Well half of the fun for me is building your list and seeing how it does against the competition. Not knowing how your card may work of realizing later how they work seems at bit like a mess too if your squad is a bunch of stuff you have not used or are familiar with, I think there are some random list generator that would make for some crazy fun games but not for a tournament setting.

Depends how you build around your defenders and other synergies. The 2 Deltas HLC Jonus list murders turrets. Part of what you the ship cost is what you put on it/how it fits in your squad/goals.

I am including any noteworthy comments for each tournament. Tyler had terrific odds for the final game, the chances of him rolling that well were about one in a quarter million. We likely won't see anyone else get rolls that good for any one game in the entire Regionals season let alone in a Finals match, so it is noteworthy. We had it recorded on Twitch so I could calculate the probability. link?! I don't know if they archived it yet. I can message them to see if they can upload it to YouTube or something. http://www.twitch.tv/yourhobbyplace/ In this case, the dice really were significant statistical outliers. If you played 10 games of X-wing per day, 365 days a year, it would take you 46 years worth of games before you would even have a 50% chance of matching the luck that Tyler had. Statistics really only have meaning in large numbers looking at a population and predicting the expected outcome, analyzing any individual event you really cant say too much other than yeah you had some luck otherwise... it is like zeroing on a winner of a mega lottery after the fact and statistically saying you should not have won!

Yeah, sure bud, I lucked into it. You got me there. I really dont care that much if you care to understand or not. I am actually sincerely trying to help any reasonable people to gain insight to a possible underlying mechanism but I literally could not care less about what you think. But, your not worth my time so cool, your right, you win, I'm out.

Except that this falls apart as soon as you have pilots of the same PS. Or a Damaged Cockpit. Or Swarm Tactics. Or any of a dozen other effects. Honestly, it doesn't even hold for Gunner, since it's conditional - you can't know at the start of combat if Gunner will trigger an attack or not. It's really not though. The system you describe doesn't really bear any relation to the actual rules of X-wing, and sadly doesn't explain anything. Doesn't matter your points are irrelevant you ALWAYS have a record-able and defined order that occurred with respect to time. Let's say we play the round expecting A-B-C-D-E; B decides to swarm tactics E at the start of combat and E has Gunner. A and B are same PS but A won initiative. Solves A shooting before B order. Damaged cockpit on C the round before? Ok Now it shoots last in the order. In this round D was destroyed. So the expected "A-B-C-D-E" can be recorded for lets say round 4 as "A->B->-E->E->C." But, here is the key, as you can see time "flows" with the attacks. This is where you can essential record a super simple 'box score' for each round and people can easily follow what happened in the game with just a few texts (Of course more description on what "A" is, when a ship is destroyed etc). If you think of the game like this it become clear you cant go 'back' and Vader a prior attack and this should help some here understand the 'why' part. I asked several Xwingers tonight what they though about the Attack->Gunner->Vader-> Vader and EVERYONE thought that was clearly incorrect and would not allowed it. (Well at least in a Denver area in gaming group.) So ask around your gaming group for the 'why' and see what they say if you dont accept or get frustrated with the "because Alex said so" answer.

In the combat phase, I would add the flow of the game (With respect to time) can be essentially represented by the order of which ships attack. So, I think it helps to think of attacks on a linear line that is clearly defined with pre-set order at the start of combat. A->B->C->D. Actions or abilities that are triggered before, with or after an attack (Such as Vader, Turr, etc) still cannot advance the flow and have to be resolved before time (Or the next attack) can advance. Note: some abilities such as Corran or Gunner, damage cards (Blinded pilot) or destroying ships will 'edit' this order- for instance A->B->C->D became A->A->B->D with a gunner destroying ship C. So you can set out writing a predicted attack order but then you can document or record the actual attack order. The attack order is basically the advancing time component in the combat round and would help explain why you must finish resolving the post effects of an attack. If you do this you can easily write out a describable log where an observer can follow what happened in the game fairly quickly without actually seeing a second of action... perhaps a sort of "box score" of each game. e.g. Round 1 A->B->C->D Round 2 A->A->B->C->D (A Gunner example) Round 3 A->B->C->D->C (C= Corran double tap) Round 4 A->D (B was destroyed) Round 5 A->C->D I would say this is attempt at mechanistically describing the game.

