Just now, impspy said:
It should probably be one of those fancy Title/Modification combo cards ala Wave III but you get the idea.
Pictured: the first upgrade with a 3 digit price
Carolina Krayts is the best X-Wing podcast
1 hour ago, Biophysical said:I had a weird thought, and wanted to see what others thought.
We have an A-wing base I1 at 30 points. Great dial, tough enough for the points, low offense.
The I3 version is 34.
The mundane Baron of the Empire is also 34 for similar abilities (linked actions worse, but arguably better dial).
They can all get missiles to put them in the mid 30s to low 40s, depending on the exact upgrades.
These ships are not particularly good, they're certainly not tearing up the meta.
The TIEx1 has more in common with these ships than it does the X-wing. It's priced like an X-wing, but its additional die is very context dependent. A context that is strikingly similar to A-wings and V1s with missiles. The x1 has worse action economy and a much worse action selection, and is more expensive, but has that extra hit point.
My assertion is that an x1 generic should be priced more like an Imperial "dude" (Interceptor, Bomber with Barrage Rockets, Striker) than an X-wing. It's toughness is worth something, but only to let it get a lock and start contributing. In this context, is 36 points too few points for a Tempest? Is 33 too few?
I understand the price point of the x1 isn't one of the real sources of problems in the X-wing world, and it's not hamstringing Imperials by any means, I'm just wondering if this fairly radical assessment of costs feels accurate to you.
I agree. The imperial generics seem pretty radically costed.
2 hours ago, Biophysical said:I had a weird thought, and wanted to see what others thought.
We have an A-wing base I1 at 30 points. Great dial, tough enough for the points, low offense.
The I3 version is 34.
The mundane Baron of the Empire is also 34 for similar abilities (linked actions worse, but arguably better dial).
They can all get missiles to put them in the mid 30s to low 40s, depending on the exact upgrades.
These ships are not particularly good, they're certainly not tearing up the meta.
The TIEx1 has more in common with these ships than it does the X-wing. It's priced like an X-wing, but its additional die is very context dependent. A context that is strikingly similar to A-wings and V1s with missiles. The x1 has worse action economy and a much worse action selection, and is more expensive, but has that extra hit point.
My assertion is that an x1 generic should be priced more like an Imperial "dude" (Interceptor, Bomber with Barrage Rockets, Striker) than an X-wing. It's toughness is worth something, but only to let it get a lock and start contributing. In this context, is 36 points too few points for a Tempest? Is 33 too few?
I understand the price point of the x1 isn't one of the real sources of problems in the X-wing world, and it's not hamstringing Imperials by any means, I'm just wondering if this fairly radical assessment of costs feels accurate to you.
I think 36/37 is a good price point for them. Allows them to take FCS and run 5 generics which is still probably bad but at least it could be used as a filler.
I kind of think the fair price for a TIE x1/Tempest is probably 38, but the "open beta test" price-point ought to be 37. See if 5 FCS x1s would be a problem, and add a point or two if it is. Five. Cartel. Marauders. don't really seem to be a problem list, but I kind of understand them wanting to keep the X-Wing out of the 5-per-list club (I'm probably the only one who hated the Flight Assist X-Wing Swarm Meta--whether 5 or 4 ship).
Even just a 40 point pricetag for the Tempest, same as a Cartel Marauder, would have been interesting. Kihraxz has no frills. Advanced doesn't always get the 3rd die, but has a potentially better upside if well flown. X-Wing costs a point more, but has both red dice consistency, as well as the pretty-sweet S-Foils.
Like with the E-Wing--which ought to have shipped at 57, for 3x Proton Torpedoes, we should have seen the extreme case for TIE Advanced with 5 in a list, perhaps also with FCS. Currently, these things just seem ridiculously overpriced, specifically to avoid some theoretical problem. But that 'problem' maybe isn't too much of an issue. But if it is, the community would more readily accept the high price, if we'd seen first hand the issues caused by a lower price.
//
I mean, ATC has got to be worth like 4 points, right? A missile with unlimited shots, and crit conversions. It doesn't have the Range 3 bonus denial, but it gains a Range 1 attack bonus itself, so that's kind of a wash. If that missile gets printed, it's probably 4 points. But a Storm is only 2 points ahead of where the (overpriced) Green A-Wing and Tansarii Veteran M3-A Scyk are, once you add a hull or shield upgrade.
So what's the baseline chassis worth? While 2/3/3/2, while it doesn't "look" like a Y-Wing, it probably has the same offense (without ATC) and about the same toughness, statistically speaking. But the x1 has better actions (it can link focus into BR, and it has a white BR) and a better dial. That's worth 2 points over a naked Y-Wing right? Y-Wing + 2 for the dial/actions + 4 for ATC is 38.
