Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Hockeyzombie


    There is more to the story, but you've constantly got people looking for a single truth that they can throw at others and say, "No, THIS is right!".


    No, you have people with a bizarre hatred of mathematics and an incessant need to believe in magic and the power of the unseen.


    These people see numbers, numbers that are explained quite clearly and verifiable by all, and inexplicably refuse to believe what they are seeing. They then allege that the numbers are actually a misguided trick meant to represent an all-encompassing scalar value for all ships in the game where higher-order ships necessarily defeat lower-order ships in any and all circumstances.


    It's maddening to read over and over again.


    In fairness, there have been many who did the exact opposite and assumed every ship was exactly as good or bad as their efficiency according to Mathwing. MJ has often tried to remind people that there's additional factors to consider, but some people only check in long enough to see that something rated 2% worse and dismiss that ship as underpowered. 


    So basically instead of being excessively skeptical of the math they put too much trust in it, and then wonder why they were losing to Defenders and other ships that have deceptively poor values. 


    I'm not thinking of any particular person here. I'm really not, I don't pay much attention to who's saying what in any given thread. 

  2. Maybe it's my preference for playing lists with Vader and/or Soontir, but I'm pretty sure I could carve up a K-Wing or a HWK from behind long before it could somehow use Tactician on anything important. The Escalation tournament I'm in has shown me that K-Wings really don't like getting locked by Advanced Targeting Computers, and without RecSpec I'm not overly worried about the TLT if only one attack can be modified, I can usually leave both my focus and evade tokens up for defence once I have my target lock. 


    Unless you have a few spare points and decide to throw in Tactician, I'm really not sold on this idea. HWKs and K-Wings use turrets specifically because it's hard to get anything in their arcs, so using and upgrade that requires you to do that seems like a waste of points.

  3. Don't forget to include the impact on Epic games as well. A 100 point swarm of these things could take down a Huge ship in a single turn without some sort of mitigating effect.

    Epic has a rule that limits you to 12 of any small based ship, because TIE swarms are scary enough at that size. 


    What about PS0  2/2/2/0, but they also have "you cannot reroll attack dice"? That prevents the threat of a stronger Howlrunner swarm. If that's still too good it could be changed to "can't modify attack dice" but I think playtestng would be needed to sort that one out.


    Mathwing is useful, but I have to agree that a lot of people forget that just slamming the most efficient things they could find on the table isn't enough. Dials are very difficult to properly value, since the same maneuver on two different dials isn't equally useful--would you care all that much if your Headhunter got green sharp turns? Would you care if your Interceptor had white turns at all speeds? Since stress-shedding isn't equally useful to every ship, and different actions are better/worse depending on base stats, Mathwing can give misleading results. That's before we factor in pilots like Corran, who are weak when taken as they are but get scary as hell with the right upgrades. 


    There are some ships with action bars, dials, and statlines that are made to go straight at something and shoot it out- that's your TIE fighter, Z-95, T-65 X-wing, B-wing and BTL Y-wing.  In this type of ship, jousting is very important to them.


    I understand that, I'm just saying that a lot of ships and pilots are harder to sort out. The T-70 is still an open question, since it can probably outmaneuver several of the other jousters. It looks like it should joust but more so than a lot of the jousters, it can choose not to. 


    Mathwing also has a harder time accounting for ships like the Interceptor that live and die by their ability to avoid getting into a straight fight. For ships like them comparing dials and actions if much more relevant to what they want to do. 

  5. I had some good turns with PTL+BB8 Poe, but I'll need to play more to be certain. Another player is doing pretty well with him, though. Kind of an odd ship to fly but two actions before moving opens up a lot of possibilities. 

  6. Han and Lando's crew cards represent the card game where Han won the Falcon. Notice how Lando requires a complete gamble while Han makes your target lock more predictable. Lando plays more dangerously than Han, and while he might get that sweet payoff (focus/evade, double evade) he may get nothing or just nothing helpful. Han can't hit the same level of usefulness but if you know who you're shooting he turns target lock into an incredibly strong option. 


    Also the art fits together which I thought was a great touch. 

  7. Mathwing is useful, but I have to agree that a lot of people forget that just slamming the most efficient things they could find on the table isn't enough. Dials are very difficult to properly value, since the same maneuver on two different dials isn't equally useful--would you care all that much if your Headhunter got green sharp turns? Would you care if your Interceptor had white turns at all speeds? Since stress-shedding isn't equally useful to every ship, and different actions are better/worse depending on base stats, Mathwing can give misleading results. That's before we factor in pilots like Corran, who are weak when taken as they are but get scary as hell with the right upgrades. 

