8 minutes ago, DarkArk said:

Sure. That's the point. These are all mechanics we've seen on other ships with the exception of using a tractor as your own movement (and having to take the tractor to rotate your turret). The ship itself actually gets a bit predicable once you play against it a bunch because it has a certain set of things that it has to do to be effective. It's just very different from other ships.

So, because the individual parts are seen elsewhere, combining them all is alright? You would be OK with a ship that had all basic maneuvers in blue and white k-turns, based on the justification that other ships have each of those individual maneuvers? And would the fact that 4 Red dice, Turret Arcs, 3 Green dice, 6 Hull, 6 Shields, and 3 regenerating Force are all found on other ships similarly be reason enough to put all of them on this hypothetical ship?

Hm...I think we just developed a Sun Crusher.

8 hours ago, Cuz05 said:

Just a thought on the Viper. It's probably one of the best ships at stalling an engagement, range controlling it's enemy and collectively, creating instant R2 killboxes. If you want to shoot at a Nantex from R2/3, it has a leg up on a lot of frames when it comes to doing that.

4hp does not require ordnance to pop it at that range.

I mean sure, you get it wrong and your whole list is now toast, rather than just the one you've elected to die, but still. Completely writing it off as done and dusted, without practising the engagements, seems OTT to me.

The Viper can stall and misdirect like no other ship in the game... But the Nantex is flat out a faster ship. Keeping it at Range 2 isn’t an easy task when it has 3 speed turns, and a 5 straight, and can straight-boost/roll itself. And unfortunately once it does get into Range 1, getting it’s tractor-*** off of you is going to be difficult. Especially since it has a larger mix of blue maneuvers, and keeping your bacon alive will likely mean reposition > focus/calc linked actions, or an S-Loop feint.

I run Vipers a lot. No other ship in the game has seen more tabletime for me. I’m not saying I can’t fake a Nantex out and be successful at keep-away, or that it would be impossible. But it will definitely be a “panic and rapidly hit X to not die” situation.

11 hours ago, Magnus Grendel said:

Because the 'Vipers are still mean-nasty knife fighters.

It's the same thing I'd say about modifying a TIE/v1 force or force element to allow for Nantex; the fact that you might want some range 3 ordnance to give you a leg up against Nantex doesn't mean you can't out-knife fight everything else you're likely to come across. Starvipers are still one of the best close-in fighters in the game; but on the occasion you come across something which for whatever reason you'd rather engage from range 2+ (Nantex, but also Captain Phasma, 4-LOM, Supernatural Inquisitors, whatever) packing a torpedo gives you a meaningful tactical option you would not otherwise have.

But being a nasty knife-fighter doesn’t help you against a superior smg. And as has been said, having to custom redesign and retailor (-all-) your lists specifically for 1 ship type is not healthy for the game.

I absolutely agree that Ensnare is the crux of the issue. Without it, getting blocked and tractoring yourself out of Range 0 is not particularly unbalanced or a particularly negative play experience on it’s own. The Nantex is eating a tractor, and will have -1 agility without a focus/evade token. Indeed without Ensnare, it’s a completely different ship. What makes the Pinpoint T&A matinee an issue is Ensnare being able to remove that token and penalty to agility, and shovel it off onto another ship (preferably enemy). At that point the Nantex receives only benefits, as well as possibly getting to reposition an enemy at the very end of the maneuver phase.

Ideally a “fix” would adjust Ensnare to not be such a troll of an upgrade card. But I don’t know how they could go about doing that, because nerf-nuking it into oblivion with 3x the points cost removes a fundamental design mechanic to the ship (tractor shenanigans).

As for Vipers, the best and easiest way FFG could fix that match up would be to just make tractor movement always use a straight template.

"Fully Execute" was intentionally left off in Wave 5 because they saw it as an interesting design space.

11 minutes ago, MegaSilver said:

"Fully Execute" was intentionally left off in Wave 5 because they saw it as an interesting design space.

Nothing wrong with an experiment that fails. (Except for deciding it's a success, of course.)

My thoughts after playing one game with vipers against Chertek w/Ensnare, Sear w/Souless and TA-175 and five droids...

