Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Atomic Mass Games has released their new modified rules and points for X-Wing.

https://www.atomicmassgames.com/xwing-documents

There's an intro article there that explains some of the thoughts behind the changes.

Instead of 100 point squads in 1st edition or 200 points in second edition, this version has you build 20 point squads. Upgrades are purchased using a separate points mechanic called Loadout Points. It kinda reminds me of 40K PL in that Darth Vader in the TIE Advanced X1 costs 8 squad points whether he is loaded up with goodies or running bare. The emphasis seems to be on loading up the aces instead of using bare bones generics. This is further emphasized by adding additional slots to pilots. Vader gets an additional force slot, mod slot and even a tech slot now. He can take 22 points of upgrades and still cost 8 squad points.

Bumping your own ships hurts now. Making the enemy bump you, not so much. Obstacles are much harsher now. Asteroids always cause 1 damage and you roll for additional damage, for example.

Deathmatch is dead. It's all scenario-based now. Gotta grab those satellites.

There's a ban list now. The mighty Ved Foslo is banned. Because he can change his maneuver after revealing his dial and that is right out.

So welcome to X-Wing Miniatures 2.5 Fully Loaded!

The Ban list stinks of just "shaking things up the GW way"

I'll read the rest and be salty about that in due course

I stopped playing before v2 was released (the timing chart FAQ). Is it worth taking another look?

beast_gts wrote:
I stopped playing before v2 was released (the timing chart FAQ). Is it worth taking another look?

I've been enjoying 2.0. 1st edition was spinning out of control towards the end. So much so that I switched to Armada for a time. I think the biggest issue with players not making the switch was the whole conversion kit thing and not specific rules changes in the game itself. Not sure how this set of changes is going to play out, but I'm going to give it a shot.

 Arschbombe wrote:
Instead of 100 point squads in 1st edition or 200 points in second edition, this version has you build 20 point squads. Upgrades are purchased using a separate points mechanic called Loadout Points. It kinda reminds me of 40K PL in that Darth Vader in the TIE Advanced X1 costs 8 squad points whether he is loaded up with goodies or running bare. The emphasis seems to be on loading up the aces instead of using bare bones generics. This is further emphasized by adding additional slots to pilots. Vader gets an additional force slot, mod slot and even a tech slot now. He can take 22 points of upgrades and still cost 8 squad points.

This is everything I ever wanted out of FFGs upgrades systems. Honestly its something I'd love to see in 40k as well.

The point pool upgrade system is better however the internal balance on ship point pool has issues… like why is a b-wing generic cost more then some named with larger upgraded pools? It really just makes alot of generics useless. It feels like they dug themselves another hole with the 20 point pool cap. It feels like they could have made generics a bit more granular.

In theory I like some/most of the changes, in practice I find that its invoking a somewhat visceral negative response in me. I know that X-Wing had some gameplay issues, but on the whole it was a pretty decent game, so I kinda feel like "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", and that most of these changes are changes for the sake of change so AMGs designers can put a stamp on the game and say "we made this" rather than something that actually addresses the problems that the game had.

gungo wrote:
The point pool upgrade system is better however the internal balance on ship point pool has issues… like why is a b-wing generic cost more then some named with larger upgraded pools? It really just makes alot of generics useless. It feels like they dug themselves another hole with the 20 point pool cap. It feels like they could have made generics a bit more granular.

Generics in a game where you often field 2-4 models is kind of a weird concept in general.

 LunarSol wrote:

gungo wrote:
The point pool upgrade system is better however the internal balance on ship point pool has issues… like why is a b-wing generic cost more then some named with larger upgraded pools? It really just makes alot of generics useless. It feels like they dug themselves another hole with the 20 point pool cap. It feels like they could have made generics a bit more granular.

Generics in a game where you often field 2-4 models is kind of a weird concept in general.

