What would happen if FFG were to update the rules so that Boost and Barrel Roll, arguably taxing maneuvers on the ship and pilot, assigned you a stress token?

Off the bat it'd appear a nerf to the PTL A-wing (apart from Tycho who would become uniquely skilled overnight) and the PTL TIE interceptor, neither of which desperately needed to be. The knock on effects could, however, be quite interesting.

Reactive repositioning has a significant effect on the pilot skill game: a ship that can both boost, barrel roll and take double actions (that can double reposition) is incredibly hard to keep in arc: it can go pretty much where it wants and dance out of arc. Large ship turrets with a single reposition are similarly nerfed: they need arc dodging to avoid the focus fire that is their bane. Action economy of repositioning is critical to so many of the game's favoured builds that making them red would broadly nerf all of them, even if not equally. It would similarly be a huge nerf to pilot skill itself. Engine Upgrade becomes significantly less useful on Vader and Corran and just about anything.

A nerf to pilot skill and repositioning is a buff to mid pilot skill ships and arced ships that can't reposition: the T-65 X-wing, the Firespray, the YV, the Lambda and the Kihraxz. None of these ships are popularly considered to be overly powerful, if you get my meaning.

Red Boost and Red Barrel Roll is inherently incompatible with PTL and disables double repositioning. Reactive repositioning comes at a cost: TIE interceptors and A-wings can do it freely but other ships must consider it carefully: like a red maneuver it comes at a price.

In that sense, I think turning Boost and Barrel Roll red could hypothetically increase diversity rather than reduce it. Most of the power builds either don't care about repositioning anyway (TLT) or heavily rely on it (high PS aces and fat turrets).

Furthermore, I think it could potentially shift the gameplay back towards its initial design of much heavier reliance on predicting maneuvers and shift pilot skill back to an initiative and slight informational advantage over a heavy reactive advantage. Reposition actions are still useful (they're reposition actions!) but their power at high PS is severely eclipsed. The removal of double reposition means that if a Rookie Pilot can catch a TIE interceptor dead in its sights that interceptor can't escape.

Am I saying FFG should do this? No. But it's interesting to consider the potential positive knock on effects of what at first looks like a flat nerf to most of the game.

What do you think the potential effects of making reposition red would be?

Not going to write the suggestion off without debate, but I think there's going to be a lot of negative responses to the idea.

Maybe just large ship boost and barrel roll, as those ships gain a much greater advantage for the abilities?

Failing that, maybe Engine Upgrade boost errata'd to cause one stress, in the same way Expert Handling does?

It is interesting. It would make PtL a lot less useful, and would make the whole reposition after the dial via a action part of the game a lot less of a thing.

Which may lead to more head-to-head jousting, and so I guess the question becomes if that's a good thing or not.

IMO the real issue with boost/barrel roll is that it became a fairly standard part of nearly every ship in the game, which helped kick off the PS war. With 95% of the ships having it, it makes the 5% that much harder to use.

I'm respectfully against this idea. There has kind of been an arms race in design between arc dodgers and turrets in this game. Historically, PWT's came out on top (even during the Phantom menace). Recently the playing field was evened by Auto-thrusters. But now we have TLT and it has shifted the advantage back towards turrets.

Making boosts and barrel rolls red would further hinder arc dodgers. I do think that large ships should pay some kind of premium for boosting (since they get a greater advantage from it). So maybe stressing them wouldn't be such a bad idea.

It would really hurt all Tie Fighters. Interceptors would become unplayable overnight. Basically the only viable Imperial list would be Defenders, Bombers, and Tie Swarms.

Failing that, maybe Engine Upgrade boost errata'd to cause one stress, in the same way Expert Handling does?

I kind of like this idea, but for large ships only. Otherwise Vader gets even worse.

I think that in general it's clear that large ships get the biggest benefit from boost and barrel roll and I think apply this to them might be better for the the game then to all ships.

The game would be quite a bit more boring.

I kind of like this idea, but for large ships only. Otherwise Vader gets even worse.

Hold on a minute, you're saying a PS9 ship with two actions (no downside) and a essentially a free Systems Upgrade with the title is bad?

Yeah after reading some responses, I like the idea of large ships having trouble with it. But making small ships pay that tax would negatively affect one faction the most. It probably would push the game more into the jouster arena, and we all know what that actually means.

I don't like it.

Unless all ships get all actions

...and the faster, more agile ships would get white or green boosts/b-rolls.

Right, let's make turrets and rebel regen even more powerful...

Well, they're not maneuvers, so they can't be red...

I suggested the other day that large ships that equip the Engine Upgrade gain stress when they boost. That way you don't affect the ships that natively boost, just the ones that add it via the upgrade.

I agree that it would be a bit extreme for small based ships but can at least entertain the idea on the large based ships.

