9 hours ago, Darth Meanie said:

Multiple Choice Meta!!

_____________ dominating majority of regionals..how boring.

A. PTW.

B. TLT.

C. Bombs.

D. Harpoons.

E. JM5K.

F. Nym.

G. All of the above.

H. N/A. I play Epic.

I. Ask me in a few days. I have to decide what's stuck in my craw this week.

Yes and everything got nerfed in a distinct way after waves of complainings.

If the board would only consists of guys thinking like you then we would still be in the pre-phantom-nerf-meta.

Seriously these "stop complaining" attitude is not a good way of thinking

https://carolinakrayts.libsyn.com/

imma just leave this here

17 hours ago, Jeff Wilder said:

If she couldn't use TLT, she'd be fine. Seriously. And TLT would be fine without Miranda. They are a #$%^-for-balance synergy.

If Miranda's ability was "when performing a Primary, Torpedo, and Missile attack" I think that'd be lovely. Then it's an actual choice between gaining a shield or doing damage each round. TLT has the potential to both regain a shield, and a reasonable chance to do damage.

16 hours ago, thespaceinvader said:

Miranda's pilot ability being Primary Weapon only would go some way to making her not-awful.

Not much of a way, but at least some.

I personally don't like Primary-only, since I like the idea of her getting a big missile/torpedo shot, but that's just like, my opinion, man.

One of the big issues with Miranda is that 5 die fully modded missile, though.

It's just not the biggest by quite a long stretch.

1 hour ago, thespaceinvader said:

One of the big issues with Miranda is that 5 die fully modded missile, though.

It's just not the biggest by quite a long stretch.

I see it, I guess I just don't mind as much for two reasons. First, I've rarely flown with or against it, so I may be underestimating it. Second, I think the investment in a 5-dice missile seems a lot higher. If TLTs couldn't add regeneration at super-low opportunity cost, the loss of a shield to fire a missile might be more meaningful. If the followup to a 5-dice missile is a 1-die PWT, well, that might be enough.

Ideally, I'd see Miranda lose turret shots as an errata first, and then reevaluate whether she still needs to be limited to primary-weapon only. I'd prefer a more modest initial change, and would be fully willing to concede the point afterwards.

Another Miranda wording just occurred to me. Add "if you do not have an equipped Turret upgrade" before her entire text. That'd not just rule out turrets for her ability, but turrets period.

Just then this cop comes down the street
Crazy as a loon
He throw us all in jail
For carryin’ harpoons

https://www.bobdylan.com/songs/bob-dylans-115th-dream/

Needs to be one of these

1. Range restricted to shorter ranges (it is a harpoon after all)

2. Cost increased by at least 1 point

3. Spend TL to fire

As it stands it is head and shoulders above everything.

5 hours ago, DarkTrooperZero said:

Needs to be one of these

1. Range restricted to shorter ranges (it is a harpoon after all)

2. Cost increased by at least 1 point

3. Spend TL to fire

As it stands it is head and shoulders above everything.

Why does it matter if it's better than other ordinance?

On 09/01/2018 at 0:17 AM, theBitterFig said:

I personally don't like Primary-only, since I like the idea of her getting a big missile/torpedo shot, but that's just like, my opinion, man.

On 09/01/2018 at 1:44 AM, theBitterFig said:

Another Miranda wording just occurred to me. Add "if you do not have an equipped Turret upgrade" before her entire text. That'd not just rule out turrets for her ability, but turrets period.

I'm personally in favour of "Primary only" but another compromise-level option could be "When attacking a target in your primary firing arc..."

Still allows missiles/torps (and even turrets) but not if she's running away.

As for Harpoons - I like the suggestion that the attacker has to cancel a Crit result (at the start of the Deal Damage step) in order to trigger the condition each time (thus only one harpoon token is removed for each Crit sacrificed, and the overall damage potential is decreased).

( if it does ever come under the nerf-hammer, it'll probably just be made unique - because that's the easiest )

For what it's worth I'm still sticking with cruise missiles on two of my four ships in my list currently. Saves me 2 points which is nice since upgrades are tight. Plus I love the joy of getting the 5 dice cruise missile off every few games. And while it doesn't help win games, I enjoy the challenge of flying with them as they are trickier to get off because of the high speeds required.

3 hours ago, Tlfj200 said:

Why does it matter if it's better than other ordinance?

Because it is MUCH (!) better

40 minutes ago, IG88E said:

Because it is MUCH (!) better

Why does it matter if it‘s MUCH (!) better than other ordnance?

