So the thesis of the discussion is now:

High Pilot Skill + positional modifying actions (Decloak, Barrel Roll, Boost) are the central problem with the game's balance, as they completely invalidate the middle Pilot Skills - either it's 9+ or it doesn't matter - especially when combined with multiple Action economy and super defensive tech (Autothrusters, regen).

The supporting arguments are pointed towards three examples: VI Whisper, Soontir Fel, and VI Poe Dameron.

Solid support is the rise of VI Vader just to counter these pilots via superior positioning (as it's the only way TO counter those pilots!) and how VI Han Solo, VI Wedge, and VI Talonbane Cobra fail to have the same effect as they have minimal (or NO) repositioning, no action economy, and/or still fail to ignore Autothrusters.

Counterarguments?

I don´t think that Poe deservers to be in that list. Boost or barrel roll alone are not a tool for evading any incoming fire and getting into firing position at the same time. Boost + Roll might be though.

So the thesis of the discussion is now:

High Pilot Skill + positional modifying actions (Decloak, Barrel Roll, Boost) are the central problem with the game's balance, as they completely invalidate the middle Pilot Skills - either it's 9+ or it doesn't matter - especially when combined with multiple Action economy and super defensive tech (Autothrusters, regen).

The supporting arguments are pointed towards three examples: VI Whisper, Soontir Fel, and VI Poe Dameron.

Solid support is the rise of VI Vader just to counter these pilots via superior positioning (as it's the only way TO counter those pilots!) and how VI Han Solo, VI Wedge, and VI Talonbane Cobra fail to have the same effect as they have minimal (or NO) repositioning, no action economy, and/or still fail to ignore Autothrusters.

Counterarguments?

I did like the idea I saw earlier about splitting Pilot Skills into broad tiers instead of highly specific numbers, but I think that it should be Rookie, Experienced, Veteran, Ace - four tiers gives a better distinction between the "good" pilots like Redline and Guri (Veteran), the named but above average (Colzet, Tarn Mison), and the super-skilled pilots like Tycho and Fel. Perhaps... I'm gonna start a second topic about this, it's a bit too off-topic.

One of my utility ships is the decimator and I kit Chiraneau with VI and Vader. He handles the three aces without a problem. I also throw in Ociunn with predator and gunner for good measure. This is a decent list that handles most of the current meta with smart play.

One of my utility ships is the decimator and I kit Chiraneau with VI and Vader. He handles the three aces without a problem. I also throw in Ociunn with predator and gunner for good measure. This is a decent list that handles most of the current meta with smart play.

Let me guess: they both have Engine Upgrade

Let me guess: they both have Engine Upgrade

That's a fair question -- God, I hate Large-Boost -- but in this case probably not. Dual-Decimators is expensive.

I kinda do wish they'd consider a little nerf to large boost: straight boost on the side of the template. curved boosts from the far angle of the boost. Putting it at the edge of the base instead of the center.

MJ's mathwing is not the be all end all as he has stated; it is a way to predict which ships end up dominating the competitive scene

even a lesser jouster, such as a TLT, can end up as a killer card if you take its jousting value into account with its other perks (namely, having a TLT)

by contrast, the Defender was panned by MJ because it had a jousting value on par with named PWTs, only it didn't have a turret. It just had a white 4k

and then Biophysical went all maverick on us, but that's beside the point

MJ's mathwing is, for sure, an indication of where the game is at. But if you consistently take the best available move in every situation, you will very likely end up winning - if you took the math and environment into account when building your squad.

I think there's an important distinction between understanding the broader math trends in the game and worrying about a few percentage points difference in efficiency between ships. I think (without a tremendous amount of data, to be honest) that someone would be a stronger player putting 25% of their energy into understanding the mathematical interactions of ships and 75% of their energy into understanding how ships fly to get advantageous positions than if they reversed those percentages.

The math IS important, but I think it's the simpler math that is actually much more useful. I have only moderate interest in the overall jousting values, because I don't put a ship on the board and joust it in a general scenario against a weighted average all the other ships in the game. I'm really interested in how a ship exchanges damage against specific other ships in specific board states, and that's relatively easy math to do. If you understand this more basic level math, it shows you where you need to put your ship in order to maximize its efficiency against your specific opposing ship in a game, but a very strong grasp of maneuvering is what lets you put your ship in that position.

