I've actually thought they should limit the number of ships you can take by chasiss not just base size to be able to better cost ships effectively while not permitting spam lists. Y-Wings are a good example I think, we've all seen the Y-Wing spam can be problematic, right now the only way to fix that is increase the upgrades..which in turn impacts all other ships that can take those upgrades (which may or may not be a bad thing) or increasing the point cost of the ship, which might not be efficient due to the ships base stats.

I'm not saying you have to say "You can only run 1 Y-Wing" but FFG could restrict it to an okay number for each ship chassis. I mean, imagine if there was a ship that was overpriced, but by reducing its points you could run more of that one type of ship. It would be a way of properly pricing a ship while not permitting a spam.

As for the discussion "Well, should someone be able to run X number of ships." It comes down to balance. I wouldn't go so far as restricting it down to one large base ship per list, but I'd at least stop someone flying something that could be oppressive at a fair points cost for one ship.

On my dining room table, I like this a lot. I tend to list build this way anyway, as I'm not super competitive and it feels more "Star Wars".

It doesn't make any business sense for FFG to implement this, though. Why push rules that limit the number of ships that people will buy?

It would be a cool tournament variant, though. Weren't you supposed to be able to use the official app to make up your own list building rules for your own tournament variations, or an I making that up?

2 minutes ago, BojambaMcMamba said:

Weren't  you supposed to be able to use the official app to make up your own list building rules for your own tournament variations, or an I making that up?

Should be able to. Iirc there is a Custom option in the Variants subcategory where you choose between Hyperspace and Extended.

double post

I don't find large base ships to be that much of a problem in requiring something like this. Besides you can only have 4 of the same large/medium based ship.

14 minutes ago, BojambaMcMamba said:

On my dining room table, I like this a lot. I tend to list build this way anyway, as I'm not super competitive and it feels more "Star Wars".

It doesn't make any business sense for FFG to implement this, though. Why push rules that limit the number of ships that people will buy?

It would be a cool tournament variant, though. Weren't you supposed to be able to use the official app to make up your own list building rules for your own tournament variations, or an I making that up?

The Custom game app just lets you select what ships/pilots/upgrades are allowed and what is not. You could make it a Academy pilot only list or Extended but with jukes banned. You can't set any other limits like number of ships, or point adjustments or anything else. For that you have to make a separate document accompanying the custom variant.

This idea gets a 'H**l, No!' from me.

One of the many new lists I intend to try out with the new points is Chiraneau, Oicunn and Lt Sai. 3pts left over buys the Admiral an extra Shield.

Double Lancers was a staple in 1st ed, and might be ok again.

Previously, I flew Kagi, Sai, and Vader; then Sai, Oicunn, and several different small ships (Soontir, Duchess, 7th Sister, Kestal). Won around 50% of my games, and had a great time flying them.

Making each ship worth its points is a far better idea.

nah, kinda sounds like a silly idea. Ironically, it would hit the problem ships but leave the fun factor in the dust, so basically what FFG is doing with points adjustment, but this suggestion would be way less fine tuned.

Maybe just upping the problem ships to reasonable points cost would be enough.

also eliminating 4 space cows from standard play would just be cruel.

2 hours ago, PhantomFO said:

Time is a flat circle.

Ah, yeah. I remember the times when I used to listen to compact flat circles. Then streaming became a thing.

Eh. I think it takes away more than it gives.

4 hours ago, Kieransi said:

theres  a lot of large ships, especially generics, that  can't possibly be priced correctly be    c  a  u  se t  hey're overpriced now but decreasing them  wo  ul  d  allow spam that people consider bad   . 

I don’t disagree that people think this, but I still think this is a fallacy. Absent a force-multiplying effect like Drea, Howl, Juke, etc. (which should be limited), a ship is either worth its points or it isn’t. If it’s one point over, people slot in a similar ship for the nth number. If that’s not destroying the meta, neither will the nth of the same ship.

Alpha Interceptor, Resistance Smuggler, etc. all need some love.

No.

I like big boats and I cannot lie.

1 hour ago, Darth Meanie said:

Ah, yeah. I remember the times when I used to listen to compact flat circles. Then streaming became a thing.

