Go away.

3 minutes ago, GuacCousteau said:

Except that that's not what the K-Wing is supposed to be at all.

It's a dedicated ground attack bomber. It's weirdly angled middle engine is supposed to be used to help it pull up out of a dive bomb. They're not supposed to carry laser cannons at all. Because of their modular loadout, they could also be used to take on large capital ships but the idea that they could even use concussion missiles to target nimble dogfighters is laughable based on the original source.

Go read the Black Fleet crisis some time. Every single K-Wing pilot mentioned by name gets killed. Entire K-Wing squadrons get absolutely shredded by enemy starfighters.

FFG changed the K-Wing's role so that it would be a viable platform in the game. That is exactly what everyone else is arguing *should* be the case. That is what balancing is.

If a ship is to be played in the game, it needs to be balanced and it needs to be viable. If that means changing the capabilties of the ship from the lore somewhat then that is what should be done.

Beyond that, I'm really not sure I understand the point you're trying to make. This isn't a WW2 dogfighting simulator.

It's a tabletop game about pushing small plastic spaceships around. It's supposed to be fun. You're supposed to be able to enjoy saying 'that ship looks cool' and then have fun winning a game with it so long as you build the list properly and make good decisions during the game, regardless of whether that ship is a 'bomber' (in space FFS), a fighter or an old freighter that was only ever supposed to haul cargo about.

According to this http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/BTL-S8_K-wing_assault_starfighter :

"K-wing carried an unusually large arsenal for a vessel of its size. The hull had a total of 18 hard points, five on each upper wing and four on each lower wing, to allow technicians to arm the ship with a large variety of weapons including flechétte and concussion missiles , proton and other sublight torpedoes, thermal and other inertial bombs, small space mines , and T-33 plasma torpedoes .

When attacked by enemy fighters, the K-wing could return fire with a short-range quad turbolaser turret with multi-stage lasers located at the fore and a medium-range twin laser cannon turret mounted on the top of its command module. Also, the K-wing could be outfitted with slugthrower cannons on the hardpoints for additional short-range firepower."

7 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

If you think about the best player ever, who does only smart moves: should he be better with ships that are made to be fighters, or with freighters/bombers?

Same player, same tricks in his mind. Which type of ships should be better in his hands?

It depends on the situation- who he fights and where he fights (location of asteroids).

Your question is of sort: "who's better rpg- tank or healer?"

I forget what we were talking about here. X-wing 2e isn't perfect but it's definitely great and everyone loves it? Groovy

16 minutes ago, cupakabra said:

According to this http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/BTL-S8_K-wing_assault_starfighter :

"K-wing carried an unusually large arsenal for a vessel of its size. The hull had a total of 18 hard points, five on each upper wing and four on each lower wing, to allow technicians to arm the ship with a large variety of weapons including flechétte and concussion missiles , proton and other sublight torpedoes, thermal and other inertial bombs, small space mines , and T-33 plasma torpedoes .

When attacked by enemy fighters, the K-wing could return fire with a short-range quad turbolaser turret with multi-stage lasers located at the fore and a medium-range twin laser cannon turret mounted on the top of its command module. Also, the K-wing could be outfitted with slugthrower cannons on the hardpoints for additional short-range firepower."

The first sign of someone putting absolutely zero effort in is quoting blocks of text wholesale from Wookieepedia. Look carefully at the sources and you'll see that the only reference for some of the armaments listed is the XMG K-Wing expansion itself.

The NEGVV ****ed up and ruined the K-Wing's design. There's even mention of this in that article's Behind the Scenes section. Now FFG are of course free to use whatever version of the ship they want, technically the NEGVV was just as 'canon' as the Black Fleet Crisis, for whatever that's worth. But they went with the version that better suited gameplay than trying to strictly adapt the ship that actually made an appearance in a novel.

So either FFG is free to adapt elements as they chose to suit gameplay, or everything should be an accurate representation of the ships as they are in the fiction. Pick one.

In the former, the TIE Bomber should be just as viable as the K-Wing, or the Y-Wing and the Lambda shuttle should have a place in the game. In the latter, the K-Wing needed to be just as useless as the TIE Bomber and the X-Wing should be beating everything that isn't a TIE Defender or E-Wing.

