2 hours ago, Darth Meanie said:

Errata is errata. Changing the point values of the base ships over and over again is just as poor as solution as what is happening now, or maybe worse, because as others have pointed out old lists may become illegal based on point values. In fact, IMHO, I'd rather see the current tactic of titles for the ships being used to alter their specs. Then, players have options to kit ships out in different ways at different point costs. The only downside is that every base ship begins to need obligatory Titles and Mods to play well.

By arguing that errata changing points might make an old list illegal, you are arguing that a 5 year old list is more important than the balance and state of the game currently. How then do you balance out the X-Wing, the TIE fighter, and everything else? Your list is more important than the purchases made earlier? Why is your concern about a list you made 5 years ago more important than concern other players have to bring a competitive list of iconic ships to a tournament today? Why is your 5 year old list more important than my 5 year old interceptors relevancy? If it balanced the game, I'd rather they abandon the entire card based economics (which rumor has it they are for legion) and move to an entirely app and PDF driven rules release system.

2 hours ago, Darth Meanie said:

Yeah, I don't play the meta. You should try it some time. The game gets better immediately.

Then why are you so adamantly defending it? Get rid of the meta, by balancing ALL the ships!

2 hours ago, Darth Meanie said:

Comparing XWM as a game to a drinking game with blocks as a game is a horrible example. It was a simile. The blocks are x-wing ships. The ones that are easy to pull are meta. The rest of the still standing tower are the other perfectly fine ships that no one will play because they are trickier to extract and win. The tower is balanced despite the fact that some players will refuse to play if they aren't allowed to pull out the easy blocks only, and then complain the whole game is **** because it might be harder to win pulling out a tougher block.

That's a horrible simile too!

2 hours ago, ScummyRebel said:

Because no amount of game testing can deliver a balanced game. You cannot possibly test every permutation. Admittedly, some of what has escaped is bad, but it could be much much worse.

Also, you cannot simultaneously keep the old ships 100% as relevant as they were on release day while making new ships that are different enough to merit any use at all, while keeping the game fresh with added mechanics. Even if raw power creep didn't happen, mechanics creep would be and is a thing.

The only way to fix old ships is with new cards to change them up again. That's what ace packs have done before. That's how new fixes will arrive to us in the future.

You're right, and I'm not ASKING for perfect balance, even chess isn't perfectly balanced, the first to go has an edge.

What is being asked, is that they design the game with close balance in mind. This close balance, would allow in-built list limits (points) and the rolling of die to offset some of the inherent imbalance in what is a complex web of numbers. When they see that certain things are woefully broken, they step in, and fix it! They don't wait 2 years, they fix it when it becomes obvious!

FFG devs figure that the contracted scout is worth 2 points more than a red squadron pilot, and 2 points less than an outer rim smuggler, yet it VASTLY outclasses BOTH. You expect a few upgrade cards to come out and somehow fix and repair this powercreep!? The game designer who was primary on the jumpmaster, should be removed from the dev team. If a banker so drastically undervalued a home as the dev undervalued the jumpmaster, and sold it, they would be fired, possibly sued too. Its only because this is a game company that the dev isn't, it's because he doesn't work in a real world career that he is safe to royally screw up, but he should still be called out at the very least. Its because his mistake is easily corrected that it shouldn't be an issue, but they AREN'T correcting it! THAT'S the problem. Instead, they take the mistake, and profit off it by SELLING the fixes to other ships! Yet people here are concerned with invalidating an old list?

You can ABSOLUTELY keep old ships relevant. If new releases invalidate an older model, reduce the older models points, errata its attack, give it more shields, SOMETHING. If you are going to introduce a new mechanic that should RIGHTLY be on an older model, upon the new release, introduce new dial packs, no models, just a cheap, quick release with some cardboard in it (hey, they can make a quick buck here, 15 cents of cardboard, 15 cents of packing, charge the retailer shipping, easy $5.99!) How long ago was the talon roll introduced? Well, the A-Wings and TIES are still waiting to be made as maneuverable as a freighter...

I'm glad that last Imp ace pack brought the TIE bomber back to competitive...

3 hours ago, ScummyRebel said:

I just hope we can get some good mechanics creep based fixes added to the old ships. Tie bombers and punishers that can reload, maybe a mechanic to let A-wings and interceptors add talon rolls to their options...

