Jump to content

Sethis

Members
  • Content Count

    173
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Sethis

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    Penrith, Cumbria, UK
  1. I actually used the first HWK tonight that pulled its weight. Mux with Moldy Crow and Zuckuss with your personal preference of turret. Spend the first 5 turns as usual stacking Focus, and by the time you heave into range, you can take a TL and start forcing green dice rerolls with Zuckuss with very little regard for stress, given that you're very often doing straight 1s or 1 banks anyway to maximise turret use. You're greening almost every turn and you have a stack of Focus to see you through the fight. Reducing someone to PS0 is gravy too in the current Ace-heavy meta. Sure, you'll die eventually, but it means they're not shooting Dengar, or Bossk, or whoever you run him with. Not saying it's going to win tournaments, but that 1pt crew card really makes the HWK so much better.
  2. Well I suppose it depends on how you play against swarms, doesn't it? Name Howlrunner, snipe her out, and suddenly you've got Whisper versus a load of TIEs. And we all know how well 2 dice attacks work against 4 greens + tokens. The real trick is being able to snipe her out without getting shot in the face by every single other Crackshot wielding ship on the table, which is why the rest of your list needs to be able to disrupt the formation etc.
  3. People keep mentioning the Scyk as an example of a terrible ship. It isn't. It really isn't. It's a TIE fighter that pays 1pt for a shield over a Hull, and 1pt for 1 extra PS over an AP, and trades the Hard 3 for a 1 Bank. Which leaves it, in the current meta, at 1pt overcosted. What it's actually missing is a Howlrunner equivalent, so that S&V have a reason to run swarms and miniswarms. A M3-A pilot that gives ALL unstressed friendly ships at R1 an Evade or Focus token, for example. Or allows them to reroll a blank attack or defence dice. Something to make 4-6 Scyks playable off of it's effect. If TIEs didn't have Howlrunner, they would have been dismissed as unplayable/list filler long ago. The Scyks are just waiting for an S&V card with a decent AoE effect that begs you to get as many bodies on the table as you can.
  4. Outside of Pilot abilities, Bombers give you more ships, which results in more options in the movement and combat phases. Therefore if you just want something to carry Ordnance, two semi-light bombers give you more mileage than 1 Punisher. On the other hand if you want abilities, you're comparing Jonus vs Deathrain and Redline. The named Punishers are singleton aces that you only run one of, with some other different archetype of ship to cover their weaknesses. On the other hand Jonus wants to be running with at least two other Bombers in order to maximise his ability, which is a completely different list. If you want a solo threat, take a named Punisher. If you want more than one threat, take Bombers, either a couple of generics or Jonus + wingmen. We're shortly about to see the Shuttle upgrade too, which might change the Bomber from "Ordnance carrier" to "Spammy cheap Crew slot" for Mara Jade or whatever.
  5. Rather than smaller ships, I would recommend getting a Falcon and a Slave 1. Both of those ships have multiple fire arcs, meaning they shoot almost every turn, and both are much easier to hit due to having 1-2 green dice, rather than 3-4. Without stacking various upgrades like C-3PO on them, their main defence will be their HP total rather than how much they can dodge, which means damage actually happens, which means things die, and the game ends. Likewise their 3 red dice main guns will do lots of damage at Range 1, which can make a mess of fragile targets. For example if you manage to play Poe and Falcon and get someone into R1 of both, you're rolling 8 red dice from only two attacks, plus target locks, focus, and maybe Han Solo's pilot ability. For the Slave, both Krassis Trellix and Kath Scarlet provide good damage with either cannons or rear arc shooting, and can take bombs or ordnance for some near-certain damage being dealt. Also, if worst comes to the worst, your collection will look better with a couple of large ships in than just a collection of small fighters, which makes it easier to sell on ebay.
  6. Again, I will point out that while an option may be contained within the rules, it is a personal choice to take that option. You (not the OP, it's a general "You") could have just as easily NOT taken the option that is available to you. If taking that option results in a morally questionable outcome, you bear the responsibility of the results of choosing to take that action. You made a choice, and it affected other people, therefore you need to be able to talk to the other people about why you made that choice. The OP does this beautifully. He gives a reason why he made the choice, he presents the circumstances surrounding the choice, he defends the choice he made at the time, and then he tells us how he feels about it with more time and distance to reflect on other choices he could have made, but didn't. In this case he believes that he made the wrong choice, but his approach to giving an explanation would be equally praiseworthy if he still believed he made the right choice. Thank you for writing a constructive post in a sensible manner.