15 hours ago, cupakabra said:

That's exactly why i'm not interested in 2.0 at all.

The whole concept of so called "balance" seems broken and ridiculed.

Ships, as any objects, are purpose-built. Is hairdryer better than helicopter? It depends on competition you put them in, but military-wise it usually ain't.

Is bomber better at dogfight than actual fighter? Not unless you make huge gap in quality of both ships. The beauty of original rules was the "make good combo and win; drain points in useless stuff and loose". If you want to play with punisher then find a good combo that will support it's pros and cover it's cons.

You may argue that FFG destroyed balance with this or that decision on pricing, but in general the old technology is obsolete and replaced with new one. Is team of 10 cavemen better than 1 modern soldier with heavy machine gun? Usually not, so if you decide to use them in fight then it's you tactical ignorance, not "lack of balance".

Goal of the bomber is to effectively destroy heavily-guarded places, such as bases or strong hulls, so don't expect them to be viable in 1vs1 fight against aces which were built with taking other fighters down in mind. On the other hand when you're fighting against almost impenetrable wall of armor then don't be surprised that your swarm of light fighters got decimated.

I'm sorry, what on earth are you even arguing for (or rather, against)? Balance as the largest part of the player base desires is is that every game piece can be used in some way in the 200 point dominant format, not that every game piece is equal. There is no way to run the majority of ships in X-Wing 1.0 even remotely competetively. That results in a staggering loss of options, stale tournaments, pure boredom. Balance is achieved via pricing. Your 'cavemen versus modern soldier' example is pure hyperbole, as technological advancement in the star wars universe is slow at best. So yes, it is reasonable to say 1 Defender should typicaly beat an X-Wing, but 2 X-Wings only some of the time and 3 X-Wings rarely. Matchup skew should exist to some degree (and still does) to make building more interesting, but not on a level that decides games before the table is set up, even.

29 minutes ago, GuacCousteau said:

The first sign of someone putting absolutely zero effort in is quoting blocks of text wholesale from Wookieepedia. Look carefully at the sources and you'll see that the only reference for some of the armaments listed is the XMG K-Wing expansion itself.

The NEGVV ****ed up and ruined the K-Wing's design. There's even mention of this in that article's Behind the Scenes section. Now FFG are of course free to use whatever version of the ship they want, technically the NEGVV was just as 'canon' as the Black Fleet Crisis, for whatever that's worth. But they went with the version that better suited gameplay than trying to strictly adapt the ship that actually made an appearance in a novel.

So either FFG is free to adapt elements as they chose to suit gameplay, or everything should be an accurate representation of the ships as they are in the fiction. Pick one.

In the former, the TIE Bomber should be just as viable as the K-Wing, or the Y-Wing and the Lambda shuttle should have a place in the game. In the latter, the K-Wing needed to be just as useless as the TIE Bomber and the X-Wing should be beating everything that isn't a TIE Defender or E-Wing.

Well, you're absolutely right.

I have zero interest in big chunks of Star Wars and clone wars is one of them so gave you my sources so you can contest them and you did.

So it makes my k-wing argument invalid- it's just bad design.

39 minutes ago, cupakabra said:

It depends on the situation- who he fights and where he fights (location of asteroids).

Your question is of sort: "who's better rpg- tank or healer?"

Can you eloaborate in what kind of short-range dogfight situation (which every single game of xwing is!) a freighter or bomber or long range missile ship is superior to a specialized dogfighter?

1 minute ago, Admiral Deathrain said:

I'm sorry, what on earth are you even arguing for (or rather, against)? Balance as the largest part of the player base desires is is that every game piece can be used in some way in the 200 point dominant format, not that every game piece is equal. There is no way to run the majority of ships in X-Wing 1.0 even remotely competetively. That results in a staggering loss of options, stale tournaments, pure boredom. Balance is achieved via pricing. Your 'cavemen versus modern soldier' example is pure hyperbole, as technological advancement in the star wars universe is slow at best. So yes, it is reasonable to say 1 Defender should typicaly beat an X-Wing, but 2 X-Wings only some of the time and 3 X-Wings rarely. Matchup skew should exist to some degree (and still does) to make building more interesting, but not on a level that decides games before the table is set up, even.

