Just now, SpectralFremen said:

This topic is so silly. Everything is either dead on arrival or overpowered. FFG can never win.

its the internet what isn't "silly"?

What really bugs me about this topic is that I can't really get a clear picture of what people actually want to change.

2 hours ago, iamfanboy said:

"Jumping the Shark" is an incorrect phrase to use, because you can never see the 'jump the shark' moment when it happens. It takes perspective to see when a given entertainment has forgotten how to create solid, new entertainment based on the intrinsic values of its medium and resorts to gimmicks that are hyped and then forgotten when the next gimmick comes out...

Wait.

Wave 8 introduced us to Dual Cards and promised that there would be many new uses of them to expand versatility on the tabletop.

Wave 9 all but forgot about them in the face of the newest gimmick, Condition Cards.

The U-Wing was wave 10 and it gives us the best dual sided card so far, since it even works in tandem with the model. Wave 9 did not have any dual cards as far as I recall (didn't have conditions, yet, either), but i don't mind that as they never promised us anything on that front and I'd rather have dual cards be created with a purpose and not for the sake of it. Conditions aren't a gimmick, they are a much better way of keeping track of more complex game effects like Kallus and should have been made way earlier (like, for example, for Kallus).

Whoops, double post. Weird that it doesn't jump you to your new post anymore...

5 hours ago, Darth Meanie said:

I have experienced this first hand. My brother and I got into this game together, and for the longest time he was the far better pilot. I lost, a lot. I am a freak about "keeping up," so I have a lot of the new releases, and my brother is still exploring b-wings (his fav) and a lot of the older ships. The last couple games I have creamed him, and moreover, the card combos I used to make it happen were unfamiliar to him (since they are new). While I wouldn't say he was pissed, he was certainly flabbergasted at where the game is right now. If you play Wave < 5 vs. Wave > 5, it feels like you are flying WWI biplanes against late-WWII monowings. And hopefully, this game doesn't get to be jets vs. biplanes via power creep.

OTOH, I am going to loose interest fast if the next 5 Waves are all attempts to bring the first 5 Waves up to speed with the last 5 Waves. I think there are creative ways to do it (release Blue Squadron X-wing with a T-65 patch, release Phoenix Squadron A-wing with a patch), but I also don't want to see every ship released twice: once as a Wave, and then again as a "Veterans Pack" to fix it. Which brings me down to Dave's 2nd point. . .and the point of the podcast. . .fun X-Wing and formal X-Wing are not the same game.

Now that's no way to treat your elders.

The next 5 waves won't be attempst to bring the first 5 up to speed. Fix packs have (so far) never been part of wave releases. We get new ships in the waves, and out-of-wave aces packs or epic ships with fixes for existing ships. I expect it to continue the same as it has. Wave 11 will have 3+ new ships, we have the scum epic on the way with a scyk fix, and I expect scum and rebel aces packs probably this year with fixes for other ships.

3 hours ago, iamfanboy said:

"Jumping the Shark" is an incorrect phrase to use, because you can never see the 'jump the shark' moment when it happens. It takes perspective to see when a given entertainment has forgotten how to create solid, new entertainment based on the intrinsic values of its medium and resorts to gimmicks that are hyped and then forgotten when the next gimmick comes out...

Wait.

Wave 8 introduced us to Dual Cards and promised that there would be many new uses of them to expand versatility on the tabletop.

Wave 9 all but forgot about them in the face of the newest gimmick, Condition Cards.

It's not a pattern yet, but it's there.

Power Creep, however, cannot be argued. Stay On Target's numbers prove this, with almost 80% of all Top X pilots coming from Wave 7+ (if you reckon TIE/x7 as a Wave 8 card and Lambda with Palp as a Wave 7 card, which is fair seeing as how those ships see no play without it), and pilots which have been standbys since the earliest days of the game (Darth Vader? Soontir Fel?) completely falling off the map.

In some games, power creep is acceptable (You don't exactly see a lot of people playing Serra Angel in Magic the Gathering these days).

