Jump to content

GeneralVryth

Members
  • Content Count

    203
  • Joined

  • Last visited


Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    GeneralVryth got a reaction from Jarval in Pulling the Strings (Nantex article up)   
    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.
  2. Sad
    GeneralVryth got a reaction from ClassicalMoser in Pulling the Strings (Nantex article up)   
    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.
  3. Like
    GeneralVryth got a reaction from theBitterFig in Pulling the Strings (Nantex article up)   
    @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?
  4. Like
    GeneralVryth got a reaction from theBitterFig in Pulling the Strings (Nantex article up)   
    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.
  5. Like
    GeneralVryth got a reaction from Kreen in Pulling the Strings (Nantex article up)   
    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.
  6. Thanks
    GeneralVryth got a reaction from SpiderMana in Pulling the Strings (Nantex article up)   
    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.
  7. Confused
    GeneralVryth got a reaction from JJ48 in Pulling the Strings (Nantex article up)   
    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. Like
    GeneralVryth got a reaction from Sasajak in Initiative based upgrades vs Agility based upgrades.   
    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. Like
    GeneralVryth got a reaction from Wazat in I tested my dice...   
    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.
  10. Like
    GeneralVryth got a reaction from millertime059 in I tested my dice...   
    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. Thanks
    GeneralVryth got a reaction from Tlfj200 in I tested my dice...   
    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.
  12. Like
    GeneralVryth got a reaction from DarkHorse in I tested my dice...   
    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.
  13. Like
    GeneralVryth got a reaction from GreenDragoon in I tested my dice...   
    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.
  14. Like
    GeneralVryth got a reaction from Hiemfire in I tested my dice...   
    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.
  15. Like
    GeneralVryth reacted to punkUser in I tested my dice...   
    Check out the results:
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1alv05cXh0WhNaFPoq3LNzxmv6veurf6utV1kMQAYDQw/edit?usp=sharing

