You don't need to keep bumping this topic ... unless you are just hoping for another hapless victim to walk by and say "I don't think it's that bad" so that you can all bully them off the forum with delicious copy pasta again.

Pointing out logical fallacies and shameful whitewashing = bullying?

23 minutes ago, Dreadai said:

You don't need to keep bumping this topic ... unless you are just hoping for another hapless victim to walk by and say "I don't think it's that bad" so that you can all bully them off the forum with delicious copy pasta again.

It was still one of the higher ones for me, but not bumping is a fair point.
I also don't believe I bullied @ClassicalMoser off the forum because we continued on Reddit and had a nice, short exchange there.

4 hours ago, GreenDragoon said:

I want to use this moment to advertise the usage of the ignore function that this forum offers.

Yeah! We should ignore all those non-believers out there, who won't help us ban Handbrake Han!

FFG has got to listen to the people. We are the people!

6 minutes ago, Flybywiresystem said:

Yeah! We should ignore all those non-believers out there, who won't help us ban Handbrake Han!

FFG has got to listen to the people. We are the people!

Yeah! Non sequiturs! Woo-hoo!

3 hours ago, TheCeilican said:

Pointing out logical fallacies and shameful whitewashing = bullying?

Well, you may not have, but Archangel did dive straight into ad hominem attacks within , like, 2 posts into the thread.

Honestly, I don't care if people still want to keep going around about this. I've kinda gotten bored with the discussion because I've come to the conclusion that there is a fundamental difference in the opinion that certain mechanics should or should not exist in the game. As said, its not about him being too powerful, or can he be countered or not, its about "should these mechanics even exist in 2E. To which I repeat, "meh"

Until that is settled, there can't really be an agreement about FatHan. We are just talking past each other, with a few stooping to taking personal pot shots for some **** reason.

1 minute ago, Flybywiresystem said:

Yeah! We should ignore all those non-believers out there, who won't help us ban Handbrake Han!

FFG has got to listen to the people. We are the people!

Awesome use of a partial quote to completely misunderstand the content!

I agree

2 minutes ago, kris40k said:

Well, you may not have, but Archangel did dive straight into ad hominem attacks within , like, 2 posts into the thread.

Honestly, I don't care if people still want to keep going around about this. I've kinda gotten bored with the discussion because I've come to the conclusion that there is a fundamental difference in the opinion that certain mechanics should or should not exist in the game. As said, its not about him being too powerful, or can he be countered or not, its about "should these mechanics even exist in 2E. To which I repeat, "meh"

Until that is settled, there can't really be an agreement about FatHan. We are just talking past each other, with a few stooping to taking personal pot shots for some **** reason.

How can it be a personal attack when I dont even know you? I was pointing out my experience with 40K players, if you take it personally, well that's on you. I asked a genuine question when I asked, "A re you one of those players that need broken combos to win?" Which you haven't answered by the way.

When all you can add is Meh, it is no wonder your opinion is discarded to the insignificant pile.

8 minutes ago, Archangelspiv said:

Awesome use of a partial quote to completely misunderstand the content!

That's right! All those guys out there, who completely misunderstand contests by playing Handbrake Han at a tournament should be... asked to play something else in a friendly way.

I would have written "stoned to death", but I do not believe in violence, unless it's between plastic spaceships.

Nerf Han already! For the mission and a better world!

Just now, Flybywiresystem said:

That's right! All those guys out there, who completely misunderstand contests by playing Handbrake Han at a tournament should be... asked to play something else in a friendly way.

I would have written "stoned to death", but I do not believe in violence, unless it's between plastic spaceships.

Nerf Han already! For the mission and a better world!

One more time in English please.

I think he is a bit but hurt because he asked about Fat Han back in February - before the rule change.

That makes his behavior even more hypocritical as 1) he already back then got the answer that Han is viable and 2) he should have been aware of the impact that the KananID interaction had.

He even suggested a very fat Han himself, with R2, Luke, Trickshot. Lando was mentioned as other option, and the strength of i6 arcdodging was pointed out.

I'd like to add another potential reason why fat Han is disliked, though I'm not so sure about it and would like some thoughts:

Han requires the player to compromise his own fun and the fun of his opponent in exchange for a good tournament run. We always emphasize that it is the correct choice to take a strong list, and it is. But this list, unlike quad phantoms, is not even fun to play. Fat Han could be seen as representative for reintroduced 2.0 WAAC lists, and that fans the flames of heated discussion.

Is it fun to play him? Does Han reward those who put results above fun while playing?

Of course it's no fun to play Fat Han! To **** with that ship!

Nerf Han already.

3 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

Is it fun to play him? Does Han reward those who put results above fun while playing?

That's... tricky. I don't have fun using it, so I've shelved it and without even taking it to a big tournament. That doesn't mean that others don't have fun with it. Some people have fun swinging baseball bats at mailboxes (not implying these are the same people here folks!) so the question of "is it fun" does not provide a straight answer.

7 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

Is it fun to play him? Does Han reward those who put results above fun while playing?

Who cares?

Obviously we are the ones to decide what's fun and what isn't! That's why we are trying to get this game changed for a greater good and for the whole community.

People should be grateful, because we are trying to get rid of a huge NPE here.

