Shuttles cap out at around 32 points, so the change doesn't really hurt them that much.

I'll keep EU and my gunshuttles as is thank you very much. A shuttle without EU is just a Palpmobile.

or the Vadervolvo

Shuttles cap out at around 32 points, so the change doesn't really hurt them that much.

I'll keep EU and my gunshuttles as is thank you very much. A shuttle without EU is just a Palpmobile.

or the Vadervolvo

Oh yeah, I keep forgetting that's a thing.

I'm not a fan of the new ruling.

Me, either. Half-points for Large ships is, implicitly, a claim that Large-ships are all advantage, no disadvantage. And that's simply not true.

The half-points rule is a very odd -- popular, but that doesn't make it less odd -- attempt to address the symptoms (high-MoV for ships containing big lists) rather than the disease (primarily Large-Boost, admittedly in lesser collaboration with stuff like C-3PO and Ysanne Isarde).

It's especially odd as it comes so immediately on the heels of the TLT, which is, in itself, one of the worst nightmares Large ships could have conceived of.

I would venture a guess that FFG's intention was to reduce the variability of how many points could be tied up in a Point Fortress. Instead of having 50-65 Point Fortresses, we now have 30-40 Point Fortresses. That's still pretty bad, but at least it is an improvement.

Although boost on large base ships is almost certainly their greatest asset and might deserve its own attention, the underlying scoring issue still remains, for all the reasons in my earlier post. I will be so bold as to say that if you can't think of any cases where even half points will distort the game, that you simply haven't thought about it hard enough, or run into such scenarios. There are a LOT of ways that scoring can still reach a "wrong" conclusion at time. And when a 2-3 ship list fights another 2-3 ship list, the Fatter MoV list will still almost always win at time unless one side has an absolutely overwhelming advantage.

Also, you don't need boost on a large base ship to win. The only list that I have real trouble against as BroBots, and am 1-3 against, does not have boost on Kenkirk. As is the trend, that list also wins at time based on the MoV breakdown, unless I already have an overwhelming advantage. This directly and adversely affects my tactical options if the game is close. A 58 point Fat Ship still beats a 49 point Fat Ship at time with the new rules.

A 58 point Fat Ship still beats a 49 point Fat Ship at time with the new rules.

The important take away was that a fat ship lost. The scoring change is working!

It may not be perfect but that match would have ended with the same result but at least the MoVs are more reflective of the match.

A 58 point Fat Ship still beats a 49 point Fat Ship at time with the new rules.

The important take away was that a fat ship lost. The scoring change is working!

It may not be perfect but that match would have ended with the same result but at least the MoVs are more reflective of the match.

Well, if two Fat Ships play each other, then at least one side has to lose?

The point is that a PS6 1HP Fat Decimator still beats the 4HP PS8 IG88 at time though. Because, Fatness is more important than who is actually winning!

A 58 point Fat Ship still beats a 49 point Fat Ship at time with the new rules.

The important take away was that a fat ship lost. The scoring change is working!

It may not be perfect but that match would have ended with the same result but at least the MoVs are more reflective of the match.

Well, if two Fat Ships play each other, then at least one side has to lose?

The point is that a PS6 1HP Fat Decimator still beats the 4HP PS8 IG88 at time though. Because, Fatness is more important than who is actually winning!

What would be the big issue with small ships also following the half MoV rule? As far as I can tell it wouldn't really change much.

The same issue that happened when they introduced it for large ships.

The people that were benefiting from the lack of the rule would have to change how they play. And they simply have no tolerance for that.

1.) If you would have nerfed large ship boost instead we'd have many more people complaining about how it hurts Lambdas and Firesprays too much than we currently do complaining about large ship half point scoring. "You can't nerf large ship boost, the Lambda would NEVER be able to turn around!"

You know what?

So be it.

The fact that large-base boost can turn a Lambda into a better dogfighter than some actual fighters is a case in point for how ridiculous it is when you can give it to everyone. I also don't think it's a coincidence that the only large ship with native Boost has a dial that tops out at speed 3, or that all of the other upgrade cards which impart repositioning abilities come with steep drawbacks. Engine Upgrade was a big mistake, possibly one of the biggest FFG have made (and certainly the biggest they haven't yet addressed), and the longer FFG goes without dealing with it the harder it will be when they finally do.

However, Boost on large ships shouldn't be nerfed: Engine Upgrade should be made small-ship only. It has been the source of the 2-ship meta more than Threepio, Isard, or any other upgrade or pilot.

