I've been discussing tournament/league set-up with some of my fellow local players and there've been some concerns about folks showing up with squadrons of nothing but named pilots.

It seems that in almost every case, a named pilot is worlds better than the generic counterparts without really making up for it in points cost. As an example, the Obsidian Squadron Pilot is 1 point more than an Academy Pilot for 2 points worth of improved Piloting. A Black Squadron Pilot is another point more than the Obsidian Squadron Pilot and gains an additional point of Piloting and the ability to take Elite Talents upgrades. Night Beast is 1 point more expensive than the Black Squadron Pilot and gets the extra Piloting skill point, but also a unique ability which is arguably way better than the ability to take an upgrade or even get another point added to the Piloting score. This kind of imbalance in the points scale had my group talking and we've begun to discuss how we might introduce certain limits on what players can field for events at our FLGS. The general consensus so far is that allowing 1 named pilot per squadron is the best way to assure that folks are winning because of their skill and luck with the dice rather than by min/maxing the best combo of named pilots.

TL;DR - The named pilots are imbalanced as far as their points are concerned and out group is contemplating limiting how many can be fielded in a 100pt tournament. Thoughts?

Ryan the Lion said:

I don't want to be mean but stuff like this really irks me so I'm going to rant a little bit. Don't take it too personally. Also, I'm not a FFG fanboy; this is the first FFG game I've ever played.

You aren't game designers; you don't know how the points are assigned and they aren't assigned totally linearly in regards to pilot skill. People with experience get paid money to design this game for a living. They are much better than you or me at this. Are you good enough to make game rules for a living? I don't think so or else you'd be working for FFG, Wizards, or any of the other game companies. If you do think you're good enough, FFG is hiring right now. Send them your resume and see what they say. Also, they don't just tell the public how the game was designed because that's a trade secret. If they released that info, then anyone could make a similar game quite easily. Don't fool yourself, coming up with a brand new game is harder than it looks. Even reverse engineering games is hard. I've reverse engineered games to make custom additions and it was difficult and required fairly involved calculations and spreadsheets.

Just because you don't know how the points are assigned doesn't mean they aren't assigned properly. All it means is that you don't know how the points are assigned. You might be offended by this but it is just the truth. I've tried figuring it out and it is hard. For example, how much is a free focus token after a green move worth relative to attack/defense dice? I have a fairly good idea but need more information that isn't available without extensive play testing. When I say play testing, I don't mean playing a bunch of games with my friends. I mean getting dozens of people to play hundreds (thousands) of games, recording that data (not just wins and loses), and then performing a statistical analysis.

Again, I don't want to be mean, but I'm going to deconstruct that example you already used because illustrates my point.

Lets start with the Academy Pilot; it costs 12 points for 1 skill. The next step up is Obsidian which is 13 points for 3 skill. That's intentional (yes, on purpose). The game designers aren't bad at simple math. They spent thousands of dollars and many months designing this game. Yes, they do know that they gave obsidians 2 more skill for one more point. This is because pilot skill isn't like the other stats. Getting one more hull, attack, or defense is always better. Getting another pilot skill is only better relative to the skills of other pilots. Having a 9 going against a 1 is the exact same as having a 2 go against a 1.

Obsidians are 3 skill because they are designed to consistently beat ships like the Rookie X-Wing in combat turn order. Academy Pilots are supposed to always lose in combat turn order so they have a 1. Having only 2 skill would be a tie and the result would be a simultaneous attack which the designers didn't want for whatever reason. All this is without even considering move order.

When it comes to the named pilots, they are better than the generic pilots. That's the point. No really; that's the point. He is intentionally (yes, on purpose) under-costed and that is why only one of him is allowed per team. The game is designed around using named pilots. They have special abilities with built in synergies that are supposed to be used together. The generic pilots are supposed to fill in gaps to reach the squad point cap. If each side is limited to one named pilot, there is no synergy; there is only swarm against swarm and that is super boring.

