Jump to content

Xindell

Members
  • Content Count

    369
  • Joined

  • Last visited


Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Xindell got a reaction from Woobyluv in Undefeated and still lost the tournament...   
    I have to say that I find it interesting that the folks advocating the current system seem to have a bit of a hypocritical mindset here, likely without even realizing it.  I don't mean any offense, and I'll explain why I say that.  Posts throughout this, and previous topics of this kind, claim that using a win-loss method first will encourage people to turtle and try to win some sort of cheapy 6-5 every round, and seem to believe that playing a defensive style like that is somehow an unacceptable tactic that shouldn't be encouraged by the tournament system.  However, when it is pointed out that the current system encourages high risk high reward strategies that have to play a go for the throat style of Armada, well, that's an acceptable strategy so the tourny system encouraging that is OK.  No offense guys, but why are you the only ones who get to decide which way of playing Armada is acceptable?  Both of these situations are tactics to be employed, and it is not right for any of us to say that one is any more valid than another.  Now, I agree that if you are completely avoiding contact, then why play.  But playing a defensive style and being happy with losing none of your ships while taking 1 or 2 of the opponent's away is a valid tactic.  However, if you have desires to win a tournament, this is generally not going to cut it.
    I just think folks need to open their mind to the fact that everyone has their own idea of what makes for a fun, or a fair, tournament experience and the current tournament system doesn't cover all of those player's needs.  Would a straight win-loss system?  No, it likely wouldn't either.  The fact is that neither of them are perfect.  If someone could come up with some hybrid of the two, that might be interesting.  Mad Cat mentioned a 40K variant where the value of the 'win' was significantly hampered if the opponents avoided contact.  Something like that may work, or maybe not.  Perhaps tournaments should add some kind of extra value to wins, so that a single 5-6 or 4-7 won't knock you out of the running, but 3 6-5's will have some addition benefit to help overcome a close score, but likely won't be enough to run the tournament alone.  Personally, I am no expert, and I don't even play tournaments, so ultimately this doesn't affect me at all.  I just think it's not fair to disregard (and even belittle a bit) the very real complaints of players who worked hard and pulled off all wins, ending as the only undefeated player in a tournament, and now feel cheated.  We are all part of the same community here, shouldn't all of our concerns be valid?
    I will say, personally, I didn't like the fact that win-loss wasn't the most important thing at first.  Over time, I have come around to the deficiencies in that scoring method, so I get it.  The part that I find the most disappointing right now is that the current system essentially invalidates several of the Objectives out there.  Generally speaking, you have to build to, and use the objectives that can score you the biggest MOV possible.  If you don't, you are hamstringing yourself right from the get go.  Again, as a non tournament player it doesn't really affect me anyway, but I still find it unfortunate.
    Quick side note:  Saying you knew the rules going in, so essentially get over it is unfair and a bit belittling to the player involved.  Knowing the rules or not isn't relevant when it's the only game in town, so to speak.  If there were different tournaments that use different scoring systems, then people could pick and choose the ones they play in.  If this is the only option, then they have every right to feel upset if the rules work against how they like to play.  No one is rage-quiting here, just venting frustrations.
    Anyway, the system is in place for a reason.  Could it be better?  Yes.  Has anyone figured out how to make it better?  If so, speak up!  Let's all just remember that 'your way' or 'my way' isn't the only valid way.
  2. Like
    Xindell got a reaction from Ardaedhel in Undefeated and still lost the tournament...   
    I have to say that I find it interesting that the folks advocating the current system seem to have a bit of a hypocritical mindset here, likely without even realizing it.  I don't mean any offense, and I'll explain why I say that.  Posts throughout this, and previous topics of this kind, claim that using a win-loss method first will encourage people to turtle and try to win some sort of cheapy 6-5 every round, and seem to believe that playing a defensive style like that is somehow an unacceptable tactic that shouldn't be encouraged by the tournament system.  However, when it is pointed out that the current system encourages high risk high reward strategies that have to play a go for the throat style of Armada, well, that's an acceptable strategy so the tourny system encouraging that is OK.  No offense guys, but why are you the only ones who get to decide which way of playing Armada is acceptable?  Both of these situations are tactics to be employed, and it is not right for any of us to say that one is any more valid than another.  Now, I agree that if you are completely avoiding contact, then why play.  But playing a defensive style and being happy with losing none of your ships while taking 1 or 2 of the opponent's away is a valid tactic.  However, if you have desires to win a tournament, this is generally not going to cut it.
    I just think folks need to open their mind to the fact that everyone has their own idea of what makes for a fun, or a fair, tournament experience and the current tournament system doesn't cover all of those player's needs.  Would a straight win-loss system?  No, it likely wouldn't either.  The fact is that neither of them are perfect.  If someone could come up with some hybrid of the two, that might be interesting.  Mad Cat mentioned a 40K variant where the value of the 'win' was significantly hampered if the opponents avoided contact.  Something like that may work, or maybe not.  Perhaps tournaments should add some kind of extra value to wins, so that a single 5-6 or 4-7 won't knock you out of the running, but 3 6-5's will have some addition benefit to help overcome a close score, but likely won't be enough to run the tournament alone.  Personally, I am no expert, and I don't even play tournaments, so ultimately this doesn't affect me at all.  I just think it's not fair to disregard (and even belittle a bit) the very real complaints of players who worked hard and pulled off all wins, ending as the only undefeated player in a tournament, and now feel cheated.  We are all part of the same community here, shouldn't all of our concerns be valid?
    I will say, personally, I didn't like the fact that win-loss wasn't the most important thing at first.  Over time, I have come around to the deficiencies in that scoring method, so I get it.  The part that I find the most disappointing right now is that the current system essentially invalidates several of the Objectives out there.  Generally speaking, you have to build to, and use the objectives that can score you the biggest MOV possible.  If you don't, you are hamstringing yourself right from the get go.  Again, as a non tournament player it doesn't really affect me anyway, but I still find it unfortunate.
    Quick side note:  Saying you knew the rules going in, so essentially get over it is unfair and a bit belittling to the player involved.  Knowing the rules or not isn't relevant when it's the only game in town, so to speak.  If there were different tournaments that use different scoring systems, then people could pick and choose the ones they play in.  If this is the only option, then they have every right to feel upset if the rules work against how they like to play.  No one is rage-quiting here, just venting frustrations.
    Anyway, the system is in place for a reason.  Could it be better?  Yes.  Has anyone figured out how to make it better?  If so, speak up!  Let's all just remember that 'your way' or 'my way' isn't the only valid way.
  3. Like
    Xindell got a reaction from Snipafist in Choosing a flagship   
    Let's not go there again.  I think the initial comment was meant in jest/fun.  Opinions may vary, and lets leave it at that.
  4. Like
    Xindell got a reaction from Felswrath in ROUGE ROUGE ROUGE One Lessons   
    Stealing this!  The Rouge/Rogue typo thing makes me crazy, so much so that I started a thread to vent about it a year or so ago.  
  5. Like
    Xindell reacted to DrakonLord in Insurance...   
    Who gets this reference? Hahaha

