1 minute ago, Boom Owl said:

Cant tell if me not understanding this means I am the boomer or you are the boomer or we both are?

i want to fly swarms but not buy lots of ships except t70s for some reason. Someone else please buy for me

2 minutes ago, Boom Owl said:

Cant tell if me not understanding this means I am the boomer or you are the boomer or we both are?

He's covering the high investment of swarms that many players aren't into. For example, Sear + 7 runs you at $40 + 5 * 20 = $140, and that's a cheaper swarm.

Tbf, I play swarms occasionally online, but never IRL. I have few duplicate expansions in my collection, relatively speaking. I'm fine with box costs in the game, but there are diminishing returns per copy of expansion, and not just the unique elements. You're paying for the reasonably priced R & D multiple times but getting only 1 more model and dial each time. It messes with my OCD even if I paint them up to justify the purchase.

What FFG absolutely nailed in launching prequel factions were additional content in the singles packs for the ships that were included in the prequel core sets. Duplicate ships, yes, but new pilots and cards, and new paint job!

50 minutes ago, Cloaker said:

And also, Spamtex would absolutely HATE some of those Environment cards...

that's exactly the problem, though. environment cards can create horrifying levels of matchup luck, and they can tell certain archetypes they just aren't invited to play, or can encourage lists that aren't any fun to play against but otherwise wouldn't be taken.

generally speaking, they're also going to almost by definition tend to favor the more flexible/mobile list, which is to say, aces with underpriced movement advantages

Thanks FFGMatt ❤️

I think at some point or another I’ve met many of you IRL, I don’t remember having an unpleasant interaction with any of you in person - I think it’s really easy for tempers to flare online and with no way to see the other person’s face it’s easy to assume the worst intentions behind every post. Genuinely hope I get to grab a beer or some similarly fun non-alcoholic beverage with each and every one of you some day and have a good laugh about all of this silliness.

3 minutes ago, Kyle Ren said:

similarly fun non-alcoholic beverage

Such a thing does not exist. Perhaps you dreamed of it?

21 minutes ago, svelok said:

that's exactly the problem, though. environment cards can create horrifying levels of matchup luck, and they can tell certain archetypes they just aren't invited to play, or can encourage lists that aren't any fun to play against but otherwise wouldn't be taken.

generally speaking, they're also going to almost by definition tend to favor the more flexible/mobile list, which is to say, aces with underpriced movement advantages

I think the idea is that, if everyone knew the environmental cards going into list building, people would be less willing to design extreme lists that just "fail" a scenario.

They'd be allowed to, of course, and bear the risk, but everyone knows this going in, and it would, generally, be a poor list building decision.

What if player order was randomly determined but first player won tiebreakers?

17 minutes ago, Kyle Ren said:

Thanks FFGMatt ❤️

I think at some point or another I’ve met many of you IRL, I don’t remember having an unpleasant interaction with any of you in person - I think it’s really easy for tempers to flare online and with no way to see the other person’s face it’s easy to assume the worst intentions behind every post. Genuinely hope I get to grab a beer or some similarly fun non-alcoholic beverage with each and every one of you some day and have a good laugh about all of this silliness.

Maybe we'd post better if some of us weren't typing with big, meaty claws.

15 minutes ago, svelok said:

that's exactly the problem, though. environment cards can create horrifying levels of matchup luck, and they can tell certain archetypes they just aren't invited to play, or can encourage lists that aren't any fun to play against but otherwise wouldn't be taken.

generally speaking, they're also going to almost by definition tend to favor the more flexible/mobile list, which is to say, aces with underpriced movement advantages

I thought that too initially, but after some 25+ games of playing it over the summer, I've discovered that it forces some out of the box thinking and is anything but. I was worried about large ships---they've actually fared much better than I expected. There's definitely a lot more risk vs. reward---I've dismantled some Aceplay just by selecting a certain device, with careful placement, that circumvented that mobile ace list totally in a way they didn't expect. But it took digging in and playing these scenarios---repeatedly--- to unlock some of the ideas. It took an open mind. It took getting in the reps and debrief with my fellow players on how the game changed our style of play. These discussions have been very enlightening and a heckuva lot more interesting than engaging in a certain chassis meta rantfest. I can tell you I have yet to see a ship archetype truly excel in environment card games--it has come down to choices far more than in the same ol', same ol, 8 years old model of 200/6.

