11 minutes ago, drjkel said:

It's like X-wing, good decisions snowball quickly, so have a plan going in.

I think X-Wing might snowball TOO hard honestly - games are usually decided long before the game ends.

9 minutes ago, Transmogrifier said:

Do you think errata'ing Coordinate to only be allowed to target small based ships would be enough to save us from Ghost/Fenn? Or do you think the sheer mass of other combo-wing upgrades on the Ghost is enough to carry the list forward?

I guess my question is: have we reached a point where targeted, elegant nerfs are no longer enough to course-correct? It really feels like the sheer weight of unresolved design mistakes is piling up and changing the game into X-Wing: The List-Building Game and there doesn't seem to be an desire on FFG's part to change that dynamic.

It would save us from ghost fenn, but I'm sure there's just as big a monster hiding behind ghost/fenn that ghost/fenn is suppressing that will raise it's ugly head.

4 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

Wait ... are you saying you wanted Manaroo "killed," and now you want Miranda "killed"?

Why?

It seems to me the Manaroo nerf did a good job of pushing her back from "OP" to "viable." (Perhaps slightly too good, combined with everything else.)

Shouldn't we be hoping for nerfs that push OP to viable, instead of pushing OP to "no longer played, ever"?

I can't speak for him, but I'm of the opinion that it's better to nerf too hard than not hard enough. "Starving Buzzard" things, if you will. You can always release something similar again later, but players get tired of multiple errata related to the same thing, like jumpmasters.

For example, if you gave me the option to nerf miranda, I would nerf her so hard that she'd never see competitive play again - not because of a burning distate for Miranda, but because it's safer. It's the same reason I(we?) don't like the palpatine nerf, it wasn't a meaningful enough nerf to be worth the cost of errata.

12 minutes ago, Transmogrifier said:

Do you think errata'ing Coordinate to only be allowed to target small based ships would be enough to save us from Ghost/Fenn? Or do you think the sheer mass of other combo-wing upgrades on the Ghost is enough to carry the list forward?

I guess my question is: have we reached a point where targeted, elegant nerfs are no longer enough to course-correct? It really feels like the sheer weight of unresolved design mistakes is piling up and changing the game into X-Wing: The List-Building Game and there doesn't seem to be any desire on FFG's part to change that dynamic.

I think @Brunas was on to something earlier in this thread. Errata boost and barrel roll actions to not be allowed outside of the performing ships activation phase.

4 minutes ago, viedit said:

I think @Brunas was on to something earlier in this thread. Errata boost and barrel roll actions to not be allowed outside of the performing ships activation phase.

Or just say they can never be done as Free Actions, just like slam.

Just now, Timathius said:

Or just say they can never be done as Free Actions, just like slam.

Much simpler stated... though that might end the barrel roll -> boost combo with PTL.

Just now, LagJanson said:

Much simpler stated... though that might end the barrel roll -> boost combo with PTL.

It does, but honestly that is not a big loss. Especially if you are trying to make arcs relevant again.

9 minutes ago, viedit said:

I think Brunas was on to something earlier in this thread. Errata boost and barrel roll actions to not be allowed outside of the performing ships activation phase.

I'd be down with the SLAM treatment: you cannot perform Boost/Barrel Roll as a Free Action. But I don't think that many people are on-board with my "Push The Limit was a mistake" screed.

edit: @Timathius types faster than me

1 minute ago, Timathius said:

It does, but honestly that is not a big loss. Especially if you are trying to make arcs relevant again.

I'll agree with that take, though I don't fly arc dodgers. - I expect Fel fans wouldn't agree. It would also give Jake a nice edge to do something special... "I still get a free boost when I get a focus. Eat my dust, Fel."

6 minutes ago, Brunas said:

I can't speak for him, but I'm of the opinion that it's better to nerf too hard than not hard enough. "Starving Buzzard" things, if you will. You can always release something similar again later, but players get tired of multiple errata related to the same thing, like jumpmasters.

For example, if you gave me the option to nerf miranda, I would nerf her so hard that she'd never see competitive play again - not because of a burning distate for Miranda, but because it's safer. It's the same reason I(we?) don't like the palpatine nerf, it wasn't a meaningful enough nerf to be worth the cost of errata.

