No, if both are decent players, the whisper player will win. Dice don't amount for much in that match up, i had had that match up with entire pillow fight on my part, but ended up killing both in almost 20 minutes, just getting into the arc of 1 of them twice. No matter how you move, B's movements are too short to surprise a phantom.

For B-wings vs a Phantom, it's not about surprise maneuvers so much as positioning overlapping fire arcs for area denial.

B-wings are adept enough at knife-fighting that a couple of them with FCS should pose a strong challenge for a Phantom. Three of them should be really difficult for Whisper to kill.

Overlapping ? Do you think you are getting through 1 evade + 1 focus if he wants to? And since movements from B-wings are pretty short, you have a quite easy time keeping range 3 ? Overlapping is hardly a solution if you can't get through whisper's defense. It is like people talking about how they like swarms against phantoms because getting enough fire arcs in different directions. You don't kill a phantom with that, you do it by forcing him into your firearcs of as many ships possible by blocking decloak movements.

Just getting 1 damage through is a shot between 10, and that's at range 2, at range 3 it is 1 out of 100. Let's keep talking about "dice luck". lol

Talking about strategy inevitable turns into "I will do this, but then I will do this, but I will do this" ad nauseum.

To a degree, sure. That said, you can come up with some general strategies for specific ships that really help with getting a handle on their playstyle.

For instance, I was convinced that A-wings / Interceptors were complete garbage for the longest time, simply because they suuuuuuuuuuck at jousting. Once I finally got it through my head that they were flanking / outmaneuver ships--and I changed my tactics accordingly--their effectiveness increased by several orders of magnitude.

Similarly, I haven't had much success with Defenders when used as jousters. Defenders with EU, on the other hand, are rapidly becoming one of my favorite (and most effective) ships to fly.

Overlapping ? Do you think you are getting through 1 evade + 1 focus if he wants to? And since movements from B-wings are pretty short, you have a quite easy time keeping range 3 ? Overlapping is hardly a solution if you can't get through whisper's defense. It is like people talking about how they like swarms against phantoms because overlapping fire arcs. You don't kill a phantom with swarms overlapping arcs, you do it by forcing him into your firearcs by blocking decloak movements.

Just getting 1 damage through is a shot between 10, and that's at range 2, at range 3 it is 1 out of 100.

Aside from cloak-blocking, you kill Phantoms the same way you kill Stealth-squints: by letting them roll green dice. Yes, a Phantom with F/E is a pain in the ass...assuming they roll statistically average or better, every single time.

As an extensive Phantom user, I've been one-shotted by academy pilots, defenders, x-wings, b-wings, YT's, e-wings, et cetera. Every single time, I had a focus + 4 AG. Twice, it happened with an evade token, too.

If the Phantom can stay out of arc, any opponent will die. Between their dials, the board edge, and barrel-roll, the B-wings should be able to make it nearly impossible for Whisper to avoid ALL return fire.

That said, they also need FCS to have a chance. Without it, yeah... they're pretty much !@^#@ed.

I don't disagree with this, but you say it like nobody's trying. We had zero Falcons at our last tournament, but a Phantom build rampaged through three rounds something like 288-12 before losing in the final match to an Etahn/Wes/Z-95 list flown by the guy who took second at our regional. Edit: To clarify, we had Phantoms, but nobody took the accepted solution to them, and the Phantom had a field day.

Doesn't this sort of prove the point that flying does matter more, though? I'm not sure of the skill difference between players here, and maybe you won't want to say, which I'd understand. Also: Did you have more than one phantom? And just one did well? I've seen MoV like that from non-phantom (and non-falcon lists) simply from good players with good matchups in a small tournament like that.

I think the Phantom was introduced because they think it would be kewl.

I'm very confident you're wrong here (at least as the only reason) Hopefully you're being sarcastic, though, because if you aren't you probably shouldn't have much hope for the game if this is your line of thinking.

I don't disagree with this, but you say it like nobody's trying. We had zero Falcons at our last tournament, but a Phantom build rampaged through three rounds something like 288-12 before losing in the final match to an Etahn/Wes/Z-95 list flown by the guy who took second at our regional. Edit: To clarify, we had Phantoms, but nobody took the accepted solution to them, and the Phantom had a field day.

