Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
CatPeeler

Negative Play Experience (NPE) a sign of the need for a new/revised edition?

Recommended Posts

In waves 1-6 there were two power levels.

 - Tournament power level

 - Normal power level

 

This has expanded and there appears to be three different power levels now.

 - Premier tournament power level

 - Tournament power level

 - Normal power level

 

Each power level can almost always crush a list that is a power level below it. These different power levels are a primary source of NPE. Choosing the right list is more important than it has ever been. Creating and flying a premier level list is more difficult than ever before. Personally I love the complexity and depth that X-wing has now, but it does mean new players have a significant amount to learn.

 

I see a correlation between overall game balance and the amount of NPE's that can happen. If FFG actually balanced the huge # of pilots that have no place in tournament meta, the potential for NPE would go down.

 

A small example: X-wings without regen should actually have a chance in the game of X-wing in the hands of a skilled pilot. Currently, playing an X-wing (besides Biggs) at a regional is in some ways a NPE & this should not be.

 

P.S. [Just my opinion, but Corran Horn PTL R2-D2 always is NPE. Near 50 point small base ships should not be a thing.]

Edited by Dengar5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just my opinion, but Corran Horn PTL R2-D2 always is NPE.

 

Thanks for proving my point - Corran Horn is one of my favorite Rebel ships of all time  :D it would be an utter NPE to me if he were suddenly no longer viable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, xwing is NOT a dice game

It is a tactical miniatures game with dice in it. Space flight is represented by the player selected manuevers and NOT rng

Yahtzee is a freaking dice game

Second of all, have you tried dodging a computer controled fully automatic weapon at close range? It is less logical to think you could

I understand it's a "tactical miniatures game with dice in it" that is, by definition and by experience, what everyone already knows. However, the dice are what gives the game realism and chance in the engagements. Auto damage is illogical. And to answer your question, "have you tried dodging a computer controled fully automatic weapon at close range?" The answer by me or anyone else on this forum is, in reality, "no." However, following your thought trail in this fictional universe, we may not have experienced such a thing, but you can be sure, every combat pilot and ship weapons/defense designer in the Star Wars universe has, and therefore by definition would anticipate such an event and react accordingly, even if such reaction is slight. There is no such thing as a 'sure thing' in combat when opposing forces are knowledgeable, there are always reactions. Edited by clanofwolves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, xwing is NOT a dice game

It is a tactical miniatures game with dice in it. Space flight is represented by the player selected manuevers and NOT rng

Yahtzee is a freaking dice game

Second of all, have you tried dodging a computer controled fully automatic weapon at close range? It is less logical to think you could

I understand it's a "tactical miniatures game with dice in it" that is, by definition and by experience, what everyone already knows. However, the dice are what gives the game realism and chance in the engagements. Auto damage is illogical. And to answer your question, "have you tried dodging a computer controled fully automatic weapon at close range?" The answer by me or anyone else on this forum is, in reality, "no." However, following your thought trail in this fictional universe, we may not have experienced such a thing, but you can be sure, every combat pilot and ship weapons/defense designer in the Star Wars universe has, and therefore by definition would anticipate such an event and react accordingly, even if such reaction is slight. There is no such thing as a 'sure thing' in combat when opposing forces are knowledgeable, there are always reactions.
The idea behind the Autoblaster, and Autoblaster Turret (as opposed to regular weapons) is that it's automatic. A computer tracks the target and shoots a bunch of lazer bolts at it. The pilot in either ship has nothing to do with shooting or avoiding it. If the shots are lined up properly by the computer, it hits the ship. Accuracy corrector is like the software behind the Autoblaster weapons, but put into another ship. It compensates for the innaccuracy or the person shooting, or for the target moving, but only to an extent. That's why you get 2 hits, and you can't modify that in any way.

Edit: spelling

Edited by Darth Tam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

First of all, xwing is NOT a dice game

It is a tactical miniatures game with dice in it. Space flight is represented by the player selected manuevers and NOT rng

Yahtzee is a freaking dice game

Second of all, have you tried dodging a computer controled fully automatic weapon at close range? It is less logical to think you could

I understand it's a "tactical miniatures game with dice in it" that is, by definition and by experience, what everyone already knows. However, the dice are what gives the game realism and chance in the engagements. Auto damage is illogical. And to answer your question, "have you tried dodging a computer controled fully automatic weapon at close range?" The answer by me or anyone else on this forum is, in reality, "no." However, following your thought trail in this fictional universe, we may not have experienced such a thing, but you can be sure, every combat pilot and ship weapons/defense designer in the Star Wars universe has, and therefore by definition would anticipate such an event and react accordingly, even if such reaction is slight. There is no such thing as a 'sure thing' in combat when opposing forces are knowledgeable, there are always reactions.