I hope so too, but I have 0 faith that the devs even know how to tie their shoes let alone fix the game. These are after all the same guys that made freighters more maneuverable than military grade interceptors.

p.s. you know how you could get TIE bombers and Punishers reload without waiting 18 months for a title card? Errata!

35 minutes ago, Gadgetron said:

I hope so too, but I have 0 faith that the devs even know how to tie their shoes let alone fix the game. These are after all the same guys that made freighters more maneuverable than military grade interceptors.

p.s. you know how you could get TIE bombers and Punishers reload without waiting 18 months for a title card? Errata!

To be fair, the reason why freighters in this game are more maneuverable than military grade interceptors is because they have to be, because of the constraining self imposed Standard Format.
This game's standard format is a deathmatch. Can you imagine a deathmatch between real life interceptors and freighters? Or between a real life shuttle and a fighter? Between a turreted flying fortress and a tug?

No because it's so absurd.

However, this game restricts itself to the absurdity of giving the players the chance to make a list that includes minelayers, freighters, tugs and shuttles and face with it another list made of interceptors and fighters, and somehow they need to have equal or reasonable chance to win.

It's like wanting to have a boxing combat between Mike Tyson and Stephen Hawking, and giving Hawking enough perks so that he has a chance against Tyson. If it was a squad building game, people would demand that a 100 points Hawking build should be balanced against a 100 points Tyson build.

Well. That is what is happening when you want to have a deathmatch between TIE Interceptors, A-wings, X-wings, etc versus Jumpmasters (cartographer ships), YT-13000/2400 (locomotives), lambda and upsilon shuttles (buses with weapons), Quadjumpers (tugs), bombers, etc.

If this game's standard format had other objectives than pure deathmatch, we would have more interesting ships that would be great at what they are supposed to be great.
Since it doesn't, the devs needs to make any new ship they add just as good or better at dogfighting as the previous ones.

People are still staying away here, but at least the current player-base size is decent.

No faith left for game devs who wasted almost a year (not to mention years in the case of Biggs) to fix a glaring error - I guess.

8 hours ago, Warlon said:

I'm sorry, is the Interceptor's front on the bottom in that picture?!

I think that's the hatch. You can kind of see the windshield where it's supposed to be, though the color hampers things a bit.

8 hours ago, ficklegreendice said:

Oh it's no second palp. I'm sure most of the enthusiasm is nostalgia for the game

Still, it is a very unique ship. The xg has an interesting mix of potent alpha + sustained offense and the OS can fire after SLAMing (xg can but that hard point restriction is too tough to work around)

I don't think the XG will be SLAMing every turn, but having two cannon slots may mean it can equip a heavy one for normal duty, and a Beam weapon to still be able to do something when it SLAMs.

5 hours ago, Azrapse said:

If this game's standard format had other objectives than pure deathmatch, we would have more interesting ships that would be great at what they are supposed to be great.
Since it doesn't, the devs needs to make any new ship they add just as good or better at dogfighting as the previous ones.

I haven't had the chance to play any scenarios yet, but from what I hear, the objectives there really do shake up the meta. People say that what works in a dogfight doesn't always work well in the scenarios, while some things that don't see much normal play really shine. Objectives really sound like the way to go if the goal is to see every ship have its day.

6 hours ago, Gadgetron said:

You can ABSOLUTELY keep old ships relevant. If new releases invalidate an older model, reduce the older models points, errata its attack, give it more shields, SOMETHING. If you are going to introduce a new mechanic that should RIGHTLY be on an older model, upon the new release, introduce new dial packs, no models, just a cheap, quick release with some cardboard in it (hey, they can make a quick buck here, 15 cents of cardboard, 15 cents of packing, charge the retailer shipping, easy $5.99!) How long ago was the talon roll introduced? Well, the A-Wings and TIES are still

I hope so too, but I have 0 faith that the devs even know how to tie their shoes let alone fix the game. These are after all the same guys that made freighters more maneuverable than military grade interceptors.

p.s. you know how you could get TIE bombers and Punishers reload without waiting 18 months for a title card? Errata!

1. I'd like to see dial packs sold as an option, but that's unlikely due to their licensing model for xwing. Other fixes, like the cards we've seen before, can make their way out in ace packs or similar. Maybe they could add new dials in an ace pack, maybe not.

