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

Large-based ships CAN'T outrun small-based ships especially given the size of the board. Let's say the Falcon and an A-Wing are on a starting line. Both go full-forward and boost. The back of their ships will be at the same exact spot and the front of the Falcon will be one small-based ship in front of it. If they go full-forward again from that same position, the front of the A-Wing will be at the same point on the back of the Falcon and the front of the Falcon will be 1 large-base length in front of the A-Wing. They can't do that again without running off the board. And consider the fact that 1 range band is 2.5 small-base lengths making the entire ruler 7.5 small-base lengths, you're not going to outrun a small ship with a large-base boosting ship.

That's bull. You can't outrun a large boosting turret. Over successive turns it gains more and more distance. With their large bases you end up not being able to clear the base to end up far enough in front of one often. You also have to understand that this is never a straight line problem, when the get near corners the do 3 banks and boosts. No way to catch that with a 5 straight.

The only way to have a good chance at blocking one is to fly 8 TIEs and spread then across your whole starting zone and have them converge on the turret.

I'm confused. Why are you trying to catch a Large Boost ship by flying straight? Move into the centre of the board and cut it off. Two FCS B-Wings have been able to do this since they came out. Unrelated but yet another reason I like the Flechette Cannon on them.

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.

You seem to be forgetting how powerful those engines are.

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.

Okay. That I'll give you.

If you chase directly at a fast, maneuverable, well piloted ship's current position, you'll never catch it in a million years. Because it moves. That's why you lead your target, aim ahead of where it is right now. You can get across the board in three turns, at which point your prey must turn. It is often not difficult to guess which direction, and move to intercept.

You seem to be forgetting how powerful those engines are.

In general, Noooope! On the Falcon? Maybe, because it was unique and borderline suicidally modded (also so much of the Falcons vaunted speed was in hyperspace) and fast for a big fat freighter means something different than fast for a fighter (By analogy you dont see many semi trucks winning F1 or Nascar races). On every other slow, plodding civilian freighter? You seem to be forgetting how slow those ships actually are and how heavy they are.

Battleships had really powerful engines and had if those same engines been shackled to a speedboat then it would probably sink!. Speedboats dont need big engines to be faster than battleships. Battleship engines are shackled to a big, heavy vessel. just because the engines are big and powerful doesnt guarantee speed. Fighters are fast because they have massive power to weight ratio. Battleships and freighters are slow because they dont. I know it's star wars, its not real, but it also has to conform to some appreciable reality, which we the audience understand.

If you know, please point me to where, in any of the star wars stuff before now, has it been suggested that a standard civilian freighter (not the Falcon) can outrun a dedicated military fighter. If that were the case in the real world there would be no fighters, because they would be pointless, everything would be faster than them. Fighters leverage speed to apply firepower. Its how they are designed.

Dont mean this to come off as a rant. It just bugs me that something as obvious as this gets overlooked.

If you chase directly at a fast, maneuverable, well piloted ship's current position, you'll never catch it in a million years. Because it moves. That's why you lead your target, aim ahead of where it is right now. You can get across the board in three turns, at which point your prey must turn. It is often not difficult to guess which direction, and move to intercept.

(Edit) and claiming that impossibly fast fat freighters dont matter because the board is only so big, doesnt strike me as much of an argument. Especially if you ever play on a larger board, for epic or just in general.

Also that freighter doing circuits around the outside of the play area can just switch direction or K Turn and then make distance on your fighters, even if they are cutting the corner.

If you know, please point me to where, in any of the star wars stuff before now, has it been suggested that a standard civilian freighter (not the Falcon) can outrun a dedicated military fighter.

Why are you assuming that Large ships in our game are standard civilian freighters, rather than (like the Falcon) ships that have been modified up to military grade?

unlike barrel roll, there's no easy way to bring it back in line.

Yes, there is.

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.

So ... just so I'm clear:

Your argument that there's "nothing wrong" with Large-ship Boost is that it's okay on the Lambda, the Firespray, and on a native 2-die turret?