My preference would be to have the wording on Pinpoint Tractor Array change to "... fully executing a maneuver..."

There should be a benefit to blocking a ship and, at least against Chertek, it really did nothing to do so (with his rerolls).

I don't know that that needs to be done yet, but it'll definitely be something to watch for.

2 hours ago, Blail Blerg said:

we're still arguing about this? cmon get with the program baby its 2019

This is the internet. I didn't come here to compromise or evolve my ideas.

58 minutes ago, Dr Moneypants said:

This is the internet. I didn't come here to compromise or evolve my ideas.

Well better deal with that fast cuz hindsight is 2020

2 hours ago, MegaSilver said:

"Fully Execute" was intentionally left off in Wave 5 because they saw it as an interesting design space.

Oh holy Dev Oracle, show us the intentions of those divine creators!

15 minutes ago, Blail Blerg said:

Well better deal with that fast cuz hindsight is 2020

...I will end you for that

1 hour ago, MasterShake2 said:

...I will end you for that

You won’t hear the end of that joke for a whole year.

4 hours ago, Jeff Wilder said:

Nothing wrong with an experiment that fails. (Except for deciding it's a success, of course.)

This is a great quote.

5 hours ago, Jeff Wilder said:

Nothing wrong with an experiment that fails. (Except for deciding it's a success, of course.)

On that note, scientists love being proved by their colleagues to be wrong. It advances the pursuit of knowledge, something only possible with the humility of provisional epistemology is undertaken rather than dogmatic thonking.

I'm glad that I was wrong about a lot of the things in 2nd ed. Letting go of presuppositions sucks, but it ultimately liberates. It has helped me progress as a player and learn the game more. Right now, I'm excited because I think I may have been wrong to dismiss various counter bug tactics not list specific as well as the bug-busting abilities of the Scum faction.

Since Ensnare is a problem, even the dev's admitted reading the lore. Ensnare was tough to pull off an not a 100% certain thing. If they make it like an attack, but roll 1 die on a hit or crit ensnare works it would totally fit the fluff and balance the ship. I would probably just give it an extra tractor beam and state when it uses ensnare to pass a tractor to an enemy ship make a bonus tractor beam attack range 0-1. That way it has a chance to miss

What I dont like about tractor beam is its implementation in the game. Shouldn't it disable the ship doing the tractoring since its not just a laser blast, but a force field that has to guide the ship? Seems like it should cause the ship doing the tractoring a weapons disable while tractoring.

This would now make passing the tractor token from a nantex a more defensive play for itself, and support role for the squad. Instead of a "F*** You" to everything.

9 hours ago, wurms said:

What I dont like about tractor beam is its implementation in the game. Shouldn't it disable the ship doing the tractoring since its not just a laser blast, but a force field that has to guide the ship? Seems like it should cause the ship doing the tractoring a weapons disable while tractoring.

This would now make passing the tractor token from a nantex a more defensive play for itself, and support role for the squad. Instead of a "F*** You" to everything.

You essentially have that in tractor beam cannons: trading your attack for control.

Nobody plays that, and for good reason

e: unless you mean dealing a tractor should also deal a disabled?

19 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

You essentially have that in tractor beam cannons: trading your attack for control.

Nobody plays that, and for good reason

e: unless you mean dealing a tractor should also deal a disabled?

Yeah, dealing tractor with an ability like quadjumpers and nantex.

Prove me wrong:

It sounds to me most people that talk about Nantex, Sun Fac and especially ensnare beeing OP are fans of lists that they think have a bad matchup against it.

So bring a list with a Nantex to a Tournament, win it, and then brag in this post about your win while saying its OP.

48 minutes ago, Rangor said:

Prove me wrong:

No one has to prove jack to you, especially because OP =/= a negative play experience. But you probably will end up seeing the Nantex in tournaments.

10 hours ago, wurms said:

Yeah, dealing tractor with an ability like quadjumpers and nantex.

That could have been an interesting way to go. I mean, stuff would need to be a lot cheaper, and a lot of things would need to be designed differently (Ketsu Onyo, for example).

