2 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:To be clear on this, this is a combination of ideas from me and Geordan. (His was the genius move of Jankymech to PO title, which IMO makes the whole fix work.)
Thematic and balance-wise reasonable. I don't really know why the generic JM5Ks had that slot in the first place when it is a rather unusual modification Dengar made to his ship.
21 minutes ago, WWHSD said:Having more pilots just for the sake of being able to eliminate a bunch of them through cost-benefit-analysis is a waste.
Unless you play casual and would like to simply fly a certain pilot for theme, which, IMHO, is a valid design space.
2 hours ago, defkhan1 said:Do you have proof of this? Numbers? A poll? I'm legitimately curious.
@Heychadwick, don't bite on this!!! The last time I set up a poll, it was called invalid before the 3rd response was posted!!!!!!
Edited by Darth MeanieHonestly removing the astromech and making it more expensive would remove the reason to play contracted scouts.
3 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:Unless you play casual and would like to simply fly a certain pilot for theme, which, IMHO, is a valid design space.
If you are playing casual just make up your own niche pilots with fluffy abilities and don't wait for FFG to do it. The great thing about casual play is that you don't need FFG's blessing to fly your favorite pilot from the Rogue Squadron novels with whatever their personal astromech was.
I'm sure that's how they do it at Space Brother Central, right @Joe Boss Red Seven?
11 minutes ago, Panzeh said:Honestly removing the astromech and making it more expensive would remove the reason to play contracted scouts.
Agreed. I'm not sure I've ever seen a contracted scout flown without an agromech. Even when I fly as a bumpmaster I'm generally using a droid
2 minutes ago, VanderLegion said:Agreed. I'm not sure I've ever seen a contracted scout flown without an agromech. Even when I fly as a bumpmaster I'm generally using a droid
Between the time of the Agromech change and the Deadeye change the Jumpmaster that I had in the squad I was using was Astromech free. Having to find two points to cut would have been been a bigger deal for me than losing the slot.
21 hours ago, Jeff Wilder said:Why do people keep making this false argument?
No, I cannot unilaterally "play how I want" or "ignore the FAQ if I want." Less tournament-focused players also care about FFG's official changes to the rules, because they are a baseline for playing less tournament-focused games with other players.
21 hours ago, Darth Meanie said:Exactly. Even at the dining room table, vs. my brother, I have to ask "new Palpy or old Palpy." And if we disagree, the only "fair" thing to do is to obey the RAW.
28 minutes ago, WWHSD said:If you are playing casual just make up your own niche pilots with fluffy abilities and don't wait for FFG to do it. The great thing about casual play is that you don't need FFG's blessing to fly your favorite pilot from the Rogue Squadron novels with whatever their personal astromech was.
I'm sure that's how they do it at Space Brother Central, right @Joe Boss Red Seven?
Sorry, gotta call B.S. on this one. "Casual" does not mean "you can do whatever you want" (although it can), it means "not playing in a tournament."
Which means that, for a large part of the time when strangers get together in their FLGS, there needs to be a bedrock of FFG approved and/or validated materials which the players can reference. Take, for example, Blue Squadron X-Wing. It doesn't exist yet, but maybe some hobby shop wants a "Battle of Scarif" day. Either FFG has issued Blue Squadron X-Wing Pilot (and/or Veteran) with a given PS +/- EPT slot, or 15 people can argue all day about what that pilot's abilities should be all day long because everyone has their own opinion about what the "correct" version should be.
Why should casuals not get the benefit of a little "wasted" design time on the part of FFG, just because tournament players can only ever find 1 card in 20 "useful".
Edited by Darth MeanieKeep in mind that this change was designed instead of the (IMO stupid and lazy) Deadeye nerf. Not in addition to.
I have full faith in the player-base to find uses for a properly costed and upgrade-slot-equipped Contracted Scout. Hell, I can do fine with it, and I am not by any means a superior list-builder.
4 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:
Sorry, gotta call B.S. on this one. "Casual" does not mean "you can do whatever you want" (although it can), it means "not playing in a tournament."
