Decimators top of the heap?

You're having a laugh, with no agility they die really, really easily. I mean come on, guys have been talking about AC clustermissile advanced and punishers. poor Chiraneau won't be able to sit down for months after that shafting.

And if you really wanna do reb. 4 B-wings. they make Deci's cry.

Scum? 2 HLC brobots will do it nicely. Deci's are not that scary. which is a shame, I love mine.

I'd like to amend my above for saying anti large/huge torpedoes/missiles by saying - add them with the XG-1 pack.

Wait until you start seeing Kenkirk with Palpatine and Ysanne. ***** nasty.

That's quite an expensive Deci, if multiple ships are focusing on it it will die REALLY REALLY quickly.

Against Fat Han, sure.

Ep. IV gave me the impression that those turrets did not have targeting computers. So not being able to spend a target lock outside the firing arc would be a fix with some justification in the background.

As for the boosting, I feel that using the huge ship template gives acceptable results for large ships.

Neither fix is really necessary I think, but they could work as houserules.

Oh turret nerf is simple, Target lock allows only 1 die to be rerolled on turret attacks... And voila turrets obliterated....

by "target lock" do you mean "predator"?

There are lots of positive results with the "when defending, if you are beyond Range 2 or outside the attacker's firing arc, you may change 1 of your blank results to an evade result" fix.

Pity it only works on four ships.

auto-thrusters would've been so great if they just took the out-of-arc portion and errated it into the PWT rules

I would miss the range 3 bit, though, that can really save your bacon

There are lots of positive results with the "when defending, if you are beyond Range 2 or outside the attacker's firing arc, you may change 1 of your blank results to an evade result" fix.

Pity it only works on four ships.

The four most fragile ships. If you want diversity, buff the PWT (as it does), don't break them. Even though you don't like them, they have they place to counter other build-types. Balance is key. It's never in perfect equilibrium (no ship is equally played as every other), but it's much closer now. It was a good fix. Wave 7 has some more good counters; minor, but just enough pull PWTs back a little more. You don't want to over-do it. The cure shouldn't be worse than the disease.

well it's the one most fragile ship that PWTs made basically unplayable, two decently survivable ships (A-wings have a great defensive profile, the named Vipers have great defensive abilities), and Aggressors (literally best base defensive stat profile in existence)

that fact that PWTs remain in significant numbers and are very powerful makes auto-thrusters an auto-include on all these ships apart from the fodder A-wings

and then we're adding the punisher to that list, though it's obviously far less effective with thrusters than the others (less greens, thrusters will only work 75% of the time at range 1-2) which makes me scratch my head as to why thrusters are limited apart from obviously not wanting them on Han (but then he'd have to give up EU, so eh?). Maybe it's Corran.

anyway, they'd really help out Scyks and the in-between ships that PWTs run right through, such as the X-wing or HWK

Because the game designers had some sense and limited autothrusters to certain ships instead of allowing every ship in the game to be invincible (hyperbole, but not by much) at range 3. Even when not facing a turret that range 3 bonus is huge.

It's a well designed upgrade. Not everything needs to be able to take a cannon slot and a systems and a crew slot and an EPT and get a free blank to evade conversion at range 3.

Ships like the Scyk and Starviper may be a little too pricey, but their main issue is that they end up lasting only an extra turn or two more than a TIE Fighter when facing an HLC Turret that gets a free focus everytime it greens, or Chiraneu Predator Gunner BS where every shot is 3/3 or 4/4 hits, or 4 dice FCS gunner crap, which is pretty much all the meta is right now.

The scyk is a slightly better tie fighter for 2 more points. Maybe it could have been 13 but that's not the issue.

now with PWTs, it basically is (auto-thrusters excepted) because there's absolutely no decision making to be had between arc-dodging and maintaining your shot. When you're free to fart around wherever you wish with minimal consequence

PWTs don't want to be shot at. Decisions have to be made with more than minimal consequences (chance to suffer damage or not).

I've mentioned this many of the times you've claimed PWTs don't care at all about arc dodging or movement. I don't know if you've never read the replies, don't understand the concept, or simply refuse to accept because it doesn't support your argument.

opps, sorry is missed this on the first pass z0m

anyway, I'm pretty sure this standard of "not wanting to take damage" applies to every **** ship in the game apart from triggering isanne (and Biggs, Biggs loves getting shot), and there aren't many that can take consistent damage better than a YT-1300 or a VT-49.

I've never claimed PWTs don't care about arc dodging or movement. I've claimed that don't care about their facing, and they don't care about your manuevering. They are, in essence, arc-dodgers that can't be arc-dodged.

If they need to arc-dodge they can do so as they please without forfeiting a shot due to boost's displacement and arc rotation (if using the bank template) as even flying out of range of one target will mean that either another will present itself or nothing will shoot the PWT that turn. By contrast, a soontir might actually have to make a decision between getting away and getting to shoot. Just because of this, PWTs already represent the very bottom rung of decision making in X-wing, since the chance that the PWT actually has to chose between offensive and defensive manuevering is incredibly slim.

