3 hours ago, Embir82 said:

Real two reasons why rotation in MtG exists:

1) Rotation forces players to buy more cards and construct more decks which means more money for WotC.
2) Magic: The Gathering is all about constructing decks, there are almost no possibilities of tactical play in this game - all comes down to constructing decks, and it is only real fun. Thus rotation is needed for MtG because it gives players fresh cards and room for designing new decks; and constructing decks is only real decision making that you do in this game .

X-Wing is completely different animal than MtG - because there is much more room for tactical play. It does not need rotation of cards because strategy (i.e. constructing list) is only one of the elements to this game, the other one being tactical play (i.e. actual gameplay, obstacles placement, ship placement, picking right movements on dials).

So no, X-Wing doesn't need rotation. What it needs is balanced ships and balanced cards - and all of this can be achieved by sensible erratas.

1. Um, totally the same as XWM.

2. Um, XWM features list building, which is analogous to deck building. And, once you've built a deck, you have to play it well, so despite lacking movement templates, MtG is still a tactical game. The whole dang game is about resource management during play . Ever lost because you tapped out at the wrong time??

So, sure, rotation could still be a sensible way to keep the game in balance and fresh, in addition to sensible erratas.

28 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

1. Um, totally the same as XWM.

No. Because in X-Wing you can play still play totally legal list utilizing ships and upgrades exclusively from 1-st wave. Just before holidays some dude played in polish tournament using Jake and Han list, and he went as far as elimination rounds. In MTG standard format it is impossible.

In a way in X-Wing there is rotation, "soft rotation" I would call it - and it is known as power creep.

28 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

2. Um, XWM features list building, which is analogous to deck building. And, once you've built a deck, you have to play it well, so despite lacking movement templates, MtG is still a tactical game. The whole dang game is about resource management during play . Ever lost because you tapped out at the wrong time??

So, sure, rotation could still be a sensible way to keep the game in balance and fresh, in addition to sensible erratas.

I got gaming buddy who fanatically plays pauper format in MtG - it is ALL about constructing decks. This game is strategically deep but tactically "SHALLOW". More than once you end up with one card in hand doing completely nothing, because you have nothing to do. Side decks and mulligans in MtG are not without reason - because it is all about cards that you have, not how you play.
And this is where similiarities ends. Because in MtG constructing decks determines in about 90% if u will win or lose. It's tactics are simplified.
In X-Wing tactics are much more important. And this is the reason why X-Wing doesn't need rotation - because actual gameplay is much more important than in MtG.

34 minutes ago, Embir82 said:

No. Because in X-Wing you can play still play totally legal list utilizing ships and upgrades exclusively from 1-st wave. Just before holidays some dude played in polish tournament using Jake and Han list, and he went as far as elimination rounds. In MTG standard format it is impossible.

In a way in X-Wing there is rotation, "soft rotation" I would call it - and it is known as power creep.

I got gaming buddy who fanatically plays pauper format in MtG - it is ALL about constructing decks. This game is strategically deep but tactically "SHALLOW". More than once you end up with one card in hand doing completely nothing, because you have nothing to do. Side decks and mulligans in MtG are not without reason - because it is all about cards that you have, not how you play.
And this is where similiarities ends. Because in MtG constructing decks determines in about 90% if u will win or lose. It's tactics are simplified.
In X-Wing tactics are much more important. And this is the reason why X-Wing doesn't need rotation - because actual gameplay is much more important than in MtG.

I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree then. It gameplay didn't matter for MtG, people could just run their decks thru a computer to determine a victor, and I don't think it's that simple. A deck that relies on a combo that doesn't come up and/or gets countered loses, and that's the gameplay.

And if gameplay was so dang determinant for XWM, no one would be complaining about meta and weak ships, because gameplay would smooth all that out.

But to come at it from another angle, how is FFG going to keep hundreds of ships in print if this game does last 20+ years?

1 hour ago, Darth Meanie said:

1. Um, totally the same as XWM.

2. Um, XWM features list building, which is analogous to deck building. And, once you've built a deck, you have to play it well, so despite lacking movement templates, MtG is still a tactical game. The whole dang game is about resource management during play . Ever lost because you tapped out at the wrong time??

