I'd like to see a modification like

PWT ship only

Your PWT is replaced with a mobile arc

-5 points

My only problem with that is then you couldn't take Gyroscopic Targeting mod, which I've found invaluable when flying Lancers.

Why would you ever take this on a Lancer?

I'd like to see a modification like

PWT ship only

Your PWT is replaced with a mobile arc

-5 points

My only problem with that is then you couldn't take Gyroscopic Targeting mod, which I've found invaluable when flying Lancers.

Why would you ever take this on a Lancer?

Heh

Well, actually after looking at it again, a -5 discount on a Lancer at the cost of your mod slot would probably be ideal, but it's not a PWT sooo... Ya point still stands.

You cannot take this on the lancer, are you talking about the Gyroscopic mod or the -5 cost?

The Lancer is already a Mobile Arc and I think they were talking about making all old PWT into Mobile Arcs

Don't worry I'm well aware. My original post, if all snarkiness is eliminated, would have said, "Gyroscoping Targeting is Lancer only, so nothing else can take it anyways."

high PS fat PWTs are the best arc-dodgers in the game, because they combine large base displacement with a complete "I don't give a ****" attitude about facing

replace them with mobile arcs for the good of the game

I 100% support this. If all PWT were mobile arcs then it would make them much more enjoyable to fight. Not sure how to implement this from a practical standpoint, however, since the Shadow Caster comes with the little rotating thing showing which way the arc is facing.

PWTs are fine, Autothrusters and TLTs counter them pretty good.

I have to disagree VERY strongly on this one. You see, PWT were bad from the start, so they invented Autothrusters. Now, Autothrusters are OVERPOWERED BY DESIGN to keep them in check. If you have an ace that can choose Autothrusters, how often are you going to choose ANY other defensive mod over it?

If PWT's get nerfed, then Autothrusters can afford to be pushed back to reasonable levels. TLT can beat PWT but is also somewhat countered by Autothrusters. It's a whole net of problems that all starts with PWT's and chains from there.

Have you played with (or against) the shadowcaster? If you arent running asajj, a lot of the time you can just set your mobile arc to the side and fly in circles and not have to move it. Its NOT a magical "cureall" for whatever problems you think a PWT causes. Instead, now it shuts down autothrusters and any abilities that care about being out of arc. Id argue anything that arcdodges and uses autothrusters would RATHER see a pwt.

The "blocking" needs to change, it is a silly way of flying a ship, if 2 small ships crash you roll 1 die and take a crit or hit straight to hull, then just increase the amount of dice rolled based on ship size.

You should take a "blocking" ship because really your going to get damaged and people don't do that in real life without consequences

that's only if you think blocking = actual collision

when it could be any number of things, such as cutting a pilot off and forcing them to do sudden maneuvers that interrupt their flight path etc

game mechanics are there for a reason, the rest you just gotta abstract for yourself

Since ships can't overlap in a 2 dimension space, so I am ok with the blocking mechanic. The problem is purposefully blocking because that would not actually occur. However, to be above or below would be the outcome but would not result in two rounds.

Therefore, if both ships are being blocked for a second round, then damage from a die roll (hit and crits) for both ships. Now I shudder at this since the B-wing doesn't have options.

Another options is to roll a dice to determine if there is a collision.

The player who overlaps another ship rolls a dice. Upon a focus result a collision occurs and both ships take 1 damage. If the other ship then maneuvers and overlaps the first ship , then this is considered another collision and both take 1 damage.

Other top fixes

1) Large ship movements. They should not move faster than every small ship out there.

2) B-Wing - something more than 2K.(unable to K turn when bumped with a large ship or two small ships)

3) 2 point Engine Upgrade Small ship only

4) Palpatine and Manaroo range restriction. I think a 5 range would be good but not included in the core and only with Epic.

There are more but I suspect fixes will be upcoming.

I like that idea about the collision, there needs to be a die roll for it to keep people from doing it on purpose.

Mobile arcs just aren't thematic on most PWT. It makes sense for that one ship based on the show. In the films the Falcon only ever had a problem bringing its weapons to bear after it sat on a desert planet for years rusting.

Gameplay always and irrevocably >>>>>>>>> fluff

Overall I really like where the game is. If I had to pick one thing to change it would be taking a look at any ability where there isn't a specific cap or range tied to it.

PWTs are fine, Autothrusters and TLTs counter them pretty good.

I have to disagree VERY strongly on this one. You see, PWT were bad from the start, so they invented Autothrusters. Now, Autothrusters are OVERPOWERED BY DESIGN to keep them in check. If you have an ace that can choose Autothrusters, how often are you going to choose ANY other defensive mod over it?

