not even as much health as a yt-1300

The Tooth is cheaper than a TIE defender. Were you expecting a Decimator statline?

still waiting on that PWT errata

multiple tactician aren't even close to the same experience, on the grounds that they can be avoided (range 2 only, limited to arcs, slow-ass ship)

If it hasn't been clear for over two years now, you are going to have to keep waiting. Your schtick really becoming old. If these ships are so unfun for you that you have to bring it up;all the time, even when it isn't the topic (pretty much this and the rulebook thread), then maybe you need to consider your involvement in this forum and this game.

oh, I've considered it.

the PWT problem persists, therefore I will continue to bring it up until it is addressed

if FFG is capable of errataing something that "is probably too much" or "a negative play experience" before it even hits tables, then they are capable of fixing PWTs. This fact, plus the fact that the YV lost a very effective method for dealing with these very popular ships that it'll inveitably have to go against, make this train of topic relevant for this thread.

now you can do whatever you wish in reaction, but I'm not going anywhere. If that bothers you, there's an ignore option.

the PWT problem persists, therefore I will continue to bring it up until it is addressed

Define "addressed," please.

if FFG is capable of errataing something that "is probably too much" or "a negative play experience" before it even hits tables, then they are capable of fixing PWTs.

But they didn't errata something before it hit the table. They errata'ed something well after it hit the table: double-Tactician shuttles have been around for several months, and multiple-Tactician CR-90s for about the same length of time. This could be aimed at those, or at those and the YV.

If you want to consider the timing as the major factor, it could be aimed at the Raider just as much (or more) than at the YV. You're making a huge assumption, and it's unwarranted.

This fact...

That would be the made-up one that comes with the bad assumption? I just want to make sure we're working from the same foundation, here.

...plus the fact that the YV lost a very effective method for dealing with these very popular ships that it'll inveitably have to go against, make this train of topic relevant for this thread.

Except that PWTs other than Dash (who of course doesn't use a PW with his T) are typically much less action-dependent than "normal" ships. Chiraneau + Predator + Gunner would like an action for the Engine Upgrade he's carrying around, but he can attack and defend just as well if he doesn't get one. Ditto Han + Gunner + C-3PO.

There are still ways to deal multiple stress with a YV--you just have to be smarter about it than "herp derp, how many Tacticians can I cram on this ship?" There are still ways to play the Panic Attack game with Scum--it's just not as easy (nor should it necessarily be). And there are still plenty of anti-PWT options in Wave 7, if you care to think about it.

now you can do whatever you wish in reaction, but I'm not going anywhere. If that bothers you, there's an ignore option.

I'd like to avoid that, because you're occasionally funny and sometimes have useful contributions to make. But if you start twisting everything to discussion of PWTs regardless of their relevance, and your arguments continue to nosedive into bad deductions from shaky foundations, you won't be worth reading any more.

the PWT problem persists, therefore I will continue to bring it up until it is addressed

Now that's just being obstinate. I brought up the term Negative Play Experience because piling 3 Tactician on it would be over the top and would certainly be a negative for pretty much everyone to play against.

I hate how the term "nerf" gets thrown around these forums for a variety of things. Generally speaking the things people suggest a "nerf" for do not need a "nerf" but rather some tweaks, on one side of an issue or the other.

PWT's themselves do not need a "nerf". FFG has correctly taken the slow path towards countering imbalance created by these ships. Slow and gradual is absolutely the tactic to take when trying to balance things out. Hasty decisions can miss something or have deeper implications in the future.

Over time there will simply be more options to counter PWT's rather than PWT's getting a "nerf". My reasoning? The Millennium Falcon is basically the most iconic ship from Star Wars. It always gets out of trouble, it blasts ships out of the sky and never gets killed. It has to be really good in this game. They aren't walking back any of its current mechanics. Perhaps C-3PO gets banned from tournament play at some point but other than that I don't think anything much gets changed. They are never going to weaken it's attack. That's just not going to happen.

My ultimate concern is this: I love this game apart from just the one rotten mechanic of PWTs (which the K and the YT-2400 avoid deftly by emphasizing to 2-dice). I'd just hate to see it return to the dark ages of Wave 5.

1.)

you don't errata upgrades just for interactions on epic ships considering FFG itself puts out the tournament rules and sanctions the events, all of which have been set at 100 points unless specified otherwise. In Epic Tournaments, there is no reason they cannot use their own set of errata.

100 points is the standard, the raider is not. Taking away options from ships you can actually use in the main game just because of an epic ship reeks of horrible decision-making.

The multi-tactician shuttle has never been a prevalent issue. Considering the timing on the errata, it's very safe to assume the YV is the cause (if any) of it.

2.) FFG can (and has) released errata to its own game. This is a fact and is not up for debate.

