Two episodes in two days! This episode was actually cut back in early December, but due to vacations/holidays we just got around to getting it out there door. Head over to our podbean page to download or listen to the episode in-browser, or wait 0-24 hours for it to show up in your favorite podcast app.

It is a continuation of our discussion of X-Wing 2.0 from Episode 42, with special guest PC Gamer Pirate. Plus, the winning list for the Rey crew challenge!

Shownotes:

• World's Party Live interview with X-Wing game designers Alex Davies and Frank Brooks
• X-Wing game mechanic inventory
• ListJuggler Search
• John Billman won our list submission with his excellent Ashoka + Masterpiece, Captured TIE, VI, Rey; Jake + Title + VI + Autothrusters, PTL; Corran + R2-D2, FCS, PTL, Engine list!

Thanks to all our excutive producers, who helped bring this show out of the audio dark ages: Mr. Bubbles, Seth Dunlap, Grayfax, Jason H, Guido Kessels, Matt Siebert, Richard Haile, Michael Buccheri, Campaigned, Steve Harvey, Gregory Nussbaum, Matthew Williams

That corran Jake ashoka list is no joke crushed me in jeffs tc open tournament. Idk if people will be scared to run it once kylo drops but it's tough to bring down.

Rotation for minatures game is not a good idea IMHO.

However a "most wanted" list where they list a few pilot and upgrade cards as +1 point in Premier tournaments. Then they can adjust the list as needed.

However I would prefer if it were pilot+upgrade combos but for simplicity sake having a list short list of pilots and upgrades to be temporary +1 point cost would be easier to understand for the entire community.

From another thread (because I am too old to know how to link it)

I think the solution is less elegant but simple. Errata:

--Zuckuss props once per round.

--X7 evade is a free ACTION.

Then FAQ:

--primary turrets roll one fewer attack die out of arc

-- turret secondary weapons are subject to defensive range bonuses.

IMHO this will stop the red-eye escallation, and narrow the margin between the uncompetitive ships and the competitive ones. It also pushes value back into movement and positioning without completely dumping the range control that turrets provide.

Just my 2 cents.

Maybe I'm blind, but you mentioned a way to join this Slack channel for X-Wing. It was mentioned in the podcast that it would be in the "show notes." Currently all I see in the show notes are a link to the Worlds interview party, a link to listjuggler, and a link to a google live sheet with X-Wing game mechanic inventory.

Sorry stan here's the hyperlink https://xwingtmg-inviter.herokuapp.com/

From another thread (because I am too old to know how to link it)

I think the solution is less elegant but simple. Errata:

--Zuckuss props once per round.

--X7 evade is a free ACTION.

Then FAQ:

--primary turrets roll one fewer attack die out of arc

-- turret secondary weapons are subject to defensive range bonuses.

IMHO this will stop the red-eye escallation, and narrow the margin between the uncompetitive ships and the competitive ones. It also pushes value back into movement and positioning without completely dumping the range control that turrets provide.

Just my 2 cents.

My number one change for X-Wing would be to double the points (possible double the stats).

If we played 200 point games and ship costs were doubled, there could be more granularity between ships and upgrades, making it more unlikely that abilities are over or under-costed. For example, Rookie X-Wings could be priced at 41 points and Blue Squadron B-Wings could be priced at 45.

Doubling of stats (for example TIE fighters have a statline of 4 attack, 6 agility, 6 hull) is another opportunity to get even greater variety.

PS could use a slight overhaul, maybe along the lines of same PS reveals dials at the same time.

My number one change for X-Wing would be to double the points (possible double the stats).

If we played 200 point games and ship costs were doubled, there could be more granularity between ships and upgrades, making it more unlikely that abilities are over or under-costed. For example, Rookie X-Wings could be priced at 41 points and Blue Squadron B-Wings could be priced at 45.

Doubling of stats (for example TIE fighters have a statline of 4 attack, 6 agility, 6 hull) is another opportunity to get even greater variety.