Doesn't this sort of prove the point that flying does matter more, though? I'm not sure of the skill difference between players here, and maybe you won't want to say, which I'd understand. Also: Did you have more than one phantom? And just one did well? I've seen MoV like that from non-phantom (and non-falcon lists) simply from good players with good matchups in a small tournament like that.

The winning build that stopped it was one we worked on specifically to try and deal with Phantoms. The Phantom player also made some very bad moves with the support side of his squad, that had a lot more to do with the loss. We had two other Phantoms, one flown by a new player that didn't do great, and one that took 4th (out of 12).

So no, it's not a point that flying matters, it's a data point that put me here. The only build that did even halfway well against the Phantom was one that took specific tools (from a limited set) to deal with it. All the good flying in the world is not going to let an X-wing keep its guns on a Phantom.

Talking about strategy inevitable turns into "I will do this, but then I will do this, but I will do this" ad nauseum.

To a degree, sure. That said, you can come up with some general strategies for specific ships that really help with getting a handle on their playstyle.

For instance, I was convinced that A-wings / Interceptors were complete garbage for the longest time, simply because they suuuuuuuuuuck at jousting. Once I finally got it through my head that they were flanking / outmaneuver ships--and I changed my tactics accordingly--their effectiveness increased by several orders of magnitude.

Similarly, I haven't had much success with Defenders when used as jousters. Defenders with EU, on the other hand, are rapidly becoming one of my favorite (and most effective) ships to fly.

It's true interceptors suffer in a joust but not so much the defender, I've happy flown two with a firespray head to head against rebels and won, then k turned the defenders and begun to pound them from behind.

Named defenders you are better flanking but the generics get ignored quite wrongly because some people still believe they are over costed and dismiss them.

The only way to prove that would be to get a relatively large group of people to play non-standard builds successfully. So while it doesn't matter to the metagame that you don't play Falcons or Phantoms, it would matter a lot if you were playing other things and winning , and so is the rest of your local playgroup, and so am I and so is my local playgroup (when I find it), and so is Hothie and his group, etc.

I admit it's hard to prove, because what I'm proposing is essentially that there are builds out there that could participate in the metagame but aren't because no one--[/i]including me[/i]--knows for sure what they are. (I've got some ideas, but I'm not sure this is the right thread for that.)

I don't disagree with this, but you say it like nobody's trying. We had zero Falcons at our last tournament, but a Phantom build rampaged through three rounds something like 288-12 before losing in the final match to an Etahn/Wes/Z-95 list flown by the guy who took second at our regional. Edit: To clarify, we had Phantoms, but nobody took the accepted solution to them, and the Phantom had a field day.

I think you're assuming that these other builds are out there, despite all the evidence to the contrary. It's almost starting to feel faith-based. At what point does the faith break down? Will it ever be possible for there to be an actual problem, or will the solution always be sitting there just out of reach? You seem sure these other builds exist - is there anything to actually support that they do?

Yes, there is. An 8-ship TIE swarm won the French Nationals. At the Nordic championships, the top squad was Han + Talas but the other top 3 were a 6-ship swarm with Fel, Kath + mini swarm, and Jonus/Delta/Delta. At the US Nationals, only one of the top 4 was a non-Phantom, non-Falcon list--but the top 16 look fairly diverse. And so on at Nationals tournaments, where there are obviously lots of Phantoms and Falcons to be found--but everywhere there are at least hints that other lists had been successful (and certainly beat Falcons and/or Phantoms to get to the top 4 or top 8 or what-have-you). Meanwhile at Regionals events, swarms, lists with 2+ Large Imperial ships, and lists with 4+ small Rebel ships all made acceptable showings.

Moreover, personal experience says that Falcons are fairly easy to beat, and with Falcons keeping the total number of Phantoms down, you don't have to do all that well against that matchup to do well overall. I've beaten the living snot out of Han with small Rebel lists (which admittedly are terrible against Phantoms), but also with Bomber lists and Defender-centric lists--both of which have at least acceptable win rates against Phantoms, even if it's not exactly a good matchup.

