The #2 ranked player in the world right now has been using OSS exclusively since they were released. He went 4 and 1 at CanCon and finished 6th.
Sorry for being off-off-topic: Since I read your initial thoughts about how to set up for a tournament, I tried to figure out, why I was impressed and worried on the same time. Now with some time for thinking, I maybe got it: You have a great plan and are quite resilient in the actual meta with very good thoughts on how to deal with the mayor threads. That is far too much for less prepared opponents. And, of course, you are playing your game with your skills, less affected by the opponent or by the table. But what made me feeling uncomfortable with your strategy: How sustainable can it be used and is it usefull for other players? For me it sounds a little bit like a one-trick-pony. Of course, it is a strong strategy and you really have to think into what you are doing as an opponent. But when your strategy is clear, I would try a complete denial of objectives (how hard this ever would be). In that case, I am wondering, what you would do to get along this, because you would be forced in other decisions than planned. The other point is the difficulty of your strategy: Whenever I am not experienced enough in one situation, I probably will fail and pay a higher price for this than in a "normal" game plan. And the experience I will need is not that easy to collect, so I will have to look for other strategies in most cases, just to get this experience. So, can you imagine if there is maybe a concept behind your current one? A more general one? Not directly easier, but more flexible and easy to learn, but hard to master?
Im sorry, What strategy are we talking about? there are a few I employ and in my report I more discuss concepts about how to go about minimizing the impact of specific and important rolls than an actual strategy. Are you talking about my expectation to lose the Lt roll? I mean, I guess people could start giving me the mission advantage, but that doesnt bother me because you are then changing what your strength is and playing into the mission advantage. One example of this is my Decap list, it has that ready option to go for the Designated Target if it goes first, an advantage that list would happily have. But on a side note, none of this changes the gameplay, nor does it change the fact that you still need to play the game, its more about making sure you have the tools you need to do the mission and are mentally prepared to do it from what is often seen as the back foot (losing the Lt roll)
Great post @Tom McTrouble . That's fascinating. We know how niche AP really is, but it's nice to see it laid out. It makes me wonder if this statistical skew is working as intended here. It also makes me doubly glad for Stun, so that "MULTI" remains an accurate name, rather than simply calling them "DA Sniper Rifles"...
Sorry for being unclear about this, maybe I got you wrong. As I understood your general thoughts, you implement a strict game plan on 'play the mission', what leads in my eyes to the problems I mentioned above. But when it doens't reach that far, it is a good but hard to learn addition to the gameplay and listbuilding.
@daboarder Johnny come late with this question, but what made you choose the Cutter over the Squalo LGL for your TAG list?
the primary goal of the TAG was securing Zones, and in Frontline I had planned to push with it if required. additionally I expected the Meta to be farily heavy on other TAGs and so I wanted the marker state for survival and the combat edge provided by the -6 to hit when attacking other TAGs
