21 minutes ago, Blail Blerg said:

In an attempt to be less apathetic about the situation. I’d like to ask your detailed opinion on: are non harpoon imperials viable at the extreme competitive range? Why is that? Are there counter examples and or complexity in the situation?

If one wanted to win the whole tournament would you recommend your build or a similar one? Or is it incredibly easier to manage better results with a rebel or scum super power list (or harpoons)?

Well, a Palp Aces list is ranked number 5 on MetaWing’s list of archetypes. That list has won two Regionals in this month alone, with it and similar variants making cuts at plenty of high level events, including the 15-0 weekend at the Mandalore System Open.

Based on this, I would say that non-harpoon Inperial lists are viable at extreme competitive range.

The why I suspect comes from some nice versatility from QD and Quiz backed by Palp. Add to that Yorr is part of the list, making stress control less of an issue, meaning Quiz can continue to PTL and QD’s Expertise can stay on.

I’m not sure what you are asking for in counter examples. It is not an undefeated list, but then, neither is the current meta monster in Fenn/Ghost. There are indications that Harpoon Imp lists are doing well with some regional wins of there own, but no clear sign of suppiority that I can see.

As for suggesting my list, I would, but there are better lists out there, like Howard Aces. It really depends on who I am advising.

You can expect better results from Rebels as they hold the top 4 list archetypes on Meta-Wing. (Though only one of those lists actually use Harpoons). Based on recent results, I would definitely bet on a non-Harpoon Imp list over the majority of Scum lists. Both Harpoon and non-Harpoon Imperial lists have good options if you are looking to go all the way of a tournament.

Harpoons should have been cancel all hits and do one point of damage then apply the condition.

On 1/29/2018 at 12:11 PM, Ailowynn said:

I’m with the Krayts on this one. Yes, Harpoons are power creep and they’re rules creep; but their effect on the meta has been overwhelmingly positive. You think Gunboats would be top tier competitive without Harpoons? Would we even see Kimogilas? How about all those Imperial aces that have started making cuts consistently? Harpoons are putting small based, arced ships back in the game. That means arcs matter, and that means decisions matter. Only place where I see them as an issue is Nymranda, but that squad would be an issue regardless; it’s a price I’m willing to pay.

Just take a moment to think—what would the meta look like without these harpoon squads? It would be a bunch of Nymranda, fortressing Ghosts, and timewalk Asajj; and that’s it. I can’t think of another meta list right now that doesn’t rely on Poons. Stop with the nerf herding, folks. This is a good card.

if they made a missile that was 10 dice, range 1-3, doesnt need a target lock to fire, and cost 1 point; it would also make gunboats good, kimogilas good, z-95s good, and imperial alpha good. That doesnt mean its good for the game. Harpoons are dumb. They would still be good and would be taken if the entire condition was removed and the rest left as-is. Then there would actually be a decision based on what ship your running. If you use long-range scanners you would probably want harpoons, if you have chips and no extra munitions concussions might be better.

Ugh, not this again.

Ships with harpoons have a worse winrate than rebel squads ships without harpoons.
Scurrgs get a massive 15% boost in wins, while Miranda has even a slightly higher win percentage without harpoons (61.23% vs 60.59%).

And so on.

27 minutes ago, emperorscanaries said:

if they made a missile that was 10 dice, range 1-3, doesnt need a target lock to fire, and cost 1 point; it would also make gunboats good, kimogilas good, z-95s good, and imperial alpha good. That doesnt mean its good for the game. Harpoons are dumb. They would still be good and would be taken if the entire condition was removed and the rest left as-is. Then there would actually be a decision based on what ship your running. If you use long-range scanners you would probably want harpoons, if you have chips and no extra munitions concussions might be better.

If you made an argument that wasn't a strawman then it would be worth answering. But you conveniently ignore that part: " but their effect on the meta has been overwhelmingly positive. " Think that also applies to your ridiculous example? No? Then your whole point is moot.

3 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

Ugh, not this again.

Ships with harpoons have a worse winrate than rebel squads ships without harpoons.
Scurrgs get a massive 15% boost in wins, while Miranda has even a slightly higher win percentage without harpoons (61.23% vs 60.59%).

And so on.

If you made an argument that wasn't a strawman then it would be worth answering. But you conveniently ignore that part: " but their effect on the meta has been overwhelmingly positive. " Think that also applies to your ridiculous example? No? Then your whole point is moot.

