Jump to content
Ebak

Your X-Wing pet peeves?

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, MenaceNsobriety said:

For me my biggest pet peeve is hands down people on their phones while playing. I understand if you have to take a call quickly or return a text but don't do it the entire game! I shouldn't have to remind you to set your dials or that it's your turn to move just because you can't stay off snap chat.

I WOULD NEVER DEAL WITH DAT BLARG-SNARG-CRAPS!!!

FIVE MINUTES IN I WOULD BE LIKE... NOPE, SCA-REW-A-YOU-A-WHOLE!!!

:angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My biggest pet peeve would have to be when players claim a ship is DOA or garbage before it's even released or had a chance to play with it (*cough* TIE/sf *cough* ).

Players can theorize and assume as much as they want, but every ship deserves the chance to be played to see how it actually plays out on the board rather than in their head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/3/2017 at 9:11 PM, Pewpewpew BOOM said:

Tokens on the table bug me, but I accept it as a game norm and deal with it. 

In other games with minis, tokens, and cards, folks put tokens on the cards to mark things. It keeps the table clean and gives a nicer aesthetic with the figures and terrain.

In both Warmachine and Infinity the tokens have to be placed on the table next to the mini, just like in X-wing, Armada, Imperial Assault... etc...

My personal peeves are:

- Turrets - they should have been what the mobile firing arc is now.

- PS imbalance (the whole Pilot Skill thing needed to be thought through a lot more). I have many thoughts on this... some good, some bad.

- Ordnance: It should have worked far differently. Largely, how do you dodge a missile that just exploded on you? You don't.
But I really don't wanna go into detail.

 

Edited by KryatDragon
Spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My biggest pet peeve is 'the meta', or more accurately the whole concept of the meta.

I think it it is soulless, and it saddens me that people reduce such a characterful game to a bunch of statistics and numbers.

I believe the majority of players couldn't give a hoot about it, but that because the people who are interested in it are so vocal, that is disproportionately skews the design decisions made by FFG and that long-long term, that's to the detriment of the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, WWHSD said:

What's an example of a card that should stack but doesn't?

Weapons Engineer on a huge ship. It follows the rules for multiple copies but according to Frank Brooks and others on the forum it doesn't. The main argument against its use centers around the word "maintain" as in you may maintain 2 target locks…  This wording limits its use multiple times. 

My argument for its use is comparing it to Mercenary Copilot. MC allows you to change one of your "hits" to a "crit"  when attacking at range 3. The FAQ even uses stacking MC as an example. Even though "one" hit is specified on the card  If you have two copies of MC you can change two "hits" to "crits".

Those against WE stacking say you can't because you would be exceeding the "maintain two target locks" limit imposed by the card. My argument for its use is multiple MCs can change more than the one "hit" even though the card says one. Since Frank is one of the developers he has the final say.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Sbloom141 said:

My biggest pet peeve is 'the meta', or more accurately the whole concept of the meta.

I think it it is soulless, and it saddens me that people reduce such a characterful game to a bunch of statistics and numbers.

I believe the majority of players couldn't give a hoot about it, but that because the people who are interested in it are so vocal, that is disproportionately skews the design decisions made by FFG and that long-long term, that's to the detriment of the game.

I disagree on this. In any game as intricate as X-wing, you're going to find combinations that are extremely difficult to beat. Given how good some of the players are at squad building and range estimation it's no wonder a meta forms. But it changes. Counters develop as experience is gained by playing against it, new releases bring a "new" meta and the cycle repeats. Squads that were unbeatable get thrashed, so-so builds are seen in a new light and there's something new to complain about. The more it changes the more it stays the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Stoneface said:

Weapons Engineer on a huge ship. It follows the rules for multiple copies but according to Frank Brooks and others on the forum it doesn't. The main argument against its use centers around the word "maintain" as in you may maintain 2 target locks…  This wording limits its use multiple times. 

My argument for its use is comparing it to Mercenary Copilot. MC allows you to change one of your "hits" to a "crit"  when attacking at range 3. The FAQ even uses stacking MC as an example. Even though "one" hit is specified on the card  If you have two copies of MC you can change two "hits" to "crits".

Those against WE stacking say you can't because you would be exceeding the "maintain two target locks" limit imposed by the card. My argument for its use is multiple MCs can change more than the one "hit" even though the card says one. Since Frank is one of the developers he has the final say.

