TheVeteranSergeant
-
Content Count
259 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by TheVeteranSergeant
-
-
On 1/25/2020 at 3:01 PM, Nyxen said:So I'm just about to start a campaign and I'm wondering what the value in switching ships is? The B-Wing feels like a side grade to the X/Y and the A/hwk feel like downgrades for way more points than is worth for that change.
This was always a problem with HotAC. The A-Wing is definitely not an "upgrade." Especially not worth 5 XP (Predator, one of the most valuable EPTs in the game, is only 6, by contrast). The B-Wing is perhaps a slight upgrade, but again just slightly over the Y-Wing. Is it worth 5XP? Probably not. It isn't extremely better than a Y-Wing. It just plays different.
The A-Wing was hilariously entertaining to play at like PS7 (1st Ed) when you've unlocked PTL, Jake Farrell and Outmaneuver, but in the end it's just a 2 Attack fighter with a one shot of Prockets. Nothing will hit you if you are doing it right, but you're still really just zooming all over the map looking for damaged TIEs to poach, and not actually very valuable to the team except in one or two missions where zooming all over the place was actually useful.
For a 2nd Edition, I'd recommend giving it a Tech Slot like the RZ-2 has, and (obviously) using the improved 2nd Edition Dial. At least at that point it isn't a complete downgrade like it was in 1st Edition. There's a reason Prototype Pilot was only 17 points but the Rookie Pilot X-Wing was 21. The X-Wing is a better ship, in terms of how X-Wing and HotAC plays, all around.
-
I dunno, at what point does a Star Destroyer lose its majesty by being shrunken down to a tabletop size?
Different strokes for different folks, but I feel like the only way to incorporate a Star Destroyer would be to scale up the templates so the fighters flew further, and had longer ranges. At Star Destroyer scale, the range sticks will look pretty pitiful indeed, lol.
-
On 5/2/2018 at 10:33 PM, Imperial Advisor Arem Heshvaun said:
If only that was what we had gotten in 1999. Then again, no reason to think Lucas wouldn't have prequeled the sequels too.
-
On 1/6/2019 at 11:59 AM, Marinealver said:Great, I always been an advocate for Star Destroyers in X-wing Epic
I think somebody did the math once, and even at the same scale as the Tantive IV (as opposed to the scale for the small ships), an Imperial-class Star Destroyer would be seven feet long.
Also, hard pass on Battlestar Galactica until I get original Cylon Raiders and an alternate art Dirk Benedict Starbuck.
CaptainJaguarShark reacted to this -
Would have done it 15-20 years ago while the main cast was still young enough to have substantive roles in it.
-
Apparently you've never seen Tropic Thunder. Or the Ewok movies, for that matter.
-
On 10/21/2018 at 9:42 PM, Marinealver said:If the last one was any good it wouldn't have flopped as word of mouth would have overcome grievances with the prior film.
I don't know if I believe that. I think Star Wars fans take the franchise way too seriously. This franchise has floated largely on repeat viewings and ticket presales. Solo had two main areas where it fell short of TFA/R1/TLJ. Its ticket presales were *way* down. Its weekly drops were even worse than The Last Jedi. Basically, all the market data told us that a good number of Star Wars fans declined to see it entirely, and thus didn't go see it multiple times. Catering to the die-hard Star Wars fans is crucial to their success. They throw money at the franchise. It's hard to believe that a movie as inoffensive and non-divisive as Solo just suddenly tanked for no reason, five months after The Last Jedi blew up the fanbase and pissed a bunch of them off. Its audience scores are higher than TLJ on pretty much every review aggregator. So it means people are choosing not to see it. I mean, sure, the sample size is smallish and Angry People on YouTube have to be taken with a sense of scale, but there were a lot of people saying they were boycotting Solo. You have to believe that a lot of them followed through on the threat. I mean, I only saw it because I'm a critic and I get to go to the screenings. I wouldn't have paid any money to see it, just because it's hard to get excited about the Disney Star Wars properties.
I liked Rouge One but not as a story. It was in the same quality as the Ewok movies.
Gedoudda he-yah. If you want to be taken even remotely seriously, you might want to dial the hyperbole down below a level where a blackfaced Robert Downey Junior is forced to begin giving you pointers about your portrayal of the mentally handicapped.
