Moff Gideon's Leader Ability Description Was Missing the Word "Also"

Hello Holotable Heroes,

It has already been mentioned in Moff Gideon's Kit Reveal thread, but the word "also" was missing from his leader ability description when it first went out.

I have updated the kit reveal post to include the word and am posting here for increased visibility.

mn1rycdctjch.png

Replies

  • Options
    Not that I invested the zeta, but are you refunding the zeta for people who thought you get those bonuses just for bringing in imperial troopers?
  • Options
    I'm not a CG apologist by any stretch, but I don't see how the word "also" changes anything. The original descriptions was "if all allies are IT..." How does "also" change the makeup of 2 attackers, 1 tank, 1 support?
  • DarthGlovoc
    149 posts Member
    edited December 2020
    Options
    I'm not a CG apologist by any stretch, but I don't see how the word "also" changes anything. The original descriptions was "if all allies are IT..." How does "also" change the makeup of 2 attackers, 1 tank, 1 support?

    The also means that to receive any of the three lower clauses (offense, insight stacks, and revives) you have to have 2 attackers, 1 tank, and 1 support. It reduces his plug n play viability as a leader and restricts him to ITs, so if someone doesn't have full ITs and zetad his lead under miscommunicated pretenses they want their zeta back.
  • Options
    I'm not a CG apologist by any stretch, but I don't see how the word "also" changes anything. The original descriptions was "if all allies are IT..." How does "also" change the makeup of 2 attackers, 1 tank, 1 support?

    The also means that to receive any of the three lower clauses (offense, insight stacks, and revives) you have to have 2 attackers, 1 tank, and 1 support. It reduces his plug n play viability as a leader and restricts him to ITs, so if someone doesn't have full ITs and zetad his lead under miscommunicated pretenses they want their zeta back.

    Yeah, still I don't get it. Leadership is role-specific for the 4 spots. Then Zeta adds some nice things for a full IT squad (which means those roles are still needed).

    If I was gonna be upset about something, it's that his leadership is useless in dumb 3v3.

    Trust me, I'm fully open some justified CG outrage. Just I don't see the interpretation here other than "bad reading comprehension."
  • Options
    I'm not a CG apologist by any stretch, but I don't see how the word "also" changes anything. The original descriptions was "if all allies are IT..." How does "also" change the makeup of 2 attackers, 1 tank, 1 support?

    The also means that to receive any of the three lower clauses (offense, insight stacks, and revives) you have to have 2 attackers, 1 tank, and 1 support. It reduces his plug n play viability as a leader and restricts him to ITs, so if someone doesn't have full ITs and zetad his lead under miscommunicated pretenses they want their zeta back.

    Yeah, still I don't get it. Leadership is role-specific for the 4 spots. Then Zeta adds some nice things for a full IT squad (which means those roles are still needed).

    If I was gonna be upset about something, it's that his leadership is useless in dumb 3v3.

    Trust me, I'm fully open some justified CG outrage. Just I don't see the interpretation here other than "bad reading comprehension."

    I am not upset about it because I don't have an IT team nor do I have a spare zeta to apply, but his 3v3 viability as a leader is non existent, because he doesn't have a lead without 4 other teammates.
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    Options
    I'm not a CG apologist by any stretch, but I don't see how the word "also" changes anything. The original descriptions was "if all allies are IT..." How does "also" change the makeup of 2 attackers, 1 tank, 1 support?

    The also means that to receive any of the three lower clauses (offense, insight stacks, and revives) you have to have 2 attackers, 1 tank, and 1 support. It reduces his plug n play viability as a leader and restricts him to ITs, so if someone doesn't have full ITs and zetad his lead under miscommunicated pretenses they want their zeta back.

    Yeah, still I don't get it. Leadership is role-specific for the 4 spots. Then Zeta adds some nice things for a full IT squad (which means those roles are still needed).

    If I was gonna be upset about something, it's that his leadership is useless in dumb 3v3.

    Trust me, I'm fully open some justified CG outrage. Just I don't see the interpretation here other than "bad reading comprehension."

    To be fair, I dont think its "reading comprehension", it appears like your adding the zeta to gain more flexibility to just using IT, over the restricted setup of the first part. The word also, removes any question of this being 2 separate elements, and since the first part is not IT specific by any means, Also is a very important distinction.
  • Options
    I'm not a CG apologist by any stretch, but I don't see how the word "also" changes anything. The original descriptions was "if all allies are IT..." How does "also" change the makeup of 2 attackers, 1 tank, 1 support?

    The also means that to receive any of the three lower clauses (offense, insight stacks, and revives) you have to have 2 attackers, 1 tank, and 1 support. It reduces his plug n play viability as a leader and restricts him to ITs, so if someone doesn't have full ITs and zetad his lead under miscommunicated pretenses they want their zeta back.

    Yeah, still I don't get it. Leadership is role-specific for the 4 spots. Then Zeta adds some nice things for a full IT squad (which means those roles are still needed).

    If I was gonna be upset about something, it's that his leadership is useless in dumb 3v3.

