25 minutes ago, hargleblarg said:

It's crucial to note that Merl's ability only aplies to primaries.

I did not realize that!

14 minutes ago, gennataos said:

I did not realize that!

New content and easy to miss. I don't hold it against my opponent, as I'm pretty sure he didn't realize it either. Still a really good ability; probably more confounding to your opponent than intimidation, since it works up to range 3.

30 minutes ago, hargleblarg said:

1st: This list carries a 12pt bid, which is crucial to lining up those prockets.

3rd: Intimidation Merl is a beast.

I never played 5A, but I had a pretty good record against them and a playbook that I felt gave me a 60-40 advantage event against a good player. This list tabled me.

Thats a big bid, i was curious what it was but generally accept moving after those I5s anyway. I like trying to block them.

Certainly agree Merl should be more than the generic. Instantly stands out as a kind of steroid Arvel. A huge why not take him.

What were you flying? Out of interest. I too have a reasonably full 5A play book, but this lot look to me like only a fraction of it would apply. Slightly heavier on-approach mitigation, less of an aggressive chase of the 5A mid-game tipping point? Certainly, if you manage to stave off some early Procket fire, you can't afford to go all in on any space you manage to open up, going after key kills.

(Words are hard, so forgive the fudge)

2 minutes ago, Cuz05 said:

What were you flying? Out of interest. I too have a reasonably full 5A play book, but this lot look to me like only a fraction of it would apply. Slightly heavier on-approach mitigation, less of an aggressive chase of the 5A mid-game tipping point? Certainly, if you manage to stave off some early Procket fire, you can't afford to go all in on any space you manage to open up, going after key kills.

I was flying an FO salad of Epsilon, Rivas, Fanatical Scorch, Daredevil Holo, and Daredevil Vonreg. Typically I have the firepower advantage and can leverage that by hunting with Vonreg on the flank, bullying with Holo and Scorch, and blocking exit paths with the I1 FOs. However, I lost the damage race thanks to the prockets and a powerful block from Merl that was probably my fault (There were two rocks between Merl and Vonreg so I didn't even consider the block during my planning, but I should have seen it as a possibility. Merl hard turn barrel-roll boosted to block my admittedly obvious 1-hard).

On 11/6/2020 at 12:01 PM, Cuz05 said:

Math huh.

I go personal anecdote. One time, I fired a Jam Beam and it did something useful. One time. Bit of math there I guess.

Twice in the same game I stripped the lock off of a Major Vynder with my Braylen to save someone from eating a torpedo. Serves him right for making me first player.

1 hour ago, skotothalamos said:

Twice in the same game I stripped the lock off of a Major Vynder with my Braylen to save someone from eating a torpedo. Serves him right for making me first player.

Serves him right for making you first player, and then ending up in your arc with a ship that moves twice.

On 11/10/2020 at 9:21 PM, DR4CO said:

Serves him right for making you first player, and then ending up in your arc with a ship that moves twice.

Quoted for Truth.

Merl- Good news, guys! all five of the Petranaki Arena Aces with Crackshot and Predator are rolling one less defense die!

Petranaki Arena Ace- *holds up hand* until the end of the I4 step

23 minutes ago, MasterShake2 said:

Merl- Good news, guys! all five of the Petranaki Arena Aces with Crackshot and Predator are rolling one less defense die!

Petranaki Arena Ace- *holds up hand* until the end of the I4 step

I think I’m in on 5A against 5 Nantex? The six was brutal because you couldn’t trade up, all the a-wings cost more. In theory some of your As should be under 39 and you can trade up again?

Merl isn’t there for the Nantex matchup, and there is no world where he is worse than the identically costed generic.

5A's are so October. Hello 4A's!

Why is everyone on the war path against all generics now?

Id be down for point increases across the entire cardpool but specifically targeting generics seems really odd.

1 hour ago, Boom Owl said:

Why is everyone on the war path against all generics now?

Id be down for point increases across the entire cardpool but specifically targeting generics seems really odd.

There is certainly a feeling that generics have been buffed a tad far, but I'd say that's part of a consensus that power has creeped too far in general, and that point increases should be more widely applied than just the grunts.

You may just be looking at the crest of the wave, instead of the tide.

14 minutes ago, Cuz05 said:

There is certainly a feeling that generics have been buffed a tad far, but I'd say that's part of a consensus that power has creeped too far in general, and that point increases should be more widely applied than just the grunts.

You may just be looking at the crest of the wave, instead of the tide.

Yea I was about to edit my question to just say "nevermind".

Not worth re-hashing.

I guess it wasn't just about Nantex all along.

Generics probably need a points bump to differentiate them a little, they all got compressed into narrow windows it feels like.

Everything else needs a bump too, because it feels decently close on mook/named balance.

1 minute ago, Boom Owl said:

Yea I was about to edit my question to just say "nevermind".

