I cant think of any build that would "withstand fire power of that magnitude."
squadrons can
well, that was easy
...in theory I would agree but so far in practice not so much from my games. The problem is the capital ships get destroyed before the squadrons can do enough damage since all the ships are throwing gross amounts of red dice at long range. Now keep in mind all my tests have been red vs blue so no tests have been done using Rebels vs Rebels.
Even without double tapping ships, there are 4 ships shooting at ships and then possibly squadrons. That is a lot of firepower each turn
Sorry, but this is a ridiculous argument. Let's compare the 5-AF2 list to the GenCon Special, of which I've seen nobody gripe about the price:I really dont want to see a list like this, that allows people who have the disposable income buy this many AFs, take advantage of tournaments.
(Current Amazon prices)
5xAF2 (400 points) = 5x$27 = $135
VGGG (300 points) = $27 + 3x$22 = $93
$135/400 = $.33/point
$93/300 = $.31/point
The difference is extremely marginal. If you're buying into a hobby that requires $100 bare minimum start-up price, you have no grounds to kvetch over what amounts to like a $3 price difference.
Assuming the rule of 1, additional cost would be...
4xAF2 = 4x$27 = $108
GG = 2x$22 = $44
Sorry, but this is a ridiculous argument. Let's compare the 5-AF2 list to the GenCon Special, of which I've seen nobody gripe about the price:I really dont want to see a list like this, that allows people who have the disposable income buy this many AFs, take advantage of tournaments.
(Current Amazon prices)
5xAF2 (400 points) = 5x$27 = $135
VGGG (300 points) = $27 + 3x$22 = $93
$135/400 = $.33/point
$93/300 = $.31/point
The difference is extremely marginal. If you're buying into a hobby that requires $100 bare minimum start-up price, you have no grounds to kvetch over what amounts to like a $3 price difference.
It is absolutely not ridiculous, in fact it is based on feedback from most of the people I play with in my area. I think out of about 16 players only 2 have enough ships to field a GenCon special and/or 3 AFIIs. You are also assuming they only buy one faction, many people like to field both factions with means even more money. So dont make assumptions about people's disposable income without knowing the facts. I see people scrapping together money to makes ends meet much less have enough money to spend on hobbies and when they do they are very limited in what they can afford.
Edited by Overdawg
Sorry, but this is a ridiculous argument. Let's compare the 5-AF2 list to the GenCon Special, of which I've seen nobody gripe about the price:I really dont want to see a list like this, that allows people who have the disposable income buy this many AFs, take advantage of tournaments.
(Current Amazon prices)
5xAF2 (400 points) = 5x$27 = $135
VGGG (300 points) = $27 + 3x$22 = $93
$135/400 = $.33/point
$93/300 = $.31/point
The difference is extremely marginal. If you're buying into a hobby that requires $100 bare minimum start-up price, you have no grounds to kvetch over what amounts to like a $3 price difference.
Assuming the rule of 1, additional cost would be...
4xAF2 = 4x$27 = $108
GG = 2x$22 = $44
Sure, let's assume the rule of 1. Assuming you buy in right now...
=========================
Wave 0/1:
$27 - AF
$58 - Core
$14 - Neb-B
$15 - CR90
$16 - Rebel Fighters
$27 - VSD
$22 - GSD
$16 - Imperial Fighters
$195 - Wave 0/1 Total
$44 - +2 GSD
Incremental price difference: ($44/($44+$195)) = 18.4%
=========================
Wave 2:
$50 - ISD
$40 - Home One
$25 - Raider
$30 - MC30c
$20 - Rogues & Villains
$195 - Wave 0/1
$360 - Wave 0/1/2 Total
$108 - +4 AF2
Incremental price difference: ($108/($360+$108)) = 23.1%
=========================
So, assuming you bought one of everything plus exactly what you need to run the compared lists, and then normalizing those price differences against that total prices without the compared lists, you're looking at +~18% cost to run the GenCon Special in its wave, vs +~23% cost to run a 5x AF2 list.