Maneuvering is geometry. I am guessing that is what you mean by "simple/basic level math". I agree with your percentages.

I remember when the game first came out (yes I played it at the per-release Gencon) it felt very balanced. But that didn't meant there were a ton of viable builds. It was pretty much Vader + TIE Swarm or TIE Swarm for the Empire. The Rebels were more diverse, but Biggs, Wedge and Luke did sort of filter to the top. Upgrades were, in general not used very much. R2-D2 and Ion Cannon Turret were pretty common as were Swarm Tactics and Squad Leader, but Marksmanship, Proton Torpedoes and Concision Missiles were not that competitive. The only ship that was eliminated from the meta was the TIE Advanced. (Man, I really remember trying to make that work with someone besides Vader).

My point is, that even in that early stage there were ships and upgrades to take and those that you just didn't. A high percentage of those ships were seen in the meta, but that was still just 4 ships. There weren't that many viable builds, because there weren't that many possible builds.

Since that time two things have happened, first we have got more cards. Ships and upgrades have increased a ton. I was looking at the huge stack of cards I got yesterday just from buying the new wave ships. As more and more cards come into the games more and more of them are going to be great, and more and more of them are going to really lag behind. The Percentage of cards that are "viable" shrinks, but the total number of cards in that lists has increased. The same is true for builds. Far fewer of the possible builds are going to be "viable" but I still think that the total number of builds has increased. This is especially true as you realize how varied one Sontir + Palpmobile list can be from another. you may call all these the same "kind" of list, but there is a pretty huge variety in how it can be put together.

With more cards in our collections we may get annoyed that we paid so much money for so many ships that we just don't use, but I think this type of broadening, while at the same time narrowing is sort of inevitable with any game that has continuous releases. Many other miniature games combat this process by releasing a new addition every few years. Trust me that can really suck, especially if it happens to often.

The other thing that has happened is that we, as a community, have gotten better. I think Major Juggler deserves an honorary PhD in MathWing. And he is not the only one who has really broken this game down and found out exactly how it works. I have to say I commend them for all this work and attention to this game that I love. But it has had an effect on the game. It is now pretty easy to know what actually is the best option. If your goal is to win, you can look at the work of others to help you decide what is the best way to build your list. In other words it is not that there are more cards (ships and upgrades) that are just better than others, we are just more aware of what they are. And if you go to a competitive tournament you can expect a pretty good portion of those players to only be using the best stuff. Play skill is huge in this game, but if the majority of the players in a tournament are all playing maximally effectively built lists, you chances of winning without one is pretty slim, no matter how good you fly. So lists that are not maximally effectively built are called not "viable". "Viable" doesn't mean good enough anymore, it means great, because good enough isn't good enough anymore.

Part of this is all due to the idea that your second choice card get's picked about as much as your last choice card. This becomes pretty clear as you look at elite pilot upgrade cards. There are so many great ones. But if evasive doesn't help Soontir as much as PtL then you never take evasive. For me the good card that I never take is Outmaneuver. Usually I just take Predator instead, but if I am taking a dedicated flanker then I give him Lone Wolf. I don't think I can count the number of times I have had Expert Handling in my list but then removed it (either for the points of the EPT slot)

I do think the original post has a point right the number of viable builds seems to be lower than we would like. I think he is totally right that there are no cards that synergize well with high agility. I don't think Soontir dominates the meta as much as Whisper did, and I think FFG is paying attention and will do something.

MJ's mathwing is not the be all end all as he has stated; it is a way to predict which ships end up dominating the competitive scene

even a lesser jouster, such as a TLT, can end up as a killer card if you take its jousting value into account with its other perks (namely, having a TLT)

by contrast, the Defender was panned by MJ because it had a jousting value on par with named PWTs, only it didn't have a turret. It just had a white 4k

and then Biophysical went all maverick on us, but that's beside the point

MJ's mathwing is, for sure, an indication of where the game is at. But if you consistently take the best available move in every situation, you will very likely end up winning - if you took the math and environment into account when building your squad.

I think there's an important distinction between understanding the broader math trends in the game and worrying about a few percentage points difference in efficiency between ships. I think (without a tremendous amount of data, to be honest) that someone would be a stronger player putting 25% of their energy into understanding the mathematical interactions of ships and 75% of their energy into understanding how ships fly to get advantageous positions than if they reversed those percentages.

