1 hour ago, geek19 said:

I mean a lot of the dice adds arent cheap. Spinal and QTC, adding at red range, are 9 and 10. QBT is 5 but requires speed shenanigans. Rapid reload is 8, so 10 is right in line I feel.

As the Ion turbine is 8 pt as well Rapid Reload feels a bit expensive, especially that FFG tends to price the longer ranged dice for more and given that you can have 2 blacks for 13 6 pt would feel more in line.

3 hours ago, Triangular said:

Yeah, Tarkin will be about the same like Leia. There will come a nerf to some very popular cards like Brunson, Leading Shots, APT, ACM, Ordnance Experts, Engine Techs, ECM and Gunnery Team.

I would have prefered if they tried to make bad cards better ...

Why nerf Demolisher when you can nerf everything around Demolisher?

On a serious note though, many of those upgrades have been considered "must-have" upgrades in their slots, so I wouldn't mind seeing a shake-up, if the rumors are true.

And besides, Tarkin and Leia have been considered overpriced for a while. If there are any upgrades that need a points decrease, it's commanders like Tarkin and Leia.

3 hours ago, Triangular said:

Yeah, Tarkin will be about the same like Leia. There will come a nerf to some very popular cards like Brunson, Leading Shots, APT, ACM, Ordnance Experts, Engine Techs, ECM and Gunnery Team.

I would have prefered if they tried to make bad cards better ...

Are the cards out in the wild? Spoiled somewhere?

6 hours ago, Green Knight said:

Pryce = Last/First... let's play the game by removing your opponent's ability to do anything. It was intended to solve the activation race, but in a way made it worse.

It wasn’t even to help the activation game. It was specifically to break it. So that Imps could have the strongest last/first possible without having to build a swarm fleet to do it.

52 minutes ago, Church14 said:

It wasn’t even to help the activation game. It was specifically to break it. So that Imps could have the strongest last/first possible without having to build a swarm fleet to do it.

I wonder what happened if Bail's and Pryce's ability would be switched.

3 hours ago, Drasnighta said:

Most people have that opinion, but from a games design perspective, Nerfs are better. They're easier to test to (as you're only looking at existing compatabilities rather than generating new ones), but CRITICALLY, it conserves the idea that no choice is still a legitimate choice.. As in, Choosing nothing.

Inherently, When all cards are boosted to be equally powerful with a level that is arguably super efficient (that is why its being nerfed in the first place, right?), that de-legitimises the choice to take nothing ,as you're always looking at taking an efficient card for that piece.

Nerfing, bringing them down, making things lesser, again, from a design perspective is better and easier, as it maintains the choice of no choice.

There are, however, a few serious problems that do occur or can occur with this approach:

1. A significant portion of the cards in this game aren't worth taking, or have very niche uses. These upgrades should receive buffs either way, because they are a tier below nothing.

2. In addition to being balanced against upgrades, the competitive value of "nothing" varies sharply from ship to ship; rather than being conservation, trying to make it a practical option where it currently isn't one is a balance change (I'll agree there are certain universal threats to "nothing" though, like Racks or Hondo.)

3. Any top-tier cards that avoid a nerf spread to fill gaps left in the meta, making for a smaller subset of dominant builds that can feel more oppressive as a result. Unlike an emphasis on buffs, where things falling through the cracks doesn't negatively impact the game.

11 minutes ago, Rimsen said:

I wonder what happened if Bail's and Pryce's ability would be switched.

Rebels have no equivalent to Avenger. No equivalent to Demolisher.

Maybe some awful last/first thing with Yavaris? Guarantee the Raddus drop even more? Something with MC75s throwing APTs? Maybe put some hate up with Concord. None of what comes to mind really matches what imps can do because of what Avenger and Demolisher can do.

5 minutes ago, Church14 said:

Rebels have no equivalent to Avenger. No equivalent to Demolisher.

Maybe some awful last/first thing with Yavaris? Guarantee the Raddus drop even more? Something with MC75s throwing APTs? Maybe put some hate up with Concord. None of what comes to mind really matches what imps can do because of what Avenger and Demolisher can do.

MC80CC.

4 bombers to the face, then Hera and 2 more, then 4 bombers to the face next round, then the MC80 battery.

Since it's not even "front towards enemy," it gets more flexibility on when it engages.

I'd trade Avenger for that any day, and it's a good thing it never existed.

15 minutes ago, The Jabbawookie said:

There are, however, a few serious problems that do occur or can occur with this approach:

1. A significant portion of the cards in this game aren't worth taking, or have very niche uses. These upgrades should receive buffs either way, because they are a tier below nothing.