You need to read the rules the squad size is now mandatory 3 to 8 ships…. You can’t have 2 ships anymore… also the vast majority of Star Wars ships are nameless generics. It’s a wing leader such as vadar supported by his 2 wingmen… it’s Luke’s red 1 xwing supported by 5 other xwing wingmen. It’s a tie swarm of 7-8 ties.. the new points make no sense as have the ships are just worse versions of named for the same cost..

gungo wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

gungo wrote:
The point pool upgrade system is better however the internal balance on ship point pool has issues… like why is a b-wing generic cost more then some named with larger upgraded pools? It really just makes alot of generics useless. It feels like they dug themselves another hole with the 20 point pool cap. It feels like they could have made generics a bit more granular.

Generics in a game where you often field 2-4 models is kind of a weird concept in general.

You need to read the rules the squad size is now mandatory 3 to 8 ships…. You can’t have 2 ships anymore… also the vast majority of Star Wars ships are nameless generics. It’s a wing leader such as vadar supported by his 2 wingmen… it’s Luke’s red 1 xwing supported by 5 other xwing wingmen. It’s a tie swarm of 7-8 ties.. the new points make no sense as have the ships are just worse versions of named for the same cost..

The new points seemingly work to kill the idea of running generics now. For often the same or similar squad points, you can get a named pilot with ability... that also has more built in upgrade points?

I like being able to field all generics, and not feel like I am gimping myself. Also used to enjoy running ships light on upgrades in some lists to remove the amount of cards on the table, or things to remember. Now, if you aren't using every available upgrade point you have, you are giving yourself a handicap.

As another person said, many of these changes feel like change for the sake of change... and I don't really see this reinvigorating the X-Wing scene.

 NH Gunsmith wrote:

As another person said, many of these changes feel like change for the sake of change... and I don't really see this reinvigorating the X-Wing scene.

I don't think that's the case. We got here because Asmodee reorganized itself in preparation for sale and moved miniatures games away from FFG to AMG. So the boys at AMG are handed these licensed properties and told they're in charge now. They've been handed some else's baby and told to raise it.

When they look at it they don't understand it or its 10 year history and as they come to grips with it, there are lots of things they don't like. They talked about some of this stuff on some streams as even their approach to communication is completely different from FFG. They called out bumping as something that was never considered in the initial design and was brutal for new players to deal with. So they changed it to make bumping an enemy ship less onerous. Why they then turned around and made bumping your own ships much more punishing I can't say.

They also didn't like the deathmatch gameplay of 200 point lists and six obstacles. They're not alone in that. Lots of people complained about that on the old official forums, but it remained the standard for tournaments and pickup games. AMG now changed it to a bunch of scenarios that aren't really evocative of the fluff, but may turn out to be fun anyway. This change makes me think these guys aren't star wars guys and aren't invested in it.

Another weird change is the way they upped obstacle damage and effects. This doesn't seem to jive with their stated reasons for changing the bumping/blocking mechanics.

Anyway, to me this all less about change just for the sake of change a la GW, and much more about a bunch of new guys rolling with a game they didn't want and don't particularly like. I have no idea how this will impact the community going forward.

X-Wing has moved to using Power Levels.
The points values have gone the wrong way for granularity, but it is now easier to count up points spent, or scored.
Named pilots seem to have been more unique, with some being given odd slots (a torpedo slot on ships that usually would not get one, for instance), or fewer upgrade slots on generic ships to keep their cost down.

Epic play was quite scenario-based, so they look to have merged a lot of that in. I have not seen the scenarions here yet though.

Will this scale well for Huge ships and Epic play? We'll have to wait a long time to find out, probably.
And, will the app convert, or will they run this as a seperate app/section of the app?

 Skinnereal wrote:
X-Wing has moved to using Power Levels.
The points values have gone the wrong way for granularity, but it is now easier to count up points spent, or scored.
Named pilots seem to have been more unique, with some being given odd slots (a torpedo slot on ships that usually would not get one, for instance), or fewer upgrade slots on generic ships to keep their cost down.

For lack of a better term, it seems they're going in the direction of Herohammer where we get tooled up unique pilots as the focus and generics are discouraged. Does MCP even have generics?

