1 hour ago, theBitterFig said:

One thing which works out well about an Interceptor is its capacity to go slow when it wants. Strikers can't really slow it down too well.

I also think another thing holding Interceptors back is you can only convert 2 Alphas out of a conversion kit, and interceptors are probably the single most expensive chassis to get conversion components from on the secondary market (~$20 on eBay). Strikers have 3, and have been re-released in 2e.

I have 6 and they're STILL NOT LEGAL! What's the deal, FFG!?

Seriously they wouldn't even be good if they were, I just like the thematics 😛

I've honestly had a pretty good time flying RZ-1s. I don't think they're bad for the cost, they've just been pushed out a bit by the super-efficient beef lists and Leia. With Wedge, named B-Wings and Leia going up in price I wouldn't be surprised if we saw them a bit more frequently as blockers or Jake for extra actions. Snap Shot might also help, when that comes out.

I don’t object that they tried to reign in Rebel beef, but I wish they hadn’t hit is so hard. Rebel beef is the archetype for Rebels. It would be comparable to raising the cost of TIE salad or Howlswarm by 20 points, and Imperials at least have Imperial Aces to fall back on. I’m afraid that Rebels will go back to loser/n00b faction like it was in the first points. And being that terrible should only be reserved for FO! 😛

A-Wing is my favorite Starwars fighter. I love them. And I still use them regularly. Problem is, A-Wings really are bad. It's pretty much an effort of me trying to offset the downsides of A-Wings and bringing them up to the level of doing SOMETHING to affect the game. They can't affect the board enough. They often can't maneuver well enough to compensate for both their squishy toughness and lacking firepower and they aren't cheap enough that you can really run anymore of them compared to other ships. And WHY can't they have a modification slot anymore?

19 hours ago, Darth Meanie said:

This. And having said that:

A lack of Rebel Beef.

Philosophically speaking, this is getting to be a tired response. It is not FFG's job to force people to use different ships by rotating the points schedule. If you don't want to see Rebel Beef, but do want to see A-Wings, take them out, put them on a peg, put them on a table, and voila, problem solved.

It is not the game developer's job to make the options in the game internally competitive enough to make selecting between certain options does not place an objective disadvantage? I hope that is not what you are saying, because that is ridiculous.

Why are we "rotating the points schedule?" Are people calling for that? As far as I know, people are only calling for bad A-Wings to be reduced in cost relative to good A-Wings to reflect the fact that good A-Wings are better and do not pay a sufficient amount for their advantages relative to the bad A-Wing.

I guess I'll be the broken record around here...

I've used prockets extensively in 2e.

The three point chassis difference alone as it stands in July 2019 is enough to make RZ1s the significantly better Procket platform.

Resistance has to pay for that toggle gun, and that means you're hoarding more points on a ship that is still 2H2S behind 3agi.

Feels bad to put prockets on on my RZ2s except in casual.

3 hours ago, Kingsguard said:

A-Wing is my favorite Starwars fighter. I love them. And I still use them regularly. Problem is, A-Wings really are bad. It's pretty much an effort of me trying to offset the downsides of A-Wings and bringing them up to the level of doing SOMETHING to affect the game. They can't affect the board enough. They often can't maneuver well enough to compensate for both their squishy toughness and lacking firepower and they aren't cheap enough that you can really run anymore of them compared to other ships. And WHY can't they have a modification slot anymore?

Definitely feel like Rebel As should get a mod at their current base of 30. It feels like they are paying for it already. Either way, comparing their features to the rebel Z who sits at 23, I think 7 points is maybe a point or two to much tax. 28/29 would be totally safe for Phoenix, and buy them an important Talent to offset their 2Red offense.

10 minutes ago, Bucknife said:

I guess I'll be the broken record around here...

I've used prockets extensively in 2e.

The three point chassis difference alone as it stands in July 2019 is enough to make RZ1s the significantly better Procket platform.

Resistance has to pay for that toggle gun, and that means you're hoarding more points on a ship that is still 2H2S behind 3agi.

Feels bad to put prockets on on my RZ2s except in casual.

"Significantly better?" How, exactly? If you are suggesting that having a slightly cheaper ship with the same single-user shooting capability is better than the slightly more expensive ship in a joust situation, then you are correct. But, there is more to this game than a single joust engagement at turn 3. When the joust ends (which is very easy to control with a ship that can go right, left, or straight and still have shots at whatever it just flew past, as opposed to being limited to red 180 maneuvers), there is no question that the Resistance A-Wings are better and only weak arguments that they pay a sufficient price for being that much better. That single round of reverse shooting after the initial engagement, particularly when your opponent cannot cover all three of your positioning options, alone is worth the 3 additional points that the Resistance A-Wings pay.

