Power creep will happen with 2e eventually. Which is fine because it keeps the game fresh as long as its done properly. One issue that might occur with power creep is that the generic ships get left in the dust (1e interceptors for example). Proposed solution is to limit the number of generics in a squad--similar to epic but each chassis has its own cap--so that you are now able to cost them appropriately. FFG is very deliberate in their costing of generics to cap the max quantity allowed in a squad. If you cap the number of ships separate from point costs you are now able to bring the price of the generics down to a competitive level without allowing the player to add another of the same ship to the list. With the left over points going toward upgrades or a cheap support ship. Would this just cause more problems than what its worth? Thoughts?

On the flip side, if generics become too weak from power-creep, will allowing one extra one in a list still be a problem?

I like the idea. It allows the developers to be more aggressive with point costs if a generic ship is under-performing without resulting in a situation where too many are hitting the table all at once. Unit caps are a common theme in other games, I'm not sure why it would be a big issue to have a cap of say, 4 X-Wings, so you don't end up with someone spamming 5 or 6 when someone drops the cost of a generic down where its possible to.

36 minutes ago, Oprah Smash said:

Power creep will happen with 2e eventually. Which is fine because it keeps the game fresh as long as its done properly. One issue that might occur with power creep is that the generic ships get left in the dust (1e interceptors for example).

Don't have a lot of faith in the devs, hmm? I mean, now they can simply adjust costs to make ships that aren't creepin' more competitively priced, which of plenty of power to combat power creep with.

A lot of "power creep" came from combo-wing. As long as keep a tight grip on the type of Talents and Upgrades available for each chassis, power creep could be held to a minimum.

37 minutes ago, Oprah Smash said:

Proposed solution is to limit the number of generics in a squad--similar to epic but each chassis has its own cap--so that you are now able to cost them appropriately. FFG is very deliberate in their costing of generics to cap the max quantity allowed in a squad. If you cap the number of ships separate from point costs you are now able to bring the price of the generics down to a competitive level without allowing the player to add another of the same ship to the list. [...]

Is there a certain ship that you want to field more of than points allow? Because capping with points is simple and straightforward. More than once I've heard from the devs or from someone who spoke with the devs that one of the goals of X-Wing now is to make it more approachable. Keeping rules as simple and straightforward as possible just adds an extra layer of complexity that is unnecessary and makes the game more unapproachable. It'd also create something else for a bunch of people to grouse about when their favorite generic ship gets capped at a number lower than the max of their possible ships. (e.g. I'd be pissed if Bombers got capped at 3 or 4 when I can fit 5 or 6 in a list) This could be a bit relevant with ships like the TIE Advanced, which is costed the same as the X-Wing, which is debatedly over-costed, probably so people can't fit 5 in a list.

All that being said, it likely wouldn't be difficult to implement with the app, so it'd certainly be doable. It just seems unnecessary to further complicate the building process and would likely piss a lot of people off.

Currently, there aren't really that many ships out there that I feel the generics are really hurting, especially since many chassis have an "elite" generic, often with a Talent slot. Both unique and generic pilots seem to have a lot of relevance over the whole of the game and I bet we'll see a lot of different styles of squad types when 2.0 really gets into full swing from full Swarms to 2-3 ship Ace squads to whatever's in between.

2 hours ago, JJ48 said:

On the flip side, if generics become too weak from power-creep, will allowing one extra one in a list still be a problem?

I think it depends on the ship. They seem to be fine with allowing the 5 x-wings from Saws expac but it seems they feel that having more than 8 tie/lns is an issue. Maybe it has to do with how many ships are able to move around in a 3x3 play area without clogging up the board?

2 hours ago, Praetorate of the Empire said:

Don't  have a lot of faith in the devs, hmm? I mean, now they can simply adjust costs to make ships that aren't creepin' more competitively priced, which of plenty of power  to combat power creep with.

A lot of "power creep" came from combo-wing. As long as keep a tight grip on  the type of Talents and Upgrades available for each chassis, power creep could be held to a minimum.    

I have faith that the devs will make a fun game but they do make mistakes. See Jumpmaster. They are only human afterall. There could be problems with lowering a chassis too low then you are able to field too many ships.

2 hours ago, Praetorate of the Empire said:

It'd  also create something else for a bunch of people to grouse about when their favorite generic ship  gets capped at a number lower than the max of their possible ships. (e.g. I'd be pissed if Bombers got capped at 3 or 4 when I can fit 5 or 6  in a list) This could be a bit relevant with ships like the TIE Advanced, which is costed the same as the X-Wing, which is debatedly over-costed, probably so people can't fit 5 in a list. 

I was thinking the cap would be set at the limit for how many you can currently fit in a list as a starting point. The TIE Adv is a great example. Make a cap of 4. Then lower the cost a bit to allow for more upgrades. Maybe not all ships need a cap.

2 hours ago, Praetorate of the Empire said:

All that being said, it likely wouldn't be  difficult  to implement with the app, so it'd certainly be   doable. It just seems unnecessary to further complicate  the building process and would likely        piss a lot o  f  people off.

I can see people getting upset. There is always the vocal minority. I agree it would complicate list building. Is the trade off worth it? Maybe. Having a higher quantity of viable lists seems like a good trade off to me.

