It could be done with some new components to go over the bases, with the arcs marked on them. There is no real need to change all the cardboard tiles. It could be an upgrade with an appropiate point cost.

...

not really

considering literally all the rules stay the same and we're affecting a very small portion of the game, an ESPECIALLY small portion if you count PWTs that you actually see competitively, it's not that huge an undertaking

really, it's more of an opportunity to rebalance horrible design decisions, including not only the PWT rule itself but some of the particularly useless additions to the game such as the ORS and non-dash yt-2400s

course that's just assuming we replace only PWTs with mobile arcs. Secondary turrets already come with restrictions

If PWT are such a "small portion of the game" then there is no need to make any changes to them.

Would Mobile Arcs make them better? Perhaps in a few limited cases. Would it make them worse. In general, YES it would especially considering the cost in using that mobile arc.

If you want to kill the PWT perhaps they should do away with Boost and Barrel Roll as well.

pretty skippy that boost and broll are FAR larger parts of the game than the PWT

not to mention they're maneuver-based inputs, whereas PWT takes that out of the game in favor of dice

it's a lazy, ill-conceived mechanic and its relative rarity does not excuse that fact. If ffg can devote time to changing it, and if the mobile firing arc is in fact some kind of prototype for said change, then the game will be better for it

EXACTLY.

If you want to remove the PWT from the game because it "takes maneuvering out of the game" then you should also remove Boost and BR because they just add extra maneuverability to the game.

Two sides to the same coin.

EXACTLY.

If you want to remove the PWT from the game because it "takes maneuvering out of the game" then you should also remove Boost and BR because they just add extra maneuverability to the game.

Two sides to the same coin.

Actually I can totally see what people mean. My problem with turrets is that they detract from the core mechanic of picking your movements carefully without having seen your opponent's movement, and the same thing can be said for repositioning actions, since they're reactive. The difference for me is that repositioning actions, while still guilty, are guilty to a far lesser extent than turrets. The amount of reactive movement that they give you is pretty small, so your initial movement is still critical. That said, I don't want every ship to be repositioning all the time, I think that will spoil the game. I hope the vectoring/ed thrusters don't become too common.

To those saying a 2.0 X-Wing would be hard here is the answer. Update Box: 15$ includes 2.0 Base rules and Reference book along with Cards and Base inserts for any ships that had any major changes (In this situation all the PWT Ships).

The ships with PWT pay for that privilege. For the most part if you get shots at them you will hit while even if you do get a shot at those arc-dodgers they are often protected by a relatively large number of defense dice. I know that we could talk about fickle dice vs. solid hull/shields and could mention all of the other damage mitigation available but for the most part anything with a PWT is an easy target while most of the boost/BR crowd can be seen as pretty evasive.

If the amount of reactive movement boost/BR give is so small then how would arc-dodging be useful in the first place?

...

not really

considering literally all the rules stay the same and we're affecting a very small portion of the game, an ESPECIALLY small portion if you count PWTs that you actually see competitively, it's not that huge an undertaking

really, it's more of an opportunity to rebalance horrible design decisions, including not only the PWT rule itself but some of the particularly useless additions to the game such as the ORS and non-dash yt-2400s

course that's just assuming we replace only PWTs with mobile arcs. Secondary turrets already come with restrictions

If PWT are such a "small portion of the game" then there is no need to make any changes to them.

Would Mobile Arcs make them better? Perhaps in a few limited cases. Would it make them worse. In general, YES it would especially considering the cost in using that mobile arc.

If you want to kill the PWT perhaps they should do away with Boost and Barrel Roll as well.

pretty skippy that boost and broll are FAR larger parts of the game than the PWT

not to mention they're maneuver-based inputs, whereas PWT takes that out of the game in favor of dice

it's a lazy, ill-conceived mechanic and its relative rarity does not excuse that fact. If ffg can devote time to changing it, and if the mobile firing arc is in fact some kind of prototype for said change, then the game will be better for it

EXACTLY.

If you want to remove the PWT from the game because it "takes maneuvering out of the game" then you should also remove Boost and BR because they just add extra maneuverability to the game.

Two sides to the same coin.

A PWT doesnt take your action to do, Boosting or Barrel Rolling DOES. So Ship that can fly straight and still have a TL and Focus versus a ship that wont get actions to get you back in arc, yeah they are the same thing.

On Topic: The debate of PWTs was also had in another game that uses the same mechanics, Attack Wing. Guess what Borg having a 360 did? It bent and snapped the game so bad they have had to nerf Borg into oblivion to get people NOT to use them. Any game where your facing doesnt matter basically makes moving irrelevant. Adding pieces that dont need to worry about facing to a game with pieces that do makes the pieces that do SEVERALLY gimped. Why do you think that Aces who can use Push The Limit with Boost/Barrel Roll or similiar moves have become the thing to play? Becuase it can deal with running into turrets and not be totally gimped from the word go.

