Potential Fix for Large Based Ship Boost Mechanic (FFG Please Read This)

By Green Squad Leader, in X-Wing Rules Questions

Posted at
Hello as I'm sure most people will have noticed over the last two years of X-wing a certain upgrade card has become virtually an auto-include in any list which features one or more Large Ships, namely the Modification Engine Upgrade. Why is it so prevalent? Because as the rules currently work giving a Large Ship a Boost action dramatically increases its value to that player, far more so then it does on small ships. This is because in the current version of the rules a Large Ship taking a boost action moves forwards 3 Small Ship Lengths, while a Small Ship only moves forwards 2 Small Ship Lengths. As a rule of thumb in this article when I refer to "Ship Lengths" I am always referring to the length of a Small Ship's base as a unit of measurement.
Check it out, here are comparisons of the movements of some Large Ships and an A-wing, which in the lore should be the fastest ship in the game at sub-light speeds (The Millenium Falcon is only the fastest ship in the galaxy at Hyperdrive speeds, otherwise its a space 18 wheeler.).
Current Method
As you can see when each ship moves at its fastest manuever all three ships travel the same distance. But once they boost both the Decimator and YT-1300 pull out in front. Score one big ships, the 18 wheelers apparently outrun the Ferraris in the Star Wars universe.
Current Method
Its even more noticeably when the ships perform a 1-bank boost. Now not only have the large ships moved considerably further forwards than the A-wing but they have also completed a wider turn.
The main problem with the rules as is is that they've created a situation in which Large ships are SO fast and maneuverable that they can dominate smaller ships quite easily, not only outgunning them and having more hit points but also being able to outpace and often outmaneuver them. I'm sure most players have experienced the "keep away" tactics often employed by players using boosts to have Large Ships arc dodge better than actual arc dodging ships can.
This has been recognized as a rules issue for a while, or at least the majority of players I've met have expressed concern over it, and has helped to contribute to the current "two ship list or bust" meta we often see at most tournaments. We already have seen a similar "too good" movement mechanic be toned down with the change to how barrel rolls work for Large Ships, the challenge has been figuring out a simple way to tone down boosts. The challenge is that the previously presented and considered fixes to this issue have not worked very well, they were either too complicated, two clunky in application, or did not achieve a similar enough form of movement to the regular boost mechanic to be viable.
Here is the method I would recommend be tried and if it is deemed acceptable be implemented in the FAQ/Errata.

First we have a Large Ship, in this case a YT-1300. Its controller decides to do a Straight Boost. Ordinarily the player would then place a 1 straight maneuver token between the front nubs of the ships base and move the ship to the opposite side of the movement tile, resulting in a total forward movement of 3 Ship Lengths (As was shown in the tables above). Small ships using the same method only get to move 2 ship lengths forwards, so how can we make move types of ship move the same distance? Here is how.
First we will place a 2 straight maneuver token.

Step 1.

Now we will place another maneuver token on the opposite end of the 2 straight maneuver token to mark our destination point.

Step 2.

Remove the 2 straight from the table while holding down the 1 straight.

Step 3.

And lastly move the YT-1300 up to the 1 straight maneuver token. Total distance traveled: 2 ship lengths forwards.

Step 4.

Ok so it works well for ships doing a Straight Boost, bringing large ships exactly in line with small ships in terms of total distance covered by the move. But does it work for Bank Boosts as well? This has been the major failing of the other methods players have recommended for trying to fix this issue.
Ok again we have a YT-1300, this time a Left Bank Boost has been chosen by the player.

First place the 2 Left Bank maneuver token.

Step 1.

Next again place the 1 Straight maneuver token on the opposite end of the 2 Bank.

Step 2.

Again remove the 2 bank.

Step 3.

And finally move the YT-1300 up to the 1 Straight token. Total distance moved is about 1.5 Ship lengths.

Step 4.

Next we will see how Large Ships moved using this method compare with Small Ships moving the same way and then have a side by side comparison of the two methods. As I've hit the limit for attaching pictures to this one post that will by in a reply below. As a quick point if you try this out you will find that it really takes the same amount of time as the current method and it is just as easy to deal with bumps or attempting maneuvers around nearby ships as the current method is.