Seriously?

Of course it's okay on those ships. The primary power of Large-ship Boost comes not from PS, but from ranging away from retaliatory fire while still getting your own effective attacks. And that's only possible on Boosting ships with strong turrets. High-PS helps with that, as it does for any repositioning, but it isn't necessary to do it, and it isn't what breaks Large-ship Boost.

The argument that "since a Boosting Lambda is okay, there's nothing wrong with Large-ship Boost" ... I mean, I don't even know how to properly ridicule that argument, because it's already so ridiculous on its face.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. If this argument had been made against Large-ship BR, it would have rightly been laughed off the stage. It isn't PS that made Large-ship BR broken ... it was the distance moved. It isn't PS that makes Large-ship Boost broken ... it's the distance moved.

Large-ship BR was fixed. Large-ship Boost should be fixed. Any repositioning effect with a disproportionate benefit for Large-ships needs to be fixed. The resistance to it is bizarre.

1.) Can I see the diagram where your proposed fix to large ship boost is demonstrated again please?

Perform the (current) Boost, the push the ship straight back 1-base (40mm). It's incredibly simple. No muss, no fuss ... shorter Boost to match the shorter BR that was (rightly) judged to be a problem.

It's just baffling to me ... changing the tournament scoring system would have been laughed off the stage as a suggestion for fixing the advantages of Large-BR. But it's lauded as a great fix for the problems caused by Large-Boost. Just bizarre.

At risk of continuing the thread hijack...

With the official barrel roll change, a large base ship still moves a half-base further edge to edge than a small base ship does. Your proposed change would make a large base and small base move the same distance on a 1 forward boost, which is arguably a bigger "nerf" than the barrel roll nerf. Strictly speaking, if the goal is to be consistent, then the large base ship should only be moved back a half a small base after a boost.

Your suggestion does require 3 template placements instead of 1 (boost one forward/bank, then place a template in line with the front of the boost, remove boost template, then add 3rd straight 1 template behind the 2nd template), OR, alternatively 2 template placements including using a 3 straight to move the ship back. The latter seems easier than the former.

However, what do you do if the old boost does not fit but the shorter (backwards 1) does? That is another complication. You would have to remove any ships that overlap the old boost, see if the new boost fits, then put the other ship back.

Would large base ships with native boost behave the same or differently than ones that need to purchase Engine Upgrade?

Lastly: I play IG88 a lot, and if I had a fourth option on how to execute a 45 degree angle change (bank 3, bank 2, bank 1, boost) I would absolutely leverage that in my setups to navigate through initial asteroid fields.... and a tighter 1 bank with the same 45 degree angle change would in many cases be preferable... be careful what you ask for!

Edit: despite the good ideas and interesting conversation on large base ship boost, I'm still politely but firmly holding my ground that MoV is still crucially important regardless. Reasons upthread, it is what it is.

If you know, please point me to where, in any of the star wars stuff before now, has it been suggested that a standard civilian freighter (not the Falcon) can outrun a dedicated military fighter.

Why are you assuming that Large ships in our game are standard civilian freighters, rather than (like the Falcon) ships that have been modified up to military grade?

Fair question, but conversely why must I assume that every single large base civilian model ship has been improbably modified to the point where it can outperform purpose built fighters? The effort alone involved to rebuild a civilian vessel to that spec would be prohibitive and therefore out of the reach of most (or are we also assuming that every captain has the funds, contacts and capability to get their hands on military grade hardware as well as a shipyard with the means to carry out such a rebuild?). It also means the Falcon, for all its supposed uniqueness, wasn't actually unique. And if this holds, then it also assumes that military/security forces have not done anything to correct the balance. A navy that can't catch any smugglers because every smuggler ship is faster than the fastest thing the navy has?!?! There sits an obsolete navy. Are we also saying that fighter design stops with the invention of a faster freighter?

