43 minutes ago, Kaptin Krunch said:

Double/Triple Elimination?

Also, PSA for anyone here. Here's a Krayt-esque podcast, that has appearances by the Krayts.

https://thesaltminesxwingpodcast.podomatic.com/

jesus that logo

14 minutes ago, Boom Owl said:

Not to devolve into a topic about an unsolvable problem or a problem that doesnt need to be solved...but....

What if bumps against your own ships within your range 1 deployment area did damage to your ships?

Would have to work out the rule logic for if you end up back there later in the game and bump etc. but I wonder if there is a way to word that right.

I guess it makes some of those new Teleporting big bases we have in 2.0 a bit of a concern.

Would also just mean you could set up the fortress just outside of the deployment zone ( allows some amount of room to flank I guess?)

Would it be enough to prevent fortresses without causing other serious issues?

Also to be clear I don't 100% think fortresses are a problem that absolutely needs to be solved ( objectives are basically the way to do it ) but lets say there was an attempt to do it via rules rather than win conditions. What would it be?

doesn't solve the problem of refusing to engage unless you get the engage you want - fortressing is just proving the point that there's no need to be good to wait till you get the engage you want.

14 minutes ago, Brunas said:

 doesn't solve the problem of refusing to engage unless you get the engage you want - fortressing is just proving the point that there's no need to be good to wait till you get the engage you want.

True but one at least looks different than the other and takes a small amount of additional effort.

Waiting for the engage that you want is basically the game. Fortresses, stalling, self bumps, all of that are absolutely a part of that and its fine if it stays the way it is.

If two players dont want to play the game there is no way outside of objectives to make that happen.

But is there at least a way to get both players to have to move their ships even if its just infinite K turns and mini nascar laps in the corner?

Just now, Boom Owl said:

Waiting for the engage that you want is basically the game. Fortresses, stalling, self bumps, all of that are absolutely a part of that and its fine if it stays the way it is.

I disagree. I'm willing to wait the entire game to get that engage, and that shouldn't be reasonable. If one player is always wrong for jousting, and I can always make you joust when you shouldn't be, we aren't playing a game.

Just now, Boom Owl said:

But is there at least a way to get both players to have to move their ships even if its just infinite K turns and mini nascar laps in the corner?

Frankly I'd rather just have the fortressing than that...

Basically, if there's a tiebreaker for win/loss, it needs to be inversely proportional to how good your list is at jousting (somehow)

21 minutes ago, Brunas said:

Basically, if there's a tiebreaker for win/loss, it needs to be inversely proportional to how good your list is at jousting (somehow)

I'm trying a bunch of different angles on this and can't find a way that 8 ties, 5x, or BBBBZ doesn't come out ahead.

I was looking at traditional salvo less your ship total and it just murders 2 ship lists.

Example: (Tie swarm) 8 x 2 = 16. Subtract your 8 ships and you have salvo of 8.

(5 X wing or U wing) 5 x 3 = 15. Subtract 5 and total of 10.

(NymRanda) 2 + 3 = 5. Subtract 2 and it's salvo of 3.

(Quad Wookie) 4 x 3 = 12. Subtract 4 and it's 8.

(Palp Aces, Quiz, QD, Yorr) 2 + 2 + 3 = 7. 7 - 3 = 4.

(BBBBZ) 12 + 2 = 14. Subtract 4 and it's 10

------------------

I tried looking at taking Health pool less salvo and it gets weird.

Example:

(Tie swarm) 24 - 16 = 8

(5x wing) 25 - 15 = 10

(NymMiranda) 19 - 5 = 14

(Quad wookies) 36 - 12 = 24

(Palp aces, Quiz, QD, Yorr) 20 - 7 = 13

(BBBBZ) - 40 -14 = 26

------------------

Now one more category.....

Health - Salvo (+ Pilot Skill)

(Tie swarm) 24 - 16 = 8 (+8) = 16

(5x wing) 25 - 15 = 10 (+10) = 20 (or 15 if cavern angels)

(NymMiranda) 19 - 5 = 14 (+18) = 32

(Quad wookies) 36 - 12 = 24 (+4) = 28

(Palp aces, Quiz, QD, Yorr) 20 - 7 = 13 + (23) = 36

(BBBBZ) - 40 -14 = 26 (+10) = 36

---------------------------------

That gets a little more interesting and takes into account all three major things you are paying for (Ship count, attack value, PS skill) But I'm just throwing numbers at a wall to make a favorable outcome.

Instinct post: why not base tie breaker on initiative? Make that bid mean something important?

2 minutes ago, LagJanson said:

Instinct post: why not base tie breaker on initiative? Make that bid mean something important?

I prefer using who chooses as tiebreaker (They lose), because is makes the bid riskier as well.

5 minutes ago, LagJanson said:

Instinct post: why not base tie breaker on initiative? Make that bid mean something important?

Soontir + Kylo + Bid and wait and be guaranteed to win on time doesn't sound like fun.