Get rid of it, and Falcons and Decis would get immediately brought back to earth, all the Shuttle loses is the gimmicky Buzzsaw setup, Aggressors aren't smashed the way they would be from a Boost nerf, and even 2400s can live without it as evidenced by the fact a Dash without Engine Upgrade won a Store Champ last year. The only ship which is unduly impacted is the Firespray, and FFG can always give it more toys down the track to compensate.

And yes, it would be frustrating that you can't use the card on the ships it comes with outside of casual play, but I don't think that or the hit to the Firespray are unfair prices to pay to solve one of the game's biggest balance issues.

Isn't this basically the same thing as saying Boost on large ships should be nerfed when only one large ship can naturally boost?

And yeah, as a new player who recently bought the Millennium Falcon, it would be very frustrating if I completely lost the option to play it with one of the upgrades it came with (an upgrade with a picture of the Falcon for crying out loud).

Isn't this basically the same thing as saying Boost on large ships should be nerfed when only one large ship can naturally boost?

I'm saying there's a very, very good reason only one large-based ship has boost naturally. With the amount of distance it covers, large ships simply should not have this action unless it was accounted for in design (Aggressor) or it has some kind of drawback (Leebo crew). It is simply too powerful and, unlike barrel roll, there's no easy way to bring it back in line.

And yeah, as a new player who recently bought the Millennium Falcon, it would be very frustrating if I completely lost the option to play it with one of the upgrades it came with (an upgrade with a picture of the Falcon for crying out loud).

Players of many other games, including such stalwarts as Magic the Gathering, have dealt with losing the option to play with some of their stuff at all for many years now. Sometimes after they've paid triple-digit sums to acquire them. I think we can deal with not being able to use one card found in two expansions on a handful of ships in competitive play.

Game balance comes first. Always.

Large bases deserve boosts too. It allows the player more options, and have you ever seen larger vessel in Star Wars NOT be absolutely deadly? Why do you think, back in SWG, everybody wanted their POBs? Their YTs, Decimators, Couriers?

Because they were better than starfighters ever could be. Repairable systems, living spaces, turreted weapons, stronger hulls, engines, shields, they had it all. They were the best and it didn't get any better unless you were flying a very specialized fighter.

And let me tell you, as a player of Elite: Dangerous, I'm fairly certain the Fer-De-Lance, Python, and Anaconda would NOT be very popular starship choices if they could not boost.

The ability to kick your engines into overdrive belongs on bigger, stronger, more capable engines. Like, the little starfighter engines need it too, but let's face the facts here, they're not as powerful- thus, bigger ships gaining more benefits from a boost due to their large base makes complete sense.

It reminds me very much of the Warthog and Mongoose in Halo 3 forward.

People thought the Mongoose was faster than The Warthog. But it wasn't. It had a much higher acceleration due to lighter mass and smaller size. But in the end, while it took longer, The Warthog *ALWAYS* beat it out in a drag. Because the engine was simply more powerful: Because it needed to be to haul that crazy, crazy mass around.

And hey, wouldn't you know- The Warthog had a turret and a passenger seat that could have a variety of added offensive benefits.

So all in all? You bet your exhaust port that big ships should maintain their ability to boost. Just remember...

The Falcon just barely outran Star Destroyers due to engine power and speed.

The Falcon just barely outran Star Destroyers due to engine power and speed.

I. Don't. Care.

And neither should you, or anyone else.

None of what you just said has any impact on whether or not large ships should have access to Engine Upgrade. It is a question of game balance, not of whether or not it suits the fluff. The only consideration is if giving large-based ships such easy access to the Boost action is detrimental to the game's balance, and I would think that, after more than a year of watching PWTs with Engine Upgrade rack up the tournament wins, the answer would be rather obvious.

Large-based ships can have Boost, but only if it is properly balanced. Either it should come with drawbacks and/or opportunity costs, like Leebo crew, or it should be native to the ship so it can be accounted for in design, like the Aggressor. But handing it out with no drawback on a card every ship can equip for a fairly insignificant cost? Should not have happened.

In fact, I promise you, if Engine Upgrade hadn't been released with the Falcon, but had instead come with the Hound's Tooth for the first time, it would have been decried as game-breaking the moment it was previewed. The only reason it's considered even remotely acceptable is because we've had it for so long.

Isn't this basically the same thing as saying Boost on large ships should be nerfed when only one large ship can naturally boost?

I'm saying there's a very, very good reason only one large-based ship has boost naturally. With the amount of distance it covers, large ships simply should not have this action unless it was accounted for in design (Aggressor) or it has some kind of drawback (Leebo crew). It is simply too powerful and, unlike barrel roll, there's no easy way to bring it back in line.