There's another thing: is tractor even lore-appropriate on the X-Wing scale? When we see Tractor Beams in fiction, it's generally massively powerful stuff on capital ships. Does it really make sense for a tiny little Scyk with a cannon to potentially move a Ghost? Size matters not for Jedi, but for engineers, it probably does. Bah, now I'm bringing physics into space fantasy, and that never ends well.

5 hours ago, Rangor said:

Prove me wrong:

It sounds to me most people that talk about Nantex, Sun Fac and especially ensnare beeing OP are fans of lists that they think have a bad matchup against it.

So bring a list with a Nantex to a Tournament, win it, and then brag in this post about your win while saying its OP.

One flaw with this premise is that if I truly believed Ensnare-based lists were OP, most lists (thus most lists I could be a fan of) would have a bad matchup against it. That's what OP means.

As it happens, I think Nantex match up a little too well against pretty much every small-base ship, from generic N-1s, to named B-Wings, to full aces. They've got a lot of control, their resistance to being blocked goes a long way towards lowering the risk of flying a fragile ship, they've got wicked high time-on-target from turrets, and are pretty cheap.

Is that OP? Well, OP is a loaded term. Doesn't have to mean unbeatable, but pretty much anything ahead of the curve is a little bit OP. RZ-2 A-Wings are a great example. Mostly, they went up ONE point. That's it. And that was enough to bring them into line with other stuff. I think the Nantex needs more of a Phantom-level adjustment than an A-Wing, but still.

So does anyone know why the joke-y Nantex thread go locked? (And yet the sky is falling one seems to be going strong?)

1 hour ago, theBitterFig said:

There's another thing: is tractor even lore-appropriate on the X-Wing scale? When we see Tractor Beams in fiction, it's generally massively powerful stuff on capital ships. Does it really make sense for a tiny little Scyk with a cannon to potentially move a Ghost? Size matters not for Jedi, but for engineers, it probably does. Bah, now I'm bringing physics into space fantasy, and that never ends well.

In TIE Fighter , fighters could eventually be equipped with a Beam weapon, including a Tractor option. In that, though, the Tractor didn't throw the opponent around; it just kept them going in a straight line and made them a pretty easy target as long as the beam was kept on them (more like this game's ion effect. In TIE Fighter , ionizing a ship made it stop completely, because inertia requires constant thrust in the Star Wars universe.)

36 minutes ago, Dr Moneypants said:

So does anyone know why the joke-y Nantex thread go locked? (And yet the sky is falling one seems to be going strong?)

I'm guessing that the mods figured there was no need to have multiple threads about the same issue, even if one of them was primarily about dismissing and mocking other players' concerns.

22 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

I'm guessing that the mods figured there was no need to have multiple threads about the same issue, even if one of them was primarily about dismissing and mocking other players' concerns.

Problem is, there is nothing else that has been stated in this thread that hasn't already been repeated dozens of times over with different wording

To be honest it's actually rather annoying to look at. This thread should also be locked. Not necessarily removed, like they removed my joking thread. But locked oit from posting anymore comments. There is nothing new to be stated. The devs are aware of everyone's concerns. Which is one of the many reasons i created the joke thread in the first place.

Let this thread die. There are plenty of people like myself that are tired of seeing this thread at the top of the page day after day

It's rather depressing

1 minute ago, executor said:

Problem is, there is nothing else that has been stated in this thread that hasn't already been repeated dozens of times over with different wording

To be honest it's actually rather annoying to look at. This thread should also be locked. Not necessarily removed, like they removed my joking thread. But locked oit from posting anymore comments. There is nothing new to be stated. The devs are aware of everyone's concerns. Which is one of the many reasons i created the joke thread in the first place.

Let this thread die. There are plenty of people like myself that are tired of seeing this thread at the top of the page day after day

So...don't read it? Seriously, if they locked the thread, people would just make a new one. Better to have one, single thread that people post to; and thus one, single thread to avoid if you don't like it.

Just now, JJ48 said:

So...don't read it? Seriously, if they locked the thread, people would just make a new one. Better to have one, single thread that people post to; and thus one, single thread to avoid if you don't like it.

You're right!

I should just keep making a new mocking thread then every time they remove it until they get the hint!