Since they recently fully opened the barn door on errata why didn't they include Biggs in with the big 4 changes? The developers have long said that Biggs is a real pain to design around so why not change his ability at the same time as the others? I mostly play Rebels and I would be very open to a change. They should change his ability like this "When a friendly ship at range 1 is hit by an attack you may suffer all damage and effects of that attack instead of the defender." This would make Biggs way less valuable protecting the Ghost because you would still have to use the defenders agility value. It would also open up the X-wing for a defensive buff because Biggs no longer uses his defense value and tokens when using his ability.

im not calling for more nerfs or bashing the FAQ here. I think what they did this week will be GREAT for the game long term but I am wondering why they didn't go ahead and remove this thorn in their side when they have the chance.

Biggs is what stops a lot of T-65 changes. You can't make them too good or it makes Biggs crazy powerful. I am down with changing Biggs to "once per round".

Biggs got nerfed a bit last time letting ordnance bypass him. And he isn't exactly bringing home the trophies.

One problem with nerfing biggs to like a "Once per round" or "Suffer all damage" is that EVERY single rebel ship was probably built with Biggs in mind. So you would be left with 1 and 2 agility ships for rebels that were probably built with 1 agility because of Biggs, like the Arc. Breaking biggs, breaks the faction. Have to tread carefully there. Lancers and Jumpmasters are 9/10 hull with 2 agility and an arc is 1, huh? Biggs fault!

2 minutes ago, wurms said:

Biggs got nerfed a bit last time letting ordnance bypass him. And he isn't exactly bringing home the trophies.

One problem with nerfing biggs to like a "Once per round" or "Suffer all damage" is that EVERY single rebel ship was probably built with Biggs in mind. So you would be left with 1 and 2 agility ships for rebels that were probably built with 1 agility because of Biggs, like the Arc. Breaking biggs, breaks the faction. Have to tread carefully there. Lancers and Jumpmasters are 9/10 hull with 2 agility and an arc is 1, huh? Biggs fault!

I'm not sure if having Biggs around was as strong in the decision process as all that. I mean, the developers need to develop ships that don't HAVE to have another component. I don't think all other ships were done with the idea that all lists WILL have Biggs in it. Oh, they thought about having Biggs with it, but didn't design a ship with the idea that you will always have Biggs there. So...if Biggs was not there, the ship would then suck.

2 minutes ago, wurms said:

Biggs got nerfed a bit last time letting ordnance bypass him. And he isn't exactly bringing home the trophies.

One problem with nerfing biggs to like a "Once per round" or "Suffer all damage" is that EVERY single rebel ship was probably built with Biggs in mind. So you would be left with 1 and 2 agility ships for rebels that were probably built with 1 agility because of Biggs, like the Arc. Breaking biggs, breaks the faction. Have to tread carefully there. Lancers and Jumpmasters are 9/10 hull with 2 agility and an arc is 1, huh? Biggs fault!

Lancers are pursuit craft and built for speed. Jumpmasters are still surprisingly agile, with a barrel roll. The ARC is basically the Star Wars equivelent of the A-10 Thunderbolt: slow moving, and able to absorb loads of damage by Clone Wars standards.

The ordnance mini-nerf should have been enough, really. The problem of most ordnance being over-costed or requiring too much action sacrifice (or both) has never gone away, though. EM made a minor difference, but only for a subset of ships. GC and LRS helped a small amount, but didn't solve the cost or efficiency issue.

The mainstay of the problem is that the ordnance plus upgrades you need to make it useful costs so much, you need to put it in a cheap frame, or start sacrificing parts of your build. That cheap frame is invariably a PS2 +/-1, and therfore can't target the aces in time, and certainly can't get the shot off in the same turn they locked, unless you're willing to fire without mods.

As such, the main way to avoid Biggs is easily countered by the very targets you're trying to fire at. LRS does allow it to an extent, but the shot becomes telegraphed and often easily arc dodged. It also only helps a handful of ships, and flies in the face of the "discard this target lock" effect once the first salvo is launched (anyone who knows what they're doing will hug R1-2 avoiding the lock).

Tl;Dr don't nerf Biggs. Buff ordnance and watch the shots bypass him. Hell, we might even see X-wing torp carriers as a result.

Ordnance is already good enough, thanks.