 

 

you know how they react to it?

 

by staying out of range 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, xwing is NOT a dice game

It is a tactical miniatures game with dice in it. Space flight is represented by the player selected manuevers and NOT rng

Yahtzee is a freaking dice game

Second of all, have you tried dodging a computer controled fully automatic weapon at close range? It is less logical to think you could

I understand it's a "tactical miniatures game with dice in it" that is, by definition and by experience, what everyone already knows. However, the dice are what gives the game realism and chance in the engagements. Auto damage is illogical. And to answer your question, "have you tried dodging a computer controled fully automatic weapon at close range?" The answer by me or anyone else on this forum is, in reality, "no." However, following your thought trail in this fictional universe, we may not have experienced such a thing, but you can be sure, every combat pilot and ship weapons/defense designer in the Star Wars universe has, and therefore by definition would anticipate such an event and react accordingly, even if such reaction is slight. There is no such thing as a 'sure thing' in combat when opposing forces are knowledgeable, there are always reactions.
The idea behind the Autoblaster, and Autoblaster Turret (as opposed to regular weapons) is that it's automatic. A computer tracks the target and shoots a bunch of lazer bolts at it. The pilot in either ship has nothing to do with shooting or avoiding it. If the shots are lined up properly by the computer, it hits the ship. Accuracy corrector is like the software behind the Autoblaster weapons, but put into another ship. It compensates for the innaccuracy or the person shooting, or for the target moving, but only to an extent. That's why you get 2 hits, and you can't modify that in any way.

Edit: spelling

Nice explanation, well done, but I understand that angle easily. I can easily see your statement being one main teaching point's intro by an academy leader or instructor: "A computer tracks the target and shoots a bunch of lazer bolts at it. The pilot in either ship has nothing to do with shooting or avoiding it. If the shots are lined up properly by the computer, it hits the ship." Perhaps then he or she would continue with, "so what should you do? Seems like your doomed, are you?" The silent classroom may be interrupted by a funny retort, "just don't fly near that" followed by a chorus of chuckles; but the instructor would certainly go into "now here's what to do when this situation is unavoidable and you find yourself within range of said weapon." The key to my assertion that NO situation in combat where surprise is not in play is "auto damage" ties in with your explanation perfectly as you exposed the weapons only flaw. Continuing with my illustration, I believe the instructor would say, "if the system has a computer (that) tracks the target (you) and shoots a bunch of lazer bolts at (you), then what you must do is use the computer's ability to "track" your ship against itself in an way you can. This will not be easy, but difficult, but remember: the attacking computer is relying on gathering your angle, speed and vector and uses that info to project where your ship will be in order to track it with the weapon. But remember, it has to take into account the time between the real-time gathering of the information, the internal computation and prediction software, and then subsequently communicate to and firing of the weapon. This will be a very fast response, but time is involved, albeit tiny." So the obvious thing trainees would our be taught and field-tested on when facing these common weapons would be to fly in defensive and erratic patterns and have no constant vector or speed. Is the amount of evasion against a computer less than that of manned weapon? Most would argue absolutely yes. But there still is an amount of evasive ability in any situation, even if it is small....save surprise as I stated prior. So I still hold to my assertion that it is illogical; but I do understand and appreciate you and FGD's opinions greatly. Edited by clanofwolves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I would go as far as to say we'll never get a Second Edition.

 

The model just isn't compatible with it.

 

They'll make X-Wing until it stops selling then roll out another game at the same price point when it stops.

 

Would seem to be a pretty dumb business move to just let one of your biggest products wither.  IMHO, 2.0 would not be about radically revising the game, but rather about getting all the errata and FAQ stuff printed on the actual cards again, so that a secondary source document is not required.

 

 

Then it wouldn't be a 2.0 but more like X-Wing 1.5.  If the mechanics don't change then it isn't really a new edition although you may call it revised or update.  Thing about X-Wing is that FFG does put the updated cards in their packages as they are reprinted; that may not help the early adopters who get four of everything and thus don't get those updates but it should make it easier for someone just getting into the game.  I'd almost say the new player to the game has it easy as they can get what they need without going too far into something on speculation it may turn out to be great or having something reprinted again in a different form which makes some older product redundant.