There's something appealing about having a TIE Advanced be the same 34 as a Striker or TIE Interceptor, but the defensive statline is just so far superior (two extra shields over a squint!), and the ATC seems like the kind of thing that's easy to underestimate if it winds up becoming a 5-per-squad ship.
6 hours ago, Biophysical said:In this context, is 36 points too few points for a Tempest? Is 33 too few?
I kinda think, yeah. At least with 33.
But the right test price is 37--Five with Fire Control System.
//
I saw an interesting thing the other day: a few Advanced x1s flown along side Howlrunner. Non-extended Second Edition format, so there weren't too many options, but the core concept of it kind of made sense to me.
If Tempests were 40 points, Howlrunner + 4x Tempest would be an interesting list to try out. Might not work out, but something about Howlie is appealing. Covering your offense on the approach, making your 2-dice + Focus punch up, then getting into the Locks afterwards, and using Howl as a substitute FCS.
Something legal going through my mind:
- Howlrunner
- Maarek Stele
- Ved Folso
- Mauler Mithel
-
Gideon Hask
- 199 points as is, fill it up with Crack Shot (Maarek gets one first). Maybe change Gideon or Mauler to Wampa.
Everyone is Init 4-5, can go up to 3 attack dice under certain circumstances, and Howlrunner is going to be a scary enough target that she probably draws fire away from Maarek and Ved, if they're able to lock on the initial engagement.
Depending on how many points you assign to the variable third dice, the X1 pays effectively full price for two shield upgrades at 3 agility
FFG just seem afraid of 3/3 statlines
Edited by svelokThe big issue for me is that being dependent on target locks hurts more and more the higher your agility since you aren't sitting on a focus token you can spend on defense if needed. An AGI 3 Tempest having to forgo focus to lock is functioning more like an AGI 2 ship (assuming it is being shot at). If you have to keep choosing lock over focus since you don't have FCS / need to keep changing targets, it really hurts your durability. They also don't have the ability to turn more than 90 degrees and still get dice modifiers, which is a huge liability over Strikers or Interceptors. They start to look like Barrage Bombers once you get past the initial exchange (i.e. bad), but they also struggle to be useful on the initial pass due to their lock requirement. Would any of you guys take Tempests over Strikers/Interceptors if they were costed at 34 too? Maybe in a Jendon swarm if the meta settled towards 2 ship builds?
Incidentally, I remember a lot of talk about Homing Missiles being amazing for 3 points a few months ago and yet they are nowhere to be seen, even though we have some high durability annoying targets that wouldn't like to be taking auto damage. Should all missiles going forward be attack (focus)? Unless we see Tracers make a return, it seems like the lock requirement is consistently a deal breaker for ordnance not named Proton Torpedoes. I'm fine with Proton Torpedoes being hard to use since they are really powerful, but it would be nice if the barrier for use on the more mid-tier missiles were lower.
Just now, Transmogrifier said:Incidentally, I remember a lot of talk about Homing Missiles being amazing for 3 points a few months ago and yet they are nowhere to be seen, even though we have some high durability annoying targets that wouldn't like to be taking auto damage. Should all missiles going forward be attack (focus)? Unless we see Tracers make a return, it seems like the lock requirement is consistently a deal breaker for ordnance not named Proton Torpedoes. I'm fine with Proton Torpedoes being hard to use since they are really powerful, but it would be nice if the barrier for use on the more mid-tier missiles were lower.
The TL being a deal breaker is because of the nature of the Target Lock action: being lower initiative makes it exponentially harder to acquire the lock successfully without also being range controll-ed or dodged.
It's not like we're seeing much TL-ordinance on anything except i5, with very few exceptions (deathrain, jendon locks, etc). It not an issue with homing missiles.
I'm keeping an eye on Targeting Synchronizer for that Tech slot. Put that on Poe and stay within his range 1-2 bubble with some cheap munition carriers (likely RZ2 A-Wings).....I'm watching you 
1 minute ago, Tlfj200 said:The TL being a deal breaker is because of the nature of the Target Lock action: being lower initiative makes it exponentially harder to acquire the lock successfully without also being range controll-ed or dodged.
It's not like we're seeing much TL-ordinance on anything except i5, with very few exceptions (deathrain, jendon locks, etc). It not an issue with homing missiles.
Yeah I know why we aren't seeing them (If you're paying for I5+ so you can actually use ordnance, you aren't wasting time with 1 damage, you're bringing Proton Torpedoes).
I'm saying that we need to get ordnance that isn't lock dependent so that we can actually see ordnance use outside of I5+/barrage rockets. If Concussion Missiles were Attack (focus), then they still wouldn't be a great choice for Redline since if you're paying for I5 + a great pilot ability you want to make the most of it. But they would potentially have a role on a 2 attack ship looking to punch above its weight for a few shots.
1 minute ago, Transmogrifier said:
Yeah I know why we aren't seeing them (If you're paying for I5+ so you can actually use ordnance, you aren't wasting time with 1 damage, you're bringing Proton Torpedoes).
