15 minutes ago, Arma Quattro said:

It's supposed to be a freighter.

Not a starfighter.

Stop whining and leave that horror in the past where it belongs, along with zuckuss pre-nerf of the 1.0.

So because it's a freighter it has to be terrible? That makes no sense.

Actually it is also a mediocre freighter.

Lore-wise only the Punishing One was better due to Dengar's improved awareness, all the modifications and the targeting droid.

Other than that it was just a cargo ship with a turret and mediocre handling due to its asymmetrical configuration.

And yes, it has to be terrible. Despite some examples the ships in 2.0 actually have a feel regarding how they should act in the game. Fast and maneuverable ships are well.. fast and maneuverable.

So are slow and tanky ones. Let's just hope that things stay that way and no other plethora-of-upgrade-slots-with-awesome-dial monster shows up.

The reign of the toilet seats has come to an end. (At last). 😁

If it's terrible it should also be cheap to make up for it, that's how this game works. The trouble is that I don't think you can *ever* make it cheap enough to not be terrible without making it so cheap that spammed ones are hopelessly OP. Because for the statline/action/weapon/dial combo, you probably have to go sub 40 points to make it cheap enough, and 5 of them would be a hopelessly terrible experience to fly against.

Theres a lot of experiential bias here against a ship that bares no likeness to its 1e version beyond a plastic model and a name. This isn't the same ship, nor the same game. This version has been bet into the ground as if to pay some kind of awkward apology for a mistake in the design of the 1e Scout. In doing so, the ship doesn't feel like "not a fighter" or a "mediocre freighter", it feels like a bad design for the sake of making a bad design that will please the braying masses and their selective memories.

Every other ship in the game has some redeeming features, even the bad ones by meta standards. This ship does not have anything. I'm not saying I desperately want to fly it, and nobody is saying they want it overpowered again, but given that it's a unit thousands of people have spent money on to play - regardless of what its position or background is according to some old lore text - then surely it's worth some folks getting over themselves and admitting that THIS 2e version, NOT the 1e version, needs some absolute raw basics to rescue the chassis. Nobody is asking for a new Agromech and a weird torpedo interaction, but maybe a **** gunner slot for the turret? Literally just that would be an actual quality of life improvement, and one it would still have to pay for. Isn't this the entire point of 2e? Fixing the mistakes so every ship has a chance, not making more because some folks can't let their 3 year old losses go?

/rant

25 minutes ago, NakedDex said:

Theres a lot of experiential bias here against a ship that bares no likeness to its 1e version beyond a plastic model and a name. This isn't the same ship, nor the same game. This version has been bet into the ground as if to pay some kind of awkward apology for a mistake in the design of the 1e Scout. In doing so, the ship doesn't feel like "not a fighter" or a "mediocre freighter", it feels like a bad design for the sake of making a bad design that will please the braying masses and their selective memories.

Every other ship in the game has some redeeming features, even the bad ones by meta standards. This ship does not have anything. I'm not saying I desperately want to fly it, and nobody is saying they want it overpowered again, but given that it's a unit thousands of people have spent money on to play - regardless of what its position or background is according to some old lore text - then surely it's worth some folks getting over themselves and admitting that THIS 2e version, NOT the 1e version, needs some absolute raw basics to rescue the chassis. Nobody is asking for a new Agromech and a weird torpedo interaction, but maybe a **** gunner slot for the turret? Literally just that would be an actual quality of life improvement, and one it would still have to pay for. Isn't this the entire point of 2e? Fixing the mistakes so every ship has a chance, not making more because some folks can't let their 3 year old losses go?

/rant

Gunner slot doesn't actually help the turret much, even with the good Scum gunners, because the good Scum gunners depend on stress (Bossk) and having the turret in the right place in the first place (Dengar) and stress (Han). Being able to put Agile Gunner on it would be aboon though.

