What I dislike is when someone doesn't like the current meta 100/6, they think they need to walk away from the game.

That does seem to be the common thought around here. I'd say that these boards are decidedly biased to the 100/6/dm game, but that's because I'd guess a majority of us regulars are tournament players. Which kind of makes sense, most truly casual players aren't going to bother posting on a message board.

Casual players may buy as much, in fact I'd say the majority of ships sold are sold to casual players. But I don't think it's a huge majority any longer. Given how many people play in tournaments now I think the idea that only 10-15% or even 25% of X-Wing players are also tournament players isn't true.

But I think people do need to look at the game more holistically and realize there's more to it then just tournaments and if you don't like how the current meta works, there's still plenty of ways to push your ships around the table that doesn't involve the current meta.

The HotAC for example being an amazingly fun way to play the game with a group of people.

Do you know what her pilot ability is?

Do you know what her dial looks like?

2 reds which are both turns, and 3 greens, a 1 and 2 straight and a 2 bank. This is not exactly a killer dial for her ability to work with. Plus as was pointed out the lack of the Ghost on top tables anywhere proves Hera is far from being ahead of the power curb.

I disagree. The game is about more than the combat phase.

You're quite correct... Anyone who considers rolling defense dice even a big part of the game simply doesn't get it.

Do you know what her pilot ability is?

Do you know what her dial looks like?

2 reds which are both turns, and 3 greens, a 1 and 2 straight and a 2 bank. This is not exactly a killer dial for her ability to work with. Plus as was pointed out the lack of the Ghost on top tables anywhere proves Hera is far from being ahead of the power curb.

Left something very important out there:

Look at Nien Nunb, now look at her ability. Now look at Stay on Target.

...waits for it...

Look at Nien Nunb, now look at her ability. Now look at Stay on Target.

Ok yes if you include Nien, but then you're also taking up the one crew slot you have. It also isn't a combo that by any means pushes Hera above the power curb. So to call her a NPE is completely a subjective opinion and not one that seems to be shared by... Well anyone.

im in the group that except for specific ships, PS means very little. In fact i do better with low skills than i do high lol.

Heck i just ran a list i saw on here called "The Little Guys" where it was Tarn, Jess, Braylen, and Zeb. All PS3 not many upgrades except for Braylen being a stressboat. Still managed to vastly outfly people.

Highest PS i still do consistently good with is 7. Higher than that, i almost always end up having either bad luck or misjudgement screw me over.

Look at Nien Nunb, now look at her ability. Now look at Stay on Target.

Ok yes if you include Nien, but then you're also taking up the one crew slot you have. It also isn't a combo that by any means pushes Hera above the power curb.

Yes, a crew slot that is not needed in the fore mentioned AB-turret-death-scenario, and that makes it so she has the ability to set her dial after the fact to any other maneuver on her dial by setting a green (except the 5k).

I'm not getting into the "power curve" thing, just saying that Hera is the most maneuverable ship in the game. Given a Engine Upgrade, if someone wants to park her within range 1 of you, they will.

Edit: Wait, 1 Crew Slot? Are you thinking of Hera on the Phantom? We are discussing Hera on the Ghost (2 slots). Hence talking about EU on a large base.

if someone wants to park her within range 1 of you, they will.

If Hera could reliably do 4 unavoidable damage every turn... She'd be at the top of the meta and be seen on all the top tables, because she would be one of the greatest ace killers ever.

But we again get back to the heart of the argument... Is unavoidable damage bad for the game, if it's balanced with the proper restrictions or it really just rock saying paper is too good but scissors are just fine.

I'm a little late to this thread but it really grabbed my attention. I'm one of those "meta got me down' kinda players. I prefer a more narrative style of play, i'd much prefer to see scenarios or campaign type play come to X-wing. Imperial Assault and now Armada are heading down this road, whilst X-wing remains mostly the 100 pt deathmatch. Sure you can play epic or Heroes of the Atturi cluster, but its shifting the players in larger groups to do this. The part about the meta that was really getting me down was seeing tournament meta lists show up in casual play. I used to attend a casual weekly X-wing night and started to get irritating to see people bring Dengaroo and Palp Shuttle lists to a group that mostly plays 'basement lists'. Naturally, they stomp everyone else. I could understand if there was an upcoming tournament that they wanted to practice for, but there were separate events/nights for that. It seemed to be players that didnt want to put time into making a new list and/or players that don't play very often. I'm guessing their logic was "I dont play X-wing very often, i'm sure not going to waste my opportunity and play a loser list". Congrats, your Dengaroo list beat down a Rebel list with Etahn A'baht and Tarn Mison. Before their match, i'd walked over and commented "Dengaroo seems pretty strong against E-wings and X-wings", he gave looked up smiled and said proudly "YUP!" He was relishing the beat-down he was about to deliver....and he did. Obviously finding the right style of group is going to affect your perception of the game.

