56 minutes ago, costi said:

The fun begins when you play several different missions in the course of a tournament, and you need to take all of them into account when building your list.

You're changing the problem parameters (instead of 'what's the best list to kill your enemy with' you get 'what's the best list to do X, Y and Z'). This alone in no way guarantees that there won't be a couple of solutions that are significantly better than others,thus creating a meta.

Look at Armada and 40k for example. Do these strike you as games with no meta ?

I wouldn't underestimate how important missions can be. A 100 pt squad that is efficient at blowing away opponents is not automatically good at a given mission. For example, I played the first Hoth mission against Soontir Fel and RAC with Palpatine. That proved to be totally inadequate for the mission: you can't control the mines with only two ships, and it is hard to focus fire on the transport while evading its escort with such a small number of ships. A single Green Squadron Pilot with VI and Chardaan Refit proved to be very annoying because he was exactly at the cutoff point for controlling the mines.

Missions can do several things, like:

• Make medium pilots skill values important
• Force ships to concentrate on one area
• Force ships to do actions
• Make upgrades mandatory (like crew)
• Use number of turns rather than time as a limit
• Etc., etc...

All of this can really mess with the efficiency of the typical meta list. This does not imply that having a meta is a bad thing. Why would it be? However, if I read the blog by Stay On The Leader, then making missions more important can be a good tool to implement some solutions. Note that I say "tool", because missions are not a solution in themselves. It really depends on how they're used.

My question is: if you knew you were going to play a mission but didn't know WHAT mission you're going to play then how positive is that experience of squadbuilding only to find out that you've wasted your car journey that day because your Soontir/RAC list is unable to perform the mission that was randomly selected?

Can mission selection facilitate varied listbuilding rather than restricting it to just a few balanced lists that can do a bit of everything?

16 minutes ago, Stay On The Leader said:

My question is: if you knew you were going to play a mission but didn't know WHAT mission you're going to play then how positive is that experience of squadbuilding only to find out that you've wasted your car journey that day because your Soontir/RAC list is unable to perform the mission that was randomly selected?

Can mission selection facilitate varied listbuilding rather than restricting it to just a few balanced lists that can do a bit of everything?

Agreed, the problem comes in when you realize that for the points asajj is just better than wedge in an xwing, lando is still too many points for a bad ability, the bwing platform dies way too easily and the Royal Guard Tie Interceptor is laughable to a ps 7+ ship.

2 hours ago, LordBlades said:

You're changing the problem parameters (instead of 'what's the best list to kill your enemy with' you get 'what's the best list to do X, Y and Z'). This alone in no way guarantees that there won't be a couple of solutions that are significantly better than others,thus creating a meta.

Look at Armada and 40k for example. Do these strike you as games with no meta ?

I don't know, I don't play these. I do play Infinity, though, which has had a tournament system with about 20 varied missions for 8 years now, and there is no meta there. Sure, there are units/options considered better or worse, but there are no must-have and everything can be used if you know what you're doing.

My question is: if you knew you were going to play a mission but didn't know WHAT mission you're going to play then how positive is that experience of squadbuilding only to find out that you've wasted your car journey that day because your Soontir/RAC list is unable to perform the mission that was randomly selected?

Can mission selection facilitate varied listbuilding rather than restricting it to just a few balanced lists that can do a bit of everything?

The way it is done in Infinity, is that:

1. you know which mission will be played on the tourney

2. the rules allow you to bring 2 lists from the same faction (sometimes TOs enforce a 1 list limit), you choose your list prior to the mission, not knowing what the enemy will take.

double, pls ignore

I don't think balanced lists are restrictive. When creating a list, you still want to make sure that every element has a purpose. As you noted yourself, the same things will still be important, and as someone else wrote, there will still be a meta. So it's really not that different, and that players are suddenly more restricted in what they can choose seems like a dubious claim to me.

