You could take a page from Dungeon Command where damage was a static number. So in X-Wing you could just make all ships do their average damage ie Tie Fighters do 1 damage. X-Wings do 1.5 damage etc. Now it's 100% skill based

You could take a page from Dungeon Command where damage was a static number. So in X-Wing you could just make all ships do their average damage ie Tie Fighters do 1 damage. X-Wings do 1.5 damage etc. Now it's 100% skill based

I feel it somehow losses skill, because it becomes entirely predictable. A large part of skill is reacting to unexpected turns and planning contigencies, neither of which are as prevalent in this scenario.

You could take a page from Dungeon Command where damage was a static number. So in X-Wing you could just make all ships do their average damage ie Tie Fighters do 1 damage. X-Wings do 1.5 damage etc. Now it's 100% skill based

But for me, fact is that X-Wing is extremely luck-based, even in comparison to other dice-based tabletop game. At least as long as players both play reasonably close to the full potential of their list, and the list is not full of bad picks. And both factors are given at tournaments, so basically in top 8 they could also just have thrown a few dice to determine who wins. Just look at the 3 filmed matches, you will get what i mean.

Give us some more strategical options what to play, and how to play. That will make it possible even at top player level to outplay your opponent instead of just outrolling him.

You could take a page from Dungeon Command where damage was a static number. So in X-Wing you could just make all ships do their average damage ie Tie Fighters do 1 damage. X-Wings do 1.5 damage etc. Now it's 100% skill based

Well i don't think that a lot of people would want this, i mean to fall into the other extreme!

But for me, fact is that X-Wing is extremely luck-based, even in comparison to other dice-based tabletop game. At least as long as players both play reasonably close to the full potential of their list, and the list is not full of bad picks. And both factors are given at tournaments, so basically in top 8 they could also just have thrown a few dice to determine who wins. Just look at the 3 filmed matches, you will get what i mean.

Give us some more strategical options what to play, and how to play. That will make it possible even at top player level to outplay your opponent instead of just outrolling him.

I don't think that will make the difference, more games would help. Or larger games, at 150 luck comes less into it as you have more ships so one bad dice roll has less impact.

You could take a page from Dungeon Command where damage was a static number. So in X-Wing you could just make all ships do their average damage ie Tie Fighters do 1 damage. X-Wings do 1.5 damage etc. Now it's 100% skill based

Well i don't think that a lot of people would want this, i mean to fall into the other extreme!

But for me, fact is that X-Wing is extremely luck-based, even in comparison to other dice-based tabletop game. At least as long as players both play reasonably close to the full potential of their list, and the list is not full of bad picks. And both factors are given at tournaments, so basically in top 8 they could also just have thrown a few dice to determine who wins. Just look at the 3 filmed matches, you will get what i mean.

Give us some more strategical options what to play, and how to play. That will make it possible even at top player level to outplay your opponent instead of just outrolling him.

I don't think that will make the difference, more games would help. Or larger games, at 150 luck comes less into it as you have more ships so one bad dice roll has less impact.

Then you should know that this game, with all its flaws (and i agree to sone extent) is luck-based.

But... You have a lot more options and units what to do, when to do it and how to move. In X-Wing often there is only one possibility how to optimally play a ship or even your whole squad. I can not predict what will happen in a turn of 40k or Battle also because more stuff (like charging) is randomized, but also because players can take more decisions that are all good decisions at that time of the game. Basically those games are more complex, so luck plays less of a role although it still can be a deciding factor.

In X-Wing this is not the case! I can predict movements with astonishing precision because they just are the only good option someome has at that time. And i consider myself a good player at maximum, i am far from being as good as the guys at worlds that will just know exactly what will happen pretty much 4 turns ahead. The only deciding factor is your list and luck. And since list options also seem pretty limited in competitive play, luck remains as THE deciding factor. And i feel free to say i don't like it.

I totally disagree.. A lot of the time you have far more options in X-Wing, in a game of 40k your only option with a unit of Ork boys is run towards the enemy screaming. I've had far more games of 40k decided turn 1 by the army composition than I have ever had in X-Wing.. how you fly and your decisions each turn matter far more than walk towards enemy shooting, shoot at most valuable target, or run towards enemy screaming.

