Incoming unwarranted "bugfixes"
So here is an excerpt from the 18.1. Known issues:
I don't see why you think it's warranted to change interactions like these in a whim.
The description for Stealth is as follows:
The wording is almost exactly the same
"can't be targeted" vs "can't be targeted directly" (and the added "directly" doesn't mean anything here, as there isn't such a thing as "indirect targeting", you either target something or don't)
While countering is arguably not targeting in the first place, you kept the interaction of cannot be countered while stealthed in the interaction of countering while having outmaneuver, even though it's not explicitly stated anywhere. In fact, in all other instances Outmaneuver acts the same as Stealth, except for the interaction with Stealth itself, where you gave it priority (again kinda unwarranted, but acceptable considering how much Stealth rebels can normally spam, Outmaneuver still needs some purpose as "Stealth 2.0")
On the other hand, you intend to change the interaction with Taunt, completely unwarranted. When a character with Stealth gets Taunt, you aren't forced to kill or dispel all the Taunting characters that don't have Stealth to be able to target it, and that interaction should stay the same for a buff that has the exact same wording. One of the few **** counters is getting countered intentionally to buff an already insanely overpowered ship completely dominating the meta. If you're worried about the health of the game or **** needing additional buffs, just look at the full fleet meta report on swgoh.gg (or your own data if you want) and think a bit about how healthy the current situation is for the game, and you're just exacerbating it.
Han's Millennium Falcon - A bug is causing Han's Millennium Falcon to not be able to be counter attacked even when it's the last ship remaining
Han's Millennium Falcon - Han's Millennium Falcon can have Taunt applied by Endurance ("Hold Fast") or Geonosian Spy's Starfighter ("Repulsor Array - Ruse") and can be targeted even when there are other ships Taunting
I don't see why you think it's warranted to change interactions like these in a whim.
The description for Stealth is as follows:
And for Outmaneuver:Stealth: Character cannot be targeted directly.
Outmaneuver: +25% Evasion and can't be targeted if other allies are present
The wording is almost exactly the same
"can't be targeted" vs "can't be targeted directly" (and the added "directly" doesn't mean anything here, as there isn't such a thing as "indirect targeting", you either target something or don't)
While countering is arguably not targeting in the first place, you kept the interaction of cannot be countered while stealthed in the interaction of countering while having outmaneuver, even though it's not explicitly stated anywhere. In fact, in all other instances Outmaneuver acts the same as Stealth, except for the interaction with Stealth itself, where you gave it priority (again kinda unwarranted, but acceptable considering how much Stealth rebels can normally spam, Outmaneuver still needs some purpose as "Stealth 2.0")
On the other hand, you intend to change the interaction with Taunt, completely unwarranted. When a character with Stealth gets Taunt, you aren't forced to kill or dispel all the Taunting characters that don't have Stealth to be able to target it, and that interaction should stay the same for a buff that has the exact same wording. One of the few **** counters is getting countered intentionally to buff an already insanely overpowered ship completely dominating the meta. If you're worried about the health of the game or **** needing additional buffs, just look at the full fleet meta report on swgoh.gg (or your own data if you want) and think a bit about how healthy the current situation is for the game, and you're just exacerbating it.
1
Replies
An AOE targets all enemies, but the primary target is one toon, so yes you can indirectly target something. Another example would be magna trooper hit a random secondary target, if this was a ship, you could still "target" the HMF as the secondary, but not the primary target.
You quoted the description and yet dont talk about the "if other allies are present". It is not the same wording, due to that extra line.
The "directly" word is in the description of Stealth and makes no difference in any of the interactions so far. Falcon can also be hit by AoEs.
As for the "if other allies are present", yeah that's there, but if everything else is the same, that should only be an additional condition for Outmaneuver to act like Stealth 2.0, not anything else. Stealth has the same wording without the condition, so by logic it should do the same thing if the condition is fulfilled, which is the situation we are talking about.
Well, the "directly" word is in the description of Stealth, and it doesn't make any difference in any interactions so far. The Falcon can also be "targeted" by AoEs.
