Jump to content

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

1,287 profile views
  1. Of course it's a rules question, because having "abuse of the rules" be a rule is meaningless if you're not talking about otherwise following the rules. Why do you think "abuse of the rules" is against the rules in the first place? What possible case can you ever see for ever enforcing it (or it even existing, which it does), if you believe that "anything allowed by the rules is, by definition, not abuse"? X-Wing, like nearly all games, relies heavily on players to self-enforce, because no rules-set is 100% comprehensive, and there is nothing wrong with that. A player knows if he or she is abusing a rule, including the "measure for TL" rule. (Most players that do it do it with visible sheepishness or an audible apology, in fact.) In addition, many times it's objectively clear that the player is abusing the rule. Will there be circumstances in which (a) a player doesn't self-enforce, and (b) it's not objectively clear, so a judge won't enforce it? Sure, that will happen. And that's fine. Self-enforcement -- because a player is a decent person -- combined with judge enforcement -- because it's obvious abuse -- is still absolutely better than zero enforcement. When you are "sure," not "pretty sure." The rule for measuring for TLs is perfectly fine for cases in which you're "pretty sure," one way or the other. So, you're absolutely certain a ship is either in-range or out-of-range for a TL. So, what, exactly, is being "confirmed" by the measurement here? You're self-admittedly not checking to see if you can actually acquire a TL ... so what are you doing, exactly? If you'd like to continue to discuss this, please feel free to create a topic, so we can stop the tangent here. I'm definitely interested, because you're the first person I've ever heard say that using the "measuring for a TL" rule specifically solely to get other information is not abusing the rule. (To be clear, you're obviously not the first person I've heard defending abusing the rule. Just the first person I've heard say it's not rules abuse at all.) I find that fascinating.
  2. Just so we're clear, do you or don't you agree that "pretending to measure for a TL while actually measuring for other purposes" is "abusing the rule" for measuring for TL? I'm genuinely curious. Just looking for a straightforward answer. I've run into many, many people who are willing to do it. I've so far not met a single person who doesn't admit it is abuse of the rules. (Which, again, is itself against the rules.) The fact that people know it is abuse of the rules -- yet are still willing to do it, simply because there's no enforcement against it -- is pretty telling.
  3. "Don't abuse the rules" is in the rules. You are not actually checking for a TL; you are, instead, measuring range for other purposes. That is quite literally abuse of the rules for measuring for a TL. There's simply no way around it. There's definitely a certain type of player who has no problem abusing the rules, and is very happy that the prohibition on abuse of the rules isn't ever enforced. But it does exist.
  4. As many people know, I'm strongly against abuse of rules. For example, the "you can measure 'for TL' to a ship across the board" is complete BS. It is clearly abuse of the rules and a crutch. (Ironically, the biggest champions of "it's fine" are the people who say "X-Wing is 90% skill" more than anybody else. Yet they feel the need to abuse rules and measure when they're not supposed to. Go figure.) In this case, though, there's not an issue, because there's just not an alternative. Without a rule saying, e.g., "flush to the left," (or right) then there's no standard to adhere to. There's no abuse of a rule, or against the spirit of a rule, because there's just not a rule on it at all, and no practical way for there to be. 2.0 will change that. I won't be surprised to see 2.0 require (eventually, if not on launch) lining up the hashmarks on token and templates.
  5. Jeff Wilder

    X-Wing+WEG RPG

    It's the same game, but I suspect you misunderstood the rules. Jedi -- especially at the start -- have no particular power advantage over other characters. In fact, many people complained that they were in many ways weaker, because they had more things to spend very finite starting resources on. (For example, all characters had to spend points (dice, or pips, technically) on stats and skills ... but Jedi also had to spend their dice on Control, Sense, and Alter facets of the Force ... and they did not get more dice than anybody else. During game play all characters -- including non-Jedi -- could spend Force points to increase the chances of succeeding at combat and skill checks.
  6. Jeff Wilder

    What Are You Taking to Store Champs?

    To actually respond to the thread, I ran Krennic Vader plus RAClo last weekend at my second Store Champs this season (we shall not speak of the first) and went 5-1 for 2nd, getting trounced in the finals by a very strong Five Guys flown impeccably by one of the very few local players whom I have never beaten (unless my memory is faulty). I'm not sure what I'm taking to the next one. In the running are: Echo / Vermeil / Scimitar Vessery / Glaive / Scarif Base Pilot Scarif Base Pilot x2 / Whisper Some form of 90% bombing list ... something like Nym / Bob / Ahsoka. At some point between now and then, I'll also have a brief panic and try to figure out if there's anything Brobots can do in the era of super-Jam and X-wing swarms. (But the answer to that is, "No. No, there is not.")
  7. Jeff Wilder

    What Are You Taking to Store Champs?

