Here's a game design exercise:

So Autothrusters is a tiny bit too strong. It has a range 3 benefit so that players aren't wasting points if we don't face turrets. This has the unfortunate effect of making things like Torpedoes and cannons slightly weaker against arc dodgers- and thus making jousters comparatively worse.

So let's pretend that Autothrusters came out today. The "front" side would say:

When defending, if you are outside the attacker's firing arc, you may change 1 of your blank results to a [evade] result. You can equip this card only if you have the [boost] action icon.

What should the back side say? What's worth 2 points when there are no enemy turrets in the area? Should the back side be limited to ships with boost?

I think the flip side ought to be an offensive upgrade. Maybe something that flips blanks- or a blank- to eyeballs when attacking at range 3.

I think AT is fine the way it is. I've had many a game where they don't ever trigger, which means the player fielding them effectively used 2 points less than their opponent. After the initial approach most shots are range 1 or 2 and if your opponent does not have turrets...

Auto Thrusters don't do anything against mines... 2 k-wings can trash Auto Thrusters in short order

ATs are fine

good luck playing a 30+ point 3 agility, low health ship otherwise. And by "Good luck" I mean "get ready to have green dice shove blanks so far up your ass that you'll be barfing bad luck for weeks"

AT is fine as it is.

Yes please, let's make Scouts with Deadeye, Aggromech, torps, and extra ammo even more powerful.

Not even the nimble A-Wing/Interceptor should have a chance against it at range 3.

Seriously, Interceptors and A-Wings are super fragile. If you want them to be part of the game they need Autothrusters.

I think AT is fine the way it is.

ATs are fine

AT is fine as it is.

Seriously, Interceptors and A-Wings are super fragile. If you want them to be part of the game they need Autothrusters.

I think the OP isn't stating that Autothrusters should be nerfed, but just proposing a "design exercise" to all of us consisting on making Autothrusters a dual card that involved a choice from the player that equips it at the beginning of the game.

If you leave the front as the out of arc part, then the back needs to be something worth two points that works versus jousters or arc-dodgers.

What about...

"Once per round, immediately after an enemy ship perform a boost or barrel roll that leaves you in their firing arc, you may perform a free boost or barrel roll action. You must have the [boost] action icon to equip this card".

I think the OP isn't stating that Autothrusters should be nerfed, but just proposing a "design exercise" to all of us consisting on making Autothrusters a dual card that involved a choice from the player that equips it at the beginning of the game.

If you leave the front as the out of arc part, then the back needs to be something worth two points that works versus jousters or arc-dodgers.

What about...

"Once per round, immediately after an enemy ship perform a boost or barrel roll that leaves you in their firing arc, you may perform a free boost or barrel roll action. You must have the [boost] action icon to equip this card".

I like it, but I'm not sold. There's some interesting timing things, where (say) Soontir would be able to Boost/BR a ship that moves at PS1, but an Alpha Squadron pilot would Boost/BR directly after Soontir. I almost kind of love that timing weirdness.

Autothrusters are necessary before you think about nerfing them address PWT the reason I had to invent AT in the first place.

Autothrusters are necessary before you think about nerfing them address PWT the reason I had to invent AT in the first place.

Right. I addressed that in the first post. Currently, they're strong against ships _without_ turrets, putting jousters in an even bigger comparative disadvantage. So if you had Autothrusters be a dual card, they could word _specifically against_ out of arc attacks, but if you were facing a list without turrets, they would have some other benefit.

So the question is: what should that benefit be?

(the other question is: how should I reword my post, so that I'm making my point clear?)

When defending at range 3, you may change one of the attacker's <eye> result to a blank result.

Just on the topic of Dual upgrades it sure seems to me like all the requirements for equipping one side should be the same as the other side. If on side takes the modification slot and requires the ship to have Boost then the other side would as well.

Now if you were going to have a dual card with some version of Autothrusters that only works on attacks that are out of arc then maybe the other side could allow the ship to boost using the turn template instead of needing the straight or boost. Instead of jinking and whatever to avoid out of arc shots the added maneuverability is used to turn a tighter boost.

IG is sad, because "I get R3 bonus+AT and you don't get that R3"

is the thing that lets IGs exist in the first place.

ELiminaing one of 2.5 jouster lists out there (the other being UUU and crackswarm)