5 minutes ago, Rakaydos said:

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.

The newbie won't, be everyone else will

Love to see a newbie go into a tournie against even a half experienced and marvel at how the falcon can go wherever it wants and still have shots, completely destroying everything you've tried to learn about the importance of arcs and positioning

Lord knows I loved that experience in wave 5. Can't wait for new players to delight in it too

It’s not that I necessarily disagree with anybody, it’s just that the predictions all seem way too vehement considering none of us has played a single round of X-wing 2.0.

For one thing, how did people not expect that when they introduced the mobile arc mechanic that they would then introduce cards that “cheat” on that mechanic? That’s sort of the point of an “exception” based ruleset. That’s what happens.

I think some of this is people resetting their expectations from overly exuberant about 2.0 (“this fixes EVERYTHING!!!!”) back to more realistic levels. But it’s probabky better to hold off on freaking out until there is some actual data on how the game plays out.

1 hour ago, ficklegreendice said:

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.

I did but you ignored it. Luke is future proofing to ensure low initiative ships aren't erased from the meta by higher initiative arc dodgers.

7 minutes ago, All Shields Forward said:

I did but you ignored it. Luke is future proofing to ensure low initiative ships aren't erased from the meta by higher initiative arc dodgers.

Fir one faction only, in only a small subset of its ships

If that is the reason, it's even worse game design then I thought.

7 minutes ago, All Shields Forward said:

I did but you ignored it. Luke is future proofing to ensure low initiative ships aren't erased from the meta by higher initiative arc dodgers.

it was not ignored, it was disproved

not only are higher initiative arc dodgers greatly curtailed in 2.0, both in cost and capability and in susceptibility to being blocked, but we already have counter higher initiative mechanics in upgrades such as Sense and the Inquisitor (force upgrades done properly) + more on the way with promised detonate-on-overlap bombs and whatever the creative minds of the development team can throw at us

AND there is no greater high I arc-dodger than a high I ship that does not care about its facing

Gunner luke is a counterproductive "solution" that only ends up embodying the problem he is claimed to solve

This same exact line of thinking happened in 1.0 when everyone was heralding fat han (re: a high PS arc-dodger) as the savior of X-wing because he countered the phantom. We all know how that turned out.

both theory and "historic" context show that this idea is swiss cheese

2 minutes ago, ficklegreendice said:

it was not ignored, it was disproved

not only are higher initiative arc dodgers greatly curtailed in 2.0, both in cost and capability and in susceptibility to being blocked, but we already have counter higher initiative mechanics in upgrades such as Sense and the Inquisitor (force upgrades done properly) + more on the way with promised detonate-on-overlap bombs and whatever the creative minds of the development team can throw at us

AND there is no greater high I arc-dodger than a high I ship that does not care about its facing

Gunner luke is a counterproductive "solution" that only ends up embodying the problem he is claimed to solve

This same exact line of thinking happened in 1.0 when everyone was heralding fat han (re: a high PS arc-dodger) as the savior of X-wing because he countered the phantom. We all know how that turned out.

both theory and "historic" context show that this idea is swiss cheese

We get it Fickle, you don't like Luke 2.0. Please stop jumping on everyone and let them have a discussion about it.

11 minutes ago, ficklegreendice said:

it was not ignored, it was disproved

not only are higher initiative arc dodgers greatly curtailed in 2.0, both in cost and capability and in susceptibility to being blocked, but we already have counter higher initiative mechanics in upgrades such as Sense and the Inquisitor (force upgrades done properly) + more on the way with promised detonate-on-overlap bombs and whatever the creative minds of the development team can throw at us

AND there is no greater high I arc-dodger than a high I ship that does not care about its facing

Gunner luke is a counterproductive "solution" that only ends up embodying the problem he is claimed to solve

This same exact line of thinking happened in 1.0 when everyone was heralding fat han (re: a high PS arc-dodger) as the savior of X-wing because he countered the phantom. We all know how that turned out.

both theory and "historic" context show that this idea is swiss cheese

You haven't proved that at all. Soontir Fel with absolute board knowledge is a know issue. He remained viable for years because of his token stacking in addition to his ability to control arc, and all those cards you listed require extra ships as we have not seen a turreted ship with force powers yet. Luke is a single, unique card, that can be stuck on any ship(with a gunner slot), that guarantees it can remain viable, and its pilot ability usable in a squad. Luke isn't ushering TLT back. Stop acting like it is.