2. If you have no faith left, why are you still here? If you're not having fun, leave. It's a game.

3. Errata is a last resort, not a good first choice. A title card for 0 points that says "tie bomber or punisher only, your action bar gains the reload action" is an easy fix. Throw it in the new first order bomber if there is one. Problem solved.

3 minutes ago, ScummyRebel said:

3. Errata is a last resort, not a good first choice. A title card for 0 points that says "tie bomber or punisher only, your action bar gains the reload action" is an easy fix. Throw it in the new first order bomber if there is one. Problem solved.

Why?

Seriously, you are not the first person who has presented this idea, and it really makes no sense to me. Please explain to me the following:

• Why is it better to wait for a 0pts physical Title card to be created, printed, and shipped out and purchased to give the TIE Bomber and Punisher the reload action, instead of adding a line in the official Errata that those ships gain that action on their action bar?

With the first method, we have to wait months to get a fix done and pay money for our ships to be better balanced, with the second, we could be playing in tournaments with the fixed ships tomorrow with no cost to the players. All they have to do is update the Official FAQ like they did with the Heavy Scyk.

3 minutes ago, ScummyRebel said:

1. I'd like to see dial packs sold as an option, but that's unlikely due to their licensing model for xwing. Other fixes, like the cards we've seen before, can make their way out in ace packs or similar. Maybe they could add new dials in an ace pack, maybe not.

2. If you have no faith left, why are you still here? If you're not having fun, leave. It's a game.

3. Errata is a last resort, not a good first choice. A title card for 0 points that says "tie bomber or punisher only, your action bar gains the reload action" is an easy fix. Throw it in the new first order bomber if there is one. Problem solved.

1. Where would the licencing issue arise? I just don't feel its fair to make people wait 5 years for their favorite ship to be competitive. Lets also not lie to ourselves, it literally took the breaking of the game to get them to errata the jumpmaster, they don't care about previously released ships.

2. I'm still here for Armada, and Legion. I'm just hoping X-Wing will make a comeback, its not looking good though...

3. Why? Its the SAME end result, but one costs 20 bucks, and takes 18 months, the others free, instantaneous, and allows people to use their previously purchased yet uncompetitive ships, competitively (sorta.)

3 minutes ago, kris40k said:

Why?

Seriously, you are not the first person who has presented this idea, and it really makes no sense to me. Please explain to me the following:

• Why is it better to wait for a 0pts physical Title card to be created, printed, and shipped out and purchased to give the TIE Bomber and Punisher the reload action, instead of adding a line in the official Errata that those ships gain that action on their action bar?

To me, it's better because it is easier to show a newer player and be able to explain to them what is transpiring and why. Having a massive document of "just kidding this is what it really is" to page through makes a bigger challenge.

Maybe it's because I don't fly at a ton of tournaments, where my opponents may not always be as familiar with the FAQ as I. Maybe it's because I don't like having cards in my possession that don't mean what they say.

1 minute ago, ScummyRebel said:

To me, it's better because it is easier to show a newer player and be able to explain to them what is transpiring and why. Having a massive document of "just kidding this is what it really is" to page through makes a bigger challenge.

Maybe it's because I don't fly at a ton of tournaments, where my opponents may not always be as familiar with the FAQ as I. Maybe it's because I don't like having cards in my possession that don't mean what they say.

So it's better that the new player play with their shiny new X-Wings, TIE fighter/interceptors... Only to get curbstomped by newer releases because their old ships aren't worth a **** on the table anymore?

Oh, and they STILL need the errata and FAQs anyhow... so...

1 hour ago, ScummyRebel said:

To me, it's better because it is easier to show a newer player and be able to explain to them what is transpiring and why. Having a massive document of "just kidding this is what it really is" to page through makes a bigger challenge.

Maybe it's because I don't fly at a ton of tournaments, where my opponents may not always be as familiar with the FAQ as I. Maybe it's because I don't like having cards in my possession that don't mean what they say.

So what do you do when they, the new player, put down your TIE Bomber and reach for your TIE Phantom?

Its inevitable that someone will need to be exposed to the Official FAQ and card Errata to play the game. Sure, I understand keeping it simple, but honestly, I use the method of "less cards" instead of "more cards" when introducing it. Having to slap a bunch of Titles and Modification "fix" cards on a ship makes things even more confusing.

