10 minutes ago, xanderf said:I think anyone who is a 'HUGE' gunboat fanatic is probably expecting a dial something like the Y-Wing's. That sounds about like what we'll get (and the 3-bank does not reject that possibility), so things looking good so far.
gonna need some green banks though
especially with the StressARC 2.0 in the same wave
1 hour ago, SabineKey said:Considering its not a Bomber nor a turret based ship, it better have a turn-around.
If it has a white hard turn, then it has a turnaround built in. Dial in a turn, then SLAM to finish the 180. If you have the title, then you'll even have a 3-die weapon attack.
1 hour ago, Marinealver said:yup making Major Juggler's and all those other newly balanced format on jousting values obsolete.
Well define which type of people? There are those that wan't to see TIE Interceptors do better, but again ships like those arc dodgers do depend on the green dice a little. Take the green dice mods away and the fold like paper. Of course people say something but then actions turn up to say the opposite. The Jumpmaster does a good job at Arc Dodging and people hate it for that.
When it comes to the meta, I have come to realize that it is not one game of X-wing that people want to see but instead several different kinds. Which is why I am usually opposed to all these nerf-herding threads. The math guys want to see jousting values and like the gambling aspect of throwing the dice. They want high risk and high reward for their games. Sure things like Palpatine and C-3PO infuriate them because it removes the surprise of that clutch roll that can take out a ship. The chess players want to see the position and guessing (although the pilot skill and reposistioning actions after maneuver removes some of that) as in outfoxing their opponents. The Star Wars fans want to see their iconic ships they love from the movies (thus the Make X-wings great again). All these competing interests often come into conflict with one another and people get pissed off that their game is not shaping the way they want it to be.
[emphasis added]
I'm not sure if those two thoughts were intended to be directly related. It is implied that they are.
To the first point, calculating a ship's jousting values is a necessary but not sufficient condition for obtaining game balance. Every ship has a target cost efficiency that hits the "sweet spot" of being neither overpowered or underpowered. The bullseye arc is a pure dice modification, so it is easily translated directly to jousting values. On the contrary to making math obsolete, math can tell you what percentage of your shots you want to be in the bullseye to hit your target efficiency metric. Players may or may not understand this math directly, but they will figure it out empirically.
To the second point, I don't know who 'the math guys' are that you are referring to, but if you are equating that with 'anyone that does math for X-wing', then you are confusing an analysis method with preferred playstyle. If you have listened to my battle reports for the last few years you will note that I almost never play a purely jousting squad. The closest was Brobots, but even then I played a highly positional game.
The entire point of using math in the design process is to maximize the different kinds of playstyles and archetypes that are viable, not reduce the game to pure jousting!
17 minutes ago, PhantomFO said:If it has a white hard turn, then it has a turnaround built in. Dial in a turn, then SLAM to finish the 180. If you have the title, then you'll even have a 3-die weapon attack.
Eh, not the solution I would like, but workable.
I think the bullseye arc is a great idea. Makes ship maneuvering even more important than ever. Especially welcome when the game was starting to turn into a card combo only game, where maneuvering was secondary.
15 minutes ago, MajorJuggler said:...
I'm not sure if those two thoughts were intended to be directly related. It is implied that they are.
...
To the second point, I don't know who 'the math guys' are that you are referring to, but if you are equating that with 'anyone that does math for X-wing', then you are confusing an analysis method with preferred playstyle. If you have listened to my battle reports for the last few years you will note that I almost never play a purely jousting squad. The closest was Brobots, but even then I played a highly positional game.
...
Two different quotes, I try to keep them on a single post to avoid those repetitive chain posts where one person makes 3 replies in a row.
As for math guys not necessarily mathwing but those that use the odds and the values on the cards as their sole justification on how good a ship is or isn't. I also know a few people whose are good at mathamatics that like to gamble so maybe I should have said math & gamble guys instead. But there are players in X-wing that do like the dice part of the game, and they use those jousting values for their strategy. That doesn't mean that they like auto-dice.
