Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Freeptop

  • Rank
  • Birthday

Recent Profile Visitors

343 profile views
  1. I agree with the OP that perfect balance is realistically not achievable. What point adjustment will allow them to do is to prevent stagnation of the meta. If one list comes to dominate the scene, they can adjust point costs and upgrade slots to make other lists more viable, and make problematic lists not possible. But to expect perfect balance is asking too much. There are simply too many variables in play. As an engineer, what I truly appreciate about it is that they don't have to worry nearly as much about attempting to future-proof point costs. Set the point costs based on what's currently available. If new product would make a previous upgrade/pilot a problem, point costs can be adjusted based on the new product, instead of just making the new product too expensive to be viable out the gate. Personal experience tells me that when you try to engineer for things you might do, you end up with a system that causes problems for the things you are definitely doing. And likely doesn't end up working for the other thing if and when you get around to it after all, due to other changes that happened in the meantime.
  2. Freeptop

    Luke vs the New Turrets

    So, care to do a version of that chart where the attackers have Crack Shot and Han in their bullseye arcs? Because from my reading of the cards, that translates to "Damage blocked == 0"
  3. Freeptop

    Luke vs the New Turrets

    The main reason I assumed only one attack + one bonus attack is due to the fact that they came up with the "bonus attack" terminology in the first place. That way, they don't need clunky additional text to say you can't attack again, so long as something isn't providing a "bonus attack", and they don't have to worry about it stacking if you only get one bonus attack. It is the most logical reason for introducing that terminology. Otherwise, there really isn't much point. The wording on Han seems like it's meant to make sure that if something does grant a bonus attack, they don't get the use the turret. Otherwise, it should state that you are getting a second attack instead of inferring it in the most roundabout way. Eh, we'll find out one way or another eventually.
  4. Freeptop

    Luke vs the New Turrets

    I'm not sure why you think the Han Gunner provides additional attacks. It's explicitly disallowing extra attacks, albeit only of a certain type. Let's look at the card text, as you already showed it: I'm guessing that you're interpreting the wording to mean that Han Gunner grants an attack at initiative 7, then allows the regular attack at normal initiative. But the card doesn't say that. Rules give you one attack. This one gives you one at IN 7, but only if you're using a mobile arc. It does not grant a bonus attack. What it does say is that if you have a way to get a bonus attack, you can't use your mobile arc for that bonus attack (and thus, it also isn't at IN 7). Basically, it lets Han Shoot First. But he only gets one shot to do so each turn. Edit: I'll admit, the one possible loophole is that we don't know what the 2.0 rules say, so I'll grant the possibility after all. But I am assuming the rules will only allow one attack + one bonus attack, based on info we've gotten so far. With no bonus attack being granted, this card shouldn't be providing multiple attacks.
  5. Freeptop

    Will 2.0 have any ‘canon’ upgrades...

    When it comes to the TIE Striker - at this point, it's going to need something to distinguish it from the Interceptor (which from what we've seen so far, is the superior ship). With the TIE Bomber getting a bomb-related ability, it wouldn't be stealing the thunder from it, so adding bombs to the Striker would make it a bit more unique.
  6. Freeptop

    Will 2.0 have any ‘canon’ upgrades...

    If you look at an F-22 in flight at any time when it isn't firing its weapons, you won't see an opening for any weapons. They have doors that automatically open to fire weaponry and close immediately afterwards. Granted, that's for stealth purposes, but one could easily justify it on a B-Wing as armoring up the torpedo launchers to prevent an enemy shot from setting off the torpedoes before they can be fired, since they were designed to close in on capital ships, after all. Really, all the weapon systems on a B-Wing are retcon, since they really don't get much visible time on camera in RotJ.So if we need to retcon a way for it to have proton torpedoes, big deal
  7. Seems weird to try to evaluate a 2.0 TIE swarm vs a 1.0 list, though. There are so many assumptions baked in to the 2.0 pilots that aren't valid in a 1.0 meta. It's already been said that TLTs didn't make it to 2.0, so even if Miranda's ability sees no change, she takes a hit right there. We don't know if Harpoons survived the change. The ability to token-stack on offense is greatly decreased (if not outright eliminated), so surviving three dice from Lowrrick is a bit more likely, particularly with 3 defense dice. For that matter, we don't know if Lowrrick's ability survived. Even with all that, there's the chance that FFG would simply alter the point costs to make it so you aren't fitting that list inside the squad limits anyway... Hopefully at least some of these questions will be answered by the conversion kit unboxing tomorrow! (Obviously not the point costs, but at least the pilot abilities and upgrades!)
  8. Freeptop

    Oh My God I Just Realized Something!!!

