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WWI fighters with a single mg were outdated by faster, more agile WWII fighters with multiple mgs which in turn were outdated by jet fighters with more powerful cannons and missiles!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 Some are just outdated.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

So... You want FFG to make ships that are bad because they are outdated... in a game where you want to be able to use all of your ships and each ship costs at least $10... For the sake of it making sense in your head... When you are playing a game of plastic ships that come from a fictional universe?

Ya, I will gladly step away from the game if FFG ever took such an approach.

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 Some are just outdated.

Umm no, it doesn't work that way. First off, based on canon information we can't say any one ship is actually inferior to another. Much of what we consider common knowledge comes from games like Tie Fighter, X-Wing, XvT and XWA...

Second there's always room in a game like X-Wing to make a given ship viable though things other than speed or raw firepower.

Making a bad ship intentionally is a horrible idea because you are then either intentionally ripping people off by making a product that is inferior... Or making a product that won't sell. Either way is bad for everyone.

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WWI fighters with a single mg were outdated by faster, more agile WWII fighters with multiple mgs which in turn were outdated by jet fighters with more powerful cannons and missiles!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 Some are just outdated.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

Ok. But to use your example the ships should be point costed equivalent to their usefulness.

If somebody brought a Sopwith Camel out and the next guy had an F-35... Well, tough luck for the guy who's favourite plane is a Camel, right? But it was fair, because it was a one vs one fight!

Points costing... Hey, how many Sopwith Camels can you buy with dollar signs next to an F-35? Probably more than the new fighter has ammo! Extreme scenario here, but if somebody were playing out a British attack on an airfield defended by one F-35 with that many Camels suddenly it's not quite as easy. Individually, the Camel is still outdated and junk, but because it's based on an equal footing based on costing the scenario isn't so easily decided any more.

So... You want FFG to make ships that are bad because they are outdated... in a game where you want to be able to use all of your ships and each ship costs at least $10... For the sake of it making sense in your head... When you are playing a game of plastic ships that come from a fictional universe?

Ya, I will gladly step away from the game if FFG ever took such an approach.

I don't want to speak for someone else but I don't think that is what he is asking for, or at least I am not. If I only played in the vacuum or tournaments I would understand you desire to limit the production to ships that cost $10 and are competitive.

All we are saying is yes, have competitive ships, have diversity and variety. But also don't force everything into the same competitive mold. I would live a shuttle like the Senators Shuttle in the early mission. It could be used for games with goals, missions etc... Why limit that game?

Yes I could house rule it, but you could too with any non-competitive ships as well, just all at all of MJ's suggestions on his lists.

The term "balance" gets thrown around a lot, but that needs a reference point.

"Balancing" a ship for 100 point competitive or tournament style matches is not at all the same as balancing a ship for epic or scenario play. They are actually three different environments with different economies of scale and a highly tuned dog fighter that kills it in 100 point death matches could easily be much less value points-wise in "balance" in an epic or a scenario game.

This means that no points system is going to work well for all styles of play.

So... You want FFG to make ships that are bad because they are outdated... in a game where you want to be able to use all of your ships and each ship costs at least $10... For the sake of it making sense in your head... When you are playing a game of plastic ships that come from a fictional universe?

Ya, I will gladly step away from the game if FFG ever took such an approach.

I don't want to speak for someone else but I don't think that is what he is asking for, or at least I am not. If I only played in the vacuum or tournaments I would understand you desire to limit the production to ships that cost $10 and are competitive.

All we are saying is yes, have competitive ships, have diversity and variety. But also don't force everything into the same competitive mold. I would live a shuttle like the Senators Shuttle in the early mission. It could be used for games with goals, missions etc... Why limit that game?

Yes I could house rule it, but you could too with any non-competitive ships as well, just all at all of MJ's suggestions on his lists.

But I can't house rule a non-competitive ship. Tournaments don't allow me to do so. Yes, I can run my own house rules tournament (something I'm considering), but at FFG sanctioned events, I don't have the same capabilities casual players have because tournament play asks that I play the game exactly as is printed.

I would be totally fine with a Senator shuttle expansion being released for casual play. But it would need to be for casual play and marketed as such. That would be fantastic.

I would be totally fine with a Senator shuttle expansion being released for casual play. But it would need to be for casual play and marketed as such. That would be fantastic.

But the topic of the post was in fact " Why should every ship be tournament playable? "

I just want to be sure that you are saying Fantasy Flight should make some ships that are not necessarily tournament playable and would be fantastic.

Then we actually are in agreement.

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!

just add Periods and be done with that.

Pre-CW period, CW period, Rebellion period, TFA period

The term "balance" gets thrown around a lot, but that needs a reference point.