The math IS important, but I think it's the simpler math that is actually much more useful. I have only moderate interest in the overall jousting values, because I don't put a ship on the board and joust it in a general scenario against a weighted average all the other ships in the game. I'm really interested in how a ship exchanges damage against specific other ships in specific board states, and that's relatively easy math to do. If you understand this more basic level math, it shows you where you need to put your ship in order to maximize its efficiency against your specific opposing ship in a game, but a very strong grasp of maneuvering is what lets you put your ship in that position.

Maneuvering is geometry. I am guessing that is what you mean by "simple/basic level math". I agree with your percentages.

Heh, I actually wasn't1 thinking of geometry in that category, but should have been. In my head, it's pretty simple to imagine where templates go without thinking about the underlying math, but I have to recognize that's not the case for everyone.

*Grabs some popecorn*

Popecorn from the vaticane? Should it be palpcorn in this game ?

The vaticane is what we get out when someone's been naughty on the forums.

One of my utility ships is the decimator and I kit Chiraneau with VI and Vader. He handles the three aces without a problem. I also throw in Ociunn with predator and gunner for good measure. This is a decent list that handles most of the current meta with smart play.

Let me guess: they both have Engine Upgrade

No - if you'd checked the poitns you'd have seen that is all they had on them. 46 point chiraneau + 1 point vi + 3 point vader = 50 points. 42 point oicunn + 3 point predator + 5 point gunner = 50 points.

How exactly would EU fit on them in my build?

Let me guess: they both have Engine Upgrade

That's a fair question -- God, I hate Large-Boost -- but in this case probably not. Dual-Decimators is expensive.

I answered about the points above but no engine upgrade on them.

I won an SC this year with the list and so did a friend of mine whom I shared the list with. It handles most current meta builds and isn't that the goal of list building for an SC? You either run a meta list or come up with something that handles the meta.

Final table at the SC I won was against brobots B+C and I beat them 100-25.

I think the main thing that bugs me is bombs. They are just way better against low HP, high AGi ships. If only there was some way to make it % based.

I think the main thing that bugs me is bombs. They are just way better against low HP, high AGi ships. If only there was some way to make it % based.

That's the case anytime a card that causes auto damage works. I hope they are careful about adding it to the game, but we've seen a couple more here that target high Agi ships.

I think the main thing that bugs me is bombs. They are just way better against low HP, high AGi ships. If only there was some way to make it % based.

That's the case anytime a card that causes auto damage works. I hope they are careful about adding it to the game, but we've seen a couple more here that target high Agi ships.

Yes, with guidance chips hitting the tables, high agility will be hit hard. I have played two matches with alpha strike squads and they are deadly if you have few high agility ships.

Gchips also ruin low agi though

They don't discriminate at all

In fact, the inquisitor can survive a few plasma torps and go on to win the game. Poor redline just dies

Ignoring his conclusions and fixes - I think his article brings several important questions about the direction of the game, I don't have the answers, everything may be fine, and this may be mountains out of mole hills...

1 How is stronger and more reliable attack power impacting the game as a whole?
a. Is high agility being pushed aside because of this?

b. do high health ships benefit beyond their point costing?

2. Are generics outclassed on offensive/defensive efficiency and positioning to the point of needing a board wide boost?

a. what role should generics have in the game?

b. are generics disappearing?

3. Is pilot skill in a sensible place now?

a. What should be the function of pilot skill in the game?

b. is Veteran Instincts an issue?

4. Could the following cards be developed without overpowering current game elements....

a. Anti Health Weapons (hard time hitting high Agi, but strong impact on low agi, high health)

b. Anti Accuracy defenses (prevent multiple attack modifications)

5. Assuming these are issues, can they indeed be balanced with upcoming releases? Would Theorists ideas in 4 be enough to solve them?

6. Is the current direction of the game a good one?

7 are the fundamental issues in the game something that need to be addressed in an eventual X-wing 2.0?

a. are these problems only affecting competitive play?

There's no doubt that since wave 3, the game has shifted towards unique pilots, and more upgrade cards, peaking with two ship builds in wave 5, but since becoming more diverse. One of the complaints that I see is that it's getting harder and harder to build lists that don't have multiple terrible matchups, I posit that if we continue to add expansions, that it will become impossible to build for everything, and that there will always be some bad matchups.