3.) PWTs are less action-dependent than PTL dependent ships, but they're also easier to kill with YVs.

multiple YVs should be able to handily demolish a PWT since they can do the only thing anyone can do to win (outdice them). With tacticians, they could also neuter the PWT's ability to trivially range/arc-dodge them with boosts and also shut off their evades, netting you a very reliable kill.

more action-dependent ships, such as Soonts and Dash, are far more capable of dodging the only range tactician works at because they have a greater wealth of repositioning, have a smaller base, or are Dash (obstructions). Tactician isn't like a PWT, it can be avoided with good play and the ships that are vulnerable to it are also the ships that can dodge it with most ease.

not to mention, higher agility (though stupidly fickle) tends to work better against the larger numbers of lightly modified attacks that the YVs will be spitting out. A PWT's defensive tech will completely ignore one shot and leave the others to slam into 0-1 agility. Auto-thruster soontir and range 3 (potentially obstructed) Dash will be far harder to peg down unless the YV positions well enough to get tacticians off.

4.) the judgement call on "herpderp, how can I cram as many tacticians onto this ship" comes off as very strange considering tactician has to be enabled by positioning instead of just rolling dice. **** thing works only in arc and only at range 2. If the YV could k-turn then I'd understand the reservations, but the **** thing barely moves better than a shuttle and will clip asteroids like its magnetically attracted to them unless flown carefully.

Now you are correct in that there remain other ways to induce multiple stress, they just all suck.

You can flechette cannon (main arc only, sacrifice primary attack; have to roll well with the cannon) and tactician + Gunner (dice dependent again, near worthless against PWTs' 0-1 agility)

5.)

the rest,such as "there are plenty of anti-PWT upgrades in Wave 7, if you care to think about it," just don't go into any specifics (not exactly inspiring confidence) and can't really be responded to. There's nothing substantive there.

Now a disclaimer: Wave 7 isn't set in stone and I am not the Grand Magus of precognition, I'm just voicing concerns over how the spoiled new mechanics seem to counter the non-PWT meta and leave PWTs rather untouched. This doesn't mean I'm not excited for the awesomeness that is to come (god **** Deathrain looks sexy as hell), I'm just worried it'll push the unsavory part of the game back up to a position they enjoyed in Wave 5.

What I do know is that Conner net and ion bombs will give ion a new breath of life against large bases, but also that Conner net will ruin the PTL ships long before they begin to annoy PWTs (mines can be dropped on top of them before they move, guaranteed damage is greater % of max health, skipping the action step guts all their defensive tech, ionization screws over positioning especially in regards to their arc, or minimum range in case of Dash; PWTs don't care unless the ion grounds them on an asteroid)

Given Cluster Mines' failure to impress (3/8 relevant results per die? come on), it seems the only reliable anti-PWT tech is coming out of the Raider (AC cluster missile Advance? Yes please!) and Redline (FCS, cluster missiles for more reliable, modified attacks). These guys can salvo Clusters reliably as opposed to just trusting the whims of RNGesus. Add them to Vessery and Jonus, and we might have a big enough stable to threaten those mounds of m.o.v.

To those using multiple ordnance bombers already (godspeed!), the release of nets and the hitherto unspoiled Advanced Homing Missiles may diversify those lists enough to make them very versatile and prevalent. Sadly, I don't play bombers so I have no idea how that'll shape up

other than that, we're getting the YV (no tacticians for you) and the Special-K (no idea, but hopeful given that FFG learned from the rookie when it came to pricing the Cartel Marauder)

The tactician spam YV was a golden opportunity, a big chunky bully that could out-dice a PWT and pack enough control to hold them down while they beat the snot out of it. Low agility, one attack per ship, and lack of defensive tech would leave them prey for swarms while Tactician's range 2 restriction give them heavy counter-play in the form of being outmaneuvered; they would have been a very interesting new force on the table. But those are gone now, and while the YV can still be a potent ship (K4, Gunner + Bossk, the PS 5's ability) we will never get to experience them as control monsters.

the PWT problem persists, therefore I will continue to bring it up until it is addressed

Over time there will simply be more options to counter PWT's rather than PWT's getting a "nerf". My reasoning? The Millennium Falcon is basically the most iconic ship from Star Wars. It always gets out of trouble, it blasts ships out of the sky and never gets killed. It has to be really good in this game. They aren't walking back any of its current mechanics. Perhaps C-3PO gets banned from tournament play at some point but other than that I don't think anything much gets changed. They are never going to weaken it's attack. That's just not going to happen.

this will never result in substantive change unless we get more upgrades like auto-thrusters (or more prevalent auto-thrusters), on the grounds that it is basically impossible to target fat PWTs for counters without countering something else, and to a far greater degree.

