Jump to content

Elavion

Members
  • Content Count

    443
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Elavion

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

794 profile views
  1. Yes, yes, it all sounds really nice. That's why I put it on the table, repeatedly, trying to make use of it. It just doesn't work in practise.
  2. It's not underrated;, if anything, it's overrated. I tried really hard to make it work (on Nien) and it did anything once over 10 or so games. My conclusion was that even at 0 points, it would not be worth the slot unless the alternative was leaving it empty. I also gave DD corran a shot or two. FCS+Predator+R2(-D2) is strictly better without even accounting for the points, and the difference in cost is high enough to let you squeeze afterburners in as well.
  3. Because we're accustomed to looking for mods next to our ship, not the opponent's. The fact that the new lock token is microscopic probably doesn't help a whole lot, either.
  4. No, I just use 1.0 style target locks. And to date I played one opponent who used 2.0 style locks and did not forget about having a lock even once throught the game. You can just ask basically any local player that did 1.0 if you can have some first edition lock pairs, the average player has waaaaaaay too much cardboard.
  5. Not only do I use them, I put them on the opponent's ships as well if they don't have their own. I'm a nice guy like that. It's the same deal as with blue locks. Do you need to use them? No. Will being lazy cost you a game at some point? Yes.
  6. Yes, they say that lie in every game with separate faction expansions they have. You don't have to buy out of faction to have every upgrade legal in your faction... so long as you're willing to wait several waves.
  7. DOTA's balance team is probably larger than FFG's entire game design department. X-Wing has 3 part-time designers total (which is an all time high, btw), I highly doubt they bother writing down their rationales for most of the changes.
  8. Sorry to break it to you, but Hyperspace was planned long before 2.0 was even released. And it is pretty similar to the solutions used by games such as MtG. The latest ICV2 sales report was based on data from the end of 1.0, and the "fall from the chart" was almost entirely the result of GW finally giving the boot to the incompetent fool that was driving the company into the dirt. Wasting several hours on patch notes for simple changes that are completely obvious to everyone even moderately aware of the competitive scene is completely pointless (they even gave a few words of explanation to most of the changes in the article, for the less-informed). In case you weren't aware, even the most wildly successful tabletop games bring in hundreds of times less money than the average popular video game.
  9. Obligatory reminder NZ nats was a 37 person tournament (though I too want Dash dead)
  10. You had a council of captains exactly for the purpose of making rulings not arbitrary, you just decided to not use it. Like it or not, your decision to not bring it up led to putting the team that pointed out the lack of s-foils in a bad light (and made a player play a suboptimal list with no fault of his own). Also, going back to your previous post, I belive you completely missed my point. "Missing s-foils" and "swapping one functional upgrade for another" are not the same issue, and I completely agree with not allowing a team to swap the talents- unlike in the case of S-Foils, there is a non-zero chance that it wasn't just a paperwork error. It does, it just tends to steer clear of this dumpster fire we have here.
  11. That's my point. You shouldn't be "protecting the event" from things like that. If anything, the correct course of action would be to have the following rule at future events: "If a list containing ships capable of equipping any of the following upgrades: -Servomotor S-Foils -Pivot Wings -Grappling Struts -Integrated S-Foils (...) is submitted without them, the players are allowed to add them to their list during the event." Pro-player approach over pro-arbitrary rules, people.
  12. No, it shows that they found a mistake in their lists. Nothing more. That sometimes happens when you're, you know, preparing a strategy for an open lists tournament, which is occassionally preceded by looking at your own team's lists. I suppose you're right in that my statement that "I know noone would mind" is wrong but so is yours- we don't know, we haven't asked the people that pointed it out. And neither did @Rinehart. Instead, he publicised a statement that sets them up as petty. Actually, that's exactly the kind of thing that having a "council of captains" should have helped resolve effortlessly. The more I think about it, the more I'm beginning to wonder if he actually decided to not bring that up just to make them feel bad about bringing it up, at the expense of his own teammate. I guess we'll never know the truth. Going by the "truth usually lies in the middle" rule, I would guess they wanted to get some spiteful joy out of pointing it out, but never meant for them to actually play without the S-foils. Would make it a wonderful example of escalation of miscommunication, if you ask me.
  13. This is exactly the problem. The TO's job is to ensure that an event is enjoyable (which usually overlaps with making it run smoothly and by the book) to as many participants as possible, not to enforce rules just for the sake of it. Noone would mind if they added the configs; instead he choose to send a player in with a crippled list. That it worked out alright in the end is irrelevant to the discussion, since it was an unexpected result. P.S. Regarding "understanding higher tier competition", I've been to at least 6 major X-Wing tournaments and made top cuts at 3 of them; I've also been a judge at a major tournament (though for another game). So I belive I have a basic grasp on it. And if there's one thing I've learned over those years, it's that the more laid back the event, the happier the players are, regardless of scale.
  14. So to summarize, you wanted to set precedent for not correcting 100% obvious form-filling mistakes, while simultainously forcing a player to play a partially crippled list (kudos to him for pulling it off anyway, but I highly doubt he was happy about it). Can we please stop forgetting we're pushing plastic toys around to have fun?
×
×
  • Create New...