 

The 2.0 I don't want to see is the one that goes and makes major changes to the game such that two current squadrons that carried over into the update would need to be completely reworked and may not even work the same way.  Those suggestions that Mobile Arcs be used EVERYWHERE you currently see a turret or at least with PWT is one of the things I think would doom a 2.0 release.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, xwing is NOT a dice game

It is a tactical miniatures game with dice in it. Space flight is represented by the player selected manuevers and NOT rng

Yahtzee is a freaking dice game

Second of all, have you tried dodging a computer controled fully automatic weapon at close range? It is less logical to think you could

 

 

ACE-WING-DICE-CARD-GAME. IS EXACTLY WHAT USED TO BE X-WING.

 

Sale that stuff you want us to buy else's wheres... WE KNOW...  FGD  WE... KNOW.

(WHY DID YOU RUINE X-WING FFG?!?!?!)

:lol:  :P  ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, xwing is NOT a dice game

It is a tactical miniatures game with dice in it. Space flight is represented by the player selected manuevers and NOT rng

Yahtzee is a freaking dice game

Second of all, have you tried dodging a computer controled fully automatic weapon at close range? It is less logical to think you could

I understand it's a "tactical miniatures game with dice in it" that is, by definition and by experience, what everyone already knows. However, the dice are what gives the game realism and chance in the engagements. Auto damage is illogical. And to answer your question, "have you tried dodging a computer controled fully automatic weapon at close range?" The answer by me or anyone else on this forum is, in reality, "no." However, following your thought trail in this fictional universe, we may not have experienced such a thing, but you can be sure, every combat pilot and ship weapons/defense designer in the Star Wars universe has, and therefore by definition would anticipate such an event and react accordingly, even if such reaction is slight. There is no such thing as a 'sure thing' in combat when opposing forces are knowledgeable, there are always reactions.
The idea behind the Autoblaster, and Autoblaster Turret (as opposed to regular weapons) is that it's automatic. A computer tracks the target and shoots a bunch of lazer bolts at it. The pilot in either ship has nothing to do with shooting or avoiding it. If the shots are lined up properly by the computer, it hits the ship. Accuracy corrector is like the software behind the Autoblaster weapons, but put into another ship. It compensates for the innaccuracy or the person shooting, or for the target moving, but only to an extent. That's why you get 2 hits, and you can't modify that in any way.

Edit: spelling

Nice explanation, well done, but I understand that angle easily. I can easily see your statement being one main teaching point's intro by an academy leader or instructor: "A computer tracks the target and shoots a bunch of lazer bolts at it. The pilot in either ship has nothing to do with shooting or avoiding it. If the shots are lined up properly by the computer, it hits the ship." Perhaps then he or she would continue with, "so what should you do? Seems like your doomed, are you?" The silent classroom may be interrupted by a funny retort, "just don't fly near that" followed by a chorus of chuckles; but the instructor would certainly go into "now here's what to do when this situation is unavoidable and you find yourself within range of said weapon." The key to my assertion that NO situation in combat where surprise is not in play is "auto damage" ties in with your explanation perfectly as you exposed the weapons only flaw. Continuing with my illustration, I believe the instructor would say, "if the system has a computer (that) tracks the target (you) and shoots a bunch of lazer bolts at (you), then what you must do is use the computer's ability to "track" your ship against itself in an way you can. This will not be easy, but difficult, but remember: the attacking computer is relying on gathering your angle, speed and vector and uses that info to project where your ship will be in order to track it with the weapon. But remember, it has to take into account the time between the real-time gathering of the information, the internal computation and prediction software, and then subsequently communicate to and firing of the weapon. This will be a very fast response, but time is involved, albeit tiny." So the obvious thing trainees would our be taught and field-tested on when facing these common weapons would be to fly in defensive and erratic patterns and have no constant vector or speed. Is the amount of evasion against a computer less than that of manned weapon? Most would argue absolutely yes. But there still is an amount of evasive ability in any situation, even if it is small....save surprise as I stated prior. So I still hold to my assertion that it is illogical; but I do understand and appreciate you and FGD's opinions greatly.