But honestly, I concur with the general point herte, that people need to let their 3 year old losses go. X Wing is lousy with sunk costs fallacies at the best of times, but this is a big one - you got your Jumpmasters for more than a year, they were the best ship in the game by a mile, for more than a year. Which is more than can be said for a whole laundry list of ships which were always mediocre at best even after multiple fixes (Scyks, Kihraxes, etc), so... you know, time to let it go.

On 3/29/2019 at 4:02 AM, Ablazoned said:

JM5K broke X-Wing 1.0. it's spending time in the naughty corner for now.

FFG did not know how to balance torpedoes properly and it was by accident they made the jumpmaster the best platform for torpedoes when they should have gave the EPT slot to the TIE Punisher to include the Black Eight Squadron pilot.

Punish the company for the bad decision, not the models and subsequently the players.

3 hours ago, Arma Quattro said:

**** 5 toilet seats. 45 hp to chew through. And large bases.

Back in 1E it was brutal to see my Aces raped by dengar and zuckuss. Absolutely brutal. And people claimed about being good players with that crap. Utter garbage.

Sorry for the hate, mind that it is nothing personal against any of you guys! 😁

They're 46 points at base level, which maxes them at 4 with almost no room for any upgrades. That's 36 hit points - not 45 - which can easily be achieved by other builds that don't have such awful action economy, or have such a hard time trying to line up a shot. Top of my head; 6x Bombers, 4x of which have Proton Bombs. 36 hit points, but an extra two attacks per round, plus proton bombs to deal with swarms. Drop a Proton to stick on two Seimics for more control.

With large base ships you won't squeeze in four of anything, but you will get 3x Upsilons with 4 attack primaries or 3x StarFortress with 3 attack primaries and 2 attack bowtie turrets with a white rotate action. Both have 36 hit points and both have more than enough points left over to kit them out or upgrade pilots.

You need to check your hatred of the 1e ship at the entrance door to 2e. They're not the same games or ships, are not comparable, and your experience is heavily biasing your opinion. If you think it isn't, here's a task for you: without referencing anything from 1e - experiences or stats - look at the ship in it's current state and tell me why it should not be reworked to bring it to basic usable levels.

It should. The only way it will is points and as noted above to make single one cheap enough to not suck you need to make it less than 40 points. Which is why the concept of 5 is being discussed.

Yeah. Would you take a scout for 41??

I think it’s pretty close to an X at that point.

With no errata I think that’s a solid price point. With white rotate hmmmmmm.

19 minutes ago, Blail Blerg said:

Yeah. Would you take a scout for 41??

I think it’s pretty close to an X at that point.

With no errata I think that’s a solid price point. With white rotate hmmmmmm.

For 41, probably not. It's just too awkward to fly, compared to the Lando Falcon.

The ideal solution would be a significant points discount for the scout and two or three dots beside the name so you can't have more than that many. FFG seem to want to avoid card text errata though.

I still think a gunner slot makes sense (I'd argue it's what the Shadowcaster needs, too). I don't think any gunner will significantly boost that 2 attack single arc turret to a point where it's an issue, but at least Agile Gunner will give a vague degree of improvement to the horrendous action bar.

I'd love for it to get another crew. With the P1 title you will be the only scum ship to have astro/crew combo.

I think that would give it something special that makes it worth taking over other ships.

3 hours ago, Blail Blerg said:

Yeah. Would you take a scout for 41??

I think it’s pretty close to an X at that point.

With no errata I think that’s a solid price point. With white rotate hmmmmmm.

41 sounds good. The scout defo cannot be lower then 41 as 5 would be broken. Dengar at 53 would look very interesting aswell.

Sooo much errata addiction in this thread...

7 minutes ago, K13R4N said:

I'd love for it to get another crew. With the P1 title you will be the only scum ship to have astro/crew combo.

I think that would give it something special that makes it worth taking over other ships.

41 sounds good. The scout defo cannot be lower then 41 as 5 would be broken. Dengar at 53 would look very interesting aswell.

Honestly I think Dengar should be at 50, maybe lower. Let him be the shiny bauble that can make it into a nice 4 ship list and let the rest just sit in the hangar. You don’t want an overpowered jumpmaster generic, but a balanced ace would do wonders for scum.

