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.

So, let me get this right. if at any point any team can win... Isn't the game balanced?

Then why don't we see more Tycho's?

Good point

I think 2 attack is part of it, it's fairly well accepted and with some justification that 2 attack isn't that good. But I also think groupthink is part of it too.

Everyone knows that A-Wings lack offense so no one uses them, and because no one uses them everyone knows they're underpowered. It's a bit of circle logic, but again isn't completely unjustified because I think A-Wings are in fact a little underpowered especially in this meta. ]

Saturday I ended up in a game where it was Jake vs a healthy VT-49. I ended up there due to some blunders on my part... But even if the VT-49 didn't have a turret, how long is going to take for Jake to kill it? Especially with Yasnne giving it 1 free evade per turn.

So, let me get this right. if at any point any team can win... Isn't the game balanced?

No... A list winning one tournament with who knows what other effects involved does not by any means prove balance. Just like in Football, just because a team wins one game, doesn't mean it's the better team over all.

"It's stylistically designed to be that way and you can't undo that. But we can diminish the effects of it." -- G. Lucas

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.

So, let me get this right. if at any point any team can win... Isn't the game balanced?

No. Any football team has a chance to win any time they show up, but that doesn't mean the Buccaneers have the same chance to win as, say, the Patriots.

So, let me get this right. if at any point any team can win... Isn't the game balanced?

No... A list winning one tournament with who knows what other effects involved does not by any means prove balance. Just like in Football, just because a team wins one game, doesn't mean it's the better team over all.

Football was an awful metaphor. when they lose to teams they should have beaten, public opinion about that team wanes on a week by week basis. How is that different than discussing lists on a game by game basis?

"It's stylistically designed to be that way and you can't undo that. But we can diminish the effects of it." -- G. Lucas

tragic amen

one day we'll get a re-prequel. By then, we might be close to the release of wave 6

We've been over this

The problem with the "too good" ships is not just action economy. It's not just survivability. It's not just flexibility. It's not just hypermaneuverability. It's not just unlimited firing arcs. It's all of these things at once.

We don't see Tycho because while he's great at action economy, he's not so good at most of the others. His key weakness is the 2 attack, but it's more than that - 2 attack against so many other strongly survivable ships is a serious weakness, especially when he's going to be pushing 40 points by the time you put all the toys on him.

The ships that do well are stacking many of these advantages into a single package. The upgrade system - which created remarkably forward-looking limits in Wave 1 - has gotten so out of control that even small-bar ships can manage 4-5 upgrades, and if anything goes bigger than the Decimator we'll need a two-card format to hold all the icons. This is creating a huge amount of flexibility that makes those ships good at everything, or at least close enough to everything. Hence, they dominate.

Football was an awful metaphor. when they lose to teams they should have beaten, public opinion about that team wanes on a week by week basis. How is that different than discussing lists on a game by game basis?

Because nobody takes one win by the Raiders or one loss by the Seahawks and calls them even teams.

Lists do wax and wane based on overall trends, which is exactly where we are, and exactly what you're trying to deny by holding up that one Raiders win and calling them a Super Bowl contender.

we know which team the raiders are, its the guy bring out his list full of naked rebel operatives.

i'm just saying, i can give you a hundred examples of sub-optimal builds beating the big three. i wrecked a super dash yesterday with dutch, biggs, and 2 z's, and they were all loaded with ordinance! biggs got off his proton torpedoes and dutch ioned the supposedly untouchable dash rendar.

this game is not hard when you learn to use all the tools available to you. the only thing thats gonna swing your day is the dice.

We've been over this

The problem with the "too good" ships is not just action economy. It's not just survivability. It's not just flexibility. It's not just hypermaneuverability. It's not just unlimited firing arcs. It's all of these things at once...

The ships that do well are stacking many of these advantages into a single package. The upgrade system - which created remarkably forward-looking limits in Wave 1 - has gotten so out of control that even small-bar ships can manage 4-5 upgrades, and if anything goes bigger than the Decimator we'll need a two-card format to hold all the icons. This is creating a huge amount of flexibility that makes those ships good at everything, or at least close enough to everything. Hence, they dominate.

I largely agree, but I think you're overstating your case. The problem isn't flexibility, it's flexibility plus interactions between game elements, both in a single list and in conversation across the metagame.

