I don't feel any of those ships or upgrades are op. They all have limitations and they all have their strengths.

I don't see how a 1 point tax is really going to change anything anyways. Can we put a negative 2 point tax on things that don't get used? Let's put a -2 tax on the Star viper and its title. Or a -2 tax on all the unused Droids or T-65's that are not used.

I feel the game is in a good place right now. There are plenty of different top lists to play around with. Yes there might be a lot of Defender/x7 lists out there. But if you practice against them you can beat them pretty easily. The party bus is easy to get behind to make it almost useless. Manaroo is pretty easy to kill. I seem to remember when Mindlink came out people didn't like the card. "It gives stress to everyone!" That's crappy!

Some people are never going to be happy. That's just plan and simple. Let the game be.

Like others have mentioned, it doesn't address the underlying problems in the game. I can assure you, the main problem started with PWT being too nasty to fight which led to Autothrusters (which are purposely designed to be insanely overpowered) which helped intensify the stacking defense problem with Palpatine and Autothruster aces which led to TLT which led to jousters being a lot weaker to turrets due to TLT efficiency (it's more powerful than primary 3-ATK turret at any range and any amount of defense dice).

First things first, 3-attack primary turrets need to be fixed. I say the cleanest way to do this is with a game rule that states attacking outside your firing arc gives one extra defense die to the defender.

After that, Autothrusters being overpowered is no longer a necessity. Right now it is a necessary evil, a band-aid fix.

Other outliers include...

TLT (either double 2-atk dice or just range 2)

Powerful global utility (Manaroo & Palpatine range restrictions)

Tie/x7 (should be speed 4 and above)

stress stacking (which by proxy fixes a lot of other things like Zuckuss, Dengaroo to an extent, etc.)

Autothrusters will probably never be on the list as it was designed to counter a turret heavy meta. However Twin Laser Turrets would qualify for the list because as it has been mentioned before TLT on average is higher damage output than a 3 PWT ship. As for putting a trait like all PTW ships that is just too vague. I would like to keep the list to only pilots and upgrades. I don't want to put entire ships because each ship has a pilot that just doesn't get used be it Red Squadron Pilot or Fel's Wrath.

I don't feel any of those ships or upgrades are op. They all have limitations and they all have their strengths.

I don't see how a 1 point tax is really going to change anything anyways. Can we put a negative 2 point tax on things that don't get used? Let's put a -2 tax on the Star viper and its title. Or a -2 tax on all the unused Droids or T-65's that are not used.

I feel the game is in a good place right now. There are plenty of different top lists to play around with. Yes there might be a lot of Defender/x7 lists out there. But if you practice against them you can beat them pretty easily. The party bus is easy to get behind to make it almost useless. Manaroo is pretty easy to kill. I seem to remember when Mindlink came out people didn't like the card. "It gives stress to everyone!" That's crappy!

Some people are never going to be happy. That's just plan and simple. Let the game be.

Well to see the effects of what the most wanted list will do, take a look at list juggler and apply the "tax" and see which lists will still be less than 100 points, which list will add up to 100 points which list will need to drop a 2 point upgrade and which list will need an overhaul. The target with this list is to take the top and put it to 100 points or 102 points where a 2-3 point upgrade is dropped to get back down to standard. However taking a look at seattle regionals, the effect on the top four would be as follows.

• Champion +4 points (Manaroo + 3 attini mindlinks,104 points, would need an overhaul)
• Runner +4 points (4 TLTs, 104 points would need to drop seismic charge and R3-A2 or overhaul)
• Top 4 +2 points (Biggs and TLT, would need to drop an upgrade)
• Top 4 +0 points (no effect)

So as you see there is an effect on the tournament results but it doesn't effect all the lists. I agree you don't want 20 or so pilot/upgrade cards on the list. A few to no more than a dozen is all it would take to bring balance to the meta. And that is plane and simple letting the game be well enough. The design space for X-wing is getting crowded. This is a very simple system to allow for adjustments in that design space without resulting to hard pen and ink change errata which FFG has already felt like it had to resort to to keep the game balanced.