I'm not saying it doesn't cost more. I'm saying the added cost of this one particular skew list is not a legitimate argument against the way Ackbar works. First of all, it's a good list, but it's not in any way the best list of the wave, I'm completely sure. Secondly, even if it was, it's not a major departure from the current state of the game in which, to run a ridiculous skew list like this, you have to spend more than the minimum amount of money.
Edited by Ardaedhel
Sorry, but this is a ridiculous argument. Let's compare the 5-AF2 list to the GenCon Special, of which I've seen nobody gripe about the price:I really dont want to see a list like this, that allows people who have the disposable income buy this many AFs, take advantage of tournaments.
(Current Amazon prices)
5xAF2 (400 points) = 5x$27 = $135
VGGG (300 points) = $27 + 3x$22 = $93
$135/400 = $.33/point
$93/300 = $.31/point
The difference is extremely marginal. If you're buying into a hobby that requires $100 bare minimum start-up price, you have no grounds to kvetch over what amounts to like a $3 price difference.
It is absolutely not ridiculous, in fact it is based on feedback from most of the people I play with in my area. I think out of about 16 players only 2 have enough ships to field a GenCon special and/or 3 AFIIs. You are also assuming they only buy one faction, many people like to field both factions with means even more money. So dont make assumptions about people's disposable income without knowing the facts. I see people scrapping together money to makes ends meet much less have enough money to spend on hobbies and when they do they are very limited in what they can afford.
I did not assume only one faction. I compared the prices of the lists directly, which seems pretty reasonable to me. See above for a broader comparison of the price of each list relative to the cost of owning one of each of the respective wave.
I'm sorry you have friends who are scraping to make ends meet. Seriously, I am, and I'm all about enabling those people to play despite their circumstances. I lend ships, give rides, and buy lunches for those guys in my local community. I'm not here to get into an argument about socioeconomic ethics in gaming, I'm here to point out that one piece of your claim--that an in-game mechanic needs to be changed to account for the lowest common denominator of people who might want to play the game--holds no water, as evidenced by the lack of outcry from the community over the economic feasibility of the current popular build.
Sorry, but this is a ridiculous argument. Let's compare the 5-AF2 list to the GenCon Special, of which I've seen nobody gripe about the price:I really dont want to see a list like this, that allows people who have the disposable income buy this many AFs, take advantage of tournaments.
(Current Amazon prices)
5xAF2 (400 points) = 5x$27 = $135
VGGG (300 points) = $27 + 3x$22 = $93
$135/400 = $.33/point
$93/300 = $.31/point
The difference is extremely marginal. If you're buying into a hobby that requires $100 bare minimum start-up price, you have no grounds to kvetch over what amounts to like a $3 price difference.
Assuming the rule of 1, additional cost would be...
4xAF2 = 4x$27 = $108
GG = 2x$22 = $44
Sure, let's assume the rule of 1. Assuming you buy in right now...
=========================
Wave 0/1:
$27 - AF
$58 - Core
$14 - Neb-B
$15 - CR90
$16 - Rebel Fighters
$27 - VSD
$22 - GSD
$16 - Imperial Fighters
$195 - Wave 0/1 Total
$44 - +2 GSD
Incremental price difference: ($44/($44+$195)) = 18.4%
=========================
Wave 2:
$50 - ISD
$40 - Home One
$25 - Raider
$30 - MC30c
$20 - Rogues & Villains
$195 - Wave 0/1
$360 - Wave 0/1/2 Total
$108 - +4 AF2
Incremental price difference: ($108/($360+$108)) = 23.1%
=========================
So, assuming you bought one of everything plus exactly what you need to run the compared lists, and then normalizing those price differences against that total prices without the compared lists, you're looking at +~18% cost to run the GenCon Special in its wave, vs +~23% cost to run a 5x AF2 list.
I'm not saying it doesn't cost more. I'm saying the added cost of this one particular skew list is not a legitimate argument against the way Ackbar works. First of all, it's a good list, but it's not in any way the best list of the wave, I'm completely sure. Secondly, even if it was, it's not a major departure from the current state of the game in which, to run a ridiculous skew list like this, you have to spend more than the minimum amount of money.
This is not a forum for magic players, so percentages do not concern me. If you are on this forum, the price of spam is $44 for Imperial vs $108 for Rebel.