And yeah, as a new player who recently bought the Millennium Falcon, it would be very frustrating if I completely lost the option to play it with one of the upgrades it came with (an upgrade with a picture of the Falcon for crying out loud).

Players of many other games, including such stalwarts as Magic the Gathering, have dealt with losing the option to play with some of their stuff at all for many years now. Sometimes after they've paid triple-digit sums to acquire them. I think we can deal with not being able to use one card found in two expansions on a handful of ships in competitive play.

Game balance comes first. Always.

Isn't it a bit premature to be talking about game balance when tournament rules were just updated with a large ship nerf?

You're talking as if large ships having an access to Engine Upgrade is an immense game balance issue that must be fixed by banning Engine Upgrade on certain ships, so where are the tournament results post-MOV rules change to back that up?

Good point, and I'm willing to wait and see. But the rule change is fixing a symptom of the real problem, not the actual problem, so I'm not convinced it's going to make a huge difference.

Ok fluff<game balance. But how about common sense? A FREIGHTER, that can outrun a FIGHTER every time is not common sense. Boost on large ships has directly contributed to the stupid 'avoid the table edge' ( to repeat someone elses phrase) play, which is just dull and obnoxious to play against. When at any point in known conflict, a fighter cannot outrun a freighter, then there is something seriously wrong with fighter design.... Or maybe large ship boost is just broken.

Ok fluff<game balance. But how about common sense? A FREIGHTER, that can outrun a FIGHTER every time is not common sense. Boost on large ships has directly contributed to the stupid 'avoid the table edge' ( to repeat someone elses phrase) play, which is just dull and obnoxious to play against. When at any point in known conflict, a fighter cannot outrun a freighter, then there is something seriously wrong with fighter design.... Or maybe large ship boost is just broken.

The YTs are meant to be mobile- FFG could've given them bad dials but they chose to let Han Solo do hotshot flying with it and I kinda agree with the decision. Point-wise, the fatties are not actually that efficient and if you can pin them down you can put them in the dirt. EU is one reason but it's not the only thing making turret ships work(in fact I think people tend to overuse boost, at least in my meta.)

I mean, the YV-666 has more straight line speed than most fighters in the game, too, but nobody's complaining about its mobility.

Ok fluff<game balance. But how about common sense? A FREIGHTER, that can outrun a FIGHTER every time is not common sense. Boost on large ships has directly contributed to the stupid 'avoid the table edge' ( to repeat someone elses phrase) play, which is just dull and obnoxious to play against. When at any point in known conflict, a fighter cannot outrun a freighter, then there is something seriously wrong with fighter design.... Or maybe large ship boost is just broken.

The falcon was chasing down Interceptors at Endor. And made it out of an exploding DS. It's plenty fast and maneuverable by the time of ROTJ. It's the fastest ship in the fleet!

Ok fluff<game balance. But how about common sense? A FREIGHTER, that can outrun a FIGHTER every time is not common sense. Boost on large ships has directly contributed to the stupid 'avoid the table edge' ( to repeat someone elses phrase) play, which is just dull and obnoxious to play against. When at any point in known conflict, a fighter cannot outrun a freighter, then there is something seriously wrong with fighter design.... Or maybe large ship boost is just broken.

The falcon was chasing down Interceptors at Endor. And made it out of an exploding DS. It's plenty fast and maneuverable by the time of ROTJ. It's the fastest ship in the fleet!

Granted, that isn't the impression a lot of people get from Endor, but as a counterpoint, remember when Four Ties flew rings around the Falcon in Episode IV.

I don't see a change to large ship boost coming soon.

Remember that the only two ships that come with Engine Upgrade is the Falcon and the Hound's Tooth, two large base ship. I could see an argument being made that the Falcon came in wave 2, but if FFG really considered that Boost on Large Base ship was a problem, they would not have included the Upgrade with the Hound's Tooth in the latest Wave.

Also, if a change was to be made, I think they would have done it during wave 6 when the first Large Base ship that has a natural boost (The Aggressor) came out, just like they did with Barrel Roll when the Outrider came out. They playtested the ship, saw there was a problem with the current Barrel Roll mechanic on Large Base and made the change. They now playtested the Aggressor, and probably saw a TONS of game where there is a boosting Falcon or Decimator and don't seems to think there is a problem.

I might of course be wrong, but I really don't see a change to Large Base ship Boost coming soon, if there will ever be one. I think they would have make it by now if they did consider that there was a problem.

I mean, the YV-666 has more straight line speed than most fighters in the game, too, but nobody's complaining about its mobility.