Forgottenlore reacted to this -
1. Rogue One - This is arguably the only Star Wars movie Disney has done. It plays within the established "rules" of the universe, for the most part. The characters are shallow, but serviceable for a war movie, so we can root for them. That's all we needed. Nobody complained we didn't know enough about the guys in Saving Private Ryan. You know they are good guys, and you know they have a military mission. I actually liked most of them aside from Captain Aimbot's machinegun laser. Krennic makes a decent villain. The editing is a complete mess, likely due to the reshoots, directorial change, and to make room for two pointless Darth Vader scenes. Still, this movie looks and feels like Star Wars, while still treading a bit of slightly new ground by shifting from the Space Opera to the War Adventure genre. Didn't mind CG-Tarkin because of the demand for the character's screen time. CG-Leia was unnecessary; she could have been a look-alike actress with her one line dubbed in. The third act is amazing aside from the way the ending was constructed. I liked the choice to be daring and kill off all the protagonists. I've watched Rogue One, in its entirety, several times, and it continues to be enjoyable. Thought it was a good sign for future Disney properties... oh well.
3. Solo - This movie is pretty dumb, and it features Star Wars' second-worst character ever. Enjoyed it the one time I saw it, but have little interest in ever seeing it again. But, in its favor, it is a lot of fun to watch, and the non-Emilia Clarke members of the cast are good in their roles. Like Rogue One, this mostly looks and feels like Star Wars. As long as you don't think too much about it, or try to figure out how it fits into the Star Wars canon, Solo serves up entertainment, and a plot that mostly makes sense. Hyperfuel... stupid. Neo-Rebels... stupid. Space Kraken getting sucked into the one thing you'd assume it would be careful to stay away from... stupid. Droid Rights nonsense... stupid. Oh look, Darth Maul, and his lightsaber! ? But still, Donald Glover, Woody, Alden Ehrenwhatever, they push the movie along with a certain amount of charm. Though Ehrenwhatever is a little short for
a stormtrooperHan Solo; whatever, small gripe.7. The Force Awakens - This is a poor movie by most any measure. The plot functions entirely on convenience. Nothing in the movie past the first two or three scenes has a functional cause-and-effect relationship. The plot literally just coasts along on coincidence, right up until the end when R2D2 wakes up to trigger the plot for the sequel. The characters are flat and uninteresting. Rey is especially bad, with no character arc, no adversity, and no personality. Finn is okay. Poe is sorta-interesting, but he survives the film via Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure gimmick, which is hilarious, but not in a good way. Kylo Ren is a fairly weak villain, but Adam Driver's performance is solid... when the script isn't failing him. There's no world-building; it just deconstructs everything from the OT and then replaces it with... nothing. A Republic we don't know anything about, which is okay because it dies. An
EmpireFirst Order that we don't know anything about, other than apparently it's the remnants of the Empire, somehow displaced by a Republic with no military... wait, what? People can see distant space lasers travel across the sky in real time? But, the good news is, it isn't like we hadn't already seen all these plot elements before and it was fresh and original... Oh. Wait.13. The Last Jedi - Is it even worth bashing this movie any more than has already been done? It deconstructs the entire Star Wars mythology, but not in any way that is good. The story is boring and bafflingly dumb; oh, and it's just The Empire Strikes Back remixed with a ridiculously slow real-time chase. The run time is at least 30 minutes too long. The humor is terrible; the jokes being neither funny, nor well-timed, and usually inappropriate to the scene. The villains are comically stupid and ragey, even by the ridiculous HeyLookNatzees! standards of The Force Awakens. The "heroes" are mostly as stupid as the villains, and there is little to no character development. This movie is terrible from start to finish, with no redeeming qualities.
-
On 7/14/2018 at 11:47 AM, That Blasted Samophlange said:Yet, there is this thread asking about her. I've yet to see people asking for a Dak “I'm not ready!” Gunner card.
Seven months after the movie came out? How amazing, lol.
Revisit this thread in 2056 and tell me if anybody remembers her. Because that's how long people have been remembering Dak.
-
20 hours ago, Herowannabe said:If anything, Tallie is like the Biggs of the new trilogy... nah... on second thought, Biggs still got more screen time.
She’s like the Dak Ralter of the new trilogy.
People remember Dak. Nobody will remember Tallie Lintra, lol.
