Jump to content

Fanfan

Members
  • Content Count

    191
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Fanfan

  1. I was there during the whole finals, sitting next to you since your first match against Dom (I am Francois, the french guy with red hair) I have a huge gaming experience including in high reward tournaments. And I chose to play and watch X-wing among dozens of games at GenCon, even if I was just a beginner in this game. And I wanted to tell you, even before reading your post: YOU EPITOMIZE WHAT I LIKE IN THIS COMMUNITY. You were humble, focussed, but not stressful (and I insist on this combination as being really unjoyable to play against) you played the original squad you liked, although you were listening to others point of view, even humble beginners. I am convinced that you would have returned the favor in the opposite situation. I want to win my games by playing them well, not because my opponent kind-of-forgot an obvious action. We are 'trained' to play 'shamelessly' as the right way to go, especially in other competitive games - My salute to all players who play as they feel it should be the best experience for everyone.
  2. The ship does not really look exceptional - it is very similar to the falcon, slightly on the worse side if you consider both of them naked. But what's really impressive with them is the fact that all its named pilots have unusually strong powers. Chiranneau's power is one of the strongest in the game (it is very close to marksmanship without the 3-point cost, without taking the EPT slot, and without requiring an action !) Commander Kenkirk's power adds a very significant boost to his ship's life time. And Oicunn's free damage when hitting sounds a big deal.
  3. I agree with the poster that it's a legitimate question, and certainly one that FFG has been wondering about. I don't know how it is to work for them, but the quality of their products is undeniable. I think their market share of teh whole board game / miniature game should legitimately continue to increase I just realized that among the 6 tournaments I have registered for at the Gencon, 4 are for FFG games ! And I also want to sneak in a 3D game of Thrones. They are becoming the standard in the industry. great packaging, services, illustrations, rule books. And even their potentially expensive games are so much more affordable than Magic or other miniature companies.
  4. Thank you for telling me ! I have just re-read the tournament's rules that detail what you say.' I did not really like the idea of playing all rounds with such a big army, but I think it is a plus for the final rounds ! For example if you have a rematch with someone, the reserve is likely to change the picture and strategy you have to go with. I turned from disapointed to even more enthusiastic !
  5. As I was getting ready for the tournaments I want to play next week, I was reading through my gencon emails, and noticed this: "You must bring an army of 3 regiments to participate and and have two copies of your army sheet ready to be inspected" That's very surprising to me, as it contradicts the tournament rules (that states 2 regiments), and our basic assumption that 2 regiments shoudl be the regular format. Do you know who I could contact (and how) to get a confirmation ? Also, it sounds to me that 3 regiment-games will be very challenging to fit in their 65 minute time slot.
  6. A rich benefactor like a former senator who turned bad should offer him a real ship, like a TIE Phantom Vader in a phantom with VI, ACD, recon specialist and fire control system would be a decent dogfighter.
  7. then why not going with Obsidians and offer a little hull upgrade to howlrunner, for example ? I can only see tala squadron z-95 and firesprays where having 4 instead of 3 would matter (a little)
  8. This is just great ! Good comments, very fast pace. The only thing that I have in mind that you may improve is the available information on screen
  9. I did this somewhere by looking at the average damage numbers, but it wasn't a true "shots required to kill". I should be doing that in the next month though, for all the ships, it will be an epic MathWing post! Basically, x/4/2/2 is about twice as durable as x/3/3/0, using statistical averages. So it's about as hard to kill as a pair of TIE Fighters, assuming you get the same number and quality of shots on both. For reference the Firespray is about the most durable ship in the game at ~2.5x as durable as x/3/3/0. The obvious issue is getting shots on ACD Phantoms, it's like playing whack-a-mole with piranhas, with your bare hands. The raw statline value of 4/4/2/2 is about 28.5 points at PS1. Whisper is 37 points at PS9, meaning you're paying 8.5 points for +8PS and 3 extra actions every round (pilot ability, free cloak action, decloak roll). That is an incredible value. A free action normally costs 3 points, so you are getting 8+9 = 17 points of value, and only paying 8.5 points for it. I have the calculation somewhere: A 4-agility TIE Phantom can handle 11.4 2-dice shots in average (assuming half of them are focussing or target locked) That's a lot ... considering the return fire you should suffer while doing that. It goes done to 5.2 for 3-dice shots. So you'd better try to have a bunch of range one shots. I want to insist on another thing that swarms are very efficient at doing against phantoms : preventing them from decloaking. Indeed, there is usually only two spots for decloaking (in general one is blocked by board edge, asteroid, ships traffic jam) It is quite often not difficult to cover the other two spots, or at least cover one and know where the phantom is going to decloak. And a phantom that does not shoot is basically useless. You'll tell me that echo does not suffer from that, but I am not a fan of echo, because it has so many bad match-ups ... (Whisper, Soontir fell, Wedge, even worth game against Han, etc ...)
