Jump to content

Crimsonwarlock

Members
  • Content Count

    226
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Crimsonwarlock


  1. 9 minutes ago, Brunas said:

    The only fair way to do Tavson/Baffle is the way system opens have been.  That is to say yes, you can baffle then immediately recover the charge.

    The alternatives are much scarier: Quickdraw gets to baffle with an evade token, but after your opponent has cleared tokens so you start taking juke shots into ships that are guaranteed to not have tokens.  Or, Tavson starts carrying over round tokens into the next turn.

    Orr... You run both and win no matter which way it gets ruled


  2. 1 hour ago, Quack Shot said:

    Yeah, but I don’t want 2.0 to be ruined. For myself personally, I don’t play enough anymore to actually see the Nantex on a regular basis. Or if I do, I don’t have faith in any of the locals to not screw up with it, except for when@Crimsonwarlock plays it, which at that point if he’s playing anything other than Quad Vipers I’m probably having a better time lol. 

    Says the guy who almost always runs the Falcon


  3. On 11/18/2019 at 6:48 PM, Kaptin Krunch said:

    Let's talk about non-limited pilots. Non limited pilots, sans a few exceptions, are laughably bad. The top 10 has one non-limited pilot, and it's Trade Federation Drone. 

     

    There are plenty of solid selections of generic pilots.

     

    The runner up list at worlds had a z95.

    Top 4 had 4 Starvipers.

    Cartel Marauders were in evidence.

     

    Generics are excellent for building efficiency lists.  Nothing I love seeing more when building an efficiency list than an opponent with a 20pt bid


  4. 5 hours ago, Hiemfire said:

    @Crimsonwarlock If I heard correctly you were using the Ord Team's abilities to continually fire multiple charges worth of missiles or torps over consecutive turns on your Raider. Ord team uses the word reload and not renew in the first paragraph of its ability, so like energy shell charges each charge reloaded incurs an additional weapons disabled token. Ord Team's second paragraph is hard limited to the removal of only 1 weapons disabled token meaning that you'd still be unable to fire if you'd reloaded more than one charge.

    What Ord Team enables is continual single fire of missile or torpedo special weapons, or a single action mass reload of a missile or torpedo upgrade on a turn that you wouldn't be attacking with the ship in.

    Good catch.  I hadn't thought of that.


  5. 4 hours ago, Lyianx said:

    Also, correct me if im wrong, but i dont think the C-Roc can even take a Gunner upgrade anyway. Unless im missing something?

    The seperatist C-ROC can

     

    Edit:. Turned out it was a bug in YASB that was showing the Seperatist CROC had a gunner slot.  This appears not to be the case


  6. If I have a CROC with VTG and Targetting Battery, can I fire the Primary, use the VTG to fire the Targetting battery.  The use the bonus attack header on Targetting battery to fire the Targetting battery again.

     

    Assuming that is is legal, do I have to pay energy and get a lock when firing the Targetting battery the first time (attack from VTG).  I'm inclined to think no since I didn't use the bonus attack header to launch the attack.


  7. Quad Phantoms was the main reason I never took my vipers to a larger event.  The Vipers got dumpstered in the matchup and everyone was trying to kill phantoms (vipers fall to a lot of the same types of firepower)

     

    In the current Meta, vipers struggle vs Nantex (microthrusters v tractors hurts), but prey on the things that hunt them ( wiggle rolls and Crack-Shot gives you an easy upper hand vs medium bases).  About the only list that I'd punt to is Sun/Cher/Grevious.


  8. 3 hours ago, Flurpy said:

     

    Let me give you an example why its not always easy to pinpoint it.

    Someone brings cookies to work. I take a cookie. Nobody complains. I take a second cookie. Nobody complains. I take a third cookie. Nobody complains. I take a fourth cookie. Everyone calls me out. There is no significance to the fourth cookie, the fourth cookie is just as much cookie as the third or the fifth, and in another firm or another day it might have been the second cookie that was too much or the sixth. Its not the specific measure thats the problem, its the intention.

     

    Theres no, this cookie is one cookie too much moment in his match, its the intention.

    If I asked you how many cookies I can have, is that bad Faith?


  9. 8 minutes ago, KaLeu said:

     

    Force charges recovery is now:

    During the End Phase, each ship with a Force capacity recovers only a number of 󲈯 equal to the recurring charge symbols on its ship card, regardless of the number of recurring charge symbols that appear on its upgrade cards.

    So no more Force recovery if your ship doesn‘t have the force in it‘s base ship card??????

     

     

     

    I think I'm gonna ignore this section of the rules.  Who's with me.

     

    "That's not how the Force works"


  10. 3 hours ago, Jarval said:

    To nit-pick a little, that's not the case for every sport - Formula 1 for example uses a points scoring system per race, with the overall champion being the driver with the most points at the end of the season.

    Pretty sure if you win 100% of the formula 1 races you are mathematically assured 1st overall.

     

    Formula 1 compares better to a league than a tournament.


  11. 1 hour ago, Archangelspiv said:

    I think that’s peoples issue with the stalling tactic. People can’t make superior engagements against this kind of list. If the viper player doesn’t want to engage where you are trying to make them, they don’t. They know full well they have 12 die coming in FS. Mitch even said earlier, he controls 2 table edges, it’s hard to flank that. 

    I know you can fit 4 Nanteks into a list. Would you sit in a corner for 75 minutes and go for FS against a Viper list?

