1 minute ago, Hiemfire said:

(2) Empire is nearly as bad as Scum when it comes to this though.

Admiral Sloane is blushing

3 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:

(2) Empire is nearly as bad as Scum when it comes to this though.

How so?

10 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

How so?

Just a few, each of which eliminate the control your opponent has over their own side in one way or another via either canceling a decision or forcing a method of play on them... Your Lambdas are, in my opinion, the Imp HWK-290. They just haven't fully broken out mainstream yet.

4 x Juke Phantoms had better still be legal.

Ok, let's take a look at these...

1 hour ago, Hiemfire said:

You spend a rather useful Force token and the opponent's stress token in order to give them a jam or tractor token, instead. Decent trade-off for a potent skill.

1 hour ago, Hiemfire said:

Perhaps a bit on the powerful side, but he still requires you to spend a token to get an effect, and the opponent gets to choose which effect to take. Still requires a trade-off, though he probably should require a little more, like costing your action to do it.

1 hour ago, Hiemfire said:

You have to sacrifice a ship to put stress on the opponent. Huge trade-off. This one may be a bit too powerful, but I think that's mainly in its execution, not the concept of the card. If it only handed out one stress, and if the attacker had to be range 0-3 of Sloane, it would probably be pretty useful without getting nearly so many complaints (if costed accordingly, of course).

1 hour ago, Hiemfire said:

Ok, I'll be honest: these are powerful, but I don't really understand why you consider them "control". I guess they're a bit too efficient as passenger ships, but that's not really what we're discussing currently.

1 hour ago, Hiemfire said:

This is definitely a control element. However, he is rather minor, and requires combos with other ways of getting jam tokens in the first place (which tend to take up an attack or an action as a trade-off). I classify him under my statement of "some control elements are necessary".

1 hour ago, Hiemfire said:

Friendly ships lose lock tokens, at the cost of Kagi gaining them. Trade-off.

1 hour ago, Hiemfire said:

Again, not really sure how this qualifies as a "control" element.

Basically, I guess what it really boils down to for me is that, while Imps may have some stuff that wasn't thoroughly thought through (e.g. Vader and Sloane), at least those still require some trade-off, however small one may consider it. When I look at Scum ships like Palob or 4-LOM, it's not, "get this bonus but at this opportunity cost," but rather, "get this bonus, and also get this other bonus, too."

2 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

Ok, let's take a look at these...

You spend a rather useful Force token and the opponent's stress token in order to give them a jam or tractor token, instead. Decent trade-off for a potent skill.

Perhaps a bit on the powerful side, but he still requires you to spend a token to get an effect, and the opponent gets to choose which effect to take. Still requires a trade-off, though he probably should require a little more, like costing your action to do it.

You have to sacrifice a ship to put stress on the opponent. Huge trade-off. This one may be a bit too powerful, but I think that's mainly in its execution, not the concept of the card. If it only handed out one stress, and if the attacker had to be range 0-3 of Sloane, it would probably be pretty useful without getting nearly so many complaints (if costed accordingly, of course).

Ok, I'll be honest: these are powerful, but I don't really understand why you consider them "control". I guess they're a bit too efficient as passenger ships, but that's not really what we're discussing currently.

This is definitely a control element. However, he is rather minor, and requires combos with other ways of getting jam tokens in the first place (which tend to take up an attack or an action as a trade-off). I classify him under my statement of "some control elements are necessary".

Friendly ships lose lock tokens, at the cost of Kagi gaining them. Trade-off.

Again, not really sure how this qualifies as a "control" element.

Basically, I guess what it really boils down to for me is that, while Imps may have some stuff that wasn't thoroughly thought through (e.g. Vader and Sloane), at least those still require some trade-off, however small one may consider it. When I look at Scum ships like Palob or 4-LOM, it's not, "get this bonus but at this opportunity cost," but rather, "get this bonus, and also get this other bonus, too."

Thus why I said "nearly". The elements are still there.

1 minute ago, Hiemfire said:

Thus why I said "nearly". The elements are still there.

