39 minutes ago, Kdubb said:Anyways, I don’t usually give much credence to what I read in X-Wing blogs, but... this Vennie list that he closes the article with is at least pretty close to oppressive, right?
Vennie can have Advanced Optics and Perceptive Copilot, too.
I don't know that it crosses the line from "puzzle" to "oppressive", but against anything with 2-3 ships, it absolutely reaches "my dice rolls don't matter" since it can force all hit/evades typically at least twice a round.
Cant you just avoid its front arc?
4 minutes ago, Boom Owl said:Cant you just avoid its front arc?
That and targeting Vennie's wingmates is the correct choice. Once Vennie is alone, it should be easier to handle. Vennie lists suffer from 4+ ship squad matchups.
Edited by RStan11 minutes ago, svelok said:Vennie can have Advanced Optics and Perceptive Copilot, too.
I don't know that it crosses the line from "puzzle" to "oppressive", but against anything with 2-3 ships, it absolutely reaches "my dice rolls don't matter" since it can force all hit/evades typically at least twice a round.
I think, at a glance, the 3po version with no tech is a better balance of overall squad points. Put too much on vennie and your not getting M9G8 or Lulo.
I wouldn't mind Tallie in there, but you start to put all your eggs in the bomber basket, and I'm not convinced he (PC+AO version) is THAT good.
Edited by Bucknife3 minutes ago, RStan said:That and targeting Vennie's wingmates is the correct choice. Once Vennie is alone, it should be easier to handle. Vennie lists suffer from 4+ ship squad matchups.
It’d be a real shame if there was an uptick in good 4+ ship lists...
11 minutes ago, Tlfj200 said:It’d be a real shame if there was an uptick in good 4+ ship lists...
3 hours ago, Boom Owl said:Cant you just avoid its front arc?
what, and not joust?
1 hour ago, svelok said:what, and not joust?
This guy gets it (and has his honor).
8 hours ago, Kdubb said:but... this Vennie list that he closes the article with is at least pretty close to oppressive, right?
I’d say it lines up on the oppressive target yes. FFG wanted big base double-tap turrets back in the game for some d**n reason; so....we got it. 🙁
36 minutes ago, clanofwolves said:FFG wanted big base double-tap turrets back in the game for some d**n reason; so....we got it. 🙁
Do they? Cuz they nuked the bageezus out of Dash/Roark.
This is a clever "gotcha" list. The bomber is predicated on a lot of things working as intended (have actions, having ships in arc, people shooting it, etc). I'm not spooked, but can see getting rolled by it if I wasn't paying attention to what they're trying to do (which happens with unfortunate frequency).
On 2/14/2019 at 10:34 AM, millertime059 said:Let me clue you in on what I think is the secret sauce.
Seventh Sister, FCS, Hate. Comes in at 51 points, and always feels worth it. Consistent attack, and surprisingly great ability. In practice I’ve found I’m reliably able to get it off 2-3 times or more a game. And when it lands… doesn’t matter how many dice Boba can reroll if you can just eliminate one.
And once I stick the Sister on a ship then she is hard to shake. Tremendous 1 on 1 potential.
Ive been flying her a bunch, and she’s always great, and fun to fly.
Just flew that Sev. She's low-key spicy. Like, when you get a hot sauce that doesn't seem too hot, so you take a 2nd and 3rd bite, and then it creeps up on you.
Turns out, having 1e Crack Shot every other turn is pretty good.
Rest of the list was Predator Soontir, Crack Shot Pure Sabaac, and Crack Shot Countdown. The game is the kind you have to throw away, one bad position for my opponent and skewed dice luck essentially ended things turn 2. List feels like a lot of fun.
So yeah, that Seven feels good as a cheap ace. Not a burst damage ship like Sabaac or Fenn Rau, but it's nice to have consistent chip damage a lot of the time. Mobility across the board, a few hard hitters, a few slow-dying ships, Sev's chips. Good mix of threats.
11 hours ago, Boom Owl said:
This image is the closest excuse I will have for posting a word jumble stuck in my mind today: Darth Vader's rapturous cappuccino and beef meditation jam.
I recently-ish started to dabble in chess. One of the first things to learn are few, basic openings.
Now I'm wondering: Why is there not more material (blogposts or discussions) on that in X-wing?
