Jump to content

Gausebeck

Members
  • Content Count

    261
  • Joined

  • Last visited


Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Gausebeck got a reaction from Kanawolf in New points are up in the official app   
    Oh... I just thought of a big problem with Automated Targeting Protocols.  Say you have a swarm of FO all with ATP and all at the same initiative.  If your first couple attacks destroy a ship, it's still a valid target because it's not removed until the next initiative.  Does that mean the remaining ATP ships have to keep attacking the already-destroyed ship rather than attack a non-destroyed ship at longer range?
  2. Like
    Gausebeck got a reaction from CoffeeMinion in New points are up in the official app   
    I'm not a fan of Angled Deflectors on Malarus.  Costs one shield upfront and costs a focus each time you reinforce (which would probably have saved at least one damage), so it doesn't help until reinforce has saved you at least 3 damage in one round or 4+ damage across multiple rounds.  I think I'll be happy with Malarus hanging out in back and lasting long enough that way.
    I'll definitely have to try out Automated Targeting Protocols on everyone.  Passive double mods (ATP + Malarus) while having a swarm bump-fest could be effective.

    I'll also want to try Sensor Buoys (plus Proud Tradition?  Rivas?).  They seem like they could be fairly survivable if you put them inside obstacles, but placement will be tricky and they might end up shaping the battlefield more than they'd actually provide locks.

    Phasma seems limited by the 0-1 range with Malarus wanting to stay in back.  Terex could work but my first impression is that ATP looks like a better source of calculates.  Lots of fun options to try, though!  I'm excited that we get Malarus + 6x FO and some room to play with upgrades.
  3. Thanks
    Gausebeck got a reaction from gamblertuba in New points are up in the official app   
    Oh... I just thought of a big problem with Automated Targeting Protocols.  Say you have a swarm of FO all with ATP and all at the same initiative.  If your first couple attacks destroy a ship, it's still a valid target because it's not removed until the next initiative.  Does that mean the remaining ATP ships have to keep attacking the already-destroyed ship rather than attack a non-destroyed ship at longer range?
  4. Like
    Gausebeck got a reaction from theBitterFig in New points are up in the official app   
    I'm not a fan of Angled Deflectors on Malarus.  Costs one shield upfront and costs a focus each time you reinforce (which would probably have saved at least one damage), so it doesn't help until reinforce has saved you at least 3 damage in one round or 4+ damage across multiple rounds.  I think I'll be happy with Malarus hanging out in back and lasting long enough that way.
    I'll definitely have to try out Automated Targeting Protocols on everyone.  Passive double mods (ATP + Malarus) while having a swarm bump-fest could be effective.

    I'll also want to try Sensor Buoys (plus Proud Tradition?  Rivas?).  They seem like they could be fairly survivable if you put them inside obstacles, but placement will be tricky and they might end up shaping the battlefield more than they'd actually provide locks.

    Phasma seems limited by the 0-1 range with Malarus wanting to stay in back.  Terex could work but my first impression is that ATP looks like a better source of calculates.  Lots of fun options to try, though!  I'm excited that we get Malarus + 6x FO and some room to play with upgrades.
  5. Thanks
    Gausebeck reacted to Sunitsa in What beats a Nantex swarm? (tournament analysis)   
    We just had a "large" live event in Italy, 54 players and 6 Nantex. 2 made the top 16 cut
    Nantex won.
    Overall nantex non mirror winrate was 65%
    https://listfortress.com/tournaments/1877
    What beated Nantex?
    Rey + Zizi Tlo + Finn + Cova Nell (twice, but lost against nantex in the cut) Darth Vader + "Echo" + Grand Inquisitor (once, but lost against Nantex twice. It was the runner up) Nien Nunb + Cova Nell + Finn + Zizi Tlo Zizi Tlo + Tallissan Lintra + Nien Nunb + Jarek Yeager Major Vonreg + Kylo Ren + "Blackout" Rear Admiral Chiraneau + Grand Inquisitor + Fifth Brother Boba Fett + Koshka Frost Dash + Wedge + Jake  
  6. Thanks
    Gausebeck got a reaction from hargleblarg in What beats a Nantex swarm? (tournament analysis)   
    I took a look at the two big Extended tournaments since the points update (Dathomir and Corellia), which were both won by Nantex swarms.  Defining "Nantex swarm" as a list with six Nantex, there were nine of those lists across the two tournaments and every one of them did very well.
