When I'm not alcoholically intoxicated and giggly at my own aggressive s...posting, I do occasionally enjoy a pleasant discussion. Please pardon my occasional belligerence for a brief sidebar on this minor topic.

Honestly, I do agree with every change they made but one. In fact they cheapened some components that I thought were just fine as were. And they went an extra mile by realizing that AdvSen and SuperFlex needed variables. So... Yay!...? I mean, my main completive list got bumped out by one point net change, but now I get other build decisions in it that I was wanting to play anyway, and only traded out one torpedo to do it.

But where I do disagree is Protorp. I don't argue it was performing verrrry wellllll. I'm still going to play it at 12pts, that hasn't made it unplayable. But what I'll play it on has changed drastically and I feel not for the better.

Protons were, and will now continue to be, the staple torp ordinance of high Initiative pilots. Or at least of pilots with specific abilities to use them, like Redline or Dutch. But they have never been a great option on lower initiative, less ability laden pilots. It has never, first or second edition, been a good idea to put torps on a low ps/init pilot. With this price tag it would be plain stupid. Not without a ridiculously complex combo setup that I don't think exists yet.

My argument is this: Proton Torpedoes, maybe most or all ordinance, should be priced by initiative.

Thanks for your consideration.

Actually, I kind of like the idea of ordinance being priced to initiative, it would be useful in adding another layer of list-building strategy. Currently, I'm ok with the increase in torp cost, but the initiative idea is intriguing.

Price it by initiative, how valuable is Dutch now?

The fundamental issue is, correctly diagnosed, that high I pilots can reliably get them off while low I less so.

i don’t object to the idea of lock based munitions having an Initiative multiplier. But it also means that ona Y, for example, a better investment may be ion turret and gunner.

I'm okay with every change except the ones that now require to re-tool my two favorite Scum lists. 😂

I could get behind a sliding point cost for ordnance based on pilot initiative.

I don't actually think initiative based pricing is a good idea in general. Because just about everything gets better at higher initiative, so the argument never stops, and it doesn't actually work.

Like yeah, sure, you could put a 6 point Proton Torpedo on your Blue Squad T-65 and gush about how much value he provides, but you're not really going to do that. You're going to put it on an i2 E-wing and break the game with Experimental Scanners. Or on i2 Bombers and break the game with Jendon. And, believe me, you might think you want to live in a world where you can spam this card, but you really don't. We had the same thing in 1st Edition with Harpoons, and everyone hated it. Only Protons are better because you can fire them twice.

Initiative based pricing is a trap in general -- people will just play the card where it's best. That's what it should be priced for.

I find it interesting that after the drastic and warranted increase to 12 points, people still want to put them on everything. In 1st ed, homing missiles at 10 points equivalent were not used too often (harpoon missiles at 8 equivalent were of course everywhere). A few points here and there changes pilots and upgrades drastically in this game. I expect some of the drastic changes FFG has made in this update overshoot their mark. 12 point torps are still playable, but they will be more rare. This is good.

I think 12 points is fair. It’s 1.0 equivalent, harpoons + extra munitions, came to 6 points which doubles to the new 12. Given that double mods are harder to come by, and that there are still ways to counter torpedoes I’m ok with this change. It needed to go up 100% but at 12 it’s now a key piece of ordinance for specific ships rather than a staple on every ship that can take it.

Just my 2 cents

58 minutes ago, DR4CO said:

I don't actually think initiative based pricing is a good idea in general. Because just about everything gets better at higher initiative, so the argument never stops, and it doesn't actually work.

Like yeah, sure, you could put a 6 point Proton Torpedo on your Blue Squad T-65 and gush about how much value he provides, but you're not really going to do that. You're going to put it on an i2 E-wing and break the game with Experimental Scanners. Or on i2 Bombers and break the game with Jendon. And, believe me, you might think you want to live in a world where you can spam this card, but you really don't. We had the same thing in 1st Edition with Harpoons, and everyone hated it. Only Protons are better because you can fire them twice.