I disagree on this point. Niche use is still a use and it depends on what one person considers niche or not. For every Rapid Reload there's an ACM. Even if Flight Commander has one use (goes on Yavaris) that's still a use for him. Ordnance Pods on an MC75 Ruthless Strategists build; etc etc. Some things may be out of favor (Expanded Launchers, of course) but in a game this expensive it's hard to make "everything" an LTT equivalent. But I'd be willing to hear more on your thoughts.

15 minutes ago, The Jabbawookie said:

3. Any top-tier cards that avoid a nerf spread to fill gaps left in the meta, making for a smaller subset of dominant builds that can feel more oppressive as a result. Unlike an emphasis on buffs, where things falling through the cracks doesn't negatively impact the game.

I think well have to see what changes and what doesnt before we make that call. Heck, since 4 aces is known, RHDs is substantially better/more worth including now as well.

11 minutes ago, The Jabbawookie said:

MC80CC.

4 bombers to the face, then Hera and 2 more, then 4 bombers to the face next round, then the MC80 battery.

Since it's not even "front towards enemy," it gets more flexibility on when it engages.

I'd trade Avenger for that any day, and it's a good thing it never existed.

Except avenger can do all,that. Imperials have some rogues as well

23 minutes ago, geek19 said:

I disagree on this point. Niche use is still a use and it depends on what one person considers niche or not. For every Rapid Reload there's an ACM. Even if Flight Commander has one use (goes on Yavaris) that's still a use for him. Ordnance Pods on an MC75 Ruthless Strategists build; etc etc. Some things may be out of favor (Expanded Launchers, of course) but in a game this expensive it's hard to make "everything" an LTT equivalent. But I'd be willing to hear more on your thoughts.

This is totally fair, but also subjective. From my point of view the Jedi are evil for every ACM, there's a Rapid Reload. And I'm not satisfied with niche cards because they're less resilient in the meta when something generalist comes along. Independence used to have a selling point.

It boils down to: what makes the meta good enough? Nobody will have the same answer.

And yes, I agree it's hard to make everything a winner. But it's something you can do as slowly and carefully as needed without destabilizing the meta. And that's really nice.

23 minutes ago, geek19 said:

I think well have to see what changes and what doesnt before we make that call. Heck, since 4 aces is known, RHDs is substantially better/more worth including now as well.

My point is more that we wouldn't even be here if we were looking at a small set of buffs.

We'd be excited about taking Medical Team and HTTs instead of having any reason to worry about Agate, Squall, etc.

Did someone call some upgrade cards niche and poor against generalist builds?

Did you mean to summon me? No such thing as a weak card, only Commanders unable to wield them. The generalist idea is commonly misunderstood. This is a skew towards flexibility which is a skew in its own right. A true "niche" build will counter a "generalist" build every day as by definition the generalist cannot tech against the niche. Utilising the unpopular gives you an unfair advantage when you leverage it hard enough to force your opponent to play your game. They are unprepared, unknowledagable and will be weighed, measured and found wanting.

A lot of mainstream cards were once niche until I, or someone like me, abused the card and made people take notice. Its amusing to think that Pryce herself was seen as garbage by many at one point. It was simply that no one had yet let hard on her ability to show what can be achieved when you push the boundaries.

Then there's Konstantine tripling down on speed control and command mitigation. When your opponent brought an Agate Starhawk.

There are some upgrade cards that just don't have an effect powerful enough to warrant serious use. There are some niche combos that common list-build components counter. They may see play when those components fall of out of favor, but in the general meta, even when aggressively built up, they are unsuccessful.

8 hours ago, Church14 said:

Rebels have no equivalent to Avenger. No equivalent to Demolisher.

Demolisher is small base so doesn't relate to it, still rebel large bases coming last could potentially disrupt the triple tap, so Rebel Pryce would have an answer to that.

And Avenger is pretty limited as first player, except Sloane or some double arc Oveeload Pulse shenanigans so I don't get your point here.

8 hours ago, Church14 said:

Rebels have no equivalent to Avenger. No equivalent to Demolisher.

Double post.

8 hours ago, Church14 said:

Rebels have no equivalent to Avenger.

What about Mon Karren?

7 hours ago, TallGiraffe said:

What about Mon Karren?

Doesn't prevent you from bracing at all, so it's not as potent. It's still darned good mind you, just not in the same class of threat.

37 minutes ago, Formynder4 said:

Doesn't prevent you from bracing at all, so it's not as potent. It's still darned good mind you, just not in the same class of threat.