12 minutes ago, All Shields Forward said:

You haven't proved that at all. Soontir Fel with absolute board knowledge is a know issue. He remained viable for years because of his token stacking in addition to his ability to control arc, and all those cards you listed require extra ships as we have not seen a turreted ship with force powers yet. Luke is a single, unique card, that can be stuck on any ship(with a gunner slot), that guarantees it can remain viable, and its pilot ability usable in a squad. Luke isn't ushering TLT back. Stop acting like it is.

If soontir fel moved at the beginning of combat and being blocked or stressed did nothing to stop him... Then yes he would have been a massive problem.

1 minute ago, Icelom said:

If soontir fel moved at the beginning of combat and being blocked or stressed did nothing to stop him... Then yes he would have been a massive problem.

You're really insistent on not getting anyone point, aren't you? If Fel has initiative he is free to barrel roll and boost his way around a ship. Luke is a game design choice to insure a single ps 1-5 can remain usable if arc dodging becomes an issue. Or stress comes back and turreted ships suddenly find they can't move their turrets. It's a future proof, that in most cases a skilled player will be using for the force token, as mobile arcs aren't that hard to keep on target.

Fickle, it feels like half the problem you have with Luke is actually problems with Han. Han is explicitly going to be paying for the privilege of PS6 boosting, even ignoring Gunner luke- Being able to bank boost either direction at Max initiative effectively gives Han a 360 Arc anyway.

Han without Luke has 90% of the problems you are laying at Luke's feet. He WILL be priced accordingly. Luke is an exception to the turet rules, but he won't break the game if Han doesn't alone.

34 minutes ago, Rakaydos said:

Fickle, it feels like half the problem you have with Luke is actually problems with Han. Han is explicitly going to be paying for the privilege of PS6 boosting, even ignoring Gunner luke- Being able to bank boost either direction at Max initiative effectively gives Han a 360 Arc anyway.

Han without Luke has 90% of the problems you are laying at Luke's feet. He WILL be priced accordingly. Luke is an exception to the turet rules, but he won't break the game if Han doesn't alone.

I think he will be worse as an abuse to the game on lower Initiative pilots (han is just an easy discussion point). Low initiative ships with a gunner slot are going to get the benefit if having full board awareness while having the discount associated with being at lower initiative.

10 hours ago, ficklegreendice said:

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

It is not the only exception. At best it is the only exception of the short list you quoted, but you only jump on this text because it helps you. Otherwise you'd dismiss it without hesitation - because there is no special value in this text. But at worst we actually see other exceptions: chained actions and red actions should end action stacking, but we still get Vader who can spend fore for multiple actions.

10 hours ago, ficklegreendice said:

But turrets? Every. Single. Turret. Changed.

With. One. Exception.

The exception is the topic of two long threads, so clearly NOT every single turret changed. And why? Because the designers felt they needed an exception.

8 hours ago, 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

And you wonder why tunnelvision describes your reaction so well. What about Dash? How do you outmaneuver him ignoring obstacles? And how does he not deviate from "the 2.0 mission statement of making maneuvers matter"?

Edit: or Arvel. He gets something completely unique in having a shot while denying his target one. He can just slam into his target, even with boost, which is trivial against lower Ini and still easy against higher Ini. The only way to prevent it is to disengage entirely, and that is clearly an NPE because the only way you don‘t lose is by not playing (= running away). Why don‘t you crusade against Arvel or Dash?

What would change your view? Under what circumstances would GunnerLuke have a place in this game for you?

1 hour ago, Icelom said:

I think he will be worse as an abuse to the game on lower Initiative pilots (han is just an easy discussion point). Low initiative ships with a gunner slot are going to get the benefit if having full board awareness while having the discount associated with being at lower initiative.

