3 minutes ago, heychadwick said:

Not everything needs to be effective in the "standard" format.

But why not when it could be with little to no negative effect? In an ideal world, every bit and piece should be usable at the top level of the game in some way. If it isn't, then they failed with that piece, it's as simple as that. Of course they wont be perfect, and failure is a major part of life and business. They will never be able to get the game into a position where everything is competitive, no matter how hard they try. But they should always, ALWAYS be seeking to give their customers the most value out of every component they offer them.

Having seen evidence of what does and does not work in X-wing thus far, there is no valid reason why they should not be adapting and refining their craft. The Onyx Squadron Escort's costing and lack of an elite seems to indicate to me that they are not refining their process as well as they could be if they would take the time to look at the popularity of mid PS generics within the game.

I am just curious though- Do you feel correctly costing ships for standard format negatively effects Epic or missions? I know I personally feel that is not the case at all, and that well costed cards in standard, which allows them to see play in that format, is good for every facet of the game.

7 minutes ago, LordBlades said:

I think you misunderstood the question. The way I understood it was something like: what would be the downside (in regard to epic/mission/whatever use) if the mid PS generic didn't suck in 100/6 ?

Thank you for simplifying my reply before I even submitted it lol.

Just now, Kdubb said:

But why not when it could be with little to no negative effect? In an ideal world, every bit and piece should be usable at the top level of the game in some way. If it isn't, then they failed with that piece, it's as simple as that. Of course they wont be perfect, and failure is a major part of life and business. They will never be able to get the game into a position where everything is competitive, no matter how hard they try. But they should always, ALWAYS be seeking to give their customers the most value out of every component they offer them.

Having seen evidence of what does and does not work in X-wing thus far, there is no valid reason why they should not be adapting and refining their craft. The Onyx Squadron Escort's costing and lack of an elite seems to indicate to me that they are not refining their process as well as they could be if they would take the time to look at the popularity of mid PS generics within the game.

I am just curious though- Do you feel correctly costing ships for standard format negatively effects Epic or missions? I know I personally feel that is not the case at all, and that well costed cards in standard, which allows them to see play in that format, is good for every facet of the game.

I'll start with your last thought. No, I think standard game is the hardest thing to balance. If it's balanced in standard play, it's balanced in everything else.

As for why don't they make it work all in standard? Well, I guess it's the hardest. Also, the meta shifts and not everything is valid often. Remember when Generics ruled the land? Then it was Turret Wing. PTL Arc Dodgers were what was to beat for a while. Things flip and flop and sometimes they work, and other times they don't. At the moment, though, I think the balance has shifted quite a bit to rule out a lot of things in the game at the moment. Sad.... but that's where Epic and Missions are still good!

His snowflake would be less special.

2 hours ago, heychadwick said:

I'll start with your last thought. No, I think standard game is the hardest thing to balance. If it's balanced in standard play, it's balanced in everything else.

As for why don't they make it work all in standard? Well, I guess it's the hardest. Also, the meta shifts and not everything is valid often. Remember when Generics ruled the land? Then it was Turret Wing. PTL Arc Dodgers were what was to beat for a while. Things flip and flop and sometimes they work, and other times they don't. At the moment, though, I think the balance has shifted quite a bit to rule out a lot of things in the game at the moment. Sad.... but that's where Epic and Missions are still good!

Agreed it is difficult to balance everything in standard. In fact, it's impossible. But I really think they have more than enough evidence of Mid PS generics that work and those that don't to keep from repeating past mistakes.

Basically, I am expecting improvement that I don't feel I am seeing. Small things like the Onyx Squadron Escort not having an elite make me wonder if their process improvement team is looking in the right places.

1 minute ago, Kdubb said:

Agreed it is difficult to balance everything in standard. In fact, it's impossible. But I really think they have more than enough evidence of Mid PS generics that work and those that don't to keep from repeating past mistakes.

Basically, I am expecting improvement that I don't feel I am seeing. Small things like the Onyx Squadron Escort not having an elite make me wonder if their process improvement team is looking in the right places.

