Hello All,

This is neither a nerf or anti-nerf thread but more of a question about nerfing in relation to this game.

I've had some kind level of intereaction with minis games for 20 years. Like many gamers, I've dabbled with MANY systems, but I did play a few games more extensively. I've also been involved in mini games forums; primarily MkI WM/H and Malifaux (more as a lurker than player) but some for GW skirmish games like BB, Necromunda, and Mordheim.

All of the games I've played had some stuff that was obviously "bettet"than other things, but I've never seen so much ire about balance as in this forum.

Is it because this is SW and people already have a notion that their favorite ship or one they liked in a video game should be a top level performer?

Due to upgrades and the SW genre, XWM players will more likely buy a ship or two of all releases for the 3 factions. I think that this is a factor in folks frustrations. In other systems, if you found something subpar, you just don't buy it.

Perhaps this just resonnats with me because I have not really engaged in forums on 40k. ?

Interested to learn your impressions on this subject.

Very often the issue comes from an invisible divide in the xwing community. There's a certain portion who are focused on tournament play and take the meta as it comes. They are rarely vocal. There's a certain portion who focus on tournament play and dislike how whatever current meta is going. They are often vocal and always exist no matter what the meta looks like. There's then a third portion deemed 'casual' who either focus on alternative game modes, cinematic feel, or just having whatever fun they want with their favorite ships. They are also often vocal because certain things don't 'feel star wars' or they dislike ffg's focus on standard 100[points]/6[rocks] play.

All 3 have somewhat conflicting views and usually have a hard time talking to each other productively. Also the game is usually healthier than the forums say almost always as a rule.

10 minutes ago, Pewpewpew BOOM said:

Perhaps this just resonnats with me because I have not really engaged in forums on 40k. ?

Arguing about "broken/unbalanced" armies in 40k is very much a thing, almost a favorite pastime for many.

I think there's definitely something in it that players are more attached to certain ships/playstyles/factions which triggers people. For many people they want to play with X-Wings, TIE Fighters and iconic characters from the films, but feel like that is increasingly difficult as newer ships push those options out.

I believe there's also something endemic to FFG's design process that they will break their 'living' games eventually as they try to layer mechanics and complexity onto relatively light frameworks. Where other games might reset now and then FFG just load things up and up until the whole thing breaks.

2 minutes ago, Pewpewpew BOOM said:

Hello All,

This is neither a nerf or anti-nerf thread but more of a question about nerfing in relation to this game.

I've had some kind level of intereaction with minis games for 20 years. Like many gamers, I've dabbled with MANY systems, but I did play a few games more extensively. I've also been involved in mini games forums; primarily MkI WM/H and Malifaux (more as a lurker than player) but some for GW skirmish games like BB, Necromunda, and Mordheim.

All of the games I've played had some stuff that was obviously "bettet"than other things, but I've never seen so much ire about balance as in this forum.

Is it because this is SW and people already have a notion that their favorite ship or one they liked in a video game should be a top level performer?

Due to upgrades and the SW genre, XWM players will more likely buy a ship or two of all releases for the 3 factions. I think that this is a factor in folks frustrations. In other systems, if you found something subpar, you just don't buy it.

Perhaps this just resonnats with me because I have not really engaged in forums on 40k. ?

Interested to learn your impressions on this subject.

For many people, myself included it's our first competitive miniatures game.

When we see a problem with the game, we just want it fixed, it's that simple. We don't have the assumption that things are always broken and that all games are like that.

We want the game to be fixed when it's not balanced or when negative play experiences get out of hand. The whole point of this game is to enjoy it, so having the meta be filled with broken crap can sap enjoyment from the game.

Other game systems require more investment, with assembly and painting of miniatures and typically more money required. These types of people are more likely to be the hardcore crowd almost by definition because of their large investment in the game.

