13 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

Then make a testable claim @Boom Owl and @svelok: how well does Spamtex have to do at these events for you to say that they are too cheap now?

Currently we're at a 50% cutrate and 69% winrate. That's apparently not yet dolphin territory. When is it?

It could maintain this cutrate and winrate and I would probably still not think its a problem if that helps.

random things with a cutrate similar or higher than nantex swarms (3/6, 50%), to illustrate the folly of man

• 2x IG-88+ lists (2/5, 40%)
• Delta Squadron Pilot (2/3, 66%)
• Echo (3/7, 43%)
• 17 people brought Rey to this tournament. 18 people brought CIS. 9 people brought 7 ships or more. 17 people brought Rey. This isn't a cutrate stat
• Grand Inquisitor (4/10 40%)
• The 2 Fang 4 Scyk list that people were panicking about up until just now apparently (1/3, 33%, and it didn't even bring the 2 ion 2 tractor mix that people said was best)
• Finn (2/4, 50%)

4 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

Then make a testable claim @Boom Owl and @svelok: how well does Spamtex have to do at these events for you to say that they are too cheap now?

Currently we're at a 50% cutrate and 69% winrate. That's apparently not yet dolphin territory. When is it?

If all events look like this one, I don't think I would ever change my mind.

Mostly I just dont like contributing to freaking out about low/mid init high ship count lists with minimal passive modification and board state dependent stat lines.

Its just so so so far down on my list of things to even pause to say "huh that might be a problem" in Extended.

Being honest I want it to do well.

2 minutes ago, svelok said:

The 2 Fang 4 Scyk list that people were panicking about up until just now apparently (1/3, 33%, and it didn't even bring the 2 ion 2 tractor mix that people said was best)

What is the list of Joel then? https://tabletop.to/gsp-worlds-qualifier-corellia-pdtutc-7/lists

5 minutes ago, svelok said:

If all events look like this one, I don't think I would ever change my mind.

At least we established that you go by your feeling alone.

5 minutes ago, Boom Owl said:

Mostly I just dont like contributing to freaking out about low/mid init high ship count lists with minimal passive modification and board state dependent stat lines.

Its just so so so far down on my list of things to even pause to say "huh that might be a problem" in Extended.

Being honest I want it to do well.

I disagree but appreciate the honesty.

Dyslexia maybe, saw 4x ion cannon.

3 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

At least we established that you go by your feeling alone.

If we really want to put something approaching numbers to feelings, non-ensnare nantex aren't oppressive. So, it's hard to consider them even approaching "a problem" if they're in the realm of "a list nobody plays but a handful of otherwise good players who bring it do well", which is the absolute most you could say about this event without flipping to feelings in the other direction.

That category - list nobody plays but good players who do good with it - also describes quad phantoms at their peak, which managed 8 lists 5 in cut style showings at their most prevalent. But, key being, quad phantoms was oppressive. Sixtex (or Fivetex or Fourtex, since we seem to be treating all of those as the same list) are "just a list". It's whatever.

Show me Hyperspace Boba Fett or peak Rebel Bunker or 2019 Obi-wan or whatever tier numbers - where a list is both astonishingly popular and making cut at very high rates. That, at least, would convince me the cost is wrong, but (like boom) I still wouldn't really consider it "a problem" unless we start seeing the raw numbers show up to swiss and the cut rate stable. Events like this, with <3% of players bringing them, could go on forever.

11 minutes ago, svelok said:

That category - list nobody plays but good players who do good with it - also describes quad phantoms at their peak, which managed 8 lists 5 in cut style showings at their most prevalent. But, key being, quad phantoms was oppressive. Sixtex (or Fivetex or Fourtex, since we seem to be treating all of those as the same list) are "just a list". It's whatever.

The better comparison is with rebel beef. That was also never oppressive, was also a combination of different builds - and was also too cheap.

3 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

The better comparison is with rebel beef. That was also never oppressive, was also a combination of different builds - and was also too cheap.

Sure, in terms of listfeel. But this events performance metrics are phantom style, not beef style - at one point, beef was like 17% of the entire meta!