The problem with that, is that some of those cards are equally used to make previously or otherwise uncompetitive ships, competitive. Like take Biggs. Without Biggs, ARC-170s absolutely would be completely worthless. Biggs is the ONLY REASON that ARCs see table time, and most of the stuff that kills them is stuff that isnt even on your list of stuff to ban. If you think Rebel squad building is cramped now, imagine it without Biggs, aka, you're locked down to the 3-4 ships that can actually succeed without cover from Biggs.

Honestly i still don't see why people continue to complain about the meta. Wave 9 meta is one of the best metas i've ever been in, and i've been playing since just before Wave 5. The problem isn't that stuff is OP, it's that we have ships that aren't competitive. Otherwise i think overall balance is pretty good, on the whole.

I must disagree that ARCs are only seen with Biggs. I've seen a few lists pairing Norra with Rey and doing decent. Give Norra PTL, C-3PO, and R2-D2 and she is hard to chew through. Not impossible, but still useable apart from Biggs.

hard to chew through.... if you're attacked by no more than 2 ships. The first attack will miss, the second will do 1 damage, the third will do 3. Unsustainable. Without Nien Nunb and EU, she's slow(which is why Biggs is so necessary), without Tail Gunner she can't hit out of her rear arc(Norra with Tail Gunner has a higher hit percentage out of her rear arc than her front arc with increasing returns the higher agility your target is, which fits well into using Biggs because you can just run past them and keep letting Biggs take hits while Norra obliterates them from behind), and, without Biggs, she never gets to use her ability offensively, which is where her high damage potential comes from, allowing you to make turn 1-2 alpha strikes. Usable without Biggs =/= as good as having Biggs.

I feel like when you pull on the threads you break X-wing. Ok no more manaroo, or aces, then we get TLT Spam, no more VI or PTL, we see Fat Han, or Tie Swarm. See the idea with a most wanted list is the idea we cant have "Meta" which will not work. (it feels the same as giving a player an advantage over another for picking whats hot or an outright ban) The better fix to X-wing is have something other than deathmatch for torny play. If we had different objectives that would change the game in a heart beat and you would no longer have issues like we see today.

OR

Just FAQ a card 1 day before a major Torny that would be very funny.

I don't any of those ships or upgrades are op. They all have limitations and they all have their strengths.

I don't see how a 1 point tax is really going to change anything anyways. Can we put a negative 2 point tax on things that don't get used? Let's put a -2 tax on the Star viper and its title. Or a -2 tax on all the unused Droids or T-65's that are not used.

I feel the game is in a good place right now. There are plenty of different top lists to play around with. Yes there might be a lot of Defender/x7 lists out there. But if you practice against them you can beat them pretty easily. The party bus is easy to get behind to make it almost useless. Manaroo is pretty easy to kill. I seem to remember when Mindlink came out people didn't like the card. "It gives stress to everyone!" That's crappy!

Some people are never going to be happy. That's just plan and simple. Let the game be.

Well to see the effects of what the most wanted list will do, take a look at list juggler and apply the "tax" and see which lists will still be less than 100 points, which list will add up to 100 points which list will need to drop a 2 point upgrade and which list will need an overhaul. The target with this list is to take the top and put it to 100 points or 102 points where a 2-3 point upgrade is dropped to get back down to standard. However taking a look at seattle regionals, the effect on the top four would be as follows.

• Top +4 points (Manaroo + 3 attini mindlinks,104 points, would need an overhaul)
• Runner +4 points (4 TLTs, 104 points would need to drop seismic charge and R3-A2 or overhaul)
• Top 4 +2 points (Biggs and TLT, would need to drop an upgrade)
• Top 4 +0 points (no effect)

So as you see there is an effect on the tournament results but it doesn't effect all the lists. I agree you don't want 20 or so pilot/upgrade cards on the list. A few to no more than a dozen is all it would take to bring balance to the meta. And that is plane and simple letting the game be well enough. The design space for X-wing is getting crowded. This is a very simple system to allow for adjustments in that design space without resulting to hard pen and ink change errata which FFG has already felt like it had to resort to to keep the game balanced.

