I'm quite fond of the X-Wing, named pilots tend to make their way into a lot of the Rebel lists I play. I'm developing a love for Interceptors now that I've played enough to properly use the boost and roll but nobody around here plays turreted ships that much so that doesn't entirely count.

I did beat a guy's tournament list with Wedge, Wes, and Jan the other day. Wes and Jan had VI, Wedge had Opportunist. The entire goal was to throw six red dice against your agility (minus one). Managed to catch Whisper in a bad spot and I had the initiative, so I ended up throwing those red dice against a Phantom's two green, and only I had a Focus token. Lost Jan shortly after but it was a good game and I was very pleasantly surprised since I just threw it together because I like rolling large numbers of dice and haven't played a HWK in ages.

Wow your Wes, Wedge, and Jan list is well timed - I was thinking of running Wes, Jake Farrel, and Jan, but was thinking of Wedge instead of Wes. Do you mind pasting your list here?

Happy to.

Wedge Antilles

-Opportunist

-R2 Astromech

Wes Janson

-Veteran Instincts

-R3-A2

Jan Ors

-Ion Cannon Turret

-Han Solo

Looking it over I would drop Han Solo for something that can help shed stress, or for Tactician. Stressing and ionizing is another thing I was interested in playing around with and Han never ended up being relevant. Using Stressbot on Soontir Fel turned out to be pretty smart, he endured that turn but was unable to be Soontir Fel at me on the next. Opposing list consisted of Whisper, Soontir, and a Doomshuttle.

I get some of the same. I don't really enjoy playing the same thing as everyone else. So when I go to a tournament and see 4 out of 5 lists are Decimators, it makes me think that I don't want to fly one, and that I want to come up with some way of beating it.

In 40k I played Space Marines, but mostly because I love Space Marines, although I painted mine as Blood Ravens, and not Smurf's (Ultramarines for those not in the know.) But I built a fluffy list with 3 platoons of Marines as the core. Rather than the 2 teams of scouts most people prefered for 5th.

Likewise in X-Wing I like to play lists that I think you'd actually see if this were real. But that does mean a lot of the lists are fluffy because you saw ships mixed together so often in the movies.

So nice to see someone like me. I hate playing Meta. I know that I could use it and give myself a much better try at winning, but where is the fun in always playing the same thing? Just this weekend I played at a tournament and I used a Gold Squad with Ion, two Blue squads with Ion and Tactician from the E-2 addon, and Lt. Blount with Ion pulse. It worked alright, but it was something that wasn't a Decimator and a Phantom.

And to the OP that is really what makes this game fun. I hate the idea of buying hundreds of dollars worth of ships and flying two because you just want to win all the time.

I'm quite fond of the X-Wing, named pilots tend to make their way into a lot of the Rebel lists I play. I'm developing a love for Interceptors now that I've played enough to properly use the boost and roll but nobody around here plays turreted ships that much so that doesn't entirely count.

I did beat a guy's tournament list with Wedge, Wes, and Jan the other day. Wes and Jan had VI, Wedge had Opportunist. The entire goal was to throw six red dice against your agility (minus one). Managed to catch Whisper in a bad spot and I had the initiative, so I ended up throwing those red dice against a Phantom's two green, and only I had a Focus token. Lost Jan shortly after but it was a good game and I was very pleasantly surprised since I just threw it together because I like rolling large numbers of dice and haven't played a HWK in ages.

Wow your Wes, Wedge, and Jan list is well timed - I was thinking of running Wes, Jake Farrel, and Jan, but was thinking of Wedge instead of Wes. Do you mind pasting your list here?

Happy to.

Wedge Antilles

-Opportunist

-R2 Astromech

Wes Janson

-Veteran Instincts

-R3-A2

Jan Ors

-Ion Cannon Turret

-Han Solo

Looking it over I would drop Han Solo for something that can help shed stress, or for Tactician. Stressing and ionizing is another thing I was interested in playing around with and Han never ended up being relevant. Using Stressbot on Soontir Fel turned out to be pretty smart, he endured that turn but was unable to be Soontir Fel at me on the next. Opposing list consisted of Whisper, Soontir, and a Doomshuttle.

Switch Han for nien nunb and VI and I think that would be solid

I cobbled together the following today:

Wes, Jake, and Jan (99/100)

===========================

X-wing: Wes Janson (29 + 5)

+ Opportunist (4)

+ R2 Astromech (1)

HWK-290: Jan Ors (25 + 11)

+ Determination (1)

+ Blaster Turret (4)

+ Kyle Katarn (3)

+ Moldy Crow (3)

A-Wing: Jake Farrell (24 + 5)

+ Opportunist (4)

+ Chardaan Refit (-2)

+ A-Wing Test Pilot (0)

+ Outmaneuver (3)

I'm torn on a few things. Wedge instead of Wes to keep 3p0 largely out of the match, Engine Upgrade on X wing instead of Moldy Crow on Jan to keep things in arc, and Predator instead of Opportunist on the X wing for better hit results.