The ships with PWT pay for that privilege. For the most part if you get shots at them you will hit while even if you do get a shot at those arc-dodgers they are often protected by a relatively large number of defense dice. I know that we could talk about fickle dice vs. solid hull/shields and could mention all of the other damage mitigation available but for the most part anything with a PWT is an easy target while most of the boost/BR crowd can be seen as pretty evasive.

If the amount of reactive movement boost/BR give is so small then how would arc-dodging be useful in the first place?

The point of Arc Dodging in any setting is to avoid getting shot. The reason you see the Arc Dodgers pumping up their Evade dice is because they can no longer rely on getting out of arc. If I go to a tourney and there is even a 1% chance of running into a ship that can shot 360 then I have to either A)Bring a 360 ship myself or B) Have either the Dice or abilites to negate their shooting. PWTs negate/remove the need to know how to steer. This is coming from first hand experience from a Attack Wing Borg player. Having to not worry where you go is HUGE compared to actually having to steer and get enemies into your arc.

The ships with PWT pay for that privilege. For the most part if you get shots at them you will hit while even if you do get a shot at those arc-dodgers they are often protected by a relatively large number of defense dice. I know that we could talk about fickle dice vs. solid hull/shields and could mention all of the other damage mitigation available but for the most part anything with a PWT is an easy target while most of the boost/BR crowd can be seen as pretty evasive.

If the amount of reactive movement boost/BR give is so small then how would arc-dodging be useful in the first place?

It's not about whether they're unbalanced, it's about whether they're un-fun, which is a point you can't argue because it's entirely subjective. You're not going to persuade people who think they're not fun that they are.

EXACTLY.

If you want to remove the PWT from the game because it "takes maneuvering out of the game" then you should also remove Boost and BR because they just add extra maneuverability to the game.

Two sides to the same coin.

Actually I can totally see what people mean. My problem with turrets is that they detract from the core mechanic of picking your movements carefully without having seen your opponent's movement, and the same thing can be said for repositioning actions, since they're reactive. The difference for me is that repositioning actions, while still guilty, are guilty to a far lesser extent than turrets. The amount of reactive movement that they give you is pretty small, so your initial movement is still critical. That said, I don't want every ship to be repositioning all the time, I think that will spoil the game. I hope the vectoring/ed thrusters don't become too common.

a few massive distinctions, though

• if you deny actions, you deny repositioning. You cannot deny PWTs; you can deny mobile arcs
• high PS repositioning has some powerful counters in detonate on overlap mines, especially conners, and other such effects which occur before the enemy has even activated
• repositioning is not always reaction, as lower PS can do it as well which is a huge advantage for blockers (esp the A). PWT has no such distinction and always works unless you've run aground or are in b2b or have biggs lurking around.

the PWT is a passive mechanic that just takes the opposing player out of the game unless it has a range restriction or thrusters to worry about (though thrusters are still iffy due to it affecting dice rather than completely rewarding player skill)

the biggest irony, though, is that the PWT is the ship type that has the easiest time arc-dodging because their facing doesn't affect their ability to fart dice

I don't see how re-positioning and PWTs even begin to approach each other on how much they remove the opposing player from the equation. Repositioning can be countered by anything as even the base game mechanics (blocking, obstacles) allow action denial outside a few exceptions (re: phantom advanced cloaking device); PWTs can't they can only be mitigated by an upgrade only a select group of ships can take

The ships with PWT pay for that privilege. For the most part if you get shots at them you will hit while even if you do get a shot at those arc-dodgers they are often protected by a relatively large number of defense dice. I know that we could talk about fickle dice vs. solid hull/shields and could mention all of the other damage mitigation available but for the most part anything with a PWT is an easy target while most of the boost/BR crowd can be seen as pretty evasive.

If the amount of reactive movement boost/BR give is so small then how would arc-dodging be useful in the first place?

It's not about whether they're unbalanced, it's about whether they're un-fun, which is a point you can't argue because it's entirely subjective. You're not going to persuade people who think they're not fun that they are.

So when someone says that playing against arc-dodgers is just as un-fun as someone else saying that playing against turrets is un-fun then both must be right and thus both should be eliminated.

