They should all be tournament worthy because they are options as part of a "Tournament Game"

Except that X-wing isn't a tournament game. There are many, many people who play it at home on dining room tables, probably more than play in tournaments. X-wing is a Star Wars miniatures game which happens to have a tournament format used by the publisher to promote sales. One look at the available ships and upgrades proves that tournament play isn't the sole focus of game design. There are many upgrades, pilots and ships that rarely see tournament use, as they don't work well in such a ruthlessly efficient environment. They work just fine when rolling dice in a casual dog fight.

I have been playing X-wing for 3 years or so, and I've played in ONE tournament, and while it was a fun experience as a novelty, I don't plan to do so again. I find casual X-wing more enjoyable personally, and I gladly play with ships that are considered non-competitive, like two Scyks escorting Guri, or good old T-65s.

Besides, if X-wing is a tournament game, why do they sell 4 ships high are explicitly NOT tournament legal? You can't use a Raider in your 100 pt squad...

I totally agree! And I'd say the vast majority of XWing players do as well...however, most of them are so casual, they don't even know about these forums, let alone read or post on them!

They should all be tournament worthy because they are options as part of a "Tournament Game"

Except that X-wing isn't a tournament game. There are many, many people who play it at home on dining room tables, probably more than play in tournaments. X-wing is a Star Wars miniatures game which happens to have a tournament format used by the publisher to promote sales. One look at the available ships and upgrades proves that tournament play isn't the sole focus of game design. There are many upgrades, pilots and ships that rarely see tournament use, as they don't work well in such a ruthlessly efficient environment. They work just fine when rolling dice in a casual dog fight.

I have been playing X-wing for 3 years or so, and I've played in ONE tournament, and while it was a fun experience as a novelty, I don't plan to do so again. I find casual X-wing more enjoyable personally, and I gladly play with ships that are considered non-competitive, like two Scyks escorting Guri, or good old T-65s.

Besides, if X-wing is a tournament game, why do they sell 4 ships high are explicitly NOT tournament legal? You can't use a Raider in your 100 pt squad...

I totally agree! And I'd say the vast majority of XWing players do as well...however, most of them are so casual, they don't even know about these forums, let alone read or post on them!

These extreme turnips folk think they are why X-WING is THE MOST POPULAR MINIATURES GAME ON EARTH...

Forget all about the millions of people who buy these magnificent toys... nah... HEL-NAH... the game is so poplar because of the few thousand SUPER META-THUGS WINNING THEM SOME GAMES... PROFESSION-GAMERS did it all.

Uhh... NAH!

Now rise triumphant like agains; Oh Glories Agains this season and show us all how you does it's... and you go and you win you dat game you great big big-bad jock-o-rammas!

If every ship was tournament viable, what exactly would be the downside of that to casual play?

I do not see the purpose of this divide that some people seem to place between casual and tournament play.

Just because a ship finds popularity in competitive play doesn't magically make it disappear from casual tables... People still play interceptors casually and they still play soontir casually; and he is arguably the most powerful ship on the game right now.

Making an effort to balance competitive play, and make sure every ship has a place there does nothing to hurt casual players in the slightest, so what is the problem with it?

If a given ship is well priced and balanced for competitive tournament play, doesn't that also make it a better experience for casual play? If every ship is a "viable" choice, then you can fly what you like or what's flavourful or canonically correct while still having a well balanced and enjoyable game experience.

Making every ship competitive is good for both tournament and casual play.

Do you mean tournament viable or viable in a 100 point dogfight? Because they're not one and the same.

Viable in a 100 point dogfight means the ship's appropriately priced for its capabilities: it's not a handicap like the M3-A or an outright suicide button like the old TIE advanced. I can't understand why people would object to this: making the point cost match the capabilities is a design goal, and if they miss that goal they'll adjust.

