Jump to content

kerbarian

Members
  • Content Count

    251
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About kerbarian

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

664 profile views
  1. kerbarian

    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
  2. You’d get just as many points for a 200-170 victory as a 200-0 victory. What gets penalized is going to time rather than the victory being a close one. I’d like to think that with a system like this top players would prioritize playing faster and finishing games within time because it’s to the benefit of both players. And the pairing luck factor already exists for MoV. The solution is “don’t lose games” and then MoV doesn’t matter, but in practice it matters for a bunch of players and is affected by pairing luck. However, I agree that it’s a big risk changing scoring so that you could win all your games and still not make the cut. That’s kinda the point, though — to make it so that stalling and winning all your games with very little engagement wouldn’t be a winning strategy. I think there’s a good chance the specific points I suggested would cause more problems than they solve (including pairing luck like you mentioned), but I feel like there might be something promising in that general direction. An in-between solution would be 1 TP for destroying at least 100 points but not an extra one for destroying 200.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. @JBFancourt How important has Skilled Bombardier been in your games? I was thinking about a version using Prox Mines with Tua/Hull instead of Dauntless/Shield/Bombardier. I've been enjoying the list with Tua instead of Dauntless, but it does play noticeably differently. Lone Wolf becomes less important as Chiraneau has more actions available to lock (with Tua handling the reinforce) and I also use Jerjerrod less since Chiraneau is more consistently stressed. However, getting several more actions with Chiraneau per game has made a big difference. I could fit Prox Mines in that version and I prefer the idea of guaranteed damage over area deterrence, but I've been skeptical of the ability to actually land them. I'll have to keep an eye out during my games for times when a Prox Mine would have worked successfully, but I'm wondering how many times Skilled Bombardier makes the difference.
  6. With Clusters I'd like to think you can get away without Passive Sensors, since you only need the lock for closer engagements. I've been looking at something like: Inquisitor + SNR + Cluster Missiles Inquisitor + SNR + Cluster Missiles Inquisitor + SNR + Cluster Missiles Soontir + Predator Total: 199
  7. I’ve had fun with Zuvio + Cloaking Device + Proton Bombs. He’s hard to take down at long range while cloaked, and no one wants to get right up in his face with that bomb ready. Between tractor and bombs he can do a lot while staying cloaked, and then decloaking is some great maneuverability when he needs it. The cloaking device failure mode is interesting, too. Usually it’s not too hard to stay near something that you can make a failed decloak into to stay cloaked, but having the cloak fail can actually get you into unexpected positions to drop bombs. You can’t decloak and then bomb in the same system phase, but you can decloak in the planning phase if you roll an eye and then drop a bomb from that new position in the system phase.
  8. I admit I haven't played this list with CD on Whisper, but having tried it with Passive Sensors I'd have a hard time giving it up. It's become my default action for Whisper and is a huge boost to her damage output.
  9. I played a few practice games with Tua and was noticing the same thing. That one rotate arc + reinforce per game is nice but it's probably just once. And a TL can be handy if you're not getting lone wolf. I'd say it's worth the 3-point upgrade from Dauntless to Tua, but it's not purely an upgrade. With Tua you lose the ability to crash into the enemy formation at the start (before RAC is damaged) and still get the reinforce. Again it's probably only once per battle, but I'm not sure whether I'd rather have that initial option to ram vs. a couple extra actions (rotate turret, TL) later in the battle.
  10. I want to make a probe droids + ESC swarm list work, but range control seems pretty tough. The ideal would be to be out of combat on round 2 but with the probe in range to get locks, then engaging at range 3 (or at least 2) on round 3. If the other team wants to joust and can choose to set up after us (another reason I3 might help!), just staying out of combat in round 2 can be tricky, much less making sure round 3 is a long-range engagement. I guess there’s no reason probe droids have to work well in a joust, though. Most lists won’t want to joust an ESC swarm anyway, and if probe droids work well in more circuitous engagements that’s probably enough. What I really want is a Hyena that can carry DBM + probe droids...
  11. I've been thinking about tribots lists but won't have a chance to try it on the table for a little while. I'm not sure between that B/C/D version with 2x Autoblasters or A/C/D with only the titles. I'm leaning towards A/C/D, but if anyone is trying out tribots (or A/B/4-Lom, etc.) I'd love to hear how it's been working out.
  12. My thought with the new points was to add Passive Sensors on Whisper, then drop VTG and replace Dauntless with Tua on RAC. I've played a few games with the list (before points change) and definitely had times when I didn't crash into someone and could have used the extra reinforce from Tua when Dauntless wouldn't trigger. Or when I had to drive over a rock. I don't remember if there were times when I was able to use Dauntless before being damaged, though. I also didn't have any crippling crits in my games, so maybe I'm undervaluing Novice Technician. I also worry about flipping up Direct Hits... but I can see it helping out a lot in some situations.
  13. A/B/4 with Autoblaster and Marksmanship does sound like a lot of fun -- can't wait to find out what the points will be. Even without Autoblaster available, though, changing the original list to IG-88A/IG-88B/4-LOM and adding Mist Hunter + 3x Jamming Beam seems decent. Jamming Beams aren't good but when you get free bonus shots it seems like they could add up, and the Mist Hunter title is pretty nice on its own for the barrel roll. @Jake898 how important have the evades from IG-88C been?
  14. I don't think I'd consider switching Han to Lando, but Zuvio could be fun with the option to drop bombs either direction -- that's a much larger threat area and pretty usable on the initial engagement. He could also decloak to get away from the bombs rather than rely on reverse maneuvers. However, higher I is kind of a disadvantage for Quadjumpers. If I were to switch to Zuvio, the easiest way to afford it seems to be dropping the Rigged Cargo Chute to something like Deadman's Switch, but I'd like to think that extra debris cloud would be pretty valuable.
  15. @KingmanHighborn That list has enough similarities that I’m really curious about your experiences with it. How do you try to engage, what are the good and bad matchups, and which of the upgrades have been the most important?
×
×
  • Create New...