The ships with PWT pay for that privilege. For the most part if you get shots at them you will hit while even if you do get a shot at those arc-dodgers they are often protected by a relatively large number of defense dice. I know that we could talk about fickle dice vs. solid hull/shields and could mention all of the other damage mitigation available but for the most part anything with a PWT is an easy target while most of the boost/BR crowd can be seen as pretty evasive.

If the amount of reactive movement boost/BR give is so small then how would arc-dodging be useful in the first place?

It's not about whether they're unbalanced, it's about whether they're un-fun, which is a point you can't argue because it's entirely subjective. You're not going to persuade people who think they're not fun that they are.

So when someone says that playing against arc-dodgers is just as un-fun as someone else saying that playing against turrets is un-fun then both must be right and thus both should be eliminated.

"Both must be right"? What part of "opinion" don't you understand? They're both right in that they know what their own opinion is (though that said, sometimes we think we like or don't like something only to find we change our minds when we get or lose it). Whether it should be removed from the game comes down to two things for FFG to decide: 1) how many of their players share the opinion, and 2) what's FFG's own opinion?

EXACTLY.

If you want to remove the PWT from the game because it "takes maneuvering out of the game" then you should also remove Boost and BR because they just add extra maneuverability to the game.

Two sides to the same coin.

Actually I can totally see what people mean. My problem with turrets is that they detract from the core mechanic of picking your movements carefully without having seen your opponent's movement, and the same thing can be said for repositioning actions, since they're reactive. The difference for me is that repositioning actions, while still guilty, are guilty to a far lesser extent than turrets. The amount of reactive movement that they give you is pretty small, so your initial movement is still critical. That said, I don't want every ship to be repositioning all the time, I think that will spoil the game. I hope the vectoring/ed thrusters don't become too common.

a few massive distinctions, though

• if you deny actions, you deny repositioning. You cannot deny PWTs; you can deny mobile arcs
• high PS repositioning has some powerful counters in detonate on overlap mines, especially conners, and other such effects which occur before the enemy has even activated
• repositioning is not always reaction, as lower PS can do it as well which is a huge advantage for blockers (esp the A). PWT has no such distinction and always works unless you've run aground or are in b2b or have biggs lurking around.

the PWT is a passive mechanic that just takes the opposing player out of the game unless it has a range restriction or thrusters to worry about (though thrusters are still iffy due to it affecting dice rather than completely rewarding player skill)

the biggest irony, though, is that the PWT is the ship type that has the easiest time arc-dodging because their facing doesn't affect their ability to fart dice

I don't see how re-positioning and PWTs even begin to approach each other on how much they remove the opposing player from the equation. Repositioning can be countered by anything as even the base game mechanics (blocking, obstacles) allow action denial outside a few exceptions (re: phantom advanced cloaking device); PWTs can't they can only be mitigated by an upgrade only a select group of ships can take

Yeah, I agree, they have a similar issue but to a hugely different extent; I'm just saying I'd like reactive repositioning specifically not to be something every ship can do, cos even though it's nowhere near as bad as a turret it can still detract from the predicting part of the game.

Again though, I'm talking more about fun than balance.

EXACTLY.

If you want to remove the PWT from the game because it "takes maneuvering out of the game" then you should also remove Boost and BR because they just add extra maneuverability to the game.

Two sides to the same coin.

Actually I can totally see what people mean. My problem with turrets is that they detract from the core mechanic of picking your movements carefully without having seen your opponent's movement, and the same thing can be said for repositioning actions, since they're reactive. The difference for me is that repositioning actions, while still guilty, are guilty to a far lesser extent than turrets. The amount of reactive movement that they give you is pretty small, so your initial movement is still critical. That said, I don't want every ship to be repositioning all the time, I think that will spoil the game. I hope the vectoring/ed thrusters don't become too common.

a few massive distinctions, though

• if you deny actions, you deny repositioning. You cannot deny PWTs; you can deny mobile arcs
• high PS repositioning has some powerful counters in detonate on overlap mines, especially conners, and other such effects which occur before the enemy has even activated
• repositioning is not always reaction, as lower PS can do it as well which is a huge advantage for blockers (esp the A). PWT has no such distinction and always works unless you've run aground or are in b2b or have biggs lurking around.

the PWT is a passive mechanic that just takes the opposing player out of the game unless it has a range restriction or thrusters to worry about (though thrusters are still iffy due to it affecting dice rather than completely rewarding player skill)

the biggest irony, though, is that the PWT is the ship type that has the easiest time arc-dodging because their facing doesn't affect their ability to fart dice

I don't see how re-positioning and PWTs even begin to approach each other on how much they remove the opposing player from the equation. Repositioning can be countered by anything as even the base game mechanics (blocking, obstacles) allow action denial outside a few exceptions (re: phantom advanced cloaking device); PWTs can't they can only be mitigated by an upgrade only a select group of ships can take

Yeah, I agree, they have a similar issue but to a hugely different extent; I'm just saying I'd like reactive repositioning specifically not to be something every ship can do, cos even though it's nowhere near as bad as a turret it can still detract from the predicting part of the game.

