Juggler highlighted it, but while TLTs are one factor pushing out vanilla generics, I think things like Crack Shot are just as guilty and don't get nearly enough press.

And Crackshot was designed to make 2-attack-dice ships viable because defensive upgrades are so strong that 2 attack dice can't penetrate them. In other words, generics are so much weaker defensively than multiaction ships (and ships with Stealth Devices, Autothrusters, etc.) that if you make other ships capable of damaging the latter, they melt the former. Pooooower creeeep.

I've been playing customizable games for a long time. I've learned the warning signs of an overpowered option.

Twin laser turrets are setting off alarms*. It's power creep.

The solution is simple. Just erratta the cost higher. The design is kind of shaky because it removes a lot of the fun of the dice rolling, but that's not the problem. It's unfun enough that casual players drift away from it, but not so much that people refuse to play against it. The power level is the issue. It's undercosted. Point cost erratta won't be hard to remember because it only applies during squad building.

*Some alarms I have noticed through experience: When the card is previewed, the general first impression is that it is amazingly powerful and this impression doesn't go away after people play with it. It shows up everywhere in the strongest tournament lists. It shows up everywhere soon after release, and as time goes on, becomes more and more common until it's always in every list. People discuss whether it's too strong over and over again, with some people arguing it's too strong, and other people arguing it's strong but that's okay because people can just play something specifically designed to be strong against it and/or learn complex techniques to play around it. A small minority of people who use it a lot and win argue that it's perfectly balanced don't ban my list! Nobody thinks that it's weak.

But, if the outcome is positive, is the power creep really a bad thing?

The solution is simple. Just erratta the cost higher.

That's not an option, FFG will not errata the price of a upgrade or unit. The most they'll do is offer a discount of some sort ala the refit, or limit things ala Defender title.

Myself I wish they'd be more willing to do that, but they've made their stance on that quite clear.

I would also argue that it isn't an elegant way to fix things. A minor change to the mechanics of TLT (I do like the idea of adding a range 3 defense bonus clause) might just be enough. I like the influence it has on the meta, but I wouldn't mind seing it toned down just a slight bit.

In the meantime, we see an enormous variety of OTHER ships on the table. People are winning with everything up to and including T-65s. Shuttles, Aces, generics, large bases, enormous swathes of the field are viable now and are having success and people STILL complain because those ships that need turret upgrades to work use the only turret upgrade that works.

Folks will complain about anything.

If you're referring to Store Champs results, could it be gap in player skill in some areas?

In our area we have a more skilled player base that run strong meta lists, so you hardly get to see any of this "diversity". Last store champs I attended had 3 Palp Aces and 1 Dash/Corran in top 4.

Which is amusing to me, because none of those contain a single TLT.

Also, the contention that TLTs are the reason we don't see generics is incorrect. One of the BEST counters to TLTs is simple spam. Run your 4xTLTs, and I show up with a generic swarm and there won't be anything but expanding vapor where the Y-Wings used to be. They can't get out of arc, they can't match the damage output, and they are less resilient. Not a recipe for success.

The reason folks are moving away from pure generic spam lists (low PS no-skill ships) is that there are a variety of threats to deal with and pure generics only match well against a small number of them. High PS arc dodgers eat generics, high defense ships eat generics, mid range generics eat pure generics, bombs eat generics, the list goes on. On the other hand, we do still see pure generic ships as filler in lists with other answers. Are we really claiming "poor diversity" because we lack pure spam lists?

Generics as filler work. Crackshot swarms work. Juke swarms work. Even mixed swarms and Ace+mini swarms work. How exactly is an upgrade vulnerable to generic swarm "the reason" for the dearth of generic swarms?

If it happens that a specific upgrade is the *only useful* upgrade out of an array of possible upgrades - you can consider this 'only useful' upgrade to be broken - and NOT the other possible ubgrades.

I don't agree with that as a blanket statement. While there are instances where it's true you can also find examples where your other choices are essentially picking the least worst option. I think that Turret upgrades were an example of this. Autoblaster Turrets have found some use but have a definite niche on when they are useful. Ion Turrets were useful but weren't a real option for dealing damage. Blaster Turrets were the only real choice for a damage dealing turret and it was a bad upgrade. Before TLTs came out, the Ion Turret was essentially the go to choice for ships that were filling their turret slots and I don't think that anyone would argue that they were so good that they were broken.

