Jump to content

Ghost Dancer

Members
  • Content Count

    902
  • Joined

  • Last visited


Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Ghost Dancer reacted to syrath in Opinions on new Jyn and Pathfinders.   
    Moving back to the OP , Choosing Jyn over Leia is a matter of choice, Leia is cheaper and easier to play with and is certainly more forgiving of mistake plays. Her presence of the board is felt from the first turn when you will usually drop Coordinated bombardment getting a double red , sharpshooter 2 (so you think hiding behind that barrier means anything attack at the end of her activation on 3 units is a great opening activation. Her 2 pip essentially gives better board presence where you can have a number of units advance their positions about 4 inch which can help land surprise attacks from more damaging units like pathfinders and fleet troopers, and finally being able to activate two units back to back can be a great play at any point in the turn.
    Moving onto Jyns cards , Rebellious doesn't have the same initial impact coordinated bombardment doea, but played correctly can help out in many ways. Does Jyn have a box grab on recover the supplies a unit activating nearby can let her gain an extra move to get out of dodge. Is there a nearby unit that looks like it could be a threat drop this activate Jyn , quick thinking for the dodge and aim, shoot said unit +1 suppression , when it activates shoot it again (another situation Hunter is quite nice on her but still hard to say no to duck and cover, so if you do Hunter I'd say take esteemed leader) now that unit has 2 suppression from Jyn alone before rally. If this suppressed them , job done. I've even charged her into Boba fett preventing him launching his rockets at her (suppressive tonfa is good also). 2 pip is interesting , good targets for the teamwork would be Tauntauns , since you can pick up one or two of their dodges when they move. Jyns own quick thinking can be used to get an aim and dodge on a unit that needs to move and shoot (Bistan maybe, joking of course ,but still a good idea) note though that and interesting combo is another unit with nimble makes a hilarious target. 
    Jyn plays "trust goes both ways" on Leia/Sabine/rebel trooper unit activates first and hits quick thinking. Now many players don't pick up their dodge tokens when a nimble unit gets shot, but the correct order of play is you spend your dodge token, and then replace it, so the nimble unit just got a new dodge token, so teamworks it back to the other unit. If the other unit gets shot you spend the dodge and cycle it back to Jyn, making both units quite tanky for that turn. 
    Finally one of the best late game cards in the game (in my opinion, although it's hard to argue against a well played "And now you will die") is Complete the mission. If you find yourself flooded with suppression with units near to running, or you need to guarantee that the unit needs to have both actions I  their activation, drop this card and you can guarantee those 3 units won't run and and won't panic. If this is a last turn play then you don't have to worry about suppression. If it's a pathfinder unit or Jyn you can push the suppression to three or four knowing that you can recover on your turn resetting everything again (HQ uplink works well here) , another good Bistan tactic for resetting his weapon on the turn before he can launch another attack), or just use it to make sure that unit runs into your opponents zone in breakthrough , or lands on an objective , or keeps a hold of a box. I've used that one many a time but I had loaded up suppression on intercept the transmission and had Jyns, Pau and his pathfinders (actually they were all dead just Pau and Jyn remaind) sitting on the objective , each had 4 or more suppression going into turn 6 , complete the mission stopped Pau running off the objective, winning me the game. The suppression also kept both alive from fire including from an AT ST in open terrain (low profile also helped here )
    IMO it's worth persevering if you don't get her immediately, first two games she was out by turn 2 with me, but she hasn't served me bad since, even on the games I've lost (won more than I've lost so I'm not complaining)
  2. Like
    Ghost Dancer reacted to SailorMeni in Surge design space ideas   
    I genuiinely dislike the game mechanic I call "exploding 6es". That's when you need to score 6es (or 8es in Legion) in order to double damage / get extra attacks / trigger special rules. It adds even more luck elements in a game that is already dependent on dice. It doesn't add any strategic value to the game and simply says: Hey, if you rolled lucky already, here, get a bonus!
  3. Like
    Ghost Dancer reacted to syrath in New Rules Reference Up w/ All Points and Erratas   
