20 minutes ago, LordBlades said:

I for one would not look forward to the forum shitstorm that would follow a ship ban. People will push for bans on everything that bothers them : Biggs, Defenders, K-wings etc.

If a Biggs ban comes with a nice fat X-Wing buff, I'll take it

4 hours ago, Hexdot said:

About refunds... I smile when people say "if you change xxx I demand a refund". Many of as come from minis wargaming. It was common to simply see your favourite unit not nerfed...simply not present in the new Codex or Army book.

Rules evolve and improve and adapt. If someday FFG gives Turrets R3 range bonus and people start claiming a refund... I will laught.

Strange laught. Imagine one overweight Predator... Jojojo.

Did you read my entire post? I said if they made a ship obsolete by making it a unique ship, if they just change the range of a weapon, upgrade etc. Which has already happened with Manaroo, R4, Deadeye then because of balancing nothing should occur but if they make (as suggested) in a previous post the make a ship "unique" (I.e 1 per list) then FFG would be opening the door for NPE not only because the owners of the ship usually have more than one but it also restricts upgrades, and playability. A refund if they made it unique would be warranted in some eyes and justified.

Errated cards are one thing making something non-unique, unique to stop the growth of play style, or usability is bad for business. They'll never do it for multiple reasons the biggest being money. Errated something still allows it to have value, banning it or making it unique (in the case of a ship) erases that value.

So I guess no more Double Falcons, double ghosts, triple defenders, triple k-wings, quad y-wings I mean if we want everything to be unique. Talk about NPE.

4 hours ago, kustenjaeger said:

I had assumed Meanie was writing this where it was April 1st in his timezone. ?

Edward

Nope. I was serious about the inquiry, curious about the result, and unaware of the repercussions of my online reputation.

1 hour ago, LordBlades said:

I for one would not look forward to the forum shitstorm that would follow a ship ban. People will push for bans on everything that bothers them : Biggs, Defenders, K-wings etc.

AAAaaaannnnnddddd. . .that would be different than the boards are now in what way?

1 hour ago, Cgriffith said:

Errated cards are one thing making something non-unique, unique to stop the growth of play style, or usability is bad for business. They'll never do it for multiple reasons the biggest being money. Errated something still allows it to have value, banning it or making it unique (in the case of a ship) erases that value.

What's royally bad for business is to kill this game. What I love about these board is that everyone thinks the game is broken in some way, but as soon as you suggest a possible change everyone goes unhinged Galadriel and screams

HOW DARE YOU TOUCH MY GAME!! YOU KNOW NOTHING OF GAME DESIGN!! NOTHING!!!

I started this thread based on 2 weakly founded assumptions:

1. The designers at FFG want to see a diversity of ships on the table, and they want to see different ships at the top.

2. The JM5K has been at the top for a long time, and despite 3 nerfs, remains there.

Maybe that doesn't bother FFG. Maybe the ship is no longer broken. Maybe I'm just falling prey to the usual game distorting clap-trap that happens at the high table that really has no bearing on the X-Winger serfs at the bottom.

I have no power at FFG. I'm not on the board of directors. Fudge, it was never even a suggestion based on my opinion of the JM5K (of which I really don't have one. . .I've only played mine about twice). What I do care about is the long term health of this game. And I wonder if the JM5K was a bad choice that is begetting bad choices. And, as a doctor, I'm willing to amputate the limb to save the patient. As everyone always likes to point out when it is convenient for their cause, banning the JM5K would not make it unplayable. . .you can slap it on the dining room table any time you want. OTOH, I can see the argument of a noob showing up with it to a store event and being told "Your JM5K. It'll have to wait outside. We don't fly their kind in here." Still, if the player is that much of a noob not to know not to bring the banned ship, maybe that person is too much of a noob to fly it well, so it all evens out.

1 hour ago, Darth Meanie said:

Nope. I was serious about the inquiry, curious about the result, and unaware of the repercussions of my online reputation.

AAAaaaannnnnddddd. . .that would be different than the boards are now in what way?

What's royally bad for business is to kill this game. What I love about these board is that everyone thinks the game is broken in some way, but as soon as you suggest a possible change everyone goes unhinged Galadriel and screams

HOW DARE YOU TOUCH MY GAME!! YOU KNOW NOTHING OF GAME DESIGN!! NOTHING!!!

I started this thread based on 2 weakly founded assumptions:

1. The designers at FFG want to see a diversity of ships on the table, and they want to see different ships at the top.

2. The JM5K has been at the top for a long time, and despite 3 nerfs, remains there.

Maybe that doesn't bother FFG. Maybe the ship is no longer broken. Maybe I'm just falling prey to the usual game distorting clap-trap that happens at the high table that really has no bearing on the X-Winger serfs at the bottom.

