Yes, i willingly admit that I missed the days of pre-wave4 where honestly every single reasonably-built list has a fighting chance against every other similar list, which is currently gone

Actually, weren't people complaining back then that turrets totally killed TIEs and Interceptors because they couldn't arc-dodge? That the new ships made the game completely unfair, because it "took no skill" to win with turrets? Really, so far this game doesn't have any "unbeatable" unfair combinations. Hell, I've killed an HSF build with just some low PS bombers before. It was difficult but not impossible. It just took good flying.

Phantoms need to roll green dice to survive! Count the number of threads where people complain about green dice rolling blanks...

The problem with the ACD isn't the extra green dice, it's the ability to make a decloak maneuver every turn. You get a ship that is even harder to predict than a PTL interceptor, and gets to completely change its maneuver (or decline to decloak at all) after everyone else has already committed to theirs as long as you have a PS advantage. This is bad because it rules out a lot of opposing strategies, and really bad because the best phantom counter is a ship that is already over-represented in the metagame. If all ACD did was give you the two extra green dice instead of another decloak maneuver phantoms would be a lot less scary and Falcons would probably be less common.

I honestly don't really put stock in that. I play Imperial and so the standard "hard counters" for Phantoms don't apply to me, yet I've beaten almost all of the ones I've played against. You just have to move more slowly, and make sure you're covering wider fields of possibility with your arcs. Also, one thing that has helped hasn't been so much predicting where the player would try to go, but looking at the board and figuring out what spots just made a lot of sense to occupy with the Phantom from a tactical perspective, and try to aim for those. about a third of my phantom kills have been thanks to a lowly PS 1 Defender with an Ion Cannon. I honestly feel it's not the loadout so much as the flight paths that determine how well you do against a Phantom.

If you're serious about restricting upgrades in order to nerf lists try restricting stuff like Veteran Instincts and/or Push the Limit, upgrades that have a far bigger influence on list building.

Phantoms without VI for instance are a lot easier to respond to.

Yes, i willingly admit that I missed the days of pre-wave4 where honestly every single reasonably-built list has a fighting chance against every other similar list, which is currently gone

Actually, weren't people complaining back then that turrets totally killed TIEs and Interceptors because they couldn't arc-dodge? That the new ships made the game completely unfair, because it "took no skill" to win with turrets? Really, so far this game doesn't have any "unbeatable" unfair combinations. Hell, I've killed an HSF build with just some low PS bombers before. It was difficult but not impossible. It just took good flying.

those werent so bad after people learned to stay at range 3, turtle with F+E, and/or chase the falcon from behind. All of a sudden, I'm in favour of TIEs and Interceptors winning falcons because of the more varied maneuvers that they have, as well as the action economy

for the phantom though, im totally unconvinced. 1v1 Whisper ACD nothing else vs 3 Academies and the 3 Academies get taken out every single time. Same goes for that 1 phantom vs 2 rookie Xwings, and the point cost is very similar actually. Even 2 gold Ywings w/ ions have failed spectacularly, and these all cost more than the phantom.

i think currently im at the stage where i want to be proven wrong, that someone can consistently defeat the ACD phantom using either 2 rookie Xs or 3 academy TIEs, and so far I have seen nothing that proves otherwise. I do not think that this is too unfair a demand either, both sides are about the same point cost too (in fact the ACD phantom always cost less), and the game is supposed to be balanced, no?

the game is supposed to be balanced, no?

The game as a whole is, you can't take pieces of it out into a vacuum and claim that the game is unbalanced.

Ok, let's say we make a restricted list, what would you put on it? How would you make it work? Does it matter in a non random system where we are guaranteed to see every card we choose in play?

Just imagining some of the combos and power cards out there....

ACD

PTL

RecSpec

C3p0

Predator

Gunner

Engine upgrade

I get this short list. Ignoring pilots, because w have no generic pilots with an ability. The unique pilots and cards are already restricted.

C3p0 is also restricted purely due to unique status, if you say you can't have him and a falcon in a list, does that prevent him on a hwk, with a falcon in the list? Preventing individual combinations seems pretty problematic

ACD + phantom already prevents more than 3 due to point costing., and all modifications are already "limited" by nature of being modifications. Say you can only have 1 in your list... What builds does that prevent? Are those builds worth preventing?

