2 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

1) Yes, including being right for the wrong reasons ?

It's also a safe standard choice. If it's wrong then often not by too much.

2) Also yes? I'm not home, so I can't check how many have focud+lock natively on the bar.

The i1 interceptor is such an interesting case: you don't know yet! It requires such a good prediction to risk the entire ship for a better shot in a turn. What if you miscalculated, the opponent lands right in front of it with double mods and ini-kills it? Horrible choice as player, with a catastrophic outcome.

If you had sense or some other way of knowing, like i6, then you can "risk" it.

The interceptor is special because it has 3 hull. Take a Bwing instead at i2. Is it still stupid to risk some shields for a great shot next turn? I don't think so

I take lots with low initiative stuff that not infrequently, and it usually corresponds with obvious reset turns where I won't get a shot. Especially true mid-late game with ships that haven't yet been damaged. I'll take a lock with an undamaged X-wing that might take shots if there's another ship that should be the correct target for my opponent to shoot at. Either they shoot at the locking, no defensive token, full health X-wing or the Focused, damaged other ship. It makes the lock decision a lot easier.

Just now, Biophysical said:

I take lots with low initiative stuff that not infrequently, and it usually corresponds with obvious reset turns where I won't get a shot. Especially true mid-late game with ships that haven't yet been damaged. I'll take a lock with an undamaged X-wing that might take shots if there's another ship that should be the correct target for my opponent to shoot at. Either they shoot at the locking, no defensive token, full health X-wing or the Focused, damaged other ship. It makes the lock decision a lot easier.

Having more ships on the table helps a lot with that flexibility. The fact that the vast majority of players run 3-4 ship lists probably plays into why its an underdeveloped topic.

3 minutes ago, Biophysical said:

I take lots with low initiative stuff that not infrequently, and it usually corresponds with obvious reset turns where I won't get a shot. Especially true mid-late game with ships that haven't yet been damaged. I'll take a lock with an undamaged X-wing that might take shots if there's another ship that should be the correct target for my opponent to shoot at. Either they shoot at the locking, no defensive token, full health X-wing or the Focused, damaged other ship. It makes the lock decision a lot easier.

You also play(ed) a lot of interceptors, right? Do you do the same with a TC, considering their 3 hull vs 6?

2 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

You also play(ed) a lot of interceptors, right? Do you do the same with a TC, considering their 3 hull vs 6?

I definitely wouldn't pay current TC prices for the ability on a fragile ship like the Interceptor, but if I've got it on a ship, I use it. I use it pretty regularly on TIE/fos, for example.

8 hours ago, gennataos said:

But...people are on the verge of getting mad at RZ-2s! Again.

I'll bite on this, too. Why is there going to be another I5 Rz-2 coming out in the Resistance pack!?! Three of them wasn't enough? This compounds the complaint that rebels have zero ace A-Wings.

7 hours ago, GreenDragoon said:

You're again comparing fully modified 3 dice with unmodified 2 dice

As @Biophysical said, one Boba is worth 2-3 I5 A-wings. In any case, compare those A's to any other Firespray and your argument falls apart, while any pilot at any initiative on the RZ-2 is decent at evading arcs while still getting shots in.

57 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

The vast majority of games I played or watched had player too greedy with their mods. Saving the lock for the kturn, or even just keeping another force, does not happen nearly as often as it probably should.

Locks specifically make that IMO worse because you reroll. Not a die change like so many others, but you surrender yourself again to the roll of the die. The maths behind don't matter if you reroll bbbb into bbbb, it just feels bad.

So much this! I watch opponents spend a lock on a completely garbage roll, and my brain winces. Don't turn a bad roll into a mediocre roll. Wait until you have a mediocre to decent roll, and turn it into a good roll.

1 hour ago, Boom Owl said:

Do we under appreciate TC? I think maybe we do but also 3 pts seems to be to much for players to add it to things like Sabers or Strikers or Fireballs. Wonder why thats the case.

I think it costs too much, especially with Passive Sensors going down in price for most initiatives.

Also wouldnt use it on a Academy Tie or Stiker or Fireball. Even though those last two have more options to be in weird spots for lock setup so slightly better but still not worth it.

FOs are all about it. And of course Tie Barons or Taps

1 minute ago, 5050Saint said:

As @Biophysical said, one Boba is worth 2-3 I5 A-wings. In any case, compare those A's to any other Firespray and your argument falls apart, while any pilot at any initiative on the RZ-2 is decent at evading arcs while still getting shots in.

It's not an interesting point to discuss. The value relative to points was not what was mentioned, and not what I replied to. It was specifically comparing Boba to "RZ2". However many and whichever pilot was meant is something we don't know

1 minute ago, 5050Saint said:

Why is there going to be another I5 Rz-2 coming out in the Resistance pack!?! Three of them wasn't enough?