In X-Wing, I feel as though it's unacceptable, because it's a game based off of an intellectual property that draws players to it BECAUSE of the iconic ships, not because of the gameplay. If a given player is a fan of B-Wings and A-wings, or really loves the idea of flying Darth Vader around, making his personal favorite ship obsolete and telling him "If you want to play the game for real you've got to buy this obscure ship you've never heard of and fly this pilot you don't care about that was only in four issues of a comic book which has been out of print for over a decade" is a good way to drive him away from the game entirely. Or forcing a player to put something on the table that he legitimately HATES in order to stay competitive; while I think TFA hate is rather petty I do know someone who sold his collection online rather than be forced to play "Fake X-Wings, Fake TIE Fighters, and now a stupid Batshuttle."

Is power creep inevitable? Not if you've got a good, consistent design plan. Malifaux handles it by making scenario and objective play more important than power level (and Wave 1 models are still good when compared to Wave 4!), Magic and Heroclix handles it via planned obsolescence, Battletech handled it by making sure that anything new was priced appropriately against the old and has their pricing system open source and are willing to revise it...

But X-Wing does not have that design plan.

What makes it worse is that there's no actual alternative being promoted by the company. I hardly count Epic among the alternatives as it's basically just an upscaling: "You have tons of ships? Well, buy this big expensive one and play big games!" All FFG promotes is 100 points/6 rocks, and any ship which does not fit into that narrow definition is useless.

If they sold a format where those 'old' ships were useful and fun again, like Heroes of the Aturi Cluster, and stopped pushing the competitive play so hard, then the power creep of competitive play wouldn't be such a problem. But they don't and apparently won't, so it is a problem.

Conditions are wave 10, not wave 9, but that same wave with the "new gimmick" ALSO has a new dual card, so...

As for power creep, it is a thing, but I think part of the wave 7+ for most of the top pilots is also people wanting to play with the new shinies. Brobots for example is still a strong squad, but it's not exciting. People played it *forever* because it was the only really viable scum squad for so long, so no one really wants to fly them anymore. And there's other pre-wave 7 pilots still around, just not as common anymore. Some are even maknig ac omeback (chiranaeu, rexler, etc), albeit with updated upgrades.

On 2/10/2017 at 1:56 PM, Babaganoosh said:

Haha; they can pluck if they want, but I'm already planning to run a killer narrative event at Gencon this august with the rest of the Shuttle Tydirium crew

Please keep us up to date on this - Mynock will definitely publicize it as long as we're even vaguely aware (and dim awareness is my typical level of cognizance).

This was a tough episode.

Some peeps are telling me to stop hating on X-Wing! It's true; I have only spent deep 4 figures on product, more on travel, done what I could within the scope of my pompous personality to foster it locally, recorded 100+ hours talking about it, and yet even more on prepping to talk about it.

Consistent listeners know that I predominantly go to bat in defense of FFG staff. I would never quit X-Wing to play another game. I'd thought I was done with gaming until I discovered X-Wing. I want to make it clear that X-Wing is the best. But that does still leave tons of room for it to be short of being the best that it can be, and I think it's okay and potentially beneficial to discuss that space, and which way it's trending.

The driving force for the episode was not "burnout". I run hot, and I don't burn out on things I love. When I don't play, I miss the game. X-Wing is just shifting its emphasis toward mechanics that I personally love less. I clearly stated that this was subjective.

It's not a criticism of the meta. I've discussed metas that I've enjoyed more or less, and the "less" just meant that they didn't particularly suit my style of play. I've never criticized metas for that non-sin (the Fat Han/Whisper meta collapse rather, is my punching bag). My worries (and that's what they are intended to be; not gripes) are about underlying mechanics. Saying something like "it's jumped the shark" does require context and hindsight perspective, but I am deeply concerned that X-Wing might be sliding down the Attack Wing trajectory. If this does indeed come to pass, we'll be able to point back to this time frame, and identify that shark jumping moment when it began.

For the most part, this thread has been interesting and informative. Kudos to this community for rising above the baseline character of the internet. If you have a different set of criteria than I do, I totally comprehend how you could enjoy and love the current State of X-Wing. I'm just concerned for the long term health of the game, and I do grasp that much of what I shared lies firmly within the parameters of 'opinion'. Naturally, I believe mine to be valid, but I also held off doing this episode until my conviction in that validity had grown to the point where I felt compelled to share it. And that process took a long time.

Thanks to everyone who listens, and thanks to everyone who gives feedback. We try to accommodate all reasonable requests; unfortunately, some are mutually exclusive. If Episode LIV didn't connect with you, I apologize for the interruption. We just recorded a new episode, and will return to our regularly scheduled buffoonery.

