Honestly, I am going to miss Super Luke.

Happy Friday Spaceship Pilots .

36 minutes ago, Sunitsa said:

But I'm not seeing second edition as actually realizing in making the game better: they just switched once again what is broken and what is unplayble, but this time with even less choices than there were during the last days of 1.0 (which at this point I will probably sound as a broken record, but other than some very worrisome things that would be easy to fix, had a pretty nice meta).

Yeah great, finally we don't have 360° PWT and it is awesome, but we also have a game were moving last is good people is paying double digit points to get that...

It's kind of interesting - the feature of swapping out what's "broken"/"unplayable" is one of the big selling points for second edition.

Curious how extreme the changes are willing to be - clearly the turrets were conservatively priced, as it would have obviously been a disaster if 2e dropped and fat turrets destroyed everything...

The meta force of "I'm probably going to shoot your ace no matter what, so you better be at least decent at trading shots" would be helpful at the moment

32 minutes ago, Sunitsa said:

I'm probably more bitter about it because second edition is killing my comunity, both at local and nation level...

That's a real bummer

13 minutes ago, Brunas said:

 The meta force of "I'm probably going to shoot your ace no matter what, so you better be at least decent at trading shots" would be helpful at the moment

Not sure if this is deep and insightful or anything but aren't most of the currently "ok" or close to relevant turrets also boosting high init aces? Albeit blockable and less defensible.

16 minutes ago, Brunas said:

It's kind of interesting - the feature of swapping out what's "broken"/"unplayable" is one of the big selling points for second edition.

Curious how extreme the changes are willing to be - clearly the turrets were conservatively priced, as it would have obviously been a disaster if 2e dropped and fat turrets destroyed everything...

The meta force of "I'm probably going to shoot your ace no matter what, so you better be at least decent at trading shots" would be helpful at the moment

Wouldn't a lack of pre dial repositioning go a long way toward solving this issue without bringing back cheap turrets?

That being said, a cheaper Luke Gunner would be pretty good against the Kylos of the game while not being all that special against 4 or 5 ship lists.

Overall, I feel like the game is so close to being really good, and I think killing SNR/AS has a much smaller chance of unintended consequences than bringing back really good turrets.

58 minutes ago, Sunitsa said:

I have been playing since wave 5 and there are no doubts there have been lots of broken things during 1.0 lifespan that made a pretty miserable game experience. Fat Han, Palpatine, Manaroo, Miranda, Attanni, Lowhrick and X/7 were all mistakes that hurt the game in the long run. 

Apologies then! I just remember that you liked large base turrets and passive mods.

59 minutes ago, Sunitsa said:

But I'm not seeing second edition as actually realizing in making the game better: they just switched once again what is broken and what is unplayble, but this time with even less choices than there were during the last days of 1.0 (which at this point I will probably sound as a broken record, but other than some very worrisome things that would be easy to fix, had a pretty nice meta).

And you don't see any improvement over 1.0? I just don't understand why you do not.

2.0 Extended has many a larger amount of viable lists. By that I mean there are more lists that have an actual shot against the best lists (Whisper/Redline/Deathrain or Soontir, all the scum combinations of Boba Palob 4Lom Guri Fenn Kavil L337 ...). These lists are clearly better, but they are still well beatable by stuff like swarms or your choice of odd ships. There is not this ridiculous disparity as we had it in 1.0 for years. Years! There was simply no point in bringing a very large amount of lists against Dengaroo or 3 Defenders.

That is now different, even in extended. And Hyperspace is yet again better.

So I can't understand how you can call 2.0 broken and unplayable. And I've played 5 Awings against BobaGuri yesterday. That's about as unplayable as a matchup as you can get!

21 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

Apologies then! I just remember that you liked large base turrets and passive mods.

And you don't see any improvement over 1.0? I just don't understand why you do not.

