1 hour ago, Stay On The Leader said:

And if I had free rein then VI and Crack Shot would also be getting a trim.

Heres a list of nerfs designed to significantly narrow the field.

I don't how you can make possibly that judgement, as such things would be very difficult to predict.

I would argue that currently the field is extremely narrow to begin with and I struggle to see how it can narrow much further. The top 10 archetypes on Meta-Wing basically come from variations on 5 ships - Jumpmaster, Shadow Caster, Protectorate, Defender, K-Wing - with other ships appearing only rarely. Most of the existing squads in the top 20 archetypes would remain playable they would just need to squeeze a few points out somewhere, bringing them down a peg towards everything else.

In theory it should lead to a smaller gap between the 'haves' and 'have nots' of X-Wing and thus a wider range of viable routes to a successful squad.

19 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

Interesting. So you would keep Juke at 2?

I think Juke gets strength from numbers. TBH I'm not sure why Black TIE Swarms are NOT a thing - you even have enough points to include Howlrunner. 6 Jukes mean that 4-5 will probably get through. That's an amazing outcome, and from the second time onwards it's better than Crackshot.

Because it's actually not better than Crack Shot. You Black Squadron TIEs would all need an Evade action and then to not spend that Evade action through the whole round of shooting to then throw unfocused attack dice at the opponent. Firing with Juke at a 2 agility target is only 0.1 more average damage than firing with Focus (including Howlrunner in both numbers), and you only unlock that bonus 0.1 if you never spend your Evade.

I think you're valuing Juke as though it's always on Omega Leader, because even though they stack in usefulness they're still nowhere near as good as Crack Shot is, and Crack Shot costs less. If you made them both 2pts the TIEs would still pack Crack Shot over Juke pretty much every single time.

13 minutes ago, Panzeh said:

Heres a list of nerfs designed to significantly narrow the field.

@Stay On The Leader So what I am hearing is that you want rebel Regen/ fat han to come back with a huge vengeance. Make all these changes and suddenly r5-p9 poe, r2d2 corran are MONSTERS in the meta. They are mildly inconvenienced by your points increase and all the ships that are struck down are the natural predators of regen.

And thats the whole problem with this argument. You can design a game that is perfectly balanced when you have a fixed number of ships and upgrades. If you want to expand, then a meta gets created. We are at the point that every "fix" makes something else that was less good, now a monster that has to be dealt with.

I know that many people would much rather play against mindlink or ptl aces than regen rebels all day.

When I was compiling this list what i was doing was mentally going backwards through the metagame over time and seeing what was on top and if it was affected by the changes. I agree that Rebel Regen is the #1 list that I'd be watching as it's the last major list not directly affected by any of this, although it could pick up sideways impacts from things like PTL/VI/Engine being more expensive. The last card I cut from the list was +1pt for R2-D2 (and maybe -1pt for R7-T1, as it's an aggressive positioning Astromech I'd want to encourage sees play).

I think a year on from when Rebel Regen last dominated there has been enough new stuff come in that I wouldn't assume it immediately jumps back to the top (Hotshot hammers Poe, for instance, Kylo is bad news for Corran and PTL is more expensive), but it would definitely be something to keep an eye on.

Don't worry, I found Red Ace a much of a pain in the ass as everyone else did!

1 hour ago, Stay On The Leader said:

I think when a card can't be given an appropriate cost (a cost where it's worse but you want to use it) then it's a design issue and the card should be removed, and I think Attani Mindlink fits that bill as any cost increase is multiplied through the copies of the card so you've a lot less fine control over the costing.

If you made it cost 3 you might as well ban it because you're pricing the card to pretty much never see play as it needs 9pts of your list. If you made it cost 2 then the existing Mindlink lists MIGHT be able to adapt, but even if they don't it's going to become something like a Biggs Darklighter that restricts any future design decisions for Scum ships - print the wrong thing and, hey... Mindlink is back!

The solution for Mindlink is probably a range restriction rather than points cost adjustment - it's the lack of a range restriction that makes it difficult to price correctly. It's a card that you want to play in multiples so ideally the cost needs to be low to encourage people to be creative in the lists it fits into.

