Jump to content

CrookedWookie

Members
  • Content Count

    2,033
  • Joined

  • Last visited


Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    CrookedWookie got a reaction from oneway in Dice Etiquette - What To Do When Too Many Dice are Rolled?   
    Yeah reroll them all - and if you're the kind of player you want your opponent to be, let them know if they rolled too few dice, or even if they rolled too many but, as was pointed out, it worked out in your favor anyway.
     
    I actually had this happen recently in a game with my wife - and if you think that can't get cutthroat, you've clearly never gamed competitively versus your significant other.     I took an HLC shot at her Aggressor, and she rolled 4 defense dice, because it was at range 3, and got 2 evades.  I pointed out that she didn't get the range bonus versus a secondary weapon.  She asked what to do and I told her to reroll, with 3 dice.
     
    She did, and got 3 evades.    

    Sometimes it works in your favor, sometimes it bites you in the ass, but it's the right way to play.
  2. Like
    CrookedWookie got a reaction from DariusAPB in 4y tlt - how did this list make it through PTing?   
    This is actually a really good comment that I wanted to single out, because while I'm sure a lot of people are all "yeah, well that's their JOB - if they can't do it, someone else should," most people don't understand much of what actually goes into it.  It's easy to look at something and go "oh that's overcosted junk," but there are usually a myriad of less obvious reasons why things wind up costing what they do.
    The example I always like to use is the humble X-wing - ever wondered why it costs 21 points, and not 20 - or 22?  If it was 20 you could take 5 of them - and even in the current meta that would be an AWFULLY powerful list.  
    But when costs on stuff are getting adjusted it's easy to look at them in a vacuum (no pun intended) and not consider that if this cost a point less, you could take X many of them, or you could upgrade wingmen from X-wings to B-wings, or could could squeeze in HLCs.  If Aggressors were a few points cheaper you could take THREE naked ones and still have the title to share abilities.  
    Inevitably, some of the stuff that's just coming out now was tested against stuff you don't know exists in the NEXT wave, or potentially the wave beyond THAT, depending on how far out they're developing things, and they have a much bigger picture view of how the meta will shake out than the players do.  What seems like a game breaking crisis now might be just a couple month blip in the grand scheme of things.
     
    Do they always get it right?  No - and when mistakes get made, they fix them.  And sometimes a design element may be perfectly legit at the time it was conceived and released, only to have the meta pass it by as other, more efficient options are released - but when that happens we've seen them react to that, too.  Most of the time people are mad there isn't an immediate, silver bullet fix, but over-corrections are dangerous and we tend to see them err on the side of small, cautious fixes until they find a balance they like, so something like a TIE Advanced doesn't go from seeing one pilot in play to being THE dominant ship in all of X-wing.
    And if you think that idea is ridiculous you're not grasping just how thin that line is at times between overcosted and overpowered, or how many variables get tested to try and find that balance, or forgetting that with every new release the line is shifting, back and forth, and may get stronger or weaker but hopefully stays within that margin of error between a must-include, a balanced piece, and obsolescence.    Fixes also take time, as they need to be created, tested, balanced, and then somehow released into the wild within FFG's retail model, and in a way that makes financial sense for them.  (Inevitably to be accused of greed, whether they release it in an aces pack "oh great, another repaint," or with an Epic ship "oh great, a repaint with a $100 price tag for a giant ship I don't want.")
    Game design IS hard.  It's a complicated math problem, and for better or worse (mostly better) FFG isn't required to show you their work - so we're often left arguing with an end result without being privy to the process that brought them there.  
    The only thing I can really think to say is that I have literally lost track of the number of ships, or upgrades, that led to a dozen individual "OMG teh sky iz falling FFG haz broken teh game, so long Xwing!" threads that I've seen over the past few years.  Yet even in the rare instance where the community was correct to a degree, and something like the Phantom (the cloak mechanics, specifically) was deemed a bit too good, the problem was identified, changes were tested, and a balance fix was FAQ'd into the next possible rules update.  
    And once more, the sky didn't fall, the game didn't go charging off the rails, and everyone is still here complaining about the next new broken card while eagerly anticipating that next wave, that next announcement, and a chance to forget about the fact the sky didn't fall last time, didn't fall this time, and can move on and spend their time predicting it will CERTAINLY fall at last, the next time.    
    What is it they said on BSG?   
    "All this has happened before, and all of it will happen again."
    So say we all.
  3. Like
    CrookedWookie got a reaction from DariusAPB in 4y tlt - how did this list make it through PTing?   
    This is actually a really good comment that I wanted to single out, because while I'm sure a lot of people are all "yeah, well that's their JOB - if they can't do it, someone else should," most people don't understand much of what actually goes into it.  It's easy to look at something and go "oh that's overcosted junk," but there are usually a myriad of less obvious reasons why things wind up costing what they do.
    The example I always like to use is the humble X-wing - ever wondered why it costs 21 points, and not 20 - or 22?  If it was 20 you could take 5 of them - and even in the current meta that would be an AWFULLY powerful list.  
    But when costs on stuff are getting adjusted it's easy to look at them in a vacuum (no pun intended) and not consider that if this cost a point less, you could take X many of them, or you could upgrade wingmen from X-wings to B-wings, or could could squeeze in HLCs.  If Aggressors were a few points cheaper you could take THREE naked ones and still have the title to share abilities.  
    Inevitably, some of the stuff that's just coming out now was tested against stuff you don't know exists in the NEXT wave, or potentially the wave beyond THAT, depending on how far out they're developing things, and they have a much bigger picture view of how the meta will shake out than the players do.  What seems like a game breaking crisis now might be just a couple month blip in the grand scheme of things.
     
