1 hour ago, Phelan Boots said:

I think they’re pretty appropriately costed of it you weren’t accounting for the baked in ship ability.

@AllWingsStandyingBy Please allow me to provide the full context of my quote, which you’ve conveniently edited to misrepresent my opinions.

To say this differently, I think the Quadjumpers are costed appropriately if they didn’t have Spacetug Tractor Array built in.

In other words, I do not believe they are currently costed correctly.

I will acknowledge your point that secondary effects of a tractor token should not be underestimated though.

27 minutes ago, HolySorcerer said:

Only options to vote up to 35 points. Should be more.

I was being generous I’d call for a 10 point increase personally. I think the poll achieves it purpose though.

I have flown them quite often now, and yes, it is funny to throw small ships around or the occasional medium based ship.

However, let's be honest, staying out of range one of these things isn't too hard. And even if they give you a headache during planning phase, when they tractor you, they are without any token and go pop easily.

You can block them, doesn't work on range zero, so coordinating doesn't help

4 minutes ago, flooze said:

I have flown them quite often now, and yes, it is funny to throw small ships around or the occasional medium based ship.

However, let's be honest, staying out of range one of these things isn't too hard. And even if they give you a headache during planning phase, when they tractor you, they are without any token.

I really think a lot of the posts exaggerate

It would be interesting to see the preferred list type of the people who dislike Quadjumpers. I have an itchy feeling that it is high init aces and they don't like having to think about multiple flight routes.

5 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:

It would be interesting to see the preferred list type of the people who dislike Quadjumpers. I have an itchy feeling that it is high init aces and they don't like having to think about multiple flight routes.

I suspect it might be a specific type of ace list, too. A Rebel player running protorp Wedge and Luke will just slowroll and delete a Gunrunner before it even hits R2, and then zoom past the next one before reengaging. I'd imagine the raging anti-quad crowd likes to run knife fighting aces that need to take their time, like Soontir, Vader, Whisper, Teroch and Guri. And honestly, if that type of list gets a bit of an uphill battle once in a while, I really don't see the problem.

8 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:

It would be interesting to see the preferred list type of the people who dislike Quadjumpers. I have an itchy feeling that it is high init aces and they don't like having to think about multiple flight routes.

I'd be interested in that, too

My impression is that the 3 aces archetype doesn't work any more. Unless it brings proton torpedoes. But this has nothing to do with quadjumpers.

2 hours ago, Hiemfire said:

It would be interesting to see the preferred list type of the people who dislike Quadjumpers. I have an itchy feeling that it is high init aces and they don't like having to think about multiple flight routes.

I play 4 ship rebels that doesn't bid or use aces for the endgame. You don't have to fly 1 archetype to see how stupidly undercosted this ship is and how much of a skew the tractor array is. The game is about maneuvering, your opponent shouldn't tell you where your ship is and also get a damage buff at the same time for 5pts more than the cheapest ship in the game.

i would have no problem with the Quadjumper if it had only 1 attack die, the thing is a tug boat but shoots like a fighter, and it can tractor you as well, i'm sorry but you can't have it all either your a tug boat or a fighter not both .

I won't go into this again - I suggest a quick read of this might help - https://uxdesign.cc/cognitive-biases-you-need-to-be-familiar-with-as-a-researcher-c482c9ee1d49

Perhaps another factor that has been mentioned on a few threads is that large based ships are in general overcosted.

And as for "hard counters" - they are prevalent in so many games e,g,

• Blood Bowl - Tackle is a hard counter to Dodge
• Warmachine - Eyeless sight is a hard counter to stealth

There are many more.

Ultimately, if these hard conters are so frustrating it is your choice to play or not.

Just to mention, in 1.0 Jakkus costed 15 points + 2 points for Spacetug Tractor Array.

So this is 34 points in 2.0.