Yeah, I think they are looking at bumping 3 PS to be worth more than 1 pt. Too bad there aren't half points.

Just now, heychadwick said:

Yeah, I think they are looking at bumping 3 PS to be worth more than 1 pt. Too bad there aren't half points.

Which is actually a big reason it's impossible for them to price everything correctly. The pricing scale in the game is too tight, and a number of cards have been caught in the middle of two numbers and will either be over costed or under costed no matter their placement. I struggle to see many of the Mid PS generics falling under this point though, and as I mention in the thread I started yesterday on the subject, we see very healthy usage from the likes of the Green Squadron Pilot as well as the Obsidian (in the past) and Black Squadron Pilots, while the low PS generics of those ships still see use as well. Yet FFG has not maintained this proven model with future releases, which has been quite maddening to me every time I see a new Mid PS generic that does not follow the model.

45 minutes ago, Kdubb said:

Which is actually a big reason it's impossible for them to price everything correctly. The pricing scale in the game is too tight, and a number of cards have been caught in the middle of two numbers and will either be over costed or under costed no matter their placement. I struggle to see many of the Mid PS generics falling under this point though, and as I mention in the thread I started yesterday on the subject, we see very healthy usage from the likes of the Green Squadron Pilot as well as the Obsidian (in the past) and Black Squadron Pilots, while the low PS generics of those ships still see use as well. Yet FFG has not maintained this proven model with future releases, which has been quite maddening to me every time I see a new Mid PS generic that does not follow the model.

I agree. Its impossible to price perfectly because cards are caught in the middle of two numbers. I also think there are ships that are caught in the middle of 2 attack numbers (2 attack is too low, 3 is too high) but thats a whole other can of worms.

8 hours ago, heychadwick said:

Sure! I love talking about this stuff because it often shows why I find Missions interesting. I will preface that it often depends on the mission and I think you need to have a well designed mission. There are often times that a mission is created....and then a new product comes out that will effectively ruin it. So, bear that in mind.

Let me start with Political Escort (where you move the Senator's Shuttle across the board). You get 100 pts to try to destroy the Shuttle before it moves off the board. If they went straight 2 each time, that's 6 turns. If the attacker played with any of the standard lists that has 2-3 ships and the defender went with something like 7 Z-95's that can give Evade actions each turn.....I am not sure if the attackers can punch through the defenses enough to kill the Shuttle. Also, I have found if you do have a horde of Headhunters, they can often break through the layered defense of Aces and start to wear them down. Not every ship is going to be in R1 of Fenn Rau and his title will be less effective. He will only have so many tokens. It's possible to just get those hits here and there in a couple of rounds. Can you build a list of aces that can probably break through that? Sure, but it would have to be tailored to that list and you don't know what that person is going to take. What if they take a different list?

That's just one example, but let me show another. We have been working on our GenCon event with all unique missions. Let me talk about the first mission: Terror Campaign. This one has taken a lot of balancing to really get right.

GenCon Mission Packet

3x3 table where Imps get 110 and Rebels get 100. There are 6 buildings spaced around the board. Each building has 3 civilians that need to be either killed or evacuated. This is a game where having more ships to spread around the map is a good thing for either side. It also matters if you lose ships, too. So, just going for the cheapest and spreading out will most likely not get you a win. In this mission, it can be hard to avoid jousting due to the objectives that you need to play to. Putting a lot of points into Aces can really backfire in a mission where covering all your bases is important. Also, if your opponent has enough of a horde, they could burn down an ace quickly and that would make it an even bigger win for their side. I think this is a good mission that can really illustrate how an Ace might not be the best option. Then again, try it out and maybe you find a really awesome combo that works. I will say we are designing the missions with limited access to uniques. It's quite possible to build an amazing list specifically designed for this mission with aces that could do it. I think it would be hard, but it's possible.

This is quite true, mid-PS ships without EPTs or cost increase (much) over PS2s are fantastic in epic and missions! Mid-lever (like 5, the example we're talking here) TIE Interceptors, Bombers w/missiles and Adv Prototypes w/missile are the absolute best! You need the cheapness dovetailed with moving last and shooting usually first to win. Chadwick is more elegant in his breakdown as I'm clumsy, but it's clearly why they make them, it's not for 100/6.

