3 hours ago, GreenDragoon said:

I have an extended small tournament tomorrow nd obviously I will bring Awings. But what are good, fun ace lists for empire or rebels?

I never had as little clue as now for extended

Echo.

Then some other things.

1 hour ago, Chumbalaya said:

This little discussion just furthers my theory that people were basically playing 2 different games in 1.0 X-Wing. Players like @Sunitsa or @baranidlo came here to play a card game where the outcome was determined by upgrade combinations and nigh guaranteed dice results. It seems like I came here to play a game of positioning where decisions on the table matter more. It might be why they aren't happy with 2.0 as it is a very different beast.

Not putting a value judgment on it, people can like what they like. I just find it interesting.

Low variance and positioning are not opposites. Even if you have great card combinations with low variance you need to position yourself to get those shots. This statement means nothing.

While variance factor raised from 1.0 to 2.0 I find pretty much the same ppl winning. Ergo variance factor isn't a thing

10 minutes ago, Micanthropyre said:

I too actually struggle with listening to @Tlfj200 though because I think the frequent mentions of Extended being nothing but a token stacking dumpster fire are hyperbolic. Even pre-points change (which has shaken up the landscape tremendously) there was an insane number of viable lists for a competitive gaming format. Token stacking isn't inherently bad unless its the only viable list building option, and clearly that is not the case. In fact, token stacking is also less important for the same reason that positioning is more important: higher ship counts mean more shots, which means more opportunities to spend tokens.

Both formats are fun, it is okay to prefer one and it is okay for other people to prefer the other.

Like, I am being exaggeration, but that doesn't mean I don't actually dislike extended.

Pre-Points, I stand by my statements, as we have a wealth of data, and the "it was varied" doesn't hold up nearly as well as people claim (it never has, though fortunately for everyone, no one defines "varied," so im sure it met their personal thresholds).

By comparison, hyperspace looks more varied (it's early though).

But yes, you're allowed to like one, both, or neither.

As for current extended - we'll see. I definitely stand by my statement that most any imperial list outside of sloane should start with a phantom (which looks an awful lot like a token stack), and if they aren't, they're likely accepting they're being suboptimal for their own play preferences.

People probably abandoned boba too quick, but fortunately palob is there to save them (which looks an awful lot like token stacking).

Rebel beef is a breath of fresh air (though there has been a surprising amount of pushback on rebel beef).

And seeing Poe's without debris gambit in extended is really shocking, as was the massive lack of biohexa-made-up-words (infinite range coordinate and jam for `1 point seems... worth it?).

2 minutes ago, Oldpara said:

While variance factor raised from 1.0 to 2.0 I find pretty much the same ppl winning. Ergo variance factor isn't a thing

I mean, sort of - not all the same people winning... I think that's at least some of the source of the uproar...

7 minutes ago, Tlfj200 said:

Like, I am being exaggeration, but that doesn't mean I don't actually dislike extended. -ok

Pre-Points, I stand by my statements, as we have a wealth of data, and the "it was varied" doesn't hold up nearly as well as people claim (it never has, though fortunately for everyone, no one defines "varied," so im sure it met their personal thresholds). -so what is the bar for number of lists and win rates to be "good" for the game?

By comparison, hyperspace looks more varied (it's early though). -if you relate post points adjust hyperspace to pre points adjust extended I'm not on board sorry

But yes, you're allowed to like one, both, or neither. -glad we agree on something

As for current extended - we'll see. I definitely stand by my statement that most any imperial list outside of sloane should start with a phantom (which looks an awful lot like a token stack), and if they aren't, they're likely accepting they're being suboptimal for their own play preferences. -hi if you don't agree with me you are likely suboptimal kthxbai

People probably abandoned boba too quick, but fortunately palob is there to save them (which looks an awful lot like token stacking). -Token stacking isn't inherently bad unless it's the only way to play, the best argument is that "a list needs some trick (sloane drea leia token stack force points M9G8 etc" to compete and I doubt X-Wing will ever escape that because it's a dice game.

Rebel beef is a breath of fresh air (though there has been a surprising amount of pushback on rebel beef). in the one big tournament, the two rebel beef lists went to the finals so errybody being melodramatic, I agree that rebel beef is nice to have as a competitive option

And seeing Poe's without debris gambit in extended is really shocking, as was the massive lack of biohexa-made-up-words (infinite range coordinate and jam for `1 point seems... worth it?). -there is still time

I mean, show me the imperial lists, I guess. You can always prove me wrong.

It's not that not-phantoms can't win, but for their points, they seem like an amazingly good, broad choice for the majority of lists, including sloane lists.

