1 hour ago, Thormind said:But then you destroy ships that rely on TLT to have any kind of chance at performing. Like the Ywing, the HWK and the Tie aggressor.
You have exactly 2 ships that are OP with TLTs (actually its more 2 pilots: Kanan and Miranda). The others are fine.
Acceptable loses
9 minutes ago, Estarriol said:I would point out though that y-wings, hawks etc are just as scary with ion cannon though they require slightly different flying.
Untrue. With the amount of large base ships in the meta, the ICT doesn't do enough to be worth the cost. And that is on top of the range increment difference, which is big because both HWKs and Y-Wings would prefer not to be in the direct firefight.
3 minutes ago, kris40k said:Acceptable loses
For you.
Just now, Estarriol said:Thanks for bumping the thread up, though
Only so that a moderator will finally lock it. This Nerf Herding Thread has been on the top of the forums for a week now and it doesn't do anything but allow the OP to spread his salty tears over how he can't win at a tournment because of ______________. I was sick of it back in Wave 4 and I am sick of it now that FFG has went through some rather drastic and ineffective measures to try and appease you only to get more crying more whining about how the meta is not the way they want the game to be played.
It doesn't matter if I reply to it or not this blaster bait, bantha fodder of a thread will remain on top until a mod locks it as it rightfully deserves.
Meh. Before TLT came along my HWK build was Jan Ors with a blaster turret and Kyle crew.
Just now, Marinealver said:Only so that a moderator will finally lock it. This Nerf Herding Thread has been on the top of the forums for a week now and it doesn't do anything but allow the OP to spread his salty tears over how he can't win at a tournment because of ______________. I was sick of it back in Wave 4 and I am sick of it now that FFG has went through some rather drastic and ineffective measures to try and appease you only to get more crying more whining about how the meta is not the way they want the game to be played.
It doesn't matter if I reply to it or not this blaster bait, bantha fodder of a thread will remain on top until a mod locks it as it rightfully deserves.
Or you could not look at it, and thus stop feeling the need to whine about people whining
Just now, Estarriol said:Or you could not look at it, and thus stop feeling the need to whine about people whining
Still at it you are still crying and you are still bumping your own thread.
Just now, Estarriol said:Meh. Before TLT came along my HWK build was Jan Ors with a blaster turret and Kyle crew.
As was mine (well, I tended to use more Kyle pilot with Recon Spec, but the title and Blaster Turret were involved) but even then it was risky because of Ajax. Now the amount of token strippers or abilities that disallow spending of tokens has increased, like Torani and Old Teroch. The Blaster turret was fun in its day, but in the end was poorly designed and overexpensive to get it working efficiently.
6 minutes ago, SabineKey said:For you.
Fair enough.
I think the Y-Wing and HWK both need help, however I feel that the TLT supresses more ships than those two, meaning the removal of the TLT would be an overall benefit.
However, I run ICT's on my Aggressors and don't feel that it would be lost without the TLT. HWK's could be saved without this one turret, something else could be crafted.
5 minutes ago, Marinealver said:
Still at it you are still crying and you are still bumping your own thread.
For goodness sakes, dude! You're worse than the "nerf herders".
Edited by SabineKeyJust now, kris40k said:Fair enough.
I think the Y-Wing and HWK both need help, however I feel that the TLT supresses more ships than those two, meaning the removal of the TLT would be an overall benefit.
However, I run ICT's on my Aggressors and don't feel that it would be lost without the TLT. HWK's could be saved without this one turret, something else could be crafted.
Fair. But until that thing is crafted, I'm still holding on to TLT for my HWKs.
1 minute ago, SabineKey said:For goodness sakes, dude! You're worse than the "nerf herders".
Save for the fact there is more of them then there are of me. So they can and do more daamge than I can ever do (this thread is proof of that).
Sorry but they do ruin the game. Turrets/Pilot Skill/whatever is not the cancer that is killing the game. When the FFGs listen to them and put out another product ruining errata that is what kills the game.
Edited by MarinealverJust now, kris40k said:HWK's could be saved without this one turret, something else could be crafted.
That's the crux of it. The value of every single turreted ship in the game should not be almost entirely tied to a single card. Especially not a card that due to the quirks of its double shot mechanic is grossly OP on a handful of specific ships. There should be other viable turrets and I hope they release them in an upcoming expansion
But if HWKs have to sit in the bin (more than they already do) for 6 months until those cards appear and they get a real fix then that's easily a price worth paying
36 minutes ago, Marinealver said:Save for the fact there is more of them then there are of me. So they can and do more daamge than I can ever do (this thread is proof of that).
Sorry but they do ruin the game. Turrets/Pilot Skill/whatever is not the cancer that is killing the game. When the FFGs listen to them and put out another product ruining errata that is what kills the game.
Yes, there are more. And I still stand by what I said.
I agree that there are some that through lack of understanding advocate for a badly thought out changes, but calling them names is the opposite of helpful. Honestly, I've seen more "nerf herders" who were more reasoned and polite than you.
You are not some crusader cleaning up the world. You are the complainer you hate so much.
