I actually don't feel the things have gotten too bad, but I think one's time in this game and experience in others will shape that view.

I started X-Wing just before the Punisher came out. My gaming experience spans from the late 80s and involves lots of board games, a couple limited stints into magic and V:TES, a good deal of non-core GW, lots of Mk1 WM/H, and forrays into more obscure minis games like Demonworld.

I do think that the essential pieces of this game have entailed the designers painting themselves into a corner to an extent. When the average range of differentiation in red & green dice pools is 2-3, you don't have a big pallet to paint with as you add new stuff... and the market model compels you to add new stuff. I feel that they have been finding creative and resourceful work arounds for this, but it is a problem that could be solved with XW2.0 having larged dice pools so they could have ships with 6 green dice being a bit less fragile than ones with 5 or 4. Red dice would be upped accordingly. It also allows for more opportunities to do limited 1-die manipulations with cards etc. As long as they don't overdo the modding, I think it would work as long as mods that affect all dice in a throw are left out. If hulls/shields are left on the low side, it would it would entail many ships popping outright on a flubbed roll. To me, that matches the movie combat for mooks. It also adds more things that I cannot account for which make the game more interesting and fun. Dice haters will differ.

1 hour ago, Lightrock said:

Say what? Ever tried to hit a fully tokened up TIE Defender with 2 dice attacks?

It's not red die power creep that is the problem. It's the fact that more and more powerful and accurate attacks are needed to do anything at all in the game. A good reference point would be Armada, where ship's defenses aren't nearly as impenetrable but HP pools are considerably larger to compensate. In Armada a swarm of 6 corvettes is just as efficient as a couple of star destroyers because corvettes don't have to worry about their attacks just bouncing off. For that matter swarms of fighters can be very efficient despite only throwing 1 die at the enemy most of the time.

If you want to stop power creep, you'd need to start by reworking how defense works in the game and make sure it doesn't get any more powerful than it already is. Sadly the problem lies so deep in the game's core mechanics, that I don't think you can deal with that unless they decide to launch a 2nd edition of the game.

A. So is the problem the tokens or the 2 die attacks? It depends on which way you want to come from.

B. Armada is not the same game, so I'm not sure I'm willing to compare mechanisms.

C. I don't think defense is the (original) problem. With red die power creep, the only way to stop one-shot-one-kill gameplay was to begin token stacking/action economy. The current state of action economy is a result of 4-6 die attacks becoming the norm in the game, and has become the adopted mechanic whereby individual ships can survive poly-die attacks.

The problem is the tokens. When action efficiency was a 2-for-1 (PTL) it is very good. When action efficiency is a 3-for-1 (Ryad/x7 with PTL) it can be enough to win a game comfortably. When action economy is a 4-for-1 (Ryad/x7 with PTL and Palp, Soontir with PTL & Palp) or even 5-for-1 (Asajj with Focus, Focus, Evade, Target Lock & Latts Razzi proxy Evade) then it's simply getting a bit daft.

16 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

C. I don't think defense is the (original) problem. With red die power creep, the only way to stop one-shot-one-kill gameplay was to begin token stacking/action economy. The current state of action economy is a result of 4-6 die attacks becoming the norm in the game, and has become the adopted mechanic whereby individual ships can survive poly-die attacks.

PtL Token stack Soontir has been there for a quite long time (AT is Wave 6, Palp is pre-Wave 7 IIRC) and it probably still is the golden standard for defense stacking.

Back then did we have any other 4 die attacks used in practice besides Phantom and HLC?

The way I see it, stacked offense came as an answer to stacked defense, not viceversa.

3 minutes ago, Stay On The Leader said:

The problem is the tokens. When action efficiency was a 2-for-1 (PTL) it is very good. When action efficiency is a 3-for-1 (Ryad/x7 with PTL) it can be enough to win a game comfortably. When action economy is a 4-for-1 (Ryad/x7 with PTL and Palp, Soontir with PTL & Palp) or even 5-for-1 (Asajj with Focus, Focus, Evade, Target Lock & Latts Razzi proxy Evade) then it's simply getting a bit daft.

