34 minutes ago, Ginkapo said:

You give your opponent absolutely zero information.

This cannot be understated. Every other deployment gives tour opponent information about both that ships trajectory and narrows the possible trajectories of your undeployed ships. People make far fewer forced errors when they have good information.

Corvus’ bonus can be significantly overstated.

A lot of objectives have already shown where fleets want to go. So Corvus doesn’t do all that much in those cases. Look at Salvage Run and try to convince somebody that your Corvus deploying somewhere nonsensical robs them of critical information

Corvus does have an effect that matters under two situations. Either an objective that doesn’t dictate where the fight will be OR when facing an Onager. If one of those two criteria aren’t met, Corvus’ bonus is negligible.

Another way to look at it: every half decent tourney list has a plan to deploy in case Solar Corona or Superior Positions is an option. A plan for deployment based on zero information. So deploying based on ever so slightly less than normal information isn’t an issue.

Hahahahahahahahahahaha

3 hours ago, Ginkapo said:

Hahahahahahahahahahaha

What a coherent and thoughtful response.

You can’t even counter my point about Salvage Run. Much less the rest. It’s okay to be wrong. Just don’t be an ***.

Objectives which have an impact on deployment:

Red - 3/8 of which only surprise attack is ever taken to tournament.

Yellow - 6/8

Blue - 5/8 of which only Solar Corona is regularly taken to a tournament.

Can you choose your own objectives?

Yes

Likelyhood of being forced into picking a deployment controlling objective?

Low

Likelyhood of being outdeployed when playing a deployment controlling objective?

Low

Did the original post or the second post warrant this coherent response?

No, its not worth responding to arguments based on a tiny scenario having a major impact considering the player to be incapable of choosing scenarios which favour their fleet.

On 11/25/2020 at 12:46 PM, Ginkapo said:

Objectives which have an impact on deployment:

Red - 3/8 of which only surprise attack is ever taken to tournament.

Yellow - 6/8

Blue - 5/8 of which only Solar Corona is regularly taken to a tournament.

Can you choose your own objectives?

Yes

Likelyhood of being forced into picking a deployment controlling objective?

Low

Likelyhood of being outdeployed when playing a deployment controlling objective?

Low

Did the original post or the second post warrant this coherent response?

No, its not worth responding to arguments based on a tiny scenario having a major impact considering the player to be incapable of choosing scenarios which favour their fleet.

Numbers without context don’t make an argument.

Using actual data: Only 2 reds make up 66% of all lists. Adv Gunnery and Most wanted. In both cases, they provide too much advantage for second player and end up chosen extremely rarely. So whether or not reds dictate where the fight is isn’t actually relevant.

For yellows: Data shows it’s about 60% of lists chosen have an objective that dictates where the fight occurs. I’d honestly figured it was higher.

For blues, 2/3rds of all lists bring Solar Corona or Superior positions, which Corvus is irrelevant for. The next two most popular are Intel Sweep and salvage run, where the objective determines where the fight will be. So all told 86% of the fleets you face use a blue where Corvus doesn’t provide a benefit.

So this paints a picture: If you are first player, you can choose a painful red objective that provide a major advantage in combat to player 2 just you can say you used Corvus. You could also choose a blue that is almost always going to make Corvus irrelevant. 40% of the time you can make Corvus do... something with their yellow objective.

As for your other points: Sure, you can choose your own objectives. And Corvus actually even helps with some of them. If using Corvus is so helpful, you *could* also aggressively bid for second player. That way you avoid ever choosing from an opponent’s objectives that will most of the time make Corvus not important. Though bidding for second generally relies on the high scoring second player objectives. They also generally happen to be the ones where the fight is dictated or strongly encourages. So not really where Corvus excels.

Is Corvus good? In general, yeah. Is it important? Occasionally. The only time I see it being consistently reliable is maybe in an onager fleet so you can move it back as an escort once you have placed the Onager last.

The Evade change makes my MC30s sing again!

@Church14 please stop digging. You appear to be suffering from having lots of ingrained assumptions which make you very blinkered. You really need to start recognising them and approach problems with an open mind.

