Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The last several tournies that I've played in, I gone with a TIE swarm. I wanted to get away form that and use something different. I was thinking of a 4 ship list :

Pure Sabacc + Crack Shot + Title + Lighweight Frame

Omega Leader + Juke + Comm relay + Stealth Device

Gamma Squad Veteran + Crack Shot + Extra Munitions + Plasma Torpedoes + Guidance Chips

Scimitar Squad Pilot + Extra Munitions + Plasma Torpedoes + Guidance Chips

The other options would be to drop the Lightweight frame, stealth device, and Gamma Squad vet for Backdraft + Title + Crack Shot + FCS

The final list would be going back to more of a swarm:

Imperial Trainee + Title x2

Academy Pilot x4

Howlrunner

Which do you think would be the best list of the three?

Sorry, but this is just a bad list. The bombers are not going to be worth their points, especially the PS 2 one. I don't think there's any way to salvage the concept in a competitive environment.

@Azeroth Which day 1 did you sign up for? I will be on the Thursday day one. My skills with the game are not the greatest, so I don't expect to see day two. I do however want to try and see what I can do in a larger tournament setting, have fun, and meet people.

I believe I'm playing Thursday.


Ok, I've tried a different list makeup

Omega Leader + Juke + Comm relay

Lieutenant Colzet + Title + ATC

The Inquisitor + VI + Title

Duchess + Adaptibility + Title

My other option would be to use Pure Sabacc instead of Duchess with Trick Shot and Light weight Frame and switching Inquisitor to Adaptibility

Maybe a bit more viable?

Azeroth wrote:
I believe I'm playing Thursday.

Maybe we will get to meet. I'll be The guy with "Echo" in my list. I'm still tweaking, but she suits me.

Azeroth wrote:
Maybe a bit more viable?

No. Colzet is trash, the Inquisitor without PTL and autothrusters is almost as bad, and Duchess really needs lightweight frame to survive. And there's no synergy between your ship choices, as far as I can see. You've just thrown together some random ships which happen to add up to 100 points or less. And the Pure Sabacc swap doesn't change this, you're only trading one random ship for another.

Really the problem is that you seem to be in love with the idea of making a creative list instead of playing what everyone else is playing, but the winning lists win for good reasons. Look at the top lists in the meta, and pick one that you like. Otherwise you're just wasting your time at a competitive event like this.

It's not the best of the best, but I've had fun and some good results with this:

The Inquisitor (25)
Push the Limit (3)
Autothrusters (2)
TIE/v1 (1)

"Echo" (30)
Veteran Instincts (1)
Fire-Control System (2)
Intelligence Agent (1)
Advanced Cloaking Device (4)

"Omega Leader" (21)
Juke (2)
Comm Relay (3)
Stealth Device (3)

Total: 98

View in Yet Another Squad Builder

Re @Mathieu,

I'd seriously consider dropping stealth on Omega Leader to upgrade to Whisper w/ agent Kallus. Especially as a recommendation for another player. I've found Echo's decloak and move to be rather tricky, and definitely something that I would want to practice extensively before a tournament. And the extra ps point for ACD (and potentially against a captured TIE) will really help.

 Peregrine wrote:

Azeroth wrote:
Maybe a bit more viable?

No. Colzet is trash, the Inquisitor without PTL and autothrusters is almost as bad, and Duchess really needs lightweight frame to survive. And there's no synergy between your ship choices, as far as I can see. You've just thrown together some random ships which happen to add up to 100 points or less. And the Pure Sabacc swap doesn't change this, you're only trading one random ship for another.

Really the problem is that you seem to be in love with the idea of making a creative list instead of playing what everyone else is playing, but the winning lists win for good reasons. Look at the top lists in the meta, and pick one that you like. Otherwise you're just wasting your time at a competitive event like this.

Colzet is not trash, I used him in a Tie swarm list last year and he did very well as did the list. I used the same list in a local tourney and came in third out of around 22 - the list beat the u-boat list prior to the errata.