If PWT's get nerfed, then Autothrusters can afford to be pushed back to reasonable levels. TLT can beat PWT but is also somewhat countered by Autothrusters. It's a whole net of problems that all starts with PWT's and chains from there.

I think the auto thruster counter to out of arc shots was a pretty reasonable thing given the power of PWTs at that time - but why did FFG feel the need to put in the range 3 bit?

When I take autothrusters its more for the blank to evade at range 3 rather than PWT defence, that bit is just a bonus. More often than not you will use that blank to evade at least once per game at which point it makes it points cost back immediately (lets face is 2 points is significantly undercosted in its current state).

If autothrusters is just affects shots out of arc, then it might actually become a choice whether to take it or not - maybe something like hull upgrade would be better option in some circumstances.

When I take autothrusters its more for the blank to evade at range 3 rather than PWT defence, that bit is just a bonus. More often than not you will use that blank to evade at least once per game at which point it makes it points cost back immediately (lets face is 2 points is significantly undercosted in its current state).

If autothrusters is just affects shots out of arc, then it might actually become a choice whether to take it or not - maybe something like hull upgrade would be better option in some circumstances.

that's not a choice

being able to defend at range 3 is a choice because you can play to keep yourself at range 3

you cannot do **** about getting matched against PWTs or not

specific hard counters are really terrible game design for this specific reason, made only slightly excusable by the existence of a sideboard (which we don't have)

Fix classic X-Wings, it seems sad that the name of the game relates to a ship that is basically being out played by EVERY other ship in the game, and no, the T-70 is NOT a x-wing, all it is is some Disney creators fan fiction element sneezed out one evening when he had a cold and should have been working.

that's not a choice

being able to defend at range 3 is a choice because you can play to keep yourself at range 3

you cannot do **** about getting matched against PWTs or not

specific hard counters are really terrible game design for this specific reason, made only slightly excusable by the existence of a sideboard (which we don't have)

I think you are misunderstanding the point I am making. It is less about the hard counter existing than about the fact it comes bundled with another effect which makes for an undercosted upgrade card.

It is my opinion that 2 points is a reasonable cost for the out of arc effect - the range 3 effect pushes it into territory of being undercosted.

You don't like hard counters - that much is clear from many of your posts - but as bad as you say hard counters are for the game - is a hard counter bundled with another effect any better? As it stands autothrusters are almost always auto take just beause of the range 3 effect, if you encounter a turrent thats just a bonus, but it is counter when you get that turret matchup.

If you were to, say, split the effects (i.e blank to evade when out of arc/blank to evade at range 3) onto 2 different upgrade cards then you would at least have interesting decisions to make when buiding a list rather than just taking autothrusters which covers you against both eventualities.

that's not a choice

being able to defend at range 3 is a choice because you can play to keep yourself at range 3

you cannot do **** about getting matched against PWTs or not

specific hard counters are really terrible game design for this specific reason, made only slightly excusable by the existence of a sideboard (which we don't have)

I think you are misunderstanding the point I am making. It is less about the hard counter existing than about the fact it comes bundled with another effect which makes for an undercosted upgrade card.

It is my opinion that 2 points is a reasonable cost for the out of arc effect - the range 3 effect pushes it into territory of being undercosted.

You don't like hard counters - that much is clear from many of your posts - but as bad as you say hard counters are for the game - is a hard counter bundled with another effect any better?

yes

because it is no longer just a mindless match-up dependent hardcounter

there are no interesting decisions to be made involving a card that only works against crap your opponent may or may not be bringing. that's just playing match-up roulette

oh, I'm playing against nothing that makes out of arc shots. My upgrade literally does nothing. so interesting!

to think I could've taken that horribly overpriced hull upgrade, instead!

Also remember when it was released Interceptors and A-Wings were both considered over costed and not competitive. It is possible that that card was under pointed to deal with that issue.

that's not a choice

being able to defend at range 3 is a choice because you can play to keep yourself at range 3

you cannot do **** about getting matched against PWTs or not

specific hard counters are really terrible game design for this specific reason, made only slightly excusable by the existence of a sideboard (which we don't have)

I think you are misunderstanding the point I am making. It is less about the hard counter existing than about the fact it comes bundled with another effect which makes for an undercosted upgrade card.

It is my opinion that 2 points is a reasonable cost for the out of arc effect - the range 3 effect pushes it into territory of being undercosted.

You don't like hard counters - that much is clear from many of your posts - but as bad as you say hard counters are for the game - is a hard counter bundled with another effect any better?

yes

because it is no longer just a mindless match-up dependent hardcounter

there are no interesting decisions to be made involving a card that only works against crap your opponent may or may not be bringing. that's just playing match-up roulette

oh, I'm playing against nothing that makes out of arc shots. My upgrade literally does nothing. so interesting!

to think I could've taken that horribly overpriced hull upgrade, instead!

