Just now, Jeff Wilder said:

It's just not that hard a decision. What perfect scenario are you envisioning where a player under this nerf has to make these agonizing decisions?

Uh

Double Ion/D defenders with your cluster in arc

2B2Y with 18-20 red dice pointed at your formation

5xStriker

Triple Aces

Quickdraw, literally any % of the time with shields

Any list that deals heavy crits

Palp Wampa

Multiple turret lists

Any other requests?

3 minutes ago, Makaze said:

Most importantly though it's an option, sure it's a trap for a certain subset of bad players. But against anyone who knows they should be concentrating fire to begin with it just gives them additional choices and player agency that they can then exercise or not depending on the lay of the land.

Nah dude, everyone knows that if you throw 3 dice at Biggs IT'S A TARP if you throw your other 9 at the 1-agi crit magnet he's shielding

Because if you only focus 75% of your fire, the Biggs player gets a moral victory or something

15 minutes ago, RampancyTW said:

Any of those would be fine, I think. And it's far from meaningless. I really don't understand this mindset, at all. Lists designed around Biggs operate under the assumption that whoever he is protecting will get to unload until he's down. Spending that reinforce token on Lowhhrick suddenly becomes a much harder decision if he might be facing 2+ attacks without it, or if he might need to save it for Rex etc.

But we do agree that it's better as long as no ship dies? I.e., if the snipe fails?

Just now, GreenDragoon said:

But we do agree that it's better as long as no ship dies? I.e., if the snipe fails?

Uh, no? If it takes 2-3 rounds of fire, that's still better than 5 rounds with 2-3 of those being uncontested

I'd much rather take a good shot that I know will stick than an awkward shot at a better-defended target just for the sake of a misguided operational mandate to always shoot at the same ship

Just now, RampancyTW said:

Uh, no? If it takes 2-3 rounds of fire, that's still better than 5 rounds with 2-3 of those being uncontested

Hence "as long as no ship dies". So let's say nothing dies. Was it better or worse that you split fire?

Just now, GreenDragoon said:

Hence "as long as no ship dies". So let's say nothing dies. Was it better or worse that you split fire?

Do you want me to just re-post the same thing you quoted or..?

I don't care about Biggs, he's a 3-die arc-limited single-mod T-65, I care about getting his friends off the board as soon as possible. If I can do that faster by splitting fire, I will.

This really is not a difficult concept

1 minute ago, GreenDragoon said:

Hence "as long as no ship dies". So let's say nothing dies. Was it better or worse that you split fire?

Generally speaking whichever choice lets you take a ship off the board first, whether or not it's on this particular turn isn't relevant. That's the whole point to begin with, to erode their offensive capabilities by removing them from the board. Concentrating fire it's just a method, not the end goal in and of itself. In most situations it's the right choice but in some edge cases, and Bigg's ability expands that list of edge cases immensely, splitting your fire may allow you to drop another ships faster than you could drop Biggs and in that case it's likely the correct choice.

4 minutes ago, RampancyTW said:

Do you want me to just re-post the same thing you quoted or..?

I don't care about Biggs, he's a 3-die arc-limited single-mod T-65, I care about getting his friends off the board as soon as possible. If I can do that faster by splitting fire, I will.

This really is not a difficult concept

I'm just trying to figure how how much we disagree.

But we agree that an enemy ship that doesn't shoot is better for you than one that does. And that you should try to shoot one down in the fastest way possible.

If we agree on that, then the best choice would often be to remove Biggs first because you shoot him once every turn anyway. The exception is that you manage to snipe one ship with the remaining attacks.

However, in general if you have many attacks then they won't be very strong. 5 attacks with 3 red dice each is about the hardest you can hit without ordnance. But we haven't seen swarms in a long time, so we don't need to consider more than 4 attacks. This also ignores that there are just 2 lists with 4 ships in the top20 on meta-wing, and both are fair-ship rebels. So chances are very high that you have only 3 attacks.

And generally low HP ships have more agility, so many weaker attacks will mean he can roll more green, while low agility ships have more HP (8+). 3 attacks with 3 dice, with double mods, will give you 8.4 damage before he rolled evades. I'd like to see the build with 4 ships that have focus+TL every attack though. A single mod, much more realistic, has an expected damage of 6.75 before defensive rolls.