"Balancing" a ship for 100 point competitive or tournament style matches is not at all the same as balancing a ship for epic or scenario play. They are actually three different environments with different economies of scale and a highly tuned dog fighter that kills it in 100 point death matches could easily be much less value points-wise in "balance" in an epic or a scenario game.

This means that no points system is going to work well for all styles of play.

It really doesn't need to be based upon any top amount of points. 30/60/100/300 - it doesn't matter if the individual ship points are balanced. And things don't have to be 100% correct all the time to keep things running smoothly in all settings.

None of the ships FFG has designed are so bad that nobody would play them had the points cost been close enough to right. The X-Wing, which people love to jump on, is not a bad fighter at all. The problem is for an equal points costing somebody can get something that will kill it quick. For a casual game where friends decide not to use certain over-powered ships this isn't an issue. You have the pre-arranged game scenario planned. Where somebody is going for the win (tournament or 'that guy' from your casual play group) suddenly you see many of the 'cheaper/more efficient' ships.

So the individual balance points are the key thing. And don't get me wrong, I think FFG is doing a pretty good job with a VERY difficult task. There are a few ships nobody would touch in tournament because they are expensive for what you get. They may have flubbed it a bit with the Contracted Scouts which is warping things a bit.

If FFG wanted to make a CASUAL ONLY ship, they would have to release it without a points cost and say "go have fun" with it because to throw a ship out with a points cost at all means they have to deal with it on the tourney scene. That or really piss people off with a hard rule in the FAQ afterwards which says the money you just spent is now illegal in match play.

I would be totally fine with a Senator shuttle expansion being released for casual play. But it would need to be for casual play and marketed as such. That would be fantastic.

But the topic of the post was in fact " Why should every ship be tournament playable? "

I just want to be sure that you are saying Fantasy Flight should make some ships that are not necessarily tournament playable and would be fantastic.

Then we actually are in agreement.

But the OP is stating in his topic that ships that have not been marketed as such (the punisher) we should be perfectly fine with them not being viable in a competitive format. That is why in my original post in this thread I stated if the Punisher had been marketed as a stalwart Epic ship, but not a great option in 100 point standard, this would be a non-issue.

Totally agree! Not everyone plays in, or even likes tournaments! I play lots of tournaments (see you boys at Worlds), but I much prefer casual play with janky lists.

but I much prefer casual play with janky lists.

And again, nothing is stopping you from doing that.

As far the senator's shuttle goes, that's not quite the same thing as that would be more like terrain in another game. I mean it could have a dial and pilot card, but it would be marketed differently than other ships would be.

The bottom line is that any ship that isn't either marketed as being unsuited to the standard 100 point game, or not viable in it in a competitive environment is a failure to properly balance it by FFG.

If they wanted to make ships that were designed to be part of Epic X-Wing but not be Huge ships, that would be fine, but that is a different thing than saying it's ok for a ship to suck in the standard game but be ok in some other format.

I'm failing to see how any format of play benefits from not balancing ships.

[...]

The bottom line is that any ship that isn't either marketed as being unsuited to the standard 100 point game, or not viable in it in a competitive environment is a failure to properly balance it by FFG.

If they wanted to make ships that were designed to be part of Epic X-Wing but not be Huge ships, that would be fine, but that is a different thing than saying it's ok for a ship to suck in the standard game but be ok in some other format.

Perhaps you have a point and maybe we do wish that FFG came out with "situational" ships like bombers or freighters that may not be competitive. I'm not referring to terrain types even though I brought up the Senator's Shuttle. I was thinking more of current naval or ground war units. We have recon/scout, ground support, etc. and each excel at their roles and may not balance well against solely combat units.

If they come out with "situational" ships then it would be best to identify them as not necessarily being as balanced for 100 point death-match games. Casual would get more ship variety.

Does casual need more ship variety? Is every X-wing ship and upgrade in existence not enough? Because it's really hard to have more options than ALL OF THEM.

Again, looking back at the topic, we're considering why everything should be tournament playable, and personally, I think if it fits the points criteria, everything is already playable in tournaments. That said, not everything can be optimized into the hyper-efficient competitive list building that is the hallmark if tournament play. Some choices of ship will, on the surface, be sub-optimal, requiring more effort and strategy on the player's part to make them work. Note: the Scyks have actually done well in tournaments. There was a thread about it rather recently.

How does it hurt casual play if everything is balanced for tournaments? Simply put, most casual gamers I'd wager are more interested in theme for a game like this, and therefore we want to have ships from all over the story world. Some of those ships would not be very efficient for dog fights, especially crunched into a 100 pt margin. Who actually thinks it makes sense for bombers to play on equal footing with interceptors in the interceptor's arena? The smaller the points available from which to build a squad, the more each point spent is worth. To build a really good bomber leaves little points for escorts, while a 100 point death match is really more up the escort's alley.

