Have Autothrusters only give the range 3 bonus. Not the out of arc bonus.

Then they'd be pointless.

Interceptors are 100% reliant on arc dodging to be effective, they can't arc dodge a turret which is why they dissapeared to begin with and autothrusters were made.

Have Autothrusters only give the range 3 bonus. Not the out of arc bonus.

Correct C3P0 to include the text- "You cannot guess 0".

Change the way turrets work by stating there was an error and the rule text should read "when a turret makes an attack outside of its printed firing arc, attacks at range 2 are treated as range 3 attacks. Include range bonuses where applicable".

Ta-da! Meta all fixed!

in order

a.) **** no; interceptors are would be unplayable again. If anyone wants to play in a world where thrusters don't have their out of arc benefits, stop playing turrets (except autoblaster. autoblaster don't give a ****)

b.) makes him less consistent, more luck dependent. Doesn't really help much imo

c.) extra green dice are not a good way to reward people for dodging arcs. Extra green dice stand a very good chance of doing jack ****. Now, removing red dice will always be helpful (can't hit a maximum cap of damage)

Have Autothrusters only give the range 3 bonus. Not the out of arc bonus.

Then they'd be pointless.

Interceptors are 100% reliant on arc dodging to be effective, they can't arc dodge a turret which is why they dissapeared to begin with and autothrusters were made.

_______________

You both seem to have failed to connect the last portion of my post with the first. Autothruster users would be getting the thruster bonus outside of arc at range 2 and 3 for turrets shooting outside of printed arc, so the buff against turrets would still be intact.

This change would increase dependance on the players flying ability for both sides. The autothruster ships pursuing the big turret would need to work to stay at range 2-3 of the turret when chasing, and they would need to determine when it is worth the risk to jump into range 1 for the extra attack dice, but they then lose the thrusters bonus.

The change also discourages large base turrets from boosting when a ship has a range 1 shot on them. They have to weigh their options more heavily, whereas currently, the big turrets almost always know to boost and try to get out of arc in that case, and the player using them basically has no tactical thinking in their usage.

If that still doesn't prove to be enough to make autothrusters viable with the change, I think giving range 3 defense dice to the defending ship at range 1 for shots out of printed arc as well could be fine too, but maybe too "fat" of a turret nerf, as tough as that is to imagine.

Also considered switching the "treat as range 3 outside of arc" errata to apply to range 1 instead of 2, but that just seems like a weird effect that would be confusing and troublesome to implement.

_________

As for the C3p0 change, I think it would be worthwhile. What makes him so powerful is that he is GUARANTEED damage mitigation. And just as your name states ficklegreendice, green dice are in fact just that, and people are scared of that. I believe C3p0 usage would drop dramatically for other crew options which are much more sure if that change was made. But, in certain niche builds, he could still see usage.

Edit: misread your proposal. Still disagree, it's clunky and a little absurd. What exactly is the problem with Autothrusters as they are? Besides the fact that they are so necessary anyway.

Edit: misread your proposal. Still disagree, it's clunky and a little absurd. What exactly is the problem with Autothrusters as they are? Besides the fact that they are so necessary anyway.

I don't necessarily think there is much of an issue with autothrusters outside of them being an "Auto include" upgrade on nearly every ship that can take them. (I'm a little bitter against IGs myself, but that's more because I lose to them then anything else. I think they are a fine ship. Maybe I'd do away with IG-B's ability, but that's a different topic for a different day.)

I'm all for list diversity, so it's painful that some diversity is being lost in that these ships MUST take thrusters to counter the power of turrets. My idea for a "fix" is put the way it is to,

a) Make big turrets less dominant

and

b) to assure autothrusters do not continue to be an auto include upgrade

and

c) through a and b, create wider diversity in list building and the game in general at the top level of competition.

This is a weird thread.

Most complaints I see leveled at the game, either rightly or wrongly, are about how dominating turrets are in the meta.

So how we get from "Turrets are OP, maneuvering should be more relevant" to "Autothrusters and maneuvering are OP" boggles my mind.

This may come across as patronising, but you do realise a fix in this game *has to be* auto include. If a ship needs a power boost, it's because they need it all the time. Which means the upgrade will always be taken, and is designed to always be taken.

Yes, it would be nice if everything was designed perfectly and nothing needed tweaks and fixes, but that's completely unrealistic.

Point is, complaining about the designers efforts to fix poor ships because those upgrades are 'auto include' is just weird.

I see absolutely no reason that autothrusters would need to be nerfed. They don't even kick in every time a turret shoots at them. If all you're rolling is focus, then they've done nothing at all. If anything, they could stand to be a bit stronger.

As far as turrets go, I think a good change would just be having them throw 1 less red when firing outside of the ships arc. Does it make much sense, fluff wise? Not really. But neither does Chewie, Lando, and Han getting increased stats even if they don't take the title.

This is a weird thread.

Most complaints I see leveled at the game, either rightly or wrongly, are about how dominating turrets are in the meta.

