Jump to content

Makaze

Members
  • Content Count

    806
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Makaze

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

727 profile views
  1. America has become better at space fascism than Germany? Oh how the tables have turned
  2. That sounds like a challenge... Washu best girl
  3. Points are mutable, if Vess really is worse than Rexlar then there's a foreseeable future where he's cheaper. So never is a strong word. Ignoring points though I agree with you. Vess's ability is a win more ability, it gets less good as you lose ships and is blank when he's your last ship, which is very common for a Defender. Rexlar is a much better closer since he's more able to arc dodge and at that stage things are often shieldless and his ability happens all the time
  4. If I can modify the image then add a giant rotary BRRRRRRTTT gun. 4 die bullseye and 1st damage dealt pierces shields
  5. Is that not what everyone was thinking about during all the Padme convos?
  6. Real important question: Is there no Gencon Loopin Chewie tournament this year?
  7. Just you, I mean it was started by SaltMaster5000... the mental sodium chloride has been strong from the get go
  8. Jesus... Rule 1: You cannot do X, if you do X then you will be punished Rule 2: Here is a scoring structure* *That scoring structure among other things doesn't happen to reward you for doing X One of those rules is attempting to legislate away X, the other may as a side effect discourage X but it is not explicitly mentioned, targeted, or will stop it entirely. If you want to be super pedantic and technically classify any rule change that has any effect on something as legislation about it then OK whatever man. Let me amend my statement to say that directly legislating away slow play is a poor idea for a variety of reasons. Fixing it through indirect legislation that discourages players from even wanting to engage in it is a better solution. Though again... slow play not a super huge problem in my mind
  9. How is that contradictory? Trying to create ironclad rules preventing slow play is a fools errand both because it's unlikely to actually work and i'm not convinced it's actually a real problem. But if you did want to fix it, and incidentally also fix too many games going to time which I do think is a real problem, then it should be done by rewarding players for not going to time so that they'll change their own behavior, list compositions, and speed Of course that does assume that going to time is a negative, you may not agree and that's cool too
  10. To be clear I'm not complaining about slow play, like I said above I don't actually think it's as widespread as it feels I'm straight up complaining about games going to time which is more a function of game mechanics and scoring incentives, I enjoy a game that reaches a definitive conclusion which would be actually 3 of the 4 above in my mind. That is obviously my opinion and not a definitive statement, but it's what satisfies me and makes me want to play X-Wing instead of some other activity
  11. I'm not sure that's actually the best solution. Defining those things is difficult, enforcing those definitions is virtually impossible. Your earlier comment on incentivation on the other hand was spot on. The best way to prevent slow play is not the legislate it away, rather it's to make it not worth doing. If winning at time is worth less than a total wipe in terms of making cut (however that looks, lots of people have had lots of suggestions) then people will naturally alter their behavior to set their dials faster, run away less, and in general bring the game to a conclusion
  12. Related at least. In 1.0 there were far fewer games that got to the point where you could look at the board, know that there are only 2 rounds left, and see that you can win by running away. It's not that that couldn't happen in 1.0 but the overall shift in the timings in 2.0 has moved the peak of the distribution curve closer to that situation. Combine that with us for years preaching the gospel of know your win condition and if running away is it then you should do that. Make no mistake it is the correct choice given the ruleset but it does leave game feeling unfinished, at least to me None of these are mutually exclusive, they could all be true and each contributing a little bit to the pile The first one is the key one for me though, the second and third items are just variations on a theme. Running away feels bad because the game doesn't get resolved, early lead lists that win at time feels bad because the game ends before the resolution it was obviously headed for Incidentally I don't actually think people are systemically slow playing, a handful do whether consciously or unconsciously and that sticks in peoples minds. But overall it's really not a super common thing, it just contributes inordinately to the feels bad man since it's so painful to experience and there's realistically little that can be done about it in a consistent manner (and even then only in extreme cases)
  13. Contrary to BoomOwl a significant percentage of them definitely do not feel resolved to me. There are certainly times where there is a clear and inevitable winner but others where a single turn of shooting could easy cause a lead change yet there hasn't been a shot fired in 2 turns since one player correctly identified their win condition. It does not feel good. Doubly so because there's always this niggling feeling that player won not because of superior flying but because of superior time management. Not to say the winner of every time game is slow playing, I've seen people who are up slamming dials down to give their opponents a chance (which highlights their desire for a real win over a timed one even if it diminishes their chances of said win). But the incentive to slow play is there and the core rules shouldn't be encouraging that behavior, especially when it's not just an edge case but something everyone will encounter multiple times in a tourney Having said that, it's all relative and we have to pick our poison. While I don't love the non-resolutions they're still better than the massive list disparities and hyper powered combos that led to more definitive games in 1.0. 2.0 could be better but it's still better than 1.0 1.0 < 2.0 < 2.0 with objectives or altered scoring to encourage conclusion
  14. Vassal X-Wing might be...? Interface issues aside it satisfies the precision aspect and enforces some of the less enforceable aspects of the tabletop version. Whether it's actually a good competitive game, ie. balanced and entertaining, is a bit more subjective at that point I will pretty firmly state my opinion that tabletop X-Wing is not, nor will it ever be, a good competitive game. But that it is definitely a better game than Vassal X-Wing because of the added benefits of social interaction, tactile feedback, and hucking dice (which is why the dice app is a soul sucking abomination that should not be)
×
×
  • Create New...