They should also errata the collision rules so that small ships are obliterated when they try to block a large ship.

It's only logical. Small ships are benefiting proportionally more from a lack of collision damage than large ships do and this needs to be addressed.

You've confused bumping with actual collisions.

My fist collided with the last face that told me that.

Ooh, an Internet Tough Guy! We haven't had one of those since Ribann.

I'm not a guy I'm a marine biologist.

Easiest fix for large ship boost: Let small ships use speed 2 maneuvers when boosting.

Easiest fix for large ship boost: Let small ships use speed 2 maneuvers when boosting.

That's not a fix for anything. That's like noticing a leaking pipe, and deciding to fix it by knocking your house down with a bulldozer. I mean, congratulations: the pipe is no longer your biggest home repair issue! But it's still leaking, and now you have nowhere to sleep.

Look at all these shuttle hating fools.

really unwise

see, large-base boosting isn't exactly a win-win deal. It's more of a trade-off

+displacement

-fat ass getting stuck on ****, making it more difficult to pull boosts off (especially around obstacles), either due to losing action or being unable to complete the action

getting your boosts denied can really screw you over when you're flying a large, arced ship (distance moved + rotation = sometimes, bad times). that many points wrapped up into a package that's not getting a shot off (or escaping) can be exceptionally painful, and make you wish you were flying an A or interceptor instead

of course, that's only when you care about you arc. If you don't have any arc or range restriction to your weapon, there's not much stopping you from just enjoying the increased displacement with essentially no drawback.

I'd rather not see an eratta. Instead, I'd rather see new modifications that are MORE appealing to large ships than Engine Upgrade.

I'd have to be nearly broken to replace EU. I wish Counter Measures wasn't priced at a silly 3 points. If it was 1 point could see people taking it more often.

Agreed. Counter measures is one of those head scratchers for how FFG prices things. They did a pretty good job of judging the value of single use upgrades in adrenaline rush (1 point), and now in crack shot and lightning reflexes as well (also 1 point), and even glitterstim, though a point higher then these, seems well priced at 2. While those are all not in the modification slot, they all have about the same amount of upside as Counter Measures. I'd say it's comparable to glitterstim, but it's only defensive. So ya, it should at MOST be 2 points. 1 would be a good buy, but still not as good as Engine. But at 3 it's basically unusable.

I'd like to see, after boosting this turn, ships can only attack within their primary firing arc.

If you load them up on stress, it isn't even an issue.

It's like The Mongoose and The Warthog. Halo 3 players widely believed The Mongoose was faster than The Warthog, but it wasn't. It only had a faster acceleration and nimbler handling. Though The Mongoose had a higher acceleration, by no means in any way was it faster. Quite often, in straight-aways the Warthog would outpace The Mongoose. The engine was simply more powerful.

Besides the Warthog is cooler looking....looks like a big cat.

What, like a Puma?

It's like The Mongoose and The Warthog. Halo 3 players widely believed The Mongoose was faster than The Warthog, but it wasn't. It only had a faster acceleration and nimbler handling. Though The Mongoose had a higher acceleration, by no means in any way was it faster. Quite often, in straight-aways the Warthog would outpace The Mongoose. The engine was simply more powerful.

Besides the Warthog is cooler looking....looks like a big cat.

What, like a Puma?

Dude, come on:

It's like The Mongoose and The Warthog. Halo 3 players widely believed The Mongoose was faster than The Warthog, but it wasn't. It only had a faster acceleration and nimbler handling. Though The Mongoose had a higher acceleration, by no means in any way was it faster. Quite often, in straight-aways the Warthog would outpace The Mongoose. The engine was simply more powerful.

Besides the Warthog is cooler looking....looks like a big cat.

You mean like a puma?

Possible?

Maybe. The current method is easy to explain, easy to understand, and easy to perform at the table; any replacement method should meet those same three standards.

Wise?

No, at least until a couple of other things have been tried. It's part of the problem on Dash, Han, and Chiraneau, but Lambdas and high-PS Firesprays often want Engine Upgrade too. Any change to Engine Upgrade or boost in general that "fixes" the meta-defining turrets could also potentially punch down at the non-turret Large ships that don't need fixes.

Just theorizing here, but do you think that the Lambda and Firespray would maybe appreciate a tighter bank when performing the boost? That is not to suggest that those ships need a fix as well (because I agree with you, they don't), but that a tighter boost may actually be a benefit those ships?

