5 minutes ago, Biophysical said:

...bearing in mind that there is so much we don't know.

This.

3 minutes ago, RStan said:

...but I'm keeping an eye on it based on the knowledge we've been given so far.

This.

Yeah, we must wait to really understand what the designers are going to give us truly and whether or not they're going to issue OP thinking they can up-price it to make everyone OK with it.

That said, we must not berate those who are passionate about policing 2.0 for 1.0 cancer like @ficklegreendice is as he is attempting to insure that arcs and dials matter again. Rather, such analysis should be lauded actually. Whether you agree on the specifics of the assumed Luke card, the game will be better for us all if the cancer it alleges to hold isn't allowed to spread into 2.0; in fact. we must all insure it doesn't happen even if it's a single tumor. Now, the question is: do we have any power to insure this? Yes. Voting. I personally have chosen to waiting for the details on the game before voting with my cash, even though I am quite excited about it. This is how we vote, and it's the only votes that count at FFG.

Patience mates, let's keep our eyes on our beautiful game's future issue, and take them to task if they f-ed up.

...now where's my tea?

Now I remember why I stopped using the official FFG forum. Thanks guys.

Bye

I need some tea in the worst way. Head colds suck.

Dash sucks. I hate Dash way more than is rational so I know my feelings about Dash are compromised. Ignoring obstacles was dumb in 1e and is dumber in 2e. Dash is definitely another reason I have not pulled the trigger on pre-ordering. BUT...

When I set a dial against Dash, there is a chance, however small that I can land in an area he cannot shoot me. It may take a block or stress but it's possible to shoot Dash and not get shot. Against Arvel, there are a huge variety of maneuvers where he cannot shoot me. Against gunner Luke, there are exactly zero maneuvers where I could shoot him without getting shot. Zero. It is completely impossible. (technically I guess Arvel could)

Luke is the fly in the ointment. Small maybe but worrisome.

14 hours ago, gamblertuba said:

How's about this question for all the Luke fans or apologists or whatever:

Would you agree that Luke would be a better design if he rotated the arc during the system phase?

Yes, he would have to be cheaper...

yep. but I'm not really an apologist. more like, it's not that big a dealist. Unless it becomes a reoccurring prob in ongoing game design. Then I'll have a much bigger issue with all the things like it, not just Luke.

I think that's the biggest cause for the concern, is this really an exception to rules like other mechanics or is this something that's gonna keep happening till we're not better off that we are at the end of the 1st E life cycle. I have faith that it's not going to be the norm. Only time will tell.

Btw, of Luke's ability ends up being mistranslated and/or some how doesn't end up doing what I'm complaining about, I will legit

1.) Abandon plans to start 2.0 with an imperial conversion kit

2.) Buy rebel conversion kits and include gunner Luke in every list for at least five games

3.) Run gunner Luke on Norra Y just so I can't use my favorite ship's favorite pilot, regardless of how "good" it is

Gunner Luke as currently spoiled is a terrible idea, and nothing would make me happier for 2.0 than knowing I was just jumping at shadows

I realize I'm being exceptionally negative here, but this is the ONE glaring fault of an otherwise glorious 2.0 . The only way it ends up not being justified is if the ability doesn't work as spoiled, in which case I will do my "penance"

Of course he ends up the same and just being overcosted, my point of him being poorly designed will still stand

Just now, PanchoX1 said:

yep. but I'm not really an apologist. more like, it's not that big a dealist. Unless it becomes a reoccurring prob in ongoing game design. Then I'll have a much bigger issue with all the things like it, not just Luke.

I think that's the biggest cause for the concern, is this really an exception to rules like other mechanics or is this something that's gonna keep happening till we're not better off that we are at the end of the 1st E life cycle. I have faith that it's not going to be the norm. Only time will tell.

It's at least interesting that this card has not been shown or talked about in any of the streams that I am familiar with. We have seen a very small fraction of crew and upgrade cards. Right now, there is no way to tell if there are already other cards that have this kind of garbage timing. Certainly there is no way to see what happens in the future but to see something like this in the conversion kits that debut 2e? That's a problem for me.

14 hours ago, gamblertuba said:

How's about this question for all the Luke fans or apologists or whatever:

Would you agree that Luke would be a better design if he rotated the arc during the system phase?

Yes, he would have to be cheaper...

No, because his role as a crutch for newbies would be broken by requiring ANY kind of predictive ability from someone still trying to figure out their own dial, let alone their opponents.

13 minutes ago, gamblertuba said:

It's at least interesting that this card has not been shown or talked about in any of the streams that I am familiar with. We have seen a very small fraction of crew and upgrade cards. Right now, there is no way to tell if there are already other cards that have this kind of garbage timing. Certainly there is no way to see what happens in the future but to see something like this in the conversion kits that debut 2e? That's a problem for me.

Thus far, nothing else spoiled seems to indicate that ffg isn't doing right by us

The only thing I'm partially concerned about is gunner Han letting you MAYBE fire put your foward facing mobile arc and then doubling up with a primary arc attack on the same target

It'd be problematic given the sharp reduction in double-attack abilities (even Dengar's and Corran's got significantly gutted, indirectly and directly)

There is slight hope in that gunner Luke could've been an early prototype

It's like Director Krennic in the team cov game saying "flip a damage card" instead of "EXPOSE a damage card" (wording used by guys like Thane or concussion missiles

Fingers crossed etc.

