Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Sparklelord

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

1,160 profile views
  1. So you're telling me that an ever-growing list of errata being used as a mechanism for game balance is somehow not one of the "systematic and ingrained problems with 1.0"? This ridiculous notion of the fact of 2.0 having fixed some of the things wrong with 1.0 means that it should be immune to criticism has got to go. It reminds me of people who claim the earth is flat because their ad hoc hypotheses sound pretty good and answer some common questions as long as you don't look too closely at the details. Abilities do not need to be on the card, because in the event that you or your opponent might need to reference them during a game, they are available on the tourney list you handed in (assuming that the official squad builder will be on par with the quality we came to expect from 3rd party squad builders in 1.0, that is) or in the app. If you or your opponent rely on reading the cards during a game, I certainly hope you didn't use any of the cards that got errata'd in your list, otherwise you'll be getting incorrect information. Oh, wait, you probably have the latest wording from the FAQ printed out or available on your phone...so...no different than if the card was blank to begin with. But you knew that, right?
  2. It's not about the misprints in the early released cards in Saw/Reaper, although that is a red flag that YES, this edition was rushed to print ahead of schedule. It's about stuff like they forgot that ships can do obstructions and Outrider is only intended to work with obstacles so there's already an entry in the errata. Explain to me how abilities being online-only is ANY different than what we already have in 1.0 with errata'd cards. And somehow not an improvement. Or dismiss it outright as you've already done, that's your prerogative, but it's far more trollish behavior than what you want to attribute to OP.
  3. OP is valid. From what I'm seeing, we've got pre-release errata. So... point cost isn't the end-all, be-all to balancing the game. Obviously. And what I have never understood is why the changing of point costs on a card is somehow different than errata of card text. I mean, if FFG was actually committed to game balance, the ability to tweak text (and fix text errors and inconsistencies) would be pretty useful, too, wouldn't you say? We're already putting up with cards lacking point cost information and upgrade slots, because we're admitting that they're subject to change at any time. Why do we have game effect text on the cards at all? We already have to memorize the changes in the errata (in 1.0, even, and demonstrably that's not changing in 2.0), so FFG should have just eliminated the card text entirely.
  4. I want to start with this point, and pose a similar question. How many tournaments did Ghost-Fenn actually win? A list can do oppressively well without coming out #1 every time it shows up. Then, back to the first point: That's not quite right. Triple K's were terrifying to any ship that lacked reactive repositioning, or turrets. Aces were the better-equipped ships to deal with managing to keep them in arc, the problem is that aces just take damage and die. The compounding issue was that it was an unparalleled amount of damage being done. I don't think you're right that it's just "fragile aces" that had to fear them. The 28 hp list that fortressed probably was one of the better matchups to tank a bunch of bombs, sure. But... within 1 round of bombing, what you need is one better-than-average roll and the rest just average (assuming you hit it with 2 out of 3 cluster mines with each K-Wing) and lo and behold you've killed one G-1A before it shoots. Then, you have enough cluster mines to repeat the process after disengaging. Importantly, your 27 hp is not much less than the 28 hp in the 4 ship list. And when they want to disengage, K-Wings are able to move faster than any other ship in the game, except boosting large base ships.
  5. Would argue that, against AdvSLAM triple K bombers, "playing X-Wing" was never an option to begin with. I mean, if the K-Wing player is throwing red dice more than two or three times, they've made a mistake in that game.
  6. Sparklelord

    Ruthless in 2.0?

