13 minutes ago, Hoarder of Garlic Bread said:

At least Soontir can be fixed, but the question is if FFG wants to balance him at most players' levels or at Duncan's. If Soontir goes up to 60 to better reflect his value in the hands of great players, he'll vanish from kit tourneys and casual play because about 2 people per event there have the skill to make Soontir worth more than 60 pt. Listfortress wouldn't see a difference because the good Soontir players would still play him, just with less ridiculous a bid, and we'd still be complaining about his ubiquity.

Soontir at current cost is not difficult to use. He is one of the 4-5 almost well designed aces ill agree to that, but he isnt costed correctly.

Edit: After re-reading I think i get what you were saying.

58 minutes ago, gennataos said:

That's valid, actually. As someone who predominantly plays (mediocre) triple aces, most of my games go to time. There's a misconception by some that aces list will get points then run. No. I always endeavor to create favorable engagements. My games go to time because I don't have enough guns to kill the opposing list. That's it.

It's one if the things that keep pushes me back to 4-5 ship lists each time I dip my toe into the triple ace pool. I don't like not having enough attacks to win the game. I hate it when my attacks, not just my defenses, are clench moments because I get so few of them I need them to roll expected.

4 minutes ago, Biophysical said:

It's one if the things that keep pushes me back to 4-5 ship lists each time I dip my toe into the triple ace pool. I don't like not having enough attacks to win the game. I hate it when my attacks, not just my defenses, are clench moments because I get so few of them I need them to roll expected.

Can I interest you in some 5 point Proton Rockets / Advanced Proton Torps and 3 point HLC?

1 minute ago, Boom Owl said:

Can I interest you in some 5 point Proton Rockets / Advanced Proton Torps and 3 point HLC?

Be still, my heart.

16 minutes ago, wurms said:

The swarm has the early game advantage. The less rounds of engagement for them, the better. The longer the game goes, the more ships the swarm player loses, and the swarm begins to weaken. Acey lists strength is in the mid/end game when ships have been removed and enemy ships are spread out. Maybe FFG needs to make a 75 minute OR 10 round minimum rule?

This is fundamentally true for all swarms, not just vultures.

Did the 8th ship break the bank, even though it's weak? What about the 7th? What's the marginal ship?

Like, the same general concept is true against the TIE swarm.

17 minutes ago, Biophysical said:

It's one if the things that keep pushes me back to 4-5 ship lists each time I dip my toe into the triple ace pool. I don't like not having enough attacks to win the game. I hate it when my attacks, not just my defenses, are clench moments because I get so few of them I need them to roll expected.

You do have enough attacks to win the game, but maybe not before time.

12 minutes ago, gennataos said:

You do have enough attacks to win the game, but maybe not before time.

And that should make regen reeeaaaally expensive with its opportunity cost of not attacking. Unfortunately, Jedi have such reliable low variance offense that they don't have to care.

e: plus the defense means they don't lose points as fast. On paper the most reliable lists of 2.0, but also extremely boring

#shittake

This sucks to say, but is it really time for Luke Gunner lists? A 7b jedi isn't that tough, even with regen, if someone is putting solid shots in every turn.

Just now, Biophysical said:

This sucks to say, but is it really time for Luke Gunner lists? A 7b jedi isn't that tough, even with regen, if someone is putting solid shots in every turn.

I tried PoeRey on Tuesday against TripAces. Not many things are nicer than 4-5 hits into 3 agility aces...

4 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

e: plus the defense means they don't lose points as fast. On paper the most reliable lists of 2.0, but also extremely boring

#shittake

That's entirely subjective. I've never found them boring to play nor boring to play against.

2 minutes ago, Biophysical said:

This sucks to say, but is it really time for Luke Gunner lists? A 7b jedi isn't that tough, even with regen, if someone is putting solid shots in every turn.

Don't forget deep bid Imperial aces.

1 minute ago, GreenDragoon said:

I tried PoeRey on Tuesday against TripAces. Not many things are nicer than 4-5 hits into 3 agility aces...

Rey/Poe straight wrecks trip aces.

5 minutes ago, gennataos said:

Don't forget deep bid Imperial aces.

