55 minutes ago, TasteTheRainbow said:

People? 🤨

Well, the premise was that colonies will exist on other worlds. Therefore, there needs to be a reason not only to send out robots, but also people.

@Boom Owl - I hope you know I'm usually on board with stuff you post, but...I'm not sure what you were trying to accomplish here. State an opinion? Start a discussion?

I agree they should be the core of the game, but not necessarily the core of a list. But I also don't know what good it does to talk about it in this context, because that ventures into the design realm, over which we have no control.

19 minutes ago, gennataos said:

@Boom Owl - I hope you know I'm usually on board with stuff you post, but...I'm not sure what you were trying to accomplish here. State an opinion? Start a discussion?

I agree they should be the core of the game, but not necessarily the core of a list. But I also don't know what good it does to talk about it in this context, because that ventures into the design realm, over which we have no control.

Not gonna lie. I regret making this thread for basically all the reasons you stated.

3 minutes ago, Boom Owl said:

Not gonna lie. I regret making this thread for basically all the reasons you stated.

It felt a little outside your norm, which is why I asked. I'm glad we're on the same "oops" page. Been there.

6 minutes ago, Boom Owl said:

Not gonna lie. I regret making this thread for basically all the reasons you stated.

At least we got an interesting discussion about the future of space exploration out of it.

47 minutes ago, gennataos said:

that ventures into the design realm, over which we have no control.

Well, not directly. But FFG does listen to player input for ongoing design choices.

27 minutes ago, Boom Owl said:

Not gonna lie. I regret making this thread for basically all the reasons you stated.

Eh. Voicing preferences is fine. At least you're smart enough to not die on that hill.

@Boom Owl I do not mean to pester, but I am still very curious about the quotation marks in your previous post I replied to. There is a couple of different ways to interpret it, including one I agree with. If you are willing, I would love to hear your explanation. I understand if you are not.

2 hours ago, JJ48 said:

At least we got an interesting discussion about the future of space exploration out of it.

Yeah this thread got suuuuuuper derailed

4 hours ago, ClassicalMoser said:

Yeah this thread got suuuuuuper derailed

7 hours ago, SabineKey said:

@Boom Owl I do not mean to pester, but I am still very curious about the quotation marks in your previous post I replied to. There is a couple of different ways to interpret it, including one I agree with. If you are willing, I would love to hear your explanation. I understand if you are not.

No offense taken. None of this matters at all.

I believe extra arcs are slightly more valuable than even a double reposition action or a full k turn ( Looks at lazely designed 1.0 copy paste defenders that can never be allowed to be “good” until X-Wing is bad again ). Turrets still function like a stressless double reposition forward arc, but probably better in that they more reliably allow disengagement while attacking? A forward arc can arc dodge and shoot of course and should in turn be punished with a stress token and no mods for repositioning twice to correct its dial choice. Even single reposition forward arcs linked into dice modification should always end in stress or an equivalent punishment. When FFG departs from these restrictions the game gets so dumb so fast id prefer to just have 360s back.

So “bad” means costly. Not high point costs but high in game cost to prevent the need for crushingly useless high cost ( either sacrifice of mods or open communication of future turn dial options or something else that makes the player using it feel bad ).

A 2.0 turret that can reposition is functionally equivalent to a 360 turret in most in game moments, because of the general movement restrictions that exist for the vast majority of the card pool. Specifically turrets with boost and a rear or side arc. A little less so with just a barrel roll. Rotate actions that can be combined with repositions and dice mods are on a complete other level mechanically. Even Dash’s barrel rolls especially with built in collusion detector are brutally difficult to value into a playable range. He is doomed to wait for power creep to allow him to be “good”. Sun Fac * Ensnare gets us there. So do Jedi.

“Bad” means less effective than the player base will almost always demand that any given ship be.

