Jump to content

CatPeeler

Members
  • Content Count

    267
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About CatPeeler

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 04/13/1975

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    -
  • MSN
    -
  • Website URL
    http://-
  • ICQ
    -
  • Yahoo
    -
  • Skype
    -

Profile Information

  • Location
    Hillsboro, 0, United States

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Okay, this is the last thing I'll say on the subject, because this thread has become what I think of as a Tastes Great! / Less Filling! shouting match. For those of you old enough to remember, there was an old light beer commercial where bars would erupt into violence when two factions would be divided among the 'Tastes Great' or 'Less Filling' factions. The thing is--those are not opposing positions! Tastes Great / Tastes Crappy is an argument. Less Filling / Lead in the Gut is an argument. Tastes Great / Less Filling are related subjects, but they are not opposing positions. For those who actually got my point--whether you agree or not--thank you. My point, for the last time, is that the game has changed over time. Completely normal for it to do so. The sticking point, for me, is that where Once Upon A Time, Player A decided to go after a specific ship, Player B would try to prevent it, and the result would be decided through skill, maneuver, and some degree of luck. These days, there are an increasing number of situations where Player A can just dictate that a specific ship is dead, and--assuming equal skill levels--there is little or nothing Player B can do about it. Put yet another way: In the Old Days, Player A could reduce Player B's ability to defend (by way of Wedge, or Outmaneuver, with stress, etc). These Days, Player B can remove Player B's ability to defend (double Auto-corrected Autoblaster, auto-TB, etc). There is a fundamental difference between reducing defense and removing it entirely. Whether you think this is a problem or not is an entirely different discussion. I am not arguing that ships that completely remove defense are dominating the highest levels of competitive play, or that they are unbeatable by any list... just that this is a trend that I've noticed. My position is that this trend contributes to the number of Negative Play Experiences. That it's not an issue on top tables is not a counterpoint. That these lists can be beaten is not a counterpoint. Again, Tastes Great/Less Filling. In any case, thank you for your time.
  2. Or alternatively, let's not lose track of my actual statement: that my opinion is that the number of NPE experiences is on the rise, and--if so--can it be fixed with a few nerfs, or is a new edition needed? Pretty impressive distortion of my position, though.
  3. HLC gets four potential hits. Merc turns one into a crit. Bossk turns the crit into two more hits. Wired also lets you reroll all focus results. Autothrusters means you take four damage instead of five... and most ships that can take autothrusters can't eat four damage. Nearly the same effect at range one (albeit, without the guaranteed crit). It still appears that I've failed to make my point, so I'll try one more time. It's not that the builds I mentioned are unbeatable. It's that they are not enjoyable to fly against, nor are they satisfying to win with. It used to be that there was really only one list like this--the quad TLT list. Again, another list that wasn't unbeatable, but one that was boring to fly and also negated a huge number of opposing lists. In my opinion, the number of lists in the same vein are increasing. If you think these kinds of lists are a joy to fly with/against, or that it's entertaining to lose your ability to participate in the game... I have nothing else to say.
  4. Let me clarify, because I'm sure as hell not advocating for safe spaces or that malarkey. A really strong, challenging competitive list can be a joy to fly against. It will push you to the limits of your abilities to maneuver and out think your opponent. A list which reduces your participation to merely removing ships off the table without any ability to influence the game is a different animal entirely.
  5. Generally, I would agree. I react that way against most upper tier lists. I enjoy flying against palp aces, for example, because it's going to be a game of cat & mouse. The difference is in having a challenging game on one hand, or a game where I'm reduced to spectator status on the other. As much as I dislike flying against particular builds, I dislike flying them myself even more...