I have no power at FFG. I'm not on the board of directors. Fudge, it was never even a suggestion based on my opinion of the JM5K (of which I really don't have one. . .I've only played mine about twice). What I do care about is the long term health of this game. And I wonder if the JM5K was a bad choice that is begetting bad choices. And, as a doctor, I'm willing to amputate the limb to save the patient. As everyone always likes to point out when it is convenient for their cause, banning the JM5K would not make it unplayable. . .you can slap it on the dining room table any time you want. OTOH, I can see the argument of a noob showing up with it to a store event and being told "Your JM5K. It'll have to wait outside. We don't fly their kind in here." Still, if the player is that much of a noob not to know not to bring the banned ship, maybe that person is too much of a noob to fly it well, so it all evens out.

I find it interesting that you keep saying that you don't care and that you are just wondering, yet when people respond in the negative to the idea of a ban, you double down on why the Jumpmaster should be banned. Is there something you wanna get off your chest? Cause all your posts don't sound like someone who is curious. They sound like someone who's mind is already made up.

22 hours ago, Pewpewpew BOOM said:

FFG opts to fix via rules adjustment, which just seems really wrong-headed to me. Everything costs points. Being OP in this environment most often means when you take Ship-X you get a f**load more bang for your pts that taking Ship-Y. Adjust the pts to even that out. Making new rules often has ripples outside of Ship-X's OP status.

100% this. If something is OP at it's current cost, increase the cost. Don't make a bunch of alterations to other things that just ends up screwing up the balance of yet other things.

19 minutes ago, DarthEnderX said:

100% this. If something is OP at it's current cost, increase the cost. Don't make a bunch of alterations to other things that just ends up screwing up the balance of yet other things.

I think one of the reasons FFG is reluctant to do this is because it creates some difficult situations for TOs.

For example let's say the increase the cost of contracted scouts. What should a TO do when somebody shows up with 4 naked scouts ? (legal with the printed cost, illegal with the new cost)

28 minutes ago, LordBlades said:

I think one of the reasons FFG is reluctant to do this is because it creates some difficult situations for TOs.

For example let's say the increase the cost of contracted scouts. What should a TO do when somebody shows up with 4 naked scouts ? (legal with the printed cost, illegal with the new cost)

That isn't a problem if you don't want it to be. FFG can make, collaborate or buy a squad builder website, make the changes there and allow for print with a checkmark for legal lists.

2 hours ago, SabineKey said:

I find it interesting that you keep saying that you don't care and that you are just wondering, yet when people respond in the negative to the idea of a ban, you double down on why the Jumpmaster should be banned. Is there something you wanna get off your chest? Cause all your posts don't sound like someone who is curious. They sound like someone who's mind is already made up.

No, not really. I'm just trying to not be one of those posters who dumps a load in post 1 then doesn't participate for the rest of the thread. I suppose that since my thread posits the idea of a ban, that is the position I am left "defending" since clearly the community thinks it is a bad idea for a myriad of reasons. Should I stop posting because everyone thinks my original notion is ill-founded? That the notion of a ban doesn't give me stress colitis or make me feel like FFG robbed me?

All I really want is for this game develop in a good way for 12+ more Waves. Don't mistake my passion for X-Wing as a passion for the JM5K.

On 3/31/2017 at 7:15 PM, Darth Meanie said:

So, how about it? The JumpMaster has had 3 nerfs and still is at the top of the list (see other thread).

Is it about time the FFG just admits that this ship is WAAAAAAYYYYY out of line with everything else, and instead of ruining other cards (Deadeye, Astromech) just gets this ship out of the sandbox?

Listen i would also say that this ship is the only one that tehy really mispriced so far. And they nerfed stuff that was not even a problem to adress the actual mispricing.

But i am still against nerfs in general. Give other ships better options so there are more lists that can deal with the J5K lists. That is probably the way to go.

Also, what's wrong with the forum lately.

Nerf TLT, nerf PWT, Nerf J5K...

Darn all those abbreviations don't need to be made any shorter

I must admit, I haven't gone thru the 4 pages of posts for this thread and only did a precursory glance at a few posts. Personally, I think banning a ship at this point is rather excessive. I would rather see an errata for point cost change and/or slot change than a ban. In regards to the Contracted Scout, I think it should be re-costed for an additional 2 points and/or the removal of the EPT slot.