A Y-Wing is a great example of a well designed and balanced 2.0 turret for our current movement power level (ignoring Jedi and Ensnare and Force Users and a few other things ). The Resistance YT1300 is pretty close to properly implemented as well without title or korr ( though its actual pt cost reflects the availability of those cards making it largely overcosted). A Firespray is an example of a poorly implemented turret with hard 1 turns and white boosts available, though it does at least sometimes deny mods to boost without Maul, Marauder, Lone Wolf, or R1 Boba...

If it makes people less mad at me, I also dont think Kylo Ren or Soontir Fel should ever be able to double reposition and end with dice mods including force or the pilot ability focus.

So yea...some clarification I guess?

I dont mind good turrets, the game just needs to be busted enough to justify them. See 12 pt Supernatural or 24 pt Ensnare.

#JadBeanMemes

Goto bed Owl, You're Drunk.

4 hours ago, Boom Owl said:

No offense taken. None of this matters at all.

I believe extra arcs are slightly more valuable than even a double reposition action or a full k turn ( Looks at lazely designed 1.0 copy paste defenders that can never be allowed to be “good” until X-Wing is bad again ). Turrets still function like a stressless double reposition forward arc, but probably better in that they more reliably allow disengagement while attacking? A forward arc can arc dodge and shoot of course and should in turn be punished with a stress token and no mods for repositioning twice to correct its dial choice. Even single reposition forward arcs linked into dice modification should always end in stress or an equivalent punishment. When FFG departs from these restrictions the game gets so dumb so fast id prefer to just have 360s back.

So “bad” means costly. Not high point costs but high in game cost to prevent the need for crushingly useless high cost ( either sacrifice of mods or open communication of future turn dial options or something else that makes the player using it feel bad ).

A 2.0 turret that can reposition is functionally equivalent to a 360 turret in most in game moments, because of the general movement restrictions that exist for the vast majority of the card pool. Specifically turrets with boost and a rear or side arc. A little less so with just a barrel roll. Rotate actions that can be combined with repositions and dice mods are on a complete other level mechanically. Even Dash’s barrel rolls especially with built in collusion detector are brutally difficult to value into a playable range. He is doomed to wait for power creep to allow him to be “good”. Sun Fac * Ensnare gets us there. So do Jedi.

“Bad” means less effective than the player base will almost always demand that any given ship be.

A Y-Wing is a great example of a well designed and balanced 2.0 turret for our current movement power level (ignoring Jedi and Ensnare and Force Users and a few other things ). The Resistance YT1300 is pretty close to properly implemented as well without title or korr ( though its actual pt cost reflects the availability of those cards making it largely overcosted). A Firespray is an example of a poorly implemented turret with hard 1 turns and white boosts available, though it does at least sometimes deny mods to boost without Maul, Marauder, Lone Wolf, or R1 Boba...

If it makes people less mad at me, I also dont think Kylo Ren or Soontir Fel should ever be able to double reposition and end with dice mods including force or the pilot ability focus.

So yea...some clarification I guess?

I dont mind good turrets, the game just needs to be busted enough to justify them. See 12 pt Supernatural or 24 pt Ensnare.

#JadBeanMemes

Thank you for replying.

That’s about what I surmised and can agree with you on some points. I guess I have a bit more faith that non-FASB can be balanced and playable, using not only cost, but other factors in design to keep them from totally eclipsing more baseline vessels. It’s a balancing act and I don’t think we’ll ever get it perfect, but that’s life.

The firespray isn't a turret, though

Auxillary arcs are MASSIVELY differebt because theyre limited by **** in front of them (most of all: the dreaded table edge)

A turret can skate around the table pewpewing while the spray can't

Other ships, like the arc/SF/rz 2, are further limited by 2 dice and either clunky dials + repositioning or action dependency to flip their arc

These guys are amazingly well implemented and necessary for the sake of variety

Agreed - being able to shoot 'sideways' is a much bigger deal than being able to shoot 'backwards'.

That latter is good but the former is better still because of the potential to circle-strafe.

