Counterspells in MTG are a **** good example

I was on board up until this one line.

I want to preface my response by saying that I don't generally play counterspells myself, just so you understand which end of the argument I'm coming from...

Counterspells in mtg are one of the worst examples of an npe that could ever be chosen.

Sure they're frustrating for someone who doesn't know how to deal with them (quite a few things in x-wing fall under this banner), but once you know what you are doing they deepen the game so much.

Some of the tightest, most interactive and tensest games of mtg that I have played have been against people with counterspells.

They're misunderstood, maligned even... But the only npe they cause is that people don't want to put in the effort to work around them.

To bring this post back on track to x-wing; I see a lot of things banded around as npe's and for the vast majority it's things that can be played around. It makes me kinda sad that people would rather just remove these things instead of learning to defeat them.

Ok.

The phrasing seemed to require a little guessing lol.

Well, I twigged to the increased offensive trend a looong time ago. (I've been harping on it to the Bay Area crowd for a lot longer than they would like to remember. They, for good reason, really hate it when I'm right.) Hopefully, by now, the trend is so obvious there aren't any serious questions as to if it's real.

So the question, for me, became why it's being done. My queries on that didn't get traction, but once Organized Play started controlling -- with, IMO, very poor judgment in many cases -- the development of the game, by shaping the tournament environment, that theory took prominence. I can't figure out why, in a vacuum, the design team would want a bloodier, shorter game, but it's quite easy to see why OP would.

I'm also going to say that I don't think you mean to offend, but your tone in talking to me twice now has been bloviative/bloviating. Can you please try and consider how you say things? I get the feeling I don't want to engage in conversation with that style of speech.

Maybe people who know you better take that type of talk in good banter, but honestly, no one wants to hear boasting about how you have insider information (ooh so important!) and that you're always right (look, I'm always right).

Also, have you perhaps considered its all just a random coincidence with having a lot more cards int he game? A small minority of which increase min maxing of offensive capability.

Google gave me this here:

To bloviate

intransitive verb

: to speak or write verbosely and windily

... which does not really help me in any way as an explanation.

Could you perhaps be so friendly and tell me what you mean by this?

I would go as far as to say we'll never get a Second Edition.

The model just isn't compatible with it.

They'll make X-Wing until it stops selling then roll out another game at the same price point when it stops.

It seems like X-wing hit the thing that gets you. There have been a lot of different places along the game that have hit different people's nerves too much. Tie Phantom pissed off a lot of people as it took away the whole guessing game that was dogfighting. Fat Turrets took away jousting at all and turned it into a game of chasing and destroying from a distance. The dogfight was dead at that point. Four TLT Y-wings took away a lot of even that level of flying. U-boats were able to destroy ships that got in the kill zone too efficiently and that bothered people. Soontir Fel annoys people because if you can finally get the slippery bugger in arc, you probably can't get any hits through all those tokens and green dice. The Emperor comes and makes that even worse.

Many people have gotten fed up with how the high level tournament game goes at many points in time. I dropped out because it wasn't fun for me anymore. It just seems like it finally got to you.

Personally, I'm having a lot more fun since I quit the tournament scene. The latest crazy is Mario Kart X-wing.

Dont let the door hit you on you way out.

Negative Board Experience. What a jerk.

Hey, i don't want to get involved in your argument here, but as a non-native english speaker i read "bloviative" and i was interested what this means. Purely linguistic interest here...

Google gave me this here:

To bloviate
intransitive verb
: to speak or write verbosely and windily

... which does not really help me in any way as an explanation.

Could you perhaps be so friendly and tell me what you mean by this?

To say a lot, but not really say much. To use many words to get across an idea that doesn't need that many. Verbose means to use a lot of words, but it doesn't have to be negative. It can be very descriptive. Windily means blowing hot air. It is negative.

For those wondering what I'm talking about, I'll elaborate.

Hera w/ABT/AC/Phantom and an Engine is hardly an unstoppable killing machine. However, if you're within range 4 + a boost, and below 7 PS (or I have init), you're taking 4 damage, minimum. If you're low AG, it can be as high as 7 damage. Hardly unbeatable, but one that destroys a large number of ships without any effort. Double ghost with a stresshog is another tedious variant.

A full zuckuss party boat with a couple of TLT escorts is trivially easy to park indefinitely. 4-5 unavoidable damage from the boat, followed by two TLT's will erase a lot of ships. You can't get behind it unless I want you to. Not many ships can survive 6-8 damage/turn for more than a round, while also dealing damage at a matching rate.

Again, the point is not that these are unbeatable lists. The point is that X-wing has evolved to include combinations where your opponent may not even be able to roll dice, or even have the opportunity to activate before being destroyed. Attacks which require careful maneuvering/timing to pull off are fantastic. Attacks and effects which are unavoidable remove your opponents ability to participate.