As the points increase, we begin to find more room for specialized ships, and more jobs for them. Bombers aren't well-equipped to tangle with A-wings, but they can wreak havoc on the Ghost.

The point about hurting casual gamers is this: if we want all ships to be tournament competitive, either we redesign ships to fill a different role from what they were meant to fill in the narrative, or we skip certain ships because they wouldn't perform well in a dogfight. Someone mentioned the idea of removing points all together from ships aimed at casual play, but this invites a very frustrating experience for the casuals, as those points still serve as an indicator of balance in casual gaming as well. The key difference is that casual gaming isn't restricted to the narrow 100 point margin, so in casual play, we'll use things that would fail miserably at 100 points, but may be very solid at 150 or 200 points.

Casual X-wing embraces a wider field of possibilities than 100 point death matches, so it limits our options if FFG only produces and designs for one specific format. Meanwhile, if FFG continues to produce things which may not be tournament viable, tournament players may still find something therein they like, AND casual gamers get more toys to use in the more open-ended world of casual gaming. By producing ships with casual gamers in mind, FFG manages to market content for both casual and tournament players. In the process, some clever tourney players will find surprisingly effective ways to use the ships everyone else scoffs at, and many will continue to use dominant meta lists while ironically calling for greater diversity. (Seriously, anyone bringing Palp Aces or U-boats to their tournaments has no right to complain about the meta, as by their choices they are reinforcing it.)

Meanwhile, if FFG continues to produce things which may not be tournament viable, tournament players may still find something therein they like, AND casual gamers get more toys to use in the more open-ended world of casual gaming.

By making something that is intentionally unviable in tournament play, you're making ships that a number of people don't actually want. However the reverse not true, there are no ships which are viable in tournament play that aren't also useful in casual games.

Unless you can show us how a ship that's balanced for a 100 point tournament game is somehow unwanted in a casual game.

Because tournament able = balanced = enriches the variety of squads

and that's what makes a game good

casual xwing is going to have the "meta" builds too, just not as often. People will still bring the Aces and while it may not be an optimized Palpace list its still a crazy strong arc-dodger that when flown decently it outperforms "casual" ships.

Before i even bothered paying attention to the tournament scene i did it a few times where i brought what was apparently a standard "meta" build without realizing it and got flak for a tournament list in a casual setting. Mind you ive been playing for 6 months lol when i started playing i basically bought 1 of all the TIEs, Lambda, Firespray, and Aces and just went from there theorycrafting. I didnt have Autos on Soontir but i still brought him with the usual getup otherwise and he owned people.

Balancing the tournament scene balances casual play too. Some things are just so good for how simple they are a "meh" player can bring it and win in casual, and since they arent a "tournament player" they dont know they brought one of the nastiest things they could bring lol. Theres a degree of self-handicapping in casual play to keep it casual, and a LOT of people dont have that sense.

i got like 18 lists on my phone that unless im in a tourny i wont run. Because i found theyre way too powerful in casual play due to the wide gap in ship performance between casual and tournament. Couple of them im sure wouldnt even do that well in a tournament but still dominate the casual without even trying.

i would love to run whatever the hell i feel like, because thats what casual is for. But i cant, because some things are just too strong since some things are too pathetic.

Meanwhile, if FFG continues to produce things which may not be tournament viable, tournament players may still find something therein they like, AND casual gamers get more toys to use in the more open-ended world of casual gaming.

By making something that is intentionally unviable in tournament play, you're making ships that a number of people don't actually want. However the reverse not true, there are no ships which are viable in tournament play that aren't also useful in casual games.

Unless you can show us how a ship that's balanced for a 100 point tournament game is somehow unwanted in a casual game.

Actually, I'm not saying anything should be made intentionally just for one play style or the other. I'm only saying that if we limit the game only to tournament competitive ships, some ships shouldn't be made, and that's a loss to casual gamers.

I think ships should be produced with as good a balance for points vs. capability as FFG can manage, while focusing on what the ship should be according to associated lore. Due to their roles, that will make some ships that can't quite fit into the 100 point death match while still performing well and being able to have well-equipped squadmates. For the most part, I think FFG does well with this AS IS.

I think it would be a mistake on FFG's part to intentionally skew the game for only competitive or casual play. Their focus should be on producing good ships which fill their roles well within the game system. Again, they've done well at this generally speaking, as most ships currently DO appear in competitive as well as casual games. Not all of the pilots appear, but most if not all of the ships.