And, will the app convert, or will they run this as a seperate app/section of the app?

According to Crabbok, the app is dead. No idea if it'll come back or if we're just going to have to rely on third party apps from here on out.

 Arschbombe wrote:
Does MCP even have generics?

Not really. Next month we're getting Grunts, which effectively act as Hunter class Pets for certain heroes. You can't swarm the board with them or even take multiples.

 LunarSol wrote:

 Arschbombe wrote:
Does MCP even have generics?

Not really. Next month we're getting Grunts, which effectively act as Hunter class Pets for certain heroes. You can't swarm the board with them or even take multiples.

Is that stuff like the SHIELD Agents?


EDIT: What is going on with the Quotes...

My bad, I must have missed a quote tag in my reply. I'll just... not and stop that nonsense.

Yeah, the SHIELD agents and Hand ninjas. In both cases they can't be added to your team but are summoned by a hero and fight along side them. Basically pets.

So apparently elsewhere on the nets, people are trying to see how they can break the 20 point lists via comparison to the current 200 point system. So far, on the low end, there's a 20 point TIE fighter list that clocks in at 166 old points and up high there's a 20 point rebel list that's packing 288 old points.

Which is always one of those exercises that presumes that points are correct or even can be correct. Points are just a stat on a choice that determines what is good and what is bad as much as attack or defense or whatever else. In this instance, a loss of value to generic swarms and an increase in value to customized elites seems to be the entire point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

gungo wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

gungo wrote:
The point pool upgrade system is better however the internal balance on ship point pool has issues… like why is a b-wing generic cost more then some named with larger upgraded pools? It really just makes alot of generics useless. It feels like they dug themselves another hole with the 20 point pool cap. It feels like they could have made generics a bit more granular.

Generics in a game where you often field 2-4 models is kind of a weird concept in general.

You need to read the rules the squad size is now mandatory 3 to 8 ships…. You can’t have 2 ships anymore… also the vast majority of Star Wars ships are nameless generics. It’s a wing leader such as vadar supported by his 2 wingmen… it’s Luke’s red 1 xwing supported by 5 other xwing wingmen. It’s a tie swarm of 7-8 ties.. the new points make no sense as have the ships are just worse versions of named for the same cost..

In any other setting that would be 100% true... but this is Star Wars. The extra evacuating Bespin with an ice cream maker that can only really be scene in freeze frame has an extensive backstory. Vader's Wingmen have names as do basically every other TIE fighter with a second of screen time (to the point where its important for there to be NO TIEs in that battle that weren't on screen for some reason...). Luke's Wingmen are actually named in the film proper, mostly because you have to have something dramatic to shout when they crash, but that's not really the point.

All that said, I do actually like generics in X-Wing, but more often than not they were just part of the game's overly fiddly boyz before toyz nature. Putting upgrades in the same point scale as bodies has always undermined what makes upgrade systems interesting. I'm sure the new system has massive, massive gaps in its implementation, but personally I'd much rather select my 3-8 ships in a low granularity system that lets me swap them around freely than what they had before. I think the new system is just really modern and lends itself towards building a system more built around a squadron acting as a sideboard where you can adapt your ships to more varied gameplay. I think its a fantastic change, even if I'm sure it'll take constant iterations to fine tune like any points system out there.

 LunarSol wrote:
Which is always one of those exercises that presumes that points are correct or even can be correct.

This is an odd take. AMG is still using points, just a much less flexible version. So celebrating the replacement of one points system for a less granular one seems premature.

X-wing's points were better than many other systems because there was just the one scenario with six obstacles. They did quarterly updates based on reported results. The system worked pretty well. The need to be able to adjust points was a lesson learned in 1st edition. Now we have a completely different system that will likely take a while to balance out as the focus shifts from finding the better list to selecting the optimal loadout for each hero.

Points are just a stat on a choice that determines what is good and what is bad as much as attack or defense or whatever else.

Er, wut?