@Micanthropyre - also, no, im not trying to compare post-points hyperspace to pre-points extended, but it was mentioned that "even" pre points extended was fine, and I just disagree with that statement.

Part of then current issue of a hyperspace vs extended comparison is there will be far fewer extended tournaments now, so at best, we will have to try and extrapolate it's meta.

Hyperspace will have enough events to sort of do a post mortem, but yeah, we won't really have a great pulse on extended now.

1 minute ago, Tlfj200 said:

I mean, show me the imperial lists, I guess. You can always prove me wrong.

It's not that not-phantoms can't win, but for their points, they seem like an amazingly good, broad choice for the majority of lists, including sloane lists.

Yes, having a phantom is still really strong. They also have excellent positional properties and a pretty decent dial because there aren't a lot of stress-inducing effects in the game yet. But sharing one ship doesn't make it the same list.

Three Imperial lists went to Day 2 in Toronto, and yes, all of them had a Phantom. All three had different phantoms though, and all three were different lists with gameplans. Why is that bad?

1 minute ago, Tlfj200 said:

@Micanthropyre - also, no, im not trying to compare post-points hyperspace to pre-points extended, but it was mentioned that "even" pre points extended was fine, and I just disagree with that statement.

Part of then current issue of a hyperspace vs extended comparison is there will be far fewer extended tournaments now, so at best, we will have to try and extrapolate it's meta.

Hyperspace will have enough events to sort of do a post mortem, but yeah, we won't really have a great pulse on extended now.

"By comparison, hyperspace looks more varied (it's early though)" I guess I'm just confused as to what hyperspace is more varied than.

21 minutes ago, Micanthropyre said:

"By comparison, hyperspace looks more varied (it's early though)" I guess I'm just confused as to what hyperspace is more varied than.

47 minutes ago, Micanthropyre said:

In both Extended and Hyperspace formats we have probably the most diverse field of competitively viable ships and lists that I've ever seen in X-Wing, and we can largely attribute this to you aren't limited to building card combos into your list to lower the variance.

It was to that statement - im saying we have like, 1 major extended post points tournament.

We have a lot more early data on hyperspace.

Like, honestly, Toronto's lists looks awfully wholesome for extended. But I hope that that is the future of extended.

18 minutes ago, Micanthropyre said:

Yes, having a phantom is still really strong. They also have excellent positional properties and a pretty decent dial because there aren't a lot of stress-inducing effects in the game yet. But sharing one ship doesn't make it the same list.

Three Imperial lists went to Day 2 in Toronto, and yes, all of them had a Phantom. All three had different phantoms though, and all three were different lists with gameplans. Why is that bad?

It's not bad, per se - I actually really like phantoms.

But one argument that has been made in the past (mind you, you didn't make this argument here) is that people dislike hyperspace because of all the options in extended, and those options dont really appear to be materializing.

Rephrased, extended still appears to be the illusion of choice.

As for whether it will end up with a good variation of competitive lists... maybe?

2 hours ago, Scott Pilgrim2 said:

Tacking on to the discussion of Ace play in 2.0, I think that Aces are actually decently strong in 2.0. It is just that Ace play in 2.0 means being able to control your engage. Having a strong engagement is probably the best way to win games and Aces are much better at controlling when/how that happens. If you are not good at setting up good engages, then generics are the better answer because you by default have a good engage with point and shoot.

Aces aren't arc dodgers, they're engage dodgers.

It's also worth noting that the aces relying purely on maneuver are pretty cheap as well. Soontir is just over a quarter of a list.

45 minutes ago, Tlfj200 said:

Rebel beef is a breath of fresh air (though there has been a surprising amount of pushback on rebel beef).

Every time I see complaints about Rebel Beef, it's very hard for me not to believe that person is a Ghost/Fenn or Nym-Miranda player who just enjoyed beating people who decided they couldn't stomach playing those lists.

If you have any degree if confidence in your ability to outhink an opponent, the emergence of Rebel Beef seems like it should be great. It's a list that relies a lot on dial selection both with and against.

5 minutes ago, Tlfj200 said:

It was to that statement - im saying we have like, 1 major extended post points tournament.

We have a lot more early data on hyperspace.

Like, honestly, Toronto's lists looks awfully wholesome for extended. But I hope that that is the future of extended.

It's not bad, per se - I actually really like phantoms.

But one argument that has been made in the past (mind you, you didn't make this argument here) is that people dislike hyperspace because of all the options in extended, and those options dont really appear to be materializing.

Rephrased, extended still appears to be the illusion of choice.

As for whether it will end up with a good variation of competitive lists... maybe?

