Jump to content

GeneralVryth

Members
  • Content Count

    203
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About GeneralVryth

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. 3 atk dice in a full front arc to 2 atk dice. Trust me as an Interceptor fan, I would be all for an improvement there. But if you are looking for ships mechanically similar to the A-wing, base firepower needs to be a part of the discussion. While the Nantex has a 3 atk bullseye, the reality is most attacks are going to come from the turret arc. The 3 atk bullseye is going to behave like in built ordinance in a similar (though less punishing) vein as TIE Adv. X1. How many ships are there with 2 atk, 3 agility, 4 hull, and a reposition based ship ability? Outside of the A-wings that only leaves the Delta-7 and now the Nantex. If you drop the last requirement you can add in the TIE Adv. V1 and the M3-A, which gives you an idea of the kind of company the Natex is in before you look at the ship specific talents.
  2. While this is probably true, and the most likely outcome is only 1 talent slot, the Nantex is probably the most likely ship we have seen to get 2 talent slots. There are two main reasons for this, first, the Nantex is the ship most similar to the A-wing we have seen so far with the exception of the Delta-7 (Which has Force and the noted configs) and the same logic that lead to the dual talent slots for them can likely be applied to the Nantex. Second, the Nantex is the first ship we have seen so far with ship specific talents, and it's very likely the ship won't have any other upgrade slots besides talents and mods. So having a second talent will help keep it customizable. There is only 3 ships that have a single slot on their lowest initiative pilot. The TIE/ln, Modified TIE/ln, and the Fang, the first two are essentially canon fodder, and the Fang is a weird outlier. It doesn't seem like the Nantex is meant to be canon fodder, so if does only get 1 talent for the high initiative pilots it will be in rare company with the Fang.
  3. Another thing about the Outbound Flight is it shouldn't be in the cargo ships section if the GR-75 isn't. Each of the outer 6 ships dwarf a GR-75, and if memory serves are even bigger and heavier gunned than a Nebulon Frigate.
  4. I like that answer. I can't think of anything else that would be too ridiculous then. Both predator and marksmen synergize well with the primary arc but not overbearingly so.
  5. Fair, wrong post. But I don't see any post that explains Mep's intention before the one you quoted. Just the flippant one Kreen referenced. But with a desire not to drag this out further, I will leave it there. The ship specific ones certainly do provide that possibility. I wonder what the most broken talent combination you could come up with for the ship would be if it does have two. Ensnare and Outmaneuver could easily mean a 3+ red die attack with no defensive options for the vast majority of ships. Is that too powerful if Ensnare is expensive?
  6. @JJ48 here is the post you appear to be objecting to. The third line makes it pretty clear the poster is open to the idea that there may be a misunderstanding going on. What part of this strikes you as deliberately misinterpreting someone else's words?
  7. Rich coming from someone who helped cause a different thread to devolve into a second amendment rights debate. It's fine to de-rail a thread about your pet issue though right? You realize @Mep's last two comments on the issue before @SpiderMana responded were attacking Spider directly right? It's funny every time I see someone introduce the "SJW" phrase on the internet they are using it as an insult and usually are more disruptive than whatever person they are targeting. Of course calling someone a small person is always constructive to discourse, right? Personally, I would love to see the issue dropped since it does like a misunderstanding. But I hate hypocrites more. Though, if you would like to stop belaboring the point, by all means I am sure everyone would prefer it. As for Nantex I think it's going to be a niche ship. If you aren't regularly getting people in its bullseye it's unlikely to be worth its points because it will probably be expensive for just 2 atk die ship with a mobile arc.
  8. The real truth of the matter is all 3 upgrades tend to scale multiplicatively with the value of the ship they are added to (Shield/Hull Upgrade more so than Stealth Device). If you looked you would probably find SU/HU on ships that have a higher attack value more often as well. Both higher initiative and higher attack values correlate to a higher ship value. Agility is just the thing the best approximates the scaling of the added value of the upgrades. I do think it may be worth while to adjust how the upgrades scale with agility (maybe 2/3/4/5, and 3/4/5/6 instead of the current values). The reason 1 and 0 agility options for Shield and Hull upgrade are so popular is because medium and large ships tend to be more expensive while also having lower agility values. A lot of the high agility ships either tend to be cheaper, or don't have a mod a slot and so can't take advantage of the upgrades (one of the 3 would probably be stapled to every Defender if they had a mod slot).
