i really dont get how people claim wave11 is horrible for the meta. Its nothing like wave8 was, everything it introduced that is powerful can be dealt with. I actually have yet to lose to a nym (multiple tournaments and dozens of games since wave11 hit), he's so friggen predictable and as with ANY 1 or 0 agi ship he folds quickly when cornered.

This game is still one of the most stable tabletop games out there. Except against scout spam (which is why i seriously hope that leak is true) theres nothing right now i feel like is insanely against my odds to win. Scoutspam is just too bulky and you cant do anything to mitigate their damage output since K4 + Attani = literally dont hit a rock/debris and im good. Fortunately, even with how irritating that list is, its the minority of all the lists.

Even against bombs which are another hot topic, every time i see someone complain about them they blatantly ignored the threat and just facetanked it. Thats how my Punisher was able to shred a kavil/protectorate/assaj attani list, he literally ignored the potential threat of bombletts and it butchered his list almost on its own. To which of course he goes "I think bombletts are a little over the top..." yeah...no you just need to learn to back off from the guy that can bomb your face off (especially when thats basically all hes doing)

Nope, wave11 is better than before not worse. None of the new stuff even comes remotely close to the BS that is the JM5K box.

9 minutes ago, Vineheart01 said:

Even against bombs which are another hot topic, every time i see someone complain about them they blatantly ignored the threat and just facetanked it. Thats how my Punisher was able to shred a kavil/protectorate/assaj attani list, he literally ignored the potential threat of bombletts and it butchered his list almost on its own. To which of course he goes "I think bombletts are a little over the top..." yeah...no you just need to learn to back off from the guy that can bomb your face off (especially when thats basically all hes doing)

I encountered this exact same situation the other week. I was flying Genius/Autoblaster Nym. My opponent ioned him, then proceeded to fly all of his ships directly into the spot behind where Nym would end up. Then complained that Bomblets were OP.

If anything, i will admit its a bit weird bombletts cause crits rather than the cluster effect of just damage equal to hits/crits.

But even still, its the same effect as seismics/protons and nobody seemed to have issues dodging that. I got them off fairly commonly but not easily. People will burn all their evasion tricks to duck away from those yet they just blatantly ignore bombletts..../facepalm

8 hours ago, Ralgon said:

Over half of those points have existed since wave 7. Some go back as far as wave 2. Why all of a sudden is the game DOOMED and unplayable, around 2 years later.

How about this? In those two years some people may have expected the issues would have been fixed. Rather there are more issues as even you say above; plus the game is ever more complex with more mechanics, flow charts, changing card text and rules, and FAQ.

Just an thought.

1 hour ago, Kdubb said:

Some other thoughts for discussion-

does the game in its best state have turrets in their current form, or at all?

Only turrets with restrictions, so mobile arcs and secondaries. In theory TLT makes for good games trying to get into the blind spot, but its power is too high. PWTs create unbalanced matches where one player has to consistently rely on his mitigation while the other doesn't.

How about arc dodgers?

They make for very fun games as long as catching them makes an impact. Ships that are easier to maneuver (which arc dodgers are) should not also be the most efficient ones.

what about bombs and ordnance?

Wouldn't lump the two together. Bombs are good because they turn the game into a battle of positioning. They are flawed in that who goes first makes a massive difference in how effective they are and that defending against them is much harder than flying them. Ordnance on the other hand can be interesting when it has the TL restriction (or further movement restrictions like Cruise Missiles), but tends to just be boring big attacks.

Although R2D2 has been here from the get go, it doesn't necessatily mean regen is part of the "best" game. Does regen stay the same, get revised, or not exist at all?

Regen is just another form of damage mitigation. As long as it isn't stacked out of control I don't mind it.

I have some thoughts on each point but wanted to hear others thoughts.

I saw a couple people talking about how they wanted dials to matter, as positioning and dog fighting should be the best part of this game, and something occurred to me that hasn't before. What if there were 2 movement phases? You set dials and do actions just like now but then you set dials again before the attack.

I don't know that it would fix anything but seems kinda fun and I might try this next time I play to see how it works.

