3 hours ago, Stay On The Leader said:

Both are reality and neither will change. It's completely pointless to pretend otherwise.

Which doesn't mean the same as them being fine.

12 hours ago, Vontoothskie said:

first off, I like the concept, but i really think its flawed mechanic wise.

The potential 4 damage harpoon will punch through most shields and apply condition regardless.

the only ships which dont worry about this are tank ships with large shields. ironically these ships are the only justification for harpoons, so not a great solution.

Finally, heres a list of ships without shields at all:

Tie Fighter

Tie bomber

Tie interceptor

Quadjumper

These are already weak, underplayed ships. is it really fair to leave them vulnerable to an overpowered element of gameplay while reducing its effectiveness against everything else?

Any shields (even one) would act as a gate to applying and triggering the condition. So yes, it could one shot some ships, and it could wipe all shields if the hit lands well, but that's how it works now anyway. Having the condition trigger only on hull wouldn't lower initial damage from the missiles attack, just lower the chances of immediately applying and triggering the condition with a follow up attack. This would lower its usefulness in an alphastrike, maybe swaying people towards other missiles for that specific tactic.

Having the condition apply/not apply to shields doesn't make that list of ships any better or worse. Those are going to be underused ships regardless. It would not affect those ships at all so I don't see the point you're trying to make.

5 hours ago, clanofwolves said:

Yes, so very this. Though this is a very good strategy to win the game, it's not playing the game. This enigma of regen as a game mechanic is unavoidable; it is strangling the life from the game, as it ironically creates "winners."

Yes, VI was a game mechanic mistake, agreed.

But ask yourself @Vontoothskie : 1) what was harpoons OK-ed by the designers to be added into our game? 2) What does it triumph over that other mechanics simply cannot?

Are Harpoons OP? Maybe. But if you answer the above two questions, you'll see what disease has to be cured before this medication is removed.

I agree except about "medication". they were made to sell a $30 product, not balance anything.

Theres a logical fallacy at the root of your statement which assumes that FFG only release what they think is balanced. if that were the case power creep would be much less of an issue, and it wouldnt take 2 years to nerf the broken on release Jumpmaster. FFG is not in the business of balancing, theyre in the business of selling game components and models. it does not mean they are trying to decieve us, but it does mean they try to impress us with the latest wave. sadly the easiest way to do that is power creep.

They fix ships only when that "fix" is marketable as a product. part of that marketability is throwing OP upgrades in the fix packs, so as to entice players who only want the card to buy. many of us, myself included, called out harpoons as broken when they were spoiled before release, because even a basic understanding of mechanics screamed that this thing would devastate most ships. that was FFGs goal, make a "must have" "auto include" upgrade and make money

6 minutes ago, BVRCH said:

With the condition triggering before damage is dealt, any shields (even one) would act as a gate. So yes, it could one shot some ships, and it could wipe all shields if the hit lands well, but that's how it works now anyway. Having the condition trigger only on hull wouldn't lower initial damage from the missiles attack, just lower the chances of immediately triggering the condition with a follow up attack. This would lower its usefulness in an alphastrike, maybe swaying people towards other missiles for that specific tactic.

Having the condition apply/not apply to shields doesn't make that list of ships any better or worse. Those are going to be underused ships regardless. It would not affect those ships at all so I don't see the point you're trying to make.

but it would affect those ships without shields... this solution gives them yet another reason not to be played. most players would like to see a healthy sampling of original trilogy ships in play, and this makes it less likely. any future fix, buff, or upgrade which brings them back in would have to overcome the harpoon. not great.

seperately, i hear what youre saying on the shield, but it only works in a vacuum. 3 r 4 missiles are standard for alpha strikes, and this proposed fix only effects the first and possibly second in most scenarios. high agility or 5+ shields would still be the requirements to reliably avoid the condition card from a second missile, which means that arc dodger aces and tanks are still in, everybody else is still out.

Floor Rules

13 hours ago, Vontoothskie said:

but it would affect those ships without shields... this solution gives them yet another reason not to be played. most players would like to see a healthy sampling of original trilogy ships in play, and this makes it less likely. any future fix, buff, or upgrade which brings them back in would have to overcome the harpoon. not great.

seperately, i hear what youre saying on the shield, but it only works in a vacuum. 3 r 4 missiles are standard for alpha strikes, and this proposed fix only effects the first and possibly second in most scenarios. high agility or 5+ shields would still be the requirements to reliably avoid the condition card from a second missile, which means that arc dodger aces and tanks are still in, everybody else is still out.