So AG 0 and 1 ships laugh at the ¨"¨Bullseye" ability. Even AG2 X wings don´ t really care about it. Luke (and Poe) laughs loudest as his ability is unaffected.
Cool! Anything that brings back Luke is to be applauded!
1 minute ago, Larky Bobble said:So AG 0 and 1 ships laugh at the ¨"¨Bullseye" ability. Even AG2 X wings don´ t really care about it. Luke (and Poe) laughs loudest as his ability is unaffected.
Cool! Anything that brings back Luke is to be applauded!
Not if they have evade tokens.
Just now, Larky Bobble said:So AG 0 and 1 ships laugh at the ¨"¨Bullseye" ability. Even AG2 X wings don´ t really care about it. Luke (and Poe) laughs loudest as his ability is unaffected.
Cool! Anything that brings back Luke is to be applauded!
kinda why i thought it would be more like Expertise built into the ship, but a very narrow window for it.
Its literally a high agi hunter. Yeah most fat ships woth 0/1 agi tend to still get an evade somewhere but getting 1 extra damage on a fat ship isnt the end of the world, while rolling 3-4 focuses on an Interceptor would completely kill it outright despite the tokens.
5 minutes ago, Larky Bobble said:So AG 0 and 1 ships laugh at the ¨"¨Bullseye" ability. Even AG2 X wings don´ t really care about it. Luke (and Poe) laughs loudest as his ability is unaffected.
Cool! Anything that brings back Luke is to be applauded!
3 minutes ago, VanderLegion said:Not if they have evade tokens.
Yeah Issard is now dead not like she was aroudn to begin with. There wasn't that many ships she could be on and when more came out Omega Leader also shut her down.
2 hours ago, Marinealver said:Two different quotes, I try to keep them on a single post to avoid those repetitive chain posts where one person makes 3 replies in a row.
As for math guys not necessarily mathwing but those that use the odds and the values on the cards as their sole justification on how good a ship is or isn't. I also know a few people whose are good at mathamatics that like to gamble so maybe I should have said math & gamble guys instead. But there are players in X-wing that do like the dice part of the game, and they use those jousting values for their strategy. That doesn't mean that they like auto-dice.
I've been playing wargames wrong for the last 29 years then...
24 minutes ago, boomaster said:I've been playing wargames wrong for the last 29 years then...
not at all, you just play them to your style. I'm just trying to point out that there are those who want a different style.
13 minutes ago, Marinealver said:not at all, you just play them to your style. I'm just trying to point out that there are those who want a different style.
Maybe it's the way I read your original post, or maybe I misinterpreted your tone in your post. The way I read your post, "math-wing" players (whoever they are) are an abundant min-max group of players. Whilst there are most certainly players like that in every game system, looking to pull a statistical win from their force before it even hits the table. Are they influenced by this particular ships ability? Probably, they may well look at it and work out how to fly a 4 ship around in a tight group of 2 by 2, putting those non-modified shots on whomever they can.
I think that's a somewhat fatalistic attitude to take. Side by side, facing across to your opponent assuming he has 4 of said ships and you have.. anything you fancy. He can unload 1 unmodifiable attack in an area roughly 5% of the available board. With all 4 ships next to each other that is. Each ship covers an area, range 1 - 3, of approx 1.4% of the total board area. (My range ruler from the Core Set II is 301mm long, not 300mm for whatever reason...)
Maths aside, I fancy my chances at limiting my opponents options for "bulls-eyeing" me... mathematically are they really that viable? Corner case effective, absolutely. The Inquisitor or Vader (et al) are sad if they have no mods, as is Soontir and even good old Biggs (although everyone else can tank the hits for him....).
6 hours ago, TGO said:Doesn't that put emphasis on better maneuvering and higher PS skill?
Indeed it does. If Soontir ever gets caught in this, his player is at fault. The bullseye is smaller than a barrel roll, meaning you usually should keep your mindlink tokens, but get forced to evade the bullseye with boost or barrel roll. Flying becomes more fun again.