Well, you do have to pay the whopping 3 points worth of upgrades to get almighty Asajj to that level of power, so there is that I guess.

35 minutes ago, Pewpewpew BOOM said:

I actually don't feel the things have gotten too bad, but I think one's time in this game and experience in others will shape that view.

I do think that the essential pieces of this game have entailed the designers painting themselves into a corner to an extent. When the average range of differentiation in red & green dice pools is 2-3, you don't have a big pallet to paint with as you add new stuff... and the market model compels you to add new stuff.

Agreed on both accounts. I really don't feel the game is wholly out of wack, but the original design has left little room for subtle tweaks, both in point costs and dice thrown.

What I hope this means (and it seems to be happening) is that the designers are looking for other designs spaces (Turn 0, Conditions, dials) to embellish the game.

I don't think too many believe that the game is "wholly out of wack". But I can see trends that lead downhill. Fast.

24 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

A. So is the problem the tokens or the 2 die attacks? It depends on which way you want to come from.

B. Armada is not the same game, so I'm not sure I'm willing to compare mechanisms.

C. I don't think defense is the (original) problem. With red die power creep, the only way to stop one-shot-one-kill gameplay was to begin token stacking/action economy. The current state of action economy is a result of 4-6 die attacks becoming the norm in the game, and has become the adopted mechanic whereby individual ships can survive poly-die attacks.

A. Disagree on this point. Token stacking is problematic to ships with 3 or more dice as well which indicates that its not just 2 attack dice being not powerful enough that is the problem.

Also I find the '2 dice are the problem' perspective quite strange. If I buy a pair of shoes that are too small for me, do I blame my feet for being too large, or my choice to buy shoes that are too small?

B. Completely agree there is little point comparing apples with oranges.

C. Also disagree on this point, I believe token stacking become more prevalent is a symptom of token stacking becoming easier. X/7 defenders get it as a standard, mindlink allows the sharing of focus tokens which lets other ships take other actions essentially for free, manaroo (just does her thing) and there has been a trend towards more green maneuvers on dials compared to the early waves of the game, particularly for hard turns which really negates the downside of push the limit.

You say token stacking is a result of red dice creep, but also that 2 red dice aren't enough any more because of token stacks. So if token stacks are effective against both high and low number of attacks, surely token stacking is taken because it is a powerful mechanic generally?

I am new to X-Wing and have only been playing about a month and I think the game is fine - Granted I have almost 20 years of mini gaming experience under my belt and am a regular tournament goer which may skew my view of things.

18 minutes ago, asters89 said:

A. Disagree on this point. Token stacking is problematic to ships with 3 or more dice as well which indicates that its not just 2 attack dice being not powerful enough that is the problem.

Also I find the '2 dice are the problem' perspective quite strange. If I buy a pair of shoes that are too small for me, do I blame my feet for being too large, or my choice to buy shoes that are too small?

B. Completely agree there is little point comparing apples with oranges.

C. Also disagree on this point, I believe token stacking become more prevalent is a symptom of token stacking becoming easier. X/7 defenders get it as a standard, mindlink allows the sharing of focus tokens which lets other ships take other actions essentially for free, manaroo (just does her thing) and there has been a trend towards more green maneuvers on dials compared to the early waves of the game, particularly for hard turns which really negates the downside of push the limit.

You say token stacking is a result of red dice creep, but also that 2 red dice aren't enough any more because of token stacks. So if token stacks are effective against both high and low number of attacks, surely token stacking is taken because it is a powerful mechanic generally?

All I'll say is that we both agree that power creep is evident in dice and action economy, but disagree as to which is the cart and which is the horse.

6 minutes ago, Isante said:

I am new to X-Wing and have only been playing about a month and I think the game is fine - Granted I have almost 20 years of mini gaming experience under my belt and am a regular tournament goer which may skew my view of things.

