tl;dr - I don't know what you think you're accomplishing.

Same thing we all are.

2 minutes ago, __underscore__ said:

Same thing we all are.

He isn't wrong. I just don't understand why people are so passionate about it. Really, I don't get it. (tagged fickle then the forum just posted for me anyway)

@ficklegreendice

At this point, I don't know what to expect anymore.

I had expected about to exercise the slightest modicum of reading comprehension and common sense, but everyone's willing to forgo their most capabilities because of half-assed excuses like "oh it's just one ship" or "oh FFG will overprice it into uselessness." It is a direct contradiction to the designer's stated goals with 2.0, stated right there in the 2.0 FAQ no less.

Oh well, at this point I only hope that either the spoilers were mistranslated or that the unpleasantness inevitably caused by this upgrade will be minimized as it's swept under the rug ASAP.

Why one wouldn't just desire something so obviously bad to just...not be in the game is the beyond me

2 minutes ago, ficklegreendice said:

At this point, I don't know what to expect anymore.

I had expected about to exercise the slightest modicum of reading comprehension and common sense, (and other stuff)

You probably chose not to consider my point when I called your concerns silly and I certainly don't care about your point when you insult my intelligence. Sorry about that...when you're not all worked up, you're a valuable part of the community. I just don't think you always use your power as a force of good, that's all.

/hug?

I'm not insulting your intelligence, I'm saying you're obstinately ignoring a fundamental and stark contradiction to the game design because of a few limp-wristed excuses.

I've shared my life with enough heel-digging family members to know the difference.

But at that point, I have to recognize it's pointless to try to change anyone's mind when they're determined not to care about the facts. If gunner Luke comes up in discussion again, though, I deserve the right to call it what it is: a badly designed holdover from 1.0 that will negatively affect the game by cold-clocking ships dependent on durability.

Only when it's brought up, though. I don't feel the need to make a thread about it.

There is no reasonable justification for how Luke works right now. There were a myriad of ways to make Luke a fair and interesting card, but for some reason FFG decided to go with the most broken option of perfect information with no counter play.

Our only real hope is that he is too expensive to ever be played and he's just a dead card, as every alternative to that is worse.

FFG is effectively asking me to spend about $200 to keep playing X-wing. That's a significant investment. Whether or not that is a worthwhile investment depends, to a large degree, on how well the designers can maintain the game that they are trying to sell me.

To be clear, the game I want to play is based on tough decisions based on incomplete information. It is the double-blind bluffing of what do I think that you think that I'm going to do. But obviously you know, that I think that you think that so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me! That, for me, is the core fun mechanic of X-wing setting dials and finding out who is right and who is dead.

Luke runs counter to that process in a fundamental and fundamentally unfixable way. It is not about balance, it is not about pricing, it is not combos, it is not about counters (except the fact that there really aren't any).

If FFG is serious about making dials matter, Luke should either be an action or trigger during the system phase or both. If they are not serious bout making dials matter, I'm not ready to preorder $200 worth of X-wing 2e.

oO

Maneuvering looks to be more important in 2.0 than it has been in 1.0 for a very, very long time. That alone demonstrates that they understood and learned their lesson, and that they are very serious about making dials matter.

But there are plenty exceptions. Unless you have tunnel vision...

22 minutes ago, ficklegreendice said:

I'm not insulting your intelligence, I'm saying you're obstinately ignoring a fundamental and stark contradiction to the game design because of a few limp-wristed excuses.

I've shared my life with enough heel-digging family members to know the difference.

But at that point, I have to recognize it's pointless to try to change anyone's mind when they're determined not to care about the facts. If gunner Luke comes up in discussion again, though, I deserve the right to call it what it is: a badly designed holdover from 1.0 that will negatively affect the game by cold-clocking ships dependent on durability.

Only when it's brought up, though. I don't feel the need to make a thread about it.

Okay, so we're not going to hug?

6 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

oO

Maneuvering looks to be more important in 2.0 than it has been in 1.0 for a very, very long time. That alone demonstrates that they understood and learned their lesson, and that they are very serious about making dials matter.

But there are plenty exceptions. Unless you have tunnel vision...

Please explain this.

Just now, gamblertuba said:

Please explain this.

Exceptions that don‘t care about maneuvering?

GunnerLuke, obviously

Dash ignores obstacles

Arvel can ram others, even with his boost, and gets a shot without being shot

There are probably more once we see all of the hundreds of cards. But we already have more than one, and that demonstrates that something else is a problem, not just the feigned concern about FFG ignoring their new selfimposed design philosophy

7 minutes ago, gamblertuba said:

Please explain this.