You might as well advocate for banning, then. It's more honest.

IMO, the problem with the multi-nerf to JM5Ks was that they didn't @#$% start with the JM5K. They danced all around it because an actual fix required errata, and they didn't want to do that. It was bad game development. With a living FAQ/errata document, there's nothing wrong with nerfing and then adjusting four months later. One way or the other, you still need to reference the FAQ.

There are also other alternatives, such as Reference Cards. A reference card for Shield Recovery could, for instance, limit the number of shields recovered throughout a game to the ship's starting value. If that needed to change, all that would need to change would be the reference card ... and they've been willing to change those since near the beginning of the game.

13 minutes ago, Timathius said:

Or just say they can never be done as Free Actions, just like slam.

Which drives the narrative to Xwing 2.0. Will we see some sort of hierarchy of action trees?

Free actions: (Target Lock, Focus, Evade)

Positional actions: (Boost/BR/Slam)

Special actions: Cloak/Decloak/Reinforce/Reload/ect/Upgrade card abilities.

Now "free actions" is a class they can define.

16 minutes ago, Timathius said:

Or just say they can never be done as Free Actions, just like slam.

Some very sad pilots... Snap, Turr, Jake, Sabine

Also threat tracker.

They make such a change extremely unlikely

2 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

You might as well advocate for banning, then. It's more honest.

IMO, the problem with the multi-nerf to JM5Ks was that they didn't @#$% start with the JM5K. They danced all around it because an actual fix required errata, and they didn't want to do that. It was bad game development. With a living FAQ/errata document, there's nothing wrong with nerfing and then adjusting four months later. One way or the other, you still need to reference the FAQ.

There are also other alternatives, such as Reference Cards. A reference card for Shield Recovery could, for instance, limit the number of shields recovered throughout a game to the ship's starting value. If that needed to change, all that would need to change would be the reference card ... and they've been willing to change those since near the beginning of the game.

Oh, I guess to be clear, I do advocate for banning. I think it's the cleanest and most effective way to solve problems, but I don't think it'll ever happen. Blizzard's banning phrasing of "Wild" and "Hall of Fame" is a super brilliant workaround to having to say the word Ban, because communities (I think wrongly?) hate bans. A standard ban list also sounds fine to me, though.

Is there some important distinction between updating a reference card and updating the faq/rules reference I'm missing though? Or just that FFG has been willing to change reference cards like decloak, but doesn't like doing FAQ changes as much? I'm not actually aware of any reference card changes outside decloaking. Leaving my last sentence wrongness for posterity as I just pulled up a list of reference cards - they did errata the cluster mines, boost, tractor beam, and general bombs. Wow.

1 minute ago, GreenDragoon said:

Some very sad pilots... Snap, Turr, Jake, Sabine

Also threat tracker.

They make such a change extremely unlikely

Not really, you can put in the FAQ that they are immune to this. Or make the ruling "ships may not preform boost and or barrel roll actions as free actions unless specified by a pilot ability or upgrade."

1 hour ago, Biophysical said:

That level of mistake barring flying the whole ship off the board isn't even possible for a Ghost/Fenn list.

I'd disagree with that. Being careless with Fenn and getting him killed in the first round of combat while stuck in a bad position with the Lothal is probably just as bad. As is screwing up against a jousting list with Fenn out of range or bumping Fenn into the back of the Ghost and losing half the Ghost's hull in the first round. Also, I have heard of a few newer people running their Ghosts off the board, so it can happen. As a long time Kanan player I know the 5k is deceptively far.

2 minutes ago, Timathius said:

Not really, you can put in the FAQ that they are immune to this. Or make the ruling "ships may not preform boost and or barrel roll actions as free actions unless specified by a pilot ability or upgrade."

This what they did for Epic - Huge Ships can't do free actions unless a Huge Ship only upgrade card tells them to

Just now, Transmogrifier said:

This what they did for Epic - Huge Ships can't do free actions unless a Huge Ship only upgrade card tells them to

Something like "Ships may not perform free actions granted by other ships unless it assigns a token to their ship" would be one way to do it, and allow some fun combos to exist.

6 minutes ago, Timathius said:

Not really, you can put in the FAQ that they are immune to this. Or make the ruling "ships may not preform boost and or barrel roll actions as free actions unless specified by a pilot ability or upgrade."