Edited by GronardIII have a bad habit of running way too far down tangents, so I'm just going to leave my position at that. Feel free to respond, either of you, but I'm not going to go down this rabbit hole any further. I'm already getting way too close to discussing politics here, for which this isn't really an appropriate forum.
*sniff*
I'm a Lowest Common Denominator.
I have a bad habit of running way too far down tangents, so I'm just going to leave my position at that. Feel free to respond, either of you, but I'm not going to go down this rabbit hole any further. I'm already getting way too close to discussing politics here, for which this isn't really an appropriate forum.
Agreed...no hard feelings just a good debate.
Sorry, but this is a ridiculous argument. Let's compare the 5-AF2 list to the GenCon Special, of which I've seen nobody gripe about the price:I really dont want to see a list like this, that allows people who have the disposable income buy this many AFs, take advantage of tournaments.
(Current Amazon prices)
5xAF2 (400 points) = 5x$27 = $135
VGGG (300 points) = $27 + 3x$22 = $93
$135/400 = $.33/point
$93/300 = $.31/point
The difference is extremely marginal. If you're buying into a hobby that requires $100 bare minimum start-up price, you have no grounds to kvetch over what amounts to like a $3 price difference.
It is absolutely not ridiculous, in fact it is based on feedback from most of the people I play with in my area. I think out of about 16 players only 2 have enough ships to field a GenCon special and/or 3 AFIIs. You are also assuming they only buy one faction, many people like to field both factions with means even more money. So dont make assumptions about people's disposable income without knowing the facts. I see people scrapping together money to makes ends meet much less have enough money to spend on hobbies and when they do they are very limited in what they can afford.
I could field the rebel list in a jiffy, and already have the glad list plus two more VSDs but I digress.
I don't know that squadrons is the answer to this at all. I still have yet to see anyone pose a major threat to any fleet ive fielded with squadrons...but wave two will change that I'm sure.
I could field the rebel list in a jiffy, and already have the glad list plus two more VSDs but I digress.
I don't know that squadrons is the answer to this at all. I still have yet to see anyone pose a major threat to any fleet ive fielded with squadrons...but wave two will change that I'm sure.
It does not help that you are not experienced with squadrons and that your play style does not work with them to well.I could field the rebel list in a jiffy, and already have the glad list plus two more VSDs but I digress.
I don't know that squadrons is the answer to this at all. I still have yet to see anyone pose a major threat to any fleet ive fielded with squadrons...but wave two will change that I'm sure.
it does help that we have some bloke from worlds what did fairly okay with 8 A-wings
for me, though, it's more that GSDs get one-round by Yavaris and two b-wings.
for Akbar, it's rhymer. Bombers really tear into Afmk2s, and they'll annihilate it with combined fire from Demolisher (or, in wave 2, an ISD)
Wave 2 does very little for squadron viability. Apart from boosted comms, it's the same **** plus some nifty, if potentially horridly overpriced Rogues (apart from sprays; they're cool). This is fine; they were always viable.
People in general across miniature games and games in general have a bad tendency of confusing "does not fit in my playstyle" for "does not work/is not effective"
How it works against Akbar is very simple: he does nothing to counter them. You have to build his fleets with some squadron deterrents by taking them out of points you'd normally use for moar Akbar. Furthermore, squadron threat range + command range > long range. With Boosted Comms, commanding them from a greater distance only gets easier.
Terrors of Akbar 1.5 and 2.0 are far more convincing fleets than the skew present above, which will fold to bombers (or the 8 A-wings) that it cannot answer.
Edited by ficklegreendiceIt does not help that you are not experienced with squadrons and that your play style does not work with them to well.I could field the rebel list in a jiffy, and already have the glad list plus two more VSDs but I digress.
I don't know that squadrons is the answer to this at all. I still have yet to see anyone pose a major threat to any fleet ive fielded with squadrons...but wave two will change that I'm sure.
Actually, I'm perfectly experienced with squadrons, as Tom would confirm. I just don't think that in wave one they have enough efficiency to utilize.
Wave two tough....a different proposition.