    Do they always get it right?  No - and when mistakes get made, they fix them.  And sometimes a design element may be perfectly legit at the time it was conceived and released, only to have the meta pass it by as other, more efficient options are released - but when that happens we've seen them react to that, too.  Most of the time people are mad there isn't an immediate, silver bullet fix, but over-corrections are dangerous and we tend to see them err on the side of small, cautious fixes until they find a balance they like, so something like a TIE Advanced doesn't go from seeing one pilot in play to being THE dominant ship in all of X-wing.
    And if you think that idea is ridiculous you're not grasping just how thin that line is at times between overcosted and overpowered, or how many variables get tested to try and find that balance, or forgetting that with every new release the line is shifting, back and forth, and may get stronger or weaker but hopefully stays within that margin of error between a must-include, a balanced piece, and obsolescence.    Fixes also take time, as they need to be created, tested, balanced, and then somehow released into the wild within FFG's retail model, and in a way that makes financial sense for them.  (Inevitably to be accused of greed, whether they release it in an aces pack "oh great, another repaint," or with an Epic ship "oh great, a repaint with a $100 price tag for a giant ship I don't want.")
    Game design IS hard.  It's a complicated math problem, and for better or worse (mostly better) FFG isn't required to show you their work - so we're often left arguing with an end result without being privy to the process that brought them there.  
    The only thing I can really think to say is that I have literally lost track of the number of ships, or upgrades, that led to a dozen individual "OMG teh sky iz falling FFG haz broken teh game, so long Xwing!" threads that I've seen over the past few years.  Yet even in the rare instance where the community was correct to a degree, and something like the Phantom (the cloak mechanics, specifically) was deemed a bit too good, the problem was identified, changes were tested, and a balance fix was FAQ'd into the next possible rules update.  
    And once more, the sky didn't fall, the game didn't go charging off the rails, and everyone is still here complaining about the next new broken card while eagerly anticipating that next wave, that next announcement, and a chance to forget about the fact the sky didn't fall last time, didn't fall this time, and can move on and spend their time predicting it will CERTAINLY fall at last, the next time.    
    What is it they said on BSG?   
    "All this has happened before, and all of it will happen again."
    So say we all.
  4. Like
    CrookedWookie got a reaction from DariusAPB in 4y tlt - how did this list make it through PTing?   
    This is actually a really good comment that I wanted to single out, because while I'm sure a lot of people are all "yeah, well that's their JOB - if they can't do it, someone else should," most people don't understand much of what actually goes into it.  It's easy to look at something and go "oh that's overcosted junk," but there are usually a myriad of less obvious reasons why things wind up costing what they do.
    The example I always like to use is the humble X-wing - ever wondered why it costs 21 points, and not 20 - or 22?  If it was 20 you could take 5 of them - and even in the current meta that would be an AWFULLY powerful list.  
    But when costs on stuff are getting adjusted it's easy to look at them in a vacuum (no pun intended) and not consider that if this cost a point less, you could take X many of them, or you could upgrade wingmen from X-wings to B-wings, or could could squeeze in HLCs.  If Aggressors were a few points cheaper you could take THREE naked ones and still have the title to share abilities.  
    Inevitably, some of the stuff that's just coming out now was tested against stuff you don't know exists in the NEXT wave, or potentially the wave beyond THAT, depending on how far out they're developing things, and they have a much bigger picture view of how the meta will shake out than the players do.  What seems like a game breaking crisis now might be just a couple month blip in the grand scheme of things.
     
