• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Kdubb

  • Rank
  • Birthday December 27

Recent Profile Visitors

407 profile views
  1. Definitely setting up ships across the board instead of clustered together.
  2. I'm right there with you on this one Sozin. A lot of players talk about how cards need to be nerfed when they are too powerful. There is another reason that can be argued for why certain cards need to be changed- when a card defines an archetype or an upgrade slot to the extent that there is no need to ever consider an alternative option. Other, less problemed upgrades that do this are (off the top of my head. Probably more)- Kanan crew w/ PTL or new Falcon title ships (Rey crew has helped with the former a bit though) FCS with the systems slot (yes, other systems do see occasional use, but lets be real- the value of FCS is unmatched) TLT with the turret slot (maybe this one isn't less of a problem lol) Attani Mindlink for 3+ Elite pilot scum lists Autothrusters for 3 agility boosters (super annoying that every single one of them has to waste their mod slot on this "fix") C3p0 (for Rebels) and Engine on traditional PWTs (at least in the past if not anymore) VI on named Phantoms (think this one is just kind of accepted now and not really seen as an issue by most) Now, not all of these are problems on the table, but they do restrict list building in the sense that they are essentially "auto-include" in the given scenarios. I think any steps FFG took to alleviate issues like this is a step in the right direction.
  3. Trandoshan Slaver (29) Rigged Cargo Chute (1) Jabba the Hutt (5) Shadowport Hunter (33) Rigged Cargo Chute (1) Rigged Cargo Chute (1) Trandoshan Slaver (29) Rigged Cargo Chute (1) Total: 100 View in Yet Another Squad Builder 8 Rigged Cargo chutes, anyone?
  4. So here are some of the possible fixes I'm hearing to put TLT on the power level it should be- 1. Make it range 3 only 2. move it to range 1-2 like the other turrets 3. Make it unique in some way (perhaps only 2 per list. Not sure this really catches the problem.) 4. Give range 3 ships range bonuses 5. straight up errata to the card ability. Some suggestions include only rolling the defenders agility value on attack, and rolling 1 less die each time you roll dice in a round for it.
  5. Exactly what most of us thought. Will be interesting to see him on the table. Hilarious FFG still doesn't know how to word their cards.
  6. Medium base ships- K-wing, Punisher, Aggressor (IG), Jumpmaster, ARC, U-wing, Scurrg... Sigh... If only...
  7. I'm super skeptical about Synched turret being any good at all. I wish I could say otherwise. Titled Y-wings seems to be the best place for it though. FFG seems to be looking at turret upgrades backwards and asking "hmm... Is it better than Blaster Turret?" instead of "hmm... Is there any reason at all to ever take this over TLT?". Why synced turret, which is already mediocre at best in my mind, requires you to have a target lock to fire it is beyond me. But that isn't even the big issue. The issue is the range. TLT is strong because the ability is good, but what really puts it miles ahead of the other turrets is being able to shoot at range 3. The coverage a range 3 turret holds is so good, you could argue a range 3 only turret would be more valuable than a range 1-2 turret due to the still decent area it covers, while still being able to maintain distance without the negative of giving defensive bonuses to the defender. If you give dorsal, ion and synched range 3 shots, they actually might see play. Heck, take away their range 1 even and they are still better off. Either that, or turrets need to see range bonuses. If dorsal and synched are rolling 4 dice at range 1, and TLT at range 3 gives a defensive bonus, turrets might be on even footing (although autoblaster turret becomes an issue). All in all, TLT is really hurting the design space for turrets. Maybe all of the non-Blaster turrets would see play if TLT wasn't a thing (ion did see a healthy amount of use before TLT appeared), but until TLT is dealt with, much like FCS in the systems slot, there is little reason to take something else if the points are there. And if they aren't there, you strongly need to consider making the space for them.
  8. The destiny spoiler is kind of funny since they just had a massive leak of a huge portion of the sets cards.
  9. Do you think combo-ability should have a price though? For the most part, I agree a flat cost is the way to go, except in a few cases. I'll call it the "combo" tax. This tax of 1, maybe 2 points, would be paid only if a) a ship has 4 or more NON secondary weapon based (non universal) upgrade slots, and b) the ship does not pay a tax of some other sort (such as a poor maneuver dial, i.e. YV-666). Currently, these are the ships that would pay the tax- Jumpmaster Upsilon Shuttle (argument for dial paying utility cost) Named Decimators Elite Lancers YV-666 (Almost certainly pays for utility with dial) Think that's all of them. I may be alone, but I don't think I would be entirely upset if the Jumpmaster, Named Deci and Lancers saw an increase by 1 or 2 points... Well, except Sabine and the generic for the Lancer lol.
  10. Doesn't Vassal take the same steps, except maybe one less (saving dials to each ship)? Vassal you load up a room, upload your squad... Wait for opponent... Begin game?
  11. Well that's... Incredibly disappointing that it's a real thing. Why use such an old, boring, and prototypical "space" design with so many imaginary minds and concepts available?
  12. Cool stuff. What is that ship in the top left? Straight up UFO! lol.
  13. In case you guys haven't noticed... Shadow345 posts a blatant troll topic like this about once a month.
  14. This is on the docket of things to implement. It might even be next.
  15. I see what you did there.