Don't worry; I couldn't afford the twice-yearly rotation anymore. It just frustrates me how arbitrary these rulings are. Attack-Gunner-[something]-[something] is not allowed because they don't want to have a "complex stack", but something like this scenario is perfectly okay: Tycho performs a Focus Action, triggering Experimental Interface.Resolve Experimental Interface, performing Squad Leader.Jake receives the action from Squad Leader, performs a Boost.Boost triggers Jake's Push the Limit; he uses it to Focus.Focus Action triggers Jake's ability; he uses it to Barrel Roll; his ability finishes resolving. Jake receives Stress from Push the Limit; it finishes resolving. Squad Leader finishes resolving; Tycho now uses it to trigger Push the Limit.Push the Limit allows Tycho to Boost. Tycho receives stress from Push the Limit; it finishes resolving. Tycho receives stress from Experimental Interface; it finishes resolving. That's 4 upgrade cards and 1 pilot ability triggered, and 5 actions performed, all before the first upgrade card finished resolving. This is supposed to be keeping the game simple? Well yeah it's not a physics simulator essentially everything is arbitrary to an extent. I mean does rolling to see who wins initiative not arbitrary? Why does lower pilot skill value move first? Does such a situational ruling you understood incorrectly really get you all twisted up and frustrated? Just roll with it. Finish the effects of the attack before moving to the next attack. Easy. Of note, the above example is fair and I think everyone can agree and follow easily that you did that correctly.

Your interpretation of the rules as written is incorrect. There is nothing in the rules that state that "you cant start a new attack without resolving the prior attack", or that if you if you "move on with an attack with gunner [...] the first Vader ability is missed". Alex Davy's ruling is NOT based on the rules as written. It is clearly a rules as intended ruling. I'd rather someone get a hold of Alex and get an answer to WHY this works this way. I fully agree that this is how it should work, and never had any doubt at all that they would say so, but the answer is fairly useless unless we understand the mechanical reasons behind it working this way. As I said in response to Amraam01 above: Alex Davy's ruling is NOT based on the rules as written. It is clearly a rules as intended ruling. The reason is that it goes "against the simple spirit of the game" and that "X-Wing is not intended to have a complex 'stack'". And I agree that keeping the rules simple is a good thing. I just hope they include the information in the next version of the FAQ as a general ruling that gives us a rules as written interpretation that can be applied to future similar interactions (eg: IG-88B and a future illicit upgrade with a "after you perform an attack" trigger, or a BTL-A4 Y-Wing and a future astromech with a "after you perform an attack" trigger). I see your point which is why I brought up Rulebook pg 10 Combat phase steps 1-7. I understand steps 1-7 as a discrete attack and Vader number 1 is absolutely intimately tied to part of that attack- of course the "after" part. So, I don't see how it is unreasonable to interpret resolving Vader with this attack is a prerequisite to starting a new attack with "declare target".

I'd rather someone get a hold of Alex and get an answer to WHY this works this way. I fully agree that this is how it should work, and never had any doubt at all that they would say so, but the answer is fairly useless unless we understand the mechanical reasons behind it working this way. Oh well Buhallin got the question resolved. I think he answers you point exactly, with post #48- unnecessary complexity. A lot more questions in the 'stacking' way ambiguity etc. Do you need to call out Vader after attack 1, then state I interrupt with gunner? I think the obvious issues should be reason enough that attacks are separate entities that must get resolved and closed up if then can be, in this instance, mechanistically think of it as what is the simplest answer - Ask, "Can attack 1 can be closed out when you have an option of dual instantaneous triggers before you start attack 2." I think that simple answer solves this.