TL;DR The named pilots are intentionally (yes, on purpose) under-costed. That is why they are unique on a team. Limiting the number of named pilots would make the game super boring by removing synergies. The game designers aren't idiots; they can do simple math. You aren't game designers. If you were, you'd be working for a game company designing games.

i agree with shadowjack 100%, if you ran a tourney with a named pilot limit i wouldn't play it, i've been ran a rebel 100 point squad with a rookie/red/gold/or grey pilot… hell, i've TRIED to put together a "swarm" or 4-5 pilots all low, and they can't fit! so i'd have to run an imp squard with vader and all black squadron pilots using swarm tactics on them all…. and it'd be boreing

I really don't think this is the case across the board, the best success I've had was running a squadron of Howlrunner, Mauler Mithel, Backstabber, and 4 academy pilots. I have also tried all named pilot lists and all tie advanced lists to a lesser effect. While the named pilots are fun to play and can be very good, they are not always the best option in every situation.

but even there you used 3… and for imperials it isn't that bad… but in rebs i can run 3 named almost fully upgraded, or 3 unnamed fully upgraded… the only way for rebs to run 4 ships at 100 points is 4 unnamed, and that leaves you if not enough room for all upgrades… or 1 named and 3 unnamed and then then is NO room for extras…

Wedge 29

Biggs 25

Gold Squadron, Ion 23

Gold Squadron, Ion 23

Total 100.

Don't fall in love with the upgrades, most of them just entice you to make poor descisions.

Limited named pilots makes for very limited games, especially for the Rebels.

MerryVulture said:

Ain't that the truth! I can totally see where I have actually been hindered because I used my upgrades at the wrong time. The basic actions for each starfighter are good and reliable, but for upgrades you really have to incorporate them into your overall strategy or they can be your undoing.

About the original post: I haven't played enough to say I agree or disagree. I have noticed that higher skilled pilots can spell doom if your squad is all made up of lower skilled pilots, but that doesn't say anything about named pilots. I'm inclined to agree with those who have replied already: I trust that the game designers knew what they were doing. After playing a thousand games and running the statistical analyses I might be able to make a case against it, but that's probably not going to happen (I don't want to have to log data while I play ).

I have played 25+ games (maybe 30+), and I have no problems with the game as it was written. I just don't understand how people are already trying to change this game that is great as it is written, when they have only played a handful of games. House rules are fine, but spend some time getting used to playing the game as it was designed before you decide that "they messed something up". I was unhappy with the non-regenerating shields, overlapping bases rules, simultaneous attack rules, and initiative rules…in the beginning. Once I got used to them, I figured out how to use them all to my advantage no mater which side of the rules my squad falls on. I find some pilots (and players) are better with upgrades and others are not. I for one tend to use a combination of named and unnamed pilots. Its a matter of learning how each and every pilot should be played and developing a plan when building a squad. Miniatures games are strategy games. Learning how to deal with different situations and playing within the rules as they were written, is the first step in developing a strategy.

Roy

They're your tournaments.There's no incentive for sanctioned play at the moment.. Set whatever parameters you like, but be prepared for gripes if your parameters suck.

That said, the points appear to be balanced for now. Yeah there are some pilots that seem better because they are easier to use, but none of them seem imbalanced at this time

And while it's true you aren't a game designer, you ARE by virtue of owning and playing the game, a playtester. FFG does not always get the best pre-launch playtesters, nor are all their games shipped with perfect rules. Glaring case in point, Warhammer: Invasion. Wait and see if the boards start clamoring with one or two unbeatable strategies, and see how long they do this. That will be a better and hopefully more objective indicator of imbalance than your local group.

Thanks for all the responses, folks. I have a few more games under my belt now and I'm still on the fence about this. We've got a big open play day coming up my FLGS and I'm going to test a few lists and talk shop with some of the other players and see how they feel after we duke it out for a few hours. There's definitely a concern that we had a collective knee-jerk reaction, but the folks I play with are very sharp and our group has experience with a lot of board and miniatures games. The fact that we all had the same thought after our first few games is something that, at the very least, warrants closer inspection.

In any case, what we decide to do in our backyard is certainly not going to be the standard for everyone else. The purpose of this post was to query my fellow pilots and see what their thoughts were and what their experience has taught them. It might just be that the lack of transparency in how named pilot's point values are decided irks me because of my experiences with other games. It's also possible that I haven't flown enough sorties to see the named pilots fall short. If that's the case, then I'll end up loving this game even more.

qwertyuiop said:

Playing a lot of games doesn't make someone a play tester. It is more involved than you know and don't fool yourself into thinking you have expertise that you don't.

Ryan the Lion said:

You could reverse engineer the game instead of telling us how much more enlightened you and you friends are than people who actually have experience making games for a living. Like I've said before, just because you don't know where the stats come from doesn't mean that they are imbalanced. Have you even tried a regression analysis? That would give you a very good idea of how the points are weighted. I might even do one tomorrow when I'm more awake. I have a degree in a related field, have done it in the past, and it'd only take a few minutes but tonight there was an Oktoberfest celebration where I live so I'm a bit buzzed.

