Mcpolle

Biggs question

36 posts in this topic

If Biggs is changed or nerfed in any significant way a number of Rebel ships become much less appealing.  The Arc-170 especially was balanced with Biggs in mind.  (Just look at the dials, of course they would be flying with Biggs)  So what happens to our poor, sad, beautiful Arc's without Biggs?  How about a Arc-170 only mod that adds the reinforce action?  Would be crazy but would work without needing to change the rules.  You would pick between reinforcing against flank attacks or front and rear attacks.

(Nora has the potential to be really strong and making the extra defense action dependent keeps her in check)

Edited by gamblertuba

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

I wouldn't be surprised to see a 1- or 0-agi only mod that adds the Reinforce action in the Auzituck.  To coincide with a nerf to BIggs making him 1/round.

Squinting at the spread, I see a Br.. Spec.. crew upgrade with a lot of text that says something about

"When you... damage... 1 reinfor...  facedown...  its effect...  end of the... are dealt...  card, flip,  resolv..."

Must be the reason for the second reinforce token.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope that there will be a reinforce mod.  I doubt it.

I suspect the crew will involve spending a reinforce token you already have in order to flip a card face down, though it would be kind of lame to include a crew that could only be used in the Auzituck and epic ships.

A friend also suggested yesterday that the reason for multiple tokens might be a pilot ability that lets you reinforce both halves in some manner, thus requiring two tokens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, gamblertuba said:

If Biggs is changed or nerfed in any significant way a number of Rebel ships become much less appealing.  The Arc-170 especially was balanced with Biggs in mind.  (Just look at the dials, of course they would be flying with Biggs)  So what happens to our poor, sad, beautiful Arc's without Biggs?  How about a Arc-170 only mod that adds the reinforce action?  Would be crazy but would work without needing to change the rules.  You would pick between reinforcing against flank attacks or front and rear attacks.

(Nora has the potential to be really strong and making the extra defense action dependent keeps her in check)

The idea that the ARC-170 somehow can't function without Biggs is ridiculous - it's a phenomenal ship that has no need for a crutch to be viable, and certainly doesn't need a 'fix' card.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, MalusCalibur said:

The idea that the ARC-170 somehow can't function without Biggs is ridiculous - it's a phenomenal ship that has no need for a crutch to be viable, and certainly doesn't need a 'fix' card.

*citation needed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, gamblertuba said:

*citation needed

Likewise. You are the one making the claim, the onus of proof is on you. Show us how the ARC-170 is no longer a viable choice without Biggs. Show us all the ARC-containing lists that completely fall apart without that unimaginative waste of cardstock. Anecdotally I can say that I have never faced nor flown Biggs alongside an ARC and they have always performed perfectly admirably.

It is a flawed argument based on nothing. It might have been true at the height of the U-Boat menace (and even then I don't think it was) since the possibility of going from full health to dead in a single round was a legitimate concern, but there is nowhere near the same threat of that now. Y-Wings seem to get along just fine (moreso since the recent FAQ) without a 6hp meatshield and they have one hull fewer than the ARC, with all other defences being the same, yet a comparable cost.

The fact that Norra features often in two-ship lists (a cursory glance at ListJuggler reveals this) suggests that the ship isn't as vulnerable as you seem to think, given that these lists still perform well despite the fact that said ARC-170 would be likely to attract even more attention and potential insta-killing firepower than in more numerous lists.

Show me some credible evidence that the ARC-170 needs six extra health to be viable, and then perhaps your opinion will have some value. Until then, it's the same nonsense that was getting trotted out when the ARC was released ('it's DOA unless you have Biggs') and will be dismissed just as easily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does the Arc need a boost without Biggs?  Probably not.  My original post made two claims:

  1. Rebel ships have been created and balanced for a game where Biggs exists.
  2. Removing Biggs makes some Rebel ships less appealing.  

I'll stand by both of those claims.  Other than that, I apologize for a needlessly snarky response but refuse to let myself get riled up any further.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, gamblertuba said:

Does the Arc need a boost without Biggs?  Probably not.  My original post made two claims:

  1. Rebel ships have been created and balanced for a game where Biggs exists.
  2. Removing Biggs makes some Rebel ships less appealing.  

I'll stand by both of those claims.  Other than that, I apologize for a needlessly snarky response but refuse to let myself get riled up any further.

1) This is true, but it does not automatically translate into them having been designed deliberately weaker to account for Biggs specifically, to the point where without him they suffer enough to need access to Reinforce, which was also part of your original post.

2) What ships become less appealing without him? Do they become less appealing to the degree that they are no longer worth taking, or that they lose sufficient value to no longer be sensible for the points cost? I'd struggle to name a single ship that fits those criteria. Surely every Rebel ship becomes inherently 'less appealing' if they do not have a guaranteed meatshield and thus might have to take a few hits now and then? Either way, I do not believe that anything becomes so unappealing a choice as to no longer be any good without Biggs.

It's nothing personal, it just irritates me beyond belief to see false information like this leading to flawed conclusions and accepted non-truths.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Karhedron said:

One win does not make him a problem. It is if he turns up in half the lists in the top-8 that it starts to look fishy. Torpedoe scouts and Paratanni were both massively spammed which flagged up the issue to FFG as a problem. Biggs is popular and is in some winning lists but he is not being spammed like either of the above lists.

Also the guy who won with Biggs hasn't just picked him up for the first time. It's been 4 years of practice to use him effectively. 

Karhedron likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/20/2017 at 3:07 PM, Mcpolle said:

Do you think, if we made a petition... 

4 hours ago, MalusCalibur said:

 ...no need for a crutch...

this board is becoming a parody of itself.

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