57 minutes ago, FTS Gecko said:

I encountered this exact same situation the other week. I was flying Genius/Autoblaster Nym. My opponent ioned him, then proceeded to fly all of his ships directly into the spot behind where Nym would end up. Then complained that Bomblets were OP.

yeah, you need to be patient when flying against Nym (and fair ships and Dash too)

most people aint

If we remove the Scum faction, the game starts to look pretty ideal again

1 minute ago, phild0 said:

If we remove the Scum faction, the game starts to look pretty ideal again

Burn it to the ground!!!

15 minutes ago, phild0 said:

If we remove the Scum faction, the game starts to look pretty ideal again

God, if only.

This might not be exactly a "state of the game" type I'm looking for, but a "state of maintaining the game." I'm completely fine with how this game evolves. I don't think 1 "state" is good to stay at for an extended period of time otherwise it can become stale. I've enjoyed trying to come up with new lists that tech against the evolving metas. A "meta" will always exist, that's just how it is.

What I'd like is for this game to be in a better state of being maintained. A recent podcast, I think Stay on Target or Scum & Villiany (I listen to most of them so I'm not 100% since it's all a jumbled mess in my memory), mentioned that when FFG releases new waves that included updates to an old ship each wave, it could help maintain old ships in current metas. Along with that, it creates another excitement for a new wave not just coming out with new things, but also which old ship is gonna be updated next? These current "Aces" expansions are currently too few and spaced out over time. More timely FAQs (not quantity, just better timed with releases/events). I've heard of some games that have utilized an app system to update their players with any answered FAQs, erratas, or rule changes to make it more easily accessible both during play for players and for judges/TOs.

Yes there are minor tweaks to the rules that I personally think can benefit the game right now, but nothing that I would define as "game state changing." I'd just like this great game of X-Wing to be better maintained.

The issue right now is that the tier one lists are (1) super powerful in relation to even tier 1.5 and tier two lists and (2) tier one lists all rock-paper-scissors one another.

This leads to the perception that the meta isn't healthy, which it isn't. Of course, an unhealthy meta in tournaments does not mean the game is dead, but some kind of adjustment is needed soon.

The other accompanying issue is that an unbalanced game actually harms the casual crowd more than the tourney crowd. Tourney players will largely adjust and keep playing through what will be a transient period of meta instability. Casual players are likely to grow increasingly frustrated that their favorite ships are unplayably bad. Now, this player base binary is often oversimplified, but even more casual players attend league nights and store championships. To this end, a healthy game is one in which there is a large array of viable ships. Full balance is never possible, but wave 11 is quite off the rails.

What is sorely needed is a way for FFG to quickly adapt via FAQ. The current three months of playtesting followed by three months for the evil empire to approve changes is far too slow. I suppose we will see what happens via designer interactions at GenCon and the next faq.

2 hours ago, Vineheart01 said:

If anything, i will admit its a bit weird bombletts cause crits rather than the cluster effect of just damage equal to hits/crits.

But even still, its the same effect as seismics/protons and nobody seemed to have issues dodging that. I got them off fairly commonly but not easily. People will burn all their evasion tricks to duck away from those yet they just blatantly ignore bombletts..../facepalm

I think the true problem is your opponent says, "Welp, he's got an unlimited supply of those things, and I can't dodge them forever. Might as well take a hit if it gives me a shot." I'm not saying that thought process isn't flawed, but it does highlight a big difference between Seismic Charges and Bomblet Generator.

With any 8+HP ship i could understand that logic since you have hp to take a whack or two and still be alive. Heck im a big advocate of "Your hp is a resource, use it wisely" meaning i'll gladly hurt myself if i think i can get an edge over you (such as tanking my own bomb to force you to bump me and also take it, fly through a rock, etc)

A protectorate? One bomb could screw you over easily since it can cause crits. In one of my practice games i had an opponent do just that and get shafted by the bomb rolling a crit and gave him "Cant shoot" crit. And you cant even hope to kill the Punisher before anything happens since the bomb goes off first and not even Fenn can 1shot a LWF punisher.