Tournament viable is a bit more complex because it's affected by the global metagame. The A/SF-01 B-wing for example is not by any means an overpriced ship: it used to be a staple because it was that efficient a ship for its cost. But we don't see much of it because its counters (heavy ordnance) are currently very prevalent. The TIE interceptor pre-Autothrusters was also not a bad ship by any assessment, but it vanished in Wave 4 because it was countered hard by the very common PWTs.

What works for a tournament isn't a simple matter of points, it's also a matter of countering what the herd is playing. It'll always spiral into stagnation unless something is thrown in to shake it up.

Not seeing the TIE/IT in tournaments may be a result of incorrect costing but it's by no means proof of it. It could well be a product of its hit point based defence.

Every ship should have at least one playable version in standard play. It aids in promoting it to others when it gets seen and it also makes the purchase of said ship far more palatable to anyone one the bubble about buying one.

And you base this one what? Chemtrail patterns?

Someone made a comment over on a Punisher thread that the Punisher is a "Heavy Bomber". That got me thinking. Why do we want every ship to be tournament worthy? When you think about real life (can't believe I'm using that term to talk about a sci-fi game) uses of ships like the Punisher, they would be held for very specific roles and used in conjunction with other units in potentially large operations. Some ships just don't lend themselves to 100 point games, against a wide variety of opponents. But they shine in other styles of play. Say against epic ships in the case of the Punisher. I can understand people wanting their favorite ship to see more use, or more ships to see general use. But I think there is room for very specialized ships in this game without having to make them all tournament worthy.

How dare you be intelligent and logical about this!

Now let's just scream BROKEN and riot! That is the proper way to react

Seriously though, I do agree with what you've said.

Wait let me get this right. You don't want better toys? That look the same on the table model-wise, but put out more pew-pew?

And you like getting your ass kicked every time you come out to the game store where people actually practice how to play the game within the confines of its rules?

Help me understand this too: You don't like rooting for underdogs that nobody uses?

I wasn't aware that less pew-pew was more fun in casual.

Wait let me get this right. You don't want better toys? That look the same on the table model-wise, but put out more pew-pew?

And you like getting your ass kicked every time you come out to the game store where people actually practice how to play the game within the confines of its rules?

Help me understand this too: You don't like rooting for underdogs that nobody uses?

I wasn't aware that less pew-pew was more fun in casual.

Dam-Dat!!!

REASONS:

CAN... YOU... DIGG... IT?!

In a perfectly balanced game, any 100 point list should be equally powerful. The game should be determined by the luck of the dice and the skill of the players rather than micro-managed list optimization.

You may still get unfavourable match-ups but that is where the skill in list building should be. There should be more emphasis on building a list that is flexible and can take on anything it comes up against rather than trying to find the most powerful card-combos and spamming them as much as possible.

Past and present lists such as Quad-TLT and triple U-boats show such problems up. They also create situations where pilots like Biggs are massively prevalent. The poor guys must have been killed more often than Dracula. I can only presume there is an automated lab on Kamino dedicated to churning out Biggs clones.

If every ship was tournament viable, what exactly would be the downside of that to casual play?

Scenarios, player counts, variants, that kind of thing, that'll never be something tournaments are particularly good at.

If every ship was tournament viable, what exactly would be the downside of that to casual play?

Scenarios, player counts, variants, that kind of thing, that'll never be something tournaments are particularly good at.

You misunderstood my question. What I meant was: let's assume FFG somehow makes all ships viable for 100 tournaments. How would that negatively affect casual play?

There's a good game theory reason for having bad ships: it's skill-testing to determine that a ship is bad and not use it.

If all ships are on roughly even power levels then you remove one of the strongest skill testing elements that separates good players from bad players.

If every ship was tournament viable, what exactly would be the downside of that to casual play?

Scenarios, player counts, variants, that kind of thing, that'll never be something tournaments are particularly good at.

Not seeing the link. What part of any of these requires the balance to be off?

