Jump to content
SaltMaster 5000

Carolina Krayts is the best X-Wing podcast

Recommended Posts

because we need some Krayttent- here's the **** going on in the Discord-

Interchangeability is its own virtue in lists- it's been underutilized in 1.0 as Combobmo wing encourages unique pilots for more rules text to abuse. 

What's the best way to utilize it going forward in 2.0?

LIVE FREE D0NT JOiM

Notes for people thinking about going to another System open solely to try for an invite- Suffering for future fun is not worth it. Just have fun now- 

 

Share this post


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

 

Interchangeability is its own virtue in lists- it's been underutilized in 1.0 as Combobmo wing encourages unique pilots for more rules text to abuse. 

What's the best way to utilize it going forward in 2.0?

 

4-5 near identical generics is definitely high on my list of things to try first with 2.0.

I love the resilience it provides.  When you have a squad made up of uniques, you gain the advantages of having more types of tools, but you have the problem of losing a lynchpin.  

With a bunch of interchangeable ships, you lose one, and it's only 20-25% of your squad down, and you haven't lost any specific quality, only magnitude.  You're never like "oh ****, I lost my counter to X too soon". You do have to figure out tactics against things that are problematic to your massed produced squad, however, as they're all weak to the same thing.  At the same time, however, they are so many of them that counters might not be present in enough volume to be problematic.  For example, in 1.0, and ABT Ghost causes some real problems to Soontir, but 5 Alpha Squadrons can pretty much just say **** it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Biophysical said:

4-5 near identical generics is definitely high on my list of things to try first with 2.0.

I love the resilience it provides.  When you have a squad made up of uniques, you gain the advantages of having more types of tools, but you have the problem of losing a lynchpin.  

With a bunch of interchangeable ships, you lose one, and it's only 20-25% of your squad down, and you haven't lost any specific quality, only magnitude.  You're never like "oh ****, I lost my counter to X too soon". You do have to figure out tactics against things that are problematic to your massed produced squad, however, as they're all weak to the same thing.  At the same time, however, they are so many of them that counters might not be present in enough volume to be problematic.  For example, in 1.0, and ABT Ghost causes some real problems to Soontir, but 5 Alpha Squadrons can pretty much just say **** it.

 

My favorite **** is that you can use that to **** with Target Priority.

Running 5 TIE/FO with Crack and Optics- Coming back around for another pass- They get TL's- With the exception of the injured one who is now in the back- that one evades. No one wants to shoot a 4 dice F+E ship.

It's even more obnoxious with Defenders. 2 defenders without shields is scarier than a single full health defender. Your opponent will go for the better choice (if they don't, they are bad and you won the game before it began)- it's best to make their choices harder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Kaptin Krunch said:

Running 5 TIE/FO with Crack and Optics- Coming back around for another pass- They get TL's- With the exception of the injured one who is now in the back- that one evades. No one wants to shoot a 4 dice F+E ship.

 

i want to try 4x Tie SF with adv sensors/FCS if it fits in 2.0. arcs matter and actions matter and i have plenty of both.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/28/2018 at 12:53 AM, LagJanson said:

I need to watch this. The screen still leaves me the question... What was Brandon doing?!  I'm guessing Nathan ranged controlled well enough to deny harpoons?

Will watch later to see what happened.

Just watched the game. Not to take anything away from Nathan, but Brandon's approach seemed much less than optimal.

Had Brandon go 4 forward with all his ships on turn 2, he should be able to get alpha off..

And since they went 1 or 2 forward on turn 1, there weren't really any great options for Nathan to avoid that..

So I guess Brandon might be a bit too focused on getting the trajectory bomb off, and Nathan predicted that correctly?

EDIT: watched that opening a couple more times. It seems like Nathan had the escape plan for Corran available (barrel left back and boost left at PS 10 coordinate action).

So Corran would have probably only take max 1 missile, or Brandon would need to shoot primaries at tokenless Fenn. Although Fenn might be just hair out of range (because of the hard 2 left and barrel left).

So perhaps even on turn 1 Brandon should have gone 3 forward instead of 2 to make sure he's able to get the needed range in turn 2..

 

Edited by player44455

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, player44455 said:

should have gone 3 forward instead of 2

To be honest I think the turn that Nathan did a 2 hard turn with Fenn to set up the range control and a 5 forward with Corran to get close instead of just continuing the slow roll joust was something that 80-90% of X-Wing players would never have even considered on the list of available options. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Boom Owl said:

To be honest I think the turn that Nathan did a 2 hard turn with Fenn to set up the range control and a 5 forward with Corran to get close instead of just continuing the slow roll joust was something that 80-90% of X-Wing players would never have even considered on the list of available options. 

Which is both surprising, and a little sad... people just assume they'll sit in missile range?

Jumping range doesn't dawn on people?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Tlfj200 said:

Which is both surprising, and a little sad... people just assume they'll sit in missile range?

Jumping range doesn't dawn on people?

