Jump to content

rasproteus

Members
  • Content Count

    414
  • Joined

  • Last visited


Reputation Activity

  1. Thanks
    rasproteus got a reaction from Tokra in SWAE livestreams GenCon SWArmada   
    Current standings:

  2. Haha
    rasproteus got a reaction from RyonOlson in AMM, Calculated Risks   
  3. Haha
    rasproteus got a reaction from Kylemcph240 in AMM, Calculated Risks   
  4. Haha
    rasproteus got a reaction from Admiral Theia in AMM, Calculated Risks   
  5. Like
    rasproteus got a reaction from The Jabbawookie in AMM, Calculated Risks   
  6. Haha
    rasproteus got a reaction from Bertie Wooster in AMM, Calculated Risks   
  7. Like
    rasproteus got a reaction from geek19 in AMM, Calculated Risks   
  8. Haha
    rasproteus got a reaction from eris359 in AMM, Calculated Risks   
  9. Haha
    rasproteus got a reaction from Akhrin in AMM, Calculated Risks   
  10. Like
    rasproteus got a reaction from Flengin in AMM, Calculated Risks   
  11. Like
    rasproteus got a reaction from Karneck in AMM, Calculated Risks   
  12. Haha
    rasproteus got a reaction from xero989 in AMM, Calculated Risks   
  13. Like
    rasproteus reacted to GiledPallaeon in FOURTH (FINAL) ROUND PAIRINGS POSTED, NOW WITH AMERICANS! - Vassal Tournament - Star Wars Armada Fleet Exercises!   
    Ladies and gentleman, Armada players of all ages! Welcome to your next tournament in the Star Wars Armada Vassal year, the Star Wars Armada Fleet Exercises!
     
    I know it still seems like it’s far away, but the first round of Store Championships will soon be upon us after the end of this summer, and shortly after that Regionals will begin in full force. Players looking to do well at these events not only need practice, but top tier fleets that not only meet but rise above the meta that exists around them. If you think you have what it takes to be a truly innovative list-builder and find the next golden list that sweeps the meta by force, or if you just want some fun games with a nice twist, this is the tournament for you!
     
    Leader Roles:
    Organizer: @GiledPallaeon
    Marshal: @GiledPallaeon
    Judges: Feel free to send me a PM if you’re available to judge games for the Fleet Exercises, or just use really any player watching your game!
     
    Format:
    Structure:  Custom - Three divisions, divided by time zone, each playing four rounds of Swiss play. After Swiss is complete, the winners of each division and the player with the highest tournament score that did not win their division will face off in a round robin to determine an overall winner.
     
    Tier:  Relaxed - Per FFG’s Fundamental Event Document:  "Tournaments at this tier are welcoming to all players, regardless of experience level. The focus is on creating a fun and friendly environment." Anyone and everyone is welcome to sign up for the Fleet Exercises, including players new to Vassal!
     
    Rules:
      
    Rules being used for construction of lists and questions throughout the game will be based on the most recent FAQ and Tournament Rules. UNRELEASED MATERIALS, INCLUDING THE SUPER STAR DESTROYER, ANY CARDS REVEALED THEREIN, AND ANY REVEALED CONTENTS OF REBELLION IN THE RIM ARE NOT ALLOWED. In the event that either the Super Star Destroyer or Rebellion in the Rim are released shortly before or during the early phases of the tournament, this may be relaxed at the Organizer’s discretion. (That’s me, don’t bug me or I won’t.)   
     
    400 points total maximum for your list, with a maximum of 1/3 (134 points) of the list being squadrons. Each player must have one of each type of objective (Offensive / Defensive / Navigation). Link to post your list will be below shortly. Lists (minus objectives) will then be posted by the Organizer for public viewing by the start of Swiss play. There is no cap on the number of players in any division. If there is enough demand (e.g. if the Australians suddenly appear with twenty players) more divisions may be added. Additional rules for list building are below.
     
    For division play, each division will be treated as an ongoing, independent Swiss tournament. Players will be matched per standard guidelines, and be given 12 days to complete their match. Each round will be posted on the appropriate Monday, with games expected to be completed no later than the next Friday. In the event that the game must be played over the second weekend, one player MUST PM me as soon as practical, and they MUST copy their opponent on the message.  Either player has the opportunity to concede to their opponent if they are unable to schedule and believe they are more to blame for the scheduling conflict, which will result in a 8 point win (140 MOV) for the other player, and a 1 point loss for the conceding player. Players are encouraged to post their scheduled games to the thread once they agree to a game time. A no-show by either player for a scheduled game will result in a 1 point loss for that player, and an 8 point victory for their opponent, with 140 point MOV.
     
