Competition-wise he may not be OP enough to break through the meta that is mindlink and biggs lists, however may stand a chance with some creative building/strategy.

Just spitballing, but you could pair him with ept ships carrying outmaneuver, or better yet - affordable y-wings with torps, GC, cheap turrets.

Maybe even toss in a missile loaded Miranda for high burst damage...

Haven't tested him out yet, but has anyone else tried using him yet (instead of just theory crafting, like myself)?

Bodhi Rook crew on another ship. Or Bodhi Rook U-Wing pilot and it lets your guidance chips bandits acquire TL at round 1 or 2.

Bomb your opponents turn one with Sabine and bombardier (throw on scavenger crane for later rounds unless you want it to be a one time deal)

He is insane. Put gunner, tactician, and predator (or lone wolf) on him. He wrecks enemy formations, stresses things, hits anything thanks to gunner, and generally causes absolute havoc. Current fav imperial ship. Most people never play him, so they never know how good he is. It's impossible to put into words why he is so good, but try him and you'll see.

2 hours ago, Psalm 112 said:

He is insane. Put gunner , tactician , and predator (or lone wolf ) on him. He wrecks enemy formations, stresses things, hits anything thanks to gunner , and generally causes absolute havoc . Current fav imperial ship . Most people never play him, so they never know how good he is. It's impossible to put into words why he is so good, but try him and you'll see.

not sure who you're talking about

I did very well with him with Expertise, Gunner, Hot Shot, old title, and EU, with a LW Luke with R2D2. It seems a lot of people today don't know how to deal with large base boosting turrets anymore. Especially ones in your backline on turn 1.

there was a joke in my league (about the unpracticality of starting outside range 3 with only a single ship) for Resistance Han. He is essentially Harrison Ford saying: " Kill Me, I Want Out! "

1 hour ago, Marinealver said:

there was a joke in my league (about the unpracticality of starting outside range 3 with only a single ship) for Resistance Han. He is essentially Harrison Ford saying: " Kill Me, I Want Out! "

Hehe

Now seriously... is. Resistance Han any good?

And how should he be placed to get the most out of his ability?

24 minutes ago, Schu81 said:

Now seriously... is. Resistance Han any good?

And how should he be placed to get the most out of his ability?

Well placing him as close to the opposing ships is a sure fire way to get him focused down and killed. However the pilot skill of 9 and being able to be placed almost anywhere does has its advantages. However you have to have an exceptional understanding of Turn 0 to be able to use him well, one that could be compared to Paul Heaver's ability (besides the usual sabine cluster mine gimmick). So if you were to ask anyone how to use Resistance Han he would be the one to tell you.

Now for us, not much other than a high pilot skill turret ship to rival those high PS arc dodgers which are not in the meta as much. So an okay anti-Fenn but then again Rebel Han might be better. Now if there were some <crew> upgrades to take advantage of that forward deployment much like the pilot ability of Lieuenant Dormitz that could be good. I could see a Mon Mothma or General Leia that works like that. As for now there is a lot of points for a very situational advantage, but like most things in the meta you have the same option with better advantages for the same (ore even less) points.

Resistance Han is really good in all of those Missions where you have to collect cargo tokens or satellite tokens or whatever. In fact, he likely breaks most of those scenarios. In standard 100pt play, he's pretty underwhelming because if you use his ability he's going at it alone and it's not clear you gain much by starting the conflict a turn or two early, at least it's hard to see how that's going to outweigh having the ability to reroll every attack all game long. I suppose he could be obnoxious for ships with Comms Relay, Rey (crew), or Moldy Crow that want one or more turns of nothing happening so they can start banking tokens.

But in general, he's pretty bad in standard and it's not clear why you'd run him instead of Rebel Han if you were set on running a PS9 Falcon . Of course, Rey is the best Falcon by far these days, and even she is struggling to win in the current meta.

I'm not sure Rey is better than Fat Han... I didn't see her in top 4 of Worlds?

4 minutes ago, Stay On The Leader said:

I'm not sure Rey is better than Fat Han... I didn't see her in top 4 of Worlds?

