Just more of a curiosity than anything else really, why is it that older "strong" combos don't receive as much flak as newer and emerging "strong" combos?

Stuff like ACD Phantoms, C3P0 Falcons and the upcoming Dash Rendar PTL shenanigans are often called "[insert choice of vulgularities] OP piece of [insert choice of vulgularities]", whereas older combos (Luke R2D2 DrawFire, Wedge PTL R2 Engine, Soontir PTL Stealth, etcetc) were never not really at the receiving end of such widespread negativity, even if they were the meta or key combos during their brief reign.

I think it's because the build you were playing didn't need to to have specific counters to deal with those combos like you do with a Fat Falcon or Phantom.

It's because those ships were good strategies, but didn't feel like balance mistakes. ACD feels like FFG completely screwed up by assuming that you'd spend multiple turns cloaked to sneak around and underestimated the maneuverability it adds, expensive turret ships feel like the game isn't really meant to handle a 50-60 point super ship, etc. Luke with R2D2, on the other hand, was just another ship. It didn't feel like you were playing against a metagame-defining nightmare that only exists because FFG made a mistake.

I think there's three factors at play here:

Firstly, I think there's something of how people react to something new. Generally speaking something new comes along in gaming and it surprises people and forces them to come up with new strategies for dealing with it. It will take a few months to come up with viable builds or strategies. When you're first hit by the "new hotness" your surprise can lead you to react in protest, but if you came back to that person a few months later they may have mellowed their opinion. Similarly, if you're struggling to find a strategy to counter the new stuff you might react negatively, too, but that's not to say that solutions don't exist.

Secondly, I think there's an effect in play caused by the amount the community has grown in the last year. If you made a comment about something being OP back in wave 1, or when wave 2 was new, there just wasn't as many people to be shocked by it as there are now. Things can escalate quickly on a large online community and it can appear that the problem is bigger than it really is. People who have strong feelings will shout about it, people who don't will stay quiet. A feeling of shock/surprise or being unable to deal with a particular ship build or list is more likely, I would expect, to generate a strong reaction than one of "oh, that's strong - okay, how do I deal with it".

Finally, and to respond to iPeregrine's point, I don't think FFG made a mistake with ACD, I think it was quite deliberate. Before I start this point, though, I'd just want to point out that my analysis is based on listening to a lot of coverage from this year's worlds, rather than any great high-level insight from personal experience - I don't get to play often but I do love this game and think about it a lot. But anyway, to the point... I think this was an attempt to shake up and broaden the meta. Before wave 4 the meta seemed to be dominated by the TIE swarm. Yes there were other minority builds, but the TIE swarm was the one list that dominated and every list needed to be able to deal with. And to counter the TIE swarm it led to almost a race to the bottom in terms of PS so that you could maximise the number of ships you could put down on the table. Most "minority builds" involved X wings and B wings. Much of what has been done over the past few releases has been to provide counters to the TIE swarm to broaden the number of lists dominating the meta. The Phantom has had a big impact because it makes high PS and turrets much more important. No only has it added 2 more ships to the dominant lists, but has also increased the variety in the minority builds, adding in many previously rarely seen ships like the Shuttle, Y-Wing, HWK and Interceptors.

Just before I go, I wonder if there's an element of older combos, because they were based on ships and characters we've all seen in the movies, being fluffy as well as strong. It's harder to argue with Luke with R2D2 or Han with Luke crew, or Wedge Luke and Biggs flying together, because it's what happened in the movies. Later we had characters from novels and comics, so there was still some story behind them. Now we're getting ships that were nameless enemies in computer games and it's a lot easier to discount them when they don't have such a strong presence in the stories.

tl:dr - 1: initial shock leads to strong comments that may not hold out with time, 2: Negative comments are more likely to stand out then neutral ones, and as the community has grown this may appear worse than it truly is, 3: Phantom is a deliberate attempt to develop and expand the meta from TIE swarm dominance and has worked.

Cheerio,

Ben

Before wave 4 the meta seemed to be dominated by the TIE swarm.

And I think this is your mistake. TIE swarms were already declining in favor of XXBB-style lists based around multiple mid-range generics or cheap uniques. And then the z-95 gave rebels the ability to compete with the swarm's numbers advantage, along with the ultimate swarm counter in Blount + assault missiles.

