3 hours ago, svelok said:

really makes you think

I'm willing to admit that nantexans are too good based on the intelligence of the average xwing player

2 hours ago, jagsba said:

I'm willing to admit that nantexans are too good based on the intelligence of the average xwing player

If both of you are jousting, one of you is wrong.

2 hours ago, jagsba said:

I'm willing to admit that nantexans are too good based on the intelligence of the average xwing player

Perhaps. Nantex comes out, is gud, gets nerfed, no one plays it, COVID happens, and now it’s back after a points drop for a different level of good.

would make sense it would be unfamiliar to allot of players.

3 hours ago, jagsba said:

I'm willing to admit that nantexans are too good based on the intelligence of the average xwing player

Wow

Before seeing nantexes on stream I thought at least it would be an hard to play list, lol how wrong I was: you just put arc on front and have 6 ships with great manouvrability that are basically unblockable, have a pseudo Dash ability, ps 4, crackshot and a free red in bullseye that can ram your ship, move arc and shot another...

Still not sure on how strong that is, but it's definitely cancer territory

It occurred to me that if Nantex were OP it would support my narrative, so now I agree.

Fort Hyperspace remains fully operational and accepts all refugees.

2 hours ago, Sunitsa said:

Before seeing nantexes on stream I thought at least it would be an hard to play list, lol how wrong I was: you just put arc on front and have 6 ships with great manouvrability that are basically unblockable, have a pseudo Dash ability, ps 4, crackshot and a free red in bullseye that can ram your ship, move arc and shot another...

Still not sure on how strong that is, but it's definitely cancer territory

either undercosted (for the next 6 months) or overcosted (for the past 6 months) , and why is that? Bad ship design....

Change my mind.

I played vs SunFuk in his "glory days", as well as the new 6 nantex.... and I had to use another cancer to have a slight chance vs it.

13 minutes ago, Dragon_King said:

either undercosted (for the next 6 months) or overcosted (for the past 6 months) , and why is that? Bad ship design....

Change my mind.

8 points is a huge discount.

1 hour ago, svelok said:

It occurred to me that if Nantex were OP it would support my narrative, so now I agree.

Fort Hyperspace remains fully operational and accepts all refugees.

You also think RZ2 are the worst while another unblockable boosting (and rolling!) (side!)turret ship with 3+2/3/4 is somehow wholesome.

22 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

(side!)turret

Sarcasm aside, in fact a single side turret is much preferable to a single rear one! Hard turn away rotate rear is the crux of the problem!

25 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

with 3+2/3/4 is somehow wholesome.

A stronger attack in bullseye on a turret ship is much preferable to no bullseye! Otherwise, they'd just only use the turret!

7 hours ago, FlyingAnchors said:

Perhaps. Nantex comes out, is gud, gets nerfed, no one plays it, COVID happens, and now it’s back after a points drop for a different level of good.

would make sense it would be unfamiliar to allot of players.

There's not understanding how a ship plays and there's telegraphing redlines position.

7 hours ago, FlyingAnchors said:

If both of you are jousting, one of you is wrong.

This is one of those things that I think used to be a useful rule of thumb but now is just sort of a glib X-wing catchphrase that gets thrown around.

The whole notion that most X-wing players are drooling morons who opt into every joust (other than the folks in this thread who are clever enough not to and therefore should be comprising the cut of every event) undercuts the whole role of how the “correct jouster” set up their list, obstacles, and ship deployment.

Is jousting incorrect if turn zero has played out such that your choice is essentially “joust or die”? I mean, if you or anyone else has a clear notion of how to cleverly not joust this, I’m all ears. I’ve played it and played against it, and if the Nantex player is good with their rotations and their range control, I don’t know what the approach is. Flank it? The Nantexes turn and kill whichever element, and maybe lose a Nantex or two, and then their rotations/repositions/dial mean they’re right back on the other element(s) of your list. Block and punish? They run into and bounce off your blocker with their ability, and your block becomes an arc dodge, and you might as well have just blocked Arvel or Zari. Drag it through the obstacles? Again, unless your Nantex player has done something bizarre, the obstacles are their friend and not yours. Wait for your preferred engagement or hit time trying? I hope you salvo at more than 18 reds, because that’s what the Nantex list is doing.

