This comment from @Church14 from another thread got me thinking: -

“ Taking a stab at it, it seems like scatter was undervalued when designing squads. ”

Does anyone else think that Scatter is just too good for Aces? I’ve not played as much as some people here, but the point of Scatter in my mind is for a coherent Squadron to fly all over the place to avoid incoming fire, but then the expectation is that immediately be able to return fire at full effect?

Possibly a solution to this is for Squadrons with a red Scatter token showing only be able to fire with one die?

Anyone agree/disagree or have other solutions?

I still don't think scatter is the problem, the most popular aces don't use scatter.

Case in point if survivablility was the main issue with aces, Whisper who is very likely the hardest squadren to kill in the game would be much more common but is not very popular VS the MMJ combo

There's the possibility of Gallant Havening it, but that seems a little extreme. And again, would do nothing to deal with MMJ.

So what's wrong with MMJ?

Is it the reliable damage output? Maarek has a guaranteed 1 hit per attack - SW-7s is the only other thing (off the top of my head) that does that. Morna has 3 blues against a ship, with rerolls; that's better than the front arc of a CR90B. Plus she has comparable HP to a CR90 and repeating braces.

The problem is basically Not “reliable”

It’s “Guaranteed.”

THEN you start finding the efficiencies for potential damage per squad activation is, outside of the damage, very high.

In almost all metrics, they come under the heading of “most efficient”

Anyone here play WizKids abomination 'Star Trek: Attack Wing' back in the day? There was a similar problem with that one, the 'Interphase Device', that could with proper combos (IE., having an evade at all) block all damage from an attack. That game was a lot more X-Wing like, and so taking a massive, normally-1/3-of-list-destroying attack down to nothing ...was game breaking.

As odd as it sounds, letting any damage through turned out to be the key, because, as with this game, there are double-damage options and other cards that can build off damage that DOES get through.

IE., change to scatter to - instead of 'The defender cancels all attack dice', have it rather 'The defender cancels as many attack dice as they wish, leaving at least one damage result remaining'.

Yeah I played Attack Wing. I remember thstthe game was usually dwcided by the first salvo thsnks to all the fancy cards. You either absorbed it all or you were all but destroyed.

I still don't see any issue with scatter. 1 accuracy and it is useless. Only times it has EVER annoyed me at all, are the few times I have attempted to kill an escaping Flotilla with Demolisher. But thems the breaks, so I even take that in stride.

Don't need to fix it if it ain't broke.

I would say that the time armada takes is more of a problem.

8 hours ago, xanderf said:

Anyone here play WizKids abomination 'Star Trek: Attack Wing' back in the day? There was a similar problem with that one, the 'Interphase Device', that could with proper combos (IE., having an evade at all) block all damage from an attack. That game was a lot more X-Wing like, and so taking a massive, normally-1/3-of-list-destroying attack down to nothing ...was game breaking.

As odd as it sounds, letting any damage through turned out to be the key, because, as with this game, there are double-damage options and other cards that can build off damage that DOES get through.

IE., change to scatter to - instead of 'The defender cancels all attack dice', have it rather 'The defender cancels as many attack dice as they wish, leaving at least one damage result remaining'.

Interphase Generator. It reduced damage from an attack down into a single point of damage. You had to be cloaked, it was a discard, and required a tech slot which most ships had only 1 of if at all. Given how weak/risky cloak was, how offense oriented the game really was and that factions with cloak tending to have lower captain skills (so not shooting first), Interphase generator was actually a very good balancing mechanic. It discouraged dreadnought builds where all 120 points are sunk into a single or just two ships or alpha strike builds. Attack Wing had problems, Interphase was not it (spoilers: it was the borg). Honestly, Attack Wing was actually better balanced than X-Wing 1e after they made some big balance changes.

Given my comment seemed to inspired this thread, I need to add that my caveat was also that Scatter may have been just fine at release. The issue might then be that the ship upgrades that buff flak are more effective against brace aces.

52 minutes ago, Church14 said:

Given  my comment seemed to inspired this thread, I need to  add that my caveat was also that Scatter may have been just fine at release. The issue might then be  that the ship upgrades that buff flak are more    effective against brace aces.

Like What in particular?

Because I think the biggest issue is “buffing flak” is a misnomer... Beyond a Title Tgat grants an extra shot, and an upgrade to grant extra shots in arc... (even if it is fun to paste Jan with ExRacks, that’s geberally not what you took it for 😁 )

I mean, the best flak booster is Ruthless Strats, and that’s great vs Scatter aces because you don’t gave to HIT them to trigger it, and they almost universally have low hull...

