Just now, heychadwick said:

Everyone seems upset about the game design aspect. Luke breaks a cardinal rule. To me, he's Luke freakin' Skywalker. I expect him to be powerful. To me, that's irrelevant. Hes there.

What matters to me is how it affects the game. I don't care if it's good game design or not or if it should be allowed in the game....from a philosophical perspective. Does it break the game? If not, I'm good. I don't think it does.

If 2e is just going to devolve into the same annoying ****, why spend the money, time and brainspace on 2e?

1 minute ago, Icelom said:

How can a better player not exploit it? I cant block a better player and stop it, i cant stress a better player and stop it, i cant outfly a better player and stop it.

Also answered:

"The dynamic cost allows exactly that."

That means they can make it expensive enough that a weaker player will still deems it a worthy investment, but a better player realizes that he can get more return from another ship.

In other words: If I want to make my dad play and bring him Luke in a Falcon it is more fun if I don't just wreck him by constantly arcdodging. That's why 360deg turrets have a reason to exist: they are easy to play. But if my dad then brings Luke in a Falcon to a tournament he won't beat better players because that single Han with a single offensive mod is too expensive to have anything worthwile next to him, and he won't deal enough damage on his own.

5 minutes ago, clanofwolves said:

Fact: 360 turrets are 1.0 cancer.

I'll dispute this. It wasnt really 360 turrets by themselves that were cancer. It was 360 turrets that could:

1) Arc Dodge

2) Fire really powerful offensive attacks

3) Avoid heavy damage

It was this combo that really made them cancer. That isn't there with Luke gunner. To not see the entire picture is to not see the full problem...and why Luke Gunner isn't such a big deal.

2 minutes ago, gamblertuba said:

If 2e is just going to devolve into the same annoying ****, why spend the money, time and brainspace on 2e?

That's up to you to make that decision for yourself.

If you really see one expensive PWT as "the same annoying ****" then I don't know what to say.

1 hour ago, thespaceinvader said:

Yes, people used both Oicunn and Kenkirk to high levels in competitive play, usually with Whisper or Echo.

Sure! They were a solid anvil to the mega-hammer that Phantoms used to be. People also flew mini-swarms with the Phantoms to high levels in competitive play. I don't think the Decimator platform itself has ever been considered problematic, though.

3 minutes ago, gamblertuba said:

If 2e is just going to devolve into the same annoying ****, why spend the money, time and brainspace on 2e?

Because I don't see it as the same annoying ****.

Luke gunner allows one ship with a certain slot to always get to move the arc. That is no where near the level if BS that was Fat Han.

To be honest, I am thinking Vet Gunner will be more offensively effective to me.

Just now, heychadwick said:

I'll dispute this. It wasnt really 360 turrets by themselves that were cancer. It was 360 turrets that could:

1) Arc Dodge

2) Fire really powerful offensive attacks

3) Avoid heavy damage

It was this combo that really made them cancer. That isn't there with Luke gunner. To not see the entire picture is to not see the full problem...and why Luke Gunner isn't such a big deal.

but he does enable the old 1.0 stuff.

Claiming that it's not as bad because offense has generally been toned down is disingenuous if you ignore the fact that defense was also toned down alongside it.

At the end of the day I don't think we are going to agree on any of this, but it's probably good to have the discussion.

Just now, Icelom said:

but he does enable the old 1.0 stuff.

Claiming that it's not as bad because offense has generally been toned down is disingenuous if you ignore the fact that defense was also toned down alongside it.

At the end of the day I don't think we are going to agree on any of this, but it's probably good to have the discussion.

He doesn't, though. Old Han could reliably avoid 2 damage per turn minimum (or arc-dodge) while spitting out decent red dice with the ability to plink through expensive token-stackers, and still have enough points for a great wingman. He literally could not be damaged by fewer than 3 hits. Later iterations turned that into 4 hits. Not in the same ballpark, and if Luke is appropriately costed than the new Han will be pretty readily handled.

12 minutes ago, RampancyTW said:

Why did we never see WSF or Eaden Vrill on the field if PWTs are so cancerous? Did anybody ever let out a groan when they saw those ships across the way?