So how we get from "Turrets are OP, maneuvering should be more relevant" to "Autothrusters and maneuvering are OP" boggles my mind.

This may come across as patronising, but you do realise a fix in this game *has to be* auto include. If a ship needs a power boost, it's because they need it all the time. Which means the upgrade will always be taken, and is designed to always be taken.

Yes, it would be nice if everything was designed perfectly and nothing needed tweaks and fixes, but that's completely unrealistic.

Point is, complaining about the designers efforts to fix poor ships because those upgrades are 'auto include' is just weird.

Hey Rividius, not sure if this was directed at my post at all, but I'll just post as if it was, since for some reason I seem to be very passionate about this topic all of a sudden. And I have no clue why. I'm seriously going to do my best to refrain from replying to this thread after this.

I agree it's unrealistic to hope for a perfectly designed game. I or anyone else would be insane to believe that is possible. But, I do believe criticism is welcome and necessary for a game to grow better and better. I love this game, maybe even a little too much. And when you love something, you can't help but wish for it to improve, even when it's already doing wonderful things for you.

So back to autothrusters. I want to reiterate- I have no issue with autothrusters or its mechanics. If anything, I'm much more leaning towards the "complainers about the dominance of 3 attack big turrets" camp you mentioned. I feel autothrusters are auto include because of no other reason THEN the dominance of turrets.

And this is where my attempt at logic comes in. Why are we forcing a ship to take an upgrade that it could do perfectly fine without, if ONLY turrets weren't so dominant? Don't we WANT more options for building our ships? Isn't that what half this game is about? Dreaming up a build and then putting it to the test? Having cards that are auto include that limit that creative aspect of the game just depress me a little bit. Now, I understand there are obvious auto includes, like the tie advanced title, but that only increase the amount of squad building capabilities instead of hindering it. I don't want to have to run autothrusters on my interceptors for them to be able to face a turret list and do something at all. And if there was a change in the mechanics of turrets, I likely wouldn't be forced to.

BUT, I do want to make sure this is known- while changing the way turrets work overall is one route, the other is to continue to increase the number of ways we have of dealing with them, to the point that counters to turrets can occur in any list, even when not directly intended. This is a great option, and the one FFG seems to be taking. Autothrusters seems to be the start of this. Wave 7 added a number of bomb options and munition options that seem to deal with them very well. And Wave 8 has even teased the XX-23 S-Thread Tracers, which will heavily increase the capabilities of swarms burning through a Fat turret. Eventually, the options to take out big turrets will be so varied and diverse, that it will force them to become a less ideal option. I can't wait to see that day.

I think Crack Shot was a nice little jab at PWTs. Super cheap EPT that can't be used effectively by PWTs, and is most effective against ships with only 1 or 2 green dice.

I actually approve of this idea. Brobots would still be viable but would knock them down a peg. Also make C3P0 on ships with 2 agility minimum

Brobots would not be the slightest bit viable without autothrusters. Not even kind of.

As annoying as I find the BroBots, I don't see the need for the nerf. The game is actually pretty balanced right now, believe it or not. There were multiple BroBot builds at Nationals, but the finals builds were a Fat Dash build and a Decimator/Fel build, right? I was competitive with two Firesprays, and they don't have turrets OR Autothrusters.

I'm surprised more people haven't tried scum sprays bobba and Kath work really well together, they've destroyed brobots every time for me.

I'm surprised more people haven't tried scum sprays bobba and Kath work really well together, they've destroyed brobots every time for me.

K4 worked really well for me on the spray.

I really think people should learn to play and embrace the challenge. Rather than whinge that something is broken as it plainly isn't, more a case of not being able to adapt with your sweet dear list.

OP actually needs to git gud.

Ah but once igs start running, they can't shoot you . Best they got is a red manuever

It's so refreshing after nothing but PWTs

No but double IG'S can blow 1 or 2 ships and then run the clock down while you try to chase them. It's one of there beat strategies. If you're up against Han and z's or 4bz you kill a z or 2 and then just run the rest of the time. As long as you play safe and take your time and don't get greedy/reengage you should be good to go.

I didn't make it out to any Regionals or to GenCon so I didn't witness any of this but that isn't a common tactic for BroBots lists is it? If you barely kill anything then your MOV isn't going to be strong, correct? While it might help you get a win one round wouldn't that hurt your chances of making it into a competitive top 8 or top 16 field?

If you go undefeated than your mov won't matter much and in timed elimination matches all you have to do is 1 point. Imo the most common tactic is to stay in the fight and then when one is injured just run that one away while the other goes after the chasers. If no one pursuits then you run both until they go after 1 and flank with the other.

In your opinion that is the most common tactic or is that the specific tactic that all BroBot's lists use in the tournament results we have seen?

I ask because this is the first I have heard of that being an issue. I get that some people would utilize that tactic at times but it certainly isn't the only way for BroBot's to win is it?