Then we're operating under very different definitions of "nearly". I see a world of difference between, "Suffer a consequence to affect your opponent," and, "Affect your opponent, gain a bonus, and suffer no consequences."

4 hours ago, SpiderMana said:

I think he’s hoping, more than anything. There hasn’t been any announcement of such, and I haven’t seen it discussed much. But the line of thought would be that because FFG has clearly abandoned all hope for Extended, they aren’t gonna change anything but Hyperspace points. 🙃

I don’t think that will be the case, but who really knows.

Not hoping, and this isn't exactly my prediction but something I think might be a very plausible reasoning behind the point changes.

But yeah if Hyperspace is going to be the defacto competitive format then only hyperspace is going to be receiving attention. FFG's OrgPlay department is already stretched thin and they are looking to drop that workload for case and point see Runewars. Recosting only the hypersapce legal pilots/upgrades is a way to reduce that workload.

17 minutes ago, Marinealver said:

Not hoping, and this isn't exactly my prediction but something I think might be a very plausible reasoning behind the point changes.

But yeah if Hyperspace is going to be the defacto competitive format then only hyperspace is going to be receiving attention. FFG's OrgPlay department is already stretched thin and they are looking to drop that workload for case and point see Runewars. Recosting only the hypersapce legal pilots/upgrades is a way to reduce that workload.

I have seen a few people make this argument and it doesn’t really add up to me. Someone who knows the game well could probably do a point adjustment for every ship and upgrade in the game in one 8 hour work day.

2 hours ago, Marinealver said:

if Hyperspace is going to be the defacto competitive format

The fact that I’m going to a System Open in March sortof pokes a hole in that statement.

14 minutes ago, SpiderMana said:

The fact that I’m going to a System Open in March sortof pokes a hole in that statement.

the fact that it is the format at all nationals and FFG worlds solidifies that statement and fills the hole you said you poked.

17 minutes ago, Marinealver said:

FFG worlds

Has Worlds been announced to be Hyperspace only? I'm fairly certain it hasn't. Regardless, there are large tournaments, run by FFG’s OP, that aren’t Hyperspace. It would be asinine to ignore the Extended format as completely as you’re suggesting while rebalancing points.

18 minutes ago, SpiderMana said:

Has Worlds been announced to be Hyperspace only? I'm fairly certain it hasn't. Regardless, there are large tournaments, run by FFG’s OP, that aren’t Hyperspace. It would be asinine to ignore the Extended format as completely as you’re suggesting while rebalancing points.

Especially considering a lot of ships, for the Empire at least, that are the most OP right now are in extended (Bombers, Punishers, Phantoms)

2 hours ago, SpiderMana said:

Has Worlds been announced to be Hyperspace only? I'm fairly certain it hasn't...

uh, yes they did

Besides wouldn't proponents of the hyperspace format use something other than its absence as an argument for keeping hyperspace as the competitive format? I find it funny that the best argument for this competitive format is that it is "not in all tournaments". That sounds like something said by those that prefer extended.

7 hours ago, JJ48 said:

You have to sacrifice a ship to put stress on the opponent. Huge trade-off. This one may be a bit too powerful, but I think that's mainly in its execution, not the concept of the card. If it only handed out one stress, and if the attacker had to be range 0-3 of Sloane, it would probably be pretty useful without getting nearly so many complaints (if costed accordingly, of course).

Sloane isn't "sacrifice a ship to stress the opponent," she's "punish the opponent for doing the very thing the game is about."

3 hours ago, Marinealver said:

Besides wouldn't proponents of the hyperspace format use something other than its absence as an argument for keeping hyperspace as the competitive format? I find it funny that the best argument for this competitive format is that it is "not in all tournaments". That sounds like something said by those that prefer extended.

...What?

I don’t understand what you’re trying to say. That I like Extended? Is there a problem with that?

Edit: and feel free to point out where they’ve said Worlds will be Hyperspace. I don’t see it in any articles.

4 hours ago, Marinealver said:

I find it funny that the best argument for this competitive format is that it is "not in all tournaments".

That's not the best argument for it at all, and that's not what @SpiderMana said.