I wanted to use 4 aces rather than three. They are all highly maneuverable and have good dials. I'll have to look at the inquisitor again and maybe change his loadout though.

I like the idea of not copying a list that half the other imperial players there are using. That is extremely boring. It's like the old CCG games and deck tech. everyone playing the same thing is a waste of time. Playing something different is what is fun and trying new stuff out is fun.

I don't play at a competition like Hoth because I actually think that I have a shot at winning the whole thing. I play to have fun. I get to play different people and a variety of lists. Out of all the people that go there, do you actually believe they all think they are going to win that tournament? Hell no. If they were all there to only win, then half the people would drop after the second of third round. I got 3 or 4 wins last year playing a list that was NOT the current Meta and I had a good time.

To taste, for sure.

 megatrons2nd wrote:

Azeroth wrote:
I believe I'm playing Thursday.

Maybe we will get to meet. I'll be The guy with "Echo" in my list. I'm still tweaking, but she suits me.

The only problem is that from a distance I won't be able to tell from the people playing Whisper. I'm sure you won't be the only one there with Echo.

I really don't know what I'll be running yet. Most likely will be imperial though, but other than that i maybe end up going back to a swarm as that is what I'm used to. Don't know how many people will run a swarm, but mine would probably have Strikers in it.

Azeroth wrote:
Colzet is not trash, I used him in a Tie swarm list last year and he did very well as did the list. I used the same list in a local tourney and came in third out of around 22 - the list beat the u-boat list prior to the errata.

A fluke win doesn't mean that a ship is good. And Colzet is definitely trash. His pilot ability is borderline worthless (doesn't work against shields, doesn't work if your damage already kills them, doesn't do much if you don't flip a good crit), and has massive anti-synergy with taking ATC (since spending all your actions on target locks you can't use cripples your firepower). So you're essentially taking a PS 3 generic in a ship that isn't all that great in the first place, with an upgrade (ATC) that requires high PS to use effectively.

I don't play at a competition like Hoth because I actually think that I have a shot at winning the whole thing. I play to have fun. I get to play different people and a variety of lists. Out of all the people that go there, do you actually believe they all think they are going to win that tournament? Hell no. If they were all there to only win, then half the people would drop after the second of third round. I got 3 or 4 wins last year playing a list that was NOT the current Meta and I had a good time.

No, most people don't expect to win, but they do expect to compete. A top-16 finish is a goal that is more likely, and still very much brag-worthy. I guess if you're satisfied with attending a major tournament knowing that you're going to lose most of your games because your list is terrible then that's your thing, but I don't think most of your fellow players there share your limited ambition.

Azeroth wrote:

 megatrons2nd wrote:

Azeroth wrote:
I believe I'm playing Thursday.

Maybe we will get to meet. I'll be The guy with "Echo" in my list. I'm still tweaking, but she suits me.

The only problem is that from a distance I won't be able to tell from the people playing Whisper. I'm sure you won't be the only one there with Echo.

I really don't know what I'll be running yet. Most likely will be imperial though, but other than that i maybe end up going back to a swarm as that is what I'm used to. Don't know how many people will run a swarm, but mine would probably have Strikers in it.

I'd say I'm the guy in a Star Wars T-Shirt, but.......

How about, I'll likely be the guy with 0 wins because my luck with dice is legendarily bad. I regularly roll 5 blanks on an attack roll.

Azeroth wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Azeroth wrote:
Maybe a bit more viable?

No. Colzet is trash, the Inquisitor without PTL and autothrusters is almost as bad, and Duchess really needs lightweight frame to survive. And there's no synergy between your ship choices, as far as I can see. You've just thrown together some random ships which happen to add up to 100 points or less. And the Pure Sabacc swap doesn't change this, you're only trading one random ship for another.

Really the problem is that you seem to be in love with the idea of making a creative list instead of playing what everyone else is playing, but the winning lists win for good reasons. Look at the top lists in the meta, and pick one that you like. Otherwise you're just wasting your time at a competitive event like this.

