Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Reinholt

Hot Take: Ginkapo Shouldn't Be Engaging In Thread Necromancy

261 posts in this topic

The often suggested B-wing cloud (this doesn't help you against fleets that don't want to close)

If they want to get into shooting range it definitely does. Independence B-Wings can get ahead of everything in the game if that ship wants to actually shoot. If they want to just run away and do nothing, then no, the B-Wings aren't catching them. Frankly, though, nothing is catching a speed 4 ship that just wants to run.

I will agree that the MC80 is otherwise somewhat lacking. It feels like a beast when I've got it as a second player Advanced Gunnery, but there isn't much that wouldn't feel amazing in that situation. Independence is quite literally the only reason I bring an MC80 now. I've played this combo more times than I can count against every list I can imagine. Independence B-Wings are very good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The MC80 is better than it gets credit for, but it requires both building and flying a list around its strengths.

 

Speed: Engine Techs is obligatory here, as is some way to get it a reliable Nav token (Raymus, Tantive IV, etc.).  With Engine Techs, it is now as fast as an ISD but with far more maneuverability.

 

Firepower: There is a lot that can be done here.  First, it is the only Rebel ship with a decent amount of dice that can also take Leading Shots for reliability.  The Defiance can allow you to add a Blue to use Leading Shots even at long-range, or you can add Blacks for hitting power.  Also, a list with an MC80 can take Advanced Gunnery as it's red objective, since most opposing ships (ISDs/AFs) may already have GT and will get no benefit from it or won't benefit much from it (MC30/Glad).  This is basically a "never pick" objective, then, so you can force your opponent to play your Blue or Yellow game.

Survivability: As the only ship in the game with two possible defense retrofits, it's pretty nifty. The problem is you can't really rely on Adv Projectors, since XI7 nerfs it so darn hard.  If your opponent doesn't have XI7s, your MC80 can be nearly impossible to kill unless the opponent focuses on it hard starting no later than about Turn 3.  Since it's also your centerpiece, you can buff it even more with things like Projection Experts on some smaller craft.  For instance, a Tantive IV with Projection Experts can oscillate between letting your MC80 engine tech or regain two shields every turn as context demands, for a pretty cheap price.  A Jaina's Light with Projection Experts can hide behind your MC80 giving it two shields a turn while not losing any of its own attack power (since it is never obstructed when attacking).  Throw a TRC on it and you're throwing some solid attacks from behind your MC80 shield while you siphon it your shields.


TECH: The Home One title is incredibly solid as a support ship.  A handful of CR90s with TRC and Home One near by can turn two blanks into meaningful results on every attack.  Also, a nearby MC30 can get that crucial ACC to ensure that it's massive torp barrage isn't simply Braced away (pending ECM).


Important Take-Home:

The MC80 is certainly a subtle ship.  The entire lists needs to be mindfully built around it, and your Six Turn game plan -- especially your objective game -- have to be well thought out.  In this sense it's like the opposite of a Motti ISD, which is about the most obvious and straightforward ship in the game.  Most players, myself included, can't really get the full value out of the MC80.  But in the hands of really good players, it's a hell of a ship (there is a guy around here who won both of our fairly large Store Champs using an MC80, it never came close to dying in any of his games as it wrecked house).

Edited by AllWingsStandyingBy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent analysis and issues Ive been trying to crack lately, with some success. I cant go into details now, but I plan on writing a similar post on why Ackbar cant (and isnt) reliably winning tourneys, and this is my biggest problem with the MC80. Its often used with Ackbar and I believe Ackbar is ... *cough* .... a trap and a liability in tourneys.

Lastly, the MC80 is very close to being "indestructible", meaning, its close to surviving forever if it survives the big first exchange. The Devshave been very careful to avoid making ships too resilient, aka indestructible. Any more defensive power could make the MC80 almost impossible to kill.

DrunkTarkin likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To collaborate with AllWingsStandyingBy, our local store champ here also won with a MC80 and it wasn't even close. I came in second 6 points behind him. I wonder if they are just more advanced a ship than my skill to use them.

Edited by WuFame

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To collaborate with AllWingsStandingBy, our local store champ here also won with a MC80 and it wasn't even close. I came in second 6 points behind him. I wonder if they are just more advanced a ship than my skill to use them.