The more I think about this, the only thing I can imagine is errata, adding the limited keyword, or banning cards outright. For example, having multiple tacticians and a gunner could be abusive, limited would prevent that. I don't think we have any cards that need to be banned yet, and FFG has shown they're willing to errata when something is broken (daredevil)

Yes, i willingly admit that I missed the days of pre-wave4 where honestly every single reasonably-built list has a fighting chance against every other similar list, which is currently gone

Actually, weren't people complaining back then that turrets totally killed TIEs and Interceptors because they couldn't arc-dodge? That the new ships made the game completely unfair, because it "took no skill" to win with turrets? Really, so far this game doesn't have any "unbeatable" unfair combinations. Hell, I've killed an HSF build with just some low PS bombers before. It was difficult but not impossible. It just took good flying.

those werent so bad after people learned to stay at range 3, turtle with F+E, and/or chase the falcon from behind. All of a sudden, I'm in favour of TIEs and Interceptors winning falcons because of the more varied maneuvers that they have, as well as the action economy

for the phantom though, im totally unconvinced. 1v1 Whisper ACD nothing else vs 3 Academies and the 3 Academies get taken out every single time. Same goes for that 1 phantom vs 2 rookie Xwings, and the point cost is very similar actually. Even 2 gold Ywings w/ ions have failed spectacularly, and these all cost more than the phantom.

i think currently im at the stage where i want to be proven wrong, that someone can consistently defeat the ACD phantom using either 2 rookie Xs or 3 academy TIEs, and so far I have seen nothing that proves otherwise. I do not think that this is too unfair a demand either, both sides are about the same point cost too (in fact the ACD phantom always cost less), and the game is supposed to be balanced, no?

Luke with r2d2 vs two ties is hard to consistently beat as well. I doubt we can look at such scenarios and expect them to be fully balanced.

What happens when you change the three academies to soontir fel with ptl, tl and shield vs whisper + ACD? What about that soontir vs 3 academy ties? The game isn't designed to be balanced point to point for all possibilities? It's like sending in 3 foot soldiers vs a mounted knight. Even just changing the scenario to a sigma phantom w ACD 29 pts vs night beast and Backstabber, what happens there? ACD Whisper vs mauler + vi and howlrunner? The builds matter quite a lot when you get down to low point totals.

Pre-wave 4 had a strong focus on flying in block formation, post wave 4 is very positional. More bad match ups are possible. There will always be an increase in the number of possible bad lists. I don't think anyone would bemoan the 6 hwk list for losing virtually any matchup.

No, they've shown that they are willing to errata when something doesn't work as intended. Expert Handling and Daredevil were errata'd to work as intended, not because they were broken.

I'd say that not working as intended = broken

I'd say that not working as intended = broken

Usually broken, in gamespeak, means wide open for abuse and game breaking.

There's nothing inherently wrong with things not working as intended, FFG just needs to work on the wording on their cards to prevent ambiguity.

I wouldn't restrict anything by the way.

Anyway, i just realized that Xwing already has a ban/restrict list, whereby epic ships cant use navigator /gunner /luke

I think they removed Gunner/Luke Skywalker from stuff the huges can't use.

If you watched the review the X-wing development team has stated that ban lists is the last thing they wanted to do. If they can think of other fixes to say over dominating meta then they will. However they watch the tournaments carefully and they noticed that Falcon & C-3PO doesn't control the top lists.

However if you look at future preview cards you will see that they are making counters to the falcon C-3PO combo with items such as accuracy corrector. If you look at that upgrade it is a straight counter to C-3PO unless the opponent wants to start guessing 1 to cancel out the 2 hits.

I think they removed Gunner/Luke Skywalker from stuff the huges can't use.

The Tantive has a primary attack

If you look at that upgrade it is a straight counter to C-3PO unless the opponent wants to start guessing 1 to cancel out the 2 hits.

Err, what? Accuracy corrector has nothing to do with C-3P0, it's just insurance against bad dice. It guarantees that you always roll at least two hits, but the ships that can take one generally average at least two hits already (assuming they don't lose their actions). So that's a slight increase in the number of times you're facing 2+ hits with C-3P0, but you're already in that situation so often that it doesn't really matter.

Also, the power of C-3P0 isn't that you can dodge absolutely every hit you take, it's that you get an average 5/8 of a HP every single turn your opponent shoots at your Falcon without having to spend any actions or satisfy any difficult conditions. Claiming that accuracy corrector is a counter to C-3P0 makes about as much sense as claiming that accuracy corrector is a counter to shield upgrades.

Posted 01 September 2014 - 09:02 PM

No.

Another edition of Short Answers to Long Questions.

I believe you now owe Vorpal royalties?

and to the OP No.

Another addition of short answers to long questions.

This game is still incredibly balanced. Sure list A may crush list B, but C can crush B and lose to A. Plus there are more than 3 lists that can compete.