1 hour ago, ficklegreendice said:

A turret can skate around the table pewpewing while the spray can't

Other ships, like the arc/SF/rz 2, are further limited by 2 dice and either clunky dials + repositioning or action dependency to flip their arc

So, to paraphrase Boom, the basic argument is that ships that are able to subvert the dial-bluffing aspect of the game without paying some sort of meaningful cost are inherently dangerous.

One way to subvert dials is double repositioning. Boost into roll can take an awful place and make it into a great place. You can call an Interceptors manuever and it can still avoid all the consequences and maybe even turn it into an uncontested shot.

The argument is not that this is itself an issue. The Interceptor has had to stress itself to double reposition, limiting its dial for the next round. It has also given up its dice mods, so if it has a shot or is still in an arc, it's rolling unfixed dice.

The ships in question are those that escape the costs. Jedi don't stress for their double reposition, and they get to mod their shots. Soontir and Kylo stress themselves, but still get mods. Boba doesn't stress himself to boost past you, but if he's R1 with Lone Wolf and Maul... etcetc.

So we end up with ships playing one of two different games. X-Wings don't get to focus if they kturn or tallon roll, or if they barrel roll, or if they boost - unless they take a stress, and they lose an attack dice; if you block them, they get nothing. In other words - they have to outplay you to get better shots than you get, or they have to pay a meaningful price to "fix" where their dial put them.

Jedi get to still spend the force while doing any of those things. Nantex get to rotate and barrel roll at the same time. Vonreg gets to avoid the stress for double actions. Leia lets Rebels be Jedi for a turn, Greer gets to focus and rotate without getting stressed, Han (Rebel) gets all the dice mods he wants no matter what he does.

The fundamental problem with all of these things is they make dials matter less, and ships that rely on setting dials further behind the power curve.

All those Jedi are small base, forward arc only though 😕

15 minutes ago, ficklegreendice said:

All those Jedi are small base, forward arc only though 😕

Also, they either are a two-dice gun with four health, or are doing their best X-Wing impression without the one-straight. Block them, and suddenly they go from being able to do everything while having mods, to depending on a limited resource to defend their expensive bodies.

6 hours ago, svelok said:

So, to paraphrase Boom, the basic argument is that ships that are able to subvert the dial-bluffing aspect of the game without paying some sort of meaningful cost are inherently dangerous.

One way to subvert dials is double repositioning. Boost into roll can take an awful place and make it into a great place. You can call an Interceptors manuever and it can still avoid all the consequences and maybe even turn it into an uncontested shot.

The argument is not that this is itself an issue. The Interceptor has had to stress itself to double reposition, limiting its dial for the next round. It has also given up its dice mods, so if it has a shot or is still in an arc, it's rolling unfixed dice.

The ships in question are those that escape the costs. Jedi don't stress for their double reposition, and they get to mod their shots. Soontir and Kylo stress themselves, but still get mods. Boba doesn't stress himself to boost past you, but if he's R1 with Lone Wolf and Maul... etcetc.

So we end up with ships playing one of two different games. X-Wings don't get to focus if they kturn or tallon roll, or if they barrel roll, or if they boost - unless they take a stress, and they lose an attack dice; if you block them, they get nothing. In other words - they have to outplay you to get better shots than you get, or they have to pay a meaningful price to "fix" where their dial put them.

Jedi get to still spend the force while doing any of those things. Nantex get to rotate and barrel roll at the same time. Vonreg gets to avoid the stress for double actions. Leia lets Rebels be Jedi for a turn, Greer gets to focus and rotate without getting stressed, Han (Rebel) gets all the dice mods he wants no matter what he does.

The fundamental problem with all of these things is they make dials matter less, and ships that rely on setting dials further behind the power curve.

While I understand where this is coming from, I feel it ignores variables like price, stats, and dials. Take Fel. He has a lot going for him, including an ability that allows him to double reposition and get a mod. However, his problem is that he has a very small health pool. That focus he got from his ability might not save him if his dice crap out. Seen it many times on both sides of the table. He was designed that way, thus I would argue that the “meaningful cost” you refer to was already paid in design. And if the base design didn’t do enough to balance the ship, the actual point cost can be adjusted, or slots, if that was the source of the trouble.

