There seems to be a whole lotta whining over TIE swarms lately. I can only imagine what it will be like when the Z-95s hit the market and the Rebs can finally do the same thing plus have cheap missile platforms to boot.
blocking seems like a really cheap way to play to me
OP, I would suggest that if you do not like Blocking. You simply play around the blockers, meaning that you plan for them. While the rules say nothing about using Blocking to your advantage. People will take the Overlapping Bases rule and play with it in the literal sense. Players took the rule, looked at how it was put forward to them. Thus deciding there was a positive effect to using the mechanics of the rule to their advantage.
Kudos on those people for taking a rule and bending it into a worthy strategy that makes some games interesting and fun. But there will be people like us who just see it as players twisting the rules unfairly and abusing a loophole the rules provide. Since there is no concrete rule that says you "Cannot intentionally block someone's ship". People will simply interpret that as "I can do it! The rules say I can't so it is fair."
Like some others have posted, simply plan around it. Fly in a pattern that makes them difficult to get a block on you. If you think they might block you next turn? Plan your ships movement around it to take advantage of the easy to spot movement. Blocking has drawbacks to it like any strategy. You could always run ships like the HWK/Y-wing with turrets and continue to fly around them, blasting from safe angles with Ion Guns to cause them not to block. Strategies like that, or maybe fast moving ships that bug out when an enemy fighter gets too close.
Also to those of you harping on the OP for calling Blocking cheap? He has the full right to say that, so why don't you back off your defensive kicks? Instead of harping on him and trying to change his opinion so he believes your opinion. Simply explain to him the "Pros and Cons" of Blocking and possible other strategies he can use instead of it.
Edited by ArithionThe Z-95 swarm isn't as dangerous because there still is no rebel howlrunner equivalent available. Also the fact they are 2 agility so they could go down quicker.
The Z-95 swarm isn't as dangerous because there still is no rebel howlrunner equivalent available. Also the fact they are 2 agility so they could go down quicker.
The main issue with Z-95s blocking is that they are PS2, not PS1. That's better for shooting, but worse for blocking. Your comment on Howlrunner is true, but the Z-95 durability should be as good or better than the TIE Fighter, see here:
Summary:
Major, did you ever run the numbers on survive ability of a tie vs z-95?
Well as with anything there is a short answer, and there is a long answer.
The long answer is: "it depends", based on range, what is attacking you, and what actions the various ships have. There are so many combinations that to look at all of them individually would take too long, so I'll just avoid this entirely. I doubt I'll have the time to do a comprehensive analysis of this anytime soon.
The "short" answer is: "about the same".
[snip]
So if we assume that 2 defense dice is worth 71% of 3 defense dice, and shields are worth 1.25x hull, then the normalized durabilities are:
Z-95: 0.71*(1.25*2 + 2) = 3.195 (6.5% more)
TIE Fighter: 1*3 = 3
So, on paper, the Z-95 should be just a little bit more durable than the TIE Fighter, but not by much. If my numbers are off then they could be almost exactly equal, or the Z-95 could get a slightly larger advantage.
To put this in perspective, you can do a similar thing with the X-wing and B-wing. Think of the B-wing as the Z-95 and the X-wing as the TIE Fighter, in this analogy.
B-Wing: 0.51*(1.25*5 + 3) = 4.7175 (20% higher)
X-wing: 0.71*(1.25*2 + 3) = 3.905
My math predicts that the B-wing should be about 20% more durable than the X-wing. I think this is pretty close to the general consensus that we see from real world play. This is, by the way, the main reason that B-wings have such a great performance / cost ratio: getting 20% more durability for 1 point is almost a no-brainer, and we still haven't talked about its Barrel Roll and Systems Upgrade slot. But I digress...
TL;DR: I'm very confident in stating that the Z-95 durability will be about the same, or even slightly higher, than the TIE Fighter. For costing the same but getting +1 PS, that's a pretty good deal. Rebels don't get Howlrunner, but because of the +1PS, in my opinion the ship itself is a slightly better value than the Imperial TIE Fighter.
