11 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:

Been stewing on this since yesterday.

I don't think Five Gunner Zetas would be a good thing for the game, or at least not a better thing than 5 Optics Omegas. Gunner SFs, basically, do more damage than Optics ones. Rear guns go down 0.3 hits per attack, but forward guns go up 0.45 hits per attack, when compared to Advanced Optics. Damage pushed will be higher, if we're considering opponents rolling defense dice--a 3rd die can go a long way towards actually overcoming evade results. Against unfocused 2 agility, rear guns only go down about 0.2 damage per attack, but forward guns go up about 0.5 damage per attack.

Init 2 instead of 3, but that's a pretty big step up overall in damage. If more than 1/3rd of your attacks are frontwards, you'll be doing more damage, statistically speaking, and that's before the non-zero chance of throwing some front/rear bonus attacks.

Plus, Crack Shot was always better than Fanatical on Optics SFs anyhow (not HS, but still). SFs just don't lose their shields fast enough, or live long enough with shields down, to outweigh the Crack Shot cancelling evades.

That said, Five. Gunner. Zetas. would be a good meme.

It would have similar damage output to the I2 5X lists. Granted the SFs would have a rear arc to use on occasion but lack the benefit of the X-wing's Boost -> Focus. The SF does have slightly better dial, though.

Mainly I rail against the idea of setting your turret backwards for the bowtie and forgetting about it. Just move and focus from then on out. Gunner SFs would at least consider on occasion rotating. I understand it may be a minority for disliking it, but it leaves a sour taste in my mouth. I'm not making a huge push for it, especially since I don't see it as much anymore.

And again, I think lowering the price on the SF Gunner would benefit the named SFs a decent bit, as I don't think think they are that great save Backdraft. I keep thinking LeHuse is a great buy, but then I put SF Gunner on him, to make him somewhat punchy, and then I balk at the price for some reason.

yeah, SFs w/ gunner are (usually) worse than xwings, it's pretty silly that they're more expensive.

22 minutes ago, Brunas said:

yeah, SFs w/ gunner are (usually) worse than xwings, it's pretty silly that they're more expensive.

From a ship capabilities standpoint, that's not obvious to me.

T-65: boost, boost linked to focus (decreases attack dice)

Tie/SF with gunner: white 5-straight, white evade, 2-dice rear arc.

Tie/SF with passive/concussion: same as above, but also 3-dice rear arc, making the ship's maneuvers completely unpredictable after the initial engagement; denies defensive range bonuses

Did I miss important stuff?

Just now, Ablazoned said:

From a ship capabilities standpoint, that's not obvious to me.

T-65: boost, boost linked to focus (decreases attack dice)

Tie/SF with gunner: white 5-straight, white evade, 2-dice rear arc.

Tie/SF with passive/concussion: same as above, but also 3-dice rear arc, making the ship's maneuvers completely unpredictable after the initial engagement; denies defensive range bonuses

Did I miss important stuff?

Not really - just broadly speaking, evade is rarely to never useful, and the rear arc is also (usually) a trap - SFs w/ gunner have to sloop for uptime, which means their arc is facing the wrong way and you're better off just not shooting for a turn just like an xwing would anyways, rather than rotate arc and then risk having to sloop with your arc facing the wrong way.

Just having access to boost is significantly better.

30 minutes ago, Brunas said:

yeah, SFs w/ gunner are (usually) worse than xwings, it's pretty silly that they're more expensive.

I'm not sure I agree. SFs with gunners are decently flexible with the back arc option, just have a better dial (5 straight and the option for a 1 hard even it's red), same hp, but a 3/3 spread is better than a 2/4 by at least a very minor margin. It also doesn't lose anything to flip to back arc since it links everything to a white rotate. Outside of the ability to flip foils for reduced attack and a linked focus -> boost, the X-Wing is just provably worse with a demonstrably worse dial, action bar, and statline.

12 minutes ago, Brunas said:

Just having access to boost is significantly better.

Probably 6-12 months before we get the First Order RZ2A.

Any discussion of any ship eventually loops back to RZ2As.

1 minute ago, Boom Owl said:

Probably 6-12 months before we get the First Order RZ2A.

Any discussion of any ship eventually loops back to RZ2As.

wait why would it have a rear ar-
oh. true!

1 hour ago, Brunas said:

Not really - just broadly speaking, evade is rarely to never useful,

This is where our experience differs, then. There's a TON of FO in my local area, and I can tell you trying to finish off a wounded SF can he made frustrating by the 5-straight and evade->rotate. It keeps plinking you but also making it hard to chase without exposing yourself. And its statline just happens to be in a spot where most lists end up leaving one limping but alive after a joust. Shrug. I'm just not surprised there's a 2-point premium on the FO x-wing.

1 hour ago, Ablazoned said:

I'm just not surprised there's a 2-point premium on the FO x-wing.

I think there's a reasonable argument that the SF chassis is better than the RZ2.

