Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by OKTarg

  1. Keith went undefeated until the final, where he lost to two TLT Y's and Chewie as detailed above. Keith was flying Poe/VI/Thrusters/r5p9; Asty/VI/Thrusters/R2D2; Gold/BTLA4/TLT/R3A2
  2. I didn't personally mind the disagreement because it was disagreement; I felt that everyone misunderstood Bob's points, misrepresented them, and wouldn't let him finish. I would have been very frustrated in his shoes. I thought he raised two interesting, separate 'fixes' for tournament rules. I disagree with both of them, but it would have been nice to have heard more about his reasoning.
  3. I flagged it as circular logic because it's circular logic. If you think that I have invoked circular logic anywhere, please be more specific. I think the "rules are in place, deal with it" group is arguing that since the ruleset is fixed before the start of the tournament, both players are on equal footing with respect to try to exploit those rules for their own in-game advantage, not necessarily extending that to mean "rules are in place; they should never change." I may be misinterpreting there, but I think I'm on the right track. In other words, asking "if we had no tournament rules, what's the best way to build them ground up" is a different question than "given that we have these tournament rules, what's the best way to play within them." For example, if I know that a particular tournament is 60 minute rounds and I take a slow-to-win squad, I've shot myself in the foot. I don't think anyone argues that 60 minutes is the best roundlength, but given that I know what the expectations are, I should build (and play) in light of them. This seems to be the "don't bring a TIE swarm principle." For me, a tournament ruleset should do the following things: 1. Promote ending games within the time limit 2. Encourage engagement in the endgame Secondary to those goals are: 1. Encourage similar decision making in both the mid and endgame (for example, partial (proportional) points on all ships encourages target switching just before time in a way that would not be effective before a limit) 2. Attempt to "predict" the outcome had the game been untimed. The barriers and circumstances that must be taken into account include: 1. Round limits are simply a must. We can't have untimed swiss and cut rounds. It's just not possible. 2. Reporting has to be simple, so that accuracy and speed can be maximized. 3. The ability to "predict" outcomes will never be accurate. (I like the example of the Ion BTLA-4 Y Stresshog on one HP behind an ioned B wing at full health...how would this be modeled? Or the full health ship pointing the wrong way and about to fly off the board....how about this situation?) Given these aims and barriers, I think the current ruleset does a decent job. I don't know that a proportional points modeling in the case of a draw to break the tie would always model properly the gamestate, and I don't know that giving better incentive for drawn or mod-won games encourages endgame engagement. What about: 1. Full win (5 pts) for destroying your opponent 2. Mod win (4? 3?) for being ahead on points at time 3. Draw (2?) for being within a given range (10-12 points, maybe?) at time 4. Loss (whether timed or not) would be 0 points. This would encourage engagement from the losing player, since being completely cleaned off and just losing at time are the same tournament points with just an MOV difference. It would encourage the 'ahead' player to try to eliminate the opponent to get the extra tourney points, and it would encourage drawing players to get ahead before time if they felt they could do so, and, if it results in a cagey drawn endgame, that's probably a fine result with me. Sorry to keep de-railing this back to tourney rules, but it's something I enjoy thinking about. PS: This discussion sort of reminds me of the old BCS system for college football. Each year, they'd apply a formula and each year something wonky would happen. The next year, they'd change the formula to take that wonky thing into account, and the next year something different would happen. They'd fix the rules to have reflected the outcome in hindsight, and it never worked. They ended up dispensing with the BCS entirely and nobody misses it. Changing tournament rules to fit one particular tournament outcome in hindsight isn't great practice. I don't think that's what MJ is doing here.I don't really enjoy imputing motives to folks, but I don't think arguments like "the current rules have disadvantaged me before, therefore my opinion of them is more valid" really are very helpful. I also don't think MajorJuggler's reasoning here is primarily based on sour grapes from the tournament experience, though it did highlight for him an imbalance (in his view) that the tournament rules don't reward "not-losing" enough; others are arguing they reward "winning" more strongly and that's OK. EDIT: I see I've been ninja'd and perhaps a white flag has been waved. I hope not, since I enjoy the discussion of how heavily to weight aspects of the game within tournament scoring. Imputing motive isn't helping the cause.