    New Squadron

    (44) General Grievous [Belbullab-22 Starfighter]
    (4) Impervium Plating
    (1) Crack Shot
    (6) Soulless One
    Points: 55

    (38) Petranaki Arena Ace [Nantex-class Starfighter]
    (10) Ensnare
    Points: 48

    (38) Petranaki Arena Ace [Nantex-class Starfighter]
    (10) Ensnare
    Points: 48

    (39) Chertek [Nantex-class Starfighter]
    (10) Ensnare
    Points: 49

    Total points: 200

    The tractor - micro thrusters interaction makes this a VERY bad matchup for the Vipers.  Combined with the init disadvantage and the inability to effectively block the nantex, I would expect the Vipers to loose handily to this list.  

     

    I fought 2 nantex lists at worlds.  While I did win both matchups, there was some favorable dice on my side.

     

    Sun-fac plus droid swarm.  I got lucky calling the exact timing that sun Fac would try to approach and managed to isolate the engagement to 4 vipers vs sun at R3.  Then followed up by killing 3/5 drones on the following turn.

     

    Chertek/sear/dfs-311/3x trade fed.  Big Acrylic was a bit more cautious with Chertek and didn't give me many quality shots on him.  I had good dice on the approach and managed to isolate DFS-311 on the first turn and init kill 2 more drones on the second turn.  I think my opponent was forced to make more conservative moves to play against the wide range of positions a Starviper list can take.  I picked up a lead, but Andrew was eating into it at the rapid rate.  Game ended 124-123 my favor.

     

    Both lists only had 1 nantex that could either be played around or killed.  My headsim does not project a favorable outcome for vipers vs nantex spam.


  12. 13 hours ago, theBitterFig said:

    My favorite bit: the algorithm suggests every Starviper is overpriced, needing to go down, mostly by two points.  Except for Black Sun Assassins.  Why?

    Because specifically @Crimsonwarlock wins enough with them to prevent the model from determining they need to get cheaper.

    Hilarious.

     

    I'm the reason the black sun can't have nice things.


  13. 33 minutes ago, svelok said:

    Let's say I'm slow playing my opponent, taking a painfully long amount of time to set dials each round, because it advantages me to do so.

    So a judge is watching. I've been thinking about a dial for thirty seconds.

    Thirty one seconds.

    Thirty two seconds.

    Thirty three seconds...

    At which exact second does the judge give me a verbal warning to speed up my play?

    The answer is that there is no answer, which is the same for stalling. That's why nobody will commit to drawing a hard line, because it's not actually possible to do. But the inability to draw a consistent, thick line doesn't mean we should abandon enforcing the rule whatsoever.

    You make an excellent point here.  The line may be hard to define since it varies on a case by case basis.  You might not be able to pin down the exact amount of allowable time (but 30 sec per dial seems like a good base line).  However a judge gonna catch some flak from the community if he calls a slow play penalty after someone's had a dial their hand for 10 seconds going into the first engagement.

     

    Likewise, there could be a reasonable time limit to how long you want to allow someone to spend in a particular part of the map. (I'll accept demanding a line in the Sand was unfair) However, I feel that flying to the corner and then proceeding directly towards my opponent does not cross that line.

     

    There may be times where remaining stationary could be called for.  In my game vs Calen, he had It's the Resistance on Finn.  I had no intention of attacking Calen's position until that card resolved and Finn was deployed to the board.  I believe it would be unfair that a Judge mandate that I must attack before all the pieces hit the board.

    The Crux of this points is that we now have conduct that is defined as sporting or unsporting based on what upgrades I (or my opponent ) brought.  Holding a static position while the score is 0-0 wrong, unless you brought Dank Droids, or your opponent has GA-97.  (Apologies if this comes off as a strawman, but Heaver did state waiting for Dank Droids to get into range was OK, and I extrapolated that waiting on GA-97 to resolve would be similarly OK. correct me if I am wrong).  This feels weird to me.  It's odd that one can get a pass for these cases, but not because " I brought ships with hypermaneuverability"

     


  14. 3 minutes ago, PhantomFO said:

    What if FFG changes the mechanics behind final salvo so that it's not based on the printed attack values of ships? Maybe something where you get one red die for every 20 points you've destroyed, rounded up? That would eliminate the ability for a list to set their win conditions based on "I'm going to avoid conflict and trust my larger pool of red dice to give me the win over that two-ship aces list."

    Not a bad ideas, but It wouldn't solve what people perceive as a problem, it would just change the math.

     

    Taking a 50/50 Salvo is better than some matchups.


  15. 19 minutes ago, pheaver said:

    Stated "notoriously", eh?  Neat.

    If you are unhappy with your experience with me as a head judge, feel free to send feedback e-mails to OP or NOVA.  If you are just complaining on the internet and you've never been to my event, then I don't care what your opinion is about it.

    As I've stated before, I refuse to play this game that you are trying to play with me for whatever reason.  As you said in your interview: you won't be able to change my mind on this.  I know I won't be able to change yours.  I'm just trying to inform people that it is unacceptable in some events (NOVA, LVO, Aus SOS for examples), so if they want to replicate your behavior they should check with their head judge first.

     

    I meant notoriously as in publicly and not inconspicuously. My goal was to emphasize you weren't aiming for a 'Gotcha moment.

×
×
  • Create New...