But doesn't need anykind of setup. It works on its own.

10 hours ago, Rimsen said:

Demolisher is small base so doesn't relate to it, still rebel large bases coming last could potentially disrupt the triple tap, so Rebel Pryce would have an answer to that.

And Avenger is pretty limited as first player, except Sloane or some double arc Oveeload Pulse shenanigans so I don't get your point here.

Demolisher is a small that can use a triple tap build to reliably kill anything less durable than a Home one. It needs to be mentioned.

Avenger is limited? What? It’s bacon slap it on any build and suddenly the build is better.

AvengerBT

Avenger commanding squads without sloane

Avenger command squads with Sloane

Avenger double arcing, using weaker arc first to bait use of defense tokens, then firing front arc.

Avenger double arcing with overload pulse.

All those are viable first activation shenanigans where the ISD activation is now considerably stronger because of Avenger.

10 hours ago, TallGiraffe said:

What about Mon Karren?

Mon Karren can’t stop you from using any defense tokens at all. Nowhere near the same power level. That’s not saying MK isn’t a great title. It is.

17 hours ago, Ginkapo said:

A lot of mainstream cards were once niche until I, or someone like me, abused the card and made people take notice. Its amusing to think that Pryce herself was seen as garbage by many at one point. It was simply that no one had yet let hard on her ability to show what can be achieved when you push the boundaries.

Seeing Pryce in the preview articles almost made me walk away from Armada. It was clearly made from the get go to maximize last-first. Adding Bail and SAd to the wave meant a new era of activation bull****. An era of tournaments embracing the worst part of armada to me. It wasn’t whether or not she was good. It was just waiting to see who figured out the minmax of her ability.

nonetheless, your point is correct. Some cards are viewed as trash until suddenly they aren’t. A new upgrade or new build suddenly makes open old card click

18 hours ago, Ginkapo said:

will be weighed, measured and found wanting.

Would you say their days are numbered? lol

On 10/6/2020 at 6:19 PM, Drasnighta said:

Most people have that opinion, but from a games design perspective, Nerfs are better. They're easier to test to (as you're only looking at existing compatabilities rather than generating new ones), but CRITICALLY, it conserves the idea that no choice is still a legitimate choice.. As in, Choosing nothing.

Inherently, When all cards are boosted to be equally powerful with a level that is arguably super efficient (that is why its being nerfed in the first place, right?), that de-legitimises the choice to take nothing ,as you're always looking at taking an efficient card for that piece.

Nerfing, bringing them down, making things lesser, again, from a design perspective is better and easier, as it maintains the choice of no choice.

I thought a bit about what you wrote. And then I remembered the point and rules adjustments FFG made for Legion. They really went both ways. There have been point increases for the most popular (and problematic) Strike Force activation padding units. But they also did quite a lot point reductions for the less competetive units. For the imp tripod they also canceled a keyword that forbid a second movement for that really slow and cumbersome game piece. Same thing with upgrade cards. Some went up, more down.

For Legion FFG chose to boost some not-so-well performing cards and units. It could have been done for Armada as well. In my eyes it's fun to equip ships with upgrade cards. Legion you can play most units naked. For Armada upgrades often define the role and performance of a ship. To make less cards a viable option doesn't increase the joy and variability.

Example: They will reduce Mon Karren from 8 FP to 6 FP. I'm fine with that! And then I look at Redemption, Exodus Fleet, Independence, Redemption, Warlord, Dominator, Devastator, ... and wonder: why Mon Karren?

36 minutes ago, Triangular said:

Example: They will reduce Mon Karren from 8 FP to 6 FP. I'm fine with that! And then I look at Redemption, Exodus Fleet, Independence, Redemption, Warlord, Dominator, Devastator, ... and wonder: why Mon Karren?

You answered it yourself.

Because Mon Karren was 1 Change.

Not... 7...

Be aware as well that what happens on one of FFGs lines, doesn't necessarily happen on any other of FFGs lines, as the Producers/Developers have only limited crossover.
There is some, but not always - and that some means in particular they have less time to do so.

Its more likely to go to the easier change than the more complicated complex ones.

The Development teams (especially these days) are exceptionally stretched, given the Great Purge(TM).

1 hour ago, Drasnighta said:

You answered it yourself.

Because Mon Karren was 1 Change.

Not... 7...

That's an important distinction. More change means more ripple effect that's hard to predict and balance.

However, changing 7 cards that are barely played still could have more contained impact than changing an overpopular 1.

(That said, I'd personally start on both end simultaniously, I'm just a gamer though.)