PS could use a slight overhaul, maybe along the lines of same PS reveals dials at the same time.

Point increase, maybe. Double the points NO !

I'll be for maybe a 25 point increase as long as you keep the no more than 8 of the same small ships (4 for large ships) through out standard. But I can see a 125 point game reaching standard but not 200 points.

I hate the idea of a rotation.

I love the idea of increasing the point limit for games. It's a simple change. I think it will dilute the effectiveness of over-powered stuff and bring more balance.

I hate the idea of a rotation.

My number one change for X-Wing would be to double the points (possible double the stats).

If we played 200 point games and ship costs were doubled, there could be more granularity between ships and upgrades, making it more unlikely that abilities are over or under-costed. For example, Rookie X-Wings could be priced at 41 points and Blue Squadron B-Wings could be priced at 45.

Doubling of stats (for example TIE fighters have a statline of 4 attack, 6 agility, 6 hull) is another opportunity to get even greater variety.

PS could use a slight overhaul, maybe along the lines of same PS reveals dials at the same time.

Point increase, maybe. Double the points NO !

I'll be for maybe a 25 point increase as long as you keep the no more than 8 of the same small ships (4 for large ships) through out standard. But I can see a 125 point game reaching standard but not 200 points.

I'm not suggesting doubling the points as is right now. I'm suggesting in the event of an X-Wing overhaul, everything should be based around 200 points with point totals approximately doubling.

An academy pilot TIE fighter would be 24 points. But a rookie pilot X-Wing would be 41 points.

My number one change for X-Wing would be to double the points (possible double the stats).

If we played 200 point games and ship costs were doubled, there could be more granularity between ships and upgrades, making it more unlikely that abilities are over or under-costed. For example, Rookie X-Wings could be priced at 41 points and Blue Squadron B-Wings could be priced at 45.

Doubling of stats (for example TIE fighters have a statline of 4 attack, 6 agility, 6 hull) is another opportunity to get even greater variety.

PS could use a slight overhaul, maybe along the lines of same PS reveals dials at the same time.

Point increase, maybe. Double the points NO !

I'll be for maybe a 25 point increase as long as you keep the no more than 8 of the same small ships (4 for large ships) through out standard. But I can see a 125 point game reaching standard but not 200 points.

I'm not suggesting doubling the points as is right now. I'm suggesting in the event of an X-Wing overhaul, everything should be based around 200 points with point totals approximately doubling.

An academy pilot TIE fighter would be 24 points. But a rookie pilot X-Wing would be 41 points.

Then what has changed? You double the point limit then double the point cost of the cards? You have taken algebra, right?

My number one change for X-Wing would be to double the points (possible double the stats).

If we played 200 point games and ship costs were doubled, there could be more granularity between ships and upgrades, making it more unlikely that abilities are over or under-costed. For example, Rookie X-Wings could be priced at 41 points and Blue Squadron B-Wings could be priced at 45.

Doubling of stats (for example TIE fighters have a statline of 4 attack, 6 agility, 6 hull) is another opportunity to get even greater variety.

PS could use a slight overhaul, maybe along the lines of same PS reveals dials at the same time.

Point increase, maybe. Double the points NO !

I'll be for maybe a 25 point increase as long as you keep the no more than 8 of the same small ships (4 for large ships) through out standard. But I can see a 125 point game reaching standard but not 200 points.

I'm not suggesting doubling the points as is right now. I'm suggesting in the event of an X-Wing overhaul, everything should be based around 200 points with point totals approximately doubling.

An academy pilot TIE fighter would be 24 points. But a rookie pilot X-Wing would be 41 points.

Then what has changed? You double the point limit then double the point cost of the cards? You have taken algebra, right?

"For example, Rookie X-Wings could be priced at 41 points and Blue Squadron B-Wings could be priced at 45."

My number one change for X-Wing would be to double the points (possible double the stats).