  9. Setting aside my own popcorn in this thread for a moment. Given the number of questions we see in the rules forum where it seems like FFG didn't think through the full implications of the text, it seems very likely this is a another case of that. I would wager it's probably correct that the FFG was only thinking about the aggressive behavior when they wrote the rule. And given the highly political nature of the issue, I think it's highly unlikely that we are going to see any kind of clarification about whether legally carried concealed weapons were meant to be covered or not. Which sadly is going to leave this in the hands of the people running the events and venues where they are held until something happens or there is a enough community outcry to get them to issue a clarification. That said if they do issue a clarification I would wager it's likely going to be carrying a concealed weapon is a disqualifying offense at their events. While the issue may be split in the US as whole, in individual cities it tends to be one-sided (cities tend to have stronger anti-gun laws on average), and for their global consumer base it's probably also pretty one sided. So for those in favor of concealed carry, it would probably be wise to drop it. FFG has no incentive to come down on either side of a political issue unless forced too, but if they are, it's probably going to be whatever side favors their bottom line.
  10. I think the point in this case is that it can be refused, by calling over a marshal and asking them to deny it. Reading the contexts in which the word is used, it seems like it was placed there to encourage a positive environment where something can be asked with the expectation that it would be granted unless there is exceptional reason to deny it. Using words like order or demand makes the desired interaction sound more aggressive than FFG would probably like, hence using request when in reality it's closer to a demand (though it still can technically be denied). Edit: Also, while I am not a linguist, in most cases where I hear the word "request" used, it's only optional in the sense that if you plan on refusing you better have a **** good argument on your side or be prepared for consequences.
  11. It supports both readings, but anyone unwilling to share dice is going to get questions as to why. And a marshal siding with the refuser given this thread better have solid reasoning as well.
  12. Here are my thoughts, speaking as someone who doesn't go to tournaments (at least not yet), and strictly plays for fun and won't be impacted no matter what happens, but finds the discussion about the strategy and tactics interesting. First, neither player did anything wrong. They were both playing to win in their own way and they were not stalling. I have lost a tournament in a another game with a prize worth hundreds of dollars due to what felt like actual stalling, this was not that. Second, judges trying to fix the problem by telling players to engage is likely to cause more aggravation than it is to fix the problem. Because what one person may consider engaging, or gaining position to engage another is going to consider stalling. The real problem is neither player having an incentive to engage or move in such a way as to create an opening. And to provide my thoughts on this here is a quote from a different thread where this was also being discussed: In essence, either create a secondary objective that provides an incentive to move, or if your not going to do that force each ship to "mobile fortress" on its own merits. Part of a ships price accounts for their maneuverability, if you want to fly in a circle to try and create an ideal engagement you should have constraints on how you spend points to do that effectively. And for the corner cases still left just move the stupid clock to where it needs to be to change behavior or go to final salvo.
  13. I don't agree with the warning to force people to engage either. It gets too subjective on what counts as engaging. Assuming some kind of objective or secondary point system isn't added I do think there are two changes that would further reduce the instance of this kind of outcome (which I don't think anyone involved really enjoys). First the fortressing rule should be expanded/modified slightly to encompass the idea that the only ships that can remain in the same location several turns in a row without engaging an enemy ship are those that can do it without being within range 0 of a friendly ship, any other ship persisting in that state for X amount of rounds would be destroyed. I think flying circuits like most of the ships were doing in the match in question is fine, because the maneuverability to perform a tight circuit is part of the cost of the ship, and it's unlikely two squads are going to have circuits of the same period, so there should be odd openings that come from the different in periods. In the case of this game, forcing the Arc and Delta-7 to move would have likely forced some kind of engagement because it would be hard for the Arc to fly a circuit without exposing itself eventually, especially when maneuvering around the other friendlies. Second, if both squads can successfully fly repeating circuits without creating an opening, start speeding up the clock or periodically fast forward it X amount of minutes, this will help the game come to a quicker resolution. If both players just want to go to final salvo, that should be an option as well. Just my two cents as an outsider in this case.
  14. As someone who doesn't go to tournaments, but finds this particular discussion kind of interesting because of what it says about what the extremes of the game can lead to, I do have one question. If both you and your opponent new what the endgame was going to be and were okay with it, why not just call a tournament organizer (or marshal?) over and ask if you can fast forward the game clock like 20 or 30 minutes, or something? Is that just not allowed by the rules? It seems like an option to skip over the section of game both players have already decided they were willing to skip over would be beneficial for everyone involved. For the players it reduces the chance of mistakes due to fatigue (which I assume wasn't part of the plan), and for everyone else is just speeds up something that could be fairly judged as boring from a spectators point of view.
  15. Indeed. This is actually why I don't think that ability would be a good idea (or would need to cost a lot). It would be to large of a momentum shift. Your attack misses and I get Force.
×
×
  • Create New...