Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About GreenDragoon

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Recent Profile Visitors

2,168 profile views
  1. That's a really strange and meaningless artificial group... It's the combination with good (read: double) reposition. That's why Vader is also only strong without going into NPE territory: you get frequent shots on him and the dice fail eventually. Aethersprites and Kylo get both. Kylo is at least locked into blue maneuvers and somewhat predictable (even though he's not), but Aethersprite Jedi are not locked into blues, get double repo, and on top even regen. They get the best and regen on top. And Anakin doesn't even care about the eventual red maneuver if he wants to. Other force users are mostly fine (tm). I still think the mechanic is too good and the game would be better without it. But in most cases it is still ok
  2. The first, IMO worse, version is the one I discussed in the post here:¨ Temmin Wexley (54) Composure (1) Integrated S-Foils (0) Jessika Pava (51) BB Astromech (3) Integrated S-Foils (0) Lieutenant Bastian (48) Integrated S-Foils (0) Finn (29) Heroic (1) Advanced Optics (4) Perceptive Copilot (8) Total: 199 View in Yet Another Squad Builder 2.0 The next, IMO better, version has pattern analyzer on Finn and adds up to 200 points. It has weaker damage output, but it is better against bad matchups and against better players.
  3. But the lack of individualization is precisely my criticism. I think it's unfortunate that the marshalls/judges can't apply their sense of proportion, can't actually judge and do their job in this question.
  4. So, we just learned that it was NOT about sfoils. Instead it was a relevant difference* and the game loss doubtlessly the right call. I still think that in the case of (certain) 0pt upgrades a list adjustment should be ok and a discussion would be good. But not in this case. *crackshot + bid vs optics and no bid
  5. Yes, I agree. I'm not sure what the judges can do differently in the moment though. After they can ask for a rule change. But that is later. There is not much room for interpretation in a practical fashion.
  6. By the way, my SO says exactly the same. I don't think it's entirely true. Some words might have moved to a different, less accessible place in the rules now from cards in 1.0. But the problem exists and some really don't like it.
  7. Different parts of the rules have different amount of wiggle room for interpretation. I don't remember who said (and where: podcast, this thread, forum, reddit, ?) but this TO gave his opinion on different parts. If it directly contradicts the FAQ, rules reference, floor rules, then he handles that differently. Not everything is up for interpretation: Tavson gets his damage dealt individually, for example, and a judge has to inform the players of that rule without choice. I realize that's not quite the same, but why not? The floor rules have it explicitly mentioned what you have to do in this case, as the FAQ explains Tavson.
  8. It strikes me as interesting that we can have a judge's sense of proportion when judging stalling/slow play, but we can't have a judge's sense of proportion when adding a 0pt upgrade - something that is much easier to identify. There are 8 upgrades for 0 points: 2xS-foils, pivot wings, ghost title, 2x gunboat config, r5tk and jamming beam. It is an amount where we could get a yes/no for each card. We could even define specific situations for more questionable ones: gunboats get the one that has an equipped secondary weapon mentioned on the config. Jamming beam is maybe never free to add, same for R5TK. Whatever the reason, it would be possible to explicitly handle each one. There is no real danger of rules bloat because nobody has to know unless a judge runs into the situation. Also, it's not a hill for me to die on and I don't even know the dude who lost the game. I think it's an interesting contrast to the slow play discussion, that's why I wonder.
  9. The implicit question is: why can't the upgrade be added? In that case his correction would have been appropriate. I understand that it is not the currently correct way to handle it, but why?
  10. Translating what the player said himself: "Just simply a list building error (not an illegal list). The judges then gave me the instruction to solve the problem. I misundertood the instruction in the heat of the moment and we all notice too late, unfortunately." He put the blame on himself and mentioned he could have asked to clear it up. I know that he got told at some, earlier point, then didn't remove the card, and then got awarded a game loss before the final. The earlier point might have been before the tournament, it might have been at a different point. But I wasn't there myself, and part is telephone game in full effect. Do you think a game loss is justified in this instance? A 0 point configuration upgrade seems to be a nobrainer. There was something like that during that US team tournament earlier this year, right? Where Sfoils got forgotten?
  11. haha, german nats have their scandal. One SEMIfinalist got disqualified awarded a game loss. He had an incorrect list. What (allegedly but likely) happened is that he didn't write the s-foils for his T70 on the list but had the card and used them all day. Judges noticed at some point, reminded him to correct the mistake. He understood to correct the list and added the sfoils onto the list. The judges meant to remove the card. So in the end he didn't do what the judges told him and he got the game loss for it. IMO that's an overreaction, I don't see why adding a 0-cost card that is already there is not an option. Maybe there's a can of worms that will be opened, but I don't see it right now. However, floor rules demand the game loss: List error: Both the deck and list are legal, but do not match each other. Resolution: The deck must be corrected to match the list. Penalty issued: During a round: Game Loss E: just to emphasize because I'm sure it can't be emphasized enough: The judges handled it the way they had to as far as I understand. The floor rules demand the game loss. It's unfortunate that the timing turned out that way, but I'm not saying the judges overreacted. I think the floor rules might handle that a suboptimally. But more individual solutions are maybe dangerous and this is the overall best case. Still seems ridiculous in this case.
  12. He's part of the German krayts, kinda, team Hooters. They are maybe a bit more goofy and less often serious than you guys 😂
  13. I'll take "How to escalate a thread in 9 words" for 500
  14. Who knows, the list was chosen by folding 4 different lists into paper planes and pick the one that flew furthest...
  • Create New...