The best way to fix the T65 is to add an offensive ability. This would make the ship more viable and would diminish how effective he is by making him more of a priority target. My solution would to give the T65 4 reds(5 at range one) against large and huge ships. Large ships dominate the meta and would bring the T65 back. Keep them 3 dice against small based ships though

24 minutes ago, NakedDex said:

The ordnance mini-nerf should have been enough, really. The problem of most ordnance being over-costed or requiring too much action sacrifice (or both) has never gone away, though. EM made a minor difference, but only for a subset of ships. GC and LRS helped a small amount, but didn't solve the cost or efficiency issue.

The mainstay of the problem is that the ordnance plus upgrades you need to make it useful costs so much, you need to put it in a cheap frame, or start sacrificing parts of your build. That cheap frame is invariably a PS2 +/-1, and therfore can't target the aces in time, and certainly can't get the shot off in the same turn they locked, unless you're willing to fire without mods.

As such, the main way to avoid Biggs is easily countered by the very targets you're trying to fire at. LRS does allow it to an extent, but the shot becomes telegraphed and often easily arc dodged. It also only helps a handful of ships, and flies in the face of the "discard this target lock" effect once the first salvo is launched (anyone who knows what they're doing will hug R1-2 avoiding the lock).

Tl;Dr don't nerf Biggs. Buff ordnance and watch the shots bypass him. Hell, we might even see X-wing torp carriers as a result.

Good ordnance in X-wing is never really going to give satisfying games- it's going to give a bunch of games that end in one round of shooting ala trip jumpmasters because ordnance is a very flawed mechanic in X-wing.

1 hour ago, wurms said:

Biggs got nerfed a bit last time letting ordnance bypass him. And he isn't exactly bringing home the trophies.

One problem with nerfing biggs to like a "Once per round" or "Suffer all damage" is that EVERY single rebel ship was probably built with Biggs in mind. So you would be left with 1 and 2 agility ships for rebels that were probably built with 1 agility because of Biggs, like the Arc. Breaking biggs, breaks the faction. Have to tread carefully there. Lancers and Jumpmasters are 9/10 hull with 2 agility and an arc is 1, huh? Biggs fault!

I believe if as @heychadwick suggested Biggs' ability was switched to "once per round" it wouldn't affect as many ships as you are suggesting. Biggs' primarily is flown in one list currently Kanan - Biggs in this list Biggs is there only to cause the opponent to shoot him and not target the zero agility Ghost who while the Phantom is docked can TLT spam the opponent into obvilion with 1 hit after one hit double tapping TLT attacks.

If you consider other top ships or pilots persay not any of them really need Biggs'

Miranda can regen on her own but must choose when to do so with having a this or that effect; Norra with C-3PO and R2D2 is able as another 1 agility ship to hold her own and possibly is as good a late game ship as Miranda. C-3Po can effectively change any 1 or 2 agility ship with 1 crew slot into a 2 or 3 agility ship. Poe is another example, and Dash already has 2 green dice and of course that one crew slot. Changing Biggs to once per round would not effect the overall Rebel as badly as it's being portrayed. Rebels are balanced .... I think changing him (Biggs') to "once per round" is a good idea. This is coming from a player who uses Rebels 75% of the time.

Also, many lists these days only have 2-3 ships in them. That doesn't make the once per round "nerf" as bad as it might sound, especially if the Rebel player can pick which attack.

I always thought Biggs should have an abitlity more like Draw Their Fire. Something like: "When a friendly ship at Range 1 is defending, you may suffer 1 damage to cancel 1 die result."

I don't think ordnance is flawed as a concept, but I do think it has flaws in its implementation. It shouldn't feel like you're handicapping your squad by taking a torpedo or missile, and it certainly shouldn't feel like a wasted opportunity to actually use it.

The triple jump scenario was borne out more by the combination of action efficiency and tankiness, than the efficacy of the ordnance. Sure, you can lose a ship to a single volley from them, but I've had that happen with fire coming from Defenders, Phantoms, and Ghosts, too. I regularly get it from TLTs en masse. Notice that when their action efficiency fell away (Deadeye nerf), so too did that list.

The two biggest issues with ordnance are cost and opportunity cost. Deadeye helps with opportunity cost, as does LRS, but both have pitfalls in their equipping requirement. The cost continues to be one of the biggest obstacles to entry, to the point that you either build the list around the idea of spending 20+ points on disposable cards, or you ignore the entire game mechanic and pretend those slots don't exist. We either need much more efficient ordnance, or much cheaper ordnance. I'm not saying there should be 2 point missiles that do 5 damage, but their attack efficiency vs efficacy must be considered.