Its not a straw-man argument, its an extreme example to get a point across. Just because that list of ships is good, doesnt mean the upgrade or the result is good or good for the game. Also, dont act like " but their effect on the meta has been overwhelmingly positive. " is an irrefutable fact. Its not even a generally accepted opinion. I think they've done literally nothing good for the game at all. They make Nym Miranda a whole lot more powerful than if they had to use concussions, punish formation flying, and further push out generics that dont have missile slots/cheap missile slots. I find them extremely unfun to play against. Just because something makes arcs matter, doesnt mean its a good idea. And what do you mean by scurrgs getting a 15% boost in wins? Are you arguing that harpoons are good because it makes Nym win 15% more?

Harpoon anecdote:

Last night a friend ‘pooned me for the first time. He did 6 damage with the missile and condition, and felt dirty after. I won the game anyway. Doesn’t change the fact Harpoons are unbridled power creep.

I don’t care if they nerf Harpoons or not. I’m just tossing in my opinion of the card.

Side note about some of the recent posts in this thread: Statisitics are dull and the hypercompetitve nature of metawingers is a greater threat to player community and fun than any card or combination of cards.

I actually find Harpoons really hurt my own playstyle. Like I've taken them a few times with my scum lists but I tend to try and get close and use range 1 positioning to shoot things up close. But that's the problem, I'm so close that I'm probably gonna set off my own harpoon missiles. Benched them for Assault Missiles or Concussion Missiles.

2 hours ago, emperorscanaries said:

Its not a straw-man argument, its an extreme example to get a point across.

That's the actual definition of a straw-man argument, lol. Like, the exact definition. Stay in school, kids!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

From the article:

The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:

1. Person 1 asserts proposition X. (GreenDragoon, That Harpoons are fine, and good for the game)
2. Person 2 argues against a superficially similar proposition Y, falsely, as if an argument against Y were an argument against X. (EmperorScan, That Harpoons are akin to a 10 dice Uber-missile, whose effect would buff certain archetypes to ridiculous levels, which would be bad for the game.)

Many. Opinions. Really. Offer. Nothing.

48 minutes ago, KellenC said:

I actually find Harpoons really hurt my own playstyle. Like I've taken them a few times with my scum lists but I tend to try and get close and use range 1 positioning to shoot things up close. But that's the problem, I'm so close that I'm probably gonna set off my own harpoon missiles. Benched them for Assault Missiles or Concussion Missiles.

I haven’t been using many Harpoons for similar reasons. Fenn Rau no like.

2 hours ago, emperorscanaries said:

Its not a straw-man argument, its an extreme example to get a point across

I wrote a very long reply, but honestly, I simply don't care enough about your misconception and it takes too much effort to explain why you're wrong.

apart from the fact that we should make arced ships more powerful in general (or, more easily, curtail turrets), there's one thing I ******* despise about Harpoons

I've used Xizor since he dropped in Wave 6, even got a custom paintjob so he could fly a worthy, gaudy as **** Viper with a bullseye painted on it.

I was so goddamn excited about the mk2 fix in Guns for Hire...

and then they hard-countered his *** with the same box!

On 1/29/2018 at 12:59 PM, ficklegreendice said:

would much rather have Outmanuever just be a standard rule, just with using the attacker's and defender's primary firing arc

this way everyone's arc matters, not just those select few that get to use poons

OOOOO, so we're talking Earth Bound rules (sort of)! I like it. Lots of 0-1 agility 360 ships would still not care, but dam that would make ace flying fun.

Quote

“Churchill: "Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?"

Socialite: "My goodness, Mr. Churchill... Well, I suppose... we would have to discuss terms, of course... "

Churchill: "Would you sleep with me for five pounds?"

Socialite: "Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!"

Churchill: "Madam, we've already established that. Now we are haggling about the price”

― Winston S. Churchill

Presenting extreme examples is beneficial to show that a particular argument isn't worthwhile on its basis alone, and that there is nuance and other considerations; for instance "making arcs relevant again" is not beneficial to the game if it causes other problems, such as introducing an upgrade that is imbalanced and causes more negative effects, such as chasing off formations and increasing already powerful ships even more (ex. Nym, Miranda)

14 minutes ago, kris40k said:

Presenting extreme examples is beneficial to show that a particular argument isn't worthwhile on its basis alone, and that there is nuance and other considerations; for instance "making arcs relevant again" is not beneficial to the game if it causes other problems, such as introducing an upgrade that is imbalanced and causes more negative effects, such as chasing off formations and increasing already powerful ships even more (ex. Nym, Miranda)

Which is why what he was doing was a straw man. If he cared to read more carefully he would realize that "as long as it's good for the game" is already part of the condition, and we can discuss what is meant by "good". Removing that part and then claiming it can be taken to extremes is simply dishonest and makes all further discussion futile. He's already demonstrated what kind of discussion he wants to have, and I'm out of that.

