Absolutely. I remember when Palp was first coming out and I got to try a bunch of proxy games with him on Vassal. Even with a very sub-optimal list (Palp on Kenkirk, teaming with either Vessery or Rexlar in pre-fix HLC Defenders), Palp was ridiculous due to his reactive nature. Now, you actually have to be deliberate with him.

The biggest loss for me is that he used to be great for fixing crits or avoiding damage from obstacles. If you really needed that weapon fixed, Palp busted out his socket wrench and got it done. If Soontir clipped that rock and was about to take a crit, Palp could force-shove the asteroid out of his path. Those could be game-saving moments, but now they're a huge gamble.

Yes. I still don't really like flying him, but it's more enjoyable (for me and my opponent) than it was.

34 minutes ago, MenaceNsobriety said:

I have seen this stated repeatedly and it's just pain wrong!

1. Palp works on very ship in your list. 3PO only the one he is riding on.

2. 3PO only guarantees you get 1 evade and only really works with 1 agility ships. Palp guarantees you get 1 evade PLUS whatever you rolled in the first place.

3. Palp works on offense.

Lets say for the sake of argument you have 3PO on a 3 agility ship. You call 0 and roll evade, focus, blank. 3PO did nothing. Same scenario with Palp. You end up with evade, evade, focus. See the difference? 3PO is RANDOM while Palp is GUARANTEED.

Alright, I'll rephrase it then, since the direct comparison is apparently so flawed. Whatever the hell Palpatine's effect is now, it still isn't worth 8 points or two crew slots. It is far too easily wasted (by not needing it on the roll you use it, hence the C3PO comparison) and actively punishes you if you roll well. Before the FAQ Palpatine was a guarantee, hence his steep cost. Now he's far more luck-based, that cost is too high for him to be worth it.

Anecdotal success with him does not disprove this.

9 minutes ago, MalusCalibur said:

Anecdotal success with him does not disprove this.

It doesn't need to disprove anything, because all you're making are unsupported assertions. What's being collected in this thread isn't "anecdotal success," it's "empirical data gathering." It's people actually seeking to support what they're saying.

You don't seem to grasp this: yes, Palpatine is not as good as he was, but simply saying that over and over is ridiculous, because the entire point of the change was to make him "not as good as he was." Until you actually test him on the table -- are you even willing to do that? -- you're contributing literally nothing to the discussion except salt and your own dehydrated teeth-gnashing.

And -- once again, because it just doesn't seem to sink in with people -- I am emphatically on record as saying Palpatine wasn't broken and didn't need a nerf. And I am now emphatically on record as saying the nerf does not push Palpatine anywhere near being a bad -- or even just mediocre -- card. He's still quite easily in the balanced range ... he's just not at the extreme top of that range any longer.

People can either ***** and moan and piss about that, or they can fly him and see for themselves.

Which are you going to (continue to) do?

3 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

It doesn't need to disprove anything, because all you're making are unsupported assertions. What's being collected in this thread isn't "anecdotal success," it's "empirical data gathering." It's people actually seeking to support what they're saying.

And so far, after only two days, we already have folk claiming that it's fine after one game, which is hardly much better than any assertions I make.

6 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

You don't seem to grasp this: yes, Palpatine is not as good as he was, but simply saying that over and over is ridiculous, because the entire point of the change was to make him "not as good as he was." Until you actually test him on the table -- are you even willing to do that? -- you're contributing literally nothing to the discussion except salt and your own dehydrated teeth-gnashing.

Of course, what I'm actually saying (which you would know if you'd read it properly rather than leap on a chance to belittle me) is that the card effect is no longer worth the cost. Of course it's not as good as it was, but it still could have been worth it for the points, and I have outlined several times why that is no longer the case - the effect is far too easily wasted for the steep points cost.

As for 'testing him on the table', I can't imagine my contributions on that score would be any use since I've never put him on the table before outside of a joke list. - and I am in no way inclined to take him in a squad now, since there are far better things I could spent 29pts on. However, regular opponents who fly him often universally agree that he is not worth the cost any more, and I've no reason to disbelieve it from my own analysis.

11 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

And -- once again, because it just doesn't seem to sink in with people -- I am emphatically on record as saying Palpatine wasn't broken and didn't need a nerf. And I am now emphatically on record as saying the nerf does not push Palpatine anywhere near being a bad -- or even just mediocre -- card. He's still quite easily in the balanced range ... he's just not at the extreme top of that range any longer.

