Not that I'm wildly overexcited by it now the dial has been revealed and I'm frantically list building you understand...
Is there any sign of the Shadowcaster generic yet?
I think this is a very good question that demands an answer! Wish I had one
Huh, that is a point or two more expensive than I would have predicted...
oh wow really?
FFG's love of overpricing generics has not slowed, I see
no matter how much better one might feel scum came away from Wave 9 than the other factions, you can rest assured all their generics are just as poorly priced as the Tie/sf's
Too bad. At 33pts, can't afford NOT to take Ezra. Too much extra efficiency for a meager two points. If they wanted it to cost 33pts, could have at least made it PS3.
Too bad. At 33pts, can't afford NOT to take Ezra. Too much extra efficiency for a meager two points. If they wanted it to cost 33pts, could have at least made it PS3.
Ezra is a rebel pilot and crew. Not scum.
PS2 33pts? No ept was expected since the 3rd pilot doesnt have one but wow 2pt difference for +3PS and an ability, even if its a meager one. The heck?
Well least FFG learned with the uboat to not make the generic obscenely strong lol. That thing is total ass.
I think they made it a tad more expensive for fear of another Contracted Scout scenario.
How about the other Tie/SF generic? We seen that yet?
30 'health' from one squad of three 3-Attack ships with Evade ...not too shabby.
Ezra is a rebel pilot and crew. Not scum.
Whatever. All Rebel pilots look the same to me.
Easily 2 points overcosted at 33 for the generic shadowcaster.
Best comparison is to the 33 point Imperial firespray generic, which itself is overcosted.
Hmm... naked shadowcaster or fully kitted contracted scout. Tough choice...
Hmm... naked shadowcaster or fully kitted contracted scout. Tough choice...
Ya no joke. Think I'm putting costing of generics on the list of things I don't understand how FFG determines. It's almost like the less upgrade slots the large base ships have, the more they overcost the generics, and the more upgrade slots they have, the more they undercost them.
30 'health' from one squad of three 3-Attack ships with Evade ...not too shabby.
Empire's been able to do that since Wave 2. Triple Bounty Hunter.
Ya no joke. Think I'm putting costing of generics on the list of things I don't understand how FFG determines. It's almost like the less upgrade slots the large base ships have, the more they overcost the generics, and the more upgrade slots they have, the more they undercost them.
JM5K with PS3 and an EPT? I'm thinking 25pts.
Shadowcaster with PS2 and no EPT? I'm thinking 33pts.
Fang? Let's make a generic PS3 with EPT for 22pts. Make sure it has boost and barrel roll.
ARC-170? Pffft, why bother with generics. Nobody's gonna fly those things, let alone more than one of them. I guess we can make a PS3 pilot, but I want it costed at 25pts, and don't you dare give it an ept slot. Also, I'm gonna need it to have a unique pilot talent that's unreliable, just for laughs.
I have no idea what's going on right now.
yeesh with the people thinking the naked statline on the jm5k is a problem rather than the upgrade combination that lets them fire out super torps with deadeye
the jm5k's statline really isn't that good. It's a K-wing with an extra point of agility. Oh man, it's like the pinnacle of efficiency!
no, the only real problem is the fully kited out 30-32 beast once you get all the working parts shoved in. It's a 3 ship list with 15 upgrade cards at least
you snip out any leg of the combo, like OCr4, and it just drops. You'll still have super dengar and bumpmasters, but torp scouts and dengaroo...dead
Hmm... naked shadowcaster or fully kitted contracted scout. Tough choice...
the naked shadowcaster is...a bigger model?
Edited by ficklegreendice
Ya no joke. Think I'm putting costing of generics on the list of things I don't understand how FFG determines. It's almost like the less upgrade slots the large base ships have, the more they overcost the generics, and the more upgrade slots they have, the more they undercost them.
JM5K with PS3 and an EPT? I'm thinking 25pts.
Shadowcaster with PS2 and no EPT? I'm thinking 33pts.
Fang? Let's make a generic PS3 with EPT for 22pts. Make sure it has boost and barrel roll.
ARC-170? Pffft, why bother with generics. Nobody's gonna fly those things, let alone more than one of them. I guess we can make a PS3 pilot, but I want it costed at 25pts, and don't you dare give it an ept slot. Also, I'm gonna need it to have a unique pilot talent that's unreliable, just for laughs.
I have no idea what's going on right now.
Oh, don't worry. Named pilots without an EPT (which fly ships which have other pilots with EPTs) is number one on my list of things I don't understand how FFG determines. Because, outside of Biggs, every single one needs an EPT. Badly.
Edited by KdubbFFG's love of overpricing generics has not slowed, I see
Well least FFG learned with the uboat to not make the generic obscenely strong lol. That thing is total ass.
Point. Counter-point.
Would we really want to see three Lancer's on the map at the same time?
FFG's love of overpricing generics has not slowed, I see
Point. Counter-point.Well least FFG learned with the uboat to not make the generic obscenely strong lol. That thing is total ass.
Would we really want to see three Lancer's on the map at the same time?
FFG's love of overpricing generics has not slowed, I see
Point. Counter-point.Well least FFG learned with the uboat to not make the generic obscenely strong lol. That thing is total ass.
Would we really want to see three Lancer's on the map at the same time?
Just not as much as the arc
Don't think you could break it like Torp scouts, though. Best you could manage with a cheaper base cost would be triple k4s (1 dengar?) and a cheap illicit or two. Hardly the stuff of nightmares
Edited by ficklegreendiceWould we really want to see three Lancer's on the map at the same time?
That argument is terrible. The point of bringing lists with multiple ship types is so that you have multiple tools at your disposal.
There's nothing wrong with 3 Lancers being on the field at the same time, just so long as they all have the same weakness. The only problem was, U-Boats didn't really have a weakness, since the torps gave them big game against non-arc dodging targets (kaboom) and the barrel roll gave them game against super mobile aces who hate being bumped.
There's nothing wrong with an opponent fielding 3 lancers, provided they're on par, in terms of power, with an opponent who's running 3 YV-666s. If they love the look of a uniform fleet at the expense of a diversified list, let it be at the expense of potentially hitting disastrous match-ups. Let's not make a list with 3 of the ship bad because each single copy of the ship was overpriced.
FFG's love of overpricing generics has not slowed, I see
Well least FFG learned with the uboat to not make the generic obscenely strong lol. That thing is total ass.
Point. Counter-point.
Would we really want to see three Lancer's on the map at the same time?
You mean, like, on the table? You're right. I really don't care for that model much.
Well least FFG learned with the uboat to not make the generic obscenely strong lol. That thing is total ass.
Design was almost certainly finished before wave 8 shipped. It was certainly finished before results demonstrated just how dumb the JM5K's design was. So, no, they weren't learning from the Scout when they made the generic Caster.