Jump to content

Tlfj200

Members
  • Content Count

    2,134
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Tlfj200

  1. There was exactly 1 'Paul's list" in the top 32. It was 19 Scum, 6 Imperial, 7 Rebel. Scum 3 Scum Alpha Variants 13 lists had Fenn 3 Rau Boats 4 Paratanni Variants (2 used contracted scouts over Manaroo) Rebels 3 lists had Biggs 1 Pauls List 1 Paul's list variant (uses Norra over Miranda, has bomb loadout on stresshog as well) 1 Newbacca, Biggs, and Stresshog 1 Galaxy Note 7 (Triple K-Wing Bombers) Only 3 stresshogs (all were with Biggs) Imperials No real theme
  2. Further - do you know what dominated the top Vassal league this season (The one that Paul is in)? Rau Boats (Fenn Rau + 2 torpedo boats, all with mindlink). Two people went 7-1 in his league with it.
  3. The following are pretty heavy counters to Paul's Naboo List: 1) Alpha (Usually Scum Alpha) 2) Boba Scouts (hilariously bad for most rebel lists). This includes triple scouts and Rau Boats. Both of those are common. Are those *unwinnable* for the rebel list? Absolutely not? But I'd put the odds at 40% or less, on average. The alpha just wipes things off the board, and a boba scout and ignore biggs to remove Miranda's TLT (or sabine, but probably TLT)
  4. It also wrecks the more popular Rebels lists (Miranda /w TLT; Kanan/Biggs, Dash). It's **** near auto-win if you pull off the double torps + boba (which you usually can). Very solid and strong stuff.
  5. That's fair - just clarifying if you included those in the same realm of problems of large-base ships with boost (separate from half-MOV).
  6. Or, if it's old Fat Han, the 1HP Han took an evade action, used C-3PO, and possibly used R2-D2 crew to mitigate 2-3 damage per turn... Also, then are you equally upset at SLAM K-Wings that regen? They can similarly boost around the board avoiding a fight if they're head on points.
  7. If you reintroduce draws, then we need to change tournament scoring for wins/losses/draws, and hopefully in such a way that draws aren't as bad as mod-wins were.
  8. I agree with the sentiment (It should depend on total destruction, not attrition, for scoring.), but that still leaves the issue of deciding who should win at time. I still think the current MOV method distorts gameplay, and we're seeing an increasing amount of that distortion. That said, finding a suitable alternative that removes (or lessens) that distortion is definitely hard. I'm glad people are spit balling ideas, at least.
  9. Basically you're [correctly] upset at the really good dial of the JMK. That said, having a single ship, kitted in a single way, available to only one faction (the stresshog) be a silver bullet isn't a good solution. I wouldn't want stress mechanics to be FURTHER rewarded to fix this problem, as everything below the power curve of the JMK would just inherently get blasted as well. Better to just address the JMK directly.
  10. I agree - this alone wouldn't address regenerators (Corran, Miranda, Poe). Something else would need to be implemented to address that [if it needs addressing - partially a different argument] For smaller tournaments, I agree. For larger tournaments, this isn't quite true. However, for larger tournaments, FFG has moved to a 2-day format, and has added MANY more swiss rounds. Still, MOV comes into play, and many would argue MOV is not entirely a good representation for how "well" someone has done. I'm of two minds on this: First, I think destroying your enemy should be more favored over just staying alive - the game is built around the premise of a dog fight. (also, separate from thematics, I would argue the game is more interesting around killing your opponent, rather than simply staying alive. To that end, MOV scoring deters some ships and upgrades from being used as they are punishing for in-game and tournament scoring: See decimators, Darth Vader crew, and Ghost (ghosts have trended more to crazy protection, ala Biggs or super Hera, not because other ghosts can't be good, but because their downside of bleeding MOV outweighs the upside of supporting the objective of killing your opponent. Second, half-points were implemented precisely because running a large-based ship with low HP wasn't fun, and didn't accurately reward an opponent for severely damaging your ship. Again, one might argue that if you toilet-bowl a large base ship that is near death, and your opponent has a few healthy small-based ships left, that the big ship player didn't really "win" in the sense of the dogfight [but some may like that game]. Now, with the proliferation of small-based ships with large-ship HP, we have a possibly similar issue as the one presented before the implementation of the half-points rule: severely damaged, but not dead, small based ships protecting quite a few MOV, and rewarding [again, a separate argument] unfun playstyles or victors. All of that said, I am trying to walk through if extending half-points to small-based ships even addresses that concern (and separately would love to hear if people don't even think that concern is a concerrn). And as noted earlier, this alone does not address regenerators, just large-hp small ships.
