4 hours ago, Astech said:

I should clarify here. The list wasn't universally unbeatable. What was unbeatable was the unmatched firepower, hull/shield durability and maneuverability. The only thing it wasn't best at was being a token stacking ace (which was Dengaroo, essentially). That mean that between players of equal, sufficiently high skill the triple torp boat player would come out on top a statistically anomalous amount of time. Anomalous enough to have a huge advantage in tournament play against opponents of equal skill. It was also such a niche, unique list that hard-countering it left you open to defeat by even tier 4 lists.

Of course, not all players are of equal skill, so Triple Jumps are beaten by Palp Aces, Biggs and even jank piloted by brilliant players.

Why didn't you add this clarification after my first post? It was obvious I was talking about actual events. If this was your point from the start, why take so long to actually say it?

11 hours ago, SabineKey said:

Why didn't you add this clarification after my first post? It was obvious I was talking about actual events. If this was your point from the start, why take so long to actually say it?

Well, we're speaking of lists in a vacuum here, not Paul Heaver flying against a ten year old. I's pretty much a universal assumption that players are of equal skill when comparing the "brokenness" of a list. I didn't think it needed to be said.

3 minutes ago, Astech said:

Well, we're speaking of lists in a vacuum here, not Paul Heaver flying against a ten year old. I's pretty much a universal assumption that players are of equal skill when comparing the "brokenness" of a list. I didn't think it needed to be said.

It's actually a poor assumption, but unfortunately like you said, universal. Well, almost.

When your only Tool is a Nerf ...

Everything is OP!

Imperial Raider with ordinance tubes and harpoons. Can spam harpoons turn after turn. Get clever with your list and you could spam multiple missiles each turn

11 hours ago, Astech said:

Well, we're speaking of lists in a vacuum here, not Paul Heaver flying against a ten year old. I's pretty much a universal assumption that players are of equal skill when comparing the "brokenness" of a list. I didn't think it needed to be said.

If a nine year old is flying Norra, 3 rookies in x-wing … I am not sure if I would bet on Heaver

12 hours ago, SEApocalypse said:

If a nine year old is flying Norra, 3 rookies in x-wing … I am not sure if I would bet on Heaver

Paul is remarkably destructive against children, I would bet on him.

23 hours ago, SabineKey said:

It's actually a poor assumption, but unfortunately like you said, universal. Well, almost.

its literally the only reasonable assumption.

any balance comparison is assumed to be between players of equal skill, always.

No one in the world thinks "gee that modern aircraft carrier with a full crew compliment and armament would be an equal match for a tugboat if only the aircraft carriers crew were all toddlers"

thats insane. one is obviously more powerfull in every regard, and therefore you either ignore skill and expertise of the operators or assume all have base level operating skill

55 minutes ago, Vontoothskie said:

its literally the only reasonable assumption.

any balance comparison is assumed to be between players of equal skill, always.

No one in the world thinks "gee that modern aircraft carrier with a full crew compliment and armament would be an equal match for a tugboat if only the aircraft carriers crew were all toddlers"

thats insane. one is obviously more powerfull in every regard, and therefore you either ignore skill and expertise of the operators or assume all have base level operating skill

It's a poor assumption because it doesn't paint the entire picture. Even players of equivalent skill are not truly equal depending on personal taste, experience, and unfamiliar tactics. That is also on top of RNG and mental state. Eventually, when coming to final conclusions about a list, you must consider these factors as well. Hence why I don't consider even a list like Triple Scouts (and Kanan/Fenn) as "unbeatable". They're tough lists, but not invincible.

50 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

It's a poor assumption because it doesn't paint the entire picture. Even players of equivalent skill are not truly equal depending on personal taste, experience, and unfamiliar tactics. That is also on top of RNG and mental state. Eventually, when coming to final conclusions about a list, you must consider these factors as well. Hence why I don't consider even a list like Triple Scouts (and Kanan/Fenn) as "unbeatable". They're tough lists, but not invincible.

but its grossly unfair to make that claim.

by that logic a 5/5/5/5 ship for 40 points is reasonable because its possible it could wiff all its dice rolls or the player flying it could have a dyslexic moment and fly off the board. If one game element has an unreasonably high likelyhood of winning compared to another of equal cost and opportunity, its over-powered. just because a skilled player can potentially defeat it doesnt mean its acceptable. A t-65 costs more than Protectorate starfighter but no ones arguing that the t-65 is better, yknow?

