Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Buhallin

  1. The rules for control are fairly clear. RR pg 16. Control is entirely held by either players or the scenario itself, never individual cards. Control is defined by the card type and which zone it is in. Unless something specifically changes control (and not much does) they remain controlled by the player.
  2. This is not how grammar works. If it works because "resolve" comes before "showing", does that mean it doesn't work if my cards happen to be in French or Polish? Because in those languages it's the other way around. I'm pretty sure FFG is going to rule that it works, which is a really, really dumb thing to do. It puts the rules into a sort of holistic "Did whatever I just did meet the requirement?" post-check, rather than a pre-check. What you can resolve with Ataru Strike is a blue die showing melee. You shouldn't ever be able to pick Luke's die to resolve because it doesn't meet that condition. Instead what we're going to get is "Resolve an X die" basically means "Resolve any die you want, and then check once you're done to see if it was legal." But whatever, it's not like rules stability has ever been a high point for FFG. Destiny is heading down the exact same path as X-wing, where they try to start with super-light rules and it turns into a nightmare a few years down the road.
  3. I don't believe they tracked and confirmed kills for bombers the way they did for fighters, at least I've never seen any. They were very difficult to confirm. Even if they did, the numbers are probably really low due to the high casualty rates.
  4. You're copying numbers without even bothering to understand them. I'm not even sure where they're coming from - Lancasters report around 156,000 sorties, so not sure what 1500 flights even means. Assuming your numbers are at least correct in relation, if meaningless in absolute terms, Lancasters did half the sorties but dropped nearly the same tonnage of bombs, because it carried twice as much (or more, in some mods). The sortie count also speaks to the production count difference as much as anything else than anything else, as there were twice as many B-17s produced. That the Lancaster was a better bomber is obvious just by looking at objective performance stats. Similar speed and range, much higher bomb load. The one advantage the B-17 had was survivability (a common distinguishing trait among American aircraft). The reality here is that casualty rates were astonishingly high among ALL allied bombers, because none of them had good defenses against enemy fighters. Define "overwhelmed by numbers"? Several of the notable raid reports indicate that even equal numbers of fighters vs. bombers led to a slaughter of the bombers. The Schweinfurt raids resulted in about a 30% casualty rate among the bombers. When they were able to try it again with fighter escort, it was 7%. There's a lot of propaganda and fanboy love surrounding the B-17, but the idea that it somehow stood up to fighters on its own is pure myth.
  5. It wasn't a huge, powerful plane. It carried a dramatically smaller bomb load than either the B-24 or the Lancaster. Its "ability to fend off enemies with firepower" was mythical, and it suffered dramatically during daylight bombing raids until US fighters caught up to its range (as did all the US heavy bombers). The 8th AF's daylight bombing raids is probably one of the worst strategic choices the US made in the war. So, as HolySorcerer says, almost every word you uttered was wrong. There's a great deal of mythology surrounding the B-17, and I love it myself, but the reality is that it was a mediocre aircraft whose biggest strength was in the numbers produced rather than individual quality.
  6. You apparently know even less about B-17s than you do about X-wings and K-wings.
  7. Not sure why all the hate on Defiance. The L0 one was awful, but the new one will, for most bags, be turning 3-5 extra tokens into +0s. That makes it equivalent to about +3 icons, and potentially more because of how often skulls get big enough modifiers that they might as well be auto-fails. That's on top of the insurance factor of neutralizing the token effects, which can be awfully nasty on hard. I don't think it's strictly inferior to Counterspell either, simply due to the cost. Mystics are often strapped for resources, and having to hold two back just in case seems about as bad as taking the "Will it or won't it" risk that you would with any other skill card.
  8. There are plenty of historical examples of multirole aircraft which were spectacular in both. The P-47 Thunderbolt is my personal favorite, but most modern aircraft are multirole and excel at it.
