54 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

But then, what replaces it? Something is going to be the best, we just hope it’s by inches and not by miles. And while there is definitely more work to be done on the archetype, I see absolutely no reason why it should be specifically not allowed to hold that spot as long as it’s there by inches.

This is a really good summary of what I always strive for, and one I think most people can come together to agree with: inches not miles. Something shouldn't be thrown from the meta to the gutters for being good or popular, but there shouldn't be a brutal disparity between it and most of what's below. Nor should its presence displace too many interesting lists, nor create an NPE. I'll formalize it:

1. Is this dominant by inches, or by miles?
2. Is its current presence healthy for the game's ecosystem, or does it seriously harm variety by displacing other viable lists?
3. Is its presence an NPE (e.g. triple upsilon) and/or a serious problem for getting new blood into the game?

There will always be junk lists in a game this complex, that cannot be avoided and basic list building is a skill that's learned and taught. But when lots of non-junk lists just aren't viable because one archetype (beef, triple aces, swarms, etc) just eats them alive, that's at least worth inspection, perhaps action. I'd like to this this is a healthy part of FFG's strategy in deciding where to make adjustments. That and avoiding overt Negative Play Experiences that actively break the way the game is meant to be played and/or drive people out, hence their swift action against triple upsilons, and the rules against slow play and fortressing. IMO that should apply to slow-play cagey aces, but that's a lot harder to nail down in rules, and also a different discussion.

My problem with a lot of these discussions is when anything that can't beat the top meta is labeled a junk list by virtue of struggling against the dominant lists . In reality the goal is for the disparity to not be so high that a reasonably-designed list stands little or no chance against it. That's the goal: most stuff is at least viable and fun to fly, even if there's always going to be a "cream of the crop" top meta that consistently shows up in tournaments.

Second edition has done a great job of this so far. And there's room to improve. IMO top aces do throw a lot of otherwise viable lists out of viability just like a dominant beef, bomb, or swarm list can, and there's a ton more variety at casual night when the dominant lists aren't ruling the roost. Dabbling in drawing that variety closer to the top is always the goal, but whether that's achievable and how we get there? The mind reels.

But I've been told many times "if your list can't beat aces consistently, it's junk". That loudly calls to the core of this discussion. I have a lot of lists that do really well - or at least hold their own - against all the other archetypes I face, but that aces eat alive. Sometimes the list is just flawed -- I liked the discussion above about some lists being too specialized and becoming instant prey to their natural counters. But other times I wonder if the Ace Displacement Effect is as healthy or innocuous as people make it out to be, and whether that warrants the adjustments we've seen in response to, say, rebel beef, tractor & ion shenanigans, quad phantoms, and so on.

IMO Boom Owl's proposed changes are too extreme, I think we've established that rather solidly. I've had enough time to examine and think about it and haven't seen enough evidence to convince me that aces should just be priced super high; I'll see if FFG agrees in future points updates and leave it at that. But I am totally in favor of FFG making some adjustments to aces like they recently did in hyperspace to explore making, say, regen delta-7 jedi and afterburner vader, less dominant and seeing where that puts the meta. Is the new boss (often, swarms or boba) better overall for the meta? Worse? Business as usual? And how should we adjust from there?

It's too bad we haven't had a lot of tournaments due to unpredictable circumstances, but given time we will.

10 minutes ago, dezzmont said:

I too, find Kylo, Vonreg and Quickdraw fun. I think those are 'good' old honest aces: Terrifying, but when you have a good turn against them you feel it in your body, in your soul.

BTW Vonreg is one of my favorite pilots and I love flying him; Kylo and Quickdraw are good too, and they make a solid and interesting list. But I stopped using Delta-7s when they became oppressive because, at the level I prefer to play, they were nothing but oppressive. I got really sick of the tournament players wanting to use me as practice... here I am flying Wullffwarro and Jan Ors etc against a top-meta list and a hard counter to mine. I stopped accepting games from them, and because the people in my area are really cool, nobody had a problem with that and I just played against others who weren't flying top meta while the tournament-practicing players played against each other. Again, casual night is where it's at, but that sort of "gentleman's agreement" is always hard to negotiate (what's not allowed? where's the line? most players can work it out, but sometimes it's hard), and it shouldn't be quite so necessary in the first place. As said above, Regen Jedi wasn't a fun experience and got nerfed for good reason. So I think those sorts of adjustments are very welcome.