Worlds is always a bit weird, given that there are so many players. Given the size of the field, there is always a chance that some lists might slip right on through with unusually favorable match-ups all day long. Take for instance the current champ, Nand, who won with Dengaroo. Even the developer of Dengaroo didn't take the list to Worlds because he said it was simply too unreliable against X7s. Yet Nand was able to get all the way to the finals only playing against a single list with X7s (and he lost that game). Once you get over 300 players, match-up oddities can start to create unusually fortunate pathways for a few players. Whether we like to admit it or not, match-ups (read: pairing luck) probably plays as much of a role in determining the winner of tournaments as does list-building and on-table decision-making.

Despite their World's appearance, I wouldn't typically expect a Fat Han + Jake to be able to compete in the meta, generally speaking. Han's damage output is just too low for his price point. We can compare Han + Jake, a past staple of the meta game, and compare it to S&V's most popular Mindlink list (Manaroo + Asajj + Fenn). Han hits about as hard as Asajj (though Asajj bypasses AT while Han does not), and Jake hits as hard as Fen Rau one time with his prockets (5 die and 5 die), but once the prockets are gone Jake is hitting much less hard than Fenn. So it has less overall damage output potential than Asajj+Fenn, and this isn't even considering the fact that Parattani also has Manaroo flying around with her 2-3 die turret offense. Mindlink also makes Parattani much more insulated against stress-dealers than Han/Jake... one stressbot or one blocker and Jake is entirely shut down. When it comes to defense, I'd argue that Fenn is at least as hard to kill as Jake (both have 3 Agility and AT, and while Fenn has no shields he also gets +1 Agility at R1 and has an auto-evade in-arc at R1, though Jake does have the innate Evade action). Han is roughly about as hard to kill as Asajj (while Han has a few more hits of HP, Asajj has double the agility of Han, can easily get F+F or F+E thanks to Mindlink, and has Latts' evade-buff). On top of that, you get the 2 Agility and 9HP of Manaroo. So, in my opinion, a list like Han+Jake is basically fighting at 2/3 the potency of Parattani. And I suspect this is why we (to my knowledge) haven't seen any other Fat Falcon performances of note during the Regionals and System Open series. It's also a good way to see the absurdity of how cheap and efficient Scum are, in particular Parattani. They're basically analogous to Han+Jake except with a more consistent 5-Die R1 attack from the ace and a "free" Manaroo to boot.

1 minute ago, AllWingsStandyingBy said:

Worlds is always a bit weird, given that there are so many players. Given the size of the field, there is always a chance that some lists might slip right on through with unusually favorable match-ups all day long.

You realise that's basically the opposite of what adding more swiss rounds in a big tournament means?

You can math it as much as you want, but the reality is that Fat Han doesn't play like any current lists and players are not planning to play against it, or playtesting that matchup at all. That's where the advantage lies - a solid list nobody is ready for is a lot stronger choice than a better list that people ARE ready for.

12 minutes ago, Stay On The Leader said:

You realise that's basically the opposite of what adding more swiss rounds in a big tournament means?

You can math it as much as you want, but the reality is that Fat Han doesn't play like any current lists and players are not planning to play against it, or playtesting that matchup at all. That's where the advantage lies - a solid list nobody is ready for is a lot stronger choice than a better list that people ARE ready for.

If it were a perfectly linear relationship between # of players and # of rounds of Swiss, I'd agree. Except, in reality we see:

Worlds: 350 players and 9 Rounds of Swiss

vs

Regionals: 100 players and 7 Rounds of Swiss

Which is precisely how swiss works, it's an exponential relationship not linear. You do 3 rounds with 8 players, so on a linear basis then Worlds should use 131 rounds.

14 minutes ago, Stay On The Leader said:

You can math it as much as you want, but the reality is that Fat Han doesn't play like any current lists and players are not planning to play against it, or playtesting that matchup at all. That's where the advantage lies - a solid list nobody is ready for is a lot stronger choice than a better list that people ARE ready for.

You're right that Fat Han + Jake doesn't play like any other current list. It plays like Parattani, except you don't bring Manaroo... and Fenn can only use his ability once, and then gets a permanent Weapons Disabled crit (as this makes him pretty close to Prockets Jake).