To steal an image from another thread (credit Farlander):

It's perhaps not ideal for escaping combat for a round, but a Lambda might enjoy the tighter bank boost especially after a 2-turn when re-positioning. Same likely goes for the Firespray/Aggressor.

Just theorizing here, but do you think that the Lambda and Firespray would maybe appreciate a tighter bank when performing the boost? That is not to suggest that those ships need a fix as well (because I agree with you, they don't), but that a tighter boost may actually be a benefit those ships?

To steal an image from another thread (credit Farlander):

(snip)

It's perhaps not ideal for escaping combat for a round, but a Lambda might enjoy the tighter bank boost especially after a 2-turn when re-positioning. Same likely goes for the Firespray/Aggressor.

I've actually tested that right-most option out, and it's one of my favorites of the theorized fixes. But I'm not actually sure it fixes the "problem" for the turrets, since it's still a fair amount of displacement...

Just theorizing here, but do you think that the Lambda and Firespray would maybe appreciate a tighter bank when performing the boost? That is not to suggest that those ships need a fix as well (because I agree with you, they don't), but that a tighter boost may actually be a benefit those ships?

To steal an image from another thread (credit Farlander):

(snip)

It's perhaps not ideal for escaping combat for a round, but a Lambda might enjoy the tighter bank boost especially after a 2-turn when re-positioning. Same likely goes for the Firespray/Aggressor.

I've actually tested that right-most option out, and it's one of my favorites of the theorized fixes. But I'm not actually sure it fixes the "problem" for the turrets, since it's still a fair amount of displacement...

Tested with Lambdas/Firesprays? Or just with large turrets?

I'm curious if the tighter bank is actually better for non-turrets to maintain firing arc versus the way boost is now.

Just theorizing here, but do you think that the Lambda and Firespray would maybe appreciate a tighter bank when performing the boost? That is not to suggest that those ships need a fix as well (because I agree with you, they don't), but that a tighter boost may actually be a benefit those ships?

To steal an image from another thread (credit Farlander):

(snip)

It's perhaps not ideal for escaping combat for a round, but a Lambda might enjoy the tighter bank boost especially after a 2-turn when re-positioning. Same likely goes for the Firespray/Aggressor.

I've actually tested that right-most option out, and it's one of my favorites of the theorized fixes. But I'm not actually sure it fixes the "problem" for the turrets, since it's still a fair amount of displacement...

Tested with Lambdas/Firesprays? Or just with large turrets?

I'm curious if the tighter bank is actually better for non-turrets to maintain firing arc versus the way boost is now.

Both. And yeah, it's a tighter turn, which means if you're using the boost action mainly to orient your firing arc, you'll like it better.

And it's a little less displacement than the current version, but especially for Dash, it's still more than enough displacement to slip out of firing arcs. So I'm not sure it's the fix people are really looking for, either.

Just theorizing here, but do you think that the Lambda and Firespray would maybe appreciate a tighter bank when performing the boost? That is not to suggest that those ships need a fix as well (because I agree with you, they don't), but that a tighter boost may actually be a benefit those ships?

To steal an image from another thread (credit Farlander):

(snip)

It's perhaps not ideal for escaping combat for a round, but a Lambda might enjoy the tighter bank boost especially after a 2-turn when re-positioning. Same likely goes for the Firespray/Aggressor.

I've actually tested that right-most option out, and it's one of my favorites of the theorized fixes. But I'm not actually sure it fixes the "problem" for the turrets, since it's still a fair amount of displacement...

Tested with Lambdas/Firesprays? Or just with large turrets?

I'm curious if the tighter bank is actually better for non-turrets to maintain firing arc versus the way boost is now.

Both. And yeah, it's a tighter turn, which means if you're using the boost action mainly to orient your firing arc, you'll like it better.

And it's a little less displacement than the current version, but especially for Dash, it's still more than enough displacement to slip out of firing arcs. So I'm not sure it's the fix people are really looking for, either.

IMO, and as stated in the thread I linked to earlier, since half the players seem to think there's no need for a fix and half the players seem to think there is one, this is just fine: reigning in the power of large ship boost without completely eliminating it as a viable option.

Had not even thought about the fact that Engine Upgrade came in the Falcon expansion when I started the thread. It's just too bad the extra attack die on the Falcon was included on the pilot cards instead of the title as it has been for the Outrider and Punishing One. One of those missed opportunities that hindsight makes fairly obvious.

