3 hours ago, SOTL said:

Why do people respond to this troll? You can see in this thread people going 'oh god not him again' and yet... here we are entertaining another of his ridiculous rants.

Because some people are able to understand that I am not a troll. Sadly, you can't. I don't know why you think that people who disagree with you are trolls, but it must be a sad existence. And you know... several people said they agree, so if I was a troll (not really am one), even then my points resonate with part of the forums... That's why they respond.

The real question is... why do you post here? I really do hope posting here, and calling people names makes you feel whole. Your hypocrisy is hilarious to watch from the outside.

"Why do people do the thing I am doing?"

Dunno. Look in the mirror I guess.

38 minutes ago, LordFajubi said:

Totally agree with you brother. Card games have been using bans for years and to great effect. Banning is admitting, as a designer, you goofed. FFG refused in 1.0 to admit to anything, by shuffling things around with bandaid errata’s. That list just kept growing and growing instead of just outright removing the offending party. How broke were rebel lists without biggs or blowrick, how broke was mindlink without jumpmasters, how broke was slam without miranda? The list goes on. I just see banning as a completely viable source of balance in a setting where rotation is nigh impossible.

I guess my adversity towards banning comes from my feelings for the setting.

I wouldn't personally mind a TLT ban in 1st edition, because there isn't much flavor to the card.

However, I wouldn't like to see Sabine banned, despite her atrocious abilities (1.0), because she is an important character to some people. Similarly, I'd flip my lid if Palpatine or Vader was banned.

So, in essence, I'm fine with bans, unless they don't affect the flavor of my list. Which is kindof an unrealistic expectation, I know, because cards don't really care whether or not they are important characters to the setting, or just some random harpoon rockets.

23 minutes ago, Commander Kaine said:

However, I wouldn't like to see Sabine banned, despite her atrocious abilities (1.0), because she is an important character to some people. Similarly, I'd flip my lid if Palpatine or Vader was banned.

So, in essence, I'm fine with bans, unless they don't affect the flavor of my list. Which is kindof an unrealistic expectation, I know, because cards don't really care whether or not they are important characters to the setting, or just some random harpoon rockets.

Well, there are ways around that:

Banned. Now:

Aw, crap, banned gain:

And as for the last part, I wish this game cared about character roles more. Lando with Nien Numb in the Millennium Falcon should mean something.

But FFG tries really hard to make cards "universal" which also means "flavor" and "narrative" free.

1 minute ago, Darth Meanie said:

Well, there are ways around that:

Banned. Now:

Aw, crap, banned gain:

And as for the last part, I wish this game cared about character roles more. Lando with Nien Numb in the Millennium Falcon should mean something.

But FFG tries really hard to make cards "universal" which also means "flavor" and "narrative" free.

Yup. I'd be fine with this. I'd prefer if ALL the different versions were legal, so you have more options. I really hope that's where the game will lead eventually. I want at least 6 different vaders.

39 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

And as for the last part, I wish this game cared about character roles more. Lando with Nien Numb in the Millennium Falcon should mean something.

But FFG tries really hard to make cards "universal" which also means "flavor" and "narrative" free.

I’m not sure I understand your complaint. Lando and Nien definitely have synergy. Are you saying thematic builds should have some sort of buff, or that certain cards should only be useable together, i.e only Lando can take Nien crew?

1 hour ago, Commander Kaine said:

The real question is... why do you post here? I really do hope posting here, and calling people names makes you feel whole.

I think you answered your own question there.

2 minutes ago, SOTL said:

I think you answered your own question there.

And I think you have a distinctive inability to recognize the irony in what you are doing.

23 hours ago, viedit said:

They announce in May. Say they hope the app is available by Gencon in August. A few weeks out from Gencon we have no app but we get some PDF's of point values. Pre-release is distributed at GenCon. App hopefully to come in September for general release of the format.

Careful. The armchair app devs jumped all over me for hoping the app would be available by gencon as originally reported as the hopeful date. I learned from that experience that apps are hard to make and to expect anything other than late delivery is foolhardy.