Fat Han is perceived as a problem because he can combine highly accurate attacks (if not many of them) with remarkable durability, largely by stacking exceptions to the action economy via the interaction between Gunner and Han's ability and the interaction between C-3PO and the Millennium Falcon title.

And that might not even be a problem in itself, except that it's interacting with the existence of Phantom + Advanced Cloaking Device, which make the already-attractive Fat Han and his variants, like Fat Dash and various Decimator builds, even more attractive.

Another way to talk about those interactions is synergy, though. And I think a well-designed game ought to offer an advantage to players who can figure out unintended or even intended-but-powerful synergies between game elements. I do think things have tilted a little too far toward Large ships and Phantoms, and I'd be happy to see a change.

I don't know if Bilisknir's fixes would be too much, enough, or just right--but I'd be willing to adopt at least one and half of them to see how they change things.

Well, I'm just throwing this out there, but the aggressor is the first naturally boosting large ship, so there could be a change to how its done ala yt-2400. It would probably be the only time honestly to go back and change it without being too arbitrary.

Well, I'm just throwing this out there, but the aggressor is the first naturally boosting large ship, so there could be a change to how its done ala yt-2400. It would probably be the only time honestly to go back and change it without being too arbitrary.

I highly doubt it

There's no easy "fix" to boost like there was with turning the 1 straight on its side

The aggressor has an arc and a lower pilot skill and needs boosts far more than even the fatties (to orientate its firing arc, especially) so there's also a mechanical reason not to nerf it with its release.

Well, I'm just throwing this out there, but the aggressor is the first naturally boosting large ship, so there could be a change to how its done ala yt-2400. It would probably be the only time honestly to go back and change it without being too arbitrary.

I highly doubt it

There's no easy "fix" to boost like there was with turning the 1 straight on its side

The aggressor has an arc and a lower pilot skill and needs boosts far more than even the fatties (to orientate its firing arc, especially) so there's also a mechanical reason not to nerf it with its release.

I wouldn't dismiss it right away though, ffgs proven to be pretty solid on unique and solid fixes. And it could be something as simple as restricting it to a 1 forward. I doubt it will happen too, but if it did wave 6 will be when.

If the OP hates the moves going on now just wait until Wave 6 is released. Autothrusters will bring back some of the most maneuverable ships in the game > Buckle up, it's going to be a bumpy ride.

I don't think it is maneuverable ships but the fact that with actions like boost, barrel roll and stay on target it is almost like setting the dials don't matter. Sure most of the game is based on the maneuver dials but that is not the entire game.

Actions are powerful, they can turn misses into hits (focus or target lock) save a ship from doom (focus or evade) and of course correct positions from a dial with barrel roll and boost. So yes now it is a mistake to only consider the oponenants dial when moving your ship. But then again it has been that way since the phantom with the decloaking mechanic. You cant just think of what your opponent is likely going to select with the dial but where can your opponent go and how they will get there.

So you don't like all the rampant maneuvering caused by actions how to control it. Well good news. You got Ion cannons. Knocking them down to a 1 straight white removes a lot of maneuvering even with boost or barrel roll. Also with actions unless they have ways to chain actions they will have to give up dice modification actions for maneuverability actions.

So you want to stop actions? Stress is your answer. Your opponent will have to either take a green maneuver or keep the stress. IF you can combo it say double stress or with Ion then you really got something going for them because the action is guaranteed to be removed.

Of course the best control is blocking. If you take a look at all the top meta tier builds they all have one thing in common.Low Pilot Skill generics who have one job, get in the opponent's face and stop them for moving or doing actions. You have to find the balance between the high pilot skill course correcting shooting first hard hitters and the cheap easily expendable move first and get in the way padding ships.

i hate the turrets in this game i mean some range restricted turrets like auto blaster are ok and like em but having turret primary is just awfully unfair in my opinion.

i can fight turreted big ships pretty well. if u believe it or not iam flying a 4 interceptors list till they came out and iam going to fully kit em out with the autothrusters so i can kinda force the meta to a more dogfighting game where positioning is key.

the turret primary ships like the yt`s and the decimator are just a no-no. best solution for them would have been the auxcillary arc from the slave-1. why ? well it gives them a blind spot to shoot at and wouldnt make em to OP and would provide the player to position his YT so that he can shoot with rear or front arc. i mean really have u guys ever seen the falcon that used the missile upgrade slot ? ive seen it on firesprays. but not falcon the decimator has a bomb slot that came in use many times here in our meta like the proton bomb that screw up 2 of my ships catching me off-guard.

all in all the turret- primary ships need a nerf, FAQ or new rules what brings us back to nerfing em. and with nerfing i dont mean counter upgrade cards that help excplicit against turret ships no. really nerf em like having -1 attack die outside of firing arc something like that

I largely agree, but I think you're overstating your case. The problem isn't flexibility, it's flexibility plus interactions between game elements, both in a single list and in conversation across the metagame.

