15 minutes ago, Biophysical said:

If anyone was actually really good at this game, we would have list building theories centered around complementary movement patterns on top of complementary card interactions as a way of assessing which "good stuff that fits in 200 points" was the right "good stuff that fits in 200 points".

Blog post? I would read this. But I'm not sure what you mean exactly.

11 minutes ago, Q10fanatic said:

Blog post? I would read this. But I'm not sure what you mean exactly.

I can't answer that question right now. I just sort of have anecdotal evidence that I make up reasons for after the fact.

1 hour ago, gennataos said:

As an aside, people should 100% be looking at the Scum Falcon for Second Edition format. It's #notmyfalcon, but it's undeniably good.

Haven't actually experienced it enough (1 game and it died badly) to make a good call, but yeah not discounting it simply cause it's cheeeeap

35 minutes ago, catachanninja said:

What's funny is that if I had a second ed tourney tomorrow that I cared about, the two lists I'm between are not on that list. Also "Vader + friends" is incredibly vauge, so you're kind of discounting quite a bit.

Fair. I sense the correct answer to friends is mini-TIE swarm but whether they're named or generics... dunno. Non-Vader Advanceds are a trap and we haven't seen much 2.0 Reaper play due to 1.0 Reaper fatigue. So yeah, maybe that's a fairly broad categorization but I think in reality it's a much narrower band than I labeled it

35 minutes ago, catachanninja said:

A few months ago people were trying to convince us selflessness and draw thier fire made for totally unique and diverse 100 point Miranda lists

They were wrong

33 minutes ago, Brunas said:

Isn't this how expanded works as well? There's always going to be a few meta things that 50% of the pool plays.

Absolutely, given sufficient time. It's just that we got so much content poured all over us at the same time in the form of extended that it's taking everyone a while to work through it. So while the meta will shrink down eventually at the moment it's more on the open side simply because people are still digesting things. And since the problem set is so much larger than 2nd ed format it will take longer to happen in extended (plus the lack of metawing 2.0 will likely stifle that process). It won't last, but at the moment there's way more experimentation happening

More importantly I'm not saying extended is objectively better than 2nd. I'm saying that in the games I've play I've subjectively had more fun playing extended. I've more enjoyed the sheer variety of ships and lists on both sides of the table in extended games than I have with playing the same handful of lists in 2nd repeatedly

47 minutes ago, Biophysical said:

If anyone was actually really good at this game, we would have list building theories centered around complementary movement patterns on top of complementary card interactions as a way of assessing which "good stuff that fits in 200 points" was the right "good stuff that fits in 200 points".

Well, right, but we aren't there yet. Once we get to the point where people have real lists, then the pool of things that can be played gets even smaller. Barring big upsets of course, like people discovering 'hey that mindlink thing is pretty good'

9 minutes ago, Makaze said:

Absolutely, given sufficient time. It's just that we got so much content poured all over us at the same time in the form of extended that it's taking everyone a while to work through it. So while the meta will shrink down eventually at the moment it's more on the open side simply because people are still digesting things. And since the problem set is so much larger than 2nd ed format it will take longer to happen in extended (plus the lack of metawing 2.0 will likely stifle that process). It won't last, but at the moment there's way more experimentation happening

More importantly I'm not saying extended is objectively better than 2nd. I'm saying that in the games I've play I've subjectively had more fun playing extended. I've more enjoyed the sheer variety of ships and lists on both sides of the table in extended games than I have with playing the same handful of lists in 2nd repeatedly

Right - I prefer the smaller pool, but everyone doesn't. Just feeling out what people prefer in extended. Is variety something you value that high?

1 hour ago, Biophysical said:

If anyone was actually really good at this game, we would have list building theories centered around complementary movement patterns on top of complementary card interactions as a way of assessing which "good stuff that fits in 200 points" was the right "good stuff that fits in 200 points".

I didn't come here to be good at the game. Pass the glue.

3 hours ago, RStan said:

What's the thought between Palob vs Teroch for list building if you can only have one? It seems to be a consistent effect (Palob) vs high risk high reward (Teroch) type of argument, unless I'm missing something else. What are reasons to go one way or another?

Good question. Palob is two arcs, up to range 2, and doesn't require to you to be staring your opponent right in the face. For a majority of players it's much easier to trigger, a lot lower risk, and just a larger area of control than Old Terry can do. Most people aren't good enough to know when and how to maximize the most out of Terry.

Palob just sort of strolls around the board as the token burgler and now has a boost to get him in range/arc and a three dice primary that other ships actually are scared of. He's also 6 points cheaper.

Old T is a punishing ship against stuff like Defenders, Phantoms, reinforced ships, Guri, token Stacked boba, ect. He has a much higher ceiling of punishing ability. But it's a lot harder to pull off and not die in the process.

