1 hour ago, KommanderKeldoth said:

5 hours ago, Alpha17 said:

That's why it is best to ignore him. If you can't have a reasonable or intelligent conversation with him, what's the point of replying? Just like banging your head on a stone wall, the only thing you'll have to show for it is a headache.

EDIT: I'll be incredibly disappointed if they come after GAR with a nerf hammer as hard as our resident troll would like. While it probably wouldn't get me to stop playing the game, it would be very frustrating for FFG to screw over their own game that much. I switched over to Clones after the GenCon pre-release. I played the faction competitively when we had exactly three units to pick from. Saying I only want GAR to be over powered is as ridiculous as saying Rebels are in desperate need of help. Minor adjustments are needed, not a wholesale scraping of core faction mechanics.

I doubt they are going to nuke GAR. FFG tends to favor small adjustments over drastic ones. Just look at Tauntauns, the only thing thats changed is a tweak to the creature trooper disengage and clamber rules.

I also don't think they will nuke the faction, but would not be surprised if CIS ends up being the big winner either. Token sharing is getting changed in some way and I think most Clones will go up a few points so that they get smaller armies. On the other hand, CIS was used several times as the example of where they wanted factions to be in power level so I doubt they will see any changes (still like that droidekar buff lol).

Of course it also sounds like a major reset for the whole game in the way he talked in the video. Rework of the old heavies, wookies, dewbacks, pathfinders, and most weapon attachments. The idea that rockets being cheap enough for auto includes since all the heavies will now be a clear threat is crazy to think about! So maybe a slight nurf to GAR and crazy buffs to Rebels/Empire could make Clones the worse faction, but more likely it stays in the top 2. Especially with Ani, BARC buff, and maybe Saber buff as well (less likely, but possible).

Either way I am happy to welcome our new T-47/AT-ST overlords.

13 hours ago, RyantheFett said:

I also don't think they will nuke the faction, but would not be surprised if CIS ends up being the big winner either. Token sharing is getting changed in some way and I think most Clones will go up a few points so that they get smaller armies. On the other hand, CIS was used several times as the example of where they wanted factions to be in power level so I doubt they will see any changes (still like that droidekar buff lol).

Of course it also sounds like a major reset for the whole game in the way he talked in the video. Rework of the old heavies, wookies, dewbacks, pathfinders, and most weapon attachments. The idea that rockets being cheap enough for auto includes since all the heavies will now be a clear threat is crazy to think about! So maybe a slight nurf to GAR and crazy buffs to Rebels/Empire could make Clones the worse faction, but more likely it stays in the top 2. Especially with Ani, BARC buff, and maybe Saber buff as well (less likely, but possible).

Either way I am happy to welcome our new T-47/AT-ST overlords.

If they nerf GAR too hard, they'll just have to turn around and un-nerf them at some point in the future.

Such is the ebb and flow of the nerf/buf spiral.

If they screw GAR so be it. We'll see the results in the change in tournament meta.

But I promise you they will end up just adjusting them back to being strong if they push the pendulum too far this time.

3 hours ago, lologrelol said:

If they nerf GAR too hard, they'll just have to turn around and un-nerf them at some point in the future.

Such is the ebb and flow of the nerf/buf spiral.

If they screw GAR so be it. We'll see the results in the change in tournament meta.

But I promise you they will end up just adjusting them back to being strong if they push the pendulum too far this time.

Agreed. The problem is that most nerfing is like using a broadsword when a scalpel would work. My understanding of the biggest problem is the standby sharing with Phase 2s and the fortress stack. 2 simple fixes address this, change token sharing to not include stand by tokens (which do have a different color.scheme of grey and green as opposed to white and green) and limit token sharing to be between only one token per activation. But I have a feeling and a fear that it'll go far beyond that. We shall see.

20 hours ago, KommanderKeldoth said:

I doubt they are going to nuke GAR. FFG tends to favor small adjustments over drastic ones. Just look at Tauntauns, the only thing thats changed is a tweak to the creature trooper disengage and clamber rules.