2 hours ago, DarthEnderX said:

100% this. If something is OP at it's current cost, increase the cost. Don't make a bunch of alterations to other things that just ends up screwing up the balance of yet other things.

Herein lies the problem. Unless they nerf the Toilet Seat, either they will be around for Wave XX still trashing every new ship except for one or two builds, OR there has to be massive power creep.

Frankly, I can't think of a nerf hard enough for the Toilet Seat. The port green alone is worth more than only having starboard white. The white sloop costs 4 points on the Falcon, although it can use it on other ships. Even K-Wings, which people moan about because they're about the only Rebel ship that can reliably win tournaments, are grossly overcosted in comparison. It lacks an EPT (which is worth a point nowadays since Adaptability is free) loses 1 point in AGI, has SLAM instead of barrel roll (and a big ship barrel roll is about as fast as SLAM without fewer downsides) and also doesn't have Evade.

If you're going to nerf it, you're going to have to at least drop AGI by 1 so it's roughly comparable to the K-Wing, or take away an action and a slot.

6 hours ago, Cgriffith said:

Did you read my entire post? I said if they made a ship obsolete by making it a unique ship, if they just change the range of a weapon, upgrade etc. Which has already happened with Manaroo, R4, Deadeye then because of balancing nothing should occur but if they make (as suggested) in a previous post the make a ship "unique" (I.e 1 per list) then FFG would be opening the door for NPE not only because the owners of the ship usually have more than one but it also restricts upgrades, and playability. A refund if they made it unique would be warranted in some eyes and justified.

Errated cards are one thing making something non-unique, unique to stop the growth of play style, or usability is bad for business. They'll never do it for multiple reasons the biggest being money. Errated something still allows it to have value, banning it or making it unique (in the case of a ship) erases that value.

So I guess no more Double Falcons, double ghosts, triple defenders, triple k-wings, quad y-wings I mean if we want everything to be unique. Talk about NPE.

You ask if someone read your post, I could have asked the same when you first quoted mine as you seemed to have missed my note on the suggesting intentionally being somewhat sarcastic and based on plenty of other suggestions people have given to "nerf" things in the past.

As far as I'm concerned making an entire ship type unique is not much worse that making some upgrade unique or changing the game rules to say that you could only have two of something which people have suggested to deal with "the massive TLT Y-Wing problem."

Making a ship class unique does NOTHING to make that class obsolete although it certain stops any issues that having multiples of it fielded would cause. Considering that we're talking about a large ship here I suspect that making the class unique would only cause the hardcore tournament players who purchased multiple copies of it to cry "YOU'VE MADE MY PURCHASE WORTHLESS!" as it would affect none of the more casual players who most likely didn't purchase more than one.

BANNING a ship would destroys its value. Just making a large ship type unique would have a minimal effect on its value with the possible exception of the Aggressor due to the title and how it interacts with other ships of the class.

32 minutes ago, Lampyridae said:

Herein lies the problem. Unless they nerf the Toilet Seat, either they will be around for Wave XX still trashing every new ship except for one or two builds, OR there has to be massive power creep.

Frankly, I can't think of a nerf hard enough for the Toilet Seat. The port green alone is worth more than only having starboard white. The white sloop costs 4 points on the Falcon, although it can use it on other ships. Even K-Wings, which people moan about because they're about the only Rebel ship that can reliably win tournaments, are grossly overcosted in comparison. It lacks an EPT (which is worth a point nowadays since Adaptability is free) loses 1 point in AGI, has SLAM instead of barrel roll (and a big ship barrel roll is about as fast as SLAM without fewer downsides) and also doesn't have Evade.

If you're going to nerf it, you're going to have to at least drop AGI by 1 so it's roughly comparable to the K-Wing, or take away an action and a slot.

In order for the JM to be comparable to k-wings you should also give it ability to drop bombs AND a crew comparable to Sabine.

You're comparing apples to oranges. Nobody really uses k-wings for other stuff than dropping bombs, so you're comparing apples to oranges.

EDIT: A Warden with Conner Net/Cluster Mines, Adv. SLAM and Extra Munitions costs roughly the same as an Attani Torp Scout. Both ships have had competitive success, but they do radically different things. How do you decide which is better ?

1 hour ago, Darth Meanie said:

No, not really. I'm just trying to not be one of those posters who dumps a load in post 1 then doesn't participate for the rest of the thread. I suppose that since my thread posits the idea of a ban, that is the position I am left "defending" since clearly the community thinks it is a bad idea for a myriad of reasons. Should I stop posting because everyone thinks my original notion is ill-founded? That the notion of a ban doesn't give me stress colitis or make me feel like FFG robbed me?

