|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 7/9/2008
Posts: 4,729
Location: Chicago
|
changing SSM back was a mistake - so using that as a basis of the argument is also flawed.
No change necessary. This sends us down a slippery slope. We are on the edge of tumbling down a nasty path
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 10/28/2008
Posts: 606
|
AceAce wrote:Leave it alone. We do not need to be jacking up every single ability that some do not like. It has been around forever and should be left alone. This is not true really. Thrawn did see a lot of play in 150 in general. So the change made little difference overall until vsets really. Just Thrawn was played every now and then but not a lot. This was a mistake that Rob made and it needs to be fix for the health of the game. This would not be a factor if Vsets did not bring it back.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 10/28/2008
Posts: 606
|
TimmerB123 wrote:changing SSM back was a mistake - so using that as a basis of the argument is also flawed.
No change necessary. This sends us down a slippery slope. We are on the edge of tumbling down a nasty path How? it makes zero sense how it works now? It really hurts Melee Force users too much and gives those type of squads way too much power.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 4/29/2008
Posts: 1,790
Location: Canada
|
TimmerB123 wrote:changing SSM back was a mistake, IMO - so using that as a basis of the argument is also flawed.
No change necessary. This sends us down a slippery slope. We are on the edge of tumbling down a nasty path Fixed.  I've heard the slippery slope argument for years, and it has never been convincing to me. I certainly don't think we should be reckless with errata, but I do think that if something is not working correctly then we need to fix it. (After careful testing, thorough discussion, etc.)
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 1/2/2012
Posts: 746
|
TimmerB123 wrote:No change necessary. This sends us down a slippery slope. We are on the edge of tumbling down a nasty path Um, how does this start a slippery slope? I guess I could understand if we were, say, adding a SA to the Mouse Droid or changing how Lightsaber Block works, but the reasoning behind this change can be applied to literally two SAs. And this is the second one. I don't see how this could be the start of a slippery slope when it is the end of the trail.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 1/5/2009
Posts: 2,240
Location: Akron Ohio, just south of dantooine.
|
My question is: "what's at the bottom of this slippery slope?". Details Tim, details.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 10/28/2008
Posts: 606
|
When Tow and Gallop worked with r2 during his turn WOTC fixed it this is kind of the same thing. The game evolves and at times old FAQ glossary terms will need to be relooked at.
This was a rule that I really think would of been relooked at if Thrawn would of seen alot of play but kind of stopped seeing play. Until the Vsets brought this ability back to top level play this was never needed to be relooked at. This should of been looked at when these pieces were made.
Its long over due and doesn't work how it should.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 8/30/2014
Posts: 1,055
|
TimmerB123 wrote:changing SSM back was a mistake - so using that as a basis of the argument is also flawed.
I wasn't involved in the game yet when the SSM controversy was first happening, but I think I read somewhere on Bloo Milk that SSM was changed because there wasn't enough time or direct damage options to effectively take GOWK down within the time limit without basing your whole squad on taking him down. Even if the reasoning for the errata goes deeper than that, if we change it back to non-melee only, it seems to me that would only encourage players to keep him in the back, away from melee threats, instead of on the front lines, which is the opposite of what is trying to be accomplished right now (rewarding action instead of stalling). I am aware that this probably belongs in the "What would you errata?" thread, but I just wanted to illustrate why I think the argument mentioned above is valid. Not trying to derail a thread 
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 10/17/2010
Posts: 3,682
Location: Beggers Canyon Tatooine
|
SignerJ wrote:TimmerB123 wrote:No change necessary. This sends us down a slippery slope. We are on the edge of tumbling down a nasty path Um, how does this start a slippery slope? . I think the slope is, once we change any WotC rules, players will want more changes made.( I'm lookin' at you mouse droid)
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 10/14/2008
Posts: 1,412
Location: Chokio, MN
|
There are enough counters on top tier peices against SSM right now, so I don't think it is nessesary to errata it. In fact, I am against it. The most of the peices that have SSM don't do a ton of dmg. Obi/Ani are the only ones that do a decent amount of dmg and they cost a lot. Leave SSM alone. It sounds to me to be very low on the totem pole for things that need an errata. The reason that SSM was changed back in the WotC days was mostly because their weren't many top tier counters to it unless you made a hate squad, which tended to not do so well in the meta. I don't exactly see SSM ruining the meta at the moment, and thus I think the counters we have in the game thus far are sufficient to not be worried at all about it.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 4/4/2008
