Against turrets, sure, but against an arced ship Range 3 is the only trigger. Fine by the Aggressor, which is quite happy firing its Heavy Laser Cannon from Range 3, but the elite TIE interceptor wants to be close up so it can use its arc dodging capability to the maximum.

I actually sort of think this is where FFG goofed with AT.

The 'out of arc' requirement is fine and all, but for the in-arc range question...any Interceptor worth anything is going to want to CLOSE range. Either because it's a "cheap" generic, trying to set up blocking collisions...or it's a high-skilled Interceptor that wants to take advantage of the smaller arcs at closer ranges to arc-dodge.

And AT should actually have reflect that latter point, anyway - a ship jumping around unpredictably is going to be more of a problem at close range vs long range.

Would have made a lot more sense for the in-arc bonus to be associated with 'range 1' vs 'range 3'.

Against turrets, sure, but against an arced ship Range 3 is the only trigger. Fine by the Aggressor, which is quite happy firing its Heavy Laser Cannon from Range 3, but the elite TIE interceptor wants to be close up so it can use its arc dodging capability to the maximum.

I actually sort of think this is where FFG goofed with AT.

The 'out of arc' requirement is fine and all, but for the in-arc range question...any Interceptor worth anything is going to want to CLOSE range. Either because it's a "cheap" generic, trying to set up blocking collisions...or it's a high-skilled Interceptor that wants to take advantage of the smaller arcs at closer ranges to arc-dodge.

And AT should actually have reflect that latter point, anyway - a ship jumping around unpredictably is going to be more of a problem at close range vs long range.

Would have made a lot more sense for the in-arc bonus to be associated with 'range 1' vs 'range 3'.

I disagree. I'd rather have a defensive upgrade that either A) Forces the player defending to play the ship differently, or B), tell the opponent "Damned if you do, Damned if you don't". Autothrusters do both.

If an Interceptor is being attacked at Range 1, in-arc, that means that the Interceptor player failed to block, or failed to arc-dodge, and therefore should be punished for playing the ship counter to its style. Autothrusters' range gives the Interceptor a choice, not a win-more-by-doing-X button.

Autothrusters isn't Damned If You Don't. One blank to evade isn't going to save it. Autothrusters helps the Interceptor close by protecting it against long range vapourisation, but it still wants to get in close to maximise its damage and arc dodging capability. It's not a long range fighter like the HLC Aggressor.

Disagree on "Autothrusters should have been Range 1" though. The Range 3 thing is there to stop it being just a silver bullet for turrets.

Autothrusters isn't Damned If You Don't. One blank to evade isn't going to save it. Autothrusters helps the Interceptor close by protecting it against long range vapourisation, but it still wants to get in close to maximise its damage and arc dodging capability. It's not a long range fighter like the HLC Aggressor.

Disagree on "Autothrusters should have been Range 1" though. The Range 3 thing is there to stop it being just a silver bullet for turrets.

Even if Autothrusters only worked at range three and did nothing for closer out of arc shots it would be a good one point modification but still probably see some use at two points.

EDIT: I realized that I replied to the wrong post. I meant to reply to xanderf.

Autothrusters let's you close so you can arc dodge in the first place so against HLC brobots they are pretty solid as a choice, also hotshot blaster is a thing you may encounter every now and again.

I've taken on a rebel list with three squints 9 hit points verses 23 and once the escorts were dead the outrider never landed a hit as I tore it apart that one blank being converted made all the difference.

I have been thinking this same thing for awhile. I am by no means a seasoned veteran but I do not see the auto-include allure people have for autothrusters. PTL sure I see advantage to but the first time I saw the AT upgrade card in my packs I thought wow this is situational and stupid. Is turrent fear so rampant that people take any scrap of perceived advantage against it? I personally would much rather have mobility and action options to being forced to stay at range 3. Rush that turrent and pour some red dice right down it's throat!

I think you might be misreading Autothrusters. Autothrusters triggers in one of two situations:

1. You are at range 3 (or greater).

2. You are out of your attacker's firing arc.

You don't need to be both out of arc and at range 3.

I get how it works I just respectfully disagree with its auto-include following. Not being in arc means you can not be attacked by anything but a turrent. So yeah if you aren't facing a turrent it does nothing outside of range 3 ergo it would be a distance hugger to be useful. It is pretty much turrent insurance. I get it helps set up an attack too but I would much rather have an offensive boost than a defensive one. It's not really a point worth contesting though, to each their own.

I have been thinking this same thing for awhile. I am by no means a seasoned veteran but I do not see the auto-include allure people have for autothrusters. PTL sure I see advantage to but the first time I saw the AT upgrade card in my packs I thought wow this is situational and stupid. Is turrent fear so rampant that people take any scrap of perceived advantage against it? I personally would much rather have mobility and action options to being forced to stay at range 3. Rush that turrent and pour some red dice right down it's throat!