It's not my intention to argue. I've never played 2.0 and i'm not going to because i've seen ads that sounded like "we'll give equal chances to everyone" and this topic prooved me right. That's all i wanted to say. The rest is just academic discussion.

Technological advancement is slow in long-term (KOTOR vs movies) but fast in short term, like z-95 vs x-wings. Or regular TIE vs defender.

In 1.0 you can take 100 points and turn it into 20-points worth fleet, so when you go against well-built fleet you should have extremely small chances of winning from the beginning. Is it a bad thing?

10 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

Can you eloaborate in what kind of short-range dogfight situation (which every single game of xwing is!) a freighter or bomber or long range missile ship is superior to a specialized dogfighter?

Define long-range. If you can shoot missiles from beyond fighter's range then you have upperhand.

If your size allows you to bring big enough firepower on board then you have upperhand.

If you can have special equipment to hurt small craft (say EMP or huge cluster of explosives) and he's not able to dodge or use on his own, you have upperhand.

8 minutes ago, cupakabra said:

Define long-range. If you can shoot missiles from beyond fighter's range then you have upperhand.

If your size allows you to bring big enough firepower on board then you have upperhand.

If you can have special equipment to hurt small craft (say EMP or huge cluster of explosives) and he's not able to dodge or use on his own, you have upperhand.

All of which makes for a truly boring game.

4 minutes ago, cupakabra said:

Define  long-r  ange. If you can shoot missiles from beyond fighter  's range then you have upperhand. 

The only mechanic that comes close is trajectory simulator. All others need the same range as fighters. So that‘s not an example.

5 minutes ago, cupakabra said:

If  your size allows you to bring big enough firepower on bo  ard then you have upperhand. 

Ah, now we get closer. So this is a situation where a bomber should be, according to you, superior to a fighter? Larger firepower. How does this fit with your earlier statement „ I  s  bomber better at dogfight than actual fighter? No  t un  less you make huge gap in quality of both sh  ip  s  “ or „ s  o  don't expect them to be viable in 1vs1 figh  t against aces which were built with taking  other fighters down in mind  „?

Before you said huge difference in quality or not even at all, now superior firepower is sufficient. Can you explain to me how these go together?

Also, you did not include any terrain differences despite that being your first response („ It  depends on the sit  uation- who he fights and where he fights (location of a  steroid  s). “). How do asteroids change the situation?

18 minutes ago, cupakabra said:

I've never played 2.0 and i'm not going to because i've seen ads that sounded like "we'll give equal chances to everyone" and this topic prooved me right.

That's not the case, though.

No one is arguing that any ship should be able to beat any other ship in a 1 on 1. It's not the every ship has an 'equal chance', it's that any ship can find a place in a decent list as a whole depending on how you build the list and how you fly the ships in it.

No one is saying a bomber should necessarily be able to outfight a superiority starfighter, and that isn't what's happening in 2e. But what you can do is keep that bomber at the edge of engagement and fire off a missile at longer range while the starfighter is busy tangling with a TIE Fighter. Or it can drop a bomb in the right place and catch the fighter off guard.

Not everything in Star Wars has a real life analogue, nor should you try and force these ships into specific roles based on 'real' warfare. In WW2 air combat, bombs didn't stay floating in place after they dropped - they fell to the ground. You could never place a bomb into the path of a Spitfire. In Star Wars, you can.

We've seen it happen in the films.

TIE Bombers also don't really have real world analogues, or if they do it isn't to something like the Stuka or Lancaster. Their ability to carry dedicated anti-starfighter missiles as well as surface attack bombs makes them more like an F/A-18E (but even that doesn't seem right to me).

So there's nothing wrong with a TIE Bomber taking down an X-Wing in the 'dogfight' scenario of XWM, because if it happens it will happen via logical means (almost certainly ordnance), and usually only if the X-Wing player failed to take appropriate measures to evade the Bomber, or was unable to because of sheer numbers (another way that balance manifests itself).

The game has also demonstrated time and again that there is a role in the 'dogfight' scenario for ships that don't actually dogfight and tend not to do direct damage. The Lambda shuttle's role is perfectly in keeping with the theme. It's slow and cumbersome, but if you don't give it respect and end up in front of it, its guns can hurt you. If there was no other ship on the board, an X-Wing would have absolutely no trouble taking one out (as it should be), but the shuttle has tools that empower other, better dogfighting ships to take out the X-Wing.