In this case you are attempting to argue against Corvus being excellent for improving deployment. There really isnt room to argue against this. However, because you have an ingrained assumption that Corvus is bad you have been attempting to fabricate vacuum scenarios to fit your assumption rather being objective with an open mind.

In your last argument you state Advanced Gunnery to be a difficult objective whilst forgetting that this all started with an SSD list without gunnery teams. The vacuum scenarios you are creating dobt exist and as I said before are ignoring the agency of the player to control their situation.

Own your assumptions

6 hours ago, Norell said:

The Evade change makes my MC30s sing again!

Did they ever stop singing? 😄

All in all for the MC30c the 1.5 changes have a mixed impact. Usable Evade at short distance is a boost. Exhaustable ACM/APT is a nerf. Only 2 rerolls with Ordnance Experts is nerf. Admonition only allows to discard green defense tokens is a nerf. But all of these cards get a bit cheaper on the other hand. Still the hungriest shark in the Rebel pond, I would say.

8 minutes ago, Triangular said:

Did they ever stop singing? 😄

All in all for the MC30c the 1.5 changes have a mixed impact. Usable Evade at short distance is a boost. Exhaustable ACM/APT is a nerf. Only 2 rerolls with Ordnance Experts is nerf. Admonition only allows to discard green defense tokens is a nerf. But all of these cards get a bit cheaper on the other hand. Still the hungriest shark in the Rebel pond, I would say.

Where did you get those last nerfs from? Can't remember that those had been published anywhere?

11 minutes ago, TheWampa said:

Where did you get those last nerfs from? Can't remember that those had been published anywhere?

All in the German leak/rumor, that has been completely spot on so far. So it's highly possible, that these changes are accurate but yet to be revealed

1 minute ago, NewGandhi said:

All in the German leak/rumor, that has been completely spot on so far. So it's highly possible, that these changes are accurate but yet to be revealed

There is nothing about ordnance experts or Admo in the German leaks, they are all about CW products. And I read them all

11 minutes ago, TheWampa said:

There is nothing about ordnance experts or Admo in the German leaks, they are all about CW products. And I read them all

Not all of them, then.

12 minutes ago, Formynder4 said:

Not all of them, then.

To my knowledge the manuals from both CW squad expansions and the Separatist quickstart manual were spoilt on the German Asmodee site. What else did I miss?

Edit: Seens I didn't miss anything, Triangual has been quoting aditional v1.5 changes for some time without being able/allowed to cite a source.

6 hours ago, Ginkapo said:

@Church14 please stop digging. You appear to be suffering from having lots of ingrained assumptions which make you very blinkered. You really need to start recognising them and approach problems with an open mind.

In this case you are attempting to argue against Corvus being excellent for improving deployment. There really isnt room to argue against this. However, because you have an ingrained assumption that Corvus is bad you have been attempting to fabricate vacuum scenarios to fit your assumption rather being objective with an open mind.

In your last argument you state Advanced Gunnery to be a difficult objective whilst forgetting that this all started with an SSD list without gunnery teams. The vacuum scenarios you are creating dobt exist and as I said before are ignoring the agency of the player to control their situation.

Own your assumptions

“Digging”

”assumptions”

“Blinkered”

Quit being an ***. You’ve offered a stance unsupported by data and based on an unjustified assumption. Armada community likes to hold the assumption that more deployments is an advantage. The data doesn’t actually support this. Fleets with more deployments don’t actually perform significantly better in the competitive environment. At least not from the community tracker I’m looking at.

I’ve made no assumptions. I’ll leave it at this. Unless you want to articulate any argument of substance, we will drop it here.

Hahahahahahaha

Deployment delay does not always equate to more drops. Its about the information given in the first three deployments during the deployment curve.

Keep digging

11 minutes ago, TheWampa said:

To my knowledge the manuals from both CW squad expansions and the Separatist quickstart manual were spoilt on the German Asmodee site. What else did I miss?

1. there is a german forum, named after a certain wretched hive of scum and villainy. The CW-leak in there called for exhaust ACM 5 PT at the end of August...

