So, after worlds which was directly on the heals right after a beginning of the year nationals and 7 months (not a full year) from the last worlds and with the upcoming store championship season it is rather clear that due to power creep, unforeseen combinations with future releases, and overall overcorrecting the previous combinations of the meta we have reached a new stage where the cyclical balance has stagnated. So there are things that need to be corrected, but for now everyone seems to be calling for well the strongest form of correction there is to have which could become more over-correction the exact thing that left us in the mess we are in now. So instead of just reacing for the Pen & Ink and dumping it all over the next FAQ there needs to be something in between.

First lets list the number of corrective actions for balance we currently have and put them in order from the least sever to most sever.

1. New Releases aka "Hate Cards" (i.e. Autothrusters)
2. Power Increments "power creep" (i.e. Firepower 4)
3. Core Rule or Rule Supplement Erratas (i.e. Cloaking Nerf)
4. Pilot/Upgrade Card Pen & Ink Erratas (i.e. Palp Nerf)

So go over the goods and bads for each of them

1. Good is this is the least controversial method. However being the lowest impact it runs the risk of missing its intended action or worse adding to the power deficit.
2. Good is Accretion is the natural progression of any living expandable game. Bad is it runs the risk of introducing power creep and can often overcorrect and make a new Top Meta that overshadows the past with no counters available.
3. No cards have to be changed so it doesn't outdated/invalidate anything. Bad is that it requires a specific interaction between the rules and the correction target. If a certain build is just overall good then this might not be an option.
4. Good is that you can directly target the top power of the meta, bad is that it invalidates already printed cards and makes collection obsolete.

So with all that I think we need a 5th option. Something between 3 and 4. A type of errata that doesn't literally change what is on physical copies of already printed and distributed cards but still effective enough at targeting the top of the meta and allows for corrections that can also be undone if needed. So my proposal is well a Tournament Squadron point increase list. It is simple; any pilot card on that list is considered +2 squadron points for list building, any upgrade card on that list is considered +1 squadron point for list building.

1. New Releases
2. Power Increments
3. Core or Rule Supplement Erratas
4. Tournament Squadron Point correction list
5. Pilot/Upgrade Card Pen & Ink Erratas

So it is simple, after options 1 & 2 are exhausted and 3 is either exhausted or unavailable then you can use option 4 to just give a pilot, upgrade, ship, or even a pilot/upgrade combo a point increase nerf thus reducing its squadron point efficiency and making a correction to the meta. Need to nerf an entire ship Then just put all 4 (or more) pilots on that list and the ship now costs 2 more points. Got a broken pilot/upgrade combo, put both the pilot and the upgrade combo and increase the point cost of that build by 3 points. Thus now you have a corrective action that can directly target problems in the meta without being as extreme as a pen and ink errata. Plus you still have options after the action. If a certain ship/pilot/upgrade on that list is now no longer seeing play in competitive scene you can simply take it off the list and restore it to its original cost. If it turns out that the action taken still wasn't enough then you still have option 5 to nuke said pilot/upgrade card.

A tournament "most wanted" list is used in Android Netrunner to good effect, I believe. X-wing suffers from a lack of diversity in comparison to other games of its calibre (like MtG). As such, increasing the points cost of certain pilots, while viable, is not necessarily doable. For one, it increases the learning curve significantly for new players, since they need to continually reference the FAQ to make sure their squad is even legal for tournament play, so you create a barrier there. For that reason alone - discouraging new players, even slightly, I can't see FFG doing it. In local tourneys I'd encourage it though - just a general increase in cost of Fenn, JM5Ks and Lancers.

It's generally recognised that there are three kinds of player that more or less fall into the "social", "creative" or "competitive" classes. Social players don't care about the rules, since they'll fly someone else's list in tourneys most likely (probably a competitive player's). Similarly competitive players won't mind any extra errata since they're all over it anyway, and will fly whatever's left standing after the nerf nukes. It's only creative players that are adversely affected by the cycle of OP-nerf-OP-nef-OP-nerf, since they are rstricted in what they can enjoy flying at most points in the cycle.