I see no reason why a separate attack cannot be an interruptible ability. The Gunner card is pretty straight forward... It's an ability that triggers "After you perform an attack that does not hit" and allows you to "perform a primary weapon attack". Also, an attack has always been interruptible. Many cards interrupt the normal steps of an attack: Draw their fire, Xizor, R3-A2, Tactician, Rebel Captive, and many others trigger during (and interrupt) an attack. "Interrupt" probably was a bad word choice as you pointed out, resolve I should have said! Essentially, you cant start a new attack without resolving the prior attack. At the end of step 2 gunner and vader are triggered which is absolutely true and you have a choice, BUT if you move on with an attack with gunner, that effect is now resolved along with the first attack being resolved thus the first Vader ability is missed. It doesn't make sense and overpowered to say you can get all the damage/shields to hit to arbitrary decide a single or a double crit.

Going by the rules, sure we can. Vader is not an attack, he is just a triggered ability. Gunner is also just a triggered ability. They both trigger at the same time, and so the rules as currently written mean that we can resolve them in any order we want. That means we can attack X-wing Red, miss, resolve Gunner and attack a different ship, and then resolve the original Vader trigger. I'm also not sure where you're getting this "deal damage phase" stuff from. Vader is not involved with the damage from the attack at all. He triggers after the attack completes. Because in the rule book you compare results to see damage suffered from the dice (Step 6 Page 10)- then Step 7 deal damage. You can not arbitrarily decide to hold off on this step and begin another attack while 'saving' Vader. This is the only time you can deal Crit 1 for Xwing Red and the only time you compare results and see no damage to activate gunner. If you declare another target, that window has passed to suffer damage for attack 1 (Even Vader's Crit) and you are back to step 1 of another attack. If you can justify saving Vader for a totally separate independent attack because the card says "after" and has no linkage with the attack 1 on the Xwing, there is no reason why you can not just save him till the end of the round after your squad has fired. And I am sure everyone will agree that is incorrect. The interruption step is only referring to who is allowed to attack next, in this case the Gunner's second attack. Please don't take this as me being rude, but you are playing this situation completely wrong. I don't even know how you've reached your conclusions, to be honest. First of all, Vader does not take effect during the Deal Damage step. He is a triggered ability that activates after you perform an attack (ie. the attack must complete in full), so all the steps of the attack must complete first, so any damage from it is long resolved by the time Vader triggers. The rest of your argument falls apart from there. We're not saving Vader until the end of another attack; he is simply waiting to resolve while another ability that triggers at the same time resolves first. That ability just happens to be causing an attack in this situation, but it wouldn't matter what the ability does. If we choose to resolve it first, then by the current letter of the law Vader waits until it finishes. And, to address your next post, that entry is no longer in the FAQ. Therefore it doesn't really mean much of anything (though it might be added again), and technically resolving it this way wouldn't violate it. Vader is still triggered once after each attack, but he just waits for other abilities to resolve first. We're allowed to choose the order of resolution for all other abilities; there's no real reason in the written rules why Vader should act differently. Well the information from the prior FAQ exactly supported how I am stating it. That is the latest information we had, and most importantly it did not state "Yes twice after both attacks." So saying it is totally irrelevant seems quite dismissive of prior information specifically addressing this issue solely to fit your view. Now if NEW information overrode it (Such as Cloaking rules), then I would be on your side. But, nothing new seems to have done that and that is the latest known. Maybe they took it out because clarification was not needed because it was thought to be settled and to keep the FAQ concise. Who knows? But at the time it settled rules. You call a separate attack an ability? A separate attack is simply that- a separate attack and NOT an interruptable ability. I am sure everyone will agree an attack is quite separate and distinct from an interrupt able ability as Push the Limit. Like I said if you take "After an attack" as you do why exactly do you decide to only resolve it after Gunner attacks? Why suddenly then and not much later?