(Double post because of weird load problem)

44 minutes ago, Cpt ObVus said:

I guess my question is: what’s dominating right now that feels so invincible? When you make lists, what makes you throw out most of them, because “it’ll never beat X?” And more importantly: do we have tournament data to back that up, or does this circle back to maybe needing more practice with or against X, or perhaps just accepting that minor points tweaks will help the meta rotate at a measured rate over time?

We have good data (and evil lore!) that Bobba is overpreforming as multiple top tier lists feature him exploiting the bid system to effectively make more than half your points in a game un-scoreable. But I think the tournament aspect of Bobba isn't the really terrible part about his design. It is how oppressive he is in casual/low level play, your FLGS tournaments where he just kills the fun. Even ignoring his status as an ace, a 2 dice single modded ship literally needs to attack him 44 times to get a kill on average, with 3 dice single mods needing to do it 13 times, which is just way too much. It doesn't matter if the list is 'fair' at a tournament level, you don't want a game design where someone can be trying really hard and putting in a lot of effort and they just can't do anything because half the time Bobba is out of arc of most of the list and even if he was in theory in arc your 4 piddly little mid tier pilot ships will take 3 entire turns of total list uptime to kill him while he is popping one of you a turn.

I have literally said, out loud when trying to do some uhh... 'creative list building' (read: Make garbage but fun jank) 'well I can't do this because if there is a Bobba I will literally lose doing no damage.'

Good examples include an APT control list (Control isn't about ions, its about telling your opponent 'you can do anything you want but X. If you do X I will kill you and swing the game by some odd 60 points in my favor' be it flying too close at rear arc or getting your ace within range 1 of any of my ships at front arc) and a memy attempt to finally make A-wings A Thing with Snapshot Juke (yes, it was dumb but I didn't expect it to be so dumb that vs "dura aces" my opponent literally wouldn't CARE about the snap shot arc and just casually trigger 3 snap shots every turn and take 0 damage over the entire game from it), both of which were fun but vs Bobba made me actually dislike playing so much I swapped lists mid night and delayed my next round. I get these aren't tournament lists, but this is why I agree so hard with 'winning by inches, not a mile.' I expect these lists to lose, and a 'good' jank list exists to take surprise, creative wins, and lose in a fun way.

Losing vs Bobba is almost NEVER fun. It is always an experience of him just grinding you away, running away, and you spending turn after turn working excruciatingly hard to set something up on him and then him casually doing a double modded defense and nothing happening and also manages to blow up a ship every turn or every other turn of engagement. It just... feels awful. Feels really bad man. I don't wanna keep playing when I lose a single ship vs Bobba early because suddenly its 3v2 rather than 4v2 and I sincerely don't have a chance, but don't want to be a jerk scooping 10 minutes into the game. It just puts you in the worst position a tabletop game can put you in where your just spending an hour losing and not even doing anything.

41 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

Some interesting points, but I still don’t really see a case against the existence Triple Ace lists. There are a fair number of “mono” style lists, including Swarms, varieties of beef, and alpha strike. I must admit, I don’t see the way lists are built in X-Wing as “only green” in MTG terms. Different archetypes (like aces, swarms, alpha strike) are different “colors“ to me, and the elements you say aren’t there are just other colors or color combos that aren’t in style. I do think some should be brought back in, (through control is always a problematic thing to balance) but I have yet to see why that means other archetypes should face the same fate of “obscurity”.

I understand your interest in theorizing and your problem with the archetype, but I still don’t see why that archetype must not be allowed in the top tier.

I think I may have not been clear when I said "I imagine the game where you can't run Tri Aces and it seems like it would be a better game."

I think it is a better game mostly because it removes a lot of the core system flaws tri-aces creates (Having initiative matters less when you know your I6 is going to out initiative 3/4 ships if you have to run Duo aces with 2 low initiative ships, having 3-4 initiative isn't a pointless tax on a ship because its worthless in almost every matchup because mixed initiative lists where you beat the lows but lose to the highs are rare, more diverse ship abilities, ect) rather than because tri-aces are, themselves, a bad archetype.

