Not so. The X shouldn't be as good as the T-70 or E, but a cheaper price can make it more viable. A headhunter is almost always worse than an A-Wing but it's fewer points. I don't want the X to be as good as the T70, but I'd like to not feel better off with Bs, which are in the same price range and have better survivabily, reposition, and aresenals...

My point was that the X-wing needed either 7 points of extra power at its current level, or a point reduction of seven (maybe 5) points in order to make it the equal of the T-70 in competitive play.

As for competitve play, say I buy two X-wings and you by a Punishing One. Guess who's winning nearly every game? Or say I buy an X-wing and you buy any other expansion . Guess who got the most bang for their buck?

2 out 10 actually noticed the model difference. We do t play enough. Tomorrow though! Force Friday!

HOTT-DAMMS... Immah show up with a couple big buckets of fried chicken and biscuits and immah use your guys ships!

Fried chicken and Coa-coa. Xwing Mario Kart and Episode 7 in the background.

Not so. The X shouldn't be as good as the T-70 or E, but a cheaper price can make it more viable. A headhunter is almost always worse than an A-Wing but it's fewer points. I don't want the X to be as good as the T70, but I'd like to not feel better off with Bs, which are in the same price range and have better survivabily, reposition, and aresenals...

My point was that the X-wing needed either 7 points of extra power at its current level, or a point reduction of seven (maybe 5) points in order to make it the equal of the T-70 in competitive play.

As for competitve play, say I buy two X-wings and you by a Punishing One. Guess who's winning nearly every game? Or say I buy an X-wing and you buy any other expansion . Guess who got the most bang for their buck?

I'll grab a tie punisher!

2 out 10 actually noticed the model difference. We do t play enough. Tomorrow though! Force Friday!

HOTT-DAMMS... Immah show up with a couple big buckets of fried chicken and biscuits and immah use your guys ships!

Fried chicken and Coa-coa. Xwing Mario Kart and Episode 7 in the background.

**** it red seven that looks really good and this town has no decent fried chicken...

Wow they censored that one well... darn it red seven I suppose

"One in a million" unique title 0pt X-wing only.

When attacking with a torpedo you may change all dice to crits.

Simple, thematic. Done.

Wow they censored that one well... darn it red seven I suppose

DAMMIT Works...

Not so. The X shouldn't be as good as the T-70 or E, but a cheaper price can make it more viable. A headhunter is almost always worse than an A-Wing but it's fewer points. I don't want the X to be as good as the T70, but I'd like to not feel better off with Bs, which are in the same price range and have better survivabily, reposition, and aresenals...

My point was that the X-wing needed either 7 points of extra power at its current level, or a point reduction of seven (maybe 5) points in order to make it the equal of the T-70 in competitive play.

As for competitve play, say I buy two X-wings and you by a Punishing One. Guess who's winning nearly every game? Or say I buy an X-wing and you buy any other expansion . Guess who got the most bang for their buck?

So you think it would be fine for Biggs (the only T-65 that sees regular play) to cost 21 points (or even 19) with IA and R4-D6?

The extra hull boost action and dial doesn't cost the same as the upgrade cards. I'd love to see the actual playtesting costing process (something I've been involved with in other games) but the cost of an upgrade card doesn't reflect the cost of the specific action, rather the additional benefit is brings to something which doesn't have that ability or stands to gain. The T-65 is still my favorite ship from the universe ever since I first saw a New Hope, but it needs a point reduction of probably 2 points to bring it into line with the current place ships are in. When they first released the game the X-wing and Tie Fighter where balanced against each other in terms of efficiency and over time as more ships have been added the X-wing has lost it's efficiency compared to other ships. The Tie has kept it's place because of it's low cost and decent mobility.

The Incom T-65 X-Wing shouldn't be reduced to expensive tie fighter levels but it's cost should now reflect what FFG have learned about ship pricing since release. With the recent FAQ change to Biggs, making him easier to work around for opposing players there is room to reduce the X-Wing's cost by a couple of points or introduce a "title" which provides a couple of extra points of utility, say... "T-65 only, Title, Munitions Bay - Your action bar gains the (torpedo) action, you may not equip torpedoes with a squad point cost higher than 4" - this is a change to something that has been suggested above, allow the T-65's to have extra munitions and make some consistent use out of guidance chips but doesn't reduce their cost. Alternatively have it as a straight 2 point reduction but even the X-7 defender title included a benefit and a reduction in utility for the increased survivability.

I made this post:

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/236882-thinking-the-rebel-alliance-x-wing-fix-is-a-thing/?p=2539949

A few days ago and it was derided due to bitterness. Maybe this thread will help. Anyway, see what you think.

So you think it would be fine for Biggs (the only T-65 that sees regular play) to cost 21 points (or even 19) with IA and R4-D6 ?

Absolutely. While Palpatine costs less than 16 and Zuckuss is less than 8, I would be happy with Biggs at 19.