Which means that, for a large part of the time when strangers get together in their FLGS, there needs to be a bedrock of FFG approved and/or validated materials which the players can reference. Take, for example, Blue Squadron X-Wing. It doesn't exist yet, but maybe some hobby shop wants a "Battle of Scarif" day. Either FFG has issued Blue Squadron X-Wing Pilot (and/or Veteran) with a given PS +/- EPT slot, or 15 people can argue all day about what that pilot's abilities should be all day long because everyone has their own opinion about what the "correct" version should be.
Why should casuals not get the benefit of a little design time on the part of FFG, just because tournament players can only ever find 1 card in 20 "useful".
According to your definition, I'm mostly a casual player that mostly plays casual games. Outside of when new product is released and people are trying everything, I never see the multitude of crap pilots that are out there hit the table. Not every pilot needs to be as good as the best option but the goal should be to make them all reasonably, or at least situationally, good.
Deciding that every ship needs a low PS generic with no EPT, a slightly higher PS generic with no EPT, a mid-PS generic with an EPT, two mid PS named pilots (one with an EPT and one without), and a high PS named pilot with an EPT just doesn't make any sense to me if only two or three of those pilots will ever be desirable by anyone but the fluffiest bunny who only cares about theme.
The last thing that a game like X-Wing needs is for FFG to be making generic Blue Squadron T-65 X-Wing pilots just in case someone wants a "Battle of Scarif" day. Paint some X-Wings Blue (or just use the T-70 models) and use existing pilots and then go blow up some TIE Strikers.
37 minutes ago, WWHSD said:Deciding that every ship needs a low PS generic with no EPT, a slightly higher PS generic with no EPT, a mid-PS generic with an EPT, two mid PS named pilots (one with an EPT and one without), and a high PS named pilot with an EPT just doesn't make any sense to me if only two or three of those pilots will ever be desirable by anyone but the fluffiest bunny who only cares about theme.
The last thing that a game like X-Wing needs is for FFG to be making generic Blue Squadron T-65 X-Wing pilots just in case someone wants a "Battle of Scarif" day. Paint some X-Wings Blue (or just use the T-70 models) and use existing pilots and then go blow up some TIE Strikers.
Well, then we are going to agree to disagree. Because I like the idea of your first sentence, and because I also don't like the idea that every ship only comes with 4 of 9 PS possibilities of which tournament players only use one anyways.
Once they have statted out the ship's capabilities, printing out those other few cards is just doing the math on PS and EPT value. And just to reiterate, while a casual player can do the math, official is FFG, and my math is not official, no matter how intuitive it is.
Plus, the first thing X-Wing needs is Blue Squadron Pilots from the latest blockbuster movie for a game that is based on said IP. That is what gets people to grab their first plastic ship off the shelf and start this hobby.
Edited by Darth Meanie1 hour ago, Darth Meanie said:Plus, the first thing X-Wing needs is Blue Squadron Pilots from the latest blockbuster movie for a game that is based on said IP. That is what gets people to grab their first plastic ship off the shelf and start this hobby.
Preach brother!!
On 06/03/2017 at 9:57 PM, FangedChicken said:...but as I'm typing I'm realizing how much I sound like Anakin in episode 3.
I don't like sand.
29 minutes ago, Smutpedler said:I don't like sand.
It's coarse and rough and irritating... and it gets everywhere.
46 minutes ago, Smutpedler said:I don't like sand.
"I wish I could just wish these feelings away" (the runner up to "I don't like sand" lol) 
10 hours ago, heychadwick said:The award for Most Bombastic comment out of 14 pages goes to.......
I'm curious as to what on earth you are supposed to mean by that, other than an indication that you havn't properly read what I wrote.
