Warhammer? The one and only TRUE Green Knight is Sean Connery.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084750/

Little known fact: The 14th century legend of the Green Knight was in fact based on Sean Connery. True story.

Warhammer? The one and only TRUE Green Knight is Sean Connery.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084750/

Little known fact: The 14th century legend of the Green Knight was in fact based on Sean Connery. True story.

What's even less known: Sean Conner is in turn based on ME! True story.

Wow .... thats amazing.

I think in Star Wars Boba Fett is the Green Knight.

Do we meet him again in Episode 7?

Hope not.

I can... barely live with Boba escaping the Sarlacc (Dark Empire did it in a nice fashion I think).

But that thing with Darth Maul in Clone Wars? I feel my rage starting to build! Makes me wish CW to the same place as the rest of the EU!

C'mon, Boba Fett is the coolest Bounty Hunter in the Galaxy.

He's too much of a pro to let the Sarlacc digest him.

And if the Sarlacc wasn't able to kill him, no one was.

Hmmm...I suppose you're right...I will rise again!

The Fett-man cometh...... I hope he returns in the new trilogies, with today's special effects and stuff you can really see Fett go all out in a fight and use all his neat toys.

The Fett-man cometh...... I hope he returns in the new trilogies, with today's special effects and stuff you can really see Fett go all out in a fight and use all his neat toys.

Is Boba FETT really Jack BERGER from Sex and the City!? The BergerFett!!!

Btw: Fett means feat in german language.

Just wanted to share this information with you.

Hope not.

I can... barely live with Boba escaping the Sarlacc (Dark Empire did it in a nice fashion I think).

But that thing with Darth Maul in Clone Wars? I feel my rage starting to build! Makes me wish CW to the same place as the rest of the EU!

Yes, but at least CW made Maul a good an interesting character. We also got probably the best light saber duel in the entire franchise out of him in CW as well.

Everyone loves the crap out of some Boba Fett.

Watch the original 3 movies again. He did NOTHING cool....NOTHING.

All he does is stand there in some sort of neat looking armour, talk to Vader, Load Hansicle into his ship, draw down on Leia with Thermal Detonator, Fail attacking Luke (Luke barely paid attention to him), let Solo blunder into activating his jetpack causing him to crash cause he doesnt even know how to fly it then falls into the Sarlacc causing it to burp.

End the Saga of the Amazing Boba Fett.

SPOILER: Boba Fett is not badass. He is an incompetent Bounty Hunter who sucks at his job. He may have tracked Solo, but he needed the Empire to get him. Why else would he notify the Empire of Solo getting to Cloud City. This putz is standing behind Vader ALL the way. The second he downgrades to standing behind a Hutt instead of a Sith Lord, all of a sudden all hell breaks loose and a ragtag band of rebels with a neophyte jedi kicks the crap out of him while barely paying attention to him. His dad would have been rolling in his grave btw...since Jango used to punk out Jedi. Boba is an incompetent idiot.

Your Hero Worship is misplaced.

Fett Sucks.

Disagree if you like, but you cannot name one canon instance where Fett was Badass.

What Deadshane said. Boba did almost nothing noteworthy in the movies.

Quite true. But most Fett fans dont care about canon, and instead are Legends fans.

I dont think anybody actually said he was awesome in the canon did they?

Vader even had to point out to Fett..."NO disintigrations!" This again implies that Fett is an idiot. Evidently, Fett has a habit of vaporising his marks. He must be broke. Isnt it sort of hard to collect on a bounty without any evidence that you "got im"?

"Yea Jabba? I got that Solo guy for you! Yea I killed him. Disintigrated another one for ya! Nope...no proof, just pay up you fat slug."

IG-88? Now there is a badass. Killer Assassin Robots FTW!

...but then again, Fett scored the Falcon....all the other Bounty Hunters failed in finding him. That doesn't speak well of them either.

Dengar must be pissed....look at the way the dude dresses. He is in dire need of a paycheck.

Don't get cocky kids!

You wanna me get angry?

Boba Fett is the man!

He blew up a Venator Class Star Destroyer as a kid.

Want of new clothes must be why dengar took a babysitting gig for imperial squadrons in armada

Bah, my machine ate my previous post, but to clarify:

The point I am making about small groups is that you will see larger variance in smaller samples. This is a basic statistical outcome, and likewise the Nash equilibria you find in this groups will not necessarily be those for the larger meta as a whole.

Though experiment:

Case 1: You are the lone imperial player in a 6-person meta where you face off against rebels running mostly CR90 swarms or a single AFII and CR90s.

Case 2: You are an imperial player in a 6-person meta where all of the other guys run the Gencon Special or the 2xVSD 2xGSD variant and none of them use a single squadron.

I would suggest the lists you think are "good" could be very different in those two cases.

My post is based on what we see at larger tournaments (which can be viewed as a collision of mini-metas), the more well-attended Armada tournaments (I like 12+ players as a bar), and the regions with players who placed well in larger events.