Skewed for the better, I should think. Welcome to the game!

I think one of the big hiccups when the design of the game changed hands was the devaluing of defensive upgrades/abilities.

Think about this- Sensor Jammer until more recently was widely regarded as an overcosted upgrade (or at least an incomparable one to other system options). It had a decent defensive ability, but at 4 points in a fairly limited slot with lots of competition, it wasn't seeing much play.

But, despite this early low level use, Sensor Jammer over time seems to actually have been almost perfectly costed. It sees situational use (most popularly on the Palp Shuttle), but in its niche spots, it is a superb upgrade.

Sure, other defensive upgrades designed around the same time were handled a little too conservatively perhaps (i.e. Elusiveness, Flight Instructor), but I don't think the designers of those early upgrades were really wrong to be so conservative in their costing. All you need to do is look at at the likes of x7 and cards like Attani Mindlink which allow more universal token stacks, to understand that defensive upgrades, if costed more aggressively, can really push things out of proportion.

Now, there are a handful of rolls each game where you literally are wasting your time by rolling the dice. Personally, I don't think the game should have ever gotten to that point. But that's just me.

But why has no designer or playtester ever raised this?

Why does it have to get to ridiculous levels with no sign of slowing down, just an ongoing arms race of more and more dice that are more and more likely to come up all hits/evades? Oh yeah, because it sells expansions. I remember now.

20 minutes ago, Isante said:

I am new to X-Wing and have only been playing about a month and I think the game is fine - Granted I have almost 20 years of mini gaming experience under my belt and am a regular tournament goer which may skew my view of things.

Welcome to the game

The game is mostly fine if you want to play x-wing (the game in general). It's slightly less fine if you want to play certain ships/pilots and still do well, because not everything is equally good.

19 minutes ago, LordBlades said:

. . . because not everything is equally good.

Which I think is one of the fallacies that creates the most angst around here. Not every ship is going to hold up in a 100/6 deathmatch, but that is the expectation. The oft lamented X-Wing is perfect example. . .bad in the arena, just fine in Epic/HotAC/scenario/mission play. It is not a gladiator, it is a storytelling/thematic ship.

51 minutes ago, Stay On The Leader said:

But why has no designer or playtester ever raised this?

Why does it have to get to ridiculous levels with no sign of slowing down, just an ongoing arms race of more and more dice that are more and more likely to come up all hits/evades? Oh yeah, because it sells expansions. I remember now.

Well, you can't really know if playtesters haven't raised questions like this (and, in fact, I'm pretty sure they have) but they only give feedback. The developers may also be concerned about it but aren't able to implement quick solutions for whatever reason.

1 minute ago, Darth Meanie said:

Which I think is one of the fallacies that creates the most angst around here. Not every ship is going to hold up in a 100/6 deathmatch, but that is the expectation. The oft lamented X-Wing is perfect example. . .bad in the arena, just fine in Epic/HotAC/scenario/mission play. It is not a gladiator, it is a storytelling/thematic ship.

I think people are in the right to expect that. 100/6 is the format FFG promotes the most and it's even called 'standard play'. As a consumer I think it's only fair to expect that, if a product is not suitable for 'standard play', it's marked as such.

13 minutes ago, LordBlades said:

I think people are in the right to expect that. 100/6 is the format FFG promotes the most and it's even called 'standard play'. As a consumer I think it's only fair to expect that, if a product is not suitable for 'standard play', it's marked as such.

Yep, and the designers have always responded this way when asked about their goals.

12 minutes ago, LordBlades said:

I think people are in the right to expect that. 100/6 is the format FFG promotes the most and it's even called 'standard play'. As a consumer I think it's only fair to expect that, if a product is not suitable for 'standard play', it's marked as such.

