1 minute ago, Darth Meanie said:

Well, ultimately, shouldn't it??

I mean, isn't the idea of the app is that a pilot should eventually settle into a price point reflecting it's "true value."

Yes, but printing the cost on the card meant a bad cost was now firmly attached, with changing it to its “true value” a very large problem that were fixed with even more cards and some fans who would have screamed bloody murder if they errated what was already printed. That was one of 1.0’s problems. You might be able to see the cat, but wouldn’t know for certain if it was alive or dead without more in depth examination.

2.0 has done away with that problem. No contradicting what’s already printed on the card, no need to buy a Aces pack to get a card that drops the price of a ship. We’ll see regularly scheduled changes and hopefully only a few items at a time.

Once again, I ask if you can prove that this isn’t worthwhile?

53 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

Once again, I ask if you can prove that this isn’t worthwhile?

Nope, I can't.

But really, you miss the point that it's just a joke, even if it is at 2.0's expense. ()

Since the price isn't fixed, you have no idea if the pilot is the price right (alive or dead) until you open the app. And since the price can change, the question remains constantly unanswered until you open the app in that moment.

1 minute ago, Darth Meanie said:

Nope.

But you miss the point of the joke.

Since the price isn't fixed, you have no idea if the pilot is the price right (alive or dead) until you open the app. And since the price can change, the question remains constantly unanswered until you open the app in that moment.

Except that FFG has already said that changes will be scheduled, meaning we will have ample warning before a change is made. No need to keep going to the app if the price hasn’t changed.

And if we are still talking about “true value”, 1.0 didn’t even get that right.

FYI, I did get the joke. I just found it more erroneous than amusing.

2 hours ago, Darth Meanie said:

Welcome to Schrodinger's Squadron!

You have no idea whether a pilot is good or not good until you open the app!!

If it's Schrodinger's Squadron, wouldn't that mean that it's simultaneously both good and bad until you open the app and force it into a single state?

1 hour ago, SabineKey said:

FYI, I did get the joke. I just found it more erroneous than amusing.

20 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

If it's Schrodinger's Squadron, wouldn't that mean that it's simultaneously both good and bad until you open the app and force it into a single state?

Wow, I'm beginning to feel de-powered

You guys are just way too much work for a laugh. ?

1 minute ago, Darth Meanie said:

Wow, you guys are just way too much work for a laugh. ?

You do know that humor is subjective, right?

1 hour ago, SabineKey said:

Yes, but printing the cost on the card meant a bad cost was now firmly attached, with changing it to its “true value” a very large problem that were fixed with even more cards and some fans who would have screamed bloody murder if they errated what was already printed. That was one of 1.0’s problems. You might be able to see the cat, but wouldn’t know for certain if it was alive or dead without more in depth examination.

2.0 has done away with that problem. No contradicting what’s already printed on the card, no need to buy a Aces pack to get a card that drops the price of a ship. We’ll see regularly scheduled changes and hopefully only a few items at a time.

Once again, I ask if you can prove that this isn’t worthwhile?

3 things.

1st, people will still have to buy new packs to get the best pilots because ffg isnt going to stop "aces" packs. They made them because they sell well, not for balance. For ex... Harpoons. Also for example, what will imperial or rebels buy in the future? Basically whats left is aces packs, which is why most 2.0 ships only get hslf their 1.0 pilots. Youre expected to buy them later

2nd, in 2.0 the schrodingers problem is the app itself. What does it cost? What does it do? Its a mystery until you go on the internet. That isnt objectively better than it being printed on the card, and many people dont find it tenable.

All we need to do to prove this is look at card text... Its still getting errata'd, and its still on the card. Therefore there is no reason why the squad points cant be on the cards. The cards wont be 100% accurate either way, but by not printing the points they force the app on people

3rd. You shouldnt ask people to "prove" or "disprove" your personal opinions, for reasons i hope are self-evident.

1 hour ago, Darth Meanie said:

Nope, I can't.

But really, you miss the point that it's just a joke, even if it is at 2.0's expense. ()

Since the price isn't fixed, you have no idea if the pilot is the price right (alive or dead) until you open the app. And since the price can change, the question remains constantly unanswered until you open the app in that moment.