Again though, I'm talking more about fun than balance.

Only way you could stop Reactive positioning is if all Boost/Barrel Roll ships had a capped PS. As long as someone has PS8+ and options to postion they are ALWAYS going to use them. I dont see them reprinting Fel as a PS5/6 pilot just because of his crazy movement shenanigans. Also Reactive positioning is part of ANY kind of strategy game. Unless they removed the PS move order and Everyone moved at the same time there will always be a reaction element to movement.

EXACTLY.

If you want to remove the PWT from the game because it "takes maneuvering out of the game" then you should also remove Boost and BR because they just add extra maneuverability to the game.

Two sides to the same coin.

Actually I can totally see what people mean. My problem with turrets is that they detract from the core mechanic of picking your movements carefully without having seen your opponent's movement, and the same thing can be said for repositioning actions, since they're reactive. The difference for me is that repositioning actions, while still guilty, are guilty to a far lesser extent than turrets. The amount of reactive movement that they give you is pretty small, so your initial movement is still critical. That said, I don't want every ship to be repositioning all the time, I think that will spoil the game. I hope the vectoring/ed thrusters don't become too common.

a few massive distinctions, though

• if you deny actions, you deny repositioning. You cannot deny PWTs; you can deny mobile arcs
• high PS repositioning has some powerful counters in detonate on overlap mines, especially conners, and other such effects which occur before the enemy has even activated
• repositioning is not always reaction, as lower PS can do it as well which is a huge advantage for blockers (esp the A). PWT has no such distinction and always works unless you've run aground or are in b2b or have biggs lurking around.

the PWT is a passive mechanic that just takes the opposing player out of the game unless it has a range restriction or thrusters to worry about (though thrusters are still iffy due to it affecting dice rather than completely rewarding player skill)

the biggest irony, though, is that the PWT is the ship type that has the easiest time arc-dodging because their facing doesn't affect their ability to fart dice

I don't see how re-positioning and PWTs even begin to approach each other on how much they remove the opposing player from the equation. Repositioning can be countered by anything as even the base game mechanics (blocking, obstacles) allow action denial outside a few exceptions (re: phantom advanced cloaking device); PWTs can't they can only be mitigated by an upgrade only a select group of ships can take

Yeah, I agree, they have a similar issue but to a hugely different extent; I'm just saying I'd like reactive repositioning specifically not to be something every ship can do, cos even though it's nowhere near as bad as a turret it can still detract from the predicting part of the game.

Again though, I'm talking more about fun than balance.

Only way you could stop Reactive positioning is if all Boost/Barrel Roll ships had a capped PS. As long as someone has PS8+ and options to postion they are ALWAYS going to use them. I dont see them reprinting Fel as a PS5/6 pilot just because of his crazy movement shenanigans. Also Reactive positioning is part of ANY kind of strategy game. Unless they removed the PS move order and Everyone moved at the same time there will always be a reaction element to movement.

Well, just for the sake of nit picking, reactive positioning doesn't have to be part of the game at all, they could simply not have any movement action, but I'm not arguing for that. Interceptors are one of my favourite ships, maybe even favourite, I just don't think it should be something every ship does, which is easily controlled by it giving every ship a movement action.

"So all we know is a lot of people don't like turrets. And the world exists. Probably."

PWTs don't take maneuvering out the game at all. They take arc-dodging out of the game. Maneuvering is only nullified if neither turret has arc-related abilities (hence the introduction of so many) and it's a turret on turret mirror battle. If a non-turret gets involved in the fight maneuvering matters again.

A PWT ship pays for its turret in points, meaning fewer points worth of its cost go into dial and statline: particularly the damage it can throw out. This prevents it from jousting: if it simply charges into a TIE swarm it's dead.

This is why Engine Upgrade is such a common upgrade for Falcons, Decimators and Outriders: a turret has to predict your maneuvers and position itself such that it doesn't take full fire every turn. If only a few of your ships get a shot it'll be able to win the fight, if you don't let it dodge your list, it won't.

To those saying a 2.0 X-Wing would be hard here is the answer. Update Box: 15$ includes 2.0 Base rules and Reference book along with Cards and Base inserts for any ships that had any major changes (In this situation all the PWT Ships).