48 minutes ago, clanofwolves said:

This is quite true, mid-PS ships without EPTs or cost increase (much) over PS2s are fantastic in epic and missions! Mid-lever (like 5, the example we're talking here) TIE Interceptors, Bombers w/missiles and Adv Prototypes w/missile are the absolute best! You need the cheapness dovetailed with moving last and shooting usually first to win. Chadwick is more elegant in his breakdown as I'm clumsy, but it's clearly why they make them, it's not for 100/6.

Now if only more people were interested in competitive epic play, those of us that hate 100/6 would have a tournament option instead of being forced into someone's basement or the back table of a game store. I bet the epic meta would be amazing and quite refreshing. I know I could watch jumpmasters exploding to raider fire or clustered wings 8 ships deep all day long.

On 5/22/2017 at 2:18 PM, Kdubb said:

I will never ever ever understand FFGs costing methods for mid PS ships. You can take Double Edge, who has a killer ability, and give him adaptability, meaning he is the same cost and PS as an Onyx, which, by the way, has NO EPT AND NO ABILITY . That's just stupid. There is zero reason (quite literally NO REASON) to ever take an Onyx unless you are wanting to take 2 of them, in which case you take Double Edge with Adaptability and an Onyx.

FFG continues to value mid PS waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too high. At best, a PS boost of 1 between PS values of 3 to 6 is worth .5 points, but I would say less than that after you get to 3, as 4 through 6 are largely PS dead zones. They are valuing a PS boost of one as being worth an elite slot (which, as proven by adaptability, is more valuable than 1 PS on its own), and a gunner-like pilot ability. In return, you get to run multiple of the ship (hurray...).

You know what makes this fair though? Giving the dang ship an elite. At least you can say that the Double Edge's ability equates to 1 more PS and the ability to spam the ship. As it is now though? Nope, Double Edge is always better.

There is one situation where the Onyx has an edge: if you're facing Dengar crew. He gets two rerolls against Double Edge, but only one against the generic.

Granted, it's not worth building a list in response to one crew card. However, they might introduce other mechanics that are more punishing to named pilots instead of generics.

1 hour ago, LordFajubi said:

Now if only more people were interested in competitive epic play, those of us that hate 100/6 would have a tournament option instead of being forced into someone's basement or the back table of a game store. I bet the epic meta would be amazing and quite refreshing. I know I could watch jumpmasters exploding to raider fire or clustered wings 8 ships deep all day long.

Until FFG implements some "you must field 1 epic ship" rule for epic, a truly competitive version of it is just going to be the same game as 100/6 that just takes longer. I love the idea of competitive epic, but there HAS to be the things that make it epic forced into it.

The statement that what is balanced in standard is balanced in epic is wrong, because of economies of scale. Operations specialist is one example of a card that is crazy good if not op in epic but balanced or even a bit underwhelming in standard ....

Assault missiles and ruthlessness are other examples of cards that begin to shine and need to be watched.

Or biggs...

Tie Aggressor will be another nerf against Biggs.

The new turrets need a TL to operate.

Just dont TL Biggs.

2 hours ago, Schu81 said:

Tie Aggressor will be another nerf against Biggs.

The new turrets need a TL to operate.

Just dont TL Biggs.

The capacity of the Synched Turret has little to do with the capacity of the TIE Aggressor, which has little call to take a SYnched Turret.

Just now, thespaceinvader said:

The capacity of the Synched Turret has little to do with the capacity of the TIE Aggressor, which has little call to take a SYnched Turret.

True. But the Aggressor will bring us the Synched Turret in its package

So anybody buying this set, will also get a new method of not having to fire at Biggs anymore (at least with the ship carrying the Synced Turred)

6 hours ago, Schu81 said:

True. But the Aggressor will bring us the Synched Turret in its package

So anybody buying this set, will also get a new method of not having to fire at Biggs anymore (at least with the ship carrying the Synced Turred)

It's also in the Havoc pack too.