2 hours ago, SpectralFremen said:

What really bugs me about this topic is that I can't really get a clear picture of what people actually want to change.

This is a thoroughly reasonable response. There's a ton of crosstalk and misunderstanding with multiple conversations occurring simultaneously.

My outlook is this:

I dislike the growing importance and wordiness of card interactions at the expense of the importance of maneuvering. Power creep is distasteful, but perhaps inevitable. As long as FFG continues to rehabilitate older releases, I can tolerate it. However, the game is fundamentally shifting at its core, and I assert that as an objective statement. Is the shift good or bad? I (subjectively) consider it to be bad.

37 minutes ago, Mynock Delta said:

This is a thoroughly reasonable response. There's a ton of crosstalk and misunderstanding with multiple conversations occurring simultaneously.

My outlook is this:

I dislike the growing importance and wordiness of card interactions at the expense of the importance of maneuvering. Power creep is distasteful, but perhaps inevitable. As long as FFG continues to rehabilitate older releases, I can tolerate it. However, the game is fundamentally shifting at its core, and I assert that as an objective statement. Is the shift good or bad? I (subjectively) consider it to be bad.

Which is precisely why gathering up a ton of generalised dissatisfaction over complex and interlinked issues behind a simple slogan like "Make [noun] Great Again" works so well.

I dislike that maneuvering and positioning appears to playing second fiddle to bookkeeping with tokens and abilities. If you want a shorthand for it: I feel like being in the right place with the wrong ship gets you nothing these days. The 'right' ships have an overwhelming dice/mod advantage that 1) they've not had to significantly compromise on anything else to receive and, 2) is largely unaffected to most forms of disruptive flying that would previously have been used against these strategies (bumping/stress).

4 hours ago, SpectralFremen said:

What really bugs me about this topic is that I can't really get a clear picture of what people actually want to change.

What I would like to change can be summed up like this: I'd like the game to be more like the Star Wars films. Specifically this means:

- Lighter weapons should be effective against lightly armored, agile ships.

- Squads that look like those in the films should be every bit as powerful as those with unthematic combinations or obscure pilots/ships.

- The game should have scenarios/campaigns in which famous moments from the films can be played out.

- The game should rely on gameplay rather than combos of cards, even the worst pairings of equally skilled opponents should give either a reasonable chance of winning.

An example of a 'miniatures game based on a film done right' is the old Lord of the Rings game by GW, as far as I'm concerned. It had only modest power creep, scenarios for all the great battles, good representations for the major characters, and armies that weren't too different from what you saw on screen. For me that's an example of the direction I'd like to see X-Wing take.

I don't see how they can possibly reboot without pissing off all existing players though?

6 minutes ago, Goseki1 said:

I don't see how they can possibly reboot without pissing off all existing players though?

I don't think a reboot is imminent for exactly that reason. The most recent major reboot was AGOT LCG and that came at the point when the existing playerbase had boiled right down to just the utter hardcore lunatics who would likely follow them anywhere, so there was little to lose and a lot of casual new AGOT fans to gain by rebooting.

X-Wing is a long, long way from being in that position. As much as 'X-Wing 2.0' occasionally gets discussed I think it's only a distant prospect. That only makes it more important that we try to recover the 'spirit of X-Wing' in v1.0.

I think there's just too much to try and unpick that people are unhappy with unfortunately.

3 minutes ago, Goseki1 said:

I think there's just too much to try and unpick that people are unhappy with unfortunately.

I don't think any one person posting here has "too much" but when you don't have a consensus of "what to fix" or "how to fix it" it starts to seem like a lot of stuff when it's just everyone es differing opinion.

I can accept the complexity and power creep if existing ships are kept/made relevant. To be honest the only way I see to bring back T65's is through a mechanic of some sort.. or complexity creep in itself.

Xwing has progressed past the point of Biggs walks the Dog vs Howl swarm but that doesn't have to mean we don't see those ships.. They just need to evolve like the game has.

16 hours ago, Dr Zoidberg said:

It hasn't jumped the shark; not by a long shot. (See, I can make subjective, unsubstantiated statements too.)

If X-Wings jumped sharks; they'd be OP.

7 hours ago, Mynock Delta said:

Please keep us up to date on this - Mynock will definitely publicize it as long as we're even vaguely aware (and dim awareness is my typical level of cognizance).

We'll be in touch. Expect an ewok courier to arrive soon.