  6. For those wondering what I'm talking about, I'll elaborate. Hera w/ABT/AC/Phantom and an Engine is hardly an unstoppable killing machine. However, if you're within range 4 + a boost, and below 7 PS (or I have init), you're taking 4 damage, minimum. If you're low AG, it can be as high as 7 damage. Hardly unbeatable, but one that destroys a large number of ships without any effort. Double ghost with a stresshog is another tedious variant. A full zuckuss party boat with a couple of TLT escorts is trivially easy to park indefinitely. 4-5 unavoidable damage from the boat, followed by two TLT's will erase a lot of ships. You can't get behind it unless I want you to. Not many ships can survive 6-8 damage/turn for more than a round, while also dealing damage at a matching rate. Again, the point is not that these are unbeatable lists. The point is that X-wing has evolved to include combinations where your opponent may not even be able to roll dice, or even have the opportunity to activate before being destroyed. Attacks which require careful maneuvering/timing to pull off are fantastic. Attacks and effects which are unavoidable remove your opponents ability to participate. My idea of a perfect victory is one where I outmaneuvered/outplayed my opponent, and we both had a great time. Removing your opponents ability to contribute to the outcome of the game in any meaningful way... ruins it for both players. I'm not looking to quit the game, or even stop playing competitively. I'm just noticing a trend where an increasing number of lists are simply not enjoyable for everyone involved, and wonder if the game has reached the point where an overhaul of the basic rules would be better than simply nerfing a few cards.
  7. As an X-wing player since wave 2 or so, I've had occasional player burnout. Partly due to tournament-exhaustion (most game stores I'm aware of experience a lull following the tournament season), but also due to occasional frustration with the meta. With the explosive growth in pilot/upgrade combinations, I'm starting to wonder if the game is starting to see an increase in the number of lists that actively reduce the amount of 'fun' in the game. To be clear, I'm not referring to players in any way--I've found X-wing players to overwhelmingly be the most pleasant group of miniature wargamers I've ever encountered. What I'm referring to are lists and builds that are simply not fun to fly against, or to a lesser extent, even to use. In earlier days, it could be fairly frustrating to see a tournament dominated by a particular build. In those cases, it was mostly a matter of it being boring to face the same Fat Han list 3-4 times in a row, or pre-nerf Whisper/Echo, or quad-TLT's, or whatever. More recently, however, it feels like there are more builds that completely eliminate your opponent's agency. What I'm specifically referring to are builds which prevent your opponent from even participating in the game. Zuckuss is the most obvious example, but a Ghost/Phantom with Autoblaster turrets and Accuracy Correctors that dishes 4 unavoidable damage or a Sabine/clustermine list would also fall under that category. Ketsu's ability to automatically throw a small ship within range 4+boost onto a rock is debatable, but I also think that tractor beams are wildly underappreciated. None of these lists are unbeatable, by any means, but it's troubling to see the rise of unavoidable damage. Unbreakable defense thankfully hasn't shown up yet, though Palpatine came awfully close. Speaking for myself, I ran a variety of Zuckuss/4-lom/YV-666 combinations for about a month or so... until I noticed that very few of my matchups were the ideal "good game." Maneuvering was largely irrelevant, with only mirror matches being a real threat. Even then, the game was essentially reduced to Yahtzee. Again, no list is unbeatable. I really enjoy the challenge of flying against an expertly flown Imperial Aces list, for example. On the other hand, the last local tournament I played in was roughly 75% Ghost lists. My question for the board is whether it's just me, or are any of you finding an increasing number of lists that just aren't as enjoyable to face?
  8. Yup, balls-nasty. A steal at 24 points, to be sure. I've been tinkering with including N'dru with Manaroo and Fenn, like thus: Manaroo - PTL / Unhinged / Recon Spec / EU N'dru - Fearlessness / Clusters / GC / Glitterstim Fenn - Fearlessness / APT / Title / AT Alpha strikes at 7 dice and 8/10 dice? Sold!
  9. HWK (scum) Treat your primary weapon as a turret. When attacking, you may strike the target ship with the attack dice. As long as the targeted ship is not knocked over, it must continue play from its new position and facing. If the targeted ship is knocked over, return it to it's original position and heading.
  10. I ran Ketsu w/VI & EU along with a full Bossk party-bus... and felt a little dirty doing it. Are you on the table? I can probably reach you, put you on a rock, and then shoot you with Dengar rerolls. Then the party bus finishes you (and your likely 0/1 AG) off without any issues. Rinse/repeat. If there's a nastier two-ship build, I've yet to see it.
  11. Color me unimpressed. With 1 AG, they're very expensive Tractor-bait. Worst of all, they compete with an already overstuffed point range in the Rebel list.
×
×
  • Create New...