28 minutes ago, NewGandhi said:

1. there is a german forum, named after a certain wretched hive of scum and villainy. The CW-leak in there called for exhaust ACM 5 PT at the end of August...

You mean that certain post from August 31, 2020 ? I read that, but there weren't any sources quoted then either. Anyways, it's less than week until release, guess I'll survive until then.

1 hour ago, TheWampa said:

Triangual has been quoting aditional v1.5 changes for some time without being able/allowed to cite a source.

Because if he does that's someone violating an NDA and will result in consequences

44 minutes ago, geek19 said:

Because if he does that's someone violating an NDA and will result in consequences

I know. That doesn't mean I won't be curious... 😋

58 minutes ago, TheWampa said:

You mean that certain post from August 31, 2020 ? I read that, but there weren't any sources quoted then either. Anyways, it's less than week until release, guess I'll survive until then.

Leaks don't necessarily cite a source. If it's an unsanctioned release of information that should have been kept secret, it's a leak.

4 hours ago, Triangular said:

Did they ever stop singing? 😄

All in all for the MC30c the 1.5 changes have a mixed impact. Usable Evade at short distance is a boost. Exhaustable ACM/APT is a nerf. Only 2 rerolls with Ordnance Experts is nerf. Admonition only allows to discard green defense tokens is a nerf. But all of these cards get a bit cheaper on the other hand. Still the hungriest shark in the Rebel pond, I would say.

What did I miss? When did this point cost changes were confirmed?

7 hours ago, TheWampa said:

You mean that certain post from August 31, 2020 ? I read that, but there weren't any sources quoted then either. Anyways, it's less than week until release, guess I'll survive until then.

the acm nerf is in the article here: https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2020/11/23/ready-for-battle-1/

dont know about the OE nerf

10 hours ago, Triangular said:

All in all for the MC30c the 1.5 changes have a mixed impact. Usable Evade at short distance is a boost. Exhaustable ACM/APT is a nerf. Only 2 rerolls with Ordnance Experts is nerf. Admonition only allows to discard green defense tokens is a nerf. But all of these cards get a bit cheaper on the other hand. Still the hungriest shark in the Rebel pond, I would say.

So ... playtester spilling beans? Because i also have not seen cards like APT or OE discussed in anything yet, and no reason to think they'd be in the German inserts?

A little disheartening, if this all turns out to be true. I've played a lot of MC30/MC75, and they are viable if you aggressively reroll with OEs for spike damage and get double-arc shots to trigger ACM/APT twice a round on their target. Without either of those reliability boosting options... ? The thing about black-die ships is that they need to hit very reliably very hard when they get their shots, because time on target can be a real problem for them, especially against fast large ships (like an ISD). These changes make that much harder to accomplish. We'll see if black die dependent ships like the MC30 and MC75 can still carry their weight now, but this sort of change just further makes mindless ships like the ISD (point toward enemy, roll piles of dice) even better, because they don't have to be as scared of getting caught in a torp boat's dual arc.

2 hours ago, EBerling said:

So ... playtester spilling beans? Because i also have not seen cards like APT or OE discussed in anything yet, and no reason to think they'd be in the German inserts?

A little disheartening, if this all turns out to be true. I've played a lot of MC30/MC75, and they are viable if you aggressively reroll with OEs for spike damage and get double-arc shots to trigger ACM/APT twice a round on their target. Without either of those reliability boosting options... ? The thing about black-die ships is that they need to hit very reliably very hard when they get their shots, because time on target can be a real problem for them, especially against fast large ships (like an ISD). These changes make that much harder to accomplish. We'll see if black die dependent ships like the MC30 and MC75 can still carry their weight now, but this sort of change just further makes mindless ships like the ISD (point toward enemy, roll piles of dice) even better, because they don't have to be as scared of getting caught in a torp boat's dual arc.

Yeah, I am withholding judgment until I can see how this all works, but I’m not liking the implication for MC30s if all of this turns out to be correct.

ECM change, on the other hand, will make MC30s happy.