11 minutes ago, boomaster said:Maybe it's the way I read your original post, or maybe I misinterpreted your tone in your post. The way I read your post, "math-wing" players (whoever they are) are an abundant min-max group of players. Whilst there are most certainly players like that in every game system, looking to pull a statistical win from their force before it even hits the table. Are they influenced by this particular ships ability? Probably, they may well look at it and work out how to fly a 4 ship around in a tight group of 2 by 2, putting those non-modified shots on whomever they can.
I think that's a somewhat fatalistic attitude to take. Side by side, facing across to your opponent assuming he has 4 of said ships and you have.. anything you fancy. He can unload 1 unmodifiable attack in an area roughly 5% of the available board. With all 4 ships next to each other that is. Each ship covers an area, range 1 - 3, of approx 1.4% of the total board area. (My range ruler from the Core Set II is 301mm long, not 300mm for whatever reason...)
Maths aside, I fancy my chances at limiting my opponents options for "bulls-eyeing" me... mathematically are they really that viable? Corner case effective, absolutely. The Inquisitor or Vader (et al) are sad if they have no mods, as is Soontir and even good old Biggs (although everyone else can tank the hits for him....).
Yeah I'm just talking about the different play style expectations. So you have the jousting value roll the dice gamble players and then you have the chess with dice players. I know they sound similar but they are as far apart as ever. One wants to do more of the positioning, just fly well and your dice will follow. The other wants to do the dice and calculate the odds (There is a 15% chance this will kill the other ship outright. However if I have to roll 3+ and they have to roll 5+ I will eventually win), if the odds are not favorable then fall back till you can get a position where they are favorable.
It is hard to try and find all the different categories of expectations. I can assume there are several which can be grouped into 4 different groups. I can go over 2 and mainly what they don't like.
So those are two categories of players but they are not the only ones, just some of the more vocal ones. I need to figure out the rest like the puzzle makers which does most of the list building. To them they don't mind fairship rebels that much and they don't mind the deadeye RA-agro combo as it uses many forgotten gems. Anyways I need to try and figure the X-wing taxonomy for the meta. Give me some time I am short on it for this week.
Edited by Marinealver3 hours ago, Larky Bobble said:So AG 0 and 1 ships laugh at the ¨"¨Bullseye" ability. Even AG2 X wings don´ t really care about it. Luke (and Poe) laughs loudest as his ability is unaffected.
Cool! Anything that brings back Luke is to be applauded!
Jamming is a solid counter to poe though, just depends on how early in the combat round you can slap it on him.
My biggest concern with the bullseye arc isn't weapon restricted by weapon type. When combined with reload i just hope they don't become a pocket jm5k's that can throw even more pain with the new super missiles about to drop.
I was also sure reload would have been 1 card at a time, not all at once. Very nice for the ships involved.
If anything, this ship brings arc dodging back because it matters so heavily against this ship. It itself will find lining it's bullseye up fairly difficult as you'll need your target to end it's move somewhere that either a straight, 45 or 90 degree, move will bring it into that very small window.
Keeping your distance from it will also make it harder to judge that bullseye for your opponent.
In practice, the bullseye will probably only come up maybe 1-2 times in a game. More if there is a large ship to use it against(which isn't the ideal target anyway).
I think you also might end up having to choose between a closer range shot on one ship or a bullseye shot on a ship at longer range. Is it better to shoot at a ship with Rng3 bonus, but that can't use focus or evade tokens, or shoot at range 1 with full mods?
11 minutes ago, Ralgon said:Jamming is a solid counter to poe though, just depends on how early in the combat round you can slap it on him.
Especially intensity poe.
5 hours ago, ficklegreendice said:gonna need some green banks though
especially with the StressARC 2.0 in the same wave
I'm guessing it's going to be a lot like the Kwing, but maybe better thanks to the effect of dial creep.
Straight 1 green, Bank 1 whites.
Straight 2 green, bank 2 green, turn 2 whites.
Straight 3 green, bank 3 whites, turn 3 whites(maybe red?)
Straight 4 white.
8 hours ago, TGO said:Doesn't that put emphasis on better maneuvering and higher PS skill?
Baron Soontir, sir, the Emperor sends his regards and expects your rapid return to active duty.