Jump to content

Tlfj200

Members
  • Content Count

    2,132
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Tlfj200

  1. He's "only" tankier for a single shot per turn... ... ...tell that to 3 ship lists. Edit: Also, vulture still are pretty irritated at the time "lost" killing a 30 point ship, for example. Basically, Finn still seems like a steal, even with the RR "clarification"
  2. No no - you clearly just didn't want it bad enough. It's totally winnable.
  3. I’m not sure that’s the efficiency he meant, nor tactic he meant. also, a CIS swarm will/should lose against well played jedi. 😞
  4. no! I want the ultimate feelsbad that has ever feltbad.
  5. I agree. The idea isn't that it's carte blanche, it's that it's more about "how do you want to win." But that also has the implicit "how do you want your opponent to win" in it, and if they're being a bully/mean/etc, a lot of things go out the window. Also, as noted, there are some things you can't give back, and some things that are genuinely pretty nebulous (a slipped dial on an a-wing between a 2-bank and a 2-turn, and the a-wing is going after your ships, and both moves are pretty good... how do you actually know which was what they meant?). Stuff like that. All of that said... there's an AWFUL of of stuff that's really clear (hey, you didn't shoot! Oh look, we all forgot your action! Oh, there's no way you meant to turn off the board here when the rest of your ships were going in the other direction!) kind of stuff. But yeah... not a rigid thing.
  6. Oh, I mean that. Like, new factions cant afford to lose chassis, but potentially *can* afford to lose pilots and/or upgrades to make things interesting. Doesn't mean they have to, but they *could*.
  7. I think upgrades would need to rotate as well, for it to have much meaning.
  8. When your opponent does a definitely-not-a-fortress:
  9. What's funny is, I'm far less okay with control turret (hi, ions!).
  10. FWIW, my fear was exactly this - the illusion of increased precision will make people feel ever more secure in making assertions and yelling at people. Yes, but now they think they have higher "accuracy". This is... sadly a pretty apt metaphor.
  11. To some extent, many games devolve to a point where one list can't realistically beat another list - whether both players realize this is another matter. However, what is more on the minds of everyone is really just hyper maneuverable, high-initiative aces with passive mods that can score points, then basically punish any further commitment by the opponent the rest of the game. Some ability to address this is via points: part of the problem is that lists can bring too much of this - meaning you really only get this when you have a critical mass of all of this all this stuff.
  12. no no no, you're mistaken. All of those were earned, sir.
  13. Also... nantexes? (a half real question, because nantices sounds weird to the ear)
  14. It doesn't hurt, but I imagine the 3 5+s over the i4 ensnares was WAY more helpful.
  15. He didn't get his baron's associates to not use his talent.
  16. The secret is everything is an illusion of choice (or a constraint of choices). They already don't allow certain things now, and never will. Like, the example above is generic VCXs are likely overpriced because of the lower bound on prices because FFG does not want them spammed (lEt mE pLaY wHaT i wAnT). Generic strikers are likely overpriced for the same reason (lEt mE pLaY wHaT i wAnT). dots just remove the illusion of choice. Hyperspace removes the illusions of choice. However, focusing on what is "lost" is a weird, because those constraints now change the way we all play the game in potentially really interesting ways. We all acknowledge that hyperspace was actually probably better before they added more ships in. Technically more choice, but now it feels like gimped extended rather than a neat, unique format.
  17. Meant to post this earlier regarding generic Bs vs 65 performance, since I suspect they also tend to show up in the same list a lot: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/autocorrelation.asp (the wiki is harder to follow). Basically, they're inter-correlated.
  18. I think it just means it's harder to points balance I agree with this.
  19. I agree - I just suspect they didnt even think of it until designing wave 3 with seps. It's a really cool idea though
  20. You can't just notice that they're basically a torrent! That's... accurate.
  21. 1) i'm still struggling to see how they are too good against 2 ship lists (versus the fact other swarms/5-ship 3-die primary lists currently exists) 2) Even if they were, wouldn't the 5X list also need to be good enough versus the rest to overcome the meta "triangle"? Like, isn't it "okay" for the 2-ship list to be "weak" against 5X, as long as 5X has sufficient weaknesses elsewhere?
  22. So, follow-up question: on the 5X vs 2ship archetype: is it because it's 5x 3-die primaries? or the potential boost? the hp? what's the thing that makes it over the the line, to say 5x cartel mauraders, which currently exists? (this isn't meant to combative - i do mean this as an honest question - I've never even considered this before, and my gut reaction is 5X isn't good enough, but I also admit this is the first time I've really entertained the idea, so I like walking through it).
×
×
  • Create New...