Jump to content

Tlfj200

Members
  • Content Count

    2,267
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Tlfj200

  1. You cannot rush through a phase to deprive your opponent of it. If the player says they're thinking about cloaking, then I dont care if you set every dial - you're just PRE-planning.
  2. Link to KraytBet for NOVA Grand Champsionship & Australia SOS
  3. *that actually possesses the ability to actually do it.
  4. I mean, range 1 of a big ship is still a real threat radius, plus it allows self blocks + actions, etc.
  5. i dont think any of the double jedi/regen lists are trying to win by destruction. Ditto for any SNR list. As for the other point that everyone inbetween doesn't know... I agree that there's clearly confusion. I think it'd be ideal (for fun) if everyone's primary reason for list building is having a viable path to complete destruction, and that you simply adapt to failing to be able to do so on the board. Unfortunately, most ace lists (right now) pretty clearly are list building with the intent of simply scoring more points, and running. It's a viable tactic, but I think we all agree it leads to less fun games, in aggregate. I do not know for sure but: large arcs (180, double front/back, and permastop front-locked). Further, Latts pilot + unkar is some dirty, dirty stuff, meaning you can never be denied your action, and you're 100% willing to tractor someone. Kohska specifically synergizes with 4-LOM, and randomly punishes stressing ships. man... just responding here and walking through this made me really come around on it... it seems really solid.
  6. Oh, I see we already answered the question. Time to move on.
  7. You do realize no one cares, right? Players really can concede any time they want, and the only official limiter is the discussion part. Whether it's legal is separate from whether it's ethical. I thought the discussion was on ethics?
  8. no, only direct counters. Everyone knows there are only regen jedi to contend with.
  9. I mean, I'm not (though, separately, there are issues with the "discussion" part). He could literally not say any words but "I concede".
  10. But he always had the choice of not playing it. If his record is already so high he could concede and still make cut, without another incentive, he could easily have decided to take a break to mentally rest for the cut. No one ever has to play a game.
  11. literally no matter what decision he makes, it affects other players, artificially. He could have conceded without even playing the game, and that would be true. Or played it, and won, or played it, and lost. He could fly off the board at any time (without discussing it with his opponent), and that be true.
  12. From an ethics viewpoint? Seems fine. Given the new rules, it's in a weird spot, based on whether you had a "discussion" or not, but loosely, no, the concession itself is fine... the "discussion" though, may cause you problems, and given that a match has actually started and progressed, depending on the Marshal, it may cause issues?
  13. Again, you're focused on a weird interpretation of what people are saying man. I don't really understand why you are, either.
  14. I mean, im not sure it's narrow bias to say if someone is simply not enjoying the game. Like, it doesnt mean the game has to be CHANGED, but it's cool if someone doesn't enjoy the current meta or game, right?
  15. I mean, okay. I'm not sure that the data explicitly tells you "what to do", or if there's "even a problem" - but project away. I definitely just want to play triple aces. I guess you got me.
  16. Incorrect. My personal biases are fine - it's yours that are the problem.
  17. So, i'm not sure that's what most people would actually define it as, but rather the more nebulous 'the game didn't like it was fully resolved' or something, which is far harder to even try and quantify. All we know, right now, is that more games go to time, and that's about it, from a data standpoint.
×
×
  • Create New...