But for some reason, they actually only cost 28 points. And their built-in Spacetug Tractor is actually much better than it was in 1.0 (giving 2 tokens to toss medium bases around). AND they also got an improved dial, because, why not?

And if you think it is "easy" to dodge their tractors, then you have not played against good Quadjumper list in hands of good player.

Also for the players who say it's easy to nuke them off before combat - if you get off three focused attacks with 3 dice at range two, against their 2 defense dice, the expected damage is 1.074 + 1.531 + 1.531 = 4.136.

It gets much worse at range 3 indeed.

So on average you will NOT destroy it, and instead you will get hosed on the next turn by the totally balanced Spacetug Tractor Array..

And as others have already mentioned, the big base ships which could pose as a counter to them, are horribly overcosted and unplayable.

January could not come soon enough..

1 minute ago, baranidlo said:

three focused attacks with 3 dice at range two

Smells like an Ace list...

1 minute ago, baranidlo said:

the big base ships which could pose as a counter to them, are horribly overcosted and unplayable.

Minus the YT-2400 and possibly the Decimator I do agree on this part.

9 hours ago, Okapi said:

Are they really more of a hard counter to an ace than said ace is to a lower I pilot, though? Roll out of arc, focus, shoot, don't get shot back. If the presence of the Gunrunner leads to players bringing a couple of I2-3 generics or mid I aces to deal with it, isn't that a good thing, bringing more variety to the game?

yeah some in the pro-ace camp talk like aces should just win no matter what.

considering aces were possibly the number 1 issue in 1.0, its good to see cheap options for discouraging their dominance

11 minutes ago, Vontoothskie said:

yeah some in the pro-ace camp talk like aces should just win no matter what.

considering aces were possibly the number 1 issue in 1.0, its good to see cheap options for discouraging their dominance

Dropping the price of many of the large bases could mitigate the problem the Ace lists are having with Gunrunners. They're allot harder to push around and already have a good counter being played (Swarms). Table top skirmish/war game systems are much like eco systems that are predator dominate. If you kill off one type, its prey runs rampant. It is better to allow something that can handle the artificially dominant predator back into the system than it is to slaughter what you perceive to be problematic. It is too easy for things to snowball out of control if you remove things.

I don't see it happening but making the quadjumper limited so you can only have one in a list would be an interesting fix. If you can't outfly one tug, it's your funeral. Multiple tugs are a real nuisance. But that would make all those folks that have run out and bought multiple quads very unhappy.

I realize this is my own prejudice but I've had so much fun watching second edition games where turrets are rare and arcs matter. Redline is just stupid and crazy stupid cheap. Tugs are definitely too cheap as well. Rebels are just... ugh. But it is still fun to watch.

4 minutes ago, gamblertuba said:

I don't see it happening but making the quadjumper limited so you can only have one in a list would be an interesting fix. If you can't outfly one tug, it's your funeral. Multiple tugs are a real nuisance. But that would make all those folks that have run out and bought multiple quads very unhappy.

I realize this is my own prejudice but I've had so much fun watching second edition games where turrets are rare and arcs matter. Redline is just stupid and crazy stupid cheap. Tugs are definitely too cheap as well. Rebels are just... ugh. But it is still fun to watch.

While I wouldn’t advocate for a reaction like this, the best example of this occurring in 1.0 was the Jumpmaster 5000. Just think back how many of those were on tables up until about a year ago. FFG had no issue nuking that 33 point base generic, then the named pilots into oblivion. To where you do see them very often if at all anymore in 2.0.

I believe a modest increase between 6-8 points would be sufficient at the beginning. If that doesn’t work then they can start to actually change the working of the card to errata the ship. But let’s start with a points increase but there are examples of ships being nuked by FFG.

5 hours ago, flooze said:

I'd be interested in that, too

My impression is that the 3 aces archetype doesn't work any more. Unless it brings proton torpedoes. But this has nothing to do with quadjumpers.

