4 hours ago, svelok said:

Crack Shot Did Nothing Wrong

Whodah thunk we'd be upset about bullseye mechanics two years into 2e?

Maybe its good bullseyes spammed at high initiative or something...

1 minute ago, Bucknife said:

Whodah thunk we'd be upset about bullseye mechanics two years into 2e?

Maybe its good bullseyes spammed at high initiative or something...

I agree. Nerf soontir

1 minute ago, 5050Saint said:

Gotcha. It's not the worst part of the list. It's just part of the math. Maybe it is the worst for other folks, I cannot say.

The strengths of the list are:

• Resistance to blocking due to Pinpoint Tractor Array allowing them to reposition when blocked
• Resistance to obstacles due to Pinpoint Tractor Array allowing them to reposition when they hit or land on a rock or gas
• Near 100% time on target due to the turret
• Three die bullseye backed by Crack Shot is strong and hard to avoid when you have 6 of them
• I4 and a decent bid on six ships allows them to be 6 aces versus the majority of the field
• 6 bodies each with multiple arcs make blocking aces* trivial
• a great dial, one of the best in the game
• So cheap that when you destroy one you've only gained around 32-33 points.

*Aces that can run away and still get shots

• I4 and a decent bid on six ships allows them to be 6 aces versus the majority of the field

The majority of the field is not generics. I'd sum it up with "Actual aces".

Waiting on the full report, but we see less than 40% of ships used in the meta currently are generics.
This seems ok-ish until you realize that most of the generics are tied up in lists with 6+ generics. If you do all 2,3, and 4 ship lists (two-thirds of all lists), only 16% of those pilots are generics, and almost all of those are in the 4 ship lists. ****, most lists dont have any generics.

Just now, Brunas said:

Would you then think it is fair to summarize the reason nantexes aren't fun to play against is purely a power level issue, then?

Power level, yes, but also as @Npmartian said, they feel like they are playing a different game sometimes (in regards to slightly ignoring obstacles and bumps). 6 in a list at i4 is rough. 5 at i4 or 6 at i3 would be much more managable. i3 give many more options to init-kill them. So, yeah, power level and the lack of "fully execute" seem to be the largest parts of the equation.

2 minutes ago, Brunas said:

Would you then think it is fair to summarize the reason nantexes aren't fun to play against is purely a power level issue, then?

Mostly? I think that it's ok for them to have their cool funky tricks, it's just that those tricks are also quite strong and that they're getting them for a bit too cheap. So basically yes, but we also need to actually try to adapt and learn like what @pheaver and @Chumbalaya are trying to do instead of just circle jerking about the problem.

2 minutes ago, Npmartian said:

Mostly? I think that it's ok for them to have their cool funky tricks, it's just that those tricks are also quite strong and that they're getting them for a bit too cheap. So basically yes, but we also need to actually try to adapt and learn like what @pheaver and @Chumbalaya are trying to do instead of just circle jerking about the problem.

Wed all be better off listening to chumby instead of circle jerking

Also 6x A-wings is massivley unfun to play against. in Top... something Adepticon (The one that gives you an invite to worlds, back when people were panicking about this), I was up against an opponent who was flying 5A. I was flying 4x Phantom- one of few lists that was not supceptible to the standard A-wing tactic of "Fly past them and shoot and then run away and take plink shots) on account of the phantoms being just as fast as the A-wings and being able to keep their backs to the board edge, preventing them from going past me.

We looked at each other and decided that it would be not-fun to play and just final salvoed.

2 minutes ago, Npmartian said:

Mostly? I think that it's ok for them to have their cool funky tricks, it's just that those tricks are also quite strong and that they're getting them for a bit too cheap. So basically yes, but we also need to actually try to adapt and learn like what @pheaver and @Chumbalaya are trying to do instead of just circle jerking about the problem.

¿Porqué no los dos?

Improvise. Adapt. Overc#m.

3 minutes ago, Hoarder of Garlic Bread said:

¿Porqué no los dos?

Improvise. Adapt. Overc#m.

Didn't I use the word also?

6 minutes ago, Npmartian said:

Mostly? I think that it's ok for them to have their cool funky tricks, it's just that those tricks are also quite strong and that they're getting them for a bit too cheap. So basically yes, but we also need to actually try to adapt and learn like what @pheaver and @Chumbalaya are trying to do instead of just circle jerking about the problem.