    2019-09-10: Updates in the document and comments here: 
    .
  16. Like
    GeneralVryth reacted to theBitterFig in 2019 SoCal Hyperspace Trial Playlist (The Trial is the one ending in “totally not Fortressing”)   
    I guess a lot of my point is that there are tactics of non-engagement that happen at the start, and tactics of non-engagement which happen at the end.  They both reduce the amount of time in the game which is actually rolling dice against each other's ships.  One's good, one's bad?  There are ways to force someone to engage you in an unfavorable part of the board by running, and ways to force someone to engage you in an unfavorable part of the board by floating in a smallish area.  Maybe that's more of a results-based focus than a process-based one.  They aren't the same, but they often aim to accomplish the same things.
    The zeal against a floating "fortress" seems like it comes with a lot of complaints that "it isn't engaging, and it's stalling for time." There are a lot of ways that players in this game stall for time and avoid engaging.  This one seems singled out.  It's also a method which gets used by generics, while other forms of of playing for time and avoiding fights get used by aces, and those seem to be fine.  That doesn't sit well with me.  If the principle is that stalling for time is bad, floating fortresses aren't the only way folks do that, and those seem to be ignored.  If the principle is that non-engagement and waiting for the right time to attack is bad, well, clearly that isn't a general principle which folks are trying to apply here.  No, only the floating fortress seems to be targeted, nothing else which applies similar techniques to gain advantage in games.
    Did that one final suck?  Sure.
    Would it suck less if both sides were ace lists which circled the board for nearly two hours, and only turned in to fight for one round in the end?  No, it'd suck exactly the same amount.
    Do most ace lists circle for ten or fifteen minute less than the time limit?  No.  Do most hovering Phantom/Starviper lists float about for nearly the whole span of a game?  No, they also intend to strike if they get a good opportunity.  Wait for your opponent to get into an angle of attack, and outmaneuver them in the knife-fight.  I don't think it's right to say that an ace list can keep running until they get a good flank, demand that a player chase them, while a generic list is unable to respond make a decision to stand rather than to chase.
    Folks say "oh, it isn't playing, you're not risking anything."  Eh.  Those B-Wings took a wrong turn in Toronto, effectively ending the game.  Folks can mess up dials and lose games that way.  Doesn't happen often, but it's non-zero that someone messes up.  Maybe the ships k-turning along the edge are pointed the wrong way at the wrong time, and a cunning opponent can get in free damage.  And I don't really think running away is always that much more challenging.  Dial in a 3-bank or a 4-straight and boost; no one will catch that Falcon.
    I'm not unsympathetic to the goal of "X-Wing is better when people fight" but I don't like when that seems to be directed only at one kind of tactic folks use to not-fight.  I don't like the idea of judges saying to a swarm player "you've got to move and expose your flank to the aces" in the same way I don't like the idea of judges necessarily saying to an ace player "you've got to turn in now."  I like it less, however, when it kinda sounds like folks won't say to ace players that they've got to joust, but they will say to generic fliers that they've got to expose their flanks.  This means of gaining an advantage for an eventual engagement is fine, the other means is wrong, and it closely aligns with the different tools available to different lists.
    It can't be fixed by judges, but I really believe the only right way to fix the problem (to the extend it's a problem--most of the time the fortress doesn't last until all-but-one-round, most of the time the aces don't circle until all-but-one-round) is to have an active incentive to engage.  Maybe part of it is to adjust Final Salvo, to alter incentives and make it less optimal (more dice often means "fight me here" gets the last word over "chase me").  Maybe that's some sort of objective system, where the players can decide for themselves how they want to attempt to score points from it or how to engage their opponent.  It's probably not easy.  X-Wing isn't a symmetric game.  Players have different lists and they work in different ways and it's probably hard to have one set of rules that's close enough to fair for everyone.
    But still, I think as much as possible, players should figure this out for themselves.  How they want to approach.  How long they want to circle before they see the right opportunity.  How long they want to hover and float.  When they want to disengage, and whether they turn around or keep running.  I think these are decisions which ought to be made by players, not by judges.
    Particularly when it seems like *one* style of list is being singled out.
     
     
     