4 hours ago, Stay On The Leader said:

As much as 'X-Wing 2.0' occasionally gets discussed I think it's only a distant prospect.

Only if you wait for FFG to make it.

X-Wing 2.0 could easily exist as a fan made variant of the current X-Wing game. All you need is a few people with a solid understanding of the game, who are willing to make a handful of rule changes and re-balances, and an understanding that this 2.0 version would be a departure from the normal X-Wing game without trying to be the definitive version of X-Wing that claims to be perfectly in balance. These tweaks to the existing game would live and breathe and change on a seasonal basis.

You'd also need a 2.0 squad builder where people could make squads that use modifier rules or point values, a concise list of the changes from the standard X-Wing, for reference, and people with skin as thick as steel, to handle the onslaught of people who can and will whine that they have no idea what they're doing, when their definition of balance is not 100% agreed with. That last part will be the tough piece.

X-Wing 2.0 can go live at any time, but don't wait for FFG to bring it to you.

5 minutes ago, CBMarkham said:

Only if you wait for FFG to make it.

X-Wing 2.0 could easily exist as a fan made variant of the current X-Wing game. All you need is a few people with a solid understanding of the game, who are willing to make a handful of rule changes and re-balances, and an understanding that this 2.0 version would be a departure from the normal X-Wing game without trying to be the definitive version of X-Wing that claims to be perfectly in balance. These tweaks to the existing game would live and breathe and change on a seasonal basis.

And those few people would be the only ones interested in it. Now don't get me wrong. I enjoy the idea of making some changes to the game (appropriate ones), but the game is still too popular for anyone to take a fan-fix 2.0 over the real deal unless that fan-fix is pretty much perfect and has some way to get its rule set spread all over the community.

I always love the idea of a house rules tournament where card's point costs are adjusted slightly, but even in that case you often find the house rules aren't the rules everyone thinks should be in place. May still try one though.

Just now, Kdubb said:

And those few people would be the only ones interested in it. Now don't get me wrong. I enjoy the idea of making some changes to the game (appropriate ones), but the game is still too popular for anyone to take a fan-fix 2.0 over the real deal unless that fan-fix is pretty much perfect and has some way to get its rule set spread all over the community.

That could be true, but I think stating it as a certainty is pretty pessimistic.

HotAC is just a fan made campaign that nobody has to care about or respect, but as a community, we do.

Why do we? Because it's a high quality product. If someone decided to give X-Wing 2.0 a legitimate shot, and people played it and felt like it was a breath of fresh air, I think the community would embrace it, even if not every person agreed 100% with the implementation. You don't need to create perfection, just a high quality product that people can try and enjoy.

Then again, maybe I'm a naive optimist.

5 hours ago, Verlaine said:

What I would like to change can be summed up like this: I'd like the game to be more like the Star Wars films. Specifically this means:

- Lighter weapons should be effective against lightly armored, agile ships.

- Squads that look like those in the films should be every bit as powerful as those with unthematic combinations or obscure pilots/ships.

- The game should have scenarios/campaigns in which famous moments from the films can be played out.

- The game should rely on gameplay rather than combos of cards, even the worst pairings of equally skilled opponents should give either a reasonable chance of winning.

I am in on all of this. The only small change I would make is that combos are a very fun part of list building. . .what works together and how. OTOH, powerful combos should be thematic. For example, putting Han and Chewie together, or maybe Luke and Wedge.

5 hours ago, Goseki1 said:

I don't see how they can possibly reboot without pissing off all existing players though?

If it improves the game (and increases the game's longevity) why would you get pissed?? If the core of the game could use a little work, I think a reboot would be far more effective in the long haul than yet another layer of duct tape.

Using cost as an issue is absurd--you can buy 3 more Veterans packs, or you can buy X-Wing 2.0. The ships would remain, even if the cardboard might change.

23 minutes ago, CBMarkham said:

Only if you wait for FFG to make it.

X-Wing 2.0 could easily exist as a fan made variant of the current X-Wing game. All you need is a few people with a solid understanding of the game, who are willing to make a handful of rule changes and re-balances, and an understanding that this 2.0 version would be a departure from the normal X-Wing game without trying to be the definitive version of X-Wing that claims to be perfectly in balance. These tweaks to the existing game would live and breathe and change on a seasonal basis.