56 minutes ago, Vontoothskie said:

but its grossly unfair to make that claim.

by that logic a 5/5/5/5 ship for 40 points is reasonable because its possible it could wiff all its dice rolls or the player flying it could have a dyslexic moment and fly off the board. If one game element has an unreasonably high likelyhood of winning compared to another of equal cost and opportunity, its over-powered. just because a skilled player can potentially defeat it doesnt mean its acceptable. A t-65 costs more than Protectorate starfighter but no ones arguing that the t-65 is better, yknow?

Ah, but you are assuming that by me saying something is not unbeatable that it means it is reasonable or acceptable. Triple Scouts got what was coming to it. While I would like to see more tournament results to see how Fenn/Ghost lasts, I do think there are some valid arguments to be made against it and I'm expecting some sort of action taken against it in the future (baring some sort of "Achilles Heel" discovery).

What I am against is distortion of facts. Yes, there have been/are lists where the odds of their winning is extremely high and should be looked at carefully. But labeling them as simply "unbeatable" denies more nuance to the discussion and I feel promotes a defeatist attitude. There are so many valid and factually sound arguments against lists like triple scouts and probably Fenn/Ghost (like you yourself used in the quotation above) that exaggerations that are factually inaccurate (like the unbeatable label) steal time that is better used on actual points.

In the end, while early thought experiments can limit variables to better understand a core part of something, those variables still exist and must be taken into consideration when passing a verdict on something. There are things that are too strong, but that doesn't equal unbeatable.

1 hour ago, SabineKey said:

Ah, but you are assuming that by me saying something is not unbeatable that it means it is reasonable or acceptable. Triple Scouts got what was coming to it. While I would like to see more tournament results to see how Fenn / Ghost lasts, I do think there are some valid arguments to be made against it and I'm expecting some sort of action taken against it in the future (baring some sort of "Achilles Heel" discovery).

What I am against is distortion of facts. Yes, there have been/are lists where the odds of their winning is extremely high and should be looked at carefully. But labeling them as simply "unbeatable" denies more nuance to the discussion and I feel promotes a defeatist attitude. There are so many valid and factually sound arguments against lists like triple scouts and probably Fenn / Ghost (like you yourself used in the quotation above) that exaggerations that are factually inaccurate (like the unbeatable label) steal time that is better used on actual points.

In the end, while early thought experiments can limit variables to better understand a core part of something, those variables still exist and must be taken into consideration when passing a verdict on something. There are things that are too strong, but that doesn't equal unbeatable.

Well, the classic Palp Aces, upon release, was pretty very nearly unbeatable. You had the pilot skill advantage pretty much always, your aces were untouchable against a single attack, and even if Soontir truly stuffs up and ends up at range 1 of an 8 TIE fighter swarm, he had something like a 75% chance to take no damage at all. That level of reliability and adaptability nearly ruined the game, as did JM5Ks throughout their entire reign. Heck, unless you were running VI Han, pre-nerf Whisper was literally unbeatable in the hands of a skilled player.

The "unbeatable" label (say, winning against all other lists 85% of the time assuming equal player skill, experience and mindset) is more important in the tournament setting than casual games. That kind of reliable win is what gets you past the cut. At that point you're competing against a pool of like minded meta players and perhaps 1 or two brilliant ones flying jank.

On Vassal, if I'm flying 43 T-65 aces and I come up against, say, triple JM5ks, I'll resign the game immediately, or request to change my list to something on-par. Not because I couldn't win, but because the odds are so low and the time invested in the game simply isn't worth it when, no matter how brilliantly I play, I'll lose. Most likely without taking a ship off the board. That's what I'd call unbeatable.

Harpoons are hard hitting toys, but they are not OP.

It isn't because you can't handle a proper alfa strike, that there is no means to endure it.

When looking at some options to prevent them from beeing used, as in, "hot cop, poe black one", and skilled flying, you can determine wether an alfa is going to happen or not.

If you deceide to fly in a swarm, don't come crying when harpoons nail you down. If you accept an alfa strike and fly head on into the enemy, don't come crying when half your fleet is at 10%.

Ships with high defence numbers can minimize damage.

Don't come crying Dooom DOOOOMM DDOOOOOMMMM!!!!!!

Try beating the odds

ps: 40% of the printed cards are not/never beeing used by ppl, adding a couple off old school missiles to the list isn't all that bad. I'm sure there are players that will use all cards in a friendly game.

ps: stuff your xwing 2.0 ideas and shouts in that sunless spot.... all is ok as it is. just quit playing.

