PRELUDE (skip if you want)

X-Wing's metagame has a recurring problem: it has tendency to spiral towards a few lists. It's possible to counterbuild those lists but usually you then die to the other lists. This is a problem we see at the moment: things that can arc-dodge TorpScouts or Dengaroo are arc-dodged by PalpAces, things with the balance of jousting power and maneuvering power to take down PalpAces without being PalpAces then aren't maneuverable enough to avoid the TorpScout's intensified forward firepower reliably enough to take it down.

This is a problem many have sought to fix: maximisation is more powerful than versatility but versatility usually makes for more engaging and diverse gameplay. Because this is simply the nature of the 100 point Deathmatch Format, it's been suggested quite a lot to change the format.

Some have suggested making missions a thing, forcing you to diversify rather than min-max because a list's priorities constantly change. As nice of an idea as it was I think it's too late to realistically implement and even if it wasn't it'd be a huge undertaking for FFG.

The recent System Open Series introduced the Hangar Bay format: you build two lists. You show them to the opponent at the start of the match, then secretly select which you intend to use. I briefly considered if this might be the solution to the metagame's wider problem: if a list you have is countered hard by one list you bring another that isn't. I concluded that it probably wasn't.

Hangar Bay is a fun concept, but it introduces a certain gambling element: you have to predict which list your opponent will take. If you guess wrong you can create a very bad matchup and possibly even decide a game before it's started. This aspect is part of the idea and fun of Hangar Bay but it's probably not welcome or desirable in the normal format.

Furthermore, you could simply take both Jumpmasters and PalpAces (or whatever replaces them in the future), meaning your opponent can't adjust their list to yours anyway. That, and it'd also double the entry cost as you'd have to have the ships to field two lists instead of one.

Nevertheless, the ability to swap in and out parts of your list based on your opponent intrigued me: it'd allow you to use counters that aren't much good in the absence of what they're meant to fight. I thought about how I could retain Hangar Bay's ability to adjust while minimising its potentially unwanted side effects. This is what I came up with.

THE IDEA

Short Version

• You can bring two variants of the same list to a tournament. You and your opponent secretly choose which you want to use before the match.

Long Version

1. Build a core squad of at least 60 points.
2. Build two full 100pt lists by adding to that core. This gives you two lists that share at least 60 points.
3. Show both lists to your opponent before a match like in Hangar Bay.
4. Secretly choose the one you want to use with a dial like in Hangar Bay.

That 60 point core forces you to build two very similar lists, but you can choose which variation you want to use before a match. You know the sort of list you'll be fighting because 60 points have to be the same so you and your opponent's picks should usually be fairly obvious to each other.

There's a lot that you can now do with this. You can change out the munitions in bomber lists based on what you're fighting: Assault Missiles can be swapped for Homing based on the enemy squad composition. You can use the riskier lower PS arc dodgers because if you come up against a counter you can swap them out for cheap jousters. Using a ship or pilot that has bad matchups. You can use upgrades that may be useless because you have a limited ability swap them out when they are. You can swap Jake out for a Blue Squadron Pilot and some upgrades to tweak your arc-dodging power and jousting power based on the opponent.

The price issue is also mostly resolved: the most points you'll ever need is 140.

Its main effect is that you can use things that might be negated by an enemy build because when you fight that build you can use something else.

One important thing to remember (because people seem to forget this as soon as the word "sideboard" comes up) is that you have two fixed, unchangeable lists: you can't change anything during the tournament. The only choice you have during a tournament is which of your two variants you take.

So what do you guys think? Anyone see where this could break? Is it worth trying out in a few unofficial tournaments? Anyone got any good ideas for flexible squadrons?

Interesting. It would probably go down better than Hanger Bay (because of one faction players). Your ordinance example is definitely a major benefactor of this format.

In this format, would you have to play at least once with both variants before the end, like with Hanger Bay?

No. The idea is less the list roulette that Hangar Bay was sort of going for and more like a sideboard: you have a limited ability to adjust squad composition (and thus your capabilities) to the opponent. It reduces the likelihood of bad matchups. I also think it could lead to a much less predictable metagame.

Not a bad idea, however this would drastically increase the amount of time y would take.