On the other hand, it will be less easy to tune a list to maximum efficiency, because inevitably ships will have perform multiple roles. If you need actions in a specific area of the board, it will not be a good idea to have a stressed ship there. So a fully loaded Dengar in a Dengaroo list will have to make compromises. Three aces might also not be ideal if you have to be in multiple places.

The basic efficiency, or jousting value if you will, of ships will not change through missions. But they can cycle back old ships and upgrades.

It's not the holy grail, but to be honest I'd prefer this over the 0-point upgrades we've been getting.

19 hours ago, Stay On The Leader said:

Rather than fighting in the trenches of the forums I thought it best to just take the time to clearly lay out my thoughts in a blog dedicated to the subject.

http://stayontheleader.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/the-state-of-x-wing-part-i-phantom.html

Well done and entertaining blog, nice!

I do think anyone who has played our cherished game for more than a few months, knows that the game is under stress. In FFG's defense, any game that has waves of releases is 'living' in a way, and everything 'living' can become stressed by disease of creep in power and complexity. Disease can be cured by removing or curing it. The rather simple fact is (thanks to Majorjuggler and other logistics minded gents), the Meta doesn't lie and is easily calculated and defined; actual in the field play-testing has exposed the diseased parts. I just know the wonderful designers of our beloved game have just a list, elegantly scrawled on a dry-erase board in their bullpen as we type on this forum; planning how to implement the needed corrective measures to remove or cure the few diseased parts.

8 hours ago, Managarmr said:

So, 28pts Fenn Rau vs 28pts Talonbane is a piece of cake for Talonbane?

In the casual setting you're describing, he can be. The "power gap" between ships is really only relevant in tourney play.

2 hours ago, Luke C said:

Agreed, the problem comes in when you realize that for the points asajj is just better than wedge in an xwing, lando is still too many points for a bad ability, the bwing platform dies way too easily and the Royal Guard Tie Interceptor is laughable to a ps 7+ ship.

Except that missions allow for a variability that can bring back some ships into play. Now, obviously, missions as a tournament solution would need some refining and restrictions. You can't have the tournament mission be Mission 13: Pursuit and say, "Whelp, I hope you brought a Raider or Tantive IV or else you are out."

But, when you look at something like reinforcing, which is prevalent in several missions; as an example, I'll use the rules from Mission 6: Undeniable Assets :

Quote

• Rebel Reinforcements: At the end of the End phase, the Rebel player may call for one reinforcement for each Rebel ship that was destroyed during that round. For each reinforcement, he takes the Ship card with the lowest squad point cost matching the destroyed ship's type and places it outside the play area. Then he places the matching ship within Range 1-2 of any corner chosen by the Imperial player. The Rebel player can use this ship as normal.

Do you want to bring a good YT-1300 ship like Rey when the reinforcement is going to be a naked Outer Rim Smuggler? Suddenly, bringing a B-Wing pilot seems a bit more attractive as naked Blue Squadrons are reasonably playable. But then again, you may not play a mission that uses reinforcements. All depends on how the tournament structure works (ex. mystery, choice of three, or set mission choice?)

I'm not saying this is bringing back BBBBZ, but it would shake things up if you have to account multiple possible mission parameters.

1 hour ago, Chumbalaya said:

In the casual setting you're describing, he can be. The "power gap" between ships is really only relevant in tourney play.

I don't see how this could be true; 100/6 is a common, if not the most common, format in casual play, and the difference between Fenn Rau and Talonbane Cobra in such a context is quite clear. They don't suddenly become more equal just because there is no set of plastic tokens at stake.

3 minutes ago, kris40k said:

But, when you look at something like reinforcing, which is prevalent in several missions; as an example, I'll use the rules from Mission 6: Undeniable Assets :

Do you want to bring a good YT-1300 ship like Rey when the reinforcement is going to be a naked Outer Rim Smuggler? Suddenly, bringing a B-Wing pilot seems a bit more attractive as naked Blue Squadrons are reasonably playable. But then again, you may not play a mission that uses reinforcements. All depends on how the tournament structure works (ex. mystery, choice of three, or set mission choice?)

