The reason you never see it trigger is because they printed the stupid Bomblet Generator so Nym doesn't leave bomb tokens lying around behind him the way he's clearly supposed to.

I just want to know why people think if you use MM to discard Bomblet Generator you can place infinite bombs.

3 minutes ago, Stay On The Leader said:

The reason you never see it trigger is because they printed the stupid Bomblet Generator so Nym doesn't leave bomb tokens lying around behind him the way he's clearly supposed to.

I think I would have preferred bomblet generator to be a one bomb slot upgrade that read something like “when dropping a bomb upon revealing your maneuver, you may choose to not discard that bomb upgrade card.”

Solves a lot of problems with the card, including keeping other bombs alive.

12 minutes ago, Kdubb said:

I think I would have preferred bomblet generator to be a one bomb slot upgrade that read something like “when dropping a bomb upon revealing your maneuver, you may choose to not discard that bomb upgrade card.”

Solves a lot of problems with the card, including keeping other bombs alive.

Jesus, so we get infinite Proton Bombs or Ion Bombs or Thermal Detonators or Cluster Mines or Connor Nets instead?!!?

21 minutes ago, Stay On The Leader said:

The reason you never see it trigger is because they printed the stupid Bomblet Generator so Nym doesn't leave bomb tokens lying around behind him the way he's clearly supposed to.

On the other hand, the first part of Nym's ability also leads me to believe dropping bombs after moving with Genius is also something Nym is clearly supposed to do.

My guess is that designers hoped both playstyles would be viable.

One last table, this one is currently a bit more manual to compile...

Those numbers are: [Games Played]: [Won] / [Lost]

19 minutes ago, Stay On The Leader said:

Jesus, so we get infinite Proton Bombs or Ion Bombs or Thermal Detonators or Cluster Mines or Connor Nets instead?!!?

Clusters and connors don’t drop upon dial reveal. Neither does any genius drop bomb.

A more appropriate cost would be aligned with the upgrade as well. I would say something along 5 points or more. Probably 6 or 7 though.

1 hour ago, FTS Gecko said:

I think I may have seen it happen once. Most of the time Scum Nym's going to be using Bomblet, which detonates at the end of the activation phase, which means Scum Nym's ability is never going to trigger unless he takes action-based bombs instead, or if he ends up flying behind an action-based mine that another friendly ship has dropped.

Situational is not really the word for it.

I've run a couple of lists with it. Once or twice it's worked super well (using VI Boba to basically just drive in circles dropping cluster mines) but most of the time it's been pretty bad.

If Scum had another multi-slot bomber with System or single slot bomber with System and Crew, it might be easier, but without Minefield Mapper it's just too difficult to reliably get the bombs off - and if your opponent can split your ships up, it basically dies, which is what happened on the (many) occasions it failed.

2 hours ago, Stay On The Leader said:

One last table, this one is currently a bit more manual to compile...

The record listed corresponds to the ship in the Protagonist column, right?

Because I find it very funny that the best list for beating triple jumps is now four Rebel jousters.

9 minutes ago, Ailowynn said:

The record listed corresponds to the ship in the Protagonist column, right?

Because I find it very funny that the best list for beating triple jumps is now four Rebel jousters.

That's right, but then FSR proved itself by soaking all the Torps from Dengar so it's not that surprising.

What IS unexpected is that Triple Scouts is maybe the most interesting list in the top 10. I mean, it's at least trying to use its arcs meaningfully and manage range and get action economy and stuff.

10 hours ago, Stay On The Leader said:

That's right, but then FSR proved itself by soaking all the Torps from Dengar so it's not that surprising.

What IS unexpected is that Triple Scouts is maybe the most interesting list in the top 10. I mean, it's at least trying to use its arcs meaningfully and manage range and get action economy and stuff.

So triple jumps is triple defenders+?

15 hours ago, Stay On The Leader said:

So we've got ourselves a good old circular meta.

Biggs + Lowhhrick + Other(s) will generally beat 3x Scouts, which will generally beat the 2-Ship Lists (A combination of Miranda, Dash, Nym, and/or Dengar), which will generally beat the Biggs + Lowhhrick + Other(s) lists.

That's usually fairly healthy, except all the ships present are the most lame, broken junk in the game atm. Also pretty much all of them are turrets, which is pretty sad.

42 minutes ago, CRCL said:

That's usually fairly healthy, except all the ships present are the most lame, broken junk in the game atm.

Isn't that the perpetual state of top meta in pretty much any game with a competitive scene?

People who prioritize winning will usually field 'the most broken junk in the game' because, unsurprisingly, it gives them the best chance to win.

3 hours ago, FlyingAnchors said:

So triple jumps is triple defenders+?

For two shots at least.

Then it's essentially just a BlockORS list.

2 hours ago, LordBlades said:

Isn't that the perpetual state of top meta in pretty much any game with a competitive scene?