Yeah after reading some responses, I like the idea of large ships having trouble with it. But making small ships pay that tax would negatively affect one faction the most. It probably would push the game more into the jouster arena, and we all know what that actually means.

I agree that it would be a bit extreme for small based ships but can at least entertain the idea on the large based ships.

Boost or BR can be more advantageous on a large ship but it can also be more difficult for a large ship to perform without bumping another ship or obstacle so i think making it red would be harsh

Boost and Barrel roll do not come freely to Awings and Interceptors. There is a cost - The expenditure of an available action. If I do those, I cannot focus or evade unless I spend squad points to get a higher PS ship and PTL. Then I also get a stress, which makes my next moves limited to 50% or less of the available dial

The base ship cost is also factored in, with base Awing and Interceptor costs being 5-6 points more than a base Z95 or Tie.

The assumption that there is any need to do this for balance or shift toward the "initial design" of the game is off base, in my opinion.

I also think diversity would suffer, as you would likely see most people move toward the turreted ships or possibly swarms.

The only time you then might see an Awing in a tournament setting is if somebody runs Tycho.

Leave it alone. Don't try to fix what isn't broken.

Well, at least Lorrir would not feel so alone...

Leave it alone. Don't try to fix what isn't broken.

Sorry but that's pure nonsense.

Sure sometimes trying to fix something that isn't broken can make it worse. But once you stop trying to make something better then all progress stops.

The telegraph worked just fine... But does anyone think that we would of been better off if we had stopped there with telecommunication tech?

Thematically speaking, boosting and barrel rolling were and are both (intentionally) offensive and defensive maneuvers. If either (or both) of them became red maneuvers, they would become less attractive in combination with an offensive intention. Boosting to get a shot, or to get an even better shot isn't going to be as viable if getting the shot means no tokens to make that shot more effective.

If you treated the maneuver as a white maneuver until the end of the turn - meaning you kept the stress token for next round, but got actions in the same round, that would be more palatable. (edit: it would also make the use of these maneuvers a little more strategic).

Nice T-65 fix. Hate on the Empire much.

Right, let's make turrets and rebel regen even more powerful...

Turrets and Rebel Regen also rely on it. Regenerators have to get outta dodge to do their thing: Corran is a PTL double repositioner. Turrets likewise wither under fire from the jousters that get crowded out by PS9 arc dodgers and given they can't be arc dodged their effectiveness against arc dodgers is unchanged.

If boost and barrel roll were red, they would suck and the game would be less fun.

I think the tweak to the idea that should work is this: any ship may perform a boost or barrel roll. If you do not have the action in your action bar, gain +1 stress. This would fix the have/have not repositioning balance by giving all ships some additional repositioning, but rewards those ships with native abilities by letting them do it easier. This would create many more tactical maneuvers and even out a lot of the ships, IMO.

Leave it alone. Don't try to fix what isn't broken.

Sorry but that's pure nonsense.Sure sometimes trying to fix something that isn't broken can make it worse. But once you stop trying to make something better then all progress stops.The telegraph worked just fine... But does anyone think that we would of been better off if we had stopped there with telecommunication tech?

OP suggests hindering actions rather than enhancing or replacing those actions with something better.

The telephone was an improvement over the telegraph and replacement for it.

I think the tweak to the idea that should work is this: any ship may perform a boost or barrel roll. If you do not have the action in your action bar, gain +1 stress. This would fix the have/have not repositioning balance by giving all ships some additional repositioning, but rewards those ships with native abilities by letting them do it easier. This would create many more tactical maneuvers and even out a lot of the ships, IMO.

Personally I think that would turn the game into more of a PS war.

For those saying a solution in search of a problem, I feel the need to reiterate that this is a thought experiment, not something I'm saying FFG should do. Were I actually to design an erratum to tone down the PS war it'd probably be to disallow double repositions: boost and barrel roll count as each other for the purpose of the "can't do same action twice" rule. This'd only really affect the PTL interceptor, Dash Rendar, Corran Horn, Darth Vader and a few other niche pilots and it'd power them down versus jousters alone by reducing their reactive repositional ability. Against turrets very little changes: PWTs don't care about enemy repositioning.

Leave it alone. Don't try to fix what isn't broken.

Sorry but that's pure nonsense.Sure sometimes trying to fix something that isn't broken can make it worse. But once you stop trying to make something better then all progress stops.The telegraph worked just fine... But does anyone think that we would of been better off if we had stopped there with telecommunication tech?

You are comparing apples and oranges.

OP suggests hindering actions rather than enhancing or replacing those actions with something better.

The telephone was an improvement over the telephone and replacement for it.

I'm not sure how that applies. This is a game. Improving a ruleset doesn't mean making everything more powerful. Take the TIE phantom errata: if they'd changed it from what it is now to what it used to be, that would not be an improvement. It'd be a buff to the phantom but not an improvement to the game.