That's been the trend in Legion thus far, but X-Wing shows that the company at large does go for large scale nerfs when they feel like it. Entire lists archtypes have been taken out there simply because a combination of a couple of specific upgrades and pilots were seen as too powerful together, and priced so they couldn't be used together. This hurts not only the current meta boogieman, but also other lists that used elements of it. Case here, killing standby-sharing and raising GAR points across the board will hurt a lot more than players who castle up or rely on turn 1 alpha strikes.

3 hours ago, Alpha17 said:

That's been the trend in Legion thus far, but X-Wing shows that the company at large does go for large scale nerfs when they feel like it. Entire lists archtypes have been taken out there simply because a combination of a couple of specific upgrades and pilots were seen as too powerful together, and priced so they couldn't be used together. This hurts not only the current meta boogieman, but also other lists that used elements of it. Case here, killing standby-sharing and raising GAR points across the board will hurt a lot more than players who castle up or rely on turn 1 alpha strikes.

X-Wing is different, because of costs involved in maintaining multiple factions. It is easy to just switch to a different list or faction, as you usually already have more than enough ships anyway and if you don't, they're not exactly expensive.

12 hours ago, lologrelol said:

If they nerf GAR too hard, they'll just have to turn around and un-nerf them at some point in the future.

Such is the ebb and flow of the nerf/buf spiral.

If they screw GAR so be it. We'll see the results in the change in tournament meta.

But I promise you they will end up just adjusting them back to being strong if they push the pendulum too far this time.

They wont screw GAR lmao. GAR will still be the best faction in the game even after the nerfs. The disparity just wont be as bad as is now.

Worst case scenario GAR loses standby token sharing and clonetroopers and R2D2 go up a few points. All fair changes.

There will also likely be some nerfs to strike teams and the leader rules but that affects all factions not just GAR.

And Rebels and Imperials will probably see some ultimately meaningless cost reductions rather than actual fixes. Making the airspeeder and dewback cost 10-20 less points or whatever isnt going to fix them; theyll still be flaming dumpster fires that nobody will use ever.

BOO HOO. People are overreacting as usual.

12 minutes ago, Khobai said:

They wont screw GAR lmao. GAR will still be the best faction in the game even after the nerfs. The disparity just wont be as bad as is now.

Worst case scenario GAR loses standby token sharing and clonetroopers and R2D2 go up a few points. All fair changes.

There will also likely be some nerfs to strike teams and the leader rules but that affects all factions not just GAR.

And Rebels and Imperials will probably see some ultimately meaningless cost reductions rather than actual fixes. Making the airspeeder and dewback cost 10-20 less points or whatever isnt going to fix them; theyll still be flaming dumpster fires.

BOO HOO. People are overreacting as usual.

That is a lot of **** talking about an update that isn’t even out yet and NO ONE knows the specifics about it.

why don’t we wait till it actually gets released and then nitpick it to death.

im just being realistic

rebel and imperial players shouldnt be optimistic

because this update is going to be disappointing and address the bare minimum

Rebel and Empire aren't dumpster fires... they are pretty competitive. But they have a lot of subpar units that no one uses, like Wookies.

57 minutes ago, Vector Strike said:

Rebel and Empire isn't dumpster fires... they are pretty competitive. But they have a lot of subpar units that no one uses, like Wookies.

This.

6 hours ago, Vector Strike said:

Rebel and Empire isn't dumpster fires... they are pretty competitive. But they have a lot of subpar units that no one uses, like Wookies.

I didnt say rebel and empire were dumpster fires. I said the airspeeder and dewback were.

7 hours ago, Vector Strike said:

Rebel and Empire isn't dumpster fires... they are pretty competitive. But they have a lot of subpar units that no one uses, like Wookies.

"No one uses" is quite a hyperbole.

10 hours ago, Khobai said:

im just being realistic

rebel and imperial players shouldnt be optimistic

because this update is going to be disappointing and address the bare minimum

Why is it that when the update you've been asking for is finally announced, with comments that imply that FFG are actually aware of what needs fixed, it's not good enough anymore? Not to mention your language has been becoming more and more antagonistic as time goes by. Perhaps you could take things down a notch?