I've waffled on the subject of scatter, but it was certainly a bigger issue back in the days before the flotilla nerf when a horde of scatter flotillas were abusing Relay to boss around a horde of scatter aces. Yuck. It still causes some issues here and there but it's not as bad as it once was.

That said, if scatter was ever going to be toned down, my recommendation would be something like "remove half (rounded up) of the attack dice from the pool," which can still (especially with evade on a flotilla or in squad combat where crits don't do anything) result in no damage taken, but does away with the very silly "that large ship rolled a huge pile of damage but failed to fish for an accuracy and somehow the flotillas dodged everything" type of situations that come up periodically.

Personally I feel the only problem scater has currently in the game is it gives aces basically immunity to flack I think that is really the core issue.

17 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

Like What in particular?

Because I think the biggest issue is “buffing flak” is a misnomer... Beyond a Title Tgat grants an extra shot, and an upgrade to grant extra shots in arc... (even if it is fun to paste Jan with ExRacks, that’s geberally not what you took it for 😁 )

I mean, the best flak booster is Ruthless Strats, and that’s great vs Scatter aces because you don’t gave to HIT them to trigger it, and they almost universally have low hull...

It’s not that they directly target brace aces. It is just practical application.

The gist of my logic is as follows:

-Most good flak upgrades are unique.

-Most players don’t invest in upgrading flak on every ship. Just 1. A side effect of the unique nature of the good ones

-Most ship tend to only get one flak shot at a target squadron

-The odds are high that a scatter ace can scatter the upgraded flak shot even if they have to eat a second flak shot from another ship. That second shot won’t be as damaging.

-A brace ace can’t dodge the damage. If the ship shooting can get to 3 damage in a flak shot (not common but not impossible) then the brace squads take 2 while the scatter still takes none.

If it were easier to get multiple flak shots on target (it’s doable, but limits flexibility most of the time), then scatter aces would probably be worse off due to that low HP.

11 hours ago, xanderf said:

Anyone here play WizKids abomination 'Star Trek: Attack Wing' back in the day?

Literally and without hyperbole the most poorly designed and poorly balanced game I've ever played.

2 hours ago, Church14 said:

It’s not that they directly target brace aces. It is just practical application.

The gist of my logic is as follows:

-Most good flak upgrades are unique.

-Most players don’t invest in upgrading flak on every ship. Just 1. A side effect of the unique nature of the good ones

-Most ship tend to only get one flak shot at a target squadron

-The odds are high that a scatter ace can scatter the upgraded flak shot even if they have to eat a second flak shot from another ship. That second shot won’t be as damaging.

-A brace ace can’t dodge the damage. If the ship shooting can get to 3 damage in a flak shot (not common but not impossible) then the brace squads take 2 while the scatter still takes none.

If it were easier to get multiple flak shots on target (it’s doable, but limits flexibility most of the time), then scatter aces would probably be worse off due to that low HP.

I think that my major contention with what you've just said here is the implication that there are good flak upgrades. Honestly, I'd like to hear which ones you think are good - in my opinion some are better than others, but none are particularly good - aside from Toryn, who really should be in a category all her own. Ruthless is solid, but too expensive for the ships you want to take it on (Hammerhead scouts) and too much of a trade-off for the ships who would otherwise want to run Ordnance Experts.

I would not be so hasty to disregard the power of simply flipping a scatter token with flak. Most of those scatter aces - who, let's be honest, are pretty weak against ships anyway without Sloane - really rely on the scatter to keep them up. Even putting one point of damage on their hull puts them in range of getting killed by a 4-die squadron rolling acc/hit/hit/hit. The power of flak comes as much from the squadron follow-up as it does the ships themselves. If you bring a squadless fleet, you need to figure out how to blow up the carrier or how to run away. You can't count on a middle ground.

21 minutes ago, AllWingsStandyingBy said:

Literally and without hyperbole the most poorly designed and poorly balanced game I've ever played.

Here he goes agai----- oh, ST:AW. Carry on. ❤️

32 minutes ago, AllWingsStandyingBy said:

Literally and without hyperbole the most poorly designed and poorly balanced game I've ever played.

It’s competitor, XWMG, lurched from one nigh-broken build type to another that required pages of errata in order to rebalance.

