1 hour ago, Warlon said:

Evade needs to be a thing.

2. Imperials would need to be completely redone, considering 80% of their ships live and die by the green dice

I do, however, agree that guaranteed evade tokens/results (X7, Palp, AT) need to be at least looked at, but not removed entirely.

No. 2 was my immediate "never gonna happen" response.

I disagree with the guaranteed notion, however. The Defender would still be a mediocre flying machine without the effects of the x7.

5 hours ago, Darth Meanie said:

No. 2 was my immediate "never gonna happen" response.

I disagree with the guaranteed notion, however. The Defender would still be a mediocre flying machine without the effects of the x7.

X7 doesn't bother me too much, it's just that blocking/overlapping obstacles doesn't stop you from getting the token. (This is coming from someone who flew x7s exclusively as soon as they were released)

Palp doesn't really need a nerf, but I do think a range restriction would be good. Heck, make it range 1-5.

Autothrusters exists because of PWTs, because stacking focus and evade wasn't enough.

All in all, Evade tokens are required, cause otherwise Rebel PWTs would win all the time.

2) Bought the game in end of march, went to my first tournament in early april. went 2-2, same as my wife who placed 5th iirc.

3) That is true, but Fenn Rau actually is already better than Soontir Fel AND turtles as well better. Sure, range 2 is the dead zone for Fenn Rau, but he has not only 1 HP more, but he has as well auto-evades in R1, if you fly him with PTL you basically never end up in R2 because you can always either barrel roll back or forward and boost into R1. Thanks to Manaroo he still gets a two focus tokens in that build, and with agi 4 focus is better than evade anyway. Same goes for Mindlink Fenn Rau, who might not have the incredible tankiness of Soontir against a single shot, but comes with 2 or 3 Focus takens, more hp, which allows him to tank those shots like a pro without just exploding and comes still with way more offensive power than soontir, again with courtesy of Manaroo and K4. So they are quite different ships, and to be honest, the biggest issue with Soontir is his PTL addiction, not his ability to take an evade token. Doing a 2 hard every turn is rather boring, the greens on his dial are good, but they are still rather limited compared to a ship which has access to its whole dial and not just the 6-8 greens on it ;-)

Which brings us to the reason scum is so much fun to fly currently, action efficiency without PTL or other limits on your dial (I am looking at you x7).

9 hours ago, Jeff Wilder said:

I agree with almost all of your premises ... yet wouldn't want to see your implementation.

Evade isn't the problem. (See if you can find some tactical advice articles from early in the game, when Evade was strongly considered to be the weaker alternative to Focus for nearly every ship.)

The problem is ridiculous, often unintended, action economy. (And by this I'm including things like Dengaroo's reliance on Zuckuss, Manaroo, and Overclocked R4; so things like, "overlooking instances when stress as a drawback is not actually a drawback." (For my part in that, mea culpa.))

X-Wing 2.0 can and should have Evade actions and tokens. It just needs to be more cognizant of stacking. (For an apt comparison in another gaming genre, look how elegantly 5E D&D fixed the buffing problem that began in 3.0 D&D.)

For those of us who don't play D&D, may you please elaborate on the "fix?" in 5E?

7 hours ago, Warlon said:

X7 doesn't bother me too much, it's just that blocking/overlapping obstacles doesn't stop you from getting the token. (This is coming from someone who flew x7s exclusively as soon as they were released)

Well, it's not an Action, so that is just being consistent with the rules. Plus, the limitation is the chosen maneuver. . .fly fast or be easy to hit.

Remove Evade? No! What!?

So ships will be completely unable to "take evasive action"? How does that make any sense in a dogfighting game?

I think green dice in general are a problem. Mechanically they make no sense. They are basically armor themed to be speed. Armor that's given to ships that are supposed to be squishy but survive by evading fire. It leaves ships that are supposed to take a beating such as a Y-Wing feeling squishy instead of tough because although they have more hitpoints, they have no damage mitigation. Whilst ships that are supposed to be squishy such as a Tie Interceptor feel oddly tanky. They could just sit in front of an enemy and let them shoot point blank and absorb the same or more damage than a tanky ship such as a K-Wing. Except being an agile ship, they can also move around the map with far more freedom.

low damage ships like the A-Wing not only deal less damage but rarely even hit due to the evade mechanics. This doesn't make sense as A-Wings have swiveling lasers cannons so they should be able to compensate for less damage by hitting far more often. It is supposed to be the counter to a ship that is agile but it can't even scratch them more often than not.