I am not saying small meta results are invalid; I am just saying your variance there can be very high and produce results that are not going to be generalizable to larger events or other groups, so they need to be viewed with skepticism in that vein.

I don't understand why small sample = higher variance = less representative of a large population (until you get to a basic sample size that is representative for the underlying distribution) is a controversial view. This is a very basic statistical principle.

Valiant effort at steering this thread back on track

I don't remember what the original point of this thread was, what with all the boba-fetta cheese nonsense that hijacked it.

But I just want to say this:

1. I love Squadrons.

2. Although, I haven't used them a lot, and didn't use them in the tournament I won.

3. But....I'm going to keep practicing with them....

4. And, I think they are not as bad as a lot of people seem to think they are.

5. Therefore, let's keep an open mind and a bit of confidence in FFG's ability to make good-happy-fun-times-games.

I generally only win the games I have squadrons in my fleet. They are the hardest aspect of the game to really master and get a grasp on but they are so brutal I find their payoff to be well worth the investment.

I think from now on i am going to confine myself purely to the more narrative, campaign and "alternate play format" type of thing, along with (non fighter) tactics stuff that seems constructive (Imperial response to Ackbar being a good example).

I am particularly interested in discussing/stealing/expanding the following points you mentioned....

Alternate forms of play than the standard format,

narrative Armada gaming

people's use of doctrines in their style

ISD deckplanning what people might do to get some models for mines rather than objective tokens,

should we put more emphasis on team vs. team than individual vs. individual,

wouldn't it be cool to have a league in which we encourage people to stick to certain factions,

wouldn't it be interesting to have a mechanic to simulate a broader strategic scenario to surround our games etc.

All sound quite fun to me.

Create the topic and I shall be there. But I fear that TheRealStarkiller may be right that unless you get on a topic that is not too esoteric and express an opinion that steps on people's long toes, the thread won't go far.

Bah, my machine ate my previous post, but to clarify:

The point I am making about small groups is that you will see larger variance in smaller samples. This is a basic statistical outcome, and likewise the Nash equilibria you find in this groups will not necessarily be those for the larger meta as a whole.

[...]

I would suggest the lists you think are "good" could be very different in those two cases.

My post is based on what we see at larger tournaments (which can be viewed as a collision of mini-metas), the more well-attended Armada tournaments (I like 12+ players as a bar), and the regions with players who placed well in larger events.

I am not saying small meta results are invalid; I am just saying your variance there can be very high and produce results that are not going to be generalizable to larger events or other groups, so they need to be viewed with skepticism in that vein.

I don't understand why small sample = higher variance = less representative of a large population (until you get to a basic sample size that is representative for the underlying distribution) is a controversial view. This is a very basic statistical principle.

I think we may have different ideas about the application of 'larger variance in smaller samples'. As a statistical principle, yes, but you're arguing as if in small samples people are building their builds without regard to what other people in their group bring to the table. They don't just get on Fab's and hit 'Random'. They learn from one another, creating a small culture of belief in what is good.

Regarding the Nash equilibrium, that is also not applicable. Small groups engage in experimentation in order to beat what the other members bring. They're not stuck in keeping to the same strategy. They just evolve based on their mini-environment, rather than the global environment.

As to generalizability - that's the whole point of my OP. My meta is different from your meta. A lot of people seem to be saying that squadrons are not good and need to be fixed. I'm saying that in my local meta they're doing quite well, and I'm asking why their local metas are different.

But also regarding generalizability, I think you miss the point. Using the reports from MiniRanker, most (mode) tournaments have 4 people show up. The average (mean) tournament has around 9 people, but only because we have the nationals tournaments as large outliers. If you remove those, the average tournament has about 6-7 players. I'd argue that MiniRanker gets the mode right, but probably overestimates the average, because it's more likely to capture most of the big tournaments, but the smaller ones are more likely to go unreported.

In other words: most tournaments are small-scale events. True, each different scene may be ungeneralizable, but generalizability in itself is not going to be all that worthwhile, because it's the small idiosyncratic scene which matters most to most people.

I don't remember what the original point of this thread was, what with all the boba-fetta cheese nonsense that hijacked it.

But I just want to say this:

1. I love Squadrons.

2. Although, I haven't used them a lot, and didn't use them in the tournament I won.

3. But....I'm going to keep practicing with them....

4. And, I think they are not as bad as a lot of people seem to think they are.

5. Therefore, let's keep an open mind and a bit of confidence in FFG's ability to make good-happy-fun-times-games.

The original point was that squadrons will be good or bad depending on what your local meta is like.

1. I do too

2. I've used them quite heavily in every tournament I've won (4); when I didn't bring them I came in dead last. I was not the only one not bringing squadrons that day.

3. Excellent - more strength to you.

4. They may be bad in the local metas in which those 'lot of people' are getting their experiences from.

5. Absolutely.

Went to top table in 4 separate Sullust events with a CR-90, 2 AF MkIIs, and 4 B-Wings. Squadrons are fine.

However I won 2 of them with none at all Dave