I’m not trying to be condescending or hostile here; if you or anyone has clear answers on how to approach against this list that they’ve actually had success with, I’m all ears, because I’ve found it breaks enough rules for this to be incredibly difficult. But I have no idea how a list such as big clunky RAC and 3 i1 TIEs was expected to somehow outmaneuver and out position the i4 Nantexes, or how Redline (who is still a TIE Punisher!) was supposed to come up with some novel approach that the Nantexes just couldn’t simply respond to with a strategy of trading one sacrificial Nantex for one Redline worth twice the cost.

2 hours ago, svelok said:

It occurred to me that if Nantex were OP it would support my narrative, so now I agree.

Fort Hyperspace remains fully operational and accepts all refugees.

General Grievous and five others liked this post.

GG+5 has a bit more counterplay, but only a little bit. Don’t be too proud of this technological terror format fortress you’ve constructed.

8 minutes ago, DoubleDown11 said:

General Grievous and five others liked this post.

GG+5 has a bit more counterplay, but only a little bit. Don’t be too proud of this technological terror format fortress you’ve constructed.

if nantex without access to crack or predator are overwhelming, the problem is no longer nantex

18 minutes ago, DoubleDown11 said:

This is one of those things that I think used to be a useful rule of thumb but now is just sort of a glib X-wing catchphrase that gets thrown around.

The whole notion that most X-wing players are drooling morons who opt into every joust (other than the folks in this thread who are clever enough not to and therefore should be comprising the cut of every event) undercuts the whole role of how the “correct jouster” set up their list, obstacles, and ship deployment.

Is jousting incorrect if turn zero has played out such that your choice is essentially “joust or die”? I mean, if you or anyone else has a clear notion of how to cleverly not joust this, I’m all ears. I’ve played it and played against it, and if the Nantex player is good with their rotations and their range control, I don’t know what the approach is. Flank it? The Nantexes turn and kill whichever element, and maybe lose a Nantex or two, and then their rotations/repositions/dial mean they’re right back on the other element(s) of your list. Block and punish? They run into and bounce off your blocker with their ability, and your block becomes an arc dodge, and you might as well have just blocked Arvel or Zari. Drag it through the obstacles? Again, unless your Nantex player has done something bizarre, the obstacles are their friend and not yours. Wait for your preferred engagement or hit time trying? I hope you salvo at more than 18 reds, because that’s what the Nantex list is doing.

I’m not trying to be condescending or hostile here; if you or anyone has clear answers on how to approach against this list that they’ve actually had success with, I’m all ears, because I’ve found it breaks enough rules for this to be incredibly difficult. But I have no idea how a list such as big clunky RAC and 3 i1 TIEs was expected to somehow outmaneuver and out position the i4 Nantexes, or how Redline (who is still a TIE Punisher!) was supposed to come up with some novel approach that the Nantexes just couldn’t simply respond to with a strategy of trading one sacrificial Nantex for one Redline worth twice the cost.

I've been playing the other side of this. I started playing grievous + 5 PAA and pivot e to grievous + 4 PAA and always has the same problem. I have only a small number of games under my belt (10 with grievous + 5, and a couple not super serious games with grievous + 4). In every game I lost, it was unironically muh dice.

BUT! that isn't to say this list is unbeatable when it gets good dice, or to say that I always win except muh dice, but rather to say there is simply nothing it can do with all its dice if they roll blanks or a bunch of eyeballs. By playing grievous + 5 PAA, you are accepting that you just lose games against reasonable opponents when you start the match with poor variance.

The bullseye primary is probably my favorite mechanic in the game at the moment, but Nantexes lean so hard into variance that I'm not willing to play it for now.