Promotes the most. Epic is also promoted, or at least available, and there are ships that are only for Epic play. As a different consumer, I think that if you are going to limit yourself to Tournament-Level Deathmatches, it is your obligation to sort the wheat from the chaff and decide what you are willing to buy and play. Because I still want to see ships hit the table that don't push the envelope but are fun to play.

And as that same consumer, I think most power creep is driven by "standard play." Personally, I think the game could do well to step back from trying to beat each Wave with the next and instead explore other elements of the game . . .for example, storytelling and missions.

6 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

Promotes the most. Epic is also promoted, or at least available, and there are ships that are only for Epic play. As a different consumer, I think that if you are going to limit yourself to Tournament-Level Deathmatches, it is your obligation to sort the wheat from the chaff and decide what you are willing to buy and play. Because I still want to see ships hit the table that don't push the envelope but are fun to play.

And as that same consumer, I think most power creep is driven by "standard play." Personally, I think the game could do well to step back from trying to beat each Wave with the next and instead explore other elements of the game . . .for example, storytelling and missions.

I completely agree that FFG should offer more support to alternative play systems, that's not the point.

The point is that FFG has designated 100/6 and ONLY 100/6 as the 'standard play' format for X-wing. It's their call, not yours, mine, or anyone else's. If a ship/upgrade has been designed for something else (as opposed to simply being a design failure) I would expect it to be clearly stated as such (like it's the case for epic ships, cards and mission tokens).

18 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

Promotes the most. Epic is also promoted, or at least available, and there are ships that are only for Epic play. As a different consumer, I think that if you are going to limit yourself to Tournament-Level Deathmatches, it is your obligation to sort the wheat from the chaff and decide what you are willing to buy and play. Because I still want to see ships hit the table that don't push the envelope but are fun to play.

And as that same consumer, I think most power creep is driven by "standard play." Personally, I think the game could do well to step back from trying to beat each Wave with the next and instead explore other elements of the game . . .for example, storytelling and missions.

Epic ships are clearly labeled as "Epic." Crew that is only allowed in epic are labeled as such. Scenarios and special rules that relate to them are included in expansions and clearly separated from standard play. Anything that isn't otherwise labeled should be expected to be reasonably balanced for standard play. That balance is hard to achieve but it is their goal, or at least was. It's clear that it's very hard to maintain older ships without new upgrades.

3 hours ago, Darth Meanie said:

Accretion. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Based on the definition from the video, I disagree with your assessment. Tractor beams did not invalidate Ion cannons in any way, nor any of the other mechanisms you pointed out. They are all independent, viable tools in the game. Now, players may choose not to use them, but that is because of player choice, not design making the old mechanic irrelevant. What we see in X-Wing is player Min-Maxing--if a new element is released that seems more powerful than the old element, players do not choose the old element because they don't want to lose. The loss of old design elements is not because they do not work at all, but because players are focused on a tiny subset of the "best" elements of the game to the exclusion of all else. In fact, FFG has shown a keen interest in preventing willful Accretion by updating old elements of the game to meet the current standards.

Just to be the old curmudgeon, I think most of the complaints about X-Wing stems from the inability to think that playing the game is valid unless you have a more-than-reasonable chance to win. Gone are the days of multiplayer games (Sorry, Monopoly, Risk) where your chances of winning were 1-in-4, or even 1-in-6, and you played to play. Sure, somebody eventually won, but the chances that it would be you were actually pretty small. And we all had fun, anyways.

Bam. You nailed it. Ex D&D player?

4 minutes ago, Scopes said:

Bam. You nailed it. Ex D&D player?

Yep. And I switched to GURPS, because I wanted to roleplay.

Just now, Darth Meanie said:

Yep. And I switched to GURPS, because I wanted to roleplay.

Yah, I understand. You really nailed it, though, and I'm glad you made the point. The younger guys on this august board needed to hear it.

2 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

Yep. And I switched to GURPS, because I wanted to roleplay.

Just curious: what exactly in D&D did you think inhibited roleplay ?