Just now, Vineheart01 said:

Scum got....................tugboats? Cant say tripboats because 1 large

GET READY FOR THE SPACE TOW SERVICE! 5 Jakku gunrunners with spacetug tractor array and primed thrusters

i actually have a friend that wants to do that rofl. I think hes nuts. I dont see value in more than 1 tugboat PURELY because if you face a large ship that tugboat aint doing jack.

Ohey, relevant to the topic!

Just now, Vineheart01 said:

i actually have a friend that wants to do that rofl. I think hes nuts. I dont see value in more than 1 tugboat PURELY because if you face a large ship that tugboat aint doing jack.

No value other than hilarity of the 20-jump going against stuff
and in epic, the 60-jump and a C-roc bodyguard, throwing everybody into the path of their epic ships

Just now, DeathstarII said:

No value other than hilarity of the 20-jump going against stuff
and in epic, the 60-jump and a C-roc bodyguard, throwing everybody into the path of their epic ships

pffft BAHAHAHAHAA ok i gotta do that when that thing comes out.

Just the thought of it just seems hilarious
"okay, i brought an imperial raider, a few TIEs, and the typical soontir fel, what did you bring?"

"12 quad jumpers"

"what?"

"you heard me

Instead of noting the quantity of lists that have 0 large base ships in them (which I would expect to be low, since most lists make use of multiple different ships, and many of them are large) why not look at data in terms of points spent on large vs small base ships in successful lists? Points are the actual currency of the game, which will show how valuable certain pieces are.

Counting palp aces, which spends 29 points on a large base ship that cares more about its crew than its chassis, the same way you count dengaroo or brobots, seems as though it would not allow many meaningful conclusions to be drawn.

I do have a deliberately janky Scum list full of control elements, it's actually very good against almost any small ships (I'll rip Defenders up) but the sight of any large ship pretty much invalidates everything I'm doing.

An alternative view:

Some ships are better than others. If you catagorise ships by base size you might find that proportionally more of the 'better' ones have large bases than small bases. Base size is conincidental to power rather than an effect of it.

In isolation, the differences between a small and big base are that a big base moves faster, has a larger foot print so is more likely to have problems with asteroids (and correspondingly be a better blocker) and has a larger firing arc.

Give a t-65 a big base - problem not solved. Give manaroo a small base - problem not really solved.

....Also imperial firespray...

5 minutes ago, PiebeatsCake said:

Instead of noting the quantity of lists that have 0 large base ships in them (which I would expect to be low, since most lists make use of multiple different ships, and many of them are large) why not look at data in terms of points spent on large vs small base ships in successful lists? Points are the actual currency of the game, which will show how valuable certain pieces are.

Counting palp aces, which spends 29 points on a large base ship that cares more about its crew than its chassis, the same way you count dengaroo or brobots, seems as though it would not allow many meaningful conclusions to be drawn.

I think it's already been pointed out the Shuttle does not fall into this category as it's a flop in terms of maneuverability. It's dual-crew spot for Palp and 3-dice primary make it worth fielding - but inherently there is nothing broken about those two things.

Examples of grief-inducing large-base elements:
- Boost action on a large-base ship
- JMK5k absolutely broken and ridiculous dial
- JMK5K PS 3 generic having an EPT
- Large-base ships having better and more flexible maneuverability than some (any?!) small-based ship

losing steam...

36 minutes ago, wurms said:

Now, we use to all complain about Soontir being **** near impossible to kill, and FFG went out of their way and pretty much made Soontir now extinct. Im pretty sure every new card in 2016 was anti-Soontir. The problem is, all these ways REALLY hurt every other small ship as well.

This.

OK, it's a bit of a bunny trail off the OPs topic, but it is truth. And sad..........

To be fair this is a topic that is generally a problem in any scifi game. Bigger ships are better ships.

I play a lot of 4X strategy games and Stellaris is probably the only one that doesnt have this issue, but thats because they kinda force you to keep using small ships not because the huge ships are balanced lol. The massive battlecruiser ships have an inherit flaw against fighters and missiles, so you need Corvettes (the smallest nonfighterbay ship) to cover them. You can mass cruisers but wow they will melt without screeners lol

Ive tried to find ways to make large ships in xwing less overwhelming and i usually end up with the same problem the 4X games have: either theyre still OP or become laughably bad.
MIRV Missiles are probably the best ive come up with short of changing core rules. 4pts, spend a TL, 3 dice. "If this attack hits a Large Ship, double the number of hits and crits before resolving damage" - It can be evaded, but short of the Aggressor or stacked shenanigans odds are you wont evade it with a large ship and its only a 3die attack against small.

