Xzizor gives something in return, good firepower and end game potential. You shouldn't be thinking about how it treats the ship, but how it works with the list imo.

So is Biggs parasitic? Draw Their Fire?

Biggs and DoF are drawing damage onto themselves, so no. They're not benefiting themselves to the detriment of their allies. Biggs would be parasitic if his ability read "You can't target Biggs if you could target another ship," DoF would be if it let you fob your crits off onto other people.

But then Luke flying next to Biggs is certainly parasitic - he's benefitting himself to the detriment of Biggs.

All the abilities do the same thing - they let you control where damage actually lands. You can call them "synergistic" or "parasitic" for flavor reasons, but the only real difference is which ship has the ability on it. There's no distinction in the actual function.

I think I'm done explaining my point.

Biggs gives.
The prince Takes.

Biggs and Draw Their Fire take away negative effects. They are not Parasitic.

Parasite - a person who habitually relies on or exploits others and gives nothing in return.

Edit: It's splitting hairs, but the difference exists.

I hit Ship A with one {Critical Hit} result, but Ship B suffers that result instead. Is that synergistic or parasitic?

If every Scum ship included an ability snippet that said "If within Range 1 when Prince Xizor is defending, you can suffer one uncancelled Hit or Critical Hit" does that flip the ability from parasitic to synergistic? The actual function is identical.

I understand what you're saying about there being a conceptual difference, but that's all it is. You're defining the term based on where the ability is, and whether the ship with the ability is the one getting the benefit. But the actual game effect is identical - you're moving damage around. Yes, you can of course classify abilities based on who has the ability relative to who has the benefit, and you can call them whatever you want... but it still has no actual impact on the abilities or what they do.

"Synergy" in discussing game terms is a useful term/concept because it indicates multiple units or abilities working together. Tagging abilities as "parasitic" or "symbiotic" depends on very subjective applications of the terminology, a sense of which ability is where, and who's getting the benefit. If I use Draw Their Fire on a ship with Isard to get into the range where she activates faster, is that parasitic or not? You say Draw Their Fire is not parasitic because it's taking away a negative effect, but the effect it's actually taking can be considered positive. Is Wingman parasitic? Probably not... unless you screw up and have him too close to Keyan, and steal his stress without meaning to.

So again, I do understand the distinction you're trying to make... I just don't think it's a useful one.

So happy to see this announcement especially after a lot of dung threads on here lately. My mercenary fleet will be the best in the land with these reveals! Still not sure where that K4 droid is in the article but I like him.

There are most certainly and undoubtedly "bad" ships. I'm not even sure how you can suggest otherwise with a straight face. Of course, on the internet maybe you weren't. Or maybe you're a dog. I honestly don't know, but it's a very silly idea.

There are a lot of absolutes in that statement...woof.

So, how about them Mandalorians?

There are most certainly and undoubtedly "bad" ships. I'm not even sure how you can suggest otherwise with a straight face. Of course, on the internet maybe you weren't. Or maybe you're a dog. I honestly don't know, but it's a very silly idea.

There are a lot of absolutes in that statement...woof.

Yep, sure are. You'd think that many absolutes would make it easy to disprove them.

I think it's near impossible to perfectly balance all the ships in the game. As such, some ships will be better or worse than others - there will be bad ships.

Instead I feel we should be asking other questions, such as how big is the difference between the good and bad ships? Is it even big enough to be worrying about? Whilst there will certainly be ships that are worse than others, I suspect that they are nowhere near as bad as they're made out to be. In most cases I suspect that a player will do better with a "bad ship" that fits their mentality and play style, rather than a "good ship" that doesn't...

There are most certainly and undoubtedly "bad" ships. I'm not even sure how you can suggest otherwise with a straight face. Of course, on the internet maybe you weren't. Or maybe you're a dog. I honestly don't know, but it's a very silly idea.

There are a lot of absolutes in that statement...woof.