    The combined record of those nine lists was 46-8 in Swiss, or 41-3 if you exclude the mirror matches.  In the elimination rounds their combined record was 19-6, or 17-4 excluding mirror matches.
    That leaves a grand total of seven non-mirror-match losses, and the lists that won games against them were:
    Vader (FCS, Afterburners) + Soontir (Crack Shot + Targeting + Shield) + Grand Inquisitor Redline (ProTorps + Prox Mines) + Whisper (Passive + Fifth Bro) + Grand Inquisitor (2x win) Seventh Sister + Fifth Brother (Passive + Homing) + 2x Sigma (2x Crack Shot) (2x win) 6x Trade Fed Drone (3x Discord) + 2x TUB (2x Plasma Torps) Grievous (Title) + 4x Nantex (4x Gravitic Deflection, 3x Crack Shot, 1x Marksmanship) So... mostly my conclusion is they don't lose to much at all.  Those win records are pretty insane.  Of their few losses, a little over half were to ace-y lists that could move after the I4 Nantex either by initiative or bid.  But it's not much of a pattern, and they certainly beat more of those types of lists than they lost to.
    Hopefully we'll see someone figure out a counter by the next big tournament.
  7. Like
    Gausebeck got a reaction from Wolfshead in What beats a Nantex swarm? (tournament analysis)   
    I took a look at the two big Extended tournaments since the points update (Dathomir and Corellia), which were both won by Nantex swarms.  Defining "Nantex swarm" as a list with six Nantex, there were nine of those lists across the two tournaments and every one of them did very well.
    The combined record of those nine lists was 46-8 in Swiss, or 41-3 if you exclude the mirror matches.  In the elimination rounds their combined record was 19-6, or 17-4 excluding mirror matches.
    That leaves a grand total of seven non-mirror-match losses, and the lists that won games against them were:
    Vader (FCS, Afterburners) + Soontir (Crack Shot + Targeting + Shield) + Grand Inquisitor Redline (ProTorps + Prox Mines) + Whisper (Passive + Fifth Bro) + Grand Inquisitor (2x win) Seventh Sister + Fifth Brother (Passive + Homing) + 2x Sigma (2x Crack Shot) (2x win) 6x Trade Fed Drone (3x Discord) + 2x TUB (2x Plasma Torps) Grievous (Title) + 4x Nantex (4x Gravitic Deflection, 3x Crack Shot, 1x Marksmanship) So... mostly my conclusion is they don't lose to much at all.  Those win records are pretty insane.  Of their few losses, a little over half were to ace-y lists that could move after the I4 Nantex either by initiative or bid.  But it's not much of a pattern, and they certainly beat more of those types of lists than they lost to.
    Hopefully we'll see someone figure out a counter by the next big tournament.
  8. Thanks
    Gausebeck got a reaction from 5050Saint in What beats a Nantex swarm? (tournament analysis)   
    I took a look at the two big Extended tournaments since the points update (Dathomir and Corellia), which were both won by Nantex swarms.  Defining "Nantex swarm" as a list with six Nantex, there were nine of those lists across the two tournaments and every one of them did very well.
    The combined record of those nine lists was 46-8 in Swiss, or 41-3 if you exclude the mirror matches.  In the elimination rounds their combined record was 19-6, or 17-4 excluding mirror matches.
    That leaves a grand total of seven non-mirror-match losses, and the lists that won games against them were:
    Vader (FCS, Afterburners) + Soontir (Crack Shot + Targeting + Shield) + Grand Inquisitor Redline (ProTorps + Prox Mines) + Whisper (Passive + Fifth Bro) + Grand Inquisitor (2x win) Seventh Sister + Fifth Brother (Passive + Homing) + 2x Sigma (2x Crack Shot) (2x win) 6x Trade Fed Drone (3x Discord) + 2x TUB (2x Plasma Torps) Grievous (Title) + 4x Nantex (4x Gravitic Deflection, 3x Crack Shot, 1x Marksmanship) So... mostly my conclusion is they don't lose to much at all.  Those win records are pretty insane.  Of their few losses, a little over half were to ace-y lists that could move after the I4 Nantex either by initiative or bid.  But it's not much of a pattern, and they certainly beat more of those types of lists than they lost to.
    Hopefully we'll see someone figure out a counter by the next big tournament.