2 minutes ago, clanofwolves said:

This.

OK, it's a bit of a bunny trail off the OPs topic, but it is truth. And sad..........

This is FFG design to a T. They're designing 12-18 months ahead of release but aren't able to get a sense of where the correct balance is and so they oversteer wildly from one extreme to the next. Happens on a lot of their 'living' games.

Just now, Stay On The Leader said:

This is FFG design to a T. They're designing 12-18 months ahead of release but aren't able to get a sense of where the correct balance is and so they oversteer wildly from one extreme to the next. Happens on a lot of their 'living' games.

Interesting, thanks for the enlightenment in the design. It's tough on them for sure; guess they were so overwhelmed by all of Soontir's Worlds victories and had to frantically do something.

Depending on where they got to with Wave XI design by Q3 2016 you can probably expect at least one more wave of "we really need to buff Scum" and then they'll never give Scum another good ship for two years until Scum are unplayably behind the curve again.

9 minutes ago, Rinzler in a Tie said:

I think it's already been pointed out the Shuttle does not fall into this category as it's a flop in terms of maneuverability. It's dual-crew spot for Palp and 3-dice primary make it worth fielding - but inherently there is nothing broken about those two things.

Examples of grief-inducing large-base elements:
- Boost action on a large-base ship
- JMK5k absolutely broken and ridiculous dial
- JMK5K PS 3 generic having an EPT
- Large-base ships having better and more flexible maneuverability than some (any?!) small-based ship

losing steam...

Agreed save the boost action. I think it should have been a pilot ability for Chewie, adding boost to the Falcon.

JM5k vs. ARC-170

The cheapest pilots for both ships cost 25 points and are at PS3, and they both have 9 HP and 2 base attack.

Dial: JM5k's dial is better in every measurable way than an ARC-170s. White 4 straight, green hard turns at 1 and 2 speed, not to mention the white sloop. Which being a PWT doesnt even arguably need.

JM5k 1 ARC 0

Upgrades: JM5k has an additional torp, and an illicit slot that the ARC doesn't, plus everything the ARC does have. Oh, and an EPT slot.

JM5k 2 ARC 0

Statline:

Better hull to shield ratio

+1 AGI

same attack(in base number, ARC gets +1 out the front, but the JM5k has PWT, so it sort of cancels out) Plus title to give extra attack die.

JM5k 5 ARC 0

Actions: JM5k has barrel roll, ARC does not.

JM5k 6 ARC 0

Large base allows the same maneuvers to cover more distance through inherent size

Jm5k 7 ARC 0

Has generic pilots, ARC does not

Jm5k 8 ARC 0

These two ships cost the same amount of points. So why is the Jm5k just objectively better in every way?

31 minutes ago, Vineheart01 said:

i actually have a friend that wants to do that rofl. I think hes nuts. I dont see value in more than 1 tugboat PURELY because if you face a large ship that tugboat aint doing jack.

Ohey, relevant to the topic!

Tugboats aren't useless against large ships. You can't move them, but you can still drop their agility (unless it's a ghost or decimator). A falcon with C3P0 crew doesn't like suddenly being 0 agility so they can't use him. Dengar in dengaroo doesn't get any help from infinite focus tokens and lone wolf rerolls if he has no green dice in the first place.

1 minute ago, Razgriz25thinf said:

same attack(in base number, ARC gets +1 out the front, but the JM5k has PWT, so it sort of cancels out) Plus title to give extra attack die.

JM5k 5 ARC 0

These two ships cost the same amount of points. So why is the Jm5k just objectively better in every way?

The title doesn't really count for the jumpmaster when you're comparing a 25 point JM5K to a 25 point Arc, given that the title jumps said jumpmaster up to 37 points...

I wouldn't give attack to the JM5K. At best I'd call it a tie, since the arc gets the extra die out the front and the free focus->crit out the back, while the JM5K has the turret but worse attacks (in a vaccuum).