Posts: 1,441
|
Mando wrote: I don't exactly see SSM ruining the meta at the moment, and thus I think the counters we have in the game thus far are sufficient to not be worried at all about it. The reason it was changed back was that Dean wanted it changed back when he felt like he could. It never made full sense to work the way the errata did, was necessary at the time to have some semblance of competitiveness to the game, but he wanted it to go back to original as quickly as possible to keep the game simple with little errata. Ironically Tim was against changing it in the first place, and now argues that changing it back was a mistake. Can't win with some people. I was for the original errata, and not for changing it back, but the community as a whole wanted it back as well, so that's what happened.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 4/4/2008
Posts: 1,441
|
jak wrote:SignerJ wrote:TimmerB123 wrote:No change necessary. This sends us down a slippery slope. We are on the edge of tumbling down a nasty path Um, how does this start a slippery slope? . I think the slope is, once we change any WotC rules, players will want more changes made.( I'm lookin' at you mouse droid) Slippery slope arguments are one of the weakest forms of evidence. They are an argument for a logical fallacy in fact. For reference to an easy understanding here's this. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slopeThe issue is this, it stops where and when we say it stops, there's actually no connection from one issue to another. Think of it like this. Slippery slope arguments rely on two things to be true that actually aren't. First that we live in an ideologically 100% consistent world. We don't, not on any issue. Second, that all instances are in fact the same, despite any evidence to the contrary that they never are. I can 99% guarantee that there will never be enough community desire to alter mouse droids for competitive play. They just aren't an issue. And any change would have to add a rule to the game, specifically for mice, again that's a far different thing than changing a glossary definition. So Jak, don't get your hopes up.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 10/17/2010
Posts: 3,682
Location: Beggers Canyon Tatooine
|
forums have been boring while you were away Dr.Bill  I never get my hopes up, IMO the game dies a little every February and GenCon. It may be time to get out while the getting is good, or at least cut out more factions. (can't say I've missed the vong & mandos)even our small 4 man play group disagrees more than not. 
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 12/26/2008
Posts: 2,115
Location: Watertown, SD
|
Thinking about it, I'd rather see a counter ability or two or more pop up rather than see a change of an ability that's been firmly established for almost a decade.
Something like:
Force-Attuned Reflexes (This character's rerolls and Force Powers that reduce damage cannot be prevented)
or
Force Mark (At the end of this character's turn, select an enemy within 6 squares. That character loses Force Immunity until the end of the round.)
or maybe something simple like:
Debris Shower (FP 1, replaces attacks, range 6, target character and all adjacent characters take 10 damage, save 11. This Force Power ignores Force Immunity.)
or in the case of things like Thud Bugs and such:
Adrenaline Boost (This character's activation status cannot be changed by enemy abilities or force powers)
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 7/26/2011
Posts: 951
|
EmporerDragon wrote:Thinking about it, I'd rather see a counter ability or two or more pop up rather than see a change of an ability that's been firmly established for almost a decade.
Something like:
Force-Attuned Reflexes (This character's rerolls and Force Powers that reduce damage cannot be prevented)
or
Force Mark (At the end of this character's turn, select an enemy within 6 squares. That character loses Force Immunity until the end of the round.)
or maybe something simple like:
Debris Shower (FP 1, replaces attacks, range 6, target character and all adjacent characters take 10 damage, save 11. This Force Power ignores Force Immunity.)
or in the case of things like Thud Bugs and such:
Adrenaline Boost (This character's activation status cannot be changed by enemy abilities or force powers) How yalismari currently works isn't accurate to the lore. Id rather just switch the glossary than create more abilities that potentially don't work in line with the universe.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 10/28/2008
Posts: 606
|
yalismari has been around for 10 years but really only for the first few years Thrawn was around as the old version of Yalismari it saw use. So what in 2 years (late 2005-mid 2007)later Thrawn saw a lot less play once Rebels got strong in around what 2007 thats what 1 year of the new Glossary seeing play if that.