With the official barrel roll change, a large base ship still moves a half-base further edge to edge than a small base ship does. Your proposed change would make a large base and small base move the same distance on a 1 forward boost, which is arguably a bigger "nerf" than the barrel roll nerf. Strictly speaking, if the goal is to be consistent, then the large base ship should only be moved back a half a small base after a boost.

They are two movement abilities, with different geometries and distances. There's no more reason to assume that Large-BR and Large-Boost fixed need to be "distance-traveled" consistent any more than there's reason to think that current Boost-left needs to be "distance-traveled" consistent with current Boost-straight.

Your suggestion does require 3 template placements instead of 1 (boost one forward/bank, then place a template in line with the front of the boost, remove boost template, then add 3rd straight 1 template behind the 2nd template), OR, alternatively 2 template placements including using a 3 straight to move the ship back. The latter seems easier than the former.

Exactly. And it's incredibly easy to do on the table. (Note, BTW, that a straight-Boost is super-easy with 4-straight template. And, yes, I use 3-straights for the side-Boosts.)

However, what do you do if the old boost does not fit but the shorter (backwards 1) does? That is another complication. You would have to remove any ships that overlap the old boost, see if the new boost fits, then put the other ship back.

Have you actually tried it on the table? It is very nearly always obvious whether my proposed Boost will fit or not. In those rare cases where it's not obvious, we do the same thing we have to do often in this case: we mark a ship or two and check. I've actually used this on the table, and it has never been a big deal.

Would large base ships with native boost behave the same or differently than ones that need to purchase Engine Upgrade?

My preference would be "the same." This, BTW, actually gives the Firespray, the Lambda, and the YV-666 a tighter turning radius. (It's also easier to judge on the table.) Whatever they lose from being able to gain range is made up for in maneuvering.

Lastly: I play IG88 a lot, and if I had a fourth option on how to execute a 45 degree angle change (bank 3, bank 2, bank 1, boost) I would absolutely leverage that in my setups to navigate through initial asteroid fields.... and a tighter 1 bank with the same 45 degree angle change would in many cases be preferable... be careful what you ask for!

That's exactly true, and I have no problem with it. IG-88 is an interesting case, because unlike most arced Large ships using Boost, IG-88 does often want to gain range, for Segnor's Loops, for K-turns, or to simply regroup and avoid getting picked apart. So while, yes, this allows the IG-88 to turn in a tighter radius, it also takes away the ranging that it sometimes wants. (The Lambda, the Firespray, and the YV-666 might very occasionally want to gain range, but not like the IG-88.)

If you know, please point me to where, in any of the star wars stuff before now, has it been suggested that a standard civilian freighter (not the Falcon) can outrun a dedicated military fighter.

Why are you assuming that Large ships in our game are standard civilian freighters, rather than (like the Falcon) ships that have been modified up to military grade?

That. That is everything I wanted to say.

YT-2400, IG-2000, Firespray-31, YT-1300, even the stock variations can be given, and this is the cool part, a modification to their systems that allows them higher speeds and flat out better engine performance.

Oh and, let's not forget the actual military vessel, the VT-49 Decimator. Which has every single right to be faster than a civilian freighter.

If you know, please point me to where, in any of the star wars stuff before now, has it been suggested that a standard civilian freighter (not the Falcon) can outrun a dedicated military fighter.

Why are you assuming that Large ships in our game are standard civilian freighters, rather than (like the Falcon) ships that have been modified up to military grade?

Fair question, but conversely why must I assume that every single large base civilian model ship has been improbably modified to the point where it can outperform purpose built fighters? The effort alone involved to rebuild a civilian vessel to that spec would be prohibitive and therefore out of the reach of most (or are we also assuming that every captain has the funds, contacts and capability to get their hands on military grade hardware as well as a shipyard with the means to carry out such a rebuild?). It also means the Falcon, for all its supposed uniqueness, wasn't actually unique. And if this holds, then it also assumes that military/security forces have not done anything to correct the balance. A navy that can't catch any smugglers because every smuggler ship is faster than the fastest thing the navy has?!?! There sits an obsolete navy. Are we also saying that fighter design stops with the invention of a faster freighter?