But seriously i agree with most of what you said. I know the Falcon (not every single YT1300) was meant to be crazy maneuverable for its size. But in every pc manifestation of the games i can think of, fighters (even slow ones) could catch freighters, even the Falcon and definitely generic YT series ships. Slowly sometimes (Y Wings!) but catch them nonetheless. Sure the Falcon could outrun star destroyers. But they werent fighters. I dont think there is anyone who is going to argue that star destroyers should be able to outrun fighters too.

Thats like arguing a WW2 fighter wasnt quick enough to catch a battleship.

I'm not a fan of the new ruling. I honestly think it allows weaker players to win matches they shouldn't have won.

The same could be said for the old way. Does it really take skill to randomly set your Falcon dial and then just boost to a good spot if you end up in a bad one and force your opponent to over commit to taking out your point fortress?

At least Soontir doesn't get to shoot at what he's running away from.

I respectfully disagree, I believe Boost is not an inherent problem with game balance. I reserve the right to change my opinion after seeing some more tournament results, but I don't think it's really the issue. I believe I understand the arguments against it, and I agree that it provides a larger benefit to the larger ships; that's pretty easily quantifiable. The point at which it provides such a benefit, however, is where I disagree.

It's mostly unbalanced on Han and Chiraneau. That's kind of it.

Large-base Primary Weapon Turrets using it to adjust position at the last possible moment before the Combat phase is the main issue. That's those two pilots, paying for the privilege. You're paying for Pilot Skill, Pilot Ability, and the Modification itself. You're losing jousting efficiency, you're losing access to other Mods or Abilities, and you're generally spending a lot of points overall for the one ship that can do this.

I'm all for incorporating the fluff but like so many other modifications and bits of equipment it isn't necessarily going to be represented all the time; just like not every B-Wing comes equipped with a Fire-Control System, Advanced Sensors, three Ion Cannons, an Autoblaster, and a Heavy Laser Cannon (what I would give to link-fire all of that), not every Falcon is going to be equipped with an Engine Upgrade. And that's fine. It's a choice of list building that reflects a game mechanic.

It's one of the quirks of the game that all ships have similar speeds but it does allow a smaller game board.

I respectfully disagree, I believe Boost is not an inherent problem with game balance...

Yup. No one worries about Engine Upgrade on Omicron Group Pilots or Wild Space Fringers, and it's good but not great for a Firespray until you get something like VI Fett.

Engine Upgrade on Large ships like Han and Dash and Chiraneau does look like a problem, but it's actually due to two more fundamental factors in the game:

(1) The more expensive a ship is, the more effective upgrades tend to be.

(2) Engine Upgrade (like barrel roll and other ways to change your position and heading) varies a lot in power based on the PS of the ship using it.

So Engine Upgrade is typically most effective (that is, provides more value than it costss) on high-PS ships, and Large, high-PS fortresses can leverage that advantage best.

I don't know how to fix those issues, nor am I sure FFG sees it the same way I do. But I think Jeff Wilder (and others) are wrong to think that boost on Large ships is the fundamental problem.

don't forget the PWT advantage

boost changing facing or potentially overshooting targets can impart an actual choice on most arced ships, since it changes which targets they may or may not shoot at

PWTs don't give half a **** about that, though

I respectfully disagree, I believe Boost is not an inherent problem with game balance...

Yup. No one worries about Engine Upgrade on Omicron Group Pilots or Wild Space Fringers, and it's good but not great for a Firespray until you get something like VI Fett.Engine Upgrade on Large ships like Han and Dash and Chiraneau does look like a problem, but it's actually due to two more fundamental factors in the game:(1) The more expensive a ship is, the more effective upgrades tend to be.(2) Engine Upgrade (like barrel roll and other ways to change your position and heading) varies a lot in power based on the PS of the ship using it.So Engine Upgrade is typically most effective (that is, provides more value than it costss) on high-PS ships, and Large, high-PS fortresses can leverage that advantage best.I don't know how to fix those issues, nor am I sure FFG sees it the same way I do. But I think Jeff Wilder (and others) are wrong to think that boost on Large ships is the fundamental problem.

Boost as an action in the game isnt a problem. Boost on large based ships wouldnt be a problem except that they gain a disproportionate amount of speed from the same action compared to small base ships. Beyond the fact it makes them impossible to catch, which is both bad for gameplay i.e. circling the table edge - and also contrary to fluff and common sense, I would agree. It isnt an issue. When you add PS and MOV into the mix, the problem becomes game changing (literally). I hope the recent changes fix this. I can live with fast, fat turrets. But when they abuse the loophole to fortress points in tournaments by running away and when the fastest small based ships in the game cant catch them, it is bad for the game