression from this article the X-Wing is seriously unbalanced or dramatically getting that way. Even toward the end he says "Unfortunately the list of hamstrung fighters is longer than just those 2 ships".

Am I over thinking his intent?

I think he's largely on-point with his description and conclusions.

This line, in particular, stood out to me as a succinct, cogent summation of one of the developing power-creep issues in the game:

"ATT 3 w/ Focus is now below average firepower."

One thing, though -- this is not something you ever want to write in an essay meant to be persuasive to complete strangers:

"I’ve been calling things pretty much perfectly since Wave 1, and I’ve learned over the years to trust my uncanny intuition."

Theorist is a well known contributor to the community. He runs regular tournaments on vassal, is a member of the Scum and Villainy podcast (hasn't been on very many of the recent episodes though - life gets in the way), and many consider him to be one of the top "minds" in the game.

He raises some valid concerns in the article, and some of the proposed cards seem like good additions to the game.

Best line: "It's going to get worse if it doesn't get better." I think he nailed it.

I have high respect for Theorist as we were both around during wave 1 and I've read a lot of his stuff, but that one line made me chuckle.

Theorist is definitely correct about a lot of these points and he has been right more than wrong historically.

Proton Cannon is a great idea.

Best line: "It's going to get worse if it doesn't get better." I think he nailed it.

I have high respect for Theorist as we were both around during wave 1 and I've read a lot of his stuff, but that one line made me chuckle.

"JOHN MADDEN HERE, YOU KNOW IF THEY DONT START SCORING POINTS IT WILL BE HARD TO WIN THE GAME"

This line, in particular, stood out to me as a succinct, cogent summation of one of the developing power-creep issues in the game:

"ATT 3 w/ Focus is now below average firepower."

To the degree that's true, it's because we have (1) an exceptions-based ruleset that (2) is always growing. But since the whole piece is vague and theoretical, it's hard to demonstrate whether it's true or not. Of course, one could take a look at List Juggler and actually provide some empirical backup, but Theorist doesn't bother to do that.

One thing, though -- this is not something you ever want to write in an essay meant to be persuasive to complete strangers:

"I’ve been calling things pretty much perfectly since Wave 1, and I’ve learned over the years to trust my uncanny intuition."

Part of the reason it's unpersuasive is because it's fatuously self-regarding, and the other part is because it's actually really easy to find things he got drastically wrong. (Does anyone else remember when he was promoting Rookie Pilot + Stealth Device?)

Theorist is a well known contributor to the community... many consider him to be one of the top "minds" in the game.

Theorist is a relentlessly longwinded narcissist, and that's it. He has very little understanding of this game, of game design in general, or of how to interact with other humans. He also has a bad habit of convincing himself of an argument and then ignoring any and all contravening evidence, logic, or expertise.

He raises some valid concerns in the article, and some of the proposed cards seem like good additions to the game.

He doesn't, and they aren't.

Best line: "It's going to get worse if it doesn't get better." I think he nailed it.

I have high respect for Theorist as we were both around during wave 1 and I've read a lot of his stuff, but that one line made me chuckle.

I have zero respect for Theorist, as we were both around during Wave 1 and I've read a lot of his stuff.

His continued presence at TC is the reason I stopped blogging.

This line, in particular, stood out to me as a succinct, cogent summation of one of the developing power-creep issues in the game: "ATT 3 w/ Focus is now below average firepower."

To the degree that's true, it's because we have (1) an exceptions-based ruleset that (2) is always growing. But since the whole piece is vague and theoretical, it's hard to demonstrate whether it's true or not. Of course, one could take a look at List Juggler and actually provide some empirical backup, but Theorist doesn't actually bother to do that.

One thing, though -- this is not something you ever want to write in an essay meant to be persuasive to complete strangers: "I’ve been calling things pretty much perfectly since Wave 1, and I’ve learned over the years to trust my uncanny intuition."

Part of the reason it's unpersuasive is because it's fatuously self-regarding, and the other part is because it's actually really easy to find things he got drastically wrong. (Does anyone else remember when he was promoting Rookie Pilot + Stealth Device?)

Theorist is a well known contributor to the community... many consider him to be one of the top "minds" in the game.

Theorist is a relentlessly longwinded narcissist, and that's it. He has very little understanding of this game, of game design in general, or of how to interact with other humans. He also has a bad habit of convincing himself of an argument and then ignoring any and all contravening evidence, logic, or expertise.