 

I will counter by saying I have won multiple store championships and haven't lost a single game in a tournament to a list with an MC80 in it. That's not a counter-argument against the MC80 any more than having won a tournament with it is a counter for it, given how small and idiosyncratic store tournaments are on average.

 

I think anecdotes are not that helpful here until we start seeing larger (regionals/worlds) tournaments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My biggest problem with it is how easily it gets pinned down by other, more maneuverable ships.  You really need a broom in the way of a bunch of squadrons to sweep blockers out of the way, cause speed 2 won't let a large base ship escape even small ships in most occasions.

Green Knight likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

To collaborate with AllWingsStandingBy, our local store champ here also won with a MC80 and it wasn't even close. I came in second 6 points behind him. I wonder if they are just more advanced a ship than my skill to use them.

 

I will counter by saying I have won multiple store championships and haven't lost a single game in a tournament to a list with an MC80 in it. That's not a counter-argument against the MC80 any more than having won a tournament with it is a counter for it, given how small and idiosyncratic store tournaments are on average.

 

I think anecdotes are not that helpful here until we start seeing larger (regionals/worlds) tournaments.

 

 

That's fair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To collaborate with AllWingsStandyingBy, our local store champ here also won with a MC80 and it wasn't even close. I came in second 6 points behind him. I wonder if they are just more advanced a ship than my skill to use them.

That's my take, our two store champs that our MC80 guy won weren't even close, and there were over 12 people at each, so it wasn't just some weird podunk meta of like four friends.

When I watch him use the MC80 I think "wow, okay, yea it's good" but it clearly requires a 6 Turn plan and you can't make any mistakes, which makes it a powerful but unforgiving list.  It's basically the opposite of an ISD Rhymerball list, since Motti ISDs and Rhymer-Bomber-Balls are sooooo forgiving, drastically increasing the amount of leeway players have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they want to get into shooting range it definitely does. Independence B-Wings can get ahead of everything in the game if that ship wants to actually shoot. If they want to just run away and do nothing, then no, the B-Wings aren't catching them. Frankly, though, nothing is catching a speed 4 ship that just wants to run.

 

 

I find the table corners are the one thing that stops Speed 3-4 ships that like to run.

 

Don't panic, shadow the ships while out of long range, they don't hurt you and you don't hurt them - then pounce on turn 4 or 5 when they run out of space. Independence can be good for this especially with boosted comms and Adar Tallon sneaking Han Solo in at speed 7 for a tap in the squadron phase then another in the "Han phase" of the next turn followed by a grit move to safety.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok.....  so now I'm REALLY nervous about my first tourney......  was planning on an MC80 and Dual MC30 list.  Been doing well in practice, but I've only played against one person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A hell of an effort for the OP, but I've got a few things to respond to this.  I'm just going to assume you want a brawler for an MC80 and aren't just using it as a carrier that CAN shoot things if they get too close.

 

 

 

1. It's slow

 

Speed 2 is not good for a ship. We've all learned this lesson once with the VSD, and in the case of the MC80, it's not any better. Yes, you get one more click at speed 2 in the first segment of the maneuver tool, but that's the sum total of the difference, which you trade back by having a base so large that even a blind admiral can reliably ram you. Yes, you can take engine techs (spending points and restricting your command space) to make it faster, but unlike a CR90 or Demolisher where you basically want to be navigating most of the time, here you give up significant amounts of engineering or squadron activation (which you paid for) in order to nav.

 

The overall result is that you have a ship that flies like soggy potato thrown by a three year old. This issue will crop up in the next two complaints as well, as the lack of speed + predictable arcs produces some very negative behavior for the ship.

 

While the ship isn't blistering fast by any means, it is exactly as maneuverable at speed 2 as an AFII, ISD, GSD or NebB, and no one is saying that they are a bad ships (NebB not withstanding).  It's twice as maneuverable as a VSD (the gold standard for slow ships) and with a nav command can do a 67.5 degree turn, or a 90 degree turn with Engine Techs (if you really want to get that speed 3 going).