1 hour ago, D34d guru said:

Harpoons are hard hitting toys, but they are not OP.

It isn't because you can't handle a proper alfa strike, that there is no means to endure it.

When looking at some options to prevent them from beeing used, as in, "hot cop, poe black one ", and skilled flying, you can determine wether an alfa is going to happen or not.

If you deceide to fly in a swarm, don't come crying when harpoons nail you down. If you accept an alfa strike and fly head on into the enemy, don't come crying when half your fleet is at 10%.

Ships with high defence numbers can minimize damage.

Don't come crying Dooom DOOOOMM DDOOOOOMMMM!!!!!!

Try beating the odds

ps: 40% of the printed cards are not/never beeing used by ppl, adding a couple off old school missiles to the list isn't all that bad. I'm sure there are players that will use all cards in a friendly game.

ps: stuff your xwing 2.0 ideas and shouts in that sunless spot.... all is ok as it is. just quit playing.

I'm trying to figure how to formally 'dislike' a post.

Harpoons are definitively better than every other secondary weapon so far (excluding TLT), by at least 25% in terms of points efficiency. If swarms weren't already dead due to a lack of upgrades focused on them, harpoons alone would kill it.

The current Harpoon lists are Nymanda and 3Nu + QD. 3Nu + QD will get heir harpoons off when they want to, since it can stagger its gunboats in such a manner as to cover most of the board, forcing you to take fire to progress the game. NyManda is just as reliable at getting their shots off, and making it to range 1 of it just makes your life worse. Sure, Poe can avoid a single missile a turn, but he's going to get flattened by the rest of the list, most likely (especially against NyManda).

Ships with high agility cannot avoid harpoons. Harpoons nearly always score 4 hits, and every single ship in the meta has AGI3 without evade or worse defense, so they're pretty much unblockable. The condition card deals more damage when the inevitable second harpoon hits, leading to a cascade of damage.

The whole reason people are taking harpoons is that the odds of doing serious damage - against any ship - are massively in their favour.

Some cards will never be used seriously like Saboteur and Marksmanship, but numerous other cards are used commonly by tournament goes, up to and including cards like Outmaneuver and BMSTs.

The X-Wing 2.0 concept is a bit far-reaching, but has a lot of good arguments going its way. The meta is currently in a pretty happy place thanks to FFG's close mitoring of dangerous lists, but go back 3 months and it was an entirely different story.

44 minutes ago, Astech said:

I'm trying to figure how to formally 'dislike' a post.

Harpoons are definitively better than every other secondary weapon so far (excluding TLT), by at least 25% in terms of points efficiency. If swarms weren't already dead due to a lack of upgrades focused on them, harpoons alone would kill it.

The current Harpoon lists are Nymanda and 3Nu + QD. 3Nu + QD will get heir harpoons off when they want to, since it can stagger its gunboats in such a manner as to cover most of the board, forcing you to take fire to progress the game. NyManda is just as reliable at getting their shots off, and making it to range 1 of it just makes your life worse. Sure, Poe can avoid a single missile a turn, but he's going to get flattened by the rest of the list, most likely (especially against NyManda).

Ships with high agility cannot avoid harpoons. Harpoons nearly always score 4 hits, and every single ship in the meta has AGI3 without evade or worse defense, so they're pretty much unblockable. The condition card deals more damage when the inevitable second harpoon hits, leading to a cascade of damage.

The whole reason people are taking harpoons is that the odds of doing serious damage - against any ship - are massively in their favour.

Some cards will never be used seriously like Saboteur and Marksmanship, but numerous other cards are used commonly by tournament goes, up to and including cards like Outmaneuver and BMSTs.

The X-Wing 2.0 concept is a bit far-reaching, but has a lot of good arguments going its way. The meta is currently in a pretty happy place thanks to FFG's close mitoring of dangerous lists, but go back 3 months and it was an entirely different story.

As written... It can minimize... Not prevent.

Debris Gambit, stealth device... Increase evade chances in some way And you can soak damage on one target while others deal with other targets.

I ve seen 3nu s and qd lose games. So it aint cause something is hard hitting that it aint beatable.

Stop crying Doom, just play the game.

Some finals in tournaments were won by Non-harpoon wielding fleets.

Will ppl start crying nerf about that types of lists as well?

10 minutes ago, D34d guru said:

As written... It can minimize... Not prevent.

