Welp, there goes any interest in the YV....
New FAQ and Tournament Rules uP (July 24, 2015)
Bossk is still going to be really good with Calculation + Rec Spec or K4. Its basically a cheap HLC that can shoot 180.
We also don't know what Maneuvering Fins does. Don't count the ship out yet.
I like the standard slaver with Outlaw Tech and Greedo. That's only 32 points for a pretty chunky ship that can throw out some damage.
Bossk is still going to be really good with Calculation + Rec Spec or K4. Its basically a cheap HLC that can shoot 180.
We also don't know what Maneuvering Fins does. Don't count the ship out yet.
I like the standard slaver with Outlaw Tech and Greedo. That's only 32 points for a pretty chunky ship that can throw out some damage.
How about 3 slavers with 1 tactician and feedback array. That's a big halo to avoid.
Edited by ViscerothSWG
The hlc can't shoot 180.Bossk is still going to be really good with Calculation + Rec Spec or K4. Its basically a cheap HLC that can shoot 180.
We also don't know what Maneuvering Fins does. Don't count the ship out yet.
I like the standard slaver with Outlaw Tech and Greedo. That's only 32 points for a pretty chunky ship that can throw out some damage.
How about 3 slavers with 1 tactician and feedback array. That's a big halo to avoid.
He meant using Bossk's ability to spend a Focus using Calculation to get that crit, and turn it to two hits. On his primary.
I like the Slaver with OT and Greedo though, that's awesome. Especially when you decide to stop, you get that Focus anyway.
why are some of your advocating the desire for greater list variety then complaining about the Nerf on 3 tacticians? Talk about a boring list to play 3 tacticians is lame for game variety folks.
it'd be lame for a meta dominated by 2-fat ships for sure
lack of defensive tech and 1 agility, however, would promote the resurgence of larger numbers of ships that wouldn't care as much about what is essentially a 1.5 B-wing
the variety this ship could have promoted is exactly my problem with this errata
I think you are overestimating your pet combo.
Rydiak has in his signature the FAQ about attack dice and fire arc. I don't see that any longer. What am I missing?
Edited by Ken at SunriseRydiak has in his signature the FAQ about attack dice and fire arc. I don't see that any longer. What am I missing?
His sig is requesting that FFG change the rules for PWT range 1 dice in the core rule book by way of errata in the FAQ. FFG has not made that change.
Rydiak has in his signature the FAQ about attack dice and fire arc. I don't see that any longer. What am I missing?
That's just some wishlisting. It has never been in the errata and likely never will be either.
Rydiak has in his signature the FAQ about attack dice and fire arc. I don't see that any longer. What am I missing?
That's just some wishlisting. It has never been in the errata and likely never will be either.
Too much of a re-design to the rules (too many potential unanticipated consequences) and probably far more than required for the perceived popularity/powerfulness of PWTs by some. Incremental buffs, if at all, are best.
Edited by z0m4dOne thing that will likely be a factor, it seems that following the new tournament rules both Gencon and Worlds should be six rounds, cut to top 16. I haven't run the math properly, but I think you are going to end up with a large number of 5-1 players, some of whom won't make the top 16.
For Gencon they originally told us it might be 8 rounds. That was too many, but 6 seems too few to really get much separation in the pack.
Here is some possible numbers. Using this site swisstriangle.net it looks like about six 5-1 players will miss the cut at Gencon and even more at Worlds with the larger field and probably more byes.
Interesting.
One thing that will likely be a factor, it seems that following the new tournament rules both Gencon and Worlds should be six rounds, cut to top 16. I haven't run the math properly, but I think you are going to end up with a large number of 5-1 players, some of whom won't make the top 16.
For Gencon they originally told us it might be 8 rounds. That was too many, but 6 seems too few to really get much separation in the pack.
Here is some possible numbers. Using this site swisstriangle.net it looks like about six 5-1 players will miss the cut at Gencon and even more at Worlds with the larger field and probably more byes.
Interesting.
Rules aren't in effect until August 15. It's also worth noting that plenty of 5-1 records didn't make the 8 person cut at the regional level.
When I emailed Organized Play a coup lot months ago, they said they were planning on 7 rounds.