Yep, sure are. You'd think that many absolutes would make it easy to disprove them.

Only sith speak in absolutes!

make it easy to disprove them

Or prove them? You made the positive assertion...bark bark.

make it easy to disprove them

Or prove them? You made the positive assertion...bark bark.

I think the case for the badness of the TIE Advanced and pilots like Arvel and the Wrath has been well-made whether I regurgitate it or not.

I think the Scum are going to be relatively balanced, and if nothing else I really believe FFG want to balance everything else as much as possible. I mean, look at Arvel: before Rebel Aces, you'd never pick him because he couldn't possibly offer anything. Now, with the Test Pilot title and the Refit, you can slap Daredevil on him and bury into anyone you want, where before you'd have to put more effort into reading the moves of your opponent. Or, heck, when Intimidation finally joins the party he's going to be a huge boon to Falcon and Outrider lists.

But back to Scum, they've got a lot of neat tricks, and they're going to play dirty, which will be a lot of fun. However, especially since they top off at PS7 and 8, I really don't see them ever getting a single ship as powerful as Han, Wedge, or Soontir. Boba and Xizor look fantastic, but they won't be pulling squads quite the same way. And that's okay, because they have their own way of doing things.

I think the case for the badness of the TIE Advanced and pilots like Arvel and the Wrath has been well-made whether I regurgitate it or not.

Except it hasn't. All that "case" supports is the utilization of certain ships. The empirical data does support that ships are used and under used. Even MajorJugglers mathwing data, while fascinating, can't absolutely (emphasis on absolutely) prove a ships "badness" because his number values are based on his own presuppositions of what is more powerful/desireable in a model...Bowww-WOOOOOOOH!

I think the case for the badness of the TIE Advanced and pilots like Arvel and the Wrath has been well-made whether I regurgitate it or not.

Except it hasn't. All that "case" supports is the utilization of certain ships. The empirical data does support that ships are used and under used. Even MajorJugglers mathwing data, while fascinating, can't absolutely (emphasis on absolutely) prove a ships "badness" because his number values are based on his own presuppositions of what is more powerful/desireable in a model...Bowww-WOOOOOOOH!

Yet, if the data was questionable, there would be other data that would show an opposite picture.

Would you mind showing us?

Do we know what Autoblaster Turret does yet?

I'm looking at the Syndicate Thug + BTL + R4 Agro + ....

Blaster turret would work, but I'd have to save the Focus for the 2nd attack.

I have fun playing with the TIE Advanced 100% of the time. Statistically, I have a good time.

Do we know what Autoblaster Turret does yet?

I'm looking at the Syndicate Thug + BTL + R4 Agro + ....

Blaster turret would work, but I'd have to save the Focus for the 2nd attack.

Do we know what Autoblaster Turret does yet?

I think the case for the badness of the TIE Advanced and pilots like Arvel and the Wrath has been well-made whether I regurgitate it or not.

Except it hasn't. All that "case" supports is the utilization of certain ships. The empirical data does support that ships are used and under used. Even MajorJugglers mathwing data, while fascinating, can't absolutely (emphasis on absolutely) prove a ships "badness" because his number values are based on his own presuppositions of what is more powerful/desireable in a model...Bowww-WOOOOOOOH!

Yet, if the data was questionable, there would be other data that would show an opposite picture.

Would you mind showing us?

Data can also be made to fit one's needs. MajorJuggler has done a great job in collecting the data. The data is an interesting to look at. But it is only part of the picture. Looking at how often a ship is used fails to see the larger picture of the squads used. Surprises popped up, even the winning squad at Gencon was fairly surprising, but people just see Phantom and or Falcon, and write off the rest of the squad. Which is a terrible way to analyze a ships usefulness or the state of the meta. Again, I respect his work, I just don't fully agree with the full analysis.