10 hours ago, ClassicalMoser said:

Does Corran himself need to be fat to be "good?" I would think a cost reduction would let him function in 3-4-5-ship lists quite well. He can be the centerpiece of a list. Well, to such a degree as Poe can anyway, more or less. Not sure why he has to be the smaller of two ships to work well.

I think there's a fit issue with bigger squads. I mean, what is Corran actually good at? I feel like he doesn't fit into a 4 ship list, because other ships will just be better there. Luke and Braylen and Ten and Wedge would all be better and cheaper, and allow better and cheaper squadmates. Maybe with Corran at 55 points like Wedge he'd be playable in all sorts of squads, but that seems too cheap in general. A three-ship list like @RoockieBoy was testing out with Leia/Corran/Jake might work... but we know that Lando/Luke/Braylen exists and is possibly a better list overall.

But in two-ship, when you're looking to buddy up with something like a busted-strong Fat Han, Braylen and Ten just won't be a good fit. They'll die too fast. Same with Wedge, but he might have the offense needed to matter. These folks have glaring weaknesses on defense that get covered up in a large squad, because there's just enough weight of fire. Corran, however, has price as his major weakness. Luke maybe can survive long enough due to his defensive force, but Corran offers a Bonus Attack while Luke doesn't. Also in two-ship listbuilding, you're more able to bring a few toys to leverage the individual strengths of the ships. R2-type droids just overlap with Corran so well. But in a two-ship list, it's not that efficiency doesn't matter, but partly, it doesn't matter. You're bringing pilots for what they can do, not how much you can afford to put into a squad. And Corran is a pilot who can do big things that doesn't let you put a lot in a squad.

There's another possibility, but pretty remote. Suppose Rebels get good ships to actually run a triple-aces list. If so, maybe Corran would fit into that. But Rebels don't have the ships for it.

Mostly, I just think that in a larger squad, there's going to be better choices. Folks who are perhaps more specialized and efficient at their strengths, but whose weaknesses would be too easy to exploit in smaller squads. Without excessive cuts that would probably be bad overall, Corran won't really fit in.

10 hours ago, Ablazoned said:

Can I interest you in a bistan+percop dash? Now running a special at 10 points off!

Nope, because he doesn't have Kanan.

I mean, I think Dash is fun. LW/Kanan/Bistan is my go-to. But is he actually good? Eh...

1 hour ago, Boom Owl said:

Do we under appreciate TC? I think maybe we do but also 3 pts seems to be to much for players to add it to things like Sabers or Strikers or Fireballs. Wonder why thats the case.

It's a lot to pay for an upgrade you can't use this turn. None of these ships can get double-mods (well, Fifth Brother), so you don't get a benefit on the turn you take the lock. On the turn you take it, without ordnance, lock and focus are the same.

Maybe you get a benefit on a later turn, but these are also ships that aren't great at surviving for a long period of time, and playing for 2-3 turns ahead can sometimes be important, but it's a hard thing to spend points on.

Combined with the fact that Passive Sensors just blows it out of the water on Phantoms and Lambdas (the ships without locks that might actually live long enough to take advantage of the benefits of Lock over Focus, plus Phantoms also 5th Bro)... PS really should have required a Lock action to be equipped... Without Passive Sensors, TC gets stapled onto Echo and Whisper.

//

To be sure, learning how to safely take locks on stuff like generic X-Wings or TIE/fo or such is something many players (i.e. me) need to get better at. But paying 3 points for it just doesn't make sense, not when you could use those points to bring more ships, fit Sloane, switch to other factions where ships already have Locks, etc etc.

//

Do we under-appreciate the Lock action? Almost surely. Do we under-appreciate Targeting Computer? I kinda think probably not.

6 minutes ago, Biophysical said:

I take lots with low initiative stuff that not infrequently, and it usually corresponds with obvious reset turns where I won't get a shot. Especially true mid-late game with ships that haven't yet been damaged. I'll take a lock with an undamaged X-wing that might take shots if there's another ship that should be the correct target for my opponent to shoot at. Either they shoot at the locking, no defensive token, full health X-wing or the Focused, damaged other ship. It makes the lock decision a lot easier.

One of the things I dislike about some ship design - and this will be a rare from me complaint about Vulture design! - is when it discourages or encourages locks to the point of irrelevance. I agree entirely that locking or not is one of the most interesting decision spaces in the game, and it really encapsulates the risk-profile gameplay that defines X-Wing.