I also called 2.0 thus far sloppy. That didn't go over well either. Reading now about all the misprints, the consistently inconsistent language used, and other odd aspects of 2.0, I still think it to be a sloppy rollout. But I'm excited for its release in a month regardless, and support ffg in their endeavor to make the game great again.

Double post

@Commander Kaine, what I want to say here is that although some of your "supporters" in this matter are some of the worst trolls on this forum, I actually think you've been very reasonable in your argument so I can applaud you for that. Sometimes REBEL BIAS is a real thing, often times I think you are overreacting, just as I often overreact to things I don't like seeing in the game (I freaked out when I saw Poe was back in the game as a super high-initiative regenning repositioning ace, for example). However, your Imperial dogmatism, often interpreted as trolling, is not present in this thread so I think it's unfortunate that the immediate reaction here was "troll".

I think you're correct that not all the problems from 1.0 have been fixed, and FFG hasn't magically hired more staff or had more time to playtest things. Luckily, the app will actually likely help keep things in check more than in 1.0

My main concern with Second Edition is whether or not people will play it. All I need is for it to be fun enough that there's a large enough fanbase to support it. It's delusional to say there won't be a third edition needed some time down the road, but as long as the game is good enough for people to want to play it, that's good enough for me.

So I think I could fully agree with you if you said "2.0 isn't perfect", but I'm not sure "2.0 is kind of a mess", because I for one have had an immense amount of fun with the few games I've played of it, and I'm pretty sure I'll be able to get a whole bunch of people to play it with me!

1 minute ago, Kieransi said:

@Commander Kaine, what I want to say here is that although some of your "supporters" in this matter are some of the worst trolls on this forum, I actually think you've been very reasonable in your argument so I can applaud you for that. Sometimes REBEL BIAS is a real thing, often times I think you are overreacting, just as I often overreact to things I don't like seeing in the game (I freaked out when I saw Poe was back in the game as a super high-initiative regenning repositioning ace, for example). However, your Imperial dogmatism, often interpreted as trolling, is not present in this thread so I think it's unfortunate that the immediate reaction here was "troll".

I think you're correct that not all the problems from 1.0 have been fixed, and FFG hasn't magically hired more staff or had more time to playtest things. Luckily, the app will actually likely help keep things in check more than in 1.0

My main concern with Second Edition is whether or not people will play it. All I need is for it to be fun enough that there's a large enough fanbase to support it. It's delusional to say there won't be a third edition needed some time down the road, but as long as the game is good enough for people to want to play it, that's good enough for me.

So I think I could fully agree with you if you said "2.0 isn't perfect", but I'm not sure "2.0 is kind of a mess", because I for one have had an immense amount of fun with the few games I've played of it, and I'm pretty sure I'll be able to get a whole bunch of people to play it with me!

Okay.

So, some people who agree with me here, can be sometimes a bit trolley, but then again, I think that applies to the "opposition" as well.

In reality, I think most of us (props for those who don't) let loose a mean comment, unsolicited opinion, or just a bad joke every now and then, and people who are bit more sensitive to these things might consider that trolling.

Our friend SOTL in this thread is showcasing his attempt at low grade trolling, while calling me out on it, for example.

I don't think any of this is a problem. People should grow thicker skins, and handle the opinions of others. (Especially on a forum which is meant to accommodate opinions)

To put your worries at ease, I will go into 2.0 full throttle, speed 5 moves are already dialed in. As I've put it many times, I'm not a hater. I love 2.0. Doesn't mean I'm a 100% happy about it either. And despite what some here would tell you, I do actually voice my positive opinion about things.

And to actually answer something that has been brought up by others as well, and I suspect is the crux of the issue at hand, my style.

The words I use, the tone of my posts... these are stylistic choices, and are part of my "forum persona", if you will. They have nothing to do with my message, or my points, or anything. And if you would like to ignore my points, because you find my style unbearable, fine.... That's your choice.

So, while I said "2.0 is kind of a mess", I did clarify in the post, and many times since, how I feel about the game.

The reaction of some people here isn't really responding to anything I've said.

I HOPE that's because they chose not to read my posts, and they just wanna get some internetpoints for writing a snappy comment, each telling me why am I literally the worst thing since crack in their own hilarious ways, because the alternative would be that they are actually incapable of differentiating between style and substance.

