Honestly if they just made secondary weapons or even just turrets be affected by range rules that would be helpful enough, that way TLT and harpoons at long range would still allow ships to get the extra agility at range 3, and would potentially help other turrets be more effective at closer range.

Oh, and those who want to cap PS at 9: do you want to replace the PS arms race with an initiative bid arms race? Because that's what'll happen. As long as moving last and shooting first is as potent as it is, the selection-pressure that's pushing players to double-digit PS right now will just push them to PS9+bid instead.

4 hours ago, clanofwolves said:

So every other game that doesn't make FFG the cash this cow does is getting erratas, rules modifications, and clarifications. Let's make sure the obviously overworked designers don't miss the main thing while trying to boost the minor things. Repairing the consistent OP that is destroying the core of the game is not rocket science. The answers they need are all within this board, great ideas from great players, fantastic proposals from intelligent users and lovers of our beautiful game. Let's make the original design matter again!

Please, let's bump this thread!

Thanks.

.....now, where's my tea?

Ok, so you want a faq NOW. How about we give them some time to GET IT RIGHT rather than getting a knee-jerk reaction faq like the one that basically gutted the Jumpmaster? I'd rather wait for an intelligently engineered faq than a piecemeal hodgepodge one.

That might be too much to ask for but I can hope.

2 minutes ago, Dasharr said:

Oh, and those who want to cap PS at 9: do you want to replace the PS arms race with an initiative bid arms race? Because that's what'll happen. As long as moving last and shooting first is as potent as it is, the selection-pressure that's pushing players to double-digit PS right now will just push them to PS9+bid instead.

I feel like the initiative bid is a more fun game mechanic. It's a really cool listbuilding idea.

Plus, it's thematic that Vader works best alone with an enourmous bid, right?

15 minutes ago, Dasharr said:

Oh, and those who want to cap PS at 9: do you want to replace the PS arms race with an initiative bid arms race? Because that's what'll happen. As long as moving last and shooting first is as potent as it is, the selection-pressure that's pushing players to double-digit PS right now will just push them to PS9+bid instead.

Grammar may be throwing off what you're trying to say here, but at equal PS, Initiative moves first and shoots first. You don't get to move last AND shoot first.

Post from a phone so no essays.

TLT, small ship only. I’d be inclined to make unique but that’s probably not needed.

Miranda, Primary only.

Harpoons. Dump the condition. Due to the ability to not spend the Target Lock, they are still better than Concussion Missiles.

The Peed. Would removing the Coordinate action from the ship, but keep it for the Ghost while docked be too much? Probably, it punishes the other 3 pilots too much.

Reinforce. Not sure. But allowing Wes to remove all green tokens and TL’s would be a start.

16 minutes ago, Dasharr said:

Oh, and those who want to cap PS at 9: do you want to replace the PS arms race with an initiative bid arms race? Because that's what'll happen. As long as moving last and shooting first is as potent as it is, the selection-pressure that's pushing players to double-digit PS right now will just push them to PS9+bid instead.

Also, having more ships in that ballpark will allow more ships to be played.

And unlike PS 11, 10 ships, with a bid you actually lose something from your squad. At a certain point, value lists are going to break the top PS9 builds.

Also, everyone can field Triple PS 9 squads.

2 minutes ago, Commander Kaine said:

Also, having more ships in that ballpark will allow more ships to be played.

And unlike PS 11, 10 ships, with a bid you actually lose something from your squad. At a certain point, value lists are going to break the top PS9 builds.

Also, everyone can field Triple PS 9 squads.

There are also ships that don't mind being on either side of the initiative

Whisper, for example, arcdodges better if moving last but has better mods if shooting first

Don't think a ps cap solves how overwhelming an advantage ps is, but it'll get more ships on the table

Add more upgrades like snapshot, rigged cargo, or bump stuff, anything that helps when you move first and the gap starts bridging itself

21 minutes ago, GILLIES291 said:

Honestly if they just made secondary weapons or even just turrets be affected by range rules that would be helpful enough, that way TLT and harpoons at long range would still allow ships to get the extra agility at range 3, and would potentially help other turrets be more effective at closer range.