And just to tie it all the way back to the beginning - we're still talking builds. If the game were still about flight tactics more than taking the right abilities, we'd be talking about approach patterns, movement prediction, when to roll in and when to run away. But it's still, always, build selection.

Builds are often my focus; builds have always been my focus (remember when I had a blog?) Part of that is my natural inclination toward looking for strategic/systemic fixes to problems; part of it is, as CatPeeler and others have mentioned, is that after a fight it's perfectly doable to say and demonstrate that "yeah, if you'd made a 2-turn instead of a 1-bank there, you would have caught me on the flank, like so." But at best it's really difficult and time-consuming to do that over the internet.

Oh, and part of it is that I'm a better list-builder than I am a pilot, so I typically feel more qualified (and almost always feel more comfortable) talking about list solutions rather than tactical solutions.

Part of that is my natural inclination toward looking for strategic/systemic fixes to problems

Oh, and part of it is that I'm a better list-builder than I am a pilot, so I typically feel more qualified (and almost always feel more comfortable) talking about list solutions rather than tactical solutions.

Just a semantic point: I think you're using tactical vs. strategic in a different way than I would. When not talking in terms of levels of analysis (strategic generally being the aggregate of the tactical) I think of strategy as being the game of out-thinking your opponent - guessing what (s)he'll do and misdirecting the opponent as to what you're going to do - basically the perennial Sun Tzu sort of stuff. Whereas 'tactical' in my mind is about calculating capabilities against one another, which is very dependent on the state of the technology and the types of stuff on the field. That's why I'd say that thinking about builds is tactical, whereas out-thinking (and thus outmaneuvering) your opponent is strategic.

How are you constructing these terms?

I'm quite good at predicting moves and have great spatial awareness so I don't sweat the list building part, when I started I'd just take a couple of high PS unique with swarm tactics and not much else.

I do build more varied lists now but I still rely more on my flying than min maxing a list.

At the US Nationals, only one of the top 4 was a non-Phantom, non-Falcon list--but the top 16 look fairly diverse.

I think we just come to different conclusions looking at these things. Just looking at GenCon, to keep it simple, and just focusing on Falcons (since the winner was the only Phantom):

Top 4: 2 Falcon builds

Top 8: 5 Falcon builds

Top 16: 9 Falcon builds

Is having upwards of half of all the top slots the same ship "fairly diverse"? Not in my mind.

More importantly, here's how the top 8 elimination matches went (F = Falcon build, P = Phantom build, O = Other)

Ph def O

F def F

F def F

O def F

Ph def O

F def F

Ph def F

To the extent that the later rounds stayed even, it was Falcons and Phantoms eliminating themselves, with only one game being won by another build.

This is where I become skeptical of your "Falcons are fairly easy to beat" statements. I know I have a devil of a time dealing with them - they're beatable, but there's absolutely nothing easy about it.

Just wondering what this list is ^^ Howlrunner, Maurer and 2 Sigmas. . What did you put on them??

Mauler and Howlrunner both with swarm tactics and two Sigmas both with stygium and recon spec.

I might also hazard that people at the top tables are not the sort to be swept up by hype, but probably have a very good understanding of the possibilities offered by the material base.

As such, I don't think we're really dealing with an imagination failure as we are with the notion that the archetypical builds really are the most effective builds given the available options.

Yes, they are beatable. But, can anyone here confidently state that they would be able to beat anyone of those players at the top table, Falcon or no?

And, I think we are just going to have to disagree on the analysis of the squads. It's why I don't particularly agree with how MajorJuggler keeps track of the winners. Sure, there were a lot of Falcons. And if you only want to analyze the squads on that level, that's fine if you are only looking for ships to appear.

At the US Nationals, only one of the top 4 was a non-Phantom, non-Falcon list--but the top 16 look fairly diverse.

I think we just come to different conclusions looking at these things. Just looking at GenCon, to keep it simple, and just focusing on Falcons (since the winner was the only Phantom):

Top 4: 2 Falcon builds

Top 8: 5 Falcon builds

Top 16: 9 Falcon builds

Is having upwards of half of all the top slots the same ship "fairly diverse"? Not in my mind.