32 minutes ago, PiebeatsCake said:

Counting palp aces, which spends 29 points on a large base ship that cares more about its crew than its chassis, the same way you count dengaroo or brobots, seems as though it would not allow many meaningful conclusions to be drawn.

This. If Imperials could take Palp on a cheaper small ship I think they would in a heartbeat

6 minutes ago, Razgriz25thinf said:

JM5k vs. ARC-170

The cheapest pilots for both ships cost 25 points and are at PS3, and they both have 9 HP and 2 base attack.

Dial: JM5k's dial is better in every measurable way than an ARC-170s. White 4 straight, green hard turns at 1 and 2 speed, not to mention the white sloop. Which being a PWT doesnt even arguably need.

JM5k 1 ARC 0

Upgrades: JM5k has an additional torp, and an illicit slot that the ARC doesn't, plus everything the ARC does have. Oh, and an EPT slot.

JM5k 2 ARC 0

Statline:

Better hull to shield ratio

+1 AGI

same attack(in base number, ARC gets +1 out the front, but the JM5k has PWT, so it sort of cancels out) Plus title to give extra attack die.

JM5k 5 ARC 0

Actions: JM5k has barrel roll, ARC does not.

JM5k 6 ARC 0

Large base allows the same maneuvers to cover more distance through inherent size

Jm5k 7 ARC 0

Has generic pilots, ARC does not

Jm5k 8 ARC 0

These two ships cost the same amount of points. So why is the Jm5k just objectively better in every way?

I actually stopped playing for a few months after the Jumpmaster came out because it was just a ludicrous combination of cost/functionality and everyone in there area used 2-3 in every list. Once the newness wore off and they went away I came back but that does not change the fact that JM5K's will probably get even stronger as new upgrades come out.

19 minutes ago, Rinzler in a Tie said:

I think it's already been pointed out the Shuttle does not fall into this category as it's a flop in terms of maneuverability. It's dual-crew spot for Palp and 3-dice primary make it worth fielding - but inherently there is nothing broken about those two things.

Examples of grief-inducing large-base elements:
- Boost action on a large-base ship
- JMK5k absolutely broken and ridiculous dial
- JMK5K PS 3 generic having an EPT
- Large-base ships having better and more flexible maneuverability than some (any?!) small-based ship

losing steam...

I'm not claiming that large bases don't have anything going for them. I'm just saying that the statistic "17 out of these 20 lists include at least one" isn't particularly informative, because it doesn't say how important large ships are to these lists. Another example would be manaroo + double protectorate. The list just wants manaroos pilot ability, and does the heavy lifting with two small bases. The original statistic seems misleading to accentuate the actual point of the argument.

Just now, LordBlades said:

This. If Imperials could take Palp on a cheaper small ship I think they would in a heartbeat

Exactly why the TIE Shuttle says 4 or less points.

I believe initially it didnt say that and people flipped out about having a scimitar tote around palp. They fixed that idea in a flash.

I'd also put Hux on that thing if i could.

40 minutes ago, asters89 said:

An alternative view:

Some ships are better than others. If you catagorise ships by base size you might find that proportionally more of the 'better' ones have large bases than small bases. Base size is conincidental to power rather than an effect of it.

In isolation, the differences between a small and big base are that a big base moves faster, has a larger foot print so is more likely to have problems with asteroids (and correspondingly be a better blocker) and has a larger firing arc.

Give a t-65 a big base - problem not solved. Give manaroo a small base - problem not really solved.

....Also imperial firespray...

After playing the ARC-170 a bit, moving the Firespray to a small base would be a huge buff to it. The Bounty Hunter is only a point more than the PS3 Defender. It trades the white K-Turns for a rear arc, 1 agility for 4 hit points, and trades the barrel roll for a crew slot. A small base Firespray would be awesome.

I think that Aggressors would probably benefit from a move to a small base as well.

Werent Aggressors given large base because FFG was afraid they'd be brutal as small?

Current cost i kinda feel the same way. 36pts for an 8hp 3agi ship with the shenanigans they got? Not even defenders have that much going for them.

Though i still wish they were ~30pts base and the title cost 4-6pts. I really, really dont like them because they feel like "bring a pair or bust!" to me.

2 hours ago, Stay On The Leader said:

Oh hugely constrained. X-Wing has been fundamentally broken by the 2016 expansions.

According to a lot of people X-wing was broken by Wave 2