I'm saying that we need to get ordnance that isn't lock dependent so that we can actually see ordnance use outside of I5+/barrage rockets. If Concussion Missiles were Attack (focus), then they still wouldn't be a great choice for Redline since if you're paying for I5 + a great pilot ability you want to make the most of it. But they would potentially have a role on a 2 attack ship looking to punch above its weight for a few shots.
Sure, or similar deadeye mechanics. I'm in.
Deadeye 2.0 would be a good solution - you could call it Guidance Chips and make it a modification 😆. I would definitely limit it to working on Missile upgrades only though.
Just now, Transmogrifier said:Deadeye 2.0 would be a good solution - you could call it Guidance Chips and make it a modification 😆. I would definitely limit it to working on Missile upgrades only though.
That unironically sounds fine.
4 minutes ago, Tlfj200 said:That unironically sounds fine.
Also why im so hype for CIS and Vulture Droids!
I really like the "Action: reload this card" mechanic on the Energy-Shell Charges as a way to keep the power level reasonable.
I kinda hope the Vultures get some kinda bonus for not parking on rocks.
Also...Roger Roger
2 minutes ago, Boom Owl said:I kinda hope the Vultures get some kinda bonus for not parking on rocks.
agreed - I want them to be wholesome so bad.
3 minutes ago, Transmogrifier said:agreed - I want them to be wholesome so bad.
ROGER ROGER
1 hour ago, Transmogrifier said:The big issue for me is that being dependent on target locks hurts more and more the higher your agility since you aren't sitting on a focus token you can spend on defense if needed. An AGI 3 Tempest having to forgo focus to lock is functioning more like an AGI 2 ship (assuming it is being shot at). If you have to keep choosing lock over focus since you don't have FCS / need to keep changing targets, it really hurts your durability. They also don't have the ability to turn more than 90 degrees and still get dice modifiers, which is a huge liability over Strikers or Interceptors. They start to look like Barrage Bombers once you get past the initial exchange (i.e. bad), but they also struggle to be useful on the initial pass due to their lock requirement. Would any of you guys take Tempests over Strikers/Interceptors if they were costed at 34 too? Maybe in a Jendon swarm if the meta settled towards 2 ship builds?
I'd definitely try them at 34. They're meaty enough for the points to swarm and try to bully stuff.
39 minutes ago, Transmogrifier said:Deadeye 2.0 would be a good solution - you could call it Guidance Chips and make it a modification 😆. I would definitely limit it to working on Missile upgrades only though.
39 minutes ago, Tlfj200 said:That unironically sounds fine.
Generic Inquisitors can do this. 45 points for a 2 dice gun, a force and 2 Homer shots when you need them. Are we sleeping on these, or is 2 shots not worth a quarter of your list?
1 hour ago, RStan said:I'm keeping an eye on Targeting Synchronizer for that Tech slot. Put that on Poe and stay within his range 1-2 bubble with some cheap munition carriers (likely RZ2 A-Wings).....I'm watching you
There is also the synchronized console in the Arc expansion that looks like it will be about sharing target locks as well.
I am wondering if FFG is noticing the issues around target locks and low initiative pilots and adding different ways to address it to different factions.
50 minutes ago, GeneralVryth said:There is also the synchronized console in the Arc expansion that looks like it will be about sharing target locks as well.
I am wondering if FFG is noticing the issues around target locks and low initiative pilots and adding different ways to address it to different factions.
The hard part is addressing something like that in the game without it still just making the higher Initiative or named pilots better anyway. It's a difficult balancing act for sure.
Just now, RStan said:The hard part is addressing something like that in the game without it still just making the higher Initiative or named pilots better anyway. It's a difficult balancing act for sure.
Very true. That's why personally I have liked the idea of a mod that let's you to trade or spend a focus to acquire a target lock at the start of the combat phase, with some additional limitation. It's usefulness would be inversely proportional to initiative. In fact we could use a few upgrades that trigger at the end of the activation/beginning of the combat phase that provide the effect of normal actions with some limitation since their value will pretty much always been inversely proportional to initiative, which is something that is not true for a lot of upgrades.
1 hour ago, Biophysical said:I'd definitely try them at 34. They're meaty enough for the points to swarm and try to bully stuff.
Generic Inquisitors can do this. 45 points for a 2 dice gun, a force and 2 Homer shots when you need them. Are we sleeping on these, or is 2 shots not worth a quarter of your list?
this is an experimental list to see if I can the TAP working - the generic Inquisitor pretty much has dead eye
Edited by freakyg3
generic inquisitor with instinctive aim is pretty much deadeye
2 hours ago, Transmogrifier said:Deadeye 2.0 would be a good solution - you could call it Guidance Chips and make it a modification 😆. I would definitely limit it to working on Missile upgrades only though.