3 minutes ago, LagJanson said:

That's... tricky. I don't have fun using it, so I've shelved it and without even taking it to a big tournament. That doesn't mean that others don't have fun with it. Some people have fun swinging baseball bats at mailboxes (not implying these are the same people here folks!) so the question of "is it fun" does not provide a straight answer.

That's fair and good to point out. There are people who genuinely liked Jumpmasters, or Defenders, or Redline. But I'd guess that they are about as frequent as those liking FatHan.

I mean, personally, I was extremely glad about the 5 Awings becoming so viable again. So I know what it feels like to be in that hipster-y group of people who genuinely like something that suddenly becomes cool.

edit: my question is also tricky because ultimately I ask how people perceive it - and that's yet again different from whether it is or isn't fun.

I can imagine this Han is pretty fun to play with. You're constantly getting to make decisions and are pretty consistently going to be rewarded for making them correctly.

8 minutes ago, LagJanson said:

so the question of "is it fun" does not provide a straight answer

Yeah, like mentioned before, I don't like jousting, I think its, and I mean this not directed at anyone, a braindead less engaging(?) way to play the game, but I don't begrudge those that like forming up blocks and flying at each other. Its a legitimate tactic .

5 minutes ago, TheCeilican said:

I can imagine this Han is pret  ty fun to play with. You're constantly getting to make decisions and are pretty consistently going to be rewarded for making them correctly.

This is one of the things why I liked playing against people running SNR Vader before it got jacked, and the "just put him wherever" version of Kylo that people bitched about. I enjoy setting traps, giving them multiple choices, all of them bad, and seeing what they choose. Sure, there is always going to be one choice that is least bad, and a good opponent will find that option, a better one surprises me with something I didn't see, but its fun when they don't and you get to spring the trap. Apparently, some feel that relying on your opponent to make a mistake to lose the game is loss of agency, but I don't feel the same way.

10 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

I was extremely glad about the 5 RZ-2 A-wings becoming so viable again .

Fixed because the current viable in-mass A-Wing isn't the RZ-1 so again doesn't apply. They are quite different in how they need to be flown to be effective.

7 minutes ago, kris40k said:

Apparently, some feel that relying on your opponent to make a mistake to lose the game is loss of agency, but I don't feel the same way.

That's cool.

Relying on your opponent to make a mistake because the only chance you've got to win is that they make a mistake is a pretty great definition of loss of agency, though. Like: a textbook definition.

Just now, TheCeilican said:

That's cool.

Relying on your opponent to make a mistake because the only chance you've got to win is that they make a mistake is a pretty great definition of loss of agency, though. Like: a textbook definition.

Well, the best chance to win is going to final salvo against a 5-die list, but that's kinda boring for everyone, settings traps and seeing what the opponent can do is more fun.

5 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:

Fixed because the current viable in-mass A-Wing isn't the RZ-1 so again doesn't apply. They are quite different in how they need to be flown to be effective.

Sure, but I can assure you I/we went into the list with the feeling of 'yay, awings!' The realization of different playstyle came after. Usually that distinction wouldn't matter, but I think it does here.

9 minutes ago, kris40k said:

Apparently  , some feel that relying on your opponent to make a mistake to lose the game is loss of ag  ency, but I don't feel the same way. 

As one of those the some in question: it is an unintuitive argument, and I have a hard time explaining it.

The most important distinction is the one between forced and unforced errors, and that line is not entirely objective. An unambiguous example for an unforced error is to fly your ship off the board on turn 3.

But the situation you describe is clearly a forced error - a choice between less-than-ideal options. I think that subject can turn into a very interesting discussion

Just now, kris40k said:

Well, the best chance to win is going to final salvo against a 5-die list, but that's kinda boring for everyone, settings traps and seeing what the opponent can do is more fun.

You don't get to decide if you go to final salvo, that takes two players and he's got a very good chance at half-pointing one of your ships before you half point a Han that regenerates.

4 minutes ago, TheCeilican said:

You don't get to decide if you go to final salvo, that takes two players and he's got a very good chance at half-pointing one of your ships before you half point a Han that regenerates.

Yes, but the game starts with the Han player losing. The onus is on him to come to you and score points or lose. From Turn 0, that should be realized and accounted for with obstacle placement, ship placement and how you engage. Whether or not you can get Han to half + 1 (he can only regen 1 shield) in the exchange is debatable depending on lists, how its played out, etc. That's where the game is. Now, most people like rolling red dice and blowing up ships, which I can appreciate, and I don't think 2-ship point fortresses/pinatas feel good to people that like blowing up ships.

7 minutes ago, kris40k said:

Yes, but the game starts with the Han player losing. The onus is on him to come to you and score points or lose. From Turn 0, that should be realized and accounted for with obstacle placement, ship placement and how you engage. Whether or not you can get Han to half + 1 (he can only regen 1 shield) in the exchange is debatable depending on lists, how its played out, etc. That's where the game is. Now, most people like rolling red dice and blowing up ships, which I can appreciate, and I don't think 2-ship point fortresses/pinatas feel good to people that like blowing up ships.

This has been tried and it didn’t work, although Ben Lee got close in the top 8 at the System Open. He fortressed his quad phantoms for most of the game until he was forced to commit.