I have to disagree with your second point, I'm afraid. If it were true that a "solid list nobody is ready for" really was a lot stronger than a better list people are prepared for, we wouldn't be seeing the past year and a half of tournament seasons consistently dominated by the same 2-3 list archetypes. In the Spring/Summer/Fall of 2016, pretty close to every Regional, National, and Worlds was won by either Dengaroo, Palp Aces/X7s, or Torp Scouts with very few exceptions. Where were all the "solid but unexpected lists"? The recent tournament season is pretty much the same, with Mindlink Parattani and Miranda claiming a majority of big wins.

24 minutes ago, Stay On The Leader said:

Which is precisely how swiss works, it's an exponential relationship not linear. You do 3 rounds with 8 players, so on a linear basis then Worlds should use 131 rounds.

Right. I understand the practical limitations of Swiss Rounds. But that's my original point -- at exceptionally large events like Worlds, you can expect to see a few more oddities in pairings/match-up history because of the asymmetrical increase in number of players vs. amount of Swiss rounds played.


To make the point as clearly as possible:

If there is a 4 Player tournament, and one person has Archetype A (that is, Archetype A is 25% of the field), there is a 100% chance everyone plays against Archetype A once (since everyone plays each person once).

If there is a 512 Player tournament, and 128 people are playing Archetype A (that is, Archetype A is 25% of the field), there is a <<100% chance that a player will play against Archetype A (since everyone only has 9 opponents, and there are 384 players not running archetype A). If we assume all lists are interchangeable, there's almost an 8% that any given player will not face any Archetype A in their 9 Rounds of Swiss (that is, roughly, 41 players who would not play against a list that represented a quarter of the field).


Of course, this is looking at it from the exaggerated extremes to illustrate the point, but the chance to find oddities of extreme good (or bad luck) when it comes to pairings is higher in the largest events.

It's not about 'practical limitations' it's about how the maths of swiss pairings works!

Jesus.

14 minutes ago, Stay On The Leader said:

It's not about 'practical limitations' it's about how the maths of swiss pairings works!

Jesus.

I think you're perhaps misunderstanding my point. The "math" behind Swiss Pairings is that the # of Swiss Rounds relative to # of Players is determined by the minimum number of rounds that will yield a picture of a 'clear winner' (ie, you ideally only have 1 Undefeated player after the final swiss round).

But that's not related to what I'm talking about above, which is about the chance for oddities or peculiarities in "match-up history" to emerge, since the bigger the number of players the more such opportunities of particular types can be found. In a 4-Player event where only one player has brought Archetype A, everyone else has a 100% chance of playing against Archetype A one time. However, as the size of an event grows, even if Archetype A is still 25% of the total field, you have more opportunities to find players with a "peculiar" match-up history (e.g. a player who doesn't play against Archetype A at all, or a player who plays against Archetype A for the majority of their rounds). These players may be rare examples of very good (or bad) pairing luck, but as event sizes grow so to do the opportunities for such match-up history anomalies.

Not really, because you need a longer and longer streak of good luck in pairings to make it through the rounds.

It's easier in a small event with fewer rounds as a single incidence of good fortune contributes more towards the overall goal.

1 minute ago, Stay On The Leader said:

Not really, because you need a longer and longer streak of good luck in pairings to make it through the rounds.

It's easier in a small event with fewer rounds as a single incidence of good fortune contributes more towards the overall goal.

I dunno about "easier" or whatever, since we're just talking about probabilistic possibilities that emerge as sample sizes increase, but agree to disagree I suppose. Either way, it's been a fun discussion, so thanks

As much as there are some obvious similiarities between Rey and Han, I'm not sure if it is really possible to compare them on a 'which is better' sort of basis. The abilities of the ships lend themselves to completely different builds and playstyles and affect your choice of wingman/men.

I've played both quite a bit and while they are both flying a YT1300, for the most part, they start to feel like completely different ships.

21 hours ago, Mattman7306 said:

not sure who you're talking about

Sorry, Rebel.

That was my hundredth post. Everybody PAAARTY!!!