So speaking of OWTF winning games last minute, I finally played against that card last night. This guy was running a very competitive Ambush eRey/eHan deck, and I was running eRey/eQui-gon with a shield based deck. I lost Rey pretty quickly, but Qui-gon was able to solo the other two heros very well, bringing Han down to one health. Then, using the 2 Focus from One with the Force, turned his dice to ranged damage and blew Qui-gon out of the water, winning him the game.

So yeah, it's a powerful card.

my guess is this thread was a troll baiting us and we fell for it.

Not really and not sure where you got that from.

What I understood so far is "great all-purpose, late-game, focus-swinging tool". Which I'm fine with, but WonderW isn't totally wrong.

You can't really gauge the meta of a game that's barely two months old and hasn't featured a major reported tournament (esp not one featuring decklists) with anything other than anecdotal evidence. If you'd like to find a tournament report that features a deck that has hero blue and isn't running OWTF for an identifiable reason, you're more than welcome to post it here. But your stark opposition of the card due to the lack of 'qualitative evidence' is odd to say the very least.

Right, but the quality of anecdotal evidence provided thus far seems more along the lines of "this one time I was playing my friend," which doesn't quite compare to "I took second place at a 16 player event, beating Tusken Vader and Jango/Veers on my way there" (those are popular archetypes, mind you; I'm not recognizing many of the decks posted here as anything but homebrews). I really don't think it's unfair to ask for the latter, even just two months in.

Right, but the quality of anecdotal evidence provided thus far seems more along the lines of "this one time I was playing my friend," which doesn't quite compare to "I took second place at a 16 player event, beating Tusken Vader and Jango/Veers on my way there" (those are popular archetypes, mind you; I'm not recognizing many of the decks posted here as anything but homebrews). I really don't think it's unfair to ask for the latter, even just two months in.

All we have at this point are poorly defined local metas, aka anecdotal evidence.

Edit: Justplay sponsored a 16 player tournament won by eRey/2x Padawan that had 2 copies of OWTF in it. I would still consider it anecdotal at this point.

So do most people here use one copy or two copies of OWTF for most decks? Just curious...

So do most people here use one copy or two copies of OWTF for most decks? Just curious...

It really depends on the deck. I never plan on playing 2, but the second copy means you're more likely to have it when you need it, I play 2 in my favorite and most played deck eRey/2x Padawan.

1 in my eLuke/Ackbar.

2 in eRey/Padawan/Ackbar

2 in my Poe/Rey deck.

my guess is this thread was a troll baiting us and we fell for it.

We may need a new definition for the word 'troll,' then.

My point, I think, is that it doesn't matter how good a card is in a given deck if that deck archetype shares a negligible proportion of the 'meta,' which I presume means we're talking about some aspect of competitive play here. That's why I asked for quantitative analysis; how are these decks placing in events? How big are those events? What's the quality of competition? Those are better metrics of card performance than the anecdotal evidence thus far provided here.

Well, it's too early for much meta analysis.

All cards are rubbish. Done.

Insightful. Tell me more.

They've not won worlds. Or even made top 16.

So they must be rubbish.

My opinion on OWTF:

The high cost is an illusion, because oftentimes you run enough 2 cost upgrades that have bad dice (Jedi Robes, Force Training, Com Link<-you play it for reroll and focus, and sometimes survival gear), which makes you able to play OWTF on turn 2, sometimes on turn 1, if you roll resources, which is a huge swing. Thats the reason why its not bad to run 2, but normally I would only run 1.

This early on even the 3 resource destruction is very strong, because you will roll OWTF first in the early turns, the enemy wont remove its die because it will slow him down too much on turn 1/2, when he needs the resources for upgrades.

OWTF has no bad sides. The strongest are 3 Damage and the 2/3 Focus sides. That combined with the huge amount of focus in blue decks means that you should always be able to choose 3 Damage or 3 Focus.

This allows for some nasty combos when you have 1-3 Light Sabers (1x Luke), you can either turn all 3 on special if you run low on resources or you turn them all on Damage sides, which should kill an enemy character in mid/late game.
And normally its not rare to have three 3 cost upgrades to modifie, because blue decks can drag out the game for some turns.

And about the "supports are bad, because you need an extra action to activate them". Thats the thing though, most midrange or control blue decks are super slow anyway because they have so many different dice sides at their disposal and focus a lot. You will rarely get the battlefield anyway, so taking more actions isn't bad.
To the contrary it even helps vs Jango decks, because you can roll the OWTF(s) instead of just passing, which won't let Jango use his effect but gives you dice to resolve (anything helps here, Jango wont have fun getting 3 damage, he won't like it if you shield up before you activate a character and so on).

And it helps in general because inexperienced enemies will run through their actions quick to claim the battlefield (or just burn their resources), when this occures you finally roll OWTF in late game and enjoy the face of your opponent when you suddenly turn all your dice on damage sides and he can't react anymore.

OWTF is no gamebreaker because it finishes the enemy (like other high cost upgrades should do), but it enables you to minimize luck because you can just focus all your important dice.

my guess is this thread was a troll baiting us and we fell for it.

We may need a new definition for the word 'troll,' then.

My point, I think, is that it doesn't matter how good a card is in a given deck if that deck archetype shares a negligible proportion of the 'meta,' which I presume means we're talking about some aspect of competitive play here. That's why I asked for quantitative analysis; how are these decks placing in events? How big are those events? What's the quality of competition? Those are better metrics of card performance than the anecdotal evidence thus far provided here.

Well, it's too early for much meta analysis.

All cards are rubbish. Done.

Insightful. Tell me more.

They've not won worlds. Or even made top 16.

So they must be rubbish.

Is the whole callous dismissiveness a British thing? I feel like it's a British thing.

It works with the meta by being put on whatever character the Aggro opponents targets first.

This can be used advantageously by messing with their target priority. Not to go into my list, which your not really asking about, but it's got a eQuigon who benefits from the card because it makes he's the obvious target