My complaint about arc-dodging Decimators comes from trying to kill one with B-wings. B-wings ain't supposed to fly like an interceptor, granted, but it can be almost impossible to catch a wounded Decimator at the end of a timed round with multiple B-wings.

Don't huge ships only move a templates worth of distance when they do a 1 straight or bank? (unlike large and small ships which move the template plus their base)

Interesting.

Well if you are a non-turret I think you are using the boost action to orient your arc most of the time. Even when escaping you are trying to orient yourself to better train your arcs on target for the next turn (thinking of a Lambda 2-turn + boost to get turned around sharply and back in the fight). Otherwise you are using it to block or maybe using Adv Sensors Aggressor with bombs to get the bomb out into a different lane.

As ObiWonka says, you don't want to eliminate large-ship boost as an option, just reign it in. It is true that the movement that Super Dash can do is really stupid good, but perhaps with a tighter boost its just stupid good.

If it reigns in large turrets a little, while still making it an option for them, and actually poses a benefit to non-turret large ships (and doesn't hurt them), then I'd say that option is just fine to implement and should probably be considered.

Edit: Also quoting fail..

How would you do the banking boost?

The Decimator is 4x the area of a small ship. I'm not sure I agree with it being an arc dodger.

How would you do the banking boost?

The Decimator is 4x the area of a small ship. I'm not sure I agree with it being an arc dodger.

Again, try to chase one down with B-wings as time expires in a tourney.

Engine upgrade comes with two ships: The Falcon, and the Hounds Tooth. It's never gonna happen. You know how you beat PWT? Block them, deny them actions. If you cant block them, block the boost. It's really not that bad if you focus your fire on them.

That's adorable

To those people arguing that people should effectively just deal with it (although many such people put it more politely than this paraphrasing), I don't think the problem is that simple. Personally, my dislike of these ships isn't about how difficult they are to play against, just how much they dominate the meta at tournaments. If they weren't a strong build they wouldn't dominate like they do. Therefore nerfing them only helps to increase variety of list builds for competitive play.

To those people arguing that people should effectively just deal with it (although many such people put it more politely than this paraphrasing), I don't think the problem is that simple. Personally, my dislike of these ships isn't about how difficult they are to play against, just how much they dominate the meta at tournaments. If they weren't a strong build they wouldn't dominate like they do. Therefore nerfing them only helps to increase variety of list builds for competitive play.

The only reason they are so dominant in the tourney meta is because of MOV. If a big ship was at half health or less, and you got half the points it was worth (rounding up) for taking that much health, it wouldnt be that big of a deal. Big ship turrets will continue to dominate the meta until something like this happens. The complaints against them are just old and boring now. This is how the game is and it is possible to beat them. Pilot skill is really the main factor in winning, not the ship you are flying.

Engine upgrade comes with two ships: The Falcon, and the Hounds Tooth. It's never gonna happen. You know how you beat PWT? Block them, deny them actions. If you cant block them, block the boost. It's really not that bad if you focus your fire on them.

That's adorable

You know what's adorable? You not being able to figure out how to beat a turret.

...

Maybe two ways to "fix" what may or may not be considered a problem.

1. Engine Upgrade is errata'd to be small ship only. Unambiguous but probably unlikely.

2. Cause large ships to boost using the flat side of a maneuver template Unless that ship comes with boost on its action bar. So EU on large base ship becomes a smaller bump and cannot be used to change direction.

So how terrible an idea is it? I'm sure the answer depends partly on how often you plan on running a large ship with Engine Upgrade.

Option #1 is pretty much something that should NEVER happen. When the only way to get it is currently from large ships it would be a crime to say they couldn't use it themselves.

I'm not sure how option #2 is supposed to work.

IF it needs to be change I think I've seen two ideas I could support.

One is that instead of placing the template inside the guides you place it outside of the guides. If banking the template goes opposite the back to make it shorter. If straight then I guess you'd use the edge of the template a little like how BR now works with large ships.

The easier one to explain, but possibly harder to execute, is that instead of using speed 1 templates you use speed 2 templates BUT instead picking the ship ship up and moving it so the back guides line up with the template you have it so that the front guides only move the length of the template. The problem is that this places the ship on top of the template so that another marker in needed to mark the ship's position while the maneuver template is removed. This means that when a small ship moves the front of the ship basically moves 2 'units' of distance which would match up with a large ship's nose moving 2 "units" of distance when using the RAW they move 3 units of distance.