My idea of a perfect victory is one where I outmaneuvered/outplayed my opponent, and we both had a great time. Removing your opponents ability to contribute to the outcome of the game in any meaningful way... ruins it for both players.

I'd argue though that knowing these lists are out there and trying to come up with builds and strategies to combat them is just as much a part of participating and contributing to the experience as playing the game. Yes, if your opponent just flies right at the Ghost and does nothing about that automatic damage every turn, it's going to be a boring game and a hollow victory. But nothing obligates them to do that. There are ways to deal with this situation; a big swarm for a quick removal of a 0 agility ship, beefier builds that can absorb damage, regen etc. And lets not forget that a Ghost using the ABT/AC combo is foregoing a 5-dice attack to do two damage.

Things like this should be an opportunity to learn to play better, not make the game weaker.

Dont let the door hit you on you way out.

Attitudes and comments like this are are honestly the only truly NPE I have with this game. The game itself is fun (if sometimes flaky and vague), but there are some players who make me question why I play in the first place.

See...what constitutes a Negative Play Experience is entirely based on the player. It's an opinion. There are plenty of people calling the likes of Palp a NPE, but there are also plenty of people who have a handle on dealing with him, therefore not considering him a NPE.

I personally detest things like the Stresshog and the Stressmule. They are my most hated personal NPE. But, I only think a few people would agree with me, and even I have to admit it is a legitimate strategy.

I kind of see what the OP is saying, but I don't think there are anymore annoying lists to fly against then there were before. Old annoying builds died and went away, some of the new ones will too.

I do feel a second edition might be called for, with specific upgrade packs so you would not need to buy the models again of course.

There's a bunch of things that did not exist when they designed the ground rules at first which they could streamline.

If the game is going to last long term, I think a 2.0 is inevitable. The question is when and how.

How can playing x wing possibly not be fun?

Well, according to many, if you didn't win, you didn't have fun. . .

STAY AT HOME... PLAY AT HOME.

IT WORKS GREAT.

. . .but JBR7 has the real secret to X-Wing fun.

I love this game! I think there are so many possibilities, and I dont really consider any lists NPE. Is this game perfect? No, but I think FGG are doing a good job introducing new mechanics almost each wave, while keeping power-creep to a minimum, or at least adding new upgrades that also boosts "old" ships.

The main possibility for variety (and thus more fun), is battlefield and scenario manipulation. If the battlefield is only ever 100 points and 6 rocks, you only have to plan for the other player's list. But if the playing field changes, it becomes a new variable to account for, and will introduce other options into the game.

For me, the NPE isn't the ships and lists, it's the sandbox.

I would go as far as to say we'll never get a Second Edition.

The model just isn't compatible with it.

They'll make X-Wing until it stops selling then roll out another game at the same price point when it stops.

Would seem to be a pretty dumb business move to just let one of your biggest products wither. IMHO, 2.0 would not be about radically revising the game, but rather about getting all the errata and FAQ stuff printed on the actual cards again, so that a secondary source document is not required.

Fortressing is the biggest potential NPE. FFG said if it ever became a problem, they would deal with it. They'll choose to modify rules over creating a second edition for as long as humanly possible.

There are a LOT of lists. if one or two specific combinations turn out to be really bad and one or two combinations turn out to be really strong...I am just not at all sure how that is a bad thing.

theres a zillion combinations in the middle that would be just fine.

this term `NPE` seems a little wierd to me . I am not completely familiar with it and will have to look it up a little bit to make sure I understand what it means. If someone said " I had a negative play experience. there is something wrong." My inclinations is to think of it like a request for a safe space or a trigger warning because someones feelings got hurt.Or, something in that sort of category.

STAY AT HOME... PLAY AT HOME.

IT WORKS GREAT.

. . .but JBR7 has the real secret to X-Wing fun.

ONLY at home can you get this kind of fun... jerk-ass free.

this term `NPE` seems a little wierd to me . I am not completely familiar with it and will have to look it up a little bit to make sure I understand what it means. If someone said " I had a negative play experience. there is something wrong." My inclinations is to think of it like a request for a safe space or a trigger warning because someones feelings got hurt.Or, something in that sort of category.

If I may speak for the OP, I don't think the idea is that he/she is looking for a safe space, but that the game is reaching a point where it is less and less fun with each released Wave. Overall, I would disagree that more cards and combos lessen the game; in fact, my opinion would be that the game finally got complicated enough about the time Scum was released to make the game truly interesting.

But, every time if see Aramada News, I think "why can't X-Wing have nice things." This is the kind of creative energy I would like to see expended on the game:

Control the Battlefield. Control the Battle.