That is already the case. This would not change that. Its how it already works. Those ships already suffer against harpoons and all munitions. Changing the condition would not make them worse off, because they're already not used. Like you said, those ships need a buff against munitions in general. Changing Harpoons in any way is not going to affect those ships. I get your point, but spike damage is spike damage. For those ships, if it weren't harpoons, it would be homing missiles. They hurt against all munitions. My suggestion isn't trying to change alphastrikes, just force some variation in missile choice.

I understand why pros like them.

Do pros understand why casuals do not like them?

Whose opinion should have higher value?

Generally on the forum, casuals do not get a fair shake.

It's 4 hits, almost every time (in application) plus splash damage. It's stupid easy to score 4 hits. Four hits kills a great many ships (particularly from earlier waves), making them impractical at best for pros and foolish for amateurs & beginners. It's just not the way I want this game to play (but I've always wanted a more cinematic X-Wing experience, and have a bias).

How is the Harpoon situation different from the Jumpmaster-5000 situation pre Jumpmaster nerf? I wasn't around then, but the nerf was in application, quite huge.

3 hours ago, Vontoothskie said:

Theres a logical fallacy at the root of your statement which assumes that FFG only release what they think is balanced.

I get your points @Vontoothskie , but my statement didn’t promote an assumption that FFG only releases “what they think is balanced.” Maybe I penned my thoughts poorly, that happens, haha. Anyway, in contrast to your analysis, I believe about 1 out of 3 releases are either fundamentally unbalanced or contains a component that clearly isn’t balanced, and I’m not sure it’s even possible. But thankfully, the majority of expansions seem rather wholesome and balanced. However, the designers have stated that they design ships or components to assist in balancing attempts of previous releases and this “harpoon” idea has been on the design desk for awhile. It seems they waited to release it until ‘TIE Swarms we’re dead’ and there were some ‘interesting defensive elements’ introduced that were ‘hard to deal with’ for lots of ‘important ships.’

....just my two cents. ?

1 hour ago, heliodorus04 said:

I understand why pros like them.

Do pros understand why casuals do not like them?

Whose opinion should have higher value?

Generally on the forum, casuals do not get a fair shake.

It's 4 hits, almost every time (in application) plus splash damage. It's stupid easy to score 4 hits. Four hits kills a great many ships (particularly from earlier waves), making them impractical at best for pros and foolish for amateurs & beginners. It's just not the way I want this game to play (but I've always wanted a more cinematic X-Wing experience, and have a bias).

How is the Harpoon situation different from the Jumpmaster-5000 situation pre Jumpmaster nerf? I wasn't around then, but the nerf was in application, quite huge.

Well, (almost) nobody likes them. They're just an accidental band-aid that keeps the current metagame from descending into even more Kanan vs. Kanan slap fights while giving a couple of Imperial builds a niche they can cling to.

Harpoon are one of the biggest, "Don't bring this against a novice" elements of the game, and I think most people realize that. The problem arises when some people absolutely do not want to bring a competitive list while other people really need practice for a tournament. If there's nobody around who's comfortable bringing multiple lists, the two parties either have to sit and twiddle their thimbs, or play a game nobody will enjoy. Neither person is at all at fault in this situation, but there isn't a good solution either. That being said, some community brainstorming could help the matter.

As for the jumpmaster comparison... The jumpmaster was a single ship that dominated the competitive metagame until the rules were changed three different times. Harpoon Missiles are an upgrade that serves a lynch-pin role in one of the major metagame archetypes. The problem with nerfing them without nerfing anything else is that you just push the point fortresses to the top, which isn't really an improvement.

3 hours ago, heliodorus04 said:

I understand why pros like them.

Do pros understand why casuals do not like them?

Whose opinion should have higher value?

Generally on the forum, casuals do not get a fair shake.

It's 4 hits, almost every time (in application) plus splash damage. It's stupid easy to score 4 hits. Four hits kills a great many ships (particularly from earlier waves), making them impractical at best for pros and foolish for amateurs & beginners. It's just not the way I want this game to play (but I've always wanted a more cinematic X-Wing experience, and have a bias).

How is the Harpoon situation different from the Jumpmaster-5000 situation pre Jumpmaster nerf? I wasn't around then, but the nerf was in application, quite huge.