Well...

On ‎17‎.‎10‎.‎2020 at 4:08 AM, Khobai said:

Anyone who cant (or wont) admit GAR is overpowered is someone we can do without. Because those players arnt interested in a balanced game. Theyre only interested in GAR remaining overpowered.

I hope all the GAR deniers quit when their faction gets nerfed. The game will be way more fun once GAR is dealt with and rebels and imperials get some much needed buffs.

Honestly mate I don't get the hatred. I love playing against them (CIS player), I love the theme, and I find they are nothing like as unbalanced as people make out. I enjoy playing with them on occasion, and agree they can be a tough faction to play against, but they are not the superpowered space gods people think. Nor do they create such imbalance to the force (see what I did there) that they are made out to. I'd like to see more diversity on their lists (as will come with tweaks to Barcs etc). I don't get why some people hate them so much.

4 hours ago, Ilostmycactus said:

Why is it that when the update you've been asking for is finally announced, with comments that imply that FFG are actually aware of what needs fixed, it's not good enough anymore? Not to mention your language has been becoming more and more antagonistic as time goes by. Perhaps you could take things down a notch?

We were calling that over a month ago. Whenever the changes do come out, he'll simultaneously gloat about how this proves all his points, while also rant about how FFG didn't go far enough, and X, Y, and Z are the real problems, not A, B, C. There is legitimately not pleasing him, nor a lot of the GAR haters. They'll whine about this until they get clobbered by something else and decide it's the new OP Boogeyman that breaks the game.

4 hours ago, Haslamm1 said:

10 hours ago, Haslamm1 said:

Honestly mate I don't get the hatred. I love playing against them (CIS player), I love the theme, and I find they are nothing like as unbalanced as people make out. I enjoy playing with them on occasion, and agree they can be a tough faction to play against, but they are not the superpowered space gods people think. Nor do they create such imbalance to the force (see what I did there) that they are made out to. I'd like to see more diversity on their lists (as will come with tweaks to Barcs etc). I don't get why some people hate them so much.

The problem with GAR is that high tier play against them is ******* brutal. I listen to a lot of podcast and watch some online vids. They destroy the meta and the build is always the same with little change. Made worse by the fact that the way they play this fortress build is boring/unfun. It the super compertive players that you really see where the faction is somewhat broken.

I also find casual play against GAR to be fine, but he made it clear in the video that balances would be geared towards tournament play.

On 10/15/2020 at 12:27 AM, Mace Windu said:

Also almost guaranteed that all the rebel and imperial heavies are getting readjustments to be on a par with the AAT which was deemed the sweet spot for Heavy support design.

As a Rebel player, i am really interested in seeing how they put the T-47 and the X-34 on par with the AAT.

If they want to buff them, the devs will have to change various offensive and defensive features.

If they just want to reduce point costs, it should be a remarkable decrease. (I honestly think a current full equipped X-34 should cost a bit more than half the cost of a current full equipped AAT)

52 minutes ago, RyantheFett said:

The problem with GAR is that high tier play against them is ******* brutal. I listen to a lot of podcast and watch some online vids. They destroy the meta and the build is always the same with little change. Made worse by the fact that the way they play this fortress build is boring/unfun. It the super compertive players that you really see where the faction is somewhat broken.

I also find casual play against GAR to be fine, but he made it clear in the video that balances would be geared towards tournament play.

Exactly. Against a casual player GAR is, at worst, a little chunky in terms of survivability and firepower, it's not a huge deal. On the other hand people who min/max and play GAR with "precision" are showing that the faction is more efficient than the others, and it can be devastating, even when matched at similar skill levels. As other people have stated it's not really even the "Standby Castle" that's causing the unbalance, it's token sharing in general. It's been my experience that aims and dodges are far more potent in clone lists. They're more widely available and boost both the offensive and defense capabilities of units in GAR.

