Are triple YV-666 builds going to be a thing?

[Rakky Wistol 2,903]

as with all things... it is already "a thing"... will it be a worthwhile THING in this game?  maybe.

[WonderWAAAGH 7,153]

So is there anything that leads you to believe the former is more likely than the latter?

 

What I believe is that we won't know anything for certain until the reference card is in our hands. I don't think one option is more likely than the other so much as I think that you're giving the idea of new rules to accompany the 180 degree arc short shrift. Is it a new primary weapon? I don't know. Have we had a 180 degree arc before? No.

 

Please bear in mind that the FAQ is always subject to change, especially as the game continues to evolve and interactions become increasingly complex. The designers may have had the foresight to bar this exact sort of interaction that everyone is assuming will be possible. Given that we know as little about their intent and balance philosophy as we do the actual rules text that will accompany the Tooth, why is it so hard to accept that Tactician might not work?

 

While we don't *know* anything, with a bit of critical thinking and pattern recognition, we really know quite a bit.

 

An educated guess still boils down to assumption. You're all welcome to assume as much as you like, and you might very well prove correct. I wouldn't be surprised if you are, and I wouldn't be surprised if you aren't.

 

I don't think "uses existing rules" is that much of a leap.

 

Are there existing rules for a 180 degree arc?

Edited May 22, 2015 by WonderWAAAGH

[Forensicus 883]

 

So is there anything that leads you to believe the former is more likely than the latter?

 

What I believe is that we won't know anything for certain until the reference card is in our hands. I don't think one option is more likely than the other so much as I think that you're giving the idea of new rules to accompany the 180 degree arc short shrift. Is it a new primary weapon? I don't know. Have we had a 180 degree arc before? No.

 

Please bear in mind that the FAQ is always subject to change, especially as the game continues to evolve and interactions become increasingly complex. The designers may have had the foresight to bar this exact sort of interaction that everyone is assuming will be possible. Given that we know as little about their intent and balance philosophy as we do the actual rules text that will accompany the Tooth, why is it so hard to accept that Tactician might not work?

 

While we don't *know* anything, with a bit of critical thinking and pattern recognition, we really know quite a bit.

 

An educated guess still boils down to assumption. You're all welcome to assume as much as you like, and you might very well prove correct. I wouldn't be surprised if you are, and I wouldn't be surprised if you aren't.

 

I don't think "uses existing rules" is that much of a leap.

 

Are there existing rules for a 180 degree arc?

 

 

 

LOL on your "argument" that the other posts are more likely to be invalid, purely based on your (granted, correct) observation that we currently do not have 180 degree arcs in the game currently.

 

As already quoted from the (once again correctly observed "ever subject to change") FAQ:

Some ships (such as the Slave I) have an auxiliary firing arc identified by

dotted lines printed on its ship token.

[Sithborg 11,629]

I wouldn't be surprised if 3 YVHs work. You can set up a very nasty cross fire with the 180 arc. Better than the Firespray's. 

[WonderWAAAGH 7,153]

LOL on your "argument" that the other posts are more likely to be invalid, purely based on your (granted, correct) observation that we currently do not have 180 degree arcs in the game currently.

 

As already quoted from the (once again correctly observed "ever subject to change") FAQ:

Some ships (such as the Slave I) have an auxiliary firing arc identified by

dotted lines printed on its ship token.

 

I'm not sure I see your point, unless you're merely reiterating what was already said. Talking in circles won't do either of us any good, especially if you're inclined to misread my posts. At what point did I infer that another post was "more likely to be invalid"?

Edited May 22, 2015 by WonderWAAAGH

[CaptainJaguarShark 2,033]

 

LOL on your "argument" that the other posts are more likely to be invalid, purely based on your (granted, correct) observation that we currently do not have 180 degree arcs in the game currently.

 

As already quoted from the (once again correctly observed "ever subject to change") FAQ:

Some ships (such as the Slave I) have an auxiliary firing arc identified by

dotted lines printed on its ship token.

 

I'm not sure I see your point, unless you're merely reiterating what was already said. Talking in circles won't do either of us any good, especially if you're inclined to misread my posts. At what point did I infer that another post was "more likely to be invalid"?

 

 

You guys should try talking in squares instead.

[GlobeTrotting 205]

I'll wager $100 that it will be treated as an auxiliary arc akin to the Firespray and that tactician will work on the full 180 degrees.

