What, to your mind, was?

Everyone and their dog is using turrets, might as well join them?

I agree that turrets are easier, Which is why, more than ever, I'm pleased to see game effects where actually getting someone in arc matters.

Dengar and Rey, for example, do technically have a 360' arc, but they're far from equally effective in and out of that arc, and Miranda wins by piloting and dropping mines as often as she does actually shooting people - if she had a 3-dice forward arc rather than a turret I suspect she'd still be good.

Cruise missiles, snap shot and the 'bullseye' malarky - whilst incredibly painful to be on the recieving end of - are reassuring to me - FFG are doing their best to make you care about outflying people.

How long it will take to twist the game meta back around is anyone's guess, though, and I'm hoping they do it without making "this one ship what can manage without a turret" (in the way the TIE/7 was)

Well as the old man says, what is better for one man is not better for another. If you don't know which road is fastest pick the one you think you will enjoy riding down.

The story is then as much about how a short term imperative meant the rider ignored opportunities to turn back, or to change his path. Unwittingly he rode deeper and deeper into what turned out to be a dead end, and each time he decided not to turn back he did so because he thought it benefitted him to go forwards.

But then also that it's nobody's fault. There are no value judgements made, no blame to assign. The road across the plains will have its own beauty - wonderful sunsets, perhaps - and it could easily have worked out differently. The forest road could have been the good one while bandits lurked on the plains road.

Do Brits study Robert Frost? Too many missed opportunities for Robert Frost quotes.

1 minute ago, Biophysical said:

Do Brits study Robert Frost? Too many missed opportunities for Robert Frost quotes.

Never heard of him, unfortunately. We have David Frost instead.

4 minutes ago, Stay On The Leader said:

Never heard of him, unfortunately. We have David Frost instead.

Very famous American poet, probably most famously wrote "The Road Not Taken", about a traveler deciding on which path to take. The final line is pretty famous "I took the road less traveled by, and that has made all the difference". It's used as a "let's celebrate being free spirits" line, but in the context if the poem, it's more about how we make up more importance for our whims than is really merited.

Generally if it's not a poem about how WWI was a bit of a downer I wouldn't presume a Brit to know it.

Edit: Oh! We also know that one line about being thirsty on a boat or whatever. I think that one carried on after that line, anyway....

1 hour ago, Stay On The Leader said:

No! If anything that's the opposite of the blog's point.

OK then, how about

If you can't beat them, join them.

4 minutes ago, __underscore__ said:

Generally if it's not a poem about how WWI was a bit of a downer I wouldn't presume a Brit to know it.

There once was a man in a wood
Who'd travelled as far as he could
No further to hack
He turned about back
To find out if turrets were good

Lambert, Lambert, what a prick.

Just now, FTS Gecko said:

OK then, how about

If you can't beat them, join them.

You're fixating on the destination, the story is about why the journey was what it was.


You know that bit where Yoda tells Luke not to take his weapons into the cave? I think your presuppositions about the author's intentions are determining what you take from the story.

Universal truths:

Your neighbors grass is always greener.

The other lane is always faster during rush hour.

My list is less effective against my opponent's list than their list is against mine.

The proper response as we wait for the next errata/faq/release is typically: Always move forward. Change is inevitable. Suck it up, princess. The deficit is more in your head than on the table. The meta is an unstoppable force; don't be an immovable object expecting it to bend to your whims. Be the leaf in the wind.

1 minute ago, Stay On The Leader said:

You're fixating on the destination, the story is about why the journey was what it was.


You know that bit where Yoda tells Luke not to take his weapons into the cave? I think your presuppositions about the author's intentions are determining what you take from the story.

...a bird in the hand is worth two with fixed frontal firing arcs?

Just now, FTS Gecko said:

...a bird in the hand is worth two with fixed frontal firing arcs?

If that's what you learned, then I guess so.

35 minutes ago, FTS Gecko said:

...a bird in the hand is worth two with fixed frontal firing arcs?

Why do you even continue to comment? Either you can't get it, or you don't want to. And I won't assume that you're stupid.

Obviously this is a little more obtuse/self-indulgent than a lot of other blogs. I thought I was being quite clever and multi-layered, perhaps I was just being an arsehole.