So list 4 didn't have any of these cards in its list. Still came in top 4. I am sure beating out other list that had these cards in them. In not multiple. So proves that these cards can be beat and be beat by cards that are not on your "OP" list. How can that be?

I feel enough practice and any list is beatable. You have to know what it can and can't do. You also have to know what your list can and can't do. If a certain ship is hard for you to deal with at the end game. Then you better do what you can to deal with it early on. It's really not that complicated.

I don't any of those ships or upgrades are op. They all have limitations and they all have their strengths.

I don't see how a 1 point tax is really going to change anything anyways. Can we put a negative 2 point tax on things that don't get used? Let's put a -2 tax on the Star viper and its title. Or a -2 tax on all the unused Droids or T-65's that are not used.

I feel the game is in a good place right now. There are plenty of different top lists to play around with. Yes there might be a lot of Defender/x7 lists out there. But if you practice against them you can beat them pretty easily. The party bus is easy to get behind to make it almost useless. Manaroo is pretty easy to kill. I seem to remember when Mindlink came out people didn't like the card. "It gives stress to everyone!" That's crappy!

Some people are never going to be happy. That's just plan and simple. Let the game be.

Well to see the effects of what the most wanted list will do, take a look at list juggler and apply the "tax" and see which lists will still be less than 100 points, which list will add up to 100 points which list will need to drop a 2 point upgrade and which list will need an overhaul. The target with this list is to take the top and put it to 100 points or 102 points where a 2-3 point upgrade is dropped to get back down to standard. However taking a look at seattle regionals, the effect on the top four would be as follows.

• Top +4 points (Manaroo + 3 attini mindlinks,104 points, would need an overhaul)
• Runner +4 points (4 TLTs, 104 points would need to drop seismic charge and R3-A2 or overhaul)
• Top 4 +2 points (Biggs and TLT, would need to drop an upgrade)
• Top 4 +0 points (no effect)

So as you see there is an effect on the tournament results but it doesn't effect all the lists. I agree you don't want 20 or so pilot/upgrade cards on the list. A few to no more than a dozen is all it would take to bring balance to the meta. And that is plane and simple letting the game be well enough. The design space for X-wing is getting crowded. This is a very simple system to allow for adjustments in that design space without resulting to hard pen and ink change errata which FFG has already felt like it had to resort to to keep the game balanced.

This example shows me that any list can win. As there are 4 different lists. Cards are only one part of this game. There is knowing how to fly it. There is dice. It's not as cut and dry as you claim.

So list 4 didn't have any of these cards in its list. Still came in top 4. I am sure beating out other list that had these cards in them. In not multiple. So proves that these cards can be beat and be beat by cards that are not on your "OP" list. How can that be?

I feel enough practice and any list is beatable. You have to know what it can and can't do. You also have to know what your list can and can't do. If a certain ship is hard for you to deal with at the end game. Then you better do what you can to deal with it early on. It's really not that complicated.

Sure any list is beatable but there were 4 of those cards on both champion list. Not to mention TLT were in two of those list. The fact that a 4th list means we don't need an elaborate list. The netrunner Most wanted list only had 11 cards on it (6 runner, 5 corp). But you cannot deny that the list that did not have any of the cards lost to cards that had 4 of them in their list. If you listen to the Scum and Villainy podcast they have occasional conversation with the devs and Biggs was mentioned as a big design barrier. Sure not unbeatable but still there making it hard to design future cards.

There clearly are cards both pilot and upgrade that are undercosted for what they can do. Now they might meat their match later on as accreation and power creep comes into play. But if a single upgrade card is being 4splashed into the top list or a singe pilot is making the champion of several regional tournaments, that is a good sign that some lists are doing better than others regardless how you play.

I just don't think you are drawing the correct conclusions from what the Most Wanted List is and does in Netrunner and trying to apply it to this game.

I just don't think you are drawing the correct conclusions from what the Most Wanted List is and does in Netrunner and trying to apply it to this game.