You made an incorrect claim and SpiderMana corrected you. No one made any significant arguments for Hyperspace, just pointed out a gaping hole in your argument against it.

I get that you personally don't like Hyperspace, but you need to stop shoving your fingers in your ears and going "la la la" whenever anyone tries to talk to you about it.

Ah, my bad, @GuacCousteau, I still manage to assume the best in people, sometimes. Thanks for clearing that up.

5 hours ago, Matanui3 said:

Sloane isn't "sacrifice a ship to stress the opponent," she's "punish the opponent for doing the very thing the game is about."

Po-tay-to, po-tah-to.

1 hour ago, JJ48 said:

Po-tay-to, po-tah-to.

Just because there are different “pronunciations” doesn’t make the other one wrong.

1 minute ago, SabineKey said:

Just because there are different “pronunciations” doesn’t make the other one wrong.

Precisely

1 minute ago, JJ48 said:

Precisely

Just so long as you are willing to admit that that applies to the other side too.

8 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

Just so long as you are willing to admit that that applies to the other side too.

Did I ever claim otherwise? Yeah, Sloane punishes your opponent for destroying your ship. It doesn't change the fact that you lost at least 23 points to put stress on the opponent. In other words, a trade-off. How much of a trade-off makes sense for how big a penalty is debatable, but that's an issue with execution, not concept.

4 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

Did I ever claim otherwise? Yeah, Sloane punishes your opponent for destroying your ship. It doesn't change the fact that you lost at least 23 points to put stress on the opponent. In other words, a trade-off. How much of a trade-off makes sense for how big a penalty is debatable, but that's an issue with execution, not concept.

Disagree with your conclusion, but at least you are actually thinking about it.

7 hours ago, Matanui3 said:

Sloane isn't "sacrifice a ship to stress the opponent," she's "punish the opponent for doing the very thing the game is about."

She's far more important than that because she doesn't only work with stress from kills. The control element is also "You see all those lovely red actions and red manoeuvres on your ship's bar and dial? How much do you want to use them? Enough to give my entire squad a free target lock on you? No? Didn't think so. Hope you didn't pay too many points for them....."

19 hours ago, Kaptin Krunch said:

I don't think that it's likely, but i'd like to see 6 Black Squadron Scouts fit. In all likelyhood, i'll end up with 5 Scouts and a TIE Fighter, or way more expensive named pilots accross the board.

Generic Strikers are ******* awful at current points, with a literal 0% conversion rate. 

A black Squadron Scout costs the same as ******* Sabine or Lulo.

I'm intrigued by the comment about strikers. I'm not sure what 'conversion rate' is in this context.

Black Squadron Scouts probably are overpriced - they were in 1st edition too, at the same price as "Countdown" for no benefit relative to the unique ace.

Thing is that unless you have a decent plan to exploit that Initiative 3 and Talent Slot (and....errmmm.....I dunno. 5 x Ruthless, maybe? But the Striker feels a bit expensive and flimsy for that talent to work well. Maybe Predator?), I fail to see the benefit of the Black Squadron Scout over the generic I1 Planetary Sentinel (aside from the awesome pilot card artwork).

The Sentinel looks on first impression to be in a fairly decent place - losing lightweight frame sucks but a shield upgrade is frankly an equal or better substitute since you still get the same number of green dice against 2-dice attacks (and TIE fighters are back in spades), at range 3 against 3 dice, or when obstructed, and having flown a heavy swarm for the last 2 years, I can attest from painful experience that those situations come up more than you want them to. Equally, it's most iconic wave 14 completion (the 20 point Flight-Assist-Astromech X-wing) has been taken out and shot behind the chemical sheds, and the Zealous Recruit has been pumped up to 44 points base, leaving far fewer rival heavy swarms to compete with, most of which (aside from the Cartel Marauder) don't really have a 3rd attack die are dependent on actions to get their third die from missile upgrades).

Understand that this is me speaking from a position of ignorance. I've played more games with Strikers than any other ship and I love them dearly, but I only got my 2nd Edition conversion sets over (for) Christmas, and my first set of games was Yavin format so was a strictly TIE/ln only affair. Hopefully I'll get some games in with them soon.