3 hours ago, ficklegreendice said:

Neither player really has any control over them without stacked guarantees and without they just introduce the possibility of ******* over good flying by rolling too well or too poorly. In an ideal world, we'd replace them with Armada tokens which rewards good play such as range control and concentrated fire

Green dice, the original NPE

I think you and @Verlaine are touching on something else that should be discussed too.

What is the right amount of variance for this game?

Where it the sweet spot? Is it the simplicity of the core set where position and patience (2 turns for a TL+Focus) rewards you with a higher chance of a positive outcome, or did the fact that you pulled off a slick maneuver and have the mods virtually guarantee that you will be able to remove a ship? Do players appreciate a chess-like non-variable play experience, or the back and forth of the dice that might bail out a defender who blundered into an arc that they shouldn't have been. Was it the beauty of a perfect plan coming together that draws a new player in, or the thrill/hope for the swing of luck that hooks them until they lose their very last ship? I've never heard the argument that player skill and maneuvering SHOULDN'T be the most important part of this game, but it seems to me that casual and competitive players (podcasters included on both) disagree on where this variance sweet spot should be. The answer has to lie somewhere in between, because ultimately this game has to be appealing to both in order to thrive.

Personally, I'm in the camp of more variance than what the game demonstrates today. That's not to say that there shouldn't be guaranteed damage or full-mod upgrades. If you like to play a game of guarantees then by all means load up your ships with combos, but those upgrades should be more expensive (and thus more prohibitive) than they are today. The ceiling should then be much higher for a player running a high-variance list than one of guarantees.

Someone in another thread brought up a good point (sorry, can't remember who) that more variability in the back-and-forth also makes the game more interesting and winnable (and most importantly, enjoyable!) for a new player vs an experienced one, which I see as a positive thing for the state of the game. It also tones down the starkness of the rock-paper-scissors cycle that we have going today. I'm not saying this should be a game of dice, but as consistency, red dice, and complex combos have been on the rise the tone of the community also seems to have shifted.

Anyhow, that's just my 2 cents. Back to lurking for me !

If you're doing variance, it needs to be split across more rolls

As is, a single lucky shot can be game breaking as you either pop something important or said thing, with no mods, just becomes invincible

Ideally, variance makes players adjust strategy. You need more interactions on the table as well as different goals to shoot for if the dice **** you out of killing an enemy. Objectives are the way to go here

10 hours ago, Kdubb said:

does the game in its best state have turrets in their current form, or at all?

How about arc dodgers?

what about bombs and ordnance?

Although R2D2 has been here from the get go, it doesn't necessatily mean regen is part of the "best" game. Does regen stay the same, get revised, or not exist at all?

I have some thoughts on each point but wanted to hear others thoughts.

Turrets are fine. The balance between turrets and autothrusters is ad hoc, but their dynamic interaction in the meta I find to be acceptable.

True arc dodgers only exist because of autothrusters. Arc dodging turrets are a danger area. Miranda is right on the edge, but is okay because SLAM prevents her from shooting. Her true power comes from being the games best point fortress. Soontir Fel became a jouster with the amount of defense he had. Arc dodgers should be hitable if you get them in arc. (at range 1-2)

Bombs and bomblet generator are fine. A nerf to Adv Slam makes sense because it would balance K-wings with other bombers.

Some regen is fine. Miranda regen is balanced. R2D2 Corran is still for me the biggest NPE in the game. Thankfully there are more counters nowadays. Double regen Poetensity is potentially going to become an issue. R2D2 should start with 3 or 4 shields on the upgrade & that's the max you can regen in a game.

NPE's are subjective. The trick is to get rid of the ones that effect the majority of players. Determining this from forum posts & podcasts is not possible or wise. To me, super high defense leads to NPE's. Biggs Lohrick is the current offender. Pre-nerf X7 defenders were real bad. R2D2 regen can be the worst sometimes. Games of X-wing ideally finish in an hour. High defense often prevents this from happening.

@Dengar5

"Turrets are fine. The balance between turrets and autothrusters is ad hoc, but their dynamic interaction in the meta I find to be acceptable"

I have grown to at least understand Turrets for what they are and the roll they play in basically "culling" the herd of arc dodgers. It makes sense and its not far off from being reasonable and acceptable.