    Trust me, I'm fully open some justified CG outrage. Just I don't see the interpretation here other than "bad reading comprehension."

    Without the "also," it's easily read as two separate clauses. If all allies are troopers, you get this. If allies are specific composition, you get this. If both, you get both.

    You can't get the second half without the first half, though, which isn't obvious without the "also" in there.
  • Options
    I'm not a CG apologist by any stretch, but I don't see how the word "also" changes anything. The original descriptions was "if all allies are IT..." How does "also" change the makeup of 2 attackers, 1 tank, 1 support?

    The also means that to receive any of the three lower clauses (offense, insight stacks, and revives) you have to have 2 attackers, 1 tank, and 1 support. It reduces his plug n play viability as a leader and restricts him to ITs, so if someone doesn't have full ITs and zetad his lead under miscommunicated pretenses they want their zeta back.

    Yeah, still I don't get it. Leadership is role-specific for the 4 spots. Then Zeta adds some nice things for a full IT squad (which means those roles are still needed).

    If I was gonna be upset about something, it's that his leadership is useless in dumb 3v3.

    Trust me, I'm fully open some justified CG outrage. Just I don't see the interpretation here other than "bad reading comprehension."

    Without the word also, it reads like you can put him as an imperial trooper leader with all support or all attackers to get the 2nd part of the leader ability.

    But with also in there, he gives no bonuses at all unless they are 1 support, 2 attackers, and one tank.
  • Options
    Kyno wrote: »
    I'm not a CG apologist by any stretch, but I don't see how the word "also" changes anything. The original descriptions was "if all allies are IT..." How does "also" change the makeup of 2 attackers, 1 tank, 1 support?

    The also means that to receive any of the three lower clauses (offense, insight stacks, and revives) you have to have 2 attackers, 1 tank, and 1 support. It reduces his plug n play viability as a leader and restricts him to ITs, so if someone doesn't have full ITs and zetad his lead under miscommunicated pretenses they want their zeta back.

    Yeah, still I don't get it. Leadership is role-specific for the 4 spots. Then Zeta adds some nice things for a full IT squad (which means those roles are still needed).

    If I was gonna be upset about something, it's that his leadership is useless in dumb 3v3.

    Trust me, I'm fully open some justified CG outrage. Just I don't see the interpretation here other than "bad reading comprehension."

    To be fair, I dont think its "reading comprehension", it appears like your adding the zeta to gain more flexibility to just using IT, over the restricted setup of the first part. The word also, removes any question of this being 2 separate elements, and since the first part is not IT specific by any means, Also is a very important distinction.

    Oooooh. OK. I get it now. See, I was just going by the upgrade path, which starts out with "have 2 of these, 1 each of these..." So, if people were going by the FULL text, like in the kit reveal (which I don't read, because I like to break things down into their individual upgrades), then NOW I see where one would get confused.

    Thanks!
  • Options
    I'm not a CG apologist by any stretch, but I don't see how the word "also" changes anything. The original descriptions was "if all allies are IT..." How does "also" change the makeup of 2 attackers, 1 tank, 1 support?

    The also means that to receive any of the three lower clauses (offense, insight stacks, and revives) you have to have 2 attackers, 1 tank, and 1 support. It reduces his plug n play viability as a leader and restricts him to ITs, so if someone doesn't have full ITs and zetad his lead under miscommunicated pretenses they want their zeta back.

    Yeah, still I don't get it. Leadership is role-specific for the 4 spots. Then Zeta adds some nice things for a full IT squad (which means those roles are still needed).

    If I was gonna be upset about something, it's that his leadership is useless in dumb 3v3.

    Trust me, I'm fully open some justified CG outrage. Just I don't see the interpretation here other than "bad reading comprehension."

    Without the "also," it's easily read as two separate clauses. If all allies are troopers, you get this. If allies are specific composition, you get this. If both, you get both.

    You can't get the second half without the first half, though, which isn't obvious without the "also" in there.

    Perfect, thank you for this break down.
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    Options
    Kyno wrote: »
    I'm not a CG apologist by any stretch, but I don't see how the word "also" changes anything. The original descriptions was "if all allies are IT..." How does "also" change the makeup of 2 attackers, 1 tank, 1 support?

    The also means that to receive any of the three lower clauses (offense, insight stacks, and revives) you have to have 2 attackers, 1 tank, and 1 support. It reduces his plug n play viability as a leader and restricts him to ITs, so if someone doesn't have full ITs and zetad his lead under miscommunicated pretenses they want their zeta back.

    Yeah, still I don't get it. Leadership is role-specific for the 4 spots. Then Zeta adds some nice things for a full IT squad (which means those roles are still needed).

    If I was gonna be upset about something, it's that his leadership is useless in dumb 3v3.

    Trust me, I'm fully open some justified CG outrage. Just I don't see the interpretation here other than "bad reading comprehension."