2 minutes ago, Transmogrifier said:

This what they did for Epic - Huge Ships can't do free actions unless a Huge Ship only upgrade card tells them to

good point!

It would make these pilots more special, which is a good thing as far as I‘m concerned.

34 minutes ago, Brunas said:

I think X-Wing might snowball TOO hard honestly - games are usually decided long before the game ends.

The good thing is that most people don't quite notice and play through anyways, often having fun doing so. At least in casual events.

I'm a fan of shorter rounds anyways, my lists tend to be the "win or lose quick" type. It's the one reason I disliked Paratanni, games going to time way too often are tiring over a long tournament.

It is great practice to learn how to come from behind though. It's not always possible to actually come back, but keeping a cool head and knowing what needs to happen to get those low odds on your side is good.

To that end, I've stopped scaling total point cost when playing with my son as a way of balancing the game since it doesn't help either of us actually practice, I instead take a bomblet to the face of every ship before we place. Sometimes my ships go in unscathed, sometimes very much not (having 2 sheathipedes in a meme list starting with 3 hull each is baaaad). It teaches you to fly more carefully, that's for sure! Our last game, my 3 Scurrgs went in unharmed and he nearly beat me with his Glaives anyways.

3 minutes ago, Brunas said:

Oh, I guess to be clear, I do advocate for banning. I think it's the cleanest and most effective way to solve problems, but I don't think it'll ever happen. Blizzard's banning phrasing of "Wild" and "Hall of Fame" is a super brilliant workaround to having to say the word Ban, because communities (I think wrongly?) hate bans. A standard ban list also sounds fine to me, though.

I'm not sure if communities hate bans. I'm literally "not sure;" I haven't played very many games for which it was a possibility ... only Magic (loooong ago), Dungeons and Dragons Miniatures, and X-Wing.

I was never against Magic bans or rotation. I don't remember the issue arising in DDM.

I'm against X-Wing banning, but only of entire models. I don't want my $15 (minimum) model investment to be literally and everlastingly unusable in competitive games. (And, given the prior nuking of Wardens and the uselessness of Guardians and Esege, banning Miranda would be effectively banning the entire model.) You can say, "Well, it doesn't have to be forever," but if you say that, why not simply try nerfing first?

This, I think is why FFG will never ban entire pilots or models: if players really believe (rightly or wrongly) that FFG can't be trusted to balance their own game well enough to avoid banning an entire model ... players will seriously curtail purchasing. (And, IMO, rightly so.) And we can talk all we want about how "most buyers aren't competitive gamers," but the truth is that competitive X-Wing percolates into all of X-Wing. Avowed "casual only" players still use fixes like the Chardaan Refit and the erratum to Cluster Mines, for instance. They don't have to, but they do ... because there is value to a unified set of rules.

(This mindset is hard to overcome, even when it's significantly detrimental. HotAC, for instance, is very well balanced -- a couple of exceptions notwithstanding -- but only through Wave 7. Many HotAC players understandably want to go beyond the rules-set to play with the new, complete, X-Wing inventory of ships and upgrades. And they almost invariably run into serious balance issues.)

2 minutes ago, DarkArk said:

I'd disagree with that. Being careless with Fenn and getting him killed in the first round of combat while stuck in a bad position with the Lothal is probably just as bad. As is screwing up against a jousting list with Fenn out of range or bumping Fenn into the back of the Ghost and losing half the Ghost's hull in the first round. Also, I have heard of a few newer people running their Ghosts off the board, so it can happen. As a long time Kanan player I know the 5k is deceptively far.

On one hand we have misjudging by 2mm where one of multiple barrel rolls would put my ships while setting my seven dials to execute a pinwheel formation turn that then results in a horrific and unrecoverable TIE pileup thus losing the game

On the other hand we have seriously bad flying that, in cases other than flying off the board, aren't really that bad. Using your example of bumping Fenn into the back of the Ghost hotcop still works, Fenn's ability still works, sensor jammer still works. You're missing out on the boost, which is of debatable value in that circumstance since it would leave Fenn high and dry as he'd be where the Ghost was, or a defensive focus but that's about it. Hardly game changing.