  10. @RedWilde, I came a couple times during the day to see games at the Cambridge Regional as I could not attend. Would you mind sharing the top 8 lists as they are still not showing here ?
  11. I woulkd be very glad to access those - Have you been flying very diverse squads ? The best way to guess how much we can extract from this logs is to start looking at them !
  12. yes, if 1) you are sure you are not going to be shot this turn, and 2) you know your target and don't need the possibility to change your mind 3) you don't bother by the fact you tell your opponent where you are going to shoot later during teh action phase and actually 1-2-3 happen quite frequently then target lock is strictly better, as it 1) increases your chances of crits 2) can be kept for next turn in case you roll perfectly (or whatever other good reason you may attempt to find)
  13. Yes, my statement is wrong - I agree both are prefectly equal for attack if you do not consider crits. I think it is target lock that is better if you consider crits. Where it gets interesting is the fact that you can keep a target lock from one turn to the other, which you really only want to do when you roll full hits/crits - And rolling full hits happens less frequently the more dices you roll. So, in that sense, target lock is increasingly better for offense when you have a lower number of attack dices.
  14. well, after reading it a little more, it sounds like we did many things the same way. like adjusting the PS, and other things that were intringuingly similar. And that Lanchester may not be too bad, although I prefer simulating real combats to prevent damage over-runs. It also makes it easier to simulate the variety of pilot skills and upgrades. I am considering the benefit of trying to model the actual distribution of shots (range, attack dice, defense dices and modifications) in competitive gaming. Looks like a good improvement. Your idea of investigate Vassal logs sounds great. have you already investigated that ?
  15. Thank you for your feedback. I like what you have been doing with the gathering of the tournament reports. That's been really interesing. I have not read everything you have done so my feeling may be wrong, but it looks to me that Lanchester's Square Law is inapropriate for x-wing simulations. You have another variable in x-wing that each unit composing an army has significantly different individual attack and defense ratings and the fact that your opponent can prioritize targets according to this, which is not taken into account in Lanchester's quare law. I think the average shot in x-wing is really close to 3-dice attacker at range 2 of a 2-dice defender. But I agree the most appropriate tool would be to study the distribution of these three variables (and how they are modified) in the frame of competitive games. But i think what I picked is a very reasonable compromise ; it also allows handling upgrades and pilote skills easily. Base ships only is very restrictive. I read you are in Massachusetts ... in the Boston area ?
  16. I recently had a crush for X-wing, and as I usually like to back-up my 'in game feelings' with numbers, I have been trying to model the fire efficiency of each starship relatively to its cost. 1) Simulation details Note that I chose not to attempt to put a 'handwavy' maneuverability coefficient on top of this simulation. Ships are just evaluated as a function of their attack and defense per point cost Then you can figure by yourself how much you'd consider the enhanced maneuverability improves offense or defense. here is how I measured things: - the attack rating is based on the average number of turns you need to destroy an X-wing at range 2. I picked the X-wing as it has an agility of 2, which sounds like a good average of what you see in battle - Agilities are well distributed between 1,2 and 3. 2 looks a good average. - the defense rating is based on the number of 3-dice & range 2 attacks you sustain in average before being destroyed. I think the majority of shots in this game are made with 3 dices. yes, swarms at range 2 or 3 shoot with 2 dices, but it looks like 3 with Howlrunner, they fire with 3 dices at short range. Nearly all the otehr ships that see play fire with 3 dices, 4 at range 1. 