I thing you leave the dose turret as is (make the +1 refer to the range bonus) as part of the FAQ. The Autoblaster cannon is a cannon and would not matter. The Autoblaster turret only works at range 1, and could also be FAQ'd.

The die has been cast for offensive range bonuses with Dorset turret...

Huh? What do Dorsal Turrets have to do with offensive range bonuses?

You get +1 attack die at range 1.

Right, but what does that have to do with the primary attack range bonus? Are you saying that because of the Dorsal Turret, extending the primary attack range bonus would be broken?

I am simply saying to apply range bonuses to secondary turrets. As previously stated, Autoblaster turret and dorsal turret need not apply.

Your "Fly Casual" discussion reminds me of the 40k scene in the town I lived in for a while. 40k was (is) a horribly unbalanced game, and if you were running a top-tier list, you could bury someone without really thinking about it. This community was somewhat divided between "narrative" gamers and "competitive" gamers. Generally, the narrative crowd wanted to play and play against certain things, and hated some of the broken top-tier combinations. The competitive crowd was competitive. I had a foot in both camps. 40k can be a lot of fun if you knew what you were getting into in a game, but it could suck if you were prepared for one kind of opponent and got another kind of opponent.

However, instead of considering it a communications problem, the "narrative" group considered competitive gamers to be morally inferior for getting the most out of their army options. If they happened to play someone in a pickup game or even in a league that was trying out their tournament list, they would often get mad and complain about it. This is despite the fact that some of the highest quality and most competitive players were actually pretty nice guys with beautifully painted armies. The narrative gamers wanted to win just as much as anyone, but they wanted to win with both them and their opponents playing in a certain style. It got pretty annoying, and split the community in a lot of ways.

I don't think special faqs for different turret cards is the answer. Just make the range 3 attacks get a bonus green die and leave it at that. Yes the range 1 bonus would really help blaster turret, but it might be enough to make autoblaster turret really strong, probably too strong. But since TLT is the only range 3 turret, it should only effect that one card.

I don't think special faqs for different turret cards is the answer. Just make the range 3 attacks get a bonus green die and leave it at that. Yes the range 1 bonus would really help blaster turret, but it might be enough to make autoblaster turret really strong, probably too strong. But since TLT is the only range 3 turret, it should only effect that one card.

Agreed. Start with that and see how it goes.

Concerning Lists including Attanni Mindlink:

I call this Mandalorian Twins.

Mandalorian Mercenary (50) x 2

Firespray-31 (35), Heavy Laser Cannon (7), Recon Specialist (3), Attanni Mindlink (1), Engine Upgrade (4)

Maybe difficult to fly - but you need only one focus action to have 2 focus tokens assigned to each.

leaving one of the two to use Engine Upgrade or Target Lock for a good chance to score 4 hits with the HLC.

And If you need to K-Turn, just make sure you do a green move with the other ship to again assign 2 focus tokens to both.

Thats my list to go as soon as Attanni Mindlink is available.

Not how the mindlink works. Recspec only works on the focus action itself so the ship that performs the focus action gets two focusiis but the other ship only gets one.

Indeed. The others get only one. A pity. But otherwise it might be too strong. Swap RCs to Tacticians and IDs, then.

Love you guys and I'm not done listening to this one, but since no one else has mentioned it, Doug is Hothie!

I think Sideslip is the perfect name for Zeta Ace. You aren't naming it after someone, just coincidence. I suppose something like Shifty would be ok. Or, for a laugh, Scooter. I really just want to call him "why the hell does Lt Lorrir get stressed then you jerks...guy"

Omega Ace could be Hammer. Because he hits hard, or because he needs 2 chits 2 crit. Ok, dumb, I know. Or maybe Double Down?

Blue Ace - Turnstile (or TurnStyle). This one has a lot of the same feel Lockdown has IMO.

Red Ace I want to call KillJoy, but it is kind of a stretch - take a shield just to basically give him a "health" back is a bummer (i.e. a killjoy.). Really I just like killjoy as a call sign.

Epsilon Ace - Midnight? High Noon (highest pilot skill of 12)? Boxcars? Parsecs (you know, Kessel Run in 12 parsecs)? Dunno, really nothing I'm in love with, just lots of ideas.

