The issue isn't the fact that players know the time remaining in a game- the issue is that some lists are built effectively knowing they can castle or avoid the other player and *only* force engagements they can win.

Take Fair Ship Rebel (FSR), Gerry's World's Top 16 squad [Jess Pava (IA, Hero Bot + Adaptability), Captain Rex, Biggs (R4D6, IA), Braylen (Gunner, R3A2)]: This list only wants to joust, and basically never wants to have to maneuver. So, if you're playing an ace-y or maneuverable list, the correct strategy is to hug the board-edge for the entirety of the game to force you into a joust, or a final salvo (because it has 10 dice). At the time, the only other 'meta' list with a 10-dice final salvo was Kanan Biggs (another bad matchup for the list).

Every other list had 9 (usually 8) dice or less for a final salvo. Those odds for a 10-dice final salvo are:

9-dice: 61% chance to win

8-dice: 71% chance to win

So, if the player is maximizing their chance to win the game, they should, usually, hug the board edge to force a joust (which almost no list can win), or final salvo.

And let's be clear, after playing ODJ awhile after worlds, I, too, am coming to the same conclusion: ODJ's win rate when engaging near the rocks is astronomically high, so I am highly encouraged to out-patient my opponent. Now, the list can (and does) win quite fine outside the rocks... except against braylen stress bot (because you cannot feasibly dodge the arcs). In that case, in our testing, we cannot beat that list if the FSR player sticks to their board edge strategy, while simultaneous we win almost every game if they go through the rocks (and thus break their formation). Why, as a rational player, should I engage my opponent when I almost certainly lose, when I can take a guaranteed 29% chance to win?

It's not like I'm thrilled at 29%, but if I think my odds are worse in engagement, I should choose the guarantee every time. And basically our point is that every rational player (who is maximizing their chance to win the game, and the tournament) should ask themselves "Are my chances of winning the game higher if I engage, or take a final salvo?" Which we do not think is actually very fun for the game.

As a refresher, ODJ has 8-attack dice, so my odds look like this:

So, I have some comfort knowing that if I cannot get a good engagement, I can bail out and have the above odds of winning in my back pocket. And honestly, part of this game is jockeying for position, but we do ultimately want people to engage and play the game. *I* want to play the game, but I don't want to fight fruitless or clearly losing battles either.

Further, as some lists become even more niche (i.e. 'Super Biggs' lists with lowhrick), we compound the problem of a player being able to play in a way to maximize final salvo AND engagement strategy.

The new "Fair Ship Rebel (FSR 2) is:

• Biggs (R4D6, IA)
• Jess Pava (herobot+selflessnss, autothrusters, primed thrusters)
• Lowhhrick (draw their fire, wookie commandos)
• Captain Rex

This list now has 11 dice for a final salvo, and attempts to make biggs feasibly indestructible. It does suffer on damage, although Jess pava is still hyper accurate, and the wookie commandos on lowhhrick assist with the fact he is always reinforcing.

Now, like the original FSR, this list wants to stay in formation, but now lacks stress control, so you say "well, I can just get behind this list and feasibly win," and you are right that that is a good strategy...

...so we've figured out a castle that forces an opponent to pick a lane to engage, so the FSR player can assure a joust; and we likewise found that the original board-edge strategy is still particularly effective.

Is the list fun? Probably not. Is the list particularly effective at capitalizing on both squad-building strategy as well as meta strategy? Absolutely.

And we're not saying the list is unbeatable... but the lists that do well at beating it, DESPITE it's ability to secure its strategy, have severe weaknesses against a broad-base cross-section of lists, so they're tough to bring to a large tournament and win with.

Aren't issues like that inevitable in basic 100/6 tournament X-Wing? I think FFG OP really needs to rethink 100/6 X-Wing. It wouldn't take much ... just add two, maybe three, other "mission parameters" in addition to the basic "Kill 'Em All" mission.

For example, I tested the below at League night, and the game had really interesting wrinkles. Fortressing, edge-creeping, all those things become really bad decisions. But, on the other hand, you've got the option to go for points beyond killing other ships, too.

(There are a lot of subtle things going on here, BTW. For example, it's surprising difficult to control a Zone with a Large ship.)

Combat Zones – Rules for X-Wing

Setup

· Zones are 4-inch by 6-inch rectangles. Each player should have one, clearly labeled to identify it as his.

· After obstacles are placed, Zones are placed. The player without initiative places his Zone first.

· Place your Zones within Range 3 of the opponent’s edge. Zones may not overlap obstacles.

· Ships may not be placed to overlap Zones.

Scoring

· At the end of the End phase, if a player’s ship is completely within that player’s Zone, the player scores 5 points. This is called “controlling” that Zone.

· Only 5 points may be scored each turn, no matter how many ships successfully control a given Zone.

· At the end of the game, if a player has not controlled his Zone at least once, his opponent is awarded 25 points.

· All Zone points count toward final score, simply adding to points destroyed, but do not count toward Margin of Victory. (This may change, depending on testing.)