Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About AllWingsStandyingBy

  • Rank
  • Birthday

Recent Profile Visitors

1,343 profile views
  1. AllWingsStandyingBy

    Medium bases

    Here's something no one has really considered or discussed as far as I've seen: Medium Bases are going to be terrible formation fliers. In 1.0, it was pretty easy to fly a large ship in formation with small ships, because the Large Ship could just dial in a straight maneuver that was 1 Speed slower than the small ships, given that it's base was an extra base-width. Medium bases, though, won't even be able to hold a straight line formation with small or large ships.
  2. AllWingsStandyingBy

    Armada is Strong and Growing!

    Sadly, it's the exact opposite trend here in the OH-MI area. There are still a few enthusiastic stalwarts, but general attendance and interest for events has sadly plummeted compared to two years ago. One flagship store which used to have about a dozen players for their monthly Armada Saturday events is now lucky to have two to three people show up, resulting in many of the Saturday events being canceled due to insufficient turnout (which then just further discourages those players from driving all the way back out next month). So, savor and cherish your growing and active local scene. Like all gaming, local communities are always contextual and contingent (which is why the "Friendly Local (Board)Game Store (FLGS)" has never had a National chain (whereas pretty much every other business has been largely supplanted by national chains across the US). Hobby gaming is always so localized that it's not possible to build a universal business model that can be applied to multiple regions, because while one store might have a thriving Warmahordes scene, another may have a forty-two person Blood Bowl League going into their fifth season of play. And there is really no way to predict what the individuals of the local community will jump into and sustain and what they won't.
  3. AllWingsStandyingBy

    What is this game missing?

    OP: Aside from just listing types of ships/squads you want to see, what general types of role-filling options this game is missing? Everyone Else: Here's a list of the ships and squads I'd like to be able to buy. Personally, I think it'd be nice to see things for squads to target (e.g. objectives or something), since so much of Star Wars has focused on having squadrons attack vulnerable targets that are otherwise resilient or inaccessible to ships. I think squads have always been a little too powerful and influential in the game (see: every Worlds list ever with Max Fighters), and one way to possibly address that without flat-out reducing the squad cap down to 100pts would be to create things that were meant to be killed by squadrons. e.g. maybe an objective where there are "comm relays" hidden in the asteroid fields, and one side's squads are trying to attack objective obstacles while another side's squads are trying to protect it. Then, players could decide how many squads to throw against the objective and how many to throw against enemy ships, which would indirectly make ships a little more resilient to squads. As it stands now, every Squad-Based Objective is basically "bonus points for having squads attack ships," which is what they're gonna do anyways.
  4. Actually, FFG's Gencon In-Flight Report portion covering Armada was already leaked briefly through a marketing error, but I took a snapshot before it was taken down:
  5. AllWingsStandyingBy

    MC80 Battle Cruiser

    This is very true. The MC80-Liberty is nowhere on the same level of an ISD. The ISD can maneuver better (especially with Jerjerrod), hit much harder, and tank a lot more shots thanks to defensive refits and heftier hull. In my opinion, and I tend to play exclusively Rebels when possible, the MC80-BC is just too costly for what it does. One problem with the MC80BC is that, ultimately, it's a jousting ship. It needs to get its front arc engaged (which also means it won't synergize at all with Ackbar). Furthermore, there are enough scary ships in the meta that can easily out-joust it: ISDs of any type and the MC75. MC30s and Demolisher can also really put the mortal hurt onto an MC80BC, especially because they can often exploit its weaker side hull zones. Finally, squadron balls can pretty rapidly vaporize an MC80BC (compared to other large ships) given it's asymmetrical shields, mediocre hull value, and limited Redirects. So it's surprisingly frail for a >100pt ship with double-brace. Another issue is that I feel it doesn't hit at its weight class. This could just be me, but I find piles of red dice just don't chew through targets quickly enough (and as such, my own playstyle gravitates towards MC30s and MC75s for their black dice). But red dice are just so fickle, and I find that, even with heavy investment into dice mods (like the add-a-blue-if-slower ion battery and Leading Shots) I am rarely putting out more than 5-8 damage against a target, which can easily be reduced with defense tokens down to a non-threatening amount for most targets. That's just too low of a damage output for a ship that is over a quarter of my list and that has to point towards danger to get it's dice going, especially when it's so relatively frail and can't expect to participate in a lot of rounds of combat. All that said, I am currently flying an MC80BC in my current Raddus Corellian Conflict fleet. I have Raddus on an MC75, and I am dropping the MC80BC into the battle via Raddus in a flanking position, so that it can not be easily brought down by the opponent. It is working relatively well, but honestly with as anemic as the BC's damage output feels at times, I'm really wishing I was just going the dual MC75 route and dropping the second MC75 into the play area, as I feel like it would be as insulated from immediate danger as the MC80BC but would be churning out a lot more damage for a very similar price tag. So, maybe it's just my playstyle, but I haven't seemed to "crack the code" for the Liberty yet. Maybe some other players who have had far more success with it can help me find a better way to harness the ship.
  6. AllWingsStandyingBy