More importantly, here's how the top 8 elimination matches went (F = Falcon build, P = Phantom build, O = Other)

Ph def O

F def F

F def F

O def F

Ph def O

F def F

Ph def F

To the extent that the later rounds stayed even, it was Falcons and Phantoms eliminating themselves, with only one game being won by another build.

This is where I become skeptical of your "Falcons are fairly easy to beat" statements. I know I have a devil of a time dealing with them - they're beatable, but there's absolutely nothing easy about it.

So, I looked back at the final day of Gencon and all the lists and I will say I was actually surprised (not pleasantly, btw) because I expected about half of the lists to be Falcon lists. However, they were only in about a third of the lists and almost all were clustered in the top half of play (unless I missed a lot of them, which is possible).

I mention this because I went looking because I haven't found Falcons as difficult as others here and was curious as to the balance at Gencon since most lists are up. It looks like my experience, at least from the Gencon data, is the one that might be wrong.

I don't disagree with this, but you say it like nobody's trying. We had zero Falcons at our last tournament, but a Phantom build rampaged through three rounds something like 288-12 before losing in the final match to an Etahn/Wes/Z-95 list flown by the guy who took second at our regional. Edit: To clarify, we had Phantoms, but nobody took the accepted solution to them, and the Phantom had a field day.

Doesn't this sort of prove the point that flying does matter more, though? I'm not sure of the skill difference between players here, and maybe you won't want to say, which I'd understand. Also: Did you have more than one phantom? And just one did well? I've seen MoV like that from non-phantom (and non-falcon lists) simply from good players with good matchups in a small tournament like that.

The winning build that stopped it was one we worked on specifically to try and deal with Phantoms. The Phantom player also made some very bad moves with the support side of his squad, that had a lot more to do with the loss. We had two other Phantoms, one flown by a new player that didn't do great, and one that took 4th (out of 12).

So no, it's not a point that flying matters, it's a data point that put me here. The only build that did even halfway well against the Phantom was one that took specific tools (from a limited set) to deal with it. All the good flying in the world is not going to let an X-wing keep its guns on a Phantom.

So not only are you saying player skill had anything to do with it, you say that the only reason someone won against a phantom was because the phantom player made a mistake. So, the regionals person had no influence on how he positioned his ships to capitalize on that. Some one flew a non standard way of dealing with a meta problem yet still did well against other lists this just gets shooed off. Then insulting a person for playing a high skill curve ship which you even stated the newbie didn't know how to use and did poorly with. Also then stating out of 12 lists 3 had phantoms, one doing well, one that did middle of the road, and then one that fell flat. Yep, those phantoms, they are OP as all get up.

Man I am starting to less see you as someone with a valid point then turning into a "I don't win cause people don't fly the way I want" kinda person. I got to tell you, this is all I am hearing now.

The phantom isn't a problem, neither is the swarm, nor the falcon builds. It truly is the player base, you can call it faith in the game, but really, which requires more faith? Making yourself a better player with the material you got or insulting others and demanding a change to the game? And as an IT guy, it is almost always the users fault, why? Because even after being educated on the subject most still don't take it to heart and would rather do it their own ways, usually breaking the software or in the case of home computers constantly infecting it after being warned what not to do then blaming the IT person for "not fixing" the problem. Yet the ones that do listen and work with the education that was give, usually have zero to no complaints and go about their work day.

I am done with this thread, keep at it that the meta is to blame for the staleness and "unfunness" of the game, at this point I no longer care. At this rate it is just damaging the view of the player base for myself. I will just continue to enjoy the game and constantly try new and intriguing lists. Hell what isn't more fun than taking out both a fat falcon and phantom lists in a single day with just two pimped defenders.

Duraham please send me a PM with the best dates that work for you and we can try to get a game in on vassal. We can work on the unfamiliarity with the program together. Also if you feel you need to change up or maximize your points on your phantoms to help further the point, I don't mind. I would rather you take a list you believe would work well in a tournament then a haphazard one.

PS I have watched the person that got me to play the imperials and mostly interceptors pin down multiple phantoms against multiple people with just alpha squadron pilots. Guess that means nothing as well.

Ok sent you a pm.

I see lack of diversity and 9 of top 16 being falcon lists, but don't see the logic.