  6. Like
    Xindell reacted to CaribbeanNinja in Teaching Armada in a Wave V Environment   
    Yup.  All of this.
    I've mentioned this before..but first time I tried teaching my son how to play (Wave2?) we went all in and he just didn't get it.  He never came back for another game.
    He showed interest again and this time i tried no upgrades except the commander and only generic squads.  We also played 200 points to make it really simple.  He caught on right away and was itching to build his own fleet and play at the 400 point level.
    When I then showed him the Upgrade Cards, he was hooked.  He read them all and began to understand the interactions.  
    Bottom line: Teach the basic mechanics first - Commands, Navigating, firing, etc.  Then get into all of the upgrades and uniques squads.
    Now my son is part of our CC group at our FLGS and has taken over my rebel ships...Rebel scum...
  7. Like
    Xindell got a reaction from Darthain in ROUGE ROUGE ROUGE One Lessons   
    Stealing this!  The Rouge/Rogue typo thing makes me crazy, so much so that I started a thread to vent about it a year or so ago.  
  8. Like
    Xindell reacted to Ardaedhel in ROUGE ROUGE ROUGE One Lessons   
  9. Like
    Xindell got a reaction from Kanawolf in CC My ideas for house rules and tweaks   
    See, I am still of the opinion that after round 1, it is easiest to just use 500 as the limit for purposes of squadrons, so they immediately jump to 167.  We are talking about adding at most 33 points in squadrons to a max squadron list.  I'm sorry, but in the grand scheme of things, I really don't think that even the most extreme case of a list that ends up at 433 total with 167 in squadrons is going to have a significantly large impact to make it worth having to track current points ratios and such.
     
