If the fastest starfighter can't catch a freighter, what's the point in flying a starfighter?

And I quote, "She's the fastest ship in the fleet." And she is.

Well, I'm gonna stick my neck out and agree with the op. There is something wrong with the way large ships are atm. They're too fast, and too agile. It can be near impossible to get sights on dash with the amount of ground he can cover, and that is a distinct problem with the meta. I don't think get rid of ptl to boost + barrel roll, but I do think an adjustment to how large ships boost should happen. This isn't to say get rid of it, but a stress inducing boost for large ships would do wonders I believe for the overall game.

I think it's more likely that we'll see a pilot, EPT or Astromech droid that prevents usage of the Boost or Barrel Roll action within range 1.

This would be quite interesting. Would certainly make super manoeuvrability lists more exciting both to play and play against.

solution: play turrets

there, now you don't have to give a single thought to manuevers

solution 2: Requires actual tactics/thoughts. take advantage of moving first and block those assholes

Now if we're just talking the impact of boost/roll on large ships specifically, then I am happy to report that the fat base is not too difficult to keep in arc. The only problem is Dash (mr free reign of the table), but he is balanced out by a PS 7 and an inability to take guaranteed defenses/dice boosts (gunner is worthless with title, 2 agility means no guaranteed 3PO, only one crew slot makes it a valuable upgrade choice, no evade action). Kyle katarn super dash is a pain, but he's limited to very specific green maneuvers and still doesn't come out as durable as the fat ships.

Some general things I've found helpful when dealing with big base boosters

1.) Stay around range 3. Not only do you get more green dice while they roll a measly 1/2 (Dash gets 3, but he's not as tanky), but your firing arc is wider the further you are from the target. Wider arc + large base = easier to keep enemies in arc.

2.) Funnel turrets towards you. The biggest problem with turrets is that the enemy doesn't have to give a **** about facing and can maneuver where-ever they **** well please. Problem is non-Dash fatties get hosed by obstructions because they don't ignore and lose their action, which is a pretty huge deal.

I like to set up asteroids/debris to block off as much of one side of the table as possible, forcing them to come in at predictable angles.

Against Dash, corner everything

As for the viability of X-wing, try the two pilots that excel against single ships that take up a lot of points (namely Tarn + R7 to re-roll their one attack and Wes to slap off target locks/potentially stress super dash with R3-A2). Unfortunately, they're locked away in the transport. Still, in casual games anything goes as long as your opponent

Also, Biggs. He's a wild pain in the ass for turrets because they always have a shot at him.

Sure play turrets. That is indeed a counter. But again, the original issue was not that there are no counters. But that the counters are boring. I want to play a game where I am trying to out think my opponent,. The way things are going the game is putting less and less import on the planning aspect, and more on the list building and activation phase manoeuvring actions.

Bringing up Biggs is again a red herring, I'm still not complaining about turrets.

I think there's a problem with diversity in the metagame; I don't think Large ships are particularly at fault, and I'm fairly sure that maneuvering actions aren't at fault.

After all, when the OP talks about highly maneuverable ships, he really means PTL+EU Dash, high-PS Phantoms, and PTL Interceptors. (Interceptors don't really belong on that list at the moment, but they will in the post-Autothrusters world.) I doubt there are many people complaining about Imperial Fett + Predator + EU.

So, properly speaking, the problem isn't with maneuvering at all, but with Advanced Cloaking Device and Push the Limit.

Well, I'm gonna stick my neck out and agree with the op. There is something wrong with the way large ships are atm. They're too fast, and too agile. It can be near impossible to get sights on dash with the amount of ground he can cover, and that is a distinct problem with the meta. I don't think get rid of ptl to boost + barrel roll, but I do think an adjustment to how large ships boost should happen. This isn't to say get rid of it, but a stress inducing boost for large ships would do wonders I believe for the overall game.

The main reason I removed engine upgrade from the large ships was to prevent Oicunn + Dauntless + Daredevil (by meaning he has to roll for damage if he does it). I have no issue with them boosting really, though it should probably be slightly nerfed. I do quite like the idea of boosting for large ships having some downside. I don't think stress is the answer, we already have Leebo doing boost in exchange for an Ion, so I went with dropping a defence die. Fluff wise this is because the ship is less able to dodge....