That's why you start them off with TIE/ln's and not TIE/sf's

I do agree with the idea that you want cards to say what they mean, I would like that too, but its hamstringing the game and ships while waiting for the slow grind to produce physical content when the simplest of changes can be implemented and reprinted later, like they did with the Heavy Scyk title via Errata and then later reprinted with the C-ROC ; that seems to be a much faster, cost efficient, and effective method of issuing corrections to the game.

@Gadgetron You know, maybe if you know a new player is buying older waves, you can always accommodate them and bring something other than your top tier list. Personally, I've never seen this happen. Most newbies I've seen bought the TFA starter because it's cheaper and then go from there. And I have no issue flying t70s and first order stuff with them. Really, the problem you have presented is less a problem of ships being irrelevant and more a problem of attitude towards playing new players. I fly against all skill levels in my area differently. Maybe I bring a jank list to a game versus a rookie so I have to work harder to get the same effect. Maybe I know I'm going to a kit tournament so I bring my best A game.

Honestly, I don't think any answer is "perfect". I've stated what I think is better and why I think it. You're entitled to feel differently. That's ok. I've said my peace, you are welcome to be as bitter at FFG or anyone else as you want. Or you can have fun. Your choice.

2 minutes ago, ScummyRebel said:

@Gadgetron You know, maybe if you know a new player is buying older waves, you can always accommodate them and bring something other than your top tier list. Personally, I've never seen this happen. Most newbies I've seen bought the TFA starter because it's cheaper and then go from there. And I have no issue flying t70s and first order stuff with them. Really, the problem you have presented is less a problem of ships being irrelevant and more a problem of attitude towards playing new players. I fly against all skill levels in my area differently. Maybe I bring a jank list to a game versus a rookie so I have to work harder to get the same effect. Maybe I know I'm going to a kit tournament so I bring my best A game.

Honestly, I don't think any answer is "perfect". I've stated what I think is better and why I think it. You're entitled to feel differently. That's ok. I've said my peace, you are welcome to be as bitter at FFG or anyone else as you want. Or you can have fun. Your choice.

So its better to get them invested in the game thinking that all's good, then when they go to enter a store tournament, they see the real game? If you did that to me, and I'd already spent 100 bucks, I'd be pissed.

I'm not about to play a new player with triple toilets, or Nym, or even triple defenders (I'm an Imp only player BTW.) In fact, if I see a new player, I give them a heads up and steer them towards Armada. If they like the super hardcore tourny scene where everyone's running the same lists, they say thanks and grab all the toilet seats on the shelf. If they are looking for a thematic Star Wars game, they pick up Armada.

11 hours ago, Darth Meanie said:

We can lay claim to the only fan-driven addition to the game. I also have hope that the Silencer adds some oomph back.

11 hours ago, ficklegreendice said:

No Gunboat?

Referenced in the first bit. I'm pretty sure the Imps are gonna get 2 pretty good ships by 2018.

8 hours ago, Gadgetron said:

By arguing that errata changing points might make an old list illegal, you are arguing that a 5 year old list is more important than the balance and state of the game currently.

Then why are you so adamantly defending it? Get rid of the meta, by balancing ALL the ships!

I hope so too, but I have 0 faith that the devs even know how to tie their shoes let alone fix the game.

Not actually my argument. You'll note that I said "some people."

Not defending it at all. And saying let's get rid of meta is like saying let's get get rid of electromagnetic fields. Once you create the game/generate current, it exists, whether you like it or not.

Then find a different game. Lots of people are happy with this one, me included. More importantly, getting back to the OP, it has been noted that a number of players feel the latest FAQ is a huge step in the right direction, meaning that the devs are working on fixing the game, and perhaps wear loafers to work, avoiding the need to tie shoes.

7 hours ago, Azrapse said:

To be fair, the reason why freighters in this game are more maneuverable than military grade interceptors is because they have to be, because of the constraining self imposed Standard Format.
This game's standard format is a deathmatch. Can you imagine a deathmatch between real life interceptors and freighters? Or between a real life shuttle and a fighter? Between a turreted flying fortress and a tug?

No because it's so absurd.

However, this game restricts itself to the absurdity of giving the players the chance to make a list that includes minelayers, freighters, tugs and shuttles and face with it another list made of interceptors and fighters, and somehow they need to have equal or reasonable chance to win.