I think if you were limited to one green token via action per round, it might help reduce turtling. So you can't PTL for a focus/evade, though you can still be assigned tokens by card effects as normal.

7 hours ago, f0rbiddenc00kie said:

For those of us who don't play D&D, may you please elaborate on the "fix?" in 5E?

I'm not a D&D expert but I think it's that 5E limits the number of buffs that can be active simultaneously (maybe just one?) you can't stack all available buffs at once like in 3E and become a God.

To the X-Wing example, I guess that would mean you could use a focus or evade for an attack but not both?

My issue with Evade is that some ships have access to it and some don't with no rhyme or reason why. The Ghost has the Evade action but an X-wing does not? Focus and Evade should have both been core actions that every ship can do. It would also free up room on some ships action bars so they could have had more than 4 action choices.

1 minute ago, MenaceNsobriety said:

My issue with Evade is that some ships have access to it and some don't with no rhyme or reason why. The Ghost has the Evade action but an X-wing does not? Focus and Evade should have both been core actions that every ship can do. It would also free up room on some ships action bars so they could have had more than 4 action choices.

The Ghost, G-1A, and other low agility ships with Evades are missing a key stat - armor.

I think the evade is meant to represent the toughness of these ships, but it feels ridiculous. Giving them an ability like Reinforced Deflectors or R4-D6 to mitigate large amounts of damage or a Chewie or Leebo ability to flip crits over would have worked better.

17 hours ago, Jeff Wilder said:

X-Wing has become increasingly centered around removing variance, yes, and IMO it's strangling the game.

This.

Sadly, it's becoming less and less about flying fighters in space.

Realistically if the game were redesigned from the ground up you would want something like the following.

Attacking ship rolls red dice then modifies

defending ship rolls green dice then modifies

attacking ship rolls green dice then modifies and may cancel evade results for every evade

This would fix high evasion ships like the A-wing, it only rolls 2 red dice, but it would be able to reliably hit and evade.

1 minute ago, Jetfire said:

Realistically if the game were redesigned from the ground up you would want something like the following.

Attacking ship rolls red dice then modifies

defending ship rolls green dice then modifies

attacking ship rolls green dice then modifies and may cancel evade results for every evade

This would fix high evasion ships like the A-wing, it only rolls 2 red dice, but it would be able to reliably hit and evade.

This sounds like the reasoning that led to Juke.

36 minutes ago, Kharnvor said:

I think if you were limited to one green token via action per round, it might help reduce turtling. So you can't PTL for a focus/evade, though you can still be assigned tokens by card effects as normal.

Almost this. It's not the token stacks that are directly the issue, is the ability to spend the token stacks however you want.

We've already seen a FAQ change that says you cannot spend more than one evade token per attack. All that did was nerf Lando Crew and Laetin, but it kinda made sense. They should extend that rule outward. You cannot spend more than one focus or evade token per defense. It allows ships to somewhat turtle against multiple attacks, but it can't remove all variance from a single shot against it.

With all the extra defensive upgrades Palp/AT/LoneWolf you no longer need to have two tokens to spend to flatten out variance. Frankly, spending two tokens on defense with all the other abilities flattens variance WAY too much. Soontir rolls 4 blanks at Range 3, that's just fine, AT, Palp, Evade.

Before people start losing their minds that low HP aces will just die, keep in mind that those ships also have to be vulnerable. Those ships are supposed to be fragile glass cannons that can dance around and avoid incoming fire with their movements. With the stacked defensive abilities, they become some of the tankiest ships in the game. Frankly, a Ywing or a Bwing should be tankier than an Interceptor, shouldn't they?

Make this rule adjustment and suddenly things become much more reasonable. Variance becomes a thing on the ships that it should be a thing, but there are still ways to flatten variance enough to keep those ships worth flying. A ship that rolls Focus, Blank Blank, facing 3 hits should be taking damage. But, some ships can now spend Focus, Evade, AT/Palp and be just fine. That's a problem. Limiting to one token means that ship is taking a hit, and that's certainly not a problem.

