5 minutes ago, Boom Owl said:

Sadly...203 Pts total now.

Looks like the Crack Shot increase killed it.

You could switch to Ten Numb with Stab Foils and take crack shot off of one of the boys and it'll fit. Ten with Foils is situationally better than Braylen, too, as he often gets rid of his stress, making him more maneuverable.

I've been trying with ion torps on wedge instead of the crack shots. It's still a fun list.

Hull upgrade would be decent too, since people love to go for wedge.

Just take the points out of Blount and/or Jake. Glad Crack went up but still think talent slots are usually overpriced.

41 minutes ago, ClassicalMoser said:

Glad Crack went up

I cant think of any reason it should have been increased other than the fact that it was popular. If Force and Passive mod ships were not discounted as heavily as they currently are I would be much more onboard with Crackshot at 2 points. But those discounts are still a reality for Obi/Plo/Soontir/GI/5th/7th etc all in the 60s-40s ranges. Prices like that really calls into question pricing Crackshot at 2 points. Persistently cheap costs for things like Boba, Kylo, Vader, also make it such an odd nerf. None of these defensive token stacks are meaningfully board state dependent, they just exist. Why address one and not the other?

Its not like limited #s of non-force users have a huge # of options for cracking token stacks currently, besides the occasional tractor build and a further dependency on full modification or its equivalents. Whats sad is that 2pt Crackshot essentially removes one of the only mechanisms several 2 attack dice ships had to do damage besides maybe Optics and Probes which are expensive and not widely accessible. Other mechanisms require investment in dramatically overpriced support platforms like Howlrunner, Drea, and Sinker, etc. There still seems to be a slight points bias in favor of single ship defensive modification. Increase the defensive stack ships cost a bit further and I would have a different opinion entirely on crackshot.

I get the line of thinking that increasing crack to 2 pts will encourage people to use other talents but I don't really see why that is a higher priority than giving already bad largely low initiative mostly single reposition and single mod ships a bullseye dependent mechanism to punish ships that have no business being in bullseye in the first place. Sure Crackshot appeared on Soontir, Wedge, and the odd fortress Starviper or two but the vast majority of the time it was used to invite relatively wholesome ships to the passives party.

Overall I don't play extended anymore so its not a huge concern to me. There are lists that provide enough modification to push damage through. Either way its just something that seemed very odd to prioritize given how many other cards have more dramatic constraining effects on the Extended meta. Along with how many ships in the game were massively dependent on it to be remotely relevant in lower #s.

@Boom Owl It was the default Talent choice iirc, blocking out the use of any others. It was only a matter of time before they upped it and try and "force" other options to be seriously considered for the slot. If it'll pan out leaves to be seen. Until they get sufficient data (as they'll define it internally) for the other talents, outside of them not being used at all, I expect it to go up in cost again.

Just now, Hiemfire said:

@Boom Owl It was the default Talent choice iirc, blocking out the use of any others. It was only a matter of time before they upped it and try and "force" other options to be seriously considered for the slot. If it'll pan out leaves to be seen. Until they get sufficient data (as they'll define it internally) for the other talents, outside of them not being used at all, I expect it to go up in cost again.

Yea I 100% understand that was the basis for the increase. And largely accept it for what it is. Still seems out of place given where the rest of the card pool is at.

10 minutes ago, Boom Owl said:

If Force and Passive mod ships were not discounted as heavily as they currently are I would be much more onboard with Crackshot at 2 points. But those discounts are still a reality for Obi/Plo/Soontir/GI/5th/7th etc all in the 60s-40s ranges. Prices like that really calls into question pricing Crackshot at 2 points. Persistently cheap costs for things like Boba, Kylo, Vader, also make it such an odd nerf. None of these defensive token stacks are meaningfully board state dependent, they just exist. Why address one and not the other?

Agreed, but I think the aces still need a nerf. Crack seems about right at 2 points. Very dependable damage seems easily worth 2 points, a little more than Heroic or Marksmanship, a little less than Intimidation. Again, the I3s all overpay for the talent slot, which makes it look bad, but it's still super worthwhile on e.g. a Provoceteur or Saber. Or any RZ-2.

14 minutes ago, Boom Owl said:

Either way its just something that seemed very odd to prioritize given how many other cards have more dramatic constraining effects on the Extended meta.

From that framework I totally understand what you're saying. The timing looks weird while they're still more-or-less ignoring the force-ace superheroes. I'd rather see both addressed eventually

20 minutes ago, ClassicalMoser said:

Crack seems about right at 2 points.

I agree 2 points is what it eventually should be. Just seems like they are maybe 2-3 points cycles early with the change. Perhaps they are trying to get ahead of Crackshot + LAAT V-Wings? Lets go with that.