    To be fair, I dont think its "reading comprehension", it appears like your adding the zeta to gain more flexibility to just using IT, over the restricted setup of the first part. The word also, removes any question of this being 2 separate elements, and since the first part is not IT specific by any means, Also is a very important distinction.

    Oooooh. OK. I get it now. See, I was just going by the upgrade path, which starts out with "have 2 of these, 1 each of these..." So, if people were going by the FULL text, like in the kit reveal (which I don't read, because I like to break things down into their individual upgrades), then NOW I see where one would get confused.

    Thanks!

    Thats interesting. I dont ever expect to not upgrade an ability fully, so I tend to always read the full thing, and for new toons, generally make the decisions based on the text here and not in game. (which I do not recommend)
  • Options
    I totally understood it the way it was corrected to, didn't know was an issue until i came to the forum, original text seemed pretty clear. I think the tag is great and will be using him with My IT's.
  • Options
    rickertron wrote: »
    I totally understood it the way it was corrected to, didn't know was an issue until i came to the forum, original text seemed pretty clear. I think the tag is great and will be using him with My IT's.

    I'm just glad I didn't add the zeta, cause the best imp team including him probably doesn't have him in the lead (veers lead is ultimately better) and probably includes 5 support (veers starck mg piett pimp)
  • Options
    thedrjojo wrote: »
    rickertron wrote: »
    I totally understood it the way it was corrected to, didn't know was an issue until i came to the forum, original text seemed pretty clear. I think the tag is great and will be using him with My IT's.

    I'm just glad I didn't add the zeta, cause the best imp team including him probably doesn't have him in the lead (veers lead is ultimately better) and probably includes 5 support (veers starck mg piett pimp)

    Is Veers lead better because of the turn meter an speed?

    I would think the stacking offense, revive, health gain, protection gain, stacking insight make Gideon's leadership better than veers or at least on par in terms of improved offense and survivability. than the TM gain and reduction on enemies from "Control the Situation balances out the TM and speed gains from Veers leadership. Finally you add in the demoralized effect on enemies and Gideon makes an effective leader for IT on par with Veers.

    Although I do see the flexibility of team comp under Veers as being desirable and limiting for the use of Gideon as a leader. With that said, not disappointed in putting a Zeta on Gideon's lead. He will be very useful as a leader or plug n play with other teams.
  • Options
    Problem is if it was not limited to 2 attackers, 1 tank, 2 support counting mg, mg lead might be better... Mg lead, veers starck piett and death or pimp would be a deadly team. But I think you weaken the imps by forcing only 1 additional support and 2 attackers, since basically veers starck piett and pimp are all better and do more than death snow or magma. We need more attacker imps to really make it worth it.

    Honestly, I'm using vader mg piett Thrawn and royal guard (my shore is only g12 vs r3 for rg) and beating rey titans now without using my wat or traya, and that leaves your traditional veers starck pimp snow death team intact
  • Options
    Honestly, this feels like Darth Revan all over again, where the kit is like "feels like something is missing" then Malak comes a few weeks later. Seems tailor made for Dark Trooper as an attacker.
  • Options
    Honestly, this feels like Darth Revan all over again, where the kit is like "feels like something is missing" then Malak comes a few weeks later. Seems tailor made for Dark Trooper as an attacker.

    Yeah hopefully we see some Dark Trooper action at the final - CG seems also to wait, to get a kit linked to the scenes/abilities. Biggest problem is, currently Moff needs AI adjustments to open with the one and only right move @CG_Doja_Fett @CG_SBCrumb. Than the attacker role for troopers (or Gideons not clearly worded lead) isnt the problem - another support role is needed cause currently you need Range Trooper or Piett, both are a very good part of Veers troopers and you will weaken your first Trooper Squad here. So crafting another Character for Troopers (and Dark Troopers surely are Attackers) may improve the team with the right abilities but it will not be a huge step IF you already can build a Veers AND a Moff Gideon Squad with them. A scout trooper (clearly support) would be easily the better team member.

    Dark Trooper (even with bonkers kit) result only in the fact, that you cut not bad performing attackers and bench them to the already big "left overs" like Gar, ISC, RG, Krennic etc.
  • Stryde
    152 posts Member
    edited December 2020
    Options
    f7fru1r4ajhr.jpg
    Found ^^ (hehe).
    Shard drops made right with the world after a nerf for character drops using bronzium cards.
    Great event start for Mando.
    Strong update.

    EDITS:
    How about that new rancor raid feedback and addressing additive, bonus drop rates for IG-11 and Kuiil? All could truly be almost right in the world, minus SEE...
    Post edited by Stryde on
  • Options
    Checked with devs. Gideon is WAI. No plans for AI change at this time. Thought y'all would want to know.
  • Ultra
    11515 posts Moderator
    Options
    Checked with devs. Gideon is WAI. No plans for AI change at this time. Thought y'all would want to know.

    Did they clarify why they prefer Darksaber over the other ability?
  • Options
    I think the fact that it read as two different interactions and that we can all agree a period and “also” are so vast we should get the zeta refundable and decide again if we want to invest based on the new wording.
Sign In or Register to comment.