The extra hull boost action and dial doesn't cost the same as the upgrade cards.

You're right. It is different, primarily due to changes in Attack and Agility ratings.

- Take a Phantom, with a base cost of 18. It has a nearly identical, but slightly better dial, better slots and equally good pilots. Its base cost is 18, meaning that a shield is worth 3 points for an X-wing.

- A boost action is worth 4 points, no questions asked.

- With the dial, who knows. Playtesting is required.

Regardless, an X-wing falls short of nearly every other ship in the game. A Punisher is better than an X-wing in many ways, but probably on par overall. The only thing I can think of that's worse than an X-wing is a HWK without a turret...

The x-wing needs to be able to reposition plain and simple, a simple title granting barrel roll and maybe a -1 points reduction fixes wedges major problem without buffing Biggs too much.

The x-wing needs to be able to reposition plain and simple, a simple title granting barrel roll and maybe a -1 points reduction fixes wedges major problem without buffing Biggs too much.

Nah, the X-wing is jouster. Not all pilots and all combinations of pilots need to be equal, if just there are a few pilots that with the right upgrades are competative its alright. For the X-wing Biggs is your man.

"One in a million" unique title 0pt X-wing only.

When attacking with a torpedo you may change all dice to crits.

Simple, thematic. Done.

Could buff a single X-wing without fear of making an X-wing swarm OP - I like it. Biggs is to big a target already, who would you put this title on?

Helps Wes and Luke too. The low PS guys certainly don't mind it

The problem with any kind of fix that adds durability is that it totally breaks Biggs, which in turn may inadvertently break the entire game.

Again with all these X-wing fixes are they fixes for X-wings or fixes for Rookie Pilot. Face it Rookie was gone since Wave 4. IT is best as either a thematic campaign, (doesn't HotAC start you as a rookie pilot?) and that is pretty much it.

But yeah the T-65 right now only has one build and that is biggs which is vulnerable to repositioning ships. But to be fair I think the T-65 could use a few more builds like Biggs but instead of new unique pilots how about new unique titles (ones that are supposed to match their pilots. To make them more robust. Like a Wedge that can make a boost if a ship is in his firing arc or a Luke that can fire torpedoes without a target lock.

I do understand the issues with ships we love and trying to find ways to use them in a competitive manner. The T-65, along with the TIE fighter are the iconic legends of the Star Wars Universe and they will always retain that title, regardless the new ships capabilities during the power creep part of the game's life. However, competitively, they are both suffering the same fate. To dovetail this connection, Wookieepedia states, "Most importantly, it (the T-65) could perform on near equal terms with the Empire's high-performance TIE fighters when handled by an experienced pilot." There is the baseline for our iconic ships positions.

The IA card was meant to boost the survivability of the T-65, and I believe that that is the FFG designer's answer to the seemingly endless stream of whining about the T-65. I don't think another buff will be applied to this ship. Plus, thematically, the T-70 is supposed to replace the T-65 as it did in cannon. It's also why the TIE was also replaced with numerous new models, the TIE to TIE/fo being the best direct connection to the relationship of the T-65 to T-70.

Hate to say it, but if you fly the older ship, you either really need that pilot's ability, or you're just flying what you love. FFG's done what they are going to, and really what they need to do for the old bird.

Let's all chill out and move along to fixing really lacking ships and relax. It's Friday, grab a pint and some friends and fly a squad of T-65's, they're soooo fun!

The T-65 already is a better ps2 generic than the T-70.

Honestly, I think that the best way to fix the T-65 would simply be to reduce the cost a tad, just like the Defender. If it's efficiency that is the problem, just give it a better cost/contribution ratio. It wouldn't have to be by many points, pretty much just enough to make a 4 X list possible without them all being Rookies (and room for a few upgrades of course). They cost what they cost because they were made at a time where they had to balance against TIEs and pretty much nothing else. Now there's stuff that can make short work of them (like TIE/fos or Defenders or Punishers). I mean, you pay less for an old, used car, why not pay less for an outmoded ship?

Honestly, I think that the best way to fix the T-65 would simply be to reduce the cost a tad, just like the Defender.

A zero or even negative cost astromech might be the solution.

The problem with any kind of fix that adds durability is that it totally breaks Biggs, which in turn may inadvertently break the entire game.

Again with all these X-wing fixes are they fixes for X-wings or fixes for Rookie Pilot. Face it Rookie was gone since Wave 4. IT is best as either a thematic campaign, (doesn't HotAC start you as a rookie pilot?) and that is pretty much it.

Well, as I said earlier in this thread, I never play 100/6 so a fix that is only peculiar to one or two pilots, like a handful of unique titles, would be worthless to me. When I say I want a T65 fix, I want a fix for generics.

FFG's done what they are going to, and really what they need to do for the old bird.