Well i fly defenders so i'm both anti meta and apparently the underdog according to these boards

I'm a huge defender fan too.

I like to fly Defenders with Shuttles and Firesprays, so a pretty tough Empire list.

I think they are viable, but every time I run the Defender, I just want like 1 more action or an Adrenaline Rush. I have been using VI or Outmaneuver though, which seem pretty good.

Well i fly defenders so i'm both anti meta and apparently the underdog according to these boards

I fly Defenders, but I don't feel very under-doggish.

Winning with a list of your own devising is certainly satisfying. Losing because you deliberately hamstrung yourself is anything but.

Repetition makes things stale

Most players across most games tend to copy-paste competitive lists (generalization)

Competitive Wave 5 lists consist generally of four to five types of ships (this is the reality of my local meta)

**** that noise. If I have to be an underdog to get some **** variance, then I'll **** well be an underdog

I do fly lists I would consider competitive, the 7 Tie Swarm and Soontir double Hunter chief among them, but sometimes I just get twitchy and have to jump off the deep end

XXZZZ and triple phantom have been my latest ventures, and both work quite astonishing well, actually

So yeah, I technically love under-dog lists not necessarily because they can't compete, but no one thinks they can and therefore do not play them

Winning with a list of your own devising is certainly satisfying. Losing because you deliberately hamstrung yourself is anything but.

I think you miss my point somewhat.

I played guard in 40k because i'd loved the stylistically since Rogue Trader, i love A wings since i was a kid so played A wings even though i *knew* i was in for a hard time winning because i'd rather fly the ship i think looks dead cool than the Falcon which im not too fussed about with C3p0 (who i find one of the least interesting star wars characters).

I jokingly say its like a golf handicap but i also dont mind if i lose as long as the game was fun.

My friend Andy and I often play other games where we dont even bother working out points we just go 'hey wouldnt it be cool if these 5 imperial guard were doing a last ditch defence of a bunker against loads of genestealers..... and then use necromunda rules to play it out.' we wing it we have fun. We also know the guard are doomed but its fun finding out how long they can last

stuff we do here:

http://talesfromthemaelstrom.blogspot.co.uk/

I think we've struck a chord were a number of people as we're getting linked, referenced and watched a lot more on the blog now and we'venever made any real effort to publicise it. Its just our way of keeping a record of our games.

I'm British. We hate success. I have to justify my being a Man Utd fan by saying I supported them as a kid (I'm old so thats BEFORE they got successful) THEN I'm let off...

Oh and I love small numbers of tie fighters... and lambdas... and x-wings and y-wings, gotta love the y's....

I'm going to say my sub-optimal lists are ironic and fully on purpose... Ahem...

I didn't miss the point so much as voice my own opinion on the subject. I used the word 'you' collectively, to include myself.

I'm British. We hate success.

Do you work for GW?

I didn't miss the point so much as voice my own opinion on the subject. I used the word 'you' collectively, to include myself.

I'm British. We hate success.

Do you work for GW?

Lol not guilty yer honour. Easy mistake to make...

Don't care about "meta". Usually the people I try to play with don't either, so we just throw stuff on the board and play. Thankfully, no one has come over and been "that guy" while we tried to play without crap lists.

I didn't miss the point so much as voice my own opinion on the subject. I used the word 'you' collectively, to include myself.

I'm British. We hate success.

Do you work for GW?

Ah thats why its safer to say 'oneself' then its clearer what you mean. Im with you now.

Do you work for GW?

Do you know how many people work for GW?

About half of them!

Badush..!

I deliberately play suboptimal for two reasons:

1. I want to try something new, just to see how it works (often it doesn't!)

2. I know the skill of the opponent is lower than mine.

I got so bored of noob-bashing in 40k I was running 500pt handicaps in 1850pt games. In Xwing, at least, I don't have to do that. I can just take Obsidians instead of APs for reduced efficiency. Add a few missiles/torps/bombs to stuff for no real reason, and then try not to die before using them! Run Tri-Defender lists. Have a stupidly over-equipped Shuttle. Whatever. That way I can play as hard as I normally do, because I'm still learning about the game, but I know that it won't be as simple as if I just took Fel, Echo and a Doomshuttle versus the guys AXY Rebel list.

Using the underdogs is the best way to learn.

I'm not convinced about this.

It's a matter of degree - how much of an underdog as opposed to sub-optimal is the list?

I come from a chess background, and watched too many people waste "learning" time/effort/energy playing on in lost positions after having effectively already lost the game in the opening.

For example, what you learn from jousting when you shouldn't (bad match-up) is who to joust with. Playing on having lost a ship or two is not useful.

I guess, for me, the key time to work out a strategy against a superior list is BEFORE the game, not at the table.

Recently updated the list I am taking to a tournament tomorrow. I'm Going to run XXX without Biggs. I'm confident that after play testing to 6-1 that it is ready for a solid outing. I'm a little concerned with Decimators right now, but only if they run a mini swarm with it. Everything else is gravy.

Using the underdogs is the best way to learn.

I'm not convinced about this.