17 hours ago, ficklegreendice said:

exceptions to rules should only push at boundaries, and still be limited by other mechanics

for (several) examples:

2.0 advanced sensors remove the consequence of being blocked ito getting an action, but they do not protect from stress nor do they allow multiple actions any longer (one use, limit one action per activation). It is an incomplete exception with built-in counters.

2.0 Elusive is action independent defensive modifiers, but it can only be used once before you have to recharge it by fully executing a red manuever

Afterburners is action independent repositioning that ignores stress...but it's also only after fully executing a maneuver of a certain speed, and is limited to two charges.

2.0 predator is action independent modification, but only in the very narrow (and forward-locked) bullseye arc. It is a minor exception with built-in counters.

Palpatine is action independent modification that you can stack. Shock! Oh wait, it's been hypernerfed down to just a focus --> evade/hit, so you can't actually stack it with focus like you could in 1.0.

The TIE interceptor can arc-dodge as before, but it is still susceptible to stress/blocking/obstacles etc, it still has a firing arc to worry about, AND it can't token stack for diddly anymore (also no thrusters).

The TIE defender can stack focus + evade, but only if it still focusing on its maneuvering by completing a very specific condition and is still limited by the nerfed evade mechanics of 2.0. Again, minor exception with built-in counters

Vader and Dengar crews are "guaranteed" damage (big no-nos according to the developers), but just having a green token (product of taking an action that any ship can take) will allow you to avoid their effects.

Bombs also do guaranteed damage, but they are now knocked down to the system phase so everyone has a chance to maneuver around them

etc. etc. etc

...gunner luke completely ***** the 2.0 bed. It completely invalidates counter-play to mobile-arcs by making arc-dodging impossible. Any chance you have at blocking the turret is rendered nearly moot given how difficult it is to block a ship that never has to face towards you, AND it won't stop gunner Luke from rotating. Actually, there is literally nothing you can do to stop gunner luke from rotating that arc as (currently spoiled) it isn't even a free action nor does it have any stipulation such as fully executing a maneuver, not overlapping etc.

Other upgrades/abilities may slightly bend some of the changes in 2.0, but they're always still limited by the stated design philsophy (all defensive stacking is weaker thanks to evade and reinforce nerfs, action-independent mods like FCS and predator were hard nerfed, sensors cannot be abused because it's capped at one action per activation, action independent defensive modifiers are hard-capped by charge and other limitations such as weapon disabled etc.). Gunner luke has no such pretense. It is a 1.0 mechanic ported straight into an edition that doesn't deserve to suffer its presence.

if it had ANY of the 2.0 limitations (such as charge or even non-regenerating force, or disallowed on overlap of obstacle/ship, or if took place during a different phase) it would've been perfect. It does not.

it honestly baffles me. They had so many ways to make gunner Luke not a complete affront to their own stated design philosophy.

So yeah, it's not just that it's a hard and abject contradiction to the designer's own mission statement, but it's also completely unhinged with no built-in limitations that could allow your opponent to counteract it. Hope you like rolling dice, because that's your only recourse.

There are exceptions but people don't bother seeing how limited and we'll designed ffg has made them

2 minutes ago, ficklegreendice said:

There are exceptions but people don't bother seeing how limited and we'll designed ffg has made them

Dash?

1 minute ago, GreenDragoon said:

Dash?

Mobile arcs, infinetly better designed than he used to be

My only critique is he could've been I 4

Just now, ficklegreendice said:

Mobile arcs, infinetly better designed than he used to be

My only critique is he could've been I 4

Obviously regarding his ability to ignore obstacles

3 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

Obviously regarding his ability to ignore obstacles

Obviously

I'm saying he has his 1.0 ability (minus the abusive "I say no dash ability so I can check to see if I'll land on that rock or not") is balanced out by the 2.0 adhering mechanic of mobile arc

Combined with RED roll and NO access to boost (or linked roll-->boost) dash cares FAR more about positioning than he used to and is therefore far easier to pin down/counterplay

he only gets worse than 1.0 if he gets to take gunner Luke

Just now, ficklegreendice said:

Obviously

Yes, obviously:

9 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

Dash ignores obstacles

1 minute ago, ficklegreendice said:

I'm saying he has his 1.0 ability (minus the abusive "I say no dash ability so I can check to see if I'll land on that rock or not") balanced out by the 2.0 adhering mechanic of mobile arc

And I’m saying that demonstrates your tunnel vision

1 hour ago, ficklegreendice said:

At this point, I don't know what to expect anymore.