    Do they always get it right?  No - and when mistakes get made, they fix them.  And sometimes a design element may be perfectly legit at the time it was conceived and released, only to have the meta pass it by as other, more efficient options are released - but when that happens we've seen them react to that, too.  Most of the time people are mad there isn't an immediate, silver bullet fix, but over-corrections are dangerous and we tend to see them err on the side of small, cautious fixes until they find a balance they like, so something like a TIE Advanced doesn't go from seeing one pilot in play to being THE dominant ship in all of X-wing.
    And if you think that idea is ridiculous you're not grasping just how thin that line is at times between overcosted and overpowered, or how many variables get tested to try and find that balance, or forgetting that with every new release the line is shifting, back and forth, and may get stronger or weaker but hopefully stays within that margin of error between a must-include, a balanced piece, and obsolescence.    Fixes also take time, as they need to be created, tested, balanced, and then somehow released into the wild within FFG's retail model, and in a way that makes financial sense for them.  (Inevitably to be accused of greed, whether they release it in an aces pack "oh great, another repaint," or with an Epic ship "oh great, a repaint with a $100 price tag for a giant ship I don't want.")
    Game design IS hard.  It's a complicated math problem, and for better or worse (mostly better) FFG isn't required to show you their work - so we're often left arguing with an end result without being privy to the process that brought them there.  
    The only thing I can really think to say is that I have literally lost track of the number of ships, or upgrades, that led to a dozen individual "OMG teh sky iz falling FFG haz broken teh game, so long Xwing!" threads that I've seen over the past few years.  Yet even in the rare instance where the community was correct to a degree, and something like the Phantom (the cloak mechanics, specifically) was deemed a bit too good, the problem was identified, changes were tested, and a balance fix was FAQ'd into the next possible rules update.  
    And once more, the sky didn't fall, the game didn't go charging off the rails, and everyone is still here complaining about the next new broken card while eagerly anticipating that next wave, that next announcement, and a chance to forget about the fact the sky didn't fall last time, didn't fall this time, and can move on and spend their time predicting it will CERTAINLY fall at last, the next time.    
    What is it they said on BSG?   
    "All this has happened before, and all of it will happen again."
    So say we all.
  5. Like
    CrookedWookie got a reaction from DariusAPB in 4y tlt - how did this list make it through PTing?   
    This is actually a really good comment that I wanted to single out, because while I'm sure a lot of people are all "yeah, well that's their JOB - if they can't do it, someone else should," most people don't understand much of what actually goes into it.  It's easy to look at something and go "oh that's overcosted junk," but there are usually a myriad of less obvious reasons why things wind up costing what they do.
    The example I always like to use is the humble X-wing - ever wondered why it costs 21 points, and not 20 - or 22?  If it was 20 you could take 5 of them - and even in the current meta that would be an AWFULLY powerful list.  
    But when costs on stuff are getting adjusted it's easy to look at them in a vacuum (no pun intended) and not consider that if this cost a point less, you could take X many of them, or you could upgrade wingmen from X-wings to B-wings, or could could squeeze in HLCs.  If Aggressors were a few points cheaper you could take THREE naked ones and still have the title to share abilities.  
    Inevitably, some of the stuff that's just coming out now was tested against stuff you don't know exists in the NEXT wave, or potentially the wave beyond THAT, depending on how far out they're developing things, and they have a much bigger picture view of how the meta will shake out than the players do.  What seems like a game breaking crisis now might be just a couple month blip in the grand scheme of things.
     
    Do they always get it right?  No - and when mistakes get made, they fix them.  And sometimes a design element may be perfectly legit at the time it was conceived and released, only to have the meta pass it by as other, more efficient options are released - but when that happens we've seen them react to that, too.  Most of the time people are mad there isn't an immediate, silver bullet fix, but over-corrections are dangerous and we tend to see them err on the side of small, cautious fixes until they find a balance they like, so something like a TIE Advanced doesn't go from seeing one pilot in play to being THE dominant ship in all of X-wing.
    And if you think that idea is ridiculous you're not grasping just how thin that line is at times between overcosted and overpowered, or how many variables get tested to try and find that balance, or forgetting that with every new release the line is shifting, back and forth, and may get stronger or weaker but hopefully stays within that margin of error between a must-include, a balanced piece, and obsolescence.    Fixes also take time, as they need to be created, tested, balanced, and then somehow released into the wild within FFG's retail model, and in a way that makes financial sense for them.  (Inevitably to be accused of greed, whether they release it in an aces pack "oh great, another repaint," or with an Epic ship "oh great, a repaint with a $100 price tag for a giant ship I don't want.")
    Game design IS hard.  It's a complicated math problem, and for better or worse (mostly better) FFG isn't required to show you their work - so we're often left arguing with an end result without being privy to the process that brought them there.  
    The only thing I can really think to say is that I have literally lost track of the number of ships, or upgrades, that led to a dozen individual "OMG teh sky iz falling FFG haz broken teh game, so long Xwing!" threads that I've seen over the past few years.  Yet even in the rare instance where the community was correct to a degree, and something like the Phantom (the cloak mechanics, specifically) was deemed a bit too good, the problem was identified, changes were tested, and a balance fix was FAQ'd into the next possible rules update.  
    And once more, the sky didn't fall, the game didn't go charging off the rails, and everyone is still here complaining about the next new broken card while eagerly anticipating that next wave, that next announcement, and a chance to forget about the fact the sky didn't fall last time, didn't fall this time, and can move on and spend their time predicting it will CERTAINLY fall at last, the next time.    
    What is it they said on BSG?   
    "All this has happened before, and all of it will happen again."
    So say we all.
  6. Like
    CrookedWookie got a reaction from DariusAPB in 4y tlt - how did this list make it through PTing?   
    This is actually a really good comment that I wanted to single out, because while I'm sure a lot of people are all "yeah, well that's their JOB - if they can't do it, someone else should," most people don't understand much of what actually goes into it.  It's easy to look at something and go "oh that's overcosted junk," but there are usually a myriad of less obvious reasons why things wind up costing what they do.
    The example I always like to use is the humble X-wing - ever wondered why it costs 21 points, and not 20 - or 22?  If it was 20 you could take 5 of them - and even in the current meta that would be an AWFULLY powerful list.  
    But when costs on stuff are getting adjusted it's easy to look at them in a vacuum (no pun intended) and not consider that if this cost a point less, you could take X many of them, or you could upgrade wingmen from X-wings to B-wings, or could could squeeze in HLCs.  If Aggressors were a few points cheaper you could take THREE naked ones and still have the title to share abilities.  
    Inevitably, some of the stuff that's just coming out now was tested against stuff you don't know exists in the NEXT wave, or potentially the wave beyond THAT, depending on how far out they're developing things, and they have a much bigger picture view of how the meta will shake out than the players do.  What seems like a game breaking crisis now might be just a couple month blip in the grand scheme of things.
     