 

 

2. For the amount you spend, the firepower just isn't there.

 

This might be the core objection I have, and I can break it into a few parts:

  • The inability to take gunnery teams on the ship means that you can never maximize the side arcs. If you are facing lots of ships, you would want to fly this like an assault frigate and circle strafe to roll out maximum firepower. However, if you are not facing a lot of ships, you are probably facing a lot of squadrons, which means they can all safely park in your side arc because now you have to choose to shoot them OR shoot at ships, not both (unlike an ISD with gun teams, which can leverage both the formidable anti-squadron firepower and attack ships out of the front arc).
  • The absolutely puny front arc means that double arcing things doesn't do much (in fact, you are literally only 2 dice better than an AF2A double arcing something for more than 20% of the points cost more), and the width of the ship and front arc means that fast ships can consistently park only in the front arc and take the same front arc dice as thrown by a CR90... without TRC.
  • The MC80 sports tons of blue dice, but unlike the CR90B or Raider II, it doesn't have the speed to consistently engage at medium range. Being a slow ship, this means that fast opponents are going to get up close and personal (in your front arc, if possible), so that you are now in a blue vs. black matchup that favors them. Fast ships will stay at long range, meaning your effective firepower is only your reds. The blues are often either underwhelming (in close) or underutilized (long range), and this again ties back to the maneuvering issue that the ship faces.

I will immediately counter-argue by saying that some of the upgrades you can take (Defiance, XI7, Ackbar, etc.) help, but then counter-counter argue by saying that other than MC80 titles (duh), you can take those same upgrades on an AF2, and get more bang for the buck in terms of points spent for overall firepower on a platform that is significantly more maneuverable.

 

I have thing or two to say about Gunnery Teams.  You don't want to circle strafe with the MC80 - that is a role for an Assault Frigate.  The MC80 is a ship with a different playstyle - it wants to be a centerpiece of your fleet, with smaller ships / squadrons serving as a picket screen.  If you're wasting a shot on squadrons with a Large Base ship, either you didn't take enough squadrons to do the job themselves, or you have no better targets.

 

As for the front arc, while it is not amazing (2 Blue / 1 Red for Command or 2 Red / 1 Blue for Assault) it is, as you said, a CR90A's front arc essentially, as your follow up shot on a double arc'd target.  And that is what the MC80 is all about, it is a Large Base ship that excels at getting double arc shots thanks to it's very, very good arc placement.  Add Defiance / Leading Shots, and you're tossing better than CR90A / AFII side damage on already activated targets.  Get that double arc and it's murder.

 

Speaking of which, MC80s are one of the few ships that can take Ion Cannons, that means Leading Shots for Assault variants, and either Leading Shots or some crit effect for a Command variant.  Throw in Defiance for brawling if you want even better oomph from your arcs, or Home One to support the rest of your fleet.  Ackbar is ironically the wrong Commander for this ship, as AFIIs w/ Gunnery Team will actually be more able to abuse his ability.

 

You CANNOT take Leading Shots on AFIIs, and that is a huge increase in expected damage and consistency of damage from a MC80.

 

 

3. It's not as tough as it looks on paper

 

Again, this is one of those "looks good, but..." problems with the ship. When I fly against them, I routinely take them apart due to the design of the ship:

  • Hull > Shields in a meta where XI7s, bomber swarms, and ACMs/APTs are a thing. Yes, it has two redirects, but the reality is that MC80s often die with shields left against me. With bombers, you tend to exhaust the tokens by just plinking away with many small attacks. With XI7s, redirect doesn't work. With APTs to drill or ACMs to just much all the shields with splash damage (especially backed up with some tactical rams), you are passing damage straight through to the hull. The punch line ends up being that while one would expect the ship to be very durable, it's often vulnerable to coordinated alpha strikes because you drill through a single side with either many many small attacks to overwhelm the tokens or offensive upgrades that ignore the tokens, and then you have a 120+ point ship that isn't any tougher than a VSD1.
  • This is exacerbated again by the slowness. The MC80 rarely gets to pick its engagements, and I have consistently had success ramming them from the front to lock them in place. As a result, they are neither something like the Motti ISD2 (which, I mean, ram that in the front at your peril and it's tougher when stuck there) nor the Glad/MC30/CR90 that can escape from traps with speed. This means that while it looks tough on paper, you have to budget for it being engaged by enemy ships at their ideal engagement range. Demo will triple tap you, MC30s will get in close as well, and long-range dancers like the CR90 will never close.