But, if the outcome is positive, is the power creep really a bad thing?

Now that's an interesting question. I don't completely agree with MJ's stance either, I think the generic has been out of favor for a lot longer than the Phantom or TLT's have been around. So the idea that those things pushed them out is questionable.

FFG has done what many people here asked, gave us a reason to use high PS aces and now people want to go back to the day when low PS generics ruled.

I'm very much of the opinion that as long as a ship is viable in some form, then the fact that some versions of it aren't isn't that big of a deal

Yeah I was wondering about generics

Havnt seen **** outside bbbbz since the dark ages of wave 5 and the 2 ship mov abuse that came after. Maybe a sprinkle of panic attack

Yeah I was wondering about generics

Havnt seen **** outside bbbbz since the dark ages of wave 5 and the 2 ship mov abuse that came after. Maybe a sprinkle of panic attack

TLT Y

TLT K+Tactitian

Black-crack

and that's all.

FFG Y U NO LOVE JOUSTERS?

The solution is simple. Just erratta the cost higher.

That's not an option, FFG will not errata the price of a upgrade or unit. The most they'll do is offer a discount of some sort ala the refit, or limit things ala Defender title.

Myself I wish they'd be more willing to do that, but they've made their stance on that quite clear.

I'm not saying that you're wrong when it comes to X-Wing but FFG has made those sorts of changes via errata for Imperial Assault.

I'd rather see a change to PWT.

Invert the range bonus.

If it happens that a specific upgrade is the *only useful* upgrade out of an array of possible upgrades - you can consider this 'only useful' upgrade to be broken - and NOT the other possible ubgrades.

Maybe, if those ships were seeing use before the "only useful" upgrade showed up. But they were not. HWKs and Y-Wings before TLT were as common as TIE Bombers are now. You saw HWKs pretty much never, and Y-Wings only in specific control lists.

In the meantime, we see an enormous variety of OTHER ships on the table. People are winning with everything up to and including T-65s. Shuttles, Aces, generics, large bases, enormous swathes of the field are viable now and are having success and people STILL complain because those ships that need turret upgrades to work use the only turret upgrade that works.

Folks will complain about anything.

If you're referring to Store Champs results, could it be gap in player skill in some areas?

In our area we have a more skilled player base that run strong meta lists, so you hardly get to see any of this "diversity". Last store champs I attended had 3 Palp Aces and 1 Dash/Corran in top 4.

Which is amusing to me, because none of those contain a single TLT.

I was actually posing a legitimate question, if the gap in player skill could be larger in SC's in comparison to Worlds that is allowing a wider variety of lists being successful.

Like I mentioned in the beginning, I am not looking to complain about TLT or arguing it should be nerfed, I posed the question because it was reminiscent of the talk pre Phantom errata, and whether it is comparable and if we can expect a change happening due to similar timing window.

There's another option, but that is very far reaching, that would have huge consequences on the game:

Errata the range bonus rule to only eliminate those on torpedoes and missiles and bringing them into play for cannons and turrets.

Avoiding the range three defense bonus is probably one of the biggest reasons that anyone takes a Mangler or Flechette Cannon on a three attack ship.

I'm not saying that you're wrong when it comes to X-Wing but FFG has made those sorts of changes via errata for Imperial Assault.

True, but I think that speaks to just how broken those units were. I think FFG would go the same route with X-Wing or Armada if they had something broken on that level.

In ImpAssault it was a matter where the 4x4 simply dominated everything, and that's not true of TLT's.

Avoiding the range three defense bonus is probably one of the biggest reasons that anyone takes a Mangler or Flechette Cannon on a three attack ship.

Yeah those would be fairly useless if someone got the extra die at range 3.

The solution is simple. Just erratta the cost higher.

That's not an option, FFG will not errata the price of a upgrade or unit. The most they'll do is offer a discount of some sort ala the refit, or limit things ala Defender title.

Myself I wish they'd be more willing to do that, but they've made their stance on that quite clear.

I'm not saying that you're wrong when it comes to X-Wing but FFG has made those sorts of changes via errata for Imperial Assault.

Different situation. When you slap a skirmish game onto a board game to get around licenses, expect one of the versions to have an imbalance.