Rey/Poe straight wrecks trip aces.

In my head I lump deep bid Imperials with Jedi. Same set of strengths. So yes.

If Rey/Poe wrecks trip aces, you need to keep on that.

1 minute ago, Biophysical said:

If Rey/Poe wrecks trip aces, you need to keep on that.

It's virtually every other match-up that's, well...ends up being a real bummer at some point. But I should.

1 hour ago, Boom Owl said:

Soontir at current cost is not difficult to use. He is one of the 4-5 almost well designed aces ill agree to that, but he isnt costed correctly.

Edit: After re-reading I think i get what you were saying.

I don't agree.

Soontir is ok. I think the problem is the double mod slot. Without extra life, a mistake cost you the ship and it's almost impossible the pointfortress. A good player dodge the boxes and the dangerous zones and could shine with a fragile Ace. Without skill, a naked Soontir runs or die and I think that's a good design of an Ace.

I would prefer lost the mods and respect the current points. Also, I hope a severe discount on Turr Phennir and Sabers.

I love the TIE Interceptors but not as Silencers. If I want to play a SuperAce, I will choose Kylo Ren over Soontir Fel because feels more thematic (and has Force).

I don't understand the mod slot in the TIE series. They aren't custom ships.

4 minutes ago, gennataos said:

It's virtually every other match-up that's, well...ends up being a real bummer at some point. But I should.

Interestingly enough, it's a list where the movement influencing upgrades are necessary, and the rest does not affect the way it's played too much. So, discussion can ignore listbuilding way more than other lists.

34 minutes ago, Biophysical said:

This sucks to say, but is it really time for Luke Gunner lists? A 7b jedi isn't that tough, even with regen, if someone is putting solid shots in every turn.

Fly Super Optic Kylo to consistently teleport behind I5 or lower Jedi and take consistent full mod Range 1-2 shots on them.

The thing about Luke Gunner is that on most Rebel Turret ships, your gun is very vulnerable or you are flying a YT 1300 with your gun probably already pointed the right way. It makes you more expensive, but unlike Precog (Luke pilot's best buff yet) does little to extend your lifespan. As a result, Luke Gunner typically gets used for Han to give him more force and point fortress further. Ironically, Han needs him the least and could probably just take Ezra gunner.

I haven't tried Dash outside of Dash Corran within the past 3 months, but this is on my docket. IDK, Soontir could just bullrush and face only 3 of my dice behind a token stack, but this seems fun. Don't know if I should just pop Luke out of the gunner and give him his own fighter.

Dash Rendar (98)
Luke Skywalker (26)
Outrider (14)

Ship total: 138 Half Points: 69 Threshold: 5

Phoenix Squadron Pilot (30)
Crack Shot (1)

Ship total: 31 Half Points: 16 Threshold: 2

Phoenix Squadron Pilot (30)
Crack Shot (1)

Ship total: 31 Half Points: 16 Threshold: 2


Total: 200

View in Yet Another Squad Builder 2.0: https://raithos.github.io/?f=Rebel Alliance&d=v8ZsZ200Z39XWW87WWW157WY53X116WY53X116W&sn=Unnamed Squadron&obs=

Edit: Just realized that Biophysical and my responses to 7B regen Jedi are essentially the "How to Kill a Pocketed Heavy" problem in TF2. You could go Spy and backstab chain the Medic behind the corner and then the heavy, or you could go Sniper and fully charge The Machinima or Bazaar Bargain.

1 hour ago, LagJanson said:

Trick is the social pressure chooses targets they personally view as unacceptable.

"7-8 ships should be banned from play since it takes too long!" This ignores other variables. As one player told me when I was winning with quad Phantoms, "You're not playing slow, but you take so much longer because you move each ship twice." Some ships can move three times. Some just run for time. Why is one socially acceptable, when another is not?

Yeah that's the issue with relying on Social Pressure to solve the problem - you get a mix of different approaches based on mix of different understandings of the problem and not all of it is handled well. Ideally a game design solution would make this moot, but this is the world we're living in at the moment. I don't think list shaming is the right answer, it has to be centered more on pressure to maintain pace of play/a mutual agreement to advance the game. So tactical stuff like picking moves and actions decisively, moving your ships quickly but precisely etc. but also strategic stuff like actively seeking an engagement so that the game progresses.