It's like wanting to have a boxing combat between Mike Tyson and Stephen Hawking, and giving Hawking enough perks so that he has a chance against Tyson. If it was a squad building game, people would demand that a 100 points Hawking build should be balanced against a 100 points Tyson build.

Well. That is what is happening when you want to have a deathmatch between TIE Interceptors, A-wings, X-wings, etc versus Jumpmasters (cartographer ships), YT-13000/2400 (locomotives), lambda and upsilon shuttles (buses with weapons), Quadjumpers (tugs), bombers, etc.

If this game's standard format had other objectives than pure deathmatch, we would have more interesting ships that would be great at what they are supposed to be great.
Since it doesn't, the devs needs to make any new ship they add just as good or better at dogfighting as the previous ones.

Or:

Bombers get good at bombing in a dogfight. . .everyone hates the bomb meta.

Missiles are Torps get good as secondary weapons in a dogfight. . .everyone hates the alpha strike meta.

Aces are the best dogfighters in a dogfight. . .everyone hates the AceWing meta.

Freighters and shuttle do well in a dogfight. . .everyone hates the 2-ship meta.

In truth, I dare say no one really wants any complexity. Set your dial, line up a shot. If a different option comes up, it's "ruining the soul of the game."

And, as you pointed out, it's because the devs are forced to take complex military tactics and distill them down to pugilism.

As soon as you add points to a list and break the 100/6 barrier, the game rehydrates into an excellent space fighting game.

1 hour ago, kris40k said:

Why?

Seriously, you are not the first person who has presented this idea, and it really makes no sense to me. Please explain to me the following:

• Why is it better to wait for a 0pts physical Title card to be created, printed, and shipped out and purchased to give the TIE Bomber and Punisher the reload action, instead of adding a line in the official Errata that those ships gain that action on their action bar?

Because then you have permanently stapled that attribute to those ships. There may be alternate ways to fix them. For example, a possible better tactic might be to have titles like the gunboat that allow those ships to become specialized for roles of bombing vs. missiles. Just like the Bomber can now become a shuttle.

1 hour ago, Gadgetron said:

I just don't feel its fair to make people wait 5 years for their favorite ship to be competitive.

allows people to use their previously purchased yet uncompetitive ships, competitively

Yeah. . .not all of us play Sport-Wing.

1 hour ago, Gadgetron said:

So its better to get them invested in the game thinking that all's good, then when they go to enter a store tournament, they see the real game?

The REAL game???

Nice.

I think I see that nature of the problem you're having.

8 hours ago, Azrapse said:

To be fair, the reason why freighters in this game are more maneuverable than military grade interceptors is because they have to be, because of the constraining self imposed Standard Format.
This game's standard format is a deathmatch. Can you imagine a deathmatch between real life interceptors and freighters? Or between a real life shuttle and a fighter? Between a turreted flying fortress and a tug?

No because it's so absurd.

However, this game restricts itself to the absurdity of giving the players the chance to make a list that includes minelayers, freighters, tugs and shuttles and face with it another list made of interceptors and fighters, and somehow they need to have equal or reasonable chance to win.

It's like wanting to have a boxing combat between Mike Tyson and Stephen Hawking, and giving Hawking enough perks so that he has a chance against Tyson. If it was a squad building game, people would demand that a 100 points Hawking build should be balanced against a 100 points Tyson build.

Well. That is what is happening when you want to have a deathmatch between TIE Interceptors, A-wings, X-wings, etc versus Jumpmasters (cartographer ships), YT-13000/2400 (locomotives), lambda and upsilon shuttles (buses with weapons), Quadjumpers (tugs), bombers, etc.

If this game's standard format had other objectives than pure deathmatch, we would have more interesting ships that would be great at what they are supposed to be great.
Since it doesn't, the devs needs to make any new ship they add just as good or better at dogfighting as the previous ones.

So I didn't see this response earlier, but I have to disagree. The Lambda shuttle is a transport and it isn't outmaneuvering anyone, it makes up for its lack of maneuvering with sheer survivability, the Falcon is the fastest ship in the rebel fleet, but it still isn't outmaneuvering TIE fighters. Its not a problem with many of the large ships, its a problem with a select few, all of them scum. If we look at the 4 primary focuses ships have they are movement (dial), maneuverability (agility value), firepower (attack value), and survivability (hull and shield values.) Scum get sweetheart deals for amazing stats and dials in all the categories whereas Imps and Rebels are generally hamstrung in one or two areas for nearly equal points.