From a previous long discussion FAQ I dug up. https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/93421-suicide-vader/?hl=%2Bvader+%2Bgunner#entry907367 The following sure seems clear as is means Attack>Vader>Gunner>Vader. Otherwise they would have said, "Yes twice after both attacks." Instead they specifically stated ONCE after EACH attack. Q: If a ship attacks twice through some effect, such as the Gunner upgrade, can the ship use the ability of Darth Vader (the Upgrade card) twice? A: Yes, once after each attack.

Going by the rules, sure we can. Vader is not an attack, he is just a triggered ability. Gunner is also just a triggered ability. They both trigger at the same time, and so the rules as currently written mean that we can resolve them in any order we want. That means we can attack X-wing Red, miss, resolve Gunner and attack a different ship, and then resolve the original Vader trigger. I'm also not sure where you're getting this "deal damage phase" stuff from. Vader is not involved with the damage from the attack at all. He triggers after the attack completes. Because in the rule book you compare results to see damage suffered from the dice (Step 6 Page 10)- then Step 7 deal damage. You can not arbitrarily decide to hold off on this step and begin another attack while 'saving' Vader. This is the only time you can deal Crit 1 for Xwing Red and the only time you compare results and see no damage to activate gunner. If you declare another target, that window has passed to suffer damage for attack 1 (Even Vader's Crit) and you are back to step 1 of another attack. If you can justify saving Vader for a totally separate independent attack because the card says "after" and has no linkage with the attack 1 on the Xwing, there is no reason why you can not just save him till the end of the round after your squad has fired. And I am sure everyone will agree that is incorrect. The interruption step is only referring to who is allowed to attack next, in this case the Gunner's second attack.

Nah your overreacting. Ordnance has their place if you know how to use it correctly, Ha my Vadar was one shotted by Proton Rockets by an A Wing. In the right hands they are utterly game changing.

Have to agree with you, the gunner is a totally separate attack so the first attack must be fully resolved first if you want to use the first vader. Otherwise, if you want to save vader after another seperate attack, what stops you from saving vader till the end of the round X2 to allow the rest of your squad fire to let the crits go through at the end? This isnt a timing issue such as PTL or EI where interruptions are considered but Vader is part of a distinct attack. You can't delay a triggered event indefinitely, as you would if you waited to resolve Vader until the end of the round. But you can certainly delay it until you've resolved other effects with the same trigger, which is what (IMO) you can do here. I not so sure you can. I think the word in gunner of "immediately" is tripping up people here. I believe the purpose is to prevent the following: Lets say Oicunn shoots Xwing red. You decide to then shoot Black Squadron tie. The decide to gunner a la (Oicunn>BLACK>GUNNER). "Immediately" prevents black or anyone shooting next- Gunner must be the NEXT attack if you decide and can use it. Besides, you think you can shoot Xwing red, miss, decide to gunner a different ship- A wing Green- then say, well, let me backtrack to the first attack deal damage phase so Xwing red gets a crit along with Green. I think not. If you miss the deal damage phase in the first attack with Vader you missed the opportunity.

Have to agree with you, the gunner is a totally separate attack so the first attack must be fully resolved first if you want to use the first vader. Otherwise, if you want to save vader after another seperate attack, what stops you from saving vader till the end of the round X2 to allow the rest of your squad fire to let the crits go through at the end? This isnt a timing issue such as PTL or EI where interruptions are considered but Vader is part of a distinct attack.

I have no idea what the Battle Butterfly is. The Lambda has eight on its model, the Falcon and Decimator each have eight, the Moldy Crow used to have eight on Wookiee which has since changed to 4. four lasers, four canons. The hawk model has just the turret. I miscounted the decimator (and X wing is a typo, I calculated right)It still goes to.7 which is a strong correlation. Number of lasers often translates directly to attack values. Agree, it is a strong correlation- 0.7 is very very good- just looking at the number of lasers cannons on the ship gives you a good idea of predicting it's attack value translated in dice. I think people are thinking just because the plastic figure has the blaster turret as in the Hawk of Falcon these should count. And the lasers cannons, such as in defender, do not all fire at the same time, so the better way of thinking of attack is damage over a certain time period- 5 seconds?. So the 1 dice per laser never made sense to begin with but helps you figure how much 'attack' the ship has. I think the base Assault Gunboat with 2 attack is fair... of course with some extra goodies.

