Just now, ficklegreendice said:

Because it is the only exception, as it is the only thing that remained unchanged

Even defender evade got nerfed so that they can no longer evade beyond their dice total nor change additional blanks to evades (palp)

Other action independent dice mods got sharply restricted to arcs, emphasizing your ability to manuever rather than your ability to staple upgrade cards on your ship

Non-interceptors became far inferior arcdodgers than they used to be, interceptors can't soontir stack their way to damage immunity

2.0 is a massive and awesome overhaul that looks very promising

...only gunner Luke results in a ship that is no less pwt than in 1.0

Imperials cannot repair ships, many ships have no red actions or linked actions, not all upgrade cards use charges, and so on.

You're just tunnel-visioning on one exception.

Without PTL and the new title pushing you to want to be evading, boost on the Falcon will be a lot more situational. Engine upgrade becomes points invested in an action that will see limited play, so may not be worth it. Even with the title it will be easy to anticipate where the Falcon will be to chase it down with your swarm. Perhaps forcing it to boost and potentially denying it an evade.

6 minutes ago, Rakaydos said:

Imperials cannot repair ships, many ships have no red actions or linked actions, not all upgrade cards use charges, and so on.

You're just tunnel-visioning on one exception.

Well we have not seen any examples of limitless regen, endless bombs, endless stress mechanics, stupid amounts of damage mitigation and all the other stuff that was adressed.

The only other exception apart from Luke gunner that nearly reverts to a 1.0 mechanic might be Vader pulling off a ton of actions per turn.

But Luke a case of plainly bringing something back they seemed to see buried once and for all.

3 minutes ago, Rakaydos said:

Imperials cannot repair ships, many ships have no red actions or linked actions, not all upgrade cards use charges, and so on.

You're just tunnel-visioning on one exception.

Are you saying that just because not everything is changed they don't belong in 2.0?

I think you're the one tunnel-visioning, trying to burst out of a logical deadend that is the defense of an unneeded and outdated mechanic

Tie fighters did not have to be changed, for example. Not all ships needed linked actions because they already confirmed to 2.0 standards, for example

But turrets? Every. Single. Turret. Changed.

Why? Because the designers felt they needed to be changed

You can try all you like to try to pin my dislike of gunner Luke on anything apart from him being an objective failure of stated design, but you're not going to succeed

Unless you are on the design team and have it on good authority that the FAQ is bunk

3 minutes ago, All Shields Forward said:

Without PTL and the new title pushing you to want to be evading, boost on the Falcon will be a lot more situational. Engine upgrade becomes points invested in an action that will see limited play, so may not be worth it. Even with the title it will be easy to anticipate where the Falcon will be to chase it down with your swarm. Perhaps forcing it to boost and potentially denying it a focus.

Are you joking? Avoiding multiple arcs by boosting a large high ps ship is one of the most powerful mechanics in the game. Because the best defense is not getting shot at all, or playing divide and conquer. I dodge 3, kill one, then dodge 2, kill another one. And there is no change in that from 1.0 to 2.0. And Luke lets you do that every turn, with a guaranteed shot!

5 minutes ago, ficklegreendice said:

Are you saying that just because not everything is changed they don't belong in 2.0?

I think you're the one tunnel-visioning, trying to burst out of a logical deadend that is the defense of an unneeded and outdated mechanic

Tie fighters did not have to be changed, for example. Not all ships needed linked actions because they already confirmed to 2.0 standards, for example

But turrets? Every. Single. Turret. Changed.

Why? Because the designers felt they needed to be changed

You can try all you like to try to pin my dislike of gunner Luke on anything apart from him being an objective failure of stated design, but you're not going to succeed

Unless you are on the design team and have it on good authority that the FAQ is bunk

But that's the thing. Luke still rewards having your mobile arc in the right position. More so than your suggestion of dropping the turret by one die, even- I ran the numbers earlier.

24 minutes ago, ForceM said:

Are you joking? Avoiding multiple arcs by boosting a large high ps ship is one of the most powerful mechanics in the game. Because the best defense is not getting shot at all, or playing divide and conquer. I dodge 3, kill one, then dodge 2, kill another one. And there is no change in that from 1.0 to 2.0. And Luke lets you do that every turn, with a guaranteed shot!

You. Can. Not. Boost. And. Evade.

Dont act willfully ignorant and misrepresent what I said. Damage will get pushed in by the ships that do get you in arc.

Go ahead and use Luke to move your arc. 3 dice with only a reroll from Han will have a hard time killing a Tie every turn.