They couldn't nerf Biggs or buff the Punisher because they want to keeps the forums lit up. I mean, a guys gotta have b***hing point man.

1 hour ago, wurms said:

Biggs got nerfed a bit last time letting ordnance bypass him. And he isn't exactly bringing home the trophies.

One problem with nerfing biggs to like a "Once per round" or "Suffer all damage" is that EVERY single rebel ship was probably built with Biggs in mind. So you would be left with 1 and 2 agility ships for rebels that were probably built with 1 agility because of Biggs, like the Arc. Breaking biggs, breaks the faction. Have to tread carefully there. Lancers and Jumpmasters are 9/10 hull with 2 agility and an arc is 1, huh? Biggs fault!

You realize rebels can fly lists without Biggs in them already? I've literally never put Biggs on the table to my recollection. Endor had a rebel list in the top 8 with a non-Biggs t65 (go Tarn mison), albeit a couple Kanan Biggs lists as well IIRC. I seem to recall a Hera Ashoka list making it to top tables at another big tournament recently (one of the other system opens?). Nerfing Biggs in no way breaks the faction. You just have to fly differently.

34 minutes ago, VanderLegion said:

You realize rebels can fly lists without Biggs in them already? I've literally never put Biggs on the table to my recollection. Endor had a rebel list in the top 8 with a non-Biggs t65 (go Tarn mison), albeit a couple Kanan Biggs lists as well IIRC. I seem to recall a Hera Ashoka list making it to top tables at another big tournament recently (one of the other system opens?). Nerfing Biggs in no way breaks the faction. You just have to fly differently.

"breaks the faction" was the wrong terminology, but FFG designs with Biggs in mind. They aren't designing worrying about Jek Porkins breaking the game, or Garven's 1 focus token becoming OP. It's always "Is Biggs going to be problem with this ship/ability/upgrade?" His ability can affect every rebel ship that touches the mat, so he is priority #1 in design of new ships/abilities. So nerfing him to an extreme, hurts all those ships/ability/upgrades that may have been scaled back because of him. Also, like I said, and you have stated, Rebel lists that are winning don't have Biggs, so why even need a nerf?

Biggs is good, with the ghost, yes, but he's expensive, with R2D2 (for regen purpose) he cost 29points... with only 2 agi, 2 shield and 3 hull (ok he can shoot at 3 )

If the opponent play well he can shoot him in 2 turn max. He's not overpowered, he messed up adversaries plans if you fly well (and stay at range 1 is not as easy as it look one paper after 4 or 5 rounds versus 2 or 3 aggressives ships)

If you take other ships with the same cost, they are way more durable (for example Fenn Rau with PTL, title and autothruster cost 5 more points, and he's way more durable and bada$$, Syndicate Y with TLT and unhinged astromech... 25 points, The inquisitor with all his usual stuff 31 points....)

When you speak of things to nerf, compare them with things that cost mostly the same...

36 minutes ago, wurms said:

"breaks the faction" was the wrong terminology, but FFG designs with Biggs in mind. They aren't designing worrying about Jek Porkins breaking the game, or Garven's 1 focus token becoming OP. It's always "Is Biggs going to be problem with this ship/ability/upgrade?" His ability can affect every rebel ship that touches the mat, so he is priority #1 in design of new ships/abilities. So nerfing him to an extreme, hurts all those ships/ability/upgrades that may have been scaled back because of him . Also, like I said, and you have stated, Rebel lists that are winning don't have Biggs, so why even need a nerf?

Biggs was included in the original core set, so we now have had 10 waves since that release and in your opinion ships since that have been scaled back because of him? Is that what you're really saying?

Here are some examples of ships since Wave 1 that are still viable if not late game aces (and some of those pilots have seen success at the higher levels of the META) that are Rebel and not affected by Biggs in either way. Norra Wexley, Rey, Miranda Doni, Dash Rendar, Han Solo, Corran Horn, Poe Dameron, and Kanan Jarrus (who wingman is Biggs but doesn't need it) Making it "once per round" forces the person using him to fly better, and actually use strategy. Isn't this game about manuevrablity and tatics?