But....I dont think it makes sense that ships without turrets also have to give up their modification slot to get thrusters mechanic.

Not only are turrets a natural counter to arc dodgers they steal an upgrade slot from the ships that need thrusters stapled to them.

I feel like a permanent rule that just gives any ship without a turret an evade when being attacked out of arc by a turret the is appropriate.

I would also like to see offensive range bonuses ignored both at r1 for PWTs and defensive range bonuses applied at r3 for turret upgrades when being attacked out of arc.

Its not like suddenly 4 dice rey/han/rac/dengar at range 1 or Dash at 2-3 would be completely off the table.

So my thoughts.

My overall all thought is that the game is best when maneuvering, rock placement, initial set up, and superior squad building (based on the meta relative to the competitive event, NOT simply net listing), are all major factors of determining the winner, with maneuvering coming in at over 75% of that determining factor.

As for some specifics of what my ideal xwing world would look like...

-I'm in the party that thinks turrets either a) need to use some mobile arc like mechanic across the board, or b) do not receive the same bonuses or ranges as primary arc weapons. I'm fine with it existing because of the thematic element of it, but it just feels wrong to have ships that can shoot you anytime you can shoot them, essentially eliminating a core element of the game in many scenarios.

-regen is fine... until it isn't. There really needs to be some sort of cap to keep an end game from going beyond what is reasonable, and to keep players from going against the spirit of the game and fleeing engagement to gain an advantage.

I would propose that all regen abilities come with shield tokens equivalent to the shield value of the equipping ship, and you are only allowed to regen that many shields in a game.

- I don't think this will be a super popular opinion, but I think arc dodging should be more limited in that you can never double reposition in a round, and large bases take stress to reposition. I think heavy repositioning distracts from the dogfighting element, and it can be extremely frustrating to see an opposing ship squarely in arc, just to watch it double reposition to instead prolong the game. The problem with these ships is hardly ever early in the game. It is when they make it to the end game and you have no feasible way of catching them or dealing damage to them when double repositioning becomes especially troublesome. SLAM is similarly troublesome in this regard.

-bombs are fine without adv SLAM or bomblet generator. Successful bombing should be a product of a) superior positioning, forcing an opponent to either make a suboptimal move to avoid the bomb or simply take the damage, and b) appropriate use of a LIMITED resource. Adv SLAM and bomblet mess with these requirements in weird ways. Adv SLAM allows for near guarantees of dead (or close to) aces with action bombs and Sabine once you get close enough. Defending against it with low health, high agility ships is essentially impossible.

Bomblet is also an issue in that by being infinite, you do not have to take a scarce resource approach as you do with other bombs which have an inherently powerful effect of landing the rare "automatic damage" (tangent- I've come around to the idea that autoblaster might be priced correctly simply because auto damage can be so warping in a game that has ships with 3 health and ships with 6x as much as that) . The scarcity of available bombs before wave 11 has largely kept them from being obnoxious or overpowering (without adv slam), and made them a sort of "thinking mans" upgrade, as you needed to identify when is the most opportune time to drop the bomb or mine. Now though, bomblet allows you to simply drop it at every opportunity it might make sense (for THREE POINTS!!! And it's almost always BETTER than a seismic which is two points for ONE BOMB THAT DOES A SINGLE DAMAGE!!!), which takes bombs from being a tough match up for aces, to an unwinnable one (especially paired with the Nym abilities and advanced sensors).

And more design based thoughts...

- We need erratas to underperforming cards. Players LIKE to have reasons to use things they couldn't before. I see minuscule issues with this in a digital age, with high returns of happy and satisfied players who would love to put "back of the binder" cards on the table again.

- open details on design decisions. Why do you think this didn't this work, and why did this work? How did you come to x or Y conclusion when designing z? How does playtesting work? Do you have benchmark lists you have new material tested against time and time again, or is it a "here you go! Have fun and figure something out!" experience where you depend on the playtesters to do all the work?

Thats enough for now. I could probably go on but this is plenty haha.