STAW added a 50 point per ship max and nerfed the borg and then was actually fairly well balanced. XWMG 1e stayed a dumpster fire right up until 2e was released, and then died the poster child for a dumpster fire of balance. 2e is “better.”

This board’s obsession with thinking STAW is garbage makes little sense to me. It broke badly when the Borg were released and then errata’d them into reasonable balance. Since then, you consistently saw crazy varieties of builds reach top tables at events. Something XWMG 1e never had.

I bother with this because I played both STAW and XWMG 1e. I had to stop playing XWMG because of comically bad power creep.

21 minutes ago, Church14 said:

XWMG 1e

XWMG?

12 minutes ago, Formynder4 said:

XWMG?

XWing Miniatures Game.

Thanks. I thought so but couldn't figure out the MG part.

20 minutes ago, Formynder4 said:

Thanks. I thought so but couldn't figure out the MG part.

It's, like, right there in the fine print. I think it took me like a week to figure it out the first time I saw it.

51 minutes ago, Church14 said:

It’s competitor, XWMG, lurched from one nigh-broken build type to another that required pages of errata in order to rebalance.

STAW added a 50 point per ship max and nerfed the borg and then was actually fairly well balanced. XWMG 1e stayed a dumpster fire right up until 2e was released, and then died the poster child for a dumpster fire of balance. 2e is “better.”

This board’s obsession with thinking STAW is garbage makes little sense to me. It broke badly when the Borg were released and then errata’d them into reasonable balance. Since then, you consistently saw crazy varieties of builds reach top tables at events. Something XWMG 1e never had.

I bother with this because I played both STAW and XWMG 1e. I had to stop playing XWMG because of comically bad power creep.

LOL - STAW was broken because STAW didn't even try to playtest ships.

Every ship's point cost was the total of all its stats, doubled. Period.

Lamdba-type dial or TIE Interceptor-type dial? Meh, same thing.

X-Wing-1st-edition-style-360-turret or forward-50 degree-arc? Meh, same thing.

"Generic" ship with no ability at all, vs the unique ship with ability to boost (move out of arc) after each attack? Meh, same thing.

Total the four stat numbers, double that, *boom*, that's the ship's price. Ship it!

That game was indefensibly badly balanced.

28 minutes ago, xanderf said:

LOL - STAW was broken because STAW didn't even try to playtest ships.

Every ship's point cost was the total of all its stats, doubled. Period.

Lamdba-type dial or TIE Interceptor-type dial? Meh, same thing.

X-Wing-1st-edition-style-360-turret or forward-50 degree-arc? Meh, same thing.

"Generic" ship with no ability at all, vs the unique ship with ability to boost (move out of arc) after each attack? Meh, same thing.

Total the four stat numbers, double that, *boom*, that's the ship's price. Ship it!

That game was indefensibly badly balanced.

Indefensibly? You don’t actually know what you are talking about. This will be my last comment on this topic.

In spite of XWMG’s complicated points formula, they still ****** it up. Complex isn’t inherently better As long as gaining a 180 front arc or a native turret was balanced by a garbage dial or bad upgrade slots, 2 points/stat could be enough.

Claiming they didn’t play test it is horse****. Given how well balanced the generic TIE, TLT, generic jumpmaster, Palpatine, etc. were, I can make the same BS, baseless claim about XWMG.

Not including the costs of the ship’s unique text made players bring different models and not just spam 8 generics. Or do you prefer the first XWMG worlds where the final game was basically Farkle?

1 hour ago, Church14 said:

Indefensibly? You don’t actually know what you are talking about. This will be my last comment on this topic.

In spite of XWMG’s complicated points formula, they still ****** it up. Complex isn’t inherently better As long as gaining a 180 front arc or a native turret was balanced by a garbage dial or bad upgrade slots, 2 points/stat could be enough.

Claiming they didn’t play test it is horse****. Given how well balanced the generic TIE, TLT, generic jumpmaster, Palpatine, etc. were, I can make the same BS, baseless claim about XWMG.

Not including the costs of the ship’s unique text made players bring different models and not just spam 8 generics. Or do you prefer the first XWMG worlds where the final game was basically Farkle?

Do you work for WizKids or something?