10 hours ago, heychadwick said:X7 = this fix is utterly fine. You get -2 pts for the ship and you still get a free Evade token. You just have to not bump or be stressed. What's so terrible about this? The only thing I can think of is that it's not super Over Powered broken, so of course the tournament players hate it
-2pts on a ship that was far more overpriced than that pre-Veterans, I remind you. The Defender was already very vulnerable to blocking (because by nature it flies quite predictably, doubly so for the /x7), and to stress control (because of it's terrible greens or 1pt+mod slot tax of Twin Ion Engine MKII), because like everyone else it still loses actions to both and that constitutes a huge part of their survivability - a single evade will not hold up against focused fire. Now they are doubly vulnerable to these weaknesses, given that the evade is not secure either, and it removes a lot of interesting options (k-turning while still stressed, for example) making them even more predictable than they were before. With how little there is between a pre-FAQ /x7 and a pre-Veterans joke of a ship, I wonder if the /x7 variant is now worthwhile for the (still) high cost of the ship - particularly for the less optimum pilots like Maarek or Rexler.
If a change had to be made, then making it cancellable only by collisions (by making it not an evade action, but a token conditional on not hitting other ships or obstacles) would have been enough.
Using phrases like 'stupid overpowered broken', and speaking in a derogatory manner about 'tournament players' only serves to undermine any validity in your arguments, also.
10 hours ago, heychadwick said:Palpatine = Completely reasonable fix. He's no longer utterly OP by letting you wait to see what you roll. You have to make decision as to when to use it. Still no range limit and still works for any die roll. Many people say that you know when you are going to use it most of the time. It just takes away the ability to roll and wait to see if you really really need it. It's still good, but just not OP broken anymore. Yes, it was OP and broken.
What are you basing your claim on, other than your own insistence that he was 'utterly OP'? He has only ever truly flourished once, and at that time it was mainly owing to the near-extinction of the predators of his most common list archetype, thanks to the torpedo boats. He has never been a dangerously game-warping effect even upon release, let alone in recent months. I'll say what I always do about him - he is a minimum 29pt investment (so a good 1/3rd of your list), and you have to get more than his single die change a turn out of that for it to be worthwhile. This requires flying the Lambda well, which is far from easy.
Plus, from an entirely subjective and aesthetic perspective, it seemed fitting that the Emperor of all characters could cut through the random and deliver a powerful, consistent effect (in other words, a reliable one) for the high cost of including him. As it now stands, it is an ability that actively punishes you for rolling well, and that can so easily be wasted it is no longer worth that price.
Again, if a change was needed (and I don't believe it was) then a range limit would at least make some sense, while also leaving players skilled with the archetype unaffected since they are already using their Lambda in close support of their other ships.
10 hours ago, heychadwick said:Manaroo = I agree that this is harsher than I thought it would be, but I don't think it's horrible. I was just listening to Mynock Squadron and they were saying with the Barrel Roll, the Jumpmaster is really maneuverable. So....maybe staying in R1 isn't quite as hard as one would think?
Certainly it's easier for the Jumpmaster than for most ships (particularly large based ones), but it's still too limiting for a ship that won't otherwise be contributing much yet costs 30+ points. Once again, the change is too harsh. Range 1-3 or even 1-2 would have been fine.
10 hours ago, heychadwick said:Zuckuss = is anyone really surprised by this one?
Surprised? No, judging by the number of times I saw ill-informed complaints about him, but the fact remains that, outside of Dengar/Manaroo (now gone, though I'll confess to not mourning that one) and 'party bus' YV's, Zuckuss was very underwhelming for the crew slot, rather than his cost. In killing the former they have rendered Zuckuss so situational as to be not worth including versus the other high-value Scum crew cards. Limiting his use to only when you have three or fewer stress would have been sufficient, but once again, the change goes too far.
10 hours ago, heychadwick said:Oh, and the belief that a small minority of people on the forums that complained loud enough is the reason for these changes is hogwash. The majority of players....not just tournament players...agrees with there being a problem with all 4 cards.
I certainly don't claim that as a fact - none of us will ever know what exactly informed the changes. I merely expressed concern that the changes reflect commonly seen (yet often poorly argued) complaints, and lack the delicacy and care I would expect from 'hard' errata like this. Every one of the 'big four' changes goes too far in the intended aim, and at least three of them seem likely to be casualties as a result.
