On 10/25/2017 at 4:21 PM, Pretty Green said:

You mean overpriced for what he does? You have to have a ride for him too.

Anyway, nobody can´t complain about the nerfs as everybody has been hit. I sill think that the Imperials took the biggest hits with Defenders and Palpatine.

Nah. I play Imperials and the Palp nerf was fair IMO. Also, the changes to the Defenders just reinstated the core game mechanic.

I am a bit bummed Genius is now discarded when used. I had hoped for a solution which would prevent the Nym bump-bomb (which breaks the core game mechanic of blocking) without requiring Genius be discarded.

4 minutes ago, Darth Obvious said:

Nah. I play Imperials and the Palp nerf was fair IMO. Also, the changes to the Defenders just reinstated the core game mechanic.

I am a bit bummed Genius is now discarded when used. I had hoped for a solution which would prevent the Nym bump-bomb (which breaks the core game mechanic of blocking) without requiring Genius be discarded.

Genius isn't discarded. Genius discards the bomb card.

1 hour ago, Jeff Wilder said:

I do understand you. It is not the same against a 1 AGI ship. Anybody who says TLTs never miss 1 AGI ships is not being truthful. It happens fairly often, actually. And when it does happen, with my proposed nerf, the 1 AGI ship saves 2 damage, not 1 damage.

It's not the same, not even "roughly."

I assume you mean other than Nym, Miranda, Lowhrick, VCX-100, Decimator?

I will grant that it gives a very tiny buff to 1 agility ships. Which I had thought I covered when I said "roughly the same", but apparently not.

I don't really care to argue about that point too much, because of the main point: your nerf will cause it to not do nearly as much damage to, say, Defenders or SFs or Fangs or... You know. The ships we struggle to whittle down in the first place. The ships TLTs should be effective against. TLTs are supposed to be a way to chip away at agility tanks. Your proposal would make them less effective at that.

And your list of ships 3 TLT carriers + 1 ship with a reinforce token and 1 ship I never see (but you might).

11 minutes ago, Punning Pundit said:

TLTs are supposed to be a way to chip away at agility tanks. Your proposal would make them less effective at that.

What? That's exactly the opposite of what TLTs were created to rein in.

2 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

What? That's exactly the opposite of what TLTs were created to rein in.

I'm not so sure of that. I completely agree with you that they were absolutely meant to kill Fat Han. But I also feel like they were, at least secondarily, meant to be a poke at token stacking aces by forcing them to burn through their focus/evades and simply provide more bites at them blanking out their greens.

2 hours ago, Jeff Wilder said:

I do understand you. It is not the same against a 1 AGI ship. Anybody who says TLTs never miss 1 AGI ships is not being truthful. It happens fairly often, actually. And when it does happen, with my proposed nerf, the 1 AGI ship saves 2 damage, not 1 damage.

Jup, 73% of naked 3 dice attack do hit against naked agi 1, with focus it is down even to 64%. So this would be a significant damage nerf. And only allowing the second hit if the first shot hits is as well thematically fitting.

2 minutes ago, Makaze said:

I'm not so sure of that. I completely agree with you that they were absolutely meant to kill Fat Han. But I also feel like they were, at least secondarily, meant to be a poke at token stacking aces by forcing them to burn through their focus/evades and simply provide more bites at them blanking out their greens.

So ... the counterargument is, "They were created to do damage to everything?"

I'm confused.

To the extent that TLTs were targeted at anything, it was at point-locking Large ships.

42 minutes ago, LagJanson said:

Genius isn't discarded. Genius discards the bomb card.

My mistake. You're correct.

33 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

So ... the counterargument is, "They were created to do damage to everything?"

I'm confused.

To the extent that TLTs were targeted at anything, it was at point-locking Large ships.

This fellow is correct. That said, they were built to murder Fat Han, and in the process ended up good against dang near everything, with the only hope being autothruster arc-dodgers who could attempt to avoid the firestorm.

Not the best moment of design there, but oh well...

(I personally do wonder if cancelling crits - just to reduce the accuracy a little - might not help.)

2 minutes ago, Reiver said:

autothruster arc-dodgers who could attempt to avoid the firestorm.

All small ships gain out of arc the ability to turn a blank into an evade. And be done with it. Turrets nerfed down the ground, balance restored. And autothrusters less of an auto include while still good, because they kick in additionally and on R3 shots as well. ;-)

51 minutes ago, SEApocalypse said:

All small ships gain out of arc the ability to turn a blank into an evade. And be done with it. Turrets nerfed down the ground, balance restored. And autothrusters less of an auto include while still good, because they kick in additionally and on R3 shots as well. ;-)

Still doesn't save B-wings, ARCs, G1As, or Punishers from TLTs. And why do small ships get this, while Aggressors and U-wings do not? Size is a wonky concept, these days.

Either way, they don't just announce rules like this - if they wanted to do that, we'd have never seen Guidance Chips.

1 hour ago, Jeff Wilder said:

So ... the counterargument is, "They were created to do damage to everything?"

I'm confused.

To the extent that TLTs were targeted at anything, it was at point-locking Large ships.

They were targeted at the, at the time, preponderance of overly defensive ships that included both fat fortresses and token stackers. TLT by having limited damage but lots of dice tends to put a clock on anything it's up against. That shifts the most important thing in the matchup, and list building, from stacking defense to being able to remove the TLT from the board. So I look at as less ultra specifically targeted at only fat fortresses and more as an attempt to raise the offensive bar to the point that any sort of overly defensive setup in general can't keep up.

Not that that was necessarily a good idea...

