Jump to content
Rakaydos

Gunner Luke is a geinus design decision, awful PR decision

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Azrapse said:

They have already stated that they plan to ban certain cards for tournaments. They have announced their intentions in this regard.

From what I've seen, that's been less to do with banning cards for balance reasons, and more to do with creating thematic list building restrictions for specifically themed events.  I think that the standard 100/6 format is likely to still be all inclusive - although possibly restricted to what's been released in 2nd edition expansions rather than the conversion kits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jarval said:

From what I've seen, that's been less to do with banning cards for balance reasons, and more to do with creating thematic list building restrictions for specifically themed events.  I think that the standard 100/6 format is likely to still be all inclusive - although possibly restricted to what's been released in 2nd edition expansions rather than the conversion kits.

Introducing formats with banned cards helps to ease the playerbase into the concept of a ban list.

Share this post


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

Not just stress effects - anything that denies actions.  Flying over obstacles, bumping, Ion tokens...

A good point. 

I can see the argument that PWTs could warp the X Wing meta because it’s pretty obvious that not needing an arc on a target is incredibly potent in a game of manoeuvre. It’s the same reason why Reinforce was so strong, and why unlimited range effects are powerful - they ‘warp’ space in a 2D game. 

360 arcs still sort of exist? But they are now vulnerable to other game states and effects. And there is more future design room in that respect. It’s easy to imagine a Force power that rotates a turret on another ship for example. 

That’s the big change in 2.0 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, FTS Gecko said:

Not just stress effects - anything that denies actions.  Flying over obstacles, bumping, Ion tokens... there's a lot of ways for mobuile arcs to get shafted in 2nd Edition.

Yeah, as people keep on listing all the reasons why Luke is a problem for the game, the more I think that mobile arcs might be hitting turrets more then we expect. In which case Luke might be deemed necessary to allow the old fat turret archetype to function anywhere close to its old standards at all.

(this might sound like I'm being optimistic about Han/Luke, but really I'm clutching at straws that Dash isn't going to be the bane of my existence again)

Edited by __underscore__

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Luke is a plain awful idea. I don't mind some arc rotation efficiency, but please keep it in line with the theme of the game. I seriously hope the polish publisher mistranslated system phase, because that would be reasonable - don't telegraph your plan while planning, but at least plan and don't just react. That would still be a tremendously strong card between the free action and force for dice mods! it would also be a card I'd enjoy using because of its ability to punish bad planning: Turned your arcs unneccesarily? Now you're out of force mods and don't get to shoot!

Luke creates the same problems old turrets did. On the bright side, he is just one card instead of an entire class of ships and upgrades, so he can easily be ban-hammered or point gouged if he gets out of hand, but I'd rather prefer not having that done to an OT protagonist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, GreenDragoon said:

Introducing formats with banned cards helps to ease the playerbase into the concept of a ban list.

Even if they do introduce a more general ban list, I think it's extremely unlikely that we'll see any card that includes movie main characters on it.  Both Luke pilot and Luke crew are such iconic Star Wars images that I can't imagine they'd want to remove them from any format of play where they don't clash with the thematic limitations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

Can we stop with the overexaggerations of PWTs?

They have been easy, and annoyingly so, but let‘s not pretend that a single ship with a unique PWT option is the same as 70% of all ships using expanded arcs.

This discussion is getting out of hand.

Yea, it’s not like there are two of them...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Timathius said:

Yea, it’s not like there are two of them...

Come on, you‘re better than that

FatTurrets need several components to be a problem. So far we have many components missing. But even if they show up: FFG can adjust cost of any part as needed.

We know it won‘t be the same as 1.0, so why pretend otherwise and fan the flames?

Share this post


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

Can we stop with the overexaggerations of PWTs?

They have been easy, and annoyingly so, but let‘s not pretend that a single ship with a unique PWT option is the same as 70% of all ships using expanded arcs.

This discussion is getting out of hand.