    PSA: no public MathWing / ship evaluation for X-wing 2.0

    Hey look, it's FFG's upcoming In-Flight Report about Armada! To @MajorJuggler: I think pretty much all of us agree with you entirely about not giving away your labor, effort, or ideas freely. Neither FFG nor the Community writ large "deserve" your work to be freely given to them, so to that end I fully support your decision to not make your tools freely available. Before you seriously pursued any Crowd-Funded option though, I'd recommend looking into the legalities of such. The last thing you'd want to do is raise a bunch of funds and then get hit by some Cease & Desist from AsmodeeNA or something. It may constitute "fair use," but I'd consult with an expert beforehand just to make sure you've crossed all the T's and dotted all the I's. If that all pans out, another route might be to create a website or blog with "subscription" options, where subscribers got access to things like regular newsletters and the like.
  7. AllWingsStandyingBy

    PSA: no public MathWing / ship evaluation for X-wing 2.0

    To this point, I whole-heartedly agree with you. There have certainly been past-mistakes with the design and evaluation process, and ample room for improvement. I just don't think MathWing is the silver-bullet solution to these sorts of problems, though it likely could help avoid some of the kinds of imbalance issues we've seen in the past (though so could other inputs upon the design/evaluation process).
  8. AllWingsStandyingBy

    PSA: no public MathWing / ship evaluation for X-wing 2.0

    I will, like @Commander Kaine retire this aspect of the discussion after one important clarification that you seem to be taking as a personal attack, so it's probably worth clarifying: I certainly never said there were "absolutely no legitimate arguments in favor of intelligent design." What I did claim was that, with regards to explanations and the nature of science, creationism is neither falsifiable nor can it be used to make predictions about the natural world (the same flaws I personally see with MathWing as a model/explanation of X-Wing). These features are part of the reason why creationism is not a scientific theory (and these are some of the key reasons why courts have ruled that Intelligent Design creationism is not science and cannot be taught as science in public curriculum, e.g. cases like Kitzmiller vs Dover (2005) and elsewhere). There are some leaps you are making, Boba Rick: (1) Creationism = Intelligent Design. It's worth nothing that back during the Dover trial and elsewhere, most proponents of I.D. maintained the position that it was NOT creationism or a flavor of creationism (because they knew there was no hope for a creationist viewpoint to get recognized as legitimate content in a science class, because creationism is by its very nature non-empirical and non-scientific). Of course, the experts and the courts came to the same conclusions that you have in viewing Intelligent Design as a newer species of creationism, which is why it's been banned from public science curricula, since it is not scientific. (2) Whether nor not something is scientific is not necessarily related to its value, usefulness, or truth. Of course, we may have reasons to think that something that is unscientific is not a great candidate for revealing truths about the empirical natural world, but that is at least a separate question. My claims have all been limited to the point that creationism as a theory/explanation does not possess certain features that we typically find valuable for our analytic models to possess, and this is not a controversial point. Most of creationism's staunchest proponents are they themselves adamant that it is not a scientific viewpoint (it's religious, that's the point) and it's inability to be falsified or to make bold predictions are in fact strengths of the viewpoint, not weaknesses (e.g. the role of faith). Hopefully this helps clear things up a bit.
  9. AllWingsStandyingBy

    PSA: no public MathWing / ship evaluation for X-wing 2.0

    Only as a passing aside as part of a useful analogy to support the point (critique) I was making about MathWing as an explanatory model for X-Wing. I made the observation that MathWing was, like Creationism, neither falsifiable or terribly useful at making bold predictions. For many who have dabbled even at the intro-level in the nature of science or the nature of explanation/modeling, Creationism's weaknesses as an explanatory or predictive model are well known point of reference with regards to the problems of unfalsifiability and predictive power, hence my pulling it as an analogy to help support the point I was making it re: MathWing and its relationship to X-Wing. You're the one who started a separate discussion totally isolated from X-Wing relevance about Creationsim vs Darwinism and the 'religion-ness' of both... 🙄
  10. AllWingsStandyingBy

    PSA: no public MathWing / ship evaluation for X-wing 2.0

    He said, trollishly, after having posted argumentative points not at all about X-Wing. It's six minutes of my hobby-time I was gonna spend on the forums anyways. That's a small price to pay to help those who might be curious about something. Feel free to read it and reflect. Or feel free to stubbornly ignore it and bask in your own safely isolated world-view. Either way, your dismissive attitude is not going to affect my day and I hope you have a great day yourself!
  11. AllWingsStandyingBy