I think there's a problem with diversity in the metagame; I don't think Large ships are particularly at fault, and I'm fairly sure that maneuvering actions aren't at fault.

After all, when the OP talks about highly maneuverable ships, he really means PTL+EU Dash, high-PS Phantoms, and PTL Interceptors. (Interceptors don't really belong on that list at the moment, but they will in the post-Autothrusters world.) I doubt there are many people complaining about Imperial Fett + Predator + EU.

So, properly speaking, the problem isn't with maneuvering at all, but with Advanced Cloaking Device and Push the Limit.

Indeed. Part of the issue is Phantoms with ACD and VI. But you are correct. The primary problem is the interactions that have appeared. VI and PtL are worth significantly more to an arc-dodger than to an X-wing or similar.

I don;t think there are that many people complaining about Fel at the moment, when autothrusters appear and you have 3 arc dodging high PS interceptors flying around, people might complain more.

I did just have one thought. I had said have a modification for interceptors that allowed multiple movement actions in my world. I would actually make it a title, and a title that says if you manoeuvre twice you cannot use autothrusters. So you can either arc-dodge with multiple movement actions or get autothrusters benefit, but not both!

Sure play turrets. That is indeed a counter. But again, the original issue was not that there are no counters. But that the counters are boring. I want to play a game where I am trying to out think my opponent,. The way things are going the game is putting less and less import on the planning aspect, and more on the list building and activation phase manoeuvring actions.

Bringing up Biggs is again a red herring, I'm still not complaining about turrets.

.

Actually, you are complaining about turrets

How?

Because those are the only large ships you see nowadays (EU falcon, EU deci, EU dash in the yt 2400), plus the turret advantage gives the unique advantage of letting these ships move wherever they want, exacerbating the distance they gain with the boost/roll action and making them even easier to arc dodge with. Imo, it's the ability to go wherever without caring about facing is the biggest issue, because otherwise they would be easier to predict (or would have to make the decision to sacrifice firepower for safety).

I suggested some strategies that I found useful when facing off specifically against the kinds of ship you have issues with, and the ones that aren't my snarky "just fly turrets" all deal with mitigating the excessive mobility on these large ships. You are free to use or ignore them as you wish, obviously, but they are 100% relevant.

As for the issue of speed, unfortunately there's no way mechanically to limit boosting (can't fit side template on the base nub) nor is there a lore reason to (big ship = bigger engines, and both YTs are famed for their maneuverability in the OT and shadows of the empire). I can tell you, however, that the highest tier of maneuverable small ships (soontir, jakes, echo, whisper) can easily keep pace with an even exceed the maneuverability of the fatties. Dash in particular loathes them because the HLC has the range 1 blindspot (at least until the mango comes out).

There's also the issue of mechanics. The 50 minimum cost for EU han and chiraneau spits out a single (albeit, very heavily modified) 3 dice, so it's pretty easy to see how entering into a slugging match with 2 blue B-wings would not go terribly well for them. In this case, EU becomes almost mandatory to ensure they get to do their thing. Terribly boring, I know, but that's their only real defense against swarms.

To counter that with X-wings and the other less maneuverable ships, you have my suggestions.

Just thinking out loud about slightly downgrading the desirability of arc-dodging

One small step could be to errata Engine Upgrade to the following:

Engine Upgrade

Action: perform a free boost action

This puts it out of immediate reach of PTL (though you can trigger off of it of course, you wouldn't be able to trigger a crewmember and then boost away). It also takes away risk free Daredevil or Lando's ability.

Same with the Falcon title actually, have it read Action: perform a free evade action to conform more to current templating.

Advanced Sensors could be errata'd to fall in line with Enhanced Sensors to make it mandatory to perform actions before moving.

Move decloak to the beginning of the activation phase. That immediately clears up any difficulties with Advanced Sensors. Add a forced decloak if ioned to compensate. It makes it harder to box the Phantom in, but at least you know a bit more where it might be headed, especially with an IA.

I think there's a problem with diversity in the metagame

I think you nailed it Vorpal. My issue isn't with Phantoms, or Super Dash or Fat Han... All those can be beat.

My issue was that at my last tournament, 4 out of the 5 people playing had either a YT or a Decimator. Now to be fair, I get it... they're the new toys and everyone wants a chance to play with them. Spend $30-40 on a ship and you'll want to use it naturally.