3 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:

Sooo much errata addiction in this thread...

I mean, the literal design principle of 2e was based around being able to rebalance ships and upgrades that are too good or not good enough. It's not really errata addiction so much as using the available tools: point cost and upgrade slot adjustments.

@NakedDex sorry to break your bubble but I'd like to leave clear that the "5 toilets seats" statement was pointed at the POSSIBILITY of having them after a points cost reduction. I am perfectly aware of all the other large base ships you mentioned. (And despise them all wholeheartedly)

Regarding 1e and 2e: I am positive that there are other ships even more terrible than the jumpmaster.. let's have a chat about the Tie Aggressor, shall we? Or the Lancer Class Pursuit Craft..😏😁

regarding the task that you have addressed me with: it is not a ship I use (or have used) and as far as it concerns me it can dwell in its dark corner as long as possible.

Farewell jumpy *waves*

Just now, NakedDex said:

I mean, the literal design principle of 2e was based around being able to rebalance ships and upgrades that are too good or not good enough. It's not really errata addiction so much as using the available tools: point cost and upgrade slot adjustments.

My comment is directed at the plethora of others calling for changes that would have to be covered by an errata of the pilots. What is possible without having to errata the pilot cards is adjust the points and slots. Everything else suggested here requires the cards be redone... Errata addiction, plain and simple.

6 minutes ago, Arma Quattro said:

Or the Lancer Class Pursuit Craft..

@Oldpara might want to have a word with you on that one. Made cut in Chicago with:

Ketsu Onyo (70)
Fearless (3)
Maul (11)
Shadow Caster (6)

Old Teroch (56)
Predator (2)

Talonbane Cobra (50)
Predator (2)
Total: 200

8 minutes ago, Arma Quattro said:

Regarding 1e and 2e: I am positive that there are other ships even more terrible than the jumpmaster.. let's have a chat about the Tie Aggressor, shall we? Or the Lancer Class Pursuit Craft..😏😁

I'd happily take either the TIE Aggressor or the Lancer over a JumpMaster right now. Kestal with Ruthless and Barrage Rockets is 44 points (2 points less than a Contract Scout with no upgrades) and can seriously threaten any ship that relies on its green dice to survive. The Shadowport Hunter clocks in at 60 points (14 points more than a Contracted Scout) but gets an extra red dice, an additional mobile arc, a hugely better dial (blue and white turns in both directions!), and an additional point of health (admittedly with the caveat of a slightly worse hull/shield ratio). Either of those sounds like a much better deal than a ship that's been one of the worst dials and attack profiles in the game.

9 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:

My comment is directed at the plethora of others calling for changes that would have to be covered by an errata of the pilots. What is possible without having to errata the pilot cards is adjust the points and slots. Everything else suggested here requires the cards be redone... Errata addiction, plain and simple.

Fair enough. With the points and upgrade slots being variable now, I don't see any cause for (or likelihood of) text errata happening any time soon. There's surely enough in that to help it out of the doldrums.

17 minutes ago, Arma Quattro said:

@NakedDex sorry to break your bubble but I'd like to leave clear that the "5 toilets seats" statement was pointed at the POSSIBILITY of having them after a points cost reduction. I am perfectly aware of all the other large base ships you mentioned. (And despise them all wholeheartedly)

Regarding 1e and 2e: I am positive that there are other ships even more terrible than the jumpmaster.. let's have a chat about the Tie Aggressor, shall we? Or the Lancer Class Pursuit Craft..😏😁

regarding the task that you have addressed me with: it is not a ship I use (or have used) and as far as it concerns me it can dwell in its dark corner as long as possible.

Farewell jumpy *waves*

I didn't see the link to the points being dropped to 40, that's my bad. It does seem odd you'd despise other large base ships just because they can be fielded in groups of three though. Curious as to why?

The Jumpy is definitely the worst. Aggressor needs love, but it's certainly not in the same rank as the Jumpy. Ditto the Lancer which really just needs either a points review or a gunner slot. Otherwise it's not bad.