What I would stress most, though, is not related to the specifics of the changes themselves - it's the precedent set by this. Before, we could assume that these kinds of errata would only be issued when absolutely neccesary, but now it seems far more is open to change - even previously understood 'fix' cards - and that is a worrying fact.
And yes, full disclosure - I fly Defenders a great deal, they are my favourite ship, and there's certainly a degree of resentment from having the long-awaited fix card for that ship meddled with, when no other card of that type ever has been.
I stand by my points regardless of that bias, as I believe they are based independently from it.
Edited by MalusCalibur3 hours ago, Phoenix5454 said:"I wish I could just wish these feelings away" (the runner up to "I don't like sand" lol)
You just sent me down a rabbit hole of Anakin quotes! 
On 3/6/2017 at 4:48 PM, MalusCalibur said:Zuckuss, a card that has only ever been problematic in one build (that being Dengar/Manaroo) goes over to being probably not worth taking on any ship at all besides the C-ROC, since it's unlikely to compete with the other Scum crews for such a situational effect. Adding a cap to how much stress you could have before using it, fine (though again, I argue that it isn't needed), but once again, the solution goes too far.
4-LOM (pilot)
His pilot ability literally pairs with Zuckuss (crew). Besides removing your stress with a Green next turn, you can drop a stress during the End phase depending on your range allowing you to Zuckuss 1-2 Evades per turn.
Even more if you equip a Electronic Baffle on the G-1A.
It's almost as if these cards that came in the same expansion were meant to be used together.
1 hour ago, MalusCalibur said:Stuff..
1) The X7 with the title still gets something comparable to a soft PTL for -2 points, making it -- in my off the cuff math-- about 4 points in value. Play some games with it and I think you'll find it's just fine. There are a couple of us that have been playing defenders and discussing lists centered around them a long time (even before the fix) and are even glad to see the X7 change.
2) I'm okay with the Palp change and am willing to see it play out, but I think those that think it's drastically different are a bit mistaken. A lot of the time when I played Palp, I knew before I rolled that I was going to use it. Heck, I often knew what activation during combat I needed it for and was only saved from it on exceptionally good rolling, usually outliers, on my part. This is where it really gained extra value of course (to the point it was frustrating), when there was a situation where you knew you would need it but some sort of roll happened that you could then just toss it in on some other roll.
3) I really think this puts Manaroo in line with other support abilities. Sure, some are 1-2 or even 3, but that's mostly on small, less maneuverable ships. The problem is her ability has/had two very strong components. One was the lack of range and the other was the timing in that she could see the whole board before deciding to pass. I wonder how she'll end up but I think she's now a skill ship.
4) The nerf to Zuckuss doesn't, imo, really hurt the ships he wasn't good on anyway, as this is pretty much what they did -- use him once and then end up out of the fight. He was ridiculous on ships that had a good dial and very likely closed off Scum design space and being broken on a couple ships (or even just one -- remember Whisper+ACD?) is often enough to warrant a change.
Manaroo went from best support ship in the game to pretty awkward.
Though she's still a Jumpmaster 5000, so she can't be that bad.
6 hours ago, AlexW said:1) The X7 with the title still gets something comparable to a soft PTL for -2 points, making it -- in my off the cuff math-- about 4 points in value. Play some games with it and I think you'll find it's just fine. There are a couple of us that have been playing defenders and discussing lists centered around them a long time (even before the fix) and are even glad to see the X7 change.
I have been flying Defenders since I started playing at the very beginning of Wave 5 (it is one of the few ships I consider myself to be highly knowledgeable about) so please do not speak to me as if I 'jumped on the bandwagon' the same way many others did - I think I have made it quite clear that that is not the case.
Whatever the exact worth of the title, you have to remember that the Defender was considered far overpriced beforehand, and said title still comes with the opportunity cost of two upgrade slots as well as the restrictions on activating it. Given that Twin Ion Engine MkII now seems mandatory (to give Defenders a hope in hell at coping with stress control), that's a further cost (both the point and the opportunity cost of the mod slot) that eats into the discount of the title and removes an option from /x7 builds, leaving only the Elite slot (if they have one). As I've said before, it leaves me wondering if the title is now worth the cost of the chassis, and it certainly seems that the 'fringe' pilots will lose their viability.