2 minutes ago, ficklegreendice said:

The only thing I'm partially concerned about is gunner Han letting you MAYBE fire put your foward facing mobile arc and then doubling up with a primary arc attack on the same target

I wonder what ships with gunners have a mobile arc AND a primary arc. I thought only the shadowcaster has both from what we know?

1 minute ago, GreenDragoon said:

I wonder what ships with gunners have a mobile arc AND a primary arc. I thought only the shadowcaster has both from what we know?

I think the Jumpmaster does. Not sure at the moment.

1 minute ago, PanchoX1 said:

I think the Jumpmaster does. Not sure at the moment.

But anyway no rebel ship, right?

2 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

I wonder what ships with gunners have a mobile arc AND a primary arc. I thought only the shadowcaster has both from what we know?

For rebels: Moldy Crow, Y, and (literally the biggest concern) VCX

Moldy crow isn't bad because the mobile arc is only 2 dice and they all have support abilities (imagine Han on palob...*shudder*)

Ywing is slightly more concerning because it can take torps, but then it has to buy torps + turret + han.

Vcx starts with a 4 die primary. Might be a BIG problem (appropriately, given the model)

5 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

But anyway no rebel ship, right?

oh with gunners too. not the jumpmaster. no gunner.

1 minute ago, ficklegreendice said:

For rebels: Moldy Crow, Y, and (literally the biggest concern) VCX

Moldy crow isn't bad because the mobile arc is only 2 dice and they all have support abilities (imagine Han on palob...*shudder*)

Ywing is slightly more concerning because it can take torps, but then it has to buy torps + turret + han.

Vcx starts with a 4 die primary. Might be a BIG problem (appropriately, given the model)

Oh, duh me, secondary turrets of course!

2 minutes ago, ficklegreendice said:

For rebels: Moldy Crow, Y, and (literally the biggest concern) VCX

Moldy crow isn't bad because the mobile arc is only 2 dice and they all have support abilities (imagine Han on palob...*shudder*)

Ywing is slightly more concerning because it can take torps, but then it has to buy torps + turret + han.

Vcx starts with a 4 die primary. Might be a BIG problem (appropriately, given the model)

For both the Y-Wing and the Ghost, I feel like it's going to depend massively on what turret upgrades are coming.

So far, we've only seen the ion turret and the dorsal turret. I don't think either of those are too scary on a Han double tap.

Ghost + Han + Dorsal at range 1 if front double taps are allowed is a *little* scary, yes. It's a three dice attack that stands a good chance of at least stripping some tokens before a followup 5 dice attack.

With things like ion turret, though, it's not really any different from BTL-A4 Y-Wings in 1e - and they only ever really saw play with TLT, which is gone.

Interestingly, from what I can tell from the wording I think it's fair to assume that if Han can double tap, so can Veteran Turret Gunner. The order is just a bit different. The restriction both is essentially that you can't fire twice from the same 'mobile arc'. If that just means you can't fire twice from the same arc, regardless of how you get that arc (primary or mobile), then neither Han nor VTG can double tap. But if not, they both can and all factions will have access to mobile arc double taps. YMMV on whether that counts as balanced or not. The only difference is that Han goes first.

Vet turret gunner I believe specifies different targets

So same arc, different targets

VASTLY improved from vet turret on opposite facing arcs, but not a true double-jam

3 minutes ago, ficklegreendice said:

Vet turret gunner I believe specifies different targets

So same arc, different targets

VASTLY improved from vet turret on opposite facing arcs, but not a true double-jam

Nope.

Scroll down a bit here.

"After you perform a primary attack, you may perform a bonus [turret arc] attack using a [turret arc] attack you did not already attack from this round".

Maybe there'll be some restrictions on what you can do with a bonus attack in the rules, but otherwise we're counting on the fact that the [turret arc] symbol on both VTG and Han just means 'arc'. Otherwise both allow turret and primary double taps.

In fact, this looks a lot like the difference between generic and unique astromechs. Han gives you the same effect as the generic, but better - he lets you shoot first regardless of pilot Initiative.

8 minutes ago, ficklegreendice said:

Vet turret gunner I believe specifies different targets

So same arc, different targets

VASTLY improved from vet turret on opposite facing arcs, but not a true double-jam

No, it's just a bonus attack from a turret arc you haven't attacked from this round.

6 minutes ago, ficklegreendice said:

Vet turret gunner I believe specifies different targets

So same arc, different targets

VASTLY improved from vet turret on opposite facing arcs, but not a true double-jam

Vet Turret Gunner does not specify different targets, just that the mobile arc it uses have been used already that round. For ships with the Turret slot, it doesn't really mean anything as a primary attack must trick it. But for the duel mobile arc crowd, it means shooting out opposite sides.

Woah lots of the same answer ?