I had expected about to exercise the slightest modicum of reading comprehension and common sense, but everyone's willing to forgo their most capabilities because of half-assed excuses like "oh it's just one ship" or "oh FFG will overprice it into uselessness." It is a direct contradiction to the designer's stated goals with 2.0, stated right there in the 2.0 FAQ no less.

Oh well, at this point I only hope that either the spoilers were mistranslated or that the unpleasantness inevitably caused by this upgrade will be minimized as it's swept under the rug ASAP.

Why one wouldn't just desire something so obviously bad to just...not be in the game is the beyond me

People have presented several reasonable explanations for Luke's existance, in multiple threads.

You have just chosen to completely dismiss all these arguments and stick to your tunnel vision.

The problem is in you, not everybody else..

29 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

Yes, obviously:

And I’m saying that demonstrates your tunnel vision

Yes, but you're incorrect

You're fixating on Dash ignoring obstacles while moving, ignoring all the ways FFG has checked his mobility with nerfs to his repositioning ability and infinetly reduced coverage thanks to mobile arcs

That's tunnel-vision

In short, dash is vastly reduced from his 1.0 version. Gunner Luke is a carbon copy of 1.0 turrets

2 minutes ago, ficklegreendice said:

Yes, but you're incorrect

You're fixating on Dash ignoring obstacles while moving, ignoring all the ways FFG has checked his mobility with nerfs to his repositioning ability and infinetly reduced coverage thanks to mobile arcs

That's tunnel-vision

It's applying your way of thinking about GunnerLuke on other cards, yes.

Thanks for confirming it to be tunnel vision

1 hour ago, gamblertuba said:

It is the double-blind bluffing of what do I think that you think that I'm going to do. But obviously you know, that I think that you think that so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me!

Clearly you have a dizzying intellect.

I'll never not favourite a Princess Bride reference

Totally speculative, but what if there are rules we don't know that have an effect?

What if there's a rule that says "when defending from an Attack that is not the (front arc symbol), roll one extra defense die".

I have no reason to think this will be the case but it it's useful bearing in mind that there is so much we don't know.

1 minute ago, Biophysical said:

Totally speculative, but what if there are rules we don't know that have an effect?

What if there's a rule that says "when defending from an Attack that is not the (front arc symbol), roll one extra defense die".

I have no reason to think this will be the case but it it's useful bearing in mind that there is so much we don't know.

I'm overall in this boat. We don't know all the rules and haven't been given all the tools to play the full game yet. So I'm not flipping tables seeing Luke crew on Dash or Han, but I'm keeping an eye on it based on the knowledge we've been given so far.

@ficklegreendice do you really think this card is going to ruin the game?

I mean, seriously... you seem to be a reasonable guy with a great passion for XWing and a lot of knowledge about the game.

I perfectly agree with you that 360 degree turrets are a bad concept, and I appreciate that FFG has decided to get rid of these turrets in 2.0

But Luke being able to represent a virtual 360 degree turret, for just one ship, at a reasonable price... don't you think this is going to be perfectly fine, when the pricing is right?

Don't you think that the Falcon will be (almost) an auto loss against Swarms or other special counter-lists? The Falcon will not be as strong as in 1.0 anymore, that's for sure!

Let it be good in some aspects... don't really see the problem here. You're completely overreacting, my friend.

FFG is going to adjust pricing whenver a list gets too strong.

I guarentee that in the early days of 2.0 a completely new list is going to dominate the tournaments... something we haven't even thought of by now. And it's going to rock the Falcon with ease, until FFG adjusts pricing for the very first time.

11 minutes ago, Biophysical said:

Totally speculative, but what if there are rules we don't know that have an effect?

What if there's a rule that says "when defending from an Attack that is not the (front arc symbol), roll one extra defense die".

I have no reason to think this will be the case but it it's useful bearing in mind that there is so much we don't know.

I hope this isn't the case or the ARC and anything with a fair turret is screwed just to accommodate for one horribly designed card

Here, even I thought of a way to give Luke PERFECT coverage while preserving a 2.0 mentality:

"After you fully executed a blue manuever, you may spend 1 FORCE.

If you do, at the start of the engagement phase, you may (rotate your mobile arc)"

Don't do a blue? You keep your Forcus

Still get to shoot whatever, but you still have to pay attention where you're going AND guess that you'll have need of the rotation because you're gambling the force token precombat.

And again guys, I don't care how ffg sweeps it under the rug with point costs or meta irrelevance etc. It exists, and therefore has the potential to warp the game when it could've just been better designed. Leaving it as is just presents infinetly more risk than just designing a good card in the first place