You'd also need a 2.0 squad builder where people could make squads that use modifier rules or point values, a concise list of the changes from the standard X-Wing, for reference, and people with skin as thick as steel, to handle the onslaught of people who can and will whine that they have no idea what they're doing, when their definition of balance is not 100% agreed with. That last part will be the tough piece.

X-Wing 2.0 can go live at any time, but don't wait for FFG to bring it to you.

I have thought about doing this. The main barriers would be:

1. Getting widespread support for squad builders to implement the changes would be nice, provided they plaster "NOT TOURNAMENT LEGAL" all over the printouts.
2. I would want to revisit my MathWing approach / scripts again and add some more super-secret post "v3.0" stuff.
3. Assuming I can come up with a reasonably balanced implementation (not a trivial challenge with 200 pilots to balance), I would essentially be working for FFG for free and giving them the recipe for future fixes.

#1 - This would take buy in from the community, but if the fan made 2.0 was popular enough then I'm sure this would get done.

#2 - I would like to do this anyway, but it takes time and I have other projects going on. At this point the primary motivation for doing this would be to refine the underlying analytical equations and publish the results in a paper.

#3 - This is a show stopper for me. As much as I would love to see X-wing be balanced better (for casual play or tournament play), I don't think it would be a smart business decision on my part to hand them the info that they still have yet to achieve with 10+ man years of development time.

This isn't to say that someone else (or some committee) can't do a fan made v2.0. Vorpal Sword is doing his PhD dissertation on X-wing balance, using a completely different kind of approach than me, so if he is willing he could be a great place to start.

10 minutes ago, Kdubb said:

And those few people would be the only ones interested in it. Now don't get me wrong. I enjoy the idea of making some changes to the game (appropriate ones), but the game is still too popular for anyone to take a fan-fix 2.0 over the real deal unless that fan-fix is pretty much perfect and has some way to get its rule set spread all over the community.

I always love the idea of a house rules tournament where card's point costs are adjusted slightly, but even in that case you often find the house rules aren't the rules everyone thinks should be in place. May still try one though.

A fan made v2.0 for balance fixes would certainly be a strictly casual affair. Competitive players looking to keep up on their skills in preparation for tournament season would almost always pass. Both approaches are OK. Personally I'm getting bored with the relative lack of viable squad archetypes in the competitive meta game, and would have a lot more fun playing a wider variety of lists that would be viable. I'm not nearly as competitive a player as many, the most competitive thing I'll likely play in for a while will be Deep Core in the X-wing Vassal league. I went to one Regionals this season and am not planning on going to any System Opens, Nationals, etc. The travel time is pretty significant. But I'm sure a lot of other players feel the same way as I do, that they would enjoy a more robust ruleset for fun casual play.

10 hours ago, SpectralFremen said:

What really bugs me about this topic is that I can't really get a clear picture of what people actually want to change.

Well, so far it just seems to be people debating whether there is a problem or not. Some say yes and some say no. Beyond that, there really hasn't been much talk of how to "fix" it.

Personally, I think what would really fix the scene would be adding in missions for the game. If you had a pool of missions that you weren't sure which one you would get when it came time to your game, you would have to build a list that would be able to win as best as possible in all the missions. If that pool was balanced enough so that extremes of one or the other were punished, then your end result would be a lot of moderate lists being played. Would there be a new meta that things would gel around? Sure, but I also think that it would be quite a bit broader than it currently is. There would be more tools to win than what there is now.

Part of the problem is that the current game has been boiled down mathematically to the most efficient way to kill the other lists. It comes down to just a few power lists every wave as to what is the best. If the goals were something else, then older ships that aren't as efficient as killing things can come back into play. The X-wing is a great work horse. It has firepower, speed, and durability, but is not great at any one thing. It would thrive in a game that required use of all those things.

I wish I had more time to go into detail at the moment, but work calls. Would missions be a magic thing that fixed all of X-wings problems? No. Would it help overall? Yes. Could there be 2 formats for tournaments so those that like Deathmatch 100/6 keep playing that way? Sure.

2 hours ago, Kdubb said:

And those few people would be the only ones interested in it. Now don't get me wrong. I enjoy the idea of making some changes to the game (appropriate ones), but the game is still too popular for anyone to take a fan-fix 2.0 over the real deal unless that fan-fix is pretty much perfect and has some way to get its rule set spread all over the community.