I have no idea who is arguing what point any more.

All i know is the one universal truth apparently still holds true.

Generic TIE strikers are bad.

Like, really bad.

If its a power level issue, we don;t want to end up in the classic scenario of "Aces are efficient enough at trading shots that if they trade shots with a generic list, it is a neutral exchange or better" because that **** gets unfun fast.

Just now, Npmartian said:

Didn't I use the word also?

You did, but also implied that the likes of @5050Saint or @GreenDragoon were exclusively complaining. All the same good point.

Anyways just wanted to make a joke.

2 minutes ago, Kaptin Krunch said:

I have no idea who is arguing what point any more.

All i know is the one universal truth apparently still holds true.

Generic TIE strikers are bad.

Like, really bad.

If its a power level issue, we don;t want to end up in the classic scenario of "Aces are efficient enough at trading shots that if they trade shots with a generic list, it is a neutral exchange or better" because that **** gets unfun fast.

Hey, as long as they don't solve the nantex issue with "BUFF ACES" instead of "MAYBE CRACK NEEDS TO GO TO 3 AND NANTEX UP A FEW" then we're good. And this is FFG, not GW, so you're allowed to be cautiously optimistic and maybe even expect reason.

/s

21 hours ago, Cuz05 said:

So.... what's your favourite X Wing thing ever?

It's multiple choice-

A) Swarms

B) Aces.

That's it. There's no other choices.

This is obviously a stupid pot stirring question, the right answer is to not answer

I realize this is backtracking but I think it raises a salient point. What do we want to be able to be good?

No joke, some variation of 5-ship, mixing up between I3-I4, named and unnamed. It's all terrible right now. Make it somehow good and I'll consider the balance of this game to be pretty on-point. I mean look at this.

Rebel version:

Arvel Crynyd (34)

"Dutch" Vander (40)
Proton Torpedoes (13)
Proton Bombs (5)

Ezra Bridger (40)
Foresight (4)

Green Squadron Pilot (32)

Green Squadron Pilot (32)

Total: 200

Imp Version:

Turr Phennir (42)
Crack Shot (2)

Major Rhymer (37)
Intimidation (3)
Adv. Proton Torpedoes (5)
Afterburners (6)

Black Squadron Scout (33)
Crack Shot (2)

Black Squadron Scout (33)
Crack Shot (2)

Black Squadron Scout (33)
Crack Shot (2)

Total: 200

I don't see how you could take a list like this and expect to do good work with it. I3 and to a lesser extent I4 are just in a horrible spot.

Just now, Hoarder of Garlic Bread said:

You did, but also implied that the likes of @5050Saint or @GreenDragoon were exclusively complaining. All the same good point.

Anyways just wanted to make a joke.

Whoops. Implications and tone are hard over the internet, and I didn't intend that. Jokes are fine, I think.

2 minutes ago, ClassicalMoser said:

I realize this is backtracking but I think it raises a salient point. What do we want to be able to be good?

Ace Squad Gang

3 minutes ago, ClassicalMoser said:

I realize this is backtracking but I think it raises a salient point. What do we want to be able to be good?

No joke, some variation of 5-ship, mixing up between I3-I4, named and unnamed. It's all terrible right now. Make it somehow good and I'll consider the balance of this game to be pretty on-point. I mean look at this.

Rebel version:

Arvel Crynyd (34)

"Dutch" Vander (40)
Proton Torpedoes (13)
Proton Bombs (5)

Ezra Bridger (40)
Foresight (4)

Green Squadron Pilot (32)

Green Squadron Pilot (32)

Total: 200

Imp Version:

Turr Phennir (42)
Crack Shot (2)

Major Rhymer (37)
Intimidation (3)
Adv. Proton Torpedoes (5)
Afterburners (6)

Black Squadron Scout (33)
Crack Shot (2)

Black Squadron Scout (33)
Crack Shot (2)

Black Squadron Scout (33)
Crack Shot (2)

Total: 200

I think there's some space for viable 5 ship lists. There's some I think are even pretty good!

3 minutes ago, ClassicalMoser said:

I don't see how you could take a list like this and expect to do good work with it. I3 and to a lesser extent I4 are just in a horrible spot.

