Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About AgencyBurglar

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. "And such." Sounds like a rigorous credential. Thank you for teaching me that the key aspect of ethical discourse is dismissing others while affecting a massive martyr syndrome of claiming to be dismissed.
  2. I have read it, and I just did again. Have you read it? "Collusion occurs whenever two or more players discuss an outcome for their game before the game’s conclusion and then artificially or randomly determine the results of the game based on that discussion." "Please note that concession, in and of itself, is not collusion. Players are allowed to concede a game at any time before the end of the game,so long as there was no discussion or solicitation involved." They gave 2 examples for the sake of illustration, but the text I literally copied and pasted DO cover EACH AND EVERY possible permutation. And finally, of course you have the right to espouse opinions on what constitutes ethical behavior. (Show me an example of someone who has denied you this right please.) But it sounds like you've been arguing what constitutes legal behavior.
  3. FFG defined what constitutes collusion. In black and white. And not open to interpretation. Are we discussing that legality, or the way you believe things ought to be? I admit, I only skimmed the past 7 pages, but it seemed that Aardvark was simply explaining the former. As far as the latter, concessions do involve all manner of ethical issues, and you have the right to espouse whatever views you deem fit. There are legitimate reasons to concede though. A player who is guaranteed to make cut might want to take a round off to rest, or to avoid tipping her hand against an opponent she'll likely meet again in the cut. In terms of intent, that's all well and good, but I've discussed this with FFG OP. There's no real way to force someone to play a game that they don't want to. So they defined collusion and prohibited that particular behavior. There can exist ethically permissible reasons for conceding matches, and your choice of diction (pick and choose games to throw) is guilty of begging the question.
  4. That's pretty confusing. Any rules that are "black and white" don't need interpreting. First, I can confirm that Killerardvark is a Big Deal in the Judges. Second, at every single high level event, judges will permit you to concede any match, at any time, without penalty, as long as you do not technically violate the collusion rule. Judges at lower levels vary in quality, and you might get bad rulings, but this should be the case at all events unless FFG tells us otherwise. Those two items aren't opinions, but fact. Who harassed you for having opinions?
  5. It seems like just a few weeks ago, I was rolling my eyes at threads about how difficult swarms are to fly, and how they're not good, and even how bad Howlrunner is: "Her ability should be out to range 2"...
  6. The following points have been touched upon, but I felt the urge to sum up: -A single TIE/ln blocker is easily worth 23 points. -There are any number of ace-like options that combine with a mini-swarm to solid effect. -Full TIE swarm is GOOD. The outlook that flying a swarm is "boring" or "too taxing" is overblown. You open with a joust, bank if the enemy does not comply, then K-turn if necessary and repeat. If the conflict does not go your way, you then have to solve some interesting spatial puzzles involving blocking and laying fields of fire. Maybe jousting is boring; but then you get those engaging puzzles in close matches. Maybe solving those puzzles all the time would be taxing, but just learn the basic formations and you can save your energies for when matches get interesting. If you absolutely hate formation flying, Drea + Guild TIEs is an excellent archetype as well. If we're talking traditional Howlrunner swarms, the 6 ship Inferno variant is magnificent, particularly in Hyperspace. Trajectory Simulator is rough, but those Resistance bombers aren't exactly invincible. The ugly matchup is Reinforcing Upsilons, but those things are the pieces that slipped past FFG balancing and give just about everything a nasty time.
  7. Uh, you say you're still "having a blast" playing 1.0. More power to you. But then why DO you have an opinion about a game you don't play and apparently have no interest in?
  8. There's a lot of angst and entitlement here. FFG fails hard at any number of things, but the quality of the models (gyroscopic S-foil B-Wings inbound!!) and the way they've bent over backward to make the move from 1st to 2nd Edition as painless as feasible? Good job! First people complained about the cost of the Conversion Kits, even though 1.0 releases + Kits were cheaper than 2.0 releases. Now it's WHER NU KONTENT GIVE ME or I BOUGHT ONE SHIP Y I NO HAV ALL KARDS. There are tons of new players, and FFG is doing a reasonably solid job accommodating both long-time customers and people just jumping in. There are only so many cards that come with a single blister - give them a chance to seed all the content for each faction as 2.0 ships hit rotation. If you think you have a legitimate complaint, break it down yourself and make a spreadsheet of how you would actually distribute the content.
  9. I guess I missed that. Link? I have vague recollections of talk about card only packs, in the event of new content that wasn't in the Conversion Kits.
  10. I guess I missed that. Link? I have vague recollections of talk about card only packs, in the event of new content that wasn't in the Conversion Kits.
  11. 1st Edition release of ARC-170 did have an auto-include Title, which was config-ish. So far, the 2nd Edition individual releases have been right in line with the Conversion Kits, but I don't expect that to be the case indefinitely. It's pretty easy to envision S-foils happening for the B-Wing. Then there's the first "canonical" appearance of the B-Wing: that death ray platform from Rebels.
  12. Wretched idea. 0-0-0 and most 2.0 stressing mechanics are centered around weighing choices. 4-LOM is an exception, but as the Mynock Open demonstrated, just burn him down. It's growing abundantly clear that Rebels are the weakest faction, but bringing back 1.0 contamination like R3-A2 and Tactician is not the answer. The way forward is to remove the 1.0 combo-wing elements that survived into 2.0 Imperial and Scum.
  13. Also notable, Mynocks are bad. Weren't like, ALL of them there, and Krayts finished on top on top of all of them? I think Steven Gonzales is the only decent player they have and only one to make cut, but Bunn and @Brunas both finished higher on their home field.
  14. The culprits are all unlearned lessons. We know that 1.0 spun out of hand with the proliferation of multi-modded dice and bonus positional actions, and that's exactly the sort of content we have with Redline, Whisper, Boba, and coordinate. Only 1 Rebel squad made Day 2, but I don't think we should be talking about making them better. FFG should target the 1.0 elements, by raising points and/or stripping slots off of the Imperial and Scum 1.0-style offenders.
  • Create New...