Herowannabe and Scopes reacted to this -
22 minutes ago, Lace Jetstreamer said:Bumping means you don't get an action. With a k-turn you are more harshly punished for bumping then a normal move by not being able to do the rotation plus also getting a stress. That doesn't seem consistent with how other manuevers are treated when they bump. Imagine if a blue maneuver didn't clear a stress if you bumped for instance.
If you fail a red bank or turn and bump, you still get a stress.
Higher risk, higher reward.
Also, higher cost of failure.Do I need a Username reacted to this -
-
10 hours ago, ViscerothSWG said:It would feel more realistic if when you bump and can't complete the full k-turn maneuver that you should rotate the ship to a degree relative to the distance across the template you traversed before bumping, and be given the option to make that rotation either clockwise or counterclockwise at your discretion.
Would it really? I mean, you should point the ship down (at varying angles) theoretically, not sideways. But it's a two-dimensional game, not a three dimensional one.
Let's be realistic: The game can't be completely realistic.
The current way the K-Turn works is "gamey" because it has to be. X-Wing is a game, limited by certain spacial constraints. The game rewards good flying choices and punishes bad ones. Bumping during a K-Turn is a bad flight choice, so you receive the (theoretically) negative game outcome.Do I need a Username reacted to this -
6 hours ago, HolySorcerer said:Is there any indication that this thing can fire backwards? It certainly didn’t do so in the film.
It definitely looks like the cannons are mounted on a rotating platform. And the StarWars.com entry for it refers to them as "pivoting laser cannons." Seems pretty reasonable to assume. Not seeing it fire backwards isn't really meaningless, as it was never in front of something. We never saw TIE Bombers shoot lasers or fire missiles/torpedoes either.
QuoteIf it could fire backwards it would be rotating, not pivoting.
Pivot and rotate are fairly interchangeable terms, in terms that if something pivots, it can also rotate. Not everything that rotates has to pivot, but there's no mutual exclusivity either. Pivoting just means that the movement is affixed to a specific spot
-
5 hours ago, Dr Zoidberg said:Bingo. Somebody watched the Wing Commander movie and thought it had good ship designs.... Which is a shame because the games actually did have good designs.
The Wing Commander film was probably the first of the really big Let-Down Video Game adaptation films. It was sooooooooo bad. Which is unforgivable because Wing Commander 3 was the benchmark in storytelling action games at the time. Heck, I'd go as far as to call Wing Commander 3 a landmark in video game history in terms of showing us what games were capable of achieving as a commercial product and art form.
The Wing Commander movie, on the other hand, was the first film I considered walking out of.
-
9 hours ago, JasonCole said:This, in a nutshell, is my biggest personal hiccup about the mechanics of 2.0- the instant quarterly "do over" button that basically says "we have no effing idea how to calculate points values of ships and mods, so we're just going to make it ""dynamic". Probably said in the same meeting that somebody farted out "synergy" and "value added".
While to some extent there's potential truth there, I don't think having a "do-over" button is a bad thing. Game design isn't an exact science, and the evolving meta of a persistent card-based game like X-Wing can render point values obsolete. We saw this painfully in the current version of the game. Obviously at a certain point, the X-Wing was overcosted. We knew this because nobody used them outside of one or two pilots. Why did this happen? Well, the X-Wing was developed based on the Wave One rules. By Wave 8, the game had changed significantly, rendering the X-Wing obsolete at its listed values. Only the unique pilot skills of cards like Biggs would generate significant enough value to overcome the inherent overcost of the X-Wing as a platform.
It's why so many cards needed "fixes" to make them "viable" in the game space again. 2.0 allowing more design flexibility is inherently a good thing. Your expectations are unrealistic. This is far better than the old school way of doing it like 40K in the 90s and 00s where the ruleset was just overhauled every 5-6 years (less in later years) to reset the meta. They could probably do it better with good data analysis, but even if they had better data analysis, it would still be advantageous to have a quarterly Do-Over button because nothing about it will ever be an exact, permanent science.
-
6 hours ago, JasonCole said:I support you in this. As an architect, when I perform work for a client, the client gets to use that work *once* to construct a building, but I retain all IP, copyright and trademarks, etc. My work is my work. They're paying me for it so they can use it once. In creative and analytical fields, we aren't making a *thing* that gets sold over and over, our ideas and our brains are how we make a living. Giving that out for free is a terrible business plan.