I was the only one without a large ship, I had Luke, Corran and Jake. But a lot of the design behind that list was how to deal with high PS hypermobile ships.

My worry is that FFG is going to keep pushing more and more upgrades out to fix things, which will push us further and further into the realm of the 2 high PS mobile-as-possible lists, because there just isn't room for 4 rebel ships, when you consider all the upgrades you really need to have.

Frankly the fact that any ship must have any upgrade to perform well, IMO says a lot about a fundamental problem with the game as a whole. It started with Interceptors and PtL and has gotten worse as time goes on.

Frankly the fact that any ship must have any upgrade to perform well, IMO says a lot about a fundamental problem with the game as a whole. It started with Interceptors and PtL and has gotten worse as time goes on.

Agreed, the Wave 5 meta is the most stagnant and uninspiring this game has ever been. Pre-Wave 4 was also not too amazing, though, because it was just swarm city. Even the fattie (only Han at the time) didn't see much play because efficient, un-upgraded rebel ships and ties would just plough through him (and still do)

Regardless, I don't think that stagnation will continue going to continue into Wave 6. Beyond just auto-thrusters, FFG is including quite a lot of new tech that'll combat the current meta (small turreted ships with devastating abilities ala kavil, pablo, and mux, plus some very cost effective fighters ala N'dru, the re-introducion of arced large ships in the aggressor and firespray, and some nifty illicit tech to spam on the humble Z-95 such as dead man's and feedback)

The necessity for upgrades might be concerning, but in the case of S&V I think the new cards will introduce a wider variety of viable lists

I can't believe 6+ months after the Fat Han has become a thing that people are still complaining about it. Yes, it is one of best SINGLE ship builds, but it's also 60+ points. Yes, he can go very fast and has a turret. But it's not like he's unpredictable. More often than not, he's going to fly circles around the perimeter of the asteroids. 3 and 4 straights, along with 3 banks are common place. And if he turns into the rock field, then you really know where he's going to go.

Even with EU on Han, it's not that hard to get him in arc. I suggest approaching him off set through the rocks. This way he can't turn into you and fly straight past you. In the mean time, you can bank to get shots, followed up with turns to maintain arc on him, and now you're in a trailing position for the rest of the game. And from there, it's really easy to stay there.

As for actually doing damage to the ship, it's not too difficult if you concentrate on it and play the game "safe" such that most of your ships have arc. If you have a two ship list, then I'm assuming you have another Fat build, and don't need to go through the math. But if you're at a 3 ship list, more than likely, one is a 4 attack ship, and the others are 3. I know, this is not always the case (I personally have been running an EAA 3 ship list), but it seems like a fair place to start. If he's boosting, that means that he doesn't have an evade token. So, you're left with 10 dice against his 2 (+C3PO evade). Assuming you have actions, that means that you'll roll 7.5 hits, and he'll evade a C3PO, and .75 of another, so you do 6 damage to the ship. Second round of shooting is probably the same thing, but you end up with a dead ship at the end of it. But now Han only has 1 hull left, and you have 2/3 of your squad. So it'll probably take both ships shooting at him to actually kill him on R3, while one of your ships is taken down to half health. Now you have 1.5 nice ships left against either 1 nice ship, or 3 crappy ships. You have the advantage either way.

The main problem comes in from the approach. If you do not approach him correctly, Han can outfly you, leaving you with only having 1 to 2 shots on him, which won't kill him, and you will lose. EU can be frustrating on him, but it's far from unexpected and difficult to predict. Oh, and if you're still struggling, I hear Corran eats them!

You are actually the first person in the thread to use the word "Han".

The necessity for upgrades might be concerning, but in the case of S&V I think the new cards will introduce a wider variety of viable lists

I hope so. I don't care for the idea that it sometimes feels like a YT or Decimator with 1 other ship my only option for doing well.

I don't mind upgrades, I think they can add something to the game. But I do think there's a problem when they're required.

At first it wasn't such a big deal, but honestly when everyone simply accepted you could not fly an Interceptor without PtL, that should've been a huge flashing neon sign that something was wrong.

Consider that 2 of the 4 pilots that came in Imp Aces are considered subpar and perhaps even unusable simply because they don't have a EPT for PtL. When's the last time you saw someone take Lt Lorriror Kir Kanos? When you have Saber Squad or RGI with EPT.