Colzet is not trash, I used him in a Tie swarm list last year and he did very well as did the list. I used the same list in a local tourney and came in third out of around 22 - the list beat the u-boat list prior to the errata.

I wanted to use 4 aces rather than three. They are all highly maneuverable and have good dials. I'll have to look at the inquisitor again and maybe change his loadout though.

I like the idea of not copying a list that half the other imperial players there are using. That is extremely boring. It's like the old CCG games and deck tech. everyone playing the same thing is a waste of time. Playing something different is what is fun and trying new stuff out is fun.

I don't play at a competition like Hoth because I actually think that I have a shot at winning the whole thing. I play to have fun. I get to play different people and a variety of lists. Out of all the people that go there, do you actually believe they all think they are going to win that tournament? Hell no. If they were all there to only win, then half the people would drop after the second of third round. I got 3 or 4 wins last year playing a list that was NOT the current Meta and I had a good time.

I can respect trying to do something a bit different and not just copy the current meta lists but I think there's a limit to how far you can take that. Inquisitor having PtL and Autothrusters as standard is a good example. Without them he's just kind of...bad. He only has 4 health and with only one token a turn for defence he'll die quickly, especially combined with an inability to reposition and still modify your dice.

Colzet really is pretty much trash. He's no Fel's Wrath but he's barely useful in most situations. His ability isn't great on its own and giving him an ATC doesn't synergise with his ability at all (in fact, it makes either his ability or the upgrade strictly worse). Also, you may be the first person to describe the TIE Advanced dial as "good". It's OK but I wouldn't call it good. I think Duchess can work without Lightweight Frame but I'd certainly rather have it than not.

You say you want to try a 4 ace list but by definition you can't really do that. An ace is - again, pretty much by definition - a ship that costs a decent chunk of points with a good pilot ability. Since you need to average 25 points per ship in a 4-ship list you just won't get 4 "aces". I'd say your list has 2 - Omega Leader and Duchess fit the bill but the Inquisitor doesn't in your list because the set-up for him is just bad. I've been trying to figure out how to modify your list to keep most of the elements and still work well but I honestly think the core concept just doesn't work.

In general I think if you're going to take an ace you need to commit to it fully. Don't half-ass Inquisitor or Vader, build your list around them.

 Peregrine wrote:

Azeroth wrote:
Colzet is not trash, I used him in a Tie swarm list last year and he did very well as did the list. I used the same list in a local tourney and came in third out of around 22 - the list beat the u-boat list prior to the errata.

A fluke win doesn't mean that a ship is good. And Colzet is definitely trash. His pilot ability is borderline worthless (doesn't work against shields, doesn't work if your damage already kills them, doesn't do much if you don't flip a good crit), and has massive anti-synergy with taking ATC (since spending all your actions on target locks you can't use cripples your firepower). So you're essentially taking a PS 3 generic in a ship that isn't all that great in the first place, with an upgrade (ATC) that requires high PS to use effectively.

I don't play at a competition like Hoth because I actually think that I have a shot at winning the whole thing. I play to have fun. I get to play different people and a variety of lists. Out of all the people that go there, do you actually believe they all think they are going to win that tournament? Hell no. If they were all there to only win, then half the people would drop after the second of third round. I got 3 or 4 wins last year playing a list that was NOT the current Meta and I had a good time.

No, most people don't expect to win, but they do expect to compete. A top-16 finish is a goal that is more likely, and still very much brag-worthy. I guess if you're satisfied with attending a major tournament knowing that you're going to lose most of your games because your list is terrible then that's your thing, but I don't think most of your fellow players there share your limited ambition.

Hardly a fluke win when it did well twice - I did couple it with Wampa, so that combination did help. Maybe you should try new things and not just crap on everything that isn't the current meta. I met some older guys at a local tourney once. They talked about trying out tons of different lists that weren't the current meta and doing very well because the game isn't just the list you take but how you maneuver your ships.