If we played 200 point games and ship costs were doubled, there could be more granularity between ships and upgrades, making it more unlikely that abilities are over or under-costed. For example, Rookie X-Wings could be priced at 41 points and Blue Squadron B-Wings could be priced at 45.

Doubling of stats (for example TIE fighters have a statline of 4 attack, 6 agility, 6 hull) is another opportunity to get even greater variety.

PS could use a slight overhaul, maybe along the lines of same PS reveals dials at the same time.

Point increase, maybe. Double the points NO !

I'll be for maybe a 25 point increase as long as you keep the no more than 8 of the same small ships (4 for large ships) through out standard. But I can see a 125 point game reaching standard but not 200 points.

I'm not suggesting doubling the points as is right now. I'm suggesting in the event of an X-Wing overhaul, everything should be based around 200 points with point totals approximately doubling.

An academy pilot TIE fighter would be 24 points. But a rookie pilot X-Wing would be 41 points.

Then what has changed? You double the point limit then double the point cost of the cards? You have taken algebra, right?

"For example, Rookie X-Wings could be priced at 41 points and Blue Squadron B-Wings could be priced at 45."

Okay so you want to make X-wing 20.5 points and B-wing 22.5 points technically. I don't think that would have that much of an effect. I think there was a prototype build X-wing and it was around 40 points. But then again starting at 100 points is good because it is fairly an easy number to reach and manage. If you want something that has a higher scale well there is Armada that started at 300 points and is now 400 points. X-wing is fine as a 100-150 point game and ships are fine being priced between 10 and 50.

The biggest effect comes from upgrade cards. There are a bunch of upgrade cards priced in the 1-3 point range that could benefit from having extra granularity.

Crack Shot is worth more than 1 point but is it really worth 2? Push the Limit is certainly worth more than 3 points but 4? Is Markmanship really worth 3 points or was 2 points just too cheap?

From another thread (because I am too old to know how to link it)

I think the solution is less elegant but simple. Errata:

--Zuckuss props once per round.

--X7 evade is a free ACTION.

Then FAQ:

--primary turrets roll one fewer attack die out of arc

-- turret secondary weapons are subject to defensive range bonuses.

IMHO this will stop the red-eye escallation, and narrow the margin between the uncompetitive ships and the competitive ones. It also pushes value back into movement and positioning without completely dumping the range control that turrets provide.

Just my 2 cents.

Making X7 a free action would lead to a whole new set of problems. Cause you could PTL off of that. And with Ryad already using PTL she would be absurdly anboying with that fix. I am no advocator for an X7 fix cause i personally have never had a problem with fighting them, but if there was a fix i would say the best way to do it would be to add the clause 'if you are not stressed' or this clause 'if you did not overlap an obstacle or another ship'. But imho it is fine as is.

Help me understand the PTL concern. You execute a maneuver, get an evade token...just like right now except it is an action. If you have PTL, you can proc it and get a stress token. Then check pilot stress...not further actions. If you do not PTL off the evade. Move to check pilot stress, no, take and action, then PTL and do a second one, and it is not different than today.

What am I missing?

If you bumped, you could roll off.

From another thread (because I am too old to know how to link it)

I think the solution is less elegant but simple. Errata:

--Zuckuss props once per round.

--X7 evade is a free ACTION.

Then FAQ:

--primary turrets roll one fewer attack die out of arc

-- turret secondary weapons are subject to defensive range bonuses.

IMHO this will stop the red-eye escallation, and narrow the margin between the uncompetitive ships and the competitive ones. It also pushes value back into movement and positioning without completely dumping the range control that turrets provide.

Just my 2 cents.

Making X7 a free action would lead to a whole new set of problems. Cause you could PTL off of that. And with Ryad already using PTL she would be absurdly anboying with that fix. I am no advocator for an X7 fix cause i personally have never had a problem with fighting them, but if there was a fix i would say the best way to do it would be to add the clause 'if you are not stressed' or this clause 'if you did not overlap an obstacle or another ship'. But imho it is fine as is.

