My tournament experience has been that nearly every TO has asked players to submit their list via a squad builder. Given that it seems for tournaments many people are required to submit their lists for Xwing this way. Why exactly can't this be a source of a 'hard fork' of sorts?

Basically what I'm suggesting is this: FFG continues to release ships with costs that it hopes are right for casual play, For epic play, anything that isn't 100ptbattles.

You can't build an illegal squad for these games. But for anything at a regional or even store champ or more, costs of cards for tournaments become mutable and have to be checked online. Which we already have to do anyways!

no errata of wording, and nobody shows up with an incorrect list, because it has to be run through a squad builder first. A simple checker on the FFG site would accomplish this.

costs are aggressively recosted every three months to provide a solid 'churn' until it really is a completely wide open field on what you might see. At the end of a theee month period, specific ships that haven't been seen are given a 1pt bump. Ships that were seen too much are given a 1 pt decrease.

Can we just do this? Casual gaming is untouched, higher level tournament play would demand an additional check that frankly it seems like we have to do anyways already...

Frankly seems like an easy solution that could be appended to the tournament rules.

But ... I doubt we'll ever see it.

I'd go for it. I would kind of like to see ffg make a "cards" app, like their dice app, then you'd get any price or wording changes immediately instead of sticking post-its on every other card.

First it's "if it's right for tournament, then it's right for casual" now it's "casual can get buy with a screwed up version of the game."

Nice.

1 hour ago, Darth Meanie said:

First it's "if it's right for tournament, then it's right for casual" now it's "casual can get buy with a screwed up version of the game."

Nice.

Haha I think Ffg should continue to keep putting out points values, but in our local group it's a lot easier to say "hey let's play a game without big ships" for example to fix any perceived issues we have. the thing is a lot of the points costs aren't screwed up outside the 100 format. We play a lot of 200pt games and three way games, anyone rocking a powerful ship tends to get ganged up on.

I guess I'm advocating that ffg cultivate a 100pt game with finely honed numbers, and treat it more like a video game like dota or other games that get patched on a semi regular basis.

I am not a tournament player but what about a bidding system. Something like for every 8 players in a tournament 1 of each unique pilot is available and highest bid gets the pilot. Generics would be their straight point value and the minimum bid for a unique would be the generic cost. It would be similar to a fantasy football draft.

Upgrades would be handled normally.

If tournaments used different points values, then those points values would be used for casual games at my club. Not only because many casual games are used to practice tournament lists, but also because it stands tomreason that the new 'tournament values' would be more fair. Amd I expect this would hold true for many other areas as well.

Tournament costing would make casual costing redundant.

A simple fix would be to make standard tournament games 125 points. It allows you to build a 100 point list exactly how you want, without significantly affecting the length of the game. This also rebalances all of the cards into a new meta, without actually having to do a lot of work.

42 minutes ago, Nickel said:

A simple fix would be to make standard tournament games 125 points. It allows you to build a 100 point list exactly how you want, without significantly affecting the length of the game. This also rebalances all of the cards into a new meta, without actually having to do a lot of work.

Quad scouts dominate this format.

45 minutes ago, Nickel said:

A simple fix would be to make standard tournament games 125 points. It allows you to build a 100 point list exactly how you want, without significantly affecting the length of the game. This also rebalances all of the cards into a new meta, without actually having to do a lot of work.

Welcome to attanni heaven with a small side of it's poor cousin imp counterpart, striden/hux

Why would casual games not use the same cost?

3 hours ago, Verlaine said:

If tournaments used different points values, then those points values would be used for casual games at my club. Not only because many casual games are used to practice tournament lists, but also because it stands tomreason that the new 'tournament values' would be more fair. Amd I expect this would hold true for many other areas as well.

Tournament costing would make casual costing redundant.

1 hour ago, GreenDragoon said:

Why would casual games not use the same cost?

In a 100 point game, where both players are happy to use optimized cost, well, absolutely no reason why not. There would be very little reason to not use the optimized tournament values for ships in a 100 point game.

I'm thinking more along the lines of recent articles put out by FFG suggesting that in casual settings you try alternate formats, the missions, three way games, 77-plus formats, and so on.