What's the fix for Interceptors? Autothrusters yet another upgrade pushing the point values of each ship even higher.

I just am worried that we're heading down a road where 4 rebel or 6+ imperial ship lists are becoming a thing of the past, because there's too many good or even required upgrades out there.

I can't believe 6+ months after the Fat Han has become a thing that people are still complaining about it.

You are actually the first person in the thread to use the word "Han".

Haha, Fat Han, Obese Chewy, Super Dash, Decimators... They're all Fat Han's to me as far as a "how to deal with them" point of view. The OP wants to nerf large ships boost, so everything I said is relevant.

But as far as the rest of the hyper mobile lists, no one is really actively complaining about Interceptors, but they (er, Fel) poses the same problem that phantoms do. If you don't take care of them at the beginning of the game when you have several arcs overlapping their potential places, it becomes quite a bit harder to deal with them in the end game.

Frankly the fact that any ship must have any upgrade to perform well, IMO says a lot about a fundamental problem with the game as a whole. It started with Interceptors and PtL and has gotten worse as time goes on.

Not to keep bringing it up, but my W4 list had 4 ships with a total of 4 upgrades, one of which was ICT on Roark... which can be debated as really qualifying as an upgrade. And I played the first flight to top 8. Though my current W5 list has 10 upgrades (assuming CR and APT count, otherwise 8) over 3 ships. Personally, I like the change in that upgraded ships are finally viable.

Now with that said, I am getting bored with playing the same lists with minor changes... one has Rebel Captive while the other has Mara Jade... big deal... One has Predator one has R2D2... Whoopity doo... I still have fun playing (otherwise I wouldn't be playing), but without going to the darkside and playing large turret ships myself, I feel like the game is getting a bit repetitive.

Agreed, the Wave 5 meta is the most stagnant and uninspiring this game has ever been. Pre-Wave 4 was also not too amazing, though, because it was just swarm city. Even the fattie (only Han at the time) didn't see much play because efficient, un-upgraded rebel ships and ties would just plough through him (and still do)

I think we hear this a lot, but I don't think it's really true. At least not in the same way.

Swarms certainly were the best choice at the highest levels... but flying them was HARD. Only a very few players could really use them to their fullest. The top tables would be dominated by swarms, but events as a whole still showed a great deal of diversity. I think this is something that our focus on top results (and I'm as guilty of that as anyone) tends to miss with swarms.

But that's not the case any more. Turreted ships are easy to fly (relatively speaking, let's not start another "Turrets need good play too!"), are very effective, and work well in the current tournament system due to time and scoring limitations. This has resulted in them showing up all the way up and down the lists in events.

IMHO I think this is why you're seeing a lot more concern over Fat Turrets/Phantoms than we ever did with swarms. Swarms may have made the meta stagnant for top players; turrets make it stagnant for everyone.

The necessity for upgrades might be concerning, but in the case of S&V I think the new cards will introduce a wider variety of viable lists

I hope so. I don't care for the idea that it sometimes feels like a YT or Decimator with 1 other ship my only option for doing well.

Trust me, man, I feel your pain. Every event thus far has had phantom + decimator in the finals, both because the guy winning is very good and because half of the group is also flying it.

I'm on the lookout for strict counters to abate this tide of sheer boring until Wave 6 comes out, but I'm afraid that (outside of flying at range and sectioning off half the board) it also comes down to upgrades (specifically, R7 for the rebels and Darth Vader for the imperials).

Not that I mind upgrading my guys, just don't enjoy putting the same crap on them (like your example of interceptor plus PTL, which is why I only own one ). Wave 6 should introduce more variety. Gutting/limiting upgrades (as per some of the suggestions here) would only lessen it by making certain ships less viable. (though I am in favor of removing 2 green dice from ADC phantoms...)

@Buhalin: I do agree with you and now regret my choice of "swarm city" as a bit of an exaggeration

As I said before, Wave 5 is the most dull this game has ever been for me and calling pre-Wave 4 "swarm city" doesn't accurately showcase how much more variety I saw locally then than now.

Personally, I like the change in that upgraded ships are finally viable.

I may of overstated my opinion... I like upgrades and I think they add something to the game. They let you take a ship that does one thing, and allow it to do something else, at a cost.