    PLEASE POST ALL BATTLE REPORTS IN THE FOLLOWING THREAD, AND FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS AT THE TOP OF THE POST
       
    What is Legal for Play?    
     
    Anything that has been fully released on the retail market by July 1, 2019, provided it also adheres to the Restricted List. If the Super or RitR are cutting it close (color me skeptical, whatever color that is), I may reconsider this stance at that time. For now, they they are banned. Any list submitted including those contents will be deleted without question.
     
    Alright, now for the gimmick of Fleet Exercises. We’ve all heard various people in our local metas complain about how “no one is creative anymore/everyone thinks the game is solved/no one thinks outside the box for fleet-building.” (If you don’t know who that guy is in your area, are you sure it isn’t you? ) This is your opportunity to shut that player up, and flex your list-building muscles to start experimenting long enough before Regionals you might actually get something out of it.
     
    Below this paragraph are the twenty-two (22) cards of the Restricted List. Between these 22 cards, they represented over half of all upgrade cards used during the 2018-2019 Regionals season (>4000 out of ~8000). Several of these cards significantly overperformed during that season, and most were taken in excess of three times the average usage for its slot. Each list may include four cards from this list, of which none may be duplicates. (Example: you cannot have two Comms Nets upgrades.) FURTHER, a list may only have EITHER Thrawn/Rieekan OR one (1) of the activation officers available to that faction (Pryce for the Imperials, Bail for Rebels, Strategic Advisor for both). LISTS DO NOT NEED TO INCLUDE ANY OF THOSE FIVE CARDS TO BE LEGAL FOR PLAY. HOWEVER, THEY MAY ONLY INCLUDE EITHER THE ADMIRAL OR AN ACTIVATION OFFICER IF THEY CHOOSE TO.
       
    Gunnery Team
    Engine Techs
    Electronic Countermeasures
    Leading Shots
    XI7 Turbolasers
    Demolisher
    Yavaris
    Lando Calrissian
    Ordnance Experts
    Boosted Comms
    Assault Proton Torpedoes
    Turbolaser Reroute Circuits
    Avenger
    Admonition
    General Rieekan
    Comms Net
    External Racks
    Captain Brunson
    Strategic Adviser
    Governor Pryce
    Bail Organa
    Grand Admiral Thrawn
     
    Similarly to the upgrade cards for your ships, there are two more rules that all fleets in Fleet Exercises must adhere to. First, players may only include aces with defense tokens whose combined value is less than or equal to the value of generic squadrons also present in that fleet. So, for example, to include Tycho Celchu and Shara Bey, a Rebel player must include at least 33 points of generics (e.g. 3 generic A-wings or X-wings).
     
    There is also a Restricted Objectives List. Of these four objectives, players may include ONLY ONE (1) of these objectives in their fleet.
     
    Most Wanted
    Contested Outpost
    Solar Corona
    Superior Positions
     
    Lists will be due to me Friday, June 28th, 2019, 11:59 PM EST, in order to allow time for review. I will try to have a rolling review and respond to people who submit as I can. I make no promises about whether or not this will be a sustained effort, I have a lot of life changes happening between now and when the tournament is scheduled to begin. Submissions are now available.
     
    IF YOU SUBMIT AN ILLEGAL LIST, AND I CATCH IT BETWEEN 6/28 AND 7/1, YOU HAVE UNTIL SUNDAY 6/30/19 AT 11:59 PM EST TO SUBMIT A NEW LIST THAT IS LEGAL OR YOU WILL BE DROPPED. NO EXCEPTIONS.
     
    SUBMISSIONS CLOSED
     
    Fleet Lists Posted Here
     
    Additional Thoughts:        
     
    There hasn't been any issues with games needing a Judge to rule on things before, don't let this tournament be the one it starts.  Figure out any issues that arise in the game among yourselves - ask any folks watching along for help as makeshift judges if needed.  I'll be watching the games that I can. Remember Rule #1 of Star Wars Miniatures Gaming - "Fly Casual".
     
    If you do have a rule question about how a particular card interacts, PM me as I am the official Marshal for the event! PMs to @Drasnighta @i2xCross, and @Karneck are also an entirely reasonable way to seek a solution. Obviously I can't pop into every game for a game-by-game judgement.
     
    If there's something that you see that needs addressed, please bring it to my attention.  I can't fix issues that I don't know about.
     
    Special thanks to @BiggsIRL whose World Cup 2019 post makes up a large fraction of the text in this post, and @CaribbeanNinja for pioneering the tournament format being used in Fleet Exercises this year in last year’s Autumn Tournament.       
     
    Good luck, Admirals!
       