Ok, let's have the discussion about Chewie.

Your royal guard intercepters are attacking a Chewie with Luke Gunner. He already chose to boost or evade, and his pilot ability doesn't mod his dice.

You KNOW he has Luke. Is it worth taking a stress to deny Chewie a force mod? Almost certantly. Is it worth giving up your defensive token to boost+roll to deny his token? Probably not. Are you terrified of a 3 die primary? Depends on who has what mods at what range.

You can't completely shut down Chewie by boost+barrel rolling out of Arc every turn, but you aren't completely screwed. And if the intercepters have a high init coordinate support ship, even a TL+force shot can be laughed at by a focus/evade stealth intercepter.

39 minutes ago, Rakaydos said:

Ok, let's have the discussion about Chewie.

Your royal guard intercepters are attacking a Chewie with Luke Gunner. He already chose to boost or evade, and his pilot ability doesn't mod his dice.

You KNOW he has Luke. Is it worth taking a stress to deny Chewie a force mod? Almost certantly. Is it worth giving up your defensive token to boost+roll to deny his token? Probably not. Are you terrified of a 3 die primary? Depends on who has what mods at what range.

You can't completely shut down Chewie by boost+barrel rolling out of Arc every turn, but you aren't completely screwed. And if the intercepters have a high init coordinate support ship, even a TL+force shot can be laughed at by a focus/evade stealth intercepter.

Now you are just trolling.

Why would Chewie boost before I move and not just target lock? In this situation Chewie puts in whatever random manouver he wants target locks the interceptor and just moves his arc to wherever the interceptor is. For a modded shot.

I am now checking out of this thread as well, no point anymore. You won you trolled me into quiting.

26 minutes ago, Icelom said:

Now you are just trolling.

Why would Chewie boost before I move and not just target lock? In this situation Chewie puts in whatever random manouver he wants target locks the interceptor and just moves his arc to wherever the interceptor is. For a modded shot.

I am now checking out of this thread as well, no point anymore. You won you trolled me into quiting.

...so, a target lock on one intercepter. In that case, a boost+barrel roll to evade chewie's range entirely would deny chewbacca any dice mods other than force against any other intercepter in this scenerio. The standard swarm dillima stands- the ship that has the best chance of being shot probably will be the priority target, all else equal, so it's going to be difficult to deny the force mod entirely, but then, Luke isnt exactly breaking anything in that scenerio.

Still, Stealth+ focus has a decent chance of stopping 3 + force mod.

11 hours ago, ficklegreendice said:

2.0 is a massive and awesome overhaul that looks very promising. I've made threads on why

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

And I think what we are saying is that this doesn’t mean a return to 1.0 turrets across the whole game.

Consider LG not as just any old upgrade but on a par with Palpatine or Vader. Its a Force ability - It’s supposed to be ‘powerful’.

Compare LG with ‘sense’ (look at a dial, cost 1 force token per range band).

And I’m reasonably sure that we will see more Force upgrades to come. In fact paying for LG (with his single force point) might actually be a bit of a poor choice as it’s a fairly limited ability to use those powers.

10 hours ago, All Shields Forward said:

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.

If you dodge enough arcs every turn, it doesn’t matter.

Most Fat Han players in 1.0 never played PTL. The only defense more they had was C-3PO. A loss, that is partly mitigated by the new Title and Hans ability near asteroids.

Boosting in general is way more beneficial than evading, if you can dodge a few arcs and reposition with subsequent turns in mind.

After all, the fuss was about EU on large ships, not on the Millenium Falcon title.

2 hours ago, ForceM said:

After all, the fuss was about EU on large ships, not on the Millenium Falcon title

Indeed. I'm hoping that the way they've gone is "you can have boost, but it's red. Want it white? Pay a flobberty-bazillion points because we know how nasty boost is on a large ship now".

Ultimately, I don't mind the idea that a tricked-out millennium falcon is a match for an entire squad, if it is your entire squad and if it does still require some skill to do well with.

