There are couple of too-good-to-be-true objectives.

Good enough you'd want to build fleets around them.

Sup Positions is one of them. Setup last AND score 15 pts just by hitting the rear zone? What were they thinking?

1 hour ago, ForceSensitive said:

Scratch what I previously said. Was playing in Squad builder and it hit me like a ton of bricks... Errata Superior Positions to not trigger on squad damage or to trigger less often on squad damage. It's not the squads, the admiral, or the ships that's causing the freaking problem. It's the OBJECTIVE that's the auto-include that I never realized before. You take that away from them and suddenly they are back to one semi bad objective that could be a better option for it's opponent to take against them. Without that Rock solid array of objectives to hide behind they're going to have to adapt to the fewer guaranteed points, and therefore lesser guaranteed tournament standing when they win.

This really reins in the Riekan fleet and rebel bombers in general.

Even Mythics would claim the best way to beat the Rieekan aces build is to basically bid deeper than they do and go second to force the squadron to move. If they go fast, they run over their own squadrons. If they dont, they won't make it in time when you speed 0 and wait on your end of the board while you farm objectives (ie Fire Lanes, Sensor Net with strateigic, Station Assault).

This kind of objective-level play is boring, and kind of dumb. But that's the thought behind Mythic's list, and in part why it's undefeated. Go second, win at the objective, severely punish the first thing that gets into long range with nigh-unstoppable multi-hit bombers. *shrug*

While we are at it most wanted should lose one of its two aspects.

Either get rid of the extra dice, or get rid of the double points.

EDIT: My suggestion is get rid of the double points. Then it still gives a good bonus to ship based lists but doesn't give squadrons anything.

This is just a nother "friendly" cry from another Imperial player. The more they are, the lauder you can hear the cry. Go rebel, fly all that you think is so OP, dont just bring us local tournament data, and you will see is not as OP as you try to sell us here. And if you want to fix something, start by TIE DEF.

1 hour ago, Ophion said:

While we are at it most wanted should lose one of its two aspects.

Either get rid of the extra dice, or get rid of the double points.

EDIT: My suggestion is get rid of the double points. Then it still gives a good bonus to ship based lists but doesn't give squadrons anything.

Try picking it sometime. Spoiler: it's actually pretty bad for the prototypical "2+3" builds out there.

With many of these strategic fleets, I find myself just picking their red and doing fine. They can't really capitalize on the extra dice of Most Wanted, while Advanced Gunnery can be flipped into a quasi-Most Wanted for the first player. You just have to be ready and able to out maneuver the AG ship.

Pitching in my imaginary upgrade card: a non-unique defensive upgrade (but not necessarily for the defensive upgrade slot, I could see merit in Support or Officer as well) that helps ships, especially larger ones, weather a storm of squadron fire. Something like "At the start of the ship phase, exhaust this card: for the rest of this round, while defending against a squadron attack, during the spend tokens step, you may gain the effect of 1 of your unexhausted defensive tokens without spending it".

That's not something I've spent a lot of time thinking through, or given any playtesting, so don't read too much into that example. Definitely don't try to do the math on it, because I care deeply about your well-being, and don't want you to subject yourself to that on my behalf.

Rather, to distill it down, there's a few components to the design space that I'd think my hypothetical upgrade would need to meet*:

• It must not help against ship fire, only squadron attacks - we're tying to tip the scales, after all.
• It must not render any significant fraction of squadrons totally ineffective - like something that just shaved one damage off each attack would.
• There must be a counter strategy. In this case, forcing them to exhaust their tokens via ship attacks, or just mulching through the infinite brace/redirect/contains with volume.
• It must be non-unique, and probably not specific to one faction.

I vaguely hope against hope that FFG has foreseen the current meta, and there's a card just like this in Wave 6, and that my gut is correct about its potential impact, and that all will be well soon.

9 hours ago, ForceSensitive said:

Errata Superior Positions to not trigger on squad damage or to trigger less often on squad damage.