In the meantime, we see an enormous variety of OTHER ships on the table. People are winning with everything up to and including T-65s. Shuttles, Aces, generics, large bases, enormous swathes of the field are viable now and are having success and people STILL complain because those ships that need turret upgrades to work use the only turret upgrade that works.

Folks will complain about anything.

If you're referring to Store Champs results, could it be gap in player skill in some areas?

In our area we have a more skilled player base that run strong meta lists, so you hardly get to see any of this "diversity". Last store champs I attended had 3 Palp Aces and 1 Dash/Corran in top 4.

Which is amusing to me, because none of those contain a single TLT.

I was actually posing a legitimate question, if the gap in player skill could be larger in SC's in comparison to Worlds that is allowing a wider variety of lists being successful.

Like I mentioned in the beginning, I am not looking to complain about TLT or arguing it should be nerfed, I posed the question because it was reminiscent of the talk pre Phantom errata, and whether it is comparable and if we can expect a change happening due to similar timing window.

I apologize, that wasn't meant as snark or actually in response to your posts at all. It was exactly what I said, I just found it amusing that on a thread devoted to the concept that the TLT is "OP" someone would point out the lack of diversity in their area was due to lists with 0 TLTs. :-)

As for player skill, I would find it difficult to believe it gets much better. Those SCs each included 2 or 3 of the Worlds top 16, at least one World Champion, and a whole bunch of folks who beat them on a regular basis.

It was 86 points. The only games I lost in the SCs I went to (one of which had 40+ players, another had 30+, and the last 20+) it lost to ANOTHER VERSION OF ITSELF. The other people playing the list won the SC, or were defeated by another copy of the same list. If I remember correctly between 3 different players flying the list at 3 large SCs it only lost 2 games TOTAL to all other lists combined, and both of those were to classic PS 11 Fat Han lists that were designed entirely around beating Phantoms.

Pre-Nerf Phantoms were completely broken. Having one or two TLTs show up in top lists now has far more to do with the fact that a significant number of ships rely on a turret upgrade to function at ALL (especially HWKs, but Y-Wings for certain and K Wings most of the time) and the TLT is the only turret upgrade that is generally useful. If the Blaster Turret didn't require a focus to fire, or the Ion Cannon Turret didn't have a damage cap, you would be seeing a decent variety of upgrades in that slot. But until we see some generally useful competition in that slot TLT will be the default choice.

In the meantime, we see an enormous variety of OTHER ships on the table. People are winning with everything up to and including T-65s. Shuttles, Aces, generics, large bases, enormous swathes of the field are viable now and are having success and people STILL complain because those ships that need turret upgrades to work use the only turret upgrade that works.

Folks will complain about anything.

While I agree with your comparison with respect to the phantom being much more broken, I think there's a case to be made that while TLT helped ships that may have needed it, it did so to a degree that it pushed ships out of the meta for two reasons that MJ eludes to above. It may not be overpowered, but it is a bit too good.

1) It is simply better than ships in the same price range when making a list. At 24 points a gold TLT is consistently a better choice than a B-wing or X-wing with IA. It also is a far better choice in scum lists than a Scyk and Kirahz. These were borderline ships anyway, but there's no reason to put them in now and they are going to need a very good fix to beat out the TLT Y.

2) It is really good at killing generics (and other ships) in the same price range. Generics that were borderline can't hold up to it because a couple of TLTs drop them so quickly they're practically wasted points. I'd even go further and say that the TLT pretty much undid much of the value gained from the Tie Advanced title and the integrated astromech for the X-wing.

I won't go so far as to say it is broken but I think it's possible that it started a "power creep" race for generic ships. It will also be worth seeing if improved ordnance can reel it back in.

For me, TLTs have massively improved the game by giving generics a fairly reliable means of countering fat bull

The extinct pwts are a perfect example of this. They can no longer trivially arcdodge and rest on their laurels of garanreed damage cancel while the generics get boned and roll poorly.

TLTs, and to a lesser extent crackshot/juke, provide reliability for what is easily the least reliable arctype in the game (generics with standard mods or no mods at all)

Ordnance may well end up being another extension of these upgrades, since they give some honest to god reliable damage thanks to GC.