Is your opinion on the matter somehow more valuable? Certainly you seem to be attributing worth to it with statements like that, yet don't support them with any evidence any more than I have. So what makes you right and me wrong about pre-FAQ Palpatine? As far as I could tell he was barely to be seen anyway outside of one variant (Vessery, Ryad, Shuttle), and certainly wasn't having an effect on the current game that warranted anything being done, let alone something as heavy-handed and excessive as what we got.

14 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

Which are you going to (continue to) do?

Re-iterate my points until people take the time to consider them rather than talking down to me and dismissing said points because they don't go along with the current opinion of the forum at large.

I'm not happy with the FAQ, and I won't be told that my thoughts on the matter are invalid simply because they arn't popular.

That feeling you're sensing isn't because of any disagreement regarding your opinion or it conflicting with general forum sentiment. It's because you come off as a salty jackass having a kneejerk tantrum. Maybe tone down the tone a bit and people would take you more seriously.

8 minutes ago, MalusCalibur said:

As for 'testing him on the table', I can't imagine my contributions on that score would be any use since I've never put him on the table before outside of a joke list. - and I am in no way inclined to take him in a squad now, since there are far better things I could spent 29pts on. However, regular opponents who fly him often universally agree that he is not worth the cost any more, and I've no reason to disbelieve it from my own analysis.

Since the whole point of this thread was to collect data on actual table experience on him after the errata, your initial post (4th reply, so you were pretty quick on the trigger) of:

Quote

Absolutely, utterly, laughably not.

Next time, on 'thorough answers to incredibly obvious questions', we ask if the X-Wing is lagging behind the current game.

was unwelcome and pretty much set the tone for all the interactions with you thus far. It's resulted in a lot of derailment of the topic. Yes, all of us not providing the requested table experience are guilty of continuing it, but now that it's out that you have not and will not actually play with Palpatine, perhaps we can all drop it and leave the thread to those actually invested in the subject. I certainly want to read about table experience and how the power of the card sits now.

23 minutes ago, MalusCalibur said:

And so far, after only two days, we already have folk claiming that it's fine after one game, which is hardly much better than any assertions I make.

Actually, one game of testing is literally infinitely more valuable than the assertions you're making. (And that's if it were only "one game," which isn't true.)

Quote

Of course it's not as good as it was, but it still could have been worth it for the points, and I have outlined several times why that is no longer the case - the effect is far too easily wasted for the steep points cost.

Yes, that's what you're asserting ... and many people are asserting the opposite and backing up the assertion with testing. Rationally, which assertion is more likely to be true?

Quote

I am in no way inclined to take him in a squad now, since there are far better things I could spent 29pts on

Which, ironically, is exactly what so many people said in the months leading up to his release, and for quite a while afterward. Hmmm.

Quote

Is your opinion on the matter somehow more valuable?

Well, no, but my opinion backed up by testing is certainly more valuable, yes.

But my point was to establish that I'm coming into this with no dog in the fight. I'm not saying that my opinion is more valid, just establishing that there's reason to believe that I'm not biased. (If anything, since I have been on record saying Palpatine didn't need a nerf, I would be biased against the idea that the new change is quite reasonable. And yet, here I am saying the new change is quite reasonable ... and having confirmed that for myself with testing.)

Quote

I'm not happy with the FAQ, and I won't be told that my thoughts on the matter are invalid simply because they arn't popular.

People aren't dismissing your thoughts as invalid because they're unpopular. People are dismissing your thoughts as invalid because you don't seem to be willing to even test them to see if they can be disproven. (Anti-science claims another win.)

11 hours ago, Blail Blerg said:

Different from the other thread, this one is about table testing whether Palp is still worth taking or not. Who's run him, or Palp Soontir Vader or Palp Commonwealth Defenders?

I'd like to discourage theoretical assertions here and ask for what people think from their table experiences.

A great thread topic that would be so much better if it wasn't deliberately derailed. It sounds to me like most of the play experiences with him have shown him to still be useful even if he is missing occasionally. He may not be the A+ student he once was but sure sounds like he's still at least a B student which is enough for the honor role or at least it was before modern grade inflation where anything less than an A is considered FAILING by some.

