This is not a post of whining, or crying for nerfs. It is just an observation about the state of the game. Feel free to add thoughts.

Let me preface this with the following: I love this game and I love Star Wars. Very much. But even though I love it, I can see its flaws. The following piece is not a complete summary of my game experience, its just the problematic parts I'd like to see fixed.

The game has problems. I'm not talking about balancing issues that come from badly playtested ships (Jumpmaster), but serious conceptual problems that by now have leaked into the gameplay and affected the competitive meta in a drastic way. Certain ideas don't work as well as intended, and the nature of the game (by the virtue of being a game) warps other ideas. That happens with EVERY game. This is not a fault of the game designers', this is something that is bound to happen. It's part of the process. But it does not mean things have to stay this way. With 10 published waves, and countless other releases FFG is gathering the experience to fix this. So what are these problems? (according to me)

1. Ordnance

This is a big one. Ordnance haven't been part of healthy game play for most of it's existence. It's either too powerful, or seriously overpriced and lackluster. The balance seems to be too fine to find, and even then, a new release could break everything (which results in Deadeye type of nerfs). What causes this?

Ordnance doesn't have clear definitions. Missiles and Torpedoes are essentially the same slot, with barely any differences. They both rely on the modification slot to become effective, and sometimes the EPT as well. With such heavy investments 1 shot rarely if ever worth it. Bombs are seeing a resurgence, but that is due to nearly limitless placement options (K-Wing) and guaranteed damage (Sabine). Hopefully we will see some diversity in the future, but the problem remains unsolved.

The type of ship relying on ordnance is questionable as well. Certain ships have only 1 slot, (X-Wing, Khiraxz, Defender, TIE Advanced) and these have potent attack dice as well. How is it worth it for them to pay 4 points for 1 red dice increase for 1 attack, requiring a target lock (most commonly).

Other ships have high number of slots, and low attack values. Here the combined cost of several ordnance cards is raising the ship's cost into astronomical heights.

It is apparent that ordnance is clearly not different enough from primary weapon attacks, and it is too expensive. Many ships rely on ordnance, and they all have sub-par options when compared to high native attacks. In the case of ships having both a high attack value and ordnance slots, ordnance is almost never used.

2. Imperial Doctrine and Green Dice Defense

Okay, so this is actually bigger than it seems. Imperial ships (some of them) are based on the idea of being mass produced, and they are quite agile. This is represented in the game as they have less upgrade options than rebel and scum counterparts, and they rely more on green dice than hulls and shields as defense. Both of these ideas pose inherent balnce issues in the game.

Green Dice heavy defense is countered by automatic damage, but large hull defense does not have inherent counter. This places high agi -low hull ships at a disadvantage in a meta where autodamage is prevalent (like now-ish).

Less upgrade slots (and the lack of a faction specific slot) result in a situation where each powerful upgrade available to all factions will boost rebels and scum more, and with the lack of the imperial only slot contributes to the lack of faction identity reinforced by mechanics.

3. The disconnect between the Fluff and Game due to powercreep

Most continuously developed games have powercreep in them. This is expected, and can be handled, but in this game the situation is alienating fans even more. Why? The first few waves are the waves with iconic ships, and with each new release they become less and less good when compared to the latest ships.

In other settings this is less of an issue, as the fluff does not have that much of a character. Of course, your favourite character can be still nerfed or become obsolete, but when everyone's favourite character (ship), eponymous with the game, is obsolete, it is no longer a personal problem of some players, but a major issue with the game. Like it or not, this is a Star Wars game, and TIE Fighters, Interceptors, Bombers, X-wings, Y-wings and A-wings SHOULD play a central role in at least some of the lists, with pilots like Luke, Han Solo and Vader as the go to pilots. If the most popular pilot is a character with 5 seconds of screen time and no lines in a flying toilet seat, the game fails at being Star Wars.

So here comes my question. Can these problems be fixed, without a costly second edition? Can FFG's current business model be tailored to hand out buffs, nerfs and erratas in sufficent numbers to change the game? Are there other problems of this magnitude? What do you think?

It's not easy, but partially possible. To tackle your points:

1. Ordnance
I would split ordnance in three categories: 'rockets', 'lasers' and 'bombs'. Each has different problems, so I believe that discussing them together is not feasible.

