GeneralVryth
-
Content Count
215 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by GeneralVryth
-
-
15 hours ago, Odanan said:There is a reason we will never see a series/film called "Yoda", "Chewbacca", or (I dare to say) "Ahsoka".
I just though the turn around from this was too funny to ignore.
For what it's worth this whole conversation has seemed to odd me, when I think about my favorite Star Wars characters most of them are phenotypically different especially, considering the number of white male characters to choose from (the fact that so many come off as whiny doesn't help. Seriously what is with the collection of whiny/child-like white male jedi protagonists? First Luke, then Anakin, then Ezra...).
As for the Mandolorian himself he is a kind of bland distilled version of the Mandolorian idea that Boba Fett inspired. As he distinguishes himself more and interacts with more characters (especially other Mandolorians) he will become more interesting. That is part of why Grogu is so interesting beyond being cute, there is a mystery there (about Yoda's species, among lots of other things), that people are anxious to learn more about. There doesn't seem to be much in terms of mystery or new things we could learn about Din, all of the blanks are too easy to fill in. That's why interest in him really can only grow by seeing how interacts and changes to his interactions with these more mysterious things that are foreign to him.
-
It's literally called "Star Wars: Ahsoka"
-
This looks awesome, I now regret not trying to get comfortable with Armada in Vassal (and really against other people in a competitive setting) and trying this out. Good luck to all of the participants.
GK any interesting highlights or notes from the games you have watched so far?
-
As a new player, that is still a little unsure if I want to get into this game, I think this discussion is fascinating. My first time using the clones I didn't end up using Fire Support at all. I didn't think it was good. I approached it from the perspective of action efficiency. You are sacrificing an action, an activation, and the need to issue an order to a corps (limiting activation control), in exchange for a single more powerful attack. That didn't strike me a great trade-off, more like something that is very niche that may be occasionally useful (I also didn't understand the clone token sharing so I thought they were weak in comparison to other factions corps units and wondering how Fire Support facilitated the sharing I had heard about). Having read this thread (and plenty of the rules reference) and watched the video in the OP I understand now I was very wrong in my assessment. Both describe what I hadn't grasped initially how forcing the niche nature of Fire Support being useful to come up more often could in turn make it very powerful despite the costs.
So with that said here is the 2 cents of a new relative outsider on the issue. I think the logical first step to toning it down would be the checking for panic as described a few times in this thread (probably in the form having to perform the rally step when being declared for fire support but before rolling). That just makes thematic sense (rules that thematic that also help achieve balance are the best kind). If that isn't enough I am not sure what you do next though. Fire Support (or the general cross support nature for clones) feels like a good mechanical theme for their story theme, and it seems like it would be easy to nerf Fire Support into uselessness given all of the drawbacks listed above already connected to it. I think any kind of dice cap is just going to change the specific upgrades and squads used in tandem with it, instead of addressing the real issue.
The next best idea I can come up with (if the panic change isn't enough), is what if you tied Fire Support to a using a standby token? Instead of it consuming an active issued order, instead it required spending a standby token for the unit to provide Fire Support? That way you remove some of the inherent weaknesses of Fire Support in exchange for building a fix to the issue of being immune to panic and at the same time providing more counter play to the opponent since you would have to get the standby token in the first place (and it's easier to remove for the opponent).
Darth Sanguis reacted to this -
This idea sounds much more interesting that what we got in the ST. The groundwork was clearly set in both Clone Wars and Solo. Even without Maul, it sounds much more interesting and would have made for a better stories. It essentially sets up a variation of the PT (a government trying to fight corruption and a lurking threat) that isn't doomed from the beginning, and opens the door for something approaching a new Jedi that doesn't have the same flaws or downfall as the previous one.
-
Yeah I hear you on being beaten by the program rather than the game inside it. I guess I am just more amenable to it at times since my job involves getting used to and overcoming that opponent. Also the automation is much better than everything else, so I am willing to tolerate the bugs that come with it (though I am open to be schooled on the automation in Vassal or TTS being better than I think). As for the points, an update just came out this week from FFG, you usually need the next new build after a points update to get the new slots and points. I would guess a new build is coming in the next week or 2. I am anxiously awaiting it as a matter of fact since I am excited to try out the Eta's against the AI and with their having Cannon, Mod, and Talent slots to go with the Force and Astro they are going to be fun to fly. I kind of want to build an Anakin and Obi list and just fly it through a faction generic lists like we are talking about for the gyms.
