Jump to content

Amraam01

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    365

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Amraam01

  1. Posted · Edited by Amraam01

    It's a mandatory effect missed opportunity does not apply the card does not say you may take a stress.

    You forgot the token but your still stressed regardless so he gets to set your dial.

    If it is not on the board it didnt happen; it is a missed opportunity, you share a bigger burden to enforce what is on your squad,  You cant expect the opponent to always remember what is on your ship.  And it seems most feel this is a correct interpretation of the rules, if it is not feasible to go back (Example- placing a stress at the end of a round because both players forgot vs. adding the stress 1/2 way into revealing dials in the next round.)  

     

    Now I would say this contrasts greatly in another example, I forgot to add a stress after going through debris, 1/2 way into revealing dials it was noticed.   Since I did a red and should have had a stress, my opponent set my dial.  In this case, it was not forgetting what was on the opponents ship, but forgetting a game mechanic.  Ultimately it was my responsibility to ensure I had a stress.  

  2. Posted · Edited by Amraam01

    Let me start with this, when you look at X-Wing there is a list of ships that no longer are played imp wise Fighters, Bombers, Advances, and shuttles. For rebels Y-wings, E-Wings, HWK. (A-wings seems to lose to z-95 when points are added)

    With that as the back drop do you think wave 1 ships will become obsolete or is the game balanced much more then x-wing?

    Maybe I am over thinking things but after seeing the K-Wing and the death note that is to mainly the Y-wing, and ditto with the punisher to Bomber, could we see that in Armada?

    Not sure how you state a list that is no longer played.  Simply, your list is not true, even competitively we are seeing a lot of those ships.  In fact with scum releases, Y wings and Hawks are having a great resurgence if anything.  Ewings, tie fighters shuttles and advanced have always filled the respective roles and are regularly seen as before.  Advanced you will be seeing a how lot more soon.  So the premise is entirely inaccurate.  

  3. Posted · Edited by Amraam01

     

    So Tetran can choose a 5 K turn, change it to a 1 K turn, and then use Stay on target to change the K turn into a  1 bank. Gains one stress.

    No because Tetra does not change the revealed maneuver. So if he revealed a 5 k-turn he can treat the speed differently, but he still revealed a 5 k-turn so SoT can only change it to a 5 straight. SoT and Navigator actually require you to rotate the dial to the new maneuver. Tetra does not and he doesn't even have a 1 k-turn on the dial.

     

    When multiple abilities occur at the same time you can choose the order to best benefit yourself.  So you choose the change the 5k turn to 1k turn, then decide to SOT and change to whatever 1 speed maneuver you want, then gain 1 stress.  The 1 K turn is straight from the card.   

     

    If you say are "treating" your maneuver as a 1K turn, then you can understand how you can then change your dial to another 1 speed turn with SOT.  The 5K speed that is physically on your dial is no longer valid as your speed is now 1K due to the card overriding the game rule.  

  4. Posted

    Yeah, I had to let this one rattle around for awhile in my head to see what was going on. Stay on target is like R2 in that it modifies a maneuver to red, it doesn't generate a red maneuver, which is where my confusion came from.

     

    All Stay on Target does is change the maneuver to red. If it is already a red maneuver it does nothing more... it's already red.

     

    So Tetran can choose a 5 K turn, change it to a 1 K turn, and then use Stay on target to change the K turn into a  1 bank. Gains one stress.

    Yup that seems correct.  

  5. Posted · Edited by Amraam01

     

    It is great that you showed that ordinance can do well especially when after thread after thread says it needs to be fixed.  

     

    I am just as excited as the next guy to see some neat variety in the meta, and a list like this certainly qualifies.

     

    However, the fact that he had to tailor the entire list to pass off enough actions to make the ordnance useful (Airen Cracken's free action combined with Squad Leader) pretty much validates the desire folks have to see ordnance "fixed".  

    I have no desire to take anything away from pilot or list, but people want an adjustment to projectile weapons like concussion missiles and proton torpedoes because they are iconic, appearing in almost every canon (and non-canon) starfighter battle.  Their current design - and cost - makes them incredibly difficult to use effectively, and that's all folks want corrected.