    Round 1 (or when resetting your fleet):  400 fleet max, 134 squadrons max
    Round 2 & on:  500 fleet max (though resources may not yet be there to buy to this level), 167 squadrons max
     
    Easy peasy, and I don't think it will be game breaking.
  10. Like
    Xindell got a reaction from thecactusman17 in Has the neb-b lost its imperial background?   
    I'll bite.  I am with you 100% on the X-Wing novels and the Timothy Zahn stuff.  These were great.  However, for the bad, let me see what I can recall, off the top of my head.
    The Vong.  Interesting idea with the invader from outside the galaxy and all.  Extremely poorly executed.
    Drochs.  I don't even remember the name of the book.  Weird, crab like force things.  Awful story, awful villain, just awful.
    Oh, lets not forget the comic books doing what comic books do and not letting anyone stay dead.  They resurrected the Emperor and Boba Fett, and turned Luke to the Dark Side (kind of invalidating his entire story arc of overcoming what his father failed to overcome and bringing Anakin back to the light).
    The hive mind insects.  Kithik... Kickle... craple.
    New super weapons all the time.  World Devastators.  The Sun Crusher.  Super Star Destroyed with a mini Death Star included.  The hutts built a death star?  Really?  It took the Empire 19 years to build the first one.  The hutts slapped one together in no time.
    Oh yes, and don't get me started on The Ones.
    The stories were poorly thought out, poorly executed, and they felt the need to continually one up the last one.  Bad writing and bad direction (or lack there of) for the franchise.
    Then, every once in a while, a Rogue Squadron would come out.  Or a Thrawn would be created.  Those were great!
  11. Like
    Xindell got a reaction from Forresto in Choosing a flagship   
    Let's not go there again.  I think the initial comment was meant in jest/fun.  Opinions may vary, and lets leave it at that.
  12. Like
    Xindell reacted to Snipafist in The MC80 Red Card Conundrum   
    Honestly, I think keeping an objective that is never chosen because it's too strong is a great problem to be having. I would turn the question around on you: what can you do to change up your blue and yellow objectives to make them even worse for your opponent and so Advanced Gunnery actually gets some more consideration?
    For example, Fire Lanes, in my experience, is a fantastic objective for a HMC80 fleet because your side arcs produce a lot of dice and it's easy to keep side arcs on the Fire Lanes tokens (which can be initially deployed in a tower and thus the resulting triangle is fairly close together). Fire Lanes can produce a truly ludicrous number of points when used well (if you get it every turn, that's 270 points!) and with side arc ships it has always been much more decisive than Contested Outpost.
  13. Like
    Xindell reacted to Forresto in Has the neb-b lost its imperial background?   
    How is it lazy? Its called a design motif and so far the only two star destroyers that look in any way similar are the ISD and VSD, and the VSD is an EU ship. 
  14. Like
    Xindell reacted to Benjan Meruna in Has the neb-b lost its imperial background?   
    Sure do.  Both are grey ovaloids.  Just like the Imperial ships are all grey triangles.  There are differing details, but the same is true of an Arquitens and a Victory, sooo...
  15. Like
    Xindell got a reaction from FatherTurin in Choosing a flagship   
    Let's not go there again.  I think the initial comment was meant in jest/fun.  Opinions may vary, and lets leave it at that.
  16. Like
    Xindell got a reaction from GrandAdmiralCrunch in Has the neb-b lost its imperial background?   
    I'll bite.  I am with you 100% on the X-Wing novels and the Timothy Zahn stuff.  These were great.  However, for the bad, let me see what I can recall, off the top of my head.
    The Vong.  Interesting idea with the invader from outside the galaxy and all.  Extremely poorly executed.
    Drochs.  I don't even remember the name of the book.  Weird, crab like force things.  Awful story, awful villain, just awful.
    Oh, lets not forget the comic books doing what comic books do and not letting anyone stay dead.  They resurrected the Emperor and Boba Fett, and turned Luke to the Dark Side (kind of invalidating his entire story arc of overcoming what his father failed to overcome and bringing Anakin back to the light).
    The hive mind insects.  Kithik... Kickle... craple.
    New super weapons all the time.  World Devastators.  The Sun Crusher.  Super Star Destroyed with a mini Death Star included.  The hutts built a death star?  Really?  It took the Empire 19 years to build the first one.  The hutts slapped one together in no time.
    Oh yes, and don't get me started on The Ones.
    The stories were poorly thought out, poorly executed, and they felt the need to continually one up the last one.  Bad writing and bad direction (or lack there of) for the franchise.
    Then, every once in a while, a Rogue Squadron would come out.  Or a Thrawn would be created.  Those were great!
  17. Like
    Xindell got a reaction from Benjan Meruna in Has the neb-b lost its imperial background?   
    I'll bite.  I am with you 100% on the X-Wing novels and the Timothy Zahn stuff.  These were great.  However, for the bad, let me see what I can recall, off the top of my head.
    The Vong.  Interesting idea with the invader from outside the galaxy and all.  Extremely poorly executed.
    Drochs.  I don't even remember the name of the book.  Weird, crab like force things.  Awful story, awful villain, just awful.
    Oh, lets not forget the comic books doing what comic books do and not letting anyone stay dead.  They resurrected the Emperor and Boba Fett, and turned Luke to the Dark Side (kind of invalidating his entire story arc of overcoming what his father failed to overcome and bringing Anakin back to the light).
    The hive mind insects.  Kithik... Kickle... craple.
    New super weapons all the time.  World Devastators.  The Sun Crusher.  Super Star Destroyed with a mini Death Star included.  The hutts built a death star?  Really?  It took the Empire 19 years to build the first one.  The hutts slapped one together in no time.
    Oh yes, and don't get me started on The Ones.
    The stories were poorly thought out, poorly executed, and they felt the need to continually one up the last one.  Bad writing and bad direction (or lack there of) for the franchise.
    Then, every once in a while, a Rogue Squadron would come out.  Or a Thrawn would be created.  Those were great!
  18. Like
    Xindell reacted to Forgottenlore in Has the neb-b lost its imperial background?   
    The Vong
    Everything that came after them chronologically
    Darksaber
    Super Weapon of the week
    Grand Admiral of the week (after the Thrawn book established the concept and that he was the only surviving one)
    "Ewok" x-wing pilot
    Every character that appears on screen in the movies being given a name and a short story dedicated to them (double when that random backstory says X alien having a drink in the cantina was significant to the GCW)
    Endless Han Solo clones like Dash
    clones of the Emperor
    Luke turning to the dark side temporarily
    The suncrusher (which falls into the "superweapon of the week" category, but is so egregious that it deserves its own mention)
  19. Like
    Xindell reacted to GrandAdmiralCrunch in Has the neb-b lost its imperial background?   
    I love the old Legends EU precisely for the books you mentioned. But even I will admit there was so much Crap. 
    Examples? The courtship of Princess Leia. Han wins a planets in a card game, abducts Leia before she can be married off for political reasons to benefit the new republic. Hijinks ensue. 
    How about the dozens of times Han and Leia's kids were abducted by the imperial villain of the week.
    how about Kevin J Anderson's trilogy that took numerous books to fix. That introduced the worst Admiral in the imperial navy who only got her rank by sleeping with Tarkin, (no, that is literally stated in the novels), or one of the few Mary Sue space ships ever created, the Sun Crusher.
    Im just getting started here...
  20. Like
    Xindell got a reaction from Undeadguy in Choosing a flagship   
    Let's not go there again.  I think the initial comment was meant in jest/fun.  Opinions may vary, and lets leave it at that.
  21. Like
    Xindell reacted to FatherTurin in Choosing a flagship   
    As I get more into playing Imperial, I've come to the conclusion that if I am fielding an interdictor, it's my flagship.  High health, high engineering, low threat profile compared to other imperial ships.  It's pretty perfect.  I'm just torn between using Tua and ECM or Reinforced Blast Doors or using a damage control officer as a middle finger to Nora, APTs, etc.
  22. Like
    Xindell reacted to Drasnighta in Regional Etiquette   
    Its because you're justifying the wrong thing.