The only thing that make 40k at all more tactical is the number of pieces on the board. Play X-Wing at 250pt and it is far more skill based and strategic than 40k. Now play a game of 40k at low points and there is hardly any strategy at all.

Not at all, the use of terrain and cover, the overall composition of your army and your deployment play a huge role in Battle. Okay, if you play an Ork horde with nothing else but basic boys there are not many options, same thing go for shooty dwarves. But you are by no means forced to play such an army to be competitive, and with more diverse units comes more strategical depth.

Also, play 250 points games in X-Wings and all that will happen is that swarms become even better because of basic stats, and luck remains the deciding factor. Even the resulting traffic jam will not change this!

Tournaments should be based on wins and losses, not how much I won by. So I win a football game by 20 points or 1 point it is still only a win that same game played again will probably result in a completely different set of results. Too many other factors can contribute to a points system. That being said lists that maximize the number of offensive and defensive die rolls have a base advantage of creating more hits and evades on average. That is not a matter of luck or skill, it is a factor of numbers. Pilot skills at present are not capable of offsetting that, so very high skilled pilots which are expensive are not used. While it is important to be able to move last or shoot first, higher skill pilots don't seem to be able to offset the numbers game. Frankly higher pilot skills should mean more than they do.

Earlier, someone mentioned about playing the odds. As an example, I was looking at Cluster Missiles or Concussion Missiles for my A-Wings. Both have the same points cost, but their odds game-wise are different. The Cluster Missiles tend to perform better on low agility targets, and have a potentially higher damage yield. Concussion missiles on the other hand work well against higher agility targets, nearly guaranteeing a hit that your target has to avoid. I did a bit of math, figured out the odds, but those odds wont tell me with certainty exactly what the die roll will be when it comes up... and with missiles, you only get one shot.

So does it make it totally luck based? Of course not... but I do know that to increase the odds in my favour, my A-Wings should also seek to acquire a target lock, and then attempt to maneuver to line up a shot with focus... further increasing the odds. Its more than rolling dice, especially with the focus element, as that alone changes the odds of the roll.

The skill in the game is knowing not just how to move and maneuver, but also how to stack the odds to line up the right shot, or to mitigate the odds when you suddenly find yourself when the dice are stacking against you.

In terms of pilot skill, their relative value is indicative of what their special skill is. Wedge being the uber ace that he is, is capable of not only shooting at an opportune time (first), but also reduces the odds that his shots will be dodged. Wedge, of course, has far better odds getting when up-close and personal with his targets. As such, Wedge should be played very aggressively. Luke on the other hand, does not necessarily have to use his focus in order to defend, which gives him survivability, and the option to either use lock-on or focus for offensive. Biggs, on the other hand, should be played exclusively on defense, as he adds to the survivability to his flight mates... and it matters less when he goes in the firing sequence. All of the named pilot special skills give them different ways of stacking the odds.

Someone else mentioed Skaven as an example. I love them. I also play Orks in 40K... they are all about the odds and LOTs of dice. In both cases, my question in playing is "will I have fun losing with this army?" I still keep that motto today. Even though I've not lost with my "biggs dies first" list, for example, I go into each game anticipating having fun even if I lose. Generally I've lost any time I've introduced the game to someone else!

I have not had the opportunity to see a great deal of tournaments, does anyone have a list of what kind of lists have won say the regionals this last year, I would like to see how that fits into my following comments. These are personal opinions and are presented as ideas to improve game play and introduce more variety into the system

Ok from many of the comments we can draw some conclusions.

X-wing is a game of numbers, The more dice you can roll the better off you are, you play the averages.

Luck is a factor, but not he only factor, that rolling more results is the way tourneys will go.

There is an element of skill in knowing your movement and in selecting your lists.

Pilot skill while important, in its present form does not offset numbers, other wise we would see more high level pilots in the tourneys.

IN tourneys how many of the add on qualities actually used? If we are using just a select number of units, why are the others around. It would seem something is needed to help balance out the abilities to make more lists viable.

I could not agree more librarian, i think you draw the right conclusions. And i hope something will happen that makes the more expensive pilots more attractive and diminishes luck a little as the deciding factor, as well as gives us a bit more strategical and tactical options

If you really want to make it dull and boring *cough* I mean pure tactics, then stop using your dice.

