Sure First his whole post is a big anecdotal fallacy because he has no facts to back up his claim. For example Armada is not teetering, it is in fact per the last survey taken the 3rd best selling miniature game. The only evidence we have at all fly's directly in contradiction of the opening statement. He also makes the Argument from authority because he is presenting his statements as facts not opinions. "but everyone, even at GenCon, (I was there...) are saying the exact same things." and "If you are playing Imperials, and you use fighters... you're doing it wrong." I could go on but I've made my point. The OP is making statements and not willing to accept any sort of proof to the contrary, because these are all established and immutable facts, not opinions per his post. The OP has a point... it may be selling fine, it just is not hitting the table as much for various reasons.

I think it's the fact that Wave 2 was announced ad spoiled a very long time before dropping in stores If it hadn't been, then the wait would not be as long The problem there is that we would have endless threads debating, demanding, and whining about whether the ISD will be included and threatened rage quits if it wasn't in wave 2. If I've learned anything from the internet it's there is no making people happy. If wave 2 was out already, we'd have people complaining the waves were too quick making the game too expensive. I agree, I feel Xwing is coming out too fast... Patience is good but Wave 1 should have been released with the core and wave 2 should be out at wave 1 release. 2 a year releases seems ideal for me going forward.

Yeah not sure why you convinced with the balance issue, Just look at Nationals. More to do with the higher costs, starving for wave 2, bare core set, and longer slower games. See the "Armada going to make it thread"

Yeah not sure why you convinced with the balance issue, Just look at Nationals. More to do with the higher costs and longer slower games. See the "Armada going to make it thread"

Additional Playtesting probably In the article states, "When we first announced the upcoming release of Armada Wave II, we anticipated that its expansions would be available to retailers by the third quarter of 2015. However, due to an unavoidable manufacturing delay, we have had to push back the wave's release. We are now on schedule to see Wave II released in the fourth quarter of 2015."

Haha, my thoughts exactly, try correcting problems with comcast.

We will probably see a new XWing verson announced for the toy day with a new xwing title cards! My guess.

Were you expecting wave 9 to be announced?

Does this situation really deserve a rant from you?

Exactly, above results only apply to wave 1. TBA on the future.

Yup it is a landslide effect. So because no one is taking squadrons that means more anti-ship and then when squadrons come out people don't have an answer. That is how Mets's work Exactly Mxlm. People keep thinking you need all this nonsense to make squadrons work. Yet against all-ship lists its painfully easy to make squadrons the best thing in your list: bombers. Per your example: "best" players think all-ship is best, "best" players will be at regionals, therefore bring rock to counter scissors at regionals: bomber lists. Any of those terribad 2VSD1GSD or 1VSD3GSD lists would be utterly annihilated by a rhymer ball, or B-Wing horde. IF FLOWN WELL. This is the self-correcting concept that squadrons WILL introduce. I'm starting from the end-point, myself, and I'll see you all here when you're forced to it As to Lyraeus' point: that's the long-version is... All-ship lists dominate due to netlisting. People bring bombers to counter all-ships. People get decimated by bombers. People bring fighters to counter bombers so their ships can fight. People bring all fighters on both sides and have pointless fighter engagements. People spend less points on fighters to counter full-fighter lists and bring some bombers to punish ships. Balanced meta emerges: balance of well-equiped ships and fighters to cover your bombers. Viola. The only problem with your theory is the reality and actual evidence we have is the exact opposite of what you believe. Net-listing only can explain the initial distributions of ships/squadrons not how well they will do, and I dont think you want to say all 100 players did not bring squadrons. If anything you would be quite silly to not say, "Bringing less squadrons suggests you would do better", and unless you have a good fundamental reason to explain away this phenomena this is what holds. If anything, the post prior about the power of the blue dice supports the results. Of course, thematically I will always bring squadrons just for the fun aspect! But in the end, winning this tourney without squadrons speaks for itself. There is your PROOF.

Yes? I don't believe the OP has difficulty distinguishing between Black and Blue. All squadron dice are either black or blue, except the one anti-ship die on the basic X-Wing. Actually Red and black, I just hate the idea of marking up my ship and squad cards.

Anyone have a good solution aesthetic solution for the cards? Use a yellow highlighter to dab on all of the cards with the red dice?