I think as you get more games in you start to see the blocking patterns and adjust. If I'm flying a Falcon and some low PS guys start to converge, I'm dialing in a 4 straight and bugging out of there. I admire really good interceptor pilots because they know that it's better to avoid damage, than to inflict it and get hit back. It's ok to bug out or Biggs maneuver out of there. Reset and come back again. I will also say that if you are flying in formation than it should be fairly easy to focus fire the blocker. And your guy that got bumped most likely has a target a little further back.
Turrets are cheap
Named pilots are cheap
Generic ships are cheap
K-turns are cheap
Barrel Rolls are cheap
Boost is cheap
Target Lock is cheap
Push the Limit is cheap
Ion Tokens are cheap
Etc, etc, etc.
You can call any number of clearly intended game functions cheap just because you don't like them. All that shows though is general poor sportsmanship by having to resort to disparaging a tactic that someone used against you. That's why these threads are silly.
You can call any number of clearly intended game functions cheap just because you don't like them. All that shows though is general poor sportsmanship by having to resort to disparaging a tactic that someone used against you. That's why these threads are silly.
There is a difference of sorts though between the examples you listed and blocking in that blocking is about taking away a oart of the game from your opponent. The game is about maneuvering and shooting. By blocking your opponent you are taking away half the game from him and that can be a turn off to the game, especially with newer inexperienced gamers who don't yet have the foresight to work around that.
Now, it's a viable tactic and completely legitimate but it's not the most fun in the same way that people dislike denial decks in Magic (or worse, land destruction decks that completely deny you playing a game).
I think the tactic was an unexpected oversight in the rules. Personally I would've liked it better if both ships involved in a blocking maneuvre gained a stress token. That would deny the action immediately to the active ship, but also punish the blocker. It would even open up ramming tactics for lower PS ships.
.
especially with newer inexperienced gamers who don't yet have the foresight to work around that.
About the only thing you're likely to accomplish that way is turn someone off from the game.
But if you're playing against someone who knows what they're doing, or you work on helping them learn what to do, it's all good.
But this thread like some others, seems to assume that people play the same list, the same way, every time they play. Wither it's a friendly game at the LGS, teaching a new person how to play or the final round of a Regional... They play with the same cut-throat win at all costs style.
Myself I doubt many people actually do that. They consider where they are, who they're playing and what if anything they want to accomplish and play accordingly.
Just as a new player it seems to me that the mechanic was designed to tell you what happens if someone accidentally runs into you and was not meant to be done on purpose
Just as a new player it seems to me that the mechanic was designed to tell you what happens if someone accidentally runs into you and was not meant to be done on purpose
That could well be, but then they missed that loophole and actually have now embraced it as full part of the game. Judging by articles and upgrades released.
Partly; the mechanic also represents full on furball distraction; forcing your opponent to either deal with it or move in a less predicatable manner or counter to their plan. It's the equivalent of one formation diving into another to force them to break formation.
As a new player, I am sure it seems that way. In reality, it provides incentive to have pilots of more than one skill level in a list. Both high and low PS have their own advantages, and the ability to maximize both is at the heart of really competitive X-Wing play.
Your game will improve dramatically once you make a solid chess analogy in your head. Low PS pilots are pawns, cheap and expendable (relatively) but not so much that they should be thrown away. You use them to move first, and to claim the more advantageous positions on the board. Your high PS pilots are the more powerful pieces, that follow the pawns into the space held for them by the pawns.
Working these in concert is very satisfying, but it takes some time. It can be very frustrating when you are first learning the game, and it feels like there is nothing you can do to prevent it. Try mixed PS lists, and approach angles other than head on, and you will begin to see just how deep this game really is, and how indispensable "blocking" is to that depth of play.
Just as a new player it seems to me that the mechanic was designed to tell you what happens if someone accidentally runs into you and was not meant to be done on purpose
As a new player, perhaps you aren't very good at predicting where your opponent is going to move. Live, learn, and play some more, then reconsider your opinion after you've successfully denied your opponent an action or two.