Fat Han is perceived as a problem because he can combine highly accurate attacks (if not many of them) with remarkable durability, largely by stacking exceptions to the action economy via the interaction between Gunner and Han's ability and the interaction between C-3PO and the Millennium Falcon title.

This is precisely what I mean by flexibility, though. The ship makes a good attacker, and a good arc dodger, and can survive hits. It does so many things well, it works well in pretty much any situation.

And this is a big part of why it's popular at the moment - it's largely meta-immune. Contrary to a lot of the "Just take a..." responses, it doesn't have any truly "You lose" matchups. Swarms certainly do better against it, but there's nothing like "Oh, I brought 3 X-wings and you've got a pair of Phantoms. Hm. Well, good game, see you next week!"

Fat Han is perceived as a problem because he can combine highly accurate attacks (if not many of them) with remarkable durability, largely by stacking exceptions to the action economy via the interaction between Gunner and Han's ability and the interaction between C-3PO and the Millennium Falcon title.

Fat Han's success is more because of the tournment system rather than the actual game. Thanks to MoV if he survives on one hull the opponent doesn't get a single point whereas killing an equivalent cost of smaller ships would yield several and because of this he can just turtle down and run away.

I love this thread!

You know why? Because it unites every single complaint thread and cliché of the past few weeks!

I am not saying that i don't agree to some of the complaints actually, but to see them all reunited in one big melee thread is a dream come true! In order of appearance (approximatively):

1) X-Wings are bad.

2) Turrets are OP and need no skill

3) Phantoms and other hypermobility ships are OP

4) Large ships are too mobile and their boost goes too far

5) Autothrusters = OP

6) Reserved for the one i missed!

FIGHT!

To the OP:

So your solution to making arc dodging harder is just limit ships maneuverability rather than make use of your own ships movement options?

You could also upgrade your own maneuverability if your local meta is full of these builds. If you do that and are still getting outflown you're flat out getting outflown and changing the rules isn't the solution. Fly more. Fly better. Fly more better.

For the love of Vader, just don't give up and take a turret. We don't need any more of those (and that still won't improve your flying).

I know that it is spending more points but Echo and Whisper are probably at 35-37 pts so, you still have 6-8 points left for upgrade.

If the X-Wing is overcosted as many think it is. Then more upgrades can not be the answer.

And that's assuming that there is a problem in the first place.

I agree, and I don't know that there is a problem, but given the direction of the game, it seems like we're headed that way. More and more upgrades are coming out that seem to make the high PS Hypermobile ships better.

If I were to listen to this forum, every **** ship in this game is overcost except for the flavor of the month.

And upgrades can be the solution. This is what allows you to adapt to a situation/threat. Every ship has strenghts and weaknesses. Upgrades are there to compensate for them.

The X-Wing is a reliable ship with a good offense and some versatility thanks to the astromech, but his weakness is that his dial is medium (no real disadvantage but no real strength either) and it has no way to maneuver after moving. It is possible to play it this way and can serve you right, remember that the 2013 world championship had 2 X-Wing in his build, one of them was a Rookie Pilot (I still consider it a solid build when flown right). But if you are to face a lot of build that can outmaneuver you because they take upgrades to do so, you need to adapt. The Phantom while uncloak is not that threatening, so they pay with ACD and VI to counter that weakness. Why shouldn't other ships pay to counter their weaknesses? To be harder to hit, the Falcon takes Engine Upgrade to dodge arc, why would it be bad for the X-Wing to also take Engine Upgrade if the player feel he needs to reposition after moving? They are paying for this, why shouldn't you?

The game has evolve. It is not as user friendly as it used to be if you want to be competitive. You need to put some thought when building a team, trying to keep up with all the possible threats. And when playing, you need to overplay your opponent, where will he decloak with his Phantom, where is he planning to go with his Outrider so I can block him so he can't boost or barrel roll out of sight. You just don't take as many ship as you can and fly in a straight way and shoot. Go back one or two year ago and say a 2 ship build is viable and everybody would just laugh at you.