As for the "if other allies are present" part, that's just an additional condition for Outmaneuver to act like Stealth 2.0. If the rest of the wording is the same, it should act the same as Stealth as long as the condition is fulfilled, which is the situation we are talking about here.
The second fix listed there counters the description of outmaneuver. Why shouldnt it be fixed?
I agree that the descriptions are very similar and that you won't understand the differences from reading the descriptions alone.
The description of outmaneuver is accurate (as long as only 1 ship can have this buff), while the description of stealth is lacking. A stealthed ship can be targeted, if it has no allies or if all its allies are stealthed too or have the outmaneuver buff. This is not described.
'We all' know how the mechanics are implemented, but the description doesn't match the mechanics.
Agreed. However, you won't know the difference simply from reading the in-game ability descriptions.
Well, even if the differences aren't obvious from the text alone, the fact that it has a different name, animation, and icon should be reason enough not to complain they function differently.
Target lock is an debuff name, not the description of what it does.
But you still have a valid complaint about the mismatch between the description of Stealth and the actual mechanic.
You know what is a bit ironic is that nonee of the Han characters have taunt and he is the most taunt worthy character in Star Wars lore next to Jar Jar.
All but the ship that has an ability that specifically states cant be targeted while other allies are present. Which makes sense from the description of the ability.
Stormtrooper Han would like a word with you.
Well, Geo Spy doesn't target something to apply its (second) taunt. Nowhere does it say in Outmaneuver "and is immune to taunt". Similarly, allies are able to target Mil.F. (e.g. to call to assist with ghost or cassian), so why shouldn't Endurance (or Plo) be able to give it taunt?
Now, if their intention was that Mil.F. is immune to taunt when it has outmaneuver, then they should probably clarify that, rather than saying it's a "known issue". Because as is, it is working exactly as described in the ability.
Moreover, if stealthed ships cannot be countered when they are the last ship remaining, why should Mil.F. with outmaneuver?
In general, even before it was released, Outmaneuver just looked like a rewording of stealth, and everything since just confirms that. The only difference is that it acts as a type of superstealth, where even if other ships are stealthed it still cannot be targeted (which is cool, and I like it). Thus, rather than making Mil.F. be untargetable by Endurance or Geo Spy, they should just clarify the interaction between Outmaneuver and Taunt: if Taunt takes priority (as it does between stealth and taunt), it should be targetable (and in fact, taunting). If Outmaneuver takes priority, it should remain untargetable. But just as with stealth and taunt, it should simply have both buffs (or the buff and the debuff in the case of Geo Spy): there is no reason to make it untargetable by Endurance's ability (or Geo Spy) unless they actually change the description of outmaneuver.
It literally says while someone else is taunting.
They are not bypassing taunt, it is just not prioritized due to outmaneuver.
If HMF is the only taunt, then you can target, so it is not immune to taunt.
Outmaneuver is not stealth, it is not a type of stealth, it is not related to stealth. There is nothing about being related to stealth, and it has a different description. It doesnt act like stealth because it is not stealth. It is not super stealth, it is outmaneuver.
Outmaneuver is to stealth what fracture is to speed down, not related but something that is vaguely familiar.
Why would they have to chmage the description, it says cannot be targeted if other allies are present. If another ally is present and both are taunting, HMF can still outmaneuver. If another ally is present and both are stealthed, HMF can still outmaneuver. That is per the current description of the ability.
You want it to act like a different buff, but it doesnt it's a new thing.
As for the counter, again, it's not stealth. It is different than stealth, that is why it interacts differently with counters than stealth.
Your comparison is inadequate. We're comparing stealth and outmaneuver. If a STEALTHED Ghost attacked a TIE with retribution the taunting HT wouldn't get counterattacked just like what happens with outmaneuver. Seems legit to me.
Because stealth prevents you from targeting the unit while it has stealth. Outmaneuver prevents you from targeting the unit while there are other units.
When you get down to the last ship, conditions are still being met for stealth, but not outmaneuver.
Taunt supercedes stealth. Outmaneuver supercedes taunt.
Seems balanced and legit to me.