What is a falcon list?

Would the following all count as falcon lists?

ORS and awing mini swarm wfalcon title

Lando, Dutch, garvin

Chewie w corran

Han and 3 bandits

Are those lists diverse?

I think we need to worry about lack of diversity when half if the top 16 lists are nearly identical, with say less than 5% difference between them show up. I think Vorpalsword's point still stands.

Most imperial lists are tie lists

So not only are you saying player skill had anything to do with it, you say that the only reason someone won against a phantom was because the phantom player made a mistake. So, the regionals person had no influence on how he positioned his ships to capitalize on that. Some one flew a non standard way of dealing with a meta problem yet still did well against other lists this just gets shooed off. Then insulting a person for playing a high skill curve ship which you even stated the newbie didn't know how to use and did poorly with. Also then stating out of 12 lists 3 had phantoms, one doing well, one that did middle of the road, and then one that fell flat. Yep, those phantoms, they are OP as all get up.

Man I am starting to less see you as someone with a valid point then turning into a "I don't win cause people don't fly the way I want" kinda person. I got to tell you, this is all I am hearing now.

You should probably calm down a bit.

I never said the winner didn't fly well, that he didn't take advantage of it. But it was not an optimal game from the Phantom player - he was supporting Whisper with a mini-swarm, which he split up, then parked Howlrunner on a rock right in front of an Etahn and a Z-95. I don't consider obviously poorly-played game as a meaningful data point. And I'm consistent in that - the opponent got very tricky with his opening move, and almost sent Etahn off the board in the process. I wouldn't have considered it a meaningful data point for the strength of the Phantom if he had, just like I don't really consider it a meaningful data point on the other side.

I've never denied that the Phantom takes skill to fly well, I've never said that it's any sort of easy mode. I don't even typically go there with Falcons, although I do think they're by far the easiest competitive list to fly. But Phantoms are admittedly hard to use well - and I don't know that anyone, even the people who think they're OP, would claim otherwise. I certainly haven't.

So pretty much that entire rant is invented or at the very least based on partial comments that you took highly out of context. I can certainly respect your view of the game as fine. It would be nice if you were able to extend the same courtesy to others.

I am done with this thread, keep at it that the meta is to blame for the staleness and "unfunness" of the game, at this point I no longer care. At this rate it is just damaging the view of the player base for myself. I will just continue to enjoy the game and constantly try new and intriguing lists. Hell what isn't more fun than taking out both a fat falcon and phantom lists in a single day with just two pimped defenders.

Oh, it's so unfortunate he left. I might have pointed out that he misunderstood Buhallin 's point, and he might not have had to leave in such a righteous huff. Quel dommage. But anyway, I guess so many of us read into other people's arguments those things that help us feel superior.

In the meantime, where were we?

I see lack of diversity and 9 of top 16 being falcon lists, but don't see the logic.

What is a falcon list?

Would the following all count as falcon lists?

ORS and awing mini swarm wfalcon title

Lando, Dutch, garvin

Chewie w corran

Han and 3 bandits

Are those lists diverse?

I think we need to worry about lack of diversity when half if the top 16 lists are nearly identical, with say less than 5% difference between them show up. I think Vorpalsword's point still stands.

Most imperial lists are tie lists

Someone brought up the diversity of the build surrounding them before. It's a decent point, but has two weaknesses, IMHO. First is that the Falcon is so expensive, that you can't possibly just drop it in. You have to commit, and it's going to be the centerpiece. Second, if the concern is the Falcon, the fact that it did so well with such varied support points to how GOOD the ship is.

Assuming you can ever pull the trigger on them. Nera has the same donut hole problem that Dash does, but without the mega-mobility.

Airen Craken. Boom. 18 points, another cheap firing arc, and Nera has all the mobility she needs in a free barrel roll.