There are two issues I see with adding range modifiers to secondary weapons... The first is if we make them subject to range modifiers, then we run the risk of upsetting balance on nearly any secondary weapon that can be fired at R1. Dorsal Turrets become a stupidly-good 3pt upgrade that throws 4 dice at R1. 2pt Autoblaster Turrets would throw 3 dice, while the 5pt cannon is a 4 dice monster. Many of the secondary weapons wouldn’t be affected by R1 bonuses, but some become rather frightening to think about with it.

The second issue is if we ignore R1 bonuses and add the R3 just for the defender for secondary weapons (or even just some of them), then the learning curve for the game becomes just a bit more convoluted.

13 minutes ago, Kieransi said:

I feel like the initiative bid is a more fun game mechanic. It's a really cool listbuilding idea.

Plus, it's thematic that Vader works best alone with an enourmous bid, right?

No, I don't think it's fun in the slightest. Choosing whether to use an EPT slot for VI or something else is actually a bit fun because it has more weight.

The PS state is actually pretty good as it is right now. PS values all over the scale, low to high and everywhere in between, get played. You can bring a list with, say, PS 3 and 7 and 10 to a tournament, and any one of them could be higher or lower or equal PS to any given enemy ship you end up facing.

High PS is maybe a bit too good right now, but that's much better addressed with subtler solutions like more upgrades that work better if moving first (e.g. snap shot) or more competitive costing on low PS pilots (e.g. Silencer generics compared to Kylo), than sledgehammer "solutions" like a PS cap that'll just replace current meta woes with a whole new set of problems.

36 minutes ago, GILLIES291 said:

Honestly if they just made secondary weapons or even just turrets be affected by range rules that would be helpful enough, that way TLT and harpoons at long range would still allow ships to get the extra agility at range 3, and would potentially help other turrets be more effective at closer range.

This is probably all that is needed at this point in the game. Defensive (not offensive) range bonus to all secondary weapons. I would rather make it a skill to get to range 2 for secondaries, and skate that range 1 deadzone with TLT. Makes it actually more fun to fly ships with secondary weapons rather just 1 straight until you have range.

Smaller FAQ,which I have stated repeatedly, would just be to make TLTs second attack only trigger if first attack hits. This stops TLT spam cause its not guaranteed to do 2 attacks anymore, and ships can successfully dodge it by spending their tokens.

Im not worried about Ace-Wing coming back, because their are SOOO many ways to kill aces now, with bombs, and launching bombs, and ps10 ABT carriers, and ps11 coordinates, etc.

About Asajj, the only reason she aint as broken as Miranda is because she is a large base, and you only need to do 5 damage to her and keep a ship worth 25+pts alive to win at time. Miranda is broke because she is small base and its either you kill her or she lives with 45+pts.

If Asajj didnt lose half points I'd be running 51pt timewalk (with title) non-stop.

46 minutes ago, Dasharr said:

Oh, and those who want to cap PS at 9: do you want to replace the PS arms race with an initiative bid arms race? Because that's what'll happen. As long as moving last and shooting first is as potent as it is, the selection-pressure that's pushing players to double-digit PS right now will just push them to PS9+bid instead.

Yes.

If someone wants to sacrifice 5+ points in a race to the bottom, they can feel free to. I'll take advantage of the power disparity of our lists at 100 points.

Honestly though, if I had my druthers I would prefer Initiative passing between players every round. As it stands, I feel it is too decisive of a mechanic.

30 minutes ago, It’s One Of Ours said:

The second issue is if we ignore R1 bonuses and add the R3 just for the defender for secondary weapons (or even just some of them), then the learning curve for the game becomes just a bit more convoluted.

Not really, the secondary weapon rules are currently counter-intuitive to the main rules.

37 minutes ago, Commander Kaine said:

Also, having more ships in that ballpark will allow more ships to be played.

