1 hour ago, Ablazoned said:Yes he can?
https://giphy.com/gifs/election2016-donald-trump-election-2016-3oz8xLd9DJq2l2VFtu
Carolina Krayts is the best X-Wing podcast
10 minutes ago, impspy said:She's the Brilliant Evasion of pilots.
me, placing a padme list down wednesday, she might be pretty good, she makes your focus just a calculate! Wait, that's just reverse brilliant evasion...
13 minutes ago, Brunas said:Yes and no, she's in a faction full of things to force the issue (juke, luminara)
Sure, but then you're making suboptimal list-building decisions to support a suboptimal list-building decision.
Don't get me wrong ... her ability is fine. She's just paying too much for it.
14 minutes ago, impspy said:She's the Brilliant Evasion of pilots.
Exactly. (Not quite that bafflingly bad, but ... )
33 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:6x Omega Aces with AO is 198. The Fan/AO/AD Longshot & 4x Fan/AO/AD Omegas is 193. Run your calc at -2 Focus or down 1 ship. The 6x Omegas isn't firing first.
So simultaneous attacks. Not a bid deal.
@Brunas If I have a blank result and I use an ability to change said blank result to a hit result, have I both modified a blank result and modified a hit result?
11 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:Exactly. (Not quite that bafflingly bad, but ... )
why not? she's three points more expensive than Ric for one less init, so her ability is being priced above his by at least that much. It's at LEAST priced on par with brilliant evasion.
It triggers slightly more often because it works on offense and defense and on multiple ships, but it is still dummy low chance to happen.
I mean, everyone keep sharing that picture of the 4 focus proton shot against her so more people use her please.
I'm in the "adding a [X] result" is pretty clearly modifying an [X] result according to the rules. You guys are getting hung up on the word "modify" but if you just read the logic as laid out in the RR, it's no different than how it defines "spending" (or changing, or rerolling) an [X] result. I agree that the english is non-intuitive, but it's actually exactly the same as for spending.
Even if you try and carve out some weird exception wherein you're adding a die that has a QUANTIUM. SUPERPOSITION. of possible values that then gets set ("changed"... weird) to a focus result, it's the same thing. Since the rules don't specifically call out what "modifying an [X] result" means - but we know how it works for the other effects - it's pretty safe to assume that a referenced result as part of "adding" falls under the same rules.
tldr. the rules as written are pretty clearly that adding a focus result counts as "modifying a focus result", despite it being weird new territory. I have no idea if this is what they intended - we should ask.
7 minutes ago, Maui. said:@Brunas If I have a blank result and I use an ability to change said blank result to a hit result, have I both modified a blank result and modified a hit result?
No, you've modified a blank result.
The problem and source of the disagreement is that there's two definitions of modify - there's what the word intuitively means "change X to Y", but "modify" is strictly defined in the rules reference, and adding a specific result is an explicit given definition of modify.
10 minutes ago, Brunas said:No, you've modified a blank result.
The problem and source of the disagreement is that there's two definitions of modify - there's what the word intuitively means "change X to Y", but "modify" is strictly defined in the rules reference, and adding a specific result is an explicit given definition of modify.
OK, I'm following your logic now. Thanks!
1 minute ago, Maui. said:OK, I'm following your logic now. Thanks!
No worries!
I'm out of reactions to "like", so here's my budget "like"
1 hour ago, jagsba said:why not? she's three points more expensive than Ric for one less init, so her ability is being priced above his by at least that much. It's at LEAST priced on par with brilliant evasion.
You're arguing to the choir. It's just that you just answered your own question (about how not quite so bad); in addition, of course, it doesn't matter if she's in the other ship's bullseye. As the numbers guy on our podcast, I've been trying to temper my partners' enthusiasm for her from the very beginning. (I've pretty much convinced them on Brilliant Evasion ... which, BTW, was used on five Vaders in identical RAC-Vader lists at a HST this weekend. Go check that out!)