So, sure, rotation could still be a sensible way to keep the game in balance and fresh, in addition to sensible erratas.

Resource management, at least in the card games I played, was still mostly about constructing a proper deck. I haven't played Magic, but I have played enough other card games where the deck pretty much played itself once constructed. There were occasional choices, sure, and sometimes they even mattered, but in general, it could be a very automatic "If I have X, play X. If my opponent has Y, play Z instead." Some of these games really just came down to "did my deck do what it's supposed to do better than your deck did what it's supposed to do?" and deck construction and luck-of-the-draw played more into that than how the deck was played.

3 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree then. It gameplay didn't matter for MtG, people could just run their decks thru a computer to determine a victor, and I don't think it's that simple. A deck that relies on a combo that doesn't come up and/or gets countered loses, and that's the gameplay.

And if gameplay was so dang determinant for XWM, no one would be complaining about meta and weak ships, because gameplay would smooth all that out.

No one is saying that Magic has absolutely no tactics and X-Wing has no strategy. Rather, it's just being said that both games lean towards different ends of the spectrum.

4 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

But to come at it from another angle, how is FFG going to keep hundreds of ships in print if this game does last 20+ years?

Rotating print cycles and rotating legality are not the same thing.

3 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

Rotating print cycles and rotating legality are not the same thing.

Aye, fair enough. I never considered the notion that OOP ships would not be legal, because for me, they always would be.

FFG is going to have to change it's print MO soon, I should think. It's getting a little silly that there are 2 copies of nearly every ship.

58 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree then. It gameplay didn't matter for MtG, people could just run their decks thru a computer to determine a victor, and I don't think it's that simple. A deck that relies on a combo that doesn't come up and/or gets countered loses, and that's the gameplay.

And if gameplay was so dang determinant for XWM, no one would be complaining about meta and weak ships, because gameplay would smooth all that out.

But to come at it from another angle, how is FFG going to keep hundreds of ships in print if this game does last 20+ years?

With MTG the gameplay at high levels is mostly a run the deck and don't mess up the plays. The deck design and how well it fits with the given meta are the vast majority of the game.

Game play in X-wing is much more determinant. You can hand a pro any list of 100 pts and they will do something with it against a mid level player with a net list and would stand a good chance at winning even with only generics. Hand a pro MTG player a starter deck vs a mid level player with a net list and they are toast.

List building for X-wing matters a lot at the top tier of play since gameplay skill is very high and that little edge in a list matters. In MTG the deck building is most of the skill, the rest is just shuffling and not overplaying your hand.

Indeed. Magic as a game is literally just ''play this deck properly then compare the two competing decks''.

It's something you could literally program a computer to do. And the outcome would be determined almost solely by the decks themselves. The only other variable would be the possibility of the draw order for cards screwing you over. There is a skillceiling for actual MTG game play, all the skill just goes into list construction.

X-wing is much more heavily leaded towards how you fly a list. List construction is still a large chunk of the game of course, but it isn't even close to magic.

On 9/26/2017 at 5:21 PM, Embir82 said:

I got gaming buddy who fanatically plays pauper format in MtG - it is ALL about constructing decks. This game is strategically deep but tactically "SHALLOW". More than once you end up with one card in hand doing completely nothing, because you have nothing to do. Side decks and mulligans in MtG are not without reason - because it is all about cards that you have, not how you play.

Meaning no offense here, but you have no idea of what you're talking about. I assume you never seriously played Magic. It's a game that spawns pro players. As in, professional individuals, making a living out of it, in some cases making a pretty penny. There's thousands of them and only dozens of different archetypes at any given time, so they often use identical decks but the best players win more often. How? Because they're lucky? Too bad luck doesn't actually exist in the realm of objective observations.