I can't remember precisely, but didn't Corran also jump out of the safe bubble of Lowrick to make the jump? He was also open to a bomb and a hail of R1 gunfire if I remember correctly. Obviously Nathan knew he could take it, but it wasn't just range control he was playing with there, it also felt like something of an 'anti-meta' manoeuvre compared to the standard 100-point Rebel playstyles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, __underscore__ said:

felt like something of an 'anti-meta' manoeuvre compared to the standard 100-point Rebel playstyles.

This to. The thought of leaving Lowhrick's auto evade behind in favor of Fenn's coordinated Evade is another thing that simply wouldnt have been in the playbook from the very first round of dials. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Boom Owl said:

To be honest I think the turn that Nathan did a 2 hard turn with Fenn to set up the range control and a 5 forward with Corran to get close instead of just continuing the slow roll joust was something that 80-90% of X-Wing players would never have even considered on the list of available options. 

Hmm, I think that 5 forward is actually quite classic move against missile carriers (jump from just outside of range 3 into range 1 in 1 turn). The more unexpected is that coordinated escape route which Corran had available for turn 2 (but didn't need to use).

But thinking some more about it, the only realistic target for alpha strike in Nathan's list is probably Lowhrick (Fenn moves last and Corran is too slippery).

I believe if Brandon focused completely on getting the alpha on Lowhrick, he should be able to do that..

Of course it is a question if that would be sufficient to win the game for him, but at least he would utilize his ordnance..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, __underscore__ said:

I can't remember precisely, but didn't Corran also jump out of the safe bubble of Lowrick to make the jump? He was also open to a bomb and a hail of R1 gunfire if I remember correctly. Obviously Nathan knew he could take it, but it wasn't just range control he was playing with there, it also felt like something of an 'anti-meta' manoeuvre compared to the standard 100-point Rebel playstyles.

Well, yes... because it's the obvious maneuver there: he doesnt tank 3x fully modded harpoons, arc dodges 1-2 ships, has Fenn to shut down a set of mods, and has evade/focus if he chooses. AND THEN can leave and regen afterwards...

So, yes, I agree most 100-point rebel players sit there, and it's why we've heard people whine about 3bQD... because they sit and take it, and they can't actually take 3+ fully modded harpoons (no one should be able to - the counterplay is playing better).

 

Thank God for 2.0...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, __underscore__ said:

I seem to remember a few comments about Triple Jumps along those lines as well. :)

I mean, you're right... but those triple jumps kept a lot of rebel regen out of the meta. The biggest complaint was that with deadeye, they never had to truly "pick" a target. 

Separately, the new complaint was with intel agent and that dial, they were a huge NPE (correct). But sitting and eating missiles from ships that have to fairly target lock you? Man... it's hard to entertain those complaints on the same level.

(Even with 3bQD, with longrange scanners, you saw which target they picked from across the board).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, player44455 said:

Hmm, I think that 5 forward is actually quite classic move against missile carriers (jump from just outside of range 3 into range 1 in 1 turn)

Yea i was exaggerating with my made up 80-90% stat. More just commenting on the fact that the average 100 pt ace player tends to do exactly the same thing every game even though there are surprisingly a decent # of choices for them to make and their Fenn/Low token stack isn't an invulnerability spell. The rock wall goes up to protect Fenn's blind spot and they almost always just set up a corner slow roll joust when as you pointed out they could go fast, turn, bank or even break up the formation!? Same with Palp players just bumping the shuttle against QD and putting Quiz in the middle of the board and asking their opponent to decide what to do, when that Shuttle can actually move pretty fast and block the **** out of all kinds of rebel stuff. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Kaptin Krunch said:

My favorite **** is that you can use that to **** with Target Priority.

Running 5 TIE/FO with Crack and Optics- Coming back around for another pass- They get TL's- With the exception of the injured one who is now in the back- that one evades. No one wants to shoot a 4 dice F+E ship.

It's even more obnoxious with Defenders. 2 defenders without shields is scarier than a single full health defender. Your opponent will go for the better choice (if they don't, they are bad and you won the game before it began)- it's best to make their choices harder.

Yeah, I did this a lot with quad FAA T70s.  First one to take serious damage flees or turns into a a blocker, then everyone else takes Target Locks.  All of a sudden anytime you're caught in a T70's arc, you're taking double modded shots.  

I love the decision tree on both sides.  As the controller, all you really care about is getting X guns on target, they're all the same, you don't care which ships have the target in arc.  One ship is a blocker on one turn, then an attacker, then repositioning to cut off a lane.  On the opposing side, there's little indication about what each ship will do next turn.  There's not a specific blocker to avoid, or one big gun to defend yourself from.  Attacks can come from any direction.

From the point of view of strategic theory, there's no obvious center of gravity (as von Clauswitz used the term), nothing providing cohesion to the group that makes for a decisive target.  Napoleon and Sun Tzu have made similar observations about the ideal disposition of forces.  This suggests that its really the ideal way to build a squad due to the myriad ways one can engage an opposing squad.  The fact that it hasn't been terribly successful shows just how skewed the game balance has been toward upgrades and defensive stacking.  A single, monolithic force with an obvious position and decision tree should not be a powerhouse, the designers just gave that type of play so many bonuses that it has been a dominant squad for a long time.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×