The new falcon with gunner luke is a kind of old 1.0 RAC with less hulls (8 vs 12) , more shields (5 vs 4), higher initiative,1 agility (instead of 0) and a better dial.

Personally i am worried.

Game breaking!

15 minutes ago, Rakaydos said:

But that's the thing. Luke still rewards having your mobile arc in the right position. More so than your suggestion of dropping the turret by one die, even- I ran the numbers earlier.

If i released a card that said:
"auto kill one ship, or auto kill 1 ship and receive 1 focus token if the ship is in your firing arc"
That does not make the card fine because it rewards you for being in the right position. The entire card is flawed regardless.

I think the fundamental core of Luke gunner is flawed.

(i am not saying Luke gunner is an auto kill, I was giving an example of something that disproves the broken logic used.)

1 hour ago, Nyxen said:

The design team answers to a rat soo...

Its a verifiable fact that the Mouse is behind every bad stat line in the game.

The Mouse is obviously mind-controlling the FFG staff to create the worst licensed tabletop game in the history of tabletop... because its a requirement for ANY and ALL licenced Star Wars games to be the worst in their respective categories.

1 hour ago, Icelom said:

If i released a card that said:
"auto kill one ship, or auto kill 1 ship and receive 1 focus token if the ship is in your firing arc"
That does not make the card fine because it rewards you for being in the right position. The entire card is flawed regardless.

I think the fundamental core of Luke gunner is flawed.

(i am not saying Luke gunner is an auto kill, I was giving an example of something that disproves the broken logic used.)

Thing is, it's only your ridiculous "auto kill" that's flawed. Getting a token for being in an Arc is perfectly reasonable in 2.0.

1 hour ago, ficklegreendice said:

You can try all you like to try to pin my dislike of gunner Luke on anything apart from him being an objective failure of stated design, but you're not going to succeed 

Unless you are on the design team and have it on good authority that the FAQ is bunk

It seems to be a constant of FFG games that there'll always be (at least) one character who breaks each rule in the game somehow. For mobile arcs it's Luke. For double reposition at high PS nonsense there's Soontier still being an ****. Dash doesn't care about obstacles, Fenn reverses the concept of where a safe position is and so on.

I mean it's clear you're incredibly upset about it (well, relatively of course), but you have to admit you had some odd expectations of the studio based on their design philosophy.

2 minutes ago, __underscore__ said:

It seems to be a constant of FFG games that there'll always be (at least) one character who breaks each rule in the game somehow. For mobile arcs it's Luke. For double reposition at high PS nonsense there's Soontier still being an ****. Dash doesn't care about obstacles, Fenn reverses the concept of where a safe position is and so on.

I mean it's clear you're incredibly upset about it (well, relatively of course), but you have to admit you had some odd expectations of the studio based on their design philosophy.

all listed exceptions can be counter-played and outmanuevered (in 2.0)

none of these things deviate from the 2.0 mission statement of making maneuvers matter

luke gunner cannot be avoided and therefore takes away from both the impact of the player's and the opponent's maneuvering

rocket science, this is not

Just now, ficklegreendice said:

all listed exceptions can be counter-played and outmanuevered (in 2.0)

none of these things deviate from the 2.0 mission statement of making maneuvers matter

luke gunner cannot be avoided and therefore takes away from both the impact of the player's and the opponent's maneuvering

rocket science, this is not

I'll take that as a yes then.

1 minute ago, __underscore__ said:

I'll take that as a yes then.

that would be in line with some people willfully failing to deploy basic reading comprehension

1 minute ago, ficklegreendice said:

that would be in line with some people willfully failing to deploy basic reading comprehension

Maybe if you just tried saying the same thing another 5,000 times it would help? I'm sure we'd get through the layers eventually.

3 minutes ago, __underscore__ said:

Maybe if you just tried saying the same thing another 5,000 times it would help? I'm sure we'd get through the layers eventually.

I mean you keep trying to counter argument him.... why not just let it go then? why cant you take your own advice?

3 minutes ago, Icelom said:

I mean you keep trying to counter argument him.... why not just let it go then? why cant you take your own advice?

Because my advice was just passive aggressive nonsense posted while I was finding the ignore users section of the website. It's really well hidden.

Tbh I thought I was making a different point to the one he responded to anyway, it just clearly got lost in translation one way or another.

