I would say it is so much hurt over TWO evades per turn.

Then you're talking about two different upgrade cards, aren't you? The action-using Millennium Falcon title and the agility gambling C3PO. Two evades per turn, and all the combo costs is 4 squad points, a crew slot and an action on an already very expensive (42 point plus) ship.

God forbid you do something constructive about it like stress it, block it, ion it, or otherwise deny it actions, (or just, y'know focus fire on it until it's dead). No, it's MUCH easier to bleat and whine loudly about how so totally OP it is, isn't it?

But no, that's not it. You've wrongly assumed (as most people in Internet discussions so often do), that anyone on the other side is a part of some homogenous group of people with the same set of opinions. Moreover, they are caracitures of people who, in this case do not know how to play, cannot beat a strong list and are inclined to whine about something being "OP". I assure you that I have none of those qualities. I make no claims that a super-falcon is unbeatable, though it is strong, and in my mind, too easy to just "grab-and-go".

The real issue that Phantoms and Super-Falcons create is the disparity between lists. We've always had tanky ships and maneuverable ships, and there have always been lists that were good or bad against them. The issue is that as the game pushes toward MORE tanky and MORE maneuverable, list archetypes that used to find themselves at a slight disadvantage against their "counter" now find themselves at an even larger disadvantage. We are pushing further away from player skill being the key differentiator and more into "getting the right matchups" being the key differentiator. This is not always the case, and player skill still matters, but I think all of us have that moment when we see our opponent's list and think "uh-oh, bad matchup". Those moments are more pronounced and more frequent since Wave IV due to ships heading more to the extremes (not that they are extremely overpowered, mind you, but they are the extreme version of an archetype). The game has always had a bit of rock-paper-scissors to it, but it was the kind of RPS where Rock beats scissors 60% of the time. Now rock beats scissors 70% of the time (%'s totally fabricated just to illustrate that rock is now "rockier" and scissors are more "scissor-y"). Somehow we as a community have talked ourselves into the idea that as long as the game has Rock, Paper, and Scissors, everything is hunky-dory, but ignore the fact that only two of the three will be present in any game and that a great game doesn't have Boulders for rocks and Chainsaws for scissors. A good scissors list should have a slight disadvantage against a good rock list, not a large one. After all, if we want RPS, why not just play RPS? (Note: don't throw out a "not all lists are competitive" starwman. I'm not saying all lists should be competitive, just that one archetype should not be significantly disadvantaged against another based upon archetype alone)

So no, I don't dislike SuperFalcons and Phantoms because they are OP and can't be beaten, but because they are extreme versions of archetypes that push us more toward RPS type balance rather than consistent balance. Moreover, I just find that the strategy, maneuvering and thought process to defeat them is straightforward, boring, and often too reliant on doing something too akin to a suicide run and letting the dice decide the outcome. It is just dull. Not unbeatable, but boring. Kind of like Rock, Paper, Scissors.

I don't think anyone is bleating.

They're pointing out that Falcons are dominating the global rankings in competative play (an undeniable fact) and suggesting that this may be because of an intrinsic lack of balance.

The only bleaters I can see are those defending the Falcon on the basis of absolutely nothing.

Their only recourse appears to be to demean the playing skills of those who are bringing it up, or cry "troll" and dismiss the subject out of hand.

It's totally disingenuous, and flies in the face of all the evidence.

Please point out where I've done any of those things.

Also, please add up the number of major tournaments won (or Top 4, or Top 8, as long as you're consistent) by Falcon lists--when I ran through, I used Nationals events where the Top 8 were all reported to MJ's thread. compare it to the number won by non-Falcon lists, and get back to me. Then we can have a conversation about what "dominating" means--and about what it means to take a position contrary to evidence.

I would say it is so much hurt over TWO evades per turn.

Then you're talking about two different upgrade cards, aren't you? The action-using Millennium Falcon title and the agility gambling C3PO. Two evades per turn, and all the combo costs is 4 squad points, a crew slot and an action on an already very expensive (42 point plus) ship.

God forbid you do something constructive about it like stress it, block it, ion it, or otherwise deny it actions, (or just, y'know focus fire on it until it's dead). No, it's MUCH easier to bleat and whine loudly about how so totally OP it is, isn't it?

Yep, easier just to complain

But no, that's not it. You've wrongly assumed (as most people in Internet discussions so often do), that anyone on the other side is a part of some homogenous group of people with the same set of opinions. Moreover, they are caracitures of people who, in this case do not know how to play, cannot beat a strong list and are inclined to whine about something being "OP". I assure you that I have none of those qualities. I make no claims that a super-falcon is unbeatable, though it is strong, and in my mind, too easy to just "grab-and-go".

The real issue that Phantoms and Super-Falcons create is the disparity between lists. We've always had tanky ships and maneuverable ships, and there have always been lists that were good or bad against them. The issue is that as the game pushes toward MORE tanky and MORE maneuverable, list archetypes that used to find themselves at a slight disadvantage against their "counter" now find themselves at an even larger disadvantage. We are pushing further away from player skill being the key differentiator and more into "getting the right matchups" being the key differentiator. This is not always the case, and player skill still matters, but I think all of us have that moment when we see our opponent's list and think "uh-oh, bad matchup". Those moments are more pronounced and more frequent since Wave IV due to ships heading more to the extremes (not that they are extremely overpowered, mind you, but they are the extreme version of an archetype). The game has always had a bit of rock-paper-scissors to it, but it was the kind of RPS where Rock beats scissors 60% of the time. Now rock beats scissors 70% of the time (%'s totally fabricated just to illustrate that rock is now "rockier" and scissors are more "scissor-y"). Somehow we as a community have talked ourselves into the idea that as long as the game has Rock, Paper, and Scissors, everything is hunky-dory, but ignore the fact that only two of the three will be present in any game and that a great game doesn't have Boulders for rocks and Chainsaws for scissors. A good scissors list should have a slight disadvantage against a good rock list, not a large one. After all, if we want RPS, why not just play RPS? (Note: don't throw out a "not all lists are competitive" starwman. I'm not saying all lists should be competitive, just that one archetype should not be significantly disadvantaged against another based upon archetype alone)

So no, I don't dislike SuperFalcons and Phantoms because they are OP and can't be beaten, but because they are extreme versions of archetypes that push us more toward RPS type balance rather than consistent balance. Moreover, I just find that the strategy, maneuvering and thought process to defeat them is straightforward, boring, and often too reliant on doing something too akin to a suicide run and letting the dice decide the outcome. It is just dull. Not unbeatable, but boring. Kind of like Rock, Paper, Scissors.

This is were list building skill comes into play. Bring Siccors and Paper, fear nothing.

I've completed your questionnaire for you but i have to say it doesn't come across as that objective.

It *reads* like you're trying to insidiously make a point and your language is very negative and you don't convey a neutral stance.

This can subconsciously influence the participant.

For example you say 'what troubles you'... you assume that the particpant has a problem, those of us that ont have an issue with phantoms or falcons may suddently feel like we should have as clearly everyone else has

I'd be interested to see your results but its the sort of survey where you're probably preaching to the choir if im honest as only those with a problem will be motivated to fill it in.

I wont be amazed if you get a landslide result of 'the phantom ruined my game'

Its a bit like asking questions to find out if '8 out of 10 cats prefer kitty kat' when you're only asking those people about to pick up a tin in that aisle

But i'll add that i showed the wife (who lectures at a university in statistics) and she said it wasnt a bad survey overall but agreed with me that question 7 should say , if you said yes please answer question 8 if no then go straight to 9.