I don't think I should change the way I communicate. If they don't like me for it, fine, but if they bother to write something, they could try their best to express their opinions above the emotional maturity of a 5 year old.

So in essence, I don't think that anyone who bashes their chest here on how stupid I am, without engaging in the argument, deserves a title other than troll.

We are all just people here. Nobody is perfect. Everybody chooses their way to engage in this conversation. Nobody is forced to participate. Some decide it would be the best to call people names without any attempt to try to understand their position. That's their problem.

1 hour ago, Mattman7306 said:

I’m not sure I understand your complaint. Lando and Nien definitely have synergy. Are you saying thematic builds should have some sort of buff, or that certain cards should only be useable together, i.e only Lando can take Nien crew?

Nien Nunb doesn't do anything different with Lando than he does in any other crew slot.

So, no I'm not saying make him "Lando Only". But maybe "when with Lando also blah blah blah."

10 minutes ago, Commander Kaine said:

, can be sometimes a bit trolley,

You might look cute as a trolley.

1 minute ago, Darth Meanie said:

Nien Nunb doesn't do anything different with Lando than he does in any other crew slot.

So, no I'm not saving make him "Lando Only". But maybe "when with Lando also blah blah blah."

Agreed and to further @Commander Kaine‘s idea I’d love to see multiple versions of some cards to showcase this idea. Sure it’s more work but I think the end result is worth it. Anakin alone warrants a couple versions, vader does, luke does, kinda already do with Han. The way they went is the most simple and I get that but the depth could go a lot deeper with some restricted but interesting variables. If a card can only go with X other things then you don’t have to balance it against anything but that X. Not saying they have to do it but they could and I think it would be great if they did.

2 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

Nien Nunb doesn't do anything different with Lando than he does in any other crew slot.

Lando's pilot ability triggers when he performs a green move (or blue in 2.0), so he gets more value of the extra green/blue moves than other pilots.

4 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

Nien Nunb doesn't do anything different with Lando than he does in any other crew slot.

So, no I'm not saying make him "Lando Only". But maybe "when with Lando also blah blah blah."

I like how that SOUNDS, but wouldn't it result in the movie loadouts always being the most efficient version of cards?

Example: NN gives green maneuvers for straights, but for Lando, he also turns speed 3 banks to green (or sth)

Similarly, Vader is somehow amazing with his own 2 wingmen, and so on and so on.

Wouldn't that make those specific builds way stronger than anything?

I like the idea, but it sounds complicated to make it work well.

"when with X" is a horrible idea that causes text bloat and forces you to balance two different versions of a card, generally resulting in something that might as well be "X only"

Apparent synergy, such as NN giving blue banks in 2.0 + Lando's ability triggering on blue manuevers, is far more elegant game design

1 hour ago, Ubul said:

Lando's pilot ability triggers when he performs a green move (or blue in 2.0), so he gets more value of the extra green/blue moves than other pilots.

Ok, fair enough. Pretty subtle, though. As an Imperial player or a noob, it's easy to miss.

1 hour ago, Commander Kaine said:

I like how that SOUNDS, but wouldn't it result in the movie loadouts always being the most efficient version of cards?

Oh no!! We might see beloved movie characters and ships on the table???

1 hour ago, LordFajubi said:

Agreed and to further @Commander Kaine‘s idea I’d love to see multiple versions of some cards to showcase this idea. Sure it’s more work but I think the end result is worth it. Anakin alone warrants a couple versions, vader does, luke does, kinda already do with Han.

Also, it let's you showcase a main character's growth. Are you playing Farmboy Luke, Commander Skywalker, or Luke, Jedi Knight?

6 minutes ago, Commander Kaine said:

I like how that SOUNDS, but wouldn't it result in the movie loadouts always being the most efficient version of cards?

Example: NN gives green maneuvers for straights, but for Lando, he also turns speed 3 banks to green (or sth)

Similarly, Vader is somehow amazing with his own 2 wingmen, and so on and so on.

Wouldn't that make those specific builds way stronger than anything?