No, most people there aren't expecting to place in the TOP 16 either. This is because I actually talk to the people that I play and don't just look down my nose at them because of the list they bring. I recall one of the people I played had only played the game a handful of times prior to that tournament. She was there to have fun. Take a look at the lists people are bringing. I don't even think half of them are the current meta lists. Once again if they were only there to place in the TOP 16, then there would hardly be anyone left after the second and third rounds because they will already have 2 losses and pretty much eliminated from advancing. But you know what, they stick it out because they are having fun playing the game. It is a game, you should try to have fun and not just care about winning.

I would like to point out mate, you did ask what people thought about your list. I appreciate that you want to fly something that's not in the meta, but good points here are being brought up, and you're ignoring them completely in order to argue that people are coming to a tournament not to place and whatever. If they didn't care about how they were going to place, they would not be flying a tournament. Not saying that people aren't there to have fun, it's a game, but that is an environment you test your skills and see how you do. Peregrine also never said that people who are there to try for a top 16 win are only there to win, saying it's a respectable goal.

 FakeBritishPerson wrote:
I would like to point out mate, you did ask what people thought about your list. I appreciate that you want to fly something that's not in the meta, but good points here are being brought up, and you're ignoring them completely in order to argue that people are coming to a tournament not to place and whatever. If they didn't care about how they were going to place, they would not be flying a tournament. Not saying that people aren't there to have fun, it's a game, but that is an environment you test your skills and see how you do. Peregrine also never said that people who are there to try for a top 16 win are only there to win, saying it's a respectable goal.

Yes, I did ask for feedback - about the list, not a commentary on my motivation behind my lists or questioning why I'd go to a tourney in the first place.

I didn't ignore the comments, I did say that I'd have to look into the inquisitor. That was the kind of comment I was looking for.

It's actually a common thing for people to tell you you're doing it wrong. I've asked for input on a Dark Eldar list, and was basically told to sell the only models I like in the army and buy Coven units, that I find even uglier than a Space Marine, and start over. All I asked was what to tweak with what I had and options that would suit the intended role better, and what to add and even stated to exclude Coven units. The, almost universal, response was to buy coven units because I was doing it wrong.

Azeroth wrote:
Hardly a fluke win when it did well twice

Of course it is. Maybe you had hot dice, maybe the level of competition in your local tournaments isn't the same as you'll see at major events, but the simple fact here is that Colzet is nonexistent in high level play. And that kind of failure doesn't happen to good ships.

Maybe you should try new things and not just crap on everything that isn't the current meta.

I do try new things. I just understand when to accept that the new thing has failed, and don't cling to the idea that it doesn't suck out of sheer stubborn refusal to play a meta list.

They talked about trying out tons of different lists that weren't the current meta and doing very well because the game isn't just the list you take but how you maneuver your ships.

And a player that knows how to maneuver their ships AND plays a powerful list will consistently beat one who knows how to maneuver their ships but plays a weaker list. You aren't forced to choose between list strength and on-table skill, if you want to win you take the best possible list and you get really good at flying it.

No, most people there aren't expecting to place in the TOP 16 either. This is because I actually talk to the people that I play and don't just look down my nose at them because of the list they bring. I recall one of the people I played had only played the game a handful of times prior to that tournament. She was there to have fun. Take a look at the lists people are bringing. I don't even think half of them are the current meta lists. Once again if they were only there to place in the TOP 16, then there would hardly be anyone left after the second and third rounds because they will already have 2 losses and pretty much eliminated from advancing. But you know what, they stick it out because they are having fun playing the game. It is a game, you should try to have fun and not just care about winning.

Why should I care about the lists that aren't winning? Someone who is 0-5 with a bad list has nothing to offer me, except the fact that whatever they were trying didn't work. I'm sure they're great people and having lots of fun, but if you want to win at X-Wing you look at the lists and players that are consistently finishing in the top 8/16.

Also, people stick around after losing because once you've traveled to an event and paid to play you might as well get in as many games as possible, even if your goal of winning is no longer possible. And this has nothing to do with whether or not a particular list is good. Maybe you'll have fun with your terrible list, but I'm not going to pretend that it doesn't suck just because you enjoy it.