In the event that the PWT has to lose something, it loses the least by far out of every ship in the game. In addition to never giving up shots against anything that could possibly shoot at it (considering the effect that boosts/rolls and blocking have on the orientation of arcs on every ship, this is significant), apart from landing on an asteroid, but it comes packed with upgrades that just don't care about the action step or even stress from debris (poor ysanne).

Taking dice against 13/16 health and guaranteed defensive tech is the bare minimum consequence possible in this game. Every other ship in the game has to worry about taking dice, but also about their ability to maneuver with regards to being able to contribute offensively at all and many have to worry about being caught and being summarily obliterated, a fear that a PWT will not have to experience unless caught repeatedly.

and the fact that all I get to do against a PWT is align arcs and throw dice at it while getting dice thrown at me regardless of almost any effort I can put it makes for some tedious games, which can all too easily be decided by bad rolling rather than good playing.

With PWT's until a nerf is in place they will continue to make the game boring. Yes you can beat them, but this game used to be about out flying your opponent, now it's about doing ring around the rosie and getting as many shots as you can forcing your opponent, unless he has a PWT, to fly after you trying to get arcs on your ship. All the while you continually don't have to worry about them because you will always be able to shoot them. No matter how poorly you fly and without any penalty. You don't even care about enemies in the rear, why should you.

Since flying off the board kills a ship, They have no choice, but to follow and take shots constantly. Normally you would just fly out of range and reset your formation to focus the most shots on a target, but you cannot do that in this game.

IMO: PWT Turrets with no range issues and ships carrying them with no weaknesses take the most important aspect of the game Out of it. Flying well and getting enemies in your arcs, while keeping enemies from getting you in theirs.

I can tell you after my regional I haven't played one game of X-wing, Not even on Vassal.. It's just not as much fun as it was and can sometimes get really boring trying to chase down ships.

If it were a real dog fight, I just would not engage. What is the point?

Honestly I don't think there is anything wrong with turrets, I think its the fact that engine upgrade is so stupidly ridiculously good on big ships. If engine upgrade was small ship only, i dont think there would be nearly as much of an issue.

I hear this a lot and it always bugs me. Engine Upgrade on a large ship isn't dramatically better than on a small ship.

If you're boosting away, the end of your ship is in the exact same place that a small ship would be. If you look at the front of the ship, it is only 1 small ship base further forward - which is about 1/3 of a single range band. So, it's handy for boosting into range 1 or 2, but not a big deal when you're running away.

The diagram should have the rear of the small base and large base at the same starting position, not the fronts of the bases.

If you did that, it's not a direct comparison anymore. And they are at the same starting position. Imagine they are doing a one bank after setup, where each is as far forward as legally allowed.

The point is a big ships total surface area covered is literally DOUBLE a small ship after a boost. If you line them up from the back, technically they are still in the same starting position. The scenario your describing is a perfect example to defend your point, but you arent considering any of the other scenarios.

By your logic, you would place a ship at the back of a huge ship, have it move 1 foward and say it's way faster than any other ship. See the problem?

We're measuring boosts. Boosts are measured from the front and you need to get the ships as close as possible. I could see the argument for doing the measurement from the center point of each ship, though I don't see how it's really accurate either.

Anyway, the rear of any boosting ship covers the same exact distance. The front of a large based ship just gets an extra small-base ship length due to the size. Large-based ships boosting is such a non-issue.

In an actual game the small ship will not be in the same position after their initial maneuvers that got them stuck in someone's arc. When the large ship boosts it WILL have an extra small ship base head start and clear the arc more easily. The aguement that showed the diagram is based on a selected scenario outside of any game where two ships are boosting or executing a simple one bank. The diagram is not an acurate depiction of small bs large ships getting caught in th same arc unless the small ship had used a different maneuver than the large ship that landed them in that arc. The previous maneuver before the boost to escape does matter, and that's the reason large ships can (slightly) more easily escape arcs. Movement is cumulative, the comparison should take that into consideration. Of course I can't put a value on large ship boosting other than the obvious cost of EU in relation to other upgrades.

With regard to the discussed example above, It needs to include the same maneuver for both ships before the boost.

IE, show both ships performing a two hard from the same starting position and then boosting. It's correct that the boost is essentially the same, but because of when/how the boost works, the big ship is better able to escape arcs thanks to boost better than small ships. I think that's the point people are getting at, even though they mistakenly identify the boost distance as further. See the example here.

With regard to the discussed example above, It needs to include the same maneuver for both ships before the boost.

IE, show both ships performing a two hard from the same starting position and then boosting. It's correct that the boost is essentially the same, but because of when/how the boost works, the big ship is better able to escape arcs thanks to boost better than small ships. I think that's the point people are getting at, even though they mistakenly identify the boost distance as further. See the example here.

Exactly this.