...also, are there that many people who thought the only worthwhile thing about the YV was the ability to run multiple Tacticians?
One thing that will likely be a factor, it seems that following the new tournament rules both Gencon and Worlds should be six rounds, cut to top 16. I haven't run the math properly, but I think you are going to end up with a large number of 5-1 players, some of whom won't make the top 16.
For Gencon they originally told us it might be 8 rounds. That was too many, but 6 seems too few to really get much separation in the pack.
Here is some possible numbers. Using this site swisstriangle.net it looks like about six 5-1 players will miss the cut at Gencon and even more at Worlds with the larger field and probably more byes.
Interesting.
Rules aren't in effect until August 15. It's also worth noting that plenty of 5-1 records didn't make the 8 person cut at the regional level.
But given Vorpal's post they are presumably making exceptions. 7 rounds is the sweet spot for 200/16.
The tournament rules are legal on the 29th specifically to include Gencon, the FAQ is not legal till August 15th though.One thing that will likely be a factor, it seems that following the new tournament rules both Gencon and Worlds should be six rounds, cut to top 16. I haven't run the math properly, but I think you are going to end up with a large number of 5-1 players, some of whom won't make the top 16.
For Gencon they originally told us it might be 8 rounds. That was too many, but 6 seems too few to really get much separation in the pack.
Here is some possible numbers. Using this site swisstriangle.net it looks like about six 5-1 players will miss the cut at Gencon and even more at Worlds with the larger field and probably more byes.
Interesting.
Rules aren't in effect until August 15. It's also worth noting that plenty of 5-1 records didn't make the 8 person cut at the regional level.
But given Vorpal's post they are presumably making exceptions. 7 rounds is the sweet spot for 200/16.
Would byes change that number at all?
Yeah, byes typically skew things and increase the number of winners and undefeateds. You can enter the number of people with byes into the Swiss calculator I posted. Having people paired up and down also changes things slightly.
If you had enough byes it is possible that someone would go 6-1 and miss out which is pretty rough.
Edit: I think I misremembered the numbers. 7 rounds will work pretty well for 256, with 200 a couple of 5-2 with good MoV will make it.
Edited by ID X T...also, are there that many people who thought the only worthwhile thing about the YV was the ability to run multiple Tacticians?
I've run Latts with WepEng+K4 a couple of times and it seems super solid. Would fly over Bossk any day.
When I emailed Organized Play a coup lot months ago, they said they were planning on 7 rounds.
...also, are there that many people who thought the only worthwhile thing about the YV was the ability to run multiple Tacticians?
it was scum's only viable option for a panic attack style list, and their only reliable means to secure a control ship (unless you like fielding the one-shot wonders, Scyks)
now they have to enter the dice fest and a meta that has predominately favored fat ships, while they themselves possess no ability to be fat and effective (no guaranteed damage mitigation; not even as much health as a yt-1300)
I don't have much hope for the generics (the PS 5 has a killer ability that needs to be explored; don't recall seeing the PS 6) outside of Gunner + Bossk (worthless against PWTs, better against Soonts) or just a humble K4.
Problem with the K4 slaver is that 2 of them and VI, FCS, thruster Xizor is 101 points 
apart from the PS 6, all that's left to be seen is the fins upgrade
Edited by ficklegreendiceSpamming multiple personnel upgrades like 3 tacticians is both lame and a poor mechanic to allow.
Off the top of my head there's not many if any other personnel upgrades you can run multiples of.
Nor should there be for game variety. How great it would be to stack multiples of any personnel.... 3 gunners, 3 C3po.... NOT!
I'm not against a scum panic list though that would be a different conversation.
End of Match
Each tournament match ends in one of the following ways:
• All of one player’s ships are destroyed (respecting the Simultaneous Attack Rule on page 16 of the Rules of Play). The player with at least one ship remaining immediately earns a win, and the opposing player receives a loss. If neither player has any remaining ships, the game ends in a draw.
• At the end of the current round, the match time limit has been reached. (If time is called mid-round, players must finish the round.) Each player calculates their score by adding together the total squad point value of their opponent’s destroyed ships, including Upgrade cards equipped to those ships. The player with the greater score receives a win, and his opponent receives a loss. If the winning player’s score is fewer than 12 points more than his or her opponent’s score, that player receives a win. If both players have the same score, the game ends in a draw.
