I reserved the right to actually make an idiot of myself until after I played a game or two to see the effects. So, after a pair of games with the new ruling, and actually planning it out a bit so I could see the change, it only appeared to alter some of the characteristics of the popular Assault Frigate list.

It was fortunate that the match involved near mirror lists: my XI7 RAF's and Salvation versus their APotatoes, and yes it hurt my opponent a lot more than it had in the past. As it stands, it's not the end of the world (I only ever felt like it did significantly more damage twice in those two games, both of which was when I got a CF Paragon black shot in against my opponents and the damage translated through).

I agree with the voices who chimed in long before me: this change feels centered around the situations that the inbound MC80 and ISD's could create and not the current gaming landscape. AP plus the shield and generation capacity of the MC80's in particular looked grotesque (admittedly, on paper). I still haven't played with enough wave 2 stuff to get a feel for the interactions vs. just theory-crafting. With the extra options, I think I'm still more comfortable with the notion of adding the turbolaser reroutes or Heavy turbolasers on most of my ships, but XI7 is looking tempting for some specialist cases (like Fickle mentioned: an IISD, Salvation , etc.).

That being said, I think it's a good change I merely resent the way in which it was handled as a nebulous pseudo-FAQ instead of an outright errata. The method that was chosen to just revise the 'intention' bothers me a little: it's always been a question of interpreting the rules wording which created a “I shot a bear with a gun” style linguistic problem. My interpretation, along with that of other people, was that the bear was shot with a gun, while the other camp insisted that a gun-wielding bear was shot. This feels like a vindication of the latter. It's petty, but that's my issue and I'm not going to pretend that it isn't

Looks like a fair analysis to me. The math that I have done favors the XI7 pretty heavily as soon as even one Accuracy becomes available in the attack roll. It then swings back towards the HTT if the target has ECM. Roll enough accruacies and eoither become redundant.

Which is why I tend to take neither. I prefer the blunt force approach of just hitting with more dice or ships, etc. Generally speaking I would prefer Turbolaser Reroute Circuits, Ordnance Experts, or Enhanced Armament to either HTT or XI7s. Which is great, as all are very viable and effective choices.

This is something I struggle with all the time when list building. Do I go for higher damage output (EA, TRC) or try to force damage through (Accuracy, XI7 HHT). I need some significant testing time to determine which I think will be better for me to use. Though one other side note; if you plan on using squadrons, it can be somewhat counter-intuitive to forcing damage through, since they will use there tokens on the squadron attacks if they wont be able to use them on the main attacks due to upgrades/accuracy.

Looks like a fair analysis to me. The math that I have done favors the XI7 pretty heavily as soon as even one Accuracy becomes available in the attack roll. It then swings back towards the HTT if the target has ECM. Roll enough accruacies and eoither become redundant.

Which is why I tend to take neither. I prefer the blunt force approach of just hitting with more dice or ships, etc. Generally speaking I would prefer Turbolaser Reroute Circuits, Ordnance Experts, or Enhanced Armament to either HTT or XI7s. Which is great, as all are very viable and effective choices.

This is something I struggle with all the time when list building. Do I go for higher damage output (EA, TRC) or try to force damage through (Accuracy, XI7 HHT). I need some significant testing time to determine which I think will be better for me to use. Though one other side note; if you plan on using squadrons, it can be somewhat counter-intuitive to forcing damage through, since they will use there tokens on the squadron attacks if they wont be able to use them on the main attacks due to upgrades/accuracy.

It is worth considering too the question of how long you can linger with your ship shooting the same arc over 2 or more turns.

Break from XI7 discussion! There is a mention of squadrons always having a limit of one third of the total points limit agreed upon for play. Does this mean for the new 400 point builds, we can build up to 133 point limit for squadrons?

Yes.

134, actually (one-third, rounded up)!

From the rules reference:

A fleet cannot spend more than one third of its fleet points, rounded up, on squadrons.

So if you have 400 points in your fleet then you can have 134 points of squadrons. If you have 399 then you can only have 133. A 395-point fleet would be allowed to have 132 points of squadrons, etc.

From the rules reference:

A fleet cannot spend more than one third of its fleet points, rounded up, on squadrons.

So if you have 400 points in your fleet then you can have 134 points of squadrons. If you have 399 then you can only have 133. A 395-point fleet would be allowed to have 132 points of squadrons, etc.

I may be wrong, but I believe you get the full point limit allocation, regardless of whether you build to it. So in a 400 point game, you always get 134 points of squadrons, whether you build to 400 or 395 or whatever. As though your bid was incorporated into your fleet cost.

From the rules reference:

A fleet cannot spend more than one third of its fleet points, rounded up, on squadrons.

So if you have 400 points in your fleet then you can have 134 points of squadrons. If you have 399 then you can only have 133. A 395-point fleet would be allowed to have 132 points of squadrons, etc.

I may be wrong, but I believe you get the full point limit allocation, regardless of whether you build to it. So in a 400 point game, you always get 134 points of squadrons, whether you build to 400 or 395 or whatever. As though your bid was incorporated into your fleet cost.

From the rules reference:

A fleet cannot spend more than one third of its fleet points, rounded up, on squadrons.

So if you have 400 points in your fleet then you can have 134 points of squadrons. If you have 399 then you can only have 133. A 395-point fleet would be allowed to have 132 points of squadrons, etc.

I may be wrong, but I believe you get the full point limit allocation, regardless of whether you build to it. So in a 400 point game, you always get 134 points of squadrons, whether you build to 400 or 395 or whatever. As though your bid was incorporated into your fleet cost.

Yup, the 1/3 of your fleet is 1/3 of the available points, not the spent points. So if you've got a 395pt list in a 400pt game then you can still have 134pts of squads in that list.

This. Very important.

From the rules reference:

A fleet cannot spend more than one third of its fleet points, rounded up, on squadrons.

So if you have 400 points in your fleet then you can have 134 points of squadrons. If you have 399 then you can only have 133. A 395-point fleet would be allowed to have 132 points of squadrons, etc.

I may be wrong, but I believe you get the full point limit allocation, regardless of whether you build to it. So in a 400 point game, you always get 134 points of squadrons, whether you build to 400 or 395 or whatever. As though your bid was incorporated into your fleet cost.

Yup, the 1/3 of your fleet is 1/3 of the available points, not the spent points. So if you've got a 395pt list in a 400pt game then you can still have 134pts of squads in that list.

This. Very important.

Bitharne, on 16 Oct 2015 - 11:53 AM, said:

...I don't understand. Heavy turbos already accomplished this in a similar fashion and people are freaking out?

sort of.

With HTT's I could still brace that 7 damage to 4 and just take the 4.

With XI7 Turbolasers, if you accuracy my brace, I have to take at least 6 on that one hull zone

Or you could just take HTT, and that one secondary battery upgrade that turns "unspent" accuracy to hits.

Bitharne, on 16 Oct 2015 - 11:53 AM, said:

...I don't understand. Heavy turbos already accomplished this in a similar fashion and people are freaking out?

sort of.

With HTT's I could still brace that 7 damage to 4 and just take the 4.

With XI7 Turbolasers, if you accuracy my brace, I have to take at least 6 on that one hull zone

Or you could just take HTT, and that one secondary battery upgrade that turns "unspent" accuracy to hits.

If you don't have the accuracy then it hurts. That's my point for HTTs. I agree with the SW-7 too. I use VSD1 and I feel HTT, thematically and rules-wise, is best with black dice and XI7 is better with blue dice. SW-7 with HTT would be great for HTT build thought.