  8. What about unique Z-95 pilots? Might find use there....

    Not really. I mean, sure maybe you'll end up using that boost at some point but was it worth 4 points? Not likely. EU has lots of uses but a Z-95 that can boost still only has two attack dice, two agility, and four health. Giving it boost doesn't really help it perform any of its functions better. 


    Aside from Vader and Corran I don't see a lot of small ships that can really justify the 4 points. Most of the ones that could already have boost.



    The only issue with having them re-roll all of them, is that some players like to burn bad dice rolls.

    You can't burn a bad dice roll. It just doesn't work that way. You can't control if the new roll will be better or worse, so if you roll too many dice you stand an equal chance of losing a good roll and getting a bad one as you do losing a bad one and getting a good one.


    but I have see people roll more than they are supposed to and then take the die which rolls bad and remove it.

    If you mean they roll four dice when they should roll three, then remove the result they don't like... that's simply cheating, and the TO should be informed of it ASAP.

    If you mean they roll a bunch of dice and try to find the bad die, that's really down to superstition.




    Very true!    But I have seen it happen many times.     I know it's just superstition, but lots of player believe in it.     Plus with all the crazy dice youtube stuff and showing how dice are  not balanced, who knows!!!


    Doesn't matter if they believe in it, it still can't change their dice. I used to think that setting all my d20s down with the 1 facing up would improve my results. There was no noticeable change when I stopped doing that and started rolling it around in my hand until it was time to roll. An unbalanced die could be an issue but one or two rolls won't find anything, you'd want to roll the same one a couple hundred times and record the results to be certain that this one blanks more frequently. Even then I'd need to see a very high rate of rolling blanks to be convinced there was a flaw in the die. 

  10. I just find it fascinating, because it creates a double standard.

    Now - I've seen some very concise arguments for why it is a logical, or perhaps even justified double standard, don't get me wrong.

    But it does handle one distinct situation:  "I rolled the incorrect number of dice" in two unique ways, depending on whether that number was too many, or too few.

    I guess perhaps I'm simply finding it interesting that more people aren't in favor of one blanket rule for that situation:

    If you rolled an incorrect number of dice, discard the result and reroll the proper number.

    I think it's because each die, if rolled properly, is still random. Yes, throwing four dice instead of three will effect how they fall but I have no control on whether those effects are beneficial. Therefore, rolling them separately won't realistically grant either player an advantage. I've even seen people, when they need to roll straight Evades, throw each green die one at a time (the idea being that if the first one is blank they're dead anyway, after that it's purely for dramatics). 


    When rolling too many dice, there's that awkward question of which result(s) would never have happened. Some people have said that if all the dice come up the same they'll just ignore one and move on, but I don't generally like this method. Since which die result we remove could have a lot of impact on the game, I tend to prefer simply agreeing that we reroll the correct number and pretend the screwed up roll never happened. 


    Basically, it's easy to correct rolling too few dice with no hard feelings. 

  11. Depends a lot on what my list is good at and what their list is meant to do. Sometimes the choice is easy, like flying a swarm and seeing a Decimator. Any time the decision is too difficult I base it on what presents a target first. For example, I'm not really sure if I should kill Dash or Corran first but if Corran gets ahead of himself I'll pounce on him with every gun I have. If Dash gets close I'll start hammering him instead. Either way I'll try to block Dash, but the actual target of my attacks will change from game to game. 


    Most of the time I focus fire, but if I have an Interceptor or Phantom it's pretty common for them to hunt down the biggest threat (Soontir, Corran, Vader, etc) and try to 1v1 them while everyone else chases easier targets. But even that can change a lot depending on who I'm playing and what they're running.




    To reiterate what we have learned from this thread; Maarek is the only pilot who can pull this off outside of a one in a million fluke and the X Wing is actually the /only/ ship other than Chewie that can block it reliably. In short the OP has no idea what the hell they are talking about.


    Except for the exact situation I described in the OP, which was excluding the Integrated Astromech card that now becomes auto-include on X-Wings at the cost of useful mods like Engine Upgrade...

    EU is overrated and IA is free for a better effect. If you still want to boost then take R7-T1. X Wings are better then they have been in years and the ridiculous cenario you discribed can only be realistically pulled off by one pilot. Not only is IA a great upgrade but it fits the fluff for the X Wing perfectly.