The only change I would make in Environment Cards is probably price Trick Shot by chassis size 3/4/5. I'm curious, what archetype is out there that you have played, with which scenario, that you saw was unplayable or horrifyingly bad luck? I'd be interested to run a few games with such builds. I've seen that some smart decisions on approach vectors and turn zero mitigates many of the concerns.

A lot would come down to how the Environments are selected.

• Announced ahead of time for the tournament?
• One selected randomly for the tournament?
• One selected randomly for each round?
  • Selected randomly from full pool or from a limited group announced-ahead-of-time?
• Brought and chosen by each player?
  • Who chooses?
    • Person who has the larger bid either decides First Player or Environment choice?
      • If so, a Nantex player could give up on a chance to be Second Player (which won't matter against a lot of Inits), but avoid a bad environment.
  • Choice from full pool or from a limited group announced-ahead-of-time?

//

Someone onhere ought to know: how did Imperial Assault do the mission selections?

10 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:

One selected randomly for each round?

• Selected randomly from full pool or from a limited group

My recommendation right here. Before means you specialize the lists. Only one for the day can skew results depending on list choices that were rewarded/penalized.

4 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:

A lot would come down to how the Environments are selected.

• Announced ahead of time for the tournament?
• One selected randomly for the tournament?
• One selected randomly for each round?
  • Selected randomly from full pool or from a limited group announced-ahead-of-time?
• Brought and chosen by each player?
  • Who chooses?
    • Person who has the larger bid either decides First Player or Environment choice?
      • If so, a Nantex player could give up on a chance to be Second Player (which won't matter against a lot of Inits), but avoid a bad environment.
  • Choice from full pool or from a limited group announced-ahead-of-time?

//

Someone onhere ought to know: how did Imperial Assault do the mission selections?

As a person who helped organize local events at my FLGS, all of the above I find to be much more intriguing and fun to plan around. Imagine if al the online tourneys and feedback of the past couple of months was key learnings from this? If the prize support from FFG was really enticing, I think players would bite on Environment Card OP. But yeah, just looking at your speculations, that's new strategy space, you know? For a game that's been around since 2012, how can this be a bad thing to pursue?

30 minutes ago, Chumbalaya said:

Maybe we'd post better if some of us weren't typing with big, meaty claws.

What did you say, punk?

How we've been playing has been Random Draw, Standard First Player determination, and having ALL obstacles in the pool to choose from. This has helped First Player regain some balance that is otherwise lost vs. deeper bid builds reposition Aces or Swarms.

For an event; It sure would be interesting though to maybe have all players bring an Environment card to a tourney, and if you are First Player, your card is selected. I wonder how that would change the game? Would it be more dynamic than traditional dogfights, or require more skill to negotiate for second player?

I'd also fly something like this to deal with Spamtex, or Aces... Environment or 200/6

Han Solo (48)
Trick Shot (4)
Qi’ra (2)
Hotshot Gunner (7)
Lando’s Millennium Falcon (3)

Guri (64)
Predator (2)
Advanced Sensors (10)

Dengar (53)
Trick Shot (4)
Autoblasters (3)
Total: 200

20 minutes ago, Kyle Ren said:

What did you say, punk?

BIG

MEATY

CLAWS

7 minutes ago, Chumbalaya said:

BIG

MEATY

CLAWS

Well, these claws ain’t just for attractin mates!

