On 6/12/2019 at 8:54 PM, thespaceinvader said:

I've posted on this before, but my preferred fix is to make the chassis 2-dot limited (i.e. no more than 2 Jumpmasters in any list) and then tank the prices.

Failing that, just make the Scout unique. ANd tank the prices.

I really, really don't want to see a precedent set of publishing fix cards for existing ships. That was probably the worst part of 1e for an awful lot of people.

I wouldn't mind certain pilots being limited but I would hate a ship that previously wasn't limited to suddenly be limited. And while I personally think fix/extra content packs would be ok, I can see why lots if people wouldn't, and I don't think FFG would do that sort of thing until they had re-released everything (and they said no re-release would contain new content, just new sculpts/paint jobs at most)

On 6/12/2019 at 12:54 PM, thespaceinvader said:

I've posted on this before, but my preferred fix is to make the chassis 2-dot limited (i.e. no more than 2 Jumpmasters in any list) and then tank the prices.

Failing that, just make the Scout unique. ANd tank the prices.

I really, really don't want to see a precedent set of publishing fix cards for existing ships. That was probably the worst part of 1e for an awful lot of people.

How does making this chassis 2-dot limited OR making the scout unique actually help the situation? And who are these “awful lot of people” bc I thought most “fix cards” faction immaterial were good for the game. Why make a game where you can’t publish corrections?

1 minute ago, MUrunner20 said:

How does making this chassis 2-dot limited OR making the scout unique actually help the situation?

It would allow the price to go low enough that the ship is actually worth bringing, while preventing ridiculous spam. Because they're honestly worse than, say, a generic X-wing, but costing them as such would allow 5 large bases (with barrel roll) on a table at once. That would devolve immediately into an endless bump fest and be entirely miserable for all concerned. Not to mention asking people to kill 45 hit points behind 2 agility in 75 minutes might be a bit much.

1 hour ago, DR4CO said:

It would allow the price to go low enough that the ship is actually worth bringing, while preventing ridiculous spam. Because they're honestly worse than, say, a generic X-wing, but costing them as such would allow 5 large bases (with barrel roll) on a table at once. That would devolve immediately into an endless bump fest and be entirely miserable for all concerned. Not to mention asking people to kill 45 hit points behind 2 agility in 75 minutes might be a bit much.

I fully acknowledge you point and agree 1000000% I don’t want to see 5 large bases of ANYTHING on the table. However, since I have never played Rebels please correct me, you can now run 4 naked basic U-Wings with 28 pts to kit out with 3 dice primary, 2 agility, 32 Hull total, arguable better upgrades, and a clearly superior dial vs 4 naked scouts, -1 attack price, 4 more hull, worse upgrades, horrendous dial, and only 18 points to kit. I know this is a very specific case but should there be this much of a difference. I also know this ship caused a lot of problems in 1E but it would be nice to for all ships to be playable.

4 hours ago, MUrunner20 said:

How does making this chassis 2-dot limited OR making the scout unique actually help the situation? And who are these “awful lot of people” bc I thought most “fix cards” faction immaterial were good for the game. Why make a game where you can’t publish corrections?

It doesn't. Making them cheaper does. But you can't make them cheaper enough without changing their limited status somehow.

And no I don't have strong evidence for that statement. I don't know what you're expecting there really.

13 hours ago, MUrunner20 said:

I fully acknowledge you point and agree 1000000% I don’t want to see 5 large bases of ANYTHING on the table. However, since I have never played Rebels please correct me, you can now run 4 naked basic U-Wings with 28 pts to kit out with 3 dice primary, 2 agility, 32 Hull total, arguable better upgrades, and a clearly superior dial vs 4 naked scouts, -1 attack price, 4 more hull, worse upgrades, horrendous dial, and only 18 points to kit. I know this is a very specific case but should there be this much of a difference. I also know this ship caused a lot of problems in 1E but it would be nice to for all ships to be playable.

To be fair, 4 Lambdas has always been legal, which has more health, twice as many arcs, white coordinate, and is actually a large base.

Can't maneuver worth anything though so it's not that much better for spamming than a Jump. Plus I doubt there are many people sitting on 4 Lambda models because it's never really been an archetype.

11 hours ago, thespaceinvader said:

It doesn't. Making them cheaper does. But you can't make them cheaper enough without changing their limited status somehow.