    You're paying the $400 for the bragging rights of saying...  "I WENT AND PLAYED AT THE WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS."
     
    The fact that you're playing with toy spaceships making pew pew sounds is a pleasant perk to the situation.
  23. Like
    Xindell reacted to Ardaedhel in Regional Etiquette   
    I think the most important thing is just play in good faith. Most people will be pretty gracious with the rules lawyering, and even moreso if you're upfront about being inexperienced at tourney play and you reciprocate in kind.
    I find that in almost all cases, my tourney games are no different from casual games. I'll often find myself talking through options with opponents, helping then evaluate optimal maneuvers, or whatever. We're all there to push around toy spaceships and make pew pew sounds with other cool guys, after all. You can't take that too seriously.
  24. Like
    Xindell reacted to Maturin in Choosing a flagship   
    Well hold on a sec...
     
    if if you had an ISD, Interdictor, and Gozanti, where would you put the Admiral?  The ISD, where it's survivable yet also the biggest target?  The interdictor, a less obvious target and still fairly survivable?  Or the Gozanti, which can run away but is vulnerable to being taken out quickly?
     
    the answer will depend on how you plan to fly your fleet, and on your local meta.  I don't think it's as straightforward as you make out....
  25. Like
    Xindell reacted to Hockeyzombie in Choosing a flagship   
    I usually go with whatever is the most durable. Interdictors tend to be my flagship when I have them thanks to the high engineering value and the fact that you'd probably rather shoot at the Victorys or Gladiators that are doing all the damage. I can understand the logic behind placing the Admiral in a flotilla and cruising along the back of the map but I'm not really a fan of that for flavor reasons. I'm planning to suggest a house rule against Admirals in flotillas, since thematically it doesn't make much sense. 
×
×
  • Create New...