When Gencon happened, it was at a point with only certain products out. The Phantom Menace fear was big and the ease of a YT-1300 is there. This has created the viewpoint (or meta) that these are the rock, paper, scissors builds. That's all the game has to offer right now. Since then, Rebel Aces has come out. Also, Rebel Transport hasn't been seen in my local area due to it selling out to people who don't play at the local store. There are some droids, pilots, etc in there that haven't hit the local circulation of players much yet. There are numerous new options available, even if it's with the same old ships. I think that there are options out there that can do well to create the Lizard and Spock (to stay in the vernacular). If people don't break out of the mindset of "well, I should only play rock, paper, or scissor", then people might not discover the Lizard or Spock. So, the advice to go and play something different is releavant. Once someone finds a build that works for them well, they just need to go to some large tournaments and they will do well against all the other rock, paper, scissor builds. Well, at least against 2 of them. Just find something that beats the Phantom and the Fat Han and you will start to disrupt the curent meta.

As for Nera and flachette torpedoes, she does make a difference. Yes, she fires later than the Phantom, but she adds a Stress. Look at the dial for the Phantom and how many green there are. 2 straight or bank and 3 straight. Not a lot of variety there and you will have a hard time turning. You got to eventually turn. Nera can fire her Flachette Torpedoes w/ Muntions Failsafe each turn. What are you going to do when you run out of table? Also, even just tying the Phantom down a bit makes it easier to deal with. Nera might not be an easy button to kill a Phantom, but she surely helps handle them if played smartly.

Outside the box thinking can also help break the meta. I've been using Ten Numb (with VI) even though everyone says he's useless and overpriced. I've combined him with Etahn to allow a crit to go through every time. Ten Numb will usually fire before the Phantom gets to cloak (with VI). Even against a cloaked one, he can still get a crit through. That's pretty important on a ship that can only take 4 hits. The trick is to keep Etahn alive. I've thrown Wedge in there, as well, as his ability works with Etahn, too. Now, I haven't tried it against Falcons yet as my local scene is currently ebbing low. I think this is a list that could do well against the Falcon, though. Wedge's ability prevents C3PO from working and pushing crits on the Falcon is a good thing.

Now, this is devoloving into list building, but it hits my point. There are a lot more options out there now than even just last week (before Rebel Aces hit). People just need to be willing to break out of the mental concept that they have to fly rock, paper, or scissors. They need to find the new Spock and Lizard. We probably won't see it percolate through the meta / player base until someone wins a big tournament with it (or at least does well).

As an experiment, I tried to make a list specifically to block Han.

I got Boba Fett, gave him Intelligence Agent, and Expert Handling for the barrel roll, totalling 42 points.

I placed him in contact with Han and programmed a 1 bank into the dial. I then looked at all the places Han could end up and see if I could block him. Between the ability to change the 1 bank (which is also green) and the barrel roll (which will give you stress, so the 1 bank is important), you will block all but 1 or 2 of Han's moves. I placed them in contact with each other at various angles and with much the same result.

There are a few situations that the Falcon can do a 1 hard turn and avoid being blocked, but most of the time, you'll block the Falcon with Boba Fett. It's a combination of his ability to switch bank directions, the barrel roll for expert handling, and Intelligence Agent allowing you to see the Falcon's dial. Even still, if you know you can't block the Falcon, you still know where he is going and can plan for that too.

The downside is 2 fold. 1) Getting him close enough to herd the Falon and 2) building a blocker at PS 8 is useful only against PS9, or sometimes PS8.

I think 1 is the bigger problem as a Firespray is a really solid ship in general, and we've only spent 3 points making Boba a blocker. Otherwise, he's a really good Firespray, with 2 fire arcs allowing him to fire at the Falcon's support while ignoring the Falcon's retaliation attack.

This is a work in progress, so I haven't decided on how to support Boba Fett in this list.

Howl+mini-swarm might work, given you know roughly where the Falcon is going to end up, you can have all your guns pointing in the right direction. Buzzsaw shuttles might work too. Not sure yet.

I post this primarily to encourage people to think about what makes certain ships good, and what you can do on the battlefield to exploit it's weaknesses. Once you understand the game and what you want to achieve in the game, THEN build the list that helps you get there.

Yeah, the Firespray has the toughness and firepower to handle a Falcon, while also the wide arcs to be a thorn in the Phantom's side. Makes it a good thing that Scum is getting to use it.

ahem, falcon just won malaysian nationals, and 2nd place was taken by a whisper echo list. during swiss rounds, top seed was taken by that same dual phantom list with 0 losses.