    P.S. Emphasis added in place of a TL,DR.
    P.P.S. Less important, but going last because it'd break up my flow, it's a massively RAI approach.  I know I shouldn't care, but it kind of irks me.  FFG incredibly narrowly defined fortressing, essentially targeting only truly static positions.  However, a mention of fortressing in the stalling the game/unsporting conduct is being radically expanded beyond the actual definition in the tournament regs.  If judges made a similar ruling on cards or the rules reference, they'd probably get slammed in the forums.  I recall back in 1e when the devs tried to make an unofficial statement that they didn't want Genius and Trajectory Simulator, and a lot of judges wouldn't accept only that.  The cards said one thing, and until there was an official FAQ, they felt the right thing to do was to follow the text of the cards.  It was an approach to TrajSim Genius that said, "FFG got the rules wrong, left out some unintended consequences, and the right thing to do is demand FFG fix it, rather than change the rules ourselves."  There's something to respect in that.  This... kinda feels like the opposite.
  17. Like
    GeneralVryth reacted to Crimsonwarlock in Obstacles in Deployment Zones (fortress fix?)   
    The magnitude of this problem is fairly low.  I've had somewhere between 100-150 games games with my viper list.  I've only had this particular set of circumstances occur twice.  And the previous time it happened, my opponents left an opening while within striking distance of the vipers so I came out of the corner.
  18. Like
    GeneralVryth got a reaction from Brunas in Carolina Krayts is the best X-Wing podcast   
    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.
  19. Like
    GeneralVryth got a reaction from Brunas in Carolina Krayts is the best X-Wing podcast   
    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.
  20. Like
    GeneralVryth got a reaction from Crimsonwarlock in Carolina Krayts is the best X-Wing podcast   
    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.
  21. Like
    GeneralVryth reacted to Crimsonwarlock in Carolina Krayts is the best X-Wing podcast   
    I had considered that, but our Marshall was a bit of a stickler for the rules (as is his job).  The timer was even set for 75 min initially and then extended to 2 hours when someone showed him the tournament doc where it had to be 2 hours.  I almost lost because of this extension as I was getting ready to move to my opponents board edge with 14 min on the clock.  If this extension had come a turn later, I would have been too close to safely disengage.  Fortunately for me vipers can fade back quickly. 
  22. Like
    GeneralVryth got a reaction from DarkArk in Opinion: Deltas are being underrated   
    I wholeheartedly agree with the idea that a lot of the Force powers are overpriced, even more so on Delta (and yet even more so when you're taking 7B if it scales by agility). Predictive shot should only cost 1 point, when you look at what it's really doing, on average you are removing a single green die. There are cases where you will do more and others when you won't be able to use it at all. And removing that die is really no better than using a Force normally to get an extra hit if you rolled an eyeball. So unless you have Force to burn it's only providing a secondary option in many cases. I already commented earlier in this thread how Brilliant Evasion  is hot garbage. I mean in theory if there is a time you could activate it and you only have 1 Force and no Focus, then it's doing the job of a Hull Upgrade, but how often is that going to come up before the ship dies outright? For a ship with 2 agility it's a 1/16 chance, I don't expect most 2 agility ships are going to survive even 8 attacks without other defenses in their favor. And while it's more likely to come up on a 3 agility ship, how many of those have more than 4 or 5 hull? What are the odds you roll that before you pop? It should only cost 1 on 2 agility or lower ships and no more than 3 on 3 agility ships. SNR should scale at half the rate, 20 points is still expensive even on an I6 that can abuse it.
    That is all of course secondary to the problem of putting a Force upgrade on a Delta-7. The beginning of this thread talked about the diminishing returns on options. Force powers on the Delta-7 is a perfect example of this. Every Delta-7 pilot besides Mace and the generic have 3 built in ways to spend the Force beyond the base effect. Every other non Delta-7 pilot has at most 1. Every Force power besides Hate is just another way to spend the Force. Your Luke and generic Inquisitor get a lot more out of their first new option on how to spend Force, than Obi or Anakin are going to get on their 4th. I am not sure there is a good solution to this either, unless you just made Force upgrades cheaper on the Delta-7 specifically. The next best option is balancing the prices so they are questionable on the Delta-7 but almost must pick on other ships (which may not be a bad thing given how few Force pilots their are and their inherent cost already).
     
  23. Like
    GeneralVryth got a reaction from CRCL in Opinion: Deltas are being underrated   
    I wholeheartedly agree with the idea that a lot of the Force powers are overpriced, even more so on Delta (and yet even more so when you're taking 7B if it scales by agility). Predictive shot should only cost 1 point, when you look at what it's really doing, on average you are removing a single green die. There are cases where you will do more and others when you won't be able to use it at all. And removing that die is really no better than using a Force normally to get an extra hit if you rolled an eyeball. So unless you have Force to burn it's only providing a secondary option in many cases. I already commented earlier in this thread how Brilliant Evasion  is hot garbage. I mean in theory if there is a time you could activate it and you only have 1 Force and no Focus, then it's doing the job of a Hull Upgrade, but how often is that going to come up before the ship dies outright? For a ship with 2 agility it's a 1/16 chance, I don't expect most 2 agility ships are going to survive even 8 attacks without other defenses in their favor. And while it's more likely to come up on a 3 agility ship, how many of those have more than 4 or 5 hull? What are the odds you roll that before you pop? It should only cost 1 on 2 agility or lower ships and no more than 3 on 3 agility ships. SNR should scale at half the rate, 20 points is still expensive even on an I6 that can abuse it.
    That is all of course secondary to the problem of putting a Force upgrade on a Delta-7. The beginning of this thread talked about the diminishing returns on options. Force powers on the Delta-7 is a perfect example of this. Every Delta-7 pilot besides Mace and the generic have 3 built in ways to spend the Force beyond the base effect. Every other non Delta-7 pilot has at most 1. Every Force power besides Hate is just another way to spend the Force. Your Luke and generic Inquisitor get a lot more out of their first new option on how to spend Force, than Obi or Anakin are going to get on their 4th. I am not sure there is a good solution to this either, unless you just made Force upgrades cheaper on the Delta-7 specifically. The next best option is balancing the prices so they are questionable on the Delta-7 but almost must pick on other ships (which may not be a bad thing given how few Force pilots their are and their inherent cost already).
     