I'm not saying this is bringing back BBBBZ, but it would shake things up if you have to account multiple possible mission parameters.

Thats literally the point though. Sure, if you want to create an environment where the B wing is good again, great, whatever. There still will be ships that are left in the cold (Rebel Smuggler [HWK-290] I'm looking at you). In a competitive environment, you cannot get away from the idea that there are more optimal choices. People figure out the optimal choices and then Boom, you have a meta.

So yes, you can definitely have a situation in which some ships become better based on outside restraints, but it will never make every ship competitive at the same time.

3 minutes ago, Verlaine said:

I don't see how this could be true; 100/6 is a common, if not the most common, format in casual play, and the difference between Fenn Rau and Talonbane Cobra in such a context is quite clear. They don't suddenly become more equal just because there is no set of plastic tokens at stake.

sure they can. both are 28 points, naked, they have nearly the same power curve. Its the PTL/Mindlink/Title/AT that makes fenn a monster, and Talonbane a paper tiger. If you are playing Expert handling Fenn (for fun), its not outlandish to think Talonbane could win the fight.

Just now, Luke C said:

sure they can. both are 28 points, naked, they have nearly the same power curve. Its the PTL/Mindlink/Title/AT that makes fenn a monster, and Talonbane a paper tiger.

But then you're not talking about a difference in casual or tournament play. There is nothing prohibiting someone from using Fenn like that in casual play. So if Fenn is clearly better - for whatever reason - then it still doesn't matter if you're playing for plastic tokens.

1 minute ago, Verlaine said:

But then you're not talking about a difference in casual or tournament play. There is nothing prohibiting someone from using Fenn like that in casual play. So if Fenn is clearly better - for whatever reason - then it still doesn't matter if you're playing for plastic tokens.

Who do you play with? I can absolutely tell my opponent in casual play, "Im not really interested in playing against that." and then give my opponent the chance to change their list. For funzies, both players involved get a say. It's not a tournament, if you decide not to play, who cares?

1 minute ago, Luke C said:

Who do you play with? I can absolutely tell my opponent in casual play, "Im not really interested in playing against that." and then give my opponent the chance to change their list. For funzies, both players involved get a say. It's not a tournament, if you decide not to play, who cares?

That's great, but what is the argument here? You don't care much what squad you use in casual play? Therefore nobody does? I don't think something really follows from this.

Casual play is not some beer and pretzels game where balance doesn't matter. It takes quite an investment for a player to have all the ships he likes and believe it or not, many also want the official cards. Non-tournament play should be taken seriously, without it there is no X-Wing at all. Game balance is an issue regardless of where the game is played.

If Fenn Rau and Talonbane Cobra's relative playability is out of whack, then the game as a whole has a balance problem, not just tournament play.

1 minute ago, Verlaine said:

That's great, but what is the argument here? You don't care much what squad you use in casual play? Therefore nobody does? I don't think something really follows from this.

Casual play is not some beer and pretzels game where balance doesn't matter. It takes quite an investment for a player to have all the ships he likes and believe it or not, many also want the official cards. Non-tournament play should be taken seriously, without it there is no X-Wing at all. Game balance is an issue regardless of where the game is played.

If Fenn Rau and Talonbane Cobra's relative playability is out of whack, then the game as a whole has a balance problem, not just tournament play.

You missed my point. Talonbane and Fenn Rau are relatively the same without upgrades. It is the unique combination of upgrades that make Fenn better than Talonbane.

If you want to play casual, competetively and utilize optimal squads, then you are essentially in a competetive meta. When I am not practicing for a tournament (e.g. playing casually) I make an effort to build squads that are at a commensurate power level to what I am playing. If I know that my opponent is bringing a generic rebel hwk, i will not be bringing my list with an x7 defender.