Edited by Green Squad Leader
Posted at
OK so first we have a comparison between a Small Based Ship moving as fast as possible and completing a Straight Boost. The final position of both the YT-1300 and Decimator is marked by an Transparent outline so that the movement tokens used are visible.

New Method
As you can see using this method all three ships travel the same total distance after Boosting, standardizing the action such that it's outcome is the same for both kinds of ships, which I would expect is the end goal of the rules system.
But again how does this method work for Bank Boosts? Pretty well as it turns out.

New Method

So after completing a Bank Boost action both Large Ships still have traveled slightly further forwards and slightly further to either side than the Small Ship has, but the difference between the two classes of ship is now much smaller. This again helps to standardize the action across all ships, not making Large Ships worse but just making them have the same set of movement options as Small Ships do.

So how do the two methods compare with each other?

Here we see the comparison between the current way the rules work (Left Side) and the alternative method I've submitted for Straight Boosts. As you can see the effect is to bring both Large and Small Based Ships in line with each other in terms of how they can move after using a Boost.

So as mentioned earlier this new method works well with Bank Boosts as well as straight ones. Here is the side by side comparison again, current rules are on the left and the recommended change is on the left. Again the final position of the Large Ships for the new method are transparent so that the movement tokens are visible.

As you can see with the current rules method on the left not only does the Large Ship move an more than an extra ship length further forwards, it also moves a lot further to to the side. This allows Large Ships to turn much faster with a Bank Boost then a Small Based Ship can. This is the single most apparent and game balance affecting aspect of the current system. The new method by contrast brings them both in line with each other again. It may look as though the Large Ship does not move as far to the outside as the small based ship does, but the Nubs at the front of it's base actually do move to almost exactly the same point.

So again, this new recommended method changes the process of the Large Ship Boost to make it produce the same outcome as the Small Ship Boost. A common concern which I have heard expressed by other players is that "The Large Ship won't end up at the same angle using the 2 Bank as it does for the 1 Bank." As you can see in the comparison diagrams this is NOT the case, it does end up facing exactly the same angle after resolving its Left or Right Boost using the new method.

There are three other points of concern which have been brought up by a number of players when I have shown them this alternative method for resolving Boosts, they are:

  1. This method is too complicated for new players to possibly learn or use. Personally I have more faith in the intelligence of our player base, and if you are concerned about this point please try out this new method in one of your games. I'm certain you'll have an "Oh, well that was easy" moment and your fears will be put to rest.
  2. This method hurts Big ships too much and we won't see them used anymore. Honestly I don't see how anyone can possibly believe this point, the current game is dominated by Large Ships for a few reasons, but this is the only one of those issues which would be both easy to fix and not have truly extreme effects on game balance. This has already been shown to be a non-issue after the changes made to Barrel Rolls for Large Ships, this just makes Boosts also roughly as good for both Large and Small Ships.
  3. You are paying a premium for the Large Ship so you are paying for this improved Boost. Actually you are paying LESS for this upgrade on a Large Ship than on a Small Ship when you evaluate the relative cost of the upgrade to the relative cost of the base ship. For a Large ship which starts at 32-40 points spending 4 points on Engine Upgrade is an easy choice as it is only 10% of the Basic Ship Cost. Spending those same 4 points to put Engine Upgrade on, lets say, a 12 Point Z-95 Headhunter is a far harder choice as that same upgrade is now 33.3% of your Basic Ship Cost. Not only that but the same upgrade provides you a lesser benefit! Another common thing you will see is two Large Ships in a list each with Engine Upgrade. If I want to likewise equip a list of Tie Fighters all with Engine Upgrade I Can at most take 6 Tie Fighters and I am spending 24 Points for the same squad wide upgrade, again receiving a lesser benefit for a much higher cost. So No, in fact not only are you not paying a premium for the upgrade, you are effectively receiving it at a discount on any Large Ship.
One last part to this post. In case you were wondering what the fastest ship in the game is, both with the current method and the method I am recommending the fastest ship is the YT-2400 with Engine Upgrade and Push the Limit (Or the Aggressor with Expert Handling and Expiramental Interface). You can see how far it can move in this picture, the current rules method is shown on the right and the new method is on the left. For reference I added a Tie Interceptor attempting the same maneuver (And seething with jealousy I'm sure).