I suppose in light of the counter example I should amend my first point. Games not entirely built on the premise of being games of chance (gambling) strive to reduce variance. Certainly it is easy to point out a game in which the entire gameplay is variance as an example against my statement but while it is a counter example it doesn't draw a good parallel to x-wing any more than craps or roulette do. The whole gameplay of poker is centered around variance with additional features of tactics (bluffing, statistical chance of winning, etc.) while the gameplay of x-wing is centered around maneuvering and tactics with additional features of variance.

I will state, however, that the claim of "look, noobs can beat seasoned pros sometimes" is really a horrendous argument for why increased variance is good, as is "without variance how can I beat players who are better than me". The notion of that being a good thing from a competitive aspect can't be supported because it is literally the antithesis of "best player wins".

It is a valid opinion to like variance a lot but looking at any collectible card game, deck building game, or tactical miniature game suggests that better players seek to remove it at all costs.

30 minutes ago, nigeltastic said:

I suppose in light of the counter example I should amend my first point. Games not entirely built on the premise of being games of chance (gambling) strive to reduce variance. Certainly it is easy to point out a game in which the entire gameplay is variance as an example against my statement

There is at least as much skill in poker than there is in X-Wing ... at least as X-Wing existed pre-Wave 4 or so. (I'm approximating when things began to change, not being definitive. Whenever it began, the change has been accelerating.) In fact, poker is allowed in California precisely because courts determined, after exhaustive evidence, that poker was primarily a skill game, despite the high element of chance (leading to variance). This distinguishes poker from craps, roulette, and (standard, non-counting) blackjack, for instance.

X-Wing was certainly built "on the premise of being [a game] of chance." Absolutely no question. Luck was a major factor in the game, and (depending on your definition of "major") remains so. Again, it is true that the game has steadily moved away from that, and there is less luck now than when the game started. But IMO that's not a good thing for the game. Curb-stomping newbies -- yes, even curb-stomping newbies only at tournaments -- is not a good way for the game to thrive.

We are only now starting to see the backlash of the ultra-high-reliability version of X-Wing, though some folks have seen it coming for a while now. Those of you calling for the elimination of luck from the game ... remember that you should be careful what you wish for.

If anything, Evade should be tied to your speed and not your action. x7 title basically applies to everyone.

Bit too radical of a change to implement though. Numerous cards would have to have a different effect or price cut to accommodate for no more Evade action as now its strictly "Im moving too fast for you!"

17 hours ago, Warlon said:

Evade needs to be a thing.

1. PWTs exist with no drawback for firing out of arc.

2. Imperials would need to be completely redone, considering 80% of their ships live and die by the green dice

I do, however, agree that guaranteed evade tokens/results (X7, Palp, AT) need to be at least looked at, but not removed entirely.

Like I said, though, I'm talking more about a theoretical X-Wing 2.0 sort of thing. So yeah, Imperials would have to be redone, but...we're redoing them all anyway at that point. Likewise, PWTs would hopefully be mobile arcs.

And I agree that token stacking is generally the issue--C-3P0+evade, Palp+evade, focus+evade, etc--but you can't have the stack without the token.

I actually really like the idea of having the evade allow you to reroll a green die. Allows some control, but still makes arc-dodging preferable.

17 hours ago, Warlon said:

Evade needs to be a thing.

1. PWTs exist with no drawback for firing out of arc.

2. Imperials would need to be completely redone, considering 80% of their ships live and die by the green dice

I do, however, agree that guaranteed evade tokens/results (X7, Palp, AT) need to be at least looked at, but not removed entirely.

Like I said, though, I'm talking more about a theoretical X-Wing 2.0 sort of thing. So yeah, Imperials would have to be redone, but...we're redoing them all anyway at that point. Likewise, PWTs would hopefully be mobile arcs.

And I agree that token stacking is generally the issue--C-3P0+evade, Palp+evade, focus+evade, etc--but you can't have the stack without the token.

I actually really like the idea of having the evade allow you to reroll a green die. Allows some control, but still makes arc-dodging preferable.

17 hours ago, Warlon said:

Evade needs to be a thing.