    Adding a slot for a new upgrade type doesn't do anything if you don't buy the expansions that include the upgrades of that type. If anything, it means that customers who might not be interested in a new ship, but do want the new upgrade type for their existing ship will end up buying an expansion they otherwise might not have been interested in. FFG wouldn't even be breaking their promise that all upgrades would be available to all factions solely by buying expansions for a single faction: if a B-Wing gets a new upgrade type slot added because of the release of, I dunno, an H-Wing, then it's still available from a Rebel expansion.
  9. Freeptop

    Y-Wing, Ordinance and Long Range Scanners in 2.0?

    It occurs to me that there is a way to bring LRS into 2.0 without having it give the ability to stack focus and lock: "Action: If another ship moves into range 0-3 and inside your firing arc this turn, you may acquire a lock on that ship." Basically, Snap Shot for target locks, only it requires using your action to do so. It would prevent double-stacking, still require range and maneuvering, but would allow lower initiative pilots to acquire a lock on a higher initiative pilot, albeit at a risk of having the action fail entirely.
  10. Freeptop

    Oh My God I Just Realized Something!!!

    One thing that really only just sunk in for me: with upgrade slots coming from the app, they'll be able to easily add new types of upgrades to older ships retroactively without requiring a clunky title. For that matter, if they add a new action that they want to retrofit, they can do something like put that new action onto a configuration card for an older ship, then add a configuration slot to the older ship. They've given themselves lots of room to make sure older ships can continue to keep up, if need be.
  11. The CGI Tarkin in RotS looks to be around the same age as Rogue One's CGI Tarkin. It's after Vader has settled into his armor and body, unlike the stiff moving Vader we see when he first gets up after being rescued by Palpatine. Plus, that's the bridge layout of an Imperial-class Star Destroyer in that scene. Given all of that, I always assumed that scene was time-jumped forward, basically to around what is now the Rogue One timeframe.
  12. Freeptop

    One weird side-effect of all this 2e nonsense

    Actually, I'm a software engineer who works in tech products, but I have friends who work in the gaming industry. How do I know FFGs production costs? Because some things are pretty similar, no matter what the exact product is. Molds for plastic items made in China, for example, is pretty much a standard set of costs. I don't know their specific costs, but I have an idea of the scale. Things like profit margins are a pretty standard business thing. And in terms of having an idea of how much sells, all I need to do is look at where you can buy the product from. X-Wing expansions are only available in specialty stores, not the big-box stores like Target or Wal-Mart. In those specialty stores, you generally only see a handful of each SKU available (1-5), and they can sit on the shelf for quite some time before selling. Right there, you aren't getting the volume necessary to afford low margins. That also means you aren't buying enough from the manufacturer to have "buying power." When I was with the startup I co-founded, we wanted to use a particular chip at one point. We contacted the company that produced them for a pricing quote. Their response was: "Come talk to us when you're shipping at least 1000 units per month." Until then, it wasn't even worth it to them to sell to us. That is the kind of volume that allows lower margins. The fact that we see when each product "goes to the printer" on FFGs website tells me they aren't producing a sustained thousand units-per-month sell-through rate on each expansion. And yes, it would need to be on a per-expansion basis, not total across all products, in order to pay back development costs. For the record, "most prominent board game companies" is already separating out a niche market which isn't all that large. And 7th on that list is actually pretty far down (I'd go over the list, but that link doesn't appear to actually work...) In any case, once you get past "Hasbro", none of them are going to be particularly rolling in cash. As an amusing side-note - the startup I worked for ultimately ended up getting acquired. By the same company that had told us they wouldn't sell to us. I still find that amusing, even though that was well over a decade ago, now. And with that, I'm out, too. I hope at least one person found this look into how business works interesting. I've spent far too much time procrastinating from work writing these posts up now 😁
  13. Freeptop

    Gunner and Crew slots

    I could have sworn I saw the name listed as BTL-S3... guess that's what I get for going off of memory instead of checking! Ah, well. Another idea bites the dust before it even leaves the ground.
  14. Freeptop

    It's been at least a week since the last Punisher thread

    If the Punisher gets reload and keeps its system slot, it would be interesting if Long Range Scanners made it over into 2.0 as well. With the changes to Fire Control System and most ordnance not discarding the lock to use them, a combination of LRS and FCS would mean the Punisher would be able to have both focus and a re-roll without having to worry about moving back out of range to re-lock after firing the ordnance. Of course, there's also the possibility that LRS will be converted to a system, thus preventing that combo. In that case, the Punisher would turn into an interesting hit-and-run option (assuming it retains boost). Lock on, charge in and attack. If lock is used, boost back out of range and lock again using LRS.
  15. Freeptop

    Gunner and Crew slots

    The BTL-A4 was technically the Longprobe variation, so there's a chance of having a configuration or modification for the Y-Wing into the BTL-A4 that locks the turret either forward or backward, removes the gunner slot, and either adds a system slot, or provides the Jam action. It wouldn't get the old "fire twice" ability, but it would now match the lore a bit better. Granted, like most of my speculation, chances are they won't do this