There are three issues with the ACD phantom, and why I think it was a mistake:

1) It's a better arc-dodger than an interceptor. TIE interceptors, especially elite TIE interceptors, are supposed to be the ultimate glass cannon arc dodger. I can't imagine that FFG would deliberately make a new ship that replaces the interceptor in that role instead of boosting the interceptor a bit.

2) The other cards in the box might as well be blank. You're always taking a unique pilot with VI and ACD, the generics and other cloak modification are almost never used outside of the most casual games. Remember how this is the problem with the TIE advanced, where Vader is good but everything else in the box sucks? I can't imagine FFG would deliberately do that again.

3) It warps the metagame so badly. You have to plan for ACD phantoms, and put way more list-building effort into countering them than any other ship or upgrade. And then the best counter is the fat Falcon, a ship that is starting to get really annoying. I can see FFG trying to do a bit to break up the low-PS metagame and make uniques more viable, but deliberately making a ship that is almost an auto-win against low-PS lists is just a clumsy and unprofessional way to do it and just replaces one dominant list with a different dominant list.

I think what really happened is that the primary value of the cloak was supposed to be the defense dice, and phantoms were intended to spend a few turns flying around under cloak before taking the perfect shot. And in that context the decloak maneuver makes sense, after a few turns of not shooting your opponent has kind of lost track of where that ship went. But I think FFG underestimated just how valuable the decloak maneuver is, and how effective the phantom would be as a TIE interceptor replacement instead of a sneaky ship.

Because ACD phantoms, Z's, and Corran has been the most meta defining changes introduced to the game, forcing players to build their list to deal with those ships (or the ship they support), instead of adjusting their flying against them for the most part.

I hope that when i say Z's and Corran, people understand that i name them because they are the perfect companions for a Fat Falcon to happen.

Oh great, I really missed the weekly whine thread.

P.S. the title is funny as ____. I read OP as in original poster

Because the old combos did not break the core rules of a Dogfighting game.

Introducing super tough 360 turrets, hyper cloak/decloak shenanigans. Etc. is what is giving people fits.

This is why I really enjoyed the Team Covenant interview with Alex Davy. To be quite honest, I thought the Phantom + ACD was the result of game designers that were really clueless (ok, I may have used the term "mind-numbingly stupid") about the mechanics of the game.

However, when pressed about "fortress-gate", the telling thing was he openly acknowledged the XXXZ list didn't stand a chance against the Phantom. The fact that he did so unabashedly, indicates that it was by design rather than by oversight.

For me at least, this changed my perspective substantially. Alex indicated that rock/paper/scissors is the balancing mechanic they are shooting for. People may not like that form of "balancing", but it is effective nonetheless. So when he says a hard counter to fat Falcons is coming, I take him at his word.

It appears that the design philosophy at high levels is going to continue to be building around a core ship that is really strong in one area, and weak in another. You then use the remaining points to cover that weakness as best as you can. He hinted that this may be the problem with the Falcon, C3PO in particular may be too good at covering that weakness.

I think it would be foolhardy to think this game will ever go back to a "dogfighting" game. After all, there are only so many snub fighters you can make with different stats. FFG is a for-profit company at the end of the day and they want you buying those new "hard counters" when they come out. It's a little sad, but it's hard to argue with that direction if we're being honest with ourselves.

To answer your question, OP there really weren't hard counters in the initial waves. That's the gameplay that hooked a lot of people, and now it's going away (by design). It's 5 stages of grief, and a lot of people are still stuck in the denial or anger phase.

Sorry for the wall of text guys, I was just really appreciative that we got such candid answers from a designer, I found it extremely enlightening.

This is why I really enjoyed the Team Covenant interview with Alex Davy. To be quite honest, I thought the Phantom + ACD was the result of game designers that were really clueless (ok, I may have used the term "mind-numbingly stupid") about the mechanics of the game.

However, when pressed about "fortress-gate", the telling thing was he openly acknowledged the XXXZ list didn't stand a chance against the Phantom. The fact that he did so unabashedly, indicates that it was by design rather than by oversight.

For me at least, this changed my perspective substantially. Alex indicated that rock/paper/scissors is the balancing mechanic they are shooting for. People may not like that form of "balancing", but it is effective nonetheless. So when he says a hard counter to fat Falcons is coming, I take him at his word.

It appears that the design philosophy at high levels is going to continue to be building around a core ship that is really strong in one area, and weak in another. You then use the remaining points to cover that weakness as best as you can. He hinted that this may be the problem with the Falcon, C3PO in particular may be too good at covering that weakness.