PWTs simply care less about every available game mechanic aside from getting dice thrown at them (the one weakness: they're not super efficient, just as much as a Defender). They don't care about facing relative to getting shot, they don't care about their actions nearly as much because the upgrades they can take don't care and have no way to be counter-played unless FFG makes them arc-dependent.

Attempting to release a counter that isn't "just throw dice at them" will result in things like Conner, something I am very much looking forward to; just not under the delusion that it's a PWT counter as much as a counter for ships that actually care about facing/actions/guaranteed damage. Releasing a counter that is "throw dice at them" is dangerous, because it'll impact all low agility ships.

Cluster Missiles are a sleeping bear in this regard, able to throw up enough attacks at a single target but too expensive to unleash on a larger number of targets (such as B-wings). With Wave 7, I'm greatly hoping they get their time in the limelight.

Cluster Mines were a golden opportunity, a template that targeted large ships specifically by forcing more overlap on the tokens (though "large ships" also includes non-PWTs, but hey have to start somewhere) but are sadly at the mercy of dice-spike.

Finally, considering both that iconic status is no excuse for avoiding errata, and that mechanics have been rolled back (so far large-ship roll and phantom de-cloak, and recently the whole b-rolling/boosting/de-cloaking off the table), not to mention a change in upgrade wording (Tactician being limited, for example), a change to PWT functionality is still very much possible.

If you want to talk iconic --> effective, I'd lament the poor X-wing (Luke, Tarn, and Biggs still can slug it out, though!)

you don't errata upgrades just for interactions on epic ships considering FFG itself puts out the tournament rules and sanctions the events, all of which have been set at 100 points unless specified otherwise. In Epic Tournaments, there is no reason they cannot use their own set of errata.

100 points is the standard, the raider is not. Taking away options from ships you can actually use in the main game just because of an epic ship reeks of horrible decision-making.

The multi-tactician shuttle has never been a prevalent issue. Considering the timing on the errata, it's very safe to assume the YV is the cause (if any) of it.

There's actually no public data that says how long the Tactician note has been in the pipe: since the last update was at the end of March, there's a window nearly four months wide where the decision could have been made.

And I wasn't going to bring this up, but also note that the set of content FFG is looking at is wider than the set of content we're looking at. We can only see as far as Wave 7, but according to Alex Davy's interview in... Fargo, was it?... at least at that time, they were working about two full waves ahead.

I'm sure the multiple-Tactician YV was part of the conversation, but picture a conversation that includes the Lambda, the YV, the Raider, and possibly future content as well. You're picturing FFG taking away a combination of upgrades from the YV specifically; what I'm trying to say is that from FFG's perspective, it could easily be a broader balance fix that includes both current and upcoming content, and happens to include the YV.

3.) PWTs are less action-dependent than PTL dependent ships, but they're also easier to kill with YVs.

multiple YVs should be able to handily demolish a PWT since they can do the only thing anyone can do to win (outdice them). With tacticians, they could also neuter the PWT's ability to trivially range/arc-dodge them with boosts and also shut off their evades, netting you a very reliable kill.

Okay, I'll suppose for the sake of argument that's all true. It still doesn't say anything about whether three Tacticians (or two and a Gunner, or two and an Ion Cannon, or...) is a negative play experience--and if it is, then it doesn't matter whether it's the best way to shut PWTs down.

That is, if it's the best way to shut everything down, then ruling it out of the game is good for the game. PWTs deserve to be hit with the nasty combo, but other ships don't; if multiple Tacticians hit everyone hard (they do), it doesn't matterwhether they hit PWTs a little harder--they're still not appropriate for the game.

4.) the judgement call on "herpderp, how can I cram as many tacticians onto this ship" comes off as very strange considering tactician has to be enabled by positioning instead of just rolling dice.

It doesn't take any real planning to stuff three Tacticians on a YV and have it slow-roll its way into the combat looking for targets of opportunity. And even supposing good piloting is always a solution to keeping yourself out of that Range 2 band, a game where one mistake prevents that ship from participating in the action economy for multiple rounds isn't a healthy game.

I don't think you really want to participate in a metagame where the principal criterion for success is how well a ship can deal with multiple stress, and that's what multiple Tacticians point toward.

Now you are correct in that there remain other ways to induce multiple stress, they just all suck.

You can flechette cannon (main arc only, sacrifice primary attack; have to roll well with the cannon) and tactician + Gunner (dice dependent again, near worthless against PWTs' 0-1 agility)

You forgot "multiple ships with Tactician", which is really the most important one.

5.) the rest,such as "there are plenty of anti-PWT upgrades in Wave 7, if you care to think about it," just don't go into any specifics (not exactly inspiring confidence) and can't really be responded to. There's nothing substantive there...