Missiles OUT THE BACK.

WHITE rotates linked all the way down....

And that dial.

It literally boggles my mind that Optics SFs aren't a thing when RZs are.

Who needs white 1 turns or blue three banks when you can rotate whenever you want for no stress and have your dial completely open for next turn?

22 minutes ago, Bucknife said:

It literally boggles my mind that Optics SFs aren't a thing when RZs are.

I think it really is the boost. A ship that can boost and/or rotate its arc front and back has something close to 100% arc coverage potential.

3 minutes ago, Ablazoned said:

A ship that can boost and/or rotate its arc front and back has something close to 100% arc coverage potential.

1 minute ago, Ablazoned said:

I think it really is the boost. A ship that can boost and/or rotate its arc front and back has something close to 100% arc coverage potential.

Okay. I can get behind that.

SF Turn+B.roll + rotate definitely has limitations over the RZ turn+focus+rotate or turn+boost+rotate.

17 minutes ago, Bucknife said:

Okay. I can get behind that.

SF Turn+B.roll + rotate definitely has limitations over the RZ turn+focus+rotate or turn+boost+rotate.

Yea if you scroll back about 1000 pages there was a lengthy discussion about how boost rear arc ships have remarkable coverage specifically when moving last in open space doing a hard 1 turn and when not blocked but the full coverage partly assumes sometimes they have no mods.

SFs are substantially more constrained just by not having boost although spoiler...afterburners exists.

The king of course is the legendary fat turret Slave 1 Boba.

Man I am so glad to be talking about RZ2As again. Has been far to long since we properly discussed that ship.

3 hours ago, Boom Owl said:

Probably 6-12 months before we get the First Order RZ2A.

Any discussion of any ship eventually loops back to RZ2As.

I'm so irrationally resentful of that ship. Bah. It's a wonder JJ did an actually decent movie the first time around.

2 hours ago, Bucknife said:

It literally boggles my mind that Optics SFs aren't a thing when RZs are.

Boosts are big, but also important are big orange numbers and words. Being able to bring two Init 5s (one of which gets a free focus) and an Init 4 (who gets a free rotate)? Yeah, that's pretty good.

Even still, Optics SFs are decent. They're fine. Nice simple ship to focus on position with. Bringing Backdraft is handy for the extra dice. A list which can get a positive record, but doesn't win the big burrito in the end.

The loss of Crack Shot hurts in Hyperspace, too, IMHO.

Also, there's just less to do. A-Wings have to make a lot more choices, and the relative complexity of the list probably has a lot of appeal.

4 hours ago, Brunas said:

SFs w/ gunner have to sloop for uptime, which means their arc is facing the wrong way and you're better off just not shooting for a turn just like an xwing would anyways, rather than rotate arc and then risk having to sloop with your arc facing the wrong way.

In my experience, the rhythm of the SF turn-and-burn is a bit different. Sometimes you just S-Loop right away, get the shots. 3 dice without mods is about the same as 2 dice with mods, once factoring in defense dice.

However, because of that rear arc, I feel like sometimes it does make sense to just go past someone, get some range 1 rear shots with focus, maybe even slowroll an extra turn, then S-Loop. Depends on the board state, to be sure, how well you can block someone into rear guns. By the time you get to a flip move, you'll be Range 3 with no mods anyhow, so 2 vs 3 dice won't matter much. I'd rather have the Range 1 rear shot first, then essentially pass the shooting turn, instead of an X-Wing missing a round of shots before a K-Turn. This way, I've technically got more shots, they happen sooner (which can matter), and they've got more mods.

4 hours ago, Brunas said:

Just having access to boost is significantly better.

Yeah, that boost can be huge. However, I think that, like the rear arcs, there's a lot for an experience player to leverage that a newer player probably doesn't. It's pretty easy for an X-Wing to just be a Kihraxz, and that's kinda sad. I suppose the TIE/sf can just Kihraxz it up, too.

I guess maybe these could go down to 40, that so much comes down to individual player style, whether or not someone has the knack of the rear guns or the boosts, etc. Certainly B-Wing 41, even if they don't make it to X-Wing 40.

Say. I'd be totally fine with 5 Passive Sensor/Concussion Missile Zetas. That's probably the better squad to have 5 of, due to limited munitions and having to make a harder choice between actions--full offense Locks, mixed Focus, full defense Evades. Plus it *really* feels differently from other ships. It wouldn't just be black licorice flavored X-Wings.

5 hours ago, 5050Saint said:

It would have similar damage output to the I2 5X lists. Granted the SFs would have a rear arc to use on occasion but lack the benefit of the X-wing's Boost -> Focus. The SF does have slightly better dial, though.

Mostly, I'm reacting less to the T-65 comparison, and more to the Gunner Zeta vs Optics Omega. Like, if Five Optics Omegas are seen as too good, in need of a bit of a nerf, I don't think having 5 Gunner Zetas represents something less objectionable.