1 hour ago, Tlfj200 said:

I think the idea is that, if everyone knew the environmental cards going into list building, people would be less willing to design extreme lists that just "fail" a scenario.

right, but that stops being a good thing when the lists that are discouraged change from being nantex to being "swarms" or "mid init 4 ship stuff" or "my special snowflake tie strikers list" or whatever fun thing that people want to be playable isn't

59 minutes ago, Cloaker said:

It took an open mind. It took getting in the reps and debrief with my fellow players on how the game changed our style of play. These discussions have been very enlightening and a heckuva lot more interesting than engaging in a certain chassis meta rantfest. I can tell you I have yet to see a ship archetype truly excel in environment card games--it has come down to choices far more than in the same ol', same ol, 8 years old model of 200/6.

this where I think you would see results completely different with the hundreds of games that would be played in a brief period of time if it became the future of organized play, where the difference between one event of X and a season of X produce different results

like, there's some definitional things here - every organized play structure is meta warping; just like the current structure makes running away & regening or scraping 40-0 MOV wins or whatever possible, any new alternate structure would be distortionary too, just by definition as players will always play to structure. like, I've played armada, I've played 40k and legion, I've played frostgrave - not sure what other games you've been exposed to, and this isn't meant as some weird flex, but lots of games with objective or environment based play exist, and it is both something the whole game has to be built around and simultaneously not a silver bullet of any sort.

3 hours ago, pheaver said:

I generally play swarms or beef, because I suck at the pure ace lists. Also, swarms are fun because the game ends with a lot of points scored and things blown up.

But yeah, the game plan for swarms is pretty simple. Fly at the joustable part of the opposing list, get up on points, make them play your game and don't fall below critical mass. If you're ever 100% sure about someone's move, punish it with a block and kill box.

But, I'm pretty sure I can make that facile summary of ace play too. There's a lot of decision making in swarm play too.

I've done a few commentaries on my play, and I've been on stream a couple times with swarms. I 100% agree we need more swarmy players out there: at the Texas SOS, I asked people how many times they've played against swarms, and a lot of them were like "no one in my area plays a swarm, so I never get to practice it."

2 hours ago, Cloaker said:

I judged at that event and got to meet you and so many other outstanding players that weekend... that was such a great time for me this year. It seems so long ago. But it is at least something I can pull from 2020 as a highlight (which isn't much sadly.)

Our locals were really starting to embrace swarm play before our FLGSs started shutting down. To walk the gamut of some 16 squads on a Monday night and see most of those players fielding 5/6/7 ship lists was not uncommon.

I miss my local players and our casual nights and weekend tourneys very much. So many interesting and talented individuals. This game has given me some really fun memories and interactions.

I was going to say. He didn't talk to enough people from Asgard!

2 hours ago, catachanninja said:

We need to start a go found me for potential swarm players. I was really interested in vultures swarms around and before when wave six hits, but man it took forever to get 6 plus vultures into my possession and thats before i have to unbox them and get all the stuff together.

2 hours ago, catachanninja said:

i want to fly swarms but not buy lots of ships except t70s for some reason. Someone else please buy for me

Swarmly fans

3 minutes ago, jagsba said:

I was going to say. He didn't talk to enough people from Asgard!

Swarmly fans

i am willing to do a lot for money. Need to buy a flightstick to finish up the squadrons setup

7 minutes ago, svelok said:

right, but that stops being a good thing when the lists that are discouraged change from being nantex to being "swarms" or "mid init 4 ship stuff" or "my special snowflake tie strikers list" or whatever fun thing that people want to be playable isn't

Yeah... that was never true...

I mean, the real answer was no conversion kits.

2 hours ago, Cloaker said:

Our locals were really starting to embrace swarm play before our FLGSs started shutting down. To walk the gamut of some 16 squads on a Monday night and see most of those players fielding 5/6/7 ship lists was not uncommon.