I think you might be misreading Autothrusters. Autothrusters triggers in one of two situations:

1. You are at range 3 (or greater).

2. You are out of your attacker's firing arc.

You don't need to be both out of arc and at range 3.

I get how it works I just respectfully disagree with its auto-include following. Not being in arc means you can not be attacked by anything but a turrent. So yeah if you aren't facing a turrent it does nothing outside of range 3 ergo it would be a distance hugger to be useful. It is pretty much turrent insurance. I get it helps set up an attack too but I would much rather have an offensive boost than a defensive one. It's not really a point worth contesting though, to each their own.

At two points, Autothrusters only needs to give you one evade result that you wouldn't have normally had to be worth twice its points in the match. I usually have it do that in more than half the matches that I play that don't have a turret on the other side. When I do face turrets it is good for at least 3 needed evades. Over half the lists at the last tournament I was at had turrets in them. Not spending the two points to protect around a third of your points seems silly, especially when that two points is still useful in matches that a turret doesn't show up.

I'm only gonna address Mr. troll click-bait OP.

Those self-imposed rules that you've made up about Interceptors that the game knows nothing about, that's why you're sad. There is no rule in the game that says you need to equip all 4 Sabers identically (which has always been impossible with PTL anyway) and you don't need to run a list that is all interceptors anyway. You're whining about restrictions that YOU created.

The fact that you can't have 4 PTL Interceptors all with Autothrusters was probably done for game balance. 4 Sabers has never been better than 2 Sabers and a support ship anyway, even from the beginning. Try spending the extra 48 points on a Firespray, or maybe Patrol Leader with Vader and Gunner, or maybe a TIE mini-swarm. PTL Interceptors aren't great when you spam them, they suffer from diminishing returns, and give you a big weakness against lists with higher PS and more maneuverability.

Against turrets, sure, but against an arced ship Range 3 is the only trigger. Fine by the Aggressor, which is quite happy firing its Heavy Laser Cannon from Range 3, but the elite TIE interceptor wants to be close up so it can use its arc dodging capability to the maximum.

I actually sort of think this is where FFG goofed with AT.

The 'out of arc' requirement is fine and all, but for the in-arc range question...any Interceptor worth anything is going to want to CLOSE range. Either because it's a "cheap" generic, trying to set up blocking collisions...or it's a high-skilled Interceptor that wants to take advantage of the smaller arcs at closer ranges to arc-dodge.

And AT should actually have reflect that latter point, anyway - a ship jumping around unpredictably is going to be more of a problem at close range vs long range.

Would have made a lot more sense for the in-arc bonus to be associated with 'range 1' vs 'range 3'.

I disagree. I'd rather have a defensive upgrade that either A) Forces the player defending to play the ship differently, or B), tell the opponent "Damned if you do, Damned if you don't". Autothrusters do both.

If an Interceptor is being attacked at Range 1, in-arc, that means that the Interceptor player failed to block, or failed to arc-dodge, and therefore should be punished for playing the ship counter to its style. Autothrusters' range gives the Interceptor a choice, not a win-more-by-doing-X button.

For a 'named' Interceptor, sure, that's true.

For a 'generic' Interceptor swarm...not at all. Running a 5x Alpha Autoceptor list, you need to fly them more like TIE Fighters...you have to use at least some of them to set up blocking collisions, or you'll just lose. And setting a couple up as a blockers means that while one may well be safe as the enemy hit it...the other will still be getting shot at close range.

The sad news about autothrusters is when you are at range 3 or out of arc and roll all focuses without a focus token

.

imagine if Autothrusters had been 1 point? Would there be rioting? Probably not - but I imagine there'd be quite a few threads on it...

I don't see how.

Even at one point it would mostly be just turret players QQING and no one gives a toss what they think

TURRET KILLED THE TIE SWARM. *music and stuff* You guys get this right?

Think there needs to be an extra cyllable at the start and end of that.

so? i coudnt think of anyhting else. Do YOU have anyhting better? also, its syllable, not with a c.

imagine if Autothrusters had been 1 point? Would there be rioting? Probably not - but I imagine there'd be quite a few threads on it...

I don't see how.

Even at one point it would mostly be just turret players QQING and no one gives a toss what they think

TURRET KILLED THE TIE SWARM. *music and stuff* You guys get this right?

Think there needs to be an extra cyllable at the start and end of that.

so? i coudnt think of anyhting else. Do YOU have anyhting better? also, its syllable, not with a c.

"Turrets have killed the TIE Fighter swarm"

I'm only gonna address Mr. troll click-bait OP.

Those self-imposed rules that you've made up about Interceptors that the game knows nothing about, that's why you're sad. There is no rule in the game that says you need to equip all 4 Sabers identically .. bla bla bla bla bla lba

Oh I just read this. Thanks for sharing your opinion. I appreciate your disagreement very much.

I too have squadron OCD, but it becomes a lot easier to not fly everything identical when there's at least 2 of each variant

as long as there's some symmetry or pattern, all is well

3 PTL + thruster sabers with an auto-thruster Avenger is 100 points