The other thing is solves is that aces vs aces becomes way less janky and unfun, because now your I5, in a world where you almost always run 4 ships, is beating 2 of your opponent's ships in initiative, and your I6 is beating 3, rather than your I6 beating 2 and your I5s being robbed of the ace status they were costed at.

There are other solutions to both of these problems, but its hard to fix both with tri aces not just being viable. Changes to the initiative rules that make initiative pass (hopefully not on a turn by turn basis) and that make bids part of a points fortress are easy. It is, however, harder to make the cost of I3s and I4s relevant if tri-aces HAS to be a viable top tier list.

That said, if I had to choose between Tri Aces existing and not just by their points being raised and aces being gutted, I obviously want Tri-aces to still exist. Heck even in a game where tri-aces were deliberately made non-meta by making the advantage of mixing initiative really high I would still want them to be a nice solid B tier list.

They are actually probably my favorite archetype to fight in the current meta (besides ace+mini swarm) because when you lose to them it doesn't feel like you lost because 'screw you my ships had more math than your dumb ships' so much as because you got out-flown, and, again, when you get a good turn vs aces you REALLY get a good turn and that payoff makes the NPE an ace list can cause very VERY worth it. There isn't much better in the game than catching Vader with his pants down after he took out one of your x-Wings and halved another and flipping the game back around in your favor in a single turn of fire after getting your butt kicked for a few turns!

I don't think aces ARE NPE mind, people overuse NPE. NPE is a mandatory cost of all competitive games, you just want negative experiences to add to the emotional ups and downs rather than purely being a down, and most 'honest' aces that aren't running extreme durability options like regen or insane passive modding+large health pools+arc dodging do this very well. The pain of being in the disadvantaged position in the game should break to a high where you gain control back (in theory), and the worst thing a list can do is make winning against it not fun as well as losing!

1 hour ago, Stay OT Leader said:

Heil Hitler!

Obviously.

1 hour ago, Stay OT Leader said:

They had some good ideas, ok?

Yeah, that **** was never funny, but in a time when white nationalist violence has been on the rise? Definitely uncool. I know there's ironic intent behind it, but learn how to read a room.

Something else good to learn? How to just roll your eyes at threads you think are silly, and move on. Seems better than continually re-engaging and ramping up the ***hole each time, since that's kinda all I've seen you do these past few months. Stay-At-Home can be a bit of a buzzkill, but c'mon.

Thing is, you seem to have once had some understanding of this. That leaning into the heel, deliberately being a jerk, just doesn't work.

http://stayontheleader.blogspot.com/2019/10/return-of-jedi.html

Now that the discussion has become interesting (again), I'll join in:

Many good points have been made already; some I agree with and some I disagree with.

The big issue for me is the passive mods of some Aces and also quite a few non-Aces.

Things that shouldn't exist, in my opinion, are abilities that work without any counter to them: most force charges; Aethersprites ship abilities except for those pilots with only one force charge; Soontir getting his focus even when blocked; Boba and Han getting rerolls with no limit - give them a single charge per turn and they become much more balanced or give them a finite number of charges with no way to get more; etc.

The reason why Poe feels 'bad' as an ace, is because he loses all his mods and repositioning if he's blocked: counter-play negates him, and any list can do that if you fly well. (This also applies to Fenn Rau most of the time (despite Concord Dawn also being a passive mod), or catch him at range 2 or even 3.) Block Boba, and he's actually safer than if you didn't block him half of the time!

It's not the cost of the ship/pilot, or whether they are 'Aces' or 'normal pilots' - it's the passive mods/actions/repositions (Sun Fac with Ensnare) they still get if you do out-fly them.

I don't personally find Boba an NPE in the games I've played against him (I met him twice at the System Open with my jank (Dengar, Fenn, 2 Ion Scyks) and just killed his partner to win on points), but I did spend some time thinking about why he isn't oppressively dominant in Extended. I decided that his natural predator was Wedge, who is absent from HS. Boba dies quite quickly if he doesn't get his green dice to reroll and almost every Rebel list had Wedge in.

On the other hand, Wedge isn't a big threat to Aethersprites since they can avoid his firing arc relatively easily.
Vader can be a beast in Extended, but is pretty weak for his points in HS - losing access to his Afterburners weakens him considerably and he is far easier to catch in multiple firing arcs and earn lots of points.