The whole problem really started with JM5Ks - which after 3 rounds of nerfing are still the game's best ship, somehow.

I'm in the middle ground, personally. I don't fly meta lists (ever.), I play creative lists and talk with others about theirs, yet I'm super competitive. This leads me to do crazy things with Major Rhymer and the like to have some kind of edge. I get annoyed when I face meta lists, but I can live with the OP'ness because I know I've got a 40% chance of winning or so. I think people need to stop worrying and recognise that while FFG are expert game designers, they've only had 4 years with this game, so mistakes should be expected until they sort out the formula.

Tournaments will always have special tournament rules but would different points for tournaments and normal games end up making two different games? I think the solution should be applied across the board, that's why I like sqn cards

Ben

2 hours ago, Astech said:

For one, it increases the learning curve significantly for new players, since they need to continually reference the FAQ to make sure their squad is even legal for tournament play, so you create a barrier there.

I see this point a fair amount and I just don't agree with it. At store level tournaments I'll grant you arm chair quarterbacks take shots at glory and may be total newbies that never look up errata and would end up educated in a smaller friendly environment but large tournaments? I don't go to tournaments at all but do you guys that do go really see that many casual first timers that don't look up any rules? The first time I actually went to a store night, casual not event, I saw a couple guys with their kids some as young as 7 and even they had a good grasp on the current major rules. If you don't bother to look up the most basic of rules for a large tournament before you go that's kinda your problem not the tournaments. Some guy wants to be king cool and take his brand new sports car into the indy 500 but it doesn't make spec, is that really indy's fault? No.

That all being said I don't know if this tournament point idea would work. I'm still a fan of the harshest option that ffg won't do, ban the freaking jankmaster from 100/6 play. Could still use it in epic but it's obviously broken and in any game with broken limbs the only real fix is amputation.

Edit:Just wanted to add before someone made the comment if they ban the jumpmaster they won't sell any more and piss people off that bought them. Ok, how are raider sales doing? Imperial Veterans? Phantoms? Kinda imperial onesided but you get the idea. If they nerf it into the ground or ban it the effect is the same. People quit using it and quit buying it unless they really want it. So either way a ban is just ripping the band-aid off instead of slowly pulling at it.

14 hours ago, Marinealver said:

A type of errata that doesn't literally change what is on physical copies of already printed and distributed cards but still effective enough at targeting the top of the meta and allows for corrections that can also be undone if needed. So my proposal is well a Tournament Squadron point increase list. It is simple; any pilot card on that list is considered +2 squadron points for list building, any upgrade card on that list is considered +1 squadron point for list building

2 hours ago, BenDay said:

Tournaments will always have special tournament rules but would different points for tournaments and normal games end up making two different games? I think the solution should be applied across the board, that's why I like sqn cards

In a lot of ways, tournament and normal games are two different games. No one plays anything but Tier 1 ships and upgrades in tournaments, they rest of the cards and chaff to those players.

I think Marinealver has a neat idea about creating what is essentially a Tier 1 Tax for these upper level cards. Most importantly, it is a flexible tax; cards can come and go from the list as the game evolves, and it is a new way of shaping the meta that can be easily changed from wave to wave, without constantly changing the basic game for the regular joes.

13 hours ago, Darth Meanie said:

In a lot of ways, tournament and normal games are two different games. No one plays anything but Tier 1 ships and upgrades in tournaments, they rest of the cards and chaff to those players.

I think Marinealver has a neat idea about creating what is essentially a Tier 1 Tax for these upper level cards. Most importantly, it is a flexible tax; cards can come and go from the list as the game evolves, and it is a new way of shaping the meta that can be easily changed from wave to wave, without constantly changing the basic game for the regular joes.

Well this thread wasn't just to put in my idea out as a solution but also find a way of directing focus from everyone's "brilliant solutions" which are just more errata nerfs. IMHO when using erratas, especially pen & ink erratas, to fix balance issues you should balance the errata nerfs with a buff of some sort otherwise you just set up the negative tone for the game and if the tone becomes negative the gaming environment will just grow more and more hostile.