I think it would be foolhardy to think this game will ever go back to a "dogfighting" game. After all, there are only so many snub fighters you can make with different stats. FFG is a for-profit company at the end of the day and they want you buying those new "hard counters" when they come out. It's a little sad, but it's hard to argue with that direction if we're being honest with ourselves.

To answer your question, OP there really weren't hard counters in the initial waves. That's the gameplay that hooked a lot of people, and now it's going away (by design). It's 5 stages of grief, and a lot of people are still stuck in the denial or anger phase.

Sorry for the wall of text guys, I was just really appreciative that we got such candid answers from a designer, I found it extremely enlightening.

I disagree. He mentioned that they were going for diversity, not rock-paper-scissors. I might be wrong, but he didn't say a hard-counter was coming, but something that "would help", there's a big difference. They will give us tools, we play the game.

They also made a point that they will make every ship viable, which contradicts your "corporations want more money$$$". They already delivered that beautifully with the A-wing, the Y-wing and, dare I say, the HWK.

This game isn't rock-paper-scissors, but it might be rock-paper-scissors-lizard-spock-han-lightsaber-helmet-asteroid-coffee with no hard-counters, so basically not RPS.

But perhaps I was watching another interview....

P.S. You made me post in the ___ thread again, *sigh*.

jeez duraham, another one?

Can we have this thread locked? It's not going to benefit anyone trash talking the current strong ships.

And to outright blame FFG is ridiculous. Near sighted Ness will only prevent you from garnering skill to defeat Falcons and phantoms.

Besides, scum and villainy is coming in 2 months or so. There will now be enough choices for players to diversify into new strategies.

For me at least, this changed my perspective substantially. Alex indicated that rock/paper/scissors is the balancing mechanic they are shooting for. People may not like that form of "balancing", but it is effective nonetheless. So when he says a hard counter to fat Falcons is coming, I take him at his word.

Honestly I find hard to believe that any serious developer could say something like that.

Rock/Paper/Scissors is everything but a balancing mechanic. The best form of describing it (without using derogative terms) would be "consensual imbalance".... "As C, I find acceptable to always lose to A, because I have a guaranteed victory against B". That "balance" may work for 3-year old kids, but in any serious, modern competitive game it has no place.... Not to mention that in the rock/paper/scissors game, at least, you are allowed to change your 'build' from round to round... Unlike Xwing, on which you are stuck with your list for the entire event.

If that's what the developers were aiming for, the game would be dead in months.

Because the old combos did not break the core rules of a Dogfighting game.

Introducing super tough 360 turrets, hyper cloak/decloak shenanigans. Etc. is what is giving people fits.

its the combos though isnt it.

Happens in all games.

I remember in warhammer 5th edition a level 4 dark elf sorceror with 'cloak of mist and shadows', 'amber amuluet' and 'forbidden rod' was a one man army that came to about 300 points... you didnt need the other 1200 points of your army, they just sat there and watched him rinse the other side.

each item he had was on its own characterful and not overpowered but together they were lethal as...

The cloak made him immune to non magic weapons, invisible and able to move 50" per turn...

He coudl cast level 4 spells that were unstoppable because of the forbidden rod but took a wound when he used it.

but that was ok because the amber amulet gave him a wound back at the start of the next turn.

So you had an invulnerable invisible guy able to move anywhere on the board and cast the toughest spells without fail.

Evil combo/

I think GW stopped this by making some items 'race specific' but the point is that it was evil for what , six months to a year before it was fixed.

I'm sure FFG have some excellent solutions in mind for current 'apex' lists and we'll see them in time. I realise that in the meantime it means the organised play scene is suffering and stagnating a bit (or seems to be to some people) but i also think that a lot of the problems with many 'awful combo' lists is people feel they cant do anything against them and have lost half the battle before the set a dial.

I like my 'heavy interceptor' list, its 3 squints with PTL and a total of 15 HP. I might be banging my head against a wall with it and deluding myself but i've sure that given average rolls i should be able to take out a tough falcon.

I lost narrowly to a 'fat chewie' and a keyan farlander escort and i had appalling rolls that game.

Sure i'm not going to win most or every game against a list with a falcon but i dont think its impossible to win some.

i think turrets have a place in the game, to a degree the cloaking action of the phantom does its just those certain powerful combinations. Im sure FFG will adjust/fix/buff/nerf whatever to make the game balance a little less in favour of the han/phant lists but at the mo its not the end of the world is it?