For an impromptu game of xwing with a group of friends, in a three-way 125 point setting, for example, often without a full set of every card available to you, in our group things that were overcosted or undercosted by a point really didn't matter. It was a lot easier to build a squad based on the cards in front of us. That said, I would expect a lot of casual games WOULD use an online-optimized version of the game, if the players were inclined.

Here's the thing, for casual games I don't want to alienate new players. We get a new player to the group, i'm preferentially not going to tell him, here, go use this online squad builder because all the cards are wrong. I vastly prefer saying, right everyone, we're going to play 75 points each, in a 4-way free for all, because in that setting a lot of the balance problems vanish when people start ganging up on each other. In that environment, I think using the points on the cards is just fine, and frankly preferable for ease of setting up and taking down the game in reasonable time.

5 minutes ago, citruscannon said:

In a 100 point game, where both players are happy to use optimized cost, well, absolutely no reason why not. There would be very little reason to not use the optimized tournament values for ships in a 100 point game.

I'm thinking more along the lines of recent articles put out by FFG suggesting that in casual settings you try alternate formats, the missions, three way games, 77-plus formats, and so on.

For an impromptu game of xwing with a group of friends, in a three-way 125 point setting, for example, often without a full set of every card available to you, in our group things that were overcosted or undercosted by a point really didn't matter. It was a lot easier to build a squad based on the cards in front of us. That said, I would expect a lot of casual games WOULD use an online-optimized version of the game, if the players were inclined.

Here's the thing, for casual games I don't want to alienate new players. We get a new player to the group, i'm preferentially not going to tell him, here, go use this online squad builder because all the cards are wrong. I vastly prefer saying, right everyone, we're going to play 75 points each, in a 4-way free for all, because in that setting a lot of the balance problems vanish when people start ganging up on each other. In that environment, I think using the points on the cards is just fine, and frankly preferable for ease of setting up and taking down the game in reasonable time.

If this is the reason to introduce some new points cost, then I would submit that the above situation is already possible. When playing different formats or introducing new players, you can ignore the errata if you want to. I would guess that not many people actually do this, but it is by all means possible and very easy. Just use the rulebook and the cards.

And this is not a solution. Because when playing a casual game, jumpmasters are still disproportionately powerful. You might fiddle with the victory conditions in a cinematic game, but the points/efficiency issue remains. It doesn't dissolve because you're not playing competitive. And consequently it will still annoy players.

When fixes are needed, they are needed for the quality of the game as a whole, not to change a piechart in listjuggler to something more diverse. Bad game balance will affect casual play just as well, so any fix should also be implemented there. Of course this might be problematic if balance is aimed at the 100/6 format, but then again, I'm in favour of balancing more towards a range, say 100-300 points, rather than a specific value (this would make both named E-Wing pilots viable, for example).

I think the tournament standard should move to 150, just to open up list variety and allow some playstyles(like a buff shuttle) to work better.

The idea of an official card app would be a good one too. That way you could errata cards and people would have an updated version with the official wording immediately available.

6 hours ago, Wretch said:

I am not a tournament player but what about a bidding system. Something like for every 8 players in a tournament 1 of each unique pilot is available and highest bid gets the pilot. Generics would be their straight point value and the minimum bid for a unique would be the generic cost. It would be similar to a fantasy football draft.

Upgrades would be handled normally.

that is the opposite of game design

5 hours ago, BadMotivator said:

I think the tournament standard should move to 150, just to open up list variety and allow some playstyles(like a buff shuttle) to work better.

To me, the main problem with X-Wing right now is combo-wing: things like Paratanni or Fairship that are schockingly efficient because of a specific combination of cards. Increasing the point level exacerbates that issue. True, some builds become more viable...but then they have to deal with stuff like Fairship+Kanan, which becomes absolutely horrific.

Something that all X-Wing players need to grasp: an unbalanced game harms casual players more than competitive players. Period.

While it is already asinine to draw a hard line between competitive and casual to begin with, players interested in going to major events are going to adapt to a changing meta and run what they need to run in order to have a shot at top tables. This same competitive crowd might still bemoan narrow options, but they are also more likely to play through a transient meta period and accept that not every ship can be viable.