The mechanic itself is fine. The mechanic being cheaply accessible was always the issue.

This is bad logic

The mechanic is terrible, it just so happened that wsf or brill were just so overcosted that they never saw play

If the metric we're going by is "oh it sometimes didn't dominate the competitive meta so the design wasn't bad" then we're also acknowledging that stuff like the punisher was well designed and not horribly overcosted at all

Thing is, at least the punisher fits in the design mantra set down for 2.0. so does the yt1300 (if you're wasting an action rotating arc instead of modding or arcdodging, then the mechanic has done its job) and yt2400 (the fact that it can shoot at range 1 now is not an issue nor is its 4 die primary)

Gunner Luke does not

Anything that doesn't address this fundamental flaw is just dancing around the issue

It's a scary dam precedent and sticks out like a sore thumb next to all the other careful decisions we have seen so far. Luke's a symptom and a worrisome one.

I think this thread boils down to two camps of players:

Camp One: NO 360 degree turrets on any ship for any cost for any reason.

Camp Two: 360 degree turrets are OK as long as they are not too powerful and can be counter-played in some way.

With my tea this AM, I'm a B&W loving kinda guy on this, I hated what they did to the 1.0 version. I'm in Camp One, I don't care how effective or ineffective a 360 turret is, I want them all gone and all turrets action dependent. Slippery slope FFG; don't go there. And sorry there Luke, we love you, but you weren't that great of a gunner in Episode IV anyway. Let's make him do something different with that force point.

Are we arguing about something set in stone or not

Just now, ficklegreendice said:

The mechanic is terrible, it just so happened that wsf or brill were just so overcosted that they never saw play

?

Isn't that the point we're also making? 2.0 allows dynamic cost, and Han+Luke can be overcosted. So what is the problem then?

7 minutes ago, Icelom said:

but he does enable the old 1.0 stuff.

Claiming that it's not as bad because offense has generally been toned down is disingenuous if you ignore the fact that defense was also toned down alongside it.

At the end of the day I don't think we are going to agree on any of this, but it's probably good to have the discussion.

It is good to have the discussion and it's nice that it's civil.

So...I don't see all the stuff from v1 happening with the latest one.

1) Arc Dodging - can't happen like it used to. For one, have to spend a bunch of points on Engine Upgrade. If Boost then no Evade action for title defense. Planning on going near obstacles makes him easier to predict. All ships can Barrel Roll, which means you should always be able to keep him in arc.

2) Offensive firepower - No Han re-rolls. No Gunner re-rolls. No Focus or TL because you are either going to Boost or Evade. Maybe re-roll one die if near an obstacle. I mean, that's a lot better than it used to be. An Interceptor with a Focus only dies if he blanks out.

3) Avoid damage - C-3PO is not the same. Same for R2D2. Falcon title only happens if you have an Evade. Let's you reroll 1 die. Han might be near an obstacle. Sure, that's neat, but that's hardly as powerful as it was. I mean rerolling that one green makes it that you will get a lot of one evades, but that won't stop the damage get through.

I just don't see it as bad as it was for v1.

1 minute ago, clanofwolves said:

Camp One: NO 360 degree turrets on any ship for any cost for any reason.

Camp Two: A 360 degree turret is OK as long as it isn't too powerful and can be counter-played in some way.

Emphasis mine.

1 minute ago, ficklegreendice said:

This is bad logic

The mechanic is terrible, it just so happened that wsf or brill were just so overcosted that they never saw play

If the metric we're going by is "oh it sometimes didn't dominate the competitive meta so the design wasn't bad" then we're also acknowledging that stuff like the punisher was well designed and not horribly overcosted at all

Thing is, at least the punisher fits in the design mantra set down for 2.0. so does the yt1300 (if you're wasting an action rotating arc instead of modding or arcdodging, then the mechanic has done its job) and yt2400 (the fact that it can shoot at range 1 now is not an issue nor is its 4 die primary)

Gunner Luke does not

Anything that doesn't address this fundamental flaw is just dancing around the issue

... Unless the issue was that other ships were undercosted, and the mechanic itself is fine. Is the mechanic ever considered an issue if it's never cheap enough to be efficient? I doubt it.