Again, this is in keeping with the theme, balanced and fun.

I'm really not sure what it is you're so resistant to, or what you want this game to be, or what it is about 1e that's so different that you like about it.

2 minutes ago, Bad Idea Comics said:

All of which makes for a truly boring game.

Not really, look at the B-17s during WW2. Huge powerful planes that could fend-off enemies with firepower and do their job, but very vulnerable when approached correctly. It's all about the players.

But well, you have just as many opinions as players. For instance i play x-wing for in-scale beautiful models (so i despise epics other than Gozanti for breaking the scale) and fun with friends, not for chasing meta and winning tournaments.

37 minutes ago, cupakabra said:

In 1.0 you can take 100 points and turn it into 20-points worth fleet, so when you go against well-built fleet you should have extremely small chances of winning from the beginning. Is it a bad thing?

Yes. Because it's a game, not war.

2 minutes ago, cupakabra said:

Not really, look at the B-17s during WW2. Huge powerful planes that could fend-off enemies with firepower and do their job, but very vulnerable when approached correctly. It's all about the players.

But well, you have just as many opinions as players. For instance i play x-wing for in-scale beautiful models (so i despise epics other than Gozanti for breaking the scale) and fun with friends, not for chasing meta and winning tournaments.

Playing B-17s would be a truly boring game in a game revolving around dogfighting. X-wing is a dogfighting game. Though they've attempted to add some bomber tactics with that silly Resistance ship.

9 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

The only mechanic that comes close is trajectory simulator. All others need the same range as fighters. So that‘s not an example.

Ah, now we get closer. So this is a situation where a bomber should be, according to you, superior to a fighter? Larger firepower. How does this fit with your earlier statement „ I  s  bomber better at dogfight than actual fighter? No  t un  less you make huge gap in quality of both sh  ip  s  “ or „ s  o  don't expect them to be viable in 1vs1 figh  t against aces which were built with taking  other fighters down in mind  „?

Before you said huge difference in quality or not even at all, now superior firepower is sufficient. Can you explain to me how these go together?

Also, you did not include any terrain differences despite that being your first response („ It  depends on the sit  uation- who he fights and where he fights (location of a  steroid  s). “). How do asteroids change the situation?

What i meant is when you have a TIE Bomber it has low firepower and is big and slow so it's an easy target for x-wing.

But when you take big bomber with gunner then it is troublesome for fighters. So here's your quality difference. Simple, regular, cheap ship vs heavy armored, heavy equipped big ship. Another difference of power is regular TIE Bomber vs some old fighter thats too weak to hurt it.

In different terrain different ships behave differently. When you use asteroids for your advantage you can take down superior ship easily. Like forcing another ship to choose to hit either the bomb or asteroid.

6 minutes ago, Jiron said:

Yes. Because it's a game, not war.

Well here we disagree. What i hear from you is a child demanding reroll while playing Sorry! because it's not fun to have such a bad luck. It's really beyond my understanding why would you like to play the game that doesn't allow you to make mistakes.

9 minutes ago, Bad Idea Comics said:

Playing B-17s would be a truly boring game in a game revolving around dogfighting. X-wing is a dogfighting game. Though they've attempted to add some bomber tactics with that silly Resistance ship.

For me it's how 360 turrets work. Aces try to outmaneuver you to keep you in arc, you just spam them with turrets and try to keep close.

19 minutes ago, GuacCousteau said:

That's not the case, though.

No one is arguing that any ship should be able to beat any other ship in a 1 on 1. It's not the every ship has an 'equal chance', it's that any ship can find a place in a decent list as a whole depending on how you build the list and how you fly the ships in it.

No one is saying a bomber should necessarily be able to outfight a superiority starfighter, and that isn't what's happening in 2e. But what you can do is keep that bomber at the edge of engagement and fire off a missile at longer range while the starfighter is busy tangling with a TIE Fighter. Or it can drop a bomb in the right place and catch the fighter off guard.

Not everything in Star Wars has a real life analogue, nor should you try and force these ships into specific roles based on 'real' warfare. In WW2 air combat, bombs didn't stay floating in place after they dropped - they fell to the ground. You could never place a bomb into the path of a Spitfire. In Star Wars, you can.