In this instance, a loss of value to generic swarms and an increase in value to customized elites seems to be the entire point.

Kicking generics to the curb is certainly one way to change the game, but that hardly means they're anywhere close to replicating the existing balance with their new herohammer version.

 Arschbombe wrote:

Points are just a stat on a choice that determines what is good and what is bad as much as attack or defense or whatever else.

Er, wut?

Exactly what he said. Points are a largely arbitrary stat that aren't really tied to anything "real". Points are determined on the basis of how a designer weighs the value of stats and capabilities as they exist within the context of the "meta". The meta itself is formed through a combination of the game mechanics and how capabilities are weighed. Ultimately what that boils down to is a degree of points efficiency within the context of any given meta.

I can't speak to X-Wing 2.5, but I assume that the cumulative changes have probably shifted gameplay around in a manner which makes these points discrepancies make sense from a balance standpoint. At least one would hope.

On that note, "granularity" is a myth, I could go on but thats a TED talk in and of itself.

What I'm trying to say is that people put a lot of faith in points as a balancing mechanism. There's a belief that you can make any set of rules and with enough granularity, theoretically balance anything by reaching the precise value of that set of rules. I've not really seen that work out. The actual diversity of a competitive meta doesn't really increase as points get more granular, and in some ways it gets worse as you get more instances of models not "fitting" with other models. The advantages of the 1-2 point difference compared to another model can't be taken advantage of elsewhere in the list.

Unique game mechanics tend to result in more build diversity than granular points because it allows models to be swapped more freely. Models that fill different roles at the same cost both have a reason to be taken. When one of those models costs 32% of your list and another costs 35% often times the points of the rest of the list have more to say about what gets played than any other rule of the model. Swapping the two requires the rest of the list to be completely reworked.

Mid-2010's upgrades were kind of this big exciting solution to points granularity but they've never worked quite like anyone imagines. GW players know well the importance of Boyz before Toyz and ultimately trying to "fill" points with upgrades detracts from what makes that customization exciting in the first place. Upgrades have to be a miniscule fraction of the value of a body to be worth taking in any quantity and "filler" points quickly become suboptimal and dropped.

I've just become a huge fan of low granularity systems because they enable more interesting balance mechanics like sideboards and they generally result in fewer instances of needed balance changes invalidating big chunks of a collection. They demand developers put more effort into diverse mechanics for similar options. They let me pick up new releases and add them to my existing collection without needing to rework everything I already like. I just honestly don't have that much faith in points as a balancing structure. I don't think they're without purpose; I just find these days games are better off with a looser build structure and really don't benefit much from highly granular prices of models.

Indeed. Overwhelmingly I find less granular systems to be better balanced than more balanced systems - though I suspect that exists on a bit of a bell-curve, as I think ~100pt systems seem to be the sweet spot moreso than 50-75pt systems ala warmachine.

On a side note, as much as I like the changes, I'm not yet sold on the scenarios. I've yet to play them, but they don't feel like they really fit the feel of the game (the cargo I like better than the satellites in that regard) nor do I feel like they're making the most of the points changes. I can see where they might lead in the future, but at first glance they don't really feel like an improvement to the deathmatch system the game is based on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Indeed. Overwhelmingly I find less granular systems to be better balanced than more balanced systems - though I suspect that exists on a bit of a bell-curve, as I think ~100pt systems seem to be the sweet spot moreso than 50-75pt systems ala warmachine.

Warmachine is a 100 point system. It just lops off about 25 points and restricts them to your battlegroup.

chaos0xomega wrote:

Exactly what he said. Points are a largely arbitrary stat that aren't really tied to anything "real". Points are determined on the basis of how a designer weighs the value of stats and capabilities as they exist within the context of the "meta". The meta itself is formed through a combination of the game mechanics and how capabilities are weighed. Ultimately what that boils down to is a degree of points efficiency within the context of any given meta.