    You do also realise they called it a point RE-BALANCE. So it would also be fair to say that they looked at the under utilised units and 're-balanced' them for the tournament scene. Why was this necessary, because those same units were at the very least , viewed to be points ineffective (very much so with the Airspeeder which really couldn't be points justified in a competitive list whichever way you looked at it). Between activation spam and the effectiveness of sniper strike teams which brought about a bit of a stagnant meta. While not the only effective list, the proliferation of the build known as "efficiency gunlines" was not good for the game. Even the very name shows it for what it is, sniper strike teams, (and saboteur for those that learned to play them) z6 rebel troopers and DLT stormtrooper units were the most efficient and consistent units in the game, the points re-balance brought many units in line with that efficiency. 
    When the game was released, there was no benchmark, the Efficiency Gunline provided that benchmark to measure everything against. I love playing Jyn Erso and Pathfinders but even I knew point for point they were both not as effective as an equivalent amount of Z6 units. Now armour is going to be more likely to be on the table either via the clone wars factions or cheaper units, which will also bring in anti armour to the game. (Example I'd never consider Bistan in a PF unif, but I am now)
  4. Like
    Ghost Dancer reacted to werdnaegni in A Journey Begins - R2D2 & C-3PO   
    Tabletop Admiral updated. C-3PO was added as an upgrade slot for R2, since really he's not a unit...
  5. Like
    Ghost Dancer reacted to werdnaegni in Return of the Jedi - Luke Preview   
    Tabletop Admiral updated
  6. Like
    Ghost Dancer reacted to Ironbudha in Anyone catch this in the latest RRG?   
    I was just re-reading the RRG and I noticed this on page 3 for the updated RRG.
  7. Like
    Ghost Dancer got a reaction from Tirion in Tabletop Admiral Update Log   
    Ah my bad, I didn't notice as it put the new unit several spaces down so I didn't see it. In that case its fine.
    On a related note, how about listing like units next to each other, e.g. if I split a unit of vets, they are next to each other in the list.
  8. Thanks
    Ghost Dancer reacted to werdnaegni in Tabletop Admiral Update Log   
    Hm, I'll look into it. It's supposed to put half your units on each side, but I must have messed something up somewhere along the line.
    Yeah, that'd be ideal. I tried to do it recently and it screwed up the duplicating of units because of the way that it determines which unit you're duplicating, but nothing I can't overcome if I give it a little more time.
  9. Like
    Ghost Dancer reacted to MasterShake2 in Activation Wars   
    There's a lot of nuance to activations in general.  For example:
    A unit of Tauntauns starts the turn in melee with a unit of stormtroopers they had charged and reduced to 3 models in a previous turn.  The Stormtroopers aim punches and damage one Tauntaun.  The Tauntauns then activate, move out of melee with that unit of Stromtroopers and into melee with another unit of Stormtroopers, kills them down to two models, then uses their second move to engage a third unit of stormtroopers.
    -
    In this situation, the first Stomrtrooper unit's activation got very little value.  The unit of Stormtroopers currently engaged are going to get no value (punching a unit with two dodge tokens is pretty useless, and disengaging basically removes their entire activation just to facilitate another one) and the unit reduced to 2 models also basically has a useless activation.  In this case a 90pt unit of Tauntauns is just manhandling 200pts of Stromtroopers.  The Stormtroopers can't leverage their activation advantage for any value.  Even if the Stormtroopers do eventually defeat the Tauntauns, it will take almost the entire game. 
    -
    Activation control and the relative value of an activation are also factors that are frequently overlooked.  For example, playtesting the double T-47/Triple Tauntaun list, it was observed by both me and my opponents that, even though my opponents were beating me on raw numbers of activations, the fact that I had 5 high value activations vs them having 8 or activations of only middling value with 1-2 high value activations gave me a distinct edge.  The loss of 1 high value activation didn't cripple me, but it did cripple them (either that activation being removed through death, being engaged or even just having bad dice for 1-2 turns).  Meanwhile the low to mid activations were struggling to even come close to high value ones as the high value activations would remove or cripple units and the low value ones would only do minor damage.
    -
    Activations are a very nuanced thing, but internet conversations rarely allow for nuance so it usually just boils down to "MOAR ACTIVATIONS!"
  10. Like
    Ghost Dancer reacted to Tirion in FFG Live Legion -- Points Changes being discussed!   
    called it on the Pathfinders. so in love with the changes
  11. Like
    Ghost Dancer reacted to NukeMaster in FFG Live Legion -- Points Changes being discussed!   
    I understand the need for point adjustments and thought it was a good idea to make it easier to do in X-Wing. What I don't like is the constant nerf/buff cycling you get in MMOs. I think we are getting a bit of that in X-Wing. 
    I'm hoping Legion hits the sweet spot. With printed values on the cards they are still incentivized to do the proper play testing and get the right value during the design. 
  12. Like
