1 hour ago, SEApocalypse said:

No, I lost the ability to use Palp on the roll afterwards which show again 1 blanks, one eye and one evade, say then good buy to Soontir afterwards, because he just died without Palp doing anything about it. ;-)

So, you put Soontir in a vulnerable position, where he is facing multiple shots, and you're upset that Palpatine didn't bail you out?

Are you positive that Palpatine is the issue here?

11 hours ago, Stay On The Leader said:

My biggest fear is the nerfs will be found to be too shallow. I've been squadbuilding Imperials and still just come back to the same pre-nerf squads being the best options.

I haven't found this to be true. I've seen a lot more variety in Imperial lists post-nerf. I've seen more Vader, more 'other' aces and less defenders for sure. I'm also running the sf which I didn't try before.

On 2017-03-09 at 8:59 AM, thespaceinvader said:

Palp Upsilon and RAC. Nuts to using him defensively, use him to pump out crits.

And when RAC is destroyed, Upsilon is almost useless. It has a bit more firepower and maneuverability, but just like the Lambda (or the YV-666), it's a really bad finisher.

1 minute ago, Thormind said:

And when RAC is destroyed, Upsilon is almost useless. It has a bit more firepower and maneuverability, but just like the Lambda (or the YV-666), it's a really bad finisher.

having white turns as opposed to red turns is not "a bit more" maneuverability, that is a lot more. RAC can be build so that he survives into the lategame with EU, especially if he doesn't need to carry Palp around. Having a clear target priotity doesn't kill a list, as you can exploit that, too.

You can also screw with target priority by sticking Rebel Captive on RAC and Palp on the UPS. Who do you kill first?

Still RAc if you can avoid dying to the Upsilon/

20 hours ago, Jeff Wilder said:

How close were your games? How many times did you get good use of him, to either push an extra damage, save a damage, or fix a crit?

Now I´ve seen you asking everybody who´s hating the new errata to provide some statistics.

I´ve got some for all of you who think the new errata was fair.

Palpatine is a shadow of his former self. I´ve now played with various builds and he has been useless about 3-4 times per game. I think the errata should have come with a point or crew slot reduction as well, because now I am really paying too much for a support function I don´t get to use that often. And yes, I´ve been using Palpatine on attacking and defending. Unfortunately I don´t have hundreds of games statistics, but it´s clear to me after over 10 games that in every game Palpatine is useless multiple times.

So in conclusion: Palpatine sucks after the errata and is too expensive for what he does. FFG really should have not changed it as the card was nowhere near broken.

3 minutes ago, Pretty Green said:

Now I´ve seen you asking everybody who´s hating the new errata to provide some statistics.

I´ve got some for all of you who think the new errata was fair.

Palpatine is a shadow of his former self. I´ve now played with various builds and he has been useless about 3-4 times per game. I think the errata should have come with a point or crew slot reduction as well, because now I am really paying too much for a support function I don´t get to use that often. And yes, I´ve been using Palpatine on attacking and defending. Unfortunately I don´t have hundreds of games statistics, but it´s clear to me after over 10 games that in every game Palpatine is useless multiple times.

So in conclusion: Palpatine sucks after the errata and is too expensive for what he does. FFG really should have not changed it as the card was nowhere near broken.

Disagree here. If you can handle some simple dice probabilities he is awesome as you know statistically when you need to spend him. Also he can never be useless. Just Palp a crit on an attack each turn if you have nothing else to do!

So now that I provide evidence in the form of played games, my points are just not valid? Hahahaha, I should have guessed that nothing is enough for you.

The errata was unnecessary. I cannot overstate that the card was not broken and not in need of an errata.

51 minutes ago, Pretty Green said:

So now that I provide evidence in the form of played games, my points are just not valid?

I'm glad to see you actually tried it. I do have to say that I don't find your presentation at all compelling. Everything I read in your post screamed, "I went into this just looking to confirm my viewpoint, and since Palpatine was weaker, I consider my viewpoint confirmed!"

But of course Palpatine is weaker. That's the point of the nerf. That's why I asked how much use you did get from him, as opposed to how many times you felt he failed compared to how he was before. And, again, what you posted was simply the same assertion you were already making.

But at least you tried it on the table, so that's something.

Quote

Hahahaha, I should have guessed that nothing is enough for you.

Who are you talking to?

Quote

The errata was unnecessary. I cannot overstate that the card was not broken and not in need of an errata.

Oh, no, you can definitely overstate it. (And you're quite successfully doing so.)

The irony here is that I agree with you: I don't think Palpatine reached the point of broken, and I don't think Palpatine needed to be nerfed.