Building new decks is something pro and semi-pro players do at the beginning of a season, then winning events it's a mix of both strategy AND tactics. Thinking ahead of your opponent based on what you know it's in your deck (and what you know it's in their deck, because an experienced player will know what their opponent is playing by just looking at the first card they play) and act accordingly: that's strategy. Following your endgame: that's strategy. Managing your resources on the battlefield: that's tactics. Playing a card at the right time to maximize its effect: that's tactics. Deciding which threat you remove, which spell you counter: also tactics. Deciding when to attack, with what to attack, when to block, with what to block: that's a complex layer of tactical thinking. Correctly guessing what's the opponent is holding in hand and what's going to do next: that's still tactics, I think. Bluffing: that's tactics for sure. Doing the complex math in your mind that certain combo and control decks require to be piloted successfully: I can't tell what this is, but that's also an element of the game.

Successful Magic players need two main skill sets: the skill set of a chess player and the skill set of a poker player. A lot of Magic pro player are former or current professional poker players too. Is poker a strategy game or a tactical game?

2 hours ago, Kumagoro said:

Meaning no offense here, but you have no idea of what you're talking about. I assume you never seriously played Magic. It's a game that spawns pro players. As in, professional individuals, making a living out of it, in some cases making a pretty penny. There's thousands of them and only dozens of different archetypes at any given time, so they often use identical decks but the best players win more often. How? Because they're lucky? Too bad luck doesn't actually exist in the realm of objective observations.

Building new decks is something pro and semi-pro players do at the beginning of a season, then winning events it's a mix of both strategy AND tactics. Thinking ahead of your opponent based on what you know it's in your deck (and what you know it's in their deck, because an experienced player will know what their opponent is playing by just looking at the first card they play) and act accordingly: that's strategy. Following your endgame: that's strategy. Managing your resources on the battlefield: that's tactics. Playing a card at the right time to maximize its effect: that's tactics. Deciding which threat you remove, which spell you counter: also tactics. Deciding when to attack, with what to attack, when to block, with what to block: that's a complex layer of tactical thinking. Correctly guessing what's the opponent is holding in hand and what's going to do next: that's still tactics, I think. Bluffing: that's tactics for sure. Doing the complex math in your mind that certain combo and control decks require to be piloted successfully: I can't tell what this is, but that's also an element of the game.

Successful Magic players need two main skill sets: the skill set of a chess player and the skill set of a poker player. A lot of Magic pro player are former or current professional poker players too. Is poker a strategy game or a tactical game?

Exactly this.

I agree.

2 hours ago, Kumagoro said:

Meaning no offense here, but you have no idea of what you're talking about. I assume you never seriously played Magic. It's a game that spawns pro players. As in, professional individuals, making a living out of it, in some cases making a pretty penny. There's thousands of them and only dozens of different archetypes at any given time, so they often use identical decks but the best players win more often. How? Because they're lucky? Too bad luck doesn't actually exist in the realm of objective observations.

Building new decks is something pro and semi-pro players do at the beginning of a season, then winning events it's a mix of both strategy AND tactics. Thinking ahead of your opponent based on what you know it's in your deck (and what you know it's in their deck, because an experienced player will know what their opponent is playing by just looking at the first card they play) and act accordingly: that's strategy. Following your endgame: that's strategy. Managing your resources on the battlefield: that's tactics. Playing a card at the right time to maximize its effect: that's tactics. Deciding which threat you remove, which spell you counter: also tactics. Deciding when to attack, with what to attack, when to block, with what to block: that's a complex layer of tactical thinking. Correctly guessing what's the opponent is holding in hand and what's going to do next: that's still tactics, I think. Bluffing: that's tactics for sure. Doing the complex math in your mind that certain combo and control decks require to be piloted successfully: I can't tell what this is, but that's also an element of the game.

Successful Magic players need two main skill sets: the skill set of a chess player and the skill set of a poker player. A lot of Magic pro player are former or current professional poker players too. Is poker a strategy game or a tactical game?

There isn't a comparison between Poker and Magic.

Poker is about concealing what you've been given from the same deck as your opponent.

Magic only conceals what is in your deck, but both players also built their own deck. Sure, neither knows what the other has, but that knowledge doesn't effect the outcome. The outcome is already decided by how the two decks stack up against each other and the randomness of the deck shuffle.