EDIT: Censored. Not for language, but for stupidity.

30 minutes ago, Brunas said:

Well, right, but we aren't there yet. Once we get to the point where people have real lists, then the pool of things that can be played gets even smaller. Barring big upsets of course, like people discovering 'hey that mindlink thing is pretty good'

I'm taking about looking at it like a miniatures game and not a card game. I'd guess north of 80% of all squad building analysis looks at the game as a card game. They answer the question of which card combos are best together, or which cards are good against other cards, based purely on rules text interaction. Largely ignored is the "which ships work well together because they move together in ways that are really good". When it's discussed, it comes from a place of accidental discovery, more often than not.

An example of what I'm trying to describe is ODJ. @Tlfj200has discussed initially using the list with Manaroo supporting the Fangs similar to Palp. Experience turned Manaroo into an aggressive control piece.

I'm thinking the more that we see "these ships work well together because of their particular movement qualities", the better.

Conversely, it's why I think Quickdraw+ Silencers, despite being one of my favorite 1.0 lists, was not total prime time. It had great pieces, but they had to be coordinated in weird ways or used independently. That hurt the list a bit, as it was reliant on point ships at the enemy.

1 minute ago, LagJanson said:

Why are you stopping at range 2? Palob's primary turret is a little better than that, isn't it?

His ability triggers up to range 2. So if you are range three you can boost in and burgle a token if you want it. Old T only works at range 1 and you have to be facing their forward arc.

5 minutes ago, Biophysical said:

I'm taking about looking at it like a miniatures game and not a card game. I'd guess north of 80% of all squad building analysis looks at the game as a card game. They answer the question of which card combos are best together, or which cards are good against other cards, based purely on rules text interaction. Largely ignored is the "which ships work well together because they move together in ways that are really good". When it's discussed, it comes from a place of accidental discovery, more often than not.

An example of what I'm trying to describe is ODJ. @Tlfj200has discussed initially using the list with Manaroo supporting the Fangs similar to Palp. Experience turned Manaroo into an aggressive control piece.

I'm thinking the more that we see "these ships work well together because of their particular movement qualities", the better.

Conversely, it's why I think Quickdraw+ Silencers, despite being one of my favorite 1.0 lists, was not total prime time. It had great pieces, but they had to be coordinated in weird ways or used independently. That hurt the list a bit, as it was reliant on point ships at the enemy.

Right. We're saying the same thing here, I'm just phrasing it badly.

Though x-wing says miniatures game on it, it isn't a miniatures game. It's a very well disguised card game with a 2d board. Don't believe the boxes lies!

6 minutes ago, viedit said:

His ability triggers up to range 2. So if you are range three you can boost in and burgle a token if you want it. Old T only works at range 1 and you have to be facing their forward arc.

Geez, you take a long time to type. I had already edited that terrible post twice before you responded... Yeah, I misread your post and thought you meant his arcs for gunnery sake ended at 2... then I remembered his ability after I hit submit...

3 hours ago, Biophysical said:

My initial impression is that Palob will get wrecked a lot faster than Teroch. He's not as tough and moves much more predictably.

Edit: although Fenn + Teroch + Palob + Z95 seems good.

You can run Palob with title, Lando, and engine at 61 versus a naked Teroch at 56. I think that Palob build has a pretty strong defensive profile and a wider threat zone than Teroch. Palob can sit with multiple focus tokens at ranges 2 and 3 along with a couple shields to hide behind. Teroch only wants to be at range 1 or he's unhappy.

Pairing them together seems solid, however if I were to only fit one I think I'd go with Palob. I'd want to run them a lot more than I have though, because I like your point about the nature of miniature gaming versus the numbers on the cards. The other ships they fly with could be enough to tilt it to Teroch.

@Pleugim I guess it likely just becomes a meta call. Having either of them in your list is powerful and threatening overall, but do you need to max deletion of tokens via Teroch against say a Defender and Phantom dominant meta OR do you just need it as a tool against another type of meta that could still include Defenders and Phantoms, but they're not dominant enough to force Teroch in a list over Palob. As someone (along with many others) that has picked up Whisper and really enjoyed playing her, I'd be sadder to see a Palob across the table than Teroch.

54 minutes ago, Brunas said:

Right. We're saying the same thing here, I'm just phrasing it badly.

Though x-wing says miniatures game on it, it isn't a miniatures game. It's a very well disguised card game with a 2d board. Don't believe the boxes lies!

Protip: Every miniatures game is a card game with a 2d board. The 2d board is what makes it a miniatures game.

Am I the only one who really doesn't want many (if any) upgrade cards? Every time I look through the choices, I just start thinking about how maybe I could squeeze in another ship with good abilities instead.

1 hour ago, Brunas said:

Right - I prefer the smaller pool, but everyone doesn't. Just feeling out what people prefer in extended. Is variety something you value that high?