Star Wars battles are full of drama and heroics, and there's plenty of room for both of these among the new objectives in The Corellian Conflict. And as you look to explore their potential for new tactics and narratives, you'll find that—more than ever—these objectives, paired with those from the Core Set, allow you to fight your battles on your terms. After all, it's one thing to fly into battle and see where the fates will take you; it's quite another thing to lure your opponent into a battlefield of your own design.

Control the battlefield. Control the battle. Explore all that the new objectives from The Corellian Conflict have to offer.

YEAH... we need to do that at home.

Chris is not a wargamer he is a art nerd that loves comics, board games, and card games... when he can not run an RPG.

The 40K thing will never happen with FFG; not the way we grew up with it, with GW.

Is that in your opinion, why Defenders became so popular? Interceptors could nit any longer keep up with all the sources of "direct" damage, and such we now prefer a middle ground between not getting hit and high HP ships? So to say damage mitigation instead if avoidance?

Yes, I think that's what we're seeing happening right now. (Defenders have also benefited from a little bit of an over-correction, in my opinion. Not much, but a little bit. If it had been up to me, both titles would be slightly different. I dunno about the /D, which is really only powerful for one pilot, but I suspect FFG is grimacing just a little bit over the /x7.)

I'm also going to say that I don't think you mean to offend, but your tone in talking to me twice now has been bloviative/bloviating. Can you please try and consider how you say things?

"I get that you're not trying to offend me, but I'm just going to say offensive things to you anyway."

I get the feeling I don't want to engage in conversation with that style of speech.

Then I hope you'll feel free not to. It sounds like you'll be happier, and for my part I really won't even notice.

I love this game! I think there are so many possibilities, and I dont really consider any lists NPE. Is this game perfect? No, but I think FGG are doing a good job introducing new mechanics almost each wave, while keeping power-creep to a minimum, or at least adding new upgrades that also boosts "old" ships.

The main possibility for variety (and thus more fun), is battlefield and scenario manipulation. If the battlefield is only ever 100 points and 6 rocks, you only have to plan for the other player's list. But if the playing field changes, it becomes a new variable to account for, and will introduce other options into the game.

For me, the NPE isn't the ships and lists, it's the sandbox..

YEAH... we need to do that at home.

And we do. But these tourney guys need to officially have the option to play scenario-based X-Wing so they stop complaining the game is not fun!

​"Would seem to be a pretty dumb business move to just let one of your biggest products wither. IMHO, 2.0 would not be about radically revising the game, but rather about getting all the errata and FAQ stuff printed on the actual cards again, so that a secondary source document is not required."

Yes, this please -- Let us get a reprint so errata and FAQ can go away and stuff is printed on cards. A good example was in MERC 2.0 -- they streamlined the rules and put everything in one place and issued new cards for cheap ($5). I would love that

The main possibility for variety (and thus more fun), is battlefield and scenario manipulation. If the battlefield is only ever 100 points and 6 rocks, you only have to plan for the other player's list. But if the playing field changes, it becomes a new variable to account for, and will introduce other options into the game.

For me, the NPE isn't the ships and lists, it's the sandbox..

Yes, and that is why I enjoy the new options in wave 9: seismic torpedoes to blow up obstacles, and rigged cargo chute to drop 'em.

It's a start. . .

I think X-wing is just fine as is- the (subjectively) NPE aspects are the result of an expanding game. More upgrades, ships and pilot abilities make such things inevitable. A second edition could truly correct this only by limiting/removing options.

What I'd rather see is the introduction of a mission selection mechanic for X-wing similar to what we find in Armada. Introduce it as a new tournament format. Under those conditions, you'd have to build lists for mission completion rather than Space Slaughterama. Some scenarios would favor control lists, or maneuverability. Some would modify setup. If you've played Armada, you get the idea.

Us primarily casual gamers would enjoy more scenario play, as well, of course, but varied missions would force tournaments lists to adopt new design principles. (Imagine it- a primarily maneuver based scenario, where the FIRST player to reach certain objectives scores victory points: this would actually favor low PS generics over Soontir!)

I'd argue though that knowing these lists are out there and trying to come up with builds and strategies to combat them is just as much a part of participating and contributing to the experience as playing the game. Yes, if your opponent just flies right at the Ghost and does nothing about that automatic damage every turn, it's going to be a boring game and a hollow victory. But nothing obligates them to do that. There are ways to deal with this situation; a big swarm for a quick removal of a 0 agility ship, beefier builds that can absorb damage, regen etc. And lets not forget that a Ghost using the ABT/AC combo is foregoing a 5-dice attack to do two damage.

Things like this should be an opportunity to learn to play better, not make the game weaker.