You can bluff your way to victory in Poker. You can't do that in magic.

I currently think the design team needs a rotation (or at least the play testers, rules writers, and article writers).

On 9/26/2017 at 5:39 AM, Darth 2Face said:

One of the reasons I got into X-Wing (and dropped other games) was because of the distribution model: what I buy today I can play tomorrow, no rarity, and ships reprinted. While a rotation/retirement systems could potentially help with balance, I don't want constant reprints. We already see it to an extent with Aces packs. No reason to also go with a rotation.

I would prefer errata over rotation. With a distribution model of everything being continually available through reprint, rotation just doesn't make sense.

I totally Agree. But, before that can happen, We need a better errata system.

5 hours ago, BadMotivator said:

There isn't a comparison between Poker and Magic.

Poker is about concealing what you've been given from the same deck as your opponent.

Magic only conceals what is in your deck, but both players also built their own deck. Sure, neither knows what the other has, but that knowledge doesn't effect the outcome. The outcome is already decided by how the two decks stack up against each other and the randomness of the deck shuffle.

You can bluff your way to victory in Poker. You can't do that in magic.

Netrunner is more akin to poker than MTG.

MTG does require perfect execution and board state analysis because the biggest risk in MTG is overplaying your hand. Playing too many creatures into a board wipe is a good way to lose. There is a tactical element but it is more like playing the wall in Tennis. You can't fake out the wall, you can just return every shot in a way that sets up the next shot as best as you can.

30 minutes ago, Infinite_Maelstrom said:

I totally Agree. But, before that can happen, We need a better errata system.

I would settle for printable card overlays. I think Star Wars CCG did this close to when it lost the license to WoTC.

On 9/29/2017 at 5:53 PM, BadMotivator said:

There isn't a comparison between Poker and Magic.

Poker is about concealing what you've been given from the same deck as your opponent.

Magic only conceals what is in your deck, but both players also built their own deck. Sure, neither knows what the other has, but that knowledge doesn't effect the outcome. The outcome is already decided by how the two decks stack up against each other and the randomness of the deck shuffle.

You can bluff your way to victory in Poker. You can't do that in magic.

That's just an element. Being good at poker involves keeping your cool, not betraying what you have in hand while trying to guess what your opponent holds based on their reactions. Involves fast thinking, rapid math and taking calm decisions and calculated risks. You do all that in Magic. You can theoretically play with one shared deck in Magic (some fringe formats do it) and those elements will still be in play.

And you can certainly bluff your way to win. You often leave certain kind of lands open to represent an answer you don't actually have, forcing the opponent to take in consideration that you may indeed have it, which could lead to potentially catastrophic ramifications in their decision tree.

On 9/29/2017 at 11:43 PM, Jetfire said:

Netrunner is more akin to poker than MTG.

MTG does require perfect execution and board state analysis because the biggest risk in MTG is overplaying your hand. Playing too many creatures into a board wipe is a good way to lose. There is a tactical element but it is more like playing the wall in Tennis. You can't fake out the wall, you can just return every shot in a way that sets up the next shot as best as you can.

You're talking of basic Magic for newbies, not pro-level Magic. There's always one or more major archetypes in any format at any given time where you don't actually have to commit resources to the board.

9 hours ago, Kumagoro said:

You're talking of basic Magic for newbies, not pro-level Magic. There's always one or more major archetypes in any format at any given time where you don't actually have to commit resources to the board.

Oh? I didn't realize pro-level magic decks no longer involved creatures, enchantments, artifacts and lands. The game has changed a lot since I played if it's down to just sorcerys and instants.

You know I actually now think X-wing needs a rotation of sorts, but here it is the models and dials (save for the jumpmaster) don't need rotations. But all the pilot and upgrade cards do.

Have a card only rotation pack that updates pilots and brings out new upgrades and rotate all the older ones out. That way fixing ships will be easier an OP pilot/upgrade will be gone in a couple of years and the meta stays refreshed. It might cost more but IMHO it is far better than these masses of erratas we are getting from time to time.

No. Absolutely not. The best games of x wing are when you see a squad of t65s and Y wings roll over triple skurrgs.