What I think the story is about:

• The two paths are not better than each other, or at least not that you can tell from the point where they fork.
• The rider made a choice that was personal to him. As the old man says many others had passed that way, and they had gone down either road as was their personal preference. There is no judgement made that one is superior, but in the story we follow the rider on his journey.
• The rider is given opportunities to change his course, or to return to the fork and take the other path. He doesn't take those opportunities and chooses to continue forwards even as it becomes clear that the road he's chosen is becoming more difficult. The rider's fixation on reaching the castle as soon as possible means he decides to carry on because he thinks it benefits him to do so.
• When the rider finally stops he is angry at the opportunities he now knows are denied to him. But there's a recognition that there is nobody to direct that anger at. The rider chose his own route for his own reasons, so he must ultimately accept responsibility for where that route has led him.

==========

I have always predominantly played jousters, especially in competition. I've done this because I enjoy the style of play but also because I feel like it matches my skill set and they're something that I play well and do well with. I've had many opportunities to switch to other squads along the way but each time the fixation on remaining competitive in the short term has kept me focused on that one style of play. My X-Wing skills and experience are not broad and I've doubled-down on a style of play time and again when I could have chosen to do something different. It turned out that I doubled-down on a style of play not currently being favoured by new releases but I recognise it could have worked out very differently - somewhere I have a counterpart who always doubled-down on large turrets, or played bombers when bombers were terrible, and they are benefiting now as much I am suffering. It could easily have gone the other way. I am taking responsibility for being where I am, and I'm going to change it.

Why be in such a rush to reach the castle in the first place? Chances are the princess won't be there anyway. Or, better yet..

You chose the forest road because when faced with two options, you thought it would make for a more enjoyable journey, but despite the scenery being ever-changing (and ever-challenging) you found yourself growing (ever-more) frustrated in your attempts to reach the destination. So which is more important to you? An enjoyable journey, or reaching the destination? If you set out upon the journey with the sole purpose of reaching the destination in the first place, should that not be more important? Should you not focus on keeping your desination in sight at all times, and seeing the way clear before you? Why obscure your view with trees, however pretty they may be?

37 minutes ago, Stay On The Leader said:

I have always predominantly played jousters, especially in competition. I've done this because I enjoy the style of play but also because I feel like it matches my skill set and they're something that I play well and do well with. I've had many opportunities to switch to other squads along the way but each time the fixation on remaining competitive in the short term has kept me focused on that one style of play.

Ah. Therein lies, to my mind, the issue - because if your goal was to be competively successful, then yes, different squads - different squad archetypes - are important to try, especially if you feel you've reached a point where you are seriously disadvantaged trying other archtypes. After all, one of the best ways to figure out how to beat a squad is to try it - and screw up with it - a few times yourself.

Part of it is a question of how many games you (a) can play, and (b) want to play - I noted a friend yesterday mention in passing 'reps' with a squad, as if it was lifting a dumbel, and the phrase struck a wrong note with mel. Now I'm the first to agree that practice with a squad is vital - especially multiple games over a short period - if you want success, so throwing in games with another 'wierd' squad risks this if using up sparse gaming time on a multitude of squads you don't want to use competetively. Equally, though, playing sufficient games that it feels like some sort of chore exercise regime without reprieve also seems wrong; there's a reason I'd far rather swim, or play badminton with friends, or go walking somewhere pretty, than get exercise on the far more scientifically efficient machines available at a gym.

I guess it's a matter of balance.

37 minutes ago, Stay On The Leader said:

It turned out that I doubled-down on a style of play not currently being favoured by new releases but I recognise it could have worked out very differently - somewhere I have a counterpart who always doubled-down on large turrets, or played bombers when bombers were terrible, and they are benefiting now as much I am suffering. It could easily have gone the other way.

And, I suspect, the wheel will eventually turn. But over any given future period, things will likely change; I agree with the opinion I've seen on the forums here - perfect 'balance' is impossible (not that it's not a goal to aim for), but rather the different squad archetypes (arc dodger, jouster, turret, ordnance boat, bomber, and their combinations and variations) exist on a sort of series of interlocking see-saws, and by a mix of anti-thing-thing releases and FAQs where needed, FFG try to push down anything poking up too much - or at least keep everything in motion.

Swarms became Fat Turrets became Aces became.....a confused mess of things, which I agree turreted ships feature highly in. But the thing is, a lot of them have the turret almost as an afterthought - torpedo-armed large ships, bomb-carring K-wings, and so on.