Edit: wait, I'm not sure I agree with that at all. Bunker was double modding like every attack, with the HP to absorb trades. Nantex get a single focus token and, if they earn it, board state dependent rerolls or crack; and bring 4 HP each with no shields. You couldn't block Cassian and receive a realistic probability of one-shotting the ship and getting a gun off the table.

6 hours ago, wurms said:

Whats so great about 6 nantex? Im obviously missing something. Seems like a list that should be getting chewed up.

They're just wicked cheap. Init 4 Baby Aces with 3 red dice plus 2 turret plus room for talents in a 6 ship list plus they'll get reposition while blocked.

4 minutes ago, Boom Owl said:

Mostly I just dont like contributing to freaking out about low/mid init high ship count lists with minimal passive modification and board state dependent stat lines.

Its just so so so far down on my list of things to even pause to say "huh that might be a problem" in Extended.

Being honest I want it to do well.

It's passive reposition rather than passive dice mods. That's got potential to be roughly equivalent. Even if unblockable calculate will generally be better, unblockable boosts and barrel rolls are still pretty good.

What I've been saying about all along is that Nantex are not necessarily something *distinct from* aces and Jedi, but another kind of ace. They seem like an extension of the same core problems posed by the force and excessive passive mods and high initiative ships with high firepower for their price.

The internet is a silly place. I mean, I'm less mad about Nantex than I am at the "nothing to see here" attitude, but I'm still ranting and it'll come across as Anti-Nantex (they're not far off... if they had to compromise on Talents it'd probably be fine). Like, I know some folks sounded alarm bells when these prices first came out, I was "eh, let's have these some time in the sun" and I've moved more to "Hrm... might be something to that."

But ignoring stuff because it doesn't have a purple number? 🙄

1 hour ago, Boom Owl said:

Once again the first new low or mid init higher ship count list that shows up freaks people out while we just sit around clapping like dolphins every time a Force User does well.

That kind of describes no one onhere. Who here is caping for Jedi? Folks saying stuff about Nantex have often been willing to say stuff about the force as well.

3 hours ago, svelok said:

Don't think the game where fortressing starvipers were made to engage by judge intervention is a good benchmark

That **** is still going on? Judges ignoring the actual rules of the game to hate on lists they don't like?

Also, that'd have been a foolish strategy from the Starviper player, since Nantex Swarm is going to have a noticeable Final Salvo advantage.

9 hours ago, Boom Owl said:

5+ Win Things

W	L	Points/MOV/SOS	Lists
6	0	6/1495/0.60	"Echo" TIE/ph Phantom (70) Lone Wolf + Passive Sensors + Fifth Brother Delta Squadron Pilot TIE/D Defender (72) Heavy Laser Cannon Grand Inquisitor TIE Advanced v1 (57) Sense
5	1	5/1640/0.54	Delta Squadron Pilot TIE/D Defender (67) Delta Squadron Pilot TIE/D Defender (67) "Echo" TIE/ph Phantom (65) Passive Sensors + Fifth Brother

Two Defender lists in the 5+ wins? Maybe folks will stop thinking they're under-priced. TIE/D are fine right where they are.

3 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:

That **** is still going on? Judges ignoring the actual rules of the game to hate on lists they don't like?

Fortunately: yes.

The goal isn't salvo, it's to either engage right at time and score points without giving; or to exploit an opponent who flies disadvantageously through the rocks instead of fortressing back in response.

4 minutes ago, svelok said:

Fortunately: yes.

The goal isn't salvo, it's to either engage right at time and score points without giving; or to exploit an opponent who flies disadvantageously through the rocks instead of fortressing back in response.

Once judges start employing these kinds of actions against aces who circle the drain, I'll think it's a good idea. Until then, **** them.

3 hours ago, Boom Owl said:

Once again the first new low or mid init higher ship count list that shows up freaks people out while we just sit around clapping like dolphins every time a Force User does well.

To be 100%, are you pointedly referring to me? Or are you lumping me in with “people”. If you’re going to passive aggressively cast shade, please own it.

2 hours ago, svelok said:

Fortunately: yes.