You could print out the costs, locking them into a specific state until you decide to reprint.

7 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

You do know that humor is subjective, right?

Even if humor was my objective?

9 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

Even if humor was my objective?

I thought we were playing Armada rules. You hand us three objectives, and then we pick one.

12 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

I thought we were playing Armada rules. You hand us three objectives, and then we pick one.

Well, I've been handed (at least) three objections, so, I'll choose:

Quote

You could print out the costs, locking them into a specific state until you decide to reprint.

Touche!!

1 hour ago, Vontoothskie said:

3 things.

1st, people will still have to buy new packs to get the best pilots because ffg isnt going to stop "aces" packs. They made them because they sell well, not for balance. For ex... Harpoons. Also for example, what will imperial or rebels buy in the future? Basically whats left is aces packs, which is why most 2.0 ships only get hslf their 1.0 pilots. Youre expected to buy them later

2nd, in 2.0 the schrodingers problem is the app itself. What does it cost? What does it do? Its a mystery until you go on the internet. That isnt objectively better than it being printed on the card, and many people dont find it tenable.

All we need to do to prove this is look at card text... Its still getting errata'd, and its still on the card. Therefore there is no reason why the squad points cant be on the cards. The cards wont be 100% accurate either way, but by not printing the points they force the app on people

3rd. You shouldnt ask people to "prove" or "disprove" your personal opinions, for reasons i hope are self-evident.

1st: There is a difference between getting a new pilot and getting a fix. I also think you are going too far in saying that ace packs have the best pilots. Vessery, Fel, and Guri would like a word. What veteran players will buy in the future if they don’t want the model is a wave converter, which has key differences from an Aces pack. Everyone else is just getting a regular expansion. Your harpoon example isn’t an ace pack exclusive tactic. Every pack has something in it that FFG is hoping to tempt you to buy if the ship itself doesn’t interest you. See the StarViper and Auothrusters.

2nd: Untrue since memory is a thing. I can tell you the cost for my favorite Palob or Boba build off the top of my head and what they all do. In fact, some of those cards you don’t even need the app to tell you what they do as that information is on the cards themselves. Now, some of these can change, but there is no evidence to suggest that they are going to change with no warning, thus requiring constant referral. Thus the Schrodinger’s “problem” fades away with proper planning and logic.

I understand some people don’t like the new system and that’s up to them. But if you don’t want an objective comparison between the two (like how well it allows for keeping the game balanced), then I suggest talking in personal terms rather than vague and broad ones.

Your errata point does have some traction, but missed an important point. The recent errata was to fix wording to be clearer and/or clarify an interaction. This is not the “nerf erratas” of 1.0 or intended to adjust balance within the game. The ability to change points and slots are built in as a way to adjust balance while erratas are an unfortunate stop gap when something didn’t get properly proofread or the designers find out that what was crystal clear to them is confusing to others. One they plan on happening, one they don’t.

3rd: I agree, but I dispute that was what I was doing. I was asking if there was proof of having a built in way to adjust game balance was worse than not having one. I know there is dislike for the method FFG chose, but I still think the purpose behind it is good. I wanted to see if @Darth Meanie could supply a facts based answer on why better controls was bad.

1 hour ago, Darth Meanie said:

Even if humor was my objective?

Joke still has to be considered good by the audience. Just because something is meant as a joke doesn’t mean that it’s automatically funny. Do you laugh at every single joke you are told, regardless of quality?

I found the joke to be based on a faulty premise, thus my explanation of finding it more erroneous than humorous.

1 hour ago, Vontoothskie said:

... the app itself. What does it cost?

Nothing.

1 hour ago, Vontoothskie said:

What does it do?

Let you squadbuild.

(They've indicated, but not confirmed other functionalities, such as a card viewer or a tournament assistant.)

11 hours ago, SabineKey said:

1st: There is a difference between getting a new pilot and getting a fix. I also think you are going too far in saying that ace packs have the best pilots. Vessery, Fel, and Guri would like a word. What veteran players will buy in the future if they don’t want the model is a wave converter, which has key differences from an Aces pack. Everyone else is just getting a regular expansion. Your harpoon example isn’t an ace pack exclusive tactic. Every pack has something in it that FFG is hoping to tempt you to buy if the ship itself doesn’t interest you. See the StarViper and Auothrusters.

