Jump to content

Reinholt

Members
  • Content Count

    789
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Reinholt

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Location
    New York City

Recent Profile Visitors

1,065 profile views
  1. The biggest flaw with the ICv2 data, which I have discussed ad naseum on other forums and will not regurgitate here, is that it does not capture direct sales by companies. This most notably impacts GW, where their business mix is roughly 38% trade, 41% retail, and 21% direct mail order. The ICv2 survey is likely only capturing about 38% of GW's total order flow, so it's very likely 40k is number one with a bullet once you incorporate sales through all channels. With that said, the ICv2 data is fine, but you have to understand what it is, and that's a good representation of 3rd party distributors and independent retailers, so someone running their own retail chain or selling via other channels might not be captured.
  2. I will personally refund you every cent I have received for making IFF, since you are dissatisfied with the product.
  3. I think, perhaps, this is more complex than a first glance reveals: The Tie fighters have more hull vs squad attacks but on an effective hull basis, less vs. AA from ships (a Raider I will kill two ties faster than one Phantom, for example). Same for Mauler, Soontir, etc. The Tie fighters are more able to be killed in one shot, which means your effective combat power may be lower than one thinks. 4 hull is unlikely to die in one attack to anything other than Wedge or Howl plus FC type dice. The pseudo-Intel in the phantom has hard to quantify value. Two points sometimes matters, squeezing into 134. Overall, I think the comparison is also incomplete without adding the defender (exactly the price of two Ties), as the real question may be why would you use either of the stated options over one defender? Just some thoughts. I don't claim to have a clear answer but I think 3-hull fighters have some clear drawbacks not adequately noted as of yet.
  4. Can we go back to the part where someone said that Squall wasn't good? Because I'd like to talk about that; the other two titles are the best argument against Stronghold, especially when you can just take a jamming field flotilla and then move it out of the way later. If that's not good, explain what is so special about Stronghold? GH is a whole different kettle of fish because it's reduce damage, not obstruct. The value of obstruct is a flat .5 expected value because you remove a die pre-roll. GH always targets their best result and is a flat decrease.
  5. Look, I have been a vocal critic of the activation race that has been created in the game, and I will say this: It is clear the designers are paying attention to the game, and have ideas about core balance issues that are occurring. The FAQ is a positive in every way. Every single change is a fix to something that was too good for the points that one was paying for it. Some of them (Rieekan, Demo) were also key things deforming the meta. If there are remaining problems, they will be addressed. We had plenty of pre-FAQ data, and it was very clear that Rieekan and flotilla spam in general were just a bit too good (partially to power the activation race). Will this FAQ tone it down? I am neutral on that (more testing needed), but I am very positive that if Worlds and Euro Championships are again dominated by more flotillas than all other ships combined in the top 10 fleets, we will see additional action from FFG. It's too early to say right now, though. I want to see how things will play out, I want to see if this tones down relay, and I want to see how a certain upgrade in wave 6 impacts things. Right now, I think the right move is to be calmly neutral, and wait for more data. I would say that to all "sides" of the debate, because until you have some solid testing, it's easy to make things worse, not better. FFG did the right thing with an incremental change. Let us see what comes next.
  6. So let us do some actual comparison work: TIE Defender: 6 hull, 5 speed, 2.5 average damage vs squads, 44% chance of 1 accuracy, .75 average damage vs ships E Wing: 5 hull, 4 speed, 2 average damage vs squads / 1.5 with snipe, 68% chance of accuracy / 58% with snipe, .75 damage vs ships So on that basis, the TIE Defender is slightly better unless you can leverage snipe, at which point the selective engagement matters for the E-wing. Thus, question one: does snipe matter to you? The other fly in the ointment is that while Imperials have one dominant all-around choice (TIE defender), Rebels also have the A-wing (maybe the best all-around squadron for the points in the game) and the YT-2400 (which allows more combat ships). The imperials have no equivalent. Side note: I think the phantom will see more play with Sloane. She is huge for the anti-ship capability of the Phantom, as accuracy now hurts and re-rolls of crits mean 1/4 of red faces cause a re-roll for the Phantom.
  7. So, as someone who wants to love this stupid little junky ship (just like the non-titled Nebulon Bs), I think it has several structural shortcomings: First, it is Interdictor level slow. Yes, you can get to effective speed 3 with engine techs, but now you are 64 points and thus more expensive than the MC30c torpedo frigate, thus you are both slower and don't hit as hard up close. Second, you have no weapons team slot. Ordnance Experts is a must have for ships with black dice, especially so if they take ordnance upgrades. The lack of any vehicle for rerolls means APT, flechettes, etc. are far less effective on the Pelta. Yes, you can take raymus and have CF tokens, but again, cost. Third, this pelta is not an ideal vehicle for the upgrades that are pelta-only. It won't have squad tokens, it often needs to go first or last. The shield and nav ones can work, though it can't leverage the nav effectively if you also want to ET... In short, it just has a lot of internal conflict. I think for me to use it as-is, it would have to be much cheaper, as even a CR90A with TRC (even post nerf) is less points than a naked Pelta and likely more effective at anything I was using the Pelta for other than anti-squad (which is not a great use for it!). Sad, because I want to like it, but man this guy needs a weapons team slot badly.