Rocket-Ordnance (missiles and torpedoes) is possibly inherently flawed. The whole idea of Hit-and-wreck or miss-and-waste is problematic and very difficult to balance.
Spending 4 points on an upgrade that doesn't do anything is a waste. But if it does hit, it will often change the course of the game. So how do we want that to work?
FFG wanted to provide a way to react by, for example, making TLs necessary, and by making the primary firing arc a requirement (with the exception of Ghost and Nera). That means you have the possibility to arc-dodge and thus prevent this game changer. A third way to get away is range control, e.g. plasma and proton torps only working at range 2-3. So far so good. On the other side there is munitions failsafe and extra ammunitions to make the cards more feasible for the ordnance carrier.

But there are several small ships (and large by now) which are incredibly hard to arcdodge, which get TLs just because they execute a maneuver, and that can on top of that reposition to make range control very hard. So while rocket-ordnance is already problematic by itself, the powercreep made it into a serious one.

I have no idea how to fix that one, other than some kind of "flare" upgrade. The idea is that you also spend points on a one-use card to negate or reduce the impact of the quite hard hitting rockets. If both spend a card and points then it seems relatively fair to me, with the disadvantage for the defender that he has possibly a card he can't use in certain games.

Laser-Ordnance (cannons and turrets) are less problematic. The only flaw I see here is that the range boni don't apply. The only reason I see is simplicity (i.e. "all secondary weapons"). But I think we can agree that the only problem is the cost of TLT, which makes too much damage and is too reliable. Other than that the category is rather well balanced and several cannons or turrets have their niche.

Bomb-Ordnance is currently a problem, but can rather easily be fixed. All we need is an autothruster for bombs. My favorite idea is, similar to the flares above, that you can spend a ressource to negate a bomb. Here I'd go with something where the defender can - mechanically - take a weapon-disabled token because he "shoots" the bomb that turn. Maybe roll red dice to reduce the damage by that many hits? Maybe roll green dice? Maybe complete negation? I don't know, the details would have to be tested.

2. Imperial Doctrine
That's a tricky one. It dominated for quite some time, so we can't say it is bad per se, but it also clearly has problems at the moment. Maybe the bomb fix would already help quite a lot?

3. The disconnect between the Fluff and Game due to powercreep
This one is easy to fix. Powercreep can be good, and act by better cards. Sure the X-Wing has problems, but they are fixable. So I don't think this breaks the game. Even though personally that's the most important to me, as most of my lists are iconic ships only. So I think powercreep can be the solution here, by introducing new, very good cards that improve old ships to a good powerlevel.

4 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

3. The disconnect between the Fluff and Game due to powercreep
This one is easy to fix. Powercreep can be good, and act by better cards. Sure the X-Wing has problems, but they are fixable. So I don't think this breaks the game. Even though personally that's the most important to me, as most of my lists are iconic ships only. So I think powercreep can be the solution here, by introducing new, very good cards that improve old ships to a good powerlevel.

I agree with your post, that's pretty much my thoughts summed up in terms of general 'fixes' for the game.

This part is the most important IMO - buffing iconic ships (specifically the X wing & Y wing, the TIE fighter less so because when you get imperials you get tie-lookalikes - SF, FO, and all of them to an extent due to their homogeneity)would do a lot to allieviate complaints about balance. It just has to be the right level of fix that (hopefully) allows variety within the ships (not just automatically choosing Wedge & Biggs).

While we're at it, I think Biggs needs to be dealt with because I don't think there are many abilities that completely control your opponent's choices unless they use a torpedo/missile/weapon with a range restriction (which have their own problems as noted), and these are NPEs because they give up your own autonomy within the game. I'd say NPEs generally are things which control your choices, and how much they affect gameplay (based on their negative effect on you, and whatever your opponent has to do to trigger them):

- Biggs: strong NPE, opponent doesn't need to do much to trigger him (keep formation) and you have to specifically 'tech' to avoid the problem

- Kylo: weaker NPE, opponent needs to spend an action, and can be avoided. However, in some cases very strong NPE.

Now Kylo's not currently a meta staple in the same way Biggs is and Kylo doesn't have a faction built around what Biggs can do.

9 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

2. Imperial Doctrine
That's a tricky one. It dominated for quite some time, so we can't say it is bad per se, but it also clearly has problems at the moment. Maybe the bomb fix would already help quite a lot?

Now, I wouldn't go that far to do that. Bombs are designed to hurt low hull aces, and the real problem is the lack of counterplay. Advanced Slam just allows the K-Wing to put bombs anywhere, and that is the real problem, much like the mechanics of Cloak were the problem of Whisper.

If there was a card that allowed aces to dodge bombs, they wouldn't have natural predators, which also leads to problems.

2 minutes ago, RufusDaMan said:

Now, I wouldn't go that far to do that. Bombs are designed to hurt low hull aces, and the real problem is the lack of counterplay. Advanced Slam just allows the K-Wing to put bombs anywhere, and that is the real problem, much like the mechanics of Cloak were the problem of Whisper.