2nd: Untrue since memory is a thing. I can tell you the cost for my favorite Palob or Boba build off the top of my head and what they all do. In fact, some of those cards you don’t even need the app to tell you what they do as that information is on the cards themselves. Now, some of these can change, but there is no evidence to suggest that they are going to change with no warning, thus requiring constant referral. Thus the Schrodinger’s “problem” fades away with proper planning and logic.

I understand some people don’t like the new system and that’s up to them. But if you don’t want an objective comparison between the two (like how well it allows for keeping the game balanced), then I suggest talking in personal terms rather than vague and broad ones.

Your errata point does have some traction, but missed an important point. The recent errata was to fix wording to be clearer and/or clarify an interaction. This is not the “nerf erratas” of 1.0 or intended to adjust balance within the game. The ability to change points and slots are built in as a way to adjust balance while erratas are an unfortunate stop gap when something didn’t get properly proofread or the designers find out that what was crystal clear to them is confusing to others. One they plan on happening, one they don’t.

3rd: I agree, but I dispute that was what I was doing. I was asking if there was proof of having a built in way to adjust game balance was worse than not having one. I know there is dislike for the method FFG chose, but I still think the purpose behind it is good. I wanted to see if @Darth Meanie could supply a facts based answer on why better controls was bad.

Joke still has to be considered good by the audience. Just because something is meant as a joke doesn’t mean that it’s automatically funny. Do you laugh at every single joke you are told, regardless of quality?

I found the joke to be based on a faulty premise, thus my explanation of finding it more erroneous than humorous.

Some things people say are facts or information, other things are opinions. Proof only pertains to facts or information, not opinions.

We cant "prove" that the new system is better or worse because thats perception and personal taste.

We CAN prove that aspects of it require extra steps, time and money as compared to 1.0.

We can also prove that cards will still be errata'd as to their text because its already happened. This means that there was no reason not to include point totals on them, as they are not an official document once errata hit and will already need updates. If the paper has potentially outdated info, it should have had all the info required to play(in my opinion). It is a fact though that casual players could have still used cards without an app if squad totals were on them.

2.0 was rushed and they made some rookie mistakes as a result

2 hours ago, Vontoothskie said:

Some things people say are facts or information, other things are opinions. Proof only pertains to facts or information, not opinions.

We cant "prove" that the new system is better or worse because thats perception and personal taste.

We CAN prove that aspects of it require extra steps, time and money as compared to 1.0.

We can also prove that cards will still be errata'd as to their text because its already happened. This means that there was no reason not to include point totals on them, as they are not an official document once errata hit and will already need updates. If the paper has potentially outdated info, it should have had all the info required to play(in my opinion). It is a fact though that casual players could have still used cards without an app if squad totals were on them.

2.0 was rushed and they made some rookie mistakes as a result

And it can be proven that the new system has improvements to game balancing over the old system. Careful not to assume your own opinions are facts.

8 hours ago, SabineKey said:

And it can be proven that the new system has improvements to game balancing over the old system. Careful not to assume your own opinions are facts.

You dont get this at all.

What you just said is an opinion and cannot be proven because its a matter of preference. "Green is better color than blue" is a statement rooted in preference, which no more or less true than "blue is a better color than green".

It is SUBJECTIVE, not OBJECTIVE. please just do me a favor and look it up.

If you say " I prefer green things over blue things" then that can be a factual statement, because you are stating YOUR preference for one over the other, not claiming it is objectively true

In X-wing, 1.0 and 2.0 both exist, but its a matter of taste which is better.

I think 1.0 is drastically better than 2.0 for a variety of reasons, but thats my opinion. You obviously disagree.

You cant "prove" that its more balanced because there are non-computable factors, but also because balance is relative to turn order, playstyle, probability, player skill, the current meta, and it will swing wildly back and forth with each new release. Once 2.0 is out for awhile we will see whats strong and what isnt, but there will always be a rock/paper/scissors element to board games

36 minutes ago, Vontoothskie said:

You dont get this at all.

What you just said is an opinion and cannot be proven because its a matter of preference. "Green is better color than blue" is a statement rooted in preference, which no more or less true than "blue is a better color than green".