Hardcore players are more likely to be of the, "If you nerf one thing, then the next best thing will be overpowered and you'll have to nerf that too. In a competitive game things will always rise to the top" opinion. These are players that didn't see any problem with fat turret mirror matches for an entire year, or top cuts that were half Parattanni.

I think the reason everyone had gone nerf crazy around here lately is because the last FAQ took the heaviest handed approach to balancing X-wing that the community has yet seen.

The 40k community, by contrast, has seen many huge swings of power as editions change every few years and new armies come out or get updated. No one shift in power resonates the way those latest changes did here because they're used to it.

The side-effect of the Great Nerfing is now people have seen that FFG is willing to step in and dramatically change things if necessary, and now they've got a taste for it. Now everyone's pet grievance is being trotted out as the next thing to nerf.

If you give a mouse a cookie, he'll want a glass of milk.

37 minutes ago, Pewpewpew BOOM said:

Is it because this is SW and people already have a notion that their favorite ship or one they liked in a video game should be a top level performer?

I agree that there are some ships people are more attached to than others. But at least personally, I wouln't want to see FFG go out and make that ship head and shoulders above everything else in the game. I think its more a case of wanting the ships/upgrades to be on a relatively even keel, or if thats not possible, the difference between the top performers and the rest to be as small as possible so that you can fly the ships you like without feeling like you are hamstringing yourself.

1 hour ago, nigeltastic said:

Very often the issue comes from an invisible divide in the xwing community. There's a certain portion who are focused on tournament play and take the meta as it comes. They are rarely vocal. There's a certain portion who focus on tournament play and dislike how whatever current meta is going. They are often vocal and always exist no matter what the meta looks like. There's then a third portion deemed 'casual' who either focus on alternative game modes, cinematic feel, or just having whatever fun they want with their favorite ships. They are also often vocal because certain things don't 'feel star wars' or they dislike ffg's focus on standard 100[points]/6[rocks] play.

All 3 have somewhat conflicting views and usually have a hard time talking to each other productively. Also the game is usually healthier than the forums say almost always as a rule.

Brilliant explanation with which I agree almost wholeheartedly. However, I don't think there are many players who are entirely one or the other. I think there is more overlap between casual players and the other two. This is because almost all of the players I know (Type 1 in your explanation) also enjoy playing non-standard, casual games - they enjoy those as much as tournament play. I have also noticed a large overlap on this forum between Type 2 players and those stopping tournament play to focus on HotAC etc ("I don't play tournaments any more because TEH META" crowd). I haven't really met anyone who is solely type 1, 2, or 3 (although I could think of a few online).

1 hour ago, Turbo Toker said:

For many people, myself included it's our first competitive miniatures game.

When we see a problem with the game, we just want it fixed, it's that simple. We don't have the assumption that things are always broken and that all games are like that.

We want the game to be fixed when it's not balanced or when negative play experiences get out of hand. The whole point of this game is to enjoy it, so having the meta be filled with broken crap can sap enjoyment from the game.

Other game systems require more investment, with assembly and painting of miniatures and typically more money required. These types of people are more likely to be the hardcore crowd almost by definition because of their large investment in the game.

Hardcore players are more likely to be of the, "If you nerf one thing, then the next best thing will be overpowered and you'll have to nerf that too. In a competitive game things will always rise to the top" opinion. These are players that didn't see any problem with fat turret mirror matches for an entire year, or top cuts that were half Parattanni.

It's also my first competitive [read any ] miniatures game.

I don't think the meta is filled with broken crap, I think there are better squads and worse ones. Some of them push mechanics to their limit (such as bombs, or Biggs), and some are purely good at doing everything (paratanni). There may be some issues where some ships are too powerful, and sure you can call those broken, but the top cuts aren't filled with broken ships (of which there are maybe 1 at the moment). They're filled with the ships which the best players pick to give them the best chance at winning.

If you call whatever's at the top of the meta 'broken' then your explanation will come true. If you accept that some ships being better than others is the basic state of the game, then it won't.