This is part of my confusion. I3 and 4 I thought were generally considered meh but nantex are oppressive at i4 and maybe okay at i3?

Just now, Npmartian said:

Hey, as long as they don't solve the nantex issue with "BUFF ACES" instead of "MAYBE CRACK NEEDS TO GO TO 3 AND NANTEX UP A FEW" then we're good. And this is FFG, not GW, so you're allowed to be cautiously optimistic and maybe even expect reason.

/s

Honestly, i think the answer is "Buff other generics to the power level of a crack nantex, then nerf the crack nantex in an incredibly minor way so the internet doesn't rage"

A cracktex is 32
A Crackstriker is 35
3 die bullseye+ 2 die turret is equalish, maybe better to just 3 die forward primary, due to the increased uptime.
Pinpoint tractor equivalentish to AA on a middle init platform (not moving after an "ace")
Nantex has an extra agility and a point of initiative.
F for the Striker.

You could make Crack init scaled, so it costs 1/1/1/3/5/6 on init 1/2/3/4/5/6, respectively?

Then cut the BSS down another point, as well as a point or two on the Planetary Sentinel. This makes 6x Crack Striker fit, which is OK, but i'm unsure if it's actually good.

Or give all Generic TIE strikers an extra point of heath (Don't they have shields or something?)

Alternatively nerf the **** of everything down to the level of the Black Squadron Scout.

The alternative seems to be Jousty Aces, because let me tell you. Those aces can totally joust.

at a similar point to 2x Black Scouts, we have Kylo. Kylo hits so much harder, so much more defensive, so much faster and more manueverable, and is init 5.

On 9/5/2020 at 10:45 PM, GreenDragoon said:

We have a second data point now. People knew what to expect. Spamtex got better. Still watchlist because I want to see if anything changes by Coruscant. But we just moved a bit closer to the panic button with that 83% cut rate.

Already 22 pages ago. I still hold that opinion - no panic for me.

It is mostly an efficiency issue, the unblockable tractor is a bit agency removing icing on top. Mainly anything except large orange/purple has a problem, and that is bad for the game because it pushes the meta towards high initiative arcdodgers. Large orange/purple also has a bit of a problem, but not by as much.

I'm fine with Spamtex for the next 5 months:

On 9/8/2020 at 9:31 AM, GreenDragoon said:

Personally I see no problem with half a year of broken lists, you can always sit it out or take it as challenge.

I'm interested in reading from players who tried the list - with and against - and have insight to offer. But for my part I'm outski.

6 minutes ago, Kaptin Krunch said:

Buff other generics to the power level of a crack nantex

Please, lord, no.

28 minutes ago, Kaptin Krunch said:

The majority of the field is not generics. I'd sum it up with "Actual aces".

Waiting on the full report, but we see less than 40% of ships used in the meta currently are generics.
This seems ok-ish until you realize that most of the generics are tied up in lists with 6+ generics. If you do all 2,3, and 4 ship lists (two-thirds of all lists), only 16% of those pilots are generics, and almost all of those are in the 4 ship lists. ****, most lists dont have any generics.

Named pilots aren't by definition aces, right? Perhaps I inadequately explained, but the PACEs are essentially aces to anything I4 and below. I'd be willing to bet a very small amount of money that 51% of the ships taken at Dathomir or Corellia were i4 or below.

1 minute ago, 5050Saint said:

Please, lord, no.

Named pilots aren't by definition aces, right? Perhaps I inadequately explained, but the PACEs are essentially aces to anything I4 and below. I'd be willing to bet a very small amount of money that 51% of the ships taken at Dathomir or Corellia were i4 or below.

Again, that will get weighted own by how named vs generic pilots are generally distributed. They tend to arrive in groups- placing a single generic pilot in a list is typically only done as a disposable blocker. If the 8 man tournament is 6x Han Luke, 1x 6tex, Focho, more than half of ships would be within 2 players lists, and you'd have init 1 being the most common initiatve solely because of one guy, when clearly the initiative-to-beat at this tournament is "6 with a bid or don't bother". This compounds since the higher init ships have higher point costs, and tend to be a bigger part of the list. In effect, the Han Lukes could be han Wedge, han 2x, or whatever. The point is these lists are all Han+Whaever. The high init aces are the central defining point of the list.

I would be willing to bet a bit of money that well over half of (all non6tex) lists had a highest inititatve of 5 or higher.