I'd really like turrets to not be 360 arcs, but at least in the case of luke it's "if I do rotate, I do so by giving up a free focus", so it does cost the ship something; as someone noted, a 'good' player is going to be buying luke for the force token every turn rather than the rotate.

It does get free rerolls a-go-go, but that's dependent on positioning it within range 1 of a rock, meaning you have an idea where it's likely to want to go, and if it boosts, it gives up not just 1 damage blocked but the millennium falcon rerolls as well.

Do I like the design choice? No. Because I very much like the idea of 'there's always a blind spot somewhere' and I'm not a fan of anyone - even Luke - getting to ignore that. But I will agree that however bad he is, Luke and Han is probably not as bad as current similar ships in 1.0

Peeps. It's Luke. He's supposed to be cool and kick ****. On any ship. Get over it, it is thematic, and will be costed appropriately for each pilot ship he is on. Eventually....

Luke is THE Hero of Star Wars. He should be a god in this game. I am happy to see people whining about him, it means he's fulfilling his role.

11 minutes ago, Larky Bobble said:

Peeps. It's Luke. He's supposed to be cool and kick ****. On any ship. Get over it, it is thematic, and will be costed appropriately for each pilot ship he is on. Eventually....

Luke is THE Hero of Star Wars. He should be a god in this game. I am happy to see people whining about him, it means he's fulfilling his role.

You can't seriously believe this was the only way to make Luke badass, right?

Disregarding how badly he's designed for now, we have to remind ourselves that we're limited basically only by our own imaginations when it comes to designing abilities (since 2.0 now affords FAR more room to design things in)

Gunner Luke could have done ANYTHING and still would have been cool if designed properly

For example:

"After fully executing a speed 1-2 manuever, you may spend 1 force.

If you do, when you attack with a MOBILE ARC INDICATOR roll an additional attack die."

Plays nice, is badass, AND harkens back to the railgunner segment in ANH

9 minutes ago, Larky Bobble said:

Peeps. It's Luke. He's supposed to be cool and kick ****. On any ship. Get over it, it is thematic, and will be costed appropriately for each pilot ship he is on. Eventually....

Luke is THE Hero of Star Wars. He should be a god in this game. I am happy to see people whining about him, it means he's fulfilling his role.

You know what would be cool? System phase. That way, you have a very strong card, but you have to do stuff to unlock that. Luke should not only be strong, he should also not be boring.

8 minutes ago, Admiral Deathrain said:

You know what would be cool? System phase.

Apropos of nothing, there seems to be a tendancy for named crew to be a boosted version of regular crew. I wouldn't be too surprised if there's a generic gunner who does exactly that.

On ‎5‎/‎23‎/‎2018 at 5:08 PM, ficklegreendice said:

the 2.0 mission statement of making maneuvers matter

Where can one find this "Mission Statement" you speak of? or are you just referring to the statement that they want to have a bigger focus on making maneuvers matter.

5 minutes ago, PanchoX1 said:

Where can one find this "Mission Statement" you speak of? or are you just referring to the statement that they want to have a bigger focus on making maneuvers matter.

What, is the official FAQ they posted to explain the reason for 2.0's existence and illustrate all the steps they took to fulfill that vision (including the obvious and extensive reworks of turrets into various types of mobile arc, which are part of why we needed all new bases in the first place) somehow not enough?

1 hour ago, ficklegreendice said:

What, is the official FAQ they posted to explain the reason for 2.0's existence and illustrate all the steps they took to fulfill that vision (including the obvious and extensive reworks of turrets into various types of mobile arc, which are part of why we needed all new bases in the first place) somehow not enough?

Enough for what? For me to get a glimpse of how they are trying to steer future game development? sure. But that's hardly a "mission statement" as you mentioned. More like a peek into "the making of" or enough for a Vision Statement, which is different from a Mission Statement. Mostly just wondering if there was something out there that I've missed or haven't seen.

The only actual statement that I've seen is that they set out to have a stronger focus (not a 100% focus) on maneuvering and flying. Which they have done. Even with the one single exception, that we currently know of, that is gunner Luke.