1 hour ago, SabineKey said:Untrue. With the amount of large base ships in the meta, the ICT doesn't do enough to be worth the cost. And that is on top of the range increment difference, which is big because both HWKs and Y-Wings would prefer not to be in the direct firefight.
Just curious: do you think changing ICTs to have 0 damage and assigning two ion tokens would be a worthy change? Maybe in addition to a point reduction since most non-damage upgrades are relatively cheap?
1 minute ago, jwilliamson12 said:Just curious: do you think changing ICTs to have 0 damage and assigning two ion tokens would be a worthy change? Maybe in addition to a point reduction since most non-damage upgrades are relatively cheap?
Personally, no. It doing no damage is a big turn off for me. Others might find it acceptable, but it's not my taste.
Now, keep the damage and still bump up to two tokens, then I'm more interested. Doing the same for Ion Cannons might be interesting.
Great now this thread got me thinking about hypothetical synched turrets that don't suck (no TL requirement) and just imagining how goddamn dope Ketsal would be
3 minutes ago, ficklegreendice said:Great now this thread got me thinking about hypothetical synched turrets that don't suck (no TL requirement) and just imagining how goddamn dope Ketsal would be
Believe me, if that turret existed, I'd be all over it. Even if it was still range 1-2.
27 minutes ago, ficklegreendice said:Great now this thread got me thinking about hypothetical synched turrets that don't suck (no TL requirement) and just imagining how goddamn dope Ketsal would be
Synced Turret Ghost is Fantastic. Just need FCS
1 hour ago, SabineKey said:Personally, no. It doing no damage is a big turn off for me. Others might find it acceptable, but it's not my taste.
Now, keep the damage and still bump up to two tokens, then I'm more interested. Doing the same for Ion Cannons might be interesting.
If we up those both to 2 tokens, I don't believe anything left just assigns 1 token (er, Leebo crew). You might as well just get rid of the large base requiring 2 tokens.
But on that point, what if the ICT/IC were "if this hits, you may assign a total of 2 damage or ion tokens" In other words, 0D/2I, 1D/1I, 2D/0I. Keep everything else the same, then you can actually potentially beat Miranda (1D/1I means you can only do 1 damage, and she regens 1 damage, so she really doesn't care), are left with a choice against those pesky 3 hull ships (do you take them down to one hull, or ion them so you can line up a better shot?), and are left with another choice for large base ships (forgo the ion for 2 damage, or forgo the damage to park them on a rock). I don't think it'd be too powerful, at the worst, you're doing the same damage as the TLT, but your effective coverage is about 25% for 1 fewer points.
13 minutes ago, Khyros said:If we up those both to 2 tokens, I don't believe anything left just assigns 1 token (er, Leebo crew). You might as well just get rid of the large base requiring 2 tokens.
But on that point, what if the ICT/IC were "if this hits, you may assign a total of 2 damage or ion tokens" In other words, 0D/2I, 1D/1I, 2D/0I. Keep everything else the same, then you can actually potentially beat Miranda (1D/1I means you can only do 1 damage, and she regens 1 damage, so she really doesn't care), are left with a choice against those pesky 3 hull ships (do you take them down to one hull, or ion them so you can line up a better shot?), and are left with another choice for large base ships (forgo the ion for 2 damage, or forgo the damage to park them on a rock). I don't think it'd be too powerful, at the worst, you're doing the same damage as the TLT, but your effective coverage is about 25% for 1 fewer points.
I think there are a couple of other cards like 4-Lom and Pulsed Ray Shielding (which can go on big ships, if they made one with one shield) that give one ion token, so getting rid of the two tokens for big base rule would have further reaching affects. Though that might not be a bad think.
I quite like your suggestion for the damage or tokens change on the Ion Turret (the cannon could use this too). It allows for some interesting flexibility with the weapon. Obviously it would need testing to know for sure, but so far, I like the idea.
Just dropping some salt supply:
PS11 Coordinate for 22pts is BULLSHAKSJDFH.
The sheathipede is a mistake in game design of the worst caliber. Which is too bad, cuz its a pretty model.
8 minutes ago, Blail Blerg said:Just dropping some salt supply:
PS11 Coordinate for 22pts is BULLSHAKSJDFH.
The sheathipede is a mistake in game design of the worst caliber. Which is too bad, cuz its a pretty model.
Will the BULLSHAKSJDFH starfighter be released in another Kihraxz fix pack, or is it a stand-alone model?
It would have been a mistake had Biggs been in his pre-nerf form. That would be truly monstrous. As it is, every sheathipede except for stressbug ezra is incredibly easy to focus down.
2 hours ago, Blail Blerg said:Just dropping some salt supply:
PS11 Coordinate for 22pts is BULLSHAKSJDFH.
The sheathipede is a mistake in game design of the worst caliber. Which is too bad, cuz its a pretty model.
Yes!
When do Imperials get PS11 coordinate!?
3 hours ago, Hos said:Yes!
When do Imperials get PS11 coordinate!?
For 22 points! With a REAR ARC! AND AN ASTROMECH AND A CREW SLOT!!!!!!!!! ANSTROMECH AND CREW. YOU KNOW WHAT KIND OF SCRUTINY THEY GAVE THAT FOR THE ARC-170???????