Jump to content

elitesix

Members
  • Content Count

    5
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About elitesix

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    -
  • MSN
    -
  • Website URL
    -
  • ICQ
    -
  • Yahoo
    -
  • Skype
    -

Profile Information

  • Location
    , North Carolina, United States

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. elitesix

    2.0 Non-Vader TIE Advanceds

    Thank for the reply! Rereading Foslo's ability "While you execute a maneuver, you may execute a maneuver of the same bearing and difficulty of a speed 1 higher or lower instead." I realize that it doesn't mean you have to execute a maneuver that's actually on his dial, right? So Foslo has a vastly better dial than normal x1 Advanceds. Cool. Now the 1v1 Ved vs. Luke example makes sense. Thanks!
  2. elitesix

    2.0 Non-Vader TIE Advanceds

    I would agree with this. Evade in 2.0 is weaker (changes a die, doesn't add a die), and focus tokens do more (change any number of focus icons to evades on defense). Just the change alone to evade nerfed evade, and I think the removal of the 2.0 evade on TIE advanced doesn't lose much since the 1.0->2.0 evadenerf already did the real damage. I haven't fully done the math though, so it's quite possible I'm wrong on this. EDIT: Misremembered, been a long time since I played 1.0. 1.0 focus changed all tokens, not just one. So the above analysis is likely wrong. Needs more math.
  3. elitesix

    2.0 Non-Vader TIE Advanceds

    I must say I'm confused about how Initiative 4 Ved Foslo's ability helps versus Initiative 5 Luke. If it's 1v1, you should always be choosing your dial and executing your maneuver before Luke has done anything. Is there something that is occurring in the Systems phase in the Foslo v. Luke matchup that would make you want to use Foslo's ability to change what you did on the dial?
  4. elitesix

    2.0 Non-Vader TIE Advanceds

    Has Anyone had any luck with 2.0 non-Vader TIE Advanceds? I can't figure out what role they play. They seem to have less firepower than TIE Phantoms, and also seem to have less survivability as well due to their free evade and decloaking movement. They also seem very dependent on Initiative score for TLs, and have trouble getting double modded dice as compared to juke phantoms. I do see the following going for non-Vader TIE Advanceds, though I'm not sure how to capitalize on these qualities: They are a cheapish missile carrier option, but a lot of the missiles seem to be 3 dice attacks and thus pretty lackluster over the base Advanced Targeting Computer Attacks. They have a sensor slot. Perhaps advanced sensors + outmaneuver for effectively double modded dice action (Advanced Sensors TL, K-turn, outmaneuver bonus)? Seems pricey though. They have reliable critical hit generating attacks due to Advanced Targeting Computer. So better against high hull / low shield ships, but reliant on high Initiative to make em work. Has anyone played Maarek Stele? He seems workable at Initiative 5. Also Ved Foslo at Initiative 4 seems like maybe he could get some TLs in the first pass. Not sure how viable the PS3 and lower pilots are though. What are your experiences and/or theory-crafting on non-Vader TIE Advanceds?
  5. The general question: To those of you that have played a variety of card/board/miniature games, how healthy, in comparison, is the armada meta currently? historically? (By health I mean diversity and depth of comp strategies, models/cards used, and FFG's quick/slow/good/bad actions at improving these aspects) The specific details and concerns: I'm new to armada (have base set basically), but I haven't yet taken the plunge because my playgroup is particularly sensitivity to games with sub-par metas (poor variety, imbalances, over representation of a side or strategy). We're not especially tied to miniatures, so other than a little x-wing (which didn't hold our interest due to lack of scenarios/depth, but also due to FFG's slow-wait-for-next-wave-to-balance-current-problems stance) we're relatively new to miniatures. I usually research a game through youtube and forums before taking the plunge and advising the rest of the group. I've read and heard things that have caused me to be concerned: FFG's very slow balancing continues in Armada. Something about a 'philosophy' to almost never errating abilities and cards. Wait until the next wave. Coming from a strong mtg background, this seems really unhealthy? FFG Armada World Tournaments have always been won by rebels. Not sure if this is true, or how many worlds tournaments there have been exactly. FFG Armada has been silent about the most recent non-diverse world tournament results - no need to discuss the rieekan/squadron/flotilla stuff here, just curious as to where there's been any official/unofficial/grapevine word on how FFG views the seemingly obvious recent lack of diversity in the last worlds ----- I know this sort of stuff can be a heated topic. But our playgroup really enjoys maxing out deep game systems that have a variety of strategies while we play, but of course the game system itself has to be able to support that sort of depth and play balance, so I wanted to ask around.
×