21 hours ago, theBitterFig said:

Original brilliant creative design.

Disney's lame copy cause they have no creative mind.

There, fixed it!

Atm Rz-1 costs too much for firepower 2, and if you want a cheap missile platform, a Z-95 is noticeably cheaper, and has the same trash initiative.

Rz-2's have 2 affordable initiative 5 pilots, and are the only cheap option within their faction. Would I use Rz-2's if they did not have I5's and were in the Rebel faction? No I would probably find them overpriced considering I could get an X-wing for a little more.

Despite everything I would probably fly them a little bit as they are one of my favorite ships.

33 minutes ago, Bucknife said:

I guess I'll be the broken record around here...

I've used prockets extensively in 2e.

The three point chassis difference alone as it stands in July 2019 is enough to make RZ1s the significantly better Procket platform.

Resistance has to pay for that toggle gun, and that means you're hoarding more points on a ship that is still 2H2S behind 3agi.

Feels bad to put prockets on on my RZ2s except in casual.

If you are looking at a pure Procket platform, the generic RZ-1s being cheaper does help.

However, that is a single shot, on a generic. The second you look at the named pilots, things completely tilt in favour of the RZ-2. For a single point more than Arvel, the Resistance can get a pilot who is immune to being blocked (Zari Bangel), and at the same cost as Jake you can either get a initiative 4 pilot who can freely rotate their arc after fully executing a manoeuvre (Greer Sonnel) or an I5 pilot who wants to bullseye someone anyway (Tallissan Lintra). Tallissan is much more likely to be able to get that bullseye, sitting at a stronger initiative position than Jake.

2 hours ago, Rapture said:

It is not the game developer's job to make the options in the game internally competitive enough to make selecting between certain options does not place an objective disadvantage? I hope that is not what you are saying, because that is ridiculous.

The game is "internally competitive enough." There are almost 70 ships in the game. If you can't find a handful that allow you to Fly And Win, or a different handful to Fly For Fun, that's on you, not the points assigned to the components.

What is ridiculous is the amount of entitled hyper-perfectionism that is expected from this game.

Quote

Why are we "rotating the points schedule?" Are people calling for that?

Well, in recent weeks there have been the "I Can't Play Because Points Are Changing" thread, the "Scum Is Screwed And Needs New Points" thread, and the "Now I Can't Play My YT-2400 For 6 More Months" thread.

So yeah, the Every 6 Months = Points and Refresh **** show has become an entrenched feature of the game. And it is no longer strictly about balance, It's about killing meta archetypes to force players back to the drawing board. And it is about players refusing to play ships that they have decide have the wrong point value.

And, IMHO, things are even worse than in 1.0. At that time, complaints were about demonstrably underperforming ships in the meta that needed some luv. Now, everybody is an expert on how their favorite ship is off by 1-5 points.

Quote

As far as I know, people are only calling for bad A-Wings to be reduced in cost relative to good A-Wings to reflect the fact that good A-Wings are better and do not pay a sufficient amount for their advantages relative to the bad A-Wing.

As has been pointed out above, they are 2 different ships in 2 different factions. So, you are comparing a citron and a citron vert.

15 minutes ago, drail14me said:

There, fixed it!

Yeah, it does make me sad that FO/Resistance are essentially copies of Empire/Rebels.

I pretty much agree on what have been said, the Rebel A-wing as no niche inside the rebel faction:

- For a blocker you can bring a z-95 for 7 points less o go to a Blue Pathfinder U-wing that can carry a crew, and is medium size base. Also the 5s + boost is not that great for blocking, because if a) you land the block the rest of you squadron is probably R3, so not so great opportunity to do meaningful damage and b) if you miss the block (or the opponent sees it) you have a 4hp ship sitting R1 of the enemy formation.

- It lacks firepower to be an effective flanker. 2 red dice are not gonna hurt to much. The talents are supposed to help compensate for this, but in such a fragile ship you don't want to spend too much on them: Outmaneuver (6), juke (7), Proton rockets (8). Cheaper talents like Crack Shot and Predator require bullseye, that is not easy to land on low I pilots.