Thus, while the MC80 can be extremely tough in favorable circumstances, I find it easy to engineer less than favorable circumstances when playing against it, and hard to engineer them when playing with it.

 

It's true that hull is better than shields if you can't bring all those shields to bear.  But shields are better than hull for repair (1 shield moved per point or 2 points to repair a shield verses 3 points to repair a single hull point).  Plus the Assault variant can double up on ECM (helping against the big boys with XI7) AND AdvProj (great against GSDs / CR90s / pretty much anything not Medium / Large).  Plus, like I said, you shouldn't be letting the MC80 be hit with an alpha strike, when you have support ships to screen it with.  

 

MC80s also really like deployment advantage - if you can put them down last, or near last, they actually do get to pick their engagement.  More so if there is an objective they are guarding, or the rest of your fleet (the pickets mentioned before) are hugging close to them.  Again, Defiance comes into play here if you are going with a brawler type MC80 - tossing an extra blue into the pot, then rerolling your reds lets you really increase your damage at long range against already activated ships.

 

 

A few things that I think are not answers:

  • The often suggested B-wing cloud (this doesn't help you against fleets that don't want to close)
  • Additional durability (the problem is that we have no way to add tokens or hull, which is what you would need to stop bombers or XI7s)
  • Ackbar (yes, he's quite good with it, but again, the "why not AF2" argument crops up here unless someone has some math I'm not seeing about how Ackbar on an MC80 for the points is better than Ackbar on one and a half AF2s for the points).

 

Fighter clouds of some sort keep enemy bombers away, and B-Wing clouds are discouragement from GSDs / MC30s.  Yeah, they don't stop anything that doesn't want to close, but that's why you have your pickets and Defiance Reds.

 

Durability comes from Defensive Retrofits.  Adv Proj to move damage around, and ECM to ensure the brace is available.  Too many Intel Agents?  Walex can tag along in the officer seat, but that's not usually necessary.

 

Ackbar is a trap (see what I did there?) for the MC80 - again, this is a ship that if you are using it as a brawler, you want the double arc.  An Ackbar shot verses a double arc is worse for you in every situation, he is only good if you can't get that shot.  AFIIs are better for him, because of Gunnery Team, if that's the kind of strategy you want to go with.

 

 

 

Final Thoughts:

 

I don't want this to be a big "git gud" post, but it sounds like you're flying the MC80 in a role it wasn't meant to be flown in, using the AFII as a baseline, which, while similar, has a different play-style and role within the Rebel fleet.  This isn't an AFII, it isn't an ISD either (which really wants to rush into the fight).  It's survivablility comes from being the centerpiece of a fleet, namely being the last ship to be shot at, with the other ships and squadrons acting as it's support, discouraging enemy ships from closing and screening bombers from attacking.

 

There's also something to be said for using the MC80 Command as just a big fat carrier that chips in firepower if something gets close enough, though this isn't really the discussion that the OP set out.

Edited by BiggsIRL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

To collaborate with AllWingsStandingBy, our local store champ here also won with a MC80 and it wasn't even close. I came in second 6 points behind him. I wonder if they are just more advanced a ship than my skill to use them.

 

I will counter by saying I have won multiple store championships and haven't lost a single game in a tournament to a list with an MC80 in it. That's not a counter-argument against the MC80 any more than having won a tournament with it is a counter for it, given how small and idiosyncratic store tournaments are on average.

 

I think anecdotes are not that helpful here until we start seeing larger (regionals/worlds) tournaments.

 

So, then, what was the point of your original post calling the MC80 "terribad?"  Theory-crafting means nothing without data (tourney results) to confirm or disconfirm it.  If you're unwilling to accept Store Champ level events as anything other than anecdotal, then we'll just have to wait until the Regional and National data starts rolling in, I guess, but it seems like we should then also wait before declaring something "terribad" (which you and many other responders have been more than happy to do, even though no one yet has that 'quality' evidence you seem to be demanding to say one way or the other).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

To collaborate with AllWingsStandingBy, our local store champ here also won with a MC80 and it wasn't even close. I came in second 6 points behind him. I wonder if they are just more advanced a ship than my skill to use them.

 

I will counter by saying I have won multiple store championships and haven't lost a single game in a tournament to a list with an MC80 in it. That's not a counter-argument against the MC80 any more than having won a tournament with it is a counter for it, given how small and idiosyncratic store tournaments are on average.