Anyway, back to this preview. The only real powerful option I've seen is Kath. Everything else is good, but not really game breaking. It is going to be fascinating to see how the meta breaks up. Because Kath is going to put Falcons down, hard. Oooo, Threepio & an Evade token, does squat when facing a consistent 4 Atk. Or 3 Proxy Mines. Or when his Evade is stolen. Or faces 4 HLCs.

Data can also be made to fit one's needs. MajorJuggler has done a great job in collecting the data. The data is an interesting to look at. But it is only part of the picture. Looking at how often a ship is used fails to see the larger picture of the squads used. Surprises popped up, even the winning squad at Gencon was fairly surprising, but people just see Phantom and or Falcon, and write off the rest of the squad. Which is a terrible way to analyze a ships usefulness or the state of the meta. Again, I respect his work, I just don't fully agree with the full analysis.

I don't agree with a lot of MJ's analysis either, but that's not the only (or even the core) of my point. Red Winter claimed there are no bad ships - there rather objectively are, all of his "No, YOU prove it!" trolling aside. Keroko's point was that if certain ships weren't actually bad, there would be SOMETHING that pointed to them being better. I don't believe he was saying "MJ says Arvel is bad, so Arvel's bad" (especially since MJ doesn't do named pilots). It was more "There's an overwhelming community belief that these pilots are bad, so far as we know there's no evidence that even shows them operating above that belief, much less proving it.

In essence, Red Winter is a Ship Quality Truther. Everything is on everyone else to prove, no information that we have will ever be good enough, and somewhere in his mind Fel's Wrath is an outstanding pilot, as long as you can get him to the grassy knoll.

so anyone arguing it would seem pretty unreasonable (unless faction identity is considered a function of the dial I guess).

The fact that you're clearly hiding the faction of the dial is reason enough for a TO who really cares about that to tell you, that you can't use them. Because per FFG faction is in fact a function of the dial.

I've seen this idea brought up about a dozen times now, and each time people seem to think they've discovered some sort of loophole.

But the bottom line is the TO has the final say on what is or isn't acceptable for modifications of components. They don't have to accept any kind of modification if they don't want to. So what you're talking about here will not let you use the wrong faction dial, unless the TO was ok with that in the first place.

Consider if I were a TO and I was being a stickler about things like faction dials. I see someone coming in with a dial that is clearly been covered and I can't tell what faction it is. I can as the TO tell the person that he or she either produces an unmodified dial, remove the modification or else leave the event.

As the TO I have every right to do this. Plus both the front and back of the dial have the ships name on it, and if you cover that up then it may look like you're cheating by using the wrong dial.

I don't agree with a lot of MJ's analysis either, but that's not the only (or even the core) of my point. Red Winter claimed there are no bad ships - there rather objectively are, all of his "No, YOU prove it!" trolling aside. Keroko's point was that if certain ships weren't actually bad, there would be SOMETHING that pointed to them being better. I don't believe he was saying "MJ says Arvel is bad, so Arvel's bad" (especially since MJ doesn't do named pilots). It was more "There's an overwhelming community belief that these pilots are bad, so far as we know there's no evidence that even shows them operating above that belief, much less proving it.

In essence, Red Winter is a Ship Quality Truther. Everything is on everyone else to prove, no information that we have will ever be good enough, and somewhere in his mind Fel's Wrath is an outstanding pilot, as long as you can get him to the grassy knoll.

Of course, people have different opinions of what is considered "good". Some only consider a ship good if it has tier 1 options, while others are happy with the tier 1.5 and tier 2 options a ship has.

Of course, people have different opinions of what is considered "good". Some only consider a ship good if it has tier 1 options, while others are happy with the tier 1.5 and tier 2 options a ship has.

I think you've hit the nail on the head. Some people only run Ion Golds, some people put a Blaster Turret on Dutch. By certain metrics, we can say different ships are more or less efficient, but there's a holistic aspect of squadbuilding that I think goes above what we can yet say with numbers. That's where people keep saying " synergy."