Removing squadron damage from Superior Positions would take one of the squadron-focused objectives and replace it with an offensively-tuned version of Solar Corona, which doesn't feel like a fun change. If anything, why not the opposite? Remove the deployment clause altogether; keep the damage for points. Maybe it'd still be problematic, but at least it'd remain unique, and then could be tweaked further.

You could make and throw a bunch of lists at each other with the squadron-focused objectives banned and see what gets chosen and how the results shake out to test your "it's the objectives, stupid" hypothesis - I wouldn't think you'd find it to be a magic fix, but hey, who knows.

3 hours ago, Ophion said:

While we are at it most wanted should lose one of its two aspects.

Either get rid of the extra dice, or get rid of the double points.

EDIT: My suggestion is get rid of the double points. Then it still gives a good bonus to ship based lists but doesn't give squadrons anything.

What about each player picking their opponent's objective ship? That'd put it more in line with, say, Advanced Gunnery; and it would play more like Opening Salvo - a potentially risky inclusion that benefits certain fleet compositions. It might be an overnerf, but I think that'd still be a good change so long as it doesn't just cause some other red objective to dominate the category instead - turning Most Wanted into a 2%er would be worthwhile if it opens the red category up to 2 or 3 popular choices rather than one.

* that was one hell of a ride through the tenses of the English language

12 minutes ago, svelok said:

Pitching in my imaginary upgrade card: a non-unique defensive upgrade (but not necessarily for the defensive upgrade slot, I could see merit in Support or Officer as well) that helps ships, especially larger ones, weather a storm of squadron fire. Something like "At the start of the ship phase, exhaust this card: for the rest of this round, while defending against a squadron attack, during the spend tokens step, you may gain the effect of 1 of your unexhausted defensive tokens without spending it".

That's not something I've spent a lot of time thinking through, or given any playtesting, so don't read too much into that example. Definitely don't try to do the math on it, because I care deeply about your well-being, and don't want you to subject yourself to that on my behalf.

Rather, to distill it down, there's a few components to the design space that I'd think my hypothetical upgrade would need to meet*:

• It must not help against ship fire, only squadron attacks - we're tying to tip the scales, after all.
• It must not render any significant fraction of squadrons totally ineffective - like something that just shaved one damage off each attack would.
• There must be a counter strategy. In this case, forcing them to exhaust their tokens via ship attacks, or just mulching through the infinite brace/redirect/contains with volume.
• It must be non-unique, and probably not specific to one faction.

I vaguely hope against hope that FFG has foreseen the current meta, and there's a card just like this in Wave 6, and that my gut is correct about its potential impact, and that all will be well soon.

Removing squadron damage from Superior Positions would take one of the squadron-focused objectives and replace it with an offensively-tuned version of Solar Corona, which doesn't feel like a fun change. If anything, why not the opposite? Remove the deployment clause altogether; keep the damage for points. Maybe it'd still be problematic, but at least it'd remain unique, and then could be tweaked further.

You could make and throw a bunch of lists at each other with the squadron-focused objectives banned and see what gets chosen and how the results shake out to test your "it's the objectives, stupid" hypothesis - I wouldn't think you'd find it to be a magic fix, but hey, who knows.

What about each player picking their opponent's objective ship? That'd put it more in line with, say, Advanced Gunnery; and it would play more like Opening Salvo - a potentially risky inclusion that benefits certain fleet compositions. It might be an overnerf, but I think that'd still be a good change so long as it doesn't just cause some other red objective to dominate the category instead - turning Most Wanted into a 2%er would be worthwhile if it opens the red category up to 2 or 3 popular choices rather than one.

* that was one hell of a ride through the tenses of the English language

Maybe just don't allow flotillas to be chosen as objective ships? I *think*, but have no evidence to support the idea, that flotillas caused a resurgence of Most Wanted. Back before flotillas, you had to pick one of your combat ships which would probably see enemy fire, so their was a good chance of the opponent getting the bonus. Now you can pick an 18/23 points ship and just run it if the points will matter.