I understand your point, but that explanantion is why only hits do damage, even with Autoblaster weapons. If they were truly impossible to miss with, then you would just automatically do damage. Here it is only the shots that would hit the ship that you can't avoid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No need for a second edition. Maybe like what they have in Android:Netrunner a soft ban list. One that adds a point to certain pilot upgrade combos like OGP&Palp having costing 1 more point for the combination or Dengar & Proton Torpedoes. I can see that happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

First of all, xwing is NOT a dice game

It is a tactical miniatures game with dice in it. Space flight is represented by the player selected manuevers and NOT rng

Yahtzee is a freaking dice game

Second of all, have you tried dodging a computer controled fully automatic weapon at close range? It is less logical to think you could

I understand it's a "tactical miniatures game with dice in it" that is, by definition and by experience, what everyone already knows. However, the dice are what gives the game realism and chance in the engagements. Auto damage is illogical. And to answer your question, "have you tried dodging a computer controled fully automatic weapon at close range?" The answer by me or anyone else on this forum is, in reality, "no." However, following your thought trail in this fictional universe, we may not have experienced such a thing, but you can be sure, every combat pilot and ship weapons/defense designer in the Star Wars universe has, and therefore by definition would anticipate such an event and react accordingly, even if such reaction is slight. There is no such thing as a 'sure thing' in combat when opposing forces are knowledgeable, there are always reactions.
The idea behind the Autoblaster, and Autoblaster Turret (as opposed to regular weapons) is that it's automatic. A computer tracks the target and shoots a bunch of lazer bolts at it. The pilot in either ship has nothing to do with shooting or avoiding it. If the shots are lined up properly by the computer, it hits the ship. Accuracy corrector is like the software behind the Autoblaster weapons, but put into another ship. It compensates for the innaccuracy or the person shooting, or for the target moving, but only to an extent. That's why you get 2 hits, and you can't modify that in any way.

Edit: spelling

Nice explanation, well done, but I understand that angle easily. I can easily see your statement being one main teaching point's intro by an academy leader or instructor: "A computer tracks the target and shoots a bunch of lazer bolts at it. The pilot in either ship has nothing to do with shooting or avoiding it. If the shots are lined up properly by the computer, it hits the ship." Perhaps then he or she would continue with, "so what should you do? Seems like your doomed, are you?" The silent classroom may be interrupted by a funny retort, "just don't fly near that" followed by a chorus of chuckles; but the instructor would certainly go into "now here's what to do when this situation is unavoidable and you find yourself within range of said weapon." The key to my assertion that NO situation in combat where surprise is not in play is "auto damage" ties in with your explanation perfectly as you exposed the weapons only flaw. Continuing with my illustration, I believe the instructor would say, "if the system has a computer (that) tracks the target (you) and shoots a bunch of lazer bolts at (you), then what you must do is use the computer's ability to "track" your ship against itself in an way you can. This will not be easy, but difficult, but remember: the attacking computer is relying on gathering your angle, speed and vector and uses that info to project where your ship will be in order to track it with the weapon. But remember, it has to take into account the time between the real-time gathering of the information, the internal computation and prediction software, and then subsequently communicate to and firing of the weapon. This will be a very fast response, but time is involved, albeit tiny." So the obvious thing trainees would our be taught and field-tested on when facing these common weapons would be to fly in defensive and erratic patterns and have no constant vector or speed. Is the amount of evasion against a computer less than that of manned weapon? Most would argue absolutely yes. But there still is an amount of evasive ability in any situation, even if it is small....save surprise as I stated prior. So I still hold to my assertion that it is illogical; but I do understand and appreciate you and FGD's opinions greatly.

I understand your point, but that explanantion is why only hits do damage, even with Autoblaster weapons. If they were truly impossible to miss with, then you would just automatically do damage. Here it is only the shots that would hit the ship that you can't avoid.

 

Both are 2 red attack dice.  Grab your green dice. . you get to roll defense.  It is NOT automatic damage, it is automatic hits.

Edited by Darth Meanie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I would go as far as to say we'll never get a Second Edition.

 

The model just isn't compatible with it.

 

They'll make X-Wing until it stops selling then roll out another game at the same price point when it stops.

 

Would seem to be a pretty dumb business move to just let one of your biggest products wither.  IMHO, 2.0 would not be about radically revising the game, but rather about getting all the errata and FAQ stuff printed on the actual cards again, so that a secondary source document is not required.

 

 

Then it wouldn't be a 2.0 but more like X-Wing 1.5.  If the mechanics don't change then it isn't really a new edition although you may call it revised or update. 

 

Given that every Wave changes how the game works, every Wave could be called a revision or update.  Semantics aside, at some point an overall "this is where we are now" release needs to happen.