22 minutes ago, BDrafty said:

OOOOO, so we're talking Earth Bound rules (sort of)! I like it. Lots of 0-1 agility 360 ships would still not care, but dam that would make ace flying fun.

you'd be surprised how much extra health a falcon or K-wing gains over the course of the game with just a few lucky rolls, especially at range 3 or when obstructed or both

6 minutes ago, ficklegreendice said:

you'd be surprised how much extra health a falcon or K-wing gains over the course of the game with just a few lucky rolls, especially at range 3 or when obstructed or both

NOTHING SURPRISES ME! But yeah, good point. Also, it would be clutch vs C3-P0 ships.

Just now, BDrafty said:

NOTHING SURPRISES ME! But yeah, good point. Also, it would be clutch vs C3-P0 ships.

Funny story, actually

I'm every game I've had crackshot and flew against the ghost, I've ALWAYS spent it shooting at the ghost specifically

17 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

Which is why what he was doing was a straw man. If he cared to read more carefully he would realize that "as long as it's good for the game" is already part of the condition, and we can discuss what is meant by "good". Removing that part and then claiming it can be taken to extremes is simply dishonest and makes all further discussion futile. He's already demonstrated what kind of discussion he wants to have, and I'm out of that.

If you cared to read more carefully, you would have seen that he was disputing the assertion that they are overwhelmingly good for the meta by giving examples (the loss of swarms and formations), and not just removing that from the discussion.

Presenting the extreme example marks two far lines in the sand ("not enough" and "way too much") and states that somewhere in-between these two is a line that should not be crossed. The discussion to be had is whether or not Harpoons have crossed that line and while they are making arc relevant again, they are or are not good for the game due to other effects.

1 minute ago, kris40k said:

If you cared to read more carefully, you would have seen that he was disputing the assertion that they are overwhelmingly good for the meta by giving examples (the loss of swarms and formations), and not just removing that from the discussion.

And that's where he's wrong. Swarms were gone for literally years before Harpoons. FSR survived Harpoons just fine, and they rely on formation. Same for generics, the rate has been very constant at around 26-28% of all ships.

You should also read more carefully, as I already mentioned " we can discuss what is meant by "good" ", so not removing anything from the discussion. He intentionally misrepresented the argument for effect when his criticism is simply already covered. You seem to be doing the same.

18 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

And that's where he's wrong. Swarms were gone for literally years before Harpoons. FSR survived Harpoons just fine, and they rely on formation. Same for generics, the rate has been very constant at around 26-28% of all ships.

You should also read more carefully, as I already mentioned " we can discuss what is meant by "good" ", so not removing anything from the discussion. He intentionally misrepresented the argument for effect when his criticism is simply already covered. You seem to be doing the same.

Which you then ignored when he addressed "what was meant by 'good'" with his post here.

And piling on more anti-swarm tech is not acceptable just because swarms were already suffering. Its a bad thing. Archetypes have been known to recover as changes are introduced to the game, but they won't if you keep piling on tech against them when they are already down.

The original post which is what I've been responding to suggests that the meta is has been overwhelmingly improved by harpoons and the only support given to that claim is that small based ships with harpoons equipped are seeing play. From there he extrapolates that that means that arcs matter and that the decisions you make matter, implying that both of those were not the case before but are definitively true now.

I'm saying that the sole fact that some ships with a missile slot seeing play is not in any way evidence that its good for meta or that the meta is improved. There are many terrible unfun ways to make small ships with a missile slot good that doesnt make the meta good, improved, or fun. One way is to make a 10-die overpowered missile, and I argue that another way is to make harpoons.

The fact that swarms weren't incredibly prevalent at the time doesn't mean that you should release upgrades that make sure they never come back. And formation flying IS very effected by harpoons. FSR is the most resilient version of formation flying possible and it: 1) is not actually around and has only started cropping up recently because it can deal with the ghost 2) actually does still get dumpstered by 3bqd.

5 minutes ago, kris40k said:

Which you then ignored when he addressed "what was meant by 'good'" with his post here.

The fact that I replied to part of that post in the post you just quoted proves that I did not ignore it. But I definitively should have.

E: sorry @emperorscanaries, but I‘m out

2 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

The fact that I replied to part of that post in the post you just quoted proves that I did not ignore it. But I definitively should have.

You certainly didn't address any of it, you only quoted part about the straw-man, which is ultimately irrelevant to the discussion about what is good for the game. You didn't address any of his points about that he presented in his post.

Quote

I wrote a very long reply, but honestly, I simply don't care enough about your misconception and it takes too much effort to explain why you're wrong.

That drivel is what you wrote in response.

And ffs before you or anyone else goes on circle-jerking about the straw-man, look up the "Fallacy fallacy" and then move on already. Just because someone presents a logical fallacy it doesn't mean that they are wrong.