No I don't play net runner. I don't know how the game is played. And I don't know how the list works.

But I can tell you that it's not needed in Xwing. I have never sat down at a table and thought "oh he brought Palp with a PTL Ryad and a PTL inquisitor, **** I am screwed". I think how I can deal with it and play to the best of my ability to beat it. Whether it be to go after Palp shuttle first, try to get inquisitor to bump and take him out or any other way to try to win.

Anyway I look at I play to the best of my ability and the list I built to win. If I lose I don't blame a card the other person used. I might blame dice or feel he/she played a better game than I or even blame myself at making a tactical error. But I will never blame a card that the other person used. Especially because I might use the same card as well. That's just silly.

Anyway I look at I play to the best of my ability and the list I built to win. If I lose I don't blame a card the other person used. I might blame dice or feel he/she played a better game than I or even blame myself at making a tactical error. But I will never blame a card that the other person used. Especially because I might use the same card as well. That's just silly.

It's not silly.

First of all, trying your best to win no matter what is a great outlook, and everyone should always do that. What you have to accept, however, is that cards that severely mess with the balance of the game also help ruin it. For example, what if there was a modification for 0pts that straight up gave you +5 red dice? It would warp the ENTIRE GAME. Imagine how insane PWT's would be. It warps both your options available to you by pigeon-holing you into either playing it or playing around it. What if you have fun playing aces? Too bad, they'll get crushed mercilessly. It takes a lot of the fun out of the game and becomes an arms race.

If that WASN'T a problem, then ask yourself this... why should any developer even BOTHER to balance their games, anyways?

The problem with that, is that some of those cards are equally used to make previously or otherwise uncompetitive ships, competitive. Like take Biggs. Without Biggs, ARC-170s absolutely would be completely worthless. Biggs is the ONLY REASON that ARCs see table time, and most of the stuff that kills them is stuff that isnt even on your list of stuff to ban. If you think Rebel squad building is cramped now, imagine it without Biggs, aka, you're locked down to the 3-4 ships that can actually succeed without cover from Biggs.

Honestly i still don't see why people continue to complain about the meta. Wave 9 meta is one of the best metas i've ever been in, and i've been playing since just before Wave 5. The problem isn't that stuff is OP, it's that we have ships that aren't competitive. Otherwise i think overall balance is pretty good, on the whole.

I must disagree that ARCs are only seen with Biggs. I've seen a few lists pairing Norra with Rey and doing decent. Give Norra PTL, C-3PO, and R2-D2 and she is hard to chew through. Not impossible, but still useable apart from Biggs.

hard to chew through.... if you're attacked by no more than 2 ships. The first attack will miss, the second will do 1 damage, the third will do 3. Unsustainable. Without Nien Nunb and EU, she's slow(which is why Biggs is so necessary), without Tail Gunner she can't hit out of her rear arc(Norra with Tail Gunner has a higher hit percentage out of her rear arc than her front arc with increasing returns the higher agility your target is, which fits well into using Biggs because you can just run past them and keep letting Biggs take hits while Norra obliterates them from behind), and, without Biggs, she never gets to use her ability offensively, which is where her high damage potential comes from, allowing you to make turn 1-2 alpha strikes. Usable without Biggs =/= as good as having Biggs.

I wasn't trying to content that Norra doesn't benefit from Biggs or that her with Biggs might not be the better option. I'm merely pointing out that your blanket statement was incorrect. I'm challenging that statement because it can be used to justify using what's been proven before and not experimenting. From what I can tell from your reasoning, triple K lists shouldn't work. But they do. Don't shut out different ideas because they don't seem better than what you already have. They just might surprise you.

But Triple-Ks can slam. And drop bombs. And have turrets. And a better hull-to-shield ratio. ARCs struggle without Biggs because they can't arc-dodge and are very slow. Triple Ks work because A) They're all indentical, so losing any one K doesnt feel like a particularly hard loss than any other. B) don't need to rely on shooting to do damage thanks to bombs, which goes hand in hand with C) SLAMing allows extreme maneuverability and speed which allows Ks to very easily lock down parts of the board. ARCs get around their lack of maneuverability by having the rear arc, but all that does is make them able to keep shooting, not avoid getting shot at.