    Do they always get it right?  No - and when mistakes get made, they fix them.  And sometimes a design element may be perfectly legit at the time it was conceived and released, only to have the meta pass it by as other, more efficient options are released - but when that happens we've seen them react to that, too.  Most of the time people are mad there isn't an immediate, silver bullet fix, but over-corrections are dangerous and we tend to see them err on the side of small, cautious fixes until they find a balance they like, so something like a TIE Advanced doesn't go from seeing one pilot in play to being THE dominant ship in all of X-wing.
    And if you think that idea is ridiculous you're not grasping just how thin that line is at times between overcosted and overpowered, or how many variables get tested to try and find that balance, or forgetting that with every new release the line is shifting, back and forth, and may get stronger or weaker but hopefully stays within that margin of error between a must-include, a balanced piece, and obsolescence.    Fixes also take time, as they need to be created, tested, balanced, and then somehow released into the wild within FFG's retail model, and in a way that makes financial sense for them.  (Inevitably to be accused of greed, whether they release it in an aces pack "oh great, another repaint," or with an Epic ship "oh great, a repaint with a $100 price tag for a giant ship I don't want.")
    Game design IS hard.  It's a complicated math problem, and for better or worse (mostly better) FFG isn't required to show you their work - so we're often left arguing with an end result without being privy to the process that brought them there.  
    The only thing I can really think to say is that I have literally lost track of the number of ships, or upgrades, that led to a dozen individual "OMG teh sky iz falling FFG haz broken teh game, so long Xwing!" threads that I've seen over the past few years.  Yet even in the rare instance where the community was correct to a degree, and something like the Phantom (the cloak mechanics, specifically) was deemed a bit too good, the problem was identified, changes were tested, and a balance fix was FAQ'd into the next possible rules update.  
    And once more, the sky didn't fall, the game didn't go charging off the rails, and everyone is still here complaining about the next new broken card while eagerly anticipating that next wave, that next announcement, and a chance to forget about the fact the sky didn't fall last time, didn't fall this time, and can move on and spend their time predicting it will CERTAINLY fall at last, the next time.    
    What is it they said on BSG?   
    "All this has happened before, and all of it will happen again."
    So say we all.
  7. Like
    CrookedWookie got a reaction from DariusAPB in 4y tlt - how did this list make it through PTing?   
    This is actually a really good comment that I wanted to single out, because while I'm sure a lot of people are all "yeah, well that's their JOB - if they can't do it, someone else should," most people don't understand much of what actually goes into it.  It's easy to look at something and go "oh that's overcosted junk," but there are usually a myriad of less obvious reasons why things wind up costing what they do.
    The example I always like to use is the humble X-wing - ever wondered why it costs 21 points, and not 20 - or 22?  If it was 20 you could take 5 of them - and even in the current meta that would be an AWFULLY powerful list.  
    But when costs on stuff are getting adjusted it's easy to look at them in a vacuum (no pun intended) and not consider that if this cost a point less, you could take X many of them, or you could upgrade wingmen from X-wings to B-wings, or could could squeeze in HLCs.  If Aggressors were a few points cheaper you could take THREE naked ones and still have the title to share abilities.  
    Inevitably, some of the stuff that's just coming out now was tested against stuff you don't know exists in the NEXT wave, or potentially the wave beyond THAT, depending on how far out they're developing things, and they have a much bigger picture view of how the meta will shake out than the players do.  What seems like a game breaking crisis now might be just a couple month blip in the grand scheme of things.
     