Initiative based pricing is a trap in general -- people will just play the card where it's best. That's what it should be priced for.

This.

While it's awkward to just run a basic X-Wing or B-Wing with Proton Torpedoes, I think that's a price I'm willing to pay to help prevent various abuses. Things like Jendon, E-Wing Torpedoes, [Fenn-coordinated] Dutch Vander's tricks, Targeting Synchronizer provide ways for various ships to cheat out Torpedoes at low initiative. This thwarts the purpose of reduced pricing on lower Init ships.

Those upgrades which got variable pricing in the latest update, they're all ones where low-init versions can't really be too abused.

• Squad Leader was wicked strong, and this is essentially just an across the board hike, with the recognition that it should be more expensive on higher Initiative.
• Primed Thrusters and the BB-type Astromechs got cheaper on low-init ships, but there's not really any way to truly abuse their effects. The effects are nice perks, but not much more.
• I suppose Supernatural Reflexes could be really potent, but there aren't likely to be many ships lower than Init 3 with the Force, and 8 points isn't too much of the discount off the old price.

//

There's also a negative aspect to large amounts of variable pricing, in terms of impenetrability and complexity. I think what we've got now is kinda fine, but much more really could bog things down.

2 hours ago, ForceSensitive said:

My argument is this: Proton Torpedoes, maybe most or all ordinance , should be priced by initiative.

I just don't think there's enough of a benefit to variable pricing on something like Ion or Concussion Missiles to be worth the effort. Kinda only Proton Torpedoes could be worth it. I personally don't think ProTorps really need it, but I wouldn't be upset if they did vary the price.

//

It also occurs to me that a set of prices could work like Supernatural Reflexes, with a non-linear grade, and repeated values. Suppose Ion Missiles were 3 points for anything other than Init 5 or 6, at 4 points. Suppose Proton Torpedoes at 9 points up to Init 3, Init 4-6 at 12. I mean, maybe. But I still think it's not worth it.

That's just like, my opinion, man. YMMV.

32 minutes ago, Dengar5 said:

I find it interesting that after the drastic and warranted increase to 12 points, people still want to put them on everything. In 1st ed, homing missiles at 10 points equivalent were not used too often (harpoon missiles at 8 equivalent were of course everywhere). A few points here and there changes pilots and upgrades drastically in this game. I expect some of the drastic changes FFG has made in this update overshoot their mark. 12 point torps are still playable, but they will be more rare. This is good.

I think a large part of why 1e Homing Missiles went unplayed was due to alternatives. Once Guidance Chips arrived (which marked the beginning of Ordnance actually being good), Plasma Torpedoes were 6 points equivalent, and were soon followed by Cruise at 6, and finally Harpoon at 8. With these alternative options so much cheaper, and bids and first player so important to ordnance lists, Homing never really fit in.

If stuff like Guidance Chips and Long Range Scanners came in without Plasma, Cruise, or Harpoon, there'd probably have been a bit more Homing play.

All ordinance should be priced according to the amount in the squad. One proton torp=12pts. Second proton torp = 14pts. Third Proton Torp = 16pts, etc.

The problem with ordinance is spamming them with crap like Jonus, or swarm tactics so you get trip6 alpha, etc. One barrage missile, not a problem. 5 of them rerolling with jonus = problem. So one barrage missile = 7pts, and each other one in the squad can go up 1 or 2pt cost. 9pts for a second, 11pts for a third, and so on. So by the time you get to your 4th barrage missile, you cant afford that 5th bomber.

7 hours ago, ForceSensitive said:

maybe most or all ordinance, should be priced by initiative.

Or maybe Intiative itself should be repriced.

Proton Torpedoes now cost what they cost in 1st Edition, and are still better than in 1st Edition.

Id have gone higher than 12pts personally.