People who prioritize winning will usually field 'the most broken junk in the game' because, unsurprisingly, it gives them the best chance to win.

Oh sure. I have no problem with players fielding what they consider to be the best lists (play what you want, not what other people want you to play). My issue is with FFG and they're inability and/or unwillingness to curb some of the more broken elements in the game.

I don't think that's an unreasonable thing to be annoyed about considering how dominant those ships have been for the last year and a half.

2 hours ago, LordBlades said:

Isn't that the perpetual state of top meta in pretty much any game with a competitive scene?

People who prioritize winning will usually field 'the most broken junk in the game' because, unsurprisingly, it gives them the best chance to win.

Yes and no. People will always play the best things in the game, but 'the best thing in the game' =/= 'broken junk' and any game with a competitive scene needs to be curated to clear away the broken junk so that 'the best thing in the game' at least creates an interesting and diverse game experience.

People fall back on the 'well it's always going to be like that so why try to fix it?' kind of thinking, when all the evidence from decades of other competitive games successfully curating their metagames is that it doesn't have to be like that, and you can fix it.

"There's always going to be something better than something else". Yes there is. That's not the point, though, the point is how big the gap is. The Scottish Football League and the English Premier League are both football leagues. They both have some teams that are better than the other teams, but they're manifestly NOT equal and one is more interesting than the other. In Scotland the league is basically a procession for Celtic, who've won the league for the last 6 years with one hand tied behind their back and their eyes closed.

They won the league by 30 points - they were 40% better than the #2 team and 130% better than the #5 team! They didn't lose once, and the second-best team lost 10 times.

"Nerf Celtic"

"But if you nerf Celtic that just makes Aberdeen the best team, nothing will change"

Except that if Aberdeen is the best team then the gap to everyone else has closed MASSIVELY. Everyone else in the league now has something to play for, it;s all a lot more interesting. You simply can't beat Celtic because in terms of the Scottish league they're 'broken junk', but you can beat Aberdeen.

When you nerf the top stuff you're not doing it just because 'its the top stuff' but because the gap is so big it's making a mockery of the process for the majority of participants. You're not doing it to try and ensure there's no such thing as 'the best stuff', you're doing to try and ensure that 'the best stuff' isn't too much better than the 'pretty good stuff'.

The competitive sport metaphor can be quite a good one, as organised play X-Wing is a very competitive game.

A good comparision given the pilot/ship based squad building format of X-Wing would be Fantasy Football (regular football or American football is fine). You can compare pilot/ship to player/team. There will be average players (pilots) in good teams (ships) who get picked, as you know their team will do well over the course of a season (tournament), and great players (pilots) in average teams (ships) who also get picked regularly, because you know they can perform outstandingly well.

1 hour ago, CRCL said:

Oh sure. I have no problem with players fielding what they consider to be the best lists (play what you want, not what other people want you to play). My issue is with FFG and they're inability and/or unwillingness to curb some of the more broken elements in the game.

I don't think that's an unreasonable thing to be annoyed about considering how dominant those ships have been for the last year and a half.

I might have misunderstood your point then. If by 'lame, broken junk' you mean simply too powerful stuff (without any connotations of fun/not fun), then yes, I agree 100%. The game would only benefit if the gap between 'best' and 'second best' was smaller.

16 hours ago, LordBlades said:

I might have misunderstood your point then. If by 'lame, broken junk' you mean simply too powerful stuff (without any connotations of fun/not fun), then yes, I agree 100%. The game would only benefit if the gap between 'best' and 'second best' was smaller.

Sorry, I'm prone to rhetorical embellishment, which may have confused the point I was trying to make. I strongly agree with the above statement.

I know the meta results don't agree, most people don't agree, and also a big part of it is the type of lists I fly, but for months now I continue to believe that imps are the hardest faction to defeat in the game, at least the triple ace variety.

5 hours ago, markcsoul said:

I know the meta results don't agree, most people don't agree, and also a big part of it is the type of lists I fly, but for months now I continue to believe that imps are the hardest faction to defeat in the game, at least the triple ace variety.

How much do you fly against bombs?

It seems odd that EM is so much higher up than any discardable munitions. What causes them not to co-locate more strongly than that? Is it just that roughly half the EMs go with Plasmas and the other half with Cruise?

11 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

It seems odd that EM is so much higher up than any discardable munitions. What causes them not to co-locate more strongly than that? Is it just that roughly half the EMs go with Plasmas and the other half with Cruise?

It's going to be like those times that the Attack Shuttle gets ranked above the VCX... the Plasma Torpedoes/Cruise Missiles/Cluster Mines etc are being played by players with/without Extra Munitions but the ones with Extra Munitions are doing better. So each individual weapnon's ranking is being diluted by the scores of people using it without EM, while the EM ranking creams the top off each of the weapons it can be used with.

Any chance you will do the awesome ‚pilot performance better than its ship‘ chart again?