But your viewpoint is this: "If Palpatine didn't absolutely need weakening and they made him weaker, he's now useless." That is invalid, and it's untrue. There is loads of space between "not broken" and "useless." And that's exactly where the nerf falls: it took Palpatine from the very top of the power-curve, teetering on broken, down to a reasonable effect for the cost.

By comparison, for somebody who's used to using Palpatine as a crutch, "reasonable effect for the cost" equates to "useless," from what I've seen.

2 hours ago, Jeff Wilder said:

I'm glad to see you actually tried it. I do have to say that I don't find your presentation at all compelling. Everything I read in your post screamed, "I went into this just looking to confirm my viewpoint, and since Palpatine was weaker, I consider my viewpoint confirmed!"

Of course I was looking to confirm my viewpoint, that shouldn´t be surprising. We all have our anticipations how thing will go.

2 hours ago, Jeff Wilder said:

But of course Palpatine is weaker. That's the point of the nerf. That's why I asked how much use you did get from him, as opposed to how many times you felt he failed compared to how he was before. And, again, what you posted was simply the same assertion you were already making.

But at least you tried it on the table, so that's something.

That wasn´t the point, to confirm that he is weaker. We already knew that. The point was that he is not anymore worth the 2 crew slots and 8 points he was.

2 hours ago, Jeff Wilder said:

Who are you talking to?

To the previous poster.

2 hours ago, Jeff Wilder said:

Oh, no, you can definitely overstate it. (And you're quite successfully doing so.)

The irony here is that I agree with you: I don't think Palpatine reached the point of broken, and I don't think Palpatine needed to be nerfed.

But your viewpoint is this: "If Palpatine didn't absolutely need weakening and they made him weaker, he's now useless." That is invalid, and it's untrue. There is loads of space between "not broken" and "useless." And that's exactly where the nerf falls: it took Palpatine from the very top of the power-curve, teetering on broken, down to a reasonable effect for the cost.

By comparison, for somebody who's used to using Palpatine as a crutch, "reasonable effect for the cost" equates to "useless," from what I've seen.

No, no I can´t. Seriously. This is probably the biggest mistake FFG has done.

Ok, of course he´s not useless, if you want to go into semantics and hair splitting. He was not broken, now he is overcosted to what he should be at that cost. Same way elusiveness and expose are. In other words, pretty useless to be fielded in matches.

5 minutes ago, Pretty Green said:

No, no I can´t. Seriously. This is probably the biggest mistake FFG has done.

Ok, of course he´s not useless, if you want to go into semantics and hair splitting. He was not broken, now he is overcosted to what he should be at that cost. Same way elusiveness and expose are. In other words, pretty useless to be fielded in matches.

And that is not what seems to be the case. He, from most posts here, appears to be more of a Lone Wolf power level upgrade now. Certainly good in the right circumstances and lists, but he won't carry a list by himself. He is no longer a good option for any list to include, but in some he still is.

4 minutes ago, Admiral Deathrain said:

And that is not what seems to be the case. He, from most posts here, appears to be more of a Lone Wolf power level upgrade now. Certainly good in the right circumstances and lists, but he won't carry a list by himself. He is no longer a good option for any list to include, but in some he still is.

He didn´t carry any list by himself due to the restriction of ships he could ride. Palpatine is not bad, of course not. He is just not worth 2 crew slots and 8 points + ride anymore.

Why change something that wasn´t broken? The majority here seem to agree that he was never broken, just very strong. As he should be for the price and restriction.

5 minutes ago, Pretty Green said:

He didn´t carry any list by himself due to the restriction of ships he could ride. Palpatine is not bad, of course not. He is just not worth 2 crew slots and 8 points + ride anymore.

Why change something that wasn´t broken? The majority here seem to agree that he was never broken, just very strong. As he should be for the price and restriction.

He was very strong and pushed the meta into a very unhealthy spot where the most maneuverable ships were also the most point efficient ones.

2 hours ago, Jeff Wilder said:

I'm glad to see you actually tried it. I do have to say that I don't find your presentation at all compelling. Everything I read in your post screamed, "I went into this just looking to confirm my viewpoint, and since Palpatine was weaker, I consider my viewpoint confirmed!"

But of course Palpatine is weaker. That's the point of the nerf. That's why I asked how much use you did get from him, as opposed to how many times you felt he failed compared to how he was before. And, again, what you posted was simply the same assertion you were already making.

But at least you tried it on the table, so that's something.

Who are you talking to?

Oh, no, you can definitely overstate it. (And you're quite successfully doing so.)

The irony here is that I agree with you: I don't think Palpatine reached the point of broken, and I don't think Palpatine needed to be nerfed.