  7. the next time I talk to my cousin who was a victim of family violence ill let her know the her Ex-husband is just as bad as 8 people who decided to follow rules in a game. And that's all I need to know you actually aren't listening to my point. See ya.
  8. No, actually nobody has a responsibility to defend their ethics. You can always choose to not care what others think But do you (I'm adressing this to the haters not you personally) have a moral right to accuse people and talk *** like I've seen here? Publicly shame pheaver for having different morals? That does not look like falying casual to me. You can hold whatever ethics you want, so long as you never act on them. As soon as you act on your beliefs and that action affects other people, they have the right to ask you to justify them. Thus we have courts that require people to defend their actions. Otherwise you could say "Brah, stabbing him in the neck is just what my ethics said - you can't naysay me". Good to make a comparisons between a game and thing's that can have a real life consequences because losing a game and being stoned to death should be on an equal level. When I use my own critical thinking I know ID's are bad because they are not suited in this game and shouldn't be allowed for all the reasons listed in the last 28 pages. But I would never question anyone for following a bad rule. Its still a rule. and this is still a game if you want change fill the FFG inbox with complaints. I hate what the top 8 did but they have every right to do so and I would never attack them personally as said above hate the game not the players every part of our lives is filled with systems and procedures to make us act like robots. From systems at work, roads with signal's and signs telling us where to go what to do, advertising telling us what to buy, education systems that say stay in school go to university get a degree in free thinking rock up debt doing so then get a job a McDonalds follow a system and pay off your student loan the rest of your life. and don't even get me started on the systems government have that you need to follow to if you need something from them. Is it really any wonder why people follow rules as written? If you can't tell the difference between arguing against an example and arguing against a point, I can't be bothered talking to you. I'm not attributing moral equivalency to the two actions, don't be absurd. I am saying that you cannot dismiss complaints about someone's behaviour based on "You're not allowed to question them because it's their opinion, and opinions can't be wrong". Opinions can be wrong, just like anything else. Your second argument seems to be that because you work in a morally empty system, it is acceptable to act in a morally empty fashion. That being the case, we can never attribute blame to anyone working for a criminal organisation - because they are living within an immoral environment, and therefore cannot exert their own sense of morality. Which is nonsense. You always have a choice. Well it's hard to compare actual physical violence to rules used in plastic ships competition. Same moral rules don't apply to everything. As for the greates number argument. You do know that unhappy customers are the ones that are loudest right? People posting here are not representative of the whole community. Likewise Slanesh, if you can't distinguish between an example and a rationale, I'm not going to waste time replying to you. Regarding greatest numbers, I was talking about the other 32 players at the event. Let's say the TO had stood up on a chair, and shouted out "These 8 players want to lock all of you out of the final round by all taking IDs, I want a show of hands to show who supports this". Who do you think would have been in favour of that? I'm pretty sure the vote would have been something close to 32-8 AGAINST. Morals are not completely subjective - all societies that ever exist do so due to the ability to reach moral consensus about what is and is not morally acceptable. Morality is not a unique and special snowflake that is precious and correct and equally valuable to all people. Some people are less moral than others. Some people are more morally correct than others, as shown by their actions towards others. For example denying other people their right to compete in order to gain prizes, because you want those prizes yourself, I would see as harming someone else purely for your own benefit, which from most people's frame of reference is an immoral act. Again, stop with the lazy thinking. People can BELIEVE whatever they want in the privacy of their own head. However as soon as they act on their beliefs in a way that affects others, then they become open to challenge - because you need to justify your actions to the person you have affected. For example, if 10yr old me thinks my sister is annoying, and I stamp on her toe, she and my parents have the right to question why I took that action, and if my reasons do not withstand rational debate then I am morally wrong, and I need to adjust my beliefs or cease to take actions based on them. Likewise, the actions taken by the top 8 (and in fact the judges, who have an obligation of care for all players) affected people other than themselves. They prevented the other 32 players from competing in a fair and free environment. They made the choice to invoke the rule in the rulebook, when they were under NO OBLIGATION TO. They could have just played every game, like every player has done since the release of Wave 1, in every tournament, ever. They chose not to. They decided that making it into the top 8 was more important than allowing all other players to have an equal chance of making it into the top 8 by beating them. That has a result on the other players, and so the other players have an absolute right to demand a rational and moral explanation from them. Stop with the "You can't question someone else's decision" crap. On the other hand I will happily agree that insults solve nothing. So that's why I'm not using terms like "sack of dicks" because it contributes nothing to the discussion.