The skill floor on Ghost/Fenn is comically low

17 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

I'm not sure if communities hate bans. I'm literally "not sure;" I haven't played very many games for which it was a possibility ... only Magic (loooong ago), Dungeons and Dragons Miniatures, and X-Wing.

I was never against Magic bans or rotation. I don't remember the issue arising in DDM.

I'm against X-Wing banning, but only of entire models. I don't want my $15 (minimum) model investment to be literally and everlastingly unusable in competitive games. (And, given the prior nuking of Wardens and the uselessness of Guardians and Esege, banning Miranda would be effectively banning the entire model.) You can say, "Well, it doesn't have to be forever," but if you say that, why not simply try nerfing first?

This, I think is why FFG will never ban entire pilots or models: if players really believe (rightly or wrongly) that FFG can't be trusted to balance their own game well enough to avoid banning an entire model ... players will seriously curtail purchasing. (And, IMO, rightly so.) And we can talk all we want about how "most buyers aren't competitive gamers," but the truth is that competitive X-Wing percolates into all of X-Wing. Avowed "casual only" players still use fixes like the Chardaan Refit and the erratum to Cluster Mines, for instance. They don't have to, but they do ... because there is value to a unified set of rules.

(This mindset is hard to overcome, even when it's significantly detrimental. HotAC, for instance, is very well balanced -- a couple of exceptions notwithstanding -- but only through Wave 7. Many HotAC players understandably want to go beyond the rules-set to play with the new, complete, X-Wing inventory of ships and upgrades. And they almost invariably run into serious balance issues.)

Also not sure - some communities do, but I think it's only in communities where it's understood that it might happen. An overnight K-Wing nerf would obviously be a catastrophe. If it were part of a big announcement that said here's how we're going to do things going forward, here's a format where everything is legal, and here's "standard", it... might go better? Unsure as well. I know the hearthstone community was furious about the "Hall of Fame" for a few weeks, and quickly got over it and now embrace it. Different format though, if a hearthstone card gets banned they just refund the cost of it.

On banning Miranda effectively being banning the entire K-Wing. My gut says you're right, or at least this is true in 90%+ of ships? To meta-wing! This isn't a comprehensive list or anything, but going down "highest magic" ship types I'll enumerate:

1. Sheathipede would survive banning Fenn
2. Auzituck would survive banning Low
3. K-Wing would not meaningfully survive a Miranda nerf - and frankly, I'd have nerfed EI while ASlam was nerfed, FFG is merciful!
4. VCX in it's entirety would have to be banned
5. Attack Shuttle isn't a real ship
6. TIE/SF Backdraft is decent, and funnily probably much better if QD doesn't exist
7. Rebel Scurrg literally doesn't exist if Nym is banned
8. TAP is only The Inquisitor and we all know it
9. Lambda would survive an OGP ban, not a palp ban
10. Falcon would survive banning one (or even multiple) pilots. Falcons are really well done now I think, there's actual options. I wish the entire game were balanced at this power level. Sorry for the aside
11. Gunboats may be able to get by without Nu's
12. T-70 still has Jess without Poe, borderline
13. JM5K - they're all just fine
14. Defenders get by just fine without whichever happens to be the most popular
15. Lancer - Asajj comically better, Ketsu is only run because you can't have two of asajj
16. YT-2400 gets on just fine without Dash. Unironic new leebo meta
17. ARCs only exist in Norra
18. TIE Advanced may as well be called Vader
19. Scum Scurrg has Sol Sixxa, but he's garbage without Nym
20. Rebel HWK ?????????????? these exist?

I think that's far enough, but surprisingly at least to me almost every good ship outside of the K-Wing and TAP (and rebel scurrg by definition) would escape it's most common pilot ban mostly unscathed.

That's not including upgrade banning though, which there's no reason to think wouldn't be a thing. It avoids the whole "My model is useless problem" though.

5 minutes ago, Brunas said:

Also not sure - some communities do, but I think it's only in communities where it's understood that it might happen. An overnight K-Wing nerf would obviously be a catastrophe. If it were part of a big announcement that said here's how we're going to do things going forward, here's a format where everything is legal, and here's "standard", it... might go better? Unsure as well. I know the hearthstone community was furious about the "Hall of Fame" for a few weeks, and quickly got over it and now embrace it. Different format though, if a hearthstone card gets banned they just refund the cost of it.