All that being said, I still hope that FFG starts to look at either:

a. a campaign like Corellian Conflict for Armada.

b. adding missions or scenarios to standard play. (similar to what Star Trek Attack Wing has)

I know for each of those, there will be a chorus of voices saying "that will never work" or "that would kill X-wing" and so on. Take it for what its worth.

I'm a little late to this thread but it really grabbed my attention. I'm one of those "meta got me down' kinda players. I prefer a more narrative style of play, i'd much prefer to see scenarios or campaign type play come to X-wing. Imperial Assault and now Armada are heading down this road, whilst X-wing remains mostly the 100 pt deathmatch. Sure you can play epic or Heroes of the Atturi cluster, but its shifting the players in larger groups to do this. The part about the meta that was really getting me down was seeing tournament meta lists show up in casual play. I used to attend a casual weekly X-wing night and started to get irritating to see people bring Dengaroo and Palp Shuttle lists to a group that mostly plays 'basement lists'. Naturally, they stomp everyone else. I could understand if there was an upcoming tournament that they wanted to practice for, but there were separate events/nights for that. It seemed to be players that didnt want to put time into making a new list and/or players that don't play very often. I'm guessing their logic was "I dont play X-wing very often, i'm sure not going to waste my opportunity and play a loser list". Congrats, your Dengaroo list beat down a Rebel list with Etahn A'baht and Tarn Mison. Before their match, i'd walked over and commented "Dengaroo seems pretty strong against E-wings and X-wings", he gave looked up smiled and said proudly "YUP!" He was relishing the beat-down he was about to deliver....and he did. Obviously finding the right style of group is going to affect your perception of the game.

All that being said, I still hope that FFG starts to look at either:

a. a campaign like Corellian Conflict for Armada.

b. adding missions or scenarios to standard play. (similar to what Star Trek Attack Wing has)

I know for each of those, there will be a chorus of voices saying "that will never work" or "that would kill X-wing" and so on. Take it for what its worth.

I actually agree with you, I think a Scenario pack would only improve things. Hell even a set of Scenarios where TOs select 3 scenarios for the day and you have to design lists to complete those scenarios (they would probably have to be mirrored scenarios)... The problem with most tournaments being 100/6 is that that is the only way the majority of people will play.. I love Escalation Tournaments for this reason.....

Hell doubles could be hilarious, where every round you get paired up with another player.

The problem with most tournaments being 100/6 is that that is the only way the majority of people will play.

I think the only reason most people prefer the 100/6 game is because that's what most tournaments use, so it's seen as the default method. Don't get me wrong, I like the 100/6 game because it's quick and easy, and I can often get more than one game in a night. But if tournaments were played with some other scenario I'd likely play that instead.

If you look at pretty much every other miniature game out there round limits and scenarios are part of the default game. I think if FFG were to come up with a system with a scenario pack, you'd see most people starting to play those instead.

The problem with most tournaments being 100/6 is that that is the only way the majority of people will play.

I think the only reason most people prefer the 100/6 game is because that's what most tournaments use, so it's seen as the default method. Don't get me wrong, I like the 100/6 game because it's quick and easy, and I can often get more than one game in a night. But if tournaments were played with some other scenario I'd likely play that instead.

If you look at pretty much every other miniature game out there round limits and scenarios are part of the default game. I think if FFG were to come up with a system with a scenario pack, you'd see most people starting to play those instead.

As long as events used them too.... But I could see no reason why you couldn't have an Worlds season playing 100/6 and a off season where they ran tournaments with scenarios, varied pts etc that linked into a greater campaign.

But I could see no reason why you couldn't have an Worlds season playing 100/6 and a off season where they ran tournaments with scenarios, varied pts etc that linked into a greater campaign.

Make 100/6 one of the possible scenarios, because it is a fun way to play.