The time it would take to adjust a squad between rounds would make for very long days. May not be bad in a 10 man tournament, but a 100+ would be painfully long. While some people could probably switch out in a matter of minutes, others would take way too long. Trying to decide which they should take etc, then there is the space required, as people tend to take only what they need, in this case they'd have to take most of their stuff

Would it? It can only change by 40 points. What's the worst situation relative a normal tournament it could create?

And why would you need to take most of your stuff? The maximum you'd ever need is 140 points worth.

EDIT: It just occured to me that you might have misunderstood. The idea isn't that you can change 40 points out for anything you own every game. You build two lists with 60 points in common and choose between those two.

I like the idea, especially concercning the 60 points core.
With my brother in law, we play nearly once a week and we had the habit of doing something alike : build 3 lists at 100 pts, show them to the other player. Then each player has a veto on one of the opponents lists, wo chosses secretly between the 2 remaining. Maybe we will move to something with that "core" system", it's actually quite good.

Edit : we both have a lot of lists ideas sleeping on our phone app, some no, it doesn't take much time ^^

It'd also go a long way towards (sort of) breaking Veteran Instincts addiction. In a PalpAces list for example one could have Vader VI and the other could give him another EPT for when you aren't fighting a PS9.

If you're going to do a variation on "bring/build two lists, choose which one to play at the start of each game" I say you should just keep it simple and go with any list compostion desired for those lists. They could have 99% in common with each other or they could be completely different beasts.

When you look at such a tournament you can have it wide open (meaning someone could bring U-boats and Palp-Aces) or there could be any number of rules dictating what the two squadrons have to be. You should certainly allow one squadron to qualify as both simply to avoid shutting out someone who may not have what it takes to make two competitive squardons even if they are highly related; besides highly similar squadrons usually have an optimized version and anything else is going to have a hard time being better in most cases making the exercise pointless.

I am NOT a fan of "sideboard" ideas although I do like the dual upgrades and believe that is an easy way to fill the "minor tweek to a squadron between matches" idea.

Blue Five, it's kind of useless to try and win the "6-rocks-100-points I'll never try anything new" people over with tinkered versions like your proposal above. Unless and until FFG itself changes the rules and makes something like Hangar Bay the Official Tournament Style, they won't change, because change is scaaaary.

In all honesty: How many tournament players only own just barely enough models and cards to field 100 points? And how much room does two 100 point lists even take up? Put it on a cookie sheet tray and tote it around with you.

I've recently been doing a lot of Warmachine (because the local X-Wing scene dropped completely), and it's straight up in the tournament rules that you bring two lists, and choose one once you see what faction (not list!) your opponent is playing.

List chicken is an element of the game that is actually exciting, a sabacc bluff of the highest caliber.

I don't much care for the qualifier in Hangar Bay that you have to play both lists, as it 1) Gives the TO more to monitor, and 2) might leave the player in an autolose situation later on with one of their lists.

I'd prefer the two faction list formats where you make a list for two separate factions and the simple rule is the mirror cannot be played. So if say someone brought Rebel Imperial and his opponent brought rebel scum there will be a roll off for who gets to play Rebel first.

This idea is a good one in concept, but not in terms of reality. Part of the reason many tabletop gamers like X wing is that a game takes under 75 minutes, reliably. sideboards or alternate lists make the time taken increase, which would make the game harder to run in large tournaments. For example, in a 400 player tournament (Like the Yavin Open) this could add on hours to the playtime - when the games already went on until late evening. Yavin won't be the only 400+ player event soon, so it needs to be considered.

It also removes one of the challenges of X wing, which is doing what you can with your squad and nothing else. By taking 2 lists, you can take 2 great lists, one of which counters the failings of the other. For example, you take Dengaroo and Palp-Aces. This just makes it easier to tailor your list to winning everything - shouldn't part of 'being a good player' be the ability to use one list and win, even against the so-called 'hard counters' to their list?

Blue Five, it's kind of useless to try and win the "6-rocks-100-points I'll never try anything new" people over with tinkered versions like your proposal above. Unless and until FFG itself changes the rules and makes something like Hangar Bay the Official Tournament Style, they won't change, because change is scaaaary.