This is why I really enjoyed the Team Covenant interview with Alex Davy. To be quite honest, I thought the Phantom + ACD was the result of game designers that were really clueless (ok, I may have used the term "mind-numbingly stupid") about the mechanics of the game.

However, when pressed about "fortress-gate", the telling thing was he openly acknowledged the XXXZ list didn't stand a chance against the Phantom. The fact that he did so unabashedly, indicates that it was by design rather than by oversight.

For me at least, this changed my perspective substantially. Alex indicated that rock/paper/scissors is the balancing mechanic they are shooting for. People may not like that form of "balancing", but it is effective nonetheless. So when he says a hard counter to fat Falcons is coming, I take him at his word.

It appears that the design philosophy at high levels is going to continue to be building around a core ship that is really strong in one area, and weak in another. You then use the remaining points to cover that weakness as best as you can. He hinted that this may be the problem with the Falcon, C3PO in particular may be too good at covering that weakness.

I think it would be foolhardy to think this game will ever go back to a "dogfighting" game. After all, there are only so many snub fighters you can make with different stats. FFG is a for-profit company at the end of the day and they want you buying those new "hard counters" when they come out. It's a little sad, but it's hard to argue with that direction if we're being honest with ourselves.

To answer your question, OP there really weren't hard counters in the initial waves. That's the gameplay that hooked a lot of people, and now it's going away (by design). It's 5 stages of grief, and a lot of people are still stuck in the denial or anger phase.

Sorry for the wall of text guys, I was just really appreciative that we got such candid answers from a designer, I found it extremely enlightening.

I disagree. He mentioned that they were going for diversity, not rock-paper-scissors. I might be wrong, but he didn't say a hard-counter was coming, but something that "would help", there's a big difference. They will give us tools, we play the game.

They also made a point that they will make every ship viable, which contradicts your "corporations want more money$$$". They already delivered that beautifully with the A-wing, the Y-wing and, dare I say, the HWK.

This game isn't rock-paper-scissors, but it might be rock-paper-scissors-lizard-spock-han-lightsaber-helmet-asteroid-coffee with no hard-counters, so basically not RPS.

But perhaps I was watching another interview....

P.S. You made me post in the ___ thread again, *sigh*.

You are indeed incorrect, sir. "So there are some hard counters coming out" 25:27 - 25:29, specifically in response to the Falcon. Unless you think I heard incorrectly.

Hard counter balancing is rock, paper, scissors. I use the term "rock, paper, scissors" for brevity. I'm not saying there will only be three builds, in fact Alex indicates the opposite. But he clearly likes hard counters.

What interview were you watching, I watched the one posted on 11/13? Feel free to question my interpretation, Chill, but please be careful about insinuating that I wasn't being truthful about the content of the video.

Second, you have completely mis-characterized what I was saying about corporations want more $$$. I'm not saying any ship isn't useable or viable. But those snub fighters are used to fill out the list around your centerpiece, and going forward they are going to put more focus into those centerpiece type ships. It would be stupid for them to do otherwise. It isn't an insult, nor does it mean it's going to destroy the game. It's a general direction that I suspect they are going to move in. Do you really think based on that interview that's a completely unreasonable conclusion to draw?

I dont think the game will be like old 'herohammer' with a supporting cast around a centrepiece.

its just at the mo one tough build has a centrepiece.

All they need to do is make a very very good and economical snubfighter and the pendulum swings the other way.

It makes more business sense to encourage you to buy a tie swarm than a falcon if you think about it.

As long as the Rock/Paper/Scissors is toned down I don't think it is horrible design. Especially if you have have enough points your list to take 2 of the 3. What I mean by "toned down" is that while Rock consistently beats Scissors on paper, Scissors is still able to beat Rock if it plays a better game.

For me at least, this changed my perspective substantially. Alex indicated that rock/paper/scissors is the balancing mechanic they are shooting for. People may not like that form of "balancing", but it is effective nonetheless. So when he says a hard counter to fat Falcons is coming, I take him at his word.

Honestly I find hard to believe that any serious developer could say something like that.