  9. Like
    Gausebeck got a reaction from Sunitsa in What beats a Nantex swarm? (tournament analysis)   
    I took a look at the two big Extended tournaments since the points update (Dathomir and Corellia), which were both won by Nantex swarms.  Defining "Nantex swarm" as a list with six Nantex, there were nine of those lists across the two tournaments and every one of them did very well.
    The combined record of those nine lists was 46-8 in Swiss, or 41-3 if you exclude the mirror matches.  In the elimination rounds their combined record was 19-6, or 17-4 excluding mirror matches.
    That leaves a grand total of seven non-mirror-match losses, and the lists that won games against them were:
    Vader (FCS, Afterburners) + Soontir (Crack Shot + Targeting + Shield) + Grand Inquisitor Redline (ProTorps + Prox Mines) + Whisper (Passive + Fifth Bro) + Grand Inquisitor (2x win) Seventh Sister + Fifth Brother (Passive + Homing) + 2x Sigma (2x Crack Shot) (2x win) 6x Trade Fed Drone (3x Discord) + 2x TUB (2x Plasma Torps) Grievous (Title) + 4x Nantex (4x Gravitic Deflection, 3x Crack Shot, 1x Marksmanship) So... mostly my conclusion is they don't lose to much at all.  Those win records are pretty insane.  Of their few losses, a little over half were to ace-y lists that could move after the I4 Nantex either by initiative or bid.  But it's not much of a pattern, and they certainly beat more of those types of lists than they lost to.
    Hopefully we'll see someone figure out a counter by the next big tournament.
  10. Like
    Gausebeck got a reaction from S4ul0 in What beats a Nantex swarm? (tournament analysis)   
    I took a look at the two big Extended tournaments since the points update (Dathomir and Corellia), which were both won by Nantex swarms.  Defining "Nantex swarm" as a list with six Nantex, there were nine of those lists across the two tournaments and every one of them did very well.
    The combined record of those nine lists was 46-8 in Swiss, or 41-3 if you exclude the mirror matches.  In the elimination rounds their combined record was 19-6, or 17-4 excluding mirror matches.
    That leaves a grand total of seven non-mirror-match losses, and the lists that won games against them were:
    Vader (FCS, Afterburners) + Soontir (Crack Shot + Targeting + Shield) + Grand Inquisitor Redline (ProTorps + Prox Mines) + Whisper (Passive + Fifth Bro) + Grand Inquisitor (2x win) Seventh Sister + Fifth Brother (Passive + Homing) + 2x Sigma (2x Crack Shot) (2x win) 6x Trade Fed Drone (3x Discord) + 2x TUB (2x Plasma Torps) Grievous (Title) + 4x Nantex (4x Gravitic Deflection, 3x Crack Shot, 1x Marksmanship) So... mostly my conclusion is they don't lose to much at all.  Those win records are pretty insane.  Of their few losses, a little over half were to ace-y lists that could move after the I4 Nantex either by initiative or bid.  But it's not much of a pattern, and they certainly beat more of those types of lists than they lost to.
    Hopefully we'll see someone figure out a counter by the next big tournament.
  11. Like
    Gausebeck got a reaction from JBFancourt in Baron swarm   
    It's not any amazing new idea, but with the new points we can now fit up to seven Barons in a list, and it seems like a strong swarm competitor:
    Baron of the Empire + Intimidation (31)
    Baron of the Empire (28)
    Baron of the Empire (28)
    Baron of the Empire (28)
    Baron of the Empire (28)
    Baron of the Empire (28)
    Baron of the Empire (28)
    Total: 199
    Compared to other similar swarms, TIE/FO pack more bodies with the same basic statline and Scyks have some better attack and control options.  Instead the Barons get I3 and an amazing dial and action bar.  In a joust vs. other swarms the I3 is enough to make up the difference, and against other lists I think the maneuverability and linked actions should mean more time-on-target (with mods) than other swarms.  Plus the inquisitor dial is just a lot of fun to fly.
    The big issue is, of course, lots of small single-modded attacks that have trouble landing on aces.  I can't think of any tech the empire can really bring in to help with that, so I guess the answer is just to get good at blocking?
  12. Like
    Gausebeck got a reaction from heychadwick in TIE/BADA**   
    I've been looking at some similar lists.  Holo + LeHuse + Rivas + Zeta w/Passive is a fun efficiency combo if you can pull it off.
    Holo locks a target during activation, Rivas gets the free lock, LeHuse spends it, Zeta locks another target during engagement and Rivas gets the second free lock to use for himself.