We've seen it happen in the films.

TIE Bombers also don't really have real world analogues, or if they do it isn't to something like the Stuka or Lancaster. Their ability to carry dedicated anti-starfighter missiles as well as surface attack bombs makes them more like an F/A-18E (but even that doesn't seem right to me).

So there's nothing wrong with a TIE Bomber taking down an X-Wing in the 'dogfight' scenario of XWM, because if it happens it will happen via logical means (almost certainly ordnance), and usually only if the X-Wing player failed to take appropriate measures to evade the Bomber, or was unable to because of sheer numbers (another way that balance manifests itself).

The game has also demonstrated time and again that there is a role in the 'dogfight' scenario for ships that don't actually dogfight and tend not to do direct damage. The Lambda shuttle's role is perfectly in keeping with the theme. It's slow and cumbersome, but if you don't give it respect and end up in front of it, its guns can hurt you. If there was no other ship on the board, an X-Wing would have absolutely no trouble taking one out (as it should be), but the shuttle has tools that empower other, better dogfighting ships to take out the X-Wing.

Again, this is in keeping with the theme, balanced and fun.

I'm really not sure what it is you're so resistant to, or what you want this game to be, or what it is about 1e that's so different that you like about it.

There are things that just ain't match for other things and still are priced high. Would you like to play Need for Speed where player chooses Ford T and is competitive against new Lamborghini?

3 minutes ago, cupakabra said:

Well here we disagree. What i hear from you is a child demanding reroll while playing Sorry! because it's not fun to have such a bad luck. It's really beyond my understanding why would you like to play the game that doesn't allow you to make mistakes.

What I hear from you is that something like 70% of the ships in the game should be utterly useless. I'm sorry, but if I paid for a ship, I expect to actually be able to play with it.

3 minutes ago, cupakabra said:

What  i meant is when you have a TIE Bomber it has low firepower and is big and slow so it's an easy target for x-wing.

 But when you take big bomber with gunner then it is troublesome for fighters. So here's your quality difference. Simple, regular,  cheap ship vs heavy armored, heavy equipped big ship. Another difference o  f power is regular TIE Bomber vs some old fighter thats too weak to hurt it.  

Does that mean you‘d want to limit the game to dogfighters and flying fortresses?

If so, does that not immediately give bombers a spot to break flying fortresses and lead to exactly the ship distribution we have?

3 minutes ago, cupakabra said:

There are things that just ain't match for other things and still are priced high. Would you like to play Need for Speed where player chooses Ford T and is competitive against new Lamborghini?

Actually, an unlockable Model T sounds like it would be pretty funny in a racing game, though rather unrealistic.

That aside, you just ignored a huge point of Guac's post. He was talking about how the balance is from lists as a whole rather than one on one, and you countered with a one on one example. An example of the sort of balance we're talking about is that a Z-95 is unlikely to beat a TIE Defender, but you can fit a lot more on a list, so they're still viable.

Ugh. This has become one of those devolving conversations. Let's get back to the main point - 2.0 is loads of fun to build lists with, it's fun to play, and it's a great revision overall. Yes, there may be some issues, though I don't see many of the problems other folks are having (I'm building a TIE Advanced list to see how those "terrible and overcosted" ships fare in actual gameplay) and FFG has tools in place to resolve issues down the road. The game truly feels like it's a dogfighting game and every ship feels viable, so list building becomes a matter of personal taste, which is how it should be. Some lists will still be bad, but a balanced approach should pay off well. Damage output is lower but the defensive crutches that were added to counter power creep are gone as well. Add to this the ability for FFG to revise points on the fly if something is found to be out of whack and you have a well thought out game that's fun to play with plenty of room to grow.

I, for one, am excited to have this kind of game available. I will happily make PEW PEW noises while crushing all under my Imperial boot as long as this game is still kicking around.

1 hour ago, GreenDragoon said:

Can you eloaborate in what kind of short-range dogfight situation (which every single game of xwing is!) a freighter or bomber or long range missile ship is superior to a specialized dogfighter?

When the freighter or bomber player outplays their opponent

This entire conversation is proof perfect of why gameplay >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fluff

?