Generally, yes.

That said, these bigger vessels are just that much more expensive. You want something cheaper, more nimble? Then you get a starfighter. They're meant to be used en masse, regardless of the build quality. Nobody runs 1 X-Wing lists, right? But people do run 1 YT-1300 / Escort lists- and usually these escorts are pretty piddly.

It really is just a matter of space and cost efficiency.

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.

So ... just so I'm clear:

Your argument that there's "nothing wrong" with Large-ship Boost is that it's okay on the Lambda, the Firespray, and on a native 2-die turret?

Boost on high-PS Large ships is a problem. I'm not arguing that it isn't, and I'm not actually opposed to doing something about it. But I think ramping up the rhetoric around the idea that the only real problem with Large ships is Engine Upgrade is a mistake, because it's not true: there are multiple problems (one of which was addressed to an extent by the MOV change), and boost on Large ships isn't at the root of any of them.

Your argument that there's "nothing wrong" with Large-ship Boost is that it's okay on the Lambda, the Firespray, and on a native 2-die turret?

No, and if you take a step back and read through my post again I think you'll be able to see that.

I tried, but it still reads to me like that's your argument.

Boost on high-PS Large ships is a problem. I'm not arguing that it isn't, and I'm not actually opposed to doing something about it.

So far, so good. If you agree that it's a problem, do you agree that fixing the problem would have been a better step than fixing the symptom? If not, why not?

Here's the thing: I have zero doubt that Large-ship use is going to decline. I also have zero doubt that people are going to attribute that decline to the MoV change, and laud it. The problem is, there will be no evidence the MoV change actually did anything worthwhile in terms of scaling back the success of Large ships, because there's so much other stuff going on that is also encouraging scaling them back.

But I think ramping up the rhetoric around the idea that the only real problem with Large ships is Engine Upgrade is a mistake, because it's not true

I haven't actually seen a single person say the "only real problem" is Large-ship Boost. Can you point that out to me? (I, personally, have said that it's a compound problem.)

The thing is, Large-Boost is (1) the biggest one of the compound problems: for example, C-3PO is very powerful, but C-3PO gets overwhelmed by volume of firepower. Large-Boost neatly avoids that by ranging away from guns, so C-3PO doesn't get overwhelmed. Now is that a bigger problem with C-3PO, or with Large-Boost? I think it's pretty clearly the latter. (2) The one that exploits a known and previously exploited weirdness in the game regarding the way Large ships move further than Small ships do. It's an exploit that was quickly recognized and eagerly (and successfully) fixed before, but for some reason is heavily resisted now. (I wonder what has changed in the interim?) (3) The actual broken component. So, rather than "fixing" the tournament scores that happen because of the broken component, you could fix the actual broken component -- so, for instance, it doesn't only "fix" things for tournament players. ("Fix" very deliberately inside quotes.)

There are multiple problems (one of which was addressed to an extent by the MOV change)

What actual problem was fixed by the MoV change?

As far as I can tell, what the MoV change "fixed" was that people didn't like how tournament scores were coming out. So instead of fixing the actual reason tournament scores were coming out that way -- Large ships were way too survivable because of Large-Boost -- instead the way tournament scores are calculated got changed.

That's like fixing inflated test scores by switching to hexidecimal. It really couldn't be much more comical.

I. Don't. Care.

And neither should you, or anyone else.

Well I do. So suck it.

If the lore doesn't matter to you at all, and all you care about is gameplay, then don't play a Star Wars game.

Star Wars is the thing that brings most people to this game. And if things don't work like they do in Star Wars, then there's no point in it BEING a Star Wars game.

If that bothers you, then go play something that doesn't have the most popular lore in all media attached to it.

Okay okay, I think there's a lot of good points going around, but let's not let it get too personal.

Tournament structure aside, trying to better reflect player participation per-match is a positive step. Ideally we would be able to track and weigh every degree of direct player interaction (combat) but without drastically more robust software made widely available with minimal cost, that won't be happening. But we're getting closer.