4 minutes ago, rafcpl6868 said:

No. Absolutely not. The best games of x wing are when you see a squad of t65s and Y wings roll over triple skurrgs.

Not the models, but how about rotating out the pilot and upgrade cards with well better ones. Ones that will bring unused models like the T-65 X-wing back or overused ships like the YT-2400 down in power level. HEck you could have a Pilot skill 5 T-65 X-wing Rouge Squadron pilot with an EPT.

Put in card packs and put in a rotation. It is only sensible in this age of madness.

4 minutes ago, Marinealver said:

Not the models, but how about rotating out the pilot and upgrade cards with well better ones. Ones that will bring unused models like the T-65 X-wing back or overused ships like the YT-2400 down in power level. HEck you could have a Pilot skill 5 T-65 X-wing Rouge Squadron pilot with an EPT.

Put in card packs and put in a rotation. It is only sensible in this age of madness.

That's not a rotation- That's a 2.0

A 2.0 would be nice, but implementing it extensively would be difficult, and FFG's business model doesn't really make that easy.

Just now, Kaptin Krunch said:

That's not a rotation- That's a 2.0

A 2.0 would be nice, but implementing it extensively would be difficult, and FFG's business model doesn't really make that easy.

Would be a much easier way of bringing it into 2.0 for sure. But yeah even 2.0 with card only booster packs would be nice. Way to keep them consumer friendly is to make them series like their LCGs and even separate them by faction or even sub-faction. We can have a 1stOrder Booster a Scum Booster a Rebel Alliance Booster and so on. So new players have a guide on what to get and veteran players will know what packs they need for which upgrades if they want to cross over factions.

On 25/09/2017 at 7:18 PM, Marinealver said:

So Android Netrunner is currently going through a reboot and by reboot they are rotating out their core set and the 1st and 2nd cycles. They made a new core set that has replaced many cards on the most wanted list. So rotated core set and 1st 2 cycles. So could that apply to X-wing.

Rotate the core set (now you do need TFA, good bye Biggs ) and the 1st two waves. Then reprint those tow (to get a better X-wing that doesn't suck) and keep the big boxes (huge ship, Aces) as evergreen sets. Would that fix X-wing?

Personally I don't think so but given the recent event I think it is worth a discussion on what the game would be like if such a change were to occur.

It'd be fantastic to keep the meta-game going. Keep a "core" set of ships (everything that is seen in a cannon novel). Then totate out every wave of ships in a quasi-random fashion every three months (to keep in line with seasonal kits).

On 10/24/2017 at 8:30 PM, Jetfire said:

Oh? I didn't realize pro-level magic decks no longer involved creatures, enchantments, artifacts and lands. The game has changed a lot since I played if it's down to just sorcerys and instants.

Yep, maybe you wanna check how manaless dredge works. Also, I didn't say you don't use those types, I said you don't have to commit them to the board. And in several decks, you only commit collateral resources, like in Burn and Ad Nauseam, where your endgame stays in your hand and library until it's delivered.

Anyway, bluffing is part of any game of Magic. Even the most green (competitive) player knows you always have to keep a card in hand to make your opponent wonder if you have a counter or answer to their play. And that's just the most basic of mind games, there are plenty. Including to feign tapping to cast something then change your mind. Or attack into an opponent board status where apparently you'll lose your attackers. Except maybe there's a combat trick coming. Except maybe there isn't, but you banked on the opponent thinking there was and letting the attack through because he was afraid there was and according to his math he would stand to lose more if there was. And so on.

Wow, I suggested limited retirement (cards only) a couple of years ago on a different thread and I'm still smoking for getting flamed so bad.

IMHO rotation of certain cards wouldn't be the end of the world, though sometimes your favorite gets hit and that smarts. What I would really like to see is a web-store where I could purchase the new (FAQ, reprint, etc.) version of cards I already own but are outdated. As long as they were reasonably priced and I didn't get hammered on shipping. They could even require return of my old cards so that they could claim product support if anyone had heartburn with them selling cards without plastic.

Love to see it, probably never happen.

Fly casual