Use this chart instead only allowing each other to use results that are greater than 50% and see if it improves your game or makes it worse (boring).

I have not had the opportunity to see a great deal of tournaments, does anyone have a list of what kind of lists have won say the regionals this last year....

There was a goodly variety of regional winners. A number of them are listed in this thread: http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/82153-question-for-those-who-won-a-2013-regional-championship/

Well again there were lots of swarms as you can see, a few HSF variations, and some more exotic builds. But on regionals, skill level might not be all that high so there, luck may not be the only deciding factor at least in the first matches. I think if we want to know top lists we should look at worlds and perhaps gencon results. And they speak a pretty uniform language even after wave 3 hit the shops.

Seems that the Interceptor/fighter mixes, the multiple bounty hunter lists and the elite imperial squadrons that won some regionals got lost along the road to worlds at the end of wave 2 somewhere...

Hmm. Ok so lets take randomness or "luck" out of the equasion for a second......

If both players play a "perfect game" then both players are expected to win right? wouldn't that be a tie??? that is boring. who wants to say we tied? (it still happens even with the randomness of the game. but much less.)

how would a tournament work if every one tied?

Life is has a certain amount of randomness in it. so if you drive your car perfectly you minimize the randomness of an accident but you cannot predict the actions of other drivers so being a perfect driver you could still be in an accident. you could swallow wrong and choke on your food /drink etc. too much randomness in life..

My point? glad you asked. if you take randomness out of the equation you get an unrealistic feel to the game. why not just say that vader beats all skill levels under his so he doesn't even have to roll? just take your ship off it dies. so up and coming rookie pilots won't ever get the chance to get that "lucky" shot at vader to take him out. that to me isn't a fun game or even a realistic kind of game. to me x-wing does a great job of reducing the randomness effect some so that skill of the player is a dominate factor. so if you think that if you play a perfect game and should win because you were flawless in manuvering and planning and executing your shots, and that there should be no randomness to it is just wrong. and might i add to me would be boring. i like the fact that a academy pilot can take that pot shot at luke, and possibly get that crit that makes luke bug out in to the vacuum of space in an evac suit, and wait for han to come save his arse. i a;lso think that life would be boring if there were no randomness to it. so don't change the game. and please stop comparing it to 40K it is not 40 k if it were i wouldn't be playing it. and note that this is still a very young game, and only ffg knows where it is headed to next. ( hopefully away from becomming like 40 k.) not that i am against 40 k i just prefer not to invest that kind of money or time into that game that seems more hobby based than i like. ( i just dont have the time to build paint and memorize the complex rules )

Also the randomness is essential for the game to work.. It's important that 1 time out of 4 that A-Wing is able to hit that Tie Fighter. Otherwise you would have a situation where certain ships could not hurt other ships at all.

Also the more you take luck out of individual rolls the more the game becomes Rock Paper Scissors. Which I don't know is a good thing.

The simple fact is the more rolls you make the closer to the statistical norm you will get.

Therefore

• The larger game size you play the less deviation you will have over the course of a game. Yes some ships will do better, get lucky shots. But it's more likely that an even number will do worse, and fluff attack rolls.
• The more ships you have in a tournament situation, the more likely your fleet will perform closer to the average in each game, this means you are less likely to lose a game due to a couple of bad rolls. As in bigger tournaments you NEED to win 4 out of you 5 games to get through to the next round, you can't afford to have an unlucky game.

This is a game of maneuvering first, and odds second. If you can put your target in your arc and not be in his, your odds will always be better.

You need to mitigate the best circumstances for dealing damage as well as avoiding it. Do that and you'll win more than you'll lose.

This is a game of maneuvering first, and odds second. If you can put your target in your arc and not be in his, your odds will always be better.

You need to mitigate the best circumstances for dealing damage as well as avoiding it. Do that and you'll win more than you'll lose.

^^^ this ^^^

The above paragraph is why I love Engine Upgrade/Boost, Barrel Roll, and Advanced Sensors (When I'm flying B's)

I'm also a big fan of practicing by yourself. Get to know those templates, and ship bases.