In conclusion, I'd like to see changes to the passive mods rather than points changes! Make in-game counter play be worth while more often.

One of my friends likes flying Whisper and was pretty happy to see her go up in points because then she allows him to win on points easier. (This is my biggest peeve about bids, by the way - those points can't be won unless you wipe out the opponent's entire list.)

1 hour ago, theBitterFig said:

Thing is, you seem to have once had some understanding of this. That leaning into the heel, deliberately being a jerk, just doesn't work.

http://stayontheleader.blogspot.com/2019/10/return-of-jedi.html

I gave him a full reset when he posted that blog. I never believed that he deliberately created a character, that struck me as a cop out, but I believed that he realized he was burning more bridges than he was building, so I gave him the benefit of the doubt. Then he started doing it again. 😞

1 hour ago, dezzmont said:

I think I may have not been clear when I said "I imagine the game where you can't run Tri Aces and it seems like it would be a better game."

I think it is a better game mostly because it removes a lot of the core system flaws tri-aces creates (Having initiative matters less when you know your I6 is going to out initiative 3/4 ships if you have to run Duo aces with 2 low initiative ships, having 3-4 initiative isn't a pointless tax on a ship because its worthless in almost every matchup because mixed initiative lists where you beat the lows but lose to the highs are rare, more diverse ship abilities, ect) rather than because tri-aces are, themselves, a bad archetype.

The other thing is solves is that aces vs aces becomes way less janky and unfun, because now your I5, in a world where you almost always run 4 ships, is beating 2 of your opponent's ships in initiative, and your I6 is beating 3, rather than your I6 beating 2 and your I5s being robbed of the ace status they were costed at.

There are other solutions to both of these problems, but its hard to fix both with tri aces not just being viable. Changes to the initiative rules that make initiative pass (hopefully not on a turn by turn basis) and that make bids part of a points fortress are easy. It is, however, harder to make the cost of I3s and I4s relevant if tri-aces HAS to be a viable top tier list.

That said, if I had to choose between Tri Aces existing and not just by their points being raised and aces being gutted, I obviously want Tri-aces to still exist. Heck even in a game where tri-aces were deliberately made non-meta by making the advantage of mixing initiative really high I would still want them to be a nice solid B tier list.

They are actually probably my favorite archetype to fight in the current meta (besides ace+mini swarm) because when you lose to them it doesn't feel like you lost because 'screw you my ships had more math than your dumb ships' so much as because you got out-flown, and, again, when you get a good turn vs aces you REALLY get a good turn and that payoff makes the NPE an ace list can cause very VERY worth it. There isn't much better in the game than catching Vader with his pants down after he took out one of your x-Wings and halved another and flipping the game back around in your favor in a single turn of fire after getting your butt kicked for a few turns!

I don't think aces ARE NPE mind, people overuse NPE. NPE is a mandatory cost of all competitive games, you just want negative experiences to add to the emotional ups and downs rather than purely being a down, and most 'honest' aces that aren't running extreme durability options like regen or insane passive modding+large health pools+arc dodging do this very well. The pain of being in the disadvantaged position in the game should break to a high where you gain control back (in theory), and the worst thing a list can do is make winning against it not fun as well as losing!

Ah, thank you for the clarification. That makes more sense to me. I’ve seen talk about Initiative in all its forms discussed pretty much since I started playing X-Wing. It’s a knotty problem and like many such problems, the answer lies not in the symptoms (like you see in triple aces), but in address the root. I guess I’ve seen too many people make suggests that deal too harshly with a symptom of their problem while not actually getting what they say they want.

I'm pretty sure Boba is in the next update for the reasons listed above. Other aces, maybe, but they haven't made the same splash.

1 hour ago, Gilarius said:

I decided that his natural predator was Wedge, who is absent from HS. Boba dies quite quickly if he doesn't get his green dice to reroll and almost every Rebel list had Wedge in.

Good insight. This is one of those interesting unintended consequences when you remove or adjust something, and it's a good micro-study of what we could expect if aces as a whole were over-nerfed. It wouldn't be that aces themselves become less playable (they'd hopefully find some role or other), it's who would rise in their absence that keeps the devs up at night.