In all honesty: How many tournament players only own just barely enough models and cards to field 100 points? And how much room does two 100 point lists even take up? Put it on a cookie sheet tray and tote it around with you.

I've recently been doing a lot of Warmachine (because the local X-Wing scene dropped completely), and it's straight up in the tournament rules that you bring two lists, and choose one once you see what faction (not list!) your opponent is playing.

List chicken is an element of the game that is actually exciting, a sabacc bluff of the highest caliber.

I don't much care for the qualifier in Hangar Bay that you have to play both lists, as it 1) Gives the TO more to monitor, and 2) might leave the player in an autolose situation later on with one of their lists.

I don't think insulting anyone will help either, so I don't know what you're trying there - except maybe a poor attempt at trolling. Regardless:

Blue Five's proposal would not, in fact, expand the metagame - it would create more rock-paper-scissors in the meta, because you simply need to pick a list that counters your other list's issues.

It also affects some squads more than others. Who would take swarms when people have an 'Assault Missiles' sitting in the sideboard just waiting for them?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TL;DR - 100pts is much simpler to run than 2*100 or 100+40, because of the round timings of events. Adding options would only increase the R-P-S nature of the meta, and drive other options out due to their specific counters (i.e. Assault Missiles on swarms).

I think the only way of shaking the meta, entirely, would be integrating missions into tournaments. I don't agree with doing this either, since the meta is pretty good at the moment, save for a lack of rebel-dominance which some people don't like.

I think the meta is really diverse right now

Blue Five's proposal would not, in fact, expand the metagame - it would create more rock-paper-scissors in the meta, because you simply need to pick a list that counters your other list's issues.

I don't agree actually: I think it weakens the ability to directly counter a list before the game has started.

Two completely different squads maybe, but if those lists have to be variants of each other in this way then rock can't become scissors because over half of it is rock. What it could do is bring 60% rock 40% paper and 60% rock 40% scissors. If it ends up fighting paper it can take the variant with some scissors and paper's likely to take the variant with some rock in it.

Yes, you'd take the variant that counters your opponent best, but they'll do exactly the same to you.

This idea is a good one in concept, but not in terms of reality. Part of the reason many tabletop gamers like X wing is that a game takes under 75 minutes, reliably. sideboards or alternate lists make the time taken increase, which would make the game harder to run in large tournaments. For example, in a 400 player tournament (Like the Yavin Open) this could add on hours to the playtime - when the games already went on until late evening. Yavin won't be the only 400+ player event soon, so it needs to be considered.

Do we have any numbers on how long Hangar Bay (an existing two list format) took?

It also removes one of the challenges of X wing, which is doing what you can with your squad and nothing else. By taking 2 lists, you can take 2 great lists, one of which counters the failings of the other. For example, you take Dengaroo and Palp-Aces. This just makes it easier to tailor your list to winning everything - shouldn't part of 'being a good player' be the ability to use one list and win, even against the so-called 'hard counters' to their list?

Except you can't because of the 60 point similarity rule. That's the entire reason I came up with it.

In all honesty: How many tournament players only own just barely enough models and cards to field 100 points? And how much room does two 100 point lists even take up? Put it on a cookie sheet tray and tote it around with you.

60 points have to be the same, so you'd be carrying around a maximum of 140. That'd be two more ships maximum.

drive other options out due to their specific counters (i.e. Assault Missiles on swarms).

Assault Missiles has existed since Wave 2 and the Swarm is still alive and well. The reason you don't see Assault Missiles much is because Homing Missiles has more universal utility.

Assault Missiles is also a formation counter rather than a swarm counter: it forces the TIEs to not fly around in a massive block. Say you have a Crackswarm and you have 40 points you can change out to help deal with a list with a couple of Assault Missiles? What would you take?

If you bring two ready to play lists the time it takes to choose one to play one over the other should be almost insignificant. Maybe a minute to review your opponent's choices and make up your mind. If you have the option to make variable changes each game then things start to become tricky.

One thing about a "sideboard" concept that always bothers me is what do you do about pilots? Maybe I've only got one TIE Fighter I want to change instead of add but does have the Academy/Howlrunner option cost me 12/18 points or only 6 points which is the difference between the two?