Look, i get your point, but unless you have Nien Nunb+EU+R2-D2+PTL Norra, or something even bigger and scarier than Norra(like Rey, because she has more HP and an even higher damage output in a faster and more agile frame + the higher pilot skill), you need Biggs. I know ARCs in and out, these aren't preconceived notions, these are things i've found out through trial and error.

Anyway I look at I play to the best of my ability and the list I built to win. If I lose I don't blame a card the other person used. I might blame dice or feel he/she played a better game than I or even blame myself at making a tactical error. But I will never blame a card that the other person used. Especially because I might use the same card as well. That's just silly.

It's not silly.

First of all, trying your best to win no matter what is a great outlook, and everyone should always do that. What you have to accept, however, is that cards that severely mess with the balance of the game also help ruin it. For example, what if there was a modification for 0pts that straight up gave you +5 red dice? It would warp the ENTIRE GAME. Imagine how insane PWT's would be. It warps both your options available to you by pigeon-holing you into either playing it or playing around it. What if you have fun playing aces? Too bad, they'll get crushed mercilessly. It takes a lot of the fun out of the game and becomes an arms race.

If that WASN'T a problem, then ask yourself this... why should any developer even BOTHER to balance their games, anyways?

Jeez, i don't even think i'm capable intellectually to count through the logical fallacies in this post. But i'm gonna try.

You presented a highly exaggerated hypothetical to prove the point that cards can be unbalanced and thus this list should exist. Except the fact that the hypothetical doesnt exist and thus proves nothing.

You locked down a topic with wide options with regards to how to approach it to two options without supporting WHY those are only the options, BASED ON A HYPOTHETICAL THAT DOESNT EXIST.

You pointed out something that maybe people like doing, that they wouldnt be able to do because of a hypothetical that doesnt exist.

You said "If this WASNT a problem, then why bother with blah blah blah?" This part in particular just... hurts. If WHAT was a problem? This non-existent 0-point modification that adds +5 to your attack value? Well good! It's NOT a problem! Not in X-Wing, anyways. What does that have to do with developers balancing their games? I think even if they didn't explicitly try to balance their game, they're not going to accidentally introduce something so ludicrously broken just because it's so painfully obvious how broken it is.

In fact, i'm not even sure the point you're trying to make. "If stupidly OP cards weren't a problem,"(they're not), "why should a developer attempt to balance their games?"....? Because there's a thing called microbalance??? Just because something isn't explicitly broken doesn't mean something cant be unbalanced. It may not fit well in the meta, or interact well with something else in a very particular situation. That doesnt even necessary mean that those faults make that card broken, just not perfectly balanced. You're taking a completely black and white stance trying to make people think that the game is either perfect or it's a broken pile of garbage when that's not true.

All you did was give a hypothetical and try to assert that there is some problem. Yeah, that hypothetical would be pretty dumb, definitely legitimately game breaking. Good thing it doesn't exist.

Please take a debate class.

You presented a highly exaggerated hypothetical to prove the point that cards can be unbalanced and thus this list should exist. Except the fact that the hypothetical doesnt exist and thus proves nothing.

No... I didn't? I never supported the OP's list. In fact, I'm against it. Why? Because it doesn't attack many of the main root problems. You're just drawing baseless conclusions, unless you're being unclear about what we're talking about.

You also seriously need to chill. It's an EXAMPLE, and you are clearly missing the point. The purpose is to demonstrate that balance matters for gaming in general, and you made it sound like it doesn't. Whether or not you believe X-Wing is balanced is a COMPLETELY different topic. You seem incapable of differentiating between the two, however, and the rest of your post clearly shows that. You just kinda seem to rant about crap not even remotely close to what I'm talking about...

You presented a highly exaggerated hypothetical to prove the point that cards can be unbalanced and thus this list should exist. Except the fact that the hypothetical doesnt exist and thus proves nothing.

