While I do think that the Falcon has made the meta less varied, that is not what I want to talk about today.

I have a dislike of the Falcon, Slave I, Lamda,Outrider, and Decimator. This is not because of their power level or effect on the meta. Instead, they do not seem to me to be dogfighting ships. It doesn't look right aesthetically and it doesn't seem right mechanically. The FACT that Falcons and Lamdasin particular show up in a large number of lists only makes it worse. I love games that are all small based ships. They seem to me to be dogfighting games.

Thoughts?

Well, that's really not true when you take into account the films. The Falcon and Slave I were both seen dogfighting, therefore they are dogfighters. The Outrider also participated in dogfights with TIE Fighters in SotE, and in the X-wing computer games the Lambda class was used to fight starfighters in dogfights. And of course, in Galaxies, you could use the Decimator to dogfight.

I don't think this is a dogfighting game, as much as it is a STAR WARS game.

I find your lack of imagination disturbing. Lol jk.

Is about context. I come up with head canon to explain the adventures that lead to the fight at hand. Rebels ambushes on Imperial dignitaries, Bounty hunters chasing freighters, etc.

The Firespray is designed to patrol and pursue craft. It is seen in exciting start fighter battles in Attack of the Clones and Clone Wars.

I am a fan of smaller ships as well.

The Large Ships just muck up the place and feel clunky (even the Falcon at times, in spite of its awesome dial) due to the standard 3x3 board size limitation.

While I do think that the Phantom has made the meta less varied, that is not what I want to talk about today.

I have a dislike of the Falcon, Slave I, Lamda,Outrider, and Decimator. This is not because of their power level or effect on the meta. Instead, they do not seem to me to be dogfighting ships. It doesn't look right aesthetically and it doesn't seem right mechanically. The FACT that Falcons and Lamdasin particular show up in a large number of lists only makes it worse. I love games that are all small based ships. They seem to me to be dogfighting games.

Thoughts?

I couldn't disagree more. This isn't a WWII biplane simulator, this is a Star Wars game. There's ships of all sizes in the Star Wars Universe, and the Falcon was involved in extended battles with Imperial fighters in all three films of the Original Trilogy.

Slave One had a pretty impressive dogfight in the prequel trilogy as well. In the middle of an asteroid field, no less.

I don't think this is a dogfighting game, as much as it is a STAR WARS game.

Wah-toooooooooooh!

Turrets definitly have their role and place within the game. If not, the game would be dominated by top arc dodgers, while more standard ships would be relegated to the shelves.

That being said, the fixation of FFG to kill generic pilots lists seems to had been counterproducent on wave 4's diversity where it is, for the big part, the top arc dodger (phantom) and the top turreteer (falcon).

The "I hate seeing Falcons in so many lists," sound like the common and most frequent post and the most usual comments I have seen recently on this forum.

I don't think this is a dogfighting game, as much as it is a STAR WARS game.

This is weird. OP said clearly this wasn't about Falcon hate it is about large ships and how they relate to dog fighting. I'd yout don't want more "whining" about Falcon fatness, why are you hijacking the thread towards that end?

I don't find large base ships to be any less "dogfighty".

I am a fan of smaller ships as well.

The Large Ships just muck up the place and feel clunky (even the Falcon at times, in spite of its awesome dial) due to the standard 3x3 board size limitation.

I thought the standard size was 3x3

This is weird. OP said clearly this wasn't about Falcon hate it is about large ships and how they relate to dog fighting. I'd yout don't want more "whining" about Falcon fatness, why are you hijacking the thread towards that end?

I see what you mean, and it's not nice to derail someone else's thread. But since the OP's position requires him to ignore basically every on-screen space battle in the OT and at least a substantial portion of battles in the EU, it's going to be a short conversation if it doesn't go in some other direction.

I don't find large base ships to be any less "dogfighty".

I do to a certain extent. The falcon/decimator/outrider doesn't need to maneuver too much, and the lambda simply can't. The firespray can a bit, but one on one it gets killed. In a 1 on 1 dog fight they are lackluster. The larger the list the more I like them.

On the other side of it, I DO love when I run only large ships vs only large ships. Makes me feel like I'm playing on a smaller scale map.