The goal isn't salvo, it's to either engage right at time and score points without giving; or to exploit an opponent who flies disadvantageously through the rocks instead of fortressing back in response.

So the goal is to not play the game for 65-70m, and have 1 engagement?

Sounds like he plays in good faith to me.

6 minutes ago, Smikies02 said:

So the goal is to not play the game for 65-70m, and have 1 engagement?

Sounds like he plays in good faith to me.

I’m so bad at internet. Did you forget your “/sarcasm” tag or is that an honest opinion?

I thought I remembered something about exploiting stalemates or time limits, maybe at NOVA? And I figured that precedent would hold, at the very least for unofficial events.

3 hours ago, GreenDragoon said:

At least we established that you go by your feeling alone.

Isn't it all feelings though? There's not some mathematically determined cut rate/representation percent that tells us something is too cheap. You're just asking them to guess a number that feels right to see if that guess is correct later.

As a casual math guy, who feels stats because I’m too lazy to do much calculation:

performance by 2, 7, or 8 ship lists have too small of sample size to determine if they were good at all, but the fact that the sample sizes were so much lower means people don’t want to play them (this could have any number of reasons from not fun to doesn’t win, but at least with the current platform doesn’t include cost to get ships).

3, 4, and 5 ship lists are probably in the margin of error to 50% win rate, which is good but since they were most common they were all playing each other.

That 64%* win rate for six ships raises an eyebrow. Are there specific good six ship lists? Does win rate go up as ship count goes up, and we don’t have enough sample size on higher/lower counts? I’ll at least keep my eye on it.

*I don’t remember the exact number, and it’s not on this page (it’s 63%, I finally looked)

Anything more than that I think I’d need to see some evidence to back it up.

M-m-m-multipost!

Conspiracy theory: streaming artificially deflates ship counts.

It is harder to keep overlays updated and to follow the action as a third party, so streams have motivation to pick low ship count lists. This self reinforces where people have more information on how those lists are flown and can convince people that watch streams but don’t follow spreadsheets that this is what successful people play.

edit: I have slowly developed this theory through exhaustive reasearch: looking through YouTube because I really only want to watch games with at least 9 ships on the mat. There aren’t very many of those.

3 hours ago, GreenDragoon said:

At least we established that you go by your feeling alone.

22 minutes ago, jagsba said:

Isn't it all feelings though? There's not some mathematically determined cut rate/representation percent that tells us something is too cheap. You're just asking them to guess a number that feels right to see if that guess is correct later.

3 hours ago, GreenDragoon said:

The better comparison is with rebel beef. That was also never oppressive, was also a combination of different builds - and was also too cheap.

3 hours ago, svelok said:

Sure, in terms of list feel. But this events performance metrics are phantom style, not beef style - at one point, beef was like 17% of the entire meta!

Edit: wait, I'm not sure I agree with that at all. Bunker was double modding like every attack, with the HP to absorb trades. Nantex get a single focus token and, if they earn it, board state dependent rerolls or crack; and bring 4 HP each with no shields. You couldn't block Cassian and receive a realistic probability of one-shotting the ship and getting a gun off the table.

Quoted several people here to reiterate a point that needs to be made occasionally: if it's fun to play, and fun to play against, then it's OK even if it shows up a lot and does well. There's no math that can tell you if it's fun on the table.

I'm not worried about any (currently available) number of non-ensnare Nantex. I'm probably OK with it even if Gravitic Deflection came down. It's 3 agi with 4 hull and no shields, and if they move the mobile arc then we're talking 2 greens (and potentially no token if blocked). There are real trade-offs for what it can do.

Are those talks about Nantexes following actual play with or against them or it's just feelings and theory? I'm asking unironically, I've yet to see them and I have no idea on what they do other than an ancestral hate on actions happening when blocked or on the rocks.