9 hours ago, MaxPower said:

The statement that what is balanced in standard is balanced in epic is wrong, because of economies of scale. Operations specialist is one example of a card that is crazy good if not op in epic but balanced or even a bit underwhelming in standard ....

Assault missiles and ruthlessness are other examples of cards that begin to shine and need to be watched.

Or biggs...

I don't find Op Spec to be OP. Yes, it's good, but I haven't seen it used to break things. Same for Assault Missiles and Ruthlessness. I think they are very good, but not broken. I'd also throw in Ion Torpedo as really good in Epic.

Biggs? If someone takes him, he usually gets burnt down in a single round. It's not that much of an issue. I think Jonus is worse in Epic, but that's only if someone is cheesy and hovers him near the Raider.

9 hours ago, MaxPower said:

The statement that what is balanced in standard is balanced in epic is wrong, because of economies of scale. Operations specialist is one example of a card that is crazy good if not op in epic but balanced or even a bit underwhelming in standard ....

Assault missiles and ruthlessness are other examples of cards that begin to shine and need to be watched.

Or biggs...

Ok that makes sense. AOE probably shoots up in its impact in Epic. Here is a rather simple solution- why doesn't FFG give each card 2 costs, one for standard and one for epic in the case there is a card that would be a problem in one or the other if priced competitively? Maybe next to the standard cost, there is a smaller number (as to not crowd the card) that indicates the epic play cost? If there is no number present, then the cost is the same for both epic and standard. I feel that this would go over rather well, and may even have players who are stuck in the 100/6 only mindset to take notice of epic as this would denote that FFG is taking the time to balance their other formats as well.

A little too late for something like that, but would have been a simple way to assure standard and epic play are not at odds with each other.

On 5/22/2017 at 3:39 PM, BlodVargarna said:

I think you should call it S***t Head (and anyone who ran it as well for that matter).

I'm sorry to whomever found this to be abusive behaviour. I was quoting a famous line from The Jerk. Taken out of context I could see how someone might be offended by this.

Carry on... And if you have not seen the Jerk, you should. It's hilarious.

All I need is a T-65 fix, and a gun boat. All I need is a T-65 fix, the gunboat, and an attani nerf. All I need is a T-65 fix, a gun boat, attani nerf, and scum aces. All I need is a T-65 fix, a gun boat, attani nerf, scum aces, and Heroes of the Rebellion. All I need is a T-65 fix, a gun boat, attani nerf, scum aces, Heroes of the Rebellion, and the Jumpaster nerf...

He hates these TIES! Stay away from these TIES!

And this thermos!

Onyx Squadron Escort is so disappointing. Nobody wants mid skill ships without EPTs. So many builds in that article were "Make a 33 point sink that dies in 5 damage!" Also, Juke? They didn't playtest it with Juke, did they? RTFC.

Double Edge with Lightweight Frame, Unguided Rockets, and a cheap turret like Autoblaster is the way to go. Outfit the generics like that and you have baby U-boats.

They also missed the obvious synergy of Kestal with Synced Turret and Deadeye.

Or Blaster Turret and Intensity.

Kestal, synced Turret and deadeye is a magnificent build.

Kestal is perhaps the ultimate demonstration of the fact that the balance pipeline is always 6-12 months behind the current meta.

Kestal will hurt Fenn, but murder Soontir Fel and his buddies. How many of them are we seeing these days, eh? Not even desperate need for Predator - all you need to hit them is more raw hits than they roll evades; how many eyes are rolled makes no difference.

The bit that truly astonishes me is that this power is good enough that it would have place on any ship - imagine if it had been Zuckuss that had it instead, you'd have seen him a whole lot more? - and they gave it to a turreted fighter . Simply incredible.

22 minutes ago, Reiver said:

The bit that truly astonishes me is that this power is good enough that it would have place on any ship - imagine if it had been Zuckuss that had it instead, you'd have seen him a whole lot more? - and they gave it to a turreted fighter . Simply incredible.

One who's dial they explicitly compare to an Intercepter's at that.