 

I think anecdotes are not that helpful here until we start seeing larger (regionals/worlds) tournaments.

 

So, then, what was the point of your original post calling the MC80 "terribad?"  Theory-crafting means nothing without data (tourney results) to confirm or disconfirm it.  If you're unwilling to accept Store Champ level events as anything other than anecdotal, then we'll just have to wait until the Regional and National data starts rolling in, I guess, but it seems like we should then also wait before declaring something "terribad" (which you and many other responders have been more than happy to do, even though no one yet has that 'quality' evidence you seem to be demanding to say one way or the other).

 

 

My point with that was this:

 

If I've won multiple store championships and roll the MC80 every time I play against one, either because I think using them as the center of the line is a fool's errand (and basically an open invitation to be obliterated by Demo or an MC30) and using them as a carrier is a massive waste of points when an expanded hangar AF2B can do the same job for 75% of the price, then why should I believe they are good? Because someone else says so with equally anecdotal opinions?

 

My objection is not to data. It is to anecdotes. If someone wants to make the serious effort to compile data from every single store championship and then also try to create a player index so we can figure out if lists with the MC80 are performing, underperforming, or outperforming, I would be 100% okay with this. I also think we probably didn't save the data as a community, but it would be a meaningful exercise and I'd respect it.

 

However, if there have been like 50+ store championships and we have 2 dudes being like "I saw one win!" and 2 dudes having crushed lists with the MC80, then I will tell you that the statistician in me would like you to know you don't have enough data to draw meaningful conclusions, especially if we haven't touched on the issue of differing skill levels between metas (e.g. I know a guy who won a store championship and also played in a tournament in NYC and finished next to last...).

 

So what I want to hear is for people who consistently use them well and win a significant majority of their game or tournaments with them, how are you using them? Not just "I like them and I do okay", but does anyone think they are a very strong option at a competitive level?

 

And if not, why? The latter is what my post was getting at, because I do compete very well in tournaments and I'm trying to explore what is going on with this ship.

 

Edit: I also think the argument of "it takes more skill to use" is BS. We heard that same argument about the Neb B, or about the TIE Advanced in X-Wing before it got patched. You want a ship that is good in as many game states as possible, across all the games you play. Equally good players on the other side of the table are fighting against you the entire way, so if you have a ship that requires a subtle plan that evolves over 6 turns, that's synonymous with having a very finicky ship that a good player will always be able to throw a wrench at and disrupt. You have to be BETTER than your opponent to win with it, which means the ship is not good, because to win the big tournaments, eventually you are playing people as good as you (if not better) who will see your plans and know how to disrupt them, and you will be doing the same to them. A good ship has options and flexibility, always (CR90), or it's so overpowering in it's #1 role that even if someone sees it coming, they can't stop it (Demolisher).

Edited by Reinholt
Green Knight, Hastatior and Stasy like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok.....  so now I'm REALLY nervous about my first tourney......  was planning on an MC80 and Dual MC30 list.  Been doing well in practice, but I've only played against one person.

I wouldn't be too nervous. I took that to regionals and did pretty well (which is saying something, since I ALWAYS choke at tourneys :) ). Just know how to use it, make sure you have enough fighter cover, and a plan for how you'll deal with the other list archetypes you expect to encounter. Know how to deal with squadrons, with swarms, with Demo, with mirror matches, with dual-ISD, and with Ackbar conga lines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

To collaborate with AllWingsStandingBy, our local store champ here also won with a MC80 and it wasn't even close. I came in second 6 points behind him. I wonder if they are just more advanced a ship than my skill to use them.

 

I will counter by saying I have won multiple store championships and haven't lost a single game in a tournament to a list with an MC80 in it. That's not a counter-argument against the MC80 any more than having won a tournament with it is a counter for it, given how small and idiosyncratic store tournaments are on average.

 

I think anecdotes are not that helpful here until we start seeing larger (regionals/worlds) tournaments.

 

So, then, what was the point of your original post calling the MC80 "terribad?"  Theory-crafting means nothing without data (tourney results) to confirm or disconfirm it.  If you're unwilling to accept Store Champ level events as anything other than anecdotal, then we'll just have to wait until the Regional and National data starts rolling in, I guess, but it seems like we should then also wait before declaring something "terribad" (which you and many other responders have been more than happy to do, even though no one yet has that 'quality' evidence you seem to be demanding to say one way or the other).