The backlash comes from the experiences the player base had. 1.0 also started off with one ship only, but it kind of kicked off the powercreep spiral (not saying it wouldn't have happened, just not in the same way). When wave 2 came out, interceptors weren't viable because the were not tanky to account for their maneuverability that in the standart game needed to be counterbalanced by there being an actual risk to any incoming shot. This dynamic doesn't work in the PWT game. So then Interceptors and similar ships were buffed in durability with Autothrusters and their likes until basic attacks barely hurt them. Then we got attacks way beyond that and eventually ended up where we are now. It just is an inherent imbalance when there are ships paying a lot of points for maneuverability in the same environment as ships (or a ship) that entirely invalidate that. It inevitably creates issues.

And what gets me personally is that Luke could have been an amazing card if he said system phase. Just imagine all the meaningful choices associated with that - don't think you'll need to rotate your arc or can't decide? Keep your focus mod to either double up or rotate when you activate. Think you know where the opponent is going? Rotate now to maintain one full mod or do a better option. Flexible, takes some brains to use, rewarding. That is what an upgrade should be!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Admiral Deathrain said:

The backlash comes from the experiences the player base had. 1.0 also started off with one ship only, but it kind of kicked off the powercreep spiral (not saying it wouldn't have happened, just not in the same way).

I get that. I was pretty vocal about it myself, always refused to play anything more than a rear arc out of principle and did half my analysis because I wanted to prove a point about arcs. I really understand where the backlash comes from.

I'm getting a bit frustrated that people just see "PWT" and immediately jump towards the experience from 1.0, completely ignoring the other changes of 2.0. Most important of them is the dynamic cost. FFG has clearly learned their lesson, indicated by the lack of full 360° ships and by the lack of printed cost.

So in what scenario are we going down the exact same road of 1.0, leading to the same domination of turrets?

The one I can think of is where 70% players play rebels (has never happened so far), all use GunnerLuke, and FFG refuses to use their new instrument.
All other scenarios are better than what we have today, by far.

What specific scenarios do you people see where GunnerLuke is the problem that you are expecting?

16 minutes ago, Timathius said:

I think the entire discussion defending either side is ridiculous when we have no idea the cost or if he will be banned in competitive play. Both of which can be adjusted at will now. 

As far as I'm concerned, the cost is the entire defense of why he's ok. Even if he's too cheap initially, FFG can adjust it instantly or ban even, as I mentioned earlier in this thread. That leaves one side to be what you describe ridiculous, because the other one uses your reasonable objections ;)

Share this post


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

What specific scenarios do you people see where GunnerLuke is the problem that you are expecting?

Given that the defense of maneuverable ships has been decreased significantly, I fear for their viability if Luke gunner is remotely playable. The alternative (and inevitable outcome thanks to the ability to adjust prices) is Luke not being playable which isn't as bad, but not ideal for a star wars game. It also as I mentioned is an opportunity cost for having an interesting card.

Edited by Admiral Deathrain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Tam Palso said:

I think Luke’s other real strength is he stops your turret being jammed in one position by multiple stress effects (such as Admiral Sloane crew). 

No LG and any turret based ship is much more vulnerable to restricted arcs from stress effects. (Noting in the context of the Falcon that no longer has a hard 1 turn to help maintain arc).  

But you’re right, LG isn’t so much an offensive upgrade as a defensive one, allowing a ship to act, but keep ‘some’ dice modification. 

This is all fine and luke could have been perfect for dealing with this, if his timing was moved to when the ship activated or the start of activation. Why give him 100% board knowledge on top of being an unstoppable turret move?

Share this post


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

This is all fine and luke could have been perfect for dealing with this, if his timing was moved to when the ship activated or the start of activation. Why give him 100% board knowledge on top of being an unstoppable turret move?

I would imagine that it is representative of his ability to use the force? 

Its a niche element in that it’s just one ship, specifically built for that ability. It basically reads ‘on one ship you get a 1.0 PWT, but you’re paying a price for that now’. (Assuming the timing windows are what we think they are).

its decent, but I don’t think it’s game breaking. 

