Jump to content

Alastairk

Members
  • Content Count

    15
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Alastairk

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. If you can fit him in Thrawn synergizes well with an Imperial Spies list. His Strategize ability is another tool to manipulate your opponents CC deck, he has a more than decent attack (something the actual Spy cards somewhat lack), and his personal CC is a zero cost card that, again, helps to manipulate CC draw.
  2. I would look again a increasing CC cost, as I am not convinced that 'no matter what the cost, people will still take those cards'. To push the argument to its extremity, if Take Initiative cost 15 I do not think it would be an auto-include. In fact I think the opposite is the case, and it would never be included. Logically there is a sweet spot between 0 and 15 where it is still worth consideration, but is not mandatory. I've no idea what that cost is.
  3. I think there is value in increasing the available granularity. I would argue part of what has driven the restricted meta is that every point is worth 2.5% of a list, so it is difficult to assign a reasonable cost to situational abilities. Situational abilities either cost more than players are willing to pay (provided there is an alternate 'vanilla' option), or you have very similar cards where one has an apparently free ability (even if it is not always useful), which will invariably be taken. If you are looking at increasing the granularity, I would go the whole hog. Multiply every cost by 2.5 and build lists to 100 points. Tweak the individual costs from there.
  4. First, as others have said, great write-up. It feels fair, balanced and clearly explains your point of view I think Rebel Graffiti needs mentioning. An early draw compensates a lot for the most obvious weakness of SC, namely that with so few figures they struggle to contest certain/multiple objectives, and scoreboard pressure can start to influence play. The condition for triggering (no adjacent hostiles at end of activation) is probably harder not to fulfil, than to meet. While there are many other CCs that benefit hugely from an early draw, few of them require so little skill to realise their full benefit. If Rebel Graffiti required an action to use it would not feel quite so cheap. The forgiving nature of Rebel Graffiti is an exageration of how forgiving the list as a whole is to play. It is quite easy to over extend Jedi Luke, IG, Han, or even Vadar. eQuays and eRangers need positioning to minimise taking return fire (trust me, I am a natural at failing miserably to do this). While Spectres can be over extended and left vulnerable, particularly Ezra, the mini-activation is a built in counter. One that is available every turn, and has no reliance on the luck of card draw or dice rolls. All that said, I lean toward nerfing not being necessary. Forgiving certainly does not mean unbeatable, or even prove that SC are above the power curve (though they are certainly top end). Given the proliferation of box sets and character packs, having a top end list that is accessable to new players is no bad thing.
  5. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the point that SC have more strong attacks than the average list (I'm far too lazy to do the research ?), but it is worth noting that Kanan, Ezra and one of Zeb's attacks are melee. A strong melee attack is not as versatile as a strong ranged attack, and the map played will make a more significant difference to a list that relies on almost 50% melee attacks.
  6. The format is interesting, but I would want the 'fix' cards to count towards the limits. You can take the meta lynchpins, though the rest of your list has to be more original. It might also tempt someone to try the unfixed version.
  7. I absolutley agree that people should be free to take competative lists, and should not be criticised for doing so. With the Ugnaut swarm there are two aspects to the debate; that the list is both strong within the current meta, and results in underwhelming experience for the opponent. No player should be criticised for taking a strong list to a tournament. If a narrow range of lists dominate then any criticism should be directed towards the rules (thankfully post Heart of the Empire there seem to be a fairly diverse range of "top" lists). Where I think we disagree is that I do think players should show some consideration to their opponents in list selection. Hypothetical question: if someone selected a list that was definately not near the top of the meta, but which was horrible to play against (I'm sure somone is inventive enough to provide an example here), can they be criticised?
  8. Hmmm... I get what you're saying. If a list is legal then by definition it is ok to take it to a tournament. The ire should be directed at FFG as the arbiters of the rules. However, if you take list that can only result in an unpleasant experience for your opponent neither should there be any surprise if you get called pejorative names.
  9. ...I think that was the point, to make eWeequays a little less ubiquitous.
  10. ...including the entire populace of a technically English speaking nation .
  11. Other franchised games have confronted the faction on faction theme breaking issue; tournaments for Games Workshop's Lord of the Rings skirmish game initially required players to bring a good and evil list. The same could be done with IA. No Temporary Alliance, players bring lists from two factions. Toss a coin to determine which list you play, unless your opponent's coin-toss has already determined which list you use. The idea was abandoned with Lord of the Rings, so presumably it was not popular or too many people objected to purchasing two lists for official tournaments.
  12. I absolutely agree with you that using non-tournament maps would not shift the meta. Much more drastic action would be required to do that; house rules, re-pointing deployments, custom Maps (huge or tiny), larger or smaller lists (20 vs. 20 or 60 vs.60), etc. I just think the OPs optimism got the better of him. That result in Paris has got me curious, because I am struggling to think of a list or match-up where including either of Han or Chewie would not put a player at a disadvantage - never mind including both!
  13. This is really not the impression I took from the OP. Maybe I am missing the point, but it read to me that he is trying to vary the meta (if possible organically through the use of non-tournament Maps and Missions), so that unfanshionable deployments could be selected without a player handicapping themselves. I agree with your point that there is a lot more to list building than just selecting the supposed top-tier deployments (anyone up for the challenge of creating the worst possible list with the best possible deployments?), but then you rightly identify Han Solo as simply being a bad card. I think the OP would like to create a gaming environment where there would be a role for any deployment in the right list. Or am I just projecting my own bias on to this? If the IG88 attachment is the start of a trend for balancing weak deployments then the desire for a more varied meta may become a reality.
  14. I think a small errata would at least make Rebel players question Jedi Luke's inclusion: Last of the Jedi: If you select Luke Skywalker Jedi Knight in a skirmish list you may not select any other deployments with the Force User keyword. Jedi Luke is still scary, but will not be supported by other potent melee deployments like Davith and Obi-Wan. Also constructing the Command Deck has a more tactical element; weight it towards Force User cards to get the best out of Luke, or try to support the rest of your list. Most importantly it fits the cannon (any Star Wars fan selecting Jedi Luke and Obi-Wan should know better).
  15. 1. Not necessarily equally well, but three maps/six missions is probably a wide enough variety in tournament settings that a non-tournament map or mission would have to be quite extreme to upset the meta. 2. Tournament meta is naturally guided towards min-maxing list efficiency. If a deployment is a "must have" or "never have" in tournament settings then it is likely under/over costed. Unfortunaely this will also be true outside of tournaments. 3. The former will tend to produce more extreme lists to take advantage of a map/mission. This may mean that deployments that would not be used in an all-comers lists actually see the table-top (hooray). You might also find that certain lists or factions have significant, excessive, advantages. Picking the list first tends to favour a more balanced list, with a mixture of deployments. I have not played in any IA tournaments, but there is a reason why the current meta lists do well. Referring to question 2, in an asymetrical game there is always the possibility of under and over costing units. Over time the tournment meta will reflect this. I would say that the reason that Han and Chewie never feature in Rebel tournament lists, whereas Jedi Luke and Gideon are constants, is because the former are over costed and the latter under. The advantage of not playing in tournments is that you are more free to house rule and/or re-cost deployments. Some groups are open to this, but finding consensus can be hard.
×
×
  • Create New...