- It's a lousy arcdodger (what?): The thinks are fast, but they are not great arcdodgers like the Interceptor o Silencer. First low In, second lacks the option to link barrel roll to mod, so generally even if you dodged the arc (of a lower In ship) you are now with 2 unmodded red dice.

Comparing them with the RZ-2 is very unfair, because the -2 is the only "cheap" ship in the resistance, and Heroic + Advanced Sensors help a lot to mitigate variance and finally the back arc gives them a great uptime on the targets.

i feel the RZ-1 A-Wing is going to get a real nice buff near the end of July with the return of its best pilot "Psycho" Tycho Celchu since we got a big hint that card packs are going to be announced at GenCon

1 hour ago, Darth Meanie said:

The game is "internally competitive enough." There are almost 70 ships in the game. If you can't find a handful that allow you to Fly And Win, or a different handful to Fly For Fun, that's on you, not the points assigned to the components.

What is ridiculous is the amount of entitled hyper-perfectionism that is expected from this game.

What a load of crap. "Hyper-perfectionism? All of the components for this game are marketed and sold as a professionally designed product. Rebel Leia should never have been 2 points and it took every player about 10 minutes to figure out how to abuse her card. Proton Torpedoes were too cheap on high PS pilots and that took about the same amount of time for anyone with a simple grasp of initiative-killing to uncover. Supernatural Reflexes, at its initial pricing, made zero sense in the context of the game involving pilots below PS 5. FFG made some really serious mistakes and will likely continue to do so. I cannot think of any reason why someone who pays to play this game would have any interest in arguing against the rules/costs being tightened to improve the overall balance.

If you think that expecting that each component that the company designs and sells to us, all for uniform prices (based on the size), to have a similar level of utility in the game is "hyper-perfectionism," then I suggest that you begin to hold companies that you purchase products from to a higher standard as it will only improve the product that you receive and the health of any games that you invest in.

1 hour ago, Darth Meanie said:

As has been pointed out above, they are 2 different ships in 2 different factions. So, you are comparing a citron and a citron vert.

Why people have some much trouble with making simple comparisons between these two ships is mind boggling. They are identical bases where one of the two has some easily identifiable changes (movable arcs, and a tech slot traded for an EPT). We are comparing an A-Wing to a better A-Wing. This is not that hard.

Feel free to explain what difference between the Rebels faction and the Resistance faction justifies the designers making one of this ships less efficient, based on their relative costs, than the other. What Faction-specific exploit would become available if the Rebel A-Wing's cost was reduced to match the efficiency of the Resistance's A-Wing?

59 minutes ago, DerRitter said:

Comparing them with the RZ-2 is very unfair, because the -2 is the only "cheap" ship in the resistance, and Heroic + Advanced Sensors help a lot to mitigate variance and finally the back arc gives them a great uptime on the targets.

Why? "Theirs should be better because they need a better ship" is not a good argument. Just because one factions needs an effective ship does not mean that another factions cannot have an equally effective ship. The goal should be to balance the game as a whole. If the Rebel A-Wing suddenly became as efficient as the other ships, it should only become as popular as the other ships, meaning no net change in the overall effectiveness of one faction relevant to the others. If it is not possible for the Rebel A-Wing to be made equally efficient without unbalancing the entire game, then FFG needs to hire some new designers and make some serious changes.

4 minutes ago, Rapture said:

If you think that expecting that each component that the company designs and sells to us, all for uniform prices (based on the size), to have a similar level of utility in the game is "hyper-perfectionism," then I suggest that you begin to hold companies that you purchase products from to a higher standard as it will only improve the product that you receive and the health of any games that you invest in.

And I think that after 5 years of trying to hammer the meta into a glassy surface of perfection players would finally get the hint this isn't possible.

Every stroke leaves a dimple. Enjoy the look of a hammered surface or find a different product.

26 minutes ago, Rapture said:

Why? "Theirs should be better because they need a better ship" is not a good argument. Just because one factions needs an effective ship does not mean that another factions cannot have an equally effective ship. The goal should be to balance the game as a whole. If the Rebel A-Wing suddenly became as efficient as the other ships, it should only become as popular as the other ships, meaning no net change in the overall effectiveness of one faction relevant to the others. If it is not possible for the Rebel A-Wing to be made equally efficient without unbalancing the entire game, then FFG needs to hire some new designers and make some serious changes.

