4 minutes ago, FatherTurin said:

I have similar hopes that the Ghost shines in epic, since having more room to breath points wise lets you load them up the way you want to, and the way they really need.

However, both the VCX and the Starfortress have the same potential problem in epic: I fear that huge ships will shred them.

1 hour ago, ficklegreendice said:

Given the firepower of epic ships, might just turn into a recreation of the movie

Anyway, the mg-100's only real issue is base cost considering they need SIGNIFICANT investment to even use their pilot abilities! Everything else is an intentional balancing factor and representative of a giant, clunky bomber-fortress

This is why you gotta' send fighters in to attack the turbolasers first!

...What do you mean there's a fighter screen this time!?

The fear has to be the fit 4 breakpoint. At 50, 4 naked Starfortresses would have stupid amounts of board and arc coverage. If that is the fear, it sets a lower bound on their cost at 51 points.

They're at 56 now. This suggests that, sure, there is some wiggle room. If we agree that we can fix what ails the MG100 by lowering its cost, it can be done.

In the meantime, it probably will do fine in epic, simply because crowded boards mean you don't miss with area weapons. For my money, I'm more interested in seeing what shenanigans I can pull using Black One to abuse the formation tools.

Extra wiggle room with named pilots (sans cat and Vennie) who pay way too much for their abilities

They really won't be good in epic until they're good in standard. You can just get so much more ship for that price. Think of all the snap/procket A-Wings you could get!

4 hours ago, Captain Lackwit said:

This is why you gotta' send fighters in to attack the turbolasers first!

...What do you mean there's a fighter screen this time!?

I think the new epic is making that happen right? Starfighters can attack the turrets?

Its really too bad, WWII fighter vs ship combat was seemingly quite diverse and interesting. Very little of that gets added to games.

26 minutes ago, Blail Blerg said:

I think the new epic is making that happen right? Starfighters can attack the turrets?

Its really too bad, WWII fighter vs ship combat was seemingly quite diverse and interesting. Very little of that gets added to games.

I THINK so?
*Checks*
Okay so, basically...

You deal a crit to the raider, you get to choose what goes offline. Honestly, very fair and very balanced if you ask me.

By the way, if you wonder just how agile an Imperial Raider is, yes. It really can keep up with Starfighters. In Battlefront II 2, every time you fly near it and it's moving, it can hit the max speed of your TIE Fighter without afterburners. So, it's good stuff.

It depends on what all the rules look like. Right now I doubt it the ship needs either a point reduction, title or a great pilot ability (probably 2 out of 3).

That being said epic is usually more laid back. So I would see it as an opportunity to run tie aggressors or other fun substandard ships to balance out the game.

On 10/6/2019 at 3:39 PM, Captain Lackwit said:

You guys think these will be good in epic?

Do you mean Epic or a battle with Huge ships? Epic means scenarios and sometimes it could be good to have a ship like that. What if you are trying to get supplies off the board? It could be hard to kill all of them before they get off the board where it might be easier to concentrate fire on a CR-90.

6 hours ago, ChahDresh said:

The fear has to be the fit 4 breakpoint. At 50, 4 naked Starfortresses would have stupid amounts of board and arc coverage. If that is the fear, it sets a lower bound on their cost at 51 points.

They're at 56 now. This suggests that, sure, there is some wiggle room. If we agree that we can fix what ails the MG100 by lowering its cost, it can be done.

Likewise, Trajectory Simulator can probably come down a bit in price.

*ducks*

Now, the original 3 points was certainly too cheap. Punishers were nutty at release. 10 is probably steep, though. Something like 7 or 8, combined with a bit of a MG-100 drop, would go a long way.

TrajSim reduction also might find a home on IG-88s. They seemed like a cool ship for them in early 1e, but when the price went up that much, it just became too much of an investment.

13 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:

Likewise, Trajectory Simulator can probably come down a bit in price.

*ducks*

Now, the original 3 points was certainly too cheap. Punishers were nutty at release. 10 is probably steep, though. Something like 7 or 8, combined with a bit of a MG-100 drop, would go a long way.

TrajSim reduction also might find a home on IG-88s. They seemed like a cool ship for them in early 1e, but when the price went up that much, it just became too much of an investment.

Trajectory Simulator needs a break, and needs to be less cheap on large bases.

Can we really complain about base scaled Trajectory Simulators? That'd give MG-100s a DISTINCT and VALID place. They could afford those new huge bombs that way.

PLS.

Hmm. Any other large base droppers + System? (The Decimator has no System...) [sensor whatever]

I think I could be onboard with that...

Large base 6

Medium base 8

Small base 10?

No option for Epic size?

What I don't like about variable pricing is there isn't much reason why TrajSim should be cheaper on large base ships. Most variable pricing is straightforwardly based on ship stats (initiative, agility). Some is based on base-size. Typically stuff like Engine Upgrade or Snap Shot, where the physical size of the base expands the effect of the upgrade. Hate is sort of an exception, but the base size serves as a proxy for relative health of the ships. Hate's stronger on a high shield/hull ship, and large base ships tend to have more health than small-base, etc.

There isn't really a reason for it for TrajSim, except that we want to buff MG-100s more than we want to buff TIE Punishers or Hyenas.

Well, perhaps there's something to the fact that the larger the base of a ship, the have fewer safe maneuvers it will have after doing a 5-speed launch. Eh. I'd still just rather have it cost 7 for everyone, and leave it simple.