Then by that reasoning all ships that could potentially be problem should be limited... phantoms? Torrents? Other meta related ships? Or are you purely scared of the JM5K from 1E?

11 hours ago, thespaceinvader said:

And no I don't have strong evidence for that statement. I don't know what you're expecting there really

I was purely looking for substance behind your statement which you stated you weren’t able to provide.

50 minutes ago, ClassicalMoser said:

To be fair, 4 Lambdas has always been legal, which has more health, twice as many arcs, white coordinate, and is actually a large base.

Valid point and I’ll fully admit I don’t know all the other factions large base ships that are in a similar situation. I’ve never flown 4 large base ships, most i’ve ever flown is 2, so I truly understand the hesitation of making them so cheap. I just want to be able to fly any ship and have my opponent consider the ship rather than laughing at it. I don’t understand the point of designing a ship and not see it on the table and this goes for all factions.

Yes, I think that would be a useful solution for a number of ships and upgrades which are too expensive but become too powerful and or oppressive when spammed.

I even put a post up about it the other week.

Including but not limited to Phantoms defenders juke and potentially some torpedoes and missiles.

1 hour ago, ClassicalMoser said:

To be fair, 4 Lambdas has always been legal, which has more health, twice as many arcs, white coordinate, and is actually a large base.

Can't maneuver worth anything though so it's not that much better for spamming than a Jump. Plus I doubt there are many people sitting on 4 Lambda models because it's never really been an archetype.

Now I really want to try this:

Lieutenant Sai (47)
ST-321 (4)

Ship total: 51 Half Points: 26 Threshold: 5

Colonel Jendon (46)
Ship total: 46 Half Points: 23 Threshold: 5

Omicron Group Pilot (43)
Director Krennic (5)
Grand Moff Tarkin (6)

Ship total: 54 Half Points: 27 Threshold: 5

Omicron Group Pilot (43)
Death Troopers (6)

Ship total: 49 Half Points: 25 Threshold: 5


Total: 200

View in Yet Another Squad Builder 2.0: https://raithos.github.io/?f=Galactic Empire&d=v6!s=200!166:,,,,,162:;167:,,,,,:;168:,,28,34,,:;168:,,27,,,:&sn=Unnamed Squadron&obs=

1 minute ago, PhantomFO said:

Now I really want to try this:

Lieutenant Sai (47)
ST-321 (4)

Ship total: 51 Half Points: 26 Threshold: 5

Colonel Jendon (46)
Ship total: 46 Half Points: 23 Threshold: 5

Omicron Group Pilot (43)
Director Krennic (5)
Grand Moff Tarkin (6)

Ship total: 54 Half Points: 27 Threshold: 5

Omicron Group Pilot (43)
Death Troopers (6)

Ship total: 49 Half Points: 25 Threshold: 5


Total: 200

View in Yet Another Squad Builder 2.0: https://raithos.github.io/?f=Galactic Empire&d=v6!s=200!166:,,,,,162:;167:,,,,,:;168:,,28,34,,:;168:,,27,,,:&sn=Unnamed Squadron&obs=

I really want to try Sai/RAC for the double-reinforce double-lock every turn and 4 arcs. Add Jerjerrod and it has way more speed than it has any right to have...

7 minutes ago, PhantomFO said:

Now I really want to try this:

Lieutenant Sai (47)
ST-321 (4)
Ship total: 51 Half Points: 26 Threshold: 5

Colonel Jendon (46)
Ship total: 46 Half Points: 23 Threshold: 5

Omicron Group Pilot (43)
Director Krennic (5)
Grand Moff Tarkin (6)
Ship total: 54 Half Points: 27 Threshold: 5

Omicron Group Pilot (43)
Death Troopers (6)
Ship total: 49 Half Points: 25 Threshold: 5

Total: 200

Make room for FCS on all of them somehow, and you got a fun Jank list there. Gas clouds seem like a must.

1 hour ago, ClassicalMoser said:

To be fair, 4 Lambdas has always been legal, which has more health, twice as many arcs, white coordinate, and is actually a large base.

Can't maneuver worth anything though so it's not that much better for spamming than a Jump. Plus I doubt there are many people sitting on 4 Lambda models because it's never really been an archetype.

