Jump to content

caelenvasius

Members
  • Content Count

    251
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About caelenvasius

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 04/19/1989

Profile Information

  • Location
    SoCal

Recent Profile Visitors

476 profile views
  1. Continuously splitting and joining a wing requires skilled or lucky placement (since a ship has to be 0–1 from its leader to rejoin, and can't be stressed, ionized, or cloaked), thus limiting its blocking abilities, and it gets continuously stressed, limiting its actions and maneuvers even more. If someone wants to play tricky with a wingmate and suffer for it, more power to them. Those tricks come with a cost.
  2. I would have figured Gabe moving cross-country would have put a damper on things as well. I encouraged him to stay on as a host since you guys record via Discord anyways.
  3. [SNIP] Hit quote instead of edit because I'm a dummy.
  4. Perhaps, but there must be a standard that can be set to reduce arbitrary decision-making. The fewer of those, the better and healthier the competitive meta. This was why the "Judge Illuminati" was formed, as Quack_shot has mentioned. And until that standard is set in a way that is definable—even if it can't be perfectly exacting—we can always come up with non-cornercase scenarios which challenge the specific arbitrary responses we've had so far. It was mentioned with Dank Droids, or GA-97, or any other thing we can think of. My gut-check disliking of the current non-official rulings is that it specifically targets one list over another. Why is it ok that droids with struts can wait on rocks for their opponent to come to them but a sideslipping Phantom or Viper can't? It's just as much of a "Gotcha" moment for an unprepared player, and it takes even less skill to set up. If the answer "droids with struts cant wait on rocks" just to satisfy your ruling then you're breaking a core rule of the ship in question. Sure, the question above sounds unreasonable and absurd, but the correlation is valid and should shine a light on why this is a sticky topic. I know, I was the marshal of that event. I had to sit there and watch it, making sure Mr. Raab and Mr. Nordell played swiftly despite their butterflying and not-fotressing respectively. When Nordell got bored and flew the ARC off the tale, you can see me in the background get up and storm away in frustration. You might even be able to hear the yelling in the commentator track. [Edit: Despite the above statement, talk to any player who also watched in-person, and there were a lot of jokes and good vibes being passed around while Mitch and Mike pushed plastic around in little circles. It may have been a bit of a time waster, but it wasn't a bad time all things considered. Just ask Quack_shot, who was a commentator for it.] Any list can do this. This is why it's frustrating to me that only Vipers (and to a far less extent Phantoms) seem to be targeted by folks' ire. Because you're a dirty masochist.
  5. (emphasis mine) RE @Flyingbrick: While the bolded statement above is the right of each and every head judge (though only insofar as they're not breaking an official rule without very good reason), this is why my quote above said "[until] there’s no more room for confusion or personal taste [...]" (also emphasis mine). We currently have a set of rules that explicitly disallows some player activities, while seemingly ignoring others that can be superficially similar. Paul and Dee have every right as the head judges of their events to make a judgement call on where the line in the sand is. While I'll admit that the reluctance to describe exactly where that line is is...disheartening at minimum, I understand the difficulty of the position. It's why I defended Mitch so heavily after my Hyperspace Trial brought Butterflying to the community's attention (or perhaps resurfaced it), and why I spent so long afterwards trying to figure out where my line-in-the-sand was. Ask any of the other Warlock event coordinators how long I spent trying to figure out a solution that solved the problem, was as un-arbitrary as I could manage, and also didn't single out any one player specifically. I'm to this day not even sure I have the best answer possible. Go find any commentary on the June SoCal Hyperspace Trial final and you'll see where the negative comments came from, even if Mitch flew admirably in his World's games. There's a history to this list...
  6. This topic is going to persist until FFG explicitly rules on it in a way that there’s no more room for confusion or personal taste...which means it’ll likely last for a good while yet. Technically it’s been an open topic since at minimum June 2019.
  7. To be fair to the "Butterflying is Bad" community, they're looking more at the clock than the round counter. Some games with 16 ships on the board barely get to round 5 before the clock runs down. play a game with four ships on the table, and round 5 takes less than 10 minutes to get to. One of the hard facts about Butterflying is that—regardless of your feelings on its ethics, viability, or legality—it can take a bit of time to maneuver four ships with wonky barrel rolls with precision. Over the course of the game, this time adds up, and creates the image of the player intentionally stalling. To compound this, it's generally difficult to tell in the first round or two whether a player is exploiting this, or if it's just the way the game is going. Some judges are willing to make the call early. Others aren't.