2 hours ago, wurms said:

All ordinance should be priced according to the amount in the squad. One proton torp=12pts. Second proton torp = 14pts. Third Proton Torp = 16pts, etc.

The problem with ordinance is spamming them with crap like Jonus, or swarm tactics so you get trip6 alpha, etc. One barrage missile, not a problem. 5 of them rerolling with jonus = problem. So one barrage missile = 7pts, and each other one in the squad can go up 1 or 2pt cost. 9pts for a second, 11pts for a third, and so on. So by the time you get to your 4th barrage missile, you cant afford that 5th bomber.

I like this approach on a lot of things because so many problem squads over the years have been basically spamming one thing that's suddenly a bit too good.

The problem you need to fix is that points cost is used for scoring. So one of my bombers is worth more than an identical bomber... which one?

1 hour ago, TheCeilican said:

Proton Torpedoes now cost what they cost in 1st Edition, and are still better than in 1st Edition.

Id have gone higher than 12pts personally.

This is true, but equally there's an argument that Proton Torpedoes + Extra Munitions were overcosted in first edition, given how little they saw use once other ordnance came along.

They were just too difficult to fully mod with the requirement to spend the lock. Assuming you get two actions or a free focus after locking, it was very difficult to get re-rolls on blanks. Even taking Predator meant you could whiff on the roll and not be able to do much about it.

At 12 points, they're now expensive enough that I'm struggling to justify taking them on someone like Wedge or Luke, who end up just being too expensive for their agility and HP, even though they're both very good torp carriers.

3x PT Knaves are probably the scariest means combination of number of torps, ease of locks and full mods and HP/agility ratio (the max ProTorp Bombers you can field with Jendon is 3, and any higher number of torps in any list means no easy locks), but I feel like all it takes is some moderately competent flying to PS kill one of them before it becomes a problem.

Since we're at complex pricing:

Multiple Special weapons on the same ship should get a discount, I want a bwing with torps and 2 cannons for the options but I will only use 1 per round, so second and third weapon can be discounted.

10 minutes ago, Xeletor said:

Since we're at complex pricing:

Multiple Special weapons on the same ship should get a discount, I want a bwing with torps and 2 cannons for the options but I will only use 1 per round, so second and third weapon can be discounted.

Interesting... and thematic.

This would also lend platforms like B-Wings, TIE Bombers and Punishers to take multiple secondaries even though only one is used per round (and consequently allows all those pods on that plastic Punisher beast look like they are there for a stinking reason). Perhaps a sliding scale down for each secondary added to a single chassis might be an interesting game dynamic? and a game thematic? Would that be game problomatic?

...tried to get 'fanatic' in as well, but my grammar is struggling.

Where's my tea?

31 minutes ago, Xeletor said:

Since we're at complex pricing:

Multiple Special weapons on the same ship should get a discount, I want a bwing with torps and 2 cannons for the options but I will only use 1 per round, so second and third weapon can be discounted.

How do you work that in a way that isn't needlessly complicated, though? Is the discount applied to the total ship cost, or the upgrade itself?

If I add Homing Missiles to a Punisher, then Proton Torpedoes do I get the same discount as if I added Homing Missiles and then Ion Missiles (i.e a flat rate based simply on the number of special weapons: -3 points for 2 special weapons, -5 points for 3 special weapons etc)? Because if so, I'm getting drastically more for my points spend by adding the Ion Missiles.

If it's by upgrade, are you expecting some sort of formula that applies a rate based on number (eg. -0.25* per upgrade for 2 special weapons, -0.33* for 3 special weapons, -0.5* for 4 etc)? Because that would be a nightmare for the average player to try and list build around.

The way you've phrased it there, are you actually saying that literally the second weapon can be discounted? It sounds like you're suggesting if you add Proton Torpedoes first, you get no discount. But if you then add Homing Missiles, you get a discount on the Homing Missiles. If that were the case, you'd have the weird situation where you could get a bigger net discount based on the order you add things. What if I added Tractor Beam first, and then Torpedoes and the discount on Torpedoes was more than the cost of Tractor Beam? Even if you only wanted Torps, you'd be mad not to add Tractor Beam first because it would save you points.