    Ghost Dancer got a reaction from Alpha17 in New Rules Reference Up w/ All Points and Erratas   
    Totally agree with this. In fact I'm not sure why people have said they are temporary? To my knowledge there is nothing official that says the changes are temporary.
    They said they would review it annually and change as needed to balance the game.  To interpret that as a temporary change seems crazy to me!
  13. Like
    Ghost Dancer got a reaction from Caimheul1313 in End to the sniper war not an end to sniper Era.   
    One of the problems with strike teams is they were too efficient in terms of cost per activation - this applied to snipers and sabs.
    Snipers were not an issue in a full squad, so increasing the cost of the strike teams is absolutely the right call IMO.
  14. Like
    Ghost Dancer got a reaction from costi in New Rules Reference Up w/ All Points and Erratas   
    Totally agree with this. In fact I'm not sure why people have said they are temporary? To my knowledge there is nothing official that says the changes are temporary.
    They said they would review it annually and change as needed to balance the game.  To interpret that as a temporary change seems crazy to me!
  15. Like
    Ghost Dancer reacted to MasterShake2 in Activation Wars   
    A unit leader that's dead because you took a min unit doesn't score anything.  Also, 2 min rebel units throw 4 black dice each and have very little chance of burning through heavy cover.  A single Rebel Trooper unit with a Z-6 has an easier go even though it's 18 less points.  Having units alive and being able to remove enemy units to contest or control are all big deals and the "ALL THE ACTIVATIONS!" approach could be considered myopic in this regards.  Yes, killing models doesn't directly win you the game, but your opponent can't control an objective if they have nothing left to control it with.
  16. Like
    Ghost Dancer reacted to Caimheul1313 in New Rules Reference Up w/ All Points and Erratas   
    Annual changes =/= current changes go away after a year.
    Annual changes means new changes in a year, which may or may not include changes to things that have already been changed.
    If the ONLY problem was low variety in tournament play, not unbalanced units, then the more effective way of ensure variation is hard caps on numbers of specific units/cards, rather than changing points costs.
  17. Like
    Ghost Dancer got a reaction from Caimheul1313 in New Rules Reference Up w/ All Points and Erratas   
    Totally agree with this. In fact I'm not sure why people have said they are temporary? To my knowledge there is nothing official that says the changes are temporary.
    They said they would review it annually and change as needed to balance the game.  To interpret that as a temporary change seems crazy to me!
  18. Like
    Ghost Dancer got a reaction from DwainDibbly in New Rules Reference Up w/ All Points and Erratas   
    Totally agree with this. In fact I'm not sure why people have said they are temporary? To my knowledge there is nothing official that says the changes are temporary.
    They said they would review it annually and change as needed to balance the game.  To interpret that as a temporary change seems crazy to me!
  19. Like
    Ghost Dancer got a reaction from RyantheFett in New Rules Reference Up w/ All Points and Erratas   
    Totally agree with this. In fact I'm not sure why people have said they are temporary? To my knowledge there is nothing official that says the changes are temporary.
    They said they would review it annually and change as needed to balance the game.  To interpret that as a temporary change seems crazy to me!
  20. Like
    Ghost Dancer got a reaction from lunitic501 in New Rules Reference Up w/ All Points and Erratas   
    Totally agree with this. In fact I'm not sure why people have said they are temporary? To my knowledge there is nothing official that says the changes are temporary.
    They said they would review it annually and change as needed to balance the game.  To interpret that as a temporary change seems crazy to me!
  21. Like
    Ghost Dancer reacted to DwainDibbly in New Rules Reference Up w/ All Points and Erratas   
    I think people are really taking FFGs statement of annual point changes and running totally in the wrong direction with it as far as "temporary" goes.
    The fact points _could_ change again in a years time does not make the current points temporary. Since there is no requirement for FFG to change any of the points at all. They are just setting expectations so that people know IF the current round of point changes doesn't balance all the units sufficiently or IF it causes new problems, then they are prepared to do another batch (hopefully smaller) of point changes.
    They're also saying that their aim is to do that no more than annually to reduce the issues point changes cause for a community.
    What they are not saying is that the current set of point changes are temporary and if no problems are found over the next year, well darn it we're just going to change all the points anyway because this batch was just temporary.
    Semantics aside, hopefully most people understand what FFG mean and what they are trying to achieve.