I'm curious to hear everyone's thoughts on this potential change, please feel free to try it out its simple and works quite well from the play-testing I've done. All without slowing the game down at all too.

This recommendation was written in the hopes that FFG is open to recommendations from the community to help improve this great game of X-wing and help it to stay fun and diverse so it thrives for years to come.

Respectfully,

Jonathan Scott (a.k.a. Green Squad Leader)

Edited by Green Squadron Leader
Posted at

Rather convoluted, but if y'all like it as a house-rule...

Posted at

Strangly logical from a certain point of view. I guess a stupid question here is simply how would it affect small ships if they actually had to use boost the same exact way? It's basically changing boost from "put a speed 1 maneuver between you and your old position" to "put your nose to where your tail would be if you performed a speed 2 maneuver instead."

In a way it does line up with the recommendations for how you back a large ship off of another ship when your maneuver would cause an overlap. That system requests that you use additional templates to help figure out the ship's final location.

Edited by StevenO
Posted at

This method is too complicated for new players to possibly learn or use.

It took you about 2,000 words and 15 images to explain. That suggests to me that this criticism has a lot more merit than you're giving it credit for.

Posted at

Just allow small ships to boost with 1's or 2's templates and they will at least be as fast and considering their advanced movility in general, it would make them more premier arc-dodgers.

Posted at

This method is too complicated for new players to possibly learn or use.

It took you about 2,000 words and 15 images to explain. That suggests to me that this criticism has a lot more merit than you're giving it credit for.

"When Large Ships Boost use the 2 speed maneuver tokens but only move the front nubs to the end of the maneuver token instead of the rear nubs."

That's it, that's all this is. Many people I described it to in that way had a hard time visualizing what I meant, hence the pictures and step by step instructions to avoid confusion.

Edited by Green Squad Leader
Posted at

Why not just increase the cost of EU for large ships? You have to figure that the size of the engine in a 1300 is a lot bigger than the drive in a fighter. Have them pay more for the boost. It doesn't fix the speed problem but it may make pwt pilots think twice about adding EU rather than have it as an auto include.

Posted at

This method is too complicated for new players to possibly learn or use.

It took you about 2,000 words and 15 images to explain. That suggests to me that this criticism has a lot more merit than you're giving it credit for.

GSL already pointed this out but the reason it is so "complex" is because of all the explanation and reasoning why it would be done. It is actually a pretty simple thing although I'm still waiting to see how much it would change things if small ships also operated that way.

I'd say 99% of the reason that things don't work that way now is because setting a ship down on top of a template makes is a bit difficult to remove that template.

Posted at

Why not just increase the cost of EU for large ships? You have to figure that the size of the engine in a 1300 is a lot bigger than the drive in a fighter. Have them pay more for the boost. It doesn't fix the speed problem but it may make pwt pilots think twice about adding EU rather than have it as an auto include.

Why should the EU need to cost more? After all it is only available with LARGE ships to start with so FFG must have anticipated that is where they would get used. It also begs the question "is 4 points for the EU too much to see it used on small ships?" It may be relatively common on Vader's Advanced but what other small ships do you see EU commonly used?

Posted at

It's momentum. That's why the larger the base the more ground is covered in a single move.

I noticed this when I got my Falcon a few weeks ago. I thought the falcon should have a 5 template. Han did say she's the fastest hunk of junk in the galaxy and could out run the big ships. I don't have a large ship yet and I wish I did just to see how the movement compares. I can see larger bases getting an even larger, exponentialy, movement bonus as in, "Wasn't that corvette beside us a moment ago?". I do know the large stuff has it's own movement temps. However, I think having all of the ships cover the same distance would take away from some of the aerial dog fighiting. And I think they REALLY wanted to stick with one set of templates. And for good reason. Two ships and a fist full of templates. Show'm your war face soldier!

Posted at

My fix for Engine Upgrade:

Point cost errata'd to 4/8. The first number is the small ship cost, the second number is the large ship cost.

Posted at

I think you mean this.