He raises some valid concerns in the article, and some of the proposed cards seem like good additions to the game.

He doesn't, and they aren't.

Best line: "It's going to get worse if it doesn't get better." I think he nailed it. I have high respect for Theorist as we were both around during wave 1 and I've read a lot of his stuff, but that one line made me chuckle.

I have zero respect for Theorist, as we were both around during Wave 1 and I've read a lot of his stuff.His continued presence at TC is the reason I stopped blogging.

EDIT: I've finished reading the post and while I agree with some of his observations I disagree with most of his conclusions.

I do hope FFG pays attention to articles like this when they try to determine where to take the game, some good points here.

As Vorpal, and a few others, can well you I've been less and less enthused about the growing complexity, which others appreciate as depth, and the seemingly endless fixes. After reading this I was thinking 'you know what, maybe I am in the wrong game and it will take another 8 waves to fix what we have then another 8 to fix the previous 8'. Most, so far, seem to side with Theorist and Vorpal turns another direction. My biggest concern is when ever I see someone imply 'hire me and all of your issues will be solved'. They could be right but at that point I'm a skeptic; just sayin'.

However, I just didn't think it was that bad so I wanted some opinions first. I don't think the X-Wing is that bad, sure it could use another nudge. I'm excited about Imperial Veterans but really, really hope it doesn't introduce imbalance or power creep. If you remember I use a broader definition of 'power creep' than the traditional view.

I might agree that with the bunches of new upgrades one thing we have seen is less reliance on dice with more auto-damage upgrades. Perhaps that is a good thing but it does introduce a weakness in ships that can't adjust.

So I'm in the middle here. I think the article may be pretty far off base in my limited experience; I think X-Wing is still mostly balanced'. But increased power output has changed the game. My issues with the game are different however.

One point Theorist doesn't mention is the timed tournament. Time has always been an issue for this game* (as far as I can remember). Putting a huge emphasis on offense, while making some ships obsolete, does push toward faster games and more chances to complete the games in a tournament setting. I feel like the current 75-minute time limit is doing a pretty good job in the current meta of allowing games to finish. If we start increasing defensive options, that is going to change. So there may be a trade-off between ship variety and successful completion of games if FFG follows Theorist's line of thinking.

*This was especially true when some venues had 60-minute rounds, but the current structure mandates 75-minute rounds, so it's a little less of an issue.

Best line: "It's going to get worse if it doesn't get better." I think he nailed it.

I have high respect for Theorist as we were both around during wave 1 and I've read a lot of his stuff, but that one line made me chuckle.

I have zero respect for Theorist, as we were both around during Wave 1 and I've read a lot of his stuff.

His continued presence at TC is the reason I stopped blogging.

Well, the thing I like most about him is his willingness to try crazy things (like Rookie + Stealth Device) and not just go with the herd mentality. (That is to say, he posts adamantly about such squads. Whether he actually flies them or not is beyond me.)

I have yet to read the above mentioned article, but your response seems rather harsh.

He waged a months-long campaign of personal attacks on TC in order to push me out of a leisure activity I enjoyed. Our public interactions haven't been pleasant, but the private ones have actually been worse--including one memorable incident where he accused me of deliberately sabotaging a project that meant something to both of us.

It may appear harsh to you, but I'm actually being as polite as I can manage.

His dismissal of the TIE Fighter, TIE/FO, and Z-95 sort makes me doubt his full article.

EDIT: Yeah, he completely is wrong with his ideas on PS bids.

Absolute trash article.

Nothing makes me lose respect for a fellow forum-goer faster than saying 'WAVE 3 X-WING WAS THE BEST', because no, of course it ******* wasn't.

Take off those rose tinted glasses, and you see Jousters, Jousters everywhere. The TIE Swarm was King, The B-Wing was Queen, and the only unique anyone used was Biggs.

A-Wings were hideous (I actually laughed out loud reading Theorist's excuses for that one), TIE Advanced was on the bottom rung, TIE Interceptors were getting murdered by Turrets and the Y-Wing was sans any of the new goodies that make it actually fun to fly.

'But Jimmius, you always complain about the T-65, and it saw play in wave 3, s-s-so that means-' No, the T-65 saw play partly because the Z-95 hadn't come out yet, and partly because it's the name of the game, and people will fly it regardless of how much it sucks.