TLT is fine as is. Anyone who wants a TLT nerf in essence also wants to nerf an iconic original trilogy ship, the Y-wing. You don't want that do you?

The unbiased arbiter named math says that TLT is NOT optimal against 1 agility. TLT is more efficient against higher agility ships.

• TLT with focus against 1-agility = 1.749 average damage
• 3 dice attack with focus against 1-agility = 1.881 average damage (with 32% chance for CRIT!)

1 minute ago, Dengar5 said:

TLT is fine as is. Anyone who wants a TLT nerf in essence also wants to nerf an iconic original trilogy ship, the Y-wing. You don't want that do you?

The unbiased arbiter named math says that TLT is NOT optimal against 1 agility. TLT is more efficient against higher agility ships.

• TLT with focus against 1-agility = 1.749 average damage
• 3 dice attack with focus against 1-agility = 1.881 average damage (with 32% chance for CRIT!)

It's truly optimal against AGI 2 ships - where they have little chance of evading the attack, and also don't have health to spare. I'd be perfectly happy with a nerf to TLT if it accompanied a buff to the Ion Cannon Turret (either extending it out to R3 or dealing 2 ion tokens). That'd keep Y-wings in play.

I’m surprised to see the FAQ come out swinging like it has. Here’s my thoughts on it all.

Jumpmasters look more in line with what their point cost dictates based on the other ships of similar abilities. As for the Astromech, I personally would like to see the Punishing 1 title require R5-P8. Much like the MistHunter requires a tractor beam.

Genius, to me looks more like aligning to what they set with other similar cards such as the X-7 title trying to limit the extra actions when not flying optimally. He’s also more like his name implies and only going to do his trick at the best possible time. No issues here at all.

ASlam- Again this feels more of an alignment item than a real ugly nerf. Yes I know it’s a kick down under to action bombs which means you’re now pressed to stay and try to bomb where you originally stopped or and push on but be defensive by turtling up taking a focus or if you get out of danger setup the next set of actions. (Also it justifies Deathfire’s abilityas unique unto itself). Again no real complaints on it.

Biggs: Biggs is actually an interesting change. Mainly because in a way it’s in line with the Palpatine change. It’s now situational and not a blanket effect. Currently I see a lot of the same knee jerk like reactions seen by my fellow Imperial players regarding Palpatine with Biggs players. Is it going to take time to adjust, well yes. Is it so broken with worthless? No. Mainly because the really good rebel players can start having a mind game with their opponents. Waiting to optimize when Biggs is used instead of just being there and either watching a Alpha strike bypass Biggs and being frustrated by it. Or going down so quickly his effects may not do more than buy one round. I personally now have to go okay do I try to take out Biggs early or try to hit something scarier? Usually my mind was made up for me and so Biggs was usually prime target okay move on. Now he doesn’t have to be and likely won’t be, but if used at the right time, ugh could be brutal. Image having him into round 6 or 7 ordinance fired ect and now told you have to target Biggs. He really could be a late game monster if played right and enough practice on when to time things up.

26 minutes ago, Astech said:

It's truly optimal against AGI 2 ships - where they have little chance of evading the attack, and also don't have health to spare. I'd be perfectly happy with a nerf to TLT if it accompanied a buff to the Ion Cannon Turret (either extending it out to R3 or dealing 2 ion tokens). That'd keep Y-wings in play.

Stress hog lived before TLT, Stress Hog will live on after. Ion with double stress is still pretty mean.

also I love Y-wings, they do everything! Except dodge arcs.

Mistake found: They claimed that the jm5k had one more health than it does, they said it has 10.

2 minutes ago, gryffindorhouse said:

Mistake found: They claimed that the jm5k had one more health than it does, they said it has 10.

Those jerks. It’s almost like they don’t spend 24 hrs a day thinking about XWM!

3 minutes ago, gryffindorhouse said:

Mistake found: They claimed that the jm5k had one more health than it does, they said it has 10.

Nerf it down to 9 hurry before it becomes OP again.

1 hour ago, Ronu said:

As for the Astromech, I personally would like to see the Punishing 1 title require R5-P8.

This wouldn't make much sense, unless Hondo Ohnaka flew the Punishing One.

3 hours ago, UnitOmega said:

This wouldn't make much sense, unless Hondo Ohnaka flew the Punishing One.

Which would be awesome to be honest

Hmmm …Hondo HAD a Jumpmaster 5000 in his private hangar during the clone wars. ;-)

TLT was created as a counter to point fortresses like Fat Han. In general, large ships with lots and lots of points, and lots of lots of mitigation.

The problem is that it was also exceptionally good against small ship of agility 1 and 2.

What do you think on this small change to keep the turret with the same price, but lower the damage dealt to unintended targets?

It's kind of a buff to all small ships that aren't being played much currently. And provides a reason to equip the other turrets that are able to deal more damage to small ships.

EDIT: Just noticed, it's also an important debuff to Miranda's regen. When attacking a small ship she needs to pick between TLT for a single 2 dice attack (because of regen) with 1 damage tops; or two attacks with the primary turret, one of them with 1 single die.

All the people complaining about the Palp nerf being unnecessary should really keep it zipped for a little bit and see what happens.

Palp didn't disappear because he was nerfed to uselessness, he disappeared because the ships he's good with disappeared. If they're about to come back then you may well find Palp is still a very strong addition.

It's a wierdly negative way of putting it. "If the defending ship is a Large Ship you may perform this attack twice" is a bit more proactive.

1 minute ago, Stay On The Leader said:

It's a wierdly negative way of putting it. "If the defending ship is a Large Ship you may perform this attack twice" is a bit more proactive.

I didn't want to have to specify "Large or Huge".