To the handful of people who are convinced that “git gud” is the solution to all the problems that would be caused by a random player order system, I challenge all of you to do the following. You may try this as many times as you want but you must complete all steps.

1. Find a reasonably skilled opponent to play against. Nothing fancy, just not a newb.

2. Play a mirror match in which you both use one and only one ship: Soontir Fell with Predator and no other upgrades.

3. Insist that you have first player, so that your opponent always moves after you.

4. Win a match.

Once you have successfully completed all 4 steps, let me know. Then, and only then, will I give any weight to your arguments.

/snark

Okay, but seriously, I hope my little hypothetical scenario proves my point. The Soontir player that moves first is never going to be able to line up his bullseye arc on the 2nd player, and will have difficulty lining up any shots at all, since the 2nd player gets to reposition AFTER the first player has moved. Barring some incredible dice luck or some really stupid decision on the 2nd players part, the 1st player is going to lose that match up every time. No amount of “git gud” on the first player’s part will ever change this.

It’s a simplified version of real and not uncommon situations that pop up in X-Wing, where you have high PS ships with the ability to reposition on both teams. This is called arc-dodging. It’s a thing. It’s been cited as one of the three archetypal pillars of X-wing, and is a common tactic employed by many players. And it lives or dies based on its ability to move after your opponent, and as such it’s built into the game that it costs you more points to ensure that you have a higher Initiative + a bid to maximize the chance that you’ll go second.

If I wanted to beat my opponent that I knew had a 50% chance of moving after me, I wouldn’t bring high Initiative arc-dodgers to the match- they’re too expensive (bidding wars or no). Rather, I would bring multiple cheaper ships at a lower PS. Don’t be mistaken, this is NOT what gitting gud looks like, this is just switching from the “arc-dodging” pillar to the “swarm” pillar .

Now maybe arc-dodging is not your cup of tea, but that doesn’t invalidate the opinions of all the other players out there who do like that play style. And I am opposed any sweeping rule change that would arbitrarily destroy arc-dodging as a valid strategy, just as I would oppose and rule change that invalidated swarms or alpha-strikes or etc.

29 minutes ago, Herowannabe said:

And I am opposed any sweeping rule change that would arbitrarily destroy arc-dodging as a valid strategy, just as I would oppose and rule change that invalidated swarms or alpha-strikes or etc.

See, it's interesting. You started out demonstrating that it wasn't fair to always have to move first in an I6 vs. I6 one-on-one battle (which is, of course, itself a strawman argument), and then as you worked your way down, you ended up "concluding" that all of arc-dodging would become invalidated.

In other words, it seems that you feel that unless you always move last, including against the same Init, the game isn't fun or skillful.

That's pretty much exactly the position of all the "16-point-bids-take skill" folks, so at least you're not alone.

19 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

In other words, it seems that you feel that unless you always move last, including against the same Init, the game isn't fun or skillful.

I get this. I get the power-curve addiction of the meta whores.

First off, moving last, certainly with arc dodgers, is a lot of fun because you get to have perfect knowledge when you perform actions. Fact. No problem. Secondly, we all do know that moving first give you certain advantages as well as you get to position and action with more open space and you always get that action (save stress) whereas the one who moves after may or may not get all their choices. Would one always want the former? Sure. But you're supposed to be a pilot in a battle where you must overcome, you must adapt, you must survive longer than you opponent. Whatever the rule of initiative for matching I5s or I6s, know how to fly -and flourish- in either position.

Wanna have a blast and learn how to get over your I5 or I6 large bid prison? Fly some generic strikers. Fun on steroids.

Learn to have fun. Learn to play the game.

18 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

See, it's interesting. You started out demonstrating that it wasn't fair to always have to move first in an I6 vs. I6 one-on-one battle (which is, of course, itself a strawman argument), and then as you worked your way down, you ended up "concluding" that all of arc-dodging would become invalidated.

In other words, it seems that you feel that unless you always move last, including against the same Init, the game isn't fun or skillful.

That's pretty much exactly the position of all the "16-point-bids-take skill" folks, so at least you're not alone.

On the other hand, do you feel that if X-wing had random initiative, arc-dodgers would still be a viable archetype without any adjustments, or would they fall off in favor of other, less initiative dependent archetypes? Why?

On 1/7/2019 at 12:27 PM, Jeff Wilder said:

Losing because you move first is bad game design.

Encouraging the idea of not using upgrades, in an attempt to guarantee not moving first (and, not coincidentally, in an attempt to guarantee the other player moves first, and thus (presumably?) auto-loses) is even worse.

And, again, the funniest thing to me is that this race to the bottom, to see who has to "lose because he moves first," is somehow seen as the very height of skill at X-Wing.

C'mon. It's the exact opposite.