How anyone can look at the current state of the game and pine for wave 3 of all things baffles me.

I have yet to read the above mentioned article, but your response seems rather harsh.

He waged a months-long campaign of personal attacks on TC in order to push me out of a leisure activity I enjoyed. Our public interactions haven't been pleasant, but the private ones have actually been worse--including one memorable incident where he accused me of deliberately sabotaging a project that meant something to both of us.

It may appear harsh to you, but I'm actually being as polite as I can manage.

I feel your pain. There was a poster on hear around wave 2 who got under my skin and pretty much made me stop posting to the X-Wing forums. I basically stopped playing the game after that and started dabbling in FFG's other offerings. That's never a fun situation.

I have yet to read the above mentioned article, but your response seems rather harsh.

He waged a months-long campaign of personal attacks on TC in order to push me out of a leisure activity I enjoyed. Our public interactions haven't been pleasant, but the private ones have actually been worse--including one memorable incident where he accused me of deliberately sabotaging a project that meant something to both of us.It may appear harsh to you, but I'm actually being as polite as I can manage.[/quot

I assumed your response was just to the article, my bad. I added to my original response after reading his essay.

I read it and it's a confusing mess. The summary is: 3 attack + focus isn't good enough anymore because health is better than agility. That is the most confusing and contradictory point. Then there was a section railing against high ps for reasons unknown and the phrase autowin was thrown around which just removes any credibility from any argument in my mind. I'm just going to keep playing xwing in the most diverse and balanced form I've seen so far and assume that if this is what the downfall of the game looks like then being on the crash cos this is fun.

I have yet to read the above mentioned article, but your response seems rather harsh.

He waged a months-long campaign of personal attacks on TC in order to push me out of a leisure activity I enjoyed. Our public interactions haven't been pleasant, but the private ones have actually been worse--including one memorable incident where he accused me of deliberately sabotaging a project that meant something to both of us.It may appear harsh to you, but I'm actually being as polite as I can manage.

I assumed your response was just to the article, my bad. I added to my original response after reading his essay.

I may be a bit... touchy when it comes to Theorist. I don't think the article is good, but I don't think I need to go into the ways it fails any further than saying I don't think his conclusions match up with the game as it's played.

*Grabs some popecorn*

Edit: Popecorn is like popcorn but every kernel is shaped like a funny hat. (Cmon autocorrect!)

I read it and it's a confusing mess. The summary is: 3 attack + focus isn't good enough anymore because health is better than agility. That is the most confusing and contradictory point. Then there was a section railing against high ps for reasons unknown and the phrase autowin was thrown around which just removes any credibility from any argument in my mind. I'm just going to keep playing xwing in the most diverse and balanced form I've seen so far and assume that if this is what the downfall of the game looks like then being on the crash cos this is fun.

Here, let me put it into a more clear meaning of what he said: 3 Atk + Focus isn't good enough vs Fel/Whisper.

The fallacy that there isn't enough to hunt 0-1 Agi ships is hilarious.

But, yes, it is essentially "I miss the Wave 3 Meta", which was the best the game had been, at that time. And his rant on PS bids is weird, because bidding PS 3-4 has never been a major feature of the meta.

Thinking about it it really doesn't quite add up, especially when the two undenieably most popular ships, Soontir Fel and Poe Dameron, only attack with 3 dice + focus.

This is my favorite quote from the article:

If you pay a bunch of points for PS 8+ on every ship and face a PS 1-2 squad, you should get murdered that game.

Yes, because everyone wants to see Wedge, Luke, Vader and the other legendary Star Wars pilots get curbstomped every game by pilots fresh out of the Academy.

Now can we please stop taking this guy seriously, or will I have to compile more nonsense from his post?

Here, let me put it into a more clear meaning of what he said: 3 Atk + Focus isn't good enough vs Fel/Whisper.

This was the conclusion I was expecting and maybe I'm crazy or alone but I'm not sure it should be enough to kill them. Having low hp high agility glass cannona is both interesting and counterable imo and way more interesting than just slapping down 4 bwings and ramming them into each other. Granted not everyone agrees but I legitimately think soontir and friends are a healthy part of the game.

These 3 dice + focus gotta get on Omega L's level

A enjoyed the article thanks for bringing it out to the light.