It's also worth noting that it's kind of difficult to give advice over the internet that isn't some variation of "take stronger stuff because it wins more" even if that's not what you want.

You may want a fun, interesting, different list that is still competitive but it's almost impossible for people who aren't you to define the first 3 elements in that list. So we default back to talking about competitive lists and the meta because it's a constant and universally understood.

The fact you're asking about your list implies you want to be able to compete at some level, rather than just going for the fun of playing (otherwise just take any list you want). That's why you're getting the comments you are. You don't really seem to want to hear that though, so why ask in the first place?

Lt Colzet is a good example. He's not good, as shown by the fact that I don't think he's ever showed up in any successful competitive list. Let's say you really want to use him though. Fine, I have no problem with that. But in that case there's valuable advice in this thread about his loadout that can make him better for you.

 Peregrine wrote:

No, most people there aren't expecting to place in the TOP 16 either. This is because I actually talk to the people that I play and don't just look down my nose at them because of the list they bring. I recall one of the people I played had only played the game a handful of times prior to that tournament. She was there to have fun. Take a look at the lists people are bringing. I don't even think half of them are the current meta lists. Once again if they were only there to place in the TOP 16, then there would hardly be anyone left after the second and third rounds because they will already have 2 losses and pretty much eliminated from advancing. But you know what, they stick it out because they are having fun playing the game. It is a game, you should try to have fun and not just care about winning.

Why should I care about the lists that aren't winning? Someone who is 0-5 with a bad list has nothing to offer me, except the fact that whatever they were trying didn't work. I'm sure they're great people and having lots of fun, but if you want to win at X-Wing you look at the lists and players that are consistently finishing in the top 8/16.

Because, sometimes those "bad" ships are pretty good, and it takes a little experience to figure out how to make a ship work. Dismissing something just because the internet says it's bad is silly. Sometimes a creative use of something is better than what is established. When someone asks me what to do to make their list better, I won't tell them to get rid of a ship/unit they like, but I will suggest a upgrade that I think would work better with the rest of their list, and if I know them or they tell me, their playstyle. Unless I have no thoughts for said ship.

For me, I have been tweaking my "Echo" list for a while. I have come real close to beating pre-nerf Palpatine with her and the way I build and play her several times. Everyone says she is a bad ship, but I find her very useful. I don't ask for advice here anymore because people will instantly go to "get a different ship" rather than, "maybe X upgrade will work better", or "a good companion would be X". I can also tell when it's a fluke win/loss, I played a game where no matter what I did I couldn't get more than 2 hits on my reds, rolling at least 3 dice every time and multiple 5 dice rolls throughout the game. My opponent however would roll at least 1 dodge every roll, and his ships defenses were 0, 1, and 2. Of course shooting at range 3 to a 0 defense ship was probably a bit wasteful, but the odds were in my favor, numerically anyway.

 megatrons2nd wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

No, most people there aren't expecting to place in the TOP 16 either. This is because I actually talk to the people that I play and don't just look down my nose at them because of the list they bring. I recall one of the people I played had only played the game a handful of times prior to that tournament. She was there to have fun. Take a look at the lists people are bringing. I don't even think half of them are the current meta lists. Once again if they were only there to place in the TOP 16, then there would hardly be anyone left after the second and third rounds because they will already have 2 losses and pretty much eliminated from advancing. But you know what, they stick it out because they are having fun playing the game. It is a game, you should try to have fun and not just care about winning.

Why should I care about the lists that aren't winning? Someone who is 0-5 with a bad list has nothing to offer me, except the fact that whatever they were trying didn't work. I'm sure they're great people and having lots of fun, but if you want to win at X-Wing you look at the lists and players that are consistently finishing in the top 8/16.