Personally do not enjoy how generics, which already get the short end of the stick by having to block opponents, are also at risk for whiffing on dice (which are well outside your control)

The more we get that strips spikey RNG out of the game, the better. Given the effort a player has to put into piloting multiple, lower PS ships, it stands to reason they should be rewarded for their efforts

Incidentally, ffg really screwed the pooch by not making TA a 2 point k4 clone. I'd be much more willing to fly rookies if catching an enemy in arc post green maneuver meant a fully modified shot

In the meantime, we see an enormous variety of OTHER ships on the table. People are winning with everything up to and including T-65s. Shuttles, Aces, generics, large bases, enormous swathes of the field are viable now and are having success and people STILL complain because those ships that need turret upgrades to work use the only turret upgrade that works.

Folks will complain about anything.

If you're referring to Store Champs results, could it be gap in player skill in some areas?

In our area we have a more skilled player base that run strong meta lists, so you hardly get to see any of this "diversity". Last store champs I attended had 3 Palp Aces and 1 Dash/Corran in top 4.

Which is amusing to me, because none of those contain a single TLT.

I was actually posing a legitimate question, if the gap in player skill could be larger in SC's in comparison to Worlds that is allowing a wider variety of lists being successful.

Like I mentioned in the beginning, I am not looking to complain about TLT or arguing it should be nerfed, I posed the question because it was reminiscent of the talk pre Phantom errata, and whether it is comparable and if we can expect a change happening due to similar timing window.

I apologize, that wasn't meant as snark or actually in response to your posts at all. It was exactly what I said, I just found it amusing that on a thread devoted to the concept that the TLT is "OP" someone would point out the lack of diversity in their area was due to lists with 0 TLTs. :-)

As for player skill, I would find it difficult to believe it gets much better. Those SCs each included 2 or 3 of the Worlds top 16, at least one World Champion, and a whole bunch of folks who beat them on a regular basis.

Either way it's good seeing those results showing some good diversity, but the question still lies on what FFG might do to bring stuff that have been replaced by TLT (like B wings) back to the tables.

Edit: I know people have mentioned ordinance, I'm curious to see what guidance chips/long range scanners will do. Time will tell.

1) It is simply better than ships in the same price range when making a list. At 24 points a gold TLT is consistently a better choice than a B-wing or X-wing with IA. It also is a far better choice in scum lists than a Scyk and Kirahz. These were borderline ships anyway, but there's no reason to put them in now and they are going to need a very good fix to beat out the TLT Y.

As an avid fan of the Scum and Villainy faction, this is exactly my issue. Since the JM5K preview I've been brainstorming lists, but it's hard to find good diversity with 2 filler ships that are complete duds.

It was 86 points. The only games I lost in the SCs I went to (one of which had 40+ players, another had 30+, and the last 20+) it lost to ANOTHER VERSION OF ITSELF. The other people playing the list won the SC, or were defeated by another copy of the same list. If I remember correctly between 3 different players flying the list at 3 large SCs it only lost 2 games TOTAL to all other lists combined, and both of those were to classic PS 11 Fat Han lists that were designed entirely around beating Phantoms.

Pre-Nerf Phantoms were completely broken. Having one or two TLTs show up in top lists now has far more to do with the fact that a significant number of ships rely on a turret upgrade to function at ALL (especially HWKs, but Y-Wings for certain and K Wings most of the time) and the TLT is the only turret upgrade that is generally useful. If the Blaster Turret didn't require a focus to fire, or the Ion Cannon Turret didn't have a damage cap, you would be seeing a decent variety of upgrades in that slot. But until we see some generally useful competition in that slot TLT will be the default choice.

In the meantime, we see an enormous variety of OTHER ships on the table. People are winning with everything up to and including T-65s. Shuttles, Aces, generics, large bases, enormous swathes of the field are viable now and are having success and people STILL complain because those ships that need turret upgrades to work use the only turret upgrade that works.

Folks will complain about anything.

While I agree with your comparison with respect to the phantom being much more broken, I think there's a case to be made that while TLT helped ships that may have needed it, it did so to a degree that it pushed ships out of the meta for two reasons that MJ eludes to above. It may not be overpowered, but it is a bit too good.

1) It is simply better than ships in the same price range when making a list. At 24 points a gold TLT is consistently a better choice than a B-wing or X-wing with IA. It also is a far better choice in scum lists than a Scyk and Kirahz. These were borderline ships anyway, but there's no reason to put them in now and they are going to need a very good fix to beat out the TLT Y.