So now you shot once and nothing died. But you used your modifiers for offense, so chances are high that he focus fired on one of your ships. And that your ship dies.

Next round, you need to get a shot on the wounded ship. You're one down, and one shot is again on Biggs. The wounded can run, can block you, can arcdodge. Whatever, chances are good that not all of your ships will shoot it. So you have 2 more shots on it. If you are forced to switch targets entirely then you have a problem. If you do not destroy the wounded ships then you have a problem.

And this does not even include selflessness, draw their fire, reinforce or suppressive fire.

3 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

I'm just trying to figure how how much we disagree.

But we agree that an enemy ship that doesn't shoot is better for you than one that does. And that you should try to shoot one down in the fastest way possible.

If we agree on that, then the best choice would often be to remove Biggs first because you shoot him once every turn anyway. 1.) The exception is that you manage to snipe one ship with the remaining attacks.

However, in general if you have many attacks then they won't be very strong. 5 attacks with 3 red dice each is about the hardest you can hit without ordnance. But we haven't seen swarms in a long time, so we don't need to consider more than 4 attacks. This also ignores that there are just 2 lists with 4 ships in the top20 on meta-wing, and both are fair-ship rebels. So chances are very high that you have only 3 attacks.

And generally low HP ships have more agility, so many weaker attacks will mean he can roll more green, while low agility ships have more HP (8+). 3 attacks with 3 dice, with double mods, will give you 8.4 damage before he rolled evades. I'd like to see the build with 4 ships that have focus+TL every attack though. A single mod, much more realistic, has an expected damage of 6.75 before defensive rolls.

2.) So now you shot once and nothing died. But you used your modifiers for offense, so chances are high that he focus fired on one of your ships. And that your ship dies.

3.) Next round, you need to get a shot on the wounded ship. You're one down, and one shot is again on Biggs. The wounded can run, can block you, can arcdodge. Whatever, chances are good that not all of your ships will shoot it. So you have 2 more shots on it. If you are forced to switch targets entirely then you have a problem. If you do not destroy the wounded ships then you have a problem.

4.) And this does not even include selflessness, draw their fire, reinforce or suppressive fire.

1.) You're too caught up on what happens in one turn of fire and going for "snipes." I'm bludgeoning my opponent's ships that don't like getting bludgeoned. I'm forcing defensive positioning and actions on ships that really want to be shooting or protecting other ships.

2.) So the ships that have been forced to spend actions on defending my attacks still have perfect mods to take one of my ships off the board? Have I put myself in a scenario where I'm trading one of my ships for a nibble off of his? Why would I do that, again? That's just plain getting out-flown. Congratulate the opponent on their superior play and try again next time.

3.) Next round, I just need to get another good trade. Really, I just need good trades on average. I don't actually care if it's on the same ship or not. If it is, great! If it isn't, and that ship either can't shoot back or has a weak attack, that's great, too! Maybe Lowhhrick can't use DTF or spend his reinforce token. Fine, I'll unload on Biggs. I've already done more harm to their list than slamming my head into the Biggs wall round 1 would have.

4.) It's even better due to all of those. The opponent no longer gets to control where all of the damage is going. Jess using Selflessness is great when you know she won't be getting shot at again for another 3+turns. Less so when a single bad dice roll could get her wiped off the board the very next turn.

Focusing fire is generally a very good idea. It is not the only way to play, though. FSR only works because the amount of non-Biggs-targeting can be minimized and managed. He is literally the only ship in the list that provides no additional defensive value, yet he's the lynchpin. The THREAT of being able to split fire is the most important part. It takes away the "3hp remaining is just as good as 9" factor.

1 minute ago, RampancyTW said:

1.) You're too caught up on what happens in one turn of fire and going for "snipes." I'm bludgeoning my opponent's ships that don't like getting bludgeoned. I'm forcing defensive positioning and actions on ships that really want to be shooting or protecting other ships.

But "bludgeoning" doesn't have any effect until you destroy a ship.