And unlike PS 11, 10 ships, with a bid you actually lose something from your squad. At a certain point, value lists are going to break the top PS9 builds.

Not really. A PS 7 pilot with VI is a good sight worse than a PS 9 pilot with a real EPT. It does nothing to make those ships any better in a relative sense which means they won't see any more play.

Taking VI carries not only a 1 pt cost but also has an opportunity cost in the form on not taking some other EPT. So in both cases you're losing something from your squad.

7 minutes ago, Makaze said:

Not really. A PS 7 pilot with VI is a good sight worse than a PS 9 pilot with a real EPT. It does nothing to make those ships any better in a relative sense which means they won't see any more play.

Taking VI carries not only a 1 pt cost but also has an opportunity cost in the form on not taking some other EPT. So in both cases you're losing something from your squad.

A PS 7 pilot with VI is a LOT cheaper than a PS9 pilot with EPT.

For example, you can't bring Vader, Quickdraw and Soontir into a game with EPT-s. Are they better than Backdraft, Marek Steele and Turr Phenrir? Yes. But they don't fit in a squad.

Or even if other ships do, they don't have the points to bid, and then a real EPT means very little.

And guess what... Value turrets will beat out on VI PS7 pilots easily.

11 minutes ago, Commander Kaine said:

A PS 7 pilot with VI is a LOT cheaper than a PS9 pilot with EPT.

For example, you can't bring Vader, Quickdraw and Soontir into a game with EPT-s. Are they better than Backdraft, Marek Steele and Turr Phenrir? Yes. But they don't fit in a squad.

Or even if other ships do, they don't have the points to bid, and then a real EPT means very little.

And guess what... Value turrets will beat out on VI PS7 pilots easily.

A PS7 pilot is cheaper than a PS9 pilot in an equivalent chassis irrespective of what EPT you choose so... what's your point?

Also literally all of those pilots mentioned are better than their lower PS counterpart not only in PS but also in their innate pilot ability. So why would any of those (with maybe the exception of Backdraft if you've already got QD in your list) see any play?

1 hour ago, Dasharr said:

That would all but remove it from any usefulness, except for Lowhhrick's ability - which is the only really OP use of the Auzituck. That would leave the Lowhhrick formations just as tanky and frustrating but less damaging, making it even more boring and unfun to play against. Your proposed reinforce nerf would make every other Auzituck near-enough useless (reinforce is basically the whole point of them) and they're not OP at all.

I thought might be a harsh but a) I was just spitballin' and b) I really f***ing hate reinforce. I'm praying the Reaper's jam action works on it.

6 minutes ago, Makaze said:

A PS7 pilot is cheaper than a PS9 pilot in an equivalent chassis irrespective of what EPT you choose so... what's your point?

Also literally all of those pilots mentioned are better than their lower PS counterpart not only in PS but also in their innate pilot ability.

My point is that while PS9 pilots would be better, they won't be exclusively used due to their increased cost.

The pilots I mentioned were not supposed to fit in a valid build, I just picked 3 PS 9 pilots, and PS 7 pilots from the same ships.

8 minutes ago, Makaze said:

So why would any of those (with maybe the exception of Backdraft if you've already got QD in your list) see any play?

Did you read my comment?

I wrote, quite clearly: because they are cheaper.

19 minutes ago, Commander Kaine said:

My point is that while PS9 pilots would be better, they won't be exclusively used due to their increased cost.
The pilots I mentioned were not supposed to fit in a valid build, I just picked 3 PS 9 pilots, and PS 7 pilots from the same ships.

Did you read my comment?
I wrote, quite clearly: because they are cheaper.

They'll be used based on their cost relative to their table strength, just like now. And my point is that for the cost a PS9 pilot with a real EPT is typically better than a PS7 pilot with VI. I'm sure there are a few exceptions, but by and large (and backed up pretty strongly by your terrible examples) this is true. You're presenting PS7s with the ability not to automatically get out PS'd but you're handing PS9 pilots back their EPT slot, so their relative strengths remain unchanged. This fantasy that a wide variety of PS7 pilots would suddenly become relevant isn't really well thought through since it completely ignores the opportunity costs that VI represents.