I am sitting on 4 Jumps and never flew triple jumps as they'd been nerfed twice by the time I'd joined the community. I'd love it if I could put them all on the table with torpedos at least.

16 minutes ago, Scum4Life said:

I am sitting on 4 Jumps and never flew triple jumps as they'd been nerfed twice by the time I'd joined the community. I'd love it if I could put them all on the table with torpedos at least.

2 more points down and you can, or 1 down and 1 from ATP or Ions.

2 hours ago, ClassicalMoser said:

2 more points down and you can, or 1 down and 1 from ATP or Ions.

Maybe Plasma torps depending on their price. Although, I don't see those being cheaper than Ions or ATP.

3 minutes ago, 5050Saint said:

Maybe Plasma torps depending on their price. Although, I don't see those being cheaper than Ions or ATP.

No way. Less than 8-9 would be too cheap.

16 minutes ago, ClassicalMoser said:

No way. Less than 8-9 would be too cheap.

My vote is for that price as well. In theory, they look like a well balanced torp.

On 6/14/2019 at 12:22 PM, MUrunner20 said:

Then by that reasoning all ships that could potentially be problem should be limited... phantoms? Torrents? Other meta related ships? Or are you purely scared of the JM5K from 1E?

It wouldn't be a terrible way to fix some things. Given the Choke-and-Cloak Whisper nerfs (price and crew/gunner), I don't think a single Phantom is really a problem anymore. However, big groups of them kind of are. Maybe the right way is to nerf the prices, but limiting Phantoms to two per list potentially allows them to exist without getting cost increases, but breaks up a list which needs to be broken up.

It probably doesn't work for every ship type which is a problem, but in theory I don't think it's a bad tool for FFG to consider using.

Limiting the number of a given ship is definitely another useful axis to tweak power levers on top of slots and costs.

Multiple other games that eschew org charts do the same thing to prevent spamming of things that are good.

Incorporating it on the point documents would be relatively easy.

4 hours ago, Octarine-08 said:

Limiting the number of a given ship is definitely another useful axis to tweak power levers on top of slots and costs.

Multiple other games that eschew org charts do the same thing to prevent spamming of things that are good.

Incorporating it on the point documents would be relatively easy.

Problem is if a ship/pilot/upgrade is limited but undercosted it will become an auto include in lists.

Surely it's better to have things limited for list building such as named pilots or the dotted pilots Hyena pilots/handmaidens etcetera or even the Solitary upgrades.

And then make sure all those upgrades are balanced points wise rather than smashing the points into the ground and saying well it's limited so it can't be spammed this won't be broken, which I just don't agree with.

Maybe have each ship type increase in points cost for each multiple you have but that just busts single or mainly single ship swarms and encourages Tie salad/Rebel Beef UXBY style lists

2 hours ago, Scum4Life said:

Problem is if a ship/pilot/upgrade is limited but undercosted it will become an auto include in lists.

Exactly this. Either a ship is worth its points or it isn't. There are exceptions for force multiplier like Juke and Howlrunner where the second and 3rd give you more value than the first. I wouldn't mind seeing Juke erratated to be limited, honestly, because the effect of multiple juking ships is extremely powerful but a single Juke isn't really worth 5 points.

But for ships in general, I fear the "Drop prices and limit" approach because then it makes it a better value than it's worth and becomes autoinclude unless there's a substantial reason not to have it.

It's not about undercosted it's about correctly costed. My assertion is that it is impossible to cost jumps (And defenders and phantoms and Juke) correctly at the moment. Jumps cannot be cheap enough without going under 40 points, but 5 jumps would be an oppressive unenjoyable mess.

Jumps cannot ever be other than underpowered and terrible as they are, without errata.

On 6/16/2019 at 4:45 AM, thespaceinvader said:

My assertion is that it is impossible to cost jumps (And defenders and phantoms and Juke) correctly at the moment.

I agree on the JM5K portion and will agree that Defenders are hard to cost but can be dialed in with small point changes, but Phantoms seem simple to fix. Almost every other I4 3 attack die ship costs 50 points so change the Sigmas to that. Pump up to Imdaars by 1 or 2, because an I3 Imdaar should at least cost more than the same initiative X-Wing. Juke was fine at 4, but can sit a5 at the moment as Juke Torpedoes from the N1 Starfighter needs to be felt out first.