I'm not sure what their plans are, but I seriously doubt they're gonna nuke GAR. FFG has a long history of doing soft nerfs, and this is good. My worry is it may be too soft for the state of small metas right now. (Armada for instance has had issues with 3-4 cards and a couple of fleet archetypes since the start of the game, and though they attempted to soft nerf them, some of them didn't get balanced until wave 7). It's frustrating to see players turn down matches because of how strong a single faction is in the right hands. Covid makes it very difficult to line up matches in a safe environment, unbalance in the game meta will outright kill off small game groups (with balance updates only being released once a year, and fewer new products released because of covid delays, I fear it could take too long to balance out).

12 hours ago, Haslamm1 said:

I'd like to see more diversity on their lists (as will come with tweaks to Barcs etc)

Can't wait to get my Barcs on the board more. A lower points cost could almost justify a 3rd. I recently played with 3 AT-RTs and it was a lot of fun. Unfortunately I did not get a copy of Vital Assets so I do not have the vehicle friendly objectives but even so I can put favorable objectives in my list building.

4 hours ago, Dalae said:

As a Rebel player, i am really interested in seeing how they put the T-47 and the X-34 on par with the AAT.

If they want to buff them, the devs will have to change various offensive and defensive features.

If they just want to reduce point costs, it should be a remarkable decrease. (I honestly think a current full equipped X-34 should cost a bit more than half the cost of a current full equipped AAT)

Their prefereed method now seems to be

1. Lower points
2. Change how the abilities work. Like danger sense working in melee
3. Adding keywords. They are reluctant to make the cards less useful.

I would say the X-34 could work with a point decrease and see how it works for a year. They have 4 weapon options and several can go down in points a lot. More so if they are pushing for more heavies/rockets in the meta. The games I played with the landspeeder I always felt that it worked out well and did a lot, but was just far too expensive at what it did.

As for the airspeeder, yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa that one is going to have a rework somewhere

7 minutes ago, RyantheFett said:

As for the airspeeder, yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa that one is going to have a rework somewhere

Give it barrage and outmanuever natively and make the harpoon gun zero points. Thats my two cents anyway.

2 hours ago, KommanderKeldoth said:

Give it barrage and outmanuever natively and make the harpoon gun zero points. Thats my two cents anyway.

why should it have barrage?, The keyword was created for a battle tank that is an artillery piece which sits an wait for it sends out Barrages of fire, the airspeeder is just a retrofitted civilian vehicle, the Rebel alliance had problems with them on Hoth and look how ineffective they where. Bring it down to 110 points and call it a day. It's not supposed to be on the level of the AAT because it's not a main line tank, it's a freakin flying Volkswagen golf with cannons.

2 hours ago, Darth evil said:

why should it have barrage?, The keyword was created for a battle tank that is an artillery piece which sits an wait for it sends out Barrages of fire, the airspeeder is just a retrofitted civilian vehicle, the Rebel alliance had problems with them on Hoth and look how ineffective they where. Bring it down to 110 points and call it a day. It's not supposed to be on the level of the AAT because it's not a main line tank, it's a freakin flying Volkswagen golf with cannons.

Because the tail gunner can focus on just firing the main weapon rather than splitting their attention, and it better justifies the Arsenal 2 with weapons that face completely opposite directions.
I'd also be fine with losing Arsenal 2 (as well as the points for the keyword) altogether honestly. "On the level" here I believe has more to do with effectiveness for points invested.

7 hours ago, codytx2 said:

Can't wait to get my Barcs on the board more. A lower points cost could almost justify a 3rd. I recently played with 3 AT-RTs and it was a lot of fun. Unfortunately I did not get a copy of Vital Assets so I do not have the vehicle friendly objectives but even so I can put favorable objectives in my list building.

For casual games my playgroup often just proxies cards we would like to have but don't. Especially since we often need to use printed errata for a number of cards anyway.

No Barrage for the Airspeeder, pls. The thing already has Impact 3 on its main guns...