2 minutes ago, RampancyTW said:

2.) So the ships that have been forced to spend actions on defending my attacks still have perfect mods to take one of my ships off the board? Have I put myself in a scenario where I'm trading one of my ships for a nibble off of his?

Yes, because you are forced to split fire. He wasn't. So if he focuses one and you split on two, he will come out ahead. It is a bad trade for you as long as his ships are not destroyed.

3 minutes ago, RampancyTW said:

3.) Next round, I just need to get another good trade. Really, I just need good trades on average. I don't actually care if it's on the same ship or not. If it is, great! If it isn't, and that ship either can't shoot back or has a weak attack, that's great, too! Maybe Lowhhrick can't use DTF or spend his reinforce token. Fine, I'll unload on Biggs. I've already done more harm to their list than slamming my head into the Biggs wall round 1 would have.

But you don't get good trades as long as your attacks have no effect. And they do not have any effect as long as nothing is destroyed. "Doing harm to their list" is meaningless.

5 minutes ago, RampancyTW said:

4.) It's even better due to all of those. The opponent no longer gets to control where all of the damage is going. Jess using Selflessness is great when you know she won't be getting shot at again for another 3+turns. Less so when a single bad dice roll could get her wiped off the board the very next turn.

You mean a single diceroll that deals 4 damage past her 2 modified dice?

I give up. I'm evidently unable to explain it. Maybe someone else can do it, but I clearly can't in a way that you understand.

1 minute ago, GreenDragoon said:

But "bludgeoning" doesn't have any effect until you destroy a ship.

Yes, because you are forced to split fire. He wasn't. So if he focuses one and you split on two, he will come out ahead. It is a bad trade for you as long as his ships are not destroyed.

But you don't get good trades as long as your attacks have no effect. And they do not have any effect as long as nothing is destroyed. "Doing harm to their list" is meaningless.

You mean a single diceroll that deals 4 damage past her 2 modified dice?

I give up. I'm evidently unable to explain it. Maybe someone else can do it, but I clearly can't in a way that you understand.

Strictly not true. It affects their flying and action choices, unless they're happy throwing their ships into the fire, which I'm pretty happy with.

It's not a bad trade if he's unable to get one of your ships off the board and you dealt a higher proportion of damage to his list. Attrition rules apply to both players, fam. If he has enough firepower to wipe a ship off the board, then he's not running a defensive list. Remove Biggs with focus fire and proceed as normal. Not rocket science.

Seriously, since when is FSR an offensive powerhouse? Since when are we giving 100% of their ships arcs on ours for free? If it makes sense to split fire, split fire. If it doesn't, don't. There are plenty of situations where being able to put damage, crits, ion, or stress on not-Biggs is going to be beneficial for a list, though.

TL:DR

Shoot at what you get the most benefit out of shooting

Sometimes that's not Biggs

It's probably Biggs if you insist on playing like an idiot and feeding ships to your opponent but that's (surprise) a bad idea and probably isn't relevant to this discussion

13 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

I give up. I'm evidently unable to explain it. Maybe someone else can do it, but I clearly can't in a way that you understand.

You stuck with trying longer than I did! Once "you're choosing to do what the Biggs player has paid extra points to make you do ... and that's not an effective nerf" didn't make a dent, nothing was gonna.

My suggestion to the "once a turn" proponents? Find a friend who is good at flying FSR and willing to playtest "Biggs once per round." Give it a try. Let us know how it goes. (Fair warning ... I've done it. You're still going to lose.)

Then try "add a green die within Range 1 of Biggs" (which is a real nerf) or "1 damage minimum to Biggs when his ability activates" (which is probably a real nerf, though I haven't tested it). Believe me, you'll see the difference.

15 minutes ago, RampancyTW said:

Strictly not true. It affects their flying and action choices, unless they're happy throwing their ships into the fire, which I'm pretty happy with.

It's not a bad trade if he's unable to get one of your ships off the board and you dealt a higher proportion of damage to his list. Attrition rules apply to both players, fam. If he has enough firepower to wipe a ship off the board, then he's not running a defensive list. Remove Biggs with focus fire and proceed as normal. Not rocket science.

Seriously, since when is FSR an offensive powerhouse? Since when are we giving 100% of their ships arcs on ours for free? If it makes sense to split fire, split fire. If it doesn't, don't. There are plenty of situations where being able to put damage, crits, ion, or stress on not-Biggs is going to be beneficial for a list, though.