1 hour ago, MalusCalibur said:I have been flying Defenders since I started playing at the very beginning of Wave 5 (it is one of the few ships I consider myself to be highly knowledgeable about) so please do not speak to me as if I 'jumped on the bandwagon' the same way many others did - I think I have made it quite clear that that is not the case.
My points were simply about the X7 change, along with a couple of other players I know well who have played defenders since release and really wasn't about me assuming you had jumped on the bandwagon. I apologize, but I'm not sure where you got that. I only noted those experiences because our reaction was very different even though we've been playing defenders a a similar amount of time to you and also share the experience of of trying to make them work as well when they were the least efficient ships in the game.
1 hour ago, MalusCalibur said:Whatever the exact worth of the title, you have to remember that the Defender was considered far overpriced beforehand, and said title still comes with the opportunity cost of two upgrade slots as well as the restrictions on activating it.
I understand your point about opportunity cost, but I think that's more of a factor as to how two titles were implemented (I think Vessery has a large impact on the "limits" of those changes, but that's another topic entirely). It went from one of the least efficient ships to the most efficient ship in the game as the X7 regardless of losing the flexibility of those slots.
1 hour ago, MalusCalibur said:Given that Twin Ion Engine MkII now seems mandatory (to give Defenders a hope in hell at coping with stress control), that's a further cost (both the point and the opportunity cost of the mod slot) that eats into the discount of the title and removes an option from /x7 builds, leaving only the Elite slot (if they have one)
I don't necessarily agree with this but understand it may be more specific to the meta. For example, I have run it in my last 10 games but have only used it for one maneuver with the exception of a game against Rebel Captive (and frankly I could have made different choices there if I hadn't had Mk2 to stress another ship). Even if the meta changes where it feels like a must-include it is a very good card for one point and, while I --again-- understand the idea of the opportunity cost, I rarely see people playing defenders running a mod slot at all unless it is the Mk2.
1 hour ago, MalusCalibur said:As I've said before, it leaves me wondering if the title is now worth the cost of the chassis, and it certainly seems that the 'fringe' pilots will lose their viability.
All I can say about this is that the games that, in my previous post, I (along with one of the other players I eluded to) actually was talking about having played post nerf have been exclusively with those "fringe" pilots. Maybe that will change, but the X7 did originally take the defender from having been rarely seen in any form to having every single pilot as a viable option and seeing play (except the Onyx, but that wasn't because it wasn't viable -- it was just in a weird spot). That was great for defender pilots, but it wasn't because the x7 was a "balanced" card.
I hope that you continue to fly them because I think the x7 nerf was good both for imperial ships (one of the most common refrains I heard over the past year was, "Why not just take a defender instead of x?") and the game/meta as a whole, but that they will still be an excellent, and more rewarding, ship to fly.
Edited by AlexWOn 6.3.2017 at 10:07 PM, Stu35 said:Zuckuss now seems fair for the points cost
Inspiring recruit my friend, inspiring recruit 
It is now a two crew, two points card.
On Mon Mar 06 2017 at 4:34 PM, Jehan Menasis said:I'm OK with the changes, but I feel Palpatine is now clearly overcosted or overslotted.
Fixed that for ya. Clearly this is your opinion and not a fact (until you do the math and prove it to us).
We CAN clearly say it is worse than its previous version, though.
3 minutes ago, phild0 said:Fixed that for ya. Clearly this is your opinion and not a fact (until you do the math and prove it to us).
We CAN clearly say it is worse than its previous version, though.
Two to three uses per game, 29 points minimum, basically a global c3po now.
The picture is rather clear to me mate, but hey, might take you 6 months of meta analyses to come to the same conclusion when you notice that you have not seen him in his Palp shuttle at all anymore.
Good think is that RAC has room even for overpriced double crew options ;-)