2.0 Extended has many a larger amount of viable lists. By that I mean there are more lists that have an actual shot against the best lists (Whisper/Redline/Deathrain or Soontir, all the scum combinations of Boba Palob 4Lom Guri Fenn Kavil L337 ...). These lists are clearly better, but they are still well beatable by stuff like swarms or your choice of odd ships. There is not this ridiculous disparity as we had it in 1.0 for years. Years! There was simply no point in bringing a very large amount of lists against Dengaroo or 3 Defenders.

That is now different, even in extended. And Hyperspace is yet again better.

So I can't understand how you can call 2.0 broken and unplayable. And I've played 5 Awings against BobaGuri yesterday. That's about as unplayable as a matchup as you can get!

I don’t want to be a downer, but I’m with @Sunitsa, though maybe not as far.

like, if this was the meta for the rest of the game, I’d probably dip out. It’s the thought of 1) no extended and 2) rebalancing hat is keeping me excited.

so yeah, the core game is better, but it doesn’t mean it’s super fun, either.

3 minutes ago, Tlfj200 said:

I don’t want to be a downer, but I’m with @Sunitsa, though maybe not as far.

like, if this was the meta for the rest of the game, I’d probably dip out. It’s the thought of 1) no extended and 2) rebalancing hat is keeping me excited.

so yeah, the core game is better, but it doesn’t mean it’s super fun, either.

That implies you see extended as core game?

2 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

That implies you see extended as core game?

No, I see the core mechanics as the core game.

but given that there’s still a hardcore holdout for extended, its worth mentioning.

1 minute ago, Tlfj200 said:

No, I see the core mechanics as the core game.

but given that there’s still a hardcore holdout for extended, its worth mentioning.

Now I really don't understand. If the core game isn't super fun, and you call the core mechanics the core game, then the game does not have the potential (yet) - according to you- to be super fun.

The core mechanics are kinda set? There are some extensions like new obstacles or hooking to certain obstacles. But the rest of 2.0 will be largely the same that we have now. If that's not fun then it won't be fun.

like, if this was the meta for the rest of the game, I’d probably dip out. It’s the thought of 1) no extended and 2) rebalancing hat is keeping me excited.

so yeah, the core game is better, but it doesn’t mean [the current meta, and thus, the game we currently play] super fun, either.

So I'm saying the core game is better... but because of the imbalance of points between ships, which focuses on a heavy munition and initiative meta with deep bids, or ships that are [again] hyper resistant to damage (hi boba!), just because they revamped the core mechanics to be better, it doesn't make the game currently fun, either.

47 minutes ago, Brunas said:

It's kind of interesting - the feature of swapping out what's "broken"/"unplayable" is one of the big selling points for second edition.

Curious how extreme the changes are willing to be - clearly the turrets were conservatively priced, as it would have obviously been a disaster if 2e dropped and fat turrets destroyed everything...

The meta force of "I'm probably going to shoot your ace no matter what, so you better be at least decent at trading shots" would be helpful at the moment

That's a real bummer

Yeah, the swapping part is probably the only thing I enjoyed so far. But it could have been achieved with softer means than an whole edition wipe. If a switch in the meta is the only thing 2.0 can achieve, as a custome I feel cheated

I have very remaining hopes on FFG designers tbh. I can understand turrets being priced conservatives but then why there's a thing like the Resistence Falcon with its dial and red actions?

I can see Darth Vader crew going under the radar (if we actually compare it with other non-imperial force crews not really, but at least it's partially understandable) but why Redline? Did FFG need to get rid of tons of unsold Punishers or were really the designers so blind about the price only ship in the game that can take double mod without stress?

21 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

Apologies then! I just remember that you liked large base turrets and passive mods.

And you don't see any improvement over 1.0? I just don't understand why you do not.