Because both ships have access to different upgrades and wingmen and therefore will perform different. We would see much less Resistance A-wings if there were cheaper filler options or they weren't I5. Also we would probably see more Rebel A-wings if they could access Advance optics.

If you want a pure chassis to chassis comparison, I agree that that the -1 is overpriced, while the -2 is pretty much spot-on (maybe they went too far with Lulo, but that's another topic.

There are no REAL useful EPT cards and that's their niche.

2 hours ago, DerRitter said:

Because both ships have access to different upgrades and wingmen and therefore will perform different. We would see much less Resistance A-wings if there were cheaper filler options or they weren't I5. Also we would probably see more Rebel A-wings if they could access Advance optics.

If you want a pure chassis to chassis comparison, I agree that that the -1 is overpriced, while the -2 is pretty much spot-on (maybe they went too far with Lulo, but that's another topic.

You are correct that they have access to different options and can, based on what else is in a list, perform differently. I am not aware of anyone suggesting otherwise. I fail to see what that has to do with the fact that the Resistance A-Wings will consistently outperform the Rebel A-Wings.

I do not want a pure chassis to chassis options, but that is what we are doing because the reality of the situation is that generic Rebel A-Wings and Resistance A-Wings have identical roles. With respect to names pilots, the differences in higher PSs on the Resistance side and Jake's support ability on the Rebel side sets them apart, but that has nothing to do with the underlying deficiency in the efficiency between the two ships.

My point is that one is more efficient than the other based on their current costs. I believe that you are arguing that this must be so because the ships having the same efficiency would break the game based on faction-specific interactions. For the Rebels, what potential interactions caused you to reach this conclusion?

2 hours ago, Darth Meanie said:

And I think that after 5 years of trying to hammer the meta into a glassy surface of perfection players would finally get the hint this isn't possible.

Every stroke leaves a dimple. Enjoy the look of a hammered surface or find a different product.

Perfection might not be possible, but we are not hear talking about perfections. We are talking about glaringly obvious differences in the efficiency of two very similar ships. You are pretending that FFG is walking this razor's edge where the game is currently fine-tuned to the best possible state. That is so far from reality that I literally can't fathom why you are so against people asking for improvements. Do you think that M3-As are appropriately costed? How much energy could it possibly take for someone at FFG to realize that their lack of efficiency is the reason that they are so rare and make an appropriate adjustment? If you think that they would blow up the entire game by doing so, then you are admitting to their incompetence.

I won't suggest that game design is some simple task, but these people are being paid to do it and the people who purchase their products have every right to complain when obvious problems are not remedied.

phoenix squad pilot with squad leader - 30pts

I took Arvel to the Atlanta Open top 8. Jake is also fine. People are sheep and got stuck on Cass, Wedge, Braylen, and Ten. The faction still has plenty of options.

4 hours ago, Rapture said:

What a load of crap. "Hyper-perfectionism? All of the components for this game are marketed and sold as a professionally designed product. Rebel Leia should never have been 2 points and it took every player about 10 minutes to figure out how to abuse her card. Proton Torpedoes were too cheap on high PS pilots and that took about the same amount of time for anyone with a simple grasp of initiative-killing to uncover. Supernatural Reflexes, at its initial pricing, made zero sense in the context of the game involving pilots below PS 5. FFG made some really serious mistakes and will likely continue to do so. I cannot think of any reason why someone who pays to play this game would have any interest in arguing against the rules/costs being tightened to improve the overall balance.

If you think that expecting that each component that the company designs and sells to us, all for uniform prices (based on the size), to have a similar level of utility in the game is "hyper-perfectionism," then I suggest that you begin to hold companies that you purchase products from to a higher standard as it will only improve the product that you receive and the health of any games that you invest in.

FFG has no interest in making a perfectly balanced game. As soon as its balanced, the meta becomes solved and it stagnates. Yes, I would like to believe that it would keep changing and evolving, but the community has pretty well demonstrated it isn't going to happen. Winning squads get flown more. Sure, the meta can adapt if it's very close to balanced, but eventually players would tire and move on to the next game.

To my knowledge, the developers have never referred to these "points updates" as "points rebalances." They are changes that are meant to make less-played things get played more. Many players find excitement in figuring out (or even instigating) the new meta. The points updates are for them. THE GAME IS NEVER GOING TO BE PERFECTLY BALANCED!

But thank goodness we're at 200 points so we can have more granularity, because that allows us to be much closer to balanced than first edition, imo.