    Obviously not worth all those shenanigans just for Rivas to get a second free lock, but if all those pieces are in the list anyway, it fits with the kinds of things they already want to be doing.
    Holo + Proud Tradition (56)
    LeHuse + SF Gunner (49)
    Zeta Survivor + Passive Sensors + Concussion (41)
    Rivas (27)
    Epsilon Cadet (25)
    Total: 198
  13. Like
    Gausebeck got a reaction from reqent in TIE/BADA**   
    I've been looking at some similar lists.  Holo + LeHuse + Rivas + Zeta w/Passive is a fun efficiency combo if you can pull it off.
    Holo locks a target during activation, Rivas gets the free lock, LeHuse spends it, Zeta locks another target during engagement and Rivas gets the second free lock to use for himself.
    Obviously not worth all those shenanigans just for Rivas to get a second free lock, but if all those pieces are in the list anyway, it fits with the kinds of things they already want to be doing.
    Holo + Proud Tradition (56)
    LeHuse + SF Gunner (49)
    Zeta Survivor + Passive Sensors + Concussion (41)
    Rivas (27)
    Epsilon Cadet (25)
    Total: 198
  14. Thanks
    Gausebeck got a reaction from CoffeeMinion in TIE/BADA**   
    I've been looking at some similar lists.  Holo + LeHuse + Rivas + Zeta w/Passive is a fun efficiency combo if you can pull it off.
    Holo locks a target during activation, Rivas gets the free lock, LeHuse spends it, Zeta locks another target during engagement and Rivas gets the second free lock to use for himself.
    Obviously not worth all those shenanigans just for Rivas to get a second free lock, but if all those pieces are in the list anyway, it fits with the kinds of things they already want to be doing.
    Holo + Proud Tradition (56)
    LeHuse + SF Gunner (49)
    Zeta Survivor + Passive Sensors + Concussion (41)
    Rivas (27)
    Epsilon Cadet (25)
    Total: 198
  15. Thanks
    Gausebeck reacted to raithos in POINTS ARE UP   
    YASB updated
  16. Like
    Gausebeck got a reaction from MajorJuggler in Nest of ‘Vipers at Worlds!   
    If a wargame ever has a situation where the strongest option for both players is to turtle and whoever engages on the opponent’s terms is at a disadvantage, I consider that a flaw in the game.
    It turns things into a game of chicken about who is willing to perpetuate a boring game longer, and then whoever did the most to keep the game boring (by turtling longer) gets rewarded for it with a tactical advantage.
    X-Wing’s tournament rules address this by just saying you can’t do it — they prohibit “intentionally stalling”, but they don’t define it (aside from fortressing).  So we’re left with a situation where there’s a prohibited behavior that can confer an advantage, but it’s poorly defined and can look very much like the careful maneuvering that’s exactly what the game encourages.
    It’s not a great situation, and the only solutions I see are a clear definition or agreement on what the unacceptable behavior is (unlikely at best, if this thread is any indication) or a change to the game so that stalling/turtling can’t provide an advantage.
    It’s not that big a deal in the scheme of things and is generally fine for casual play, but for competitive play I’d really appreciate it if FFG would clean up situations like this.
  17. Like
    Gausebeck got a reaction from Biophysical in Nest of ‘Vipers at Worlds!   
    If a wargame ever has a situation where the strongest option for both players is to turtle and whoever engages on the opponent’s terms is at a disadvantage, I consider that a flaw in the game.
    It turns things into a game of chicken about who is willing to perpetuate a boring game longer, and then whoever did the most to keep the game boring (by turtling longer) gets rewarded for it with a tactical advantage.
    X-Wing’s tournament rules address this by just saying you can’t do it — they prohibit “intentionally stalling”, but they don’t define it (aside from fortressing).  So we’re left with a situation where there’s a prohibited behavior that can confer an advantage, but it’s poorly defined and can look very much like the careful maneuvering that’s exactly what the game encourages.
    It’s not a great situation, and the only solutions I see are a clear definition or agreement on what the unacceptable behavior is (unlikely at best, if this thread is any indication) or a change to the game so that stalling/turtling can’t provide an advantage.
    It’s not that big a deal in the scheme of things and is generally fine for casual play, but for competitive play I’d really appreciate it if FFG would clean up situations like this.
  18. Sad
    Gausebeck got a reaction from gennataos in Nest of ‘Vipers at Worlds!   