3 hours ago, MalusCalibur said:

No. Merely stating facts. A glorified C3PO is not worth 8pts, two crew, and a minimum of 21pts to ride on. You can still find success with him, but it's the same as finding success with Leia crew - it doesn't change the mathematical worth (or lack therein) of the card.

As per OP. Only table talk is requested here. Do you have any to share? If not, try it and share with us after wards it was poor.

If you guys like this thread, please copy its format for other things. =).

The problem with a test like this is that players who feel like he's no longer worth the cost are thus less likely to include him in a list, thus biasing the results of any test like this in favor of the result that "He's still okay."

I used to be a big Palp Aces player, and indeed, there were turns where he did nothing (and when he did do something, you knew when it needed to happen). Now, it's still pretty academic to know what roll he really benefits the most on, but the added possibility of him not doing anything "because dice" makes him not worth the same cost compared to the old version. I haven't personally played a game with the new version (haven't played a Palp list in 2 months or more, in fact), but consensus among my playgroup (including those who have played him with the change) is that the change isn't as bad as some are making it out to be, but at the same time, he's not worth the points/opportunity cost of 2 crew slots any more.

Well, testing will find if that assertion is true.

Honestly, with 10 waves of ships, we play what we want. I'm just asking for people who DO want to play palp, if he's worth it.

its not supposed to be exacting and definitive "is palp worth it??". Its just a compilation of anecdotal info.

8 minutes ago, Eisai said:

The problem with a test like this is that players who feel like he's no longer worth the cost are thus less likely to include him in a list, thus biasing the results of any test like this in favor of the result that "He's still okay."
...

Keep in mind that Palpatine was "overcosted" before he ever saw play so someone had to do testing and prove his worth before he started showing up everywhere. It would be the same thing here although the degree of "obviousness" may be much lower and then you'd run into those who wouldn't give him a fair chance just because they remember how he used to play. Just because someone is not longer at the top of the game doesn't mean they shouldn't still be in the game.

9 hours ago, MalusCalibur said:

No. Merely stating facts. A glorified C3PO is not worth 8pts, two crew, and a minimum of 21pts to ride on . You can still find success with him, but it's the same as finding success with Leia crew - it doesn't change the mathematical worth (or lack therein) of the card.

A couple of times now I've seen OGP discussed like it's an additional cost for Palpatine, like all he does is ride around in it and it's not a 3-attack ship large ship with 10 hit points and a stop maneuver.

In casual play, PalpShuttles can be strong enough to win matches without engaging the enemy much, which is part of Palpatine's game-warping effect. In competitive play, PalpShuttles have to work harder, and contribute to the focus firing and blocking so that the aces can do their work. The Lambda is a pretty good ship in that role, and cheap. It's still a 3-attack large ship with 10 hit points and a stop maneuver. And for just 8 points more, you got a guaranteed die result every single round that ship was alive. I wish I could get that much of an effect with Wild Space Fringer at 30 points.

I think we'll continue to see PalpShuttles doing well in tournaments under the command of players who were out-flying their opponents anyway, but we'll probably see fewer Palps overall as players of more average skill find that they can't get as much out of him and his ride.

1 hour ago, Jeff Wilder said:

Actually, one game of testing is literally infinitely more valuable than the assertions you're making. (And that's if it were only "one game," which isn't true.)

I'm fairly certain that statistics don't work that way - all a single game will do is skew opinion based on a singular experience. And it certainly seems that the overwhelming majority of contributions to the thread so far detail a single experience rather than any kind of meaningful testing.

1 hour ago, Jeff Wilder said:

Yes, that's what you're asserting ... and many people are asserting the opposite and backing up the assertion with testing. Rationally, which assertion is more likely to be true?

Anecdotal evidence from a handful of casual games is not testing and proves nothing. Testing is far more rigourous and complex than just playing a few games, in order to get any meaningful data from it. So at the moment, while I have no evidence for my assertion, neither does anyone else for theirs.

1 hour ago, Jeff Wilder said:

Well, no, but my opinion backed up by testing is certainly more valuable, yes.

But my point was to establish that I'm coming into this with no dog in the fight. I'm not saying that my opinion is more valid, just establishing that there's reason to believe that I'm not biased. (If anything, since I have been on record saying Palpatine didn't need a nerf, I would be biased against the idea that the new change is quite reasonable. And yet, here I am saying the new change is quite reasonable ... and having confirmed that for myself with testing).