2.0 Extended has many a larger amount of viable lists. By that I mean there are more lists that have an actual shot against the best lists (Whisper/Redline/Deathrain or Soontir, all the scum combinations of Boba Palob 4Lom Guri Fenn Kavil L337 ...). These lists are clearly better, but they are still well beatable by stuff like swarms or your choice of odd ships. There is not this ridiculous disparity as we had it in 1.0 for years. Years! There was simply no point in bringing a very large amount of lists against Dengaroo or 3 Defenders.

That is now different, even in extended. And Hyperspace is yet again better.

So I can't understand how you can call 2.0 broken and unplayable. And I've played 5 Awings against BobaGuri yesterday. That's about as unplayable as a matchup as you can get!

I wasn't really fond of "free" passive mods. I liked the partial inevitability of multiple modifications used to bring: can I manage to manouver in a way to get a clear shot on you? Yes and I'm rewarded. No and I'm screwed. Without it I'm way more open to dice variance and that sucks imo because it makes manouvering less worthy

I'm also not comparing second edition with the whole first. There have been long period of time where the game was misarable thanks to some blatant design errors like Palpatine, Manaroo or X/7. I'm comparing second edition to the game it killed, aka late 1.0 meta which was one of the best if not THE best xwing had ever had. (which doesn't mean it was perfect, Lowhrick was like the proof designer didn't learn anything with their previous mistakes for example. But was really needed to straight up kill half the ships just to resolve that? I don't think so).

Right now the meta seems more open than it actually is only because the game has become more luck dependant overall: Soontir Redline Whisper is one of the top meta list, yet it can be screwed over in a single random shot in a way it has never been possible before. I know that someone might consider this a great thing but for me it taints the whole game experience.

18 minutes ago, Tlfj200 said:

I don’t want to be a downer, but I’m with @Sunitsa, though maybe not as far.

like, if this was the meta for the rest of the game, I’d probably dip out. It’s the thought of 1) no extended and 2) rebalancing hat is keeping me excited.

so yeah, the core game is better, but it doesn’t mean it’s super fun, either.

I can't believe we would ever agree on that

I'm just more pessimistic on FFG ability to rebalance things, seeing the many previous records and more burn out because I'm trying to find a Resistence list that doesn't leave me with the feeling I'm behind by just reading the opponent list

1 minute ago, Sunitsa said:

I can't believe we would ever agree on that

I'm just more pessimistic on FFG ability to rebalance things, seeing the many previous records and more burn out because I'm trying to find a Resistence list that doesn't leave me with the feeling I'm behind by just reading the opponent list

Resistance in hyperspace feels great, though.

Really, the main issue I feel is in hyperspace is a very cheap "super" boba, and triple upsilons.

Rebels and not-TIE swarms remain too expensive as well (feels much easier to address).

1 minute ago, Tlfj200 said:

Resistance in hyperspace feels great, though.

Really, the main issue I feel is in hyperspace is a very cheap "super" boba, and triple upsilons.

Rebels and not-TIE swarms remain too expensive as well (feels much easier to address).

Yeah I've tried various 3 ships lists and all were funny and promising (I'm particualry fond of Chewbe, he was a pleasant surprise), the issue is it felt like playing with handicap against any lists that wasn't hypespace

19 minutes ago, Tlfj200 said:

Resistance in hyperspace feels great, though.

Nien, Ello, Lulo, Tallison has worked so far. The Starfortress is solid. All 3 named Falcons are good enough. And Poe is poe.

Resistance feels like it can field alot of different types of higher init lists that are at least ok in Hyperspace.

My local meta is super casual, and significantly more active in 2.0 because it addressed 1.0 ‘core set problems’* and none of them care enough to break 2.0.

This is got me wondering what the new 2.0 core set problems are... is anyone else thinking about it from that perspective?

*This was the term the devs used on S&V, if I recall correctly?

13 minutes ago, PaulRuddSays said:

This is got me wondering what the new 2.0 core set problems are... is anyone else thinking about it from that perspective?

Target Lock maybe? Having Actions printed on Cards?