I always love the idea of a house rules tournament where card's point costs are adjusted slightly, but even in that case you often find the house rules aren't the rules everyone thinks should be in place. May still try one though.

Isn't this basically what Theorist does with the TC Open? Have not participated so I could be wrong.

If enough players get fed up with the current state of the game, I think the online community is going to see some level of adoption of either a ban-list or price adjustment.

1 hour ago, heychadwick said:

Well, so far it just seems to be people debating whether there is a problem or not. Some say yes and some say no. Beyond that, there really hasn't been much talk of how to "fix" it.

Personally, I think what would really fix the scene would be adding in missions for the game. If you had a pool of missions that you weren't sure which one you would get when it came time to your game, you would have to build a list that would be able to win as best as possible in all the missions. If that pool was balanced enough so that extremes of one or the other were punished, then your end result would be a lot of moderate lists being played. Would there be a new meta that things would gel around? Sure, but I also think that it would be quite a bit broader than it currently is. There would be more tools to win than what there is now.

Part of the problem is that the current game has been boiled down mathematically to the most efficient way to kill the other lists. It comes down to just a few power lists every wave as to what is the best. If the goals were something else, then older ships that aren't as efficient as killing things can come back into play. The X-wing is a great work horse. It has firepower, speed, and durability, but is not great at any one thing. It would thrive in a game that required use of all those things.

I wish I had more time to go into detail at the moment, but work calls. Would missions be a magic thing that fixed all of X-wings problems? No. Would it help overall? Yes. Could there be 2 formats for tournaments so those that like Deathmatch 100/6 keep playing that way? Sure.

I think heychadwick's got a great idea as well, more official and competitive mission types would be a fantastic addition. When I looked at X-Wing, I saw unlimited potential in competitive game modes that could be created. As a new player, I was very surprised to hear that the one competitive way to play this game is a straight up Deathmatch.

In response to the many people suggesting that stores and local hosters of X-Wing could come up with their own rules, I agree with those who say this is not a true solution to the issues at hand. In my eyes, X-Wing is in a similar situation that a video game called Alien Swarm was in back in 2010. For those who don't know, Alien Swarm was a game released on Steam and developed by Valve, the people behind Half-Life. It was essentially a top-down four-player co-op shooter, and it had one campaign comprised of seven short missions... and that was it. The game was fun and had a lot of potential, but Valve essentially threw the game out with it's open sourced engine and left it up to the community to come up with more campaigns and more content on its own. That game died quickly. It's a pattern I've seen far too many times with other games, be it video games or tabletop. A community coming up with more content on its own won't work unless it's of quality that is matched by the base game. As others have pointed out, HotAC is perhaps the best example of the X-Wing community creating a custom game mode, but at the same time, it isn't a mode that would be seen in a competitive environment. Don't get me wrong, it'd be awesome to go to a local store with various tables for various game modes. However, it might be difficult for the X-Wing community to come up with fairly solidified rules that every store would follow if they were to host those game modes.

FFG would need to come up with its own officially promoted and sponsored game modes if X-Wing is going to have a chance at branching out for other types of content and victory conditions for competitive play. If they aren't willing to create new game modes and missions, but the community is, then they at least need to promote and support those community creations in league play. As heychadwick pointed out, the game is about mathematical efficiency in its current state. What if there was a competitive mode that mimicked Capture the Flag? Or maybe threw in an objective that requires bombers to destroy it in order to gain a match point? Heck, this kind of design would compliment the suggestion of required and limited unit types that I described in my previous comment perfectly. I feel that something should be done to add an additional factor to competitive play, aside from having the knowledge to wipe the board in the most efficient way. With the way the most popular ships are being used, it seems to me like this game is turning into Chess. If you've memorized the most efficient steps to play the game, you can win time and time again. In this instance instead of the movement of pieces on a board, it's the card combinations and shiptypes that can lead to victory before the game is started. Throw in a flag to capture in Chess, or some other additional variable to the game, and now those perfectly memorized strategies a player might have had in their head get shaken up a bit.

9 minutes ago, CosmicCastawayA90 said:

In response to the many people suggesting that stores and local hosters of X-Wing could come up with their own rules, I agree with those who say this is not a true solution to the issues at hand.

Right. While homebrews are great, what would happen to "public" X-Wing if every store had its own way to play? Granted, you could find a venue for your favorite flavor, but at that point "official" X-Wing is dead.