What it does do of course is reign in high initiative arc dodgers. 

Share this post


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

I would imagine that it is representative of his ability to use the force? 

Its a niche element in that it’s just one ship, specifically built for that ability. It basically reads ‘on one ship you get a 1.0 PWT, but you’re paying a price for that now’. (Assuming the timing windows are what we think they are).

its decent, but I don’t think it’s game breaking. 

What it does do of course is reign in high initiative arc dodgers. 

Who have been reigned in by limited push actions and reduced dice mods anyways, which is good. So ideally, a stronger counter isn't necessary, because they are just part of the game now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These threads on Luke are like ping pong. One side says no 360 Turrets (effectively in Luke) and hits the ball; the other side say 360 Turrets are not so bad, could be wicked expensive, great for newbies, etc (as in Luke) and hits the ball.

...rinse and repeat.

What does this tell us? Well one, guess FFG designers want Luke to be great, which is absolutely cool, even if he breaks their own stated rules. Maybe that is the definition of greatness? Kinda like 1.0 Palp and his unlimited range. Two, maybe the designers want the Falcon (new movie huh?) to be great and do something the other large based turreted ships cannot. Three, the designers have already reduced his ability (in card text or some dark-side force ability) that lowers or negates Luke assumed power.

Anyway, let's hope this is all for naught, and Luke really isn't going to break the game and send the ship he's on back to 1.0 abilities.

And, if you think Luke is fine, if he actually breaks the games "Arcs matter" theme, then I guess you'd be OK with a single faction getting a crew that makes a selected ship move last and shoot first regardless the ships posted Pilot Initiative? VI for one faction only? Guess you'd be OK with that, it's a force user by the way, sure.....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Tam Palso said:

I would imagine that it is representative of his ability to use the force? 

Its a niche element in that it’s just one ship, specifically built for that ability. It basically reads ‘on one ship you get a 1.0 PWT, but you’re paying a price for that now’. (Assuming the timing windows are what we think they are).

its decent, but I don’t think it’s game breaking. 

What it does do of course is reign in high initiative arc dodgers. 

No he shuts down all arc Dodgers and hurts low initiative ships even more.

With 2.0 turrets a low initiative arc dodger can setup blocks or force a turret user to move there arc thus costing them mods. Against Luke gunner they can't no matter where they move the turret can move awoke still allowing the turret ship to use its action for mods, even if they manage to block the turret with one ship it can still move the turret to target something else. 

Ships like soontir will at least have abilities to get them extra mods to help survive against the Luke turret move. It's the low initiative interceptors and a-wing that are absolutely screwed, why pay for the manouverabilty if a ship can show up that simple negates it? Are you going to want to put a generic interceptor on the board if any turret ship with a gunner slot at any initiative can ignore it's manouvers and repositioning?

thsts my fear is one card, even if it's not op, or is rarely used, shuts out a bunch of ships for fear it could show up in the enemy fleet. It's bad design.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Admiral Deathrain said:

Who have been reigned in by limited push actions and reduced dice mods anyways, which is good. So ideally, a stronger counter isn't necessary, because they are just part of the game now.

Possibly yes. But look at say Soontir and a co-ordinate support ship? Close to 1.0 levels of evasion still exists. So I’d argue that a close to 360deg PWT should also still exist (at least initially) as the meta finds a new point of reference. 

FFG have actually been quite careful to not stray that far away from the current 1.0 ships. At the same time they have left open the door for easy modification.  

I’d expect to see most of the same ships from 1.0 still seeing play in early 2.0. Those who imagine that come release large based turret ships will just vanish to leave just interceptors and A Wings are going to be more disappointed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Icelom said:

No he shuts down all arc Dodgers and hurts low initiative ships even more.

With 2.0 turrets a low initiative arc dodger can setup blocks or force a turret user to move there arc thus costing them mods. Against Luke gunner they can't no matter where they move the turret can move awoke still allowing the turret ship to use its action for mods, even if they manage to block the turret with one ship it can still move the turret to target something else. 