But really what it boils down too, is that there are going to be things in any given waves meta that some people don't like, and having more scenarios won't fundamentally change that. But more scenarios will make for more top meta lists, because what works killer in 100/6 won't work as well won't likely work as well in other scenarios. Which would in turn should make the game more enjoyable for everyone.

But I could see no reason why you couldn't have an Worlds season playing 100/6 and a off season where they ran tournaments with scenarios, varied pts etc that linked into a greater campaign.

Make 100/6 one of the possible scenarios, because it is a fun way to play.

But really what it boils down too, is that there are going to be things in any given waves meta that some people don't like, and having more scenarios won't fundamentally change that. But more scenarios will make for more top meta lists, because what works killer in 100/6 won't work as well won't likely work as well in other scenarios. Which would in turn should make the game more enjoyable for everyone.

Most of the killer ships are very mobile and could probably accomplish any conceivable objective in this game. I don't think scenarios really fix a whole lot of ships unless you do silly things like "only t-65 x-wings not named biggs can accomplish this"

Most of the killer ships are very mobile and could probably accomplish any conceivable objective in this game.

Then you're not giving it enough thought. For example in Armada there's an objective that involves how many dice can be thrown at an objective token. You score points if you can throw more dice than the other guy. In a case like that maneuverability doesn't really help, because if you have to point Soontir at it, he's not arc dodging very well.

Another objective involves shooting ships in the rear arc, another involves giving one ship an objective token and that ship gets an extra dice when attacking.

There's all kinds of things you could do in X-Wing that would change the game enough that ships great at 100/6 wouldn't excel nearly as well.

Imagine a scenario where player X gets points for every ship that player Y has beyond range 2 of an objective. Something like that would make arc dodgers almost completely worthless because you either arc dodge and give up points or don't dodge and get blown up.

But I could see no reason why you couldn't have an Worlds season playing 100/6 and a off season where they ran tournaments with scenarios, varied pts etc that linked into a greater campaign.

Make 100/6 one of the possible scenarios, because it is a fun way to play.

But really what it boils down too, is that there are going to be things in any given waves meta that some people don't like, and having more scenarios won't fundamentally change that. But more scenarios will make for more top meta lists, because what works killer in 100/6 won't work as well won't likely work as well in other scenarios. Which would in turn should make the game more enjoyable for everyone.

Most of the killer ships are very mobile and could probably accomplish any conceivable objective in this game. I don't think scenarios really fix a whole lot of ships unless you do silly things like "only t-65 x-wings not named biggs can accomplish this"

Actually, I think missions would do a lot to change the game. If you have a number of missions that do different things, you would really need an All Comers type list. There would be some missions that reward having more ships to cover a greater area. Other missions will require ships not dying. Soontir Fel is one that is great at dodging arcs, but if his mission is to get in somewhere and get in fast, he might not have much of an option to dodge arcs. Or...he can dodge the arcs at the cost of actually doing what he needs to do. If there were missions that could balance the game play, those that play only 2-3 ship lists would be hurting. A strong list would probably have between 4-6 ships with at least one heavy hitter.

As a side note, I'm developing a narrative event for GenCon 2017 with the rest of my podcast and I'm quite excited about it. We are working on our catalog short description to draw people in. It will be the day after most are cut from the FFG event, so we should get the 40 players required.

Rebels defend their base over 4 rounds, success affects each tested mission. Build a squad, join a side, draft unique pilots & fly with death being final. Prizes for winning side, top scores & Bingo!

Babaganoosh is working to develop a lot of different missions that he will rigorously play test and try to break. We will also only have 1 of each unique pilot in the whole game. So, only one Soontir Fel. When he dies, he's dead. There will be a draft pick for who you get. Generics that live can become uniques that aren't used yet. It won't all be about 100 pts and each mission will affect the rest of them.

Rebels defend their base over 4 rounds, success affects each tested mission. Build a squad, join a side, draft unique pilots & fly with death being final. Prizes for winning side, top scores & Bingo!

Okay, this is the last thing I'll say on the subject, because this thread has become what I think of as a Tastes Great! / Less Filling! shouting match.

For those of you old enough to remember, there was an old light beer commercial where bars would erupt into violence when two factions would be divided among the 'Tastes Great' or 'Less Filling' factions.

The thing is--those are not opposing positions! Tastes Great / Tastes Crappy is an argument. Less Filling / Lead in the Gut is an argument. Tastes Great / Less Filling are related subjects, but they are not opposing positions.

For those who actually got my point--whether you agree or not--thank you.