     

    Yeah think about what your asking you are putting more and more power into a 'lucky' or unlucky dice roll.  I rather have the higher cost of ordinance or be overcosted than a meta where everyone is bring the torps and knocking your bests ships out after 2 rounds while your missiles blanked out.  So be careful what you ask for,,,, 

  7. Posted · Edited by Amraam01

    To answer the OP, yes Armada will make it, mostly because Fantasy Flight knows how to run a business.  So dont worry about Armada, it is no Xwing but, correct me if I am wrong, but comparing to Xwing is a tad unfair as nothing has ever grown so fast (miniatures wise).   Truly Xwing is only a few years old and is practically mainstream!

     

     

    They know how to appeal to the right crowds, price things right, and quite simply make fun and accessible games so Armada will be fine.  

  8. Posted

     

     

    While they are two different games, I prefer Armada a million fold over Xwing. Everything about this game is way better IMO.

    I like Armada, but realistically, it is a bit too long.  It will never have the same competitive atmosphere but more of a planned out affair something the shut up and sit down review touched on.
    Can I ask what other war games you play? (other than X-Wing)

    Forgottenlore, how much was 6 TIEs by Wave 1? What about before? At MSRP of course (need a commonality)

     

    Competitively just Xwing.  I have been meaning to play more Armada (which I have everything except the frigate), but when I plan for my once weekly game night on Wednesday,  I weigh getting in 3 games of Xwing or 1 Armada game in I choose Xwing. The idea of playing team Armada (Where you control 1 or 2 ships)  seems really fun though. 

  9. Posted

    I am the pilot of Head Trauma....

    That is so awesome how you did.  

     

    It is great that you showed that ordinance can do well especially when after thread after thread says it needs to be fixed.  

     

    It is even more baller just to take an unexpected and unique list and to perform well, something I try and usually fail at!  But, practice practice practice seems to be a key!

  10. Posted · Edited by Amraam01

    Yeah that "Headtrauma" list is pretty mean--especially in today's meta. I'm honestly surprised I haven't seen anyone else using anything like it. Ever.

    Ouch any 60 point ship is going to have a sad day!  

  11. Posted

    While they are two different games, I prefer Armada a million fold over Xwing. Everything about this game is way better IMO.

    I like Armada, but realistically, it is a bit too long.  It will never have the same competitive atmosphere but more of a planned out affair something the shut up and sit down review touched on.

  13. Posted

    I think when the game becomes 100% unwinnable when there are still ships on the board, then the game is broken. A z95 can still take a range 3 shot on a focused cloaked whisper and deal some damage (something  in the 90% range in being unwinnable ). I can understand a Hwk without a turret against a Baron Fel take a horrible run in terms of gameplay. However, when a tiefighter range 1 have no chance at all of doing damage to a fat falcon -without even needing to know anything other than always choose to evade, and avoid the rocks- then there is a problem. I understand that you have to take down the fat falcon fast, or figure a way to deal with it endgame, but a change needs to happen. 

    Phantoms got nerfed without being near as bad in terms of being "unwinnable"

    the best argument I heard for a need to change fat falcons is  "what happens if at worlds it becomes fat han vs fat han?".

    A lot of assumptions here.  I never saw a list start with a single Tie vs a fat falcon.  Seems you lost the game way before you got to this point.  

  16. Posted

    Anyone who's played X-wing Alliance will know that firing from the turret of a maneuvering ship is a lot harder than firing the guns forward.

     

    The reason's pretty simple - when you're flying the ship you know exactly where you're going, and so instinctively take the ship's movements (your movements) into account when aiming. However with a turret you're basically at the whim of the pilot - if they jink in any way, you don't know they're going to do that, and it'll throw your shot off.