Ships like soontir will at least have abilities to get them extra mods to help survive against the Luke turret move. It's the low initiative interceptors and a-wing that are absolutely screwed, why pay for the manouverabilty if a ship can show up that simple negates it? Are you going to want to put a generic interceptor on the board if any turret ship with a gunner slot at any initiative can ignore it's manouvers and repositioning?

thsts my fear is one card, even if it's not op, or is rarely used, shuts out a bunch of ships for fear it could show up in the enemy fleet. It's bad design.

 

It’s only bad design if you’re designing for one format (competitive) with the goal of making large based turret ships redundant.

If you want to see the iconic Falcon with Han and Luke on the table for a season then it’s great design.

Dont we want passers by to say “hey! That’s a cool Star Wars game!!” rather than “what’s this sci-fi game? What the heck spaceship is that...”?

Edited by Tam Palso
Spelling

Share this post


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

With 2.0 turrets a low initiative arc dodger can setup blocks or force a turret user to move there arc thus costing them mods.

Also (potentially) completely stopping their ability to shoot anything at all. If you're sinking 60-odd old points into a ship it then that's a huge, easily exploitable weakness. As long as there's no way for Han to get a ton of passive mods for his attack dice then blocking and manipulating range will still work better in 2nd Edition than it does in 1st currently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well put.

Another point: we haven't seen any pricing yet so we don't know how useful Luke really is anyway. It's likely that those "training wheels" are so expensive that he only sees play by low-skill players, and high skill turret players use that slot and points for something else.

There are guaranteed to be NPEs in 2.0, I just don't think Luke is going to be it. 

Also, if you'd told me 6 months ago that anyone would say "Luke OP, pls nerf", I wouldn't have believed you. I'm so glad that we're back to the point where the overpowered game-breaking stuff is recognizably Star Wars.

Edited by Kieransi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Kieransi said:

Also, if you'd told me 6 months ago that anyone would say "Luke OP, pls nerf", I wouldn't have believed you. I'm so glad that we're back to the point where the overpowered game-breaking stuff is recognizably Star Wars.

Exactly this. When I first saw 2.0 Vader (Tie Adv) I thought ‘wow...that’s insane action economy’ and my initial reaction was to think “he needs a nerf!!”. 

But on reflection I realised he was just a reeeally nasty threat to the kind of ships ‘I’ like. And he was Darth Vader! Who doesn’t want to see Vader bustin’balls on the table top?!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, __underscore__ said:

Also (potentially) completely stopping their ability to shoot anything at all. If you're sinking 60-odd old points into a ship it then that's a huge, easily exploitable weakness. As long as there's no way for Han to get a ton of passive mods for his attack dice then blocking and manipulating range will still work better in 2nd Edition than it does in 1st currently.

You mean like every other ship in the game? every scum ship, every imperial ship, every none turret ship, every none gunner seat turret ship?

Your argument is that for certain ships their weakness should be removed?

As it stands (this is still all kind of open as we don't have 2.0 released) i would rather face 1.0 yt-1300's (with there mods) with interceptors or a-wings then I would 2.0 yt-1300's with luke gunner because in 1.0 I can double token stack and have auto thrusters to help deal with the fact I cant dodge them. In 2.0 I will have 1 mod and no 1.0 autothrusters.... 2.0 removed almost all the turret defenses because turrets were removed, or so we thought.

Edited by Icelom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Tam Palso said:

Exactly this. When I first saw 2.0 Vader (Tie Adv) I thought ‘wow...that’s insane action economy’ and my initial reaction was to think “he needs a nerf!!”. 

But on reflection I realised he was just a reeeally nasty threat to the kind of ships ‘I’ like. And he was Darth Vader! Who doesn’t want to see Vader bustin’balls on the table top?!?

Vader is fantastic, but he can be outmaneuvered, stressed, blocked, ioned, and so on. Lots of ways to counterplay him.

Will Vader be a beast? no doubt about it. But a well-flown z-95 can ruin his day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...