It's a shame you're willing to condemn a ship based on experiences in a different game. Especially when we have the potential to fix the mistakes now.

33 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:

@Oldpara might want to have a word with you on that one. Made cut in Chicago with:

Ketsu Onyo (70)
Fearless (3)
Maul (11)
Shadow Caster (6)

Old Teroch (56)
Predator (2)

Talonbane Cobra (50)
Predator (2)
Total: 200

Okay. So?

Is it again the almost indestructible tank of days now gone? No it is not -- and we're all grateful for that.

26 minutes ago, Jarval said:

I'd happily take either the TIE Aggressor or the Lancer over a JumpMaster right now. Kestal with Ruthless and Barrage Rockets is 44 points (2 points less than a Contract Scout with no upgrades) and can seriously threaten any ship that relies on its green dice to survive. The Shadowport Hunter clocks in at 60 points (14 points more than a Contracted Scout) but gets an extra red dice, an additional mobile arc, a hugely better dial (blue and white turns in both directions!), and an additional point of health (admittedly with the caveat of a slightly worse hull/shield ratio). Either of those sounds like a much better deal than a ship that's been one of the worst dials and attack profiles in the game.

The Lancer is undoubtedly a better ship than the jm5k only held back by its action economy and its cost. Point is -- and it has been al along in this thread -- that people ask for upgrades and point cost reduction in hopes to return to a performance level that will near those 'good old days'.

As @NakedDex pointed out, it's a new game. Leave aside my bias against that ship (🤣). The jumpmaster had the same firepower of a tie fighter, just with a 360° arc. Now with the turrets being limited to a single/dual arc rotated by action it struggles to keep up.

But as I pointed out before the ships are also more 'categorized' and well defined in their roles. Before it was a Jack of all trades with a plethora of upgrade slots. Now it is a filler ship that can see some use.

It's. A. Freighter. D a m n' it. You can't pretend to joust a Tie Defender with a bloody cargo ship lol.

Point reduction? Fine.

More upgrades? Fine, be my guest.

As written above, everything could be done for the sake of game balance. Just don't expect miracles nor ships taken out of their context. Furthermore, I don't want the Tie V1 or the Aggressor to be OP, just not a joke anymore.😏😁

Is my point clear now?

I don't know, I don't buy the freighter argument. A sizeable chunk of the ships in the game are being used outside design frame spec. The Firespray is a patrol craft, not a dogfighter. The YT1300 is a freighter and it appears regularly in multiple faction lists. The Hwk is a transport ship/light freighter and it too is regularly in use as a control ship. Being a freighter just means it's big and maybe a bit awkward to turn, but I don't see why that means it should be intrinsically bad. It should be at a disadvantage to something like a dedicated superiority fighter, but the Falcon survived attacking and being attacked by how many line Fighters across the various movies? The Ghost? I'd be the first to stand behind you and say that its weird how converted freighters are surviving attacks from heavily armed escort fighters, but it seems to be standard practice in this universe.

Surely what we want is for all ships to be at least (somewhat) viable within the game? As things stand, the JumpMaster is probably the worst value for its points of any ship around, particularly when compared with other similar ships. It's very hard to see what meaningful benefit you get from a JumpMaster over the Scum YT-1300, for example, but there's a host of ways in which it's worse.

There are freighters, light medium and heavy.

If you notice, the scum YT 1300 has the same attack stats being a bit more resilient.

Han Solo's Millennium Falcon was heavily modified by him and that's why it doesn't share the same stats. Here I consider that we have a small design mistake as it should have a title card like the HWK to bump up the primary weapon value up to three.

Speaking of the hwk specifically, it shouldn't have a primary weapon value of 3 EVER. But well, even 1 like in 1e was ... ridiculous yet appropriate.

@NakedDex regarding the hwk being used for control well, that is a different issue brought along by pilot abilities and upgrades. Bear in mind that control mechanics are relative to xwing only and share just a few things with the star wars lore.

As a matter of fact the Tractor Beam would be the ultimate NPE 😁😉. If you have played Tie Fighter you know what I am talking about.