On banning Miranda effectively being banning the entire K-Wing. My gut says you're right, or at least this is true in 90%+ of ships? To meta-wing! This isn't a comprehensive list or anything, but going down "highest magic" ship types I'll enumerate:

1. Sheathipede would survive banning Fenn
2. Auzituck would survive banning Low
3. K-Wing would not meaningfully survive a Miranda nerf - and frankly, I'd have nerfed EI while ASlam was nerfed, FFG is merciful!
4. VCX in it's entirety would have to be banned
5. Attack Shuttle isn't a real ship
6. TIE/SF Backdraft is decent, and funnily probably much better if QD doesn't exist
7. Rebel Scurrg literally doesn't exist if Nym is banned
8. TAP is only The Inquisitor and we all know it
9. Lambda would survive an OGP ban, not a palp ban
10. Falcon would survive banning one (or even multiple) pilots. Falcons are really well done now I think, there's actual options. I wish the entire game were balanced at this power level. Sorry for the aside
11. Gunboats may be able to get by without Nu's
12. T-70 still has Jess without Poe, borderline
13. JM5K - they're all just fine
14. Defenders get by just fine without whichever happens to be the most popular
15. Lancer - Asajj comically better, Ketsu is only run because you can't have two of asajj
16. YT-2400 gets on just fine without Dash. Unironic new leebo meta
17. ARCs only exist in Norra
18. TIE Advanced may as well be called Vader
19. Scum Scurrg has Sol Sixxa, but he's garbage without Nym
20. Rebel HWK ?????????????? these exist?

I think that's far enough, but surprisingly at least to me almost every good ship outside of the K-Wing and TAP (and rebel scurrg by definition) would escape it's most common pilot ban mostly unscathed.

That's not including upgrade banning though, which there's no reason to think wouldn't be a thing. It avoids the whole "My model is useless problem" though.

Literally more work than you have ever put into the show notes.

8 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

I'm not sure if communities hate bans. I'm literally "not sure;"

In general I think very much so. For largely the reason you outlined for not wanting a massive Miranda nerf. People can deal with something becoming less powerful to some degree, but if you completely take it away entirely they react as if you were stealing from them, whether that's the money they paid for it or the time investment as is more the case in video games. Magic gets away with it with a combination of having multiple formats, so you can still use your card in some way, and the rarity situation making many cards on the ban list cost $1,000s of dollars which kind of turned it into a populist issue to begin with and let it cement in the fabric of the game.

17 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

I'm against X-Wing banning, but only of entire models

But that's not actually what's being talked about. I mean by your definition the Punisher and a handful of other ships have already been banned. Even if Miranda was banned (incidentally not something I support since I think a general regen fix or just eliminating the OP interaction with TLT would be sufficient), the other K-wings are still technically playable and like everything else just an upgrade card away from renewed viability

11 minutes ago, Timathius said:

Literally more work than you have ever put into the show notes.

I dunno... does sorta sound like live podcast though. Furious typing sounds as @Brunas tries to fact check something. "Quick, somebody think of something to fill dead air as I look this up..." tap tap tap "Huh, I didn't know I could get an anime character doing that..." tap tap tap "Yeah, so totally true fact. We should have more fact in the game."

32 minutes ago, Brunas said:

1. Falcons are really well done now I think, there's actual options. I wish the entire game were balanced at this power level. Sorry for the aside

I agree.

I am hesitating to play arm chair FFG game designer to heavily here....but the line has been crossed so forget it!

I don't think you need a ban list or sweeping errata to fix any of X-Wings problems right now.

Probably the fastest way to get there is just to make the "out of arc" part of autothrusters a game rule available to every ship in the game that does not have a turret.

The range 3 part of things would still require Autothrusters to be equipped.

This would apply to 180 Arcs and the Lancer's adjustable arcs as well.

I think in that alternate universe things like Miranda, VCX, and Assaj would still be very good just a lower % of the cut at major tournaments.

And all kinds of interesting Rebel, Scum, and Imperial ships should immediately become more widely used.

*Also I'm pretty sure I would be a terrible X-Wing Game Designer