Seriously, wtf? But since you want based claims and not baseless , here's some base for ya:

Many of ST:AW's cards were literally unplayable because they had syntactic ambiguity in their text where two completely different interpretations were both reasonable and correct. My god, do you remember the sheer volume of rules questions? And the official FAQ was a forum thread on BGG where Andrew Parks would come answer questions, and that thread was over 100 pages long in just the first two months of the game: https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1031156/st-aw-official-preliminary-faq

'member Cloaked Minefields? That insanely NPE card that everyone was spamming. And remember how the set the card came in didn't even give you a minefield token, so people had to print their own, and when asked the game's designer said "Oh yea, didn't put a minefield token in the set 'cuz it never occurred to me anyone would run more than one." So, yea, clearly mass-spam Cloaking Mines were never even conceived of, let alone tested, and boy did Cloaked Mines define the "meta."

And you act like it was the Borg that ruined the game, but the game was ruined out of the gate. The point-formula that @xanderf noted was a huge part of the problem, since it didn't recognize that a 5th Attack die is worth way more than a 2nd, or that a shield is worth more than a hull. Nor did it put any value into the ship dial or upgrade slots or firing arcs. That is supreme laziness coupled with total obliviousness. Also, let's not forget that ST:AW had a release schedule that was five times faster than X-Wing's, despite ST:AW having only a single developer and no playtesters (versus X-Wing, which has had 2-3 devs and dozens of playtesters nvolved in any given wave). You can check this by looking at the credits on the sets.

The Borg were some broken nonsense, yes, but they were merely different in degree and not kind from what came before. All the way back to the initial release the game was an imbalanced mess. In Wave 1 I was running a list that was routinely killing my opponent's best ship before it even got to attack (Picard+Khan, alpha strike build where each ship whipped off fully-modded torpedo attacks at CS9--oh yea, and Khan was a GenCon exclusive so most people couldn't even use him and his ridiculously afford Captain Skill 9). Any game where I can without fail kill a capital ship that is 75% of my opponent's fleet before it even powers up its own phasers has probably got deep issues in balance, but I'm just spit-balling here. And let's not forget Barrage of Fire, because being able to roll 14-die attacks with full mods is healthy... there's a reason X-Wing capped attacks at 4 Dice in all but the most fringe cases, and you pay a lot for that 4th or rare 5th die in X-Wing.

I played through the whole "Dominion War" event and won the DS9 model. I never had a game take longer than 15-25 minutes because I had utterly obliterated the majority of my opponent's fleet in the first round of combat. The game that went the longest, in my foggy memory, is the one where there was all that convuluted beaming down your away teams to fight on the planet stuff. There wasn't a real game to be had in that entire six month event, even with all the zany objective-missions.


STAW might have worked as a totally zany beer-n-pretzels game between a group of friends that were either too incompetent to realize how to break the system or who could make enough 'gentlemen's agreements' about list-building to self-police the most degenerative of the nonsense and to settle the rules and interpretation disputes that existed. But it was basically FLUXX levels of balanced.

Believing that it was not problematic prior to the Borg's arrival, or to act like it was fine once they put a max-points cap on ships is putting on some very rosey-colored glasses. I mean, I love Star Trek and Picard as much as anyone, but there was no salvageable game in ST:AW, at least in the first year of its life. I've heard there's a Second Edition still floating around, maybe that's much better. I mean, WizKids, so probably not, but who knows, who cares.

On 3/31/2019 at 10:16 PM, Grumbleduke said:

Morna has 3 blues against a ship, with rerolls; that's better than the front arc of a CR90B.

Morna doesn't have Bomber. Her blue dice only have a damage EV of 0.5. With rerolls that is buffed to 0.75 wich is the same as the ship vs ship blue dice of the CR90B without rerolls. So Morna is not better than the front arc of a CR90B but equal (in pure damage EV) with a damage EV of 2.25.

On 3/31/2019 at 10:16 PM, Grumbleduke said:

Is it the reliable damage output? Maarek has a guaranteed 1 hit per attack

I would go so far as to say for all intents and purposes he has 2 damage per attack. His actual damage EV is 1.9375 (1.984375 with BCC. So don't even bother with BCC). Wich is as close to guaranteed 2 damage as you get.

Thanks for those comments about Scatter, and erm, thanks everyone for the comments to not to try out STAW. (Seriously, this is drifting off topic more than a thread I once put in where we started to discuss catheters instead of Neb B’s LOL).

Personally, I wouldn’t be upset if a Squadron was penalized in some shape or form for having a red Scatter token. Whether it be half dice or just one for Sqn attack. Well, my two pennies worth anyway. ( ducks head below parapet). 😁