Jump to content

TIE Pilot

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by TIE Pilot

  1. Most forums actually have a 30 day rule. And was it really a meaningful post? Were it new, relevant information then maybe I'd be less annoyed by it, if other threads weren't dug up at near random twice a week then maybe I'd be less annoyed by it. But it's almost like people are actively looking for threads to dig up.
  2. If you believe that search functions and a lack of autodeletion exist to aid you in raising the dead then you're a lost cause on this front. If you insist on dredging up old threads, go ahead. This forum's unusual in that it isn't against the rules. Just don't be surprised when people respond with posts containing the word "necromancy."
  3. Yes, if a thread is dead and gone and nobody's touched it in a month. You don't stick a massive time disjuncture into an old, dead one. This thread was on Page 13. The only time you'd pull the old thread up is if there was some specific reason you needed to pull that specific thread up: one of Sable's articles for example where the main post itself is what's being discussed. This thread is only three pages long and has no content beyond "will there be a starkiller". There is nothing special about this particular thread that warrants jumping in the DeLorean for it. The time you don't make a new thread is when there's an active thread running at the same time (ie: on Page 1) if you're asking a specific question and could find the answer with relative ease by searching for it, or when it's your own thread. You don't go digging up other people's for no reason.
  4. Because I want to know if there are any extenuating circumstances before I go off on a rant about delving into the depths of the forum history and necroing up ancient, forgotten and long resolved threads without good cause. If it was an accident then fair enough, but then I want to know why it's an accident that happens so frequently.
  5. No. However, list setups are easy to discuss and share and flying tactics are not. Therefore, you pretty much only see the former on the forum, only the former gets discussed. Similarly, it's human nature to blame your tools rather than admit your opponent is simply better than you. Together they create the illusion that the game is decided in the metagame.
  6. An activation condition is not a problem. It's depth to the mechanic, not something that needs removal. You just need to cost it and set its effectiveness appropriately to the difficulty of meeting the conditions to fire it.
  7. Tell me how and why you found this thread, and why you posted in it.
  8. I doubt it. It's a cheap (by the look of it) 3 dice missile at Range 2. My guess is that it bypasses agility like a prox mine, but you've got to lock the ship at Range 2 to fire it: the lock's hard to get. By extension I'd guess the Plasma Torpedo is very good against durable targets. I still like the splash missiles.
  9. you take out the death star with range 1 shots they throw the same number of dice as torps Ray shielded though. Or you could fly those phantoms and get better results.
  10. How did you A: Set an LED on fie B: Get that fire in a girl's mouth and then C: which dentist made flammable braces?
  11. Flying a turret is about minimising the fire you take. Funnily enough a high PS Fat turret's an arc dodger, or at least the YT variants are. You know, the funny thing about that is that the Forum Groupthink had put R2-D2 crew in the Fel's Wrath folder before that.
  12. bbbut e-wings (5 ABE and k-wings (20 something ABE) What he said was Galactic Civil War going forward. He was ruling out content from the KoTOR and Rise of the Empire eras (the prequels and before). FFG are going to do 7 stuff, that's confirmed, but we don't know how. Personally, I slightly doubt they'll just shoehorn it into any of their existing games, they'll probably make new ones.
  13. It's a use for Self Destruct at least.
  14. To be fair it is speculation because the alternative is predictions based on evidence. And nobody's got any of that anywhere.
  15. Anything works if you change the game rules.
  16. C-3PO is like Autothrusters, people think he's a god card but his power comes from stacking with vanilla actions. As soon as you start making concessions to equip either their power is lost.
  17. He wasn't even removed from the game and he freaked out? Either he's being seriously misrepresented or he has issues with sportsmanship.
  18. In Epic you'd take two TIE bombers rather than a 44pt Rhymer. Or an HLC Rexler.
  19. Even if ordnance were fine, Rhymer would not be. He doesn't have a 4-5 point pilot ability, yet pays for one.
  20. With EM you don't need to fully load them. Two ordnance upgrades should be all the boom they'll need/are likely to use. Maybe up to 3 in Epic. Doesn't even need to be that much. All the Lambda pilots would be great at just one range increment higher.
  21. It's not worth putting 27 points into Major Rhymer.
  22. It's bad so let's make it worse? What kind of logic is that? Besides, banning Engine Upgrade would achieve nothing because it's not the problem. Take that action away and they'll just spend those 4 points elsewhere and take another action. To some extent I agree, but they are also to able build themselves to be less reliant on actions and EU allows them more movement to escape arc than small ships get.IG 88 is a straight up discount on a small base fighter for those stats, before even including excellent abilities or upgrades. If you're comparing IG-88 to a TIE defender you might want to reconsider that. What all those upgrades do is allow large bases to compete against the vast additional firepower and tactical flexibility of multiple smaller ships. If you nerfed them to the point where the tournament meta balanced out then large ships would be slaughtered in the casual format. The problem is not the ship design, it's the tournament design artificially favouring fewer ships. If a dual TIE defender squad was BBBBZ viable in an untimed game, it would be storming the tournament metagame. We'll have to disagree. Vessery, arguably the best defender (and I like defenders), at base cost is a point cheaper than an IG88 at the same PS. The IG 88 has an extra hull and shield, engine upgrade, and a better dial. It's not even close (that's 11 points of upgrades). Is being on a big base really worth that much of a discount? I could go through the same exercise with other elite fighters. Tournament design does muddy the waters, but I think that turrets and other large bases do well in a casual setting, too, and I see plenty of them not relying on running out the clock to win. Large bases do fine in the untimed game because they're balanced to it. The scoring system with the clock in the tournament game favours shielding your points in as few ships as possible. The base cost of the TIE defender is 30pt. The Aggressor has a large base which severely hampers it's arc dodging shenanigans, trades barrel roll for boost (arguably a downgrade) has a different dial, and isn't by most assessments severely overcosted. A hull point is not worth 3 points in real terms and a shield point is not worth 4 (do that calculation for the Z-95), their value is contexual. The large base makes the Aggressor easier to arc and get into the desired range, and thus those two extra hit points do not constitute seven points over the TIE defender. The Aggressor is good value, certainly. But the Defender isn't (certainly useable but not maximum value for points by any assessment). The generic E-wing is assessed as even more brutally overcosted. By the time you hit the StarViper you're getting too far away to compare ships effectively.
  • Create New...