30 minutes ago, Tlfj200 said:

I mean, Okay.

I see this fear perpetuated a lot. It might even be real. Call a judge if your opponent is slow playing you, but otherwise, you shouldn't be getting in 5 turns.

If it's a newer player, or a player newer to the list on a casual night, you can still prod them that they need to pick up the pace - swarms are not an excuse to slow play people.

We had a short weeknight tournament on Monday and I played 5 TIE + Soontir and another guy played Sear Swarm. Almost everyone else was some form of regen Republic. When we played each other, itvwas definitely the fastest game of the night, and we were both frequently done before most other games when we played other people.

11 hours ago, Cerebrawl said:

Note how the searswarm defenders in this thread aren't even mentioning the elephant in the room with searswarms: sear's ability to give the whole swarm crack shot on demand. The searswarm ideal joust scenario is pretty much lose 1 droid before shooting, shoot back with 6 shots modded by crack shot and up to double calculate(assuming some won't need/can't mod, others can double mod as needed), plus a focused sear.

Sears ability also requires bullseye...

So why did you opt into 6 bullseyes while also killing only 1 droid?

You do have agency when maneuvering vs a Sear Swarm

4 minutes ago, Smikies02 said:

Sears ability also requires bullseye...

So why did you opt into 6 bullseyes while also killing only 1 droid?

You do have agency when maneuvering vs a Sear Swarm

but that swarm might shoot one of your ships! It's Outrageous! It's Unfair!

1 hour ago, Biophysical said:

We had a short weeknight tournament on Monday and I played 5 TIE + Soontir and another guy played Sear Swarm. Almost everyone else was some form of regen Republic. When we played each other, itvwas definitely the fastest game of the night, and we were both frequently done before most other games when we played other people.

It seems like most of your games are decided before time, which has less to do with the lists being played in the game and more to do with it being you in the game.

1 hour ago, Smikies02 said:

Sears ability also requires bullseye...

So why did you opt into 6 bullseyes while also killing only 1 droid?

You do have agency when maneuvering vs a Sear Swarm

Nice job selectively quoting there buddy.

I still don't understand this obsession with games going to time.
It seems completely normal for a death match format with a 75 min round limit.

Why is it considered "honorable" to finish a game at full destruction?

I don't get it.

8 minutes ago, gennataos said:

It seems like most of your games are decided before time, which has less to do with the lists being played in the game and more to do with it being you in the game.

This is definitely not the case with the Soontir/Rexler/7th Sister list I was playing for a while.

2 minutes ago, Boom Owl said:

I still don't understand this obsession with games going to time.
It seems completely normal for a death match format with a 75 min round limit.

Why is it considered "honorable" to finish a game at full destruction?

I don't get it.

There's certainly a misunderstanding.

• Full destruction - Acceptable Outcome
• Gone to time and a winner is clearly obvious - Acceptable Outcome
• Gone to time and a winner is not clear - go throw some dice at each other - Unacceptable Outcome

1 minute ago, Boom Owl said:

I still don't understand this obsession with games going to time.
It seems completely normal for a death match format with a 75 min round limit.

Why is it considered "honorable" to finish a game at full destruction?

I don't get it.

I kind of understand it as viewing the straight forward objective of Standard play is full destruction and the timer as not a part of the game, but an artificial limitation. I also think a misconception that can crop up is that if your game ended at time, someone wasn’t playing “right”.

Not my view point, but what I’ve absorbed while drifting.

3 minutes ago, Biophysical said:

This is definitely not the case with the Soontir/Rexler/7th Sister list I was playing for a while.

That's valid, actually. As someone who predominantly plays (mediocre) triple aces, most of my games go to time. There's a misconception by some that aces list will get points then run. No. I always endeavor to create favorable engagements. My games go to time because I don't have enough guns to kill the opposing list. That's it.

2 minutes ago, gennataos said:

My games go to time because I don't have enough guns to kill the opposing list. That's it.

The secret is, that's why most people's games go to time, and it doesn't mean there's a mystery who won the game.

Many games devolve to a point where neither list can reasonably/feasibly do much damage to each other, but there's time left on the clock. Other than being trapped in that game, that's "okay".

I think there are two types of frustration with games running to time
1) game feels unresolved - you only got to the mid-game and it was still a fairly even fight with good chances for either player to win, winning comes down to ability to do mental math/luck of when game ends.
2) timer flips the outcome - one player is ahead on points but in a losing position, the other player is in the process of beating them but doesn't have the time to do so.

Situation 1 is less bad - the frustration here is directed at the game itself and can be mitigated with better game state information - a timer/score board app would help make it feel more fair.

Situation 2 is the real problem area since it creates friction between players more directly since it's tied into list archetypes/pace of play. The solution here is a mix of interpersonal behavior and game design, which is much tricker. 1.0 largely avoided this issue by offensive power creep (not exactly the solution we're looking for here). In 2.0 we're currently stuck trying to solve this via social pressure, so that's why we're having this conversation.