  14. Like
    rasproteus got a reaction from Darth Veggie in Possible idea for the squadron problem (if you call it a problem)   
    My experience is that most of the anti squad upgrades require your opponents squads to oblige you: first, by engaging where they can be shot; and second, staying there.
    They don't work in a vacuum - they definitely need to be supported by squads - but even then, Intel alone can largely render those upgrades useless. 
  15. Like
    rasproteus got a reaction from thestag in Possible idea for the squadron problem (if you call it a problem)   
    What about making something like QLT just ... happen?  Having to activate in order to flak seems like half the problem.
  16. Like
    rasproteus got a reaction from SkyCake in Possible idea for the squadron problem (if you call it a problem)   
    My experience is that most of the anti squad upgrades require your opponents squads to oblige you: first, by engaging where they can be shot; and second, staying there.
    They don't work in a vacuum - they definitely need to be supported by squads - but even then, Intel alone can largely render those upgrades useless. 
  17. Like
    rasproteus got a reaction from The Jabbawookie in Possible idea for the squadron problem (if you call it a problem)   
    What about making something like QLT just ... happen?  Having to activate in order to flak seems like half the problem.
  18. Like
    rasproteus got a reaction from Snipafist in Possible idea for the squadron problem (if you call it a problem)   
    What about making something like QLT just ... happen?  Having to activate in order to flak seems like half the problem.
  19. Like
    rasproteus got a reaction from Cusm in Possible idea for the squadron problem (if you call it a problem)   
    What about making something like QLT just ... happen?  Having to activate in order to flak seems like half the problem.
  20. Like
    rasproteus got a reaction from The Jabbawookie in Can I Make it 5 out of 5?   
    There is a place for Solar Corona... Raiders and CR90s, Liberties and VSD's - they live and die by accuracies.  On the other hand, I tied Intel Sweep twice (should have lost it to Yik, but it was a funky deployment for him) and lost it twice at Worlds, even with a single VCX.  I don't know if I would take it again without two VCX's, minimum.
  21. Like
    rasproteus got a reaction from Crewgar in Moved to New Topic: Would Eliminating Pre-Measures Be Good for the Game?   
    I think you're missing the point that @BrobaFett was making -- the game DEMANDS precision placement when playing at a non-casual level.  Not just for squadrons, but for ships as well.  You need to be able to dodge your opponent's best arc-lines, stay out of flak range, and visualize your ending position on the board.  Most of my errors come when I place a squadron or notch a ship maneuver tool and utter the fatal phrase "That's probably good enough" -- which is the Armada equivalent of "Hold my beer."  The reason that you are highlighting squadrons as the object of your ire is that NOBODY IS PLAYING MSU.  You're coming to a tournament with 3-5 ships, two of which are flotillas most likely, and the number of turns where maneuvers are super-critical are limited.  I guarantee that if your opponent had 6 or 7 CR90's on the board across from you, he would take just as long once those Vader Double Cymoons started to float into range.