7 hours ago, Boba Rick said:

I've always heard people say this game is a major cash cow, but how do we know that?

In 2017, Eurazeo, primary holder of Asmodee cited 377 million euros in revenue for 2016 and referenced strong revenue growth was due to increases in pokemon distribution.

For comparison purposes, Asmodee is 3x the size of GamesWorkshop and X-Wing is a bigger game than GW properties. While GW probably has higher sales per piece due to relatively high transaction value, even if one assumed that X-Wing sales in terms of dollar value were half of GW that still represents over 50 million euros or 1/7 of all Asmodee revenue.

One can assume that distribution of other properties like Ticket to Ride, Catan, Magic and Pokemon all represent a higher share of Asmodee revenue, even then it is not unfair to assume that X-Wing could be at least if not more than 50 million in euros, which would itself be a sizable portion of overall revenue for Asmodee.

If 1/7 of my business was dependent on a single game and that game failed, I would be in trouble. HOWEVER, I don't think X-Wing is in trouble as casual play at home is likely the majority of revenue for X-Wing and not streamed tournaments or store kit tournaments where most of the complaints about broken builds comes from.

24 minutes ago, Makaze said:

They'll be used based on their cost relative to their table strength, just like now. And my point is that for the cost a PS9 pilot with a real EPT is typically better than a PS7 pilot with VI. I'm sure there are a few exceptions, but by and large (and backed up pretty strongly by your terrible examples) this is true. You're presenting PS7s with the ability not to automatically get out PS'd but you're handing PS9 pilots back their EPT slot, so their relative strengths remain unchanged. This fantasy that a wide variety of PS7 pilots would suddenly become relevant isn't really well thought through since it completely ignores the opportunity costs that VI represents.

I swear to god...

Since you have a limited number of points available during squadbuilding, you don't have the option to get the best pilots with the best EPT-s.

It doesn't matter how powerful it is... if you can't fit them in 100 points well.

You won't be able to do triple aces with Native PS9 pilots and their full build, but you will be able to do triple aces with PS 7-8 pilots, boosted to PS 9.

I don't get how is this hard to understand. THE MORE EXPENSIVE SHIPS ARE, THE HARDER THEY ARE TO FIT IN LISTS.

Are EPT-s great? Yes they are. But spending 3-4 points extra on an ability, when you are really incentified to be as cheap as possible (bids, remember) is not a good idea.

Think about this: There is a mirror match. Both players have Vader as their ace. Everything in their list is the same, except for 1 thing. Vader in list A, has Predator, while in list B, he has a 3 point bid.

You want to win. Which one do you pick?

Is that 1 re-roll going to be worth it over the initiative? Probably not. It's the same with a PS9 vs PS7 with VI. Is that 1 ept enough of a reason to have the higher PS? Probably in some fringe cases, with certain Pilot abilities. But as a general rule? No.

2 hours ago, Stay On The Leader said:

Well, there it is. (On mobile otherwise I would post the gif)

Another shameless bump.

21 hours ago, It’s One Of Ours said:

There are two issues I see with adding range modifiers to secondary weapons... The first is if we make them subject to range modifiers, then we run the risk of upsetting balance on nearly any secondary weapon that can be fired at R1. Dorsal Turrets become a stupidly-good 3pt upgrade that throws 4 dice at R1. 2pt Autoblaster Turrets would throw 3 dice, while the 5pt cannon is a 4 dice monster. Many of the secondary weapons wouldn’t be affected by R1 bonuses, but some become rather frightening to think about with it.

The second issue is if we ignore R1 bonuses and add the R3 just for the defender for secondary weapons (or even just some of them), then the learning curve for the game becomes just a bit more convoluted.

Would anyone be mad if Autoblaster cannon was good?
Would anyone be mad if Dorsal Turret was good for its points?

Sure Autoblaster Turret might be overpowered, but its still only range 1! At least that would be harder to pull off than the current range 2-3 plink you to death of TLT!