8 hours ago, Oprah Smash said:

Power creep will happen with 2e eventually. Which is fine because it keeps the game fresh as long as its done properly. One issue that might occur with power creep is that the generic ships get left in the dust (1e interceptors for example). Proposed solution is to limit the number of generics in a squad--similar to epic but each chassis has its own cap--so that you are now able to cost them appropriately. FFG is very deliberate in their costing of generics to cap the max quantity allowed in a squad. If you cap the number of ships separate from point costs you are now able to bring the price of the generics down to a competitive level without allowing the player to add another of the same ship to the list. With the left over points going toward upgrades or a cheap support ship. Would this just cause more problems than what its worth? Thoughts?

If the power creep that you suppose is going to happen happens I think they'll have bigger issues than trying to stop swarms from adding an additional base to offset the creep...

Unless they run into some very hard corner cases I wouldn’t support this idea. Like maybe 6 strikers is just garbage, but dropping one point gives you 7 which is way over the top. I don’t think any such corner cases exist right now though and they might never exist.

12 hours ago, TasteTheRainbow said:

Unless they run into some very hard corner cases I wouldn’t support this idea. Like maybe 6 strikers is just garbage, but dropping one point gives you 7 which is way over the top. I don’t think any such corner cases exist right now though and they might never exist.

I guess I dont understand what you are saying. You are saying that 6 strikers are bad but 7 are op. So wouldnt that support the idea to limit the number of strikers to 6 and lower the cost to allow for more upgrades?

3 minutes ago, Oprah Smash said:

I guess I dont understand what you are saying. You are saying that 6 strikers are bad but 7 are op. So wouldnt that support the idea to limit the number of strikers to 6 and lower the cost to allow for more upgrades?

I shoulda said 5/6 instead of 6/7. Maybe 5 strikers is garbage, but if you drop them by 1 point you get 6 and that’s way over the top. I’m not saying it is, but it could be.

8 minutes ago, TasteTheRainbow said:

I shoulda said 5/6 instead of 6/7. Maybe 5 strikers is garbage, but if you drop them by 1 point you get 6 and that’s way over the top. I’m not saying it is, but it could be.

Exactly. So limit the total number of strikers to 5 per squad then you can still drop the point cost of the individual strikers without worrying about being able to field more than 5.

1 minute ago, TasteTheRainbow said:

I shoulda said 5/6 instead of 6/7. Maybe 5 strikers is garbage, but if you drop them by 1 point you get 6 and that’s way over the top. I’m not saying it is, but it could be.

You're kinda supporting the OP point. Example: currently Planetary Sentinel is costed at 34 points, which keeps players from fielding 6. The devs, for whatever reason decide that 34 points is too many points for the ship, but they want to keep players from fielding 6, so they add a squad cap for Strikers, limiting them to 5 per squad. [end example]

The thing is, they're already neatly doing this. To continue with Strikers, they have a "cap" of 5 Planetary Sentinels with 30 squad points remaining. That's a Proton Bomb on EVERY ship, still leaving 5 points to spare. And 5 Strikers, flown well in a world without TLT, should be VERY strong with the base chassis alone.

IMO, many generics got a buff because they either have better upgrades or have a cool new ship ability. I highly doubt we'll see all generics left in the dust. Maybe not everyone will play the Ocho TIE Swarm, but Heavy swarms with X-Wings, TIE Bombers, Kihraxz, and similar have too much firepower to be ignored.

18 hours ago, Oprah Smash said:

I was thinking the cap would be set at the limit for how many you can currently fit in a list as a starting point. The TIE Adv is a great example. Make a cap of 4. Then lower the cost a bit to allow for more upgrades. Maybe not all ships need a cap.

Having a higher quantity of viable lists seems like a good trade off to me.

I do think your idea is interesting. I just don't think we need it yet, especially when generics and "elite" generics are looking pretty viable in their own right.

7 minutes ago, Oprah Smash said:

Exactly. So limit the total number of strikers to 5 per squad then you can still drop the point cost of the individual strikers without worrying about being able to field more than 5.

But then players would just fly 5 Strikers plus one non-Striker. Would the sixth ship not be an issue, so long as it's not a Striker?

1 minute ago, JJ48 said:

But then players would just fly 5 Strikers plus one non-Striker. Would the sixth ship not be an issue, so long as it's not a Striker?

An Academy? Possibly an issue. A Bomber? More of an issue. Howlrunner? Bad news, definitely an issue.

10 minutes ago, Oprah Smash said:

Exactly. So limit the total number of strikers to 5 per squad then you can still drop the point cost of the individual strikers without worrying about being able to field more than 5.

Yea. I was saying that was the only case where it’s justified. But I don’t know that we will ever see that case actually appear.

15 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

But then players would just fly 5 Strikers plus one non-Striker. Would the sixth ship not be an issue, so long as it's not a Striker?

Depends on what you can afford to fit in that slot due to the lowering of a specific generic's cost. Using the hypothetical example where they lower the cost of Rookie X-Wings, 4 Rookie X-Wings and 1 Prototype A-Wing is a lot different than 5 Rookie X-Wings.