Examples of what I mean:

• Jedi, obviously, have vastly distorted incentive structures for locking, particularly when moving last or late. In what will be a rare from me praise of Jedi design! - Calibrated and Obi-wan specifically incentivize the focus action enough to make the decision meaningful again; 7B Jedi (lower agility, higher offense, higher HP) really just take locks constantly; as does basically any Jedi sitting at R2/3 with board state information telling them that they're not not facing return shots (though in a perfect world, that is a reward earned by prior decisions.)
• Vultures, too, but in the opposite direction, are skewed. Networked means you just calculate all the time every time forever, and the exceptions are very niche (one highly defensive enemy ship left in an endgame, drk1 setups, etc). This doesn't make Vultures uninteresting to play - they have loads of other cool decisions to make and risks to manage and obviously I think they're super fun - but that specific thing is unfortunate.
• Boba gets rerolls for free so wants nothing but as many focus mods as the game will let him have.
• Also obviously, TIEs and stuff don't have locks at all. TIEs are mostly boring except when used as a dispersed swarm and that's a big but far from the only part of why.

I don't think the game would be better per-se if all ships had the lock action, though some of the knock-on effects (Howlrunner IMO is actively anti-fun) might be good. To lock or focus is a super interesting decision space and I think it becomes more and more interesting at higher ship counts.

17 minutes ago, svelok said:

Jedi, obviously, have vastly distorted incentive structures for locking, particularly when moving last or late. In what will be a rare from me praise of Jedi design! - Calibrated and Obi-wan specifically incentivize the focus action enough to make the decision meaningful again; 7B Jedi (lower agility, higher offense, higher HP) really just take locks constantly; as does basically any Jedi sitting at R2/3 with board state information telling them that they're not not facing return shots (though in a perfect world, that is a reward earned by prior decisions.)

Just adding to this, for CLT Jedi at R1 in bullseye (which is easy for them to get to), the Lock Action is better the more force charges you have. So at 3 charges..which implies you didnt FTC and landed a bullseye you just lock for 80% to get 4 hits. On 2 charges the lock still has better chance at 4 than a focus by like 20% or something? On 1 charge only its like a 5% difference. And then on zero it flips back to focus being the way to go where it gives you 40% for 4 and at least 3 very reliably. Might have some of the above wrong but pretty sure its in those ranges. All this ignores the fact that leaning into oops focus calc calc calc is an incredibly good strategy for the other side of the dice and future turns if an init kill or shot from out of arc isnt on the menu.

So it plays into force management a bit to. Which is neat.

Also why purple lock actions are such an awesome idea to add more “risk” back to a force users action bar.

What do y'all think of the Resistance B-Wing being a Bullseye only primary, but it the ship is decently cheaper than the Rebel B, promoting the use of the cannon slot on the ship to get a regular arc? (it doesn't necessarily need to be the B, but I figured it'd be a ship with a cannon slot coming out at some point.)

28 minutes ago, Boom Owl said:

Just adding to this, for CLT Jedi at R1 in bullseye (which is easy for them to get to), the Lock Action is better the more force charges you have. So at 3 charges..which implies you didnt FTC and landed a bullseye you just lock for 80% to get 4 hits. On 2 charges the lock still has better chance at 4 than a focus by like 20% or something? On 1 charge only its like a 5% difference. And then on zero it flips back to focus being the way to go where it gives you 40% for 4 and at least 3 very reliably. Might have some of the above wrong but pretty sure its in those ranges. All this ignores the fact that leaning into oops focus calc calc calc is an incredibly good strategy for the other side of the dice and future turns if an init kill or shot from out of arc isnt on the menu.

So it plays into force management a bit to. Which is neat.

Also why purple lock actions are such an awesome idea to add more “risk” back to a force users action bar.

in summary:

3 minutes ago, 5050Saint said:

Resistance B-Wing being a Bullseye only primary, but it the ship is decently cheaper than the Rebel B, promoting the use of the cannon slot on the ship to get a regular arc?

doubt i will ever understand fort b-wing cannons, but that seems a bit too close to the space couch?

43 minutes ago, svelok said:

• Vultures, too, but in the opposite direction, are skewed. Networked means you just calculate all the time every time forever, and the exceptions are very niche (one highly defensive enemy ship left in an endgame, drk1 setups, etc). This doesn't make Vultures uninteresting to play - they have loads of other cool decisions to make and risks to manage and obviously I think they're super fun - but that specific thing is unfortunate.

Very much one of few things I dislike about playing cis swarm. The thrill of deciding to lock isn't there. Calc is almost always the right action

9 minutes ago, svelok said:

doubt i will ever understand fort b-wing cannons, but that seems a bit too close to the space couch?