  11. I, too, don't think it seems very complicated. Also, adding the damage # and/or half points value to squad builders also seems good too. Why not?
  12. Can someone help me review if extending the half-points rule on small ships would somehow be overly complicated? I feel that it shouldn't be too bad, and may help add some granularity to these newer small ships with "large-based" hit points.
  13. It gets to shoot all 4 shots of the TLT (2x2). See page 21 of the FAQ: If a VCX-100 is equipped with the Ghost title, has a docked Attack Shuttle equipped with the Phantom title, and performs an attack with a Twin Laser Turret at the end of the Combat phase, that ship can perform the second attack with Twin Laser Turret.
  14. Well, one example I've seen thrown around is extending the half-points rule to small ships - the issue revolves around "to what extent" and minimizing complexity. Is it better to limit half-points to small ships that cost over 40 points? Or have over '8 HP" [insert another HP total here]? Or to all small ships (which can make calculation weird for some low HP ships)? Is that too complicated period, or causing another distortion in some way? Does someone have a cleaner way of accomplishing this goal?
  15. Hey everyone, I am looking to gather ideas surrounding alternate scoring methods for X-wing either for Tournament tie-breakers or in-game scoring? I've also heard of some methods for modifying MOV and the "half-points" rule to extend to small ships - Does anyone have ideas for anything like that? Any and all ideas welcome. Just trying to generate thoughts.
  16. I think you're right, but the argument was that Biggs is, and will continue to be, a large design restriction for Rebels. I don't think it's good that rebels ARE designed with biggs in mind, nor that they rebel players feel compelled to bring him in all lists. Similarly, I don't like that imperials seemed to have been designed with palpatine in mind, and now that he's gone, imperial squad design is incredibly competitively limited (though I completely agree it's painful in the short term). That said, now that Palpatine is nerfed, I [hope] FFG can make some new, interesting design changes for imperials to get them out of the primarily one-trick-pony aces they've been given. The new turreted ship is a great step. Edit: Also, if Biggs was gone, they could release new updates to old ships without the Biggs design constraint, and hopefully refresh those ships.
  17. This thread is in violation of the NonRonCon Posting Standards™. @DerekT - Please refrain from posting further privileged information in public posts. Thank you for your cooperation.
  18. One might think that, but I heard there's some determination bro bots afoot. He DEFINITELY invented that.
  19. I guess I'm lost on your point. Dengaroo was invented. Attani lists were invented at some point. Bro bots. Several versions of palp aces. Wes corran Biggs. The lists go on. All of these were designed by someone originally at some point. You CAN create a list yourself and win. You CAN copy a list and win. Do you want the secret sauce in between? ... ...practice (and a little luck). So yes, in other words: 'gut gud'
  20. Trust me - he's completely serious about the double ups. We never hear the end of it.
  21. That's a strawman argument - the game lacking women is not correlated to whether the game is social. Football lacks women, and it's highly social. Also, the game *is* social, if you're going to stores to play with other people. If you're staying at home to play with friends, then many of your previous statements make very little sense, and you can likewise play whatever you want and not worry about a 'meta'.
  22. SOME rng is good. But flying better means not needing to barrel roll or boost for your shot, soyou actually have that focus or target lock (or both). Basically, most people don't lose because of their dice - they lose because of the choices they made on the board. And THAT is good for the game. I don't want to play star wars monopoly, and I don't want to play star wars chess - but x-wing should (and is) far more chess-like than monopoly-like.
  23. Basically, you don't enjoy the way others play the game. Does their style of enjoyment truly diminish your own? Alternatively, could you simply avoid playing them?
  24. It's usually because someone comes in here crapping on someone that DOES play a netlist. Netlisting is not actually "wrong". Some do not need to be a beautiful, unique snowflake in list design to enjoy the game. [Also, you didn't make this argument - others did; I'm just noting how this kind of discussion arises]. I *do* agree entirely with your statements about balance - I think everyone [hopefully] wants a balanced game, where more playstyles are viable (gett beyond that statement and we usually find people have conflicting ideas of what "balance" means). It's what Chris Allen and I have been discussing: game design and balance. It's super interesting, and definitely difficult.
×
×
  • Create New...