Throw some asteroids out on the table and get used to them asap.

The higher the pilot skill, the better the usage of boost and barrel roll, the less luck based is your game.

Use this actions and the daredevil action to place your ship wisely and out of the enemies fire arcs, while you get a good shot on them.

Let use remember also that for the most part we are looking at 100 point lists. the balance factor might change when you play different size lists. I have seen games where at 1 point level one list will be dominant while adding just a small number of points changes the dynamic. So every day play may be very different in results if you are playing different size lists

If you think about luck doesn't really play that big a part in the game (I mean dice results)

Getting shots, getting good shots and avoiding shots from your opponent is sooooo much more important. Sure some times we totally wiff shots, or totally nail shots that we wouldn't expect, but for the most part the effects of shots (on average over a game) are about what we would expect. That doesn't mean that you "wif" of "nailed it" can't happen in a crucial moment. But don't we love the drama that this creats.

I will admit that in a tournament. Lucky and good beats unlucky and good, as well as luck and not so good. And you culd argue about whether unluck and good beats lucky and bad. It really comes down to how lucky and how good right.

In the end I think we can all admit that this game does have a factor of luck, but we all knew that going into to it. But I don't think luck plays and overly important role in the game.

Lucky and good beats unlucky and good, as well as luck and not so good.

But as you say, that's how it should be.

If a game includes dice then luck is going to play a factor. There's nothing you can do about that, short of removing the dice.

Frankly I perfer games like this to have luck benig a factor. It's a better simulation of the real thing, no one is going to hit 100% of the time, so it is a good way to simulate that.

The real issue is, if there's way to control the luck at all, which X-Wing does offer in the way of Focus, Target Lock, Evade, or even just having more ships.

The complaint that is confusing me is that players with equal skill (everyone in the top 8) who play "perfect" games always end up coming down to luck. Well of course! If they're really equal, no amount of changes to the rules is going to let one win by outplaying. They'll still be equal under new rules.

If the problem is that there is an optimum maneuver so it's easy to predict each other, then that predictability makes that maneuver no longer optimal. Fly more unpredictably. If you're behind Fell and you just know he's going to k-turn, veer off and boost and switch targets, leaving fell with nothing to shoot at and unable to take another k-turn. Always focusing on maximizing your dice is what is making you predictable. Sometimes it makes more sense to throw less dice now in favor of throwing more later, esp. if it messes up your opponents tactics. If your directly behind, you've got two ways to turn, so even if he knows that's what you're doing you're still unpredictable.

Coincidentally, this is also what higher pilot skills excel at.

The higher the pilot skill, the better the usage of boost and barrel roll, the less luck based is your game.

Use this actions and the daredevil action to place your ship wisely and out of the enemies fire arcs, while you get a good shot on them.

Yes and no.

More experienced gamers will see this ploy and move his lesser skilled ships to block the actions of these higher skilled pilots. What happens then is that you lose your Boost/Barrel action and thus are succeptible to more dice.

The fact is this: Wedge and a Rookie are flying the same exact ship, stat for stat. The only difference is the Pilot skill. That's where the point cost comes in. Elite skills and modifications are there, but if you think about, it only adds to the total cost of the pilot/ship combo. The real question is: Is Wedge with these glorious elite skills, upgrades and pilot skill, worth costing 1.5x-2x of the Rookie Pilot? I like my Wedge with R2, PTL and Engine Upgrade, but that puts him to 37 points. Statistically, there's no way Wedge can out preform 2x the health, 2x the evade, and 2x the shots as ~2x Rookies.

This is the statistics that the people have been talking about.

I think the Luck aspect shines forth in the limited sample size of a tournament, almost feels like you should play best 2/3 but those would make fore epic long tournaments. I am assuming this thread is, in some way at least, a response to the hot/cold dice during the finals this year and the tournament set up that meant 4-1 record at a tournament wasn't good enough. Both of those are incredibly small sample sizes and dice will play a larger role in those situations.

Even with the best possible placement if all the dice are hot against you and you're rolling blanks you will lose if the hot/cold streak continues. If you keep playing, you'll be on the receiving end of that hot streak if you just play long enough. Outside of the current tournament setting I think the balance is right.