For B-Wings, it just seems odd to have two empty cannon slots. But we can forget the B-Wing, if that skews the conversation too much.

Let's narrow it down to this:

Supposing that a 3 die standard primary will likely always supersede a cannon shot, how about a ship will a 3 die bullseye primary, but a cannon slot to compensate?

Like the TIE/rb, a cannon is factored into the build of the ship.

38 minutes ago, 5050Saint said:

For B-Wings, it just seems odd to have two empty cannon slots. But we can forget the B-Wing, if that skews the conversation too much.

Let's narrow it down to this:

Supposing that a 3 die standard primary will likely always supersede a cannon shot, how about a ship will a 3 die bullseye primary, but a cannon slot to compensate?

Like the TIE/rb, a cannon is factored into the build of the ship.

Almost anything that gives noticeable bonuses to bullseye is good in my book.

12 minutes ago, Biophysical said:

Almost anything that gives noticeable bonuses to bullseye is good in my book.

We really need a Same Team react for the forums.

Auto Blasters very cool.

The lock discussion is cool. I think there are obvious times for low init to take locks (reset, not getting shot, juicier targets), it's the dance of when to spend that lock which I find interesting. That usually comes up in the "juicier target" situations.

I approach with three rookies. One will be probably be closer to the opponent, so lets say I focus with that one, lock with the other two. Let's say the focused rookie gets shot, spends his focus, now the rookies are shooting. That focused rookie doesn't have an offensive mod, he probably shoots first. The other two shoot. What's the math and positional decision on when to spend the locks?

Also, given the size of the RZ-2 relative to other 3-agility ships, RZ-2 should have 4-agility.

*teehee*

11 minutes ago, gennataos said:

The lock discussion is cool. I think there are obvious times for low init to take locks (reset, not getting shot, juicier targets), it's the dance of when to spend that lock which I find interesting. That usually comes up in the "juicier target" situations.

I approach with three rookies. One will be probably be closer to the opponent, so lets say I focus with that one, lock with the other two. Let's say the focused rookie gets shot, spends his focus, now the rookies are shooting. That focused rookie doesn't have an offensive mod, he probably shoots first. The other two shoot. What's the math and positional decision on when to spend the locks?

I look at risk/reward. If the target has a bunch of defensive tokens, I'll hold onto the lock. Its not doing much by itself.

If the target has low defense and any extra hits I get from the lock will translate to damage, I'll likely spend it. If its a target that won't be in arc for a while, I'm more likely to spend it. If my firing ship is likely to die soon, I'm likely to spend it. If the target has no shields and I rolled a crit, I might try to spend the lock to push the crit through. If the target is almost dead, I'm more likely to do the same.

3 minutes ago, gennataos said:

Also, given the size of the RZ-2 relative to other 3-agility ships, RZ-2 should have 4-agility.

*teehee*

If so, that would give the Vulture, the Trifighter and the Eta-2 more agility. Blegh!

3 minutes ago, gennataos said:

Also, given the size of the RZ-2 relative to other 3-agility ships, RZ-2 should have 4-agility.

*teehee*

Greer's ability should be the second chassis ability.

Also, we need a pilot that has outmaneuver built into rear arc shots.

and can we please finally have an i6 RZ2? Possibly as combination of the above?!

Just now, GreenDragoon said:

Greer's ability should be the second chassis ability.

Also, we need a pilot that has outmaneuver built into rear arc shots.

and can we please finally have an i6 RZ2? Possibly as combination of the above?!

With Force charges.

9 hours ago, GreenDragoon said:

a Rz2 (not many, you move the goalpoast to include more) can not simply decide to not care because this simple decision costs two actions.

Unlike Boba where it costs literally nothing. (E: at most a boost, but with Slave1 often not even that)

Big difference

I'm moving no goalposts: most lists include low-init ships as filling bulk. Most A Wing inits are greater than those of these fillers. Given the choice between modding dice and trading shots or boosting and rotating, most situations will have an A be fine with the modless shot bc arc dodge but still keep arc on target. The point about mods is moot because mods are only the icing on the cake of dodging but shooting. And if you want to make the 2 action cost point, the firespray has 1 action, although that point only really matters for the non-Boba's (which are viable). Those mods come at a premium.

If A's could fire at 3 dice base consistent mods then they should costed like one at 4hp 3agi. As per Biophysical, they do a fraction of the damage of a Firespray, which is why they also cost a fraction of a Firespray. But costing/dps do not mean that the A doesn't often behave like a Firespray just because it's not a 1:1 mapping. Ric often behaves like a Defender but key attribute discrepancies are factors in his cost.

Nobody ever said A Wing = Firespray 100%. To imply is to strawman.