     

    This is actually reflected in the films:

     - Chewie doesn't pull any hefty evasive maneuvers when Luke and Han are in the turrets in Hope - in fact he flies straight and level to give them a stable firing platform while they escape

     - At Yavin Han shoots Vader's wingman with his forward guns - Chewie isn't in the turret

     - In Empire while Han is evading TIES and Star Destroyers like crazy no-one jumps into the turrets to get the fighters off their tail

     - In Jedi, all shots of the Falcon at Endor show it shooting TIEs with it's forward guns

     - It also doesn't shoot the pursuers when making the Death Star run

     

    (Historically planes with turrets also tend to be slower and far less maneuverable than the fighters - think B-17s flying in formation. Noticeably the B-17's weakest aspect was it's front - Luftwaffe pilots preferred to engage them head-on if possible...)

     

    The conclusion? Fighter-style forward guns are much more effective - the turrets are mostly used for defending in a stern-chase!

     

    Perhaps turrets should be penalised for firing out of arc, but only if the turreted ship turns, or turns hard. That way they have three options:

     - Fly like any other fighter and get the enemy in arc

     - Fly straight (or maybe straight/bank) for maximum out-of-arc firepower (stable firing platform) but but making it harder to get out of arc themselves

     - Use their excessive speed and maneuverability to get out of arc, but suffer reduced firepower

     

    Maybe that would add a bit more in the way of out-thinking and out-flying for a turret to do.

     

    Just a thought...

    Exactly, which is why I suggests the range 2 limit outside of arc!  I do like the ignore range 1 bonus idea too.

  17. Posted

     

    Personally, I like the idea the turrets can only fire at range 2 out of arc.

    This is an awful idea. So is removing one attack die outside of arc. You want to cripple turrets to the point of non-contention, and that does nothing to balance the game.

    The people that are suggesting changing the boost action are more in line of what can be done to balance things out. I agree slapping an engine upgrade on a large hull can make it incredibly fast. But a change like the large ship barrel roll is easier said than done because of the bank turns.

    What will be important is to make sure the ships bearing still pivots 45 degrees, besides that I wouldn't have a problem with this change. Large hulls are obnoxiously fast with an engine upgrade. But that's the flight system that was implemented, and until a change happens, you'll have to find ways to counter it.

    Edit: Don't know if this has been suggested before, what about after the bank template placing a straight template, and lining up the front nubs of the ship on that? In other words, the bank boost for large hulls have the template end line up with the front not the back. Using a 1 bank template might be too much to slow down, maybe a 2 template will be a happy medium. Will have to test this when I get home.

     

    Well, it seems to work fine with all of the small base ships....  Especially with Hawks and I do not think those ships are unplayable.    

  20. Posted · Edited by Amraam01

    You guys are all assuming an aweful lot. This entire mechanic requires several new rules to work. Rules that we simply don't know at the moment. Until FFG tells us how this works there really isn't any point in speculating about it (again).

    Very true too much speculation at this point.  Maybe the Pup will get it's own card that is worth less than a Z-95 (6pts)?  Maybe it gets a pirate Z-95 card worth 12?  Suddenly, you might have score-able points on the table.  

  21. Posted

    I agree with you there, Mystic Force. Even something as simple as a higher cost for the C3PO or Ysanne, or add a stress to your ship if these cards are used, stuff like that would make these ships quite a bit different. Our supporting upgrades or ships would be much less, and/or more tough choices would have to be made, which feels more like classic X Wing to me.

    I think your touching on a good point, perhaps 3PO is too cheap!  But that is a totally different argument then what you are making.  Personally, I like the idea the turrets can only fire at range 2 out of arc.    

  22. Posted

     

     

     

    The people who are poisoning the forums by telling every new player that wanders through that turret maneuvers don't matter and that you can't win without one are not good players. They're not good at the game, clearly, and they're terrible for the community.

    Someone had to say it. I've been thinking this for a while now.

    I'm one of those people, and stand by those statements, but I placed second at regionals without a turret. I guess I'm not good at the game guys

     

     

    there's no point to responding to these provocations

     

    the "get gud scrub" response has been around since Counterstrike, and it's always been pointless non-constructive criticism . They're less useful for resolving any issues revolving around the subject or for changing minds/convincing people, and more of a masturbatory exercise.