A common excuse made by CCG manufacturers to excuse their balancing mistakes/printing crap to pad out a set. I'm surprised to see someone without a vested interest regurgitate it.

In a perfectly balanced game, any 100 point list should be equally powerful. The game should be determined by the luck of the dice and the skill of the players rather than micro-managed list optimization.

There's a good game theory reason for having bad ships: it's skill-testing to determine that a ship is bad and not use it.

If all ships are on roughly even power levels then you remove one of the strongest skill testing elements that separates good players from bad players.

Sorry, but are you from the past? Opening a guide on the internet is not equal to being a good player. ;-)

Your design paradigm is one which was not valid 20 years ago. And it gets not better these days either.

Having cards a little above and a little below the curve is ok, but discovery becomes a real thing when you allow for combinations which make cards below the curve valid. And this whole idea and concept itself has lost most of its appeal in the days of the internet when the discovery is shifted to guids in the internet instead of discovering this stuff on your own. The whole idea of "skill" testing via bad cards becomes ludicrous in this day and age. The only players affected by this are players who do not care about the game at all anyway. Considering that X-Wing is a cheap hobby, but an expensive impulse buy, I don't think we have to many of those players around. ;-)

The advantage to a system with good balance (in other words, how viable or good a choice is compared with other choices) is that it affects both tournament and casual play.

X-Wing has pretty good game balance and the problems associated with poor game balance aren't really present. In casual games, you don't have to come to a gentleman's agreement with your opponent on what to play in order to avoid a lopsided game. Even though some ships are unpopular, if you take them (like the Heavy Scyk) it won't mean a game loss for you. You also don't see examples of ships that are so powerful that playing them will mean an almost impossible battle for your opponent.

Good balance is something that a game designer should strive for. The ideal should be that there isn't a great distinction between casual play and tournament play, so that something that a casual player builds and takes to a tournament can and will do well. Believe me, if the balance in X-Wing was as bad as it was in some other games, people would be pleading for it.

As to the specific point that things may be better in certain game formats than others (like something being good in Epic while not being useful in a regular game), I do not quite agree. From what I have seen at multiple locations the 100 point dogfight is the most played variant. I've ran at least two Epic tournaments and it's a fun format, but the only ships that should be designed to do better in Epic play are the things that are also seen exclusively in it (i.e. Huge Ships). It's nice to see that certain things become better in that arena, but things should still function well in regular games.

There's a good game theory reason for having bad ships: it's skill-testing to determine that a ship is bad and not use it.

If all ships are on roughly even power levels then you remove one of the strongest skill testing elements that separates good players from bad players.

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. False choices are a sign to me of bad game design.

There's a good game theory reason for having bad ships: it's skill-testing to determine that a ship is bad and not use it.

If all ships are on roughly even power levels then you remove one of the strongest skill testing elements that separates good players from bad players.

Thats maybe an argument for a digital pseudo-ccg, but not for a miniatures game where you buy models at 20-50$. You can't deliberately make a ship bad and then sell it on the back of its upgrade cards. Thats how it incidentaly happened with some ships, but its clear that it isn't intentional.

Its not that every ship has to be top-tier list competitive, its more about making every ship at least usable. This is a very competitive game even in causal play, so its really hard to justify bringing a subpar ship unless it has some nifty gimick unique to it or its just really hard to fly but if flown right its just as good as others.

I tend to avoid the palpaces. I bring vader alot but thats because its VADER and tbh hes one of the more milder aces to me, more powerful because PS9 than epic ship/power. Punisher is one of the few ships i literally never use because im investing almost as much as a Decimator for essentially something i can do at ~28pts with a bomber. Few points overpriced is one thing, but ~10? or worse? cant do it.

This is the issue I have with the punisher. I'm not very good at this game yet and I only play casual, but other than loading it up with bombs (which you pay dearly for) there seems to be very little reason to take it over a bomber. At the point increase it would be nice for some differentiation between the two. Also the **** thing is called the punisher, I reasonably expect it to punish. The good thing though is with FFG's track record they likely find away to improve it eventually, until then gotta love the combination of casual play and strange eons.