• A player voluntarily concedes defeat at any point during the match. The conceding player receives a loss and the opponent receives a win.
Do we think modified wins are gone now? I know this was mentioned earlier in this thread, but it really hasn't gotten much attention. It may be a typo on FFG's part, but it still hasn't been updated since it was first posted. I can see reasons why they would remove modified wins. Given the small cuts that have been happening at Regionals, and will happen at Nationals and Worlds, earning a modified win was nearly the same as a loss. If you only got 3 points for a match you had won, you weren't going to make the cut, unless you went undefeated the rest of the way. So, you could either lose or score a modified win but rarely both, making them functionally the same. For that reason I can see this not being a typo.
But, this does change some play tactics, and not for the better. Suppose you have a 36 point Fel vs a 31 point Tycho at the end game. With the rules that you would score 3 points for a modified win in place, it was in Fel's best interest to continue to engage Tycho and attempt to score the kill and earn the full win. Fel's player had to seriously consider the fact that a modified win was essentially a loss when put in consideration to try to make a final cut. Now, if there are no more modified wins, in the above situation Fel should probably just run from Tycho and not take any risks at all to try to kill him. If Fel is going to get the full win for a winning by 5 points, he should just secure the win. This is especially true when Fel considers that he is going to get a decent MOV for killing all of Tycho's friends.
With this change, if it holds, a player with a defensive ship and the smallest points destroyed advantage should not take any risks to engage and destroy his opponents ships. He should run and secure the full win points. There are a lot of situation where this will create bad problems, and will encourage slow playing in some situations. I hope it's a typo, but I think it may not be.
Does anyone out there have any firm confirmation that this is or isn't a typo
I asked on twitter and they confirmed the lack of a modified win is a typo that will be fixed.
lol the FAQ needs an FAQ 
Spamming multiple personnel upgrades like 3 tacticians is both lame and a poor mechanic to allow.
Off the top of my head there's not many if any other personnel upgrades you can run multiples of.
Nor should there be for game variety. How great it would be to stack multiples of any personnel.... 3 gunners, 3 C3po.... NOT!
I'm not against a scum panic list though that would be a different conversation.
3PO is unique, on purpose. Multiple Gunners is legal but have no effect. But there are definitely crew cards that can be taken in multiples and are still functional. Not all of them would be viable, but definitely functional. Multiple Recon Specialists yield an additional focus token per additional card on the same ship. Intelligence Agents allow you to view multiple dials with the same ship. Multiple Flight Instructors let you reroll multiple dice with the same ship. Multiple Mercenary Copilots yield multipe crits every attack.
Now I don't necessarily disagree with the Tactician ruling, as I think it would be remarkably unfun to play against a TripleTacTrando. But there is absolutely a precedent for multiple crew members that can trigger their effect multiple times.
Edited by Engine25I know the greater part of the community relished the idea of a triple tactician YV-666 as a viable means of combating some of the existing dastardly builds, the negative aspects of such a mechanic is clearly something this game didn't need.
To use a term that became popular in a different Star Wars miniatures game, it would be an NPE (Negative Play Experience). That kind of thing isn't good for a game. And while PWT's are obviously in that category for many players, the introduction of an NPE to combat another is is a poor idea.
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)
Frankly, Yv-666 tactican spam seemed more likely to hurt small ship builds than turrets. Being in the fairly large danger zone even once would be a death sentence for any interceptor, starviper, aggressor, or Corran. It seems more likely that Fat Turret builds would switch to mini-swarms and maybe cut action-dependent defenses, but at the same time the ships that can effectively hunt them would disappear.
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)
Primary Weapon Turrets: Can make an attack if defender is inside firing arc or outside firing arc. When measuring range measure from closest point on attacker's base to closest on defender's base. When determining if inside firing arc for effects such as tactician if any part of the defender's base is inside firing arc then defender is considered inside firing arc with the range of the closest point from the attacker's base to the closest point on the defender's base even if the closest point is outside of the attacker's firing arc.
Does that cover it? Coming up next, the boost action on ships with a large base. 
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.