A lot of the examples you gave are very expensive pieces, some even exceeding half of your list. If someone like Boba is going to cost the same as two X-Wings, then he needs benefits to justify the cost. There can be arguments that some of the variables of that equation need tweaking to properly balance out, but that doesn’t change the need to the equation and that both sides can belong together in the same game.

I’m all for vigilance to make sure that ships aren’t lost in the shuffle because of other ships with more options. But I also think you have to take a great deal into account when making those kind of calls.

Agreed with Sabine re several factors balancing out free mods, especially if said mods are conditional enough (stuff like fel and Boba, I'd say so; not so much Vader)

Still largely feel that high I is underpriced on small based, forward arc only ships. Seems medium and large bases pay through the nose in comparison (naked Boba still pricier than an r2 delta-B obi)

2 hours ago, SabineKey said:

A lot of the examples you gave are very expensive pieces, some even exceeding half of your list. If someone like Boba is going to cost the same as two X-Wings, then he needs benefits to justify the cost.

So, I don't agree with the argument that its okay for ships to ignore the dial setting part of the game as long as they're expensive enough. And that's where the trouble is.

It's one thing to say "you can ignore dials if you take X card, but we'll make X card so expensive, that any list using it is bad". Sure, whatever.

But that isn't the same thing as "pilot X ignores dials, and pilot X is expensive enough to be half of your list, but pilot X is still good" . That's where the game that Boom and I want to play - a game about setting dials and guessing your opponent's dials - starts to break down into a game where dials don't matter, because ships can circumvent them at minimal cost either through no-consequence repositioning, turrets, or whatever else. And that's where the "Dash has to be bad", etc, things stem from.

Going back to the Y-Wing example, it's a turret that doesn't break the rules. If the Y-Wing rotates its turret, it gets no mods. If it has to barrel roll to change its position, it gets no mods. If it chooses its dials well, that enables it to have mods. If it pushes to k-turn for positioning, its dial next turn is severely limited (or it loses mods that turn too). If we imagine a Y-Wing that says "at i6, you can rotate your arc, and barrel roll, and still get your mods", that's very near to saying "you ignore the planning phase". Boom and I are arguing that if that Y-Wing existed, the only acceptable price for it would be so high that it is "bad", compared to whatever the power curve is. That's very different from the argument that as long as it's expensive enough , it's fine, even it's still good at that price.

wait, im confused

how does anything non-nantex (still pinpoints even on partially completed manuevers) ignore dials in this game? how do they even begin to do that?

Even if Boba gets blocked and gets his mod, he's not stacking it with focus or repositioning out of shots. He's also not getting his mod if he isn't at range 1, and engagement range is VERY dial specific.

Boba is also medium base (larger target) and cannot b-roll, let alone stack boost + b-roll

Meanwhile, the RZ-2 CAN stack boost + b-roll, but then it can't rotate its turret

What and boost + b-roll and not give up mods? Small base, front arc pilots with high I

So it seems the conversation has jack all to do with forward arc small bases and the other types of arcs. It's about player input mattering, which still seems to be exceedingly the case regardless of base size and or number of arcs

Only the nantex is rubbing people the wrong way, + force to a much smaller degree

10 minutes ago, svelok said:

So, I don't agree with the argument that its okay for ships to ignore the dial setting part of the game as long as they're expensive enough. And that's where the trouble is.

It's one thing to say "you can ignore dials if you take X card, but we'll make X card so expensive, that any list using it is bad". Sure, whatever.

But that isn't the same thing as "pilot X ignores dials, and pilot X is expensive enough to be half of your list, but pilot X is still good" . That's where the game that Boom and I want to play - a game about setting dials and guessing your opponent's dials - starts to break down into a game where dials don't matter, because ships can circumvent them at minimal cost either through no-consequence repositioning, turrets, or whatever else. And that's where the "Dash has to be bad", etc, things stem from.

