3 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what variance is.

Increasing the number of dice decreases variance. It expands the tails of the bell curve, but it makes the meat of the bell curve more likely to represent any given roll.

Eliminating green dice doesn't eliminate variance ... it simply offloads all of the variance -- currently split between green and red dice -- to the red dice.

When I am talking variance I am talking about the ends of the bell curves. You can have a ship with 5 green dice roll either 5 blanks or 5 evades. The less green dice you have the less extreme distances there are allowing you to have a more accurate expected damage for a ship. So yes you would still have red dice variance, but by eliminating green dice it is at least ONLY red dice variance. If I am misusing the term variance feel free to give me the correct term for what I am talking about in regards to the 2 "tails of the bell curve" being further apart and I'd be happy to use it instead. Even still the more dice involved, the more luck involved. It is subjective on whether or not that improves the game; I don't believe it does. So even with my lack of understanding of variance; I'd still love to see green dice removed from any future iterations of X-wing, and wouldn't want to see the evade action removed. I understand that any game with dice involved is going to have variance, but if it can't be removed I at least want it to be limited. I don't expect everybody, or even anybody for that matter, to agree with me, but I prefer the feeling that when I lose it's because I was outplayed.

24 minutes ago, benskywalker said:

When I am talking variance I am talking about the ends of the bell curves. You can have a ship with 5 green dice roll either 5 blanks or 5 evades. The less green dice you have the less extreme distances there are allowing you to have a more accurate expected damage for a ship.

I'm sorry, but this is incorrect. I understand that you're talking about increased extremes, but that is simply not what variance means. Nor is the last quoted sentence correct ... in fact, it's as far from correct as it is possible to get.

"Variance" has a meaning. The summary of the meaning is that it represents the expected distance of a random event from the statistical mean of whatever is involved in that random event (e.g., die rolls). (For a more detailed meaning, there are a number of good sites on it. Just Google.)

Assume a single six-sided die. The distribution of a roll of that die is a flat line. The mean is 3.5. A roll of that dies has high variance, because it's as likely to roll 1 or 6 -- far from the mean -- as it is to roll 3 or 4 -- close to the mean.

Add a six-sided die. The distribution is now a bell curve. You have extremes -- 2, 3, 11, 12 -- and the mean is 7. But despite the existence of the extremes, a given roll is much more likely to be close to the mean (7), and much less likely to be at the extremes. The variance has been decreased.

As far as a preference for low- or no-variance, IMO that usually stems from a failure to understand the broad -- not individual -- appeal of a game like X-Wing. From the beginning, X-Wing was a predominately skill game, but with a high level of luck. Its popularity is a result of that, not in spite of it. Most people -- again, broad appeal, not individual -- enjoy the uncertainty of die-rolling providing a significant "spice" to the skills of list-building and maneuvering. Most people, especially new players, like feeling as if they have a chance in a game, even if they're playing a wily veteran.

Both of those benefits come from variance.

Eliminate variance, and you erect a tremendous barrier of entry to a game. Chess, for example, has almost zero variance -- the exception being the initial draw of white or black -- and it is intimidating for most people. The barrier to entry is high, especially after a certain age, when the self-consciousness of losing consistently kicks in. Tic-Tac-Toe has almost no variance -- again, exception being first mover -- and it is incredibly boring.

And so on.

There's not really much more I can say to convince people of the benefits of variance in a game like X-Wing ... but, again, IMO the decreasing variance of the game, evident in list building (upgrades) and mechanics like extreme arc-dodging -- is hurting the game's appeal, not helping it. I'm not saying that "skill" isn't also a big appeal of X-Wing. It is, just as it is in poker. I'm saying that the game has been pushed too far in the direction away from variance.

The Evade token could allow for converting one blank result to an evade result.

Or spend to reroll a green die.

Or spend when rolling green dice to add one die.

3 hours ago, Jeff Wilder said:

I'm sorry, but this is incorrect. I understand that you're talking about increased extremes, but that is simply not what variance means. Nor is the last quoted sentence correct ... in fact, it's as far from correct as it is possible to get.

"Variance" has a meaning. The summary of the meaning is that it represents the expected distance of a random event from the statistical mean of whatever is involved in that random event (e.g., die rolls). (For a more detailed meaning, there are a number of good sites on it. Just Google.)