Everything in the game is arbitrary and not tied to anything real. I'm not sure what your argument is. Balance is hard, humans are flawed and any system developed to try to measure/regulate for balance is inherently wrong from the outset, the equation will never balance, there will always be something more efficient than something else?

I can't speak to X-Wing 2.5, but I assume that the cumulative changes have probably shifted gameplay around in a manner which makes these points discrepancies make sense from a balance standpoint. At least one would hope.

It remains to be seen. But the weirdness I'm seeing undermines the hope that this new approach leads to better balance. The basic academy pilot, the original points efficiency standard for most of 1st edition, will cost more than the obsidian squadron pilot and can take an upgrade. In 2.0 the academy pilot costs 22 and the obsidian 23. The only difference is the initiative value. AP is 1 and OSP is 2. Both pilots are limited to a single modification. In the new points system AP costs 3 and get 3 loadout points with a single mod slot. OSP costs 2, gets 0 loadout points and no mod slot. This makes no sense to me, assuming it is not an error. Fifth Brother and Seventh Sister cost 44 and 43 respectively under current rules. Both cost 5 in the new system. FB gets 10 loadout points. SS gets 11. Under current rules they have the same upgrade slots: force, sensor, and missile. The new rules add a talent slot to both, but change the missile slot on FB for a cannon. This also seems weird and contrived. I think the net change in terms of list building under this new system will be a focus on finding the best loadouts for each given pilot since there is no reason not to max them all out and then finding the most efficient pilot at each price point.

On that note, "granularity" is a myth, I could go on but thats a TED talk in and of itself.

This conjures an image of someone in a black turtleneck talking about how game design has moved into a new "post points" era. Go ahead and give us the TED talk because I think the change from 100 points to 200 points for increased granularity was a good thing for 2.0. An example that immediately comes to mind is crack shot. It was priced at 1 point in 1.0 and seemed underpriced. Moving it to 2 points would have eliminated it from the meta. In 2.0 it was priced at 3 points and seems fair there.

Okay I've read everything and feeling a bit for why ?

Still not sure that the missions will do much as much like WMH there will be lists just focussed on the kill

And given im too lazy to read is there any reason for the blind hate of dial tweaking ?

 Turnip Jedi wrote:
Okay I've read everything and feeling a bit for why ?

They've explained some of their reasoning in the streams they did. They didn't like castling in the corner via self-bumping. That was seen as an exploit and unsporting. So they made self-bumping very painful. They didn't like point bids for initiative, so they made unspent squad points into victory points for the opponent. They didn't like initiative being determined once at the start of the match so they made it random each turn. They felt blocking was an exploit that was not part of the initial design intent and was unfair to new players. So they made it less punishing for them.

Friendliness to new players seems to be a theme. They all were essentially new players and a lot of this stems from their unfamiliarity with the game. It feels like they played a handful of games, drew some conclusions and off they went. The missions are one example. They specifically mention the mission objectives as helping new players with squad building because they'll have something to focus on. I find this a little weird since I never encountered a new X-wing player who didn't grasp "destroy the other guy's ships." The separation of squad points and loadout points can be seen in this vein too. A common mistake of new players is to overload ships with upgrades. Now loading up on stuff doesn't change how many ships you can bring to the fight.

Clearly they've missed the mark on some of this. Making obstacles much more punishing doesn't strike me as particularly noob friendly. The overall feel I get is like AMG is Joss Whedon being called into to finish Zack Snyder's movie.

A lot of the changes seem based on some really weird opinions from AMG.

They specifically called out fortressing as a bad mechanic and wanted to force engagements. They constantly referred to X-Wing as a "tower defence" game on stream at one point. I think there have been a couple of instances of fortressing and extreme delaying tactics in games of 2.0 but those were both tied to weird ship abilities (SV barrel rolls and Gunship sideslips) and not exactly unbeatable or common.