I trust Max. Its ok for Crack to be 2 pts and Extended Only. Doesn't bother me much. Just raises an eyebrow.

3 hours ago, ClassicalMoser said:

Just take the points out of Blount and/or Jake. Glad Crack went up but still think talent slots are usually overpriced.

I think taxing pilots for any slots is obsolete in 2e.

I literally can't think of a time where it's warranted.

You pay for Configs either on the chassis or on the config.

You pay for upgrades on the upgrades.

If a pilot appears to have a points value above it's raw statline, then the only other thing I can imagine is that they're paying for dial quality/action choices+initiative.

Are there specific pilots you think are taxed for their talent slots still?

I'm very curious now...

3 hours ago, Boom Owl said:

Its ok for Crack to be 2 pts and Extended Only. Doesn't bother me much. Just raises an eyebrow.

I'm considering this the great wave 7 meta of secondary weapons...

I think they're really attempting to put Torps, Missiles and cannons in the spotlight to see if anything is actually broken... Without the yeast that is Crack Shot.

2 hours ago, Bucknife said:

Are there specific pilots you think are taxed for their talent slots still?

I absolutely agree they shouldn’t be, but explain to me the price of Gamma Squadron Ace, Green Squadron Pilot, Tansarii Point Veteran, Black Squadron Ace (TIE) and every other I3 generic. The very few chassis that don’t (V-19, ARC, T-65) ser quite a lot of variety. The others are stuck at the lowest possible generic except when I4 is on the table. The tax is clearly on the talent slot.

To the main point, some specific slots are and should be taxed since their upgrades fundamentally shape the role of the chassis. Particularly the Turret and Sensor slot, Cannons on 2-primaries, and sometimes payload or torpedo slots. Having those options actually is worth something. Mods and talents are ubiquitous and balanced enough that their slots really shouldn’t be.

7 hours ago, ClassicalMoser said:

To the main point, some specific slots are and should be taxed since their upgrades fundamentally shape the role of the chassis. Particularly the Turret and Sensor slot, Cannons on 2-primaries, and sometimes payload or torpedo slots. Having those options actually is worth something. Mods and talents are ubiquitous and balanced enough that their slots really shouldn’t be.

Yeah. A y-wing without a turret or missile slot probably could go down to 28 or even 27 as, totally naked, its basically a sidegraded Torrent. But the fact that you can either give it a 180 arc coverage, perhaps with ion, or double tap it, or fire off torps on it, means that if you account for its value naked in its price it goes crazy with torps or turrets, and if you account for its value with weapons it is pretty bad without them. You could bump the price of all weapon systems to account for this super efficient platform to hold them, but that ruins them for pretty much every other list in the game and kills them as upgrades on say... X-wings, so it makes sense to say 'the Y-wing is meant to carry stuff, its going to be priced assuming its carrying stuff.'

Talents don't achieve this result for the most part, as the vast majority of talents, even really expensive ones, aren't that transformative and are more niche utility effects, so the tax on I3s and some named characters to get them is kinda silly: A talent is almost never going to be so much better than its points cost suggests to be worth assuming a ship is taking some super synergistic talent, and the cases where that happens its probably better to up the cost of the ship.

That said I don't think sensor necessarily makes sense to 'tax' unless the sensor items are deliberately underpriced to 'force' you to take a sensor, or if the ship has such extreme synergy with the upgrade that it becomes impossible to balance the upgrade independently of the ship, which is the only legit reasons to tax a slot. The Taxi's value gain from its sensor slot is titanic because, much like the Y-wing, it basically edits its attack dice rating, but I don't think the same could be said for the Phantom or E-wing or whatever. It isn't like the FCS or passive snsors totally transforms most ships in the same way a proton torp or ion turret does, outside of some initiative pricing issues they mostly just work the same on (almost) ever ship that can take them, and so can have their price just be their value.

6 hours ago, dezzmont said:

Talents don't achieve this result for the most part, as the vast majority of talents, even really expensive ones, aren't that transformative and are more niche utility effects, so the tax on I3s and some named characters to get them is kinda silly: A talent is almost never going to be so much better than its points cost suggests to be worth assuming a ship is taking some super synergistic talent, and the cases where that happens its probably better to up the cost of the ship.

Exactly this. That's the point I was trying to make.

6 hours ago, dezzmont said:

That said I don't think sensor necessarily makes sense to 'tax' unless the sensor items are deliberately underpriced to 'force' you to take a sensor

I think this has sort of been the design goal of the Sensor slot; the sensors go on "elite" or specialized platforms that tend to be focused on advanced tech and priced to match. Imagine FCS on an X-Wing and how much you would pay for that. Easily way more than 2 points. Imagine PS on a torrent and how much you would pay for that; easily way more than 2 points. Imagine TrajSim on a TIE Bomber. The list goes on.