3 hours ago, ABXY said:

As for Harpoons - I like the suggestion that the attacker has to cancel a Crit result (at the start of the Deal Damage step) in order to trigger the condition each time (thus only one harpoon token is removed for each Crit sacrificed, and the overall damage potential is decreased).

( if it does ever come under the nerf-hammer, it'll probably just be made unique - because that's the easiest )

Personally I don't think it makes any sense for the condition to be applied if the harpoon only hit shields. Surely it'd need to stick in the hull to go off later? Kinda like an inverse Plasma Toro.

28 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

Why does it matter if it‘s MUCH (!) better than other ordnance?

Because it essentially removes most other 'attack' ordnance as a competitive option (I'll avoid saying 'all other ordnance' as special purpose stuff like Ion Pulse, Scramber, Thread Tracer, and Flechette have special token-based effects you might have wanted more than the damage).

• Ultimately, it doesn't matter too much that it's better than other range 2-3 attack missiles.
  • If there was only one "range 2-3 missile that does damage" and only ever had been (as per concussion missiles way back in wave 2 before the TIE bomber and Firespray came out) no-one would bat an eyelid.
  • The problem is that even back then, you had to compare concussion missiles (available to the TIE advanced) and proton torpedoes (available to the X-wing). Same range limits, same cost, but equippable by different ships. Which meant that if their balance was out of whack, the two ships' potential was also dragged out of whack.
  • This, in turn is an issue if a ship only has [Torpedo] not [Missile] slots you cannot turn it into a effective ordnance platform compared to a similar ship with a [Missile] slot. You see this now - if you have an ace who has a single ordnance slot (fairly common), how often do you see people shell out to put a proton torpedo in it? How about a cruise/harpoon missile? The fact that that that lone torpedo slot might as well not be there is an issue, because just like the missile carrier, the torpedo carrier has paid points for it.
  • It also means that other 'attack' ordnance which might have a particular synergy with a given pilot or upgrade's abilities (e.g. cluster missiles/accuracy corrector in TIE/x1s) is visibly the poorer option.
• It's really an issue if it's making ordnance 'better than not ordnance'.
  • This is a balancing dance that's been going on for most of the life of the game.
  • Early missiles and torpedoes were, frankly, not worth it, even with pilot abilities to boost it like Jonus, Rhymer, Vander and Salm.
  • The first ordnance 'fix' - Munitions Failsafe - in wave 4 made an impressive no impact on this whatsoever
  • Extra Munitions in wave 7 did reduce the cost, and Guidance Chips in wave 8 improve the effectiveness on dedicated ordnance boats. I think it would have put ordnance in about the right sweet spot had wave 8 not also included the bloody Jumpmaster.
  • Repeated thwackings with the nerf hammer have (arguably over-)contained the jumpmaster, but at the same time the Scurrg and imperial aces has popped up like the other end of the see-saw, as have harpoon missiles.
• Having missiles be viable is good, but Harpoons just feel too effective. I've played against a friend with an Imperial Aces missile squad, and the difference in play between cruise missile (which I lost as often as I won but enjoyed playing) and harpoon missile is massive - it should be better for a point more, but the option to slow roll in rather than needing a fast 'attack run' makes them much harder to predict, the extra damage/splash damage makes them more powerful per point against big ships than anything else in their cost bracket, the splash effect and detonate-on-kill trigger makes them able to handle swarms.

2 hours ago, __underscore__ said:

Personally I don't think it makes any sense for the condition to be applied if the harpoon only hit shields. Surely it'd need to stick in the hull to go off later? Kinda like an inverse Plasma Toro.

Because then it would likely be more effective against Imperial ships that have less shields than the high-shield formation-flying Rebels it was more likely aimed at disrupting.

14 minutes ago, ABXY said:

Because then it would likely be more effective against Imperial ships that have less shields than the high-shield formation-flying Rebels it was more likely aimed at disrupting.

Only a handful of the ships from the first couple of waves, no? By this point most Imperial ships have a shield or two, and the agility dice to theoretically dodge all but a damage or two.

4 hours ago, Magnus Grendel said:

Because it essentially removes most other 'attack' ordnance as a competitive option (I'll avoid saying 'all other ordnance' as special purpose stuff like Ion Pulse, Scramber, Thread Tracer, and Flechette have special token-based effects you might have wanted more than the damage).