If players know that, no matter what they do, they face a 50/50 chance of moving first -- against the same Initiative , which people keep leaving out -- then players will adapt and learn how to play the game, as opposed to relying on perfect information.

That is good for the game, not bad for the game.

Of course you have control over it. You can learn how to play the game in a way that doesn't absolutely require you to always have perfect information. I know it's a lot to ask of some folks.

Yeah, there's this perception that large bids are players handicapping themselves - no, it's my opinion that in current points I'd rather have 13-17 points of nothing and be guaranteed to be moving last, because it's such a huge advantage and far better than anything you could be buying with those points.

Wholeheartedly agree, there's a perception that ace players are the best making the hardest decisions when I'd argue it's the exact opposite - it's much harder to play the not aces vs aces than it is to play that game as the aces. Every action and move the ships moving first take is a risk, every action the ships moving last take is a guarantee.

On 1/7/2019 at 1:34 PM, Jeff Wilder said:

(Ah, critical thinking. The lost art.)

If 10% of players play Init 5 and Init 6, you can, in fact, compete in a tournament with those players.

If 90% of players play Init 5 and Init 6, it is much more difficult.

The difference is that 90% of players won't do it if they're going to end up as First Player in 45%+ of their games.

This would be the dream of a change to something like random initiative. I'm not sure the playerbase is so rational to get past the point of just bringing straight trip aces still and then complaining when they lose the initiative roll, though...

1 hour ago, LordBlades said:

On the other hand, do you feel that if X-wing had random initiative, arc-dodgers would still be a viable archetype without any adjustments, or would they fall off in favor of other, less initiative dependent archetypes? Why?

First of all, you've presented a false dichotomy: "Will they be viable or will they fall off?" So I reject that dichotomy.

IMO, as things are costed now , they will both be viable and fall off some in favor of other archetypes.

Right now, (most) high Init pilots, and the ships and upgrades that benefit most from high Init, are waaaaay undercosted.

2 hours ago, Jeff Wilder said:

See, it's interesting. You started out demonstrating that it wasn't fair to always have to move first in an I6 vs. I6 one-on-one battle (which is, of course, itself a strawman argument), and then as you worked your way down, you ended up "concluding" that all of arc-dodging would become invalidated.

In other words, it seems that you feel that unless you always move last, including against the same Init, the game isn't fun or skillful.

That's pretty much exactly the position of all the "16-point-bids-take skill" folks, so at least you're not alone.

Perhaps I overstated my case a bit, but I think you overstated it even more than I did. My point is simply this: in arc-dodger mirror-matches, the player who moves second has a huge advantage over the player that moves first. Determined who gets that advantage based on a dice roll is not good game design . Is the current point-bidding system perfect? Heavens no, but it’s better than randomly assigning advantages to one player over the other.

50 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

Right now, (most) high Init pilots, and the ships and upgrades that benefit most from high Init, are waaaaay undercosted.

That’s a fair opinion, and I don’t dispute it (I don’t know if I agree with it, but I respect that you might feel that way).

Personally I think the best solutions (and no there will never be any perfect situations) lie in adjusting points until problem ships and upgrades are brought into balance, or tweaking (not overturning) the rules surrounding bidding. I think the often proposed suggestion that your bid points should count as points destroyed at the end of the game is a good start. I’d like to play under a meta with that rule in place for a bit before making any more drastic changes.

(Also, just for the record, while I do enjoy arc dodging lists, I have never- and probably never will- bid more than about 6-7 points for initiative.)

1 hour ago, Jeff Wilder said:

First of all, you've presented a false dichotomy: "Will they be viable or will they fall off?" So I reject that dichotomy.

IMO, as things are costed now , they will both be viable and fall off some in favor of other archetypes.

Right now, (most) high Init pilots, and the ships and upgrades that benefit most from high Init, are waaaaay undercosted.

Fair enough. I didn't mean to imply there's no middle ground, sorry if it came out that way.

In my view, I think a random initiative system will drive the viability of aces down significantly, especially of fragile aces, that rely on arc dodging to survive and really can' t take a hit. Investing 40-50% of your points into a ship that can be largely nullified by a pre-game coin toss looks like a bad competitive call to me.

Seeing less arc-dodging aces might not be an entirely bad thing though. The fact that FFG has never managed to get most middle PS/initiative pilots to matter is IMO one of the biggest missed opportunities in X-wing.

10 minutes ago, LordBlades said:

[ Stuff. ]

I ... agree with pretty much all of this. Let's pretend to fight, though, just so we fit in.

6 hours ago, LordBlades said:

In practice it will likely translate in most lists being 200 points or 190 points, with little in between.

And that would be the most balanced in my opinion. If you want to bid-go ahead. But know, that you can't be sure that you would move your aces last. It would be fair.