5 hours ago, 5050Saint said:

Mainly I rail against the idea of setting your turret backwards for the bowtie and forgetting about it. Just move and focus from then on out. Gunner SFs would at least consider on occasion rotating.

Fair enough. The one of the two big things I loved about the Special Forces Gunner design in 2e as opposed to 1e is that you had to make a choice. It was an easy and low consequences choice, but you had to decide when you take your actions.

The other big thing I loved is that the SF was now a truly convertible ship, essentially two for one: mainline jouster like an X-Wing, but also a better TIE Aggressor. I think it's worth noting that no-upgrade filler SFs have been among the most successful. It's a dull ship, in a way, but when all you do is move and focus, you can put a lot more thought into your moves. There's a simple joy to a Hex-F list with six of the buggers.

2 hours ago, Boom Owl said:

Man I am so glad to be talking about RZ2As again. Has been far to long since we properly discussed that ship.

1 hour ago, theBitterFig said:

Mostly, I'm reacting less to the T-65 comparison, and more to the Gunner Zeta vs Optics Omega. Like, if Five Optics Omegas are seen as too good, in need of a bit of a nerf, I don't think having 5 Gunner Zetas represents something less objectionable.

Is there someone that thinks optics omegas are too good? That list was mediocre even when it was popular, and now it's... terrible. Did I miss this?

6 hours ago, Brunas said:

Is there someone that thinks optics omegas are too good? That list was mediocre even when it was popular, and now it's... terrible. Did I miss this?

Folks keep wanting to nerf Optics. I don't find it fully explainable, but seems like some folks do.

1 hour ago, theBitterFig said:

Folks keep wanting to nerf Optics. I don't find it fully explainable, but seems like some folks do.

Optics seems like a weird card to nerf.

Its only ever been questionable on the RZ2A.

Dangit....the 6 Degrees of RZ2A truly is inevitable....

46 minutes ago, Boom Owl said:

Optics seems like a weird card to nerf.

Its only ever been questionable on the RZ2A.

Dangit....the 6 Degrees of RZ2A truly is inevitable....

This thread is starting to hurt my brain too much.

1 hour ago, theBitterFig said:

Folks keep wanting to nerf Optics. I don't find it fully explainable, but seems like some folks do.

I think I'll leave my final thought on the matter with my usual, annoying but actually serious hope and dream that...

Chassis costs should go up to extorbitent levels on sequel generation ships (not falcon... maybe not fireball), but DOWN proportionately on all sequel efficiency upgrades (I'm talking like, 1 or 2 point Optics/Paint/D.PowerCells/etc).

Kill the spam mindset on these premium chassis and force people to be creative on loadouts to succeed.

Same deal on Illicits for scum (though, I think they're already a lot closer to this then FO and Res.)

K. I'm out.

13 hours ago, svelok said:

This map feels a little unfair to the rz2s. I got mad about large base turrets in 1.0 (obviously not small base turrets, those are so pure that i named a kitten after one :P) in part because they could always reposition over great distance at little to no cost to thier defense, and had a true 360 arc, all they really had to do was not land on rocks. An Rz2 has to avoid bumps, something that can't be said for every ship in this game, and it it want's to do it's faux turret impression, takes a stress which limits its dial, admittedly not a ton, but also, it's doing the boost rotate, it's giving up it's ability to mod any of it's dice, which is pretty significant on a ship with only 4 health and 2 attack dice.

6 minutes ago, catachanninja said:

This map feels a little unfair to the rz2s. I got mad about large base turrets in 1.0 (obviously not small base turrets, those are so pure that i named a kitten after one :P) in part because they could always reposition over great distance at little to no cost to thier defense, and had a true 360 arc, all they really had to do was not land on rocks. An Rz2 has to avoid bumps, something that can't be said for every ship in this game, and it it want's to do it's faux turret impression, takes a stress which limits its dial, admittedly not a ton, but also, it's doing the boost rotate, it's giving up it's ability to mod any of it's dice, which is pretty significant on a ship with only 4 health and 2 attack dice.

As the artist who created this map I agree.

It assumes your moving last.

Not bumped.

In open space.

Not stressed.

And willing to not have a focus sometimes.

Its still a ton of coverage though.

Boost is to common of an action.

And 1 hard turns are way to common to.

Also HYPE more RZ2A discussion.

1 minute ago, Boom Owl said:

As the artist who created this map I agree.

Also HYPE more RZ2A discussion.

Rz2s are really cool, I like talking about them! One time, at gencon, i beat an old man who was playing 5 rz2s and it was really cool and i told him to get gud and he let me call him dad

(E: in response to Bucknife, BoomOwl and BitterFig:) The goal is to provide players with actual, different options instead of the perfect build, right?

I think a cheap chassis has the advantage of more naked ships and should in principle allow a wider range of upgrades.

But in practice, more expensive ships with cheaper upgrades seem to lead to more variable choices?

Is that really true? I have no idea