It is SUBJECTIVE, not OBJECTIVE. please just do me a favor and look it up.

If you say " I prefer green things over blue things" then that can be a factual statement, because you are stating YOUR preference for one over the other, not claiming it is objectively true

In X-wing, 1.0 and 2.0 both exist, but its a matter of taste which is better.

I think 1.0 is drastically better than 2.0 for a variety of reasons, but thats my opinion. You obviously disagree.

You cant "prove" that its more balanced because there are non-computable factors, but also because balance is relative to turn order, playstyle, probability, player skill, the current meta, and it will swing wildly back and forth with each new release. Once 2.0 is out for awhile we will see whats strong and what isnt, but there will always be a rock/paper/scissors element to board games

I mistyped. I meant that the new system has better controls in place for maintaining balance. That’s not an opinion. That’s part of the whole point behind 2E. 1E had no controls in place, thus had to rely on errata nerfs to make changes. You may not like the controls and that’s your right, but that doesn’t mean they are not there.

1 hour ago, SabineKey said:

I mistyped. I meant that the new system has better controls in place for maintaining balance. That’s not an opinion. That’s part of the whole point behind 2E. 1E had no controls in place, thus had to rely on errata nerfs to make changes. You may not like the controls and that’s your right, but that doesn’t mean they are not there.

Fair enough.

On 8/20/2018 at 8:20 AM, GreenDragoon said:

Can you eloaborate in what kind of short-range dogfight situation (which every single game of xwing is!) a freighter or bomber or long range missile ship is superior to a specialized dogfighter?

Let me check something real quick ...

Yep, on the packaging, it clearly says "Star Wars". Let's see, can anyone think of any cases in Star Wars where a freighter faced off against multiple dogfighters and won? ?

18 minutes ago, Freeptop said:

Let me check something real quick ...

Yep, on the packaging, it clearly says "Star Wars". Let's see, can anyone think of any cases in Star Wars where a freighter faced off against multiple dogfighters and won? ?

How long do you have?

8 hours ago, Freeptop said:

Let me check something real quick ...

Yep, on the packaging, it clearly says "Star Wars". Let's see, can anyone think of any cases in Star Wars where a freighter faced off against multiple dogfighters and won? ?

They celebrate it as huge achievement to ward off 4 TIEs - TIEs that were instructed by Tarkin to let them get away and reveal the secret base on Yavin IV.

That would be one

13 hours ago, GreenDragoon said:

They celebrate it as huge achievement to ward off 4 TIEs - TIEs that were instructed by Tarkin to let them get away and reveal the secret base on Yavin IV.

That would be one

Also: Empire Strikes Back (Falcon outflies multiple TIEs through an asteroid field), Return of the Jedi (Regular TIEs and Interceptors chase after the Falcon into the Death Star), The Force Awakens (a half-functional Falcon takes on multiple TIE/fo attackers and wins), The Last Jedi (Chewie and Rey draw off all the TIEs at Crait), and, of course, Solo (Falcon vs multiple TIEs during the Kessel Run).

A New Hope is the only one where the freighter was "allowed" to win.

3 minutes ago, Freeptop said:

A New Hope is the only one where the freighter was "allowed" to win.

it's interesting that OT (and Solo) Falcon barely destroys any. So he is able to run away, not actually to win in a fight. Somehow only the new Falcon destroys 2 in TFA, and then Chewie+Rey destroy severals (I think?) - again while running away.

On 8/16/2018 at 2:12 PM, JJ48 said:

You get to study ENTS?!

Depends on whether you're interested in the creatures or how they got their names.

You just have to be a taxonomist, like me (someone who names new species). Then you get to be an entomologist AND an etymologist at the same time!

On 8/24/2018 at 3:48 PM, GreenDragoon said:

it's interesting that OT (and Solo) Falcon barely destroys any. So he is able to run away, not actually to win in a fight. Somehow only the new Falcon destroys 2 in TFA, and then Chewie+Rey destroy severals (I think?) - again while running away.

Considering we're talking about situations in which the Falcon (in whichever incarnation) was facing off against multiple opponents, I don't think that shows the Falcon as being inferior in combat