7 minutes ago, gennataos said:

I gave him a full reset when he posted that blog. I never believed that he deliberately created a character, that struck me as a cop out, but I believed that he realized he was burning more bridges than he was building, so I gave him the benefit of the doubt. Then he started doing it again. 😞

If it helps, in person he's much, much nicer. Very clever, a superb analyst of the game and list-builder, writes one of the best blogs around, etc. Gave me a hiding in the only game I've played against him, but was polite and respectful of my limitations as an opponent.

But he also holds himself to some unreasonable standards - eg he'll drop from a tournament just because he flew badly for a game and seems unable to play 'for fun'; and backs himself into a corner he probably doesn't want to be in on this forum making odd statements that (I hope) he doesn't actually believe in.

1 hour ago, theBitterFig said:

Something else good to learn? How to just roll your eyes at threads you think are silly, and move on.

That was such an important lesson to learn. I still post way too often, but you can not imagine how often I delete a written reply... One safety mechanism for me was to log out. Increases the barrier. I guess fishing for the next ban is a slightly more extreme version of the same idea...

8 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

I guess fishing for the next ban is a slightly more extreme version of the same idea...

But what if there's no one around to ban you!

9 minutes ago, Gilarius said:

If it helps, in person he's much, much nicer. Very clever, a superb analyst of the game and list-builder, writes one of the best blogs around, etc. Gave me a hiding in the only game I've played against him, but was polite and respectful of my limitations as an opponent.

I'm not sure if it helps, but I figured that was the case.

20 minutes ago, Gilarius said:

If it helps, in person he's much, much nicer. Very clever, a superb analyst of the game and list-builder, writes one of the best blogs around, etc. Gave me a hiding in the only game I've played against him, but was polite and respectful of my limitations as an opponent.

But he also holds himself to some unreasonable standards - eg he'll drop from a tournament just because he flew badly for a game and seems unable to play 'for fun'; and backs himself into a corner he probably doesn't want to be in on this forum making odd statements that (I hope) he doesn't actually believe in.

It's good to know he's a better person in-person. That might just be the charismatic face he wears in public that hides a meaner side (I've learned that one about people the hard way a few times), but it's also just likely the gloves just come off in the forums format because of how disconnected forums are from the face-to-face conversation humans are built for.

But I'll never buy for an instant that he deliberately created a character he plays in the forum, nor that that would make any of this okay. That's absolutely a not-so-clever smokescreen for when his real personality doesn't behave so well and he wants to save face. It's far better to just disengage, walk away. Getting abusive, coming out the door with your fists out over basically nothing, praising nazis even ironically... no. Just no. Never.

Wearing a Nixon mask while robbing a bank and gunning down the guards doesn't turn what you're doing into a clever comment on society or an ironic exchange. No matter how expertly you roll your eyes as you shoot a guard to death and posture about how you're doing it ironically to make a statement, you're still committing murder and robbery. The thin veneer of irony or avant-garde matters nothing.

Likewise curb-stomping people in the forums repeatedly, maliciously, and frankly unprovoked doesn't become acceptable because you roll your eyes and say "it's an act you guys, I'm playing a character". No you're not, and no amount of irony makes it okay. We expect, and require, better.

And the forums are such a better place when we don't accept toxicity or excuses for it. We've had a much better discussion since he stopped posting, and that says a lot. And that said, I'm happy leaving this as the end to this part of the discussion. I'm enjoying reading what people have been posting here on-topic. This is a fantastic conversation, perhaps especially when I don't immediately agree, and props to y'all for being cool about disagreeing and hearing each other out.

5 hours ago, gennataos said:

I...don't know what else to say. People can choose to believe me, believe I know what I'm talking about, or not.

I see things have.... moved on.... I dare not look. But for the record, my variance/match up thoughts were pure curiosity and general ponder, rather than comment on your particular game.

I'm a believer.

Ok.

Wow.

Um....

Yeah.

So.

Balancing the aces we currently have is sort of not far off doable and probably fine if you like that sort of thing.

Making them more fun is a thing. Because there's enough that do not like.

Keeping them balanced, rather than just screwed is tricky. Unless you think screw them.

Where you set the bar on those things is variable.

And balance is subjective too.

Just now, Cuz05 said:

So.