  4. I'm new to X Wing, though not to FFG tournament games in general, so I actually found the discussion regarding tournament scoring quite interesting. I had the following takeaways and questions from the first hour of the cast: 1. I was surprised to hear Sean say that he and opponents flipped coins to determine the winner of their drawn games. For me, this is akin to manipulation of scoring. Their actual result was a draw; it was not reported as such. As a result, one player has an inflated number of tournament points that they didn't earn. There are other ways to effect this, such as one player flying their ship off the board intentionally or just outright conceding, but I am not a fan of this. A draw is a draw and should be recorded as a draw, IMO. What am I missing on this? 2. Perhaps people wouldn't be so passionate about avoiding draws if they weren't scored like "almost-losses" instead of "half-wins." This principle seems to be close to MajorJuggler's suggestion of passing out 4 points per match regardless of result. Soccer did this for forever (2 pts for a win; 1 for a draw) but went up to 3 for a win to encourage attacking play near the end of games. Currently, a drawn result encourages the players to engage and try to force a win (at least in my theorycrafting). Losing your one point that is "in the bank" for ending with a draw is not enticing compared to the 5 points you can earn for a win. Mathematically, you'd engage if you perceived a <20% chance of eking out a win; you'd turtle and disengage if it were less. The proportion would switch up towards 50% if MajorJuggler's tourney point suggestion was enacted. 3. What's the difference between running away and slow play? I think this can be answered along "rules" lines as well as "culture" lines....what do the rules as written allow, and what does the community see as fair in interpreting those rules? 4. Is MajorJuggler suggesting adjudicating partial points for all ships always? It seems like that position has been imputed to him when he is just saying that partial points should be scored only in the case of a draw to split the hairs and eliminate the draw. If Sean is right and we've seen on the order of one draw per tournament, it hardly seems worth the time; if we see more draws as MajorJuggler suggests may be the case, gamestate solutions that simulate 'who would have won' may also matter. Or, as in soccer, a draw can be seen as a fair and just result. Too often you find your team sieging the opposing goal, but not getting it across the line. They still share the points and one team is happier and the other unhappier. This is ingrained in soccer culture, but what about XWing culture? 1 point draws seem, again, like "almost losses." 5. What scoring system, in everyone's opinion, is the best at discouraging "runaway" play from either the winner or the loser during the endgame? Or is "runaway" play just good tactics and that's fine?
  5. I just get what I like (seems you've started down that road) and when I want to go to a tournament I'll buy to fill out that list.
  6. Team Covenant may (pure speculation here) have unique standing with FFG because they are essentially free marketing for FFG. Team Covenant are really really really consistent at kissing up to FFG, to the extent that I have wondered if they are actually a subsidiary of FFG. (Probably not, but they give the impression that they are actually a combination retail front / marketing branch for FFG.) Their online shopping catalog is almost exclusively FFG games. They come across as the ultimate FFG fan boys. According to them, everything FFG does is amazing. If you want an unbiased and balanced review of FFG's services and products, then Team Covenant is about the last place you want to look. That's a fair assessment. I suppose one view is that among the fixed-expansion type of games they like to offer, FFG has the best ones? They also offer Doomtown, Ashes, a few other minis games, etc. I'm not trying to be a TC apologist but rather to make the point that if the new move hurts TC FFG really has cut off their nose to spite their face.
  7. I'm no economist, but if prices rise all around at the retail end of the distribution chain (which is to say that customers are charged more on average), isn't it reasonable to say that sales will fall? So even if FFG can get a higher per-unit price, they'll overall lose money by moving fewer units? I'd be interested to learn how Mayfair games has done in terms of overall profitability since they enforced a maximum of 20% online discounts on their games. Perhaps that's a window into how FFG will fare as a result of this move. I also noticed that Amazon, B&N, etc. are exempted from this. So does FFG want a world of Amazon Online and Local Stores, with the Onilne Specialty store squeezed out? It seems unreasonable to worry that you won't be able to get your ships online at all, but it does seem reasonable to worry that your choice as a consumer is going down. Before I moved, my FLGS was Team Covenant. You may be interested to know that they do, in fact, have a subscription model that allows certain privileges to those who play in-person (such as free tournament entry, reductions on snacks, priority pre-orders and a few more). I'm wondering if they'll fit in the nebulous "significant contribution" niche which will allow them to keep selling online. There's no way they could keep open without the online sales even though they're probably the most successful store in the US in terms of promoting FFG games being played in person on a regular basis. And if THEY can't survive, I'm not sure who could...without selling Magic.
  8. With the new spoilers for the TIE/fo pilots, I've dreamed up this list: Howlrunner (Determination) Dark Curse Epsilon Ace Zeta Leader (Wired, TIE mark 2) Omega Leader (Juke, Comm Relay) It's a combination of hard-to-hit, mid-high PS TIEs with a bunch of modification to try to punch those two dice through. Five TIEs, though.....will it stay on the board long enough to actually do anything? What do you think: does this have legs or do you think it is a non-starter?
  9. I got x wing to play with my kids. It seemed to scratch my itch for competitive gaming while being simple enough for grade schoolers.