This is the worst thing that has happened to my work productivity in a long time. Played around with a smaller subset of the results: (sorry about the formatting, I guess I don't have permissions to upload a screencap yet.) EDIT: Fixed it. These results are pulled only from lists at Regionals and Worlds that placed 25 or better in Swiss. Note that Avg Swiss Rank is for each unique combination of ship and List ID#. The information shouldn't really be much of a surprise except for a few interesting oddities: Tie Advanced - only six ships in six lists but still managed to place #1 somewhere and has a strong average performance. I have to assume that whoever is piloting these lists are quite good. Star Viper - a best performance of only 4th place and not many performances in general makes me think an elite few are really trying to make this ship work. Tie Fighter - the highest average list quantity and decent number of performances but less successful on average. Difficult to pilot or just outclassed by the current meta? Very good work and very telling information on the ships. This is empirical data that can tell you a lot about the ships value and way better than looking at the over-costing and under-costing arbitrary point addition. I would say though the elite piloting issues should cancel out with enough data points so I wouldnt worry too much about that.

Lancer class frigate Transports, interdictor (More objective scenarios like Xwing) Space stations that have abilities and can shoot back Scum class Dreadnoughts etc

First, you can use opportunist multiple times in a round (Gunner) if you had a way to get rid of the stress from the first attack. There is some merit to applying it twice with cluster missiles, lets say you called opportunist on the cluster missiles as now a 4 red die, no longer a 3 attack (Think of it as a proton torpedo 5 attack). Now, you just happen to apply the 4 attack twice per the card (Repeat what you attacked with) because you already upped the attack on the card before you use it. Something to think about I suppose and I can go either way.

Personally, I wouldnt concede but just assume my opponent would be starting 7th grade in the fall, (Not that being in middle school is a negative, but you would probably be very young).

I am sure there are a lot more things to worry about in the world then if your opponent is cheating with loaded dice in a plastic miniatures game.

Actually they don't. Because the rules can not tell the difference between someone rolling too few dice because they don't have enough vs just forgetting to roll enough. If you try to run the rules like you are, then it's not possible to play with only a single core set, since you will run into situations where you can not roll enough dice. It doesn't actually matter how you deal with someone rolling too few dice, as long as you do it consistently. But again, based on your line of thinking of someone only has 3 dice they can't actually play the game since any time they need a 4th die they can never make a valid roll. While that person could in theory borrow a die from the other player, the rules don't require that and the other player would have every right to refuse. Sure, the idea of someone only having 3 dice seems fairly unlikely, but the rules have to be written to cover those kinds of situations. So no the rules don't actually work like you said, in fact they can't without actually breaking the game itself. Right, you dont have to do all the rolls all at once with all different dice (So if you forgot to add a dice you can just add it to the roll). All you have to do is do a reroll of X number of dice and add in the previous result. Look at Armada, you dont even have enough dice right out of the box to do a 4 Blue attack. You just reroll one dice, no big deal.

Exactly, sounds like the missed opportunity thread with rebel captive. Just go back to where it is feasible, "Hey, you should have rolled 3 dice not 4 lets redo that roll." Should be straight forward.

I would always add an example of what your talking about and Fel has been around for a long time with PTL (Wave 2) which is pretty darn early in the game; he was probably designed and tested since the onset. An example that I can think of is the Dauntless title with daredevil combined with a green and counting stress etc. Plenty of discussions there where I am not sure it is worth running in the tournament if you have to spend 10 minutes explaining each round.

Yes, but you know you were cheating, you would know your win was tainted. People who need to cheat usually have self esteem issues and there are a million other ways you can do it during the game anyways with some convenient bumps etc. but ultimately the game, as with most things throughout life, you assume the best out of people.

Well, like someone said if you are purposefully letting it be 'forgotten' so you gain an advantage you are cheating. End of story. I dont think anyone is discussing how to cheat or intent to cheat but rather how to best resolve the issue assuming everyone is playing fair. I think everyone seems in agreement that if there is minimal disruption, both players will agree to add on the stress- i.e. end of the round. I suppose in my rounds I really have not run into anyone that must win at all costs as you imply.

I dont believe a single person said that here. The argument is that you are less likely to remember every opponents upgrades and effect (It is hard enough to remember your own cards- look at all the threads about sportsmanship and reminding the opponent ); and the bigger burden is on the owner to remember they are enforced- see Wedge example.

Nothing there says that it only applies if the rule is optional. It flat out says that if you forget to use an effect at the specified time, you can not retroactively use it without permission. To me, that implies that, while it is up to both players to remember the card is in play, it is ultimately up the card's owner to be responsible and ensure the effects are applied appropriately. If both players forgot the stress, he can not demand that his opponent takes the negative effect of doing a red manoeuvre when he wasn't aware that he was stressed. Shame on both for not remembering, but mistakes happen. Yup I would agree that basically covers the issue in official text.