Wasn't it suggested to assign a stress token to a Phantom each time it decloaks?

I listened with one ear only (multitasking, you know) ... so I might be wrong.

But my impression is there was a discussion about Whisper is too strong ...

I agree with the TLT menace and I support to grant the defender the range 3 bonus.

This wouldn't help agility 1 ships that much - but we would probably see lesser TLT lists and this would help agility 1 ships indirectly.

For me, the context was talking about how broken the Phantom was upon release. I still dislike the fundamental mechanics, but I'm likely too close to the subject having flown Whisper SOOOOO much. And there are plenty of craft more common than her in competition, so everything is clearly fine.

I think it would help Agility 1 ships quite a bit. So many TLT shots are unmodified 1.5 avg hits. .75 average evades on two greens or 1.25 w/ focus backed by a B-Wing's 8 hit points is a substantial difference from the current state.

TLT fix is simple. Make turret secondary weapons subject to defensive range bonuses.

There is an assumption here that it requires a fix.

Let's say that it does (just playing devil's advocate here): wouldn't that nerf TLT to the point of un-usability? Except in the case of the Stresshog, the one thing in this conversation that perhaps should be reeled in?

I personally find TLT unenjoyable, but that's not a balance issue. I'm still hoping for an R3-A2 errata for "once per turn".

TLT would still be strong. In reality its only a slight nerf and it really only helps ships with 3 agility naturally. I find that even with 3 agility, TLTs still will punch through at least once. 1 agility ships would still be shot to bits and it gives 2 agility ships a slight chance at range 3. What it will do is force the TLT pilot to have a bit more care in how he pilots his ship. Right now all you care about is keeping an enemy ship out of range 1 if you are a Y-wing. With a defensive range bonus, you'll try and get a target in that range 2 band where your TLT will be more effective.

Personally I think if you equip a TLT it should disable your primary altogether. Like the Outrider title. That gives something with a TLT a true donut hole. It also kind of nerfs the Stressbot as it will only be able to throw out 1 stress with TLT. That might be too drastic, but I think something should be done to nerf TLTs a bit.

That last idea to disable primaries strikes me as a real gem. We need to send it through a wormhole back to the Wave 7 development team.

Your "Fly Casual" discussion reminds me of the 40k scene in the town I lived in for a while. 40k was (is) a horribly unbalanced game, and if you were running a top-tier list, you could bury someone without really thinking about it. This community was somewhat divided between "narrative" gamers and "competitive" gamers. Generally, the narrative crowd wanted to play and play against certain things, and hated some of the broken top-tier combinations. The competitive crowd was competitive. I had a foot in both camps. 40k can be a lot of fun if you knew what you were getting into in a game, but it could suck if you were prepared for one kind of opponent and got another kind of opponent.

However, instead of considering it a communications problem, the "narrative" group considered competitive gamers to be morally inferior for getting the most out of their army options. If they happened to play someone in a pickup game or even in a league that was trying out their tournament list, they would often get mad and complain about it. This is despite the fact that some of the highest quality and most competitive players were actually pretty nice guys with beautifully painted armies. The narrative gamers wanted to win just as much as anyone, but they wanted to win with both them and their opponents playing in a certain style. It got pretty annoying, and split the community in a lot of ways.

Thanks for the keen illustration. I'm very concerned that the X-Wing community is splintering, and that I'm contributing to it.

My competitive gaming experience does draw from MtG, which is cutthroat. When I became aware of Fly Casual, I did a 180 and embraced it. However, once I started participating in tournaments, I found that (rarely but inevitably) there would be that jackhole that would simply take advantage of it. I'm sure we've all been there. So I've since gravitated toward fairly applying the rules. I feel that the rules are there to protect players. I do fully admit my flaws, and have done so in as public a fashion as possible by detailing them on record. I also chart what I'm working on, as a means of sharing the process to others in the hopes that it might be helpful. However, I have reached a point where I refuse to let my generosity be taken advantage of. I agree with the fellow who decried that "Fly Casual does not mean allow my opponent to do whatever they want."