Assume a single six-sided die. The distribution of a roll of that die is a flat line. The mean is 3.5. A roll of that dies has high variance, because it's as likely to roll 1 or 6 -- far from the mean -- as it is to roll 3 or 4 -- close to the mean.

Add a six-sided die. The distribution is now a bell curve. You have extremes -- 2, 3, 11, 12 -- and the mean is 7. But despite the existence of the extremes, a given roll is much more likely to be close to the mean (7), and much less likely to be at the extremes. The variance has been decreased.

As far as a preference for low- or no-variance, IMO that usually stems from a failure to understand the broad -- not individual -- appeal of a game like X-Wing. From the beginning, X-Wing was a predominately skill game, but with a high level of luck. Its popularity is a result of that, not in spite of it. Most people -- again, broad appeal, not individual -- enjoy the uncertainty of die-rolling providing a significant "spice" to the skills of list-building and maneuvering. Most people, especially new players, like feeling as if they have a chance in a game, even if they're playing a wily veteran.

Both of those benefits come from variance.

Eliminate variance, and you erect a tremendous barrier of entry to a game. Chess, for example, has almost zero variance -- the exception being the initial draw of white or black -- and it is intimidating for most people. The barrier to entry is high, especially after a certain age, when the self-consciousness of losing consistently kicks in. Tic-Tac-Toe has almost no variance -- again, exception being first mover -- and it is incredibly boring.

And so on.

There's not really much more I can say to convince people of the benefits of variance in a game like X-Wing ... but, again, IMO the decreasing variance of the game, evident in list building (upgrades) and mechanics like extreme arc-dodging -- is hurting the game's appeal, not helping it. I'm not saying that "skill" isn't also a big appeal of X-Wing. It is, just as it is in poker. I'm saying that the game has been pushed too far in the direction away from variance.

I'm not sure if you bothered to read my entire post prior to responding. I'm not attempting to debate the meaning of the word variance. I very well may have misused it, as I stated in my response. I'm not sure what last quoted sentence you're referring to so I can't respond to that. I love playing chess as do numerous other people. It is not difficult to teach people how to play, it does however result in the better player winning significantly more often than not. I like that about chess. There is no way to convince me of the benefits of increasing variance in a miniatures game because I personally want minimal variance in my miniature games. I'm not saying that is the best way, because best is subjective. FFG should continue to do as they always do, which is make the game that they feel like will make them the most money. I personally hope they don't increase variance moving forward because I don't want die rolling to be the determining factor in whether I win or lose at a miniatures game.

1 hour ago, AllWingsStandyingBy said:

The Evade token could allow for converting one blank result to an evade result.

Or spend to reroll a green die.

Or spend when rolling green dice to add one die.

That's not too bad of an idea. Cause ways to reroll your own green dice are pretty scarce in the game already.

On 2/8/2017 at 4:32 PM, Ailowynn said:

This idea game up at our game night on Monday and, weirdly, I think it kinda makes sense. So here's what I'm positing: what if, in some future version of the game, the evade action wasn't even in the game? To be clear, I'm NOT saying that it should be taken out of the current game; predicting the aftereffects of that revision at this point would be way beyond my level of expertise, especially considering all the "assign an evade token" stuff that's out there . . .

BUT, if there were to be an X-Wing 2.0, would you object to having the evade action removed? Some benefits I can think of:

1. More Variance

Yeah, I'm saying that like it's a good thing, largely because I think it is. Listen, I love playing competitive X-Wing, and I accept the need to be able to control variance. HOWEVER, I feel that the game in its current state has too LITTLE variance, particularly on the defensive side of things. Look at Dengaroo -- how often are you going to roll zero evades? Hell, how often are you even rolling less than two evades? Same goes for Defenders, and Palp Aces, and PtL Corran, and so on -- basically, for all the most negative play experiences in the game. They're annoying to fly against in no small part because their dice vary so little, which means you have no hope of pushing through the damage you need. Variance makes the game more fun, plain and simple, because it allows more of those exciting, edge-of-the-seat moments where you really don't know what's happening.