 

For example, I think it is extraordinarily odd to have 2 legal damage decks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

this term `NPE` seems a little wierd to me . I am not completely familiar with it and will have to look it up a little bit to make sure I understand what it means. If someone said " I had a negative play experience. there is something wrong." My inclinations is to think of it like a request for a safe space or a trigger warning because someones feelings got hurt.Or, something in that sort of category.

 

Let me clarify, because I'm sure as hell not advocating for safe spaces or that malarkey.  

 

A really strong, challenging competitive list can be a joy to fly against.  It will push you to the limits of your abilities to maneuver and out think your opponent.  A list which reduces your participation to merely removing ships off the table without any ability to influence the game is a different animal entirely.

 

 

The thing is none of what you listed in your OP objectively matches that description. You say Zuckuss is NPE, explain how. It's a little tiring with people acting like Zuckuss completely negates all green dice and makes Soontir as easy to hit as a token-less range one Ghost. This is quite frankly hyperbole BS, it's a reroll, you could possibly reroll just as many evades as you had innately thus meaning Zuckuss did nothing. Not to mention that we have better crew options then Zuckuss if we're facing off against low agility ships, Zuckuss is only as strong as Aces are prevalent.

 

If Zuckuss was broken we'd see a sharp decline in the use of high agility ships, just like how the pre-nerf Phantom killed off Swarms and other list options. As this is not the case then clearly things are fine in this regard at least.

 

You mentioned a party bus could put out 4-5 damage at range, how? It's a 3 attack ship, with Dengar onboard you can reliably expect 2-3 hits on unique ships and 1-2 on generics. Zuckuss and 4-Lom combined mean you're not getting much damage mitigation, with 3+ agility you'd probably average 0-1 evades. Pretty good, that being said that's assuming you're doing nothing to assure your own survival. Take into account range bonuses, blocked shot bonuses from asteroids, and the ever present Autothruster and things start swinging back in favor of the defender.

 

Your next complaint was Autoblasters. This one makes no sense at all. You talk about counter play and outmaneuvering your opponent and then complain about the one upgrade that punishes you primarily for being out flown? It's range one only, that is a huge disadvantage. It's also also 58 points minimum for the build you mentioned with a  Lothal Rebel, for **** near 3/5ths my list taken by one ship it better be able to put out some impressive damage.

 

Judging off what you consider NPE I'm guessing you play mostly Interceptor based list correct? No offense, but you're attitude towards these upgrades strikes me less as objective reasoning and more as whining about things that you don't want to learn to play around. You think many people find it fun to get Soontir dead to rights in multiple firing arcs just to watch him walk away with out even a scratch on his paint?

 

I believe X-wing is due for a 2.0, but not because of any one ship or upgrade I consider to be NPE or overpowered. After 10 waves of fixing things by introducing soft-counters it has left entire archetypes of ships in the dust. Not to mention automatic upgrades that at best just limit your upgrade options, at worse act as a necessary tax.

 

PTL is a good example of this, why would you ever take another EPT if your ship has the dial to take advantage of PTL? Other EPT's are generally situational, PTL can be used for offensive, defensive, and repositioning. This has limited design space for more expensive EPT's.

 

Another reason is the current arms race we have in the meta. Rebels have regeneration, Empire has defense die and token stacking, and Scum have neither in any great amount but can push damage through both more reliably. Any new ships are DOA if they don't have some form of automatic damage or defensive mitigation. Ships are increasing relying on stacking effects just to remain competitive.

 

All in all Xwing has changed quite a lot since its original inception and they've came up with some great ideas, I think a 2.0 to clean up some of the old clutter is about due.

Edited by BomberGob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A full zuckuss party boat with a couple of TLT escorts is trivially easy to park indefinitely.  4-5 unavoidable damage from the boat, followed by two TLT's will erase a lot of ships.  You can't get behind it unless I want you to.  Not many ships can survive 6-8 damage/turn for more than a round, while also dealing damage at a matching rate.

I mean, most competitive lists will not actually struggle against this. it's just not that hard to torch a bus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The other day, I was playing with a friend, and we were down to a RAC vs TLT Y-Wing. At this point, we both looked at one another, realized that RAC was probably going to win- but maybe not- and that the match would be _really boring_ to finish. So we quit to grab a bit of dinner.

To me, that's the epitome of an NPE. When even _winning_ is not fun.

Are there more NPEs than there used to be? I don't know. I think there are more decisions being made by each player that can't quite be impacted by another player, this tends to feel less interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The other day, I was playing with a friend, and we were down to a RAC vs TLT Y-Wing. At this point, we both looked at one another, realized that RAC was probably going to win- but maybe not- and that the match would be _really boring_ to finish. So we quit to grab a bit of dinner.