 

 

My point with that was this:

 

If I've won multiple store championships and roll the MC80 every time I play against one, either because I think using them as the center of the line is a fool's errand (and basically an open invitation to be obliterated by Demo or an MC30) and using them as a carrier is a massive waste of points when an expanded hangar AF2B can do the same job for 75% of the price, then why should I believe they are good? Because someone else says so with equally anecdotal opinions?

 

My objection is not to data. It is to anecdotes. If someone wants to make the serious effort to compile data from every single store championship and then also try to create a player index so we can figure out if lists with the MC80 are performing, underperforming, or outperforming, I would be 100% okay with this. I also think we probably didn't save the data as a community, but it would be a meaningful exercise and I'd respect it.

 

However, if there have been like 50+ store championships and we have 2 dudes being like "I saw one win!" and 2 dudes having crushed lists with the MC80, then I will tell you that the statistician in me would like you to know you don't have enough data to draw meaningful conclusions, especially if we haven't touched on the issue of differing skill levels between metas (e.g. I know a guy who won a store championship and also played in a tournament in NYC and finished next to last...).

 

So what I want to hear is for people who consistently use them well and win a significant majority of their game or tournaments with them, how are you using them? Not just "I like them and I do okay", but does anyone think they are a very strong option at a competitive level?

 

And if not, why? The latter is what my post was getting at, because I do compete very well in tournaments and I'm trying to explore what is going on with this ship.

 

 

Got you covered - see my post up top.

 

I've been using the MC80 on and off since Massing at Sullust, and in my current favorite list it's not died yet (though it did come awful close once against dual ISD / Rhymerball) and I've had some good luck (1 - 0 on Store Championships, 2 - 0 on seasonal tournaments).  The big test will be at Regionals on April 30th.

Lyraeus and AdmiralNelson like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Ok.....  so now I'm REALLY nervous about my first tourney......  was planning on an MC80 and Dual MC30 list.  Been doing well in practice, but I've only played against one person.

I wouldn't be too nervous. I took that to regionals and did pretty well (which is saying something, since I ALWAYS choke at tourneys :) ). Just know how to use it, make sure you have enough fighter cover, and a plan for how you'll deal with the other list archetypes you expect to encounter. Know how to deal with squadrons, with swarms, with Demo, with mirror matches, with dual-ISD, and with Ackbar conga lines.

 

First game of that tourney will probably be my 4th game of Armada ever.  I'm not expecting to win, just don't want to look like a complete idiot lol.

Ardaedhel and Lyraeus like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

To collaborate with AllWingsStandingBy, our local store champ here also won with a MC80 and it wasn't even close. I came in second 6 points behind him. I wonder if they are just more advanced a ship than my skill to use them.

 

I will counter by saying I have won multiple store championships and haven't lost a single game in a tournament to a list with an MC80 in it. That's not a counter-argument against the MC80 any more than having won a tournament with it is a counter for it, given how small and idiosyncratic store tournaments are on average.

 

I think anecdotes are not that helpful here until we start seeing larger (regionals/worlds) tournaments.

 

So, then, what was the point of your original post calling the MC80 "terribad?"  Theory-crafting means nothing without data (tourney results) to confirm or disconfirm it.  If you're unwilling to accept Store Champ level events as anything other than anecdotal, then we'll just have to wait until the Regional and National data starts rolling in, I guess, but it seems like we should then also wait before declaring something "terribad" (which you and many other responders have been more than happy to do, even though no one yet has that 'quality' evidence you seem to be demanding to say one way or the other).

The problem with anecdotal evidence is it's very easy to discount on the other side. Maybe your store champs are attended by less competitive people than some other store champs. We just don't know. It also doesn't help to say "I've seen one win a tournament" because we don't know that much about the tournament and the specifics. People who want to believe in the MC80 will claim something vague like "locals do well with it" proves them right but those who don't will just brush it aside. Effectively, both sides are now just arguing over whether their confirmation bias proves what they already believe (protip: confirmation bias will always prove what you want to believe).