After this episode, I got called out by a player I know for hypocrisy and for co-opting the meaning of Fly Casual (the very thing I was railing against)! It's got me thinking even more deeply about my approach to the game (if I'm in the wrong and by how much), and the multipolar spectrum of views we now have with X-Wing popularity exploding. I'd love to get Doug and Hothie on...

Love you guys and I'm not done listening to this one, but since no one else has mentioned it, Doug is Hothie!

OMG HOW DID I NOT KNOW THIS ROFLMAO

Great show guys. Lots of interesting things to think about. I was excited to hear an experienced Whisper player backing a FCS and Agent Kallus build.

A little constructive feedback...I come from an instructing background so I would say if the two main hosts could decrease how many times they interrupt each other or their featured guest it would be nice. Many of your shows someone is speaking and getting to what I think would be a pearl of wisdom only for the conversation to be side tracked due to a interruption. I know this is hard to do in this type of setting though.

I really enjoy the show especially the featured cards and tips. Feedback array is something I will be looking into.

Feed back on this list would be great.

Whisper - ACD - FCS - Kallus

Howlrunner

Backstabber

Wampa

Academy pilot

Your "Fly Casual" discussion reminds me of the 40k scene in the town I lived in for a while. 40k was (is) a horribly unbalanced game, and if you were running a top-tier list, you could bury someone without really thinking about it. This community was somewhat divided between "narrative" gamers and "competitive" gamers. Generally, the narrative crowd wanted to play and play against certain things, and hated some of the broken top-tier combinations. The competitive crowd was competitive. I had a foot in both camps. 40k can be a lot of fun if you knew what you were getting into in a game, but it could suck if you were prepared for one kind of opponent and got another kind of opponent.

However, instead of considering it a communications problem, the "narrative" group considered competitive gamers to be morally inferior for getting the most out of their army options. If they happened to play someone in a pickup game or even in a league that was trying out their tournament list, they would often get mad and complain about it. This is despite the fact that some of the highest quality and most competitive players were actually pretty nice guys with beautifully painted armies. The narrative gamers wanted to win just as much as anyone, but they wanted to win with both them and their opponents playing in a certain style. It got pretty annoying, and split the community in a lot of ways.

My competitive gaming experience does draw from MtG, which is cutthroat. When I became aware of Fly Casual, I did a 180 and embraced it. However, once I started participating in tournaments, I found that (rarely but inevitably) there would be that jackhole that would simply take advantage of it. I'm sure we've all been there. So I've since gravitated toward fairly applying the rules. I feel that the rules are there to protect players.

I agree. This is not 'Nam, there are rules. I'm 100% fine with players wanting to let their opponent's take stuff back or act slightly out of a timing window, but I don't think anyone should get salty if their opponent tries to actually play by the rules. Regarding the experience I detailed above, however, I think that for a game against someone you don't know, it's probably a good idea to take a minute and explain how you're going to play, regardless of your approach. Something like "Hey, I like to hold myself pretty tightly to the tournament rules when I play" or "Are you cool with going back a step if somebody forgets something?" can alleviate a lot of the tension that comes up when two people of differing philosophies meet.

My personal take on Fly Casual, although I've never spoken to Doug about it, is that it's more about demeanor than playing by the rules. Playing by the rules is playing by the rules, it's a game, if you don't play by the rules, it's not a game. In miniatures games there's a huge gray area compared to something more precise, however. Firing arcs, movement, bumping, "accidentally" knocking stuff over all have a little bit of fudge that makes things a little bit unclear. Flying Casual, to me, is about making an effort to resolve those situations as accurately as possible, without always trying to bend geometry your way all the time. That and not being a ****. To utterly cutthroat players can have a real knife-fight of a game and be completely genial to each other the whole time.

Your "Fly Casual" discussion reminds me of the 40k scene in the town I lived in for a while. 40k was (is) a horribly unbalanced game, and if you were running a top-tier list, you could bury someone without really thinking about it. This community was somewhat divided between "narrative" gamers and "competitive" gamers. Generally, the narrative crowd wanted to play and play against certain things, and hated some of the broken top-tier combinations. The competitive crowd was competitive. I had a foot in both camps. 40k can be a lot of fun if you knew what you were getting into in a game, but it could suck if you were prepared for one kind of opponent and got another kind of opponent.