I'm still proud for the speed of Round 6 games at @Ablazoned's HST. We were all out for blood:

https://tabletop.to/recess-games-xwing-20190720-hyperspace-trial/rounds

I still think people only ***** about their game going to time if they lose.

Just now, Boom Owl said:

I still think people only ***** about their game going to time if they lose.

Of course. Either it had a conclusion before and going to time didn't matter for any player. Or it had no conclusion yet and going to time won them the game.

19 minutes ago, Transmogrifier said:

2) timer flips the outcome - one player is ahead on points but in a losing position, the other player is in the process of beating them but doesn't have the time to do so.

19 minutes ago, Transmogrifier said:

Situation 2 is the real problem area since it creates friction between players more directly since it's tied into list archetypes/pace of play. The solution here is a mix of interpersonal behavior and game design, which is much tricker. 1.0 largely avoided this issue by offensive power creep (not exactly the solution we're looking for here). In 2.0 we're currently stuck trying to solve this via social pressure, so that's why we're having this conversation.

Trick is the social pressure chooses targets they personally view as unacceptable.

"7-8 ships should be banned from play since it takes too long!" This ignores other variables. As one player told me when I was winning with quad Phantoms, "You're not playing slow, but you take so much longer because you move each ship twice." Some ships can move three times. Some just run for time. Why is one socially acceptable, when another is not?

8 minutes ago, Boom Owl said:

I still think people only ***** about their game going to time if they lose.

True.

Expand your thinking.

It's my experience people only ***** about anything in the game if they lose.

...now where's my tea?

11 minutes ago, Boom Owl said:

I still think people only ***** about their game going to time if they lose.

I play fast, even with Rexler or Super Kylo. If it goes to time, I suspect:

A: it was a failure on my part

B: my opponent was a slow player

I like to rest between rounds and relax. That's a bit hard when you have to calculate scores, pack up, and go to the next table.

9 minutes ago, Boom Owl said:

I still think people only ***** about their game going to time if they lose.

I wasn't happy about every game going to time for me at GenCon with 5A, win or lose. It's not a hard list to run, it's pretty easy and a ton of fun, but it's emotionally exhausting because who is winning can swing from round to round.

7 minutes ago, clanofwolves said:

Expand your thinking.

It's my experience people only ***** about anything in the game if they lose.

Not true. Kylo is my 2nd favorite star wars character he wins alot and the fact he costs 76 pts and gets mods stressed or blocked is absolutely stupid. Vader and Soontirs costs are offensive to.

7 minutes ago, gennataos said:

I wasn't happy about every game going to time for me at GenCon with 5A, win or lose. It's not a hard list to run, it's pretty easy and a ton of fun, but it's emotionally exhausting because who is winning can swing from round to round.

I mean you brought the xwing equivalent to a manual paper shredder that flys away from everything literally by design. Of course your games go to time. That ***** your win condition.

1 minute ago, Boom Owl said:

I mean you brought the xwing equivalent to a manual paper shredder that flys away from everything literally by design. Of course your games go to time. That ***** your win condition.

But I'm ******* about it.

18 minutes ago, Boom Owl said:

I still think people only ***** about their game going to time if they lose.

1 minute ago, Boom Owl said:

Not true. Kylo is my 2nd favorite star wars character he wins alot and the fact he costs 76 pts and gets mods stressed or blocked is absolutely stupid. Vader and Soontirs costs are offensive to.

TBH, give any Interceptor double health and 2 force at I5 and there are few costs that prohibit that pilot. Force encourages point fortressing, which can go vanilla or equip a bunch of upgrades. If Vader goes any higher, he might soon be pushed to Precog. If Kylo goes back to 82, it will not stop me from the degeneracy I fly him in, save Kylo 2U.

At least Soontir can be fixed, but the question is if FFG wants to balance him at most players' levels or at Duncan's. If Soontir goes up to 60 to better reflect his value in the hands of great players, he'll vanish from kit tourneys and casual play because about 2 people per event there have the skill to make Soontir worth more than 60 pt. Listfortress wouldn't see a difference because the good Soontir players would still play him, just with less ridiculous a bid, and we'd still be complaining about his ubiquity.

12 minutes ago, gennataos said:

I wasn't happy about every game going to time for me at GenCon with 5A, win or lose. It's not a hard list to run, it's pretty easy and a ton of fun, but it's emotionally exhausting because who is winning can swing from round to round.

My swiss at worlds( 8 ship CIS), including two cis swarm mirrors all finished before time.

The hyperspace trial I won (5a). I think one round finished before time.

🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔

Its less about going to time and more about rounds played during that time. If you get 12+ rounds in 75 minutes, going to time is not much of an issue. Its more about how does one kill 4 vultures in only 4 or 5 rounds of combat (7-8 total rounds of game) to make up for the 75pts (or something like 1.5ships) lost to the swarm? The swarm has the early game advantage. The less rounds of engagement for them, the better. The longer the game goes, the more ships the swarm player loses, and the swarm begins to weaken. Acey lists strength is in the mid/end game when ships have been removed and enemy ships are spread out. Maybe FFG needs to make a 75 minute OR 10 round minimum rule?