To me, that's the epitome of an NPE. When even _winning_ is not fun.

Are there more NPEs than there used to be? I don't know. I think there are more decisions being made by each player that can't quite be impacted by another player, this tends to feel less interesting.

 

How dare you not properly support your game: ACE-WING!

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if the OP is brining this up because of the odd thing that happens at the tournament level. If you take a look on YouTube for 2016 X-Wing tournaments, you will see a LOT of JumpMaster lists. Competitive players trend toward lists that get the best results in the most hands, or by the most players. This doesn't mean that there are not better lists, it just means that most players will do well if given that list.

The competitive scene is a dichotomy of people who have fun because they like to win and people who have fun because the want to play more X-Wing. The people that play those lists that tend to do well in anyone's hands are the group that have to win to have fun.

IMO if I was in a tournament and the only list I kept seeing was a simple variation on JumpMaster list, I would find it rather boring.

I don't think the problem is with the rules or the new cards, it's the people who are so limited in vision. There are so many pilots that just are not used any more. FF has made a practice of making old ships relevant again, just give them time to get there. I'm sure there will be another Most Wanted type expansion pack that will change enough of the rules, or perhaps a campaign pack that will have upgraded versions to old pilots, that will change things enough for everyone's liking without needing to start from scratch.

For now take a look at Wedge Antilles and add the new "vectored thrusters". I'd say that makes an old ship rather worth playing again, wouldn't you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The other day, I was playing with a friend, and we were down to a RAC vs TLT Y-Wing. At this point, we both looked at one another, realized that RAC was probably going to win- but maybe not- and that the match would be _really boring_ to finish. So we quit to grab a bit of dinner.

To me, that's the epitome of an NPE. When even _winning_ is not fun.

Are there more NPEs than there used to be? I don't know. I think there are more decisions being made by each player that can't quite be impacted by another player, this tends to feel less interesting.

 

How dare you not properly support your game: ACE-WING!

:lol:

 

So Joe.   If I take Soontir and RAC and Vader against you and win, will you flip the table cuz meta??  =) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if the OP is brining this up because of the odd thing that happens at the tournament level. If you take a look on YouTube for 2016 X-Wing tournaments, you will see a LOT of JumpMaster lists. Competitive players trend toward lists that get the best results in the most hands, or by the most players. This doesn't mean that there are not better lists, it just means that most players will do well if given that list.

The competitive scene is a dichotomy of people who have fun because they like to win and people who have fun because the want to play more X-Wing. The people that play those lists that tend to do well in anyone's hands are the group that have to win to have fun.

IMO if I was in a tournament and the only list I kept seeing was a simple variation on JumpMaster list, I would find it rather boring.

I don't think the problem is with the rules or the new cards, it's the people who are so limited in vision. There are so many pilots that just are not used any more. FF has made a practice of making old ships relevant again, just give them time to get there. I'm sure there will be another Most Wanted type expansion pack that will change enough of the rules, or perhaps a campaign pack that will have upgraded versions to old pilots, that will change things enough for everyone's liking without needing to start from scratch.

For now take a look at Wedge Antilles and add the new "vectored thrusters". I'd say that makes an old ship rather worth playing again, wouldn't you?

 

Well, if you think the competitive community hasn't yet found the best lists, show them the error of their ways.  I kinda think this sentiment is off-base coming from people who don't know what the best list is, they just assume the competitive community is inferior somehow because they tend toward builds and list concepts that work consistently against a variety of opposition.  The meta-defining lists tend to actually be fairly flexible and nuanced and have a lot of plays against a lot of things.

 

Also, you can give Wedge barrel roll if you want but it doesn't fix Wedge's problem of dying in two attacks given today's attack quality, like most of the T-65 X-wings and a lot of the pure jouster field in general.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The other day, I was playing with a friend, and we were down to a RAC vs TLT Y-Wing. At this point, we both looked at one another, realized that RAC was probably going to win- but maybe not- and that the match would be _really boring_ to finish. So we quit to grab a bit of dinner.

To me, that's the epitome of an NPE. When even _winning_ is not fun.

Are there more NPEs than there used to be? I don't know. I think there are more decisions being made by each player that can't quite be impacted by another player, this tends to feel less interesting.

Sometimes I'll simply concede the game.  Some battles end in a draw.  It happens.  The NPE is thinking one of you had to win.  The PPE is you got together for a game of X-Wing, then had dinner together.

Edited by Darth Meanie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...