All I really want is for this game develop in a good way for 12+ more Waves. Don't mistake my passion for X-Wing as a passion for the JM5K.

Again, everything you said there indicates a mind that has decided Jumpmasters have to go. You don't have to defend the point if this was simply to see what people thought. People have spoken. Most think it's a bad idea. But you are still pushing back against those opinions. And honestly, your last paragraph makes me think this even more.

This thread is bad and you should feel bad.

17 minutes ago, LordBlades said:

In order for the JM to be comparable to k-wings you should also give it ability to drop bombs AND a crew comparable to Sabine.

You're comparing apples to oranges. Nobody really uses k-wings for other stuff than dropping bombs, so you're comparing apples to oranges.

EDIT: A Warden with Conner Net/Cluster Mines, Adv. SLAM and Extra Munitions costs roughly the same as an Attani Torp Scout. Both ships have had competitive success, but they do radically different things. How do you decide which is better ?

Nobody? I use them as ordnance carriers and barely touch SLAM.

Which one is better? One of them has AGI1 and the other delivers damage on the first round of combat, has AGI2 and an EPT slot.

39 minutes ago, StevenO said:

You ask if someone read your post, I could have asked the same when you first quoted mine as you seemed to have missed my note on the suggesting intentionally being somewhat sarcastic and based on plenty of other suggestions people have given to "nerf" things in the past.

As far as I'm concerned making an entire ship type unique is not much worse that making some upgrade unique or changing the game rules to say that you could only have two of something which people have suggested to deal with "the massive TLT Y-Wing problem."

Making a ship class unique does NOTHING to make that class obsolete although it certain stops any issues that having multiples of it fielded would cause. Considering that we're talking about a large ship here I suspect that making the class unique would only cause the hardcore tournament players who purchased multiple copies of it to cry "YOU'VE MADE MY PURCHASE WORTHLESS!" as it would affect none of the more casual players who most likely didn't purchase more than one.

BANNING a ship would destroys its value. Just making a large ship type unique would have a minimal effect on its value with the possible exception of the Aggressor due to the title and how it interacts with other ships of the class.

@StevenO I must've missed the sarcasm and I apologize for that but as a Rebel player who's played against the ship many times and lost many times I feel any BAN to this ship or any is a affect which could cause NPE. How is banning the JMk5000 not banning (or making it unique within lists) not NPE or a loss of value?

When this ship was released it was expected to fix a faction that was limping, and it has and through 3 errated nerfs to a pilot, agromech and EPT has been balanced. Is it still the most used Scum ship of course, but isn't Biggs the only X-Wing on competitve tables (or Miranda); BANNING this ship cripples an entire faction, sure the Lancer-Craft is popular, and is the YV-666 but the Jumpmaster5000 expands lists, gives options and helps the growth of the game.

Making it unique also is something that isn't something I'm in favor of; this board looks at things at a competitive level all the time what about casual play, how do you think this affects those players because it's not only competitive players buying multiples of this ship since 2016 a list with at least 2 JMK5000 has been around. Banning and or making it unique is a NPE not only for competitive balance at the higher end tables but also at the more casual store level/league/house level as well.

I'm definitely not for banning a ship but I am afraid that the nerf people throw around for things are just about as bad as banning and maybe even worse. I'm also not for arbitrary restrictions on things which I've seen thrown around plenty of times and if someone wants to say you can only have 2 of X in a squadron I don't see a lot of difference if you just make it unique instead.

To be honest, just reading these boards leads to a NPE. If I want a less stressful game and play turrets in any form I'm really offended buy all the calls past and present that turrets NEED to be nerfed because they cause someone else isn't like flying against them.

I'm all for improving the meek with the so called fixes but this new nerf happy environment is causing me to consider just trashing all of my ships. "Correcting" something after it comes out is one thing but reach back through the waves to nerf something just drives me crazy.

39 minutes ago, LordBlades said:

In order for the JM to be comparable to k-wings you should also give it ability to drop bombs AND a crew comparable to Sabine.

You're comparing apples to oranges. Nobody really uses k-wings for other stuff than dropping bombs, so you're comparing apples to oranges.

EDIT: A Warden with Conner Net/Cluster Mines, Adv. SLAM and Extra Munitions costs roughly the same as an Attani Torp Scout. Both ships have had competitive success, but they do radically different things. How do you decide which is better ?

One of them has AGI1 and can its good attack off on the second or third round of combat. The other has AGI2, and, because it is free, take adaptability to move before the SLAMmer OR just TL and blast the Warden and maybe take Trick Shot.

30 minutes ago, Lampyridae said:

Nobody? I use them as ordnance carriers and barely touch SLAM.