  8. This is a bit of an old contention. As far as I know, June’s SoCal Hyperspace Trial brought it to the attention of the community at large as we live-streamed the Top 16 matches. @Crimsonwarlock Brought the same list, and played a republic player, and they spent 115 minutes of a 120-minute finals match flying in circles on their board edge. As this isn’t fortressing as the rules define it but made for a feels-bad in the community, it either started or added to a growing movement against “stall-y lists” and “stall-y tactics.” Problem is, to combat those things you have to invent rules that aren’t in the official ruleset. While this is the right of every head judge, it creates even more contention, especially as that answer lies in arbitrary decision-making / gut feels by the head judge, and there be landmines in that direction. For a few months after that HST, folks were scrambling to “solve a problem,” and most answers were just awful. What most of the folks that have enough social clout to make these calls decided was “I call it when I see it,” which is horrendously arbitrary, and as Paul mentioned you can’t really outline a use-case for it. What makes the Viper play even more difficult is it’s all too easy to call banking around an object or a ship as stalling for time because Vipers can be so good at it. No one really ever calls “stalling” on regenning aces, or a Soontir that buggers out to come back in on a better angle.
  9. The interaction was more fun in 1.0 where one could have multiple ways to spend a focus token (Calculate plus normal focus use, for example), but it's still neat. Try focusing with Garven and again with Esege + Perceptive Copilot for three focus tokens on Esege.
  10. So I should have prefaced this earlier, and I'll edit my original post to reflect this, but I don't want it to work. It feels wrong. Dirty somehow. But I don't get to say "I'm going to ignore an interaction that's supported in the rules." I did come across the following: RRG, pg 19, "Tokens": If a ship involved in a transfer is not able to remove or gain the token involved, the transfer cannot take place. I think this is what may prohibit a ship gaining a lock against itself. The rule about acquiring buy itself is not enough. This clause provides that clarification I think.
  11. Scenario: A ship with M9-G8 locks a friendly ship with Amilyn Holdo. Her ability triggers, and she transfers the lock token to the ship with M9-G8, since that ship doesn't currently have a lock token. The ship with M9-G8 now has a lock on itself, triggering the astromech's ability every time the ship attacks, regardless of arc. Am I missing something, or is this legit? The rules prohibit a ship from acquiring a lock on itself, but Holdo's ability gets around that because she's transferring the token... #myheadasplode #1.0predator Relevant Text: Amilyn Holdo: Before you engage, you may choose another friendly ship at range 1-2. You may transfer to that ship 1 token of a type that ship does not have. That ship may transfer 1 token to you of a type you do not have. M9-G8: While a ship you are locking performs an attack, you may choose 1 attack die. If you do, the attacker rerolls that die. "RRG p.13, "Lock": A ship cannot acquire a lock on itself. Thanks to Quack_Shot for blowing my mind on the Warlock Squadron Discord server... Edit: for the record, I want this to not work...but I don't get to choose which rules to ignore if an interaction I don't like is supported.
  12. The only ways I can think of currently in the Republic faction is Plo Koon's pilot ability:
  13. The problem with that change is that it removes the totally valid tactics of playing up against the board edge to prevent flanking opportunities. If you change the rule to "if you have moved beyond range 3" then its easy to have fulfilled the letter of the rule and then still "fortress." Naw, as the Marshal of the event what kinda spawned the recent wave of "Talk About Fortressing," any realistic resolution has to be a **** of a lot more clever than most of the ideas I've seen bandied about.
  14. There is a metric I use for abilities like this: Bear in mind that abilities like R4 Astromech, Damaged Engine, and Nien Nunb (crew) are not triggered abilities, they are always on. Thus, there is no point at which the 1-speed turn maneuver is red, for as long as the R4 Astromech is equipped.
  15. Marshal for that event here. We had three in-store spectators and myself watching as well. The only thing keeping us entertained was the constant stream of hilarious banter everyone by the table was doing, led by the players themselves. Both players played within the legal bounds of the game. Neither was breaking any rule, and they were playing deliberately, with intent, and as quickly as reasonably expected. There's nothing I can do to make them "play differently" without arbitrarily changing rules.
×
×
  • Create New...