It is. Unless I'm explicitly practicing for something I tend to fly a different list every single game. Although I completely recognize that squad building isn't (and hasn't been for a long time) a major part of specifically winning tournaments, it's still one of the major components of the overall game to me.

That's part of why the draft format appeals to me since it shakes the snowglobe and forces everyone to play the way I like to play

21 minutes ago, Biophysical said:

Protip: Every miniatures game is a card game with a 2d board. The 2d board is what makes it a miniatures game.

I was under the impression that the vast majority of miniatures games have things like analog motion, line of sight, dramatically reduced list building (by comparison), and a often a third dimension. My exposure is limited, though.

19 minutes ago, Makaze said:

It is. Unless I'm explicitly practicing for something I tend to fly a different list every single game. Although I completely recognize that squad building isn't (and hasn't been for a long time) a major part of specifically winning tournaments, it's still one of the major components of the overall game to me.

That's part of why the draft format appeals to me since it shakes the snowglobe and forces everyone to play the way I like to play

Cool, I'm glad draft hits that - draft and second edition appeal to me for the same reasons, basically making the best of a bad situation, or at least better than your peers who are also in bad situations.

13 minutes ago, Brunas said:

I was under the impression that the vast majority of miniatures games have things like analog motion, line of sight, dramatically reduced list building (by comparison), and a often a third dimension. My exposure is limited, though.

I don't recognize a qualitative difference between choosing to move from 0-6" and selecting a maneuver template. Lots of "vector" type movement systems have similar restrictions to the dial system, such as only having a cone of possible directions one can travel instead of every direction.

X-wing has line of sight, but it's 2d line of sight. Lots of minis games (especially ones in space) don't have line of site at all, or they have abstracted line of site that is effectively 2d.

Most minis games I've played has at least as much list building component as X-wing. Have you seen a 40k book?

3rd dimension is ostensibly in a lot of games, but it often doesn't matter a lot. Even then, it's just a state. Like flipping S-foils. Are you up high? If yes, ignore cover.

It's really the board that makes the difference, because all of a sudden there are spatial requirements to choices.

Theorist wrote an article a while back that is a good example of one element of what Biophysical is saying

https://teamcovenant.com/star-wars-x-wing/x-wing-301-turn-mapping

TLDR: What do your individual ships want to be doing each turn? How do you make sure that each of your ships are able to “hit their mark” and perform the optimal task each turn? Does your overall squad composition / deployment / maneuvering support each ship performing optimal roles turn to turn?

1 hour ago, Transmogrifier said:

Theorist wrote an article a while back that is a good example of one element of what Biophysical is saying

https://teamcovenant.com/star-wars-x-wing/x-wing-301-turn-mapping

TLDR: What do your individual ships want to be doing each turn? How do you make sure that each of your ships are able to “hit their mark” and perform the optimal task each turn? Does your overall squad composition / deployment / maneuvering support each ship performing optimal roles turn to turn?

Yeah, that's very much what I'm thinking about. There's not enough thinking like this in the game. Maybe the game doesn't do enough to reward thinking like this.

Rulebook: "You cannot reroll a die more than once."

Han: "Watch me."

Rulebook: "You cannot apply a range bonus to a missile."

Inquisitor: "Watch me... uh... wait... why can't I do what he did???"

#rebelbias

58 minutes ago, Biophysical said:

Yeah, that's very much what I'm thinking about. There's not enough thinking like this in the game. Maybe the game doesn't do enough to reward thinking like this.

With the return of the swarm, it very much rewards this thinking. Engaging with/against a swarm lives and dies on complementary movements. Relatedly, when I ran Bob's Builders for a month I started with practicing my complementary movements. Making sure I knew what moves to make to ensure the engagement I wanted was a big edge.

3 hours ago, Biophysical said:

Yeah, that's very much what I'm thinking about. There's not enough thinking like this in the game. Maybe the game doesn't do enough to reward thinking like this.

Thinking like that is harder than kturn focus evade every turn.

And release schedule gives a stready trickle of shiny new toys so few people put the time into learning to think like that. And if no one else is doing it, you can get away with it as well.

On the topic of hard-to-describe tactics, how do you all visualize a game?

I don’t often pick out more than one or two exact turns in advance, but I definitely see a bit of a flow between the rocks and around the edges, and I try to leave turbulence and eddies for my ships and pounce when their flow gets too strong or only heads through a single gap.

That isn’t a great way of describing it, but I can’t really come up with anything better. It’s something like a heat map made all out of vectors, or something?

At my best, I was able to generally pick where and when the first engagement would be with rocks and deployment, then leave myself lanes to reset. But I haven’t been at that level in a while.

It was a while ago, but Radio TCX had an excellent series of episodes comparing X-wing to chess. Touched on similar themes as that Theorist article.