Yeah. They tried to cheat him, basically. Not only gaining ownership of his work, but of the processes of his work, for free. Oh, I'm sorry, apparently for the privilege of getting to play X-Wing 2.0 as a tester. If they didn't think there was a substantial dollar value attached to the work, that's one thing. But the rights to all of his work is ridiculous. It's the kind of thing that unscrupulous companies try to deal on young or inexperienced employees all the time. But they weren't even going to pay the guy before they stole his work, lol.
As far as whether or not Mathwing was valuable is always going to be up for debate. But, as anyone with experience can tell you, it's possible to be successful without data analysis. But having more data rarely hurt anyone.
-
I don't like the paint scheme and I don't play competitively anymore so missing out on a handful of cards will be irrelevant.
-
18 hours ago, mazz0 said:Now doesn't this thread make you all feel better about Disney's treatment of Star Wars?
Nah. Really just proves how many people can screw up Star Wars.
-
I hadn't played in over six months. 2.0 is honestly the only thing that saved my collection from the "Maybe again some time" dust pile of my game collection.
-
-
8 hours ago, Stoneface said:If the cost to transition from 1e to 2e is considered too high, a lot of casual players may say "screw it" refuse to transition an continue to play 1e or sell off their collections and get into something else.
Clearly you've never heard of Warhammer 40K. Which costs way more than X-Wing and has been successfully selling new crap to players for over thirty years. This is an almost meaningless transition. Your revolution will not be televised.
The success of 2.0 will have zero to do with cost and solely to do with the quality of the game's rules.
direweasel reacted to this -
On 6/10/2018 at 7:47 AM, Stoneface said:While marketing works for Asmodee they better consider their player base or 2E will be very short lived.
If they are so tight fisted that they don't include enough generics pilots you may see a player revolt.
They've been cornholing players since the start with a "Buy more stuff to do gooder" format the entire lifespan of the game. Why would players care now? You always had to buy a ton of ships you didn't need to get pieces of cardstock you did need. The average championship list was a few hundred dollars worth of models, 75-80% weren't actually on the table.
Now you think players will revolt because they have to buy an extra conversion kit? Excuse me why I chuckle.
-
2 hours ago, AllWingsStandyingBy said:
X-Wing was, in all honesty, never actually good from a balance stand-point.Yep. X-Wing has had a constantly shifting meta featuring a handful of dominant lists. That's not balance, unless we talk about balance at a macro level where over time, every faction has had some kind of stupidly over-powered list, but even then, and I'm not willing to do the math, I can't imagine it's been a 33.3/33.3/33.4 split on the time each faction has dominated.
And a lot of it comes from the incomplete ruleset that was never amended. 1st and 2nd Wave ships literally just don't have maneuvers and upgrade types simply because those things didn't exist in the game when they came into being. Then there were limitations of the physical components. Why can't a 1.0 A-Wing Barrel Roll? The card's font sizes meant it only had physical space for four Actions to be printed on it. Why doesn't it Tallon Roll or have a System or Tech slot? Those things didn't exist when it was released. Why do so few early-Wave pilots have Elite upgrades? Because Elite meant something different, from a design philosophy standpoint, in early waves than it did in later waves.
X-Wing 2.0 was going to have to be inevitable for the game to survive. Anybody who didn't expect it was fairly naive. Anybody who railed against it knows nothing of game design. You can't release a game in an evolving ruleset and expect it to not go off the rails at some point. The nice thing about 2.0, assuming they don't completely botch it, is that now they can look at the entire catalog of ships and upgrade cards and see how they affect gameplay across the board, rather than releasing so many things piecemeal and inventing new card types that old ships can't use.
AllWingsStandyingBy reacted to this
Heroes of the Aturi Cluster Second Edition
in X-Wing
Posted
Yeah, but there is no finished Aturi 2.0, and if it isn't accounting for the lower PS of 2.0 to allow broken combos, then it's just bad game design and needs to be adjusted. And if you are using 2nd Edition Pilot Skills with 1st Edition costs, then you're basically just cheating against a piece of paper and a die.
Even that aside, all a Sabine/Jake Farrell combo does is make you a gadget pilot giving teammates Focus Tokens. You still do very little damage. Like I said, big silly zoomy combos make the A-Wing fun to fly. It doesn't actually make it a good ship. The other fighters will still do almost all of the heavy lifting.