Posted at

I think you mean this.

Interesting, that would work well too, and is somewhat simpler. It doesn't do as much but it potentially does enough.

Can anyone tell me why my pictures keep disappearing from these posts?

Posted at

I think you mean this.

That is certainly another idea on how FFG could "fix" the Boost Action when used by a Large ship. I'd like to see how the two compare.

Which of these would be the simplest to execute? I'd say it may actually be a toss up. The one suggestion still uses the speed 1 templates but requires a person to thing about a whole new way of using them. The one using the speed 2 templates only requires a change on where the ship goes down in the end which uses an extra marker to get it right.

Posted at

Just make engine upgrade small ship only.

Simple.

Posted at

Why not just increase the cost of EU for large ships? You have to figure that the size of the engine in a 1300 is a lot bigger than the drive in a fighter. Have them pay more for the boost. It doesn't fix the speed problem but it may make pwt pilots think twice about adding EU rather than have it as an auto include.

Why should the EU need to cost more? After all it is only available with LARGE ships to start with so FFG must have anticipated that is where they would get used. It also begs the question "is 4 points for the EU too much to see it used on small ships?" It may be relatively common on Vader's Advanced but what other small ships do you see EU commonly used?

Well, X-wings, Y-wings and occasionally Bs. Also, just because the card came with large ships it doesn't follow that FFG fully understood the the possible abuse that would follow. I offer the original decloaking procedure as an example. A large ship with EU isn't as OP as the Phantom decloak so I don't think it will be nerfed.

Posted at

You may see it on an occasional X-Wing Ace to help with arc dodging. With the Y-Wing's title it may become more useful there to help aim with the turret loss and aids with the generally poor dial. Super-maneuverable B-Wings are interesting and can use the EU but it's still a lot of points to add to those ships.

Posted at

This method is too complicated for new players to possibly learn or use.

It took you about 2,000 words and 15 images to explain. That suggests to me that this criticism has a lot more merit than you're giving it credit for.

GSL already pointed this out but the reason it is so "complex" is because of all the explanation and reasoning why it would be done. It is actually a pretty simple thing although I'm still waiting to see how much it would change things if small ships also operated that way.

I'd say 99% of the reason that things don't work that way now is because setting a ship down on top of a template makes is a bit difficult to remove that template.

That's where the second move token comes in to mark the forward point of the 2 move token comes in.

Regarding changing the points cost or restricting which ships can take it we already know they won't do that. They have said so specifically that they will not change the cost of existing cards, and have yet to do so. As it comes with big ships and has the falcon on the card I don't see it being changed to be small ship only either.

I noticed this when I got my Falcon a few weeks ago. I thought the falcon should have a 5 template. Han did say she's the fastest hunk of junk in the galaxy and could out run the big ships. I don't have a large ship yet and I wish I did just to see how the movement compares.

The falcon specifically has the fastest hyperdrive of any ship in the galaxy. Sub-light is was a fast bus, as evidence of basic tie fighters catching up to it and overtaking it in episodes 4-6.

X-wing actually really doesn't take momentum or inertia into account in its core rules, which is surprising as it's the first space combat miniatures game I've played which doesn't.

Regarding the common refrain of "bigger engine = faster vehicle" I would ask you to ponder this scenario. You see on the news that the police are in pursuit of an 18 wheeler truck on the interstate. Do you say to yourself "those cop cars will never be able to catch up to that 18 wheeler, it's engine is so much bigger it's infinitely faster!" I doubt it. Another comparison is a C5 Galaxy vs an F22 raptor. The engines of the galaxy are almost the same size as the raptor, and it has 4 of them while the raptor only has 2 engines, so logically the Galaxy must be faster!

The Boost mechanic represents an "afterburner" movement when a ship eeks out a little extra thrust to go just a bit faster. Because the mass of a big ship is several times larger than the mass of a small ship this "little extra thrust" really doesn't move the larger ship as much. It's Newton's second law. Force = Acceleration X Mass. If you are Accelerating faster and you have a much greater mass the amount of additional force required to achieve the acceleration is exponentially greater.

But my argument is fundamentally a game balance one, as Xwing really doesn't relate well to physics and that's cool.

