This isn't something I ever expect FFG (or most players) to have an interest in, but...

What if shots taken from both shooter and target's forward arc were straight up and unmodified. While shots taken from the target's rear (the opposite of the forward arc) while in the shooter's arc gained a Red Die. Any other shots would add a Green Die to the target's roll. None of this would apply to Primary or Secondary turrets.

What do you folks think? I realize it's basically unnecessary chrome. But I'm too much of an air gaming geek not to try.

I don't follow. Isn't this basically the Outmaneuver card?

You know, I actually posted something like this in the mechanics you would want for xwing thread.

It does over complicate the beautiful game, but is more realistic.

I don't follow. Isn't this basically the Outmaneuver card?

Similar, yes, but based on real-life aspects of air combat and I assume the author would be interested in applying it to all ships.

RE: Outmaneuver - Not really. But it would certainly make Outmaneuver more useful. You'd cancel out the high deflection side green bonus and really buff the shooting from a tailing position red bonus.

wouldn't mind honestly, since it'd at least bring turrets up to the GW level of having facing actually matter (shoot 360 degrees, but the facing of the opponent greatly influences their defensive capability)

just get rid of the green dice

Nah, too iffy and clunky.

I'd much rather see the range bonuses reversed: lose one green die at R1, lose one red die at R3

Nah, too iffy and clunky.

I'd much rather see the range bonuses reversed: lose one green die at R1, lose one red die at R3

I wonder how the math would work with losing dice instead of gaining dice, specifically in respect to token usage (focus/target lock/evade) it might lead to some wildly differing tactics.

However that is just a thought experiment. I assume a large reason FFG decided to add instead of subtract dice is because of the psychological effect of getting a bonus instead of applying a penalty.

Nah, too iffy and clunky.

I'd much rather see the range bonuses reversed: lose one green die at R1, lose one red die at R3

I wonder how the math would work with losing dice instead of gaining dice, specifically in respect to token usage (focus/target lock/evade) it might lead to some wildly differing tactics.

However that is just a thought experiment. I assume a large reason FFG decided to add instead of subtract dice is because of the psychological effect of getting a bonus instead of applying a penalty.

I think tactics wise, you'd definitely see a shift in maneuvering. But also in upgrade choices. Is an Autothruster all that enticing when you don't get an extra die at R3? You might see a shift in the autoincludes.

Consider Soontir: would he be more interested in diving to R1 where he is now a 3 green die 3 red die, with PtL, or would he prefer to stay at R3, trading a red die for full access to his 4 greens and a possible AT use? Then you might see stuff like Daredevil being interesting to put on him.

Yes, it's a thought experiment, but one you could easily recreate at the table of course.

Nah, too iffy and clunky.

I'd much rather see the range bonuses reversed: lose one green die at R1, lose one red die at R3

I wonder how the math would work with losing dice instead of gaining dice, specifically in respect to token usage (focus/target lock/evade) it might lead to some wildly differing tactics.

However that is just a thought experiment. I assume a large reason FFG decided to add instead of subtract dice is because of the psychological effect of getting a bonus instead of applying a penalty.

I think tactics wise, you'd definitely see a shift in maneuvering. But also in upgrade choices. Is an Autothruster all that enticing when you don't get an extra die at R3? You might see a shift in the autoincludes.

thrusters become more enticing

gaining a green die can result in literally nothing

losing a red die is always a loss of potential damage

I've suggested similar thoughts in the past.

Although most ships don't have a printed rear arc if you are behind your target it stands to reason that you should have a better chance at getting a good shot off. Similarly, if you are trying to land that hit as a target cuts across in front of you at some angle the attack generally becomes MUCH more difficult as attack angle, and even range, would be changing very quickly.

Even a turret isn't immune to these issues. Shooting forward is just about like shooting the primary. Shooting backwards at someone's nose should be very devastating but shooting a target moving away may be even harder with higher speed differences. Shooting to the sides varies depending on how the target is approaching as you could go from little relative motion (ship travelling the same direction and parallel to you) so some of the same extremes that cutting across in from of a ship would provide. There's no easy way to handle turrets that would be accurate across everything which probably means doing nothing for everything.

If we go back to the old X-Wing games I'd say there were three basic patterns you faced in dogfighting. You had jousting where the two ships would fly at each other. You then had those ships you could get behind and try to stay behind to keep them in your sights while they tried everything to get away. And finally you had those crazy times where there was so much twisting and turning that the only shots you could ever get off were those "wing and a prayer" maximum angle deflection shots. When one mastered the deflection shots, especially without needing a target picked out, the game became a lot more interesting. I guess you also had those wonderful targets that would just ignore you as you moved in but even for these it would be advantageous to know your angles so you could avoid tipping the target off by locking onto it with your fire control systems.

Nah, too iffy and clunky.

I'd much rather see the range bonuses reversed: lose one green die at R1, lose one red die at R3

I wonder how the math would work with losing dice instead of gaining dice, specifically in respect to token usage (focus/target lock/evade) it might lead to some wildly differing tactics.

However that is just a thought experiment. I assume a large reason FFG decided to add instead of subtract dice is because of the psychological effect of getting a bonus instead of applying a penalty.

I think tactics wise, you'd definitely see a shift in maneuvering. But also in upgrade choices. Is an Autothruster all that enticing when you don't get an extra die at R3? You might see a shift in the autoincludes.

thrusters become more enticing

gaining a green die can result in literally nothing

Yes, but with 3 green dice you have less chance of triggering an AT than with 4 (or 5).

Nah, too iffy and clunky.

I'd much rather see the range bonuses reversed: lose one green die at R1, lose one red die at R3

I wonder how the math would work with losing dice instead of gaining dice, specifically in respect to token usage (focus/target lock/evade) it might lead to some wildly differing tactics.

However that is just a thought experiment. I assume a large reason FFG decided to add instead of subtract dice is because of the psychological effect of getting a bonus instead of applying a penalty.

I think tactics wise, you'd definitely see a shift in maneuvering. But also in upgrade choices. Is an Autothruster all that enticing when you don't get an extra die at R3? You might see a shift in the autoincludes.

thrusters become more enticing

gaining a green die can result in literally nothing

Yes, but with 3 green dice you have less chance of triggering an AT than with 4 (or 5).

no, you're still going to be rolling blanks

with a focus, you're guaranteed at least one evade result by they from 3 blanks or 3 focus

Forge world's Aeronautica Imperialis gave planes a tailing bonus, basically a reroll when directly behind an enemy plane.

It's a simplified version of this suggestion, and something I think would benefit X-Wing a lot, not least by giving turrets a reason to maneuver.

It also nicely reflects the reality of dogfighting - being right behind the enemy, with minimal deflection, low relative speed, and without taking return fire, is the best possible position to be in.

Of course this is pure speculation - if nothing else X-Wing doesn't provide a handy rear arc to use!

Did anyone else play AI at all?

Bringing in the concept of E would be cool, too, as long as we're dreaming.... build a penalty into too many consecutive slow or hard maneuvers, except for the Zeros... I mean TIEs. Make the big boys "boom and zoom" instead of engaging in a turning furball.