Large ship Boost and by extension Engine Upgrade are not core problems to player evaluation. Were they easily abused by several ships? Yes. Were they disproportionately present in top tournament lists? Arguably yes. I believe that is directly related to other game mechanics though; at the end of it we are artificially limiting the nature of the experience through game rules and tournament structure. It isn't worth raising complaint against different ship movement capacities any more than it's worth arguing against 75 minute rounds or the 3'x3' play area. Ship movement is another portion of artificial structure supporting the game framework. The problem lies in player input to that framework, since a significant number of players were submitting the same pilots and upgrades to accomplish the same task, and a large portion of options went unused. I would argue that more of those options are becoming competitively viable again and that is indicative of positive steps. At this juncture I don't believe artificially limiting extant options is necessary or justified in the face of this trend.

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.

So ... just so I'm clear:

Your argument that there's "nothing wrong" with Large-ship Boost is that it's okay on the Lambda, the Firespray, and on a native 2-die turret?

No, and if you take a step back and read through my post again I think you'll be able to see that.

Boost on high-PS Large ships is a problem. I'm not arguing that it isn't, and I'm not actually opposed to doing something about it. But I think ramping up the rhetoric around the idea that the only real problem with Large ships is Engine Upgrade is a mistake, because it's not true: there are multiple problems (one of which was addressed to an extent by the MOV change), and boost on Large ships isn't at the root of any of them.

The problem with OP things in this game is that they're often OP for multiple reasons that synergize, yet all we do is bicker about why thing A is the /real/ problem and thing B is annoying but it's just a symptom. These problems don't exist in a vacuum, they act as force multipliers for each other.

It's not just large ship boost. It's the fact that they're turrets so they only lose an action to boost and never not have a shot. But they have hyper action economy with things like Predator and Gunner and C-3PO and RAC's ability so they can afford to spend their action on boost. And large based turrets also (used to) point fortress real well. Since they're turrets they don't have to sacrifice offense when arc dodging turning them into the best arc dodgers in the game because they lose nothing by flying purely defensively. And they all have at least mid PS so at the very least they get to leverage that as an advantage vs. most competitive generic squadrons.

I'm sure I can think of more but yeah. Large base boost is big part of the problem, but it's not the only issue. The Lambda and Firespray and HT don't get complaints about Engine Upgrade being broken on them because they pretty much just get to move a little further and change their angle a bit. They don't have all of the other stuff that large high PS fat turrets get. If they spend their action on boost they typically won't be able to shenanigans out hyper dice modification anyways. They don't cart (what was once) a 60 point fortress ass around the board, if they run away or approach a corner they may not have a shot back at an attacker, etc.

I. Don't. Care.

And neither should you, or anyone else.

Well I do. So suck it.

If the lore doesn't matter to you at all, and all you care about is gameplay, then don't play a Star Wars game.

Star Wars is the thing that brings most people to this game. And if things don't work like they do in Star Wars, then there's no point in it BEING a Star Wars game.

better question:

why play this star wars game if it's a mechanical failure because it was trying too hard to "work like things do in Star Wars"?

unless this suddenly became the only Star Wars game when I wasn't looking.

gameplay > fluff; always. If you just want Star Wars, watch the movies.

If you know, please point me to where, in any of the star wars stuff before now, has it been suggested that a standard civilian freighter (not the Falcon) can outrun a dedicated military fighter.

Why are you assuming that Large ships in our game are standard civilian freighters, rather than (like the Falcon) ships that have been modified up to military grade?

Fair question, but conversely why must I assume that every single large base civilian model ship has been improbably modified to the point where it can outperform purpose built fighters? The effort alone involved to rebuild a civilian vessel to that spec would be prohibitive and therefore out of the reach of most (or are we also assuming that every captain has the funds, contacts and capability to get their hands on military grade hardware as well as a shipyard with the means to carry out such a rebuild?). It also means the Falcon, for all its supposed uniqueness, wasn't actually unique. And if this holds, then it also assumes that military/security forces have not done anything to correct the balance. A navy that can't catch any smugglers because every smuggler ship is faster than the fastest thing the navy has?!?! There sits an obsolete navy. Are we also saying that fighter design stops with the invention of a faster freighter?