Go ahead and play kanan fenn mirrors for all eternity. Or If you really hate ships taking damage you and your opponent can just agree to not roll red dice at all.

9 hours ago, Giledhil said:

"A is broken ! Let's NOT fix it, because B is broken also !"

Basically, yeah. And because C, D, E, F and G are also at a higher power level, and there's a whole chunk of the alphabet about to be released that's increasing the power level even further.

If you check your calendar it's not 2015 any more, and it hasn't been for a while.

25 minutes ago, Stay On The Leader said:

increasing the power level even further.

That's exactly what people complain about on subjects like this one. The fact that intentional power creep exists doesn't make it a good idea. On the contrary, it's bad for the diversity of the game, and it is pushing more and more players out of the organised play, even on store champs.

But it's real and it's not going away so there's no point in complaining about it. A condition of playing x-wing is accepting aggressive power creep and that at any one point in time most ships aren't really going to cut it.

16 minutes ago, Stay On The Leader said:

A condition of playing x-wing is accepting aggressive power creep

Didn't see that written in the game rules and/or FAQ.
One point of having a huge community is that we can make our complains heard by the devs, and hopefully get a better game, by getting good fixes, or even a better built 2.0 in a few years.

Delusional.

41 minutes ago, Stay On The Leader said:

But it's real and it's not going away so there's no point in complaining about it. A condition of playing x-wing is accepting aggressive power creep and that at any one point in time most ships aren't really going to cut it.

Shockingly it's possible to accept something and still whinge about it and discuss ways it could be changed, even if those ways are unlikely to be instituted.

2 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

Shockingly it's possible to accept something and still whinge about it and discuss ways it could be changed, even if those ways are unlikely to be instituted.

with some collateral damage, sure

Well, everyone's not jaded enough, apparently.

1 hour ago, Giledhil said:

...it is pushing more and more players out of the organised play, even on store champs.

Is this a fact or gut feeling?

1 minute ago, Green Doo said:

Is this a fact or gut feeling?

Fact, at least in my area.

7 hours ago, clanofwolves said:

I get your points @Vontoothskie , but my statement didn’t promote an assumption that FFG only releases “what they think is balanced.” Maybe I penned my thoughts poorly, that happens, haha. Anyway, in contrast to your analysis, I believe about 1 out of 3 releases are either fundamentally unbalanced or contains a component that clearly isn’t balanced, and I’m not sure it’s even possible. But thankfully, the majority of expansions seem rather wholesome and balanced. However, the designers have stated that they design ships or components to assist in balancing attempts of previous releases and this “harpoon” idea has been on the design desk for awhile. It seems they waited to release it until ‘TIE Swarms we’re dead’ and there were some ‘interesting defensive elements’ introduced that were ‘hard to deal with’ for lots of ‘important ships.’

....just my two cents. ?

agree with most of that. sorry my comment came off harsher than i intended.

the only thing i disagree with is that i think dont think FFG waited until all the swarms were gone, they waited till ship sales of swarms died down to release this crap. they sold a ton of gozantis with the promise of viable M3-As, then immediatey release a swarm killing missile. pretty sketchy

5 hours ago, catachanninja said:

Go ahead and play kanan fenn mirrors for all eternity. Or If you really hate ships taking damage you and your opponent can just agree to not roll red dice at all.

what a nasty attitude.

Someone laid out a rational, detailed explanation of their feeling on the topic at hand. thats what this board is for. if you dont like their opinion we welcome your rational detailed expanation of why, but please refrain from whatever that was

52 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

Shockingly it's possible to accept something and still whinge about it and discuss ways it could be changed, even if those ways are unlikely to be instituted.

No, thats not accepting it.

2 minutes ago, Stay On The Leader said:

No, thats not accepting it.

Accept (verb): consent to receive or undertake

I accept taxes, yet object loudly and incoherently at every opportunity.

I accept enormous powercreep as a blatant business model to promote sales, but object loudly and grammatically incorrectlerly at every opportunity.

11 minutes ago, Stay On The Leader said:

No, thats not accepting it.

No, it is.

Not accepting it would be insisting on house rules, or not playing.

I play the game, by RAW.

I also want the game to change, because I dislike some of the design choices.

I also acknowledge that it's unlikely to, but it's an amusing diversion to consider how it might.