I have a preliminary chart now of generic vs unique pilots used , but no initiative breakdown. Further, as indicated by earlier posts (ClassicalMoser), we know most i3-4 named pilots are crap, and we can assume that they do not show up with much frequency?

59% of the field has no generics. 15% of the field had 1-2.

We have historically (since incepton) played a game where named pilots, notably i5+ ones, are the most frequently encountered archetype. It's anecdotal, but in the only non-staged (as in "I want to play vs 6tex") games I've seen recorded, it was an init 6/5/4 squad where the init 4 pilot was 18% of the list and a pure support piece that, if it could be swapped to a pair of 18 point upgrades that said "You get a focus each turn for free" would be taken in his place. (This pilot is Jake, and i would argue that including squads with Jake as "Squads that use init 3-4 seriously" would be highly disengenous as he would be taken at init 1 if it was the only option)

27 minutes ago, 5050Saint said:

Please, lord, no.

Second. I think I1-I2 generics are very very close to right at this point (exceptions exist). I think the bigger problem is with a lot of low-firepower I5-6 slipping through the cracks. Kylo, Zizi, Obi, Ric, Plo, Fett, Duchess, even Soontir. I don't think they need a giant nerf, but at least a little one would help. Then buff everything I3, and most of the named I4s (not the B-Wings). That probably evens things out enough.

47 minutes ago, jagsba said:

This is part of my confusion. I3 and 4 I thought were generally considered meh but nantex are oppressive at i4 and maybe okay at i3?

I3 is bad garbage. I4 is currently okay-ish, with lots of well-played pilots out there (Silencers, Grievous, B-Wings, Jake, etc.)

Is is not weird to anyone that the two-talent I4 PAA is a point cheaper than the I1 no-talent Alpha Squadron Interceptor? The second-cheapest I4 generic in the game is the Saber Squadron Interceptor and it's six points more.

I'm not saying the Interceptors are necessarily priced correctly, but that's a pretty big deal. The full front-arc 3-primary surely isn't as good as a free turret, and autothrusters leaves you stressed...

Generally I don't like comparing prices based on what's meta as much as what's comparable and priced very differently. Probably because I care as much about what's bad as what's good.

Addendum:

So many people were terrified by the idea of allowing 6 TIE Interceptors on the board at all, for quite a long time. But those are completely blockable and at I1 they can be dodged by pretty much anyone, even with their autothrusters. They're locked into a forward arc, frequently stressed, and only have 3 health. The I1 doesn't even have a talent slot.

Now imagine 6 Saber Intercepters at I4, with crack shot. Would that be better or worse than the Nantexans? It's definitely a lot of 3-primaries, but also less time on target. Effectively blockable by I1-4 and easily dodgeable by I4-6.

I've always thought the Interceptor should have the extra talent but that's neither here nor there. At any rate it's ... odd to see how the community opinion shifts over the course of a year.

Oh, thanks @svelok for the info.

Including 6tex,

Lists maxing out at each initiative (% of total):
1: 20(5.13%)
2: 10(2.56%)
3: 24(6.15%)
4: 66(16.92%)
5: 150(38.46%)
6: 116(29.74%)

almost 70% are init 5+6 lists, and that includes 6tex flooding the init 4 bundle.

3 minutes ago, ClassicalMoser said:

Is is not weird to anyone that

1. the two-talent I4 PAA is a point cheaper than the I1 no-talent Alpha Squadron Interceptor?

2. The second-cheapest I4 generic in the game is the Saber Squadron Interceptor and it's six points more.

no, because:

1. generic interceptors being too expensive compared to things that are good is basically a tradition
2. the next-cheapest i4 generic after the saber is fully 47 points, an 11-pt jump, but that doesn't particularly say anything about the saber (basically bad) or the skull/black ace (theoretically both good but literally nobody plays them so maybe not)

3 minutes ago, svelok said:

no, because:

1. generic interceptors being too expensive compared to things that are good is basically a tradition
2. the next-cheapest i4 generic after the saber is fully 47 points, an 11-pt jump, but that doesn't particularly say anything about the saber (basically bad) or the skull/black ace (theoretically both good but literally nobody plays them so maybe not)

in short, it's not wierd, Generic Interceptors and Strikers were always crap.

That being said, they shoudn't be crap.