    One way to resolve both draws (instead of Final Salvo) and stalling would be to add tournament points for destroying enemy ships.  For example:
    Win - 3 TP
    Draw - 1 TP
    Destroy at least 100 points - 1 TP
    Destroy all 200 points - 1 TP
    So you could end up with TP scores of 1-1 (0-0 draw), 5-0 (200-0 victory), 3-0 (50-0 victory), 4-1 (150-120 victory), or even 3-3 (200-200 draw).
    A draw is worth something, but 4-0-1 (with no points destroyed on the draw) wouldn’t put you ahead of the 4-1-0 pack, so there’s no incentive to intentionally draw.
    Stalling could still hurt your opponent, but it hurts you, too (because a later engagement likely means fewer points destroyed).  Not a perfect solution there...
    Of course, something like that would have other major effects on the game.  Cagey or slow play in general gets penalized.  Aces getting ahead on points and running away becomes less viable.  And it doesn’t solve anything during elimination rounds.
    Definitely some issues with it, but I think it would be interesting to try out.
  19. Like
    Gausebeck got a reaction from RStan in Nest of ‘Vipers at Worlds!   
    If a wargame ever has a situation where the strongest option for both players is to turtle and whoever engages on the opponent’s terms is at a disadvantage, I consider that a flaw in the game.
    It turns things into a game of chicken about who is willing to perpetuate a boring game longer, and then whoever did the most to keep the game boring (by turtling longer) gets rewarded for it with a tactical advantage.
    X-Wing’s tournament rules address this by just saying you can’t do it — they prohibit “intentionally stalling”, but they don’t define it (aside from fortressing).  So we’re left with a situation where there’s a prohibited behavior that can confer an advantage, but it’s poorly defined and can look very much like the careful maneuvering that’s exactly what the game encourages.
    It’s not a great situation, and the only solutions I see are a clear definition or agreement on what the unacceptable behavior is (unlikely at best, if this thread is any indication) or a change to the game so that stalling/turtling can’t provide an advantage.
    It’s not that big a deal in the scheme of things and is generally fine for casual play, but for competitive play I’d really appreciate it if FFG would clean up situations like this.
  20. Like
    Gausebeck got a reaction from Vontoothskie in Nest of ‘Vipers at Worlds!   
    If a wargame ever has a situation where the strongest option for both players is to turtle and whoever engages on the opponent’s terms is at a disadvantage, I consider that a flaw in the game.
    It turns things into a game of chicken about who is willing to perpetuate a boring game longer, and then whoever did the most to keep the game boring (by turtling longer) gets rewarded for it with a tactical advantage.
    X-Wing’s tournament rules address this by just saying you can’t do it — they prohibit “intentionally stalling”, but they don’t define it (aside from fortressing).  So we’re left with a situation where there’s a prohibited behavior that can confer an advantage, but it’s poorly defined and can look very much like the careful maneuvering that’s exactly what the game encourages.
    It’s not a great situation, and the only solutions I see are a clear definition or agreement on what the unacceptable behavior is (unlikely at best, if this thread is any indication) or a change to the game so that stalling/turtling can’t provide an advantage.
    It’s not that big a deal in the scheme of things and is generally fine for casual play, but for competitive play I’d really appreciate it if FFG would clean up situations like this.
  21. Like
    Gausebeck got a reaction from Mattman7306 in Nest of ‘Vipers at Worlds!   
    If a wargame ever has a situation where the strongest option for both players is to turtle and whoever engages on the opponent’s terms is at a disadvantage, I consider that a flaw in the game.
    It turns things into a game of chicken about who is willing to perpetuate a boring game longer, and then whoever did the most to keep the game boring (by turtling longer) gets rewarded for it with a tactical advantage.
    X-Wing’s tournament rules address this by just saying you can’t do it — they prohibit “intentionally stalling”, but they don’t define it (aside from fortressing).  So we’re left with a situation where there’s a prohibited behavior that can confer an advantage, but it’s poorly defined and can look very much like the careful maneuvering that’s exactly what the game encourages.
    It’s not a great situation, and the only solutions I see are a clear definition or agreement on what the unacceptable behavior is (unlikely at best, if this thread is any indication) or a change to the game so that stalling/turtling can’t provide an advantage.
    It’s not that big a deal in the scheme of things and is generally fine for casual play, but for competitive play I’d really appreciate it if FFG would clean up situations like this.
  22. Like
    Gausebeck got a reaction from MegaSilver in Nest of ‘Vipers at Worlds!   