And how do they decide ho wmany copies of the different cards and inserts to include? One person is going to have 1 copy of a ship, while the next might have 5 (or however many fit in a 100 point list), while a third might have 12 (to play max number in epic).

Just a thought...

If actions had a seperate phase, like after all ships had performed maneuvers, then low ps ships could reposition almost as well as high ps ships. I mean, if the order of actions is done in the same ps order, just in a seperate phase.

Anyway, PWT will not be changed to mobile arcs anytime soon. Future turret ships almost certainly will have this mechanic, but I very seriously doubt any of the previously released ships will be neutered in that way.

I wouldnt even be surprised if we still see normal PWTs in the future instead of only mobile turrets. Mobile turret is just another new mechanic to go along with all the existing ones. Just because something new is introduced doesnt mean they cant or wont still do other versions

You can always house rule it, provided everyone you play with is okay with it.

If there were a way to like this post more than once, I would.

Nope. What a terrible idea! This would basically force everyone to re-buy essential components and would take away not only a large portion of the game itself, but the player base as well. PWTs have a mangled image mostly due to the childlike behavior of people who don't like them as evidenced on these very forums. A quick search for PWTs will yield a ton of results, most of them with very negative content. People who defend PWTs online or profess to enjoy playing them are quickly dismissed as ice cream eating minors who have no real input. If FFG were to revise the rules and remove PWTs from the game they would be in fact validating every single negative thing said about PWTs, and thus themselves as designers.

PWTs do not need to be removed from the game or revised into something else. People need to learn how to deal with these them, just like people will have to learn how to deal with mobile arcs. There is room in X-WIng for both mechanics, both playstyles. To say otherwise is ridiculous by default. X-Wing revisionism is a movement that needs to be stopped because it tells FFG we are willing to re-invest in the game. We don't need to do that no matter how many toys you have or how many toys FFG could potentially sell.

If you really want to talk about X-Wing 2.0 then let's talk about a stand-alone hard copy rulebook that presents alternative rules for X-WIng. SOmething that one could opt to buy at any point and does not replace anything. Those who wished to play with alternative rules can purchase the hard copy rulebook and simply use it in addition to their collection. The core game and business model of X-WIng should continue on unobstructed by any sort of impediment. Core sets should still exist and from time to time be updated a little to give more options for beginning players and veteran alike. Expansions should remain as they are, with no single ship or card becoming obsolete and needing a replacement of any kind. This is a perfectly balanced approach and we have enjoyed it enough to make X-WIng one of the most popular games around, so let's not fool ourselves into thinking we need to fix it because it's really not broken. FFG is capable of printing some pretty nice books and I'm sure that if such an option were presented you would find a lot of support for that. But extra tokens or components, rebuying ships? Not an option as far as I'm concerned.

Well said, sir.

It won't happen because it would require major rebalancing changes in other areas like ship cost. People who think it would happen do not actually understand what kind of rules changes are acceptable in a game like this and what sorts of situations merit those rules changes. "Some people online don't like PWTs" is not an acceptable reason for issuing rules errata of that level.

I doubt we will see further PWTs made if the Shadow Caster is well-received, but that's an entirely different thing from changing the rules for existing PWTs.

Consider that mobile arcs emphasise high pilot skill just like boost+barrel roll icon pairs do the arc-dodgers. The 360 degree primary might have its problems, bit it at least only cares for PS in arc dodging, not arc hunting as well.

Which is say: while the idea of PWTs having incentive to attack ships in arc has merit, one must be very careful what you wish for in such sweeping changes.

Do you really want PS9-11 fat Han (now cheaper, don't forget!) all over the place again?

Consider that mobile arcs emphasise high pilot skill just like boost+barrel roll icon pairs do the arc-dodgers. The 360 degree primary might have its problems, bit it at least only cares for PS in arc dodging, not arc hunting as well.

Which is say: while the idea of PWTs having incentive to attack ships in arc has merit, one must be very careful what you wish for in such sweeping changes.

Do you really want PS9-11 fat Han (now cheaper, don't forget!) all over the place again?

How do mobile arcs emphasise high pilot skill more than normal, single arc ships?

I'm not sure people would mind fat Hans if they had mobile arcs instead of PWTs.

What if they did it as an optional upgrade? The Mobile Arc versions would have a significant cost reduction and/or stats/upgrade options boost. (I'm looking at you ORS...) This would incentivize players to take the new Mobile Arc version of the ship over the PWT, but the PWT would still be tournament legal.

People who love the PWT that much can continue to use it at the current cost. I would bet in a mirror match, the Mobile Arc version would come out ahead of the PWT more often than not.

I think they would have to release individual upgrade kits for each ship, priced somewhere between 3 and 5 dollars.