Once again you mistake what testing actually is - your opinion is no more valid than mine because it isn't backed up by anything meaningful. I could play ten games with Palpatine, win all of them and not have the effect wasted once because I got lucky with dice, but it doesn't prove anything.

I have no bias here either, given that I've never flown Palpatine, and certainly I did not believe he needed to be changed. All you have confirmed is that you believe it's a reasonable change, because for a third time, playing a few casual games is not testing.

1 hour ago, Jeff Wilder said:

People aren't dismissing your thoughts as invalid because they're unpopular. People are dismissing your thoughts as invalid because you don't seem to be willing to even test them to see if they can be disproven. (Anti-science claims another win.)

Your attempts to continue to belittle me are not appreciated. Grouping me with the kind of anti-intellectual moronity that is dragging the world into hell is perhaps the gravest insult I could conceive, so congratulations for that.
So far no one is doing much of anything other than telling me I'm wrong despite having no better evidence to support their claim than mine, and the general consensus among forum-goers about this FAQ seems to be positive. All signs point to disagreement based on my not being satisfied with the changes while everyone else dances on the graves of the cards in question, because no one has presented anything even remotely able to make me question my viewpoint. or challenge my assertions with fact rather than anecdote.

1 hour ago, Blail Blerg said:

As per OP. Only table talk is requested here. Do you have any to share? If not, try it and share with us after wards it was poor.

Other than third party accounts of the games of others, no. But if an echo chamber of agreeing opinions is all you want, you can certainly silence the dissent.

59 minutes ago, Eisai said:

The problem with a test like this is that players who feel like he's no longer worth the cost are thus less likely to include him in a list, thus biasing the results of any test like this in favor of the result that "He's still okay."

An important point to consider for the above.

1 hour ago, Eisai said:

but consensus among my playgroup (including those who have played him with the change) is that the change isn't as bad as some are making it out to be, but at the same time, he's not worth the points/opportunity cost of 2 crew slots any more.

And the crux of my argument which seems to get cheerfully ignored by most others is summarised once again there. He's no longer worth 8pts and two crew slots because of the high potential failure rate of his new ability and the possibility of being punished for rolling well. It doesn't matter if you can still use him to some success, still win games with him, or still have those moments where he wins the game for you - I imagine there's anecdotal evidence somewhere of the Leia card winning a game for someone, but that doesn't mean it's worth the points or slot to take it.

Plus, from an entirely aesthetic standpoint, it was fitting that Palpatine of all characters should be able to deliver a reliable, consistent effect through all the randomness of the dice, and the ability to make that tiny adjustment to fate when it was most needed was incredibly fitting for him.

43 minutes ago, DagobahDave said:

A couple of times now I've seen OGP discussed like it's an additional cost for Palpatine, like all he does is ride around in it and it's not a 3-attack ship large ship with 10 hit points and a stop maneuver.

It is, but it's clearly not all that good a 3 Attack large ship with a stop maneuver since you never see them outside of bringing Palpatine along - people are not fielding him on their existing Lambdas, they are learning to fly the Lambda and compensate for it's faults so they can include Palpatine on the cheapest available ship for him.

43 minutes ago, DagobahDave said:

In casual play, PalpShuttles can be strong enough to win matches without engaging the enemy much, which is part of its game-warping effect.

If by 'casual play' you mean 'against people who have never played against it before' or 'people who just arn't that good at the game'. Being beaten by a card because of inexperience is hardly call for any harsh changes to the card text and certainly should not be used as a measure for how much Palpatine 'warped' anything.

43 minutes ago, DagobahDave said:

In competitive play, PalpShuttles have to work harder, and contribute to the focus firing and blocking so that the aces can do their work. The Lambda is a pretty good ship in that role, and cheap. It's still a 3-attack large ship with 10 hit points and a stop maneuver. And for just 8 points more, you get a guaranteed die result every single round that ship was alive. I wish I could get that much of an effect with Wild Space Fringer at 30 points.

Yes, and I've always said almost exactly that every time a new moan thread about Palpatine appeared - because you have spent a minimum of 29pts to get Palpatine in your list, you need to get more use out of the ship than just Palpatine's dice modification, which then requires flying the Lambda (which has arguably the worst dial in the game) well, which takes considerable skill.

43 minutes ago, DagobahDave said:

I think we'll continue to see PalpShuttles doing well in tournaments under the command of players who were out-flying their opponents anyway, but we'll probably see fewer Palps overall as players of more average skill find that they can't get as much out of him and his ride.