I think that competitive players will have to start looking a little less at the meta as it expands and diversifies - and a little more at the core fundamentals of game play, there's still much to the game's positioning and decision making to master.

The developers have said that they want every piece to be viable, with an exponential increase in interactions with each expansion, and the delayed meta reaction - it's always a moving target, that's going to be increasingly difficult to keep tight balance as the game grows. This is the very reason why the the GOT LCG has seen a second edition - and why legal cards for the star wars LCG tournament play will go into rotation. X-wing may not be a card game, and growing at the same rate, but the same issues appear to be cropping up.

Gchips also ruin low agi though

They don't discriminate at all

In fact, the inquisitor can survive a few plasma torps and go on to win the game. Poor redline just dies

I meant in context. Guidance chips will make ordnance land easier on high agility targets comparatively. Net damage will be closer to what it is on lower agility targets.

In other words, ordnance will continue to land on lower agi, but the improvement will be better on 3 agi ships - which pay much more for their hull.

Things have to fkn die you morons.... Accept it and move on. Defence shouldn't ever be on par 50/50 with atk dice. Otherwise 1 game of x-wing would be going on for ******* days, I can't believe this guys original thread. Half of the **** he talks about is either common knowledge, common sense already or just trash

/end rant

Thinking about how to make (low PS) grunts more viable vs 'turtled' Aces of all sorts I'd like to point at the Epic 40K mechanic.

If you shoot at an enemy unit it gets a 'blast marker' which makes it less effective.

Shoot often enough at an enemy unit, no matter how big and strong it is it 'breaks'.

If I were to look at X-wing V.2 I'd certainly try to fit in a thing like this.

Likely not mere shooting at a ship but perhaps a make any hit somewhat count towards making the targetted ship less effective in the near future.

This would make multiple ships firing at a target useful even if it would not immediately destroy or damage a ship.

Things have to fkn die you morons.... Accept it and move on. Defence shouldn't ever be on par 50/50 with atk dice. Otherwise 1 game of x-wing would be going on for ******* days, I can't believe this guys original thread. Half of the **** he talks about is either common knowledge, common sense already or just trash

/end rant

Could you please just express your view politely or not bother at all? The community thanks you.

Thinking about how to make (low PS) grunts more viable vs 'turtled' Aces of all sorts I'd like to point at the Epic 40K mechanic.

If you shoot at an enemy unit it gets a 'blast marker' which makes it less effective.

Shoot often enough at an enemy unit, no matter how big and strong it is it 'breaks'.

If I were to look at X-wing V.2 I'd certainly try to fit in a thing like this.

Likely not mere shooting at a ship but perhaps a make any hit somewhat count towards making the targetted ship less effective in the near future.

This would make multiple ships firing at a target useful even if it would not immediately destroy or damage a ship.

An interesting idea. This would reward multiple shots at a given target, even if not hitting it on any of them. How would you implement the "blast marker"?

^crits?

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

Oh, f**king gross, man. Wow. That is the most conceited thing I have ever seen an X-Wing player say.

People actually take this dude seriously?

Coordinated Assault, EPT, 1 point. "When attacking, if the defender cancels one or more [crit] results, assign a Bracket token to the defender."

Bracket Token: "When attacking a defender with one or more Bracket tokens, an attacker may remove one or more Bracket tokens from the defender to add one attack die per Bracket token removed to a primary weapon attack. Clear all Bracket tokens in the Cleanup phase."

Note the cool thing about this is that it needs a higher PS and an EPT to set-up ... but any scrub can take advantage of it.

Pretty cool.

I posit that if we continue to add expansions, that it will become impossible to build for everything, and that there will always be some bad matchups.

I would totally be fine if every list had one (or several) lists that it statistically can't beat unless one player is amazing and the other is terrible. The problem is this low-health, high agility ships are bad against almost EVERYTHING except other low-health, high-agility ships. If you make a list that is heavily based on these ships you will quickly discover it is very, very difficult to do well in competitive play (not talking about casual play).

We need upgrades that at least improve the odds that a list of mostly low-health, high-agility ships can at least be "competitive" in serious, competitive play.