    2 hits and a crit get through plenty of times after dice modifications... Sure, you want to run the numbers on unmodified dice, that's fine, it's a long shot... After modifications, especially with new TIE Advanced able to just add a crit, it becomes a little more feasible... Engine upgrade is not overrated for high PS... Dumb statement is dumb from the start... Boosting with R7-T1 is not nearly the same, because you have to have the ship in arc to start with... The only part about the op that is unlikely is a major explosion into a direct hit... 


    Integrated Astromech is an upgrade, yeah, it's not amazing, but it's just good enough that everyone will use it... I don't love it though...


    Sure, but then you have to flip one of the Major Explosions in the deck, roll a hit, and reveal a Direct Hit (or less likely, another Major Explosion followed by a hit roll). This isn't a likely occurrence. At all. Out of all the things that have to happen, the most likely has a 37.5% chance of happening, let alone the less likely ones. And like I said before, anything with two shields or less and three hull could be killed this way so it's not like it somehow singles out the T-65. As I said before, after the crit goes through you still have a chain of card draws and dice rolls that has to go exactly right for this to happen. 


    So no, Integrated Astromech is not nearly auto-include if you want to have Engine Upgrade. Are you seriously going to let such an unlikely event change the upgrades you use? 

  13. As a new player I find your attitude elitist and insulting. I have been playing for about 6 weeks and started on a bit of a whim, as a result I was unaware that a new core set was incoming (personally as an OT fan I'm less than interested in the ships from the new core anyway). I bought 2 Cores and vader and a Y as well as most wanted, recently I added wave 7 minus the conjoined bomber and the raider. Having spent recent months hobby budget on core sets already I'm incredibly reluctant to shell out for another.

    I enjoy playing competitively but I also like to play with friends who use my ships, in order to continue competitive play I will have to stop acquiring ships that I want in my collection that will see actual play in order to acquire a pretty box a damage deck and a handful of upgrade cards. The rest of the contents might as well be space dust for all the use they are to me. What possible harm could be caused by FFG selling a damage deck separately to go alongside the dice packs they already sell?

    When you see someone buying their second copy of the new core, ambush them and steal the damage deck. Or offer to buy it for a few bucks, that seems less likely to end in an arrest. If I was planning on picking up a second I'd be willing to part with my spare, but as it stands I'm going to wait and see what upgrade cards are in the packs.

  14. Very happy about the change myself. Was already down for the new ships but the damage deck is much better from a design standpoint. And what's good from that standpoint tends to be good from a player standpoint. Never again shall the hated Injured Pilot somehow hit my aces and their Academy Pilots.

  15. We're all over the place here. I'm beginning to recover from a TIE Advanced obsession, but the most consistent thing is the one guy that will usually play whatever the internet just said was weak. He has some kind of vendetta against the idea of mathwing and appears to believe that by winning with underpowered ships he proves it wrong. I've tried pointing out that this isn't really how mathwing or games with dice work but he has yet to care. 


    There's no TLT plague, nor did we ever have a point fortress or Fat Han problem. The closest we got was when I built my own take on brobots and enjoyed it enough to use a few times.

  16. No, I'm saying the flaw in your argument is that in the case of some ships, you assume that the TIE/FO is niot upgraded and the other ship is (A-Wing, Z-95), that the TIE/FO is basic and the other has switched up to a named pilot (TIE Fighter), or that I'm trying to use the TIE/FO as a swarm ship (TIE Fighter again) when that's not what I would suggest. The FO isn't a horrible swarm ship but it's just a bit too expensive to play nice with Howlrunner. It is, on the other hand, much more maneuverable than the Z-95 or Y-Wing (and more agility than either), a better dial than the TIE Fighter along with a shield and a target lock, and I would say better repositioning than the A-Wing. All of those ships also have advantages of their own, but that doesn't change the fact that the FO does have strengths that they do not. 


    I didn't count Backstabber and Mauler because they're unique pilots, and I prefer to compare the closest generics I can when comparing two ships. I'll acknowledge uniques as a factor but since I wouldn't use an Academy Pilot the same way I would use Mauler or Backstabber I don't see them as fulfilling the same role. TIEs are something I use for weight of numbers or because it's all I have the points for. Backstabber is someone I consider when my strategy has a specific need for someone that works well when flanking. Same way I didn't count Omega Ace because I would go out of my way to set up chances for him to use his ability at range 1, but I wouldn't put the same effort into getting an Epsilon Pilot the same shot. 


