Jump to content

EvaUnit02

Members
  • Content Count

    170
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by EvaUnit02

  1. Actually paying to win, by common use, is when expending a much bigger amount of cash can give you advantadges gamewise. By this definition, the game is pay to win (so is every mini / tcg game). Since this is a collector's game, it is complete understandable that someone with more cash, will have an advantadge since he will have more options to play with. That goes with basically any miniature/card game. Normally there exists always the "newbye's choice", cheap builds so you can get to play competitively withouth spending much, but the moment that option no longer exists, you would put a heavier burden on any new player who want to play competitively, and at one point, you would actually turn people away from your game. More options != higher chance of winning a game in X-Wing.
  2. The only way the argument holds water is if you want to argue that X-Wing is unbalanced to the point of being broken. I feel X-Wing is pretty well balanced. I've run an XXBB list. I don't want to shell out for two shuttles. I have one. I have one advanced sensor. I would like another (which also come with the E-Wing, mind) but I don't need two to build a competitive list. Just because there is a list out there with two advanced sensors that has won games doesn't mean you need to fly that list to win, too. There are lots of winning lists and lots more yet to be discovered. My suggestion would be to quit netdecking (or whatever you call it with minis games) and start trying to build your own lists. If I want another sensor, I'd have to shell out for it but that's not pay-to-win. That's pay-to-buy-the-thing-I-want which is also known as, you know, capitalism. Even then, FFG isn't trying to take you for a ride. Have you played 40k or Magic? Most upgrades for X-Wing come in more than one expansion, none of the expansions are blind or randomized, and the upgrades that come unique to certain expansions are not absolutely necessary in order to win in a competitive setting. Plus, you're getting these expansions at very, very competitive prices. X-Wing is priced fairly, expansions are not blind, and with the possible exception of a Vaderless Advanced, all ships can be competitive in various different ways. X-Wing is balanced and it is inexpensive compared to other minis games. It is, in my opinion, most certainly not pay-to-win.
  3. If I can get on my high horse for just a moment, I have a peeve with scalar valves for multidimensional things. You really can't rate any of these ships on a scale of one to five because they all have more than one aspect you need to consider.Were the game (or indeed life) so simple as to be able to accurately rate complicated things on a scale, it would be spectacularly boring. If your getting on a high horse don't. There's nothing wrong with wanting a rough rating. It fits the ships pretty well in the sense, "how much is this worth its points."It is fully understandable to want to know how the community sees something. There is something wrong with it because it's necessarily inaccurate or ambiguous. It's the same reason why you can't realistically rate movies, games, employees, or foods as a whole on a scale despite the fact that we love to. It has no meaning unless you redefine the value to be a single piece of information, as you subtly did. If the scale is to represent "how the community sees something" then that's fine. If it's to represent the superiority of one ship to another, it simply can't in any meaningful way. You can't sum multiple dimensions down to a scalar. Anyhow, my comment wasn't meant to be an indictment or call out the OP or anything. I just want people to think about things from more angles rather than categorizing things from best to worst. Doing the latter often makes certain ships or cards or tactics fall off the radar until someone later more accurately analyzes them and is able to use them to good effect.
  4. If I can get on my high horse for just a moment, I have a peeve with scalar valves for multidimensional things. You really can't rate any of these ships on a scale of one to five because they all have more than one aspect you need to consider. Were the game (or indeed life) so simple as to be able to accurately rate complicated things on a scale, it would be spectacularly boring.
  5. I absolutely despise naming builds or using the names of builds. The names people come up with are usually some sort of pun but otherwise offer little information as to what the build actually is.
  6. I'm not sure the game needs anything right now other than something for the Advanced and perhaps an opportunity for the Empire to field some huge ships of their own.
  7. Man, the level of effort some people will go through to find a tie to realism with a particular rule is astounding. It's a game. The rules exist to make it fun. Kind of reminds me of the people who play Axis & Allies and get upset if a rule allows for something to happen that wasn't historically accurate. I don't want historical accuracy. I want a game. I want to be able to affect the outcome rather than just play out what actually happened. If I wanted historical accuracy, I'd just read Wikipedia.
  8. Usually, these huge chains want to do massive numbers for their shelf space. If your product can't do it, they'll replace it with something that will. Niche games like X-Wing typically don't do the numbers something like Monopoly or Risk do.
  9. Nobel is a prize. Barnes & Noble is a bookstore =P
  10. I think having land battles gets dangerously close to ten month-long Battletech campaigns. Suddenly we have four novels worth of rules covering all scales and how they interact.
  11. Or I could just be curious, and want to know about any rule specifics before I go into game against one because I don't have much experience with/against them yet, and want to save time at the table looking things up. I DM a lot of RPG games. Gaining prior knowledge of the rules is a smart habit. However, making a vast load of incorrect assumptions, not so much a smart habit. I think the answers you are seeing is because the rule just wouldn't make any sense the way it is written, as we've now seen verified by dandirk's post. It very much feels like exploiting an oversight in the rules rather than playing the actual game if you have huge ship templates trigger the mines.
  12. I still think it's best to mention what Expose actually does in its entirety rather than blithely mentioning that it's worse than a focus while briefly explaining the comparative probability for hits. It leaves the potential for confusion particularly if someone comes in to the questions thinking, "...but how can four dice not have some sort of intrinsic advantages over three dice?"
  13. You're saying 4 "raw" dice is worse than rolling 3 dice with a focus? Is there some math that supports this? Yes. There's a couple ways you could probably look at it, but four unmodified reds have an expected yield of 2 hits, whereas three with a focus yield 2.25. Yep. The math is thus: An unmodified attack die has a 1/2 chance of hitting. So 4x1/2=2. A focused attack die has 6/8 chance of hitting. So 3x6/8=18/8 (or 2.25) While true and I believe Expose is generally a plain ol' bad upgrade to take, we're not being entirely fair. A focus gives better odds of producing a hit compared to Expose. However, Expose gives an opportunity for higher damage.
  14. I wouldn't even sweat it. Just buy whatever you like. Every ship is worth having at least one of and list building it part of the fun. Were I you, I would just buy whatever strikes my fancy. When the time comes when I want to try a four HWK list, then I'd buy four HWKs.
  15. My eye is twitching as I read this. I'm pretty sure I'm about to have an aneurysm.
  16. I pre-ordered seven Headhunters, three Phantoms, three E-Wings, and two Defenders (since I already have one) I look forward to receiving a box of fifteen toys at the office.
  17. When my A-Wing engine fell off, I used Gorilla-brand "super glue" and it worked out well.
  18. EvaUnit02