Not worth re-hashing.

I guess it wasn't just about Nantex all along.

Sorry I archived your unedited post, I hate when that happens

2 hours ago, Boom Owl said:

Why is everyone on the war path against all generics now?

Id be down for point increases across the entire cardpool but specifically targeting generics seems really odd.

Who's "everyone"?

23 minutes ago, gennataos said:

Who's "everyone"?

Poor choice of words. Just seeing a decent amount of angst about generic lists across the community still.

I maybe wrongly assumed the nantex nerfs would lighten the mood slightly but it seems to have just shifted concern to other generics.

Even seeing calls to increase things like t70, fireball, and tie bombers. Its baffling.

Hope its ok to question it.

2 minutes ago, Boom Owl said:

Poor choice of words. Just seeing a decent amount of angst about generic lists across the community still.

I maybe wrongly assumed the nantex nerfs would lighten the mood slightly but it seems to have just shifted concern to other generics.

Even seeing calls to increase things like t70, fireball, and tie bombers. Its baffling.

Hope its ok to question it.

I think only one blog guy was suggesting nerfs of the t-70, bomber, etc...?

I think a lot of people acknowledged that if the bug menace was nerfed, the likes of sloane swarms and wookies would likely replace them, and that may not feel much (any) better.

1 minute ago, gennataos said:

I think a lot of people acknowledged that if the bug menace was nerfed, the likes of sloane swarms and wookies would likely replace them, and that may not feel much (any) better.

Thats fair. Sloane and Wookies aren't very fun I agree.

I guess I was just surprised to see that particular blog celebrated by so many.

2 minutes ago, Boom Owl said:

Thats fair. Sloane and Wookies aren't very fun I agree.

I guess I was just surprised to see that particular blog celebrated by so many.

I think it makes some valid points. But I've also been in the "not playing the competitive game" camp for a while, so I don't delve too far into figuring out what I believe.

/shrug

There might be a feedback loop right now happening where there are some three agility stuff on the cheap side of the bell curve, but they all have two die guns which makes the three agility an even better call, and repeat.

In terms of things that show up in higher ship counts, I’m not positive, but I’m looking at scyks, TIE/fo, rz2s, barons of the empire?, jedi knights?, Nantex? and I don’t think it’s a mistake to take any of them.

Other things that seem good and break the pattern are Wookiees and Fangs and maybe /sf I guess. (And anything next to Sloane).

edit: weirdly (not weirdly) in that list every ship has a way to boost offense. Cannons, Xi, optics, Missile/sloane, CLT, and bullseye respectively.

I don't think focusing on the generics part is correct for several lists:

• Sloane is the problem for sloane swarms. The involved generics are fine or too expensive even. Note that they are mostly 2red dice ships, only few versions use squints, and that sloane does not give a 3rd die
• Terex' range 3 jam is the problem for the Malware xi swarm. Otherwise that list is perfectly fine. Note that they are 2red dice ships and Malarus does not give a 3rd
• Scyks are effectively massed 3/3/4 ships, with control elements. That's too efficient to get 6 of them, even if front arc locked
• Wookies are mostly fine I think? Just 4 of them with the wide arc is tough for certain lists, but that's probably ok
• Spamtex was way too efficient and is now probably still good but fine

7 hours ago, Cuz05 said:

There is certainly a feeling that generics have been buffed a tad far, but I'd say that's part of a consensus that power has creeped too far in general, and that point increases should be more widely applied than just the grunts.

I just found that yesterday, from Jan 11th

https://docs.google.com/document/d/197iRo-JY98ijllHZr3Yi6EUCp46YzIGS2uAfl54Hksk/edit?usp=sharing

44 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

I just found that yesterday, from Jan 11th

https://docs.google.com/document/d/197iRo-JY98ijllHZr3Yi6EUCp46YzIGS2uAfl54Hksk/edit?usp=sharing

I'm confused by not-power creep. All I see in there is power creep.

44 minutes ago, Cuz05 said:

I'm confused by not-power creep. All I see in there is power creep.

You're missing Brunas' good explanation why it was not power creep.

see here: Worth reading through that part, the following page has great examples. Spoiler: Brunas changed my view, which caused me to call it "not-power-creep" . Also it makes me sad to compare the thread then and now.

On 1/10/2020 at 4:03 PM, Brunas said:

This is not what power creep is.

Power creep is when things better than are currently being played are released/changed. There's lots of good examples to use from card games and such, but I suspect the difference is semantics.

Basically, the people worried about power creep are unhappy because they wanted the current top of the line stuff brought down, not the bottom brought up, right?

8 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

You're missing Brunas' good explanation why it was not power creep.

I may not be paying enough attention, struggling with semantics or just being stupid.

I may have the wrong idea about the accepted definition of power creep.

I honestly don't know.

But the playability threshold line creeping further up the power level line looks like power creep to me.