I don't get the Punisher hate. 37 points isn't anywhere near a usable Decimator. I like playing it. I also wouldn't mind a little buff, especially to the torpedoe/missile slinging variant, but saying it is unusable is wrong. It has a narrow profile where it excells.

Ultimately it is about good game design. Ideally all the components of a game are relevant and tournament performance is a fair arbiter of that.

Since the game plays as Casual, Competitive, 100 pt and Epic formats each ship should have a variety of options via ship cards so there is no reason that every ship could not have at least one meta relevant setup. The polar opposite of the ideal is that only a single ship is meta relevant. Imagine if only Tie Swarms could win tournaments, obviously this is terrible. The further we get from that status the better.

Since the game plays as Casual, Competitive, 100 pt and Epic formats each ship should have a variety of options via ship cards so there is no reason that every ship could not have at least one meta relevant setup.

Well said, and again, and something I've yet to see anyone even try to give a reasonable answer to... Is how exactly is the causal format hurt by having better balanced ships and point costs?

Let say that I could bring a well tuned list consisting of any 2-6 ships and have a reasonable chance to win, how exactly does this hurt casual play?

By well tuned I don't mean 2-6 random ships, but rather ships with upgrades that make the list stronger than the sum of its parts.

Every ship should have at least one playable version in standard play. It aids in promoting it to others when it gets seen and it also makes the purchase of said ship far more palatable to anyone one the bubble about buying one.

Be forewarned, I have been a proponent of situational ships and the right tool for the right job.

I just got on and I haven't read all three pages so I am going to offer a qualified agreement. Yes it would be nice to have "at least one playable version in standard play". But that isn't what most are shooting for. Most are hoping for everything, from generic to top ace, to be playable. I don't really mind the Millennium Falcon or Dash's hot rod but to have freighters, as rule, out perform many attack or superiority fighters seems far of place. Fluff wise why did the rebellion bother with fighters when there were so many awesome freighters all over the galaxy.

So again I agree that it would be nice to have "at least one playable version in standard play". This adds diversity to the 100 point death-match and to tournaments.

BUT! You knew it was coming didn't you. Balancing everything against a fighter has the opposite effect of taking away diversity from what could otherwise be another very fun part of the game, missions, scenarios, campaigns and Epic. I know FFG hasn't heavily pursued this much; but it would be nice to have a bomber excel at bombing but wither without a fighter escort. A Punisher might have actual been heavy bomber and freighters would be slower vessels armed but weakly compared to fighters and other heavily freighters modified ships. I'm not saying missions, scenarios, campaigns and Epic isn't fun now; but if there were better or more specialization in ships that would add a lot more diversity and flavor to the game. Of course those specific ships would probably be horrible, and rightly so, in 100 point death-matches or tournaments.

Finally I agree but...

Punisher actually gets situationally utility spot on before the "perform this attack twice" errata

With CM and at PS 7, Redline was actually far more effective at taking out large and/or slow low agi targets than highly skilled arc dodgers that could avoid his arc/two attack rolls

Death rain meanwhile ruins high PS, low health arcdodgers with dentonate-on-overlap mines + his ability

The problem with both is that their situational strengths were then smothered by hilariously inappropriate point costs

Let's look at this from a historical wargaming perspective! Lets build a fighter wargame covering the 20th Century.

WWI fighters with a single mg were outdated by faster, more agile WWII fighters with multiple mgs which in turn were outdated by jet fighters with more powerful cannons and missiles!

But since its a "game" that guys want to have competitive tournaments for, all the planes must work at a competitive level. Historically, it wont make any sense! That ruins it for the CASUAL players!

Same thing with XWing, some ships just stink! Some are just outdated. Live with it!