Rock/Paper/Scissors is everything but a balancing mechanic. The best form of describing it (without using derogative terms) would be "consensual imbalance".... "As C, I find acceptable to always lose to A, because I have a guaranteed victory against B". That "balance" may work for 3-year old kids, but in any serious, modern competitive game it has no place.... Not to mention that in the rock/paper/scissors game, at least, you are allowed to change your 'build' from round to round... Unlike Xwing, on which you are stuck with your list for the entire event.

If that's what the developers were aiming for, the game would be dead in months.

Although I appreciate you wanting to take some outrage at my post, I did follow up the quoted paragraph with:

"It appears that the design philosophy at high levels is going to continue to be building around a core ship that is really strong in one area, and weak in another. You then use the remaining points to cover that weakness as best as you can. He hinted that this may be the problem with the Falcon, C3PO in particular may be too good at covering that weakness."

It's how I interpreted the 30 minutes or so, and I don't believe it is a mischaracterization.

This is why I really enjoyed the Team Covenant interview with Alex Davy. To be quite honest, I thought the Phantom + ACD was the result of game designers that were really clueless (ok, I may have used the term "mind-numbingly stupid") about the mechanics of the game.

However, when pressed about "fortress-gate", the telling thing was he openly acknowledged the XXXZ list didn't stand a chance against the Phantom. The fact that he did so unabashedly, indicates that it was by design rather than by oversight.

For me at least, this changed my perspective substantially. Alex indicated that rock/paper/scissors is the balancing mechanic they are shooting for. People may not like that form of "balancing", but it is effective nonetheless. So when he says a hard counter to fat Falcons is coming, I take him at his word.

It appears that the design philosophy at high levels is going to continue to be building around a core ship that is really strong in one area, and weak in another. You then use the remaining points to cover that weakness as best as you can. He hinted that this may be the problem with the Falcon, C3PO in particular may be too good at covering that weakness.

I think it would be foolhardy to think this game will ever go back to a "dogfighting" game. After all, there are only so many snub fighters you can make with different stats. FFG is a for-profit company at the end of the day and they want you buying those new "hard counters" when they come out. It's a little sad, but it's hard to argue with that direction if we're being honest with ourselves.

To answer your question, OP there really weren't hard counters in the initial waves. That's the gameplay that hooked a lot of people, and now it's going away (by design). It's 5 stages of grief, and a lot of people are still stuck in the denial or anger phase.

Sorry for the wall of text guys, I was just really appreciative that we got such candid answers from a designer, I found it extremely enlightening.

I disagree. He mentioned that they were going for diversity, not rock-paper-scissors. I might be wrong, but he didn't say a hard-counter was coming, but something that "would help", there's a big difference. They will give us tools, we play the game.

They also made a point that they will make every ship viable, which contradicts your "corporations want more money$$$". They already delivered that beautifully with the A-wing, the Y-wing and, dare I say, the HWK.

This game isn't rock-paper-scissors, but it might be rock-paper-scissors-lizard-spock-han-lightsaber-helmet-asteroid-coffee with no hard-counters, so basically not RPS.

But perhaps I was watching another interview....

P.S. You made me post in the ___ thread again, *sigh*.

You are indeed incorrect, sir. "So there are some hard counters coming out" 25:27 - 25:29, specifically in response to the Falcon. Unless you think I heard incorrectly.

Hard counter balancing is rock, paper, scissors. I use the term "rock, paper, scissors" for brevity. I'm not saying there will only be three builds, in fact Alex indicates the opposite. But he clearly likes hard counters.

What interview were you watching, I watched the one posted on 11/13? Feel free to question my interpretation, Chill, but please be careful about insinuating that I wasn't being truthful about the content of the video.

Second, you have completely mis-characterized what I was saying about corporations want more $$$. I'm not saying any ship isn't useable or viable. But those snub fighters are used to fill out the list around your centerpiece, and going forward they are going to put more focus into those centerpiece type ships. It would be stupid for them to do otherwise. It isn't an insult, nor does it mean it's going to destroy the game. It's a general direction that I suspect they are going to move in. Do you really think based on that interview that's a completely unreasonable conclusion to draw?

First of all, I was not insinuating you weren't being truthful, I am just very surprised that we understood completely different things from the interview, which is still true!