Wave 2 doesn't do anything for Squadron efficiency, apart from boosted comms. R&V ships are woefully outgunned point for point by wwvae 1's squadrons. That's not to say R&V is bad- But if your problem with squadrons was efficiency, wave 2 is not what you're looking for.
Unless you mean something different from efficiency than what Fickle and I mean, which is distinctly possible.
"efficiency" could very well just mean "new and shiny"
the point cap being raised is nifty, though, allowing more ships to prevent full wipes
"efficiency" could very well just mean "new and shiny"
the point cap being raised is nifty, though, allowing more ships to prevent full wipes
I suppose he could mean, "requires less babysitting."
But then, even ignoring the advantage of firing first (And you really shouldn't), Rogues are much less efficient sources of anti-squadron firepower after the innitial engagement (And depending on initiative, that might not even be the case). They are better at unsupervised bombing, but since your opponent knows this, one would expect them to invest in at least some sort of screen, no?
I will say that the threat of Firesprays (and to a lesser extent, Aggressors and Yt-2400s) will likely push the metagame further away from no-fighter lists*, but given the Firespray's lackluster anti-squadron** armament, I'm not sure we'll actually see too many rogues.
*Some of the uniques might also have an effect here, but my very crude attempt to do some mathematical analysis of Armada's squadrons hasn't extended to uniques yet.
**While it must be said that durability and activation efficiency*** both play a role in a squadron's effectiveness in a dogfight, in terms of average anti-squadron damage/points, the Firespray is tied with the HWK-290, Time Bomber, and a lone jumpmaster.
***Rolling more dice in a single activation
Edited by SquarkI'm referring more to the likelihood of the enemy taking more squadrons. As far as I myself am concerned, nothing is better than just straight up TIE fighters by the boatload to just jam up the enemy squadrons. If I ever bother taking them. If I take squadrons, it's usually because I'm feeling thematic, or simply want a counter to enemy bombers.
And I use to word 'efficiency' simply as my own measure of how good something works for me.
And I never do any type of math....because I hate math. With a passion. So it's simply what works or not, when applied to my personal list building approach and hyper aggressive tactics.
Hope that clarifies my definition of efficiency! *bows*
I'm referring more to the likelihood of the enemy taking more squadrons. As far as I myself am concerned, nothing is better than just straight up TIE fighters by the boatload to just jam up the enemy squadrons. If I ever bother taking them. If I take squadrons, it's usually because I'm feeling thematic, or simply want a counter to enemy bombers.
Okay, you don't like bombers, and if your opponent isn't taking them either, you have no reason to take fighters. Gotcha.
And I use to word 'efficiency' simply as my own measure of how good something works for me.
And I never do any type of math....because I hate math. With a passion. So it's simply what works or not, when applied to my personal list building approach and hyper aggressive tactics.
Hope that clarifies my definition of efficiency! *bows*
Fair enough. That being said, efficiency is very much a science/mathematics/engineering term, so when someone says it, a lot of people are going to assume it's being used in that context.
Efficiency differs from person to person. . . Like opinions.. . .
Okay, you don't like bombers, and if your opponent isn't taking them either, you have no reason to take fighters. Gotcha.I'm referring more to the likelihood of the enemy taking more squadrons. As far as I myself am concerned, nothing is better than just straight up TIE fighters by the boatload to just jam up the enemy squadrons. If I ever bother taking them. If I take squadrons, it's usually because I'm feeling thematic, or simply want a counter to enemy bombers.
Fair enough. That being said, efficiency is very much a science/mathematics/engineering term, so when someone says it, a lot of people are going to assume it's being used in that context.And I use to word 'efficiency' simply as my own measure of how good something works for me.
And I never do any type of math....because I hate math. With a passion. So it's simply what works or not, when applied to my personal list building approach and hyper aggressive tactics.
Hope that clarifies my definition of efficiency! *bows*
True, fair enough. This is why I posted my take on the term, so as to avoid confusion, and so no one starts throwing math at me, which would be quite useless.
And I never said I dislike bombers. I've simply not found a mix that I like, or that works well with my tactics. But I shall keep experimenting!