I disagree. There's absolutely NO WAY we aren't getting a Blue Squadron X Wing after seeing Rogue One.

It's happening, for sure.

A zero or even negative cost astromech might be the solution.

It's been pretty well shown that a naked X-Wing is about 2 points overcosted. So a -1 Astromech that does nothing would bring it online with the B-Wing in terms of jousting.

I disagree. There's absolutely NO WAY we aren't getting a Blue Squadron X Wing after seeing Rogue One.

Besides it's not like the T-70 is actually great itself, the only time you see it competitively is Poe. A single pilot being used doesn't mean the ship itself is good, just the pilot brings enough to make up for the ships shortcomings.

Besides FFG has proved time and time again they will continue to tweak wave 1+ ships until they're on on par or at least closer to being on par with new stuff. They're not like GW that way.

The T-65 already is a better ps2 generic than the T-70.

Nope.

Four Blue novices with R2 and IA may not be rated "competitive", but it does pack a punch, and is way better than four Rookies.

The problem with any kind of fix that adds durability is that it totally breaks Biggs, which in turn may inadvertently break the entire game.

Again with all these X-wing fixes are they fixes for X-wings or fixes for Rookie Pilot. Face it Rookie was gone since Wave 4. IT is best as either a thematic campaign, (doesn't HotAC start you as a rookie pilot?) and that is pretty much it.

Well, as I said earlier in this thread, I never play 100/6 so a fix that is only peculiar to one or two pilots, like a handful of unique titles, would be worthless to me. When I say I want a T65 fix, I want a fix for generics.

FFG's done what they are going to, and really what they need to do for the old bird.

I disagree. There's absolutely NO WAY we aren't getting a Blue Squadron X Wing after seeing Rogue One.

It's happening, for sure.

I disagree.

I know the Mouse loves re-painting and re-boxing and re-selling stuff to us addicts; but even if he did want to sell us more crack and released an old ship with another paint scheme, it doesn't mean a buff is happening. Porkins (my favorite fun flying T-65) got a different paint scheme with the Transport; and there were a few more pilots like Kivian, Mison, and Janson along with mechs: R2-D6, R3-A2, R4-D6 and R5-P9...but it didn't have any buffs for the T-65. I'm not sure you understand the love that the Mouse has for the T-70 and his "real" new movies; this filler movie got it's plug with the side-bar Rogue One expansions and that will be it.

Besides, if any ship needs to be re-issued with a paint scheme, its Green Squadron....much better and iconic than Blue.

Mouse-y is focusing on Episode VIII....and all that crack.

Not so. The X shouldn't be as good as the T-70 or E, but a cheaper price can make it more viable. A headhunter is almost always worse than an A-Wing but it's fewer points. I don't want the X to be as good as the T70, but I'd like to not feel better off with Bs, which are in the same price range and have better survivabily, reposition, and aresenals...

My point was that the X-wing needed either 7 points of extra power at its current level, or a point reduction of seven (maybe 5) points in order to make it the equal of the T-70 in competitive play.

As for competitve play, say I buy two X-wings and you by a Punishing One. Guess who's winning nearly every game? Or say I buy an X-wing and you buy any other expansion . Guess who got the most bang for their buck?

So you think it would be fine for Biggs (the only T-65 that sees regular play) to cost 21 points (or even 19) with IA and R4-D6?

The extra hull boost action and dial doesn't cost the same as the upgrade cards. I'd love to see the actual playtesting costing process (something I've been involved with in other games) but the cost of an upgrade card doesn't reflect the cost of the specific action, rather the additional benefit is brings to something which doesn't have that ability or stands to gain. The T-65 is still my favorite ship from the universe ever since I first saw a New Hope, but it needs a point reduction of probably 2 points to bring it into line with the current place ships are in. When they first released the game the X-wing and Tie Fighter where balanced against each other in terms of efficiency and over time as more ships have been added the X-wing has lost it's efficiency compared to other ships. The Tie has kept it's place because of it's low cost and decent mobility.

The Incom T-65 X-Wing shouldn't be reduced to expensive tie fighter levels but it's cost should now reflect what FFG have learned about ship pricing since release. With the recent FAQ change to Biggs, making him easier to work around for opposing players there is room to reduce the X-Wing's cost by a couple of points or introduce a "title" which provides a couple of extra points of utility, say... "T-65 only, Title, Munitions Bay - Your action bar gains the (torpedo) action, you may not equip torpedoes with a squad point cost higher than 4" - this is a change to something that has been suggested above, allow the T-65's to have extra munitions and make some consistent use out of guidance chips but doesn't reduce their cost. Alternatively have it as a straight 2 point reduction but even the X-7 defender title included a benefit and a reduction in utility for the increased survivability.

Yea, I don't know anything about balancing ship or upgrade costs, but I'm super confident dropping the cost of x-wings by 7 points is ridiculous.