    I know that people are boiling Broba's response down to simply "git gud" - but that's not what he's really saying at all.  The point is this - it's not optimizers who are the problem, it's inexperienced optimizers.  Experience eliminates certain decision trees without having to be measured, for example.  Experience will lead to more consideration of your next moves while waiting for your opponent to make their own.  Experience allows you to not have to go back and forth with the maneuver tool and range tool to try to determine whether that one maneuver is where you want to go.
    I'm definitely on board with the complexity part of what you said here.  You've definitely subtly inserted your own opinion about their balance, though.  The data doesn't suggest that they're imbalanced -- the data on its own simply  states that they are more-often taken -- and you have drawn a conclusion from that which is not directly supported, even if you aren't entirely wrong.  I suspect that if you were to ask most players why they aren't taking 16 TIE fighters in their list is simply because they can't adequately command them before they started discussing inter-squadron synergy.  Generally speaking, most heavy squadron lists I have encountered run between 8 (almost always) to 10 (much more rarely) individual squadrons.  Even if aces were only SLIGHTLY better or the only difference was from the defense tokens, they would be included simply because when you can reasonably only use 8 squadrons, you want to take the best ones you can.
    I will also add that the onus is on both players to speed up the squadron game.  If you are going to sit on your side of the table and demand precision play from your opponent, then you do not get to be upset at the amount of time that it takes your opponent to attain said precision.  If you say "oh, Mauler wants to hit Jan?  Better not **** it up, dude..." then your opponent is going to play to the requirements you placed on him, and if it takes forever that's as much your fault as his.  World-Championship-finals-level players are agreeing with each other that 1) Yes, Mauler can get anywhere he wants within distance-1 of Jan, and 2) allowing their opponents to use the distance-1 ruler to get the optimal placement of their squadrons. If your suggestion is to make this de-facto rule official, I entirely support it.  But if you are demanding flawless precision play from your opponents while simultaneously denying them the tools to do so quickly, it will take them a long time, no matter how many tools you deny them. 
  22. Like
    rasproteus got a reaction from BrobaFett in Moved to New Topic: Would Eliminating Pre-Measures Be Good for the Game?   
    Let it be known here and henceforth that I am all for ideas that streamline the squadron game.  I don't REALLY want a chess match minigame when it comes to squadrons, although I appreciate the time and skill that is involved in learning and winning it.  It's also a ton of fun to build a list that has so much synergy in it and to balance your ability to damage other squads against doing damage to ships - because otherwise it's a waste of points.
    No, I guess I take that back.  I do like the chess match minigame, I guess.  I just want to streamline it without ruining it.
  23. Sad
  24. Like
    rasproteus got a reaction from Snipafist in Amending Scatter   
    I think that my major contention with what you've just said here is the implication that there are good flak upgrades.  Honestly, I'd like to hear which ones you think are good - in my opinion some are better than others, but none are particularly good - aside from Toryn, who really should be in a category all her own.  Ruthless is solid, but too expensive for the ships you want to take it on (Hammerhead scouts) and too much of a trade-off for the ships who would otherwise want to run Ordnance Experts.  
    I would not be so hasty to disregard the power of simply flipping a scatter token with flak.  Most of those scatter aces - who, let's be honest, are pretty weak against ships anyway without Sloane - really rely on the scatter to keep them up.  Even putting one point of damage on their hull puts them in range of getting killed by a 4-die squadron rolling acc/hit/hit/hit.  The power of flak comes as much from the squadron follow-up as it does the ships themselves.  If you bring a squadless fleet, you need to figure out how to blow up the carrier or how to run away.  You can't count on a middle ground.
    Here he goes agai----- oh, ST:AW.  Carry on.  ❤️
  25. Like
    rasproteus got a reaction from geek19 in Moved to New Topic: Would Eliminating Pre-Measures Be Good for the Game?   
    I think you're missing the point that @BrobaFett was making -- the game DEMANDS precision placement when playing at a non-casual level.  Not just for squadrons, but for ships as well.  You need to be able to dodge your opponent's best arc-lines, stay out of flak range, and visualize your ending position on the board.  Most of my errors come when I place a squadron or notch a ship maneuver tool and utter the fatal phrase "That's probably good enough" -- which is the Armada equivalent of "Hold my beer."  The reason that you are highlighting squadrons as the object of your ire is that NOBODY IS PLAYING MSU.  You're coming to a tournament with 3-5 ships, two of which are flotillas most likely, and the number of turns where maneuvers are super-critical are limited.  I guarantee that if your opponent had 6 or 7 CR90's on the board across from you, he would take just as long once those Vader Double Cymoons started to float into range.

    I know that people are boiling Broba's response down to simply "git gud" - but that's not what he's really saying at all.  The point is this - it's not optimizers who are the problem, it's inexperienced optimizers.  Experience eliminates certain decision trees without having to be measured, for example.  Experience will lead to more consideration of your next moves while waiting for your opponent to make their own.  Experience allows you to not have to go back and forth with the maneuver tool and range tool to try to determine whether that one maneuver is where you want to go.
    I'm definitely on board with the complexity part of what you said here.  You've definitely subtly inserted your own opinion about their balance, though.  The data doesn't suggest that they're imbalanced -- the data on its own simply  states that they are more-often taken -- and you have drawn a conclusion from that which is not directly supported, even if you aren't entirely wrong.  I suspect that if you were to ask most players why they aren't taking 16 TIE fighters in their list is simply because they can't adequately command them before they started discussing inter-squadron synergy.  Generally speaking, most heavy squadron lists I have encountered run between 8 (almost always) to 10 (much more rarely) individual squadrons.  Even if aces were only SLIGHTLY better or the only difference was from the defense tokens, they would be included simply because when you can reasonably only use 8 squadrons, you want to take the best ones you can.
    I will also add that the onus is on both players to speed up the squadron game.  If you are going to sit on your side of the table and demand precision play from your opponent, then you do not get to be upset at the amount of time that it takes your opponent to attain said precision.  If you say "oh, Mauler wants to hit Jan?  Better not **** it up, dude..." then your opponent is going to play to the requirements you placed on him, and if it takes forever that's as much your fault as his.  World-Championship-finals-level players are agreeing with each other that 1) Yes, Mauler can get anywhere he wants within distance-1 of Jan, and 2) allowing their opponents to use the distance-1 ruler to get the optimal placement of their squadrons. If your suggestion is to make this de-facto rule official, I entirely support it.  But if you are demanding flawless precision play from your opponents while simultaneously denying them the tools to do so quickly, it will take them a long time, no matter how many tools you deny them. 
×
×
  • Create New...