Then there's the idea they're making it more accessible by changing bumping rules. But they're also making self-bumps and going over obstacles more punishing, so that doesn't track. They claimed they wanted to bring X-Wing back to its roots by putting in scenario play, which is also weird since it's never really had it (outside of the almost never used narrative stuff in some expansions). They claimed new players couldn't figure out the parameters of list building in a deathmatch game, so they changed the whole thing while simultaneously implementing more complicated scenarios that don't really feel any more X-Wing or Star Wars than the standard deathmatch.

The points changes are completely bizarre. Theoretically the system could work well. You can have ships with different abilities at the same cost but have the better one have a lower Loadout Value to compensate, for example. Sadly, AMG seems to have gone the opposite direction and now you get the best pilots generally having the highest Loadout Value. They were asked if this might lead to the meta being solved more easily since Loadout Value is fixed per ship. Their response was that's already the case and most ships have a set loadout in the meta which is both incorrect and completely misses the point. Previously, I had the ability to take the same ships as someone else but have them loaded up completely differently. Maybe my Dash, Jake, Jan list has loads of points in all 3 ships but someone else goes slimmer on those ships to squeeze a fourth one in. Or maybe they make Dash massively expensive but have to sacrifice upgrades on the other 2 ships. Now that just doesn't happen. Moreover, you're penalised for not spending all this Loadout Points, further eroding choice.

I'm having my first games of the new version tonight but so far I'm not seeing how it's actually better.

I wanted to run a 3x Resistance bomber list with a single A-wing escort, but that is out now. I was happy with nearly bare bombers, relying on the two built-in fire arcs and pilot abilities, but they now have to take upgrades to be worth their points.
I have no idea whether the list would have worked, but that is gone now.

I see what they wanted to achieve, but this 'solution' does not allow for much variation at this level.

 LunarSol wrote:
On a side note, as much as I like the changes, I'm not yet sold on the scenarios. I've yet to play them, but they don't feel like they really fit the feel of the game (the cargo I like better than the satellites in that regard) nor do I feel like they're making the most of the points changes. I can see where they might lead in the future, but at first glance they don't really feel like an improvement to the deathmatch system the game is based on.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Indeed. Overwhelmingly I find less granular systems to be better balanced than more balanced systems - though I suspect that exists on a bit of a bell-curve, as I think ~100pt systems seem to be the sweet spot moreso than 50-75pt systems ala warmachine.

Warmachine is a 100 point system. It just lops off about 25 points and restricts them to your battlegroup.

Not in Mk2 (at least as far as I remember, pretty sure back then the two common game sizes were 35 pts and 50 pts (moreso the 50pt level) and warcasters only had like an extra +10-15 warjack points.

Everything in the game is arbitrary and not tied to anything real. I'm not sure what your argument is. Balance is hard, humans are flawed and any system developed to try to measure/regulate for balance is inherently wrong from the outset, the equation will never balance, there will always be something more efficient than something else?

You're misunderstanding entirely. Theres a specific word/phrase that if I could remember what it was could convey my point more succinctly, but in essence the points are built around a designers vision and expectations of how things should fit into gameplay and what should be prioritized. The points essentially craft the internal balance of a faction and by extension the wider meta.
When you design a game you are trying to convey a specific experience. If I was designing a game built on 40ks mechanics, but I wanted it to mainly convey the experience of a slow-paced ranged infantry firefight, I can achieve that by underpricing ranged infantry - especially units that have resiliency advantages, and overpricing things like tanks, vehicles, and melee infantry. The game would still be balanced, as tanks, vehicles, and melee infantry will still have a role to play, but the comparative cost of things would make them a "I might take 1 or 2 of these in my army" type of choice instead of a "I will invest half my points into this" type of choice. Likewise if I was designing a similar game that was designed around the concept of armor battles/engagements, I would underprice vehicles and overprice infantry, with the net result basically being the same in terms of the level of investment one would make into those choices. Likewise, if I wanted the game to be about big battles - everything costs fewer points relative to the points total. If I want small battles - everything costs more points relative to the points total. Still the same balance, even if I double or triple points values of everything, ultimately what matters the points value of units in relation to eachother and the total, rather than the absolute value of the unit itself.