I get scum needed to be a competitive faction, but making just about all their large ships superior in all available categories was flagrant bias.

46 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

More importantly, getting back to the OP, it has been noted that a number of players feel the latest FAQ is a huge step in the right direction, meaning that the devs are working on fixing the game, and perhaps were loafers to work.

FFG took a step towards fixing it with the FAQ, but only time will tell if they actually learned from their mistakes, and until then, I'll hold them to the low standard and opinion they created for themselves.

2 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

Because then you have permanently stapled that attribute to those ships. There may be alternate ways to fix them. For example, a possible better tactic might be to have titles like the gunboat that allow those ships to become specialized for roles of bombing vs. missiles. Just like the Bomber can now become a shuttle.

So we'll just wait 18 months and MAYBE, they will revisit the problem, just like they have for the X-Wing... Oh and be sure they charge us 20 bucks for the fix too!

2 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

Yeah. . .not all of us play Sport-Wing.

The REAL game???

Nice.

I think I see that nature of the problem you're having.

Yea, the real game, as in, all the rules as they are written, all the FAQs, all the errata, all the flaws, all the positives, all of it.

I have never played in a tournament before, surprised? Personally, I cant stand the absolute competitiveness that comes with the setting. However, I have played pickup games, and pickup games, are far more often than not, played with tournament rules. I don't get halfway into a pickup game only to hear that while I play with the x7 errata, my opponent doesn't, because the card says.... No, in the grand scheme, most people play 100/6, FAQ and errata, bog standard games.

24 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

Because then you have permanently stapled that attribute to those ships. There may be alternate ways to fix them. For example, a possible better tactic might be to have titles like the gunboat that allow those ships to become specialized for roles of bombing vs. missiles. Just like the Bomber can now become a shuttle.

I agree that when looking at an alternate approach, that may be a better option, but that is answering a different question than I asked. Specifically, "when giving the reload action" which @ScummyRebel had presented using a title card as a better option and said that "errata is a last resort."

If you are adding special mechanics, such as done with the Special Ops Training, or want to apply optional changes, like the TIE Shuttle title, then yes, a physical card would be a better option due to the complexity involved. However as examples, when adding an icon to an action bar, removing an icon from an upgrade bar, or a keyword to an upgrade card (like Tactician), there is no reason why Errata shouldn't be the very first choice so the game can be fixed without delay and without further cost to players who have already payed for ships.

Edit: (As an aside, I don't think Reload will help Punishers. The problems with them won't be fix with "Mor Ordinance". But the argument presented caught my attention.)

33 minutes ago, Gadgetron said:

So we'll just wait 18 months and MAYBE, they will revisit the problem, just like they have for the X-Wing... Oh and be sure they charge us 20 bucks for the fix too!

, most people play 100/6, FAQ and errata, bog standard games.

And then there are those who think the release schedule is too fast. So, pick your poison, I guess.

Besides, IMHO, more people do need to play the real game : Epic.

26 minutes ago, kris40k said:

I agree that when looking at an alternate approach, that may be a better option, but that is answering a different question than I asked. Specifically, "when giving the reload action" which @ScummyRebel had presented using a title card as a better option and said that "errata is a last resort."

If you are adding special mechanics, such as done with the Special Ops Training, or want to apply optional changes, like the TIE Shuttle title, then yes, a physical card would be a better option due to the complexity involved. However as examples, when adding an icon to an action bar, removing an icon from an upgrade bar, or a keyword to an upgrade card (like Tactician), there is no reason why Errata shouldn't be the very first choice so the game can be fixed without delay and without further cost to players who have already payed for ships.

Edit: (As an aside, I don't think Reload will help Punishers. The problems with them won't be fix with "Mor Ordinance". But the argument presented caught my attention.)

Me neither.

Also, I am strongly in the camp of the cards should say what they do right on the card. So, personally, I'm willing to wait for a "hard fix" of a new card rather than a "soft fix" of a new rule that negates the veracity of a game component.

If this has already been mentioned I apologize. I saw something in another forum about X-Wing and I think it's a great idea.

If FFG does decide to release X-Wing 2.0 they should do so without points on the cards. Then with each new release, publish a new point sheet for all ships. At most it would be 1 page, maybe front and back and easily small enough for a PDF download. Then rather than constant nerfs, fixes, etc... change the points to suit the meta. Balance, or at least better balance, comes at the cost of a single download and far fewer rule fixes are required if any.