    Range 0-1 means you can use a blocker as both action denial and Ruthless dice mods so there's that So, if you've gone to the effort of setting up the perfect shot by executing the block on your priority target, Ruthless makes for a nice "last resort" to keep the dice from betraying you
  7. MSC only needs to fail once and then it never works again until after your ordnance is away. And it's either MSC or LWF. If you're bringing multiple LRS, you beat the MSC easily. He Palps the first one, the second one gets through 62.5% of the time, and then next turn he can't use MSC for the first guy.
  8. Did you ever hear the tragedy of Oicunn + Ion Projector + Palp?
  9. I don't think it's so much about experience as it is about "knowing what is in the game and why it is good". Yes, you've got to find the stuff that you like; but chances are, there's a style of flying that you like which also overlaps well with certain cards in the game that are perhaps more effective than others. Let's take your Dalan build for a specific example. Is it that you like Outmaneuver, the card? Or the concept of Dalan outmaneuvering your opponent? If it's that you really like the card, then sorry, but you're deriving enjoyment out of a card that's overpriced for an unreliable effect. So...either learn to like other things, or be prepared to play with suboptimal stuff. Outmaneuver, the card, rewards you for being out of your opponent's firing arc (which is already really beneficial so it's icing on the cake). But, the additional reward you get is not worthwhile enough to be worth taking when you can take something else that rewards you better, unconditionally, and still get the standard benefits of outmaneuvering your opponent. So if you like Dalan, and presumably executing unique moves to outmaneuver your opponent, the best thing to do when building him is to figure out ways to shore up what he can't do when he's doing his thing. First thing is if you're not running him with the SVMk2 title then he's overcosted, there's no reason not to put it on him, and if you don't like curved barrel rolls then don't take that action, you're not doing them anyways when you're using Dalan's pilot ability. Second, if you are using his pilot ability, you're not taking target locks, so he's a really awful proton torpedo carrier (do you want torpedoes or do you want Dalan? I think they're mutually exclusive in the build you've shown). Third, munitions failsafe is just a bad card; why would you take the torpedo attack at all if you expect it to miss? Just take the primary shot and save your target lock for a more favorable opportunity (to be fair there's a couple of super niche janky things that are worthwhile for MF, but just... don't). Guidance chips or bust there, they're cheaper and better, or if you're taking the torps off (which you should, because there are better choices for ordnance carrier) then Autothrusters is the mod you really want. Fourth, you must expect Dalan to be taking stress more frequently than other ships, but you've not built him to be prepared for that. Thing is, typically you want dice mods when playing X-WingTMG, and you expect not to have actions with Dalan when he's doing Dalan things. So Wired or Predator would be good choices for EPT, I'll just straight up guarantee either one will be more effective in the long run than Outmaneuver because those with both give you action-free dice mods (and in the case of Predator, also when he decides he wants to boost/BR/focus). And if you can put the Virago title on, Advanced Sensors or Fire-Control System would also be good ways to patch up the expected loss of action when Dalan does Dalan things.
  10. I had a big ol' writeup that I decided not to post, but it amounted to pointing that Magva isn't modifying the dice, she's "modifying the modification" and doesn't have anything to do with actually rerolling the dice, only what is the legal number. So since she doesn't specify that her player chooses which die to reroll, it only makes sense to defer the right to make that choice to the ability that is the source of the modification (which belongs to the attacker, in order for Magva's ability to apply [i.e., Magva has no interference with L3-37, even if faction restrictions didn't apply]).
  11. That doesn't mean that's not how it works, though. Same interaction as if Han were to Predator his dice, making them ineligible to roll again, and then use his ability. So in broader terms, is your question "if a player's card ability in a certain situation actually works to the benefit of his opponent, does that mean it's being interpreted wrongly?" Because the answer to that's a no. For instance, if you've got a HotCop Fenn and use his pilot ability on AdvOptics Poe (if he has Fenn TL'd, this is the right choice for the Fenn player) then Poe is not allowed to spend his Focus token if he attacks Fenn and thus the HotCop has no effect on Poe during this attack, which is to the overall benefit of the Poe player.
  12. 1st edition Han has a clause that makes this not *actually* bother him, right? He says that, "if you choose to do so, you must reroll as many as possible", which, thanks to Magva, is 1. The 1e precedent, from the "Golden Rules" section of the 1.0 Rules Reference, is "If a card ability or mission effect uses the word “cannot,” that effect is absolute and cannot be overridden by other effects." So if one card says you must reroll all of your dice, and another card says you cannot reroll more than 1, then you must reroll 1 die instead of all. See also the FAQ on First Order Vanguard title, which confirms that the example of 1e Han applies to other cards; when "all" is specified but not possible, you may treat it like "all the ones you can".
  13. I'm serious when I say I was short on TL tokens. But then, my storage solution is toolboxes with individual bins. So I keep each ship on its base and peg, in its own bin, with enough tokens to run it just by dumping out the bin on the table. And I lost a TL pair or two, and then was it that they didn't put any TLs in Guns for Hire or something? One way or another, I had to borrow from other ships often enough that it was frustrating to keep track of. Using the number tokens as TLs worked fine in a pinch, though.
  14. Part of the points problem is in the list-building phase, as you say. The other part of the points problem is that points don't mean the same thing across different ships, because some ships are drastically more difficult to kill than others. Making those ships more expensive isn't the answer (until you hit a large enough drop in squad efficiency in your discrete optimization problem) because being more expensive makes those ships more effective at what they're trying to do anyways, which is to secure the game-win condition of "I've killed more of your points than you have of mine". It's similar to what you say about Dengaroo, but it's a little different than that. If you put 42 points of Corran Horn on the table, depending on what your opponent has and how it plays out, that's 42 points he has a low chance of getting, because there are many situations I can think of where Corran in a 1-on-1 a) wins outright, or more problematically b) cannot be damaged/shot at enough to kill. On the other hand, if you put a 42 point Redline down on the table, that's 42 points that are generally considered "low-hanging fruit" because it's not hard for most of the ships in the game to do enough damage to kill Redline unless Redline kills them first. When there's THAT factor in play, when there are certain conditions that you can achieve with a certain ship but not other ships that pretty much make it impossible to lose that ship, that's when there's real problems with point balance. They are trying to get rid of them, but you can already see from certain pilots that those situations aren't disappearing in 2.0. When the above is possible, you ask the question, "if there's a ship that I can fly into a situation where I can't lose, how can I make that ship as expensive as possible without giving up my ability to reliably get to that condition?" If the default game balance answer to that is "make it more expensive" then it hasn't been balanced. It can make the end-game harder to get to by hurting the rest of the squad, but also makes it more difficult to be beaten if/when you get there.
  15. I agree that you're right, given the faction operations that I overlooked. I'll also highlight that the specific QD example was not really the point unto itself. There are/will be situations where Ruthless is useful, despite that it sounds bad as written.
  • Create New...