For casual and newer players, an unbalanced game means far less fun is derived from X-Wing matches when paired with opponents who do not share the same mindset. There seems to be some kind of misconception that more casual players avoid league nights and store championships--this is simply not true. What is true is that these players are more likely to lose interest in the game after getting repeatedly gobsmacked by the clearly overpowered lists.

Why this issue has come to such a head lately is that the tier one lists are far stronger relative to the field than in many (perhaps not all) past meta iterations. Fix some of the major issues (Jumpmaster, Biggs, Nym drops even when bumping) and the game is better for everyone--"competitive" or "casual."

1 hour ago, Ailowynn said:

To me, the main problem with X-Wing right now is combo-wing: things like Paratanni or Fairship that are schockingly efficient because of a specific combination of cards. Increasing the point level exacerbates that issue. True, some builds become more viable...but then they have to deal with stuff like Fairship+Kanan, which becomes absolutely horrific.

I'm not quite sure I agree here.

The general experience heard with 300 points is that generics dominate over putting too many points into single unique ships or combos that fail once an enormous amount of guns are turned on a particular link in the chain. The 150pts games I played in were more open rather than more specialized, however maybe others have experienced different.

4 hours ago, Ailowynn said:

To me, the main problem with X-Wing right now is combo-wing: things like Paratanni or Fairship that are schockingly efficient because of a specific combination of cards. Increasing the point level exacerbates that issue. True, some builds become more viable...but then they have to deal with stuff like Fairship+Kanan, which becomes absolutely horrific.

As Kris40k said above, I don't think so. You actually start getting constricted by a card being unique. Suddenly, Dengar and Nym isn't your whole list. And you're not facing just 3 enemy ships. You're potentially facing 5-6. Or 3-4 aces with a support ship.

Attani Mindlink is still strong of course, but the playing field I think is leveled.

11 hours ago, BadMotivator said:

I think the tournament standard should move to 150, just to open up list variety and allow some playstyles(like a buff shuttle) to work better.

It would allow people to bring ALL the toys, not to mention make for very long games. At least with `100 points you have to think hard about what you bring in your squad.

RoV

20 hours ago, Vontoothskie said:

that is the opposite of game design

The designers still design the game mechanics and assign the recommended point values for casual play. All that my idea would do is add the perceived value of the ship or pilot to tournaments.

33 minutes ago, Rat of Vengence said:

It would allow people to bring ALL the toys, not to mention make for very long games. At least with `100 points you have to think hard about what you bring in your squad.

RoV

I've played in 150pts tournaments, its not that much longer. A few go to time at 75mins, others end early with 150pts destroyed; not much more different than 100pts.

Really, consider your typical 3 ship 100 pts list. At 50 more points, you are probably flying 5 ships. Considering 4 ship lists are not out of the ordinary with 100pt games, and you even see larger with swarms, its not really much longer than a typical 100 pts game. As well you can get more guns on target to melt stuff fast.

Oh I'm certainly not saying it wouldn't be a **** of a lot of fun

1 hour ago, Rat of Vengence said:

It would allow people to bring ALL the toys, not to mention make for very long games. At least with `100 points you have to think hard about what you bring in your squad.

RoV

i almost exclusively play 150 points. its sooo much better, 1 ship cant bully a whole squad but each ship is still important. more strategy, better variety, more fun. you should try it out

1 hour ago, Rat of Vengence said:

It would allow people to bring ALL the toys, not to mention make for very long games. At least with `100 points you have to think hard about what you bring in your squad.

RoV

Definitely not all the toys. I've made some 150 point lists and it still goes fast. But what it does is open up space. 100 is simply far far too constricting to be healthy for the game. 200-300 would be too much for sure. But 150 is about perfect.

As for "very long games" I call BS. Adding 1-2 additional ships will not slow games down significantly. Sure, you could plop down a 12+ model TIE swarm. But i doubt it would be common, and even then so what?

As a WMH/40k/WHFB/Infinity player, I just get a chuckle every time an X wing player says "oh that would take too long to play". Playing 75-100 minute games is the norm for wargames. You can deal with it.