PS is now a really important factor in this game, as it should be. Again, 1-2 years ago, the rule of team building was simple, fit as more ship and attack dice as you can, don't worry about PS since it is unimportant, take a name pilot only if you really want his ability. Generic pilots were the norm, except mainly for Biggs and Howl. People complained about it: ''Named pilots are useless, you're better to take one or two more ship than going elite.'' Now, with all the outmaneuvring possibility (boost, barrel roll, decloak) and abilities that trigger when you act (free action, ACD), moving last and shooting first is finally a really important factor in the game. You are not just paying for a pilot ability, you are paying for the privilege of knowing what's going on and shooting first.

Before wave 4, the YT-1300 we saw the most was Chewie: he was much harder to kill because he was unaffected by crits and Flacons were easy to destroy since the norm was field as many ship as you can, and he cost less. Enter 3PO to help the Falcon survive a beating and PS starting to be a factor. Now we see much more Han than Chewie. Not because of his ability, I still consider Chewie ability stronger, but because he move last and shoot first. Being a better pilot is now relevant and isn't it how it should be? Isn't it why Han is the Pilot and Chewie the copilot? Isn't it why Wedge is the best pilot of the rebellion?

You want to reduce the impact of activation phase maneuvring? Move last. PtL Dash move at PS7, Han move at 11 but can only boost, Soontir with PtL at 9 and IG-88 will top at 8. If you move after them, they still don't know where you go and it makes the planning phase MORE important, what the OP intention seems to be. If you only take generic pilots, you're asking for it, better pilots will outmaneuver you, as they should.

It all boils down to the differences between tournament meta & groupthink and fly casual.

I'm still rocking TIE Bombers with Flèchettes and Proximity mines. Are they competitive? No, but are they fun to fly? Most certainly.

I'm not a tournament player, so that Fattie and Phantom tournament meta has less of an impact on my games between friends and family. The nature of this thread is that everyone is focused on winning their next tournament and less on having fun.

Perhaps the answer to this is to play more casual games and dust off your X wings, A wings and TIE fighters and remember what got you playing in the first place.

(CONTROVERSIAL REMARK SPOILER) after all, it's only a (remarkably well made, awesome, incredible) game.

OP is right. The amount of arc dodging in the game right now is ridiculous.

It used to be a skill to plan ahead and try to guess/outwit your opponent. Now just take a phantom, use a 2 bank 90% of the time and call it a day.

Wave 4+ is far less tactical and way more about list buidling because of it.

(My opinion of course)

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.

Sure - changing the boost for large ships does nerf Firespray and Lambda boosting. Which would be a pain. The major issue I have with large ship boosting which makes it more of an issue than small ship boosting is the distance that a boost moves you. It can move you 2 range increments quite easily. (i.e. from range 3 to 1 or vica-versa).

As to the card changes - as I said before the only real reason for that was to block Oicunn and Daredevil builds. Something which I think are quite broken, but aren't that much of an issue in my local meta at the moment.

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.

Who said I was losing to these builds? I'm not. I can and do regularly beat mobile lists with turrets. So it's not a case of sour grapes from losing a lot. It is boredom at having to play turret lists. It is boredom at out-thinking my opponent and playing a manoeuvre he didn't expect and he can still double manoeuvre action and get safe.

I will also say - I have a rather fun and enjoyable dual Firespray list with no manoeuvre actions that still plays quite well and wins frequently.

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.

Indeed - the action economy has become the place to hit the sweet spot for list building. Kyle Crew on a PtL Super Dash. Focus and 2 movement actions every turn. Why would you ever take anything but a green manoeuvre when you can relocate so easily?

I largely agree, but I think you're overstating your case. The problem isn't flexibility, it's flexibility plus interactions between game elements, both in a single list and in conversation across the metagame.

Fat Han is perceived as a problem because he can combine highly accurate attacks (if not many of them) with remarkable durability, largely by stacking exceptions to the action economy via the interaction between Gunner and Han's ability and the interaction between C-3PO and the Millennium Falcon title.

And that might not even be a problem in itself, except that it's interacting with the existence of Phantom + Advanced Cloaking Device, which make the already-attractive Fat Han and his variants, like Fat Dash and various Decimator builds, even more attractive.