    PSA: no public MathWing / ship evaluation for X-wing 2.0

    Wow. Just wow. Just narrowly taking falsifiability, for instance, there are plenty of ways evolution via Darwinian natural selection could be falsified. For instance, if we found a bunch of primate fossils nestled within the 3.5-4.5 billion year old sediment layers alongside ultra primitive lifeforms like stromatolites, you can bet every evolutionists would be questioning everything about the theory and trying to make sense of those new observations. Because those observations would be completely incompatible with a Darwinian taxonomy of graduated change across time as a result of inheritance, variation, and selection (among other influences, like drift or evo-devo constraints). But it need not even be anything so bold and shocking... Heck, if we found a bunch of six-legged (or seven-legged, or eight-legged) hoofed mammals in the deep jungle, evolutionists would be pretty perplexed and looking hard into that species. But, wouldn't you know, every single documented amphibian, reptile, bird, and mammal has four or less limbs (eg snakes have the vestigial bone structures that used to correlate to ancestral limbs, while whales and dolphins have the vestigial skeletal remnants where their hind legs were slowly lost across the course of their ancestry). And you know why we don't find any six-legged horses or any eight-legged skinks? Because the shared common ancestor of all amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals had... you guessed it, four limbs. So what sorts of stuff would falsify Darwinian evolution? All sorts of stuff. Four billion-year-old human fossils. A species of nine-legged horse found, or **** a hippo giving birth to an ostrich. What sort of observation would falsify the Creationsit view that God created the lifeforms we observe on this planet? What observation would be incompatible with a divine creator? Nothing. Which is (one of several reasons) why it's not a scientific explanation.
  12. AllWingsStandyingBy

    PSA: no public MathWing / ship evaluation for X-wing 2.0

    I mean, no offense but lots of people were able to tell that TLTs, X7s, Crack Shot, Torpedo Scouts, and the like were going to be amazingly influential in the meta-game without needing MathWing's models to tell them such. Can MathWing's models reveal that certain upgrades or ships are more cost-effective than others in certain circumstances? Sure, but so can plenty of other means of analyzing and evaluating those upgrades/ships. That MathWing is sometimes as effective as other means of theory-crafting and evaluating options is hardly a strong argument in defending Juggler's claims about it's privileged insights into the game. It'd have been more impressive if MathWing's approaches revealed unexpected things, things that weren't commonly held by the community or derivable from other means of evaluation. Is Mathwing sufficient for understanding the cost effectiveness of certain options? Sure, sometimes. Is Mathwing necessary for understanding the cost effectiveness of certain options? Nope. So when MJ goes around acting like he's cracked some sacred code, the only code out there for unlocking THE ONE TRUE BALANCE of the game, forgive those of us that just see it as what a freshly unfrozen Han would call "delusions of grandeur."
  13. AllWingsStandyingBy

    PSA: no public MathWing / ship evaluation for X-wing 2.0

    But I mean, he hasn't yet, right? Five years of 1.0, and MathWing's staunchest experts didn't have a terribly impressive competitive pedigree, despite claiming to have unlocked the power-level curve of the games components on a fundamentally objective level. It's not like, for all the bravado of MathWing's crystal ball, did MajorJuggler discover Dengaroo or anything comparable. For all of it's trumpet-blaring, MathWing never even predicted anything like Dengaroo (or the double-droid Fat Han, or that Control-Bots would win Worlds this year, or that... ). MathWing can sometimes use its modeling to explain why a list did well, but usually only after the fact. It can fit reality to fit its explanations, but it usually wasn't great at using its analytic power to make predictions. ****, Creationism can explain everything and anything after the fact (and that doesn't make it a powerful theory, that makes it a problematic theory, in part, because it can't ever be falsified or submitted to rigorous tests)... but real analytic power comes in making bold predictions about the future. It has always seemed like competitive X-Wing is/was far too complex of a game to be reduced down to an abstracted brute jousting value. MathWing is neat, and in some regards it's pretty impressive. But I think its value and utility have been greatly exaggerated.
  14. AllWingsStandyingBy

    Love this game

    This is true for me, and many others I suspect, as well. It's great to have a game like this on the shelf if you have a regular opponent with you who will happily sit down for a casual game of it (bonus points if that opponent lives under the same roof, like a son or brother or spouse). But for those of us who don't have an opponent like that, we're reliant on local players, and many of those local players want to invest their time and money in games they see as thriving and games that have a buzz of excitement around them. So when Armada starts to be perceived as dead, a lot of those players start spending their time and mental energy thinking about other more active games, like LEGION or X-WING 2.0, and in some cases they even look to sell off their Armada collections to support diving into that other game harder. There used to be about 10 semi-active players in my city, and two years ago our OP Seasonal Kit tourneys used to bring in between 12-20 people typically. Our Corellian Conflicts used to fill up the six spots almost immediately, with excess players asking to be 'waitlisted' for the next campaign. In the past six months, I was only able to find three players interested in doing a CC, and the last Seasonal OP kit event had two people show up. Some of my best friends used to be as enthusiastic as Armada about me, but one of them has sold their collection and the two who have kept their ships are spending their time on X-Wing practicing 2.0 now... So, I agree in principle that a game like Armada is very well-balanced, offers a lot of diversity to fleet-building and game play, and could at this point be enjoyable for a long time to come even if it remained unofficially supported. The big issue, though, is that it's the kind of game that is utterly dependent on having an enthusiastic opponent to enjoy it with... and for those of us without a family member or close friend filling that role, the game will just collect dust.
  15. He truly was ahead of his time. And like all True Prophets, he was ridiculed and shunned. We never realized it at the time, but he was the best of us....