Just because you and your friends play a lot of games doesn't mean anything at all. No really; it means nothing. That's like saying someone who reads a lot of books, watches a lot of movies, or eats a lot of food could be an author, director, or chef respectively.

You and your friends don't even have the ability to test anything. Do you have dozens of people playing hundreds of games and recording all of the data? If not, you're just a bunch of people playing with toys and patting yourselves on the back. It really is silly.

Sorry if I'm being overly harsh, but I really dislike the kind of person that willfully ignores the amount of effort certain things take.

I've found that despite the utility of the named pilots, most all of them go down just as quickly as their generic equivalents. With a few notable exceptions, Luke Skywalker and Dark Curse come to mind, my named pilots wind up just being higher priority targets. I don't think I've played with Howlrunner in a game yet and seen him live past turn three. Yes he's amazing while he's out there, but 18 points for a TIE is a bit on the steep side. They're good, but the increased point cost really does balance them out.

Ryan the Lion said:

Here's, I think the reason for the point-cost variation that you're seeing. To be balanced, pilot skill must be worth fewer points per point as it ascends.

This is why:

A pilot skill of 1 is your bare minimum, you're essentially just paying for the ship. When you go up to skill 2, your skill will be useful in any game where you see skill 1, which is pretty common. Academy pilots get a lot of play. Now say you took Wedge against an Imperial swarm army. His pilot skill is not any more useful to you than your rookie pilots' 2 skill. It's more than 1. That's all that matters. The higher pilot skill goes the more situational it becomes. 2 or 3 skill make a difference almost every game, while as pilot skill ascends it becomes useful in fewer and fewer situations. To make up for this, taking your pilot skill from 1 to 2 is going to be the most expensive in the game points-wise, and 8-9 the least expensive, because of the relative utility of both of those scores.

That's a **** good point and I will keep that in mind going forward.

I spent a little time going through my pilot cards and reading battle reports after my last post here and my consternation concerning named pilots has faded noticeably. I'll be bringing everyone who posted here's points to my local group and see what they have to say, but if it's still an issue for folks, my vote will go towards not limiting named pilots in OP.

ShadowJak said:

Have you ever playtested anything?

qwertyuiop said:

Have you? Have you ever done a statistical analysis of anything? Would you even know where to start?

OK kids! Play nice!! Any more of this and I'll have to…wait a minute. This isn't AFM. Never mind. Carry on. LOL

Roy

ShadowJak said:

So, that's a no?
I have contributed time playtesting. The published games aren't great, I admit, but I'm not a designer. I've also done work where a large portion of my job was analyzing numbers and stats. Mostly hunting down abnormally high costs, shipping delays and materials usage trends. So, yes, I have some experience in playtesting and data analysis, to a degree. Still, I will defer to you, o' king of spreadsheets, on any of your current findings relating to this game. You usually come off as a cold, condescending human being, but I appreciate you taking the time to post your work.

I stand by what I said referring to end users as playtesters. They are. Have you ever played a CCG? Cards frequently get restricted, banned, or have errata released. Have you ever seen errata released for any other games? How is that initial data gathered? Where does it come from? I'm not saying that the publishers don't take this data and verify it on their end, but since it comes to them post release, who is gathering the data? Staffed testers? I doubt it, unless there's profit to be made or protected. WotC might. Maybe. If you have some further insight or something I am just way off base about, I'd love to hear it.

Yeah, I get the feeling he's pretty light on the actual game experience. Thanks for doing the number crunching though.

qwertyuiop said:

Yes, I have experience play testing. And I have experience with several CCGs (going all the way back to OverPower) that have errata'd cards.. I may have been over estimating the resources that FFG has because their games seem so good even though they are only the 5th largest gaming company I think.

Anyway, I think I was getting a little worked up before. It's just a game and should be fun. There isn't even a rating system for it like the DCI.

ShadowJak said:

I think we both got worked up! I apologize if I came across like a tool. I'm sure I did. Man. OverPower. That brings me back. I think my little brother had to buy two starters and a bunch of boosters to beat Heroes Assemble right out of the box. The Decipher games tended to have their fair share of errata. FFG generally does pretty well, though my friends and I have a running joke about their rule books. One of the earlier printings of Fury of Dracula instructs the players how to attack Dracula during the introduction instead of the combat section. There are other examples. Some of the board game expansions feel like software patches. I look forward to seeing what you come up with concerning ways for Rebels to effectively beat the 8 TIE swarm. I've seen you write on it in other threads. So far all I have involves trying to find ways to force enough reactionary movement to gain one way firing advantage, but I haven't been able to test it. I'll keep that in the general forum.

Peace.