You know there are complaints about "blocking" your own ships being called unsportsmanlike, cheap, unfair, even illegal and something that should get you throw out of a tournament? Strangely some of those people don't seem to have an issue with "blocking" their opponent's ships which I would agree seem a lot less friendly than blocking your own ships.
Now if FFG wants to make "blocking" illegal I'm sure they could figure out a way to do it and if they do it should be hitting all overlap situations.
P.S. Blocking (intentionally causing overlaps) is a perfectly legal tactic to use in the game. It may not always seem "fair" but it always has been in the rules and it also works both ways. Unfortunately, there seem to be a lot of perfectly legal tactics for this game that seem to drive some people into a RAGE calling the use of that tactic unsportsmanlike, illegal, and completely against the spirit of the rules. This is that "I don't like your tactics so I'm going to cry about it," mentality that seems to sweep through theses boards with scary regularity.
Can some one please tell me why in less than a week there has been 3 seperate threads on legit tatcis being called into question as to if its cheating..
If u dont like it there are plenty of other games out there that dont involve blocking.. but then idk do you get annoyed when ppl deliberatly block LoS in 40k, or use pleb's to give the intervening model rule... or even heaven forbid they ram each other?
anyway.. i see no problem with blocking.. im pretty sure in war you use every tool to your advantage to give you the best chance at wining.. this is a table top "wargame" therefore i will use every and all tools at my disposal to give myself the best chance of winning (apart from stepping out side the bounds of the rules set by FFG) Also FFG maintains a Errata and FAQ purely to try to help us solve these problems.. if they thought bumping was an issue they would change it.))
As this troll can understand, "blocking" refers to overlap.
When you maneuver in which causes overlap,
do you just cancel actions for both or just of "target" overlap?
Re-read rules, it says "cancels this ships" is that yours that just moved or theirs that you moved in contact with?
Do the canceled actions continue until they move apart?
Yet, you still can use other "free actions" if triggered from non "actions / non overlap" ?
Now, "overlaps" can't target each other, but I presume that if you have another group of overlaps w/in range 1 you target them?
Edited by XAQT78As this troll can understand, "blocking" refers to overlap.
Yes, Overlap of the ships bases
When you maneuver in which causes overlap, do you just cancel actions for both or just of "target" overlap?
It only cancels the ship who is currently active and ends "bumping" any other ship
Do the canceled actions continue until they move apart?
Unsure what you mean by this, but FFG has stated that if 2 ships "bumping" conduct the same move the next turn they will still be touching but are not concidered to be hindered by "bumping" or overlap. (you can find this in the latest FAQ)
Yet, you still can use other "free actions" if triggered from non "actions / non overlap" ?
Yes as these are not actions, E.g. luke can still recover a shield if he bumps after doing a green manuver with r2-d2,
Turr can still b-roll, boost after he shoots. Mauler?? can still gain a free focus after he conducts a green move.
Now, "overlaps" can't target each other, but I presume that if you have another group of overlaps w/in range 1 you target them?
FFG has stated that ships touching (bumping / overlapping) can't shoot at each other (though i think there is one A-wing who can)
but yes they can shoot at any other ship inside their arc and range unless they where overlapping an asteroid.
yes I am a new player and yes I know it is part of the game, but it still seems like you should be able to win the game by being a better pilot and not using a legitimate but in my opinion cheap game mechanic.
As an Imperial player, shields are a cheap way for bad ships to live longer. Players should be able to win without using such cheap tactics. Therefore shields should be illegal.
anyway.. i see no problem with blocking.. im pretty sure in war you use every tool to your advantage to give you the best chance at wining.. this is a table top "wargame" therefore i will use every and all tools at my disposal to give myself the best chance of winning (apart from stepping out side the bounds of the rules set by FFG) Also FFG maintains a Errata and FAQ purely to try to help us solve these problems.. if they thought bumping was an issue they would change it.))
For everything else, there's a Dreadsock .
Couple things.