No... I didn't? I never supported the OP's list. In fact, I'm against it. Why? Because it doesn't attack many of the main root problems. You're just drawing baseless conclusions, unless you're being unclear about what we're talking about.

You also seriously need to chill. It's an EXAMPLE, and you are clearly missing the point. The purpose is to demonstrate that balance matters for gaming in general, and you made it sound like it doesn't. Whether or not you believe X-Wing is balanced is a COMPLETELY different topic. You seem incapable of differentiating between the two, however, and the rest of your post clearly shows that. You just kinda seem to rant about crap not even remotely close to what I'm talking about...

Thats not what an example is. An example is a demonstration of something real pertaining to the topic at hand. That's not what you did. Apparently for either part, no less. It was not real, nor did it apparently pertain to the topic at hand.

Honestly, the fact that i wasn't able to determine from your post exactly what you were trying to say is even worse.

Thats not what an example is. An example is a demonstration of something real pertaining to the topic at hand. That's not what you did. Apparently for either part, no less. It was not real, nor did it apparently pertain to the topic at hand.

Honestly, the fact that i wasn't able to determine from your post exactly what you were trying to say is even worse.

Now we're arguing over the definition of what an example is... *sigh*

Really? C'mon, examples don't have to be real.

"A hypothetical example is a fictional example that can be used when a speaker is explaining a complicated topic that makes the most sense when it is put into more realistic or relatable terms."

Hypothetical examples are a valid type of example. I'm done with this. You're just too thick.

Thats not what an example is. An example is a demonstration of something real pertaining to the topic at hand. That's not what you did. Apparently for either part, no less. It was not real, nor did it apparently pertain to the topic at hand.

Honestly, the fact that i wasn't able to determine from your post exactly what you were trying to say is even worse.

Now we're arguing over the definition of what an example is... *sigh*

Really? C'mon, examples don't have to be real.

"A hypothetical example is a fictional example that can be used when a speaker is explaining a complicated topic that makes the most sense when it is put into more realistic or relatable terms."

Source: Boundless. “Types of Examples: Brief, Extended, and Hypothetical.” Boundless Communications Boundless, 18 Jun. 2016. Retrieved 17 Jan. 2017 from https://www.boundless.com/communications/textbooks/boundless-communications-textbook/supporting-your-ideas-9/using-examples-46/types-of-examples-brief-extended-and-hypothetical-191-4191/"

Hypothetical examples are a valid type of example. I'm done with this. You're just too thick.

But i'm still struggling with what your hypothetical was FOR. What was it's purpose? I'm still completely unable to discern this. IF you had provided a real example, really, the only valid kind of example here(because, again, what does a hypothetical, specifically your hypothetical, DO?), i might understand, but i'm really not sure what you were trying to say. Your whole post doesnt make sense.

Just pull on your big boy pants and ban stuff. They can be unbanned in future if need be, but bannings are the cleanest route.

• Manaroo
• Palpatine
• Biggs
• Ryad
• Zuckuss
• Push The Limit
• Crack Shot
• Extra Munitions

Why on earth would you ban Extra Munitions? It's a critical part of making ordnance work at all.

Thats not what an example is. An example is a demonstration of something real pertaining to the topic at hand. That's not what you did. Apparently for either part, no less. It was not real, nor did it apparently pertain to the topic at hand.

Honestly, the fact that i wasn't able to determine from your post exactly what you were trying to say is even worse.

Now we're arguing over the definition of what an example is... *sigh*

Really? C'mon, examples don't have to be real.

"A hypothetical example is a fictional example that can be used when a speaker is explaining a complicated topic that makes the most sense when it is put into more realistic or relatable terms."

Source: Boundless. “Types of Examples: Brief, Extended, and Hypothetical.” Boundless Communications Boundless, 18 Jun. 2016. Retrieved 17 Jan. 2017 from https://www.boundless.com/communications/textbooks/boundless-communications-textbook/supporting-your-ideas-9/using-examples-46/types-of-examples-brief-extended-and-hypothetical-191-4191/"

Hypothetical examples are a valid type of example. I'm done with this. You're just too thick.