If there was a card that allowed aces to dodge bombs, they wouldn't have natural predators, which also leads to problems.

Allright, I even agree. I just think that spending points to counterplay something, even (or especially?) your weakness is a good thing.

What other effects are there, other than bombs, that deal unblockable damage?
Wampa, Ten Numb, Lt. Blount+Missiles, Autoblasterturret, Ionprojector/Antipursuitlasers, ...

A complete list would be interesting, because the ones I know off the top of my head are not gamebreaking and do not destroy the imperial faction

It's mainly just bombs (and stress).

I think if Advanced Slam is fixed, and aces get some kind of offensive power against larger hull value ships, the game would be in a better place.

2 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

Allright, I even agree. I just think that spending points to counterplay something, even (or especially?) your weakness is a good thing.

What other effects are there, other than bombs, that deal unblockable damage?
Wampa, Ten Numb, Lt. Blount+Missiles, Autoblasterturret, Ionprojector/Antipursuitlasers, ...

A complete list would be interesting, because the ones I know off the top of my head are not gamebreaking and do not destroy the imperial faction.

Just Bombs, Glass Cannon Aces can deal with the others fair to good (turrets against Vader still suck) but bombs make the game a no-go zone. The newest Expansions are terrible for Aces and Imperials first and foremost.

low-hull imperial aces, and green dice in general, are imo just a product of short-sighted game design (given that FFG did not expect X-wing to explode in popularity as it did, I'm not necessarily blaming them)

it is very difficult to balance them given the massive impact variance has on their effectiveness, generally resulting in utterly uselessness or palp aces ******* everywhere

an ace's performance should have always been based on the player's performance, i.e defensive benefits should not be tied to an arbitrary die roll as much as how you fly them (good examples would be the Armada evade token, which varies in effectiveness depending on distance from the attacker, and the errated x7 title)

ordnance is another all-or-nothing game mechanic that does not work in an environment where there's so little variance in the amount of dice thrown (generally limited to 1-4 dice).

Problem with the "imperial doctrine" is that when it is good, it shuts out way too many ships as they will just never be able to push through damage. The way damage mitigation works is one of the more severly limiting factors this game struggles with. Anyone that has ever suffered through the slogfest that a Soontir vs. Soontir lategame would know.

1 minute ago, ficklegreendice said:

low-hull imperial aces, and green dice in general, are imo just a product of short-sighted game design (given that FFG did not expect X-wing to explode in popularity as it did, I'm not necessarily blaming them)

it is very difficult to balance them given the massive impact variance has on their effectiveness, generally resulting in utterly uselessness or palp aces ******* everywhere

an ace's performance should have always been based on the player's performance, i.e defensive benefits should not be tied to an arbitrary die roll as much as how you fly them (good examples would be the Armada evade token, which varies in effectiveness depending on distance from the attacker, and the errated x7 title)

Wouldn't that result in a state where a sufficiently skilled player would be undefeatable? I'm not saying that's bad, but would you be okay with that?

Quote

If the most popular pilot is a character with 5 seconds of screen time and no lines in a flying toilet seat, the game fails at being Star Wars.

<insert sound of nail being hit on the head, here>

2 minutes ago, RufusDaMan said:

Wouldn't that result in a state where a sufficiently skilled player would be undefeatable? I'm not saying that's bad, but would you be okay with that?

yes, as long as there is counterplay (distance can be closed, errataed x7 is blockable and respects obstacles)

in Armada especially, these defensive abilities are also limited use (first you "exhaust" a token, and then if you use an exhausted token you lose it for the rest of the game) so concentrated fire is actually effective whereas in x-wing they can just bounce off of lucky dice

there is no counterplay to dice apart from guaranteed damage which just completely **** these low health aces over

12 minutes ago, ficklegreendice said:

yes, as long as there is counterplay (distance can be closed, errataed x7 is blockable and respects obstacles)

in Armada especially, these defensive abilities are also limited use (first you "exhaust" a token, and then if you use an exhausted token you lose it for the rest of the game) so concentrated fire is actually effective whereas in x-wing they can just bounce off of lucky dice

there is no counterplay to dice apart from guaranteed damage which just completely **** these low health aces over

Well, autodamage is already part of the game, and without a complete bomb rework, I can't see them disappearing. Unavoidable damage dice + Autodamage + Near limitless placement options are just too good against aces. From these three I think the most sensible thing to nerf is Advanced Slam. Thoughts?