TL:DR

Shoot at what you get the most benefit out of shooting

Sometimes that's not Biggs

It's probably Biggs if you insist on playing like an idiot and feeding ships to your opponent but that's (surprise) a bad idea and probably isn't relevant to this discussion

Sorry, dude, but in a game where there is a time limit and no partial scoring system applies, the best option is to always remove pieces as quickly as possible. That means focus firing. If by focus firing I can kill Biggs and the enemy kills none of mine, that's a win for me. If I spread around the damage, there is a good chance that I won't be able to finish off enough of the enemy to win the match, meaning a lose or a roll off where something like FSR usually has the advantage. This observation is built off of years of experience of flying in general, not just against Biggs. This is even true in other types of games. Unless there is a control element, splitting fire is a risky course of action.

2 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

You stuck with trying longer than I did! Once "you're choosing to do what the Biggs player has paid extra points to make you do ... and that's not an effective nerf" didn't make a dent, nothing was gonna.

My suggestion to the "once a turn" proponents? Find a friend who is good at flying FSR and willing to playtest "Biggs once per round." Give it a try. Let us know how it goes. (Fair warning ... I've done it. You're still going to lose.)

Then try "add a green die within Range 1 of Biggs" (which is a real nerf) or "1 damage minimum to Biggs when his ability activates" (which is probably a real nerf, though I haven't tested it). Believe me, you'll see the difference.

I will more than happily test a once-per-round nerf with you if you'd like. Some list don't care. Other lists would benefit a lot from the nerf.

1 minute ago, RampancyTW said:

I will more than happily test a once-per-round nerf with you if you'd like. Some list don't care. Other lists would benefit a lot from the nerf.

At GenCon by any chance? I'll be packing my version of FSR (Fair and Balanced).

2 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

Sorry, dude, but in a game where there is a time limit and no partial scoring system applies, the best option is to always remove pieces as quickly as possible. That means focus firing. If by focus firing I can kill Biggs and the enemy kills none of mine, that's a win for me. If I spread around the damage, there is a good chance that I won't be able to finish off enough of the enemy to win the match, meaning a roll off where something like FSR usually has the advantage. This observation is built off of years of experience of flying in general, not just against Biggs. This is even true in other types of games. Unless there is a control element, splitting fire is a risky course of action.

This is getting ridiculous

Kanan/Biggs is literally only a thing because you have to shoot at Biggs

Lists with stress/ion control would LOVE to hit not-Biggs

Ships that can directly deal damage cards would LOVE to hit not-Biggs

Ships that throw a ton of dice benefit from the option of slamming the (glass) cannon at range 2 instead of Biggs at R3

It totally changes flying, too. You can't just charge into R1 with Norra if it's going to get her killed off in two rounds of fire

Ya'll are too hung up on how Biggs matches currently play out and completely ignoring how it affects list building and approach if his ability becomes limited

13 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

At GenCon by any chance? I'll be packing my version of FSR (Fair and Balanced).

I unfortunately won't be present, I can test with ya on Vassal, though

Just now, RampancyTW said:

I unfortunately won't be present, I can test with ya on Vassal, though

Ping me when you see me (I use my real name, as I do everywhere). I won't be on much until after GenCon, though.

10 minutes ago, RampancyTW said:

This is getting ridiculous

Kanan/Biggs is literally only a thing because you have to shoot at Biggs

Lists with stress/ion control would LOVE to hit not-Biggs

Ships that can directly deal damage cards would LOVE to hit not-Biggs

Ships that throw a ton of dice benefit from the option of slamming the (glass) cannon at range 2 instead of Biggs at R3

It totally changes flying, too. You can't just charge into R1 with Norra if it's going to get her killed off in two rounds of fire

Ya'll are too hung up on how Biggs matches currently play out and completely ignoring how it affects list building and approach if his ability becomes limited

Still doesn't address the increased likelihood of not being able to finish off the ships you are splitting fire between. And that is the whole point of the game. Attrition only works out if there is _time_ to let it take affect, which it doesn't always have. And while control elements like stress and Ion would enjoy some more freedom, they are still meant to provide a better way to focus down on a single target before moving on and destroying another.

