... and the lousy mentality that goes with it.

:angry:

VIABLE... trying to win a game no matter what!

VETERAN... WINS EVERY GAME... even the ones that ended in a defeat.

Right Gang?!

DAM-RIGHTS!

It really depends on how the person is using it. Sure, most use it as "best of the best, sure thing win".

Personally, I view as "sure, it could possibly win". Must larger amount of squads when you look at things that way.

Joe Boss, you are my hero. People with your attitude are why I love playing the game!

The majority of ships have a viable option, and I firmly believe that. And the developers have a nice grasp on those that are not.

Viable=/=Tier 1, but many tend to use it line that.

Luckily, I wouldn't say there is even a Tier 1 in this meta. The days of "Joust, Dodge, Turret," or more simply, "Rock, Paper, Scissors," are over.

Now it's Rock, Paper, Scissors, Tiger, Dinosaur, Avalanche, Great Wall, Mountain, Abyss, Volcano, Ocean, Meteorite, Mouse, Elephant.

And it's glorious.

Edit: I forgot Shark and Harpoon.

I prefer dinosaur, unfortunately I keep losing to meteorite.

I prefer dinosaur, unfortunately I keep losing to meteorite.

Add some paper to your list, makes everything easier

I feel like putting the word "viable" on trial isn't a very good argument for what I'm assuming is people telling others certain cards or ships aren't good.

Figuring out whether or not something is viable depends on a lot of things such as your local meta. It can also depend on opinions and experience that you have regarding upgrades or ships. If you feel like something isn't viable might mean you tried it a bunch and, for you, it isn't. I'm sure there is some sarcasm to your post it just bothers me when people make judgments assuming that because I don't think something is viable I have a lousy attitude and I'm not "flying casual."

Having and sharing opinions on what is viable leads to new builds and play styles to further the expanding meta. It's not a cage that traps people from flying what they want =p.

For me, viable simply means "you aren't wasting your points taking this".

I know, right?

Rhymer + EM + 2x Adv Homing Missiles + TIE MkII + PTL. 38 points. Viable? Everyone I've flown that against has had their ships running away screaming from it, and it has two shotted Ten Numb and one shotted Corran.

Brath + HLC + LW + TIE MkII 47 Points. Viable? I've never seen a large base ship with so many face up cards and a crying pilot (extra cool points if it's Chewie).

Deathrain + Adv Sens + EM + 2x Prox Mines + Experimental Interface 40 points. Viable? I can put those mines wherever I **** well please. Dumped one on Poe once through an asteroid and then barrel rolled to keep from running through the rock the next turn. It was GLORIOUS.

Warden Squadron + Adv SLAM + Bombadier + EM + 2x prox mines 34 points. Viable? I thought the last opponent I had 2 of these on the table against was going to punch me in the nose.

Full Disclosure: ALL of these ships are ridiculously fun to play.

Khirax + cluster missiles + Glit + Pred with Latts Razzi Viable? I'm still mad they nerfed this. I positively melted ships with this.

Run the ridiculous and grin the whole time.

... and the lousy mentality that goes with it.

Why is it lousy to try to determine what is viable and what is not on a forum dedicated to a game with a competitive format?

I don't think there is any problem playing purely casual. If you enjoy the game that way then please do so, and feel free to discuss it casually here. I welcome and enjoy such discussions! But these forums are just as much for competitive discussion as they are for casual discussion. I feel like topics like this needlessly put a wedge between the two communities. It's almost like you're saying "Hey, I'm above your critical discussions, because the way I enjoy the game is better."

But it isn't for many of us. I enjoy playing this game competitively much more than casually. And to me, based on my experience in the competitive sphere of the game, the M3-A interceptor is not capable of working successfully consistently enough to be a good choice in a list.

So ya, you could say its not very viable. Perhaps the word isn't used entirely correctly, but that's what happens with the English language. People will use words which are more potent than what they need to add more emphasis to what they are saying.

For me,

VIABLE

Run the ridiculous and grin the whole time.

Are synonymous. In other words, put me on Team Joe Boss Red Seven.

... and the lousy mentality that goes with it.

Why is it lousy to try to determine what is viable and what is not on a forum dedicated to a game with a competitive format?

I don't think there is any problem playing purely casual. If you enjoy the game that way then please do so, and feel free to discuss it casually here. I welcome and enjoy such discussions! But these forums are just as much for competitive discussion as they are for casual discussion. I feel like topics like this needlessly put a wedge between the two communities. It's almost like you're saying "Hey, I'm above your critical discussions, because the way I enjoy the game is better."

But it isn't for many of us. I enjoy playing this game competitively much more than casually. And to me, based on my experience in the competitive sphere of the game, the M3-A interceptor is not capable of working successfully consistently enough to be a good choice in a list.

So ya, you could say its not very viable. Perhaps the word isn't used entirely correctly, but that's what happens with the English language. People will use words which are more potent than what they need to add more emphasis to what they are saying.

I Honestly, I think the problem is that the discussion of viability closes people's minds to what is possible. Bonner's 3 K-Wing Tactician list. Viable? Not until Bonner wrecked face with it. Like I said in my last post. Fly the ridiculous, and grin the whole time. I have a possible tourney list with that Deathrain build. And yes, it rains death.

Doesn't matter if other people think it's viable. Find the list that sings to you.

For me, viable simply means "you aren't wasting your points taking this".

more importantly, "you aren't wasting your time if you are at all interested in winning"

some people aren't, some people are

... and the lousy mentality that goes with it.