6 minutes ago, svelok said:

if nantex without access to crack or predator are overwhelming, the problem is no longer nantex

This this this this. I'm only playing hyper these days, so all this talk of Nantexes being broken is 100% against my experience.

...

...that said, I'm not entirely sure your sentiment is correct. The bullseye primary is already encouraging bullseye play, and so anything that upgrades the bullseye will be more efficient on the Nantex than other ships. Its basically the same as the free evade/ juke problem. If crack is fair on the Nantex it's below average on anything else.

2pt more to prevent 6 crackshots would probably be enough already. I don't get how this is controversial or meets that much resistance*. They are very likely undercosted right now, and just enough to make it relevant.

*actually I do, because nuance is not meme-able

4 minutes ago, Ablazoned said:

I've been playing the other side of this. I started playing grievous + 5 PAA and pivot e to grievous + 4 PAA and always has the same problem. I have only a small number of games under my belt (10 with grievous + 5, and a couple not super serious games with grievous + 4). In every game I lost, it was unironically muh dice.

BUT! that isn't to say this list is unbeatable when it gets good dice, or to say that I always win except muh dice, but rather to say there is simply nothing it can do with all its dice if they roll blanks or a bunch of eyeballs. By playing grievous + 5 PAA, you are accepting that you just lose games against reasonable opponents when you start the match with poor variance.

The bullseye primary is probably my favorite mechanic in the game at the moment, but Nantexes lean so hard into variance that I'm not willing to play it for now.

I think that's fair, I had the same experience flying TIE Phantoms. Sometimes you just don't roll any paint, and it's hard to win those outside of taking an extremely risk averse approach (i.e. zero tolerance of being in any arcs ever) to the game and then you end up losing those for different reasons.

But in the Imdaar glory days, losing a ship was 25% of your list. Here, I find the dice have to be pretty awful for a pretty prolonged period to lose badly. My losses have also felt mostly based on variance (bad dice, that asteroid I flew through Direct Hit me, etc.). Otherwise, the list feels like it can shrug off some untimely blank outs because of the sheer quantity of ships. The nightmare opening engage, where you lose a Nantex for almost nothing is playable. Don't forget, until a few weeks ago, that now five Nantex list was a 200 (or more) point list!

GG+5 definitely loses more, especially when opponents (correctly) hunt Grievous down early instead of letting him in the back door. But the mechanics of the Nantex (namely the bump-and-reposition as well as the obstacle shenanigans) are still problematic and lead to some really lopsided games (and some frustrating experiences).

Are they broken? This is absolutely debatable, although we'd have to define broken first. Are they undercosted, possibly very undercosted? I think it's very hard to argue against this, regardless of format.

3 minutes ago, DoubleDown11 said:

The nightmare opening engage, where you lose a Nantex for almost nothing is playable.

For me, this just hasn't been the case. You're either flying against a bunch of ships that can score blocks and deny your one and only single dice mod that you ever get and still fan out enough arcs to catch you, or ships that move after you and can reactively reposition, which makes your tractor choice incredibly painful.

Just so I'm clear, a 3 agility 4 hull ship with a bullseye primary and not turret that has to reduce its agility to reposition, only boosts 1 way, can't shoot behind it, can't link actions, can't reposition without also moving its turret, has no passive mods is cancer?

2 minutes ago, Chumbalaya said:

Just so I'm clear, a 3 agility 4 hull ship with a bullseye primary and not turret that has to reduce its agility to reposition, only boosts 1 way, can't shoot behind it, can't link actions, can't reposition without also moving its turret, has no passive mods is cancer?

In good faith, anything can be cancer if it's too cheap. What's the most boring ship in the game? Maybe the rebel z-95? At 10 points it would be cancer, probably.

2 minutes ago, Chumbalaya said:

Just so I'm clear, a 3 agility 4 hull ship with a bullseye primary and not turret that has to reduce its agility to reposition, only boosts 1 way, can't shoot behind it, can't link actions, can't reposition without also moving its turret, has no passive mods is cancer?