 

What would be better is if players who have done well with MC80s report their findings (which is already happening). That's more thought-provoking than a simple straw poll.

 

Edit: I also think the argument of "it takes more skill to use" is BS. We heard that same argument about the Neb B, or about the TIE Advanced in X-Wing before it got patched. You want a ship that is good in as many game states as possible, across all the games you play. Equally good players on the other side of the table are fighting against you the entire way, so if you have a ship that requires a subtle plan that evolves over 6 turns, that's synonymous with having a very finicky ship that a good player will always be able to throw a wrench at and disrupt. You have to be BETTER than your opponent to win with it, which means the ship is not good, because to win the big tournaments, eventually you are playing people as good as you (if not better) who will see your plans and know how to disrupt them, and you will be doing the same to them. A good ship has options and flexibility, always (CR90), or it's so overpowering in it's #1 role that even if someone sees it coming, they can't stop it (Demolisher).

You may remember back in the days when there were rolling battles through the forum about how terrible the Raider was and how nobody should ever use one. The argument that "it takes more skill/practice to use" was put forward and summarily dismissed similarly. And then suddenly Raider lists started winning and the argument was basically put to rest.

 

I guess what I'm getting at is some ships do take some time to get used to and aren't as user-friendly. Sometimes it takes a specific list archetype or combinations to really unlock their potential. Maybe that will be the case for the MC80. Maybe it won't. But simply scoffing at the idea altogether seems unnecessarily close-minded. It probably would be better to approach this topic as "I'm not impressed with the MC80, here's why, let's talk about it," as that gives you the option to change your mind if only by degrees, and permits nuance. Given you started this thread as "I'm not impressed with the MC80, it's "terribad," and I'm going to fight you about it," you're currently emotionally locked in defending your combative position. Discussions produce ideas and better understanding. Combative arguments don't really do much other than make people upset with one another as they talk past one another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome to the internet, where hyperbole doesn't exist and every word you say is treated with the utmost sincerity.

For realsies, though, I think we can stop calling Reinholt out on the use of the word "terribad". He started the post by saying: "what I am actually looking for here is a way to use this ship effectively, but everything I have tried so far has turned out to be a dead-end."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have a whole lot of experience flying the MC80 just yet, but I have had moderate success using her as a suped-up carrier for a squadron heavy list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome to the internet, where hyperbole doesn't exist and every word you say is treated with the utmost sincerity.

For realsies, though, I think we can stop calling Reinholt out on the use of the word "terribad". He started the post by saying: "what I am actually looking for here is a way to use this ship effectively, but everything I have tried so far has turned out to be a dead-end."

It's less-so the use of the word "terribad" and moreso the "the following topics are not allowed as possible solutions," and disqualification of other's contributions that concerns me. It's possible Reinholt's attempts to use specific solutions have failed for numerous reasons other than them being objectively bad (example: his fleet composition, his meta, his deployment, etc. - there are many variables) and thus trying to enforce a tabling of them altogether doesn't seem to improve the quality of the discussion.

 

I get that this forum is primarily filled with casual players who often have strong opinions on subjects they're utterly unqualified to speak on and thus you get responses that are just flat-out unhelpful and even counterproductive*. I can understand the desire to sort the wheat from the chaff. What I'm getting at is you can still spot the dud responses without adopting a stance that is so combative and disincentivizes engagement from others.

 

*The best example of this is the constant Ackbar-player response to "what if you face a clontroper5-style Imperial fleet?", which is "oh I'll just shoot it with red dice broadsides like I do with everything else." That kind of response demonstrates the respondent is very inexperienced, but it doesn't change the fact that they believe in their erroneous answer very strongly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't flown an MC80 in a while but I think I am going to have to take this thread as a challenge to get it on the table again and try to find builds that work. 

 

I do agree with a few statements above though. Ackbar can be a trap. Most builds for him just aren't very flexible.

 

I usually see them overbuilt with a ton of upgrades. For me that is always a big "kill this and you will win" sign. This is especially true with Ackbar. Once he is gone most lists with him fall apart. I think that is actually one of Motti's greatest strengths. You can't really "build" around him for some sort of synergy. He does what he does. If you lose him it hurts, but your list doesn't fall apart because of it.

 

In my experience there aren't bad ships or squadrons in this game, you just have to plan for what a ship is good at and build around that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0