But lets take a look at some other phases of rebalancing.

• Pen & Ink Erratas to change rarely used cards into strong counters.
• Reversing previous Nerfs to counter the new meta. (Not just removing X7 and Palp Nerf but going all the way back to the Decloaking Nerf.
• Alternative competitive formats that could have a completely different meta .

So the first one, well the pros is that card that are not used such as blaster turret or expert handling could now be back on top of the meta. The cons are simply that it could also be picked up by the top meta instead of the counters thus pushing the top further back.

Reversing nerfs is another. Pros is that we already know how the meta will work with said reversals. Cons is often those nerfs were put in there for a reason. If all of a sudden the TIE Phantom becomes top dog again it will have to be re-nerfed and we will be back at square one (or five).

Alternative Competitive formats is one but I am trying to avoid the whole restrictive formats like Type 2 or OT ship only formats as I find that it is better to add options than take options away. Formats I am looking for are ones like Hanger bay or the one I'm trying to promote with faction mixing, Allies & Mercenaries. But again adjusting the format to include the top meta without the top meta from taking over is difficult. Just take a look at epic, sure there are some Top meta builds that don't do well (Aces) but then there are some that jsut become Top Meta x3 and sweep the tournaments (Thug Life).

A top tier tax would be more flexible, so like you said you could un-nerf stuff once it had been surpassed. I think you would likely just create another top tier once the impact of the tax was understood. I guess the hope is this top tier would be more balanced across the factions and be generally larger.

4 hours ago, Marinealver said:

Alternative Competitive formats is one but I am trying to avoid the whole restrictive formats like Type 2 or OT ship only formats as I find that it is better to add options than take options away. Formats I am looking for are ones like Hanger bay or the one I'm trying to promote with faction mixing, Allies & Mercenaries. But again adjusting the format to include the top meta without the top meta from taking over is difficult. Just take a look at epic, sure there are some Top meta builds that don't do well (Aces) but then there are some that jsut become Top Meta x3 and sweep the tournaments (Thug Life).

The only way this game is really going to break up the meta is to change the competitive format. 100/6 is a one-trick pony that is easy to plan for, and dumbs the game's strategy down to something as remedial as checkers. The game needs well-balanced missions and/or alternate win conditoions that are randomly drawn at the beginning of play. Even if they are standardized, a half-dozen play options will force more generalized play styles.

Right now XWM is like taking the game of chess with all of its subtleties and strategies, but then allowing players to choose their pieces. You'll never see pawns again, you'll always see way too many queens, and you might see the occasional knight or two because the player likes how they move.

I not onlly agree with this, I am working on a first draft of all wave 1 pilots and upgrades, plus additional Xwing, Tie Fighter, Tie advanced and Ywing releases, to create an "Xwing 3.0" card pool. I may not get all the prices right the first time, but making sure the Grey Squadron Ywing has a place and Biggs isnt warping the rebel faction is a goal.

I'm currently done with all the Xwing pilots, and some of the astromechs.

2 hours ago, Darth Meanie said:

The only way this game is really going to break up the meta is to change the competitive format. 100/6 is a one-trick pony that is easy to plan for, and dumbs the game's strategy down to something as remedial as checkers. The game needs well-balanced missions and/or alternate win conditoions that are randomly drawn at the beginning of play. Even if they are standardized, a half-dozen play options will force more generalized play styles.

Right now XWM is like taking the game of chess with all of its subtleties and strategies, but then allowing players to choose their pieces. You'll never see pawns again, you'll always see way too many queens, and you might see the occasional knight or two because the player likes how they move.

Elegant comparison with chess and absolutely correct. No matter what happens as long as it's standard 100/6 bs the best build will always be the only build more or less. Random objectives really would be the only way to stop this because a 100/6 king build might be total shite for some other objective therefore not THE best solution without contestation.

The Rookiee Pilot is still 21 for PS2, but...

...An open modification slot and a 0 cost astromech round out the Xwing platform.