I would be curious to see how your locals felt about playing matchups like 5 vs 7. One thing I can say for people hating swarms, once the number of ships hits double digits ish (a very scientific number) the gamestate can really bog down with marking ships and properly measuring overlaps, plus arc checks etc. There is significantly unfun "surgery" that has to occur.

x wing life hack that I want to try to put out more, and or get shouted down if people hate it. When marking ships for bumps or measuring in close priority where hitting a ship with a range ruler is a potential problem, I will have disuccsion about the arcs of ships at risk of getting messed up, that have already moved. "Hey before i mark torrent to move obi wan through it, Im like 90% sure it has arc on your fifth brother, do you agree? can we measure now because it's important and i don't think we can impact it later because you're obviously shooting at the other damaged torrent?"

12 minutes ago, svelok said:

right, but that stops being a good thing when the lists that are discouraged change from being nantex to being "swarms" or "mid init 4 ship stuff" or "my special snowflake tie strikers list" or whatever fun thing that people want to be playable isn't

this where I think you would see results completely different with the hundreds of games that would be played in a brief period of time if it became the future of organized play, where the difference between one event of X and a season of X produce different results

like, there's some definitional things here - every organized play structure is meta warping; just like the current structure makes running away & regening or scraping 40-0 MOV wins or whatever possible, any new alternate structure would be distortionary too, just by definition as players will always play to structure. like, I've played armada, I've played 40k and legion, I've played frostgrave - not sure what other games you've been exposed to, and this isn't meant as some weird flex, but lots of games with objective or environment based play exist, and it is both something the whole game has to be built around and simultaneously not a silver bullet of any sort.

Agreed---objective and environment play brings with it a whole gamut of different experiences, results, unique meta perhaps. Which I guess I think I find particularly refreshing right now

I will say also, I feel like I am playing more "Star Wars" when the playing field presents more of the variable and unknown--I've flown Rebel Han vs a swarm in Environment play, and he's really enjoyable to play, and very competitive, in many of the scenarios. I like that. And Clouzon-36 Deposits vs shieldless ships is utterly cool when it procs. The Continuous Bombardment and Munitions Cache ones are also fairly interesting both with swarms and aces.

3 minutes ago, catachanninja said:

I would be curious to see how your locals felt about playing matchups like 5 vs 7. One thing I can say for people hating swarms, once the number of ships hits double digits ish (a very scientific number) the gamestate can really bog down with marking ships and properly measuring overlaps, plus arc checks etc. There is significantly unfun "surgery" that has to occur.

x wing life hack that I want to try to put out more, and or get shouted down if people hate it. When marking ships for bumps or measuring in close priority where hitting a ship with a range ruler is a potential problem, I will have disuccsion about the arcs of ships at risk of getting messed up, that have already moved. "Hey before i mark torrent to move obi wan through it, Im like 90% sure it has arc on your fifth brother, do you agree? can we measure now because it's important and i don't think we can impact it later because you're obviously shooting at the other damaged torrent?"

Man, you have have had a significantly different swarm-on-swarm experience than I have.

Once ship count reaches double digits, things just... die, and fast. I haven't had double digit games not reach completion before time.

6 hours ago, Biophysical said:

For sure, but what squads make them NOT mad? Is there a squad that can be good and not make 15% or more of the player base angry?

I personally hate any squad that, from looking at current performance of it, means that I have to fly that squad myself or absolutely tech against that squad or lose to it. (And, full disclosure, I'm not good at doing that, partially because I really don't enjoy doing that. I've only done it successfully once in Lo These Many Years of X-Wing, and that was against U-boats. But, in general, I prefer my X-Wing puzzles to be while playing the game, not before playing the game.)

All other squads make me "not mad.

5 minutes ago, Tlfj200 said:

Man, you have have had a significantly different swarm-on-swarm experience than I have.

Once ship count reaches double digits, things just... die, and fast. I haven't had double digit games not reach completion before time.

It’s a common misconception that more ships = longer games. Nothing wastes time and drags out 75+ minutes better than a regen Jedi list.