Aaaaand here we go. Thank you for the demonstration.

3 minutes ago, Ablazoned said:

Maybe the rebel z-95? At 10 points it would be cancer, probably.

Leia + Luke + 6Z.

Braylen + Arvel + U-Wing with Leia + 5Z.

2 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

Aaaaand here we go. Thank you for the demonstration.

To be fair, one person did say "cancer territory," even if most folks are like "maybe like +2 points so they don't get great talents too."

Allow me to jump onto the Nantex Play Experience train. This is a list that is bad for the game, in the same sense that Quad Juke Phantoms was bad for the game. I was grossed out by this list before Corellia, and this has only confirmed my suspicions that the list is NPE. The top 32 Corellia chat was afire with "this list is not fun to play against".

To make my comparisons to Quad Phantom clear, let me elaborate. They are I4, giving them an initiative advantage against most lists. They psuedo-cannot be blocked, and you don't know where they will be even if you set up a block. Also, they disregard the green dice you rolled.

Each individual Phantom was stronger than a PWA, but you can take 6 of them to make up for that. That gains you more blocking power vs aces, which were one of the shortcomings of Quad Phantoms. Additionally, Phantoms could get arc dodged, while the Nantex's turret makes that much more difficult. You may say that they are only two die turrets, but they are 6 two die shots that have better time on target than RZ2A's with a 3 die bullseye tossed in every now and again. The passive reposition does require a tractor token. But when you either cannot get shots onto the tractored ship because of that reposition, the tractor doesn't matter, or if all 6 of them take the tractor, it largely won't matter for most of the PWA, because the enemy is going to focus on one or two PWA's to kill them, making the 4 other tractor tokens free unblockable repositions.

@GreenDragoon is being fairly reasonable by saying "put them on a watch list", but I am raising the alarm. Most lists will not be able to counter this list. Hopefully, my thoughts have some weight with some big wins and high placements in large cuts. I went 6-0 in Corellia's swiss losing only 2 ships, and at the start of each match, I could look at a list and say "I know what I need to do to beat this", despite have never flown against any of the lists before. If this one had sat down across from me, I would have been at a loss for strategy, and likely got a loss.

I would say that about 70% of lists won't have a counter strategy to these. To beat this, the best strategy I see is to have large orange and purple numbers. We don't want to encourage the meta to go back that direction.

Again, I am being alarmist, but I have only been alarmist about two lists in second edition: Tripsilon and Quad Phantoms. So, I don't feel that I'm panicking without reason. Tripsilon and Phantoms were both beatable just like this list is, but being able to beat a list doesn't mean that it isn't a NPE.

6 hours ago, Dragon_King said:

either undercosted (for the next 6 months) or overcosted (for the past 6 months) , and why is that? Bad ship design....

YES. Tractor has received three separate nerfs to accommodate this ship's design errors, screwing over every other ship with a tractor mechanic. Now, it rears it's head again without the tractor mechanics (sort of). The best immediate fix to me seems to be to errata the Pin-Point Tractor Array to now say "fully execute". It resolves much of this lists' problems, but also the problems with Ensnare, as well, allowing counterplay in both of those cases.

When FFG was errata shy, I understood trying to fix the ship with rules changes, but when they errata'd...

• Goji who had no meta presence and changed the rules to combat his ability
• Composure to not make TIE/ba's broken
• Static Discharge Vanes that had no meta presence
• Y-Wing Oddball, who's ability sucks on every released ship, to also require "fully execute"

...that excuse is no longer viable.

TL;DR

Nantex have a poor design that is either exploitable or overcosted. ERRATA THE **** SHIP TO SAY FULLY EXECUTE.

13 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:

To be fair, one person did say "cancer territory," even if most folks are like "maybe like +2 points so they don't get great talents too."

So at this point you need only look around you, but yes, here and elsewhere I have seen everything from "horrible NPE" to "basically unbeatable".