    Basically I see the TIE/FO as a weird mix between a TIE Fighter and an Interceptor. Cheaper and tougher than the equivalent Interceptors, but not as maneuverable. On the other hand they cost more than the equivalent TIE Fighter but have better dials, health, and actions. I wouldn't use them for swarming but I would use them if I have the points to use them instead of the TIE Fighters I would have used previously. 


    Most of what I was getting at earlier was saying that the flaw in your argument was stating that the TIE/FO has a weaker attack than other two attack ships, but not acknowledging the fact that those other ships must take upgrades to make that true. Once the list is chosen it doesn't matter what you could have equipped, so a Green Squad Pilot that couldn't afford any offensive buffs is not any stronger than a Zeta Squadron Pilot.


    The A-Wing could equip missiles or something but that drives the cost up to noticeably higher than what I spent on my TIE/FO. 


    The Z-95 could equip a missile and cost only a bit more than Epsilon Pilot, but has far less maneuverability. 


    The Y-Wing can equip a variety of secondary weapons, but already costs more and flies much more clumsily. 


    The old TIE could have a unique pilot, but unique pilots are a mixed bag and often have conditions in order to be better than generics (Backstabber is just a PS6 TIE until he gets out of your arc, Mauler's just a PS7 TIE until he gets up close). They also have less health than the FO, except for Dark Curse who's basically only dead to bad luck and concentrated attacks. 


    The M3-A needs to spend an extra two points on whatever it uses to boost its attack, and tends to die quickly and violently if it does so.


    The TIE Advanced (pre-Raider) was overcosted and would have started at six points more than the TIE/FO. With TIE/x1, it's a bit of a special snowflake that still costs more but is at least worth it if you have six points. ATC makes them play a bit differently than Accuracy Corrector, by making them less efficient on actions but increasing their potential damage. Keeping that target lock where you need it can be a problem, though.


    I'm not saying the TIE/FO is some kind of unstoppable death angel, just that I think you're overvaluing the options that other ships have for improving their attacks while undervaluing the TIE/Fos ability to maneuver. It's still a fairly new ship but so far the games I've seen it in have shown a fairly impressive ability to get around. The FOs did lose the first game I fought them in (but that was a player that I don't think has ever beaten me...and it was mostly losing his 50 point Deathrain almost immediately), and I'm not sure how to value the second as it was a three player free-for-all (Omega Ace did scare the bejeezus out of me, so there was that). 

  17. They have the exact same attack as many other ships. It doesn't matter that the TIE Fighter can take Mauler or Backstabber unless they actually do. Epsilon Squadron and Academy Pilot have the same attack, no matter what other pilots exist. A-Wings can equip missiles (one-offs) or two EPTs (expensive as hell, usually) but beyond that they will still have the same attack as the TIE/FO. Z-95s can also use missiles but again, that is a one-off. You are also not required to run the whole list as these ships, TIE/FOs are very good at flanking or blocking thanks to having an upgraded TIE Fighter dial. 


    Saying the FO lacks firepower largely requires us to ignore that most of the other ships you mention are in the same boat unless they spend a bunch of points on upgrades/better pilots.

  18. "I'm not a sky is falling type of person, but I am making a big deal out of something that has an almost nonexistent chance of happening." 


    Like, a 6% chance followed by a 37.5% chance, followed by a 21% chance and that AFTER you roll enough damage to get a crit past them and they completely blank their green dice. This is not nearly likely enough to say that it makes anything worse. It also effects ships other than the T-65, since this could theoretically kill anything that has 3 hull and two shields or less. It also works on Phantoms, Headhunters, Interceptors, TIE Fighters, TIE/FOs, A-Wings, TIE Advanceds, and probably something I forgot. Literally anything with five total health. 

  19. According to the Imperial Handbook,

    The Empire's mapping and exploration divisions are attached to the Imperial Navy. These frontier scouts help expand the Empire's borders by identifying worlds primed for conquest or exploitation. 


    Rieekan adds this note

    -Most of these scouts are in it for the adventure and don't know what the Empire does with the data they send back. We've had a lot of defectors from the survey corps. 

  20. Probably never happen. FFG has said that they intend to stick to the Galactic Civil War timeline, which seems to include the new trilogy. I suppose if the game is still going strong and the supply of EU ships dries up (they'll run out of Legends long before then) they could do a prequel game. Presumably the two would be on a different scale of firepower and agility, but other than stating that in a rulebook there's no reason the two eras couldn't be compatible. 

  21. So now we have new ships for the game that are official "new" canon. Would that mean that since you can have Baron Fel shoot down Poe(for example), that by extension all other pilots and ships in the game are new canon as well?


  • Create New...