Help me understand the PTL concern. You execute a maneuver, get an evade token...just like right now except it is an action. If you have PTL, you can proc it and get a stress token. Then check pilot stress...not further actions. If you do not PTL off the evade. Move to check pilot stress, no, take and action, then PTL and do a second one, and it is not different than today.

What am I missing?

As I understand it, it's basically a trade-off between x7 being bump proof or stress proof. Currently, you get the evade even when stressed. With the proposed change, you get it when you bump, and then you can get another action anyway--which could include barrel rolling off from the bump.

Honestly some of the ideas are kinda hare-brained. If you look at the list-building in Armada, the addition of Academy Pilot-priced ships have significantly shifted the way activations work and I don't think you want that. I don't mind PS working the way it does, I just kinda wish the abilities favored the mid-PS named pilots. It seems like this is a design strand of the modern waves, which is good(see Ryad).

Rotation is a bad idea, so is bidding(how would you even make that work?).

Rotation should only be applied to a B-wing title. Not tournament list. This is a key factor of fun that you don't exactly get with other games. Because there's always that one guy that runs Ten numb or Deathrain because it's his favorite ship and he'll still win at least 2 games. The problem is we all read the forums and automatically assume ships that don't make the results list in tournaments are automatically bad, when that isn't true most of the time. Also we seem to have forgotten ships have roles besides "dice mitigation".

From another thread (because I am too old to know how to link it)

I think the solution is less elegant but simple. Errata:

--Zuckuss props once per round.

--X7 evade is a free ACTION.

Then FAQ:

--primary turrets roll one fewer attack die out of arc

-- turret secondary weapons are subject to defensive range bonuses.

IMHO this will stop the red-eye escallation, and narrow the margin between the uncompetitive ships and the competitive ones. It also pushes value back into movement and positioning without completely dumping the range control that turrets provide.

Just my 2 cents.

Making X7 a free action would lead to a whole new set of problems. Cause you could PTL off of that. And with Ryad already using PTL she would be absurdly anboying with that fix. I am no advocator for an X7 fix cause i personally have never had a problem with fighting them, but if there was a fix i would say the best way to do it would be to add the clause 'if you are not stressed' or this clause 'if you did not overlap an obstacle or another ship'. But imho it is fine as is.

Help me understand the PTL concern. You execute a maneuver, get an evade token...just like right now except it is an action. If you have PTL, you can proc it and get a stress token. Then check pilot stress...not further actions. If you do not PTL off the evade. Move to check pilot stress, no, take and action, then PTL and do a second one, and it is not different than today.

What am I missing?

From another thread (because I am too old to know how to link it)

I think the solution is less elegant but simple. Errata:

--Zuckuss props once per round.

--X7 evade is a free ACTION.

Then FAQ:

--primary turrets roll one fewer attack die out of arc

-- turret secondary weapons are subject to defensive range bonuses.

IMHO this will stop the red-eye escallation, and narrow the margin between the uncompetitive ships and the competitive ones. It also pushes value back into movement and positioning without completely dumping the range control that turrets provide.

Just my 2 cents.

Making X7 a free action would lead to a whole new set of problems. Cause you could PTL off of that. And with Ryad already using PTL she would be absurdly anboying with that fix. I am no advocator for an X7 fix cause i personally have never had a problem with fighting them, but if there was a fix i would say the best way to do it would be to add the clause 'if you are not stressed' or this clause 'if you did not overlap an obstacle or another ship'. But imho it is fine as is.

Help me understand the PTL concern. You execute a maneuver, get an evade token...just like right now except it is an action. If you have PTL, you can proc it and get a stress token. Then check pilot stress...not further actions. If you do not PTL off the evade. Move to check pilot stress, no, take and action, then PTL and do a second one, and it is not different than today.

What am I missing?

As I understand it, it's basically a trade-off between x7 being bump proof or stress proof. Currently, you get the evade even when stressed. With the proposed change, you get it when you bump, and then you can get another action anyway--which could include barrel rolling off from the bump.