To **** with the compact ones, let’s remember all the way back to the LP flat circles.

2 minutes ago, Vykk Draygo said:

To **** with the compact ones, let’s remember all the way back to the LP flat circles.

Am I odd for knowing what a ceramic (pre LP) record looks and sounds like?

35 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:

Am I odd for knowing what a ceramic (pre LP) record looks and sounds like?

It not the years, it’s the miles.....

Oh, wait....wrong franchise. 😂

6 hours ago, Darth Meanie said:

No more Triple Jumps

What year is it?

I'd buy it if the limit was 2 big ships.

Big ship generic pilots are usually overpriced because devs are afraid of us fielding 3 of them for some cases (all YTs and VCXs). So limited to 2 big ships would allow them to be priced more competitively. That would also allow to adjust the JM5K competitively, as they need a serious decrease in points, but that would mean we could see like 5-6 of those fielded in a list, which sounds terrible.

I have almost never flown more than one big base ship in 2.0. The only exceptions have been a double JM list to see how the ships fly, and a double YT-1300 list for Resistance that failed miserably. To me, adding such a restriction is unnecessary, because I already tend to build that way anyway - even as a primarily Scum player.

4 hours ago, Darth Meanie said:

My actual point was that my limiting Larges to 1 per list, they could become the "Huge Ship" of Standard Play: you get a single beefy ship that becomes the "set piece" of your list.

In which case, in incredibly intense NO!

I think I'm "just let folks do what they want," but one variant on the principle which I don't dislike would be like how the Epic Points for Huge ships worked. IIRC, Raider and Corvette had 3 Epic points, Transport, Gozanti, and C-ROC had 2 Epic points. A list could have up to 5 epic points, so only one Raider, or you could go two Gozanti. I only played a few games of epic, so I may be wrong, but I think that's roughly the gist of things.

So to extend the principle here. There's some large-base ships which are weak enough that they probably could be two per list. I don't have a great name for them. For lack of anything better, let's call them Chonk points. Each list can contain up to 5 Chonk points.

• Three Chonk Point ships: Rebel YT-1300, YT-2400, VCX-100, VT-49, YV-666, Lancer, Sith Infiltrator (at least Dooku and Maul), Resistance YT-1300
• Two Chonk Point Ships: Lambda Shuttle, Scum YT-1300, Jumpmaster, [Generic Upsilon Shuttle?], MG-100 Starfortress

Maybe some ships would be split by pilot... For example, I could see generic Upsilon being 2 Chonk, but all the unique ones as 3 Chonk. Maul and Dooku are certainly 3 chonk ships, but Dark Courier and O-66 Sith Infiltrators could probably be 2 Chonk. Generic Trandoshan Shaver at 2 Chonk? Maybe medium base ships could be 1 or 2 Chonk. ARCS, G1-A, Kimogilas, Punishers, and Scurrgs seem like 1 Chonk, but Firesprays and maybe U-Wings are 2 Chonk. IG-88s are probably correct as 2 Chonk. Should a TIE Defender be a 2 Chonk ship, the only small-base at 2 Chonk?

Eh, that's rambling. But I prefer the idea of maybe having two large base ships if they're more limited or more support-y.

I'm not super into it, but it's kind of fun to think about for 15 minutes, so thanks for the topic. Better than a lot of the other silly suggestions onhere.

3 hours ago, ClassicalMoser said:

I don’t disagree that people think this, but I still think this is a fallacy. Absent a force-multiplying effect like Drea, Howl, Juke, etc. (which should be limited), a ship is either worth its points or it isn’t. If it’s one point over, people slot in a similar ship for the nth number. If that’s not destroying the meta, neither will the nth of the same ship.

   Alpha Interceptor, Resistance Smuggler, etc. all need some  love.

for the record I totally agree with you, I just think that there's certain lists that are never going to fit.

Spammed generics are always going to be worse than mixed generics, because of weird matchup dependence and reliance on one specific trick, so limiting the number of a ship probably isn't neccesary.

But whether or not needed, there do seem to be break points that are being avoided, because there's a lot of bad pilots hovering at or just above 34, 51, and 67 points.