  9. This really isn't accurate, in my experience. I mean yes, it's there - but just the fact that it's moved from EPTs to specific pilots means it's far more limited, and a simple boolean "It exists" really doesn't capture the differences. The post you quoted mentions Fel and Whisper. They're both good examples. Old Fel was basically guaranteed three tokens. New Fel caps at two, and you need a bullseye arc target to get the second. Yes, Whisper (and Echo) can easily end up with multiple tokens, but the new Phantom requiring an Evade to recloak changes that dramatically. These things do not disprove the claims that it's back to a game of flying and decision-making - it reinforces them. Sure, Fel can still get multiple tokens, but it relies on flying better than your opponent. Phantoms under fire have to make a choice between spending the Evade to avoid damage or saving it to recloak. Incidentally, the recloak also becomes subject to the various token stripping effects. If you walk into a random game of 2.0, look at the table, and go "Fel still has two tokens, pfft, nothing's changed" and walk out, you're really, REALLY missing the point.
  10. Yes, the power level is down from 1.0. That's the entire point of 2.0. The reduced power of various abilities and weapons makes the decisions you make on the table matter more. It's back to being a game about flying and dogfighting rather than a CCG that just happens to have miniatures and take way longer to play.
  11. This is very dependent on the game system itself though, and I'm not sure it could work for Destiny. I'd also argue that such tiebreakers are, themselves, far from perfect. There's even an argument that they're worse than SoS. There's still the same element of randomness, but it plays out in reverse. Consider two first round pairings - two very good players get matched, and an average player against a complete newbie. The two good players have a tight match, and the winner walks away with 10-20 points MoV. The average player wipes out the newbie, and gets 100 points of MoV. With SoS, the losing good player probably has a good day, and that reflects well for the winning good player. But with MoV, he's basically stuck with a "weak" win. SoS punishes you for playing weaker players; MoV rewards you for it. If you're going to try and stack rank players with the same record at the end of the day, doesn't it make more sense to rank the people with the harder opponents higher? Also worth noting both systems to tend to punish the loser equally. If you lose to a good player, then your SoS will reflect that and you'll be higher. If you lose to a good player with a close MoV, you're punished less.
  12. It's not hard to understand why. I'll agree that the system has notable flaws (more on that in a sec) but if you're going to get hurt rather than understanding the system, that's on you. I do agree with all this, and even said as much in what you quoted The problem is... what do you do to fix it? Elimination will suck worse - sure, it'll be a lot easier to understand what happened, but it's far worse overall results. Two of the best players end up in the same bracket and one knocks the other out, how is that any more representative? Still luck, unless you want to suggest some seeding system that would require full history and tracking of players. Plus you end up with people playing one or two games and then being out, which isn't much fun either. Tiebreakers sound nice enough, but how do you actually handle them? He says there were 4 people at 4-1, that would be two more rounds to eliminate them, and that's just for third (second, maybe?) place, and in a small tournament. What if there are 3? Or (as is more common in a large event) 12? If I remember right, our regional last year had about 10-15 people at 5-2, and only one made the cut. Are you really going to run another full event to determine who gets that last spot in the cut, so they can then go into the cut? And there are prized for Top 4, and Top 8, which can be nice in large events. What do you do when 3rd-5th are 5-1, and 6th-10th are 4-2? SoS certainly has its issues, but I have yet to see anyone suggest a better system that actually holds up to full implementation and is reasonable to implement. The one thing that can be done is to add more Swiss rounds, but even that won't solve all the problems. It's important to note that a cut doesn't solve it either - it just changes the SoS impact from "Why did I miss out on the Top 4 prizes, I was 4-1!" to "Why didn't I make the cut, I was 4-1!"
  13. Because all your opponents matter, not just the best one. If your first round opponent goes 0-4, and your second goes 1-3 (or even potentially 0-4 if you're really unlucky and there's an odd number) then you didn't play strong opponents. SoS is often frustrating, but unless you want to play elimination where half of those people who drove 200 miles go home after one game, it's about the only option. There is certainly going to be a bit of randomness to it, especially from the early rounds. The farther you get into the event the less random each game's contributing SoS is. If there's one thing FFG should change it would be to increase the number of swiss rounds so it lessens the impact of the early randomness. I'm honestly not sure why they don't - Destiny plays quick enough that 1 or even 2 extra rounds wouldn't extend events by that much. I also have to admit I'm having a hard time reconciling "People came to have fun" and "The system didn't rank people where they thought they deserved so I'm quitting this game." If people are that tied up in the final standings or the status symbol of a mat that can be had on eBay for $20, that feels like the opposite of coming to have fun.