You may not have too long to wait to see heavy 'jousters' or variations on them become nasty again.

37 minutes ago, Stay On The Leader said:

I am taking responsibility for being where I am, and I'm going to change it.

I definitely agree you should always try any option going. You don't have to follow the winds of "the meta", but not at least trying a squad archetype before dismissing it seems foolish, because you can't say a given option suits you better without knowledge of the alternative. So good luck with the turrets!

13 hours ago, SOTL said:

http://stayontheleader.blogspot.co.uk/2017/08/a-fork-in-road.html

I don't often link to my blog directly like this, but here you go...

So what changed?

2 minutes ago, PastrySandwich said:

So what changed?

There was a post by somebody on here a few days ago that set the seed of it germinating.

I'm not sure I could find it again, though, or even who wrote it!

12 minutes ago, Magnus Grendel said:

And, I suspect, the wheel will eventually turn.

It already has. Fair Ship Rebels is a very dominant list and with a few variants, primarily a jouster. The announced Wave 12 ships look like they will favour jousting, and if the rumours regarding The Last Jedi additions (Resistance A-Wing, Kylo's Silencer) are correct, they will probably adopt that approach as well.

You burn more calories hiking uphill than you do strolling downhill, but no matter how steep the hill, eventually it turns downwards. Imagine how fit you'll be when the ground levels out.

3 minutes ago, FTS Gecko said:

You burn more calories hiking uphill than you do strolling downhill, but no matter how steep the hill, eventually it turns downwards.

Or, you know, you fall off a massive, painful cliff you didn't see coming. That happens too.

I think that would be the apt metaphor for my first experience of the TIE/x7 defender and Concord Dawn Protector Protectorate with a swarm of 2-attack dice ships (which led to me experimenting with the TIE Striker)....

Just now, Magnus Grendel said:

Or, you know, you fall off a massive, painful cliff you didn't see coming. That happens too.

"Paths that end in trouble are all the same – they only appear different when you don't know where they lead."

48 minutes ago, FTS Gecko said:

You chose the forest road because when faced with two options, you thought it would make for a more enjoyable journey, but despite the scenery being ever-changing (and ever-challenging) you found yourself growing (ever-more) frustrated in your attempts to reach the destination. So which is more important to you? An enjoyable journey, or reaching the destination? If you set out upon the journey with the sole purpose of reaching the destination in the first place, should that not be more important? Should you not focus on keeping your desination in sight at all times, and seeing the way clear before you? Why obscure your view with trees, however pretty they may be?

You are missing the point. The question is not whether the journey was enjoyable or not - I bet it was. The question is whether this journey should be abandoned for another one. The destination doesn't really matter, the journey does. And it sucks in the thickest forest without a way.

Additionally @SOTL is a bit too nice to FFG here. They are the old man at the initial fork and claim that all ways lead to the castle, and it is their job to take care of the different roads or at least know them. Turns out they did not take care, and feel not responsible to understand the ways better.

9 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

The destination doesn't really matter, the journey does.

Hmmm.

Quote

"I'm travelling to the castle. I intend to fight in the great tourney and prove my valour, and be made a great knight of the realm. Which road will take me to the castle?"

Are

Quote

"Is either path quicker? I can't be late for the royal tournament"

You

Quote

"I can't lose time, I must get to the castle as soon as possible!

Sure

Quote

You have to trust that the forest road will get you to the castle in time.

About

Quote

The castle must surely be close!

That?

Quote

The tournament will be passed, now, or if not you'll never be there in time. Whether you press on through the brambles or turn back is now a moot question, as either is defeat. One, at least, holds the certain promise of reaching the castle eventually.

22 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

You are missing the point. The question is not whether the journey was enjoyable or not - I bet it was. The question is whether this journey should be abandoned for another one. The destination doesn't really matter, the journey does. And it sucks in the thickest forest without a way.

Additionally @SOTL is a bit too nice to FFG here. They are the old man at the initial fork and claim that all ways lead to the castle, and it is their job to take care of the different roads or at least know them. Turns out they did not take care, and feel not responsible to understand the ways better.

These would not be my interpretations.

The story makes it VERY clear that the destination is the tournament, and indeed how this affects the rider's choices is perhaps the single most important part of the tale.

And if the old man is anyone then he's "the X-Wing community". Mostly he's just a fountain of exposition.