Anecdote: my current fun list is actually a 4-ship janky Mindlink list. I'll tell you what, though, while I thought to myself while building it "yeah it's Mindlink but the ships are crappy so I don't feel bad about it" I was BATTERING my casual gaming opponent with all those free actions. So part of me wants creative lists like that to be viable, but part of me also realises that even my janky Mindlink list was a pretty negative experience for my opponent because I was so far ahead of him in action economy regardless of stress/bumps etc. I was having fun with my fun list, but he wasn't.


EDIT: it's the same logic behind banning Zuckuss. Designers should be looking to hit a 'goldilocks zone' with each card, where it's not too bad, not too good, but just right. When you have a card like Zuckuss with a massive upside balanced against a massive cost then it becomes extremely difficult to hit that goldilocks zone. Put Zuckuss on most ships and you'll never use him because you can't function with all that stress (too cold), put Zuckuss on the right ship with the right support and you can offset all the costs and benefit from pure upside (too hot). There's very few situations where people are playing Zuckuss and suffering from the stress (just right), because if you use Zuckuss you're building to ignore that stress. That he's also extremely discriminatory in the ships he works best against is the nail in the coffin because not only is he hard to cost-balance but he's warping the game whenever he's viable.

And Palpi's unlimited range is not a design problem? If you take out the ban hammer he should be hit as well.

Mindlink costs the EPT slot as well. Are you sure that the impression of Mindlink being so good is just Mindlink itself and not instead a consequence of the Protectorate, Lancer and JM5K being so good? Mindlink on Scyks or Kihraxzes seems ok, doesn't it?

Zuckuss has a thematic place on the G1A. Probably not broken enough for tournaments

Some of your suggestions sound interesting, but some would kill off a number of the non-OP ships.

12 hours ago, CosmicCastawayA90 said:

I don't see how creating decks that decide the outcome of the game before it begins could be seen as truly strategic and skilful.

List building (or deck building, for CCGs) has always been my favorite part of games like this, and it is one reason I have no longing for Wave 1 meta. List building should be a big part of whether you win or lose. If you deploy your cavalry at the bottom of the hill, you deserve to lose!

I still think a lot of things with a narrow meta boil down to the 1 Element Only battlefield. We can have discussions all day about ship vs. ship dynamics in play, but there are no conversations about "how does your list handle ion gas clouds? dense asteroids? no asteroids? fixed emplacements? atmospheric combat?"

It's like we are still in the Greek Warfare stage. Wanna fight? OK, let's find a big plain somewhere so the chariots can maneuver. So, we have chariots, pikemen, and archers. That's our meta.

It's time for X-Wing to be fought in the mountains, the swamps, and the forests.

11 minutes ago, Luke C said:

And thats the whole problem with this argument. You can design a game that is perfectly balanced when you have a fixed number of ships and upgrades. If you want to expand, then a meta gets created. We are at the point that every "fix" makes something else that was less good, now a monster that has to be dealt with.

Moreover, I'm pretty sure FFG has their finger on this pulse, and shifts in the meta are what they do to make the game "grow." Unfortunately, I think it is a myopic way to maintain interest in the game.

20 minutes ago, Stay On The Leader said:

(and maybe -1pt for R7-T1, as it's an aggressive positioning Astromech I'd want to encourage sees play).

Ooh, ok you want to pretty much change nearly every card to suit your specific wants. Gotcha. I understand now that you aren't interested in making the game better you are interested in making the game more fun for you. I think you failed to understand my point was that when you bring the ban hammer out, another "broken" mole rears its head. Banning cards or changing the cost on cards is not a long term solution.

But that's kind of the problem - PTL on a HWK is fine, PTL on a Bomber is fine... the EPT is discriminatory. If you keep the EPT all future designs have to be built with it in mind. Assuming we aren't going to rewrite the dials of existing ships then the EPT is the issue.