Going back to the Y-Wing example, it's a turret that doesn't break the rules. If the Y-Wing rotates its turret, it gets no mods. If it has to barrel roll to change its position, it gets no mods. If it chooses its dials well, that enables it to have mods. If it pushes to k-turn for positioning, its dial next turn is severely limited (or it loses mods that turn too). If we imagine a Y-Wing that says "at i6, you can rotate your arc, and barrel roll, and still get your mods", that's very near to saying "you ignore the planning phase". Boom and I are arguing that if that Y-Wing existed, the only acceptable price for it would be so high that it is "bad", compared to whatever the power curve is. That's very different from the argument that as long as it's expensive enough , it's fine, even it's still good at that price.

Ah ha! The big disconnect. You think the non-FASB ships ignore the dial setting part. Based on my own understanding and experience of the game, it is a premise I find erroneous. Whether a double repositioning ship and/or an alternatively arced ship, it cares about the dial very much. It might be more forgiving than a FASB, but to say they ignore the dial setting part is a massive leap, at best.

I also think your Y-Wing, while interesting, is hardly unique. Plenty of turreted ships either choose to rotate or mod. Even those with linked actions still do so for a stress, a clear cost. I would also like to point out your nightmare Y-Wing example doesn’t exist for a reason. I understand that things like Dash and Luke Gunner are problematic and need to be handled differently. But they’re existence doesn’t mean that every ship that isn’t a FASB is breaking the rules. They are BUILDING off the FASB foundation.

I thank you for sharing and encourage you to keep playing as you like. As I will.

5 hours ago, ficklegreendice said:

Agreed with Sabine re several factors balancing out free mods, especially if said mods are conditional enough (stuff like fel and Boba, I'd say so; not so much Vader)

Still largely feel that high I is underpriced on small based, forward arc only ships. Seems medium and large bases pay through the nose in comparison (naked Boba still pricier than an r2 delta-B obi)

Oh god. Ew. High Init cheap turret wing combo? ow.

NO

5 hours ago, svelok said:

So, I don't agree with the argument that its okay for ships to ignore the dial setting part of the game as long as they're expensive enough. And that's where the trouble is.

It's one thing to say "you can ignore dials if you take X card, but we'll make X card so expensive, that any list using it is bad". Sure, whatever.

But that isn't the same thing as "pilot X ignores dials, and pilot X is expensive enough to be half of your list, but pilot X is still good" . That's where the game that Boom and I want to play - a game about setting dials and guessing your opponent's dials - starts to break down into a game where dials don't matter, because ships can circumvent them at minimal cost either through no-consequence repositioning, turrets, or whatever else. And that's where the "Dash has to be bad", etc, things stem from.

Going back to the Y-Wing example, it's a turret that doesn't break the rules. If the Y-Wing rotates its turret, it gets no mods. If it has to barrel roll to change its position, it gets no mods. If it chooses its dials well, that enables it to have mods. If it pushes to k-turn for positioning, its dial next turn is severely limited (or it loses mods that turn too). If we imagine a Y-Wing that says "at i6, you can rotate your arc, and barrel roll, and still get your mods", that's very near to saying "you ignore the planning phase". Boom and I are arguing that if that Y-Wing existed, the only acceptable price for it would be so high that it is "bad", compared to whatever the power curve is. That's very different from the argument that as long as it's expensive enough , it's fine, even it's still good at that price.

This is great lesson in design.

11 hours ago, Blail Blerg said:

Oh god. Ew. High Init cheap turret wing combo? ow.

NO

underpriced = needs MORE points, not less :p

Boba and co would be fine if the small base force users didn't so completely show them up

(or, if a force user overlaps an obstacle/ship, they could be...forced to spend a force token for no effect)

and, of course, pinpoint should be on FULLY executed maneuver and ensnare should not be range 0