1. PWTs exist with no drawback for firing out of arc.

2. Imperials would need to be completely redone, considering 80% of their ships live and die by the green dice

I do, however, agree that guaranteed evade tokens/results (X7, Palp, AT) need to be at least looked at, but not removed entirely.

Like I said, though, I'm talking more about a theoretical X-Wing 2.0 sort of thing. So yeah, Imperials would have to be redone, but...we're redoing them all anyway at that point. Likewise, PWTs would hopefully be mobile arcs.

And I agree that token stacking is generally the issue--C-3P0+evade, Palp+evade, focus+evade, etc--but you can't have the stack without the token.

I actually really like the idea of having the evade allow you to reroll a green die. Allows some control, but still makes arc-dodging preferable.

It's a glitch in the Matrix.

22 hours ago, 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?

1) Agree that there would be more variance which is all about preference for whether or not that makes the game better. Variance is probably already as high as it should ever be for a tactical miniatures game. If anything decreasing variance would probably be better. Also the variance comes from green dice way more so than the evade action, if you want to see increased variance then increasing dice would do it. Would much rather see green dice gone for an "X-wing 2.0." Armada style tokens, actually allowing focus firing to be as lethal as it should be, would be better.

2) X-wing already has a low barrier to entry. It is still extremely easy to teach new people how to play and to keep up with all of the rules, for the most part. If someone new expects to come in winning right away, especially against more experienced better players, then it is their expectations that need to be adjusted. Increasing variance to allow this to happen more often wouldn't be better (in my opinion), there are already plenty of games around that are all about dice rolling and involve very little tactics/strategy.

3) I would argue that decreasing variance would do a better job of creating more of a focus on maneuvering. Evades decrease variance, you use an action to guarantee that you avoid one hit result. Green dice potentially allow you to poorly maneuver into too many arcs and with some great rolling you might still avoid damage, due to the variance of green dice. Taking away the evade action doesn't make green dice more iffy, green dice have the same exact probability of success or failure whether you have an evade action or not. You can only use the evade action once in an entire round no matter how many ships are firing at you, to avoid one single damage (under most circumstances at least). Green dice on the other hand get to be rolled every single attack whether being shot at once or eight times. If you have Soontir and he lands in a couple of arcs it isn't his 1 little evade saving him, it is his combination of evade, 1 maybe 2 focus, autothrusters, and Palp being able to change a die.

I hope FFG continues to find ways to decrease variance in the game rather than increase it. I have lost far more often than I have won at X-wing, but I have almost always felt like when I did lose it was simply because I was outplayed, not because I was outrolled. I definitely prefer that be the case, especially in a miniatures game.

5 minutes ago, benskywalker said:

if you want to see increased variance then increasing dice would do it.

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.

21 hours ago, Ailowynn said:

Lol, I knew I'd have a hard time convincing you, Fickle

I'm not saying that there shouldn't be ways to control variance, just that the evade action shouldn't be one of them. I'm down with stuff like the Concord Dawn title and Autothrusters; they very clearly reward good flying. But the evade action can be . . . arbitrary?

Plus, even with all the variance control we've got these days, variance still happens. What about that Dengar that took 9 damage in the Activation phase? It's always gonna be a thing, and in a weird way, making MORE variance means it has LESS of an impact (because the more variance there is, the more likely it is that both players will suffer from it). Like . . . maybe my green dice crap out and I have no evade, but that's not super unlikely; in fact, it's likely enough that it could easily happen to my opponent during the same game. Compare that to "Well, ****, I just lost Dengar in one turn before he even shot," or even stuff like "Well, ****, I had two rounds of Range 1 Gunner'd shots and missed them all" (which I think happend to someone at Worlds?) and you realize that, the more common variance is, the easier it is to recover from. That make sense? Prolly I'm just crazy

By that argument the other actions should go as well though. Focus action and Target Lock are both arbitrary and have nothing to do with "good flying." Boost and BR would be the worst culprits of all of them as if you have High PS the opponent can actually out fly you and still not even get a shot. If I had my choice of actions to remove from Soontir it would be Boost and BR. I'd much rather take my chances with him in arc and have to deal with 1 evade than to predict exactly what maneuver he is going to make, be 100% right only to have him boost and/or BR back out of the arc I put covering that spot. Evade action is every bit as valid as the others, so why not remove them all?