What if jackbooted thugs went around beating the ever-loving snot out of anyone who shows up at a tournament with Darth Vader, pilot or crew; for their own safety, wouldn't you ban the card? Just making it cost +1 point isn't going to warn new players about the risk of bodily harm.

By that example, a point tax won't work because it will lead to the injuries and deaths of people.

QED

Just pull on your big boy pants and ban stuff. They can be unbanned in future if need be, but bannings are the cleanest route.

• Manaroo
• Palpatine
• Biggs
• Ryad
• Zuckuss
• Push The Limit
• Crack Shot
• Extra Munitions

Why on earth would you ban Extra Munitions? It's a critical part of making ordnance work at all.

Just pull on your big boy pants and ban stuff. They can be unbanned in future if need be, but bannings are the cleanest route.

• Manaroo
• Palpatine
• Biggs
• Ryad
• Zuckuss
• Push The Limit
• Crack Shot
• Extra Munitions

Hey don't ban my 6 bomb Miranda!! she just cant hack it with only a paltry 3 bombs, i might need to stick a TLT on her or something

TLTs should definitely be ON the list, but Extra Munitions should NOT be on the list, right??

• I would really prefer full errata and reprinted card packs (FFG CAN DO THIS) but this would be a step in the right direction since FFG has refused to do this.

As the game continues to get bigger and bigger something is going to break and a BAN list or Errata is going to have to happen.

There is very little on this list that needs 1pt adjustment and only 1 thing that should get a BAN or ERRATA.

• Manaroo- range limit, 1pt

xwing 2.0 doesn't need to happen but if it did it just needs to be a massive errata and card reprints.

• I would really prefer full errata and reprinted card packs (FFG CAN DO THIS) but this would be a step in the right direction since FFG has refused to do this.

As the game continues to get bigger and bigger something is going to break and a BAN list or Errata is going to have to happen.

There is very little on this list that needs 1pt adjustment and only 1 thing that should get a BAN or ERRATA.

• Manaroo- range limit, 1pt
• Palpatine- range limit, 1pt
• Biggs- ban
• Ryad- great
• Zuckuss- 1pt
• Push The Limit- fine
• Crack Shot- fine
• Extra Munitions- seriously? Why is this even on the list?

xwing 2.0 doesn't need to happen but if it did it just needs to be a massive errata and card reprints.

What part of flying Biggs or flying against Biggs do you think is incompatible with a strong metagame?

• I would really prefer full errata and reprinted card packs (FFG CAN DO THIS) but this would be a step in the right direction since FFG has refused to do this.

As the game continues to get bigger and bigger something is going to break and a BAN list or Errata is going to have to happen.

There is very little on this list that needs 1pt adjustment and only 1 thing that should get a BAN or ERRATA.

• Manaroo- range limit, 1pt
• Palpatine- range limit, 1pt
• Biggs- ban
• Ryad- great
• Zuckuss- 1pt
• Push The Limit- fine
• Crack Shot- fine
• Extra Munitions- seriously? Why is this even on the list?

xwing 2.0 doesn't need to happen but if it did it just needs to be a massive errata and card reprints.

What part of flying Biggs or flying against Biggs do you think is incompatible with a strong metagame?

• I would really prefer full errata and reprinted card packs (FFG CAN DO THIS) but this would be a step in the right direction since FFG has refused to do this.

As the game continues to get bigger and bigger something is going to break and a BAN list or Errata is going to have to happen.

There is very little on this list that needs 1pt adjustment and only 1 thing that should get a BAN or ERRATA.

• Manaroo- range limit, 1pt
• Palpatine- range limit, 1pt
• Biggs- ban
• Ryad- great
• Zuckuss- 1pt
• Push The Limit- fine
• Crack Shot- fine
• Extra Munitions- seriously? Why is this even on the list?

xwing 2.0 doesn't need to happen but if it did it just needs to be a massive errata and card reprints.

What part of flying Biggs or flying against Biggs do you think is incompatible with a strong metagame?