I don't believe we will. I think the players who previously flew Palpatine Aces did so because of the reduction in variance he offered, which a tournament-goer is always going to want in a game of dice. With that reduction now gone, I don't see anyone wanting to build a decently efficient list including such an expensive card with such a potential for failure that is at the whim of dice, and certainly not on a chassis like the Lambda which realistically only sees play if it's carrying Palpatine, at present.

33 minutes ago, MalusCalibur said:

I have no bias here either, given that I've never flown Palpatine, and certainly I did not believe he needed to be changed.

Ah. You should try it before the nerf goes into effect. Actually having that ability at my disposal was eye-opening for me.

Just now, DagobahDave said:

Ah. You should try it before the nerf goes into effect. Actually having that ability at my disposal was eye-opening for me.

Well, I tell a small lie - I've flown him three times. Two of those were as part of a joke list (2 Lambdas and a Decimator), while the other was an experiment with Reinforced Deflectors on a Palpatine shuttle. I've also played against him countless times.

Let's not forget that FFG would have play-tested this errata prior to releasing it. Play-tests would be easy too, as all the defined meta lists already exist.

The data they would have from play-testing an errata fix would be well and above more meaningful of the "strength of the card in the game's current state (meta)" than they can do at initial release of the card, as the card's power-lists are already hashed out, rather than just guessing at their best "meta" uses.

It would be pretty clear to see. They can easily do an A/B comparison. Re-run the same match up twice, with old and new versions, or play with both versions in the same match, tracking hull / damagr separately.

Since errata has been out, I have tested my current tournament list 2 times against Palp Defenders (a matchup I had played against 50+ times througout 2016) and the result was thag Palp Defenders is still a pain for my list, and that Palpatine's impact is still felt and is definitely impacting the results. Results of the match were still very similar so far.

Until another card comes out that helps variance in the same or better way than Palpatine does (none exist right now), Palpatine will still function as the best option for his roll, and will still be worth his points. He is, after all, the only global support mechanic in the game. That in itself is worth the costs to play him. (Unlike Manaroo's global effect that only cost a 1 pt tax for her ability).

14 minutes ago, phild0 said:

He is, after all, the only global support mechanic in the game. That in itself is worth the costs to play him. (Unlike Manaroo's global effect that only cost a 1 pt tax for her ability).

Sabine?

@MalusCalibur , all I want to know is if you do take him, has he with real world factors, still worth it. As opposed to theoretical guessing and also as opposed to people who were for pride, argumentative-ness were never going to run him anyway. To that end, you've made your point, you don't think he's worth it. Cool.

Do you have anything else constructive to add? If not, you're derailing the thread.

Also as per request: Table talk only. You could play against him if you so desire to avoid echo chambering. There's no echo chambering here. Only what you want to believe. Besides, if you don't want to play Palp, why are you even here.

I think the most curious argument I keep seeing is that Palpatine 'has a high chance of failure'. I can't quite imagine that to be true unless you consistently bank on statistically unlikely rolls. Remember that rolling 3 green dice on average yields 1 eyeball, 1 evade, and 1 focus result meaning against an actually scary attack (3 success results) you should always succeed with Palpatine even with spending a focus or evade token. Similarly, an attack of 3 dice should average to hit, eyeball, blank. Even with a focus Palpatine should again succeed every attack. Sure you waste Palpatine if you roll well but you don't waste Palpatine if you roll average or below so 2/3 end states are good and in the remaining end state you are still not losing anything.

Palp has gone from 15pts worth to 11 or so in my experience. You can "waste" it more easily if you guess on offense but on defense you still have enough information to know his "best" use.

Just now, Blail Blerg said:

@MalusCalibur , all I want to know is if you do take him, has he with real world factors, still worth it. As opposed to theoretical guessing and also as opposed to people who were for pride, argumentative-ness were never going to run him anyway. To that end, you've made your point, you don't think he's worth it. Cool.

Do you have anything else constructive to add? If not, you're derailing the thread.

Also as per request: Table talk only. You could play against him if you so desire to avoid echo chambering. There's no echo chambering here. Only what you want to believe. Besides, if you don't want to play Palp, why are you even here.

I am here because I wanted to offer the alternative viewpoint and answer the question in the title. Certainly I seem to be the only one with that viewpoint.

In any case, point taken. I'll leave you to it.