I don't think it really is too variable, not when compared to the 50 or so realistic openings in chess. Most games I play end up with my opponent setting up in one of three locations (corners or middle) and me in one of the two corners. It's a very simple train of thoughts: Is the main threat/target right in front of me? Do I want to joust?
These two questions answer how to choose my opening, meaning the first 2-3 turns. I would have several in principle, but I most often default to one of 4.
So why is there not more about it? Is it secret tech that can't be shared? Or is there nothing to share because the game is not there (yet)?
1 hour ago, GreenDragoon said:I recently-ish started to dabble in chess. One of the first things to learn are few, basic openings.
Now I'm wondering: Why is there not more material (blogposts or discussions) on that in X-wing?
I don't think it really is too variable, not when compared to the 50 or so realistic openings in chess. Most games I play end up with my opponent setting up in one of three locations (corners or middle) and me in one of the two corners. It's a very simple train of thoughts: Is the main threat/target right in front of me? Do I want to joust?
These two questions answer how to choose my opening, meaning the first 2-3 turns. I would have several in principle, but I most often default to one of 4.So why is there not more about it? Is it secret tech that can't be shared? Or is there nothing to share because the game is not there (yet)?
Well then your opponents suffer from a lack of creativity.
Personally there is no one hard and fast rule for me. In fact I use a variety, but my favorite being what I call The Shell Game.
You know the classic sleight of hand where a ball is placed under a shell or cup? And the dealer shuffles it around? Well that’s how I deploy and open with many of my lists. Set them up spaced out across my edge, feint in multiple directions/ lanes, turn multiple ships across each other’s path to switch which ship is coming down which lane often sending one at high speed up one board edge, then after 2-3 turns of this jam into a lane with each ship and converge. It works really well for me. It makes it unpredictable which ship is coming which angle and forces my opponent to commit towards one ship.
Now this works because I fly a lot of mobile 3 ship lists, like Striker, Interceptor, Defender. Each ship comes from a different angle and lane, and I force it so that they need to commit to either the left, middle, or right ship. Once I get a read, and force them to either break formation or commit, I then converge.
Now this only works because I am confident in my maneuvering and ability to get three ships to converge from three wildly different approaches at once, and engage all on the same turn. And also in my ability to choose maneuvers that allow me to bug out with whichever ship my opponent turns towards.
But how do you map that opening out? It isn’t a set of maneuvers, in fact it varies greatly depending on obstacles (I do try and place with my ships in mind), opponent ships, and how my opponent deploys. In fact most of my games involve me sending some ships on a split formation. Even my striker Interceptor swarm, I set up in a block, but at some point I separate my Interceptors out and send them in opposite directions. My initial deploy is a feint at a straight joust, but in reality I am going to send multiple ships out as hybrid flankers/ blockers.
So the reality is there isn’t any set number of openings. There are some set formations, like the classic TIE swarm or Tripsilons, but largely I find that having a fixed opening is something that can be exploited by a player who is patient and unexpected.
24 minutes ago, millertime059 said:Well then your opponents suffer from a lack of creativity.
I'd be careful with a statement like that.
4 hours ago, GreenDragoon said:I recently-ish started to dabble in chess. One of the first things to learn are few, basic openings.
Now I'm wondering: Why is there not more material (blogposts or discussions) on that in X-wing?
I don't think it really is too variable, not when compared to the 50 or so realistic openings in chess. Most games I play end up with my opponent setting up in one of three locations (corners or middle) and me in one of the two corners. It's a very simple train of thoughts: Is the main threat/target right in front of me? Do I want to joust?
These two questions answer how to choose my opening, meaning the first 2-3 turns. I would have several in principle, but I most often default to one of 4.So why is there not more about it? Is it secret tech that can't be shared? Or is there nothing to share because the game is not there (yet)?
I think it makes sense to categorize broad openings, but you can't get too specific. Lots of ships move differently, and must be coordinated in different ways. Consequently, each squad likely has different specific openings it is good at or less good at.
I suspect it's not discussed as much because a.) It's hard to talk about, and b.) Once you play enough to figure out good openings, you want to keep that information for yourself.
2 minutes ago, Biophysical said:Consequently, each squad likely has different specific openings it is good at or less good at.
Yes I agree, and I didn't want to suggest otherwise. I would say that individual squads do have such openings, and that it is very useful to have some ready for different types of matchups.