From here, you go on to a fairly insightful discussion of how the non-YV ships and upgrades in Wave 7 may or may not affect PWTs. (I'd remind you, of course, that not only are you not the Grand Magus of prognostication but there are still multiple unspoiled cards from Wave 7, one or more of which could have a substantial impact on this conversation.)

And this is why I haven't blocked you: when you get off whatever your hobby-horse of the day is, you have valuable things to say.

Great. Another thread devolving into bickering about turrets. Fantastic. Good job everyone.

Great. Another thread devolving into bickering about turrets. Fantastic. Good job everyone.

technically, it's bickering about tactician errata because of turrets*

which may well turn into bickering about bickering about tactician errata because of turrets, or bickering about bickering about turrets because of the tactician errata

if FFG is capable of errataing something that "is probably too much" or "a negative play experience" before it even hits tables, then they are capable of fixing PWTs.

But they didn't errata something before it hit the table. They errata'ed something well after it hit the table: double-Tactician shuttles have been around for several months, and multiple-Tactician CR-90s for about the same length of time. This could be aimed at those, or at those and the YV.

If you want to consider the timing as the major factor, it could be aimed at the Raider just as much (or more) than at the YV. You're making a huge assumption, and it's unwarranted.

Actually, Alex Davy made that pretty clear in the FAQ's news post:

Second, the Tactician Upgrade card has received the “Limited” keyword, which means it will now be restricted to one copy per ship. This is an important limitation as we look forward to the addition of the Hound’s Tooth to the game.

Still, I think it was the right call. Fickle, I really don't think that stress-stacking YV's would have pushed us into the meta that you're hoping for. There's two ways to deal with the Tacticians' stress overload:

1) Stay out of arc or out of Range 2

2) Bring upgrades that make action denial less effective

I figure you'd agree that a fully-loaded PWT accomplishes #2 better than pretty much any other ship. But they also have no problem with #1. Nobody has an easier time jumping range bands than a large-base ship with EU. If you're facing a competent player, then unless your YV has a higher pilot skill than their turret, you're going to have a hard time ever getting your Tacticians to trigger.

If 3x Tactician YV's became a fixture in the meta, I think you'd encourage more Fat YT's and Decimators, not less. What you might also see is people deciding that Soontir/Corran/Whisper are just too vulnerable to be reliable wingmen, and going with miniswarms to accompany their turrets instead. So you might discourage two-ship lists, it's true. You'd also discourage all sorts of three-ship lists, along with any ships that rely on their agility or arc-dodging to survive.

ficklegreendice, on 27 Jul 2015 - 09:41 AM, said:ficklegreendice, on 27 Jul 2015 - 09:41 AM, said:ficklegreendice, on 27 Jul 2015 - 09:41 AM, said:ficklegreendice, on 27 Jul 2015 - 09:41 AM, said:ficklegreendice, on 27 Jul 2015 - 09:41 AM, said:

floof, on 27 Jul 2015 - 09:37 AM, said:floof, on 27 Jul 2015 - 09:37 AM, said:floof, on 27 Jul 2015 - 09:37 AM, said:floof, on 27 Jul 2015 - 09:37 AM, said:floof, on 27 Jul 2015 - 09:37 AM, said:

Great. Another thread devolving into bickering about turrets. Fantastic. Good job everyone.

technically, it's bickering about tactician errata because of turrets*

which may well turn into bickering about bickering about tactician errata because of turrets, or bickering about bickering about turrets because of the tactician errata

Actually Ficklegreendice your being DRAG on this forum with your incessant negativity.

You have stated many times you near sole intent on this board is to whine and complain until you get the game changed to suit your desires. You and several others who also troll like you are the main reason for so much negativity on this forum.

As I have pointed out before you could actually leave this board if the game is such a drag, as have others in this thread.

Instead you chose to be a jerk and continue spouting off non-stop negative comments about turrets in **** near every post you add to this forum,

GET A LIFE MAN!

There really are a great selection of other games that are fun to play and you should spend you time playing them instead of X-Wing since you hate it so much. Well you seem to hate the fact you cant control the game designers.

Ban turrets at your house if you want to keep playing your style. Your obviously not a hard core tourney player so house rules would take care of your issues. You could then stop this trolling of the x-wing forum with you negativity.

Edit note - You do have some good insights on certain aspects of the game but your overwhelming desire to control the game through spamming complaints on this forum negates this positive contribution.

what a pot/kettle post, 0/10

Question on Daredevil: does the "always white" means that your 1turn is white even with the crit that makes all turns red?

My opinion:

Double Tactician Lambdas were not the reason for Tactician being nerfed.

Triple Tactician YV-666s were the sole reason for Tactician being nerfed.

Your opinion may vary.

So be it.

Actually Ficklegreendice your being DRAG on this forum with your incessant negativity.

... and meaningful discussion on the FAQ is now concluded here, apparently. Please show yourself to the nearest exit.

Thanks for playing!