Posted at

I think it's brilliant actually. Not exactly usable, but brilliant none the less. I had read the other thread when it was on the board for discussion and new, thought it was brilliant too, also unusable because of how the action would then interfere with other objects like placing the template over rocks or other ships. For an advanced or second edition rule though? Absolutely would use this. But I'd rather see a new template system devised that has small and large ship's in mind from the start if I'm to be honest.

For the current edition I'd like:

Engine upgrade erratas to small ship only and three points

•Advanced Engine upgrade(unique), 3pts, modification. Small ship only, action bar gains boost. Action: perform a boost action

•Overclocked engines (unique), 5pts, modification. Large ship only. Action bar gains boost. Action: perform a boost action

Posted at

Just allow small ships to boost with 1's or 2's templates and they will at least be as fast and considering their advanced movility in general, it would make them more premier arc-dodgers.

That's moving into SLAM territory but yeah.

Large ships use the 1 template

Small ships may use either 1, 2 (or even 3?) templates. A shuttle shouldn't be as fast as an Interceptor or A-Wing.

Posted at

I don't have a large ship yet and I wish I did just to see how the movement compares. I can see larger bases getting an even larger, exponentialy, movement bonus as in, "Wasn't that corvette beside us a moment ago?". I do know the large stuff has it's own movement temps.

Huge ships move a lot slower than small or large ships, because of the way the huge ship maneuver template is used. A small or large ship that dials in a 4 straight will cover four distance units plus their base size, but a huge ship that dials in a 4 straight will only move four distance units. Their base size doesn't enter into it, because they're not being placed at the end of the template, just sliding along it.

Edited by digitalbusker
Posted at

I don't have a large ship yet and I wish I did just to see how the movement compares. I can see larger bases getting an even larger, exponentialy, movement bonus as in, "Wasn't that corvette beside us a moment ago?". I do know the large stuff has it's own movement temps.

Huge ships move a lot slower than small or large ships, because of the way the huge ship maneuver template is used. A small or large ship that dials in a 4 straight will cover four distance units plus their base size, but a huge ship that dials in a 4 straight will only move four distance units. Their base size doesn't enter into it, because they're not being placed at the end of the template, just sliding along it.

In theory that may be how small and large ships should have moved as well. It sure would have helped some of these current problems.

It also illustrates an interesting point. For a small ship that performs a speed 1 maneuver it needs to perform a speed 3 maneuver to move it's nose twice as far instead of the expected speed 3. Doubling a speed 2 requires performing a speed 5 maneuver! Large ships are even worse as moving the nose twice as far as a speed 1 requires using a speed 4.

Having the template cover starting nose to finishing tail may have been the easiest but it does lead to some strange things including the incredible speed large ships can demonstrate.

Posted at

I have looked into this boost issue and think it can be tamed down like the barrel roll on large ships.

Turn the 1 straight sideways when boosting forward, and when boosting right move the 1 bank templat to the left hand side of the base and the same when boosting left put the templat to the far right.

Posted at

I don't have a large ship yet and I wish I did just to see how the movement compares. I can see larger bases getting an even larger, exponentialy, movement bonus as in, "Wasn't that corvette beside us a moment ago?". I do know the large stuff has it's own movement temps.

Huge ships move a lot slower than small or large ships, because of the way the huge ship maneuver template is used. A small or large ship that dials in a 4 straight will cover four distance units plus their base size, but a huge ship that dials in a 4 straight will only move four distance units. Their base size doesn't enter into it, because they're not being placed at the end of the template, just sliding along it.

In theory that may be how small and large ships should have moved as well. It sure would have helped some of these current problems.

It also illustrates an interesting point. For a small ship that performs a speed 1 maneuver it needs to perform a speed 3 maneuver to move it's nose twice as far instead of the expected speed 3. Doubling a speed 2 requires performing a speed 5 maneuver! Large ships are even worse as moving the nose twice as far as a speed 1 requires using a speed 4.

Having the template cover starting nose to finishing tail may have been the easiest but it does lead to some strange things including the incredible speed large ships can demonstrate.

I think I understand what you said, possibly...

I imagine that if they used that mechanism the movement tokens would be designed differently.