On the topic of A-wings, I want to add that my favorite way to use them is Phoenix Sq. Pilots loaded with Concussion Missiles flying alongside Bodhi Rook. One bold ship flies into range, ideally on a flank, then the rest grab locks and have fully-modded missile attacks on the engage. That's the idea, anyway. Usually what happens is the lead A-wing blocks the enemy squadron, and the rear contingent of A-wings shoot missiles at whatever they can reach. I haven't perfected how to fly this list, but it turns out that 3 charges to give A-wings 3 attack dice is pretty handy. And when they can lock from safely out of range, it makes life easier. And if they can shoot the blocked ship that has -1 defense die, things can get serious.

Here's an example of this archetype, but there are a lot of ways to tweak it.

Phoenix Squadron Pilot (30)
Intimidation (3)

Phoenix Squadron Pilot (30)
Crack Shot (1)
Concussion Missiles (6)

Phoenix Squadron Pilot (30)
Crack Shot (1)
Concussion Missiles (6)

Bodhi Rook (49)
Jyn Erso (2)
Perceptive Copilot (8)
Pivot Wing (0)

Lieutenant Blount (30)
Crack Shot (1)

Total: 197

View in Yet Another Squad Builder 2.0: https://raithos.github.io/?f=Rebel Alliance&d=v7!s=200!53:122,;53:116,99;53:116,99;31:,,40,54,,140;55:116,,&sn=Unnamed Squadron&obs=

3 hours ago, Parakitor said:

FFG has no interest in making a perfectly balanced game. As soon as its balanced, the meta becomes solved and it stagnates. Yes, I would like to believe that it would keep changing and evolving, but the community has pretty well demonstrated it isn't going to happen. Winning squads get flown more. Sure, the meta can adapt if it's very close to balanced, but eventually players would tire and move on to the next game.

To my knowledge, the developers have never referred to these "points updates" as "points rebalances." They are changes that are meant to make less-played things get played more. Many players find excitement in figuring out (or even instigating) the new meta. The points updates are for them. THE GAME IS NEVER GOING TO BE PERFECTLY BALANCED!

But thank goodness we're at 200 points so we can have more granularity, because that allows us to be much closer to balanced than first edition, imo.

Balance has literally nothing to do with promoting stagnation. On the contrary, the only things that prevent long-term stagnation are change and perfection. Change is a simple concept, and, when forcing new product down players' throats, is good for the bottom line, so I will not bother explaining how it can benefit a game. Perfection in the form of balance is the enemy of stagnation because it allows players to utilize any option starting with the same likelihood of success as their opponent. In a game where B-Wings and Han dominate, that is not the case and players trying to win will move, typically all in the same direction, toward those dominant ships. In a perfectly balanced game, people would simply choose what they like or what is interesting. Stagnation is playing Rebel Beef for six months in a row. Playing against two v1s and two Aggressors one game and then a swarm of M3-As in the next game (because people would be able to take those ships while still feeling like they are on equal footing) is not stagnation.

If you think that the only thing that would promote players trying new and interesting things with the collection of ships and cards that many already own is a rotating system of making ships obsolete, the that only a symptom of the game being imbalanced. Some players would stick with the same lists over and over again, but many are dying to try new things. By that, I do not mean sitting down for ten minutes and figuring out that Braylen Stramm is better strictly by the numbers alone, but trying new combinations that have new strategies and tactics. That is what better balance would allow for.

Everyone knows that THE GAME IS NEVER GOING TO BE PERFECTLY BALANCED, and your use of capital letters undoubtedly educated anyone who did not. However, what does that have to do with asking that using M3-As and Rebel A-Wings not require starting the game with a blatant disadvantage? If we can not have a perfect game, why are people using that as an argument against a less imperfect game?

4 hours ago, Rapture said:

You are pretending that FFG is walking this razor's edge where the game is currently fine-tuned to the best possible state.

I won't suggest that game design is some simple task, but these people are being paid to do it and the people who purchase their products have every right to complain when obvious problems are not remedied.

No, that is exactly the opposite of what I'm saying.

XWM "design and balance" is a game of Whack-A-Mole in which the devs only ever give any attention to the meta-mole that's sticking up too far.

Game design adds more moles, then 6 months later they whack the outliers.

Somehow, you think it's going to get sexier than that. It's not.

You want the A-wing to get sum luv? Make it into a meta PIA. Otherwise, there are 700 other moles vying for attention.