1 hour ago, nigeltastic said:

Very often the issue comes from an invisible divide in the xwing community. There's a certain portion who are focused on tournament play and take the meta as it comes. They are rarely vocal. There's a certain portion who focus on tournament play and dislike how whatever current meta is going. They are often vocal and always exist no matter what the meta looks like. There's then a third portion deemed 'casual' who either focus on alternative game modes, cinematic feel, or just having whatever fun they want with their favorite ships. They are also often vocal because certain things don't 'feel star wars' or they dislike ffg's focus on standard 100[points]/6[rocks] play.

All 3 have somewhat conflicting views and usually have a hard time talking to each other productively. Also the game is usually healthier than the forums say almost always as a rule.

A calm, rational assessment. So very refreshing.

2 hours ago, nigeltastic said:

Very often the issue comes from an invisible divide in the xwing community. There's a certain portion who are focused on tournament play and take the meta as it comes. They are rarely vocal. There's a certain portion who focus on tournament play and dislike how whatever current meta is going. They are often vocal and always exist no matter what the meta looks like. There's then a third portion deemed 'casual' who either focus on alternative game modes, cinematic feel, or just having whatever fun they want with their favorite ships. They are also often vocal because certain things don't 'feel star wars' or they dislike ffg's focus on standard 100[points]/6[rocks] play.

All 3 have somewhat conflicting views and usually have a hard time talking to each other productively. Also the game is usually healthier than the forums say almost always as a rule.

Invisible?? Hmmmmm. . .

13 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

Invisible?? Hmmmmm. . .

Invisible only in that it's not an explicit divide like that of the imperial assault community between two game modes (skirmish and campaign). It's certainly still visible in the forum topics though, yes.

Also as pointed out, certainly people may span categories or types since classifying humans is rarely cut and dry but often people will fit or identify primarily with one 'type' over the other two.

Fluff plays a big part of it as well.

In the films we see X-Wings kicking some serious ass, and this just isn't translated into the game.

And as a fan of a lot of the 90s EU stuff things like Dash not being a higher pilot skill than Lando, and the HWK having a terrible dial (seriously, look at it next to a Quadjumper dial. Though dial creep is a completely separate issue) are absolutely criminal.

2 hours ago, Turbo Toker said:

For many people, myself included it's our first competitive miniatures game.

When we see a problem with the game, we just want it fixed, it's that simple. We don't have the assumption that things are always broken and that all games are like that.

Very much this. I honestly couldn't care less how things do or don't work in other games, just this one.

10 minutes ago, Stevey86 said:

Fluff plays a big part of it as well.

In the films we see X-Wings kicking some serious ass, and this just isn't translated into the game.

And as a fan of a lot of the 90s EU stuff things like Dash not being a higher pilot skill than Lando, and the HWK having a terrible dial (seriously, look at it next to a Quadjumper dial. Though dial creep is a completely separate issue) are absolutely criminal.

Lando flew through the second Death Star. Based on the movies, he's a better pilot than Han is. He should be the 9 pilot skill.

Yeah, Han in TFA made a light speed jump past a planet's shield directly into atmosphere, but it's better to be lucky than good, am I right?

Oh my goodness

14 minutes ago, Turbo Toker said:

Lando flew through the second Death Star. Based on the movies, he's a better pilot than Han is.

I've had the biggest argument with my wife over this! (She despises Lando.) I claim that Lando is a better pilot (according to the movies) because most of the time we see Han, he's simply flying out of a spaceport in a rush or "escaping the Death Star" with a tracking beacon on board (A New Hope). Check out when they fight the TIEs: he gives Chewie the controls in order to shoot some TIEs. Why not send Leia to the guns while the hot-shot pilot out maneuvers the Ties?

Similarly in ROTJ, he hands the controls to Chewie on the Lambda Shuttle. The best flying on screen from Han was in the asteroid belt near Hoth.