Because, sometimes those "bad" ships are pretty good, and it takes a little experience to figure out how to make a ship work. Dismissing something just because the internet says it's bad is silly. Sometimes a creative use of something is better than what is established. When someone asks me what to do to make their list better, I won't tell them to get rid of a ship/unit they like, but I will suggest a upgrade that I think would work better with the rest of their list, and if I know them or they tell me, their playstyle. Unless I have no thoughts for said ship.

For me, I have been tweaking my "Echo" list for a while. I have come real close to beating pre-nerf Palpatine with her and the way I build and play her several times. Everyone says she is a bad ship, but I find her very useful. I don't ask for advice here anymore because people will instantly go to "get a different ship" rather than, "maybe X upgrade will work better", or "a good companion would be X". I can also tell when it's a fluke win/loss, I played a game where no matter what I did I couldn't get more than 2 hits on my reds, rolling at least 3 dice every time and multiple 5 dice rolls throughout the game. My opponent however would roll at least 1 dodge every roll, and his ships defenses were 0, 1, and 2. Of course shooting at range 3 to a 0 defense ship was probably a bit wasteful, but the odds were in my favor, numerically anyway.

You can't just invoke the idea of a "creative use of something" every time a list is criticised though. I agree it's possible to come up with a different, innovative list that works well and you don't have to follow the meta to succeed, but that doesn't mean every non-meta list is actually a hidden gem of unparalleled genius. Sometimes a weird, unfamiliar list is just bad. That's the point being made here. The Inquisitor load-out is not good and Colzet is terrible, made even worse by the choice of upgrades.

Also, who's been telling you Echo is bad? That's not a sentiment I've ever heard. Not as good as Whisper? Arguable. But outright bad, no way.

 Peregrine wrote:

Azeroth wrote:
Hardly a fluke win when it did well twice

Of course it is. Maybe you had hot dice, maybe the level of competition in your local tournaments isn't the same as you'll see at major events, but the simple fact here is that Colzet is nonexistent in high level play. And that kind of failure doesn't happen to good ships.

So to recap, It must have had hot dice and/or the players in a 22 person tourney must have been bad. Or maybe you're wrong...

Like I said I got 3 or 4 wins at the Hoth tourney last year using Colzet. so naturally I must have had hot dice the whole tourney? You're very full of yourself.

I'm done arguing this, it's like beating a dead horse.

I'll take what you said on the inquisitor which is the kind of comment I was looking for.

Azeroth wrote:
So to recap, It must have had hot dice and/or the players in a 22 person tourney must have been bad. Or maybe you're wrong...

Ok, look at it this way. There are two reasons a list can succeed at a tournament:

1) The list is genuinely strong, wins consistently, and could duplicate those results at another tournament with a different player.

or

2) The player had dice luck, a skill advantage over weaker competition, etc. IOW, it was just their day to win, no matter what they brought, but the feat isn't something that will happen consistently.

If it's the first option then we should expect to see Colzet consistently succeeding in other tournaments. But we don't. No wins, no finishes in the top cut at major tournaments, no evidence at all that Colzet is competing successfully. So that leaves the second option as the only possibility.

Like I said I got 3 or 4 wins at the Hoth tourney last year using Colzet. so naturally I must have had hot dice the whole tourney?

3-4 wins is failure at a tournament like that, especially in a Swiss system that pairs you against other weak lists/players once you start losing. And those players all know they're not going to win, so they have less incentive to play as carefully. You didn't come anywhere near winning the tournament, or even making the final cut. So I don't see why you think this is something to brag about, or a sign that your list isn't terrible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 megatrons2nd wrote:
Dismissing something just because the internet says it's bad is silly.

Yes, but why do you think that's the only reason to dismiss something? I'm not dismissing Colzet because of some "Colzet sucks" meme, I'm dismissing Colzet after seeing him used and applying my knowledge of the game. He has low PS, nonexistent firepower, and a very situational ability that depends on getting the correct target locks (something that needs high PS to be consistent) and prevents you from (effectively) using the one upgrade that makes the TIE advanced even close to viable. That's way more of an argument than "LOL COLZET SUCKS LOL".