I don't particularly have an opinion of this, but the big ships DO add some depth to the game. Without them, we'd be jousting more often. Rear arcs, Turrets, and no-K Turning shuttles add some cool stuff that has helped us move away from the joust meta.

I am a fan of smaller ships as well.

The Large Ships just muck up the place and feel clunky (even the Falcon at times, in spite of its awesome dial) due to the standard 3x3 board size limitation.

I thought the standard size was 3x3

It is.

Outside of Shuttles (which I will run 3 sometimes) I almost never run big ships. I cut it too close to asteroids as it is .

In our group we see Falcons show up fairly regularly (I went up against an Outer Rim Smuggler last night) and there is one player that runs Firespray. We have one player who has run both the Decimator and YT-2400.

The usual suspects for us are:

B-wings with HLC/FCS

TIE Phantoms with Advanced Cloak

and recently HWKs (I hate these things)

I've run the 3 shuttles with Engine Upgrade/Advanced Sensor and done tons of damage dog fighting with them

I could understand these opinions if they were directed towards the huge ships, but the large ships fit the mold of the game just fine.

A naked large ship does feel clunky sometimes, but if it is equipped with an engine upgrade... now that's where artfully flying it can yeild pleasant results! My last game with Boba was a joy as he snuck around and behind an X-Wing, B-Wing and E-Wing without a single bump, using his pilot skill and engine upgrade to do it all.

A naked large ship does feel clunky sometimes, but if it is equipped with an engine upgrade... now that's where artfully flying it can yeild pleasant results! My last game with Boba was a joy as he snuck around and behind an X-Wing, B-Wing and E-Wing without a single bump, using his pilot skill and engine upgrade to do it all.

I can't bring myself to use an Engine Upgrade unless I have something in my back pocket for attack. Be it PtL to get a focus or some sort of action/token passing or a passive like Gunner/Luke(crew) or predator. An actionless attack is putting your faith 100% in the dice which is hard to recommend.

Non-game-mechanics-wise, large ships won't have the maneuver problems in space that they would in atmosphere/gravity, so they should be (in theory) on par with the smaller ships as far as maneuverability. The difference there comes down to design.

Or, if we want to go back to the WWII analogy, think of them like the A-26 Invader, a medium bomber that was used as a heavy dogfighter in a pinch.

I disagree about labeling shuttle as unmaneuverable. I think they are one of the most challenging ships in the game to fly and it comes down nearly 100% to maneuvers.

I agree about EU gimping offense. Very frustrating.

A naked large ship does feel clunky sometimes, but if it is equipped with an engine upgrade... now that's where artfully flying it can yeild pleasant results! My last game with Boba was a joy as he snuck around and behind an X-Wing, B-Wing and E-Wing without a single bump, using his pilot skill and engine upgrade to do it all.

I can't bring myself to use an Engine Upgrade unless I have something in my back pocket for attack. Be it PtL to get a focus or some sort of action/token passing or a passive like Gunner/Luke(crew) or predator. An actionless attack is putting your faith 100% in the dice which is hard to recommend.

I used outmaneuver. With a forward and back firing arc, I always ended up in range 1 of someone, so that was 4 dices vs 1 or 0 defense dices. Also when I got behind enemy lines, I was free to use my action to target lock my intended victim

Well, to the OP, I would say that there is nothing wrong with feeling that way, but the fact is, they are part of the game, at least in the tourney scene, and they are not going away. I'm an OT guy myself, but ships outside of the OT are here to stay, and I have to accept that and move on, cause they are not going away. I would suggest more casual play with some freinds who are willing to play small ships only with you. no reason you could not play a game with those restrictions, I'd play a match with you that way anytime you want. Another thing you could do in casual play is enlarge the play area, though this increase in open space may need to be accounted for with more asteroids.

I think i prefer small ships in games and i agree they fell *more* 'dogfighty' but occasional use of large ships does liven the game up a bit.

I can understand why you'd be annoyed if every game you played was against them.

Play with friends , say 'can we have a small ships only battle'., its the way forwards.

once I get vassal going and get decent with it, I'll play some small ship only games if you like.