In essence, points craft the experience, the experience is dictated by what the designers want gameplay to look like, rather than what the playerbase thinks it should look like - sometimes this causes a lot of problems where the points system encourages a certain type of gameplay while the players want or believe the game should play differently because the mechanics favor or imply a certain style of play... but we generally consider those to be badly designed games.

It remains to be seen. But the weirdness I'm seeing undermines the hope that this new approach leads to better balance. The basic academy pilot, the original points efficiency standard for most of 1st edition, will cost more than the obsidian squadron pilot and can take an upgrade. In 2.0 the academy pilot costs 22 and the obsidian 23. The only difference is the initiative value. AP is 1 and OSP is 2. Both pilots are limited to a single modification. In the new points system AP costs 3 and get 3 loadout points with a single mod slot. OSP costs 2, gets 0 loadout points and no mod slot. This makes no sense to me, assuming it is not an error. Fifth Brother and Seventh Sister cost 44 and 43 respectively under current rules. Both cost 5 in the new system. FB gets 10 loadout points. SS gets 11. Under current rules they have the same upgrade slots: force, sensor, and missile. The new rules add a talent slot to both, but change the missile slot on FB for a cannon. This also seems weird and contrived. I think the net change in terms of list building under this new system will be a focus on finding the best loadouts for each given pilot since there is no reason not to max them all out and then finding the most efficient pilot at each price point.

Yeah, I would agree that at a glance it seems weird and nonsensical, I'm hoping that once I get a chance to play a few games the rationale behind it because apparent.

This conjures an image of someone in a black turtleneck talking about how game design has moved into a new "post points" era. Go ahead and give us the TED talk because I think the change from 100 points to 200 points for increased granularity was a good thing for 2.0. An example that immediately comes to mind is crack shot. It was priced at 1 point in 1.0 and seemed underpriced. Moving it to 2 points would have eliminated it from the meta. In 2.0 it was priced at 3 points and seems fair there.

I really don't want to, if you go searching through my posts you might find one of the lengthy drawn out explanations I've given in the past. I am not the type to be able to communicate complex thoughts in a succinct and understandable manner and its really not worth the investment of time I would have to put in to try to explain it (again, albeit to a different audience this time). The long and the short of it though is that actual performance and points efficiency rarely actually matters enough for granularity to be helpful when comparing units within the same points bracket/tier (in a 50-100pt system players often compare units at the same points cost, I.E. "this is the weakest of our 9pt options", whereas in a 1000pt system its usually compared across units in the same approximate range +/-20pts or so), but by increasing granularity you are incentivizing making points adjustments based on calculations of approximated theoretical performance which are often subject to uncontrollable variables and outside variables which you cannot account for - you may have a unit that is theoretically capable of murdering anything in the game with a single punch... but how do you properly account for how long it might take for that unit to get within punching range and the amount of damage that it will have to absorb to survive that long? As a result of that (which can often manifest itself in arguments by way of "this averages x wound against MEQ per turn, while this other unit at 1 point less averages x-.2 wounds against MEQ per turn"), you are essentially forced to try to differentiate those two units by giving them differing points values, even though the differences between them are trivial enough that it shouldn't matter, but if we're talking about a unit that costs 10 pts per model, lets say, and X is (for the sake of argument) 5... then you are talking a 10% points swing for a 4% difference in offensive output based on that metric, and that can make a *huge* world of difference in terms of how those units are perceived and used.

There are some definite oddities in the points layouts. Academy Pilot is the most obvious. It just makes zero sense next to Black Ace below it.

There are others I get. Strictly better situations that I don't see as a huge deal because the better are unique. Basically diminishing returns where your first pick is full value and after that you have to settle for less. The Academy Pilot though just sticks out as..... hmmm.... It would make a lot more sense if you flipped it with Obsidian, but that still doesn't explain the situation with the Black Ace. The other instances of this I've come across aren't nearly as bad. Definitely a few like on the A-Wing, but nothing as bad as Academy Pilot.