Sometimes a creative use of something is better than what is established.

And most of the time it isn't. You should be open to considering new ideas, but once a new idea is analyzed and turns out to be weak you need to be willing to admit that the idea failed and not stubbornly insist that it's secretly good.

I have come real close to beating pre-nerf Palpatine with her and the way I build and play her several times. Everyone says she is a bad ship, but I find her very useful.

Sorry, but this is a pretty good definition of "bad ship". You're boasting about almost beating Palpatine as your stunning success, while ships/list that are actually good will consistently beat Palp aces lists. If you can't get at least a 50/50 win rate against the popular meta lists then your ship/list isn't good.

 Peregrine wrote:

Sorry, but this is a pretty good definition of "bad ship". You're boasting about almost beating Palpatine as your stunning success, while ships/list that are actually good will consistently beat Palp aces lists. If you can't get at least a 50/50 win rate against the popular meta lists then your ship/list isn't good.

Sure, or maybe it's just because I'm playing against players who have been playing since the beginning, and go to several of the major tournaments and a tournament every weekend, and I've been playing for maybe a year, and have been to all of 2 tournaments, and maybe get to play one to two games a month. Being almost able to beat a player with multiple tournament wins, and the "best" list in the meta is a pretty good accomplishment. Not perfect, but it either means I'm better than those players, or the ship isn't as bad as some people claim.

Also that is why I am tweaking the list. Adjust a card or two or a ship and try again. Eventually I'll find a good team/upgrade combo. The attitude of "your wrong" isn't helpful, and is counterproductive to how I, and some others, learn.

Edit: I also believe that I mentioned previously that I have horrible luck with dice. So again, nearly beating a list is still a win, when 2 hits out of 5 dice are rolled on a relatively consistent basis.

 megatrons2nd wrote:
Sure, or maybe it's just because I'm playing against players who have been playing since the beginning, and go to several of the major tournaments and a tournament every weekend, and I've been playing for maybe a year, and have been to all of 2 tournaments, and maybe get to play one to two games a month. Being almost able to beat a player with multiple tournament wins, and the "best" list in the meta is a pretty good accomplishment. Not perfect, but it either means I'm better than those players, or the ship isn't as bad as some people claim.

Almost winning a game, even against good players, means nothing. X-Wing is a game where you're never going to get a 100% win rate. One badly-timed bit of dice luck, one bad call on a 50/50 maneuver choice, etc, can all swing a game in favor of a weaker list/player. I've had plenty of wins (actual wins, not just coming close) against major tournament players with lists that are not the popular meta stuff, but I'm not going to be foolish enough to think that those lists are genuinely good. Why? Because I can't consistently win. I can sneak a win here and there with a little luck or a clever move, but the overall win rate is going to be much less than 50/50.

The attitude of "your wrong" isn't helpful, and is counterproductive to how I, and some others, learn.

Your way of learning is fine, if you're willing to lose a ton of games with a bad list before finding out that there's nothing you can do to make it viable. But I don't see how that's very appealing when you only have 1-2 games a month. Wouldn't you rather dump the ideas that are never going to work and get straight to the answer? Stubbornly insisting on personally rediscovering all of the community's accumulated knowledge about the game is not going to make you a better player.

I also believe that I mentioned previously that I have horrible luck with dice.

No you don't. You have exactly the same dice luck as everyone else, you're just guilty of confirmation bias. The mistaken idea that some people have better or worse dice luck is what makes casinos a very profitable industry.

 Peregrine wrote:


No you don't. You have exactly the same dice luck as everyone else, you're just guilty of confirmation bias. The mistaken idea that some people have better or worse dice luck is what makes casinos a very profitable industry.

I wish that were the case. But in 23 years of playing Yahtzee, I finally actually got a Yahtzee. Well actually 3 of them, but that was weird.

The rate of Yahtzee is 3 games a week, more if family is over. 52 weeks times 23 years times 13 rolls times 3 games, approximately 46644 rolls. 3 Total Yahtzee's. The real world RNG hates me.

