Jeff Wilder

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Jeff Wilder

  • Rank
  • Birthday 05/23/1968

Profile Information

  • Location
    San Francisco Bay Area

Recent Profile Visitors

218 profile views
  1. Generally I agree with you. But in this instance? That is just unbelievably bad wording. Like either trolling bad or incompetent bad. Those are the only two possibilities in this case.
  2. US attendance is hurt by the association of some of the events with conventions, which significantly raises costs to attend. Paying $100 for a convention badge you have no need for, plus the entry for for the Open, plus inflated hotel costs, and so on.
  3. Facts =/= bashing.
  4. This. I never reported him for his attacks on me (just not my style), but I would not blame some others if they did. He was (is?) relentlessly negative. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with some negativity in posting -- complaints are often valid! -- but it just never stopped with him, and it often started instantly. "finn is ... Expose levels of ... bad" (and it's hard to express how much it hurts my brain trying to emulate his posting style).
  5. Oh, how would you know?
  6. Two things: (1) That analysis is exactly why I settled on this list. I don't play into the cut (because I won't use a Bye, and I'd rather give the chance to players that will), so I was willing to accept one game at two SDs on the wrong end of the curve. Three was too much. (2) You do realize that as player skill approaches even, games are decided more by luck, not less, right? Simply ask yourself which game you'd rather have bad luck in, in terms of still managing to win the game: a first-round game against a random opponent, or a 5-0 match-up? This goes beyond dice, BTW, to list match-up, and to increasingly frequent games decided by correctly guessing true 50/50 "is he turning right or less," possibly multiple times.
  7. My current build is Wired + AdvS + HLC + InertialD + AutoT + IG-2000. (On B and C, of course.) I've had tremendous success with it on VASSAL and in small local tournaments, but as go your red dice, so goes this list. If you roll significantly above the expected 25% blanks -- at Regionals last weekend, I rolled 45% blanks in three of my five games -- you simply can't push enough damage. (In one game I hit a non-regen ARC-170 with five modified HLC shots ... for 7 total damage.) So then people say, well, you need the FCS. But then if I have FCS, my mobility is constrained, so I get fewer shots and get shot at more often. This is why Brobots' power has fallen off relative to the meta: the best build is still more subject to randomness than the hyper-action-economy lists are. Normally, with good flying, you can afford to wait for the dice, but if you fall into the second standard deviation (or worse) for the entire game, you probably lose. At Regionals I took the risk that wouldn't happen more than once in six games, and I paid for it.
  8. This is one of the reasons Advanced Sensors is the superior build. With the ability to pre-Boost in three directions, your number of possible ending spots goes from three to 12.
  9. RoboFett. I took 2nd (Swiss) with it at Sacramento Regionals a couple of years ago. In recent waves, up to the FAQenning, it wasn't strong enough to be a serious threat, but who knows, now?
  10. The only thing that reliably crushes my Brobots is my dice-rolling. Last weekend at Regionals, I had three games (of five) in which my total hits after mods was 35% or less. With only two attacks, that's just a massive uphill climb. (I won one of those games, but it was a decent match-up for me and I got lucky with a Direct Hit to win, or I'd have lost by 11.) A good Brobots build with a good pilot is fair to strong against everything, and weak to very little. (A strong building using Zuckuss crew could come closest.) But long gone are the days when Brobots were at the top of the power curve.
  11. The current language is better from a sheer readability perspective, but folks are right: "Your attack dice cannot be modified except by spending a focus token for its standard effect" is better language in an exception-based game (which X-Wing is). Given that "cannot" is the only absolute in the game, not using "cannot" opens any rule up to exceptions. We know the intent of the card from reading it, but we are reasonable people, willing to consider intent. Many X-Wing players are not willing to do so; given that, we needed the clunkier "cannot" language.
  12. When I see Ghost/Phantom + AccC + ABT, my immediate thought is, "Wow, I'm glad he nerfed his most powerful weapons."
  13. I think it was more a view of the VCX-100's bulk helping to mitigate the damage. But Reinforced Deflectors are pretty terrible, not because of their use:cost ratio, but because the opportunity cost of losing the Systems slot for Reinforced Deflectors is particularly high. (I personally take issue with the fact that Reinforced Deflectors are of more use against massive weapons than against TIE fighters, but that's just me.)
  14. This is a really good observation. I do think your suggested Systems card is very boring, though (no offense). How about: Overcharged Shielding, Systems, 1 point(?), Small ship only - If you have at least one shield, before suffering damage you may cancel all the attacker's attack dice and suffer one [hit] and one [crit] damage. You are considered to have been hit by the attack. You may equip another Systems card. I like the effect, but I haven't considered any Systems combos that might break it. The "You are considered hit" part is probably not really necessary. There are times when it could make a difference, but they're pretty corner-case-ish.
  15. I'm glad to see you actually tried it. I do have to say that I don't find your presentation at all compelling. Everything I read in your post screamed, "I went into this just looking to confirm my viewpoint, and since Palpatine was weaker, I consider my viewpoint confirmed!" But of course Palpatine is weaker. That's the point of the nerf. That's why I asked how much use you did get from him, as opposed to how many times you felt he failed compared to how he was before. And, again, what you posted was simply the same assertion you were already making. But at least you tried it on the table, so that's something. Who are you talking to? Oh, no, you can definitely overstate it. (And you're quite successfully doing so.) The irony here is that I agree with you: I don't think Palpatine reached the point of broken, and I don't think Palpatine needed to be nerfed. But your viewpoint is this: "If Palpatine didn't absolutely need weakening and they made him weaker, he's now useless." That is invalid, and it's untrue. There is loads of space between "not broken" and "useless." And that's exactly where the nerf falls: it took Palpatine from the very top of the power-curve, teetering on broken, down to a reasonable effect for the cost. By comparison, for somebody who's used to using Palpatine as a crutch, "reasonable effect for the cost" equates to "useless," from what I've seen.