Not to say they always price the slot or the upgrades right. AS is overpriced on everything but 4-LOM (which is about right) and Guri (where it's way too cheap). And I agree that the E-Wing overpays a little for it while the TIE/v1 doesn't pay enough. I guess we'll see how it shakes out in the end, I'm just saying that it does make sense to charge a little for the sensor slot since those upgrades tend to be quite strong for their cost, and rightly so.

On 8/14/2020 at 12:35 PM, ClassicalMoser said:

Imagine FCS on an X-Wing and how much you would pay for that. Easily way more than 2 points. Imagine PS on a torrent and how much you would pay for that; easily way more than 2 points.

...Huh...

Probably not no actually... FCS seems pretty lock solid at its current price in a lot of ways because it is an action economy upgrade only over multiple turns and requires you to give up your current defensive action. I struggle to justify it when I am taking an E-wing sometimes, and the synergy there is that it is a totally free mod!

I mean I would probably take it from time to time, don't get me wrong, and it seems like a strict upgrade for the 5x list vs aces in the sense your trading initiative you very much won't get to use for an FCS you prooobably won't get to use, but it isn't terrible. It just isn't anything close to running FCS on say... a B-wing or E-wing in terms of value due to how those ships specifically synergize with them, and it is totally normal not to take the FCS on those ships anyway.

I wouldn't run passive sensor torrents because I could just run passive sensor Tavis just for the better dial. Only 3 points more per-ship in exchange for the shields and remotely usable dial, still able to spam 5 of them with ion missiles to justify the need for a TL in the first place. If we don't see a ton of Barons running around with passive sensors as a super strong list, it is very unlikely the Torrent would be either.

On 8/14/2020 at 12:35 PM, ClassicalMoser said:

TrajSim on a TIE Bomber

I am of the opinion TrajSim is way overhyped, both based on the data (it... basically doesn't see play and historically never did) and because it sorta... isn't that strong an effect when you really look at it and practice with it.

I get this is super controversial and so many people shout at me over it, but I am a big dumb idiot when it comes to actually flying and even then due to having played against TrajSim often I have come to appreciate its... kinda bad and basically never fall for it now. You want bombs to cover your rear 1 distance, because that is where people are going to be sitting to try to get a shot on you no matter what and be hard to shoot at unless you take a red and are unmodded. TrajSim is firing a bomb into a weird zone that doesn't do a lot for you, and its super telegraphed. Its rare for people to just park at range 5 in front, rather than range 1 behind. Even with stuff to help make that weird spot the bomb lands 'reach' further like seismic charges your mostly paying a comical amount to push 1, maybe 2 damage over the game.

I suspect most of the rage comes from people just being caught out by how weird it is, and in that regard its good for the upgrade to be rare and test knowledge and awareness in a way that isn't normally tested, because most of its power comes from the 'oh wait, what' factor? Its sorta like a trap user in fighting games in that they can be tuned to be competitive or not, but regardless because they test an entirely new skill most newbies never learn so they tend to generate undue rage. I would say the Trajsim is undertuned.

On 8/14/2020 at 12:35 PM, ClassicalMoser said:

I think this has sort of been the design goal of the Sensor slot; the sensors go on "elite" or specialized platforms that tend to be focused on advanced tech and priced to match

I do think it represents a form of advanced tech or a large computer, but I don't think it is baked into the price of most ships. I just think most ships that have sensor upgrades tend to fill them because sensor does something for the ship (The Taxi, The Starviper) or because the upgrade is just efficient, rather than because the ship is priced assuming the slot is filled and the upgrade is underpriced.

I would even say the way sensor upgrades are priced is where most upgrades should be: Sensors generally earn back their value very consistently, rather than being super stingy, so you want to take sensors, but they aren't so good that you don't sometimes cut them. They are almost always value positive, and the question becomes not if they are 'good' but 'good enough.' Compare to most talents where the question 'is this valuepositive/good' answered with a resounding '...nah. Not even close.'

So I guess in a sense there is a... reverse tax so to speak? Sensor slots are generally good and worth their value on the ships that can take them, but aren't so good I would lose my mind if I could take FCS on some random ship, and most ships with a sensor could take it or leave it anyway, which just indicates that sensor upgrades are well balanced and happen to be limited on which ships can take them to make those ships feel special.

That said I think we mostly agree and this is a super silly semantic debate for me to push. I just think its important to contextualize it as 'Its good that sensors are generally useful' because it helps contextualize it as 'talents and lots of other upgrades are unusually bad, and the utility of upgrades should be pushed closer to sensors for the most part' rather than 'sensors are rightfully taxed.'