If you are going to use 200 point fleets to begin with, I think your right with the idea that you would need leaders at the 225 level, and elite 4 lists probably at 250 if you want to make them a serious challenge. Though I do think the biggest challenge is going to be coming up with lists the AI is good with rather than may be good in general. My suggestion in that regard is to use more upgrades and pilot abilities that give passive bonuses and don't rely a lot on timing. Luke is a good example of this, talents like predator and crack are also good. If you have to think about when to use an upgrade to get the most out of it, you probably don't want it on the AI.
-
That's unfortunate. In general I don't run into many bugs, and it's even more rare for them to truly lock the game (the one or two times I have seen a weird situation where ships were allowed to be overlapped, while problematic from a balance perspective you could keep going quite easily). I hope you next attempt is better and you don't give up on it since I do think it is close to what you are looking for, for your challenge.
Speaking of, have you solidified any of your ideas? I have been pondering this in my head, and I would probably take a factional theme approach instead of a mechanical theme one. Which is nice since you could have each faction be one "gym" (or if you really want 8, split Scum into Bounty Hunters/Hutts/Black Sun, and Scoundrels/Mandolorians). Expanding on that here is a slightly more concrete set of rules I would try:
The player gets a 150 point fleet. They can change upgrades between non-elite four matches, but not pilots.
Each gym has a generic fight at 150 points and a leader match at 175 points.. The generic fleet can't use any single dot pilots/upgrades and no more than 2 types of pilots. The generic fleet should follow the factional theme in lore (Imperials and Separatists would be swarms. First Order, higher tech swarm. Republic support+heavy or light fighters. Rebels average beef. Resistance, talented beef. Scum, screw with terrain/tricks?). The leader match would have a single dot pilot (that can also take single dot upgrades) and then other ships to complement them (The leader should be obvious for the faction, Luke for Rebels, Soontir Imperials, Kylo First Order, Rey Resistance, Boba Scum, Republic would be one of the Jedi, and Seps I am unsure on).
For the elite 4, I would think 3 or 4 (one from each era, and maybe 1 scum) squads of 200 points each, each led by an I6 (ideally) pilot with a squad supporting them. So far the obvious choices would be Poe, Han/Wedge, and Soontir. The Clone Wars era pilot is a puzzle to me, since I would want someone iconic but I don't want to repeat a character, and since I don't think there is an obvious one... let me end on my idea for the champ's squad.
Fly Casual has some cool mods for some pilots in alternate ships, and an option for turning off point limits. So I think the champion should be Darth Vader in a TIE Defender, supported by the Emperor in a Generic shuttle supported by 2 Saber Squadron Pilots. Each ship should be loaded to the gills with upgrades with no thought given to cost, just what makes them the most dangerous (the AI is a little dumb so something that may be more powerful in the hands of a good player that knows how to time it right may not work for the AI).
Thoughts, or is that straying too far from what you had in mind?
-
The AI in FlyCasual will still sometimes fly itself off the board, so there is that. Really that program in general is responsible for keeping me as interested (And buying product) in X-Wing as anything due to a lack of other opportunities to play normally. The big downside of it, is it's multiplayer support is comparatively weak next to Vassal and TTS (which shouldn't matter for this), however once you get used to the automation in FlyCasual, Vassal and TTS feel painful by comparison (FlyCasual is much closer to a board game made into a video game like Talisman or Catan on Steam, than a virtual tabletop).
-
I do things like this all the time in FlyCasual, and that seems like it would be a lot better than Vassal or TTS. My variation though is usually trying to use like a single 100 point ship (or 2 ships that add up to 150 points) against a more expensive fleet (either 130 or 200 respectively). FlyCasual also handles the iteration part much better since so much more is automated than either Vassal or TTS. The main downside of course it may be missing a few cards that you could use in those systems. It also I believe has a better AI than the rule-set FFG presented.
-
4 hours ago, Ronu said:This would be a really bad idea. This happens in other games and it can quickly unbalance things. You end up with a list that is in actuality 230 points vs a list that is sub 200 if you are not using those ships with bonus points. Warmachine does that and it really can show the imbalance of a theme list that gets bonus points or free characters vs not.
it also makes the game much more about an alpha strike than anything else which ultimately is not much fun for one player or the other.
The depends on how the base chassis is priced. The point is to make the base chassis inefficient to buy without spending those bonus points. No naked TIE bombers. A recurring theme of certain ships that feel too expensive, is they feel that way because you want to add upgrades to them on top of their base cost. But if you lower there cost to make room for upgrades you can pass a threshold so you can just spam the ship without any upgrades for pure efficiency.