    You are correct in that they want to see a variety of units been played however the reason for _why_ we don't already see that is because the game is not quite balanced enough for some units and by fixing that balance they will achieve their goal of a wider variety of units.
    If FFG identify that too many players have bought and are playing snipers then there are two possible scenarios at play for fixing that with a point change. In what I'd like to think is the scenario most people on here will attribute to FFG:
    The game is unbalanced, some units are not getting played competitively due to that, you make point tweaks to make those units a little more competitive and if you do a good job, you achieve a wider variety of units being played.
    Here's the other scenario that assumes the game is already balanced as you seem to believe and that the points changes are not here to balance the game but only to change variety. In that case FFG have decided to deliberately unbalance the game in order to favour another set of units. The result will be players now go out and buy a whole new set of units to play in competition as the game is unbalanced and favours those units. That does not improve variety, it just changes which small set of units people are playing and in a years time, the evil FFG will once more have to change points to favour another set of units as the game will be stagnant with the same lists being played. Everyone will have to go out and buy those instead. Why? Because the unbalanced game will strongly favour a small set of units being played and FFG want people to play something else, lets pick a new unit to unbalance and make the go-to selection for competitive play. It'll help with sales too!
    One of those seems rather scummy to me and a great way to kill off a community and a game. The other seems like the kind of thing a company wanting to produce a fair game with a lot of units people can enjoy playing without been at a disadvantage would do. Which do you think it is?
    tl;dr FFG and the community want to see a wide variety of units played casually and competitively. The way you achieve that is by having well balanced units that can compete with each other whilst remaining unique, that is the intention behind their points change. The "annual" comment is just reserving the right to make further tweaks to refine balance or fix mistakes if it's needed (and it's highly likely it will be).
  22. Like
    Ghost Dancer got a reaction from Ralgon in Activation Wars   
    We played a match with  a 7 activation limit a few nights ago. It was so we could play hero lists with the bonus that the game would be a bit shorter (time constraints).
    It was one of the most fun matches I've played and would highly recommend it
  23. Like
    Ghost Dancer reacted to Mep in Activation Wars   
    Activation advantage is huge. No mistake about that. The real problem is high activation lists make the game tediously long and over complicated. The 500pt format makes the game play much better. A hard cap on activations such as 8, 9 or 10 would be great. At 8 max activations units like Vader or the Emperor become more interesting. Spaming sniper unit cheese just isn't necessary but also something you would think twice about since activations themselves are important.
    As the game stands right now, your best strategy is as many activations as possible. It is a chess game and if you can move around pawns while they have to decide to hold back their rooks and queen or put them out there, this gives the high activation list player a huge advantage.
    Yes, something like a pass mechanic would be nice, but doesn't address the long clunking games high list activation make. Yes, there are people who know how to win games with high activations and would hate this idea but never the less, it is poor game design not to have an max number of total units. If you want a bigger game, do a grand army. If you want even a small game, do the 500 pt lists. At 800 pts the activation count can vary so much and activations are so important even a point drop on certain units doesn't solve the problem. A hard unit cap does. No need to change points on anything then.
  24. Like
    Ghost Dancer reacted to R3dReVenge in New Rules Reference Up w/ All Points and Erratas   
    Don't bother with Derrault. It's pretty clear that the developers disagree with him regarding the T-47 aswell. 
    Remember, no matter how much evidence you put in front of an anti-vaxxer, they still won't vaccinate their kids...... 
     
  25. Like
    Ghost Dancer reacted to DwainDibbly in New Rules Reference Up w/ All Points and Erratas   
    Why would casual players want balanced armies? It's not like any casuals really want to field the AT-ST or T47! Those who do clearly want to do so to handicap themselves.
    What bugs me more though is that all the pages have stupid graphical backgrounds which makes printing them costly and makes scrolling through it on a tablet slower than it should be.
    Could someone at FFG please release a printer friendly edition of the rules, especially the points changes and errata sections. Just removing the background would be a start.
     
×
×
  • Create New...