These things all could be fixed if FFG was willing to put the necessary resources towards game balance. As is now, there is no sign they have any plans of putting those resources towards the game.

26 minutes ago, RufusDaMan said:

It's mainly just bombs (and stress).

I think if Advanced Slam is fixed, and aces get some kind of offensive power against larger hull value ships, the game would be in a better place.

If it's just bombs, then I think some counter that costs points is the way to go. Think of countermeasures, but specifically against bombs. (E.g. "You may discard this card to reduce all damage taken from detonating bomb tokens by X until the end of this turn. Then receive a weapons disabled token.").
This has the advantage that an ace can insure themself against a (just one!) bomb, in the turn you think is most important.
It has numerous disadvantages, from opportunity- and point cost up to the fact that most lists with bombs have simply more than a single bomb. This idea with the weapons disabled also means you have to think well if it's worth it to take the damage and hit hard yourself, of if you rather want to take a better pass later on.

The reason I keep coming back to that is because I think you should be able to counter bombs, even as ace, but that should come at a cost.
Advanced slam is problematic, at the moment, but not if you can counter the bomb. The bomber on the other hand has to make the call whether you will use the card now or maybe save it for later. But the slam itself is not gamebreaking anymore if the bombs can be circumvented.

Stress is a different beast entirely to take on. I think some kind of general rule would do it though. An example is to limit abilities/maneuvers at a certain stress threshold (maybe 4-5?), i.e. you can't even get stuff asigned, or to only allow a green straight as maneuver.

2 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

If it's just bombs, then I think some counter that costs points is the way to go. Think of countermeasures, but specifically against bombs. (E.g. "You may discard this card to reduce all damage taken from detonating bomb tokens by X until the end of this turn. Then receive a weapons disabled token.").
This has the advantage that an ace can insure themself against a (just one!) bomb, in the turn you think is most important.
It has numerous disadvantages, from opportunity- and point cost up to the fact that most lists with bombs have simply more than a single bomb. This idea with the weapons disabled also means you have to think well if it's worth it to take the damage and hit hard yourself, of if you rather want to take a better pass later on.

I think the Opportunity cost is too great. Aces have very few slots available to them, most only have EPT and Modification, both of those are pretty much necessary for them to function. Interceptors could take 2 mods, but one that discards is just too valuable a slot to lose, and would hamper them even more in other areas. Other aces have AT glued to them, giving it up means they just die to turrets (which against K-wings is just as bad). Same with EPT. Either they need it for offense, PS or for action economy, and the benefit of a discardable upgrade is miniscule when compared to those for an Ace.

1. Missules and torps should functiin differently than they do. Most of these would be fire and forget, and as such should have better range and a full 180 arc.

2. The big thing missing from Imperial doctrine is the officers corps. Imps could use more large base ships sporting officers that help the statfighters do their job better.

3. The introduction of prequel ships would help. Lastly, the introduction of squad mechanics for all OT ships would bring back both flavor and potency. Red, Blue, Black, Scimitar, and Pheonix squadrons should be a thing.

50 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

If it's just bombs, then I think some counter that costs points is the way to go. Think of countermeasures

I don't think it would work. It'd be too specific (which Countermeasures is not), and would require the loss of a slot, not just points. Most likely the Modification slot (or they'd have to do something byzantine like creating specific titles for each ace that also say "you can equip another title"). Take the Interceptor, which is what most people think of when they think of an Imperial Ace. Anti-Bomb Tech would reasonably take the place of Stealth Device. This would make the Interceptor stronger (or less weak) against bombs, yet weaker against everything else in the enemy squad. At the same time it would make it extremely weaker against a squad with no bombs, where you would basically play with a reduced squad total. So weaker or extremely weaker, compared to the current situation of weak vs. bombs (and bomb-like things, like Autoblaster Turret) and strong vs. anything else. Such a "fix" wouldn't take much time to be deemed not worth it. (And I didn't even start considering it for other ace ships like the Phantom, which certainly can't afford to lose Advanced Cloaking Device.)

To save the aces they need to implement a change that affects auto-damage as a whole. But they don't seem to be working in that direction, since the Scurrg expansion is going to make the bombs even stronger, the aces even more obsolete.

It is simply impossibly to keep never stop expanding games balanced. FFG did a reasonable job over a long time and nobly so. But it was going to happen that the self cave in would occur.

To me, balance helps make a game good and a game fun. Since the new rules would never end in this product, however, the goal is to at least keep the options entertaining.

it sounds like to me right now the options are not balanced and also less entertaining. Since certain cars are out of the bag like the Jumpmaster (and certain upgrades), FFG might just have to make the difficult choice of yet another hard nerf. Undoubtedly people will be upset about it. But many people are unhappy with the state of the game as it stands.

this is aside from casual play. Maybe FFG accepts casual is the say to go? I'm sure that would upset a whole other group of people.

the short term answer will make someone grumpy, but long term changes are needed I think.