     

    posts worth reading about such issues are more like Vayn's taking issue with my "your maneuvers don't matter," or the "Strategy Thread: killing turrets" a few posts below.

     

    I think the problem is you simply don't want to fly against a turreted ship since you don't have fun.  Official competitive play is probably not for you.

     

     Solution- Perhaps organize 50-60 point tournaments small base only or play against people who will not fly turrets?

     

    I am not sure what else you can ask for other than making it clear you are not happy with the game but turrets will always be part of the game.     

  23. Posted

    Something about saying shields and hull are the same value and can be lumped together and then compared to other ships with the same hitpoints is ignoring one BIG factor and that is the ship's agility.  I really think partial point systems break down when you look at that simple thing when trying to say that two ships are equally close to death just because they have the same hitpoints.

     

    Is a Y-Wing with no shields and a damage card really in the same boat as an Aggressor that has just had it's shields taken out?  Both start at 8 hitpoints and are currently down to 4 hitpoints but it would generally take a lot more to get those last 4 points off the Aggressor when they are protected by 3 Agility dice and possible Autothrusters and Evade Tokens that it would be the Y-Wing with 1 Agility die and possibly some kind of astromech unit.

    Exactly!  Plus, most people fly differently and take different actions to avoid getting to 0 hull and getting destroyed.  You take this out, where it does not matter much to lose you last hull point vs losing 1/2 your points potentially in a fat build late in a game, the decisions you make will be affected.    

  25. Posted

     

    Well, with such a broad definition, I can understand where the math seems so dire. That definition of Fat seems like it's too encompassing. I'd like to know why you say that 'any 2 ship list = fat'. I don't agree with that myself.

     

    Already explained in the same post.  :)

     

    Snipped:

     

    I define any 2-ship list as automatically fat. By definition, the MoV advantages directly translate to the per-game victory condition if it goes to time, and the Swiss ranking tiebreakers. You don't need to have a regenerating or C-3P0 ship for this to be true. Specifically in regards to the victory condition, going to time still happens occasionally in 75 minute rounds, and even if it doesn't go to time it still gives significant tactical advantages to the fatter list.

     

    On a side note, at our MA Regionals I know of one player that missed making the cut (4-2) because his opponent ran away and won at time with a 1HP fattie when time was called. Said player took several minutes to place his dial, which forced it to be the last round. We could digress on the issue of lack of partial points and slow-play, but the point is that having a Fat Fortress or 2 ship list can frequently end in this scenario. In this scenario the "less fat" list automatically loses if the game goes to time.

     

    In my case, I only went 4-2, but I didn't lose a ship during any of my victories (2HP IG88B for the win!), so my MoV was good enough by 21 points to walk home with Shield tokens. My round 5 loss was to the tournament winner, and was easily the worst luck I have had in 50+ games with BroBots, so overall I don't feel too bad about the day, being my first ever Regional.

     

    2 ship lists are fat, and the scoring system is broken without partial points. That's why so many players are taking 2 ships. It won't change until the scoring system changes, or some cheaper ship becomes so heinously overpowered that it starts to dislodge everything else.

     

    I think one thing that is overlooked and a major variable (With the number of ships) is fatigue; this may help explain why the 2 ship often seem to do better.  Everyone knows you make more mistakes the more tired you get especially in a 5-6 round day plus cut.  The simple fact is more ships require a lot more brain effort to watch bumps, play effects, landing on obstacles etc.  Of course, we can test this objectivity by looking at round 1 pairings (Random pairings) and see if 2 ships do just as well as 4+ ship builds or how well winning is correlated with respect to the round, or perhaps look at a timer to see how long it takes to place your dials given your number of ships and what round you are in.  I predict, your time deciding on moves increases and/or mistakes increase as a factor with the number of ships and which round you are in.  This equals, on average, more damage and in the end losses.   

    failedparachute and KineticOperator reacted to this
×
×
  • Create New...