I like giving the win to the player with initiative, as (currently) it's almost entirely a disadvantage.

1 minute ago, Do I need a Username said:

I prefer using who chooses as tiebreaker (They lose), because is makes the bid riskier as well.

Hmm... does this help the fortressing situation?

3 minutes ago, Do I need a Username said:

I prefer using who chooses as tiebreaker (They lose), because is makes the bid riskier as well.

That works. A bid is like saying “I don’t need these points “ to your opponent anyway.

1 minute ago, Brunas said:

Soontir + Kylo + Bid and wait and be guaranteed to win on time doesn't sound like fun.

My instincts are bad and I feel bad!

6 minutes ago, LagJanson said:

Instinct post: why not base tie breaker on initiative? Make that bid mean something important?

The risk is the effect of the double dip. If the meta makes low ps blocking super relevant the initiative bid will already be really rewarding on the table, adding it as a tie breaker on top may overly encourage it. I'd also argue in 1.0 at least a 0-2 point bid can pretty easily happen on accident and isn't a conscious choice a player makes.

1 hour ago, Brunas said:

Basically, if there's a tiebreaker for win/loss, it needs to be inversely proportional to how good your list is at jousting (somehow)

I want so badly to know what the Devs think about this kinda stuff.

I bet they have some super clever ideas like linked actions that they havent talked about yet.

2 minutes ago, catachanninja said:

The risk is the effect of the double dip. If the meta makes low ps blocking super relevant the initiative bid will already be really rewarding on the table, adding it as a tie breaker on top may overly encourage it. I'd also argue in 1.0 at least a 0-2 point bid can pretty easily happen on accident and isn't a conscious choice a player makes.

yeah, making the player who doesn't get to choose the initiative win at time seems pretty good... Any jousting list NEEDS those points of efficiency to joust and can't really afford bids by definition, or they wouldn't be the king jousting list.

https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2018/7/17/swz-special-modifications/

MEME FORMAT

8 minutes ago, Brunas said:

https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2018/7/17/swz-special-modifications/

MEME FORMAT

I am voting for Enlightened Perception. No question.

2 minutes ago, Boom Owl said:

I am voting for Enlightened Perception. No question.

idk man I just think the empire is really defined by tragedy simulator

this is gonna be fun

7 minutes ago, defkhan1 said:

this is gonna be fun

I for one cannot wait to see people rationally argue about Star Wars theme.

1 hour ago, Brunas said:

yeah, making the player who doesn't get to choose the initiative win at time seems pretty good... Any jousting list NEEDS those points of efficiency to joust and can't really afford bids by definition, or they wouldn't be the king jousting list.

I agree, to a point. The extreme case is 200 point ace that runs away all game. They win the bid, but give up the choice because the opposition doesn't match their PS. Now they just have to be alive (err... above half damage) to win. That doesn't sound terrible, but does make you be careful. It does sound a whole lot fairer than Fort TIE Swarm, though.

I think this would address @catachanninja's concern.

25 minutes ago, Biophysical said:

I agree, to a point. The extreme case is 200 point ace that runs away all game. They win the bid, but give up the choice because the opposition doesn't match their PS. Now they just have to be alive (err... above half damage) to win. That doesn't sound terrible, but does make you be careful. It does sound a whole lot fairer than Fort TIE Swarm, though.

I think this would address @catachanninja's concern.

Yeah i actually on gut reaction really like it

3 hours ago, Brunas said:

idk man I just think the empire is really defined by tragedy simulator

Composure is a good one too since it occurs on failure. Nothing is more imperial than failure

12 minutes ago, catachanninja said:

Composure is a good one too since it occurs on failure. Nothing is more imperial than failure

You know what? When the upgrades that win make no sense, I would not be surprised at all if FFG looks here first for the explanation for the choices, and then twists our twisted reasoning into something they believe is acceptable.

”the imperial faction is defined by aggression. Often, this aggression results in phenomenal display of power. Other times catastropic failures...”

9 minutes ago, Kdubb said:

You know what? When the upgrades that win make no sense, I would not be surprised at all if FFG looks here first for the explanation for the choices, and then twists our twisted reasoning into something they believe is acceptable.

from the moment 2.0 was announced Luke Skywalker gunner has been the most heavily discussed upgrades in the game. it makes sense this iconic rebel hero would be voted in by the community

23 minutes ago, Kdubb said:

You know what? When the upgrades that win make no sense, I would not be surprised at all if FFG looks here first for the explanation for the choices, and then twists our twisted reasoning into something they believe is acceptable.

”the imperial faction is defined by aggression. Often, this aggression results in phenomenal display of power. Other times catastropic failures...”

Shout out to the marketing person who has to write that up. Also now that we're the largest thread who do we talk to about getting the m22t krayt gunship added?

30 minutes ago, Boom Owl said:

Dutch or Gray Squadron to pair with Luke is my only remaining question.