1 minute ago, spacelion said:

Are we arguing about something set in stone or not

We are until proven otherwise

If proven otherwise, we party

1 minute ago, GreenDragoon said:

?

Isn't that the point we're also making? 2.0 allows dynamic cost, and Han+Luke can be overcosted. So what is the problem then?

No my argument is that pretending it's fine because you can sweep it under the rug by overpricing it is NOT good enough

Then you've just wasted design space making something that sucks as well as not being any fun to play against

2 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

?

Isn't that the point we're also making? 2.0 allows dynamic cost, and Han+Luke can be overcosted. So what is the problem then?

then why have him?

your argument he is good for new/weak players because he is easy, well if he is costed so **** hight that no one would take him then he is going to gimp new/weak players lists if they do take him by having them unbelievably points inefficiently on top of them being new/weak.

Either luke breaks the game and is stupid to have in the game, or he is a useless dead card right off the start. Its just bad game design and no reason to start 2.0 with that.

1 minute ago, ficklegreendice said:

No my argument is that pretending it's fine because you can sweep it under the rug by overpricing it is NOT good enough

Then you've just wasted design space making something that sucks as well as not being any fun to play against

So it is better if it categorically does not exist than exist but being too expensive to be used competitively?

I don't understand that. Especially given my explanation why a 360deg ship does have some merit as an easy high floor low ceiling ship.

Just now, Icelom said:

then why have him?

Why not?

Just now, Icelom said:

your argument he is good for new/weak players because he is easy, well if he is costed so **** hight that no one would take him then he is going to gimp new/weak players lists if they do take him by having them unbelievably points inefficiently on top of them being new/weak.

Do you think crutches are generally bad in a game? High floor lists are bad?

1 minute ago, Icelom said:

Either luke breaks the game and is stupid to have in the game, or he is a useless dead card right off the start. Its just bad game design and no reason to start 2.0 with that.

Even if that's true - there is no reason why the sky should be falling because you personally don't like the design of a single card.

2 minutes ago, Icelom said:

Either luke breaks the game and is stupid to have in the game, or he is a useless dead card right off the start. Its just bad game design and no reason to start 2.0 with that.

That's a bit black and white. No room for grey? Maybe he's a good option, but not the best option? Maybe Vet Gunner is good for someone who doesn't have a problem with getting a target in a mobile arc?

Also, maybe he's good to have for casual players who want fluff filled games? Maybe everything isn't geared towards being in the competitive game?

1 minute ago, GreenDragoon said:

So it is better if it categorically does not exist than exist but being too expensive to be used competitively?

I don't understand that. Especially given my explanation why a 360deg ship does have some merit as an easy high floor low ceiling ship.

Absolutely better to never have existed at all

It does not belong in 2.0 where manuevering is emphasizes over list building. If you run into a gunner luck with mobile ships, then the literal opposite happens

It is bas design and there is literally NO REASON to want it in this game

Let me break it down nice and simple:

1.) The yts deserve to exist

2.) Luke as a gunner deserves to exist

3.) These can be used to inspire fun gameplay elements, and HAVE in the yts' case because mobile arcs

4.) The way Luke gunner is currently spoiled does not deserve to exist. It adds nothing good to the game and Luke could do literally anything else

Like mobile arc rotate during the end phase, or on reveal of enemy dial at range 1-2 etc

1 hour ago, Glucose98 said:

Are you sure?

Can we talk about this more please?

How do things like this happen? ?

I personally would love to see a Falcon with Han and Chewie gunners that costs 200 points. Thematically would be awesome and cost-wise if that was your whole squad you would lose to everyone all of the time.

1 minute ago, GreenDragoon said:

Why not?

Do you think crutches are generally bad in a game? High floor lists are bad?

Even if that's true - there is no reason why the sky should be falling because you personally don't like the design of a single card.

A couple of reasons
1. he could be in camp one and just breaks the game if he is cheap enough
2. I don't like the fact ffg designed a card like him, they have done so much that I agree with in 2.0 only to have luke gunner just ignore those changes/fixes.
3. 2.0 is like what 4-5 months out I really have nothing better to do than debate the merits of luke gunner and try to prove my point.