2) It is really good at killing generics (and other ships) in the same price range. Generics that were borderline can't hold up to it because a couple of TLTs drop them so quickly they're practically wasted points. I'd even go further and say that the TLT pretty much undid much of the value gained from the Tie Advanced title and the integrated astromech for the X-wing.

I won't go so far as to say it is broken but I think it's possible that it started a "power creep" race for generic ships. It will also be worth seeing if improved ordnance can reel it back in.

Which is the best place for the discussion, because I agree there is a discussion to be had there even if I don't agree with the conclusion. Pretty consistently I see TLT Y-Wings being compared to Rookies with IA, or Blues. But Blues and Rookies are fewer points, and theoretically should be at a disadvantage. Compare a TLT Gold with a FCS Blue, and you will see the Blue providing a significant increase in firepower. It also has much better in-close dogfighting ability, much better ability to control range with its dial and barrel roll, better surivability with 5 shields 3 hull vs 3 shields 5 hull, and action economy. Those are a LOT of advantages, vs. the Y-Wing's ability to target ships out of arc. It isn't anywhere near a foregone conclusion that the Y-Wing is better, that depends entirely on the role the ship has in your list.

Right now, arc-dodgers and high-PS are the reigning kings and the one list type you must have answers to. If you cannot move last or fire out of arc, they can avoid your fire altogether and beat you. TLTs show up often because they are the least expensive answer to high-PS aces available for 2 of the 3 factions.

I don't know what people want. At 7 points TLT would be less useful, sure, and there would be fewer of them. But would that make the meta more diverse? I doubt it. The only lists TLTs counter are those lists that were and are everywhere to be found, namely high-PS arc dodgers. Whether those high-PS dodgers are PWTs or not is immaterial, TLTs provide one possible answer to the problem of Generics being completely outmaneuvered and unable to affect the game due to low PS and limited mobility.

The meta is very, very, very diverse at the moment. Local metas notwithstanding, the variety of lists making the top tables and/or winning is the highest it has EVER been in the entire time X-Wing has existed, and still people complain. I remember when Swarm was 1/3 to half of all the lists being played successfully, and when Swarms were replaced by Fat turrets those became 1/3 to half of all lists being played. Now that they have been toppled from their throne, we are seeing lists of all kinds in play successfully, from fat turrets to high-PS aces to Brobots, swarms, and everything in between. 4 Ship T-65 lists for crying out loud, that has never been a thing before now.

I know the internet needs something to talk about, and negativity gets more eyes than optimism, but even so it amazes me.

Edit:: K-fighters do just fine when I see them used. They may be a bit over cost, but not much (maybe a point?). Scyk's are in a bad place right now. The 2 points added to the cost of the Heavy Scyk title without adding any function was a flat out mistake. If the Heavy Scyk title gave an extra hull or extra shield for its 2 points in addition to allowing you to pay points for a cannon the Scyk would have a viable job. As is, they are adequate filler competing with good filler (Z-95) or a blatantly overpriced glass cannon.

As an avid fan of the Scum and Villainy faction, this is exactly my issue.

But the problem with S&V isn't the TLT, it's that the other ships in that price range aren't very good to start with.

I'm also not sure that a TLT Y-Wing is always the best choice at 24 points.

I think the simplest solution would be to add range bonuses to turrets and cannons. This makes their laser fire work the same way as primary weapons, which I think fits better thematically, while giving ordnance something special to differentiate it from other secondary weapons.

How would this effect turrets and cannons? Well it would be a nice buff for all of the turrets out there that nobody uses, and a small nerf to the TLT. I don't think it is too controversial to say that this would be a fine outcome. For cannons it is a bit more tricky. Each cannon would lose a bit of punch at long range, but gain some at short range. The only real loser here is HLC, which many feel is on the strong side to begin with.

I'd love to hear what MJ thinks about this type of change from a balance standpoint. I cannot foresee this breaking any upgrades, and think that it probably moves everything a bit more towards balance, but I haven't done any real math in over a decade, so I'm not the one to model it. This also has the benefit of not having to errata any cards, as this would just be a minor tweak to the game rules.

The only way I fathom TLT's getting a nerf is if Empire gets access to turrets.

From the original post, I am more concerned about if they will errata the MOV rules for large based ships. Since that has arrived we have seen a huge change in the meta concerning large ships.