  10. I just got into the game to play with my kids also! And, what I've learned is: The kids don't care what it is, they just want to play! We seriously just went to the store and I let them pick something that looked cool.... My five year old loves the new TIE punisher because it can drop bombs. My seven year old loves the A wing and TIE interceptor because they can boost. I just love gaming with my kids!
  11. I don't have any scum ships. I have to stick to a gaming budget and my XWing collection is designed for casual play at home with my kids. Do I feel I am missing out on what X Wing has to offer? You bet. But that's due to money and time factors rather than lack of interest. PS: Wherefore art thou, Starviper? Soontir needs a real Autothruster and not a proxy!
  12. Excellent point. I'll get that for "his brother." Random aside: the new FO TIE has the target lock action which is a complete waste on a 2 ATK ship, in my view, but not when paired with COLONEL VESSERY!!!! Not saying it's going to replace VaderATC as my spotter for vessery. Not saying I won't try it. I don't have a raider, but I do have Echo/Vessery/FO greek letter.
  13. Excellent point. I'll get that for "his brother." Random aside: the new FO TIE has the target lock action which is a complete waste on a 2 ATK ship, in my view, but not when paired with COLONEL VESSERY!!!!
  14. I agree with this. While I can't be mad about updates (I am a Game of Thrones player whose whole game got shelved in favor of a second edition and I loved every minute of it), it's hard to think about me and my two boys needing 3 new Cores to go to a tournament. I'd like to think I can plan ahead and borrow one or two as X Wing players, like those from Thrones, are very happy to help. Also, Thrones has seen its share of errata and the reprinted products come with updated copies of the errata'd cards (Same with Lord of the Rings.) So, I think it's not outside the realm of possibility at all to think that in the future OT Cores will have updated damage decks. I'm not too worried. I expect I'll be able to get a spare from some of those that purchased multiple FA cores. At worst, going to cost me $15 or so on Ebay. Would rather spend that on another Khifdshg though... My kids actually really like the new T-70 so I may end up getting a second for "them" for Christmas anyway
  15. I agree with this. While I can't be mad about updates (I am a Game of Thrones player whose whole game got shelved in favor of a second edition and I loved every minute of it), it's hard to think about me and my two boys needing 3 new Cores to go to a tournament. I'd like to think I can plan ahead and borrow one or two as X Wing players, like those from Thrones, are very happy to help. Also, Thrones has seen its share of errata and the reprinted products come with updated copies of the errata'd cards (Same with Lord of the Rings.) So, I think it's not outside the realm of possibility at all to think that in the future OT Cores will have updated damage decks.
  16. Some great ideas in this thread. I second the idea of playing through the quest a few times yourself before you play with a new player to help minimize the 'rule looking up' stuff in play. With respect to deck ideas, a deck made up of eowyn/Aragorn/ and either other spirit hero should be good. You can pump Aragorn up with attachments, always fun.
  17. There are only the three different types of enemies, yes. They each are in the encounter deck several times.
  18. I am pretty sure that you will retain all enemies engaged with you and therefore X can be a positive number.
  19. I've seen a few people asking for information about the quest. If you don't want to know about it, don't read further! I'm going to give a quick overview rather than going card-by-card, as I don't have it in front of me, but I really enjoyed the quest. I think four-player is the hardest, solo or two would be the sweet spot here. The major mechanic involves getting spun off into individual staging areas similar to Foundations of Stone or The Breaking of the Fellowship. The twist here is that you get sent off on your own if "your" player card is a certain type of Barrow. [bIG SPOILER] When you get spun out on your own, you have to discard all allies except X, where X is the number of enemies engaged with you. This was a HUGE surprise, and as I was running a Gondor ally mustering deck, was quite the moment. To clear your own staging area, you have to quest 9 points worth, but any location revealed at your stage is canceled--you raise your threat by its threat cost instead. This, coupled with other threat raising mechanics, really puts the pressure on you throughout. There are a few cool new effects on locations. Notably, one of them makes you defend Wights with your Willpower value while it is in the staging area. The enemies also have negative effects while engaged with you, like not letting you draw cards, produce resources, or the like. The enemies themselves are not super high stat wise. All in all, a great flavor and a fun quest!
  20. are you Gildor Inglorion, Mndela? I surely want him to stay in play and choose him as my boon over Mr. Underhill in my campaigns!
  21. Just a note: there is no useless maester in the core set. He can kneel to save himself from MIL claim or Valar. This is very useful in the Core environment.
  22. To me it looks like you do have an action window after the threat cards are revealed but before the test is resolved. You could, say, play halfling determination or use core faramirs ability, so why not caldara?
  23. Rule of thumb: Triggered Effects start with Bold text. So, since the charagenda abilities don't, we know they aren't triggered effects and therefore can't be stopped by the Iron Throne.
  • Create New...