I just wish HTTs were good.

4 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

Design by committee then?

The problem there is you are slaved to the whim on the public... and I can name a few people who want the world to burn...

True enough, but it would still go through the play testers before the final cost was adjusted. Just like the Nerfs.

7 minutes ago, cynanbloodbane said:

Ok, not so much consensus as average.

Instead of a Nerf thread, we would get a recost thread, with each poster listing a point cost. Average those numbers, and you are probably really close to an appropriate cost.

Easy, in that I can go out today and buy little repositionable stickers for all my upgrades with a price change. I don't need to print them, I can write the new points easily. Done. No folder full of new card text. No proxy card with the correct text. No sticker covering the entire text box. Easy.

Riekaan point cost: 9.999.999.999.999.999.999.999.999.999.999.999.999.999.999.999,999

Average that! ?

Just now, ovinomanc3r said:

Riekaan point cost: 9,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999

fixed

Just now, Darth Sanguis said:

fixed

you americans

I also want to thank everyone for my morning entertainment.

2 minutes ago, ovinomanc3r said:

you americans

7 minutes ago, cynanbloodbane said:

True enough, but it would still go through the play testers before the final cost was adjusted. Just like the Nerfs.

This seems to assume playtesters have a say in points costs.

From my understanding, they’re rarely listened to on that subject.

Perhaps just engage them more? Committee of “experts” rather than public?

16 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

But I think that’s my roundabout point on the subject.

The Rebels are (generally) more reliable defensively, having more retro slots and double braces baseline.

The Imps are generally more reliable Offensively, having copious access to dice fixing (ord ex, screed, Vader) and offensive retros in comparison.

This is asymmetric design at work, and I dare say it’s working as intended.

If ECMs are your bane, smack em with squads until they EWS instead.. ?

The asymetric design is sort of the point. The true SW theme is Rebels vs Imps. Blue on blue just doesn't feel right, and although there is nothing really wrong with it, it makes Armada simply a gaming ruleset rather than utilising the SW theme.

Just now, Drasnighta said:

This seems to assume playtesters have a say in points costs.

From my understanding, they’re rarely listened to on that subject.

Perhaps just engage them more? Committee of “experts” rather than public?

I ask for a public committee to choose the experts

Just now, ovinomanc3r said:

I ask for a public committee to choose the experts

Shouldn’t you first be trying to get voting rights for sheeples? ?

2 minutes ago, ovinomanc3r said:

I ask for a public committee to choose the experts

I call for a vote of no confidence in Chancellor Valorum!

Just now, geek19 said:

I call for a vote of no confidence in Chancellor Valorum!

13 minutes ago, svelok said:

I just wish HTTs were good.

I mean, maybe they are now? Anyone ever try Vader Dual ISD with them? I ran against a fleet running XI7s and HTTs last week, and while I'm not sure you need both of them, maybe Spinal HTTs? So long as you get both Cymoons on the same target you theoretically can neutralize it? I'll let someone else test it of course.

6 minutes ago, ovinomanc3r said:

I ask for a public committee to choose the experts

2 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

Shouldn’t you first be trying to get voting rights for sheeples? ?

wait! WHAAAAT? Cannot they vote already in Canada??

I think one way you could fix the "dominant" nature of ECMs and XI-7S in one go is to reverse the Advanced Projectors ruling. Let AP counter XI-7S and it becomes a lot more attractive/reasonable alternative to ECMs with the added benefit of reduced prevalence of XI's.

36 minutes ago, geek19 said:

I mean, maybe they are now? Anyone ever try Vader Dual ISD with them? I ran against a fleet running XI7s and HTTs last week, and while I'm not sure you need both of them, maybe Spinal HTTs? So long as you get both Cymoons on the same target you theoretically can neutralize it? I'll let someone else test it of course.

Try it with Vsd2(gunnery team, dcap,overload pulse, HTT, season it with an officer, a title mayhaps). Goes well with Avenger. Vader/Screed recommended.

9 minutes ago, Grinoch said:

I think one way you could fix the "dominant" nature of ECMs and XI-7S in one go is to reverse the Advanced Projectors ruling. Let AP counter XI-7S and it becomes a lot more attractive/reasonable alternative to ECMs with the added benefit of reduced prevalence of XI's.