My point, for the last time, is that the game has changed over time. Completely normal for it to do so.

The sticking point, for me, is that where Once Upon A Time, Player A decided to go after a specific ship, Player B would try to prevent it, and the result would be decided through skill, maneuver, and some degree of luck.

These days, there are an increasing number of situations where Player A can just dictate that a specific ship is dead, and--assuming equal skill levels--there is little or nothing Player B can do about it.

Put yet another way:

In the Old Days, Player A could reduce Player B's ability to defend (by way of Wedge, or Outmaneuver, with stress, etc).

These Days, Player B can remove Player B's ability to defend (double Auto-corrected Autoblaster, auto-TB, etc).

There is a fundamental difference between reducing defense and removing it entirely. Whether you think this is a problem or not is an entirely different discussion.

I am not arguing that ships that completely remove defense are dominating the highest levels of competitive play, or that they are unbeatable by any list... just that this is a trend that I've noticed.

My position is that this trend contributes to the number of Negative Play Experiences.

That it's not an issue on top tables is not a counterpoint. That these lists can be beaten is not a counterpoint. Again, Tastes Great/Less Filling.

In any case, thank you for your time.

These days, there are an increasing number of situations where Player A can just dictate that a specific ship is dead, and--assuming equal skill levels--there is little or nothing Player B can do about it.

Put yet another way:

In the Old Days, Player A could reduce Player B's ability to defend (by way of Wedge, or Outmaneuver, with stress, etc).

These Days, Player B can remove Player B's ability to defend (double Auto-corrected Autoblaster, auto-TB, etc).

There is a fundamental difference between reducing defense and removing it entirely. Whether you think this is a problem or not is an entirely different discussion.

I am not arguing that ships that completely remove defense are dominating the highest levels of competitive play, or that they are unbeatable by any list... just that this is a trend that I've noticed.

My position is that this trend contributes to the number of Negative Play Experiences.

Unfortunate, though it is, I think the solution is in different lists. There is a bit of rock-scissors-paper in this game as a balancing mechanic. That's not the ideal balancing mechanic, but it does work. Unstoppable damage is bad for low-health/high-agility targets, but high-health/low-agility targets don't really care. A Decimator really doesn't care if you use Autoblaster Turret. He says, "Thanks for only throwing 2 dice!" By your definition of NPE, what is NPE for one list is not NPE for another list. It's a twisted idea of balance, but that's where X-Wing is currently at.

@tournament format folks

I think it's interesting to discuss how the 100/6 format has shaped the game and think about how you could incorporate scenarios into tournament play. However, I don't think that would bring back the people who feel alienated by tournaments. There will still be a meta and super-efficient combos will still be discovered. These players will still see the same squads at tournaments and those squads probably won't be thematic. I think we should worry less about getting these sorts of players into tournaments and focus more on having more support for non-tournament thematic play. I just don't think these players will enjoy tournaments, no matter the format. It's just not the mentality for them. They go to tournaments because that's where the other players are, but a tournament circuit just doesn't suit their play style.

By your definition of NPE, what is NPE for one list is not NPE for another list.

Whether rock/paper/scissors is good or bad is debatable, I do think that rock/paper/scissors/lizard/spock is better, because it has more options... but various meta's have more or fewer options.

During the height of the phantom menace, it was really just rock vs paper, were as other meta's have had more options.

But what it boils down to again, is that in the vast majority of these NPE posts, is really rock complaining that paper is creating the NPE but scissors is just fine. That is not IMO a valid reason to change the game itself.

But going back to the phantom menace, it was clearly shown by objective data that the Phantom was having a negative effect on the game itself, the same could be said of the triple scout list. However the unavoidable damage has not been shown to do the same thing, and has been around long enough it's unlikely to, short of something that really changes the meta.

@tournament format folks

I think it's interesting to discuss how the 100/6 format has shaped the game and think about how you could incorporate scenarios into tournament play. However, I don't think that would bring back the people who feel alienated by tournaments. There will still be a meta and super-efficient combos will still be discovered. These players will still see the same squads at tournaments and those squads probably won't be thematic. I think we should worry less about getting these sorts of players into tournaments and focus more on having more support for non-tournament thematic play. I just don't think these players will enjoy tournaments, no matter the format. It's just not the mentality for them. They go to tournaments because that's where the other players are, but a tournament circuit just doesn't suit their play style.