However, instead of considering it a communications problem, the "narrative" group considered competitive gamers to be morally inferior for getting the most out of their army options. If they happened to play someone in a pickup game or even in a league that was trying out their tournament list, they would often get mad and complain about it. This is despite the fact that some of the highest quality and most competitive players were actually pretty nice guys with beautifully painted armies. The narrative gamers wanted to win just as much as anyone, but they wanted to win with both them and their opponents playing in a certain style. It got pretty annoying, and split the community in a lot of ways.

Thanks for the keen illustration. I'm very concerned that the X-Wing community is splintering, and that I'm contributing to it.

I think I've mentioned this elsewhere, maybe even to you, but a big difference between 40k and X-Wing is that narrative "soft score" elements were a big part of tournament scoring. Soft scores including painting and sportsmanship (rated by your opponents) and some even included "theme" (How well your army fit the narrative structure of the game world. In X-wing terms, for example, a trench T-65 named squad with only pilots who were actually there in the movie would be a high theme list while a low theme list would be one that mixed FOs with Darth Vader would be low in that respect).

The fact that people spent a lot of time on painting and putting thought (and money) into selecting theme type units conflicted with players that simply brought the most cost effective units was a recipe for trouble. Maybe that's true of X-wing, too, since while everyone loves Star Wars there are still players that construct lists and approach with a more competitive mindset while others just play games with cool Star Wars miniatures.

X-wing tournaments, though, and the actual rules tied to the tournament, have never muddied the waters between those two groups with those other types of soft scores. That doesn't mean people shouldn't have fun playing, but people should make sure they set their expectations realistically for the event, and that includes the expectation for the way in which your opponent may play the game. It's simply unfair to place your own expectations on them if those expectations go beyond the rules of the game and the basic expectations of sportsmanship.

The corner that 40k worked itself into though, was that you could have fluffy, beautifully painted and converted armies run well by perfectly nice people, and they will beat the tar out of some other fluffy, etc. army.

Soft scores are a huge weakness of the 40k tournament scene, because it lets a-holes tank their opponent's score without beating them, and it didn't actually do anything about power builds, which were often reasonably well-painted and fluffy if run by serious players.

It also sucked, because if you thought some particular army was pretty cool, but if was also a power build, you looked like a jerk to a casual observer. I owned Tau from the firstfirst month of their release, and when the newest book hit, it was a joke. I wasn't even fully stocked with top tier units, and most games were not at all challenging, because teverything had gotten so much more powerful.

The corner that 40k worked itself into though, was that you could have fluffy, beautifully painted and converted armies run well by perfectly nice people, and they will beat the tar out of some other fluffy, etc. army.

Soft scores are a huge weakness of the 40k tournament scene, because it lets a-holes tank their opponent's score without beating them, and it didn't actually do anything about power builds, which were often reasonably well-painted and fluffy if run by serious players.

It also sucked, because if you thought some particular army was pretty cool, but if was also a power build, you looked like a jerk to a casual observer. I owned Tau from the firstfirst month of their release, and when the newest book hit, it was a joke. I wasn't even fully stocked with top tier units, and most games were not at all challenging, because teverything had gotten so much more powerful.

Totally agree. I guess my point, maybe unclear, was that when those elements are validated in a tournament setting it allows for a broader and more varied interpretation how the game is "supposed" to be played.

FFGs rules are very clear and those people that interpret the "Fly Casual" philosophy as overriding tournament rules on missed opportunities are misinterpreting both the rules and "Fly Casual."

FFGs rules are very clear and those people that interpret the "Fly Casual" philosophy as overriding tournament rules on missed opportunities are misinterpreting both the rules and "Fly Casual."

This statement sums it up, imo. I remember numerous threads discussing "Fly Casual" and how you shouldn't be shamed for holding your opponent accountable for his missed opportunities. There's a reason FFG has a paragraph explicitly stating missed opportunities. Just because I might not let my opponent take back a missed opportunity doesn't mean I'm not "flying casual". Some people fail to read the rules, and then get upset when they're held to them. That's the antithesis of "Fly Casual".

This is, of course, my own personal ethos and I think I largely agree that you shouldn't force your own standards upon others, but I look at the whole thing this way.