Thank you for clarifying, that makes more sense.

I'm hopeful as well.

I think that there will be technically more lists in Extended that are viable but that it's insignificantly more than Hyperspace is right now, but like you said there won't be many large Extended tournaments so it's kind of unlikely any sort of predictable meta will ever form. I mean, look at the top cut of Toronto:

3 ship alphastrike

Ace miniswarm

4 ship goodstuff

4x 3 ship aces

3x 4 ship goodstuff

2x beefy swarm

two aces + support

2x four ship joust

Most of these playstyles have several factions that fit the general mold. This was a healthy, wholesome, diverse top cut and there are several lists not represented that I don't think even had a good version of them brought to the tournament. There is still a ton of choice in Extended and that isn't an illusion.

So I've been playing quite a bit of this https://raithos.github.io/?f=First Order&d=v6!s=200!289:,,,183,,,,:;262:181,,:;235:,,:;243:181,206,,182,113,:&sn=Unnamed Squadron&obs=

Was wondering how it compares to the Vader, vermeil, countdown, gideon list.

Both have a control piece, both throw a lot of nodded dice, both have a i6 that hits hard. Both also look fun to play.

The imp list seems more fragile but maneuverable. I think tavson can be an anvil unlike anything in the imp list. How often does death troopers proc? I feel phasma is much better, but maybe I'm wrong.

If you had to choose between just these two lists for hyperspace, which would it be, and why?

2 minutes ago, powersink said:

So I've been playing quite a bit of this https://raithos.github.io/?f=First Order&d=v6!s=200!289:,,,183,,,,:;262:181,,:;235:,,:;243:181,206,,182,113,:&sn=Unnamed Squadron&obs=

Was wondering how it compares to the Vader, vermeil, countdown, gideon list.

Both have a control piece, both throw a lot of nodded dice, both have a i6 that hits hard. Both also look fun to play.

The imp list seems more fragile but maneuverable. I think tavson can be an anvil unlike anything in the imp list. How often does death troopers proc? I feel phasma is much better, but maybe I'm wrong.

If you had to choose between just these two lists for hyperspace, which would it be, and why?

death troopers is way better than Phasma against A wings and way worse against Leia (Leia still allows K turns but Phasma denies the mods).

I'd play the one you have the most practice with.

4 hours ago, Micanthropyre said:

The people arguing against variance are technically correct in that lower variance is better for competition

This interests me, primarily because I don't know what "better for competition" means.

Does "better for competition" mean that when two people play, the one who plays better will always win?

Does "better for competition" mean that more people will actually dip their feet into competitive play?

See, for me, it's the latter. For some people, it's the former. (Micanthropyre obviously intended the former, though I can't say for sure that's really where he fully stands.)

This is obviously reductive, but please allow it just for the sake of making a point: why don't people who earnestly believe the better player should always win ... just take up chess or go? (If it's the models, there's are some really nice Star Wars chess sets out there.)

2 hours ago, Micanthropyre said:

death troopers is way better than Phasma against A wings and way worse against Leia (Leia still allows K turns but Phasma denies the mods).

I'd play the one you have the most practice with.

What I hear you saying here is that there is no real magic bullet right now, that the game is very much rock paper scissors, which I think is a very good thing. I don't think there is a wrong or correct answer here, but like you said, play the one with the most practice.

39 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

This interests me, primarily because I don't know what "better for competition" means.

Does "better for competition" mean that when two people play, the one who plays better will always win?

Does "better for competition" mean that more people will actually dip their feet into competitive play?

See, for me, it's the latter. For some people, it's the former. (Micanthropyre obviously intended the former, though I can't say for sure that's really where he fully stands.)

This is obviously reductive, but please allow it just for the sake of making a point: why don't people who earnestly believe the better player should always win ... just take up chess or go? (If it's the models, there's are some really nice Star Wars chess sets out there.)

I'm pretty sure it's B. There's definitely a faction of people that want A, but the goal of an X-Wing tournament is everyone finds it fun - the fact that the same player pool wins relatively consistently is a side bonus that adds credibility/desire for people to play more.

99% of people playing at tournaments are just looking for a fun weekend, not to be the very best there ever was.

1 hour ago, Jeff Wilder said:

This interests me, primarily because I don't know what "better for competition" means.

Does "better for competition" mean that when two people play, the one who plays better will always win?

Does "better for competition" mean that more people will actually dip their feet into competitive play?

See, for me, it's the latter. For some people, it's the former. (Micanthropyre obviously intended the former, though I can't say for sure that's really where he fully stands.)