More variance also leads to the other stuff:

2. Lower Barrier to Entry

Jumping into X-Wing can kinda suck. You basically get ROFLstomped consistently for the first few months you play. Of course, that makes it very rewarding when you manage to start winning consistently; but it's nice for newer players to have the ability to punch through the defenses of other ships. Even if you don't win, at least you got some damage through, right? Plus, like I said, it's more exciting that way. But don't worry, veterans, because greater defensive variance means . . .

3. Greater Focus on Maneuvering

It's the difference between flying Fenn Rau and flying something like Soontir Fel or a Defender. With Fenn, you have to make a lot more decisions centered on controlling range and arc, whereas with Soontir, if you get caught in an arc or two, you can just shrug and turtle up, knowing that there's just about no way you die this round. If green dice are more iffy, there's a greater incentive to avoid rolling them at all. And if you're looking for proof, let me refer you to our World Championship matches. In my opinion (and most folks I've talked to agree with me), the 2013 one -- with the X-Wings and B-Wings and TIE Fighters -- is the most exciting and well-played game out there, and that's the one with the most variance. Past that point, you get things like Fat Han, Regen Poe, and Dengar, all of which are focused to an absurd degree on mitigating the effects of fickle green dice.

Basically, if you don't have an evade, you get a lot more excitement. Living and dying by the green dice is, IMHO, a lot more fun than shrugging and turtling up. The Fang fighter is the most fun arc-dodger in my opinion (both playing with it and against it) simply for that reason: your decisions matter more.

Anyway, just some thoughts. What say you?

If I may ask, what faction do you usually play?

Just a quick reminder, allowing to change a blank to evade or even just focus is for all practical purposes nearly equal to adding an evade result, with the only exception being when you need more evade results than you have dice.

Anything but a blank has been covert already by the ability to stack up focus tokens from all those hyper avoidance ships, be it Dengaroo or Soontir, Rau or x7 defenders.

Oh and Ben, you are talking about lottery wins, not variance, you don't like them, which is fine as a statement, but not having them comes with greater variance in the game instead of having less. Though as red dice are already hyper-accurate thanks to double or triple mods of them … well, guess that deals just fine with with that. Torpboats with Zuckuss are a good example what happens when you remove the extrema mostly. I liked the triple jumpmaster meta, but apparently I was part of a rather small minority. ;-)

12 hours ago, AllWingsStandyingBy said:

The Evade token could allow for converting one blank result to an evade result.

Or spend to reroll a green die.

Or spend when rolling green dice to add one die.

I always wondered why TL and evade have such different outcomes - evade just adds a result, while TL leaves you at the mercy of dice (well, not much of a mercy if you also have a focus, but rerolling blanks -> blanks has happened to everyone, right?). Imagine if TL simply added a hit result...

Dogs and cats living together! Mass hysteria!

2 hours ago, Yoda Man said:

Dogs and cats living together! Mass hysteria!

I wish i could like this more than once

So.... Is the problem that IMP ships get evades easily and stack with Palp or is it that X-wings and most rebel/scum ships lack evade (and B-roll)? Evade is a great action that is PS independent and is even on such ships as 1 agility transports. Why isn't this an option for all ships? Even out the playing field and it shouldn't hurt variance all that much if at all.

16 hours ago, SabineKey said:

If I may ask, what faction do you usually play?

Rebels.

(In case you couldn't tell ).

48 minutes ago, Ailowynn said:

Rebels.

(In case you couldn't tell ).

I had guessed, but we all know the "assume" joke.

I would strongly encourage you to play traditional Imp Aces (no Palp, no Defenders), then review your analysis on the evade token. If you play a faction which does not rely on those tokens for survival, your hypothesis will be skewed.

As an Imperial player who loves Interceptors, evade is the greatest action ever and I understand why you want it gone.

But remember alot of the Imperial ships are based around being quick and agile but relitivly weak in the shields and armour department which is why they get evade.
How would you balance TIE fighters, Interceptors and other such craft then without their evades?

I wish this was a poll so I could honestly just vote.

As a person who is made fun of for his lack of green dice rolling (except HotAC this week where I had the IA roll like 12 straight evades - some angry rebels out there) evades are what makes this a great game. It would be a hollow empty shell without them and I for one would not play.