3 dices seems like a very good average. This way of simulating things looked appropriate to me as it is very close to real combat, it has a few advantages above just 'number mainpulation' like ignoring the overhead damage, etc. - I considered that *half* of the attacks are done with a 'focus' spent, and none of the defenses. Indeed, I think this seems legitimate as players usually (appropriately) focus fire of several of their ships, and on temporarily weaker targets (the ones that don't have actions or have already spent their focus). From my experience, I usually see more focusses spent on offense than defense. (I have started keeping track of the actual number of focusses spent on attack and defense in real battles and I think my assumption is reasonable). I have not considered target locks as the focus action is statisticlaly slightly better on a 3-dice attack. - I am not considering critical hits, so one hull would be equivalent to one shield in this simulation. - I am providing ratings of "defense per point", "attack per point" and "global efficiency" which is the product of both. (This means attack*defense/(points^2) ) - To take into account the higher pilot skills, I have downgraded the cost of each ship by 0.5 point per pilot skill down to a PS of 1. For example, Luke Skywalker downgraded cost is 28-(8-1)*0.5=24.5 - I know that 0.1 point per PS is appropriate for small ships, but 1 per point for expensive ships is probably better. It does not impact the results too much, but I will probably set a threshold for teh 1-to-1 conversion rate in a next version. - Then, for an easier read, I have ranked the ships by how good they are in defense or offense compared to the average ship in this list ; and did the same for the global efficiency - I have not included all ships, just most of the ones which have a direct effect of combat. 2) Results So here are the results, ranked in terms of efficiency: Name defense attack cost global per point per point (downgraded to PS1) efficiency *Night beast 1.61 1.04 13 1.68 Lambda shuttle 1.25 1.15 21.5 1.48 *Night beast + hull 1.73 0.85 16 1.47 *Dark Curse 1.37 1.01 13.5 1.42 Z-95 headhunter 1.11 1.18 11.5 1.35 *Dark curse + hull 1.54 0.82 16.5 1.31 TIE Phantom + ACD 0.87 1.41 28 1.27 TIE fighter 1.06 1.13 12 1.24 B wing 1.00 1.15 21.5 1.18 TIE Bomber 1.29 0.88 15.5 1.16 A-wing (g sq.)+pred+refit 0.89 1.26 19 1.16 TIE Inter (guard)+ptl+hull 1.09 0.97 25.5 1.09 *Colonel Vessery 0.85 1.21 32.5 1.07 *Luke Skywalker 1.02 1.01 24.5 1.06 A-wing + chardaan refit 1.13 0.91 15 1.05 TIE Int (guard) + ptl 0.93 1.10 22.5 1.05 *Tarn Mission 0.94 1.07 24 1.04 *Kath Scarlett + predator 0.94 1.04 38 1.01 TIE Interceptor + hull 0.83 1.18 21 1.00 *Krassis Trelix + HLC 0.87 1.10 41 0.99 TIE Interceptor 0.70 1.37 18 0.99 Y wing 1.23 0.78 17.5 0.98 *Kath + pred + gunner 0.83 1.14 43 0.98 *Wedge Antilles + pred 0.59 1.59 28 0.97 X wing 0.79 1.18 21 0.96 Firespray + gunner 0.97 0.93 37 0.93 Falcon+C3PO+gun+pred 0.92 0.95 51 0.90 TIE Phantom 0.53 1.65 24 0.90 Firespray 1.12 0.77 32 0.89 X wing (red)+R2-D6+pred 0.64 1.32 26 0.87 E wing 0.83 0.91 27 0.79 TIE Defender 0.92 0.82 30 0.78 E wing + gunner 0.70 1.08 32 0.78 Falcon + C3PO + gunner 0.98 0.72 48 0.72 TIE advanced 1.07 0.65 21 0.72 *Captain Kagi+EU+gunner 0.83 0.82 32.5 0.70 Falcon + C3PO 1.09 0.57 43 0.65 Decimator 0.94 0.63 39 0.61 Falcon 0.92 0.62 40 0.58 YT-1300 + C3PO + gunner 0.94 0.59 35 0.58 YT-1300 + C3PO 1.10 0.45 30 0.50 Notes about how I simulated specific ships: *Night beast: I assume he always does a green maneuver (favorable assumption) and gets a free evade for one of two shots he suffers. *TIE phantom + advanced cloaking device: I assume it is fighting lower PS pilots and has a shot every turn to cloak (favorable assumption) *Colonel vessery: I assume his target already has a red target lock (favorable assumption) *Luke skywalker: note that I assume that ships don't focus for their evades in this simulation, except for Luke (once per fight) (favorable asumption) *TIE Interceptor + Push the Limits: I assume that it gets a free evade from PtL, for one of two shots he suffers *Tarn Mission: I assume he gets successful attack dices rerolled for one of two shots he suffers *gunners: note that 'gunner' battles are more complex than what I have been assuming (reroll when no hit). First, one of the main effect of the gunner is to strip your opponent from its defense tokens to get a poorly-defended second shot. Second, it sometimes makes sense to endure one hit and keep evade/focus tokens to avoid an even bloodier second shot. *C3PO: I have been assuming that C3PO worked for one shot out of two. 3) Interpretation The results look really reasonable to me. Because maneuvers, rear arcs & turrets are not considered in the simulation, it is legitimate to have ships like the lambda shuttle up in the ranks and falcons ranked poorly, as their unconsidered advantages actually make a huge difference. - Upgrades worthy for some ships, but bad for others. as expected, the expensive "gunners" are worthy upgrades for very solid ships like falcon or firespray, but they are downgrading teh overall cost efficiency of more fragile ships like the e-wing. Another example of upgrade that's beneficial on some ships but not on others: hull upgrade increases the global efficiency of TIE interceptors, that woudl not