Just now, Luke C said:

You missed my point. Talonbane and Fenn Rau are relatively the same without upgrades. It is the unique combination of upgrades that make Fenn better than Talonbane.

If you want to play casual, competetively and utilize optimal squads, then you are essentially in a competetive meta. When I am not practicing for a tournament (e.g. playing casually) I make an effort to build squads that are at a commensurate power level to what I am playing. If I know that my opponent is bringing a generic rebel hwk, i will not be bringing my list with an x7 defender.

The claim was that they are the same in casual play but not in tournament play. I still don't see how that is the case, and arguing something else about upgrades still isn't bringing that any closer.

11 hours ago, Chumbalaya said:

But that's not true.

Based on what??????? No one flies lists based on B-wings, X-wings, Kihraxz, HWKs et. al.

There is not a single extant thread that talks about early wave ships as part of the tournament meta except for the occasional super-pilot (e.g., Biggs) or left-over filler.

9 hours ago, AceWing said:

They do upgrade ships. The Mist Hunter is a straight upgrade to the B-Wing. Are people upset that the upgrade is now called Mist Hunter and not B-Wing?

I guess if you were a Rebel player, you would be. An "upgrade" that isn't the same ship and changes factions isn't an "upgrade."

23 minutes ago, Luke C said:

Thats literally the point though. Sure, if you want to create an environment where the B wing is good again, great, whatever. There still will be ships that are left in the cold (Rebel Smuggler [HWK-290] I'm looking at you). In a competitive environment, you cannot get away from the idea that there are more optimal choices. People figure out the optimal choices and then Boom, you have a meta.

So yes, you can definitely have a situation in which some ships become better based on outside restraints, but it will never make every ship competitive at the same time.

The meta susses out a optimal list based on known information. The current state of 100/6 never changes; people know the rules before going in. Therefore it is possible to design lists that best function in that environment. When the environment changes in unknowable ways, then the best someone can try for is, "Well, it doesn't suck at everything."

If you want to call "its not horrible" a meta, fine, I can agree on principle (there will never not be a meta surrounding any game) but I think its better than the current situation where there are clear-cut power lists that outshine everything else.

PS yeah, the HWK-290 is just the victim of horrible design.

1 minute ago, Darth Meanie said:

I guess if you were a Rebel player, you would be. An "upgrade" that isn't the same ship and changes factions isn't an "upgrade."

Not to mention that we would have GW proportions of *****ing up players here; making a previous model obsolete by upgrading it as a model of a completely different faction and offering no way of bringing your old material up to date. I doubt this is the kind of "upgrading" that FFG has in mind.

4 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

I guess if you were a Rebel player, you would be. An "upgrade" that isn't the same ship and changes factions isn't an "upgrade."

I wouldn't say it's a straight upgrade, either.

10 hours ago, AceWing said:

They do upgrade ships. The Mist Hunter is a straight upgrade to the B-Wing. Are people upset that the upgrade is now called Mist Hunter and not B-Wing?

Is it really though? No cannon slot, crew as standard without using the mod slot, no barrel roll but has evade. Can't set up juke b-wings without a significant spend and can't put juke on the generics. Mist hunter's can't barrel roll or equip HLC. To me they seem like different ships and I've had decent tournament placings using both ships over the years. Not really sure where the direct upgrade is myself...

3 hours ago, costi said:

I don't know, I don't play these. I do play Infinity, though, which has had a tournament system with about 20 varied missions for 8 years now, and there is no meta there. Sure, there are units/options considered better or worse, but there are no must-have and everything can be used if you know what you're doing.

Infinity is a happy case then (and a game I've been wanting to try for a long time,if only it didn't come with unpainted minis ).

My point is that missions in themselves wouldn't necessarily guarantee a wider meta. There are plenty of games out there that have both missions and a meta just as well defined as x-wing.