 

In reading Weapons Engineer it seems fairly clear that multiple copies wouldn't have an increased effect. If Weapons Engineer had been worded like Recon Specialist it would stack. 

"You may maintain target locks on one additional ship (only 1 per enemy ship).

When you acquire a target lock, you may lock onto an additional ship."

However, its actual wording sets the number of ships you can lock and the number of locks you can maintain to two. If you had multiples you would resolve each Weapon Engineer seperately and they would each set the number of locks to two. 

Contrast that with Mercenary Copilot. Mercenary Copilot allows you to change one [HIT] to a [CRIT]. If you had multiple Mercenary Copilots you would resolve each of them individually, changing one [HIT] result with each until you either run out of [HIT] results or run out of Mercenary Copilots to resolve.

Ok, enough of that. I asked you for an example and I got it. Thanks for answering. You've probably gotten sick of people trying to convince you of this but I couldn't resist taking a crack at it. The point of this thread is to let people air their grievances and this obviously grinds your gears.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Stoneface said:

The best definition of "meta" that I ever heard was "It's the game within the game". When you think about it it's pretty much bang on. The small section of X-wing that defines the play at the highest levels of competition. 

Don't get me wrong. Its not the concept that bugs me it's the term. Probably because it's a bad thing to do/habit people have in RPGs.  But now it's used everywhere in gaming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Stoneface said:

I disagree on this. In any game as intricate as X-wing, you're going to find combinations that are extremely difficult to beat. Given how good some of the players are at squad building and range estimation it's no wonder a meta forms. But it changes. Counters develop as experience is gained by playing against it, new releases bring a "new" meta and the cycle repeats. Squads that were unbeatable get thrashed, so-so builds are seen in a new light and there's something new to complain about. The more it changes the more it stays the same.

I hate when the concept of a "meta" is equated with "netlists". Everyone in a region could be running special snowflake lists and there would still be a meta in that region. 

Think of it like sports. A team that scouts out and studies the competition and makes adjustments to their playbook based on what they've observed is going to do tend to do better than a team that just runs the same plays they always run regardless of who they are playing. That's what being good at reading a meta gets you.

A team that doesn't do their own scouting but can identify other teams that do and then emulate them is akin to netlisting. It's not going to be as successful as actually doing the scouting (or being able to read the meta) yourself but you'll have an advatage over those that don't even bother.

 

There's a meta everywhere. Even the spacebrothers over at Joe Boss Central have one. It's probably weird as hell and can't spell for shit but it's still a meta.

Edited by WWHSD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, WWHSD said:

I hate when the concept of a "meta" is equated with "netlists". Everyone in a region could be running special snowflake lists and there would still be a meta in that region. 

Think of it like sports. A team that scouts out and studies the competition and makes adjustments to their playbook based on what they've observed is going to do tend to do better than a team that just runs the same plays they always run regardless of who they are playing. That's what being good at reading a meta gets you.

A team that doesn't do their own scouting but can identify other teams that do and then emulate them is akin to netlisting. It's not going to be as successful as actually doing the scouting (or being able to read the meta) yourself but you'll have an advatage over those that don't even bother.

 

There's a meta everywhere. Even the spacebrothers over at Joe Boss Central have one. It's probably weird as hell and can't spell for shit but it's still a meta.

60SA.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, WWHSD said:

In reading Weapons Engineer it seems fairly clear that multiple copies wouldn't have an increased effect. If Weapons Engineer had been worded like Recon Specialist it would stack. 

"You may maintain target locks on one additional ship (only 1 per enemy ship).

When you acquire a target lock, you may lock onto an additional ship."

However, its actual wording sets the number of ships you can lock and the number of locks you can maintain to two. If you had multiples you would resolve each Weapon Engineer seperately and they would each set the number of locks to two. 

Contrast that with Mercenary Copilot. Mercenary Copilot allows you to change one [HIT] to a [CRIT]. If you had multiple Mercenary Copilots you would resolve each of them individually, changing one [HIT] result with each until you either run out of [HIT] results or run out of Mercenary Copilots to resolve.

Ok, enough of that. I asked you for an example and I got it. Thanks for answering. You've probably gotten sick of people trying to convince you of this but I couldn't resist taking a crack at it. The point of this thread is to let people air their grievances and this obviously grinds your gears.

I just accept that I was wrong. Wasn't the first won't be the last. I just wish there was a better way to describe abilities that resulted in fewer questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...