    Squad Builder

    Another vote for http://xwing-builder.co.uk/build. It's pretty fantastic. Not only is it up-to-date and beautiful, it will update stats based on what you own and what upgrades you've applied. Black Squadron Pilot with Veteran Instincts? His PS will show as 6. Have R2-D6 in your Astromech slot? Now the Elite Pilot Skill combobox appears. Don't remember what cards and how many of them you own for a particular upgrade? Don't worry, the application will show you.
  19. If there's one thing I've learned in life it's that with anything even remotely popular, there will instantaneously emerge a group of people talking about how said thing is already ruined.
  20. Your use of a hyphen is making my brain freak out.
  21. Buying two identical expansions isn't a rip off just because you receive duplicates you might not want. Remove those duplicate uniques and the price of expansions will not drop. $15 gives you a pre-painted and pre-assembled model, a base, a bunch of cards, and a ton of chits. I'm hard pressed to think of another minis game that gives you more stuff for your dollar.
  22. I've decided I'm not going to sweat it. I just measured two official straight 3s against each other and they had a difference of 2/5ths of a millimeter between them.
  23. What lists have you run with the Defender?
  24. I bought a set of Team Covenant templates. I think they're fantastic. The range rulers and turn templates are all accurate. Most of the straight templates are accurate as well but a couple of them are off by about half a millimeter. Here's a picture of one of my starter set straight 5 templates on the left and my acrylic TC straight 5 on the right: https://i.imgur.com/YCk9gK3.jpg That difference is roughly half a millimeter. Do the official cardboard templates have similar variances? How important would you consider this difference in gameplay?
  25. Yeah. A 40k Stormraven is $80 unpainted and unassembled. $90 for the Tantive IV expansion is a downright bargain. It may be cheaper but that doesn't make it a "bargain." Dollars to donuts that unpainted, unassembled Stormraven is likely to get more play in its respective game than the Tantive will. Unless you expect every game you play to be Epic going forward, you're basically spending $60-100 for a handful of crew cards, which you will most likely not use every time you play. Well sure. If that's what you value then that's a perfectly fine assessment. However, if you value having a pre-assembled, pre-painted miniature that can also be played in epic games and comes with upgrades for 100pt play then I think it's a steal. In my opinion, $90 is an absolutely fantastic price to buy it as a shelf piece alone.
×
×
  • Create New...