    Do they always get it right?  No - and when mistakes get made, they fix them.  And sometimes a design element may be perfectly legit at the time it was conceived and released, only to have the meta pass it by as other, more efficient options are released - but when that happens we've seen them react to that, too.  Most of the time people are mad there isn't an immediate, silver bullet fix, but over-corrections are dangerous and we tend to see them err on the side of small, cautious fixes until they find a balance they like, so something like a TIE Advanced doesn't go from seeing one pilot in play to being THE dominant ship in all of X-wing.
    And if you think that idea is ridiculous you're not grasping just how thin that line is at times between overcosted and overpowered, or how many variables get tested to try and find that balance, or forgetting that with every new release the line is shifting, back and forth, and may get stronger or weaker but hopefully stays within that margin of error between a must-include, a balanced piece, and obsolescence.    Fixes also take time, as they need to be created, tested, balanced, and then somehow released into the wild within FFG's retail model, and in a way that makes financial sense for them.  (Inevitably to be accused of greed, whether they release it in an aces pack "oh great, another repaint," or with an Epic ship "oh great, a repaint with a $100 price tag for a giant ship I don't want.")
    Game design IS hard.  It's a complicated math problem, and for better or worse (mostly better) FFG isn't required to show you their work - so we're often left arguing with an end result without being privy to the process that brought them there.  
    The only thing I can really think to say is that I have literally lost track of the number of ships, or upgrades, that led to a dozen individual "OMG teh sky iz falling FFG haz broken teh game, so long Xwing!" threads that I've seen over the past few years.  Yet even in the rare instance where the community was correct to a degree, and something like the Phantom (the cloak mechanics, specifically) was deemed a bit too good, the problem was identified, changes were tested, and a balance fix was FAQ'd into the next possible rules update.  
    And once more, the sky didn't fall, the game didn't go charging off the rails, and everyone is still here complaining about the next new broken card while eagerly anticipating that next wave, that next announcement, and a chance to forget about the fact the sky didn't fall last time, didn't fall this time, and can move on and spend their time predicting it will CERTAINLY fall at last, the next time.    
    What is it they said on BSG?   
    "All this has happened before, and all of it will happen again."
    So say we all.
  8. Like
    CrookedWookie reacted to ficklegreendice in Dice Etiquette - What To Do When Too Many Dice are Rolled?   
    you mean penalizing them for throwing the dice they weren't supposed to throw
     
    which is a fair reason to penalize someone during a competitive event where the clock's ticking
  9. Like
    CrookedWookie reacted to VanorDM in Dice Etiquette - What To Do When Too Many Dice are Rolled?   
    No it is not. Not if you are consistent in having them reroll. The previous result does not matter so there is no advantage in it. It means nothing so it can not be unfair.
    The only thing that is unfair is when you pick and chose the method used, which is inherently unfair to the person rolling the dice. Because doing so will skew the results against them, effectively penalizing them for no reason whatsoever.
  10. Like
    CrookedWookie reacted to VanorDM in Dice Etiquette - What To Do When Too Many Dice are Rolled?   
    There's some serious lack of basic statistics going on in this thread, because a previous result has no effect on a future outcome.
    The only fair thing to do in the case of too many dice is a reroll. Allowing one party to decide what result to remove is inherently unfair, because they will always remove the result that suits them best. You are enforcing a penalty on the other player for no good reason.
    A reroll is never, ever, ever to the advantage of that player. Ever. There is never anything gained with a complete reroll. Sure it may be better, but it may be worse, either way the avg will remain the same.
    It's not something you can abuse because if you do it consistently, then the player doing it is just as likely to lose a good roll as they are a bad one.
    Han works differently because you can decide to keep your roll or not. TL is even better because you can choose which dice to reroll.
    In the case of too few dice, there is nothing that needs to be fixed, other than rolling enough dice to make up the difference. You can not force someone to reroll in that case, because the rules actually state that you do not have to roll all the dice at the same time.
  11. Like
    CrookedWookie reacted to Pandademic in Dice Etiquette - What To Do When Too Many Dice are Rolled?   
    I really don't get this "re-rolls are unfair" philosophy. They're independent events. Rolling too many dice doesn't give you an advantage if it's caught and corrected. It's not "unfair" to your opponent if your correct roll turns out better than your incorrect roll. Re-rolling the correct amount of dice isn't giving you another chance to dodge, because the first roll wasn't a chance at all - unless you decide that the "wronged" opponent has an option to keep it.
     
    If both players agree to handle this situation by selecting dice to cancel, then fine - but you're creating a case in which the random element of the game is arbitrarily less random. Re-rolling the correct amount of dice does not have this effect. It doesn't tip the odds in either player's favor.
     