I mentioned I wasn't sure about the phrasing, and yes, I was not going to watch a 30-minute video again just to reply to an Internet post. Now that you checked, I was able to go back and listen to that specific part again. The wording is "hard counter", but the meaning is still not RPS, I stand by what I said, they're going to give some tools (upgrades) to get an additional edge on certain lists. I get that you're oversimplifying to get a point across, but you still believe that hard counters equate to a "build-order-win", right? This is the thing I disagree with. Just as Assault Missiles don't give you an auto-win against swarms, this new "hard counter" won't be that "hard". Unless they release a card that says "remove Han Solo from the table", I don't think we will ever see RPS hard-counters, but *tools*.

With the corporation comment, I'm sorry, but this is how you came across. You said that power creep will make us buy into "new solutions".

a card that says "remove Han Solo from the table"

Fund it.

I think that Alex actually said Rock/Paper/Scissors when talking about the addition of the third faction.

I think it would be called 'greedo hit first'

that removes Han from the table

First of all, I was not insinuating you weren't being truthful, I am just very surprised that we understood completely different things from the interview, which is still true!

I mentioned I wasn't sure about the phrasing, and yes, I was not going to watch a 30-minute video again just to reply to an Internet post. Now that you checked, I was able to go back and listen to that specific part again. The wording is "hard counter", but the meaning is still not RPS, I stand by what I said, they're going to give some tools (upgrades) to get an additional edge on certain lists. I get that you're oversimplifying to get a point across, but you still believe that hard counters equate to a "build-order-win", right? This is the thing I disagree with. Just as Assault Missiles don't give you an auto-win against swarms, this new "hard counter" won't be that "hard". Unless they release a card that says "remove Han Solo from the table", I don't think we will ever see RPS hard-counters, but *tools*.

With the corporation comment, I'm sorry, but this is how you came across. You said that power creep will make us buy into "new solutions".

Ahh, I think I see. No, I think our disagreement is merely semantics at this point rather than a massive difference of opinion. I don't think it's power creep, I'm trying to think of the best way to phrase this...

It's not power creep as much as there will be a different archetype. You'll use existing filler, but you'll have a different primary playstyle. For example, if the new counter pushes the Falcon down (which he indicated FFG wants), that may boost Phantoms. I think you would see FFG release a ship that excels at hitting stealthed ships but may lack the fire power to deal with tanks, or the hull strength to take swarms head on. So you'd fill in the list with say a defender with HLC or B-Wing.

More like Rock (with a sledgehammer), Paper (with dynamite), Scissors (with sea bass with lasers attached to their head). Old ships will still be viable, I just think you will be building around a different core. Or maybe I'm completely missing your point.

First of all, I was not insinuating you weren't being truthful, I am just very surprised that we understood completely different things from the interview, which is still true!

I mentioned I wasn't sure about the phrasing, and yes, I was not going to watch a 30-minute video again just to reply to an Internet post. Now that you checked, I was able to go back and listen to that specific part again. The wording is "hard counter", but the meaning is still not RPS, I stand by what I said, they're going to give some tools (upgrades) to get an additional edge on certain lists. I get that you're oversimplifying to get a point across, but you still believe that hard counters equate to a "build-order-win", right? This is the thing I disagree with. Just as Assault Missiles don't give you an auto-win against swarms, this new "hard counter" won't be that "hard". Unless they release a card that says "remove Han Solo from the table", I don't think we will ever see RPS hard-counters, but *tools*.

With the corporation comment, I'm sorry, but this is how you came across. You said that power creep will make us buy into "new solutions".

Ahh, I think I see. No, I think our disagreement is merely semantics at this point rather than a massive difference of opinion. I don't think it's power creep, I'm trying to think of the best way to phrase this...

It's not power creep as much as there will be a different archetype. You'll use existing filler, but you'll have a different primary playstyle. For example, if the new counter pushes the Falcon down (which he indicated FFG wants), that may boost Phantoms. I think you would see FFG release a ship that excels at hitting stealthed ships but may lack the fire power to deal with tanks, or the hull strength to take swarms head on. So you'd fill in the list with say a defender with HLC or B-Wing.

More like Rock (with a sledgehammer), Paper (with dynamite), Scissors (with sea bass with lasers attached to their head). Old ships will still be viable, I just think you will be building around a different core. Or maybe I'm completely missing your point.

Is this point related to the fact that we were buying multiples for all those low-PS swarm-type lists half an year ago? Suddenly the meta isn't supportive of those archetypes, so we've bought them to gather dust? I believe those are strictly unintentional.

Swarms will still be viable but the XXBBs and the like, not so much, I believe.
That's what I got from it, at least.