I would disagree strongly about that. Mainly because the 3 ace archetype is my bread and butter, and I’ve had great success with multiple varieties of it.

I will say the spacetug is one of the hardest battles for me, one that has been part of a disproportionate number of losses. I’ve beaten it, but I’ve also had it play a role far in excess of its points every time.

It is also nearly impossible to avoid the tractor effect unless you are at the extreme edge of range 3, or have a rock perfectly placed.

I hate the spacetug, and I love it. It’s a right pain to fight, but it is tactically interesting. The perma cloaked version is stupid, and needs to not work the way it does, but otherwise it isn’t an unsolvable problem.

It is a little too good for its points, because that ability is so powerful on I1. It is arguably the strongest ship ability on any low init ship.

7 minutes ago, Cgriffith said:

I beli  eve a modest increase between 6-8 points

That would be the exact opposite of not slaughtering the problematic predator. 34 - 36 pts for a Gunrunner (not to mention the scaling adjustment for the named pilots) would very likely remove it from being used. Looking at the Mynock Open, only 2 lists with Tugs made it to the second day, out of the 12 (9 with Gunrunners, 3 with others) that started... It would be nice to see those matches where the Tugs lost so people can see how they were beaten.

3 minutes ago, millertime059 said:

I would disagree strongly about that. Mainly because the 3 ace archetype is my bread and butter, and I’ve had great success with multiple varieties of it.

I will say the spacetug is one of the hardest battles for me, one that has been part of a disproportionate number of losses. I’ve beaten it, but I’ve also had it play a role far in excess of its points every time.

It is also nearly impossible to avoid the tractor effect unless you are at the extreme edge of range 3, or have a rock perfectly placed.

I hate the spacetug, and I love it. It’s a right pain to fight, but it is tactically interesting. The perma cloaked version is stupid, and needs to not work the way it does, but otherwise it isn’t an unsolvable problem.

It is a little too good for its points, because that ability is so powerful on I1. It is arguably the strongest ship ability on any low init ship.

One thing I'll agree on is that I could see the Jakku Gunrunner actually being priced alongside the higher initiative pilots. If they do bump up the Gunrunner it shouldn't increase the cost of the uniques--essentially becoming a chassis for which you have to pay a tax to get down to Initiative 1.

37 minutes ago, gamblertuba said:

I don't see it happening but making the quadjumper limited so you can only have one in a list would be an interesting fix. If you can't outfly one tug, it's your funeral. Multiple tugs are a real nuisance. But that would make all those folks that have run out and bought multiple quads very unhappy.

I realize this is my own prejudice but I've had so much fun watching second edition games where turrets are rare and arcs matter. Redline is just stupid and crazy stupid cheap. Tugs are definitely too cheap as well. Rebels are just... ugh. But it is still fun to watch.

This is perhaps the best suggestion I have seen. However would it be better to just make the gunrunner unique and leave the others as is. That way you can still have 1, 2. 3 or 4 in a list but each one would have to be unique and you would have to pay a premium for them and they would not all be I1.

1 minute ago, Hugeman said:

This is perhaps the best suggestion I have seen. However would it be better to just make the gunrunner unique and leave the others as is. That way you can still have 1, 2. 3 or 4 in a list but each one would have to be unique and you would have to pay a premium for them and they would not all be I1.

Oh yah... Another limited "Generic" removing another Chassis from an entire game mode... How about no.

8 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:

That would be the exact opposite of not slaughtering the problematic predator. 34 - 36 pts for a Gunrunner (not to mention the scaling adjustment for the named pilots) would very likely remove it from being used. Looking at the Mynock Open, only 2 lists with Tugs made it to the second day, out of the 12 (9 with Gunrunners, 3 with others) that started... It would be nice to see those matches where the Tugs lost so people can see how they were beaten.