But your viewpoint is this: "If Palpatine didn't absolutely need weakening and they made him weaker, he's now useless." That is invalid, and it's untrue. There is loads of space between "not broken" and "useless." And that's exactly where the nerf falls: it took Palpatine from the very top of the power-curve, teetering on broken, down to a reasonable effect for the cost.

By comparison, for somebody who's used to using Palpatine as a crutch, "reasonable effect for the cost" equates to "useless," from what I've seen.

Jeff, I'm going to ask that you also take a step back and just remember, its an opinion poll. If he think post-table-experience that it does fall under mathematically inefficiently useless, that is a very valid impression to have. It doesn't match yours, but these are subjective categories.

2 hours ago, Jeff Wilder said:

I'm glad to see you actually tried it. I do have to say that I don't find your presentation at all compelling. Everything I read in your post screamed, "I went into this just looking to confirm my viewpoint, and since Palpatine was weaker, I consider my viewpoint confirmed!"

But of course Palpatine is weaker. That's the point of the nerf. That's why I asked how much use you did get from him, as opposed to how many times you felt he failed compared to how he was before. And, again, what you posted was simply the same assertion you were already making.

But at least you tried it on the table, so that's something.

Who are you talking to?

Oh, no, you can definitely overstate it. (And you're quite successfully doing so.)

The irony here is that I agree with you: I don't think Palpatine reached the point of broken, and I don't think Palpatine needed to be nerfed.

But your viewpoint is this: "If Palpatine didn't absolutely need weakening and they made him weaker, he's now useless." That is invalid, and it's untrue. There is loads of space between "not broken" and "useless." And that's exactly where the nerf falls: it took Palpatine from the very top of the power-curve, teetering on broken, down to a reasonable effect for the cost.

By comparison, for somebody who's used to using Palpatine as a crutch, "reasonable effect for the cost" equates to "useless," from what I've seen.

Just to add to this:

by this guys definition c3p0 was 'useless' during the height of the fat turret meta because every time you called 0 and rolled an evade c3p0 technically didnt do anything.

But if you've played during that era you know this is far from the truth, being able to guarantee an evade is very crucial.

Same goes for Palpatine now, he can give you a crit/evade when you need it the most ,that is far from useless. But of course it's not a guaranteed success as it was before.

I would say Palp itself was not broken. But in combination with defenders and aces who additionally have focus and evade token behind at least (!) 3 defense dice, he was a pain in the ass and for sure undercosted. There is a good reason FFG tries to keep defensive buffs at lowest level.

Ship became better, and also the number of ships decreased. So the less enemy ships, the mightier was Palp.

He was just ridiculous. If someone think he is overcosted now, then go and play some other cards. But for sure he was undercosted before (when you consider my above mentioned builds).

Palpatine now is an Ice Cream Sundae. Before he was an Ice Cream Sundae with a choice of sprinkles on top for the same price. Maybe you really liked the sprinkles but does that means you wouldn't still buy the Sundae?

I just had a game against Palpatine this evening. My opponent was 5 for 5 with him. I mean, maybe pre Nerf my opponent would have gotten _better_ use for his 5 dice modifications. But he would not have had more success.

Oh, and @JohnRainbow, the TIE S/F is amazing. I think it was about to make a big splash regardless of the FAQ.

7 hours ago, IG88E said:

I would say Palp itself was not broken. But in combination with defenders and aces who additionally have focus and evade token behind at least (!) 3 defense dice, he was a pain in the ass and for sure undercosted. There is a good reason FFG tries to keep defensive buffs at lowest level.

Ship became better, and also the number of ships decreased. So the less enemy ships, the mightier was Palp.

He was just ridiculous. If someone think he is overcosted now, then go and play some other cards. But for sure he was undercosted before (when you consider my above mentioned builds).

3 defense dice, focus & evade? Sounds like Corran, who has regeneration too which is a lot cheaper than Palpatine. Imperials are not the only ones stacking tokens. But that´s the reason you should shoot with many ships or block.

"So the less enemy ships, the mightier was Palp". Is it my fault that he does better against some builds? That is true for everything, some combinations work better against others.

"Then go play some other cards"
Really? I´m trying to make the point that the errata was unnecessary, Palpatine was fine before. Not broken. Definitely not undercosted when you consider the price and restriction for his ride.

I could have told you to play some other game if you thought Palpatine was undercosted before.

As for the ice cream guy, sure I like Sundae, even without the sprinkles. But when I´m paying the same price for plain vanilla Sundae that used to get me sprinkles, it´s not right. And it happened just because some %¤&# were jealous of my sprinkles.