  14. Not going through 6 pages to see if it's been mentioned, but the card in the conversion kits is printed with the new wording. This is not a last-minute change. At worst, it points to a change that occurred after Saw's kit went to print, which was much earlier in the 2.0 development cycle.
  15. Still trying to understand exactly what you're saying here, but it sounds like at least one of the players in the "top 4" going into the last round fell below someone else who was below them before that? I'm confused because you say it was single elimination, but no cut? That makes no sense. Couple of things here. First, that's perfectly possible with Swiss pairings. Especially with FFG's system, because pairings within the same score block are random, SoS isn't considered. So the "second table" wasn't necessarily the #3 and #4 players going into the last round. It was just whoever at 3-0 or 2-1 got shuffled up there. After that, it will come down to SoS, and someone who had a better record before the match won't necessarily be better than anyone below them after (when it falls to SoS). If you're 3-0 going in but lose, and I'm 2-1 and win, we both land at 3-1. My SoS could have been better than yours before, and still better after, depending on who we've played. I'm struggling to figure out what the problem here really is. It sounds like people just didn't understand the scoring system, and got upset with how it fell out? Seems like that will be true and happen with any system. SoS isn't perfect, but it's about the only thing you've got in an event with so little input data.
  16. This seems very strange to me. I'd be interested in seeing the round breakdown on this. Assuming "placing" means Top 4 (or even Top 2), you're looking at half the field with only one loss? I'm not sure that's even possible unless the TO was doing some VERY odd pairings.
  17. So you killing my one blue character so I can't use Deflect is an NPE too, right? Players in general want to win the game, so I guess losing is an NPE. Better fix that fast! The core premise here is rather fatally flawed. There's nothing OP about mill at the moment - it's gotten competitive, and people have to deal with it. But people don't like it, so the baseline thought is that if mill is competitive, it's broken. It seems like most people are only content playing like half-naked Scotsmen charging across a field screaming at each other. Mill is very beatable, but requires a different approach to how you play. Resource conservation (i.e. card management) is far more important than against an aggro deck. Removal is important - if you play against a control deck and let them counter your moves while you let them do everything they want, you're going to have a bad time. You have to build for it in the meta, and play against it differently. There are a few cards that I think are problems in mill. Clandestine Operation is just stupid with special chaining (but what isn't?). Anakin's Podracer is a pretty silly combo as well, effectively giving you a perfectly reliable 3 side (two shield plus discard) for 2 resources. But like it or not, mill is how Destiny implements anything other than aggro decks. Basic control is too temporary - you remove dice, and next turn they'll be back, at some point you will run out. If you're happy playing like crazed Scotsmen, then sure, but I like a little more variety.
  18. FFG has a knack for ignoring common danger zones in card game design - recursion, draw, and cloning are all big flashing high-risk mechanics. FFG throws them out like candy.
  19. This. Even if you don't get much advantage from the shields, your opponent not having them is a pretty big deal.
  20. Mill wins one big event and it needs to be fixed? Sheesh.
  21. How does that change anything? Is there actually some confusion that it's referring to the card title? "More formatting" is not the same as "better templating".
  22. The rule definition and how they're using it don't conflict. The idea that the rule somehow says only other instances of cards are copies is a misreading. I'm not going to step up and defend FFG's templating - it's something they're awful at, and I call it out regularly myself. But this isn't really an instance of it.
  23. There are something like 36 slots for each session, so you should be able to find a group to fit in even if you only bring one deck. That said, I normally bring like 4 Mainly for flexibility, so I can fill in multiple roles to help building the groups. I'm also playing in two sessions, and I'd like to play different decks for each, so that still gives me 3 options for the second day. Typically I'll pack a Seeker and a Guardian, then two balanced investigators. For XP, I usually target 19XP. It's mostly going to be personal preference, but I generally find one additional weakness well worth the extra toys. Above that the weakness density starts to get a bit high for my taste. This can depend a lot on the investigator, though. Several have weaknesses that are basically irrelevant in standalone - Zoey, Jenny, Roland, etc. I feel like you can afford to go higher there since their own weakness won't really be anything but a lost card draw. Jenny especially I like at 29 - there's so much Exceptional goodness in Rogues that the XP cost adds up fast.
  • Create New...