  24. Like
    GeneralVryth got a reaction from Ryuneke in Opinion: Deltas are being underrated   
    I wholeheartedly agree with the idea that a lot of the Force powers are overpriced, even more so on Delta (and yet even more so when you're taking 7B if it scales by agility). Predictive shot should only cost 1 point, when you look at what it's really doing, on average you are removing a single green die. There are cases where you will do more and others when you won't be able to use it at all. And removing that die is really no better than using a Force normally to get an extra hit if you rolled an eyeball. So unless you have Force to burn it's only providing a secondary option in many cases. I already commented earlier in this thread how Brilliant Evasion  is hot garbage. I mean in theory if there is a time you could activate it and you only have 1 Force and no Focus, then it's doing the job of a Hull Upgrade, but how often is that going to come up before the ship dies outright? For a ship with 2 agility it's a 1/16 chance, I don't expect most 2 agility ships are going to survive even 8 attacks without other defenses in their favor. And while it's more likely to come up on a 3 agility ship, how many of those have more than 4 or 5 hull? What are the odds you roll that before you pop? It should only cost 1 on 2 agility or lower ships and no more than 3 on 3 agility ships. SNR should scale at half the rate, 20 points is still expensive even on an I6 that can abuse it.
    That is all of course secondary to the problem of putting a Force upgrade on a Delta-7. The beginning of this thread talked about the diminishing returns on options. Force powers on the Delta-7 is a perfect example of this. Every Delta-7 pilot besides Mace and the generic have 3 built in ways to spend the Force beyond the base effect. Every other non Delta-7 pilot has at most 1. Every Force power besides Hate is just another way to spend the Force. Your Luke and generic Inquisitor get a lot more out of their first new option on how to spend Force, than Obi or Anakin are going to get on their 4th. I am not sure there is a good solution to this either, unless you just made Force upgrades cheaper on the Delta-7 specifically. The next best option is balancing the prices so they are questionable on the Delta-7 but almost must pick on other ships (which may not be a bad thing given how few Force pilots their are and their inherent cost already).
     
  25. Like
    GeneralVryth got a reaction from hargleblarg in So why don't the I3 Torrent and ARC cost 27 and 44 points?   
    Yeah there is definitely something going on here. The 104th arc does seem under costed by a couple points. And every V-19 besides the Gold Squadron Pilot feels over costed.
    Besides the point issues though, I think the bigger problem for the V-19 is it doesn't have the killer upgrade to make it solid, instead of generic filler. Just look at how popular Energy Shell Charges are for Vultures. If Homing Missiles were a little cheaper then maybe them plus Synchronized Consoles would be enough, but even then Homing Missiles rarely feel like they hit hard enough for what they do because it's almost always a no brainer to choose the single guaranteed damage. if when you chose to take the homing missile damage, if you had to roll a red dice for a chance at a second (like crossing an asteroid) it would make the decision a lot harder and probably V-19s better as well.
    I think V-19s suffer form the same missile issues as the A-wing, Z-95, Advanced x1, and maybe even the Advanced v1. Missiles either are too expensive for what they provide, especially when you have to spend extra points or actions to be able to get the target lock to be able to even shoot during the first exchange. It's a shame we didn't get a good generic missile in the Guardians of the Republic pack (an upgraded version of Homing Missile would give missiles a nice niche and fix a lot of the missile issues in general).
×
×
  • Create New...