Jump to content

Frimmel

Members
  • Content Count

    1,968
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Frimmel

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

1,039 profile views
  1. Quick builds do not follow the same upgrade rules as lists built to points. Quick builds frequently have upgrades the ship normally can not equip. Quick builds is more or less its own format with its own squad-building rules. Usually only cards in the ship expansion or the core set are used for a quick-build ship.
  2. You want to take even more information off the ship tokens? I'm still looking at them for ship stats and actions. They've already given you part of what you want here by removing the stats. They can give us a new version of Luke in an X-wing or other unique pilots or even generic pilots without needing a new ship token. They can simply provide a new pilot card with a new ability. Also since they've taken the actions and stats and such off they can tweak those as well. Granted a new Luke in such a case would need to remain at I5 but they can add actions or up his force or whatever without needing a new ship token. There is a need to be careful with how much information is removed from the play area. I still tend to think 2nd Ed. took too much though now with these card packs I see some benefit. Four I3 T-65 X-wings can be any one of four different lists. You'll be constantly checking which one is Biggs. And of course no one would ever try to move the number chits around on their cards to move an ace out of harm's way or into a better position. As noted sub-optimal to save one ship token or two.
  3. You missed the qualified "for me" in my post. You are correct about all those differences but the thing I really miss is the one straight. I like them for being simple really. No s-foils open or closed et al. I tend to think of the one straight as the most important maneuver. I like the way they look and I enjoy flying them despite the flaws you have outlined.
  4. Because the scene is awful and it is better to just not talk about it at all.
  5. It blows up real nice just like in the movie.
  6. That's what I mean by "taking practice." Your practice leading to maximizing the number of modified shots. You can have both but it takes time.
  7. Most lists take some practice.
  8. The only thing for me they really lack over X-wings is the one straight. Totally agree with this. I've had lots of fun with that. Just fly. No interactions to remember or manage. No combos to set up or have to explain. Firing arcs on targets. Also easy to set up and tear down at the game venue. With a 1 straight I might fly that as much as my ARC-170 lists. You don't have five though. I like your list. Might give that a shot myself.
  9. Perhaps they felt that going double digits on a single dial made the thing too difficult to read at a size consistent with the plastic maneuver dial axles. The thing seems to me to not be at all a wonky dial but simple adaptation of components they are already tooled to make.
  10. Frimmel

    Deplete

    I think I prefer the idea that it does something to shields or effects shields in some way. That idea sounds more "deplete" to me as does a hindrance or removal on charges. I'm not much one to make guesses on costs but that sort of effect seems like something that should scale with initiative and be generally "expensive." However, I'm struck by the symbol looking very much like the one under the line of a disarm token. So an effect on weapons or attack until some condition is met to remove the token (per typical of square tokens) seems most likely. Since it isn't crossed out like a disarm a reduction or "strain for weapons" is the most logical idea.
  11. Am I mis-reading? These Mag pulse missiles look like a three die attack to me. I agree with all who are saying these had better be expensive and scale with initiative. Mods are life in this game. Losing both mods and attack die is very harsh. And a critical damage as well. And they will be more harsh on ships who are trading the agility to make these miss for the attack values these are going to take away.
  12. The issue is giving someone a win they didn't have to play for. You're not being fair to the rest of the players. On the one hand you're not necessarily out of of line. You got the wins and more or less "earned" a chance to rest. It is a competition and if you've earned an advantage you should be able to use it. Your advantage though should not be a disadvantage for someone or an unearned advantage for someone. You are not the only one affected by the choice to concede. I'm not sure it is wrong. I'm sure it isn't clearly right. No. That would be wrong. It is clearly an attempt to manipulate the draw in the next round. If you'd conceded at the outset before even seeing the squad I'd put it in the gray area of not wrong nor right like wanting to skip for a rest. Giving away a game you are clearly winning is improper conduct on a number of points. I wouldn't want put in the bind of having to accept a concession in such a circumstance. You put me in the spot of having to start an argument to be allowed to lose. I wouldn't want a, as someone noted, a pity-victory so you could beat me up again in the next round. I'm not going to take that very well aside from any other considerations. Then I'm faced with having to stick around for a bad matchup and possibly still be out of the prizes (and if there are prizes for making the cut they are now prizes I didn't earn) or else be unfair to other players. I've to a degree a responsibility to make you play the round at the least. I've a responsibility to myself to try and win. I tend to think a player has a responsibility to play all of their matches when entering a tourney.
  13. They can give us new versions of pilots we already have without necessarily giving us new ship tokens. They can give Luke a new ability and we'd be able to just use the ship token we already have. There might be some issues with that sort of thing but there is a certain level of "presume players already have a ship token" that is available.
×
×
  • Create New...