    For a very short time a couple of years ago I ran PS 11 Vader and Epsilon Ace with Decoy Echo, and did pretty well with it. If Decoy's leash were unlimited, or even out to R3, I think it would've been a truly viable list. It was crazy fun. But yeah, you just can't let that many strong pilots out-PS you. As Crit Happens said, using Echo you're already opening the door for having to "waste" PS 0 on Miranda and Inquisitor ... just imagine that going all the way down to Col. Vessery, Vermeil, and Asaaj (ouch, Asaaj!) with stops at Dash and Backdraft and Vermeil. No, I'm afraid VI is still stapled to Phantoms ... basically because the Decloak fix was done poorly.
  8. Jeff Wilder

    X-Wing+WEG RPG

    The Second Edition rules were better -- depending on one's definition -- but they were also significantly more complex. Just for one example, the addition of the Wild Die. My group always preferred First Edition, despite the improvements. Anyway, the D6 system is fantastic. Played WEG D6 Star Wars waaaaaaay back in the day at GenCon, and had a ball. So much so that I'm currently prepping a 30-session Firefly campaign using the D6 system. It's so perfect for it.
  9. Jeff Wilder

    What Are You Taking to Store Champs?

    Yeah, I was thinking Mutispectral Camo and Intel Agent on the Scimitar.
  10. Jeff Wilder

    What Are You Taking to Store Champs?

    I do ... to some extent. I ended up being very good with Echo (after starting out rocking Echo three times at Imdaar Alpha). So that raises an interesting point: your anti-ace tech is the Scimitar, PS0ing anybody at PS 9 or higher, right? (With an assist from Vermeil's Jam action.) Would the same strategy make it viable to take Echo instead, do you think? (I do understand that, post-Decloak-nerf, Whisper is more powerful, but I just have a lot more fun with Echo, generally speaking. It doesn't really need to be "as good" for me to enjoy it, but it does need to be viable.)
  11. Jeff Wilder

    What Are You Taking to Store Champs?

    How does this play that makes it so strong/broken? I'm familiar with all the pieces, but I don't see anything that leaps out as "more broken" than everything that's dominated Metawing for the last year or more. What am I missing?
  12. Jeff Wilder

    Conversion kit: 2 really isn’t 2

    Out of curiosity, why would you assume that the pilot bases wouldn't all be for the same pilot? I mean, they didn't say they wouldn't be, did they? And they've done exactly that (same pilot on both sides of a token) on at least one previous product. Wasn't that an unwarranted assumption to make?
  13. Jeff Wilder

    Conversion kit: 2 really isn’t 2

    FWIW, I'm in the same boat, and would extend it to ship/pilot/upgrade cards. I've never understood why people would want to use the cards exclusively (as opposed to a good printout, or the cards and a good printout in higher-tier events). It's not like a normal person can read them across the table. (Personally, I always bring a printout for me and a printout for my opponent. It's funny how appreciative people are, while I'm just shrugging and wondering why everybody doesn't do that.) That's also a good point about the PS so frequently being wrong. The worst thing is that you could buy a nice little acrylic plug-in to change your ship's displayed PS ... but it uses the slots where an ID token's supposed to go! D'oh!
  14. Jeff Wilder

    Afterburnes is this where the lie comes undone?

    See, you fail at being completely literal (you know, the way a toddler or a dog is). The key is the word "need." I'm sure a couple of apologists will chime in to back me up, but human beings only really have three needs ... food/water, shelter, and clothing. Just remember, Alex is speaking literally. X-Wing doesn't provide food/water, clothing, or shelter; therefore no "existing player" has the "need" to purchase individual ship packs. It's 100% accurate and not at all misleading! If you were more sophisticated (you know, like a toddler or a dog), you'd understand all this!
  15. Jeff Wilder

    Conversion kit: 2 really isn’t 2

    First, because apparently reading exactly what people write only works for some people when it's FFG, I want to be very clear that I'm not saying that they're lying. (I am definitely saying they're being -- and have been -- deliberately misleading.) Second, I ... okay, I'm going to answer, but this is so obvious that I sincerely apologize if it comes off as patronizing. There's just no getting around how simple the answer is. It benefits them "to lie" (to be misleading) because many, many people make their decisions to buy into something -- like 2.0 -- based on the information they have at the time. Once a consumer makes that decision, the possibility of the consumer changing his or her decision is low. This is a well known principle of human psychology, and thus a well known principle of marketing. I'll use myself as an example, though I'm not actually an ideal example for a few reasons (the biggest one being that I have plenty of disposable income). When I read about 2.0 and the CKs, I bought in hard. I evidently did miss one of their literal parenthetical disclaimers, and instead went with what they said and heavily implied in promotional videos and other materials. I led the cheer-leading squad for them; you can find my posts to that effect with very little effort. It was a solid month later that people, including me, started seeing the holes in the front that FFG was putting up. Gradually, I have become more critical of their choices and strategy. But I'm still in for 2.0. As of right now, not even counting pre-orders, I've spent a solid $80 on 2.0 materials, such as new templates and tokens. (And this doesn't even include the first 2.0 release, on which I spent $100+, namely Wave 14.) I am getting more and more annoyed as FFG for their misleading "tone," to use the word someone else used, but I cannot see myself backing out of 2.0. And it has nothing to do with the money; for lack of a better word, I am psychologically invested. That's how it benefits FFG to mislead their 1.0 customers ... even when the things they're misleading us about are coming to light. And it will continue to benefit them -- and the downside will come much slower -- with every "but that's not exactly what they said" apologist that comes along.