Palp is the most obvious absentee from my list. Historically he's been most problematic when used alongside other cards already being hit (like PTL) so I'd give him a chance to work once they're gone or are more expensive, see if he's still a problem.

3 minutes ago, Luke C said:

Ooh, ok you want to pretty much change nearly every card to suit your specific wants. Gotcha. I understand now that you aren't interested in making the game better you are interested in making the game more fun for you. I think you failed to understand my point was that when you bring the ban hammer out, another "broken" mole rears its head. Banning cards or changing the cost on cards is not a long term solution.

Well I'm not sure this is 'pretty much every card' you're just continuing to straw man wildly. But to entertain you straw man: Yes, because it's MY list trying to shape a game that I would prefer to play.

You can make your own list if you like. Everyone can play along at home!

In this thread I keep reading this term "action economy." What people mean by that I assume are 'extra actions' or 'bonus actions' granted to them by upgrade card interactions, many of them simply a gimme like the /7 with no real downside. What that is indicative to me is that players don't lie having to chose their actions, they want them all. Choice is removed, the player doesn't have to decide to take a focus action because with (fill in the blank upgrade) they get to token stack.

Why bother with actions at all? Just change the dice to make all the eyeballs hits and evades.

5 minutes ago, Stay On The Leader said:

You can make your own list if you like. Everyone can play along at home!

Or I can just take the game as it is, determine whats in the meta, practice, and actually be successful with the game (and STILL have fun).

3 minutes ago, BlodVargarna said:

In this thread I keep reading this term "action economy." What people mean by that I assume are 'extra actions' or 'bonus actions' granted to them by upgrade card interactions, many of them simply a gimme like the /7 with no real downside. What that is indicative to me is that players don't lie having to chose their actions, they want them all. Choice is removed, the player doesn't have to decide to take a focus action because with (fill in the blank upgrade) they get to token stack.

Why bother with actions at all? Just change the dice to make all the eyeballs hits and evades.

This is part of if, and I don't think a part that has been explicitly stated yet.

Choices are difficult and allow room for error, but many of the current top lists don't require players to make choices because they just get everything. Good point!

3 minutes ago, Luke C said:

Or I can just take the game as it is, determine whats in the meta, practice, and actually be successful with the game (and STILL have fun).

Or you can do that. You seem to be obsessed with arguing about it though, so carry on!

It's not really about being 'successful' though, is it? I could be successful at X-Wing tomorrow if I wanted to, but it would be a waste of leisure time I could better spend doing something more interesting.

Well maybe not tomorrow, tomorrow is Friday. But Saturday, maybe.

1 minute ago, Luke C said:

Or I can just take the game as it is, determine whats in the meta, practice, and actually be successful with the game (and STILL have fun).

I think the current game is great.

That being said, I really would like to come up with a wave 1-3 with some 4 with more modern design sensibilities.

13 minutes ago, BlodVargarna said:

In this thread I keep reading this term "action economy." What people mean by that I assume are 'extra actions' or 'bonus actions' granted to them by upgrade card interactions, many of them simply a gimme like the /7 with no real downside. What that is indicative to me is that players don't lie having to chose their actions, they want them all. Choice is removed, the player doesn't have to decide to take a focus action because with (fill in the blank upgrade) they get to token stack.

Why bother with actions at all? Just change the dice to make all the eyeballs hits and evades.

One action ships are fine as long as they are points-efficient.

11 hours ago, Luke C said:

Shh. You don't get it. You got to practice, you got to practice against what you think you are going to face. And you can't make flying mistakes. So it still is a skill based flying game.

on the flip side, we are at the point where every list has a counter and if you run into it, the battle is uphill and almost lost going into it. Kwings vs aces is a good example of this. The aces have a LONG uphill battle. In a tournament if you run into counters for your list often, you either 1) didn't practice or 2) brought the wrong list for that meta.

Yes, actually, I do get it. You, however, seem unable to defend your idea that the game is fine based on its mechanics. You continually blame players for making mistakes. Practicing to get good at a game, does mean that I could perhaps win more at higher levels of play, but me being able to win at the game doesn't mean that the game does not have mechanical issues. Anyone can practice at anything and be good at it, your explanation makes no sense, and does not show that the game is mechanically sound.