My ideal solution would be an objective system like the community developed in 1.0 where the incentive for slow play is eliminated via the game rules rather than relying on an unwritten social contract.

8 minutes ago, Transmogrifier said:

Yeah that's the issue with relying on Social Pressure to solve the problem - you get a mix of different approaches based on mix of different understandings of the problem and not all of it is handled well. Ideally a game design solution would make this moot, but this is the world we're living in at the moment. I don't think list shaming is the right answer, it has to be centered more on pressure to maintain pace of play/a mutual agreement to advance the game. So tactical stuff like picking moves and actions decisively, moving your ships quickly but precisely etc. but also strategic stuff like actively seeking an engagement so that the game progresses.

My ideal solution would be an objective system like the community developed in 1.0 where the incentive for slow play is eliminated via the game rules rather than relying on an unwritten social contract.

I more or less agree.

Question: Does an objective system make balancing more complex and match up discord more probable?

1 hour ago, Biophysical said:

It's one if the things that keep pushes me back to 4-5 ship lists each time I dip my toe into the triple ace pool. I don't like not having enough attacks to win the game. I hate it when my attacks, not just my defenses, are clench moments because I get so few of them I need them to roll expected.

Ironically this is also the swarms problem against trip aces. You've got so few chances for enough quality shots to hit a force ace you fall real far behind if you roll weak

16 minutes ago, Hoarder of Garlic Bread said:

Fly Super Optic Kylo to consistently teleport behind I5 or lower Jedi and take consistent full mod Range 1-2 shots on them.

The thing about Luke Gunner is that on most Rebel Turret ships, your gun is very vulnerable or you are flying a YT 1300 with your gun probably already pointed the right way. It makes you more expensive, but unlike Precog (Luke pilot's best buff yet) does little to extend your lifespan. As a result, Luke Gunner typically gets used for Han to give him more force and point fortress further. Ironically, Han needs him the least and could probably just take Ezra gunner.

Yeah, any high initiative turret with inherent mods can do similar things. Luke Gunner is just the most extreme version. I agree than a cheaper Han with Kanan can do 80% of Luke Gunner and leave more points for other stuff.

17 hours ago, Dr Moneypants said:

And if they do I guarantee there will be people on page 2100 of this very forum complaining about how they have field at least six ships to be competitive, bemoaning the cost involved, and wishing for the good old days of double-reposition Jedi.

Just sayin

I mean, I’m strangely OK with that.

14 minutes ago, jagsba said:

Ironically this is also the swarms problem against trip aces. You've got so few chances for enough quality shots to hit a force ace you fall real far behind if you roll weak

Except time tends to be on the swarm side, so the "push" result is usually more okay for them.

1 minute ago, Biophysical said:

Except time tends to be on the swarm side, so the "push" result is usually more okay for them.

kind of? there's the game clock then there's the critical mass clock. a good trip ace player will be plinking down your swarm in between your big turns, so if you don't set them up fast enough, you can end up without enough ships to engineer the big turn.

16 minutes ago, PaulRuddSays said:

I mean, I’m strangely OK with that.

Predictability is comforting

The real enemy is clearly modified 3 agility vs. 2-die attacks. I know which one I want gone, do you?

Also I'm super in on free struts, and also on Sear going up. Unironic price him like he already has a Tac relay on board? Maybe not a good one, but one. Also, make the bad tac relays cheaper pls. K2 and TV almost wholesome.

22 minutes ago, Cuz05 said:

I more or less agree.

Question: Does an objective system make balancing more complex and match up discord more probable?

Most objective systems have (intentional) bias towards list archetypes inherent in the individual objectives. The solution is usually having a variety of objectives in the pool, each with different biases and then a selection system that is (at least partially) random or curated by a 3rd party. I haven't played Legion (yet) but their system is pretty cool - it's essential a random scenario generation with limited veto power built in for each player.

Balance is always going to be a complex mess but you would gain another lever to affect the meta since you'd then have the ability to tweak the objective set/objective rules to try and shift the meta