We'll see how good a pilot Han truly is in his stand-alone movies, and that should settle it.

Sorry everybody, for sidetracking.

27 minutes ago, Turbo Toker said:

Lando flew through the second Death Star. Based on the movies, he's a better pilot than Han is. He should be the 9 pilot skill.

Which should make Dash our first PS10, because he basically shat all over Lando in SotE.

2 hours ago, Force Majeure said:

Similarly in ROTJ, he hands the controls to Chewie on the Lambda Shuttle. The best flying on screen from Han was in the asteroid belt near Hoth.

To be fair to Han, the possibility of successfully navigating an asteroid field is approximately 3,720 to 1 . I think that should say something for his skill.

Something that also causes calls for nerfing is the fact that, apparently, 1) the design team reevaluates cards when necessary and 2) specifically targets balance issues with new cards. This gives rise to the idea that something that annoys you now might be different tomorrow. So even if complaining about it on the forum doesn't help - and who knows, maybe it does - it is tempting to speculate about the changes that would improve the game most.

The way X-Wing is sold and how it evolves just stimulates nerf threads.

1 hour ago, kris40k said:

To be fair to Han, the possibility of successfully navigating an asteroid field is approximately 3,720 to 1 . I think that should say something for his skill.

Right. So Lando is PS 9, and Han is PS 3720.

I just realized that TFA is not the first time Han snuck up on somebody with a dangerous light-speed jump. That's how he got the jump on Vader in ANH, of course!

8 hours ago, nigeltastic said:

Very often the issue comes from an invisible divide in the xwing community. There's a certain portion who are focused on tournament play and take the meta as it comes. They are rarely vocal. There's a certain portion who focus on tournament play and dislike how whatever current meta is going. They are often vocal and always exist no matter what the meta looks like. There's then a third portion deemed 'casual' who either focus on alternative game modes, cinematic feel, or just having whatever fun they want with their favorite ships. They are also often vocal because certain things don't 'feel star wars' or they dislike ffg's focus on standard 100[points]/6[rocks] play.

All 3 have somewhat conflicting views and usually have a hard time talking to each other productively. Also the game is usually healthier than the forums say almost always as a rule.

*Clap* *Clap* Well said sir.

At this point, FFG almost needs to make a Second Edition (X-Wing 2.0). They've learned a lot, and there are definitely a lot of things that would benefit from a bump up or a bump down in power level. Of course, over time, even a 2.0 would need a nerf here or there, but after 5 Years X-Wing has a lot of cards which are showing the stresses upon the game's seams.

15 hours ago, nigeltastic said:

Very often the issue comes from an invisible divide in the xwing community. There's a certain portion who are focused on tournament play and take the meta as it comes. They are rarely vocal. There's a certain portion who focus on tournament play and dislike how whatever current meta is going. They are often vocal and always exist no matter what the meta looks like. There's then a third portion deemed 'casual' who either focus on alternative game modes, cinematic feel, or just having whatever fun they want with their favorite ships. They are also often vocal because certain things don't 'feel star wars' or they dislike ffg's focus on standard 100[points]/6[rocks] play.

All 3 have somewhat conflicting views and usually have a hard time talking to each other productively. Also the game is usually healthier than the forums say almost always as a rule.

I feel there should be a 4th group in there somewhere but I can't exactly put my name on it. Either way I wonder if anyone has done a "Taxonomy" on table top game players much like this one for M.U.D.s

6 hours ago, AllWingsStandyingBy said:

At this point, FFG almost needs to make a Second Edition (X-Wing 2.0). They've learned a lot, and there are definitely a lot of things that would benefit from a bump up or a bump down in power level. Of course, over time, even a 2.0 would need a nerf here or there, but after 5 Years X-Wing has a lot of cards which are showing the stresses upon the game's seams.

I wonder if the Runewars double dial is them speccing up X-Wing 2.0.