You yourself continue to point out that skill at flying plays second fiddle to skill at list-building. Once again, the two determining explanations for a player losing are that they didn't practice and that they brought the wrong meta-list that got countered by another meta-list. There shouldn't be a meta in a truly skill-based game, and saying that the meta-lists have meta-counters does absolutely nothing to convince me that flying is still the focus of this game.

11 hours ago, Luke C said:

As more ships come into the game you will not get around this. Duncan Howard is ostensibly the best pilot around and even he gave up soontir. The idea that any list can win 6 games in a row at any given event is probably a pipe dream unless your name is Howard, Bunke, Manzano, or a few others. You have to pick your ships carefully, practice, and then you will have a good shot.

You our are correct though. We are at the point in the game where listbuilding matters. Flying is still the most important part in this game though. So many people were at the bottom tables during regionals flying meta lists. This was because even though they picked a list for the meta, they didn't practice and they didn't have a plan.

I also don't have a clue as to where you are getting the idea that myself or anyone else on this thread has said there is a single list that can win games constantly. Many have said time and time again, that the problem is that the focus of the game as it stands is building numerous meta-lists to have a shot at winning. Your comment that I can carefully pick my ships, practice with them, and have a good shot at winning is contrasted by your statements that list-building is what determines a win or a loss. In a perfectly skilful game, I could practice flying a squadron of X-Wings and still bring down opponents if I know the ins and outs of flying and positioning those ships. What chances do you think X-Wings have in this current meta? They are assuredly lower than the meta-ships being flown at the moment. That is more than enough to show flight skill is outclassed by deckbuilding. I've also seen no evidence that you've provided to prove to me flying is the most important part of the game, as everything you've said has proven otherwise. The people who were at the "bottom tables," were they beaten by unique decks of ships that never get played in the meta? Or were they simply countered by other meta-decks and ships? A small sample size of people losing or winning a game is useless in determining if a game's mechanics are sound.

11 hours ago, Luke C said:

Also I want to make special note of this. If this is what you think pm me. I'll send you my regional squad that I have over 100 games with now. You build any list you want and I'll play you a game on vassal. I promise I will win. Why? Because I practice, I know exactly what my squad can do. I don't talk about flying well because that is obvious. Against a practiced opponent though, lists absolutely matter.

Again, with this simple statement, you've proven my point for a third time in a row. You say you don't talk about flying because it's "obvious." Is it really? If so I'd like you to tell me how flying is not outmatched by having a better list. You yourself say that lists absolutely matter. I'm not saying that there can't be cards in X-Wing, but they should all be balanced and every single ship should be viable based on skill. You're correct that you'd beat me if we played a game, but it wouldn't just be because of the massive gap in knowledge between us, it'd also be because you can construct a list that would determine the game before it began. Based on what you've said before, I need a counter-list to go up against you. I don't need to learn how to fly better, I don't need to learn how to perform actions more effectively, I need a better deck of cards to have a hope of winning. Please tell me if this is incorrect, because it seems to be consistently the point you're making. I'd suggest that instead of focusing on players own individual skills and time to practice learning the meta, you should try to provide me evidence through the mechanics of the game. I'd also like a direct answer to the questions I brought up in my last post. Those being 1)Why don't you simply play a CCG if deckbuilding is so important to you? and 2)How is flying still the most important part of this game?

I've got no problem with cards being present in X-Wing, they can add a lot of nuance and strategy to the game. The problem I have is when they become so prevalent that I might as well be playing Yu-Gi-Oh, or Hearthstone. I got sick of Hearthstone's meta, and I can't abide by any game that has a meta. It is not an intelligent use of game design, it's a cheap way to keep hardcore players coming back, removes true skill from a game, and sucks up any hope of actually having fun. I want to have fun in a competitive environment, where I know that I lost due to a lack of skill on my part, not a lack of being able to memorize and execute a limited set of predetermined decks that have the only chance at obtaining a win.