I wonder if they could do it with what they have? Dump the current FAQ, put the original text back on the 99% of the cards, change only the most unfixable items, and publish a list of point changes to all cards.

It's just a thought.

On 10/27/2017 at 4:45 PM, Khyros said:

I've grown bored of the game myself over the past year. I've played, but barely. I haven't done a single casual game or practice game. I've attended Gencon 2016, Adepticon 2017, 3 Store Championships, and Gencon 2017, all flying the same list. I've stopped playing at my local store, and stopped playing on Vassal. I have seriously mixed feelings about the FAQ. On the one hand, I appreciate that FFG is trying to switch up the meta which has been pretty stale for awhile. On the other hand, I don't feel like they're really in touch with the game, and their changes aren't really actually changing that much.

As a strictly rebel player, the /x7 change made sense, and I feel like it didn't actually change the effectiveness of the ship at all, and really shouldn't have escorted it out of the meta. The Palp change was probably responsible for that. Meanwhile, the changes to the JM5K are about a year too late. Triple Jumps weren't omnipresent like they were a year and a half ago. The Biggs change is completely out of place - he's been doing the same thing since day one, and now that the Rebels have found a decent use for him, they decide "neh, get rid of it." Meanwhile, the real problem wasn't Biggs, it was arguably the combination of Selflessness, Lowbacca, Biggs, and Rex - things that didn't exist until wave 11. Clearly the way to fix that is by changing a pilot who was fine for 10 waves in order to account for the broken azz %*&s released in W11 (go go power creep). Likewise the Genius change is kinda stupid. It's addressing a symptom of the fact that Nym and the Bomblet Generator itself are broken as all heck (again, power creep).

I feel like FFG is trying to bandaid the things that the forums complain about all while continuing to make the game a power creep - but you can't address the new content that's ACTUALLY the OP stuff because then you can't sell the new stuff. This is a business decision that FFG has made. They've decided to make each additional wave more powerful, and they're choosing to make broken combos to get people to buy expansions, and then they're bandaiding the old stuff that allows the broken stuff to work so they appease the squeaky wheel without actually hurting their own sales. And the problem with this business method is that it's going to continue, and we're going to keep having random FAQs that arbitrarily nerf old stuff to bring the new stuff back in line a bit.

Yeah I have to agree with you here but I'm not sure its so much the power creep as much as the focus of the game. This is after all Star Wars dog fighting, it should be a game of trying to re-create our visions of the movies and the joy of a fun game of tactical movement and arch dodging... aka about playing the game. Today it really has become a game of list building, trying to find that right combination of powers to render "tactics" or "strategy" useless in favor of dice odds, statistical probobility etc..

I know this happens to all miniature games eventually, since FFG is a business and they are in the business of selling miniatures but like most miniature games it was good until a certain point, after which it kind of vered off into an experiance that lost its traction on fun and just became this kind of joy-less "cheese-fest".

I think for me the game kind of lost my attention with TLT's. I don't think it was specifically that piece of gear, but it was at that moment when you stopped being suprised by the type of lists people brought to the table. From then it was always some minor variation on the same default meta lists. Not sure if it was peoples lack of creativity, or that meta lists just became too good or whatever, but after TLT's it basically became a game of "which meta list are you playing today?".

11 minutes ago, BigKahuna said:

Yeah I have to agree with you here but I'm not sure its so much the power creep as much as the focus of the game. This is after all Star Wars dog fighting, it should be a game of trying to re-create our visions of the movies and the joy of a fun game of tactical movement and arch dodging... aka about playing the game. Today it really has become a game of list building, trying to find that right combination of powers to render "tactics" or "strategy" useless in favor of dice odds, statistical probobility etc..

I know this happens to all miniature games eventually, since FFG is a business and they are in the business of selling miniatures but like most miniature games it was good until a certain point, after which it kind of vered off into an experiance that lost its traction on fun and just became this kind of joy-less "cheese-fest".

I think for me the game kind of lost my attention with TLT's. I don't think it was specifically that piece of gear, but it was at that moment when you stopped being suprised by the type of lists people brought to the table. From then it was always some minor variation on the same default meta lists. Not sure if it was peoples lack of creativity, or that meta lists just became too good or whatever, but after TLT's it basically became a game of "which meta list are you playing today?".

