Oh hell no. Weird Al RULEShttps://youtu.be/XrMbkbTPrPAChange the channel!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"?
Makes me wonder if there's a Viable Al.
I don't get the significance of the cartoon.
True, I think people are quick to dismiss something if someone else hasn't already won XYZ with it.
But if we eschew all ways of defining what is and what is not a workable list, how do we define this?
Winning isn't the priority for some. Not caring about winning is not the same as tossing the game. I like to test out different stuff, or potential combos in my weekly get ups, not going for the power combos.
Testing stuff that isn't even theoretically capable of winning is just... derp
You can try to test something that's supposed to be good.
Testing if Grav-vessery+Tie Advanced is good is one thing
"testing" the viability of HWK-blasterswarm is another thing. Because it scyks even on theoretical level
But if we eschew all ways of defining what is and what is not a workable list, how do we define this?
sleeping with your sister.
But the HWK Blasterswarm could be a pirate force (before scum and villainy was even a thing) used by the GM to represent pirates you are tangling with. And your starfighter squadrons losses are recorded....
I say this because once I made a merc HWK swarm - pre scum and villainy to send against my - at the time autothrusterless friends Interceptor team. He won, so the players got a bonus towards what they were doing on the ground, but a member of eclipse went down without ejecting so they lost a pilot.
Please don't assume we all play 100 point face off.
But the HWK Blasterswarm could be a pirate force (before scum and villainy was even a thing) used by the GM to represent pirates you are tangling with. And your starfighter squadrons losses are recorded....
I say this because once I made a merc HWK swarm - pre scum and villainy to send against my - at the time autothrusterless friends Interceptor team. He won, so the players got a bonus towards what they were doing on the ground, but a member of eclipse went down without ejecting so they lost a pilot.
Please don't assume we all play 100 point face off.
Pirate force? I call it space fish food v_v
poor pirates, blown to pieces by a squad of perfect snowflakes...\
Such lists require the player to spend more points on the squad to make up for their incompetence.
otherwise... fishfood. one-sided ownage.
True, I think people are quick to dismiss something if someone else hasn't already won XYZ with it.
Yeah, but XYZ is hardly tournament-level competitive, if you can't beat XYZ, you should really go back to the drawing board!
Having played a few tournaments now, I'm of the mindset that win or lose, you should take something you really enjoy flying, because a full day of playing the same list can be draining if you're not having fun. TLT's are popular because they're efficient, but I've sworn off them because by god they're dull. I wouldn't play a Decimator or YT at a tournament now either, for similar reasons.
But the HWK Blasterswarm could be a pirate force (before scum and villainy was even a thing) used by the GM to represent pirates you are tangling with. And your starfighter squadrons losses are recorded....
I say this because once I made a merc HWK swarm - pre scum and villainy to send against my - at the time autothrusterless friends Interceptor team. He won, so the players got a bonus towards what they were doing on the ground, but a member of eclipse went down without ejecting so they lost a pilot.
Please don't assume we all play 100 point face off.
Pirate force? I call it space fish food v_v
poor pirates, blown to pieces by a squad of perfect snowflakes...\
Such lists require the player to spend more points on the squad to make up for their incompetence.
otherwise... fishfood. one-sided ownage.
.<the point.
U<you.
Well viable is a good way of describing ships/builds that will have a decent chance getting to top 8 in regional or above. Sure some ships get a bsd rep cause people aren't bringing them but there is often a reason behind it.
I do however dislike veteran players talking to new players and saying what ships work and what ships to never buy because they suck.
Some ships/builds are going to be bad depending on the meta if you plan to get at least top 8. But there are barely any ships that can't get you there.
There aren't that many ships that currently aren't viable.
Palob is on my KILL FIRST LIST for a reason, and that's an HWK.
Defenders and bombers get some updates soon, guidance chimps means that ordnance is now a thing
X-wings get integrated, and while the T-70 is better, the T65 is good. Y-wings have always been good, A-wings are cheap/procks/good aces.
Ewing Generics are actually fairly good in Epic
Fels Wrath.... you got me.
Well viable is a good way of describing ships/builds that will have a decent chance getting to top 8 in regional or above. Sure some ships get a bsd rep cause people aren't bringing them but there is often a reason behind it.
Not really, because it depends on the player fielding it, their experience using the list and the decisions they make with it on the day. I've seen players take cut-and-paste World's lists to tournaments and finish dead last, and players take seemingly random builds competing on the top table at the end of the day.
All that relying on so-called "viable" or "competitive" ships does is artificially limit your choices and give you a false sense of security.
I have no experience in this game, but from Warhammer 40k, player skill is in tandem with luck, what units you have, and how much dice you can throw to circumvent bad rolling and maximize good rolls. In this case, Pilot skill sounds like it takes precedence, but there is always a stop gap between how well your positioning is and simply getting annihilated by overwhelming force/cheese.
Some things work out really well, and other things work really poorly. Hence viability, and why it matters more to the cheese/tournament players.
Paul Heaver wins by thinking four turns ahead, not by merit of list alone.
Well viable is a good way of describing ships/builds that will have a decent chance getting to top 8 in regional or above. Sure some ships get a bsd rep cause people aren't bringing them but there is often a reason behind it.
I think it's precisely this use of the word "viable" that people object to and that prompted this thread. That is an incredibly specific way to use a very general term.
I absolutely agree with you that new players should not be told that any ship sucks. Let them buy what they like and enjoy the game in whichever way they want. If a ship ends up not doing well for them, let them make the decision not to use the ship. They still might find a use for some of the cards that come with it and as an added bonus they have a cool little spaceship model to display on their shelf.
Sure you can't copy a top worlds list and expect it to win for you. But some some lists will really struggle.