I don't think Biggs is overpowered but he is a huge design speed bump for the Rebel faction. When they design ANYTHING that can go on an X-wing they have to consider what it does to Biggs. That is the main reason I brought up this topic.

I'd be down with once per round.

Biggs isn't too bad in most lists, really, though he can be downright brutal in Kansan-Biggs if flown well and you don't counter appropriately, what with Kansan' ability, Tactical Jammer, and so on.

I wish Biggs had always been something like " When defending, other friendly ships at Range 1 increase their agility by 1 " or something. This way, Biggs could still protect allies but you'd have the option to shoot directly at Biggs if you wished. It'd also feel a little more thematic of Biggs helping to keep his nearby allies aware as he flies cover, but doesn't enter the weirdly unthematic realm where Vader can't procket a ship because his lasers are drawn to Biggs.

This could presumably open up design space for X-Wings, if Biggs truly has been holding back the T65 and T70 powerlevel.

1 minute ago, AllWingsStandyingBy said:

I wish Biggs had always been something like " When defending, other friendly ships at Range 1 increase their agility by 1 " or something. This way, Biggs could still protect allies but you'd have the option to shoot directly at Biggs if you wished. It'd also feel a little more thematic of Biggs helping to keep his nearby allies aware as he flies cover, but doesn't enter the weirdly unthematic realm where Vader can't procket a ship because his lasers are drawn to Biggs.

This could presumably open up design space for X-Wings, if Biggs truly has been holding back the T65 and T70 powerlevel.

This is basically serissu's ability (rerolling 1 die is just as good as adding 1 die to the original roll if you roll at least 1 blank or an eyeball without a focus token). Note that she's...hardly ever used for her ability.

2 minutes ago, VanderLegion said:

This is basically serissu's ability (rerolling 1 die is just as good as adding 1 die to the original roll if you roll at least 1 blank or an eyeball without a focus token). Note that she's...hardly ever used for her ability.

She is also in a Scyk (one of the crappiest platforms int the game) and is the most expensive pilot for that ship and can be reasonably one-shotted or two-shotted these days. She also only has 2 Attack and can't bring a stress-bot. Those are pretty big differences from Biggs.

But yes, that version of Biggs would see less play. I don't see that as a problem.

1 hour ago, AllWingsStandyingBy said:

She is also in a Scyk (one of the crappiest platforms int the game) and is the most expensive pilot for that ship and can be reasonably one-shotted or two-shotted these days. She also only has 2 Attack and can't bring a stress-bot. Those are pretty big differences from Biggs.

People run biggs with the stressbot? Can't say I'e ever seen that one... And if you run her naked, then yes, all of that is true, though she's also CHEAPER than biggs. Or you give her heavy scyk and a mangler cannon, and now she's only 1 health less than biggs (2 with integrated astromech) but gains an agility and 3 pilot skill, ignores ranged 3 bonuses for her opponent, and gets free crits. That's at 1 point more than a naked biggs. To get biggs extra hp from integrated, you have to pay at least 1 more for him, and frequently spends more than that. Serissu can't get regen like r2d2, but she CAN get an EPT. If you want to spend a bit more, you can get stealth or hull upgrade (or shield).

Or you run her with light scyk, and accept that she's GOING to die, but she costs 7 points less than a naked biggs. And the whole point of biggs (currenlty at least) is to get people to shoot him instead of his allies. If they shoot a light scyk serissu and try to kill your 18 point (+ ept) ship instead of the scarier heavy hitters becaues of her ability, then she's doing her job, even if she dies in a couple shots.

4 hours ago, NakedDex said:

I don't think ordnance is flawed as a concept, but I do think it has flaws in its implementation.

In this case you're essentially talking about the same thing. The implementation of Ordinance as an expensive, once per game attack with a significant opportunity cost IS the concept that it was all designed around and that is, inherently, flawed.

I actually think the core of the issue is the oddity of the 360 degree target lock. It's never worked like people expect from watching Episode IV and is kind of core to what doesn't work with Ordinance. I think if Target locks were more about keeping a ship in your firing arc (something we've learned the game needs to reward) it would make more sense for Ordinance to be a low cost, difficult to perform attack.

It's one of my favorite "complete redesign" concepts, but with the way it works in the game as is its pretty doomed to be a problematic mechanic in the game.