2 hours ago, clanofwolves said:

Just Bombs, Glass Cannon Aces can deal with the others fair to good (turrets against Vader still suck) but bombs make the game a no-go zone. The newest Expansions are terrible for Aces and Imperials first and foremost.

The turrets against Vader problem could be solved by just giving all the TIE/AD x1 the boost actions. Auto Thruster on Vader for 2 points less, sounds legit to me and gives the iconic ship the power curve boost it needs.

Edit: Now give imperials a decent shuttle to ride for Palpatine and we might actually seeing Imperial Aces with Vader and Jax/Soontir again. Something I would love to play in a tournament setting. But the new Palpatine really needs a GOOD ride, something which can carry its own weight, because new Palp is worth his 8 points and not much more.

There are four words that would drastically improve the balance issues in the game: " on your action bar ". Tack that on the end of advanced slam, take away the ability to drop a bomb post SLAM, and suddenly counterplay to bombs for arc dodging PtL aces is a thing. Autothruster aces are a solid counter to jumpmasters - not perfect, but good, and they themselves can be countered by teching against them (homing missiles, BMST, higher PS or a better bid, gunner vader etc. etc.)

Honestly, take the advanced slam K Wings off the table, let the hard core Imp Aces players get Soontir back on the table, and the metagame will start to correct itself. There will still be problems: Hard counters will exist, TLT arguably needs a tweak, Jumpmasters and maybe Shadowcasters are in need of a nerf, possibly Attanni needs looking at, and there will still be early wave ships that need a boost, but the game will far healthier than it is now.

3 hours ago, ficklegreendice said:

good examples would be the Armada evade token, which varies in effectiveness depending on distance from the attacker, and the errated x7 title

Also Autothrusters shame they're only on available for a few ships.

3 hours ago, ficklegreendice said:

first you "exhaust" a token, and then if you use an exhausted token you lose it for the rest of the game)

I love this in Armada.

3 hours ago, Kdubb said:

These things all could be fixed if FFG was willing to put the necessary resources towards game balance. As is now, there is no sign they have any plans of putting those resources towards the game.

Insert "Sad Panda" here...

27 minutes ago, MacchuWA said:

There are four words that would drastically improve the balance issues in the game: " on your action bar ". Tack that on the end of advanced slam, take away the ability to drop a bomb post SLAM, and suddenly counterplay to bombs for arc dodging PtL aces is a thing. Autothruster aces are a solid counter to jumpmasters - not perfect, but good, and they themselves can be countered by teching against them (homing missiles, BMST, higher PS or a better bid, gunner vader etc. etc.)

Honestly, take the advanced slam K Wings off the table, let the hard core Imp Aces players get Soontir back on the table, and the metagame will start to correct itself. There will still be problems: Hard counters will exist, TLT arguably needs a tweak, Jumpmasters and maybe Shadowcasters are in need of a nerf, possibly Attanni needs looking at, and there will still be early wave ships that need a boost, but the game will far healthier than it is now.

The FFG plan is to give bombs to the Jumpmaster chassis that could slam them. The Stugg with unlimited bombs, Autoblaster Turret and 3 dice primary. Imp Aces can't deal with either. This is the designers intent: no more maneuverable fast Ace pilots fighting it out around asteroids in their space dance; they want bulk turret vs. bulk turret and bombs pooping everywhere.

I definitely have problems with the unlimited bombs, no question. If it'd been up to me, that card would have worked very differently. But the key to remember is that the meta is an ecosystem. It's not about perfect balance: Imp aces don't have to be able to deal with the super Skurrg build you're talking about here. It's just that something has to be able to deal with: Maybe quad TLT, or rebel regen, or Biggs. As long as the aces aren't rock-hard countered by advanced SLAM bombs, and they can be played, their presence will reshape things into a better equilibrium.

The idea is never that Imp Aces (or any build) should be able to deal with anything that shows up across from them. With eleven waves, plus aces packs and epic ship expansions in play, the diversity of potential combinations is so high now that that just shouldn't be possible - if it is, the list is probably too good itself. Counters will always exist, but as long as those counters don't completely and utterly invalidate their target the way Advanced SLAM K wings do to Imp Aces, and assuming that the meta is healthy enough that various hard counters are dispersed more or less equally and evenly, then playing any given list will result in roughly the same average chance of winning any given game.