56 minutes ago, Tlfj200 said:

Resistance in hyperspace feels great, though.

Really, the main issue I feel is in hyperspace is a very cheap "super" boba, and triple upsilons.

Rebels and not-TIE swarms remain too expensive as well (feels much easier to address).

Resistance Han is the hero we don’t deserve.

3 minutes ago, Quack Shot said:

Resistance Han is the hero we don’t deserve.

He is the hero I prefer though..... Han > Rey as Falcon pilot.

17 minutes ago, Boom Owl said:

Target Lock maybe? Having Actions printed on Cards?

Target lock, initiative killing, and force crew abilities being tied to force charges seem like the "core set problems" of 2.0

Interestingly, they could just "fix" the first two in a rules reference change, but I don't think they should or would.

2 minutes ago, Brunas said:

Target lock, initiative killing, and force crew abilities being tied to force charges seem like the "core set problems" of 2.0

Interestingly, they could just "fix" the first two in a rules reference change, but I don't think they should or would.

Is initiative killing an issue only because of Proton Torps carried by high initiative pilots or do you think that as a mechanic overall isn't good?

1 hour ago, Tlfj200 said:

So I'm saying the core game is better... but because of the imbalance of points between ships, which focuses on a heavy munition and initiative meta with deep bids, or ships that are [again] hyper resistant to damage (hi boba!), just because they revamped the core mechanics to be better, it doesn't make the game currently fun, either. 

Now it makes more sense, thanks.

1 hour ago, Sunitsa said:

I'm also not comparing second edition with the whole first. There have been long period of time where the game was misarable thanks to some blatant design errors like Palpatine, Manaroo or X/7. I'm comparing second edition to the game it killed, aka late 1.0 meta which was one of the best if not THE best xwing had ever had. (which doesn't mean it was perfect, Lowhrick was like the proof designer didn't learn anything with their previous mistakes for example. But was really needed to straight up kill half the ships just to resolve that? I don't think so). 

How much of that was because 2.0 was announced? In my recollection, people everywhere started flying what they liked instead of what was good because it didn't matter anymore. Then it turned out that it's actually not that bad and we could have played more things all along. The lesson to draw here is IMO that we could all just play more what we like and not what is dubbed "good".

3 minutes ago, RStan said:

Is initiative killing an issue only because of Proton Torps carried by high initiative pilots or do you think that as a mechanic overall isn't good?

I don't like the mechanic overall, mostly. When your ship hits one hull and your opponent has a ship shooting before it, that ship effectively doesn't get to attack again.

That's pretty dumb, honestly. The advantage of keeping a low initiative ship alive isn't that it gets to shoot again, it's that it "costs" your opponent more attacks, which is silly. Basically just wraps more into "high initiative ships are at too much of an advantage vs low initiative".

If anything, I'd just rather have it reversed I think. You can keep initiative killing, or not, but everything moves/engages in ascending initiative order.

24 minutes ago, Brunas said:

I don't like the mechanic overall, mostly. When your ship hits one hull and your opponent has a ship shooting before it, that ship effectively doesn't get to attack again.

That's pretty dumb, honestly. The advantage of keeping a low initiative ship alive isn't that it gets to shoot again, it's that it "costs" your opponent more attacks, which is silly. Basically just wraps more into "high initiative ships are at too much of an advantage vs low initiative".

Now would this balance more if aces cost a reasonable amount more to account for their ability to initiative kill?

15 minutes ago, LagJanson said:

Now would this balance more if aces cost a reasonable amount more to account for their ability to initiative kill?

Hard to price that appropriately. Look at the Punisher for example. Generic cutlass is i2 and 36 points. Deathrain is i4 and 44. For just two points over Deathrain you get the hyperstupid Redline at i5 for 44 points.

For just two points over Deathrain, Redline will straight up murder it. How do you square that? When 2 or 3 points can basically tell a lesser ship it no longer gets to play, you are beyond points adjustment and into core mechanics territory.