Jeff Wilder

Members
  • Content count

    1,480
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

About Jeff Wilder

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 05/23/1968

Profile Information

  • Location
    San Francisco Bay Area

Recent Profile Visitors

897 profile views
  1. Lots of stuff available. I believe it's fully up to date.
  2. Well, as with everything else, the Decloak "fix" was the stupid-but-easy choice, so yeah. No, their five year old pattern of choosing stupid-but-easy every time is what indicates they put no thought or testing into the decision. The fact that it does nearly nothing against Miranda (an actual problem), nothing to permit re-positioning fragile aces to come back (an actual problem), and instead nerfs a list archetype that (AFAIK) hasn't even made the Top 8 at a major tournament (i.e., nerfs a non-problem) is what indicates they put no thought or testing into the decision.
  3. I disagree, obviously. I'm not sure it's the best of these three -- or a myriad of possibilities and combinations -- but it certainly would not kill the action entirely. It would just require the SLAMmer to be a better player. And AdvSLAM bombing being too easy is exactly one of the complaints. ... Really? Who cares? No, it doesn't. The net coverage it removes is pretty huge. So ... what's the goal? Is the goal to completely end AdvSLAM bombing? If that's what people want, that's what they got. But pretty much everybody says "AdvSLAM bombing coverage is too good. It's too easy to bomb." If that's that people think is too good, that's what should be fixed. Maybe. Probably not. It allows counter-maneuvering in a way that current SLAM does not. No, it's not an "easy" fix. It would need a day or two of testing, just for example. That's the whole problem: FFG picks the stupid-but-easy "fix." Every goddam time.
  4. That's because it's now useless on K-wings. "The SLAM maneuver must be the same maneuver you originally executed." Or "The SLAM maneuver must be speed 2." Or "SLAM is performed at the end of the Activation phase." And so on. Limits SLAM, which is probably slightly too good as an action, limits bombing coverage significantly (or allows counter-play), keeps AdvSLAM relevant ... and does all of this while only changing a reference card. The downside of FFG's new "we're willing to errata" policy is that now if the stupid-but-easy fix is errata, that's what they'll do.
  5. How is it possible that no pro-AdvSLAM-nerf person seems capable of recognizing that "nerfing SLAM-bombing" could have been done without nerfing AdvSLAM into uselessness (on the K-wing?
  6. Why is "EI" plural?
  7. Which is what she'll do. So it doesn't hurt Miranda. It hurts other bombing K-wings. But, you know, they've won so very many tournaments. SLAM -- not AdvSLAM, SLAM -- could have easily been changed to lessen the range and coverage of bombing runs without completely obliterating them. But, no, that's actually thinking deeper than 0.1 levels. Not FFG's strong point. It's definitely stupid. The defenses of it are even worse.
  8. It's conditional, but ... there are ways to influence ordnance to miss, which can create circumstances like, "Should I do probably only 1 damage to my target ship, or should I deliberately miss and have a chance to damage each ship at Range 1?" More tactical choices are almost always more interesting.
  9. Yeah. This was a stupid -- but easy -- "fix." Pretty much irresistible cat-nip to FFG.
  10. In my area, the closest is Fresno, which has gotten a Regional three times in a row. (That I know of. Possibly more.) So no "they're changing them up" justification works there. I'm not slamming that store -- I'm happy they kept a Regional -- but it's a long way to go, and my disillusionment with X-Wing rules it out this year. (I almost wrote "the Bay Area crowd is much bigger," but I'm no longer sure that's true.)
  11. Good point on the primary attack. I've edited. BTW, when I mean the X-wing, I'll wring "X-wing" or "T-65." I wrote "X-Wing." That capital W has meaning!
  12. This is funny for me for a couple of reasons. (1) B-wings used to be a good example of power-creep. Now they're among the most-cited examples of "having been power-crept." (2) The PS 4 gunship is 21 points, which is the same as a PS 2 X-Wing Rookie Pilot. Now, the Rookie Pilot is over-costed, I will grant, but take a look at what you gain and lose for 0 points: Lose -- Astromech, K-turn, 4-straight is red, -1 Primary attack. Gain -- +2 PS, EPT, +1 Hull, +1 Shield, Missile, SLAM, Reload. I mean ... if that's not a competitively costed ship, X-Wing is a walking corpse.
  13. This is why we can't have nice things. Linked Batteries gives the effectiveness of Predator (in the current meta, where PS 2 ships are scarce to nonexistent), for 1 point less, in a probably redundant slot. And it's not good enough. Sigh.
  14. That "Capture Officer" mission is so misleading. You look it over, and it looks easy ... but it's not easy. Of the Start missions, that's the one we fail most often. It's the win condition, I think: disable the Lambda? Okay, it's tough, but that's doable. (Stupid #$%^ Sensor Jammer and Flight Instructor ... ) Now what? Oh, just kill every enemy ship on the board before more show up? ... Right.
  15. Yeah, I genuinely don't think it's complete. Probably released prematurely since it was leaked. (If this is complete, then X-Wing is hurting really badly.)