X-Wing with EU for example. It's a cool idea because now you have a X-Wing with increased mobility. But my issue is with upgrades that are mandatory.

I think the game would of been better of if Kir Kanos was every bit as effective as a RGI, but realistically he's not, because you can't put PtL on him.

Phantoms with ACD and VI... How often do you see a generic Phantom with Stygium in a list? I know it does happen, but maybe once for every 100 Whispers. For that matter how often do you see Echo, even though Echo has many more options for decloaking.

Turreted ships are easy to fly (relatively speaking, let's not start another "Turrets need good play too!")

If I may, I'd say that the YT's or VT's aren't doing well because they're easy to fly, so much as because they're so forgiving. You have a big old pile of HP's, 360 degree fire, and solid defenses in the form of crew upgrades. Plus it's just inherently easier to fly 1 or 2 ships then it is 7 or 8.

My issue isn't with Phantoms, or Super Dash or Fat Han... All those can be beat.

My issue was that at my last tournament, 4 out of the 5 people playing had either a YT or a Decimator.

Duraham posted the Top 16 lists from the Singapore store championship, and 12 of them were running Han, Dash, or Kenkirk. Of the remaining 4 lists, one had a Patrol Leader, one was Echo/Whisper, and one was Whisper/Fel/Omicron.

I still maintain that a huge part of the problem is a combination of netdecking and group-think. Knowing from the post-game perspective what the lists would look like, I think a list with a couple of Ion Cannon Turrets and maybe some stress thrown in (Nera + Flechette Torpedoes? Hobbie + R3-A2?) could have taken the house down.

But it's also increasingly clear to me that regardless of the degree to which they're right--that is, setting aside the ontological question of whether players are acting in response to an objective condition or whether the condition exists in response to their actions--players are convinced that if you want to be competitive, you fly a Falcon, Outrider, Decimator, or Phantom.

My worry is that FFG is going to keep pushing more and more upgrades out to fix things, which will push us further and further into the realm of the 2 high PS mobile-as-possible lists, because there just isn't room for 4 rebel ships, when you consider all the upgrades you really need to have.

If that's the only problem, then the solution is easy: make the upgrade free.

Frankly the fact that any ship must have any upgrade to perform well, IMO says a lot about a fundamental problem with the game as a whole. It started with Interceptors and PtL and has gotten worse as time goes on.

I don't think this is true either. I know it's heresy to say so, but Interceptors don't actually need PTL to function. They're very effective at using PTL, because they have a lot of available choices with their actions and they don't particularly mind stress, and it substantially reduces the variance in their overall durability--but they don't need it. The real problem is that people's expectations of Interceptors are distorted by the kind of things the ship can do when it doesn't have to obey the usual rules of the action economy.

And that distortion is everywhere, in fact. The action economy in the Wave 5 metagame is routinely ignored in ways that weren't really possible in Wave 1--which isn't something I'm judging, since the interaction between ships and the action economy is a legitimate part of the design space, but I think it's important to consider that ACD, PTL, Threepio, Vader (pilot), Recon Specialist, Soontir Fel,and Fire Control System are all examples of game elements that are powerful because they provide exceptions to the action economy for little or no cost.

Anyway, this is straying pretty far from the topic. "Solving" PTL would effectively replace/solve Bilisknir's #1, especially in combination with any of the more subtle fixes people have suggested for decloaking; #2 seems reasonably appropriate, even if just by comparison to the (positively received) change to barrel roll for Large ships; #3 is really the only thing I'd argue with.

Errata plus a new card is a long way to go for a relatively subtle change that doesn't hurt arc-dodgers like PTL+EU Dash (who aren't likely to be attacked anyway) nearly as badly as it hurts combinations like Firespray + EU or Lambda + EU. If it won't really affect the ships that need to be rebalanced, but it hurts ships that don't need to be rebalanced, and it takes a lot of effort and a relatively unprecedented step for FFG... I just can't see it.

Turreted ships are easy to fly (relatively speaking, let's not start another "Turrets need good play too!")

If I may, I'd say that the YT's or VT's aren't doing well because they're easy to fly, so much as because they're so forgiving. You have a big old pile of HP's, 360 degree fire, and solid defenses in the form of crew upgrades. Plus it's just inherently easier to fly 1 or 2 ships then it is 7 or 8.