-
One solution that I have always liked but don't see discussed much is giving some ships some points for free that must be spent on certain kinds of upgrades for the ship. Using the Jumpmaster as an example (and forgive me, I don't much about the ship so the numbers in the example could be off), instead of reducing the cost by 10 points, instead when you add one to your list you get 10 points in crew and torpedo (or whatever) upgrades that can only be spent on that ship. This will allow ships that are meant to be heavy ordinance platforms (like a TIE Bomber), to be costed closer to what it should represent in the squad with the ordinance while giving the points back. The same line of thinking works for large ships that are supposed to be kitted out more that run the risk of being spammed if their cost is lowered enough to allow them to be properly kitted out. Other examples would be giving Khiraxz some free points to spend on modifications and illicit mods. The TIE Interceptor is probably the hardest to fix with this approach because they weren't classically meant to be super customizable and not all of their pilots have talent slots. You could still give them a couple of free points to spend on modifications but it could feel off do to the lore.
Vontoothskie reacted to this -
3 minutes ago, ClassicalMoser said:Wait wait wait wait wait wait wait wait wait wait wait wait wait wait wait wait wait wait wait...
Not the TIE Interceptor?
I mean, how do you figure? The TIE/in is the closest counterpart to the A-Wing in the game, for sure. It's a hard-to-fly, nimble, extremely squishy craft that excels at blocking but is even better as an arc-dodger. A-Wing generics were useless until they got their double-talents back. Wouldn't double-talents save the Interceptor as well? Intimidation Alphas or Outmaneuver/Predator Sabers could see at least some use in fringe builds I'm sure. Of course, it more needs a price drop (32 point Alphas/38 point Sabers please!), but it would at least be something to help the poor thing out.
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 hours ago, MalusCalibur said:There is no reason to expect the Nantex to have two Talent slots. You have to make a choice about what to do with it, either using your Tractor tokens aggressively (with Ensnare) with a penalty for failing to pass it off (-1 agility), or defensively (with Gravitic Deflection), with compensation for the reduced agility in the form of the reroll. There's no meaningful decision to make if you can just have both, or either of them for 'free' (in opportunity terms) as well as another bonus with another Talent.
If those abilities were meant to be as much a part of the ship as the Pinpoint Tractor Array itself is, they'd have been Configuration cards like the Delta-7B/CLT are.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.
-
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.
-
1 minute ago, Caduceus01 said:Nantex can’t use outmaneuver unless it’s on a snap shot. No front arc.
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.
-
10 minutes ago, JJ48 said:In this post, Mep had already explained that his post wasn't meant as a slight, and yet SpiderMana decided to continue on and read it as insulting anyway. I don't approve of personal attacks, but neither do I approve of actively searching for reasons to be offended.
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.
4 minutes ago, SpiderMana said:I was kindof thinking this might be the case, myself. But "a lot" of Talent cards in a pack doesn't really mean that it definitely will have two slots, and that's the best we have to go off of, for now. Especially since two of them are ship-specific, likely inflating the number somewhat artificially, if that makes sense.
Really just have to wait
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?
-
23 hours ago, Kreen said:I'm curious about why, and very sad that, you felt the need to take a shot at LGBTQ folks in a thread about the awesomeness of a new release.
For shame, my dude. For shame.
And if that's not your intent, great! But you might want to edit your post, since that's how it comes across.
Edit: seriously FFG? Censoring the Q from LGBTQ?
@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?
theBitterFig reacted to this -
20 minutes ago, JJ48 said:That's just how 21st Century communication works.
1. Hear someone say something.
2. Think of all potential meanings, no matter how far-fetched.
3. Latch on to a potentially offensive meaning and assume that's the one the speaker meant.
4. Become offended
5. Treat the speaker with anger or condescension depending on whether you choose to view the perceived offense as intentional or unintentional.
6. Continue to belabor the point long after the true meaning has been made clear and everyone else has decided to move on.
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.
-
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).
-
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.
-
2 hours ago, Hiemfire said:A "request" that cannot be refused is either an order or a demand.
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.
-
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.
Archangelspiv and Hiemfire reacted to this -
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:
QuoteI 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 difference 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.
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.
-
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.
Brunas and Crimsonwarlock reacted to this
How much will this hurt?
in X-Wing
Posted
Facebook groups (and really any site that blocks read access to people with accounts only) are never a good replacement for things like forums. Though Facebook in particular is extra bad in that regard.