Agreed. Biggs is not the problem. He limits your opponent's flying because you have to be close to eachother (in formation). He is also relatively easy to bring down. Also if Biggs is so powerful he should be banned why was he not in the top 4 of worlds or winning other premier events?

He limits design space. Any new ship, pilot and upgrade that can be equipped by rebels has to not be broken when it gets one free round of staying alive at 100% health. There is a reason many people found the more recent rebel releases to be underwhelming - luckily ARCs turned out just fine under Biggs' protective wings.

Just pull on your big boy pants and ban stuff. They can be unbanned in future if need be, but bannings are the cleanest route.

• Manaroo
• Palpatine
• Biggs
• Ryad
• Zuckuss
• Push The Limit
• Crack Shot
• Extra Munitions

Why on earth would you ban Extra Munitions? It's a critical part of making ordnance work at all.

Just pull on your big boy pants and ban stuff. They can be unbanned in future if need be, but bannings are the cleanest route.

• Manaroo
• Palpatine
• Biggs
• Ryad
• Zuckuss
• Push The Limit
• Crack Shot
• Extra Munitions

Hey don't ban my 6 bomb Miranda!! she just cant hack it with only a paltry 3 bombs, i might need to stick a TLT on her or something

TLTs should definitely be ON the list, but Extra Munitions should NOT be on the list, right??

Agreed, EM is fine at 2 points, it doesn't need to be 3.

As an alternative I put plasma torpedoes on the list as it has the same effect.

• I would really prefer full errata and reprinted card packs (FFG CAN DO THIS) but this would be a step in the right direction since FFG has refused to do this.

As the game continues to get bigger and bigger something is going to break and a BAN list or Errata is going to have to happen.

There is very little on this list that needs 1pt adjustment and only 1 thing that should get a BAN or ERRATA.

• Manaroo- range limit, 1pt
• Palpatine- range limit, 1pt
• Biggs- ban
• Ryad- great
• Zuckuss- 1pt
• Push The Limit- fine
• Crack Shot- fine
• Extra Munitions- seriously? Why is this even on the list?

xwing 2.0 doesn't need to happen but if it did it just needs to be a massive errata and card reprints.

What part of flying Biggs or flying against Biggs do you think is incompatible with a strong metagame?

Biggs came up on the Scum and Villainy podcast as something that limits the design space. Now I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself I DON'T WANT A BAN LIST, and a rotation is just another type of ban list. But maybe a flexible 1 point adjustment would be helpful. If that 1 point increase makes it unplayable, well simply take it off the next list.

Anyway I look at I play to the best of my ability and the list I built to win. If I lose I don't blame a card the other person used. I might blame dice or feel he/she played a better game than I or even blame myself at making a tactical error. But I will never blame a card that the other person used. Especially because I might use the same card as well. That's just silly.

It's not silly.

First of all, trying your best to win no matter what is a great outlook, and everyone should always do that. What you have to accept, however, is that cards that severely mess with the balance of the game also help ruin it. For example, what if there was a modification for 0pts that straight up gave you +5 red dice? It would warp the ENTIRE GAME. Imagine how insane PWT's would be. It warps both your options available to you by pigeon-holing you into either playing it or playing around it. What if you have fun playing aces? Too bad, they'll get crushed mercilessly. It takes a lot of the fun out of the game and becomes an arms race.

If that WASN'T a problem, then ask yourself this... why should any developer even BOTHER to balance their games, anyways?

That's the thing. I don't feel any of those cards "severely mess with the balance of the game" and "Especially ruin it." I feel they add a level of difficulty. Let 10 people of different levels of play use Palp and put them against 10 different people of different level of play with cards that aren't on the list. You are going to varied results. It's not the cards that make you win. It's knowing when and how to use those cards. If you are losing a lot to those cards, than it might be you and not the cards. I prefer to play against the best using the best. It only makes you better in the end. If you put a ban or even a tax on these cards they are not going to get used and a new set of cards are going to give you a hard time. Where does it end?

Everyone will have to play with 4 rookie T-65's. That will be fun, huh?

As far as your example. Sure that card would warp the game. Hence why FFG hasn't made that card.