I can see a two list format turning into something like RPS where you want to bring two of the choices. When it comes down to play you'll probably see a lot of mirror matches if one is wise but the risk takers could get lucky at times. We should also admit X-Wing isn't as simple as RPS.

Both players build a 104pt list, then before the game they can remove an upgrade card from their opponent's list costing up to 4pts.

If you bring two ready to play lists the time it takes to choose one to play one over the other should be almost insignificant. Maybe a minute to review your opponent's choices and make up your mind. If you have the option to make variable changes each game then things start to become tricky.

You've made the same mistake I think Krynn made: you've skimmed the post and assumed that you can freely switch stuff out. I thought I was fairly clear but I've now made some edits to the main post to hammer it a little harder.

You can't change out 40 points of your list for anything you own every game: you can't alter your list compositions at all during the tournament. You're locked to choosing between the two lists you brought.

Those lists are required to have 60 points in common, which results in the two lists being variations of each other rather than wildly different archetypes.

One thing about a "sideboard" concept that always bothers me is what do you do about pilots? Maybe I've only got one TIE Fighter I want to change instead of add but does have the Academy/Howlrunner option cost me 12/18 points or only 6 points which is the difference between the two?

How would it work here? Explained in the main post. The rules sequence is build a legal list of at least sixty points, then make that up to 100 points twice to make your two options.

For example, if you wanted to build a TIE swarm where you could swap Howlrunner in and out then your lists might look something like this:

LIST A

Howlrunner /w Crackshot and Stealth Device

Mauler Mithel /w VI

Black Squadron Pilot /w Crackshot x5

LIST B

Darth Vader /w VI, TIE/x1, ATC and EU

Black Squadron Pilot /w Crackshot + Hull Upgrade

Black Squadron Pilot /w Crackshot x 4

The bolded element is the shared 60 points, namely Black Squadron Pilot /w Crackshot x5.

I can see a two list format turning into something like RPS where you want to bring two of the choices. When it comes down to play you'll probably see a lot of mirror matches if one is wise but the risk takers could get lucky at times. We should also admit X-Wing isn't as simple as RPS.

Can you provide an example of such a situation? I'm not saying you can't, but doing so makes sure we all have the same idea in our heads.

If you bring two ready to play lists the time it takes to choose one to play one over the other should be almost insignificant. Maybe a minute to review your opponent's choices and make up your mind. If you have the option to make variable changes each game then things start to become tricky.

You've made the same mistake I think Krynn made: you've skimmed the post and assumed that you can freely switch stuff out. I thought I was fairly clear but I've now made some edits to the main post to hammer it a little harder.

...snip...

I can see a two list format turning into something like RPS where you want to bring two of the choices. When it comes down to play you'll probably see a lot of mirror matches if one is wise but the risk takers could get lucky at times. We should also admit X-Wing isn't as simple as RPS.

Can you provide an example of such a situation? I'm not saying you can't, but doing so makes sure we all have the same idea in our heads.

My comment about time is mostly directed at Krynn and others who are going with the full sideboard idea of being able to make various minor tweeks during the game. We may agree that you use either squadron A or squadron B although you're throwing in a lot more restrictions on the composition of those squadrons.

When it comes to different pilots and your version I'm thinking that I should be able to have 12 points in my "base squadron" as an Academy Pilot but if desired I could boost that to the 18 point Howlrunner without losing those 12 points. Say I want my base to be a swarm of 5 TIE Fighters. At the AP level that is 60 points there but if one squad wanted to use Howlrunner and perhaps Black Crack I could just count the "extra" points spent as upgrades while keeping the base. To put things another way I think all of these could be considered to have the same "core" despite using different pilots for the ships:

AP x5

Some other 40 point ship or ships.

Either of those two full swarm variations that you mention.

Something in between.

The key to the "core" in my book would be having the 5 TIE Fighters in some variation even if they are not the same pilots flying them.