  8. I would also like to take a moment to urge people not to get bombastic or personally invested in rules discussions. The rules say whatever they say, and there needs to be a shared community understanding of what they are (otherwise every game will just degenerate to Chewbacca ripping someone's arms off when they can't agree on rules). The only goal here is to get to that, and it would be foolish to assume otherwise. For example, I brought up the original jamming fields because I thought it was a legitimate oversight and wanted to draw attention to it. This did lead to an errata (also let me once again commend the designers for caring about the game and attempting to fix mistakes and improve it), which is a positive for everyone. We are all in the same flotilla lifeboat together here, guys. Wait, what? That got banned too!?
  9. To be clear: The wording on the card, as printed, is clearly optional when you parse through the RRG on how upgrade cards and while clauses work. See the thread I linked to earlier where I lay this out. Note that I, among others, said that despite RAW being optional, we did not believe this was the intent. To that point, in the last FAQ, FFG included an errata for jamming fields where a "must" clause was added to the card to make clear it was not optional, confirming both points I make above (that RAW was optional but that was clearly not the intent). In the current FAQ, the hamming (typo but I'm leaving it because a giant field of pigs in space would be amazing) field errata was removed. Therefore, jamming fields are optional again! However, I think this was also an oversight and I expect it will be re-added to the FAQ (or at least I hope, otherwise ****, that card is amazing). Until then, it is technically optional, but I would not suggest pulling that and as a TO I would rule against it, while cursing the FAQ for this error. I hope that is clear?
  10. If a jamming field is turned off optionally in space, but no squadrons used it, did it actually happen? Are jawas small, or just far away? We have questions, FFG. Deep questions. (I think it was an oversight and will be fixed, but until then, welcome to the jamming field meta.) Edit: Tokra looks like exactly what I expected he would look like. Glad Ard pulled that off his Facebook profile.
  11. I don't write the rules, I just play by them (and for the record, I always thought the jamming fields thing was a mistake and should have been errata'd, though it's now been... un-errata'd?). JAMMING FIELDS ARE AMAZING AGAIN GUYS.
  12. I would also suggest that it's not clear they won't adjust points values, they just tend to do so via a few different mechanisms in other games: Negative point upgrades (witness the A-wing in Armada or the variety of IA changes) "Alternate" cards that changes points and abilities, with cardboard punch outs (Corellian Campaign for squadrons, and the next campaign could easily include new ship cardboard bases, for instance) "Aces" or other such upgrade sets (I have already predicted we will see this starting in Wave 7, as there was nothing super new for Imperials in Rogue One and I expect FFG to wisely fall back on a tried and true strategy to generate interest for underused older models... maybe VSD? ISD?) There's more flex here than people think. Another option that FFG has not used so far, but has not explicitly ruled out, is some form of "limited" or "seasonal" tournament setting. Each year, if they release a major campaign pack like CC, could have objectives, aces, etc. allowed only from those campaigns, and that's a way to shake up the meta and what cards / squads / ships are used. This is already done in other games, again, so would be adopting existing thinking and porting it over.
  13. Can we stop to talk about the models for a moment? Other than the wave 1 squadrons, pretty much everything is awesome. As one of the people who actually repaints my Armada stuff, ****, FFG. The ISD, Interdictor, the MC ships, the later squadrons... this stuff is all fantastic. Visually, the elements of this game just sing, and I think that is an under appreciated point at times. We don't talk about it enough. Also, maneuvering. It's janky. It requires a lot of pre-planning. It's way more important than most new players assume. Very appropriate for capital ships in space, very thematic, and leaves a lot of openings for player skill.
  14. "Those who fly glass squadrons should not throw Sloanes." I'll show myself out.
  15. Attempting to be realistic rather than idealistic: 1: Not every card needs to be viable. That kind of balance just isn't possible in a game this complicated. 2: Not every squadron needs to be viable, but I would suggest the iconic ones do need to be. If X-Wings, Y-Wings, and TIE fighters are not a common sight, something is wrong. If nobody uses the YV-666 other than Bossk, I am less concerned. 3: Every ship should be viable. Not necessarily every configuration of every ship, but the larger models should be used. By viable, I mean not totally irregular as a sight in the top of mid-major to major tournaments. To give some examples of ships I do not currently think meet this criteria: the Interdictor, the Pelta, and the Victory. 4: No massive over-representation. If 15/16 top fleets across worlds and the EU championship take 2+ flotillas and most are taking 3+, something is very wrong. Similarly, if 15/16 top fleets were two ISD plus other stuff I would say there was an equally bad problem. 5: No "win button" cards. If you never see a ship fielded without a title or if untitled versions are only the 2nd and 3rd of that ship (looking at you guys, Demo, Yavaris, and Admonition), that's bad. If one commander or squadron dominates the top tables, that's bad. So for me, what I am asking for is not a huge amount of macro-level sameness, that at least the ships show up in a decent variety. I would be fine with FFG straight up errata-ing cards after each worlds season and having a pack of new cards, for instance, because again (to be realistic) this is complicated and will have to be an iterative project. What I do not want is counter cards to the current hot stuff that just leads to band aids piled on band aids on a severed head and a constantly broken meta that has one dominant solution each season. Does that make sense?
×
×
  • Create New...