The problem is there is a limited pool of players... You have players which will never play tournaments, but their play experience will be shaped by gamers in their community that will only EVER play 100/6 because that is perceived to be the only valid way to play due to tournaments. I've seen it again and again in different systems, as soon as there is a tournament standard that is all that a significant part of the community will touch.

Whether rock/paper/scissors is good or bad is debatable, I do think that rock/paper/scissors/lizard/spock is better, because it has more options... but various meta's have more or fewer options.

During the height of the phantom menace, it was really just rock vs paper, were as other meta's have had more options.

But what it boils down to again, is that in the vast majority of these NPE posts, is really rock complaining that paper is creating the NPE but scissors is just fine. That is not IMO a valid reason to change the game itself.

It is the nature of any system which lists aren't mirrored. If you want interesting interactions there will be models those interactions will be good against and models they will be bad against.

As you have correctly stated, the important thing is it doesn't end up Rock vs Scissors... A Rock / Paper / Scissors / Lizard / Spock / Random Mutant thing somewhere in the middle, is what you are looking for.

You have players which will never play tournaments

You also have players who may very well enjoy playing in tournaments but not in it's current format.

I enjoy playing competitively and as such I'd take part in tournaments pretty much no matter what the format was, 100/6 or something else. But there are people who may find competitive events enjoyable, but really dislike the 100/6 and so a change in format could be what it takes to have them show up. On the other hand, you may see people stop showing up because they don't like the new format.

That is what the 100/6's strongest feature is, it's fairly generic and likely to appeal to the largest number of people, but without trying something else we'll never know. I also wonder if the 100/6 system isn't something that appeals to the MtG types... Because those of us who come from a tabletop miniature background we're much more used to scenario play, even in tournaments.

It is the nature of any system which lists aren't mirrored.

True, it's hard to balance things in some other way, when you're dealing with things like perfect imbalance.

You have players which will never play tournaments

You also have players who may very well enjoy playing in tournaments but not in it's current format.

I enjoy playing competitively and as such I'd take part in tournaments pretty much no matter what the format was, 100/6 or something else. But there are people who may find competitive events enjoyable, but really dislike the 100/6 and so a change in format could be what it takes to have them show up. On the other hand, you may see people stop showing up because they don't like the new format.

That is what the 100/6's strongest feature is, it's fairly generic and likely to appeal to the largest number of people, but without trying something else we'll never know. I also wonder if the 100/6 system isn't something that appeals to the MtG types... Because those of us who come from a tabletop miniature background we're much more used to scenario play, even in tournaments.

Even Magic has Standard Tournaments, Double headed Giant, Sealed Deck, Booster Draft, Elder Dragon Hinterland, Commander, Emperor, Multiplayer.

Even Magic has Standard Tournaments, Double headed Giant, Sealed Deck, Booster Draft, Elder Dragon Hinterland, Commander, Emperor, Multiplayer.

True, but the basic gameplay doesn't change drastically in those formats, at least not as far as I know. You're still trying to get the other guy to zero life points.

I've seen a group run a tournament where there were a list of the 3 least played ships in each of the 3 factions, and your list must contain one ship from the list. That is an interesting way of getting people to think about new lists, and lets people stretch their list building muscles.

I've seen a group run a tournament where there were a list of the 3 least played ships in each of the 3 factions, and your list must contain one ship from the list.

I had really hoped the hanger bay events would of become a bigger part of the OP season. Those were some very cool ideas as is the one I quoted.

Even Magic has Standard Tournaments, Double headed Giant, Sealed Deck, Booster Draft, Elder Dragon Hinterland, Commander, Emperor, Multiplayer.

True, but the basic gameplay doesn't change drastically in those formats, at least not as far as I know. You're still trying to get the other guy to zero life points.

Some of them quite a bit, Drafting you are having to guess what the enemy is using and pick up the cards to counter it as you are creating your deck at the event rather than using your own cards. EDH you can only ever have 1 of any card in your deck, which means you can't be guaranteed combos, so you have to be a lot more sneaky in construction, also you will see cards that normally won't make the cut in standard decks. Emperor and 2 Headed Giant are both team versions so you have to protect yourself but also your ally as ending up 1v2 means death. Commander you have 1 powerful card that keeps coming back and defines both your deck building options and how your deck handles.

They all will change what cards you will use, which cards are powerful, and also some have different victory goals, Emperor you need to take out the opponents Emperor, but he can't be touched until you deal with his generals.