There are corner cases where this would work to the attackers advantage, but on average, I still think this doesn't actually nerf Biggs enough to be worthwhile.

11 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

Ping me when you see me (I use my real name, as I do everywhere). I won't be on much until after GenCon, though.

Will do.

3 hours ago, clanofwolves said:

Biggs pilot ability is so easy to fix, just make it stinking thematic:

"Other friendly ships at Range 1 cannot be targeted by attacks if you are closer to the attacker and they could target you instead."

Done.

Now where's my tea?

3 hours ago, Jeff Wilder said:

The logistics of having to judge "closer," even with the requisite "it's in the rules, so I can measure!" rules abuses aside, means this is a non-starter. (Can you think of any mechanic in the game that uses "closer" or "farther" language?)

So you're saying, we all must measure range all the time and make determinations that greatly effect the game, but determining if Biggs is closer to an attacker that another enemy ship is....is too hard to accomplish? How many times would it be so visually close that you'd need to use anything to measure? 1 out of 100? If you wanted Biggs to eat that shot rather than Ship A, you'd make d*** sure he was closer, wouldn't you?

I think it works......easy.

2 minutes ago, clanofwolves said:

How many times would it be so visually close that you'd need to use anything to measure? 1 out of 100?

Disclaimer: it would be my most favorite solution, but I don't think it can work.

There is no game mechanic that distinguishes distance besides range bands. Figuring out who is closer when theres next to no difference is not something the game can do.

Let's say you measure closest corner to closest corner, you have a turret. There are two ships on opposite sides. How do you even keep track of one distance? Do you hold your finger on a range ruler to mark the spot? Sorry, I don't see that happening outside of casual games

2 minutes ago, clanofwolves said:

So you're saying, we all must measure range all the time and make determinations that greatly effect the game, but determining if Biggs is closer to an attacker that another enemy ship is....is too hard to accomplish? How many times would it be so visually close that you'd need to use anything to measure? 1 out of 100? If you wanted Biggs to eat that shot rather than Ship A, you'd make d*** sure he was closer, wouldn't you?

I think it works......easy.

For what it's worth, I have made these exact arguments before, in a different context that mattered, and got immediately and completely shut down on it. In short, what you and I think "works ... easy" doesn't matter much.

As far as the bolded question, how many times do you already see rules-abuse douchebaggery like "measuring for TL" on a ship at Range 5ish? Maybe you don't see it if you don't play competitively, but I see it at least twice a tournament ... and more often in an "important" tournament. Any rule that uses language like "closer" is just begging to be abused.

(BTW, HotAC uses "closer" all the time in its rules. But the people playing HotAC, for whatever reason, don't seem to abuse it ... )

15 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

Still doesn't address the increased likelihood of not being able to finish off the ships you are splitting fire between. And that is the whole point of the game. Attrition only works out if there is _time_ to let it take affect, which it doesn't always have. And while control elements like stress and Ion would enjoy some more freedom, they are still meant to provide a better way to focus down on a single target before moving on and destroying another.

There are corner cases where this would work to the attackers advantage, but on average, I still think this doesn't actually nerf Biggs enough to be worthwhile.

Ion and stress can also break up the Biggs formation and lower enemy offensive output. A ship pointed the wrong way or a ship that can't turn around can be a huge advantage.

Net damage output is the name of the game. Obviously if you can't finish off enemy ships you won't win, but sometimes it just makes more sense to split. Not all the time, not even a majority of the time, but often enough to matter, and to influence list-building.

23 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

As far as the bolded question, how many times do you already see rules-abuse douchebaggery like "measuring for TL" on a ship at Range 5ish?

I almost laughed out loud when that happened the last time to me. Then I thought "you little ..., I know exactly what you're doing, but knowing about these 8 ships distance can help me, too..."

24 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

(BTW, HotAC uses "closer" all the time in its rules. But the people playing HotAC, for whatever reason, don't seem to abuse it ... )

Definitely, and it's usually not a problem. But we can already hear the discussions and cries for a judge. It's sad because the idea is really great, thematic and requires some skill.