I guess at the end, I think that FFG should essentially just keep doing what they are, because I like the game the way that it is. Some ships currently and probably always will work better in specific types of game. For example, if you escort it well and maneuver well, the ordnance carried by the Punisher could prove devastating in Epic, while it will rarely live long enough to exploit that capability in a 100 point dogfight. Besides, most fighters will better be able to avoid the ordnance than some of the large and all Epic ships. (Ironically, I'm using a ship I have no intention of ever flying for this example...)

As games get bigger, we find more use for specialty fighters & ships. If FFG were to intentionally ignore specialty fighters due to them not fitting well in a tournament, they'd be reducing our options to play thematic, scenario type games. The more design focuses on the 100 point death match, the less the game will offer outside of that field.

I see no detriment to casual play from a ship that's also well balanced for tournaments. I see a detriment to the gameplay options in general, though, if all design were to become focused only on that narrow margin. Then again, the argument is purely speculative to me, as I think they've already released or announced any ships I'd hope to see, so I really have no stake in what they may choose to release in the future. If they put out something that interests me, I'll grab it, if course, but there aren't any further designs I'm really waiting to see.

casual xwing is going to have the "meta" builds too, just not as often. People will still bring the Aces and while it may not be an optimized Palpace list its still a crazy strong arc-dodger that when flown decently it outperforms "casual" ships.

Before i even bothered paying attention to the tournament scene i did it a few times where i brought what was apparently a standard "meta" build without realizing it and got flak for a tournament list in a casual setting. Mind you ive been playing for 6 months lol when i started playing i basically bought 1 of all the TIEs, Lambda, Firespray, and Aces and just went from there theorycrafting. I didnt have Autos on Soontir but i still brought him with the usual getup otherwise and he owned people.

Balancing the tournament scene balances casual play too. Some things are just so good for how simple they are a "meh" player can bring it and win in casual, and since they arent a "tournament player" they dont know they brought one of the nastiest things they could bring lol. Theres a degree of self-handicapping in casual play to keep it casual, and a LOT of people dont have that sense.

i got like 18 lists on my phone that unless im in a tourny i wont run. Because i found theyre way too powerful in casual play due to the wide gap in ship performance between casual and tournament. Couple of them im sure wouldnt even do that well in a tournament but still dominate the casual without even trying.

i would love to run whatever the hell i feel like, because thats what casual is for. But i cant, because some things are just too strong since some things are too pathetic.

And this is exactly why balance is important for both competitive and casual play.

If the game has a good balance, then there is no blacklist for casual games. Not focusing on balance harms both sides of the game. If I go to casual night and bring Palp Aces, I'm villainized as a WAAC type of player and I ruin everyone who wants to fly a casual list's day. If the game had a fair balance, you wouldn't have to worry about this because players who are able to bring in any well thought out list should have a fair shot at coming out with a win if skill between opponents is comparable.

Here's why.

I fly X-Wings all the time with my friends.

Recently my friend purchased Imperial Veterans. His Defenders are now literally objectively better point for point than my X-Wings.

This means the game is about as fun for me as bashing my head against a brick wall. I would have the same chance of winning if I deployed my ships backwards and flew off the board. No clever strategy, janky upgrade or special pilot will change this.

"lel this guy is just mad because he can't win". Not true. I lose many games with other lists, including top tier lists. But why aren't I upset by those losses? I had a chance. If I'd maneuvered better, flown a different formation, adapted when the situation changed, I could've won. It's my skill as a pilot that lost me the game, not the fact my list took ships that sucked since wave 1 and continued sucking since.

Who actually thinks it makes sense for bombers to play on equal footing with interceptors in the interceptor's arena?

It's a game, not a sim.

Here's why.

I fly X-Wings all the time with my friends.

Recently my friend purchased Imperial Veterans. His Defenders are now literally objectively better point for point than my X-Wings.

So what, exactly?

Leave the Defender as it was and it's in the same boat as the X-wing, and you'll both get roflstomped by the Wave 1 TIE swarm.

Here's why.

I fly X-Wings all the time with my friends.

Recently my friend purchased Imperial Veterans. His Defenders are now literally objectively better point for point than my X-Wings.

So what, exactly?

Leave the Defender as it was and it's in the same boat as the X-wing, and you'll both get roflstomped by the Wave 1 TIE swarm.

'leave the defender as it was' -me 2016

**** i knew i shouldn't have said this, it really unravels my argument

Here's why.

I fly X-Wings all the time with my friends.

Recently my friend purchased Imperial Veterans. His Defenders are now literally objectively better point for point than my X-Wings.

So what, exactly?

Leave the Defender as it was and it's in the same boat as the X-wing, and you'll both get roflstomped by the Wave 1 TIE swarm.

'leave the defender as it was' -me 2016

**** i knew i shouldn't have said this, it really unravels my argument

Kinda supports it, doesn't it? Defender titles are banned from casual. Xwings not played in tournaments. Totally where we want to be!