4 minutes ago, Asturonethorius said:

Ok now that I'm pretty sure I'm going to fly the above list, whats the best way to fly this, as far as rock, debris placement, set up, etc?

You have to just try a bunch of different things, because you can never count on where your opponent will place their rocks/ships.

You're way overthinking this game. Game experience is the most important aspect. Try this list out. And if it works, great. If it doesn't, fly it again. And again. And again.

12 hours ago, Asturonethorius said:

Yes I know your Vrill can get 4 dice at range 1, when a ship enters the range 1 of the Donut Hole, and that it solves the problem of me not liking the 2,3 attack dice at, in the range 1, donut hole, and that I not like the donut hole. But thats in a 2 ship list. In the right 3 ship list, its ok. If a ship does enter range 1, then I still have 2 other ships that can attack, to make up for only getting to attack with 3 attack dice at range 1.

You keep using that phrase, I'm not sure it means what you think it means.

The Donut hole is when you are using the Outrider title card, in almost all cases, matched with a HLC. It creates a range 2 to 3 "donut" that you can fire in, and a "hole" in the middle where you can't fire. That is the donut hole. When equipping a cannon without the Outrider, you can only fire the cannon in your primary arc.

In answer to another question. When using Vrill take the largest debris fields you can. The more stress floating around on your opponent the better for him.

Sorry for my incorrect terminology then. I meant that when have HLC no outrider title, that when a ship is at range 1 inside your primary arc, that there is a HOLE of sorts there, because at range 1 in your primary arc you have 2,3 attack dice, instead of the 4 attack dice that get with HLC, as your secondary weapon, when ship at range 2,3 inside your primary arc.

There is a HOLE there that is comparable to the Donut Hole of HLC, Outrider, because in both situations if the ship is in range 1 of your primary arc, with HLC, you dont get to use HLC and have to use your primary weapon with only 2,3 dice, UNLESS you have VRILL YT 2400 that is firing on a stressed ship that is at range 1 in primary arc, then you would get 4 attack dice, instead of only 2,3 attack dice in the HOLE.

Play more. Most theorycrafting we do are just hypothesis. You have to experiment to find any relevant conclussion. It's fine to overthink stuff, but if you don't have the experimental part done to back it up, it's pointless to discuss.

Playing more is always a good thing, and towards that end I play 1 day, evening a week.

SOME theorycrafting is theory, just hypothesis, guesswork, etc, with NO, LITTLE math, science, facts, etc, that does have to be backed up, proven by play, experience, results, etc.

SOME theorycrafting, IF cite facts, math, science, game mechanics, efficiency, combined with true, non flawed logic, reason, etc, truly show WHY something is better, does not need to be played, experienced, results to show that, as 2 + 2 will always equal 4 game mechanically, efficiency, theorycrafting, etc, wise, no matter what results, experience, etc, say, SEEM to show.

If go by just results, thats called RESULTS ORIENTED THINKING

Just ask any experienced, knowledgeable, successful, consistently winning over the long term No Limit Hold Em Poker Player about RESULTS ORIENTED THINKING, as an example.

There are many horrible poker players that play terribly bad, losing poker, that win a lot, that think they are good players, who dont get that TRUE, FACTUAL, etc, POKER THEORYCRAFTING, is true, IF applied right, played right, depending on the situation, is true, NO MATTER WHAT THE RESULTS, NO MATTER IF GET UNLUCKY AND LOSE EVERY TIME OR WIN EVERY TIME.

Good poker play, is good poker play, no matter the results. The intrinsic value of a poker play, on whether its a good play or not, if played right, depending on situation, does not change based on results.

I use that as an example, because the same kind of thing is true for X wing.

Another example:

A X wing player, poster here, named THE HUMAN HYDRA, posted a top tiered defender list, did a complete analysis, breakdown, with math, game mechanics, facts, etc, on why it was so good, which clearly showed, proved why it was so good.

Results werent necessary to show that. The fact that it was a top tiered in list in the meta that won a lot, was, is IMMATERIAL, not Relevant, not needed to show, prove why the list was good.

Now I am not doing as good a job at theorycrafting. And my theorycrafting is more of a combination of the 2 different types of theorycrafting.

As such the theorycrafting I do, does help in trying to build, fit the best possible list together that I can.

Some of it does not need to be backed up by results, as is clear without results, that some stuff is better then some stuff depending on situation. Etc.

Some of it does need to be backed up by results, as it only SEAMS, APPEARS, logic, reason, etc, semi educated guessing that it is better.

Also before I play, I need a list. Just randomly throwing any 2,3 ships together, and any random number of hodge, podge upgrade cards, into a randomly thrown together list, is not the way to go.

It is far better to take time, theorycraft, build list, like what I am doing.

Then when I do play list, after I play list, to maybe make tweaks, changes, theorycraft the list some more, until either keep list, keep doing that, or stop playing list, or scrap list, create new list.

In short ITS NOT POINTLESS.