There is no hard and fast rule. Every situation is different. If I can't see a way a procedural or order-of-operations error gives my opponent an advantage they wouldn't have had if they'd done it right, I'll let them correct it. Otherwise, probably not, because it opens the door to people taking advantage.

A few example

Want to move all your PS2s and then take focus/evade/TL actions all at once? Sure, whatever. Want to barrel roll or boost? Better do them as you move them so I can see they won't bump.

Roll your Stressbot attack and then tell me to take a stress? Sure, I'll probably take the stress in most cases. I might make an exception if the stress-bot does not have much stress and has a chance of killing the target this turn. In that case, knowing if you have a good/bad roll might tell you whether you want to deal stress or not.

Want to decloak after I've shown a maneuver? No way. How about before I move a ship but after you moved a ship halfway across the board? Sure, don't see why not.

Basically, my default starting point is that my opponent can address missed opportunities. Then I look for any way that letting them do so gives them extra advantage (above what they would have had if they had just done it in the correct phase). If I find such an extra advantage, then I don't let them.

That is what it means to me, but it is just what it means to me and nothing else. I'm not going to get all upset if someone doesn't want to do it the same way, at least in the act of play (I think discussing what you think the standards ought to be outside of play is a different matter). I'm always going to try to be as nice and lenient as possible as a starting point, but I'll enforce the rules strictly if there is any extra advantage I can see. Sure, this will hurt me if I miss some trick. But I'd rather deal with that than deal with an upset opponent if possible (whether they have a right to be upset or not). It is a more fun experience for me that way.

Want to decloak after I've shown a maneuver? No way. How about before I move a ship but after you moved a ship halfway across the board? Sure, don't see why not.

For this one I'd probably allow a little leeway for myself personally. As someone who doesn't play the phantom much myself (or play against it much for that matter), I could easily see myself forgettnig the change to decloak at start of activation and just picking up my dial to start moving (if I have the first ship to move) without thinking about it (at least the first time they've cloaked). In that kind of situation if I just forgot and didn't give them the chance to decloak, I'd let em do it still. If it's clearly their fault (they just forgot they were cloaked or whatever), that's a different story and too late (unless perhaps the ship I've revealed a dial for is across the board from the one decloaking where they probably won't affect each other).

On the other hand, now that the scum cloaking device is almost here, I might start runningt hat more and actually REMEMBER decloaking better

That is what it means to me, but it is just what it means to me and nothing else. I'm not going to get all upset if someone doesn't want to do it the same way, at least in the act of play (I think discussing what you think the standards ought to be outside of play is a different matter). I'm always going to try to be as nice and lenient as possible as a starting point, but I'll enforce the rules strictly if there is any extra advantage I can see. Sure, this will hurt me if I miss some trick. But I'd rather deal with that than deal with an upset opponent if possible (whether they have a right to be upset or not). It is a more fun experience for me that way.

I agree with this as well, and I tend to allow most missed opportunities that don't have a large impact on the game state for the exact reason you do -- it creates a more enjoyable game and I find it also tends to help the community at large, but that's my own personal decision (and allowed by the rules) but I don't apply those expectations to anyone else.

To avoid missed opportunities by my opponent I usually ask them if they want to take an action or decloaking if it looks like they forgot or "forgot".

I try to fly casual and when I find out someone doesn't, I am shocked. Then I keep flying casual, and I watch in horror. Part of being congenial is being congenial. Let's not confuse being congenial until it doesn't benefit you, with being casual. That's like a jack in the box, or a trump card. Are we playing poker? Are we playing chess? Is it premier league or not?

If we are playing tight, by the rules, I'd like that not to be some surpise you spring on me after watching you move your ships just a touch shady. Or, when you bump something and place it back maybe slightly to your advantage. If it's going to be "by the rules" let's get that cleared up openly. Because, frankly, there is too much fudge factor in this game.

I want to know if I'm playing a gotcha game from the start, so I know to start calling out questionable play.

TLT fix is simple. Make turret secondary weapons subject to defensive range bonuses.

+1 to this solution. That is really all it needs. It's the first secondary turret to shoot all the way out to range 3 and as it turns out not getting a defensive bonus against that just hurts way too many ships.