1. You lose your action but still can fire at other ships within your range.
2. Blocking is out flying your opponent because your cuting off thier routes of flight, very much like race car drivers cut corners go high or low in the lanes.
3. Most blockings happen because both opponents are flying towards eachother and creating crossfire between the groups. So either avoid the groups and fight from outside and turn away or chance the carnage.
4. The new Huge ships (that only rebels get) really destroy blocking ships. They move last and anything that hits them or blocks them are automatically destroyed. Yes they take 1 dmg from smaller ships and 2 from larger but that means that it takes at least 8 small or 4 large to hit them when shields are down for them to die.
yes I am a new player and yes I know it is part of the game, but it still seems like you should be able to win the game by being a better pilot and not using a legitimate but in my opinion cheap game mechanic.
So better utilizing, or avoiding, action denial tactics isn't part of being a better pilot in this game? Action denial is a part of the game, you even describe it as legitimate, so where is the logic in not including it's utilization in the criteria of being a better pilot?
This same argument framework works for turrets. Turrets are cheap, you should be able to win by being a better pilot rather then having to resort to cheap turrets that take maneuvering out of the game. That argument is just as bad as the one you are attempting to make.
Calling blocking cheap is only you attempting to call into question opponents that presumably used it to beat you. By calling it cheap you are trying to rationalize your losses by implying they won my less then legitimate means. As opposed to realizing that if they used this part of the game to beat you, they are better utilizing the ruleset of the game, which makes them a better pilot as far as X-wing is concerned.
This seems like a weekly trend on these boards it even creeps into people event reports where they spend half a post talking about how "dumb" (aka cheap) they think swarms are. Requiring no skill to succeed with, aka those winning with it aren't as skilled as the poster choosing to "man up" and not run a swarm. Only to unveil his own squad as a..... Double YT list. Which has had multiple threads on these very boards calling it "dumb" saying it requires no skill to succeed with. Quite ironic.
I do not get this trend of having to disparage your opponents play to prop up your own.
Glad to see that we don't feed on negativity and we support our community here by accepting his frustration and give him some pointers on what to look for / counter this tactic.
Oh wait, nevermind, we need to keep that super secret so we can get uber cool plastic stuff at tourneys, just to turn around and sell them
Glad to see that we don't feed on negativity and we support our community here by accepting his frustration and give him some pointers on what to look for / counter this tactic.
Oh wait, nevermind, we need to keep that super secret so we can get uber cool plastic stuff at tourneys, just to turn around and sell them
The OPs original post is two sentences where he just repeats his premise stated in the threads title. His subsequent posts are just defending that original position. He isn't asking how to deal with action denial, he's specifically going the non-constructive route by calling it cheap instead. He doesn't show any indication that he wants to learn how to actually deal with it, just make himself feel better by calling it cheap. Or putting his proverbial head in the sand claiming he doesn't see it as an intended tactic.
Until he moves past looking to downplay his own inexperience or shortcomings as a player, there isn't any point in offering advice to him on how to deal with it. He'd rather call it cheap or act like it wasn't intended to work that way.
But thanks for playing.
Glad to see that we don't feed on negativity and we support our community here by accepting his frustration and give him some pointers on what to look for / counter this tactic.
Oh wait, nevermind, we need to keep that super secret so we can get uber cool plastic stuff at tourneys, just to turn around and sell them
The OPs original post is two sentences where he just repeats his premise stated in the threads title. His subsequent posts are just defending that original position. He isn't asking how to deal with action denial, he's specifically going the non-constructive route by calling it cheap instead. He doesn't show any indication that he wants to learn how to actually deal with it, just make himself feel better by calling it cheap. Or putting his proverbial head in the sand claiming he doesn't see it as an intended tactic.
Until he moves past looking to downplay his own inexperience or shortcomings as a player, there isn't any point in offering advice to him on how to deal with it. He'd rather call it cheap or act like it wasn't intended to work that way.
But thanks for playing.
Oh, I do apologize because "fly casual" is defined by your responses