say no to a little more life, but less on TIE fighters. This all follows intuition, but it is nice to have that back-ed up with numbers. - As expected, TIE fighters and Z-95 rank really high in this s tudy. And indeed, in a pure shooting simulation, I think swarms are nearly unbeatable. - Just for the records, the most defensive ship is Night beast doing a green maneuver for focus and evade. Worst target ever. And the scariest 'glass cannon' is a naked TIE phantom focussing you, but it ranks pretty low overall due its low defense rating. - B-wing ranks quite high, especially considering that it is full of shields and I did not put critics in my simulation. X-wing, E-wing, TIE defender rank pretty poorly, and TIE advanced even worse, as expected. A little minus to have in mind : blue B-wings suffer from predator, and upgraded & named B-wings are quite expensive. - Even if it is low on this list, Falcon + C3PO has a defense per cost above average, really tanky for such an expensive ship ! And with a gunner, predator or both to boost offense, it catches up on the offensive part to nearly reach the global efficiency average of regular ships ... but that's ignoring its crazy maneuverability and most importantly its turret ! This means that you will -- barely -- have the edge if you manage to focus the shots of your regular squadron at it. But it's more likely it will arc dodge some of them and things should then turn bad for you. What a crazy ship !
  17. If someone already has several or plans too get another one, I would be glad to split and get the x-wing stuff. I have limited storage space and don't see myself collecting epic ships.
  18. to anyone who has several transports: I need: Tarn Mission (card and template) I have: any non-large expansion, or cash (I don't have any promotional/tournament stuff)
  19. I have a large preference for Han over Chewie too. I mean, Chewie's power is not useful in the early game - where most of the games get decided. Then, what fraction of the (7) non-lethal hull damage cards are crits ? In my experience, it averages at 2, and I would say the last one usually barely matters as the game should be over one way or the other at that time. And there are many VERY GOOD ships that got crippled by Han + navigator or Han + engine upgrade. Phantoms of course, but also interceptors. Yes, you sometimes focus instead of dodging, but the number of shots you arc-dodge should easily make up for that. There are many decent counters to Chewie. It moves like any other ship and has an average PS. And yes, it has two free dodges, but only against ONE attack a turn, then you can bank most of the rest of your hits. So, it's all about arc-dodging, which Han does way better. And here is my problem now : I have not found any clear counter against Han.
  20. I agree that it looks to be on the cheap side in terms of points. I think the easiest comparison is with Firespray - a competitve ship. Let's guess the basic YT-2400 should cost around 31-32. You can add an ion cannon for 3 to get a comparable price to the basic Firespray. I think having a front ion cannon and a 2-dice turret is significantly better than a front-and-rear 3 dices. The other significant difference is the barrel roll. Unless there is a surprising major lack on its maneuver dial (lack of Green banks or K-turn), it looks like it is slightly on the cheap side.
  21. I just want a "Ferrari sticker" from the whole Ferrari package. I hope there would be a way not to spend a few hundred thousands on that.
  22. Hello ! I have recently started playing the game, and I am bothered by the fact some (nearly unavoidable) upgrades on the rebel side can only be found in huge boxes. I am wondering if there is a reliable secondary market to get those cards, in particular C3PO. I am also looking for x-wing pilots like Tarn Mission. It is very frustrating as I feel I would not be able to build the squadrons I like without a significant spending, for ships that I don't really want to own and store. I am tempted to completely ignore rebels and going the imperial side for this single reason. Any help or advice would be welcome ! Thanks !
  23. Thanks for posting it Tracker, I may not have caught the mail on BGG !
  24. Hi ! I could not get a slot despite registering only a few hours late. But I would not be surpised if there were a few spare seats available at the last minute.
  25. I am interested. Just an advice: avoid card that shuffle decks in your deck design. A suggestion for a pre-built deck: we could just use the pre-built mono-sphere base decks, or the ones from the hobbit expension. Some of the most mind-challenging games I have had were when playing Escape from Dol-Guldur 2-handed with 2 random basic 30-card decks. It is doable but not a walk in the park.
×
×
  • Create New...