What I’ve had success with, as the movement shenanigan ship loving player I am, is what I call the slow scatter. Break off to multiple vectors, stay out of the fight, and force my opponent to spread some. Because the gunrunner is likely one of 3-4 different ships in a Scum salad. And a not particularly fast one.

So I try and force it away from his other ships, and make them chose to either break other ships away, or let one or more ships get behind him.

Its not easy, but it is possible as few players have the patience to keep Boba with the gunrunner.

But it is always a problem, which is why my preferred solution is to try and force a few rounds of engagement where it is a non participant. Because a gunrunner is not really a threat on its own, it’s a threat when it can force your ace into a rock, move through it (for two rolls) also denying you actions for the range 1 Fang.

And sometimes there is nothing you can do to avoid it. I’ve been there. It sucks when your plan fails because the traitorous red dice blank out on you, leaving that one health tug able to ruin your day in the critical turn.

And it dawns on me. Risk vs Return... For ships highly dependent on positioning and/or on making use of their high init to minimize risk while maximizing the return on their actions and maneuvers the Gun Runner is a monkey wrench in the gears. That is why its ability is so controversial and powerful.

The entire XWM system (both 1.0 and 2.0) penalizes failed risk taking heavily enough that even the slightest divergence out of what a player sees as acceptable is met with allot of rancor. This doesn't just apply to the tractor ability on the Quadrajet Spacetug, it applies to every single pilot and upgrade taken. Selfless, Fearless and Ruthless are three other examples. Selfless and Ruthless both require that you push yourself closer to awarding the opponent the win via points for a return. Fearless requires that you put your ship in the absolute worst position to gain the benefit (right in the gun sights of most ships) with next to no beneficial mitigation (The 8 Mandalorian pilots; Fett, Fenn Teroch, Wrenn, Solus, Rekkoff and the 2 Fang generics; excluded. They all have abilities, either pilot or ship, which offset the risk.) maximizing what that target can do to the ship making use of the pilot talent. It is why only brokenly powerful large bases see allot of play. They are big, easy to hit points piñata's, usually with fewer hp than an equivalent costing of smaller ships, and if they don't have something exceptional to contribute to the squad, the points are spent on something else (that most require investment above and beyond the base ship cost to become viable really doesn't help). It is why action economy was/is seen as a paramount pillar of gameplay.

FFG set up a system the rewards efficient and well thought out gameplay, and then proceeded to add things that put kinks in that efficiency, though generally not without a way to work around it . That part is the important part. There is always a way to work around or directly deal with the thing that is interfering with what you have planned. Sometimes it is in list building (by not bothering with upgrades that push risk outside of acceptable bounds, IE in my case the current faction Talents, or don't provide a return comparable to the investment, IE Jamming Beam on a TIE/D Defender), sometimes it is in changing target priority (Tug boats...) or how you plan to maneuver. There is always a work around and I'm pretty **** sure all of you are smart enough to find it...

As someone that just won a major event with the buggers... They are awesome. They need a slight bump though, 1-4 points is rather fair. Any more and you just priced them out of existence. The reason they are good is because of people not knowing how to fly against them.

1 minute ago, Hujoe Bigs said:

As someone that just won a major event with the buggers... They are awesome. They need a slight bump though, 1-4 points is rather fair. Any more and you just priced them out of existence. The reason they are good is because of people not knowing how to fly against them.

12 lists with Quad Jumpers ( 9 with Gun Runners specifically) started on Sat, 2 (both with Gun Runners) made cut for Sun, 1 really well played by a very good player took the Final...

3 hours ago, millertime059 said:

I would disagree strongly about that. Mainly because the 3 ace archetype is my bread and butter, and I’ve had great success with multiple varieties of it.

I will say the spacetug is one of the hardest battles for me, one that has been part of a disproportionate number of losses. I’ve beaten it, but I’ve also had it play a role far in excess of its points every time.

Glad to hear that 3 aces still works for you. Haven't seen successful ones in my local meta (apart from XXX, but that is more the alpha strike type)