I don't think they will be a serious meta presence: when and if tournaments will move from TTS/Vassal there won't be many people with so many Nantexes between them and their willing to borrow friends... Heck I'm in a 15+ people team I don't thing we got enough Nantexes for a swarm. This has been a serious limit of any spam list in the history of the game. Even blatantly broken **** like 4 TLT Ys (back when they were the top dog in the meta ofc) nor 4 Juke Phantoms were THAT played, and those lists were actually easier to get

20 minutes ago, Sunitsa said:

Are those talks about Nantexes following actual play with or against them or it's just feelings and theory? I'm asking unironically, I've yet to see them and I have no idea on what they do other than an ancestral hate on actions happening when blocked or on the rocks.

I don't think they will be a serious meta presence: when and if tournaments will move from TTS/Vassal there won't be many people with so many Nantexes between them and their willing to borrow friends... Heck I'm in a 15+ people team I don't thing we got enough Nantexes for a swarm. This has been a serious limit of any spam list in the history of the game. Even blatantly broken **** like 4 TLT Ys (back when they were the top dog in the meta ofc) nor 4 Juke Phantoms were THAT played, and those lists were actually easier to get

I don’t have a lot of tournament experience, but a lot of practice play. I kinda wish I had tried them yesterday.

When they move last, they can be a bit strong because you can reposition and rotate with board knowledge. If they move first they can play conservatively and mostly plink 2 dice shots or get aggressive and risk getting lit up while tractored.

I think they feel a little more Rock Paper Scissory than some people like, but otherwise they are a list that pretty much just relies on volume of dice, both red and green.

edit for context: I’m tentatively in the “it’s fine” camp, but I know other people are better at spaceships than me.

45 minutes ago, Sunitsa said:

Are those talks about Nantexes following actual play with or against them or it's just feelings and theory? I'm asking unironically, I've yet to see them and I have no idea on what they do other than an ancestral hate on actions happening when blocked or on the rocks.

I don't think they will be a serious meta presence: when and if tournaments will move from TTS/Vassal there won't be many people with so many Nantexes between them and their willing to borrow friends... Heck I'm in a 15+ people team I don't thing we got enough Nantexes for a swarm. This has been a serious limit of any spam list in the history of the game. Even blatantly broken **** like 4 TLT Ys (back when they were the top dog in the meta ofc) nor 4 Juke Phantoms were THAT played, and those lists were actually easier to get

I have, quite a bit. My opinion is likely influenced by what I'm playing (a lot of Rey and a fair amount of low-init jousters), I'll concede that. Maybe other lists/factions handle them fine? It doesn't look like it from the cut of this event, but it's just one event. They joust pretty well, they cast nets pretty well, they can only kind of be blocked, they're cheap and can init kill a lot of stuff. /shrug

1 minute ago, gennataos said:

I have, quite a bit. My opinion is likely influenced by what I'm playing (a lot of Rey and a fair amount of low-init jousters), I'll concede that. Maybe other lists/factions handle them fine? It doesn't look like it from the cut of this event, but it's just one event. They joust pretty well, they cast nets pretty well, they can only kind of be blocked, they're cheap and can init kill a lot of stuff. /shrug

Rey is probably one of the ships they are best at bullseye shooting despite moving first, and they are the paper to low init jouster’s rock. I’m thinking you are on the bad end of their matchups, but that doesn’t mean it feels good.

I will absolutely concede that they are more matchup dependent than average, and being on the wrong end of that feels bad. But I’m pretty sure they are on the wrong end of that sometimes too (which also feels bad).

The feels bad aren’t bad enough that I think they shouldn’t be, but that is super subjective.

5 minutes ago, AEIllingworth said:

The feels bad aren’t bad enough that I think they shouldn’t be, but that is super subjective.

I'll have you know this thread requires you to place arbitrary numbers on your feelings to pretend like there's some sort of quantitative analysis that can be done

3 minutes ago, jagsba said:

I'll have you know this thread requires you to place arbitrary numbers on your feelings to pretend like there's some sort of quantitative analysis that can be done

Yeah, keep up the passive aggressive, point at people and laugh bull. It’s really useful for discussion points.

3 minutes ago, jagsba said:

I'll have you know this thread requires you to place arbitrary numbers on your feelings to pretend like there's some sort of quantitative analysis that can be done

Oh my bad.
I rate Nantex spam at 3.7, whereas lists with more than one force user are ~8. Drones are 1.6, with Sear maybe 2.2.