I don't think this is really necessary from a mechanical stand point. From a fluff stand point its interesting though.

I don't think generic large bases like the Bombers, or a Lambda should be limited, but for titled ships I think this would be cool.

A house rule I've used previously that could be implemented into actual regulation is that if the chassis has a limited title, it must be equipped. This stops a second identical chassis from being fielded.

I'm not saying its a great idea, but it could be implemented fairly easily with the digital medium, or simply as a restricted format if not fully supported by FFG.

9 hours ago, Kieransi said:

Spammed generics are always going to be worse than mixed generics, because of weird matchup dependence and reliance on one specific trick, so limiting the number of a ship probably isn't neccesary.

EXACTLY. But I guess spammed generics are easier to fly since they all have the same dial and actions? Not sure why everyone does it.

9 hours ago, Kieransi said:

But whether or not needed, there do seem to be break points that are being avoided, because there's a lot of bad pilots hovering at or just above 34, 51, and 67 points.

They're being avoided now. Maybe they could be convinced someday? I was wanting bomber and Interceptor swarms since 2.0 was announced .

Also don't forget the 41 breakpoint for X- and B-Wings. I'm not convinced their generics are in a bad place at all but it is a very specific costing.

The only thing this seems to fix balance wise is Jumps, and it harms a lot fo other things, so, no.

Fix jumps by fixing them: make the Scout unique, or make the chassis 2-dot limited. Then tank the prices.

Don't screw with the rest of the game to fix a mess that can be fixed anyway.

5 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

The only thing this seems to fix balance wise is Jumps, and it harms a lot fo other things, so, no.
Don't screw with the rest of the game to fix a mess that can be fixed anyway.

It's not screwing with the rest of the game. It would be a different way that the devs could approach design.

And it is not unprecedented: you can only fly a swarm of 8, no matter what points say.

12 hours ago, theBitterFig said:

I think I'm "just let folks do what they want*"

And it seems like most people only fly one large.

BUT, from a design point of view, knowing there could only be one large might allow the devs to make them more. . . interesting?

*(Just letting folks do what they want leads to TLT Spam, which leads to Hate, which leads to the Dark Side.)

Quote

I'm not super into it, but it's kind of fun to think about for 15 minutes, so thanks for the topic. Better than a lot of the other silly suggestions onhere.

Thanks. It's not like I really expect this to happen, just curious what people thought.

23 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

And it seems like most people only fly one large.

BUT, from a design point of view, knowing there could only be one large might allow the devs to make them more. . . interesting?

That's fair enough. But it'd require 3rd Edition, or massive Errata. I mean, if you're going to dream, might as well dream big.

I also still like some variant where maybe some large ships can be two-ofs. It's nice that Epic could run GR-75, for example.

25 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

*(Just letting folks do what they want leads to TLT Spam, which leads to Hate, which leads to the Dark Side.)

I mean, I'm still fine with adjusting points for nerfs and such, but just letting the rather broad listbuilding rules stand.

4 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:

That's fair enough. But it'd require 3rd Edition, or massive Errata. I mean, if you're going to dream, might as well dream big.

I also still like some variant where maybe some large ships can be two-ofs. It's nice that Epic could run GR-75, for example.

Well, I would be thinking more along the line of points and slots, both of which are readily adjustable, then creating new upgrades that take advantage of those slots.

The latter would be more tricky, cuz you'd want to add Limited Dots as needed, but still not out of hand with a FAQ.

Quote

I mean, I'm still fine with adjusting points for nerfs and such, but just letting the rather broad listbuilding rules stand.

OTOH, the counter to that is what happened at the end of 1.0: secondary weapons and EPTs got limited to 4 per list. So again, not unprecedented.

I guess we are approaching it from the opposite ends; you want more player freedom, and I want more dev freedom. It's far easier to design and not imbalance things when you are working in smaller compartments: faction-locked upgrades, hard limits on quantities irrespective of points, etc.

In a certain way, this goes to the same point of pricing small based ships: maybe a ship could really be cheaper, but you wouldn't want to see 5 on the table, so you have to overprice them to limit them to 4. What if the devs could just give them 4 dots and lower the points??