Debris Gambit , stealth device ... Increase evade chances in some way And you can soak damage on one target while others deal with.

I ve seen 3nu s and qd lose games. So it aint cause something is hard hitting that it aint beatable.

Stop crying Doom, just play the game.

Some finals in tournaments were won by Non-harpoon wielding fleets.

Will ppl start crying nerf about that types of lists as well?

Minimise? Mitigate slightly is perhaps more accurate, when faced with strong primary attacks and TLTs if the Harpoons don't fire on a particular turn.

I'm not sure if you realise how valuable the EPT and mod slots are. Any AGI 3 ship wants autothrusters before they want stealth device, because turrets are a massive part of the game and arc-dodgers melt to them without it. They also want Push The limit to get the double-reposition actions they need. Debris gambit doesn't help any more than a standard evade action against Harpoons anyway. Unless of course you're flying a TIE Interceptor, in which case you can equip stealth device, Autothrusters and have a focus and evade token, which is the best possible scenario, and you'e then free to die to every single list with bombs you encounter.

Just because something can be beaten it doesn't mean there aren't problems with it. There is a reason that it's doing so well at the moment. It actually is because of how hard hitting and durable it is that it's such a good list - it literally doesn't have any other tricks.

Nearly all regionals are being won by a current meta list or a variation thereof. The boba list that won a regionals recently is an outlier. Nym and Miranda are currently the highest ranked pilots, and both of them pretty much always carry Harpoons.

Harpoons were highlighted as potentially broken before they were officially released, and were proven to be extremely strong (borderline broken) after release.

27 minutes ago, Astech said:

Minimise? Mitigate slightly is perhaps more accurate, when faced with strong primary attacks and TLTs if the Harpoons don't fire on a particular turn.

I'm not sure if you realise how valuable the EPT and mod slots are. Any AGI 3 ship wants autothrusters before they want stealth device, because turrets are a massive part of the game and arc-dodgers melt to them without it. They also want Push The limit to get the double-reposition actions they need. Debris gambit doesn't help any more than a standard evade action against Harpoons anyway. Unless of course you're flying a TIE Interceptor, in which case you can equip stealth device, Autothrusters and have a focus and evade token, which is the best possible scenario, and you'e then free to die to every single list with bombs you encounter.

Just because something can be beaten it doesn't mean there aren't problems with it. There is a reason that it's doing so well at the moment. It actually is because of how hard hitting and durable it is that it's such a good list - it literally doesn't have any other tricks.

Nearly all regionals are being won by a current meta list or a variation thereof. The boba list that won a regionals recently is an outlier. Nym and Miranda are currently the highest ranked pilots, and both of them pretty much always carry Harpoons.

Harpoons were highlighted as potentially broken before they were officially released, and were proven to be extremely strong (borderline broken) after release.

well, FFG will change it if they think it is needed. Rants and doomcriers on forae only cause games to be flooded with negativety, not constructivety.

Personally i don't mind the tlt and the harpoon since , as all in this game, it is a game off give and take. Nothing is all winning and all has an anti-design.

Asking a game to be redesigned, as with them idiots crying for xwing 2.0, will only result in a vast croud off ppl, that baught the content, to leave the game completely.

We aught to be glad for the tournaments, as it shows us what the, so called "meta" is about. FFg bases its developments and alterations on that info imo.

ps: when attending a tournament you have, as per article, the option to go anti meta, thereby opening your options and increasing the other vurnerabilities. Or just do what you like, and hope that there is only X% chance that there are a couple of adversairies that use those fleet lists. If winning a couple of plastic rulers, a piece of carboard, and a plastic token means all to you.... well.... lol

40 minutes ago, D34d guru said:

well, FFG will change it if they think it is needed. Rants and doomcriers on forae only cause games to be flooded with negativety, not constructivety.

Personally i don't mind the tlt and the harpoon since , as all in this game, it is a game off give and take. Nothing is all winning and all has an anti-design.

Asking a game to be redesigned, as with them idiots crying for xwing 2.0, will only result in a vast croud off ppl, that baught the content, to leave the game completely.

We aught to be glad for the tournaments, as it shows us what the, so called "meta" is about. FFg bases its developments and alterations on that info imo.

ps: when attending a tournament you have, as per article, the option to go anti meta, thereby opening your options and increasing the other vurnerabilities. Or just do what you like, and hope that there is only X% chance that there are a couple of adversairies that use those fleet lists. If winning a couple of plastic rulers, a piece of carboard, and a plastic token means all to you.... well.... lol

So you're saying that the only sentiment anyone should express is positive? While you yourself are being negative about every viewpoint except your own?