Why is it lousy to try to determine what is viable and what is not on a forum dedicated to a game with a competitive format?

I don't think there is any problem playing purely casual. If you enjoy the game that way then please do so, and feel free to discuss it casually here. I welcome and enjoy such discussions! But these forums are just as much for competitive discussion as they are for casual discussion. I feel like topics like this needlessly put a wedge between the two communities. It's almost like you're saying "Hey, I'm above your critical discussions, because the way I enjoy the game is better."

But it isn't for many of us. I enjoy playing this game competitively much more than casually. And to me, based on my experience in the competitive sphere of the game, the M3-A interceptor is not capable of working successfully consistently enough to be a good choice in a list.

So ya, you could say its not very viable. Perhaps the word isn't used entirely correctly, but that's what happens with the English language. People will use words which are more potent than what they need to add more emphasis to what they are saying.

I Honestly, I think the problem is that the discussion of viability closes people's minds to what is possible. Bonner's 3 K-Wing Tactician list. Viable? Not until Bonner wrecked face with it. Like I said in my last post. Fly the ridiculous, and grin the whole time. I have a possible tourney list with that Deathrain build. And yes, it rains death.

Doesn't matter if other people think it's viable. Find the list that sings to you.

Or you could fly something that's viable and not lose. Find a /viable/ list that speaks to you. All of Pheaver's championship lists are snap together meta lists that are slightly counter built against the meta.

I have had experience against triple TLT K-Wings before I heard of Danger Zone. With TLT they fly themselves and it'd still be viable with other upgrades in place of Tactician. Triple TLT K-Wing is already strong, if I would have been aware of Aaron Bonar's list before the worlds stream I think I would have considered it viable.

I agree with this so much, to the point that as soon as someone says a ship is not viable I toss there opinions out.

90% of the scum lists I fly have at least 1 m3a in them because for me the ship preforms unbelievable well but if I were to listen to the forums I should probably melt down my m3a's and toss them in the garbage.

I wonder how many people don't give ships a proper chance because of the crap they read on these forums telling them what's "worth" flying.

I'm right there with ya' Joe.

Every ship is viable. Not everybody plays on a tournament level, and more people need to realize that.

Doesn't matter if other people think it's viable. Find the list that sings to you.

What if the list is singing "Dare to be Stupid"?

Doesn't matter if other people think it's viable. Find the list that sings to you.

What if the list is singing "Dare to be Stupid"?

Mine have.....and I've won with them. There's a guy at my semi-L FGS who's normally the TO at events, and is a very good player. I show up at X-Wing night, and he swings by while I'm prepping and asks "what ridiculous mess are you playing this week?", since I bring the stupid and make it work, and have a ball the whole time. What may end up being my store championship list (I never play the same list twice, but this one sings) sings Dare to be stupid..... and you know what? I Dare enough to change my forum handle to Hot Rod.

For me,

VIABLE

and

Run the ridiculous and grin the whole time.

Are synonymous. In other words, put me on Team Joe Boss Red Seven.

Welcome to real STAR WARS my fine young Padawan!

I'm right there with ya' Joe.

Every ship is viable. Not everybody plays on a tournament level, and more people need to realize that.

Dats MY Cap'n Laxx... and he has plenty of wit!

I agree with this so much, to the point that as soon as someone says a ship is not viable I toss there opinions out.

90% of the scum lists I fly have at least 1 m3a in them because for me the ship preforms unbelievable well but if I were to listen to the forums I should probably melt down my m3a's and toss them in the garbage.

I wonder how many people don't give ships a proper chance because of the crap they read on these forums telling them what's "worth" flying.

Uh Oh... I feel like I need to post this little picture some more.

Who remembers how most 40k yahoos talked dat smack about The DARK ELDAR?

WAYyyy back in the day... I used to utterly destroy them **** marines with that weak army... How? I played them for a few months until I knew how to use them the way they had been made to be used.

I am scary when it comes to using the lousy no good ships in the faction (except Bro F'n Bots ) SCUM.

Best Believe!

... I am sure that I am not the only SCUMMY STAR BRAH on here that can do that too.

Doesn't matter if other people think it's viable. Find the list that sings to you.

What if the list is singing "Dare to be Stupid"?

Mine have.....and I've won with them. There's a guy at my semi-L FGS who's normally the TO at events, and is a very good player. I show up at X-Wing night, and he swings by while I'm prepping and asks "what ridiculous mess are you playing this week?", since I bring the stupid and make it work, and have a ball the whole time. What may end up being my store championship list (I never play the same list twice, but this one sings) sings Dare to be stupid..... and you know what? I Dare enough to change my forum handle to Hot Rod.

I agree with this so much, to the point that as soon as someone says a ship is not viable I toss there opinions out.

90% of the scum lists I fly have at least 1 m3a in them because for me the ship preforms unbelievable well but if I were to listen to the forums I should probably melt down my m3a's and toss them in the garbage.

I wonder how many people don't give ships a proper chance because of the crap they read on these forums telling them what's "worth" flying.

Or instead of dismissing their opinion and every other opinion they may have, why not have a discussion about it and tell them why you think it is viable.

To discredit/dismiss those who think something doesn't work for them when it does for you is very counterproductive to you and those that disagree. Viable is relative not negative.

So the crazy psychotic mess works? I haven't felt this good about a game since the first time I took fluid guns into a game of Battletech!