Prices are what they are, it is up to you to determine if it is worth it on a personal level. Having said that on a statistical level, prices surely follow a normal distribution as demand will taper off at higher prices. It is clear from the forum the higher the prices as compared to X-Wing, people are asking is it really worth it. Personally, I think they were a bit stingy with the dice for the MSRP price and I can tell they basically removed upgrade cards that should belong to the core to "fill up" the expansions. Xwing was very generous overall, and they obviously made great value pricing points for that game which ended up building a massive following. This in turn caused some people to look at other FF games and buy those- Imperial assault, Armada etc.

It is my understanding that you can disengage if a opponents ship flies in your squadrons way since you get to place the ships wherever you want. It does not specifically say you have to keep the ships engaged. Any one have comments on this or did I miss something?

Unless you decide to play unlimited rounds, then it alternates.

Exactly the meta time component 'when' is another variable. People may just desire certain ships or fly/are familiar with certain ships/upgrades. Can the designers constantly chase this with point corrections to correct perceived imbalances in the game?

I don't think the developers would have been aware of the concept of jousting values until I presented it with analysis in early 2014. The design of the CR-90 had almost certainly been locked in by that point anyway. I'm not sure when the earliest was that they could have started using the jousting values for, but given that wave 5 was available for early release only a few months later, it would have to be wave 6 at the earliest. Wave 6 was spoiled summer 2014, only a few months after I published the work, which implies the wave 6 design was also probably locked in by this point, meaning wave 7 may actually be the first wave that they could use the "jousting math". This also assumes that they know how to turn the crank on the math without messing up the calculations somewhere. Since they didn't invent the formula, and it is obviously different than the previous ones that they used, who knows what their approach is now. True but I am sure they have a formula to help assign point cost to ships. And looking at your work, you show why certain ships are more popular in the meta and how you can predict which ships you will see more of. Going back to the OP though, the question becomes what we should see. I think that question does not necessarily have a correct answer as it depends on how you view balance. In general, outside the cheapest ships, a lot of named pilots are a bit 'on-sale' (Meaning- worth upgrading from the basic version) as compared the generic equivalents (Corran, Han Solo, Fel). Obviously, with the developers they want to see more Tie Advanced period; thus, we see the specific point adjustment through the 'free' systems upgrade.

Nor does it have to be. The original poster claimed Summoner Wars to be almost perfectly balanced but a quick scan of some decks show the same cards propping up again and again, enough so I might think that if you'd really dig into it you'll find completely unused cards and combinations as well. And looking at X-Wing, the balance is almost 50/50 Rebel/Imperial with Scum moving in, that's pretty balanced as well. But taking casual into account, as you must, I think you'll find hardly anything in X-Wing goes unused. Very true, as it all depends what "balanced around competitive play" means... What does balanced mean? That every ship has equal representation in your store tournament? At regions? Current meta? etc. Is that the only way to balance a game? Like you said, a 50/50 Rebel Imperial suggests at minimum perfect faction balance. So what balance is 'best"? Is there a correct answer? Besides, an expensive card today may the perfectly priced card for future upgrade combo XYZ tomorrow.

Perhaps, that some cards such as C3PO is undercosted to an extent. But. lets suppose FFG wants to see certain builds such as a Han Solo do statistically superior than other ships. How interesting is it when you can bring in a perfectly balanced game of these unnamed alpha squadron pilots do statistically as well as any other build with the same number of points? Perhaps, the designers are making other thematic valuations that are not picked up in simple josting values- such as they want to see certain ship in play MORE than other ships B. I think by DESIGN some ships are simply made to not be as efficient by the point cost. I think that is a totally appropriate decision in my eyes.

Maybe the person cant make it? Won the store, dont mind seeing them do whatever with it- give to friend, sell etc.