The only issue with Autothrusters is it's cost. 2 points is probably too inexpensive. Any upgrade that becomes too easy to spend the points on is not costed correctly. Spending your points should be a series of difficult decisions. AutoThrusters are worth more than a shield upgrade (even when facing non turrets). A shield upgrade is 4 points and Autothrusters is only 2 points. We should need to consider taking a shield upgrade over an Autothruster upgrade, but we never will simply due to it's cost. If Autothrusters was a 7 point upgrade, it would still be completely worth it, but many of us would seriously consider a shield upgrade instead of the Autothruster upgrade due to it's cost.

When upgrade decisions are too easy it creates a bad situation.

Three would be too much for how situational it is. It would compete with hull upgrade. A decent two point upgrade was really needed.

Three would be too much for how situational it is. It would compete with hull upgrade. A decent two point upgrade was really needed.

Every time AT turns a blank into an evade at R3, it's worth the cost of a Hull upgrade. While somewhat situational, I have yet to see that not happen at least once in an AT Fel against all lists. So, AT trumps Hull every time. AT is much more than a "decent" 2 point upgrade. It is THE 2 point upgrade. Much like C3P0 is THE 3 point upgrade.

So it's slightly under costed for one specific pilot?

Seriously!?

The only issue with Autothrusters is it's cost. 2 points is probably too inexpensive. Any upgrade that becomes too easy to spend the points on is not costed correctly. Spending your points should be a series of difficult decisions. AutoThrusters are worth more than a shield upgrade (even when facing non turrets). A shield upgrade is 4 points and Autothrusters is only 2 points. We should need to consider taking a shield upgrade over an Autothruster upgrade, but we never will simply due to it's cost. If Autothrusters was a 7 point upgrade, it would still be completely worth it, but many of us would seriously consider a shield upgrade instead of the Autothruster upgrade due to it's cost.

When upgrade decisions are too easy it creates a bad situation.

the only issue with Autothrusters is that there are no issues.

They were necessary for getting Tie Interceptors into the game, no if ands or buts. The cancer that is primary weapon turrets was keeping them from reliably hitting the table and thrusters got them back in. Rather than fix the horribly slap-shod and lazily designed turret rule, they introduced a potent upgrade to bridge the gap. That's all there is to it.

The only other ships that can utilize Auto-thrusters are the A-wing (not worth it, too expensive on a ship with only 2 attack dice) and the Vipers (worth it), so you have two ships experiencing the non-issue of having a viable modification slot where the other options are intentionally inefficiently priced. Considering the Viper's 1 shield + 4 hull profile plus price, I have a feeling it was designed with thruster in mind.

Overall, though, they're not that big a deal (for 2 points, they better not be). They will ward off some damage to keep the non-A-wing native boost ships from being such a crapshoot, and they'll make turrets a little less idiotic by keeping them from annulling an entire type of ship but not fixing the horribly boring and uninspired rules or playstyles surrounding them.

And no way in **** are auto-thrusters worth more than half a tie fighter

The only other ships that can utilize Auto-thrusters are the A-wing (not worth it, too expensive on a ship with only 2 attack dice) and the Vipers (worth it), so you have two ships experiencing the non-issue of having a viable modification slot where the other options are intentionally inefficiently priced.

Minor point: you forgot the Aggresor (most definitely worth it).

The only other ships that can utilize Auto-thrusters are the A-wing (not worth it, too expensive on a ship with only 2 attack dice) and the Vipers (worth it), so you have two ships experiencing the non-issue of having a viable modification slot where the other options are intentionally inefficiently priced.

Minor point: you forgot the Aggresor (most definitely worth it).

indeed I did (and yes, worth it)

Also, might as well take the time to add my own exhaustive list of counters:

1.) don't forget that range 1 and 2 exist

2.) don't forget that firing arcs actually matter in this game

and that's really it, apart from "if you really have to shoot it from out of arc, use an auto-blaster turret" and "seriously, we've been in the realm of the phantom for ******* ages and everyone should know how to get around green dice by now"

Way more under costed than c3p0. Auto thrusters should have been once per round if it was going to stay 2 points. I've seen it keep bad players in the match longer and even win matches they probably shouldn't have won.

Counters to AT,

Range 1 and Range 2 in arc.

Blocking

Ten Numb +VI, Mangler - has barrel roll for reposition and crits can't be evaded. Works for ion as well if you roll a crit.

Ltd Blount + Dead eye, Ion Pulse Missile

Imp Kath with Engine Upgrade and Crit mechanic. Causes stress. Most arc dodgers don't like stress. The ones that do don't like lots of stress.

R3-A2 for the same reasons

Red dice. AT love lots of 2 dice attacks but really don't like 4+ dice attacks. HLC is relevant.

Autoblaster turret or cannon.

prox mines and bombs

Vader crew

Ruthlessness and assault missiles. Target their friends

Feedback array

Token stripping (Wes and Palob)

Gunner

Outmaneuver and Wedge

I'm sure there are more but that's just off the top of my head.

Now, just including these things won't let you auto win, you still have to fly well. It just gives your list some hard tools to use against it. There's plenty to choose from.

Way more under costed than c3p0. Auto thrusters should have been once per round if it was going to stay 2 points. I've seen it keep bad players in the match longer and even win matches they probably shouldn't have won.

