Jump to content
Greedo_Sharpshooter

Thoughts on the new tractor rules?

Recommended Posts

Unsure. Feels like tractors should've gone down more in points though, I hate that they didn't. Ketsu Onyo, Latts Razzi, and all the Quadjumpers should've gone down more, like 2 points more, each, and the tractor beam cannon shouldn't have gone up with the rest of the cannons.

PS: Oh and Proach should've gone down too, he wasn't seeing play anyway.

Edited by Cerebrawl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A bit heavy handed in my opinion. Make it so if you are already stressed you can’t rotate and it would be much better.  Pilots are forced to not double up on actions if they think they might not get a shot. Both sides have tough decisions now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Alarum said:

A bit heavy handed in my opinion. Make it so if you are already stressed you can’t rotate and it would be much better.  Pilots are forced to not double up on actions if they think they might not get a shot. Both sides have tough decisions now.

Kind of already true... who wants to be double stressed?!

Korr Sella, Primed Thrusters, Proud Tradition, okay I see where you're going with that...

Edited by ClassicalMoser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had heard that the rules changed but I only just looked at them now. It's so over-complicated compared to the change I'd seen suggested elsewhere: you just remove the tractor tokens after moving a ship.

That way you instead gotta choose between re-positioning or more damage potential, without getting both. It would limit the intensity of Nantex shenanigans, and they themselves become more playable without ensnare. You can use the tractor array to re-position without dropping your agility, but still have the situations where you might only want to rotate, and you keep that flavour of a 'hard-to-fly alien craft'. On top of that, ensnare becomes harder to use as you can't re-position to help trigger it, so dial choices matter more I suppose.

With all of this you can curb the price of things a bit and ensnare can stop being costed so prohibitively.

Course this is all on paper and I might be entirely wrong, but this change just seems a bit inelegant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Prosk_019 said:

this change just seems a bit inelegant

My exact feelings. More complicated interactions are not something this game needs.

It's kind of a crazy thing. Honestly this and the whole change to the abilities queue has me pretty down on their ability to keep rules bloat in check...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't tried out the new rule yet, but I do like how the defender gets some agency (via the stress and rotation) over whether they might still have a shot, or not flying through an obstacle on their turn. Can't say much about pricing; such things are beyond my meager simian intellect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thematically, I kind of like it... it’s stressing your ship to wiggle around and resist the tractor. Very reminiscent of a couple of Luke Skywalker’s run-ins with the Chimera ISD in the Thrawn trilogy.
 

Gameplay? Don’t know yet.  

Edited by JBFancourt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unsure on the values. Still waiting to try it. 

I like it, think it'll play out nicely. Take a stress, rotate 90 doesn't seem complex to me. Retains the usefulness of shoving ships into obstacles, or uncompromising positions, but doesn't double down on the defenders lack of agency. You can have your shot, if you're desperate, but you can still get pretty forked up.

Can Nantex now just rotate? Seems....... 😬

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know what I think about Tractor Beams?

That I just accept whatever the f**k my opponent says it does, because it'll change by the next time I play X-Wing anyway, because Tractor Beams just don't make any **** sense every time they're rejiggered.

I don't give a s**t about tractor beams because their understanding and use has less staying power than Schrodinger's Cat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still refuse to play against them as a game mechanic. And yeah that means forfeiting the occasional tourney round. They are unthematic, overly capable in the timing of the effect compared to similar effect ion, and still rob agency from the player excessively in their planning step which is the core experience of the game.

While we're on the subject I've been meaning to ask this one. And here I can without derailing a thread. Because I've racked my noggin and I can't think of anything: Can anyone, tell me one time, that tractor beams, were used effectively, in combat, from one fighter craft to another for the sake of destruction? Any time it was actually in combat on screen? Greatly appreciative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ForceSensitive said:

Any time it was actually in combat on screen?

Tried to catch Hera in Siege of Lothal, but she did a 4-straight and they got Vader instead.

That was an ISD though. In lore, they’re supposed to be fundamental to the Nantex and Shadow Caster’s basic operations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seemed to me that tractors were an interesting alternative attack.

I mean, it didn't make much sense in how a tractor beam should work, but, meh.

So is this all happening because of the Nantex??  Because if it is, this is the same path the game went down with the JM5K.  All kinds of in-game collateral damage to nerf 1 ship.

And what with all this junk about "agency" for the defender?  You got in arc, got shot, and failed to defend.  It's mud pie for you.

Hey, next time I take a crit, I expect some agency in being allowed to select the damage card that make the most sense for me.  Pssshaaaa.

Edited by Darth Meanie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Much as I love the Nantex conceptually (a ship using tractor technology to move in "impossible ways" and align it's turret) I REALLY wish they'd just not designed it around ensnare at this point. 