This is obviously reductive, but please allow it just for the sake of making a point: why don't people who earnestly believe the better player should always win ... just take up chess or go? (If it's the models, there's are some really nice Star Wars chess sets out there.)

I disagree but I strongly suspect that you have a good, convincing reason.

Can't it be both? Personally I would not be interested if there wasn't such a strong correlation between better player and winner. Now, I agree that it's not like chess or Go, but such a correlation isn't binary? And Xwing has been in a pretty nice spot for my taste in that regard - possible to win by haymaker, but also overall consistent wins by better players.

In my opinion 2.0 and hyperspace moved the balance a bit more towards consistency, but at the same time variance can swing harder. So again a very nice balance.

What am I missing?

7 hours ago, LagJanson said:

What’s an ace, again?

Can it look at an engage and say "nope!" and do that against most of the field. i4 and up seems like solid Ace territory.

1 hour ago, Arboghasthero said:

What I hear you saying here is that there is no real magic bullet right now, that the game is very much rock paper scissors, which I think is a very good thing. I don't think there is a wrong or correct answer here, but like you said, play the one with the most practice.

I agree with the sentiment, but I dislike the rock paper scissors analogy because neither list folds to the thing it wasn't geared to beat, nor does it automatically win against the thing it's stronger against.

1 minute ago, Micanthropyre said:

I agree with the sentiment, but I dislike the rock paper scissors analogy because neither list folds to the thing it wasn't geared to beat, nor does it automatically win against the thing it's stronger against.

A lot of hyperspace list building right seems to contain elements of "I don't know if replacing this with that is better, but it has better matchups against X and worse against Y."

Personally I find those decisions interesting, but it does seem like a certain percentage of X-Wing players prefer listbuilding choices to be easy.

2 hours ago, Jeff Wilder said:

This interests me, primarily because I don't know what "better for competition" means.

Does "better for competition" mean that when two people play, the one who plays better will always win?

Does "better for competition" mean that more people will actually dip their feet into competitive play?

See, for me, it's the latter. For some people, it's the former. (Micanthropyre obviously intended the former, though I can't say for sure that's really where he fully stands.)

This is obviously reductive, but please allow it just for the sake of making a point: why don't people who earnestly believe the better player should always win ... just take up chess or go? (If it's the models, there's are some really nice Star Wars chess sets out there.)

I think that games with low to no variance are better for determining a ranking of skill, i.e. competition. If winning is the sole component of what makes a tournament fun then sure I guess "you can bring any list to the tournament and roll really well to victory" would be good.

Like I've said in this thread recently though, I don't think the variance plays a major role in the outcome of most games of 2.0 despite it being higher than 1.0.

1 hour ago, Brunas said:

I'm pretty sure it's B. There's definitely a faction of people that want A, but the goal of an X-Wing tournament is everyone finds it fun - the fact that the same player pool wins relatively consistently is a side bonus that adds credibility/desire for people to play more.

99% of people playing at tournaments are just looking for a fun weekend, not to be the very best there ever was.

Tournaments don't have goals but some very vocal parts of the community seem to think that they should, and that the tournament goal should align with their personal goal.

5 minutes ago, svelok said:

A lot of hyperspace list building right seems to contain elements of "I don't know if replacing this with that is better, but it has better matchups against X and worse against Y."

Personally I find those decisions interesting, but it does seem like a certain percentage of X-Wing players prefer listbuilding choices to be easy.

I think list building in both formats is this, and I think that it's a sign of a healthy and fun game. I've been working on a similar list to the FO one this person posted, and it's real hard to decide between Tavson and a Starkiller with Phasma because they both play different roles but fit in the same points range. It's a beautiful thing to have that kind of decision.

You know 2.0 is really good when the only thing people have left to really complain about is dice.

1 hour ago, GreenDragoon said:

Can't it be both? [...] What am I missing?

No, it really can't be both. If the better plays always wins (and note that is what I said, and it is the logical outcome of a zero-variance game), that is an immense barrier to overcome when you want to draw new players to a game, and especially to competitive events for that game. I can't overstate how big that barrier is. There is a reason the average X-Wing player doesn't have any interest in travelling (even to their local community center or whatever) to play competitive chess.

Quote

Personally I would not be interested if there wasn't such a strong correlation between better player and winner.

Now would I. But there's a big, big gap between "strong" correlation and "perfect" (or even "almost perfect") correlation.

I don't think you and I disagree. If at all, it's not much.

Basically, X-Wing's success as a game depends on it being a game where the dice matter. I'm not saying that the dice decide anywhere even close to half the games, but I am saying that the dice decide more games than most "top players" want to believe. And, further, I'm saying (well, Socratically, anyway) that that fact is "good for competition."