Well to be fair almost every competitive game has a metagame.

However Hearthstone is a very good example of a **** metagame where almost locked-down list archetypes bump into each other in endless grind of near-unwinnable/near-unloseable matches where you try and pick a list where you can't really lose to 55% of lists you're going to meet, but lose to 45% so if you play enough games you're the winnzor.

2 minutes ago, CosmicCastawayA90 said:

There shouldn't be a meta in a truly skill-based game,

Go play chess then.

3 minutes ago, CosmicCastawayA90 said:

Again, with this simple statement, you've proven my point for a third time in a row. You say you don't talk about flying because it's "obvious." Is it really? If so I'd like you to tell me how flying is not outmatched by having a better list. You yourself say that lists absolutely matter. I'm not saying that there can't be cards in X-Wing, but they should all be balanced and every single ship should be viable based on skill. You're correct that you'd beat me if we played a game, but it wouldn't just be because of the massive gap in knowledge between us, it'd also be because you can construct a list that would determine the game before it began. Based on what you've said before, I need a counter-list to go up against you. I don't need to learn how to fly better, I don't need to learn how to perform actions more effectively, I need a better deck of cards to have a hope of winning. Please tell me if this is incorrect

It is incorrect. Im saying you can build a counter list to mine and i will still beat you because Ive practiced my list enough to beat counter lists that are not practiced. Flying matters, list building matters. You can bring the best list and not win because you fly poorly. You can bring a poor meta choice and fly perfect and still win. You cant bring a bad meta choice and fly poorly and expect to have a shot. Its just not the game anymore (and honestly hasn't been the game for YEARS).

2 minutes ago, Luke C said:

Go play chess then.

Chess is actually all about the metagame. Everyone knows every opening and counter-opening and the common variations. You can't get away from the metagame.

5 minutes ago, Luke C said:

You can bring a poor meta choice and fly perfect and still win.

^ citation needed. There are VERY few examples of recent upsets in significant tournaments.

3 hours ago, Stay On The Leader said:

And if I had free rein then VI and Crack Shot would also be getting a trim.

Interesting list; I think analytical matrix of where modifications and abilities fall in the Meta (previous and current) is the best way to systematically see where issues with the game lie. It is my hope and thought that the FFG designers rely on such data. Major juggler, Stay on the Leader and others on this forum have created "labors of love" such as these and I have to believe they don't go unheaded. In addition, this information is very important to players such as myself who fly mostly in casual settings and don't hit the Meta walls as often as you seasoned veterans of tournaments. Regardless the opinions that seem on the surface to be opposites, I see some balance in the force in areas of overlap. It seems mechanics such as: Mindlink, Zuckuss, Auto Damage, Stress Stacking, Palp and Roo Power ranges, Ships and Cards trumping Great Flying, etc. all need some type of real alteration for the health of the game. Say what you will, but they are consistant lightning rods for most of the posts on this Forum that deal with the game mechanics. A tougher issue is how to balance the games core ships as power-creep has taken a firm hold. I know designers at FFG ponder these things, and the latest wave seems to not assist the above mentioned cancers too much, so it seems their may be treatments ahead.

1 minute ago, Stay On The Leader said:

^ citation needed. There are VERY few examples of recent upsets in significant tournaments.

please see any of Blair Bunke's wins in Oregon. http://lists.starwarsclubhouse.com/get_tourney_details?tourney_id=2459

Please See Marcel Manzano's wins in Chicago with 3xJM and in Ohio running Quickdraw, Backdraft and Ryad.

Thats just off the top of my head.

3 minutes ago, Luke C said:

please see any of Blair Bunke's wins in Oregon. http://lists.starwarsclubhouse.com/get_tourney_details?tourney_id=2459

Please See Marcel Manzano's wins in Chicago with 3xJM and in Ohio running Quickdraw, Backdraft and Ryad.

Thats just off the top of my head.

Well according to that link Bunke got knocked out in Top-8 and Paratanni won?

17 minutes ago, Luke C said:

Go play chess then.

White is OP. Chess is so unbalanced.