Jump to content

Gausebeck

Members
  • Content Count

    253
  • Joined

  • Last visited


Reputation Activity

  1. 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?
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. Thanks
    Gausebeck reacted to raithos in POINTS ARE UP   
    YASB updated
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. Thanks
    Gausebeck reacted to wurms in Worlds Survey: How right were we?   
    Seems like Empire is expected to be a large part of the field. Vaders, Soontirs, and Inquisitors, OH MY!
    ANSWER: Dont have all the data, but it looked to me like Empire was most represented followed by republic.
    ----------------------
     

    A lot of faith in the first order. Kylo is good. Will it be Kylo Double Ups?
    ANSWER: No
    -----------------------------
     

    Seems like Sun Fac has made an impression on the majority and he will do something at Worlds.
    ANSWER: No
    ----------------------

    Not a lot of hope for Scum. Their competitive list choices are slim, apparently. Perhaps a hidden gem will emerge?
    ANSWER: YES, Two made top 4!!!
    ----------------------

    Wow, only 6 people who still have Dengaraoo nightmares. Not looking good for Dengar.
    ANSWER: No
    ----------------------

    Hate is real for regen jedi. Not much fun in watching a hit and run match, apparently.
    ----------------------

    Turr Phennir fan club is for realz. Lets get him on stream, round 1! 
    ----------------------
     

    This was near 50/50 split. Just gonna have to wait and see. I think one will sneak into top 16. Rebel beef with a snapshot Wedge or something. Or maybe a snapping ywing with cody and some regen jedi.
    ANSWER: I was right, one snuck into the top16. AND IS THAT JOSTERO!!!?!?!?!?!?!
    Niklas God-Nilsson (1B) 5 1920 0.58 Captain Jostero
    Cartel Marauder
    Torkil Mux + Proton Bombs + Moldy Crow
    Torani Kulda + Snap Shot + R5-P8 ----------------------
     


    Two Ace + Support is the favorite (aka Palp Aces, Vader Hatchetman Jendon, etc.). Trip Aces is a close 2nd. Not a single vote for Alpha Strike even though it made Australia System Open Finals?!?!
    ANSWER: Trip Aces!
  17. Like
    Gausebeck got a reaction from JBFancourt in Hot Rod - The Decimator lives!   
    @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.
  18. Like
    Gausebeck got a reaction from Quarrel in Hot Rod - The Decimator lives!   
    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.
  19. Like
    Gausebeck got a reaction from Icelom in Supernatural Reflexes   
    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
  20. Like
    Gausebeck got a reaction from Cuz05 in Supernatural Reflexes   
    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
  21. Like
    Gausebeck got a reaction from JBFancourt in Hot Rod - The Decimator lives!   
    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.
  22. Like
    Gausebeck got a reaction from Hiemfire in Effective Quadding   
    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.
  23. Thanks
    Gausebeck reacted to punkUser in I tested my dice...   
    Check out the results:
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1alv05cXh0WhNaFPoq3LNzxmv6veurf6utV1kMQAYDQw/edit?usp=sharing

    2019-09-10: Updates in the document and comments here: 
    .
  24. Thanks
    Gausebeck reacted to Hiemfire in N-1 Naboo Starfighter Preview!   
    In order of appearance in the PT with listed size.
    J-type 327 (Episode 1, Huge base due to 76 meter length)

    J-type diplomatic barge (Opening segment of Episode 2, Padme was flying escort in an N-1, this is what was blown up, Huge base due to 90+ meter wingspan, honestly I doubt it'll be added to X-Wing because of this)

    H-Type Nubian Yacht (Episode 2, Padme and Anakin went to Tatooine and Geonosis in it, Large base since just under 48 meters long, allot narrower then it is long)

    J-type star skiff (Episode 3, Padme went to Mustifar in it, Obi stowed away and later used it to transport her to the remote medical facility where she died, barely Large base due to 49m wing span)

  25. Thanks
    Gausebeck got a reaction from nitrobenz in Imperial 5 guys   
    I’ve also flown this a few times and had fun with it, though with Crack Shot on Duchess.  I’m thinking I’ll switch to Crack Shot on Maarek, too, to get one crit through more reliably rather than try for multiple crits.  Maybe I’m just not flying against enough low-def opponents.  Except for Scourge, I don’t go out of my way to line up bullseye, but you have enough ships pointed the same way that something usually lines up.
    I've usually set up with a tight 4-abreast formation plus Howl alone in the back rank if I’m planning to joust.  It means you need to use a mix of maneuvers when turning but this squad has the dials for it, especially with Duchess on the outer flank.
    The initiative and firepower make for a good first engagement, but it gets a bit awkward turning around.  Duchess can swing around quickly with ailerons but the rest will often want to K-turn and they feel pretty vulnerable when they do.  No Leia or other tricks to help...
    Blockers can also be pretty awkward for this list, including in an initial joust.  At I5 almost anyone can block you, and if you’re flying in formation one block can turn into a pile-up.  Lots of TIE fighters without actions start popping very easily.  You can mitigate pile-ups somewhat with activation order, but you really need to think carefully about possible blockers and plan around them.
    The list is also significantly at the mercy of its green dice — you have I5 but lack of Boost and (optional) formation flying make arc dodging hard.  Not my favorite property to have in a list, but I do love flying TIEs, and all I5 plus a good set of pilot abilities make this list in particular fun to fly.
×
×
  • Create New...