Another way to talk about those interactions is synergy, though. And I think a well-designed game ought to offer an advantage to players who can figure out unintended or even intended-but-powerful synergies between game elements. I do think things have tilted a little too far toward Large ships and Phantoms, and I'd be happy to see a change.

I don't know if Bilisknir's fixes would be too much, enough, or just right--but I'd be willing to adopt at least one and half of them to see how they change things.

I'm not sure how my fixes would play out to be fair. Which was one of the reasons I posted them. I think most of us agree that the early game meta which was primarily low PS squads with fewer upgrades and more ships has been overtaken more recently by high PS builds with lots of manoeuvrability and excellent action economy. I feel this has gone too far. So want to bring it back a bit so simpler squads are more competitive.

I should note that I have noticed in my local area that new players are being put off by some of the squads they face. If you start with a core + 1 or 2 expansions and come across a Fat Han with all the trimmings you are at a major disadvantage. Now this is clearly true of any collectible game, but I don;t see why we can;t have a situation where a new player has a better chance without having to spend so much to get a competitive squadron. I mean remember that Fat Han will cost you around £100 (Tantive + YT-1300 + A-wing)!

I don't think it is maneuverable ships but the fact that with actions like boost, barrel roll and stay on target it is almost like setting the dials don't matter. Sure most of the game is based on the maneuver dials but that is not the entire game.

Actions are powerful, they can turn misses into hits (focus or target lock) save a ship from doom (focus or evade) and of course correct positions from a dial with barrel roll and boost. So yes now it is a mistake to only consider the oponenants dial when moving your ship. But then again it has been that way since the phantom with the decloaking mechanic. You cant just think of what your opponent is likely going to select with the dial but where can your opponent go and how they will get there.

So you don't like all the rampant maneuvering caused by actions how to control it. Well good news. You got Ion cannons. Knocking them down to a 1 straight white removes a lot of maneuvering even with boost or barrel roll. Also with actions unless they have ways to chain actions they will have to give up dice modification actions for maneuverability actions.

So you want to stop actions? Stress is your answer. Your opponent will have to either take a green maneuver or keep the stress. IF you can combo it say double stress or with Ion then you really got something going for them because the action is guaranteed to be removed.

Of course the best control is blocking. If you take a look at all the top meta tier builds they all have one thing in common.Low Pilot Skill generics who have one job, get in the opponent's face and stop them for moving or doing actions. You have to find the balance between the high pilot skill course correcting shooting first hard hitters and the cheap easily expendable move first and get in the way padding ships.

This is a lovely non solution and indeed smells distinctly of herring, specifically red herring. Yes, handing out stress or ions does reduce manoeuvrability. But you still have to get a shot on them to hand it out. For giving stress you have Flechettes (need to be in arc with lock - and they don't work on the large base ships), Tactician (need to be range 2 and in arc), R3-A2 (need to have a shot), Rebel Captive is their choice, and Kath Scarlet (who needs a crit to be cancelled). For Ion, you have Ion Cannon (need a shot), Ion Cannon Turret (range 2 required), Ion Torpedoes (in arc with a lock not range 1), Ion Pulse Missiles (in arc with lock not range 1).

To the OP:

So your solution to making arc dodging harder is just limit ships maneuverability rather than make use of your own ships movement options?

You could also upgrade your own maneuverability if your local meta is full of these builds. If you do that and are still getting outflown you're flat out getting outflown and changing the rules isn't the solution. Fly more. Fly better. Fly more better.

For the love of Vader, just don't give up and take a turret. We don't need any more of those (and that still won't improve your flying).

See my first response. My issue isn't I can't win. But doing so is becoming boring.

It all boils down to the differences between tournament meta & groupthink and fly casual.

I'm still rocking TIE Bombers with Flèchettes and Proximity mines. Are they competitive? No, but are they fun to fly? Most certainly.

I'm not a tournament player, so that Fattie and Phantom tournament meta has less of an impact on my games between friends and family. The nature of this thread is that everyone is focused on winning their next tournament and less on having fun.

Perhaps the answer to this is to play more casual games and dust off your X wings, A wings and TIE fighters and remember what got you playing in the first place.

(CONTROVERSIAL REMARK SPOILER) after all, it's only a (remarkably well made, awesome, incredible) game.

Of course this is true. Casual play is totally different from competitive play. The thing is, even in casual play, I don't like losing. It happens that the majority of people in my local area like to play tournaments, so even in casual play against them I'm going to face tournament style lists.