Balancing the aces we currently have is sort of not far off doable and probably fine if you like that sort of thing.

Making them more fun is a thing. Because there's enough that do not like.

Keeping them balanced, rather than just screwed is tricky. Unless you think screw them.

Where you set the bar on those things is variable.

And balance is subjective too.

Yea, and aces are usually a lot of fun... I really want to avoid changes that condemn them to "not fun" territory. I play a lot of scum and I've been down that road in a lot of my silly fleets.

At least, aces are fun when not deliberately slow-played. But that's kind of a given.

So strongly agreed, aces should remain fun unless there's no way to reconcile them with the rest of the meta (which I doubt is the case in 2.0; maybe if we were still in first edition). Any nerfs they endure have to keep that in mind. I'd like to think Boba will still be a blast to play even after he's (likely) reigned in with the next points/errata update. It'll just be more fun to play against him when FFG adjusts his points and/or erratas stress back into Slave 1, etc.

Let me break some things down on my perspective now that the troll is gone.

Time to ramble...

When I look at the list builder for Aces specifically this is what I see:

Empire:

• Vader (Burners) + Whisper + GI = 18
• Vader (Burners) + Soontir + GI = 22
• Vader (Burners) + Soontir + Duchess (Bro) = 21
• Soontir + Duchess (Bro) + GI = 42
• Soontir + Whisper (Bro) + GI = 27
• Soontir + GI + Rex = 14
• Soontir + Whisper (Bro) + Redline (Passive Torps) = 11
• Soontir + Vader (Burners) + Redline (Passive Torps) = 6
• Trails off into various combinations with i4s, support ships, or generics
• Most (not all) of the above has very similar matchups against Beef/Swarms even if they are not the ideal version Vader Whisper GI.

Republic:

• Ani (7b) + Obi Plo = 26
• Obi (7b) + Plo (7b) + Ric = 28
• Obi (7b) + Plo (7b) + Mace (7b) = 7
• Trails off into various combinations with i4s, support ships, or two generics

Scum:

• Boba ( Maul S1 ) + Fenn (Fear) = 31
• Boba ( Maul S1 ) + Guri (AS) = 28
• Trails off into dwym territory with whatever deadweight Boba decides to carry around

Resistance:

• Poe (BB8 Primed B1) + Zizi (Optics) + Kaz (R5) = 24
• Poe (BB8 Primed B1) + Zizi (Optics) + Nien = 13
• Poe Rey = 40
• Trails off into 3-5 ship combinations with Poe or BB8 Leia Cova stuff

First Order:

• Kylo + Holo (PT PA) + Vonreg (DD) = 4
• Kylo + Holo (PT PA) + Quickdraw (Burners Fanatical Gunner) = 0
• Kylo + Tavson (Biohex) + Holo (PT) = 4
• Trails off into 3-4 ship combinations with Kylo or Holo + 4-5.

Havent listed Rebels and CIS because for the most part FFG has done a fantastic job on Rebel Ace prices, and CIS is its own beast with the unpriceable Ensnare.

End of the day Empire, Republic, and Scum(thanks to Boba) can essentially put "3" better Poes in a list with solid bids even after adding jousting/premovement/mobility toys. Thats what I think needs to change and has never at any point changed since 2.0 was released.

I want ALL Ace lists to be expensive enough to force players to make the following compromises during list building:

• Make their 3rd ship an i4
• Make their 2nd and 3rd ships more ships.
• Make their 3 Ship i5/i6 list select 1 or 0 upgrades to fit within 200 pts

This does not mean Aces become unplayable against Beef/Swarms. This also doesnt mean Trip Aces go away either, all they would lose is some of their ability to init kill joust.

The only thing that I am genuinely and honestly not sure on is if more expensive Aces would drive people towards 2 Ship Premovement Aces, an archetype that historically been very effective and kinda easy against various Swarms and Beef. Ultimately though that comes down to how cheap Pre-Movement cards are which as a general rule need to be around 20-30 pt upgrades to avoid the worst case 2 ship pre-movement nightmare meta from reforming.

Nothing I have suggested in this thread or elsewhere (besides the Hux Force Awakens Quote) would price any Aces to a point that they would be fully unplayable. I "might" be able to be convinced that at 69 pts players would immediately gravitate to less fragile force user equivalents than Soontir but id wager if that happens somethings probably priced wrong for the Force Ace we are being allowed to choose instead.