I haven't seen torpeedo armed tie bombers or Y-wings anywhere near top play at any tournament I've been to. Same with multiple hawks, scycks and y-wings (pre-most wanted)
If there are multiple examples of that then I guess I'm wrong.
X-wing is very balanced IMO but with every expansion more and more pilots/upgrades get outdated or outpriced. Vet packs and similar packs that boost old ships help, but you will never be completly free from the codex creep.
Edited by jocke01I haven't seen torpeedo armed tie bombers or Y-wings anywhere near top play at any tournament I've been to. Same with multiple hawks, scycks and y-wings (pre-most wanted)
You will.
Paul Heaver wins by thinking four turns ahead, not by merit of list alone.
and he manages to park a falcon in just millimetres of asteroids, and then does it again with a boost, skipping the arc by millimetres.
he's awesomely good. But no matter how heaver you are, you're not winning games with sticks and harsh language Scyks and HWKs
Paul Heaver wins by thinking four turns ahead, not by merit of list alone.
But Paul Heaver would likely win less if his list was made up of less viable ships 
Like it or not, some ships are better than others. Unlike let's say 40k, this doesn't mean that ship B will never win against the better ship A, it just means you will have to work harder. Not a problem if you really like to play ship B, a problem if you want to maximize your chance to win (in a tournament for example).
I like this thread.
It's also why I'm going to bring some Scyks and Graz the Hunter to my next tournament.
It's also why I'm going to bring some Scyks and Graz the Hunter to my next tournament.
*Turns Sweet Dreams on*
just for the single line
Some of them want to be abused.
Edited by Warpman
Paul Heaver wins by thinking four turns ahead, not by merit of list alone.
But Paul Heaver would likely win less if his list was made up of less viable ships
Like it or not, some ships are better than others. Unlike let's say 40k, this doesn't mean that ship B will never win against the better ship A, it just means you will have to work harder. Not a problem if you really like to play ship B, a problem if you want to maximize your chance to win (in a tournament for example).
Oh, you can definitely make a terrible build that'll hamstring you, not playing to a ship's strengths in build means it won't perform as well and there are ships that are overshadowed by a similar ship that's better at the same role (Z-95 vs Scyk, formerly B-wing vs X-wing). But once everyone has a sensible squad skill becomes vastly more important.
But the HWK Blasterswarm could be a pirate force (before scum and villainy was even a thing) used by the GM to represent pirates you are tangling with. And your starfighter squadrons losses are recorded....
I say this because once I made a merc HWK swarm - pre scum and villainy to send against my - at the time autothrusterless friends Interceptor team. He won, so the players got a bonus towards what they were doing on the ground, but a member of eclipse went down without ejecting so they lost a pilot.
Please don't assume we all play 100 point face off.
Been over two years since I built anything under 300'ish points... EPIC Baby!
Paul Heaver wins by thinking four turns ahead, not by merit of list alone.
He has a good eye too. I did carpentry for about ten years and when I watch his games I see the same thing he does. The spacing is not magic, he is not lucky... he has a great eye and knows what template to use because of his grade A observation.
I do the same thing... it is fun.
Paul Heaver wins by thinking four turns ahead, not by merit of list alone.
That's because quad Starviper isn't viable. And quad Starviper isn't viable because the Starviper can't regen 7 ******* shields with a 4 point upgrade for doing a green manuever it probably would have done anyways or use an HLC as a turret or turn invincible (Soontir Fel).
Remember, don't forget to hand wins to your opponent by reminding them of their forgotten card abilities. And fly whatever terrible list you want to, because if you lose to a Super Dash with it it's /your fault/ for not getting good enough.
All of Paul Heaver's championship lists have been meta lists that are tweaked slightly to have anti-meta capabilities. He wouldn't have done as well as he has done with tier 1.5 or tier 2 stuff, his lists play a significant part in his success.
Edited by ParaGoomba SlayerBut Paul Heaver would likely win less if his list was made up of less viable shipsPaul Heaver wins by thinking four turns ahead, not by merit of list alone.
Like it or not, some ships are better than others. Unlike let's say 40k, this doesn't mean that ship B will never win against the better ship A, it just means you will have to work harder. Not a problem if you really like to play ship B, a problem if you want to maximize your chance to win (in a tournament for example).
Oh, you can definitely make a terrible build that'll hamstring you, not playing to a ship's strengths in build means it won't perform as well and there are ships that are overshadowed by a similar ship that's better at the same role (Z-95 vs Scyk, formerly B-wing vs X-wing). But once everyone has a sensible squad skill becomes vastly more important.
Who will win when players of roughly equal skill are matched? More often than not, the one with the better list.
But the HWK Blasterswarm could be a pirate force (before scum and villainy was even a thing) used by the GM to represent pirates you are tangling with. And your starfighter squadrons losses are recorded....
I say this because once I made a merc HWK swarm - pre scum and villainy to send against my - at the time autothrusterless friends Interceptor team. He won, so the players got a bonus towards what they were doing on the ground, but a member of eclipse went down without ejecting so they lost a pilot.
Please don't assume we all play 100 point face off.
Been over two years since I built anything under 300'ish points... EPIC Baby!
For Narratve, points are used as more of a guideline... sometimes being with in 50 to 100 is fine. Not every battle should be a 3-600 point epic, skirmishes make up the most of wars. My format is the narrative, mission based, plot based more so than even points. To the point that even in a normal game I make a habit of rolling to see if a pilot ejects or dies in flame.
This said though. Once i've sorted my new cards into their decks etc i must get a photo of battlegroup Pathfinder to post on here. I've got mai two gozers now. Larger than I thought they'd be.
The Thunderchild and Didact look VERY nice next to The Huntress and the Pathfinder.
Edited by DariusAPB