Vorpal Sword

Members
  • Content count

    6,339
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Vorpal Sword

  • Rank
    O frabjous day!
  • Birthday 07/12/1983

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    Manhattan, KS, United States
  1. Well, this turned into a dumpster fire more quickly than I expected. I suppose it's a good reminder of why I scaled back my investment in the forum, but it hardly seems worth the loss of a useful discussion.
  2. They gave me an incentive to drive to events and then not play. AtomicFryingPan was part of the extended ID conversation several months ago, so he's familiar with the arguments even if h doesn't agree with them. Posting that question now isn't a request for information, it's putting a chip on his shoulder and daring you to knock it off. I have never liked that either. Strength of Schedule is only weakly correlated with actual player skill, and in a just and rational world, it wouldn't appear in the rules at all.
  3. What I'm trying to get across is that, while I like your posts fairly often, your default stance--not just here, but in general--seems to be that any card is wasted unless it's not only immediately and obviously top-tier competitive but also in line with your personal assumptions, prejudices, and preferences.
  4. I assume your post is based on the extensive table time you've had with the ARC pilots since the preview article was released?
  5. This is actually terribly relevant. You don't win the game by thinking about winning; you win by making the correct decisions for the context of the particular game you're in. And specifically when the OP talks about things like second-guessing himself or getting fixated on a particular target, I think about the "mind like water" in Japanese martial arts. Like most bits of Buddhism-derived philosophy there are a lot of layers to unpack, but one of the more accessible is that water reacts right away when it's disturbed. But it doesn't think, let alone anticipate someone throwing a stone at it. And a milestone in a lot of martial arts is the acceptance that thinking mostly just gets in the way: you train until your subconscious and your body can act correctly and together, without prodding from your conscious mind. Think about driving, which is something most Americans do a lot. If someone abruptly cuts in front of you, you don't think "Oh, I see an obstacle! I should flex my right foot so that the brake pedal will engage, and the car will stop." You just think "stop" and the car does it; you don't think about the brake pedal any more than you think about which muscles need to contract. Chess masters do the same thing: they discard most of the possible moves without ever consciously considering them. And you know how to play X-wing: you've been doing it for a while, and you've done pretty well. You probably know what the right maneuver is, given the constraints on a given situation, and you probably know which ships you should be looking at attacking. So instead of working to figure out what you should do and how you should act to improve your play, try doing less. Set your dials quickly, and once you choose something (even in your mind) don't backtrack. Rather than trying to build your strategy and tactics carefully, brick by brick, see if it works for you to just let things happen. ...I need to stop drinking and go to bed.
  6. I know it's hard, everyone, but please do not feed the troll. If you're going for "forgiving", I would prioritize hit points (hull and shields) over agility, set aside any powerful but complex abilities or interactions, and make sure it doesn't rely too much on getting actions or outmaneuvering the opponent. With those things in mind, and without knowing exactly what you have, I'd give him something like this:
  7. A couple of personal things got in the way, and then I couldn't decide what to paint or what I wanted it to look like. I finally settled on the HWK, because it's the right combination of viable but not critical for tournament play. And I picked this up as a reference image: It's an OA-37b, the forward observation variant of a Vietnam-era close-attack fighter that (like the HWK) was consistently overlooked and underestimated. But that left me in the throes of a dilemma: to prime or not to prime? A color scheme that includes a lot of light gray/white is going to struggle to cover the HWK's default muddy brown, but there's a lot of fine detail and greebles I don't want to just spray over. And that's where I left it last week... I'm hoping to actually start tomorrow or Tuesday.
  8. I only made it through the first 56 seconds before I had to pause it for a fairly lengthy eye-roll. Then it turned out to be the deal for the second minute, after which I just skimmed for the main ideas. Tolstoy: "Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." Or as a radical paraphrase, there's only one story to tell about a happy family, and it's "Look, a happy family! Aaaww." That's because traditionally, narratives are built on conflict, and if you remove the conflict you remove the foundation of the story; happy families don't usually display a lot of conflict, and when they do it's handled with relatively little tension or drama. There is a certain kind of person (usually, but not invariably, a man) who works very hard to find ways to object to narratives with female protagonists without resorting to "yuck, cooties." This guy doesn't manage much of a veneer, IMO.
  9. Yeah, depends quite a bit on the target and the game state. There are ships that are very unlikely to be hit by 2 [boom] results, so if you're shooting at (say) an x7 Defender or Fel with Stealth + Autothrusters, you want FCS. If you're facing something with 0-1 Agility, obviously Accuracy Corrector represents guaranteed damage.
  10. Prioritize getting multiple attacks, then pick up as many dice as you can get. Gunner is good, Twin Laser Turret is good, Cluster Missiles can work, etc.
  11. No.
  12. Outlaw Tech gives you a focus token when you perform a red maneuver. Other than that, I think you're out of luck.
  13. Truth be told, it still drives me nuts. On the other hand, the perspective he presents is that it's okay to come to X-wing just because you love Star Wars, and to play without caring at all about the 100-point deathmatch game or the most current tournament meta. It's not my perspective, but I think it's an important one for the game, and I'm glad it's represented.
  14. Why do people keep telling me I'm not in Kansas? The IRS and the post office disagree.
  15. Is too. One could just as easily argue that guidance chips are the problem. Without that guaranteed blank to hit conversion it wouldn't be nearly as scary Without a modification like Chips or Longe-Range Scanners, ordnance is rarely worth using. The problem with Deadeye is the way it changes the information and decision-making process for ordnance. It makes range restrictions less consequential, and allows targeting decisions to be made when a ship activates during the Combat phase--when the player has MUCH more information. That didn't cause a problem when ordnance was generally expensive and ineffective, because typically it just meant throwing good points after bad. But in the Extra Munitions + Chips/Scanners metagame, it either needs to be unique or more expensive. I think scouts with deadeye and r4 before the FAQ would have been just fine without chips. And without deadeye, its basically pointless to even bother trying to use ordnance on low PS ships. I'm not suggesting Deadeye be removed from the game. I'm saying that you shouldn't be able to spam low-PS ships with ordnance and Deadeye; as with other facets of the list-building game, players considering ordnance should have to choose between having many ships that do something, or a small number of ships that do the same thing really well.