    If a wargame ever has a situation where the strongest option for both players is to turtle and whoever engages on the opponent’s terms is at a disadvantage, I consider that a flaw in the game.
    It turns things into a game of chicken about who is willing to perpetuate a boring game longer, and then whoever did the most to keep the game boring (by turtling longer) gets rewarded for it with a tactical advantage.
    X-Wing’s tournament rules address this by just saying you can’t do it — they prohibit “intentionally stalling”, but they don’t define it (aside from fortressing).  So we’re left with a situation where there’s a prohibited behavior that can confer an advantage, but it’s poorly defined and can look very much like the careful maneuvering that’s exactly what the game encourages.
    It’s not a great situation, and the only solutions I see are a clear definition or agreement on what the unacceptable behavior is (unlikely at best, if this thread is any indication) or a change to the game so that stalling/turtling can’t provide an advantage.
    It’s not that big a deal in the scheme of things and is generally fine for casual play, but for competitive play I’d really appreciate it if FFG would clean up situations like this.
  23. Thanks
    Gausebeck got a reaction from Pewpewpew BOOM in Nest of ‘Vipers at Worlds!   
    If a wargame ever has a situation where the strongest option for both players is to turtle and whoever engages on the opponent’s terms is at a disadvantage, I consider that a flaw in the game.
    It turns things into a game of chicken about who is willing to perpetuate a boring game longer, and then whoever did the most to keep the game boring (by turtling longer) gets rewarded for it with a tactical advantage.
    X-Wing’s tournament rules address this by just saying you can’t do it — they prohibit “intentionally stalling”, but they don’t define it (aside from fortressing).  So we’re left with a situation where there’s a prohibited behavior that can confer an advantage, but it’s poorly defined and can look very much like the careful maneuvering that’s exactly what the game encourages.
    It’s not a great situation, and the only solutions I see are a clear definition or agreement on what the unacceptable behavior is (unlikely at best, if this thread is any indication) or a change to the game so that stalling/turtling can’t provide an advantage.
    It’s not that big a deal in the scheme of things and is generally fine for casual play, but for competitive play I’d really appreciate it if FFG would clean up situations like this.
  24. Like
    Gausebeck got a reaction from Flyingbrick in Nest of ‘Vipers at Worlds!   
    If a wargame ever has a situation where the strongest option for both players is to turtle and whoever engages on the opponent’s terms is at a disadvantage, I consider that a flaw in the game.
    It turns things into a game of chicken about who is willing to perpetuate a boring game longer, and then whoever did the most to keep the game boring (by turtling longer) gets rewarded for it with a tactical advantage.
    X-Wing’s tournament rules address this by just saying you can’t do it — they prohibit “intentionally stalling”, but they don’t define it (aside from fortressing).  So we’re left with a situation where there’s a prohibited behavior that can confer an advantage, but it’s poorly defined and can look very much like the careful maneuvering that’s exactly what the game encourages.
    It’s not a great situation, and the only solutions I see are a clear definition or agreement on what the unacceptable behavior is (unlikely at best, if this thread is any indication) or a change to the game so that stalling/turtling can’t provide an advantage.
    It’s not that big a deal in the scheme of things and is generally fine for casual play, but for competitive play I’d really appreciate it if FFG would clean up situations like this.
  25. Sad
    Gausebeck got a reaction from gennataos in Nest of ‘Vipers at Worlds!   
    If a wargame ever has a situation where the strongest option for both players is to turtle and whoever engages on the opponent’s terms is at a disadvantage, I consider that a flaw in the game.
    It turns things into a game of chicken about who is willing to perpetuate a boring game longer, and then whoever did the most to keep the game boring (by turtling longer) gets rewarded for it with a tactical advantage.
    X-Wing’s tournament rules address this by just saying you can’t do it — they prohibit “intentionally stalling”, but they don’t define it (aside from fortressing).  So we’re left with a situation where there’s a prohibited behavior that can confer an advantage, but it’s poorly defined and can look very much like the careful maneuvering that’s exactly what the game encourages.
    It’s not a great situation, and the only solutions I see are a clear definition or agreement on what the unacceptable behavior is (unlikely at best, if this thread is any indication) or a change to the game so that stalling/turtling can’t provide an advantage.
    It’s not that big a deal in the scheme of things and is generally fine for casual play, but for competitive play I’d really appreciate it if FFG would clean up situations like this.
×
×
  • Create New...