WonderWAAAGH - wanna take the opposite position? Or are you not that convinced? we can exchange PayPal addresses once it is confirmed

[WonderWAAAGH 7,153]

My position is that we don't know anything for certain, so why would I bet money on something I'm not sure of?

[Forensicus 883]

LOL on your "argument" that the other posts are more likely to be invalid, purely based on your (granted, correct) observation that we currently do not have 180 degree arcs in the game currently. 

As already quoted from the (once again correctly observed "ever subject to change") FAQ:

Some ships (such as the Slave I) have an auxiliary firing arc identified by

dotted lines printed on its ship token.

 

I'm not sure I see your point, unless you're merely reiterating what was already said. Talking in circles won't do either of us any good, especially if you're inclined to misread my posts. At what point did I infer that another post was "more likely to be invalid"?

I usually take it as a healthy sign when we "disagree"

[WonderWAAAGH 7,153]

That's not an answer to the question I asked, but I suppose it doesn't really matter. If we've ever had a genuine disagreement, it's been trivial enough to escape my notice.

Edited May 22, 2015 by WonderWAAAGH

[GlobeTrotting 205]

My position is that we don't know anything for certain, so why would I bet money on something I'm not sure of?

Why? Because you said above that you don't think that one option is more likely than the other--aka, you believe it is a 50/50 coin toss. I'll wager you $100 at 5:1 odds, your favor. A rational actor would accept that bet any day of the week, unless they're lying and don't really think it's fifty-fifty.

[WonderWAAAGH 7,153]

Why? Because you said above that you don't think that one option is more likely than the other--aka, you believe it is a 50/50 coin toss. I'll wager you $100 at 5:1 odds, your favor. A rational actor would accept that bet any day of the week, unless they're lying and don't really think it's fifty-fifty.

 

A rational person wouldn't be concerned with trying to turn a series of observations on a message board into a bet. Personally, I don't need to wager money to feel confident in my own opinions. Whatever else you choose to believe is entirely up to you.

[ficklegreendice 34,362]

My position is that we don't know anything for certain, so why would I bet money on something I'm not sure of?

 

isn't that the textbook definition of gambling ?

[CaptainJaguarShark 2,033]

The K-Wing has a turret icon. It's going to act just like any other primary turret does.

The YV-666 has an auxiliary arc shown. It's going to act just like any other auxiliary arc does.

What reason does any of us have to dispute that, as things currently stand?

 

Should I also question of the Khirasz's primary arc will function like other primary arcs or whether the Punisher can take autothrusters?

[WonderWAAAGH 7,153]

If I was going to bet money on anything, it'd be that FGD will end his next sentence with an emoji.

[Forensicus 883]

If I was going to bet money on anything, it'd be that FGD will end his next sentence with an emoji.

 

 

I am putting you on the top of my "People I want on my debate team".

 

Your logic and arguments are as always impeccable and mature

[JFunk 257]

 

If I was going to bet money on anything, it'd be that FGD will end his next sentence with an emoji.

 

 

I am putting you on the top of my "People I want on my debate team".

 

Your logic and arguments are as always impeccable and mature

 

 

Don't forget witty and acerbic.

 

I win Friday! I got to use acerbic in a sentence today!

[ficklegreendice 34,362]

 

not exactly derailed, but definitely the most amusing I could find

Edited May 22, 2015 by ficklegreendice

[Gather 259]

Does that count as an emoji, or did WonderWAAAGH almost lose a bet?

[CaptainJaguarShark 2,033]

 

Does that count as an emoji, or did WonderWAAAGH almost lose a bet?

 

 

In a universe where he gambles, maybe.

[ficklegreendice 34,362]

if it isn't an emoji, FFG should definitely incorporate it asap

[nigeltastic 3,808]

 

not exactly derailed, but definitely the most amusing I could find

It does depict a train wreck well though, which is an apt descriptor at this point I think.

[Hobojebus 11,341]

If I was going to bet money on anything, it'd be that FGD will end his next sentence with an emoji.

Or that there;s never going to be a third faction right

[CaptainJaguarShark 2,033]

 

 

not exactly derailed, but definitely the most amusing I could find

It does depict a train wreck well though, which is an apt descriptor at this point I think.

 

 

It would be more apt if the trains were travelling in a circle.

[WonderWAAAGH 7,153]

If I was going to bet money on anything, it'd be that FGD will end his next sentence with an emoji.

 

 

I am putting you on the top of my "People I want on my debate team".

 

Your logic and arguments are as always impeccable and mature

You still haven't answered my question. Here's another one for you: do people on your debate team know what 'ad hominem' means?