Engine Upgrade is a modification.

But outside of that, I'd assume any large base civilian model ship is absurdly kitted out to be going against fighters in a battle. The generic flavor text for the Wild Space Fringer (And to a lesser extent, the Outer Rim Smuggler) even makes reference to how these freighters are often modified.

And yes, even if every ship is modded like crazy, the Falcon is still special. Compare the statline for the Outer Rim Smuggler to the statlines of Han, Chewie, and Lando; they're way higher because those pilots are supposed to represent the Millennium Falcon, not just any smuggler's modded YT-1300.

Compare the statline for the Outer Rim Smuggler to the statlines of Han, Chewie, and Lando; they're way higher because those pilots are supposed to represent the Millennium Falcon, not just any smuggler's modded YT-1300.

Those are the only 3 pilots in the game who have a modified statline. And you're right, it's meant to represent the modified stats of the Falcon.

Which is super stupid, because that's what Titles are for.

I don't understand why those stats weren't built into the Millennium Falcon Title, instead of building them into the pilots, in a way that breaks with the conventions of the entire rest of the game.

I don't see Dengar getting +1 attack on his Pilot card. No, it's on the Punishing One's Title card where it belongs.

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.

So ... just so I'm clear:

Your argument that there's "nothing wrong" with Large-ship Boost is that it's okay on the Lambda, the Firespray, and on a native 2-die turret?

No, and if you take a step back and read through my post again I think you'll be able to see that.

Boost on high-PS Large ships is a problem. I'm not arguing that it isn't, and I'm not actually opposed to doing something about it. But I think ramping up the rhetoric around the idea that the only real problem with Large ships is Engine Upgrade is a mistake, because it's not true: there are multiple problems (one of which was addressed to an extent by the MOV change), and boost on Large ships isn't at the root of any of them.

The problem with OP things in this game is that they're often OP for multiple reasons that synergize, yet all we do is bicker about why thing A is the /real/ problem and thing B is annoying but it's just a symptom. These problems don't exist in a vacuum, they act as force multipliers for each other.

It's not just large ship boost. It's the fact that they're turrets so they only lose an action to boost and never not have a shot. But they have hyper action economy with things like Predator and Gunner and C-3PO and RAC's ability so they can afford to spend their action on boost. And large based turrets also (used to) point fortress real well. Since they're turrets they don't have to sacrifice offense when arc dodging turning them into the best arc dodgers in the game because they lose nothing by flying purely defensively. And they all have at least mid PS so at the very least they get to leverage that as an advantage vs. most competitive generic squadrons.

I'm sure I can think of more but yeah. Large base boost is big part of the problem, but it's not the only issue. The Lambda and Firespray and HT don't get complaints about Engine Upgrade being broken on them because they pretty much just get to move a little further and change their angle a bit. They don't have all of the other stuff that large high PS fat turrets get. If they spend their action on boost they typically won't be able to shenanigans out hyper dice modification anyways. They don't cart (what was once) a 60 point fortress ass around the board, if they run away or approach a corner they may not have a shot back at an attacker, etc.

Compare the statline for the Outer Rim Smuggler to the statlines of Han, Chewie, and Lando; they're way higher because those pilots are supposed to represent the Millennium Falcon, not just any smuggler's modded YT-1300.

Those are the only 3 pilots in the game who have a modified statline. And you're right, it's meant to represent the modified stats of the Falcon.

Which is super stupid, because that's what Titles are for.

I don't understand why those stats weren't built into the Millennium Falcon Title, instead of building them into the pilots, in a way that breaks with the conventions of the entire rest of the game.

I don't see Dengar getting +1 attack on his Pilot card. No, it's on the Punishing One's Title card where it belongs.