  9. They do. I know it's hard for all of you people on your high **** horses but please, try to imagine that somebody else can have different ethics and morals and not be the devil himself at the same time. People have different sense of whats wrong and whats right. THAT is what rules are for. So that everybody has to follow them no matter what their opinion is. This rule is not forcing you to forsake your ideals, it just allows other people not to be bound by them. So their conscience led them to undertake behaviour that many would consider unsportsman like. Fine; that's their decision. But many of us feel that decision flies in the face of the spirit of the game and competitive play more generally, and was a poor decision to make. And that is fine as long as you dont start a witchhunt. Because there is no way to actually say that your definition of sportsmanlike behaviour is better. It's all subjective. To me, that is just as much of a moral cop out as the above defences. Would you watch someone abuse another person and do nothing because "It is all subjective"? How empirical does immorality have to become before you stand up and object? From a purely utilitarian and/or democratic point of view then they were wrong - the greatest happiness for the greatest number, and the majority consensus are the two main ways we decide what it "Right" and by both of those measures, the decision to ID an entire tournament to lock out other participants is morally wrong.
  10. Of course as an addendum to the above post, you then have a responsibility to defend the ethicality of your actions when challenged. And so far there has been no defence apart from "The law says I can do it" (which we have already established is not a moral justification) and "Someone else did it", which is also not a valid defence. Just because someone takes an action they believe to be right, does not entitle them to be free of criticism. No-one goes into the situation thinking "I'm going to be an evil bastard here" - they may just make mistakes. But if no-one ever pulls you up and forces you to re-evaluate your mistakes, there is no way to learn from them.
  11. Just because something is legal, does not make it moral. People saying "Hate the game, not the player" really need to step back and engage their critical thinking skills. In certain countries it is legal to stone people to death, or bury them alive. In western countries, it is not illegal to cheat on your boyfriend or girlfriend. Does that make it moral? You have a responsibility not to just follow the writing on the piece of paper, but to use your own conscience and ethics to make a decision that you believe is morally just. Something is not moral until the day the law is passed against it, at which point it becomes immoral - it has always been immoral, it has just taken the legal system a while to get their act together and litigate against it. Beating your wife and children was immoral before the laws for domestic abuse were enshrined, for example. You are not a robot following a script. You are a human being with the capability of governing your own ethical actions. Act like it.
  12. The entire moviemaking industry is lousy with stupid deus ex machina problems. It's my single overriding issue with almost every film, ever. It really isn't that hard to write a story that doesn't have gaping holes thinly papered over with coincidence and happenstance. This one was bad even by the typically low standards in terms of pointless crap that is just pure laziness in conception. I was really hoping for better, but at least this one doesn't have midichlorians or convenient underwater tunnels.
  13. By lore, the Imperial Guards had heavy blaster pistols on their belts in addition to their vibrostaff. But then there's a lot of things that are in the lore that just get thrown out in the films - i.e. stormtrooper armour being roughly equivalent in protective power as wet paper maché, when actually it's supposed to save a lot of lives. Otherwise why bother?? Regarding the presidential bodyguards, yes they have pistols in their belts, but i'm pretty sure that most people who tried to fight them hand to hand wouldn't enjoy the experience either.
  14. It's an Imperial-I class Star Destroyer, as seen in ANH (watch the chase scene with the Tantive IV again - you'll notice the same tower). The Imperial-II (ESB and RotJ) had a shorter tower, there, and lacked the row of guns down the top center of the hull (you see those on this model, too). So...nice touch of continuity, these are Imperial-Is instead of Imperial-IIs. Ah, interesting. I think because all the cover art of the EU books/games is mostly post-Endor then that's what I'm used to seeing. Thanks for the info!
  15. I'm curious about the weird X-shaped things mounted on top of the ISD/VSDs. Where did they come from? Also, the tan stormtroopers actually look really close to the old Swamp Troopers from Jedi Outcast. Would be nice if they were used on a swamp planet, but not holding my breath. I think people are massively over-analysing and speculating about the Imperial Uniform not-Jan is wearing. She obviously stunned someone and took their uniform to infiltrate something, complete with full-face helmet, which she discards ASAP because we can't have a film where we hide the main characters face for more than 15 seconds. Also regarding links to the other films, I would actually really prefer it if there were NO links to any of the other films, apart from sharing a few characters like Mothma, Wedge and so on. None of this "Oh, it turns out that X is the daughter of Y or the third cousin twice removed of Z". Just a story set in the same universe. The classic universe. With the real X-Wings.
×
×
  • Create New...