[and more interesting points]

First off, a perfect game would make every missile as useful. But that won't happen, so there will always be options that are better than others.
But I disagree on both that Harpoons are "MUCH (!)" better than all others. And I disagree that it would be a problem even if it was true.

Out of 11 missiles, 5 are pretty good. That's a high amount if compared to turrets (TLT+Autobalser/6, even though synced is rising now), torpedoes (plasmas/6) or cannons (HLC+Tractor+Mangler/8). Even more if you consider that a more upgrades leads to more expected bad upgrades, considering FFGs record.
The 5 I'm talking about are of course Harpoons, Cruise, Tracers, Prockets and Homing missile. Those dealing damage all can use their TL (or Focus) to modify and can deal 4+ damage. (We could argue about ionpulse, unguided rockets and scrambler, but I don't think it's necessary.) Each has its drawback compared to the rest:

• Harpoons can damage your own ships - which frequently happens.
• Cruise require a predictable maneuver for 5 dice, or a more maneuverable but still predictable 3speed for 4 dice. Also: 3 points.
• Prockets require range1, which means you need a ship with 2 native attack and 3 agility to make it worth, so A-Wing, TAP, Advanced (plus theoretically M3A and Defenders, but...). Also: 3 points.
• Tracers are mainly used by Blair Bunke and not really many other people it seems. But he makes them work, which is enough as proof of concept, IMO.
• Homing were often used on Miranda and they are meta-dependent. Many ships using evade (hello Asajj?) and it might make a comeback. Also: 5 points.

Of course people claiming that Harpoons are now the only option will disagree with that assessment. But it is clear to me that Harpoons are not "MUCH (!)" better than the other 4. I am flying 2 cruise and 1 harpoon at the moment to get an initiative bid (or 1 and 2), and so far I was very happy about both throwing 5 dice, and about not damaging myself with the splash. One might say this proves the point because I would clearly use Harpoons if I had the points. But I think it proves my point because Harpoons are not so much better to justify the lack of a bid.

The second part is that it wouldn't be a problem.
I agree in principle, as I mentioned initially, that all cards should be viable. But this has never and will never be the case.
But way more important than "internal" balance between missiles is the overall balance for the game. And currently, Harpoons (and cruise) are necessary to make arcs matter again, to beat the more broken ships, and to make previously dismissed ships relevant again.

I do agree that balancing ordnance is inherently problematic and we would probably be better off without any. But that's ultimately irrelevant because we have them.

16 hours ago, DarkTrooperZero said:

Needs to be one of these

1. Range restricted to shorter ranges (it is a harpoon after all)

2. Cost increased by at least 1 point

3. Spend TL to fire

As it stands it is head and shoulders above everything.

Spend TL to fire. Problem solved.

12 minutes ago, Thormind said:

Spend TL to fire. Problem solved.

And then switch to cruise+homing missiles to keep those 4-5 hits coming

If they nerf Harpoons they better nerf re-enforce at the same time.

Where is the Nerf Re-Enforce thread?

We need it to complete the circle of nerf.

Thanks Mufasa!

Harpoons and Lowhrick balance each other for now.

Lets see how this plays out.

I just want a "Harpoon Torpedo" coupled with a reload for my X-wings.

Make the T-65 great again!

9 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

And then switch to cruise+homing missiles to keep those 4-5 hits coming

Sorry but if you think those 2 are equal to harpoons, you dont understand how the game works. It's just the same as if you said (prior to last nerf) if changes was made to JMKs, everyone would switch to other good ships. The others were never seen as a problem. There is a reason why harpoons are almost exclusively played at the moment.

6 minutes ago, Thormind said:

Sorry but if you think those 2 are equal to harpoons, you dont understand how the game works. It's just the same as if you said (prior to last nerf) if changes was made to JMKs, everyone would switch to other good ships. The others were never seen as a problem. There is a reason why harpoons are almost exclusively played at the moment.

Sure. I‘ll ignore then that squads with only Cruise had 1% higher winpercentage in Vassal league compared to only Harpoons. Who needs data when we have feelings and popular opinions.

20 minutes ago, Boom Owl said:

Harpoons and Lowhrick balance each other for now.

Lets see how this plays out.

Ah, logic.

This is is a few reasons why Harpoons actually might have unknowingly saved the game: it certainly counters the stupidity that is Reinforce, it actually makes 80 degree arcs matter again, it has strengthened Ace squads and made them flyable again, it makes point-fortress ships worry a bit. I think it is a necessary evil in the current meta.

I love it when a plan comes together, even one which probably wasn't actually planned.