I think we can all agree that Soontir is at least in the same category of mostly reasonably designed aces like Poe and Fenn. At a price of 69 Soontir is costed in relation to Poe. He would become a Poe, and every other Ace could warp around him as an additional line in the sand on Ace costs. If 69 is a bit high, thats fine, the precision of this is absolutely not the point. The gameplay and archetype direction is the point. Force the meta to warp around higher ace costs for the first time in 2.0's two year history. Thats never happened. No one here knows what that game would look like because its never been allowed to exist outside of glimpses of things that have developed via bans in hyperspace chaos.

Those glimpses tell us that 2 ship premovement token stacked aces can be a problem when a good swarm exists and trip ace lists are less accessible to keep both in check. That doesnt mean Aces have to have 3 i5+ to function or that they are necessary for balance. It means Supernatural, Inertial Dampeners, Precog, Slave 1, and Passive Sensors are very dumb cards. And that Boba is still to cheap.

Increase Ace costs enough to chew up some of their upgrade access if they want to keep their preferred high init wingmates.

I have typed words.

57 minutes ago, Boom Owl said:

the precision of this is absolutely not the point.

Which is precisely why I’m not on board with your plan. I’m not interested in a game that is further broken because of ham handed tactics, especially since not everyone has the same problem as you.

I think the main problem here is that X-Wing doesn't have force limits. What I'm hearing from Boom Owl (in part) is that it feels wrong to be allowed to have three Poes in a list, which I totally agree with.

It's probably unfixable now but for third edition I'd like ships to have unit types and have lists not allow more than a particular number of each unit type

15 minutes ago, Kyle Ren said:

I think the main problem here is that X-Wing doesn't have force limits. What I'm hearing from Boom Owl (in part) is that it feels wrong to be allowed to have three Poes in a list, which I totally agree with.

It's probably unfixable now but for third edition I'd like ships to have unit types and have lists not allow more than a particular number of each unit type

I have to say, with very little experience in legion the one part I really enjoy is being forced to bring at least 3 generic mook squads in every squad, I wouldn't hate a modified rule where each faction had to spend X points on A,B, or C ships/upgrades on them.then just update the squad builders to flag which pilots/chassis fit that descriptor and you're good to go.

1 hour ago, Nyxen said:

I have to say, with very little experience in legion the one part I really enjoy is being forced to bring at least 3 generic mook squads in every squad, I wouldn't hate a modified rule where each faction had to spend X points on A,B, or C ships/upgrades on them.then just update the squad builders to flag which pilots/chassis fit that descriptor and you're good to go.

I think required spending is less efficient for fixing the solution than free points on upgrades for under-preforming ships (that also don't increase their reward for destruction) either in your list as a whole or on the specific ship. A-wings, Scum Falc, the K-wing, E-wing, and the YV-666 come to mind as ships that really could use something to encourage you to take them other than more points discounts, as free upgrades don't change critical ship breakpoints but instead just give the ship more utility than printed on the card as a sneaky ghost buff. If the upgrades goes onto the specific ship, that encourages ships like the E Wing or K-wing that have anti-synergistic abilities or need a ton of upgrades to get value respectively, without changing the breakpoint of the ship and allowing an extra ship into the list. If it could go to anything, that encourages your aces to have some low initiative pilots that serve as weakpoints for mid tier initiative pilots to hit, and makes it so the ace player still has to plan SOME ships ahead of time vs most lists. Taking your 'corps choice' isn't mandatory, but if having 2 'corps ships' gave your aces a few upgrade points to spend suddenly your really tempted to drop one ace for two more ships and get your passive sensors or whatever as a freebie.

Force org charts make sense in 40k or legion where you are buying a ton of units and you want to force people to take both specialist and generalist choices rather than all troops or heavy support or whatever: The game is better for you needing an HQ in 40k despite HQs not being points efficient, because it allows those individual characters to exist and compete with each other but not with you deciding to ditch them and take a tactical marine squad with plasma guns again or whatever. I am not sure that it would work in X-wing super well unless it was on a per-faction basis (ex: For seps to run droids they NEED a tactical relay ship. You need to maintain a ratio of enlisted to officers in Imp). But that would still stifle list creativity more than it helps and would require a total redesign of every faction.