Examples of how X-Wing with two lists could turn into something like RPS (short for rock-paper-scissors)? The first, and hard, part would simply be defining what lists are the R, P, and S as X-Wing equivalents. This isn't so easy and why the comparison has issues. If there are such a thing then X-Wing could turn into a RPS contest where contestents are only allowed to bring/use two out of the three possibilities and you get to know what you opponent can choose before you start. If the RP guy runs into the RS guy the RP guy could not immediately loose provided he always plays R so that is what he plays; the RS guy know RP can't lose playing R so he can't play S unless he wants to loose so both sides play R for an even fight. Now RP could make the guts play and go for an easy win by playing P against the assumed R but that then open him up for the upset if RS knows this and runs the chance at spoiling the spoiler and plays S.

If you could define X-Wing into perfect RPS terms and then people could only bring two I suspect you'd get more mirrors as those would be the "safe" challenge that actually measure playing skill against the other player. If it's not the mirror then you need to metagame your opponent where the player with the advantage (RP when against RS) has to decide whether to test the advantage while the other player considers the chances of that happening and going for the double cross. If either player decides against playing R the game is a forgone conclusion but it's a matter of who picked right.

Upgrading and downgrading pilots would complicate the rules. Build to at least sixty 60, build twice up to 100 has no ambiguity as to what's legal and what's not.

As for examples, I meant actual lists.

The way I would diversify things. Each tourney, some specific time frame, says two weeks before start, bans one ship entirely and one upgrade card entirely (or a pilot or two). Then you have to bring two different compliant lists and alternate playing them throughout the tourney. Next tourney a different ship and upgrade card are banned.

It would mix things up and see who can fly different lists without having flown them 500 times.

Promoting list tailoring?

Nah, I'll just bring my list and if a hard counter shows up, then it shows up and I learn to fly against it better or I lose.

By the way, it's 96 points if you needed the bid to screw over Whisper, lol!

Upgrading and downgrading pilots would complicate the rules. Build to at least sixty 60, build twice up to 100 has no ambiguity as to what's legal and what's not.

As for examples, I meant actual lists.

When I'd advocate for not having the restrictions and when it is all done pre-game upgrading/downgrading pilots wouldn't complicate things anymore than you already do if you say the two squadrons must have 60 points in common. When you share 60 points are you REQUIRING that all of those go exactly the same place or why couldn't I move some upgrades around as I mess around with that other 40 points?

As I think I've already said we may advocate for similar things but your suggestion is far more restrictive. You want simple you could just say that both squadrons must share the faction and the next step up would require that the use X% of the same models. Say half of the ship models in the smaller squadron have to appear in the other squadron and you've got may of your "shared points" tied up right there without going into all of the details.

I probably can't do specific lists for my RPS example because X-Wing doesn't translate so nicely. At one time I might have said your RPS equivalents could be PWTs, Swarms, Aces although that is inexact as the "wrong side" could still win in some battles and it ties in with the idea that squadrons are made to face all comers.

When I'd advocate for not having the restrictions and when it is all done pre-game upgrading/downgrading pilots wouldn't complicate things anymore than you already do if you say the two squadrons must have 60 points in common. When you share 60 points are you REQUIRING that all of those go exactly the same place or why couldn't I move some upgrades around as I mess around with that other 40 points?

Simplicity and clarity. You build a squad of at least sixty points that must itself be a legal list, and then you add to that to make the two 100 point lists from which you may choose each game. Easy to understand, easy to police, unambigious as to what's legal and what's not. Exactly what you want from a ruleset.

I probably can't do specific lists for my RPS example because X-Wing doesn't translate so nicely. At one time I might have said your RPS equivalents could be PWTs, Swarms, Aces although that is inexact as the "wrong side" could still win in some battles and it ties in with the idea that squadrons are made to face all comers.

If you can't give an example of it how can you be confident it'd happen?

The idea is to expand the build options that can face all comers by giving them a limited ability to adjust.

Reverse Hangar Bay is a lot of fun. It's basically Hangar Bay except the opponent gets choose which of your two lists you'll fly. It still has the problem of someone bringing a Palpaces/U-boats list but even then you can choose the one you think either of your lists will fare better against.

Reverse Hangar Bay is broken in a competitive setting by simply bringing the same list twice, else it probably would have been written like that.

Reverse Hangar Bay is broken in a competitive setting by simply bringing the same list twice, else it probably would have been written like that.

Which you can't due to the restriction of both lists having to be from different factions...