I just have bad luck in general. A trip to work hat is 2 miles away takes me a half an hour, but one of my employees can make it in 10 minutes, and he lives in the same apartment complex as me. I just manage to catch most, if not all, of the red lights between home and work, and he doesn't. I've made it through all 6 of them 4 times in the last 4 years, and gotten caught by all 6 of them at least a dozen times in the last 4 years. I typically get caught by 4 of them, most days. About once a month I make it through all but one, but that one is red more often than not as the cross street is the busier of the two, so I expect that one to be red. My families running joke I that I will catch every red light in a five mile radius.

I seldom get more than a 40% hit rate on my dice when playing 40K. You know roll a handful of like 40 dice need 4+ to hit, and a typical roll like is like 15 hits, twice I've gotten absolutely 0 hits, and have never gotten 40 hits in a single roll. That doesn't include the like 0-4 dice I get that end up on their corners. Stupid rounded edge dice. Though my record for corner dice is 9 in a single roll, fun times. The record occurred on a felt mat so it probably upped the odds of a die ending it's roll on the corner. Hell, I get excited when the roll is an average roll.

Twice in my life I've flipped a coin and had it end on it's edge on the floor. once was a carpet, and once on a real wood floor.

I'd use the lottery, but that is rare for anyone to win. But in the last 10 years at 2 tickets a week, I wave won a total of $4.

I'm aware that the odds say that things should go a certain way, but I track my rolls, and am well aware of what my average is as compared to what the odds say they should be. Maybe I need to play another 20 years to reach the average for what the odds say the average is?

I just have bad luck in general.

If your luck is that bad, you are probably better off switching to Diplomacy or chess or some other game that's all strategy.

I will just add that IIRC Paul Heaver, in his world's wins, was very good at sussing out the meta and designing lists to beat the most likely opposition.

His lists were good/strong and built with a purpose in mind. And he probably benefited from bringing lists that his opponents weren't familiar with/ practiced against (from my experience at tournaments, that's been a much bigger factor than I thought it would be- I did much worse against things I wasn't prepared for).

So yes, there's definitely a place for interesting/ surprising lists and combinations. But you're going to need to explain how you're going to win against the popular meta lists.

I'm certainly guilty at times of asking for advice here and then trying to stick to my guns/original idea in the face of what folks here say. And sometimes the advice comes across as harsh. But it's usually pretty well grounded. And I usually come to agree after some playtesting (usually with a humiliation in the course of on of those matches).

In re: Cozlet specifically, Wampa/ Cozlet/ Palpatine/ something else is definitely a fun list that can inspire some amusing terror in opponents. It isn't top tier either, but it has a clear synergy/ strategy.

Apostasus wrote:

I just have bad luck in general.

If your luck is that bad, you are probably better off switching to Diplomacy or chess or some other game that's all strategy.

After my games yesterday, that is about what I am doing. I am not going to do anymore tournaments, and will be spending more of my time on video games/MMO's. My opponents all called me "slippery bastard" because I was frequently not in their arcs, and was difficult to pin down. However when they did get a shot off, something of mine died. At one point I was attacked with 2 red dice, which got one hit and one crit. The attack was range 3 through an asteroid to a cloaked Tie Phantom, 6 dice, not one rolled an evade. I had lost a shield from a previous attack, the crit card was the direct hit. In all, throughout the tournament I rolled 1 set of 5 hits, first ever for me, and 3 sets of all blanks for attacks, and 6 rolls of all blanks for defense. Of the eight total critical hit cards dealt, 5 of them were the direct hit cards. Several of my opponents told me that I was having some really rotten luck and that the way my dice failed me was what caused me to lose.

 megatrons2nd wrote:
I just have bad luck in general.

No you don't. You have the same luck as everyone else, you just have the "I am unlucky" label for yourself and therefore confirmation bias in favor of remembering all the "unlucky" stuff while forgetting the rest. There is no such thing as people having better or worse luck, period. If there were then casinos wouldn't be an obscenely profitable business.