Generally, I would agree. I react that way against most upper tier lists. I enjoy flying against palp aces, for example, because it's going to be a game of cat & mouse. The difference is in having a challenging game on one hand, or a game where I'm reduced to spectator status on the other. As much as I dislike flying against particular builds, I dislike flying them myself even more...

this term `NPE` seems a little wierd to me . I am not completely familiar with it and will have to look it up a little bit to make sure I understand what it means. If someone said " I had a negative play experience. there is something wrong." My inclinations is to think of it like a request for a safe space or a trigger warning because someones feelings got hurt.Or, something in that sort of category.

Let me clarify, because I'm sure as hell not advocating for safe spaces or that malarkey.

A really strong, challenging competitive list can be a joy to fly against. It will push you to the limits of your abilities to maneuver and out think your opponent. A list which reduces your participation to merely removing ships off the table without any ability to influence the game is a different animal entirely.

This whole NPE term sounds entirely subjective to me. Almost every possible game will be a negative play experience for some people - I don't believe that there is such a thing as an universally enjoyable game.

As such, a new/revised edition will move the NPE from the players who currently have it (which, by the way, don't include me) to others.

The interesting question, to me, is whether the changes that X-Wing experienced increased the number of people who don't enjoy it, or whether they merely moved them to somebody else than the people who originally had it. Personally, I think it's the latter, considering that X-Wing is steadily growing, both in my personal experience and when we look at major events like Worlds and how quickly they're filling. It's just that people who don't enjoy the game now have a fancy new TLA that makes their own personal "I no longer enjoy this game" have a pseudo-scientific ring to it.

So, what are the most recent fundamental changes, and how did they impact the game?

• There's unavoidable damage that actually matters. The last bit is important, because unavoidable damage entered the game in wave 3 with the Autoblaster - it just didn't really have a platform that didn't benefit from other forms of damage even more at the time.
• Ordnance has finally been fixed properly and thus, by nature, allows for alpha strikes that hurt.
• Upgrades to both offense and defense made it necessary to have, well, upgrades to defense and offense, and this increases the complexity of all builds - both in terms of list building in order to become competitive, and in terms of in-game decision making.

I don't think any of these necessitate a second edition. In fact, two of them are actually fixes to things that had been meant to work for a long time, and that are very easy to make too powerful, and it's a great sign for the game and a testament to the quality of the game's playtesting that they are not too powerful (now after the U-Boat nerfs anyway).

The third point is absolutely subjective, too. And of course, it's rather different to how the game worked a few years ago. Back then, a ship with more than 1-2 upgrades was rare, and jousters without any upgrades reigned supreme in the age of BBBBZ. Now, a list with any ship that has less than 3-5 upgrade cards assigned is very rare. Personally, I think that Kylo will do something to swing that back slightly, if that's any comfort, but that's a fact. This does of course raise the barrier of entry for new players, and that's probably not good.

Whether builds that require thought and a game that rewards skill are a good thing or not is of course absolutely subjective. But a game doesn't automatically become bad when lots of viable offensive and defensive combos exist. Quite the opposite IMHO.

A word about me - I stopped playing for a while somewhere around wave VII for half a year. I'm not quite sure why that was, maybe soemthing about "the objective PE" was "N" to me then, too, or much more probably, I simply had played too much X-Wing to the exclusion of other games for 3+ years and needed a little break ... maybe it's the same for those who now shout "NPE"?

Personally, I think the current X-Wing is one of the strongest and most diverse it has been in years. Fat han was so dominant, then Phantoms, then Brobots. Right now there's at least three top dog builds, and just today I followed a 18 person casual tournament without a single Dengaroo or Palp Aces build.

I'm not aware of any hard counters to anything. U-Boats hard countered Rebel regen, and look where they both are now. Or am I missing something here?

My TL;DR: If you have a NPE with today's X-Wing, it might just be that it's not the game, it's you.

I love X-Wing, and I do like all of the interesting builds and synergies that occur with ships and personnel. I do however think the OP has a point in one area: auto damage. In combat, the only auto damage is from an unknowing mistake or hidden threat; something like seeing and not avoiding a mine or a stealth attack that gives the combatant no reaction time. All other threats be they projectile or other munitions from an enemy position that can be known prior to the engagement gives the opposing force some kind of reaction even if it is a minor one...even the slowest of ships must have systems to manipulate space flight and some type of defense mechanisms as they have been selected as combat vessels. With all that blather out of the way, "auto damage" is therefore illogical in a dice based game that's based on our Star Wars logic (even if it is not real) that is -albeit roughly- based on more known combat situations like modern aircraft with space flight assumptions kinda built in. Therefore, I summize cards like these are illogical in their irritation of rationality...

First of all, xwing is NOT a dice game

It is a tactical miniatures game with dice in it. Space flight is represented by the player selected manuevers and NOT rng

Yahtzee is a freaking dice game

Second of all, have you tried dodging a computer controled fully automatic weapon at close range? It is less logical to think you could