If you can't beat a phantom or 3PO, play more, try different things, learn.

I didn't throw $800 at my local game store to play rock paper scissors.

If we just ban the Falcon, the Phantom, anything with Boost, the Engine Upgrade card, and anything with a Turret, we'd have balance in the force again. Of course, that'd undo pretty much every wave that's been released ever...

This game is still incredibly balanced. Sure list A may crush list B, but C can crush B and lose to A. Plus there are more than 3 lists that can compete.

If you can't beat a phantom or 3PO, play more, try different things, learn.

I didn't throw $800 at my local game store to play rock paper scissors.

For $800, you'd be playing Gold Nugget, Vellum, Inigo's Sword...

I don't think Rock Paper Scissors is a good analogy for the game or design, it's not even Rock Paper Scissors Lizard Spock Bomb Faraday, Jar Jar , Kryptonite, Superman. look at gencon, a rock list (falcon) was defeated by a scissors list (phantom)

There are too many important variations in the lists to even meaningfully declare a falcon list as an archetype. It's closer to a fighting game with tag team options. There are bad matchups and such, but given luck, and skill, it's really deep. It's rather amazing when you take a look at the number of recurring top players.

There are bad matchups

Which, I will just point out, is true for almost every single collectible game in existence. You can't expect to have a 50/50 chance against every single list you might encounter, no matter what your build is. You will have good matchups where you start favoured, and you will have bad matchups where you need to fight uphill and hope for some luck. Nature of the beast.

look at gencon, a rock list (falcon) was defeated by a scissors list (phantom)

That doesn't necessarily mean anything because it's a sample size of one, and a R/P/S metagame doesn't mean that the win percentages are either 100% or 0%. A rock vs. scissors matchup might be an incredibly uneven 80/20, but that still means that 20% of the time the scissors player is going to win. Whether it's better dice, better player skill, etc, it's still possible to win. For example, would the gencon winner still have won if he had been forced to play by the rules instead of persuading his opponent to let him take back a critical mistake that probably would have cost him his phantom?

This game is still incredibly balanced. Sure list A may crush list B, but C can crush B and lose to A. Plus there are more than 3 lists that can compete.

If you can't beat a phantom or 3PO, play more, try different things, learn.

I didn't throw $800 at my local game store to play rock paper scissors.

then play rock paper scissors lizard spock...

Xwing is far far far from a ban list and I also think FFG would just errata point costs. That has some issues come tournament time but I'd rather a handful of peoples tournament experience suffers than all players suffer due to an unforseen design flaw.

The phantom menace swung by so swiftly and the falcon menace is still hanging around but only till VT and YT come around... I think we'll finally not just have 2 top builds... I think we'll finally get Lizard and Spock.

Sorry, I've been under the impression that Rock Paper Scissors meta game meant unwinnable matchup. I realize it's a sample of one, but that's all I need to show it's not 100% auto loss. I do agree that we'd need quite a bit of data to pin point the average win loss rate between that matchup.

I'd love to get something going for that.

Yes, i willingly admit that I missed the days of pre-wave4 where honestly every single reasonably-built list has a fighting chance against every other similar list, which is currently gone

Actually, weren't people complaining back then that turrets totally killed TIEs and Interceptors because they couldn't arc-dodge? That the new ships made the game completely unfair, because it "took no skill" to win with turrets? Really, so far this game doesn't have any "unbeatable" unfair combinations. Hell, I've killed an HSF build with just some low PS bombers before. It was difficult but not impossible. It just took good flying.

those werent so bad after people learned to stay at range 3, turtle with F+E, and/or chase the falcon from behind. All of a sudden, I'm in favour of TIEs and Interceptors winning falcons because of the more varied maneuvers that they have, as well as the action economy

for the phantom though, im totally unconvinced. 1v1 Whisper ACD nothing else vs 3 Academies and the 3 Academies get taken out every single time. Same goes for that 1 phantom vs 2 rookie Xwings, and the point cost is very similar actually. Even 2 gold Ywings w/ ions have failed spectacularly, and these all cost more than the phantom.

i think currently im at the stage where i want to be proven wrong, that someone can consistently defeat the ACD phantom using either 2 rookie Xs or 3 academy TIEs, and so far I have seen nothing that proves otherwise. I do not think that this is too unfair a demand either, both sides are about the same point cost too (in fact the ACD phantom always cost less), and the game is supposed to be balanced, no?

Styngem acellerator device has its uses too and I've defeated my bro twice when he had that. I was also close to defeating a phantom with ACD on it, but I accidently flew one of my 2 x wings off the board. If I didn't do that I might've won. The phantom was almost dead.