    What about this situation: you're attacking and your opponent makes their defense roll: Blank, Blank, Crit. Realizing that they picked up their red dice by mistake, they roll again with the correct defense dice: Evade, Evade, Evade. Is this unfair to you? Should they have kept the initial roll? If yes, should the Crit result be counted as a Blank, or should it add to the damage?
  12. Like
    CrookedWookie reacted to DariusAPB in Dice Etiquette - What To Do When Too Many Dice are Rolled?   
    Yeah I edited my above post to explain the difference.
  13. Like
    CrookedWookie reacted to DariusAPB in Dice Etiquette - What To Do When Too Many Dice are Rolled?   
    Fewer than required, no, fewer than you need yes.
    a TL can be used to reroll 0 dice for example.
     
    edit: A counterexample, where fewer by required is a thing is Han Solo, if he rolls he HAS to reroll all. Can't only roll blanks/focii. - just to explain why I specified the difference.
  14. Like
    CrookedWookie got a reaction from gamblertuba in Scum and Villainy Episode 18: Alex Davy Interview   
    Aaaaaand we're back.
     
    Aaaaaaand we're back.  THERE'S the community I know and...know.  
  15. Like
    CrookedWookie got a reaction from Otacon in Dice Etiquette - What To Do When Too Many Dice are Rolled?   
    Of course rolling an extra can make a dramatic difference - I'm not sure what point you're trying to make there.

    And it still does nothing to explain why you shouldn't handle any misrolled number of dice in a consistent manner.
  16. Like
    CrookedWookie reacted to LeonardDukes in Dice Etiquette - What To Do When Too Many Dice are Rolled?   
    One could argue (I won't) that it's not a double standard in responding to the problem "I rolled the incorrect number of dice" but, rather, two different answers to two different problems: "I rolled too many dice" versus "I have not yet rolled all of my dice."I've got a friend who likes to roll his dice one at a time, even if he's rolling 5. I guess he likes to build suspense or something. In his case, he hasn't really "rolled his dice" until they're all on the table.
    The same could be said for someone who rolled 2 dice but should be rolling 3 or more. If the game play hasn't moved on beyond the actual roll (i.e. no dice have been modified/rerolled), what's the difference between rolling the remaining dice and someone who prefers to roll all their dice one at a time, other than intent?
  17. Like
    CrookedWookie got a reaction from DariusAPB in Not happy about buying new damage deck/core set!   
    This should have died like 15 pages back, but if it's really devolved to people trading insults and curses, it really needs to go.  
     
  18. Like
    CrookedWookie got a reaction from VaynMaanen in Dice Etiquette - What To Do When Too Many Dice are Rolled?   
    Yeah, it's usually pretty obvious when you were shaking your dice and one comes loose and goes bouncing onto the table.  I'd actually be more concerned about it landing on a hit or a crit and the player who 'rolled' it trying to claim it was legitimately rolled and should stay.  Or claiming I was stuck with one if it shook loose and landed on a blank, all "ha!  You rolled it!"
    I'm interested in the point gamblertuba raised above: I think generally speaking when dice are rolled and you discover it's too few, people I've played with have generally agreed to just roll the overlooked dice and add them to the result.  I suppose, technically speaking, it would be more fair to have them pick up those dice, and roll the correct amount.
    I'm trying to think of a good reason why we've never DONE it that way.
  19. Like
    CrookedWookie reacted to Rogue Dakotan in Dice Etiquette - What To Do When Too Many Dice are Rolled?   
    I usually just go with the reroll them all route. 
    Sometimes this even bites me in the butt. 
     
    Like if he rolled four blanks, and rerolls and ends up getting 2 evades or whatever. 
     
    Gotta stay consistent though each time it comes up. Not fair to only ask them to reroll when it would favor me. 
  20. Like
    CrookedWookie got a reaction from Slugrage in Not happy about buying new damage deck/core set!   
    This Discussion:




     
     
  21. Like
    CrookedWookie got a reaction from gamblertuba in Scum and Villainy Episode 18: Alex Davy Interview   
    Aaaaaand we're back.
     
    Aaaaaaand we're back.  THERE'S the community I know and...know.  
  22. Like
    CrookedWookie got a reaction from DariusAPB in 4y tlt - how did this list make it through PTing?   
    This is actually a really good comment that I wanted to single out, because while I'm sure a lot of people are all "yeah, well that's their JOB - if they can't do it, someone else should," most people don't understand much of what actually goes into it.  It's easy to look at something and go "oh that's overcosted junk," but there are usually a myriad of less obvious reasons why things wind up costing what they do.
    The example I always like to use is the humble X-wing - ever wondered why it costs 21 points, and not 20 - or 22?  If it was 20 you could take 5 of them - and even in the current meta that would be an AWFULLY powerful list.  
    But when costs on stuff are getting adjusted it's easy to look at them in a vacuum (no pun intended) and not consider that if this cost a point less, you could take X many of them, or you could upgrade wingmen from X-wings to B-wings, or could could squeeze in HLCs.  If Aggressors were a few points cheaper you could take THREE naked ones and still have the title to share abilities.  
    Inevitably, some of the stuff that's just coming out now was tested against stuff you don't know exists in the NEXT wave, or potentially the wave beyond THAT, depending on how far out they're developing things, and they have a much bigger picture view of how the meta will shake out than the players do.  What seems like a game breaking crisis now might be just a couple month blip in the grand scheme of things.
     