Brain fart.

4 hours ago, SabineKey said:

Which is precisely why I’m not on board with your plan. I’m not interested in a game that is further broken because of ham handed tactics, especially since not everyone has the same problem as you.

I guess I included that comment as a way to admit to folks like yourself that I am not sure how high the aces should be increased? I know its higher but how much is something everyone would have to weigh in on to make sense of probably. I am not claiming to know the exact right increase, just suggesting a direction.

The plan is moar but how much moar is super worth defining. Zero Increases seems wrong, minor increases seem unlikely to have a legit impact.

The fact is I dont really have a problem playing against aces. Thats not at all what has motivated my opinion. This isnt about losing to aces and feeling upset about it, not even close. I have put enough reps into fighting Boba to know and execute on the things that improve that matchup. Same with fighting trip aces, the mitigation strategy and the limits of that strategy for various archetypes are very clear to me. I have practiced those matchups and worked through them in detail across many metas. I am not suggesting price increases to make the game easier for me. Thats not necessary or the intent. My problem with Ace costs is more about the puzzle thats being solved and the possibility that the puzzle could be made more complicated and ideally more interactive with intentionally less emphasis on high init platforms with plenty of room for jousting/repositioning upgrades. Not zero emphasis, just less emphasis.

I have to say that I agree with the post above about the feeling you get when you catch an ace and swing the battle back in your favor. I am a rebel beef player who usually goes 3-2 at tournaments, never made a top cut, so I am no expert but in my opinion, aces are not very undercosted. I love the feeling of catching an ace after it has been pounding on your ships and seining the game back.

Those games are always the most rewarding to win and the ones I can learn from the most when I lose. I personally havent felt like it was a negaitive experience as the beef list has more health and dice. The other list is always on the razors edge of life and death. One bad move and poof, ace gone. I think have lists could stand to lose some of their bid, but Vader, soontir, GQ does not seem oppressive to me. It is a hard match, and you need to pick one ace and try and mow it down even if it means giving up a ship or the flank in the process. These games seem to be about patience. You don't win them all, but I feel like they are the ones that highlight skill the most. Not list combo, not efficiency, but skill.

1 hour ago, Boom Owl said:

I guess I included that to admit that I am not sure how high the aces should be increased? I know its higher but how much is something everyone would have to weigh in on to make sense of probably.

The plan is moar but how much moar is super worth defining within an agreeable range.

Which requires clear communication and an alignment of goals. No hyperbole, and saying exactly what you mean to.

I agree that things need to improve in the archetype. But you’ve started with a huge jump and go for applying it with a broad brush. Again, in the subject of game balance, the word of the day is “precision”. You don’t get precision with just marking up all aces by X and see what happens.

Like you said, no one knows what 2.0 without heavy Ace lists look like, which makes me think that the devs don’t want that. As I recall, they mentioned being happy with where Aces were, thus worked on bringing other things up. The kind of large sweeping changes you’ve been advocating runs counter to that.

Slow and steady is the path forward. We start by making some points increase in the single digit range, then we test. If more is needed, we do it again. This preserves the game and allows ideas to prove themselves rather than just break a part of the balancing act and see how well it all stays together. Maybe Fel does reach 69. But instead of a sudden shift that distorts everything, we get there by taking it step by step and seeing “well, he worked at 56. Oh, he’s still good at 60” and so on. And if your calculations are off on his value, it’s easier to wind back down to the better equilibrium point because we already have data of slowing moving him up to rely upon.

There are definitely some things I think will be easy to agree on (because who thought it was a good idea to make the Slave 1 title 1 point?!?), but others will require more discussion and testing. This also requires people to be honest of their biases on BOTH sides of the debate. And it’s not just Aces that need work.

Look, I would like to say thank you for returning to this discussion. I think there are good concerns and things that need to be addressed. I would like to encourage you to continue in this mode of discussion, and not pushing out extreme suggestions that you don’t even want. Much like SOTL’s “heel persona”, it distracts and muddles your message. For the people that really know you, that might not be a problem. But for those of us that just know you by your owl avatar, clear communication of your ideas will save a lot of headaches.

Edit: just saw your edit and would like to say please more of that. More context. More communication.