I like the idea, but it sounds complicated to make it work well.

It would be kind of a marriage between quick builds and regular play. Yes that might be the best vader plus tie config but how is that any different than what we have now? There is always a top crust to building, this would just give new people a competent starting point with an effective balance to practice. And it could very well be the best at it’s bracket but could still see better or as good formations not using the synergy load out. Hard to balance, maybe, but not harder than balancing anything new with 30 some existing pilots now per faction ?

2 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

Oh no!! We might see beloved movie characters and ships on the rable???

Ruh-roh!

1 hour ago, ficklegreendice said:

"when with X" is a horrible idea that causes text bloat and forces you to balance two different versions of a card, generally resulting in something that might as well be "X only"

Apparent synergy, such as NN giving blue banks in 2.0 + Lando's ability triggering on blue manuevers, is far more elegant game design

Well, I'm less concerned with absolute elegance in pursuit of a little fluff.

I want the IP to matter more than just names on the cards and the sculpt of the model.

OTOH, I freely admit you need to avoid the "Mains and Toys" pitfall of Decipher's old game. OTOH, was anyone actually flying low PS generics in the end??

11 minutes ago, ficklegreendice said:

"when with X" is a horrible idea that causes text bloat and forces you to balance two different versions of a card, generally resulting in something that might as well be "X only"

Apparent synergy, such as NN giving blue banks in 2.0 + Lando's ability triggering on blue manuevers, is far more elegant game design

I agree with you if the center piece is static but to use the vader example, the Vader with synergy to black squadran would not be the same vader, they’d have to make ANH vader for that who could have completely different abilities. It can be done just not easily if you shoehorn it.

This also lets FFG continue selling new content for old ships. Win win for them.

On ‎8‎/‎9‎/‎2018 at 7:04 PM, Darth Meanie said:

I really don't understand why people are so adverse to the idea of bans.

I mean, in 2.0 there is no VI, TLT, Adapt, Harpoons etc. They got banned, for all effective purposes. If FFG had been willing to do that in 1.0, 2.0 may not have been necessary from a balance perspective. Or, they could have worked on it another year.

Er, could it be because they PAID for those upgrades, ENJOY playing with them, and resent being told, "Too bad about all that money you spent, WE don't like them so you can't play with them"?

I think you DO understand why people are so adverse to the idea of bans, but you don't like their reasons and consider yourself morally superior to them because you get in line with "change".

As someone who played heavily with Y-Wing and K-Wing lists that made liberal use of TLT's (and Autoblaster Turrets, for that matter), I fully sympathize and agree with such people.

6 minutes ago, Firebird TMK said:

Er, could it be because they PAID for those upgrades, ENJOY playing with them, and resent being told, "Too bad about all that money you spent, WE don't like them so you can't play with them"?

I think you DO understand why people are so adverse to the idea of bans, but you don't like their reasons and consider yourself morally superior to them because you get in line with "change".

As someone who played heavily with Y-Wing and K-Wing lists that made liberal use of TLT's (and Autoblaster Turrets, for that matter), I fully sympathize and agree with such people.

Clearly you have never paid $50+ for a card in a ccg and had it banned on you. It happens. Crying I paid money for this is no more valid than people crying they hate playing against it. If it’s abuseable it’s bannable the health of the game is the most important not your personal buying choice. Not trying to be snarky, truly, but I have seen this reasonning for decades in ccg’s. This is really no different. I feel for people upset but I can not endorse others suffering so a purchase can be justified.

4 minutes ago, LordFajubi said:

I agree with you if the center piece is static but to use the vader example, the Vader with synergy to black squadran would not be the same vader, they’d have to make ANH vader for that who could have completely different abilities. It can be done just not easily if you shoehorn it.

Darth Vader - Black Leader

No force, only talent slot.

IN6. Make him sit in the Advanced, but make the Advanced AMAZING. Native boost (it can be red), bit better dial. Sth.

Ability: After performing an action, choose up to two friendly TIE/ln fighters at Range 0-1. Those ships may perform the same action.

Darth Vader - Lord of the Sith

3 Force, force talent

IN6 - this could be the current version of the advanced (cr@p) with his normal ability