1 hour ago, theBitterFig said:

What I don't like about variable pricing is there isn't much reason why TrajSim should be cheaper on large base ships. Most variable pricing is straightforwardly based on ship stats (initiative, agility). Some is based on base-size. Typically stuff like Engine Upgrade or Snap Shot, where the physical size of the base expands the effect of the upgrade. Hate is sort of an exception, but the base size serves as a proxy for relative health of the ships. Hate's stronger on a high shield/hull ship, and large base ships tend to have more health than small-base, etc.

There isn't really a reason for it for TrajSim, except that we want to buff MG-100s more than we want to buff TIE Punishers or Hyenas.

Well, perhaps there's something to the fact that the larger the base of a ship, the have fewer safe maneuvers it will have after doing a 5-speed launch. Eh. I'd still just rather have it cost 7 for everyone, and leave it simple.

there is, its supposedly easier to do precise shots with a smaller base.

Oooh i forgot hyenas.

Sometimes, it would be nicer if the upgrades simply scaled with how expensive the base ship is. the more you tack onto an expensive ship, it should get more and more expensive to avoid combo-wing. a minor problem is that its a bit of a point fortress, but it should be rather ineffective, and thus easy to take half points or outright murder. (and not be a point fortress any longer)

1 hour ago, theBitterFig said:

Well, perhaps there's something to the fact that the larger the base of a ship, the have fewer safe maneuvers it will have after doing a 5-speed launch. Eh. I'd still just rather have it cost 7 for everyone, and leave it simple.

This is it. You pretty much have to do a stressful stop. 5-7-9 would be super cool and just might make some of the pilot abilities relevant again.

3 hours ago, theBitterFig said:

What I don't like about variable pricing is there isn't much reason why TrajSim should be cheaper on large base ships. Most variable pricing is straightforwardly based on ship stats (initiative, agility). Some is based on base-size. Typically stuff like Engine Upgrade or Snap Shot, where the physical size of the base expands the effect of the upgrade. Hate is sort of an exception, but the base size serves as a proxy for relative health of the ships. Hate's stronger on a high shield/hull ship, and large base ships tend to have more health than small-base, etc.

There isn't really a reason for it for TrajSim, except that we want to buff MG-100s more than we want to buff TIE Punishers or Hyenas.

Well, perhaps there's something to the fact that the larger the base of a ship, the have fewer safe maneuvers it will have after doing a 5-speed launch. Eh. I'd still just rather have it cost 7 for everyone, and leave it simple.

Think of it this way. More space to slap a trajectory simulating advanced targeting computer, way less costly!

No but seriously please let the MG-100 have it

how much would you pay for a starwort with VTG

18 hours ago, ChahDresh said:

The fear has to be the fit 4 breakpoint. At 50, 4 naked Starfortresses would have stupid amounts of board and arc coverage. If that is the fear, it sets a lower bound on their cost at 51 points.

This would easily be resolved by FFG actually using the design space they have made available to themselves. Simply limit the ship, depending on base point cost it could be limited to max two or three in a list.

4 hours ago, Blail Blerg said:

how much would you pay for a starwort with VTG

I'd be willing to pay around 56-58 pts, which means quite a hefty point drop for the base chassis. But seeing as it:

1. Has a crap dial.
2. Requires lots of upgrades to fulfil its actual role.

I'd consider that fair.

30 minutes ago, Lyynark said:

I'd be willing to pay around 56-58 pts, which means quite a hefty point drop for the base chassis. But seeing as it:

1. Has a crap dial.
2. Requires lots of upgrades to fulfil its actual role.

I'd consider that fair.

We can assume two situations:

A. VTG remains constant at 8. (Not unreasonable, as its likely 8 even for small ships to avoid double shot spam like 5 Ywings VTG Dorsal)
If that's the case, then you're saying the shrimp should be 48-50 points. I find 50x4 unlikely. Tentatively, I'd argue that's likely too powerful considering what I said in OP [confidence about 75%])

B. VTG gets dropped in points, perhaps variably, perhaps statically. If statically, I find it unlikely it will drop below 6.
The only way I can think of now variably, is probably by Init.

----

Anyway... I'd pay about 60 for shrimp + VTG. I think that's reasonably fair.

2 minutes ago, Blail Blerg said:

We can assume two situations:

A. VTG remains constant at 8. (Not unreasonable, as its likely 8 even for small ships to avoid double shot spam like 5 Ywings VTG Dorsal)
If that's the case, then you're saying the shrimp should be 48-50 points. I find 50x4 unlikely. Tentatively, I'd argue that's likely too powerful considering what I said in OP [confidence about 75%])

The spam issue can easily be fixed if FFG just applies the limit mechanic. Just using points is a very blunt instrument. It puts some ships in a situation where a points decrease allows overpowering spam but where not adjusting the points leaves them cost inefficient and thus removed from consideration.

8 minutes ago, Lyynark said:

The spam issue can easily be fixed if FFG just applies the limit mechanic. Just using points is a very blunt instrument. It puts some ships in a situation where a points decrease allows overpowering spam but where not adjusting the points leaves them cost inefficient and thus removed from consideration.

maybe. that used to be fixed by really innovative fix cards, which I honestly liked, even when they weren't properly balanced. They provided a lot of differentiation.

Like that Tempests would use AC and basically always have evade.

Fix/Differentiating-design cards plus points balancing would likely lead to very fun designs at a very balanced point.

Whereas limit mechanic is arbitrary and doesn't generally breed creativity.

2-4 of the ‘B-17’s’ chunking proton bombs into the approaching swarm is going to be powerful!