Again, no evidence that this actually happened, just a thought.

When is our red dice anti squadren or a key word to counter bombers

12 minutes ago, starbat861 said:

When is our red dice anti squadren or a key word to counter bombers

Now that last is an... interesting idea.

"ABLATIVE PLATING - Defensive Retrofit - Squadrons attacking you lose the Bomber keyword." Oh, Minister Tua, you and your mysterious ability to add slots to my big Star Destroyers...

But that's a bandaid put over a ringworm. Might make you FEEL better, but doesn't really do anything to address the underlying problem.

Any other ideas to hurt fighters

23 minutes ago, starbat861 said:

When is our red dice anti squadren or a key word to counter bombers

On one of the Quasars.

Ya but what about the rebels

22 minutes ago, starbat861 said:

Ya but what about the rebels

Z95 headhunters

1 minute ago, chr335 said:

Z95 headhunters

lol

On a ship

Just now, starbat861 said:

On a ship

Only ffg knows but possibly wave 7 or 8.

The main problem is we have to get something helping ship against squadron. Not relying only on friendly squadron.

QLT, PDR or Cluster Bombs where supposed to be that solution... but they are not.

1 minute ago, DOMSWAT911 said:

The main problem is we have to get something helping ship against squadron. Not relying only on friendly squadron.

QLT, PDR or Cluster Bombs where supposed to be that solution... but they are not.

Rhymer made qlt obsolete before it went into print

PD Reroute is just pure trash

Cluster Bombs seem to be missing the text where it also does 1 dmg to other squads at distance 1

Ordnance Experts, however, is extremely powerful - on one specific ship.

Toryn Date is just stupid good, also applied to ship as.

Much gone wrong.

Raider's can help but in my point of view, they are not the solution that we are looking for

If PDR allowed you to re roll any die it would be pretty efficient. Perhaps too much so at 5 points though.

What about if you got an attack on a ship and a squadren one on each except with gunnery team

It would be nice for the ships if when they choose to for anti air they could always do it or of the same arc as another shot, but if firing twice on anti air they still have to be different arcs.

...I still say that of you want to hurt my rebel bombers that I've been flying for three waves now you should change my objectives a little. Forcing your own is good but stilli can play that game if it comes down to it. At end of day, of all the cards that I put in me bombers lists, Superior positions had ALWAYS been the auto include next to Yavaris

@svelok , that upgrade is actually really interesting. I would actually love that to be just part of ships (maybe only large ships). Not sure how potentially nasty it would be, but something like "if you exhaust or spend a defense token against a squadron attack, it applies against all squadron attacks resolved against you during the resolution of that command or squadron phase."

It also makes sense, since a squadron command and a squadron phase take place more or less at the same time, it seems odd that a ship that can weather the full onslaught of an ISD's main batteries gets crippled by some torpedos. If 3 squadrons of b-wings are launching torps at you, wouldn't the ship/crew stay braced until they all hit? Rather than wipe your brow and give a sigh of relief after one torpedo hits when you can CLEARLY SEE another half dozen on their way in ?

On 5/16/2017 at 7:08 AM, xerpo said:

This is just a nother "friendly" cry from another Imperial player. The more they are, the lauder you can hear the cry. Go rebel, fly all that you think is so OP, dont just bring us local tournament data, and you will see is not as OP as you try to sell us here. And if you want to fix something, start by TIE DEF.

Actually I'm almost exclusively a rebel player.

On 5/16/2017 at 5:08 AM, xerpo said:

This is just a nother "friendly" cry from another Imperial player. The more they are, the lauder you can hear the cry. Go rebel, fly all that you think is so OP, dont just bring us local tournament data, and you will see is not as OP as you try to sell us here. And if you want to fix something, start by TIE DEF.

...You understand the data is coming largely from ****ing Worlds, right? And the list that has people upset absolutely dominated it. The only counter anyone's found is "play the same thing and do it better," which is pretty clear proof given how long people have had to develop a counter.