It's a matter of degree - how much of an underdog as opposed to sub-optimal is the list?

I come from a chess background, and watched too many people waste "learning" time/effort/energy playing on in lost positions after having effectively already lost the game in the opening.

For example, what you learn from jousting when you shouldn't (bad match-up) is who to joust with. Playing on having lost a ship or two is not useful.

I guess, for me, the key time to work out a strategy against a superior list is BEFORE the game, not at the table.

For me at least, I will learn a lot by removing some tools I'm used to play with or should be the obvious choice. It forces me to think outside the box and later, when I will play with a more optimised list, I might do some tricks that I wouldn't have thought to otherwise.

Catching and destroying a Phantom is easy with higher PS ship or turrets. Doing it with lower PS and without turrets is harder. Playing with this kind of list when you know you will meet a lot of high PS high mobility ship is sub-optimal, but you will learn more how to cover your arc so he can't get away. Later, play with a higher PS ship list and do the same, only now you get him without his 4 agility dice.

Of course, what is sub-optimal for some might not be for others, so you might also discover a ship or a combo that fits you perfectly while most of the community hates it or doesn't see it works. But if you didn't try it at first because you prefer or limit yourself to only fly premium lists, you'll never know.

Personally, I like to play with all my toys. Some of my lists are killer and some are pretty "meh", but I'd rather occasionally get stomped than have ships I like always sitting on the shelf. I do generally put together tougher lists for tournaments- I'm not so much of a masochist as to want to get hammered 7 games in a row- but for one-off games I could be playing anything.

One of the great things about this game over other miniature games is that you aren't locked into a suboptimal list because you bought into a weak faction. I can pull out a phantom or swarm list for a tournament but swap to XXXY for a casual game.

I think there are different "levels" of handicapping yourself, too. I might not be flying the optimum combination of ships, but I will build the best list I can for the ships I've decided to take for that game, and I definitely won't be making suboptimal moves (unless I'm playing against a child, or teaching someone the game).

Playing this list today agaisnt a new player. I feel like this ships in this list lots of time are underrated, think it will be a fun list to play.

The Underrated

One of the great things about this game over other miniature games is that you aren't locked into a suboptimal list because you bought into a weak faction. I can pull out a phantom or swarm list for a tournament but swap to XXXY for a casual game.

That is so true, at GW i was fortunate in that i could have played *anything* as it was pretty much free in my job but before i got that job i played 5th ed dark elves for 40k and you really were an 'ok' army and had to really work at it so i got to like knowing that while it was a weak force i could use it well, its characters were strong but its rank and file underpowered.

So as a student having invested a few hundred quid i was locked into a force that unless i used characters extremely well woudl get hacked to bits in a 'regiment fight' (low toughness, poor saves....high points cost per model)

You're right all three star wars factions seem to have an apex list (or three)

I think to answer another point there is a vlaue in playing on.

I remember one game with the wife when i was down to wedge with R2 D2 and a shield upgrade but i'd lost everything else and she still had howlrunner and two ties (think they may have been black squadron) and something else on the board. By sheer flukey dice rolls and some bad decisions on her part (howlrunner clipped an asteroid, took a crit, took two damage and died) i turned that around from 'wedge limping about on one hull point' to total victory.

Made me realise how powerful SU and D2 are.

Using the underdogs is the best way to learn.

I'm not convinced about this.

It's a matter of degree - how much of an underdog as opposed to sub-optimal is the list?

I come from a chess background, and watched too many people waste "learning" time/effort/energy playing on in lost positions after having effectively already lost the game in the opening.

For example, what you learn from jousting when you shouldn't (bad match-up) is who to joust with. Playing on having lost a ship or two is not useful.

I guess, for me, the key time to work out a strategy against a superior list is BEFORE the game, not at the table.

1) you may not actually lose the game-there are many points at which the tide can turn (bad dice for your opponent, a bad decision by him/her) to effectively rule out your initial mistake...

2) the game is not decided on who gets first blood, the skills utilised in mid and late game are different from early game. I haven't counted how many of my games I've drawn first blood in and then gone on to lose but I doubt very much it's black and white...

3) you might get a learning opportunity at a later stage of the game that you wouldn't have got (or therefore learned from) if you gave up straight after your initial mistake...

4) whilst there are lots of lists recognised as "optimal" or "meta" I simply don't believe the list is the be-all-and-end-all of the game. I'd happily back a great player given a "sub-optimal" list vs a poorer player with an "optimal" or "meta" defining one... (I actually think it'd make for a great sub-tournament to see players given a set list to fly thereby eliminating more variables, I bet the usual big tourney winning names would still be prevalent...)

5) some of my favourite games have ended in a loss, it's not all about the winning for me but the way in which its played...

I guess I'm just one of life's eternal optimists... Sometimes it was worth the efforts of chasing a forlorn hope, sometimes not... (For the record my bro is very much like you and will bail out early if he makes a hash of something early doors). I don't think there is a right or wrong way to view these situations in life, it's just a personality thing and I love the fact we're all different about it...:-)

Ahem *Looks down at Signature*