    Do they always get it right?  No - and when mistakes get made, they fix them.  And sometimes a design element may be perfectly legit at the time it was conceived and released, only to have the meta pass it by as other, more efficient options are released - but when that happens we've seen them react to that, too.  Most of the time people are mad there isn't an immediate, silver bullet fix, but over-corrections are dangerous and we tend to see them err on the side of small, cautious fixes until they find a balance they like, so something like a TIE Advanced doesn't go from seeing one pilot in play to being THE dominant ship in all of X-wing.
    And if you think that idea is ridiculous you're not grasping just how thin that line is at times between overcosted and overpowered, or how many variables get tested to try and find that balance, or forgetting that with every new release the line is shifting, back and forth, and may get stronger or weaker but hopefully stays within that margin of error between a must-include, a balanced piece, and obsolescence.    Fixes also take time, as they need to be created, tested, balanced, and then somehow released into the wild within FFG's retail model, and in a way that makes financial sense for them.  (Inevitably to be accused of greed, whether they release it in an aces pack "oh great, another repaint," or with an Epic ship "oh great, a repaint with a $100 price tag for a giant ship I don't want.")
    Game design IS hard.  It's a complicated math problem, and for better or worse (mostly better) FFG isn't required to show you their work - so we're often left arguing with an end result without being privy to the process that brought them there.  
    The only thing I can really think to say is that I have literally lost track of the number of ships, or upgrades, that led to a dozen individual "OMG teh sky iz falling FFG haz broken teh game, so long Xwing!" threads that I've seen over the past few years.  Yet even in the rare instance where the community was correct to a degree, and something like the Phantom (the cloak mechanics, specifically) was deemed a bit too good, the problem was identified, changes were tested, and a balance fix was FAQ'd into the next possible rules update.  
    And once more, the sky didn't fall, the game didn't go charging off the rails, and everyone is still here complaining about the next new broken card while eagerly anticipating that next wave, that next announcement, and a chance to forget about the fact the sky didn't fall last time, didn't fall this time, and can move on and spend their time predicting it will CERTAINLY fall at last, the next time.    
    What is it they said on BSG?   
    "All this has happened before, and all of it will happen again."
    So say we all.
  23. Like
    CrookedWookie got a reaction from DariusAPB in 4y tlt - how did this list make it through PTing?   
    This is actually a really good comment that I wanted to single out, because while I'm sure a lot of people are all "yeah, well that's their JOB - if they can't do it, someone else should," most people don't understand much of what actually goes into it.  It's easy to look at something and go "oh that's overcosted junk," but there are usually a myriad of less obvious reasons why things wind up costing what they do.
    The example I always like to use is the humble X-wing - ever wondered why it costs 21 points, and not 20 - or 22?  If it was 20 you could take 5 of them - and even in the current meta that would be an AWFULLY powerful list.  
    But when costs on stuff are getting adjusted it's easy to look at them in a vacuum (no pun intended) and not consider that if this cost a point less, you could take X many of them, or you could upgrade wingmen from X-wings to B-wings, or could could squeeze in HLCs.  If Aggressors were a few points cheaper you could take THREE naked ones and still have the title to share abilities.  
    Inevitably, some of the stuff that's just coming out now was tested against stuff you don't know exists in the NEXT wave, or potentially the wave beyond THAT, depending on how far out they're developing things, and they have a much bigger picture view of how the meta will shake out than the players do.  What seems like a game breaking crisis now might be just a couple month blip in the grand scheme of things.
     