Thanks for the correction, guys

Pretty exciting stuff for the btl-a4!

not worried about this. In the worst case, Luke is op for a month or two until they realize it is a broken upgrade and price it into oblivion. Then nobody takes it and it is effectively junked.

But that's an extreme, I dont think it's that broken to the point where it needs to be junked.

For all who scoffed at what we tried to explain some weeks ago, how Luke allows a great introduction into the game ("training wheels") that is iconic and fun but hopefully not suited for competitive play

Just right now in the AMA on reddit by Max Brooke:

Quote

Some cards are calibrated more for certain modes of play than others. Luke (Gunner) is a great example of a card that is targeted—and costed toward—use at the casual level. It helps new players get a handle on the mechanics of turrets, but rewards them for “proper” use of the rotate action and good flying (because they can spend the Force point on modifications instead of rotation). However, its high cost means that taking it at a tournament level probably isn’t optimal for many builds.

4 hours ago, Veldrin said:

Can you comment on your design thoughts for rule breaking upgrades? For example, a gunner that would allow you a free action to turn the mobile arc without spending an action is 'effectively' the same as the old 360 degree turrets from first edition. Does your design mantra afford the ability to break these fundamental rules with limited cases? Was the goal to drastically reduce 360 turrets, but not eliminate the possibility completely?

MB: Clearly, you're talking about Luke (Gunner). Obviously, this card has been contentious. There are a number of interesting factors at play in the design of this card, some of which people have picked up on and others we want to highlight here:

1). Some cards are calibrated more for certain modes of play than others. Luke (Gunner) is a great example of a card that is targeted—and costed toward—use at the casual level. It helps new players get a handle on the mechanics of turrets, but rewards them for “proper” use of the rotate action and good flying (because they can spend the Force point on modifications instead of rotation). However, its high cost means that taking it at a tournament level probably isn’t optimal for many builds.

2). Speaking of cost, one thing that has changed enormously in Second Edition is the thought process behind costing upgrades. Simply put, upgrades can cost a lot more than they did before. Previously, individual upgrades only very rarely cost more than 10-20% of a ship’s cost. Now, an upgrade that brings as much benefit as an inexpensive ship (such as Luke (Gunner)) will cost as much as an inexpensive ship.

3). Many people have pointed this out, but it bears repeating: Luke (Gunner) interacts differently with the core conceit that flying ships is important, but it doesn’t invalidate it, because Luke (Gunner) is always better if you don’t need to use his ability to rotate the turret, which you accomplish by flying your ship correctly.

4). Finally, and this gets most to your point, one thing people haven’t picked upon as much is that Luke (Gunner) fits in very closely with the mechanical theme of the Force in Second Edition. The Force allows characters to do things that would normally be “impossible” (yes, even for a computer). Force powers and Force user characters get to do things nobody else can—but they have to choose which tricks they want to be able to do, and they pay for this flexibility in points.

FB: What he said.

Here is the whole response about Gunner Luke.

4 hours ago, GreenDragoon said:

For all who scoffed at what we tried to explain some weeks ago, how Luke allows a great introduction into the game ("training wheels") that is iconic and fun but hopefully not suited for competitive play

Just right now in the AMA on reddit by Max Brooke:

"Hopefully", lol

These are the same people that thought giving yourself multiple stress to reroll an opponents green die probably wasnt optimal either. Then Dengaroo conquered the world.

If an upgrade is crucial to winning, 30pts/200 is nothing. Miranda adds 25pts in upgrades in 1.0, enough for a really good ship, but 25pts on Miranda is better than a 25pt ship in your squad (50pts in 2.0 design)

They shouldnt make cards like Luke for casual play. Casual is casual. Just make house rules or giving them a 30pt handicap and they can have a 230pt squad. Having Luke exist means now they ALWAYS have to account for his ability. Which means any ship having a gunner slot and an ability like Asajj that triggers in arc will/could be broken instantly, so what that means is they can never have a rebel ship with gunner crew have an in arc ability trigger after/same time as Luke. They just closed themselves off a great design space.

Luke gunner is just BAD GAME DESIGN. Period. Doesnt matter if they can cost him out of play, or ban the card. Its just bad design.

I respectfully disagree. I think it is good design. It's nice to see the developers looking at casual play as a legitimate thing and not just thinking "BWAH! COMPETITIVE!" like a lot of players were concerned about. Luke is thematic and very in keeping with what we see in the film and is costed quite hight for an upgrade. In comparison in first edition you could get a Z-95 headhunter for his cost. Okay, it's just a headhunter but that is still once less ship you cannot field because of Luke.

Luke also provides the player with decent choice options, offering the player a crutch if they aren't good at predicting arcs but rewards them for proper arc placement and flying as they can then spend Lukes force point on a conversion. Anything that offers choice is, in my opinion, a good design.

As for design space, in that aspect, I do agree with you, although they could alter the wording on the card (if they wish) or simply change when an ability would trigger in the engagement phase. While clunky they could say "During the engagement phase, at initiative 7 you may ---" it is very awkward but it is something they can work around. There are solutions to any problem and I don't think Luke causes all the problems people say it will. I might end up being wrong, I might end up being right. The truth of the matter is that Second Edition is 3 months away and we won't know before that.