In the twilight of first edition, when I was still running arc’d ships like a rube, I had a consistent squad and figured out how I wanted to open against a variety of different lists and deployments. What makes discussing this in particular terms difficult is probably obstacle selection, as the lane set-up in combination with the opponent’s squad / deployment means that it’s hard to generalize without assuming too much of your listener’s baseline knowledge.
If someone wanted to set up a video where two players rotate through a few squads, show where they would deploy and what lanes they would prefer... that would be a great service to the community, but per Biophysical’s point, very selfless 😁
4 hours ago, GreenDragoon said:I'd be careful with a statement like that.
Hey, you’re the one who said they had 3 basic opening setups 
40 minutes ago, millertime059 said:Hey, you’re the one who said they had 3 basic opening setups
No, I said that in most (= not all) they set up in one of 3 locations. Taking a look at the Top16/8/4/Final of Phoenix, out of 8 positions, 7 set up in a corner. But maybe you should inform them that they suffer from a lack of creativity.
7 hours ago, GreenDragoon said:I recently-ish started to dabble in chess. One of the first things to learn are few, basic openings.
Now I'm wondering: Why is there not more material (blogposts or discussions) on that in X-wing?
I don't think it really is too variable, not when compared to the 50 or so realistic openings in chess. Most games I play end up with my opponent setting up in one of three locations (corners or middle) and me in one of the two corners. It's a very simple train of thoughts: Is the main threat/target right in front of me? Do I want to joust?
These two questions answer how to choose my opening, meaning the first 2-3 turns. I would have several in principle, but I most often default to one of 4.So why is there not more about it? Is it secret tech that can't be shared? Or is there nothing to share because the game is not there (yet)?
As a Silencer main, I beg you not to discuss this any further! Games are way easier when the entire enemy list (including pieces that ought be flanking) take the shortest route from where they are to where I was!
RE: Openings:
Some of it is that I think there are just a lot of variables. Corner/Middle/Corner is one thing, then someone can turn in, turn out, etc etc. The boardstate in Chess changes only one piece at a time. In X-Wing, each ship can go in a lot of different directions, and players will move 2-8 ships per round.
But that is one of the things I loved about the famous old Finger Four article, mapping out decent ways to engage from different directions.
https://www.backtodials.com/a-wing-ace-the-finger-four-formation-by-jonathan-scott/
10 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:But that is one of the things I loved about the famous old Finger Four article, mapping out decent ways to engage from different directions.
https://www.backtodials.com/a-wing-ace-the-finger-four-formation-by-jonathan-scott
That's exactly where I'm coming from. Having played dozens of games with it I realized that I use some more often than others, and I think just 2 are actually enough for most matchups.
12 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:Some of it is that I think there are just a lot of variables. Corner/Middle/Corner is one thing, then someone can turn in, turn out, etc etc. The boardstate in Chess changes only one piece at a time. In X-Wing, each ship can go in a lot of different directions, and players will move 2-8 ships per round.
Sure, but how variable is it really? Another reason I ask is that I realized (thanks to my picture heavy battle reports) that eg obstacles are very often ending in roughly the same spots, giving me roughly the same areas to work with.
I think that identifying such consitencies over various games and matchups can be very helpful!
Even if it is only working during the first rounds of a tournament (which I don't believe), it allows you at least to play a bit more on autopilot and get a bit less worn down.
I can still bring out my 1337 maneuvering skillz during that one game where I play a special snowflake... 🙄
4 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:I think that identifying such consitencies over various games and matchups can be very helpful!
Even if it is only working during the first rounds of a tournament (which I don't believe), it allows you at least to play a bit more on autopilot and get a bit less worn down.
🤨 Sounds like something needs a tap of the nerf bat if it can be "autopiloted" that easily.
1 minute ago, Hiemfire said:🤨 Sounds like something needs a tap of the nerf bat if it can be "autopiloted" that easily.
More, the key word was more. I think we have a different reading on how I used autopilot.
If you look at my most recent battle report, I had to abort my autopiloted opening due to his slow first maneuver. But I saw him setting up in the diagonal corner with some annoying asteroids and I directly knew how I want to play the first 2-3 turns.
That's on autopilot, but with active oversight. In this case I had to intervene, in others I don't. It is still easier to check whether your initial plan is still acceptable than constantly making up something on the spot. For me at least.