Then Thrawn got replaced pretty much with the new Thrawn in 2008-2009.
Not until 2011 when Vset 1 was out the new Glossary saw play again. Thats close to 5 years. This should of been relooked at when Yalismari came back to the game. This is well over due.
Bringing back SSM was a bad idea because a figure that can avoid that much damage at that cost is not a good idea. The 10 point gambit controls SSM and add in the high damage its fine how it is.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 4/23/2008
Posts: 907
Location: Central Pa
|
It would obviously work better for the squads I've been running the last 2 seasons if we left Ysalimiri alone. However, I've been re-reading my favorite Star Wars novels this summer and in Timothy Zahn's books he goes into detail how force users are challenged by ysalimiri and their bubble. There are also examples in those books concerning the limitations of the bubble. I think we're addressing the ability by changing the glossary to reflect what we see in those novels. I support the proposed changes and, to me anyway, it's an easy, logical fix.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 7/26/2011
Posts: 951
|
Darth_Jim wrote:It would obviously work better for the squads I've been running the last 2 seasons if we left Ysalimiri alone. However, I've been re-reading my favorite Star Wars novels this summer and in Timothy Zahn's books he goes into detail how force users are challenged by ysalimiri and their bubble. There are also examples in those books concerning the limitations of the bubble. I think we're addressing the ability by changing the glossary to reflect what we see in those novels. I support the proposed changes and, to me anyway, it's an easy, logical fix. I am going to be introducing 4 of my friends to the game this summer and a couple of them have a direct connection to the universe through those books. I would love if I didn't have to tell them how it weekend Jedi more than it should. Also, if in the process we could make it so Jedi can respond to the bongs attacks then I am all for it.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 4/29/2008
Posts: 1,790
Location: Canada
|
atmsalad wrote:Darth_Jim wrote:It would obviously work better for the squads I've been running the last 2 seasons if we left Ysalimiri alone. However, I've been re-reading my favorite Star Wars novels this summer and in Timothy Zahn's books he goes into detail how force users are challenged by ysalimiri and their bubble. There are also examples in those books concerning the limitations of the bubble. I think we're addressing the ability by changing the glossary to reflect what we see in those novels. I support the proposed changes and, to me anyway, it's an easy, logical fix. I am going to be introducing 4 of my friends to the game this summer and a couple of them have a direct connection to the universe through those books. I would love if I didn't have to tell them how it weekend Jedi more than it should. Also, if in the process we could make it so Jedi can respond to the bongs attacks then I am all for it. Easy: they can just say, "You don't want to sell me [bongs]....You want to go home and rethink your life." If you're talking about Vong, though, then I think it's a different story. I'm pretty sure that Force Immunity is here to stay in its current (and always so far) form.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 7/9/2008
Posts: 4,729
Location: Chicago
|
billiv15 wrote:Ironically Tim was against changing it in the first place, and now argues that changing it back was a mistake. Can't win with some people.
What!?! That is very far from the truth. Maybe you're confusing the fact that I was against the TIMING of the original change. I have NEVER liked changes less than 2 months before GenCon. As a competitor I would have fared better if people kept on playing GOWK at that time, it was very easy to beat GOWK, and for some reason others had a hard time grasping this concept. That being said - I have always hated SSM, and I felt the WotC change to nerf it was better for the game overall. I think it's an ability that promotes tactics that are not good for the game. Lots of staying far away and shooting (because there is no advantage to getting close), locking doors, and non-engagement on BOTH sides. Complete side note - what it should have been in the first place was save 11 for ALL non-melee attacks (including adjacent). But that has nothing to do with this thread. To be clear, I have ALWAYS been against late changes, I have ALWAYS been against SSM.
|
|
|
Guest |