If this is true, one of two things has happened:

Auto-thrusters is a card patch for ships that suffered the over-popularity of turrets, so of course it's a no-brainer upgrade (like the x1 title on the Advanced). Undercosting doesn't factor into the equation at all.

Autothrusters on an Aggressor are worth at least two shield upgrades. In a lot of games it will be worth more (especially against turrets) but hardly ever less. According to tournament lists this is an auto-upgrade for the Aggressor but the ship has other weaknesses and is expensive so it doesn´t really become overpowered.

Are AT undecosted? I'd say it depends on the squad you're facing.

Against a squad full of turrets (say Yt1300-Yt2400) they're probably worth 10+ Points. Against a rebel swarm (BBBBZ) they could be worth nothing if you dont get r3 shots and/or constantly dodge their arcs anyway (you dont want to joust with them even with AT,trust me). Sounds pretty situational to me.

With that being said, they could've been costed at 3pts to bring them in line with HU and SD, i dont think anyone would complain. But that's hardly game breaking.

Three would be too much for how situational it is. It would compete with hull upgrade. A decent two point upgrade was really needed.

Every time AT turns a blank into an evade at R3, it's worth the cost of a Hull upgrade. While somewhat situational, I have yet to see that not happen at least once in an AT Fel against all lists. So, AT trumps Hull every time. AT is much more than a "decent" 2 point upgrade. It is THE 2 point upgrade. Much like C3P0 is THE 3 point upgrade.

But you forget that against turrets almost all ships that can take autothrusters were overcosted. If adding this upgrade makes them a viable, but not overpowered option, then the cost must be spot on.

Interesting topic, as interceptors are my favorite ship here's my thought on the list:

1. Range 1 arc on a falcon or decimator.

Yep, I'm unlikely to close on a decimator or falcon at range 1 (I added that extra detail) unless it is focusing fire for the kill and I have higher PS. An exception is a decimator with Vader, and then your ability to crit requires an all out kamakazie like attack to eat your hull like a buzz droid buffet. Other than the Vader scenario, keeping you from getting that 4th red dice and trying to get me a 4th green is usually the objective. More distance also helps protect me from mines and bombs dropped as I follow your decimator. I don't mind getting to range 1 on a YT with a HLC doughnut, in fact I love that. Y-wings and Hawks with turret blaster or ion cannons I'd still prefer to kill from outside of your range 2 weapon as well.

2. Blocking.

This is just a good strategy against squints in general, even without autothrusters. If I suspect that a squint, other than perhaps Carnor, will be blocked then I'll usually pick a 3-5 move and give up an attack just to save my skin for a round with better positioning. Even going over a rock with a 5-k is better than being blocked in multiple arcs. You just don't have the jousting prowess to let that happen in most cases.

3. Boost/Higher PS.

You mentioned boost, but I added higher PS to that combo because any ship with higher PS raises my flying challenge about 200%. That's because arc dodgers survive on being able to boost and roll after they see your final position and a higher PS means I have to guess, not react to your final position. Also, if you have my tail, I'll use boost to either get to range 3+ or out of arc, granting a bonus green and autothrusters. So when I initially saw boost I thought, wait a minute that's one of my squints best qualities. But I see what you mean from your side of the higher PS table with Han.

So, what should be added:

4. Bombs/mines.

But mines only if I'm really close to your tail, otherwise they can be avoided.

5. Vader crew.

Really? I think you should have to hit to use Vader crits. Auto crit after whiffing just doesn't sit right with me. The decimator has enough strength without this. Shuttle and firespray with Vader are more balanced. OK, just had to have a soap box moment.

6. Gunner on a turret ship.

Shame on me if you catch me in arc with gunner on a non-turret. Gunner on a turret though is sure to burn tokens or make me choose to lose one very valuble hull and sometimes stealth device in order to avoid your second shot at blowing me into oblivion.

7. 60 minute rounds.

Favors beefier builds usually.

8. My own dice.

Enough said.

In sum, I take autothrusters for needed turret insurance. It is a small insurance policy, not overpowered at all in my opinion given the hull ratio between interceptors and most turreted ships, as well as your crew, secondary weapon and bomb/mine options, not to mention illicit options for some now too. Tourneys still favor the big guns so don't fear the squint too much. Perhaps you only fear because you didn't even have to worry before. ;-)

5) I disagree on Vader requiring a hit. He's not manning the gun. He's standing on the bridge, watching your ship, and deciding whether to crush it using only his pure hate. So great is his anger that it actually causes minor structural damage to his own ship.

6) Don't automatically assume Gunner is going to just work every time. It's not too hard to roll an evade and a blank with three dice, which is usually enough to counter the two hits you rolled on three dice with that first attack. And, unless you're running Crew Luke or flying a weird Falcon with a Gunner/Recon combo, your second attack might also be missing tokens.

7) A well-flown Aggressor squad has no trouble with 60-minute rounds. They can match you for beef, and will do everything they can to push for range 3 exchanges that allow their Autothrusters to mitigate damage taken.

I love your description of Vader. He must really hate me ;-)

Gunner, I agree, it is down on my list of risks. Still a risk, but nothing like that Vader hate...