Well that's a different concern I have with the game these days. There have always been elements of Rock Paper Scissor to X Wing, resulting in good match ups and bad match ups. That's going to be true of almost every non-symmetrical game. However, I felt like the advantage used to be (given equal player skill) 60/40 - the type of game where you'd say "Shoot, he has a PS9 Fat Han... My Whisper / Soontir list is really going to have to execute this without a single hiccup" and you'd have to play a great game, starting at turn 0 with your strategy and approach, and sure, you'd have to have some luck in there, but it was definitely a winnable game. Now it seems like you come up against the rock to your scissor, and it's like 80/20 in their favor. The games feel almost won and lost in the list building phase.

But there's definitely power creep in the game as well, pushing people to play the new content instead of the old stuff. You can look at it strictly from red dice if you want. W1 there was a single ship that had 3 dice, everything else had 3. Average dice = 2.25. Wave 2&3 averaged 2.5 dice. Wave 4 introduced the first 4 dice ship, and an average of 3 dice. In addition to that, it introduced Corran, the first ship that can shoot twice in a round. Given you can't shoot the next round, but still, red dice creep. Wave 5 was only 2.5, but let's be honest, Dash is essentially another 4 dice ship. Wave 6 new ships were at 2.67. Wave 7 was 2.5*. *So, up to this point, you can kinda see a general increase of red dice. This is all that much more apparent when you put the turret on the HWK and the HLC on the Outrider, and the TLT on the K wing, etc. But even raw numbers have been increasing. Wave 8 introduced several "lovely" red dice related things. First it averaged 2.8, had the second 4 attack ship, had a title that when used moves that average up to 3, and introduced TWO ships that can shoot twice in a round... Every round. Wave 9 introduced a third ship to attack twice in a round in the /SF, but then also introduced Quickdraw to shoot twice twice for a total of 4 times. It also averaged 3 red dice. Wave 10 averaged 2.8 and introduced the 3rd 4 attack ship. Wave 11 was only at 2.67, but again, when you calculate the TLT in there, it goes up. For full disclosure, wave 12 is only at 2.4, but that's excluding the new bullseye mechanic that will introduce essentially the 4th 4 dice ship, along with the fact that the Gunboat and Resistance Bomber are always going to have ordnance.

I know this isn't looking at the full picture. I'm just looking at a specific data point of Red Dice, but you can see as the game goes on that the trend is upwards. The only argument for this *not* being a power creep is if the costs of ships were also migrating upwards as well.. Or some other trade off such as less health, a worse dial, fewer upgrades, or worse agility... But it seems like those are all getting better as well.

1 hour ago, Khyros said:

I know this isn't looking at the full picture. I'm just looking at a specific data point of Red Dice, but you can see as the game goes on that the trend is upwards.

As an Imperial player, the migration of red dice is very noticeable. If you are flying glass cannons, it is definitely one hit/one kill these days.* Imperial starfighters have to rely on shields (just like the other factions), or ships that can gain auto-evade abilities (autothrusters, TAP/v1, TIE/x7). Lastly, 2 reds isn't much, unless you can be sure they are both hits, or can gain a die somehow.

Overall, I would say that attack dice has migrated to the 3-5 range. This doesn't mean that 1-2 die ships can't exist, but they should be ships designed for support roles that really aren't supposed to be armed, are are going to rely on secondary weapons to get the job done.

I think the TIE/sf is a well designed ship that is fun to play. You can fly it like a regular ole TIE/ln with a 3 die attack, or you can go for the dual attack option.

Personally, I think the TIE/ln could migrate to 2.0 status just by getting +1 red if within range 1 of another TIE/ln. It gets situational power creep, but in a very thematic way.

*Sure, it's just like the movies, but I'm trying to play a game here!

1 hour ago, BigKahuna said:

Yeah I have to agree with you here but I'm not sure its so much the power creep as much as the focus of the game. This is after all Star Wars dog fighting, it should be a game of trying to re-create our visions of the movies and the joy of a fun game of tactical movement and arch dodging...

Yep. It was sad to hear that FFG design priority is ships-only. Which is not to say that this can't introduce narrative (squadron mechanics, iconic characters, and support ships), but design has blatantly been mechanics first, flavor later.