    Do they always get it right?  No - and when mistakes get made, they fix them.  And sometimes a design element may be perfectly legit at the time it was conceived and released, only to have the meta pass it by as other, more efficient options are released - but when that happens we've seen them react to that, too.  Most of the time people are mad there isn't an immediate, silver bullet fix, but over-corrections are dangerous and we tend to see them err on the side of small, cautious fixes until they find a balance they like, so something like a TIE Advanced doesn't go from seeing one pilot in play to being THE dominant ship in all of X-wing.
    And if you think that idea is ridiculous you're not grasping just how thin that line is at times between overcosted and overpowered, or how many variables get tested to try and find that balance, or forgetting that with every new release the line is shifting, back and forth, and may get stronger or weaker but hopefully stays within that margin of error between a must-include, a balanced piece, and obsolescence.    Fixes also take time, as they need to be created, tested, balanced, and then somehow released into the wild within FFG's retail model, and in a way that makes financial sense for them.  (Inevitably to be accused of greed, whether they release it in an aces pack "oh great, another repaint," or with an Epic ship "oh great, a repaint with a $100 price tag for a giant ship I don't want.")
    Game design IS hard.  It's a complicated math problem, and for better or worse (mostly better) FFG isn't required to show you their work - so we're often left arguing with an end result without being privy to the process that brought them there.  
    The only thing I can really think to say is that I have literally lost track of the number of ships, or upgrades, that led to a dozen individual "OMG teh sky iz falling FFG haz broken teh game, so long Xwing!" threads that I've seen over the past few years.  Yet even in the rare instance where the community was correct to a degree, and something like the Phantom (the cloak mechanics, specifically) was deemed a bit too good, the problem was identified, changes were tested, and a balance fix was FAQ'd into the next possible rules update.  
    And once more, the sky didn't fall, the game didn't go charging off the rails, and everyone is still here complaining about the next new broken card while eagerly anticipating that next wave, that next announcement, and a chance to forget about the fact the sky didn't fall last time, didn't fall this time, and can move on and spend their time predicting it will CERTAINLY fall at last, the next time.    
    What is it they said on BSG?   
    "All this has happened before, and all of it will happen again."
    So say we all.
  24. Like
    CrookedWookie got a reaction from DariusAPB in 4y tlt - how did this list make it through PTing?   
    This is actually a really good comment that I wanted to single out, because while I'm sure a lot of people are all "yeah, well that's their JOB - if they can't do it, someone else should," most people don't understand much of what actually goes into it.  It's easy to look at something and go "oh that's overcosted junk," but there are usually a myriad of less obvious reasons why things wind up costing what they do.
    The example I always like to use is the humble X-wing - ever wondered why it costs 21 points, and not 20 - or 22?  If it was 20 you could take 5 of them - and even in the current meta that would be an AWFULLY powerful list.  
    But when costs on stuff are getting adjusted it's easy to look at them in a vacuum (no pun intended) and not consider that if this cost a point less, you could take X many of them, or you could upgrade wingmen from X-wings to B-wings, or could could squeeze in HLCs.  If Aggressors were a few points cheaper you could take THREE naked ones and still have the title to share abilities.  
    Inevitably, some of the stuff that's just coming out now was tested against stuff you don't know exists in the NEXT wave, or potentially the wave beyond THAT, depending on how far out they're developing things, and they have a much bigger picture view of how the meta will shake out than the players do.  What seems like a game breaking crisis now might be just a couple month blip in the grand scheme of things.
     
    Do they always get it right?  No - and when mistakes get made, they fix them.  And sometimes a design element may be perfectly legit at the time it was conceived and released, only to have the meta pass it by as other, more efficient options are released - but when that happens we've seen them react to that, too.  Most of the time people are mad there isn't an immediate, silver bullet fix, but over-corrections are dangerous and we tend to see them err on the side of small, cautious fixes until they find a balance they like, so something like a TIE Advanced doesn't go from seeing one pilot in play to being THE dominant ship in all of X-wing.
    And if you think that idea is ridiculous you're not grasping just how thin that line is at times between overcosted and overpowered, or how many variables get tested to try and find that balance, or forgetting that with every new release the line is shifting, back and forth, and may get stronger or weaker but hopefully stays within that margin of error between a must-include, a balanced piece, and obsolescence.    Fixes also take time, as they need to be created, tested, balanced, and then somehow released into the wild within FFG's retail model, and in a way that makes financial sense for them.  (Inevitably to be accused of greed, whether they release it in an aces pack "oh great, another repaint," or with an Epic ship "oh great, a repaint with a $100 price tag for a giant ship I don't want.")
    Game design IS hard.  It's a complicated math problem, and for better or worse (mostly better) FFG isn't required to show you their work - so we're often left arguing with an end result without being privy to the process that brought them there.  
    The only thing I can really think to say is that I have literally lost track of the number of ships, or upgrades, that led to a dozen individual "OMG teh sky iz falling FFG haz broken teh game, so long Xwing!" threads that I've seen over the past few years.  Yet even in the rare instance where the community was correct to a degree, and something like the Phantom (the cloak mechanics, specifically) was deemed a bit too good, the problem was identified, changes were tested, and a balance fix was FAQ'd into the next possible rules update.  
    And once more, the sky didn't fall, the game didn't go charging off the rails, and everyone is still here complaining about the next new broken card while eagerly anticipating that next wave, that next announcement, and a chance to forget about the fact the sky didn't fall last time, didn't fall this time, and can move on and spend their time predicting it will CERTAINLY fall at last, the next time.    
    What is it they said on BSG?   
    "All this has happened before, and all of it will happen again."
    So say we all.
  25. Like
    CrookedWookie reacted to ScaredOfCrows in 4y tlt - how did this list make it through PTing?   
    Autoblaster Turrets... Dammit. Kavil would be amazeballz!

    Game design must be really hard.
×