Agree! Maybe the reversion of the XI7/AP interaction would be enough of a change.

1 hour ago, itzSteve said:

ECM is why I have turned to Intel Officer on my big hitters. You can use your defensive token once after ECM, but then your mine!

On the other hand, it feels like I have to add 7 points to any ship expected to make a big hit attack.

One of the reasons squadrons are so powerful is the economy of absolute defense being mitigated at smaller damage values, but powerful at larger values.

For example, rolling a 10-damage hit vs a Raider can be braced down to 5 and the Raider survives. But 6 1 damage hits from a bunch of squadrons will kill it without any chance to defend itself.

I admit to finding this frustrating, because it makes large ships very weak for their points and squadrons with reliable damage output very powerful for their points.

17 minutes ago, thecactusman17 said:

On the other hand, it feels like I have to add 7 points to any ship expected to make a big hit attack.

One of the reasons squadrons are so powerful is the economy of absolute defense being mitigated at smaller damage values, but powerful at larger values.

For example, rolling a 10-damage hit vs a Raider can be braced down to 5 and the Raider survives. But 6 1 damage hits from a bunch of squadrons will kill it without any chance to defend itself.

I admit to finding this frustrating, because it makes large ships very weak for their points and squadrons with reliable damage output very powerful for their points.

Again, there are situations where 6 1 die shots are nothing with EWS vs ECM...

hobestky, that’s why my marketing has been “ECM or EWS, the others just don’t perform...”

24 minutes ago, thecactusman17 said:

On the other hand, it feels like I have to add 7 points to any ship expected to make a big hit attack.

One of the reasons squadrons are so powerful is the economy of absolute defense being mitigated at smaller damage values, but powerful at larger values.

For example, rolling a 10-damage hit vs a Raider can be braced down to 5 and the Raider survives. But 6 1 damage hits from a bunch of squadrons will kill it without any chance to defend itself.

I admit to finding this frustrating, because it makes large ships very weak for their points and squadrons with reliable damage output very powerful for their points.

On the other hand, it feels like I have to add 12 points (Intel) + 24 points (2 escorts) to any bomber expected make an anti-ship attack.

One of the reasons ships are so powerful is the economy of bombers being engaged by fighters, but ships are not.

For example, a wing of 10 TIE Bombers will waste 4 of those shots to remove a single engaging TIE fighter before it's ever able to shoot vs a Raider and the Raider survives. But a 6-damage hit with a single accuracy will kill it without any chance to defend itself.

I admit to finding this frustrating, because it makes squadrons very weak for their points and large ships with reliable damage output very powerful for their points.

------

Snark aside, I think there is a discussion to be had about how ships ought best to defend against squadrons, or whether Intel in its current implementation is good for the game, but it's not as simple as "squadrons bypass defense tokens so they're broken." There's a tradeoff--conceptually, they have to fight their way through defending squadrons before they can do that. In exchange, because that ideally takes some time to do and distracts from the time the squadrons have to attack ships, they're a big threat to ships once they do break through. I think that mechanic, in concept, is a fantastic way to introduce asymmetry into the game. Whether they hit the execution right is, I think, up for reasonable discussion.

I happen to think the tuning is pretty good, but not perfect, as it stands right now. I do, though, think it's much finer tuning work that needs to be done than just "make squadrons all attack at once and then be braceable" or whatever (not that that's what you suggested, @thecactusman17 , just an example I've seen suggested).

1 hour ago, svelok said:

I just wish HTTs were good.

I kinda wish this was more of a hard counter to brace.

1 minute ago, TallGiraffe said:

I kinda wish this was more of a hard counter to brace.

Agreed. It would make large shield hulls like MC80s and Star Destroyers more valuable. Make HTT and X17s modifications and it prevents the handful of double TL ships from combining both.

1 minute ago, thecactusman17 said:

Agreed. It would make large shield hulls like MC80s and Star Destroyers more valuable. Make HTT and X17s modifications and it prevents the handful of double TL ships from combining both.

Then undo the AP/XI-7 ruling.