Which one is better? One of them has AGI1 and the other delivers damage on the first round of combat, has AGI2 and an EPT slot.

@LordBlades

So at 23 points the Warden Pilot gets 1 crew, 2 bomb, 2 torpedo, modification, and a turret upgrade. Since were talking about agility specifically I want to bring your attention to two very interesting yet not used crew (because of Sabine of cause for that auto 1 damage) which can effectively give the Warden Squadron Pilot an extra agility

Jan Ors (2) for 2 points, or C-3PO (3) for 3 points with jan Ors it takes the ship up to 25 points, C-3PO 26 points now obviously one rewards a evade token the other gives an evade result but can effectively make the K-WING a 2 agility ship AND if you changed the pilot to Miranda then she can regen also. The combos are there, are they competive, who knows but their possible. And a ship which can SLAM and drop bombs can be just effective as an alpha striking ship in the right players hands, with the right strategy.

28 minutes ago, Lampyridae said:

Nobody? I use them as ordnance carriers and barely touch SLAM.

Which one is better? One of them has AGI1 and the other delivers damage on the first round of combat, has AGI2 and an EPT slot.

Rephrase then: almost nobody who's had any success at a major tournament. All the Wardens I remember seeing lately in tournament cuts have been with bombs.

Yes, torp scouts are better than torp wardens but have you considered maybe that's because torp wardens aren't a good use of the ship in the first place ?if your goal is shooting torps, why even use a warden over a Gold Squadron Y-wing? for 5 points more you get 1hp and a 2 dice turret. That's pretty bad IMO.

PS: Y-wings can also k-turn, which is pretty big on ordnance carriers

7 minutes ago, LordBlades said:

Rephrase then: almost nobody who's had any success at a major tournament. All the Wardens I remember seeing lately in tournament cuts have been with bombs.

Yes, torp scouts are better than torp wardens but have you considered maybe that's because torp wardens aren't a good use of the ship in the first place ?if your goal is shooting torps, why even use a warden over a Gold Squadron Y-wing? for 5 points more you get 1hp and a 2 dice turret. That's pretty bad IMO.

Because I like shooting things with the turret after the torps are gone. SLAM is important because it allows me to reposition either for a torp run or to run from a bad matchup.

15 minutes ago, Cgriffith said:

So at 23 points the Warden Pilot gets 1 crew, 2 bomb, 2 torpedo, modification, and a turret upgrade. Since were talking about agility specifically I want to bring your attention to two very interesting yet not used crew (because of Sabine of cause for that auto 1 damage) which can effectively give the Warden Squadron Pilot an extra agility

Jan Ors (2) for 2 points, or C-3PO (3) for 3 points with jan Ors it takes the ship up to 25 points, C-3PO 26 points now obviously one rewards a evade token the other gives an evade result but can effectively make the K-WING a 2 agility ship AND if you changed the pilot to Miranda then she can regen also. The combos are there, are they competive, who knows but their possible. And a ship which can SLAM and drop bombs can be just effective as an alpha striking ship in the right players hands, with the right strategy.

Yet the whole point is dropping bombs, so we are taking Sabine. And Jan Ors is a 2 point Evade action, which is definitely not "effectively making the K-Wing a 2 agility ship."

The JM5K is overcosted, which is my point.

7 minutes ago, Lampyridae said:

Because I like shooting things after the torps are gone.

Yet the whole point is dropping bombs, so we are taking Sabine. And Jan Ors is a 2 point Evade action, which is definitely not "effectively making the K-Wing a 2 agility ship."

The JM5K is overcosted, which is my point.

I agree I was just offering other possiblities, even if they're not plausible at a competitive level.

52 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

And honestly, your last paragraph makes me think this even more.

Suit yourself.

48 minutes ago, Chumbalaya said:

This thread is bad and you should feel bad.

For what? Participating in an open forum?

This thread has done exactly what it is supposed to do--generate discussion. You don't like the topic, find a different thread.

7 minutes ago, Lampyridae said:

Because I like shooting things after the torps are gone.

You are trying to shoehorn the warden into a role it's just not good at.

Warden, plasma torps, em, chips: 28 points

Gold, plasma torps, em, chips, ABT: 25 points

You're paying 3 extra points to get a strictly worse ordnance platform (due to the dial) only for the off chance you will get to shoot somebody out of arc at range 2-3 and not have your 2 dice attack negated by greens.

Edit: not claiming the JM5k is not undercosted,just pointing out that comparing a ship that's good at something with a ship that's bad at the same thing will always result in the conclusion that the former is better.