To be perfectly honest, I think scaling on Initiative should be the absolute maximum level of complexity we get with variable pricing. Keeping track of anything beyond that is just too much, even with the app calculating points for you. It just requires too much in the way of mental gymnastics to conceptualise a list.

I don’t have an issue with the change. It feels in line with how much they value an extra dice. Part of why the YT-2400 didn’t come down as much.

It also helps close the gap of points gained from destroying or half points from ships that use them. Cheaper ships are now not getting as much of a boost for punching above their weight.

2 minutes ago, GuacCousteau said:

The way you've phrased it there, are you actually saying that literally the second weapon can be discounted? It sounds like you're suggesting if you add Proton Torpedoes first, you get no discount. But if you then add Homing Missiles, you get a discount on the Homing Missiles. If that were the case, you'd have the weird situation where you could get a bigger net discount based on the order you add things. What if I added Tractor Beam first, and then Torpedoes and the discount on Torpedoes was more than the cost of Tractor Beam? Even if you only wanted Torps, you'd be mad not to add Tractor Beam first because it would save you points.

Take a Jamming Beam first, and then reap cheaper upgrades.

10 hours ago, SabineKey said:

I could get behind a sliding point cost for ordnance based on pilot initiative.

Absolutely this. Given that they introduced initiative based costing, I'm incredibly disappointed that they DIDN'T apply it to the upgrade that has probably the single biggest swing in effectiveness based on initiative. Things like Primed Thrusters and Supernatural Reflexes at least *work* when you're too low init, but torps are just... nonfunctional in many cases if you don't move after your opponent.

1 minute ago, JJ48 said:

Take a Jamming Beam first, and then reap cheaper upgrades.

Yeah, I deliberately left Jamming Beam out of this because I would have to assume that, under such a system, Jamming Beam simply could not be 0 points. It would be absolutely broken because it really would be a means to simply make every other special weapon cheaper on any ship with a cannon slot.

6 minutes ago, GuacCousteau said:

If it's by upgrade, are you expecting some sort of formula that applies a rate based on number (eg. -0.25* per upgrade for 2 special weapons, -0.33* for 3 special weapons, -0.5* for 4 etc)? Because that would be a nightmare for the average player to try and list build around.

Just to spin off my own point even further, I realised that even this approach wouldn't work unless you applied a very carefully crafted rate progression.

Given the huge disparity in cost between some of the special weapons, you would absolutely run into a situation where the jump in discount tier from, say, -0.33* to -0.5* on the highest costing (Proton Torps) would be worth more points than adding a Tractor Beam (-6 off the Torps instead of -4, -1 off the tractor beams). Or, assuming that all discounts were rounded up, would simply be equal anyway.

I suppose the latter isn't a horrible case, given that the cost here is supposed to be the opportunity cost of when you actually get to use each special weapon, but still. Making Tractor Beam essentially free because you've got it on a ship that's also rocking a torp and a missile kinda makes sense when you maybe use that tractor beam once every other game.

But still, the complexity of implementing that is way beyond worth it.

True, it is too complicated. I only thought as far as “I want to take all these weapons without auto-losing for it”

Maybe for 2+ special weapons get 1 point off of each so jamming beam stays 0. Na that would mean 11 point torps for bwings

You could just say you pay for the two most expensive weapons, thus accounting for a potential bonus attack, and the rest are some other cost. Pay for the Proton and the HLC, throw an ion cannon in for a point.

My original thinking was that there would be a scale to ordinance based on initiative but I wasn't saying it should cost 6 as one said. The model in my head was like it's 8pts if you're a 3 or lower, then +2 for each additional init, cap at 14. I had thought of E-wings running hot with them as a potential problem.