TLT and Harpoons hve bent the game to essentially be played through and around them to the detriment of all else since their introduction, resulting in a much smaller game with less enjoyable aspects. A full game redesign is preferable to the continual power creep that leaves both the wallet and the game empty.

FFG primarily bases its development on the dozens - if not hundreds - of playtesters that check every component of the game, and inexplicably fail to find broken combos.

There is a very, very small group of "anti meta" counters to the current hotness. RAC/Kylo is one, and that's about the only build that can counter most things, althoughhe's very vulnerable to 3Nu + QD builds.

Because other people play meta lists, they reduce my options to doing the same, flying a very limited pool of counters, or doing what I actually want to do to enjoy the game and praying I'm not paired up against the dozens/hundreds of those meta players at the tournament, right?

11 minutes ago, Astech said:

So you're saying that the only sentiment anyone should express is positive? While you yourself are being negative about every viewpoint except your own?

TLT and Harpoons hve bent the game to essentially be played through and around them to the detriment of all else since their introduction, resulting in a much smaller game with less enjoyable aspects. A full game redesign is preferable to the continual power creep that leaves both the wallet and the game empty.

FFG primarily bases its development on the dozens - if not hundreds - of playtesters that check every component of the game, and inexplicably fail to find broken combos.

There is a very, very small group of "anti meta" counters to the current hotness. RAC/Kylo is one, and that's about the only build that can counter most things, althoughhe's very vulnerable to 3Nu + QD builds.

Because other people play meta lists, they reduce my options to doing the same, flying a very limited pool of counters, or doing what I actually want to do to enjoy the game and praying I'm not paired up against the dozens/hundreds of those meta players at the tournament, right?

If you can t stand the heat.... Stay out of the fire

14 minutes ago, D34d guru said:

If you can t stand the heat.... Stay out of the fire

Uh... was that a burn?

ok, I’ll show my self out.

1 hour ago, D34d guru said:

If you can t stand the heat.... Stay out of the fire

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmDckVV5vxQ



I still want my old Palpatine back. ;-)

3 minutes ago, SEApocalypse said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmDckVV5vxQ

Ah, 80s cartoons, where the best animation and music was in the intro and the rest of the 22 min commercial sucked. Except the Shipwreck episodes of G.I.Joe, those were always solid. And Seaspray turning into a merman on transformers, classic.

Also:

7 hours ago, Astech said:

Well, the classic Palp Aces, upon release, was pretty very nearly unbeatable. You had the pilot skill advantage pretty much always, your aces were untouchable against a single attack, and even if Soontir truly stuffs up and ends up at range 1 of an 8 TIE fighter swarm, he had something like a 75% chance to take no damage at all. That level of reliability and adaptability nearly ruined the game, as did JM5Ks throughout their entire reign. Heck, unless you were running VI Han, pre-nerf Whisper was literally unbeatable in the hands of a skilled player.

The "unbeatable" label (say, winning against all other lists 85% of the time assuming equal player skill, experience and mindset) is more important in the tournament setting than casual games. That kind of reliable win is what gets you past the cut. At that point you're competing against a pool of like minded meta players and perhaps 1 or two brilliant ones flying jank.

On Vassal, if I'm flying 43 T-65 aces and I come up against, say, triple JM5ks, I'll resign the game immediately, or request to change my list to something on-par. Not because I couldn't win, but because the odds are so low and the time invested in the game simply isn't worth it when, no matter how brilliantly I play, I'll lose. Most likely without taking a ship off the board. That's what I'd call unbeatable.

Again, you are being rather hyperbolic in using a term that doesn't actually apply. Take it from someone who killed a few pre-nerf Whispers with something other than VI Han, it wasn't unbeatable. Heck, even that you have to qualify "unless you are running VI Han" kind of blows holes in your unbeatable argument.

Unless you got some equations that prove that something will win 100% of the time (actual 100%, anything less, the. It isn't unbeatable), then your use of unbeatable feels hollow and self-defeating.

90% win rate probably doesn’t feel much different than 100% win rate...to the loser.

Just now, GrimmyV said:

90% win rate probably doesn’t feel much different than 100% win rate...to the loser.

Perhaps not, but feelings do not trump facts. 90% isn't unbeatable. You're still extremely likely to loss, but you still have 10% on your side.