To be fair, that's from an entirely different era of X-wing design philosophy, not far removed from that which gave us the TIE Advanced, Y-wings without elite talents, etc...

@Jeff Wilder: Okay, let's start with this. Whatever you're doing that formats your posts this way, start doing something else. It comes out as white text on a white background (which is why I didn't respond on my phone last night).

Boost on high-PS Large ships is a problem. I'm not arguing that it isn't, and I'm not actually opposed to doing something about it.

So far, so good. If you agree that it's a problem, do you agree that fixing the problem would have been a better step than fixing the symptom? If not, why not?

Because while it's a problem, it's incidental. Any version of boost that does anything at all for Large ships will still be most effective on high-PS fat ships. Fixing the actual problems ought to come first, and then if there's still an issue, we can tweak things like the mechanics of boosting.

Here's the thing: I have zero doubt that Large-ship use is going to decline. I also have zero doubt that people are going to attribute that decline to the MoV change, and laud it. The problem is, there will be no evidence the MoV change actually did anything worthwhile in terms of scaling back the success of Large ships, because there's so much other stuff going on that is also encouraging scaling them back.

People inevitably make attribution errors, and as a result we shouldn't try to match effects up with causes ever...? I genuinely don't understand what you're saying.

The thing is, Large-Boost is (1) the biggest one of the compound problems: for example, C-3PO is very powerful, but C-3PO gets overwhelmed by volume of firepower. Large-Boost neatly avoids that by ranging away from guns, so C-3PO doesn't get overwhelmed. Now is that a bigger problem with C-3PO, or with Large-Boost? I think it's pretty clearly the latter.

Is "neither" an option? I think the alarmism over C-3PO shares a great deal with the current conversation about TLTs, and the keening over Keyan Farlander before the Rebel Aces release, and the furor about Assault Missiles way back then.

(2) The one that exploits a known and previously exploited weirdness in the game regarding the way Large ships move further than Small ships do. It's an exploit that was quickly recognized and eagerly (and successfully) fixed before, but for some reason is heavily resisted now. (I wonder what has changed in the interim?)

Well, one of the things that happened was that Large BR was changed and it didn't actually help game balance.

(3) The actual broken component. So, rather than "fixing" the tournament scores that happen because of the broken component, you could fix the actual broken component -- so, for instance, it doesn't only "fix" things for tournament players. ("Fix" very deliberately inside quotes.)

...What actual problem was fixed by the MoV change?

As far as I can tell, what the MoV change "fixed" was that people didn't like how tournament scores were coming out. So instead of fixing the actual reason tournament scores were coming out that way -- Large ships were way too survivable because of Large-Boost -- instead the way tournament scores are calculated got changed.

That's like fixing inflated test scores by switching to hexidecimal. It really couldn't be much more comical.

I know you've heard this from multiple people before, including me, so I'll keep it brief. It's fairly straightforward to demonstrate that a single fat ship will outperform two ships that are each half as effective, even assuming exact parity in nominal power levels. Take an extreme example: a single 100-point ship pitted against five 20-point ships. The 100-point ship has to kill 20% of the opposing list before the match ends to win, while the 20-point ships have to kill the entire opposing list. That is, even if the two lists would be a 50/50 matchup in an untimed game, as soon as we apply a time limit the 20-point ships are at a disadvantage.

It's not a particularly big effect, but it's an extraordinarily consistent one because it doesn't depend on anything that occurs in-game for its effectiveness. It's an effect that occurs regardless of what happens on the table.

(Please note that the word "boost" does not appear anywhere in the two preceding paragraphs. The actual sizes and capabilities and mechanics of the ships in question are completely irrelevant.)

What the change in MoV does, then, is start to bring the 100-point ship back into line with the two 50-point ships. The advantage it enjoys, which again was based entirely on the way games are scored and not on the actual capabilities of the ships involved, is now smaller than it was.

To use a test-score analogy of my own, it's as if Brobots were graded pass/fail while swarms got letter grades, and the swarm's mom is disappointed that it's not getting perfect grades like those nice homicidal robots who live down the street.