It may be semantics, but "forgiving" basically equates to "easy to fly", or at the very least is a major component of it. You don't have to worry as much about mistakes, and it doesn't cost you as much when you do make mistakes. An old-school platformer with three lives and no continue is considerably harder than a modern shooter where hiding behind cover for a few seconds restores everything.

It may be semantics, but "forgiving" basically equates to "easy to fly", or at the very least is a major component of it. You don't have to worry as much about mistakes, and it doesn't cost you as much when you do make mistakes. An old-school platformer with three lives and no continue is considerably harder than a modern shooter where hiding behind cover for a few seconds restores everything.

Have to agree with this, and also the claim that turrets are the most forgiving ships in the game

I really don't think it's about the post-maneuver displacement, though. While the raw profile and guaranteed defenses make the YTs and Deci far easier to keep alive than an Interceptor, the larger base opens up a few unique weaknesses (easier to land on obstructions/ships and block yourself from boosts, easier to draw arcs to the larger base etc.) not to mention the incredible cost. Dash handily ignores the obstructions, but his HLC variant pays with a Range 1 doughnut hole and in general he pays by simply having weaker defenses (still a lot more forgiving than an interceptor, but also more than double the cost)

I'll maintain that the ratio of "forgiving" to cost doesn't make these ships excessively forgiving and does in fact stress mobility to keep them in the fight.

What makes them too forgiving is the 360 "firing arc" (only way you can "dodge" it while being able to shoot at it with the same ship is if it lands on a space peanut, or gets blinded pilot, or arvel)

are all examples of game elements that are powerful because they provide exceptions to the action economy for little or no cost.

Perhaps that's the real issue. The ships that have the best action economy are becoming the only ships that are seeing much play at the higher levels of competition. It's fairly easy to understand why that's true, a ship that can effectively manage 2-4 actions a turn at the cost of 1 stress is naturally quite a bit more effective and efficient than a ship that can't.

It fits into the issue from the OP quite nicely as well.

But perhaps the only way to achieve balance is the Syndrome method - When everyone is super, then no one is.

you can be competitive without the big guys. the first atlanta store championship (attended by 36 players) was won by keyan and a handful of rebel generics. he smoked dash and corran, without much difficulty.

Add a rule for big ships:

After boosting you'll get a stress token.

he smoked dash and corran, without much difficulty.

A single case does not a pattern make. Sure there's cases where someone can and does do that, but it doesn't actually prove that there's no issue.

It just proves that on any given sunday any team can win.

are all examples of game elements that are powerful because they provide exceptions to the action economy for little or no cost.

Perhaps that's the real issue. The ships that have the best action economy are becoming the only ships that are seeing much play at the higher levels of competition. It's fairly easy to understand why that's true, a ship that can effectively manage 2-4 actions a turn at the cost of 1 stress is naturally quite a bit more effective and efficient than a ship that can't.

It fits into the issue from the OP quite nicely as well.

But perhaps the only way to achieve balance is the Syndrome method - When everyone is super, then no one is.

Then why don't we see more Tycho's? You can reliably get 3 actions out of him and the full dial. Given the third action has to be Marks, Expose, DD, BR, or SL, but still... The easy answer is that he has 2 attack dice. But I think there's more to it than that.

are all examples of game elements that are powerful because they provide exceptions to the action economy for little or no cost.

Perhaps that's the real issue. The ships that have the best action economy are becoming the only ships that are seeing much play at the higher levels of competition. It's fairly easy to understand why that's true, a ship that can effectively manage 2-4 actions a turn at the cost of 1 stress is naturally quite a bit more effective and efficient than a ship that can't.

It fits into the issue from the OP quite nicely as well.

But perhaps the only way to achieve balance is the Syndrome method - When everyone is super, then no one is.

Then why don't we see more Tycho's? You can reliably get 3 actions out of him and the full dial. Given the third action has to be Marks, Expose, DD, BR, or SL, but still... The easy answer is that he has 2 attack dice. But I think there's more to it than that.

He has an arc

(also really expensive for the amount of damage he does)

You do, however, see a lot of Whispers. De-cloak isn't technically an action but it's there, and then you follow it up with a post-maneuver action, a free target lock (FCS not technically an action), a free cloak action, and a free assigned focus (again not technically an action). You can block one of those