Edited by Jeff Wilder6 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:You're arguing to the choir. It's just that you just answered your own question (about how not quite so bad); in addition, of course, it doesn't matter if she's in the other ship's bullseye. As the numbers guy on our podcast, I've been trying to temper my partners' enthusiasm for her from the very beginning. (I've pretty much convinced them on Brilliant Evasion ... which, BTW, was used on eight Vaders in identical RAC-Vader lists at a HST this weekend. Go check that out!)
sometimes I forget we live in a world where the majority population doesn't understand why things like brilliant evasion are bad
"Adding a result" is a modification. Adding an [eyeball] result is a modification. (There has to be some result added, so this is simply descriptive, making an ability actually work.)
But adding an [eyeball] result is a result-adding modification; it is not a modification of an [eyeball].
Those of y'all buying into @Brunas' argument probably shouldn't get too comfortable with it. (And please don't propagate it!) It won't play out that way if it gets FAQed.
22 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:(I've pretty much convinced them on Brilliant Evasion ... which, BTW, was used on eight Vaders in identical RAC-Vader lists at a HST this weekend. Go check that out!)
Only 5 have been reported in that listfortress entry so far. Which had meant when I originally looked at it that meant it made of 18.5% of that 27 person hyperspace trial. Only 2 are known via that listfortess entry to have made it into the cut of top 8 making up 25% of the cut field which is close enough with the small sample size of 27 players to retain the same percentage of it taken to the event overall.
If 8 were taken that made up 29.6% of the field and if the only top 8 not reported was also one of those making it 3 into the top cut then that list made up 37.5% of the top cut, but if he wasn't, it's back down to the same 25% of the cut. @Brunas correct me if I'm wrong (I don't do these math things with event results ever), but wouldn't these numbers reflect just the fact of the amount of that list taken is mostly correctly reflected in the amount they show up in the cut? Especially in a only 27 person trial?
I'm basically trying to figure out if overall it's success was mathematically based on the volume of it being at the event and that numerically translated to it's showing in the cut.
Edited by RStan3 minutes ago, RStan said:Only 5 have been reported in that listfortress entry so far.
Five is correct. I just had "eight" on the brain and typed it on autopilot.
16 minutes ago, Brunas said:sometimes I forget we live in a world where the majority population doesn't understand why things like brilliant evasion are bad
I've always been a playtester apologist (partially out of self-interest), but how this one slipped through, with the math so easy, I just don't understand.
"While defending, if you are not in the attacker's [bullseye arc], and you roll 0 [evade] results, you may spend 1 [force] to change 1 [blank] result to an [evade] result." 3 points? 2 points?
5 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:I've always been a playtester apologist (partially out of self-interest), but how this one slipped through, with the math so easy, I just don't understand.
"While defending, if you are not in the attacker's [bullseye arc], and you roll 0 [evade] results, you may spend 1 [force] to change 1 [blank] result to an [evade] result." 3 points? 2 points?
AO, but for defense, and you can use force to do it. so I can roll blank focus focus, spend a force and a focus and have 3 evades? up up up
Just now, jagsba said:AO, but for defense, and you can use force to do it. so I can roll blank focus focus, spend a force and a focus and have 3 evades? up up up
no no no
should not exist, passive blank mitigation should never go on force users....EVER!
1 minute ago, jagsba said:AO, but for defense, and you can use force to do it. so I can roll blank focus focus, spend a force and a focus and have 3 evades? up up up
How often, as a Force-using pilot in the competitive meta, are you going to roll [eyeball],[eyeball],[blank]? And not be in the bullseye?
Weren't we just agreeing on how uncommon it is to roll more than one [eyeball]]?
6 minutes ago, RStan said:passive blank mitigation should never go on force users....EVER!
... Why?
3 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:How often, as a Force-using pilot in the competitive meta, are you going to roll [eyeball],[eyeball],[blank]? And not be in the bullseye?
Weren't we just agreeing on how uncommon it is to roll more than one [eyeball]]?
fair enough.
but the ability to turn blank blank focus into two evades is still crazy good.
2 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:... Why?
Because the only time you actually HIT Vader or kylo is when they blank on defense. You just have shoot them enough that they blank or eventually.
6 minutes ago, Ablazoned said:Because the only time you actually HIT Vader or kylo is when they blank on defense. You just have shoot them enough that they blank or eventually.
luke with the ability to mod blanks.
Just now, jagsba said:luke with the ability to mod blanks.
Just now, Ablazoned said:
yeah, but that's another ship and an action. We're talking about an upgrade where he still gets to lock on offense and just burns force to mod blanks on defense.