I must say, this is the weirdest time I've ever had trying to sway people

I don't think I've ever seen people so vehemently trying to bend over backwards to justify a design decision that is an objective, certifiable mistake

"oh, it's fine because it's easy for new players"

"oh, it's fine because of all these other exceptions that don't actually take away from maneuvering"

"oh, it's fine because FFG will overprice it and it won't see competitive play"

not once have I seen anyone actually try to justify the existence of this holdover from 1.0. No one has explained why it would make 2.0 a more engaging experience rather than detract from the very reason for having a 2.0 in the first place.

granted, no one can (because again, designer intentions FAQ etc.), but it's bizarre that no one seems to want to

I understand defending the 2.0 as a whole...but this? You can be critical of incredibly obvious flaws without disparaging the whole. ****, that's been my M.O. Everything else I've seen of 2.0 has, imo, been indicative of a not-cashgrab, extensive fix of an otherwise enjoyable miniatures game. Luke gunner is the only thing I, and anyone who's read the faq, can say with absolute certainty is a mistake

I can only hope that said mistake was in the translation of the polish spoilers

I’m with FGD on this. Luke’s design is baffling. It’s not even that his effect is broken, it’s that they chose the one timing window in the game that completely breaks him. Luke is bad design because he has perfect information and no counterplay. Full stop.

30 minutes ago, ficklegreendice said:

I must say, this is the weirdest time I've ever had trying to sway people

I don't think I've ever seen people so vehemently trying to bend over backwards to justify a design decision that is an objective, certifiable mistake

"oh, it's fine because it's easy for new players"

"oh, it's fine because of all these other exceptions that don't actually take away from maneuvering"

"oh, it's fine because FFG will overprice it and it won't see competitive play"

not once have I seen anyone actually try to justify the existence of this holdover from 1.0. No one has explained why it would make 2.0 a more engaging experience rather than detract from the very reason for having a 2.0 in the first place.

...

You JUST commented on those justifications. Then in the same post, say no one is justifying it.

...perhaps the problem is you? Your initial reply in this thread is well liked, but the first post above it is supported over twice as much. (If I wasn't on phone, I'd compare it to the first post of the original complaints thread)

In that case, let me direct you to the other point I made in the original point- this is a bad PR decision because people like you will vote with your wallets. There's no need to belabor the point, just cancel your preorders and move on.

17 minutes ago, Rakaydos said:

...

You JUST commented on those justifications. Then in the same post, say no one is justifying it.

...perhaps the problem is you? Your initial reply in this thread is well liked, but the first post above it is supported over twice as much. (If I wasn't on phone, I'd compare it to the first post of the original complaints thread)

In that case, let me direct you to the other point I made in the original point- this is a bad PR decision because people like you will vote with your wallets. There's no need to belabor the point, just cancel your preorders and move on.

Pst, none of the above "defenses" actually address why the mechanic belongs in 2.0

They're not actual justifications they're just excuses that completely miss the point of how this mechanic is completely at odds with the 2.0 design statement

"It's fine it'll just be priced into uselessness" is not a defense, it is a tacit admission of the upgrade's worthlessness and a willingness to overlook it being clumsily swept under the rug

The "counter examples" of other mold breakers completely miss how those exceptions to the design changes DO NOT actively contradict the 2.0 mission statement

And I already went over why Luke gunner is a **** set of training wheels in my first post

THATS the problem

You can't present half assed arguments that dance around the issue and pretend that I'm the one at fault

5 minutes ago, ficklegreendice said:

Pst, none of the above "defenses" actually address why the mechanic belongs in 2.0

They're not actual justifications they're just excuses that completely miss the point of how this mechanic is completely at odds with the 2.0 design statement

"It's fine it'll just be priced into uselessness" is not a defense, it is a tacit admission of the upgrade's worthlessness and a willingness to overlook it being clumsily swept under the rug

THATS the problem

Except they do. You might not like casual players not getting bent over on their first game, but FFG has to look toward expanding the hobby, and if that means ragequits from people like you, so be it.

Just now, Rakaydos said:

Except they do. You might not like casual players not getting bent over on their first game, but FFG has to look toward expanding the hobby, and if that means ragequits from people like you, so be it.

If I liked casual players getting bent over, I'd be all for Luke gunner

Or do you enjoy stomping newbies with a ship that utterly breaks the core rules they're trying to come to terms with?

3 minutes ago, ficklegreendice said:

If I liked casual players getting bent over, I'd be all for Luke gunner

Or do you enjoy stomping newbies with a ship that utterly breaks the core rules they're trying to come to terms with?

Compared to stomping them harder with skillful use of Veteran Turret Gunner? Luke is nothing. A newbie isn't going to know to arcdodge in the first place, so wasting points on Luke is a handicap.