BUT what's done is done. So naturally FFG chose the easy way and changed the entire rules around tractor rather than the freaking problem! Sure, it would require an Eratta of the upgrade card, but I feel it would be far better for them to just make it so the text read (something like):

 

"Select a ship in your Turret Arc at range 0-1 and spend a Tractor Token, then that ship can either choose to remove a Green Token or Receive a Tractor Token (dealt by the Nantex)"

 

It seems to be the way they've balanced pretty much any similar ability in 2.0, IE: Assaj stress giving. Heck, maybe even make it so that it doesn't remove the tractor from the Nantex itself, so it's still a self-sacrificing move, your opponent can choose to spend a token instead of being moved/suffering an Agility reduction (unless they were blocked/bumped their own ships, which is an accepted game mechanic), protects large ships further (by being able to take 2 tractor tokens then spending a focus to not take the third, for example). ETC.

 

But no, let's nerf every other ship that might want to use the **** rule instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ForceSensitive said:

While we're on the subject I've been meaning to ask this one. And here I can without derailing a thread. Because I've racked my noggin and I can't think of anything: Can anyone, tell me one time, that tractor beams, were used effectively, in combat, from one fighter craft to another for the sake of destruction? Any time it was actually in combat on screen? Greatly appreciative.

In TIE Fighter the Tractor Beam weapon could be pretty useful for keeping ships from fleeing while you destroy them (or for forcing them to crash into their own capital ships).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have loved to see Sun Fac and the other one to get their bonus when they were tractored, not their target. It would have given a bit more risk to the nantex player to keep the token to get their bonus or pass it off to move a ship to an advantage. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m unsure why FFG chose the rewrite a core rule rather than increasing the cost of the offending items even further.  I’m then uncertain why they rewrote to add complexity.  Seems like a case of the tail wagging the dog.  The game core mechanics should not be redesigned around one ship/upgrade.

I found no problem with the original tractor rule (I rarely tractor but am often tractored) but no-one plays CIS in our regular group.  I’m not saying I like being tractored but I accepted it as part of the game, like Ion or Jam.  Are they going to introduce ways I can avoid Ion manoeuvres as I feel it takes away my agency to perform a manoeuvre I want to do?  I’m with @Darth Meanie on this one.  It’s hard cheese, old bean you got shot/bombed/ran through an obstacle deal with the consequences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While last change gives more agency to the defender, it also slows down play even more. As the defenders has the extra steps of 

-evaluating if to rotate (including all repercussion on following turns)

-if deciding for, then physically rotating the ship, which can be a pain in the scrum of it, and laying out the token

The solution of attacker choosing between -1 def OR reposition would have been much more elegant.

 

----

6 hours ago, ForceSensitive said:

While we're on the subject I've been meaning to ask this one. And here I can without derailing a thread. Because I've racked my noggin and I can't think of anything: Can anyone, tell me one time, that tractor beams, were used effectively, in combat, from one fighter craft to another for the sake of destruction? Any time it was actually in combat on screen? Greatly appreciative.

Rebels season 2, Blood sisters. Ketsu in the Shadowcaster stopping the small shuttle. While the shuttle was unarmed, it still was a combat like situation between relatively small crafts. And Sabines offhand commentary that Ketsu routinely operates like this in combat.

Edited by Managarmr
Spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/18/2020 at 10:25 PM, ClassicalMoser said:

Tried to catch Hera in Siege of Lothal, but she did a 4-straight and they got Vader instead.

That was an ISD though. In lore, they’re supposed to be fundamental to the Nantex and Shadow Caster’s basic operations.

See I thought about that scene, but as you excluded it, let me remind you of the criteria. It had to be effective, for the purpose of destroying the target, and in fighter to fighter combat. So it's not a valid example. Though to be sure or side of that it's one of my favorite scenes. Silly imperials.

And the lore is only in a few breakdown books as I recall for the nantex? The only time you see shadow caster use it is in Rebels to capture too as I recall? 

@JJ48 Again, Tie fighter wasn't Canon. Doubly not now. 😒 I feel that tractor was introduced there for the same reason it's introduced here, simple mechanics to add artificial complexity to a game, but without canonical support for how and why. But the same methods you used it in that game never get demonstrably used in the subsequent Canon of the day either. For all the tractor beams that were out there, you never once got a movie scene where the fighters were tractored. Death Star is a great example, it never just tractored Luke into the wall. Which would have put a end to that rebellion right quick wouldn't it? LMAO 🤣

@Managarmr Again, Ketsu is a bounty Hunter and tries to stop her target for capture as a standard go-to tactic. Which would make sense. But as you point out it's never shown she can pull off this technique against a combat vessel, in combat, and kill it. Capturing disabled targets from earlier combat, sure, but that seems to be it. Between this scene from Rebels, and the one Moser brings up from the same show, there's no real evidence that this is even possible in the Rebels interpretation of how tractor beams function. Like in Mosers example it comes with a weird side risk of friendly fire. Not to mention all the times it would have been useful and is foregone, assuming it was a viable option.

 

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...