That's your opinion. I agree hard counters aren't great, but a match up dependent upgrade is less mindless than an auto take upgrade. Autothrusters on Soontir/Inquisitor is a mindless upgrade already.

If you say to a Soontir player he can either have the effect at range 3 or out of arc, that's a difficult decision to make and different players might come down on different sides of the fence.

Ultimately its acedemic because the card is in the game. If FFG changes it - which I doubt they will - something along the lines of what AdmiralDeathrain proposed a few pages ago could work well.

that's not a choice

being able to defend at range 3 is a choice because you can play to keep yourself at range 3

you cannot do **** about getting matched against PWTs or not

specific hard counters are really terrible game design for this specific reason, made only slightly excusable by the existence of a sideboard (which we don't have)

I think you are misunderstanding the point I am making. It is less about the hard counter existing than about the fact it comes bundled with another effect which makes for an undercosted upgrade card.

It is my opinion that 2 points is a reasonable cost for the out of arc effect - the range 3 effect pushes it into territory of being undercosted.

You don't like hard counters - that much is clear from many of your posts - but as bad as you say hard counters are for the game - is a hard counter bundled with another effect any better?

yes

because it is no longer just a mindless match-up dependent hardcounter

there are no interesting decisions to be made involving a card that only works against crap your opponent may or may not be bringing. that's just playing match-up roulette

oh, I'm playing against nothing that makes out of arc shots. My upgrade literally does nothing. so interesting!

to think I could've taken that horribly overpriced hull upgrade, instead!

That's your opinion. I agree hard counters aren't great, but a match up dependent upgrade is less mindless than an auto take upgrade. Autothrusters on Soontir/Inquisitor is a mindless upgrade already.

If you say to a Soontir player he can either have the effect at range 3 or out of arc, that's a difficult decision to make and different players might come down on different sides of the fence.

Ultimately its acedemic because the card is in the game. If FFG changes it - which I doubt they will - something along the lines of what AdmiralDeathrain proposed a few pages ago could work well.

And why is it a mindless autopick? Because it was released as a fix for the ship you are talking about. That was literally what it was for.... Is Heavy Scyk an autopick now, hell yeah because it fixes the fact the Scyk is overcosted. What about Guidance Chip on anything carrying ordnance? What about X7 & /D, OK not an autopick as you have 2 options, but you are always going to choose one.

Gameplay always and irrevocably >>>>>>>>> fluff

The game is based in the Star Wars universe. If you are going to completely ignore fluff every ship may as well have 3 green dice and dodge boost and barrel roll as options. It's a sign of a good game when it can emulate a universe through mechanics.

Less H, more inverted Y

And why is it a mindless autopick? Because it was released as a fix for the ship you are talking about. That was literally what it was for.... Is Heavy Scyk an autopick now, hell yeah because it fixes the fact the Scyk is overcosted. What about Guidance Chip on anything carrying ordnance? What about X7 & /D, OK not an autopick as you have 2 options, but you are always going to choose one.

Wait, are you taling about the interceptor or TAP, because I mention both? Its also pretty much an auto pick on Poe and IG88s. Autothrusters wasn't designed as a fix for interceptors it just happens to be excellent on them, as it is on pretty much anything that can take it.

Gameplay always and irrevocably >>>>>>>>> fluff

The game is based in the Star Wars universe. If you are going to completely ignore fluff every ship may as well have 3 green dice and dodge boost and barrel roll as options. It's a sign of a good game when it can emulate a universe through mechanics.

why do people have to jump into the bottomless end of the pool immediately?

yes the game is star wars and will b ebuilt up from star wars, we're not just going to ignore everything

but we will maintain perspective. The source material is inspiration and it can be hacked if it serves the purposes of gameplay

i.e not for making everything have 3 agi boost and roll because that homogenizes everything and, by extension, makes it boring as ****

which doesn't serve the purpose of gameplay for diddly as much as make an asinine point

Since FFG is finally willing to errata, I thought this would be a good time for the community to share what they believe is important to them. Which top 5 things, in no particular order, do you believe need to be look at the most for buffs/nerfs? Do you have a simple, elegant suggestion for one?

1.) Autothrusters

2.) TLT

3.) Palpatine

4.) TIE Punisher

5.) Kihraxz Fighter

Now, I'm not sure how many of you are aware, but TLT do more damage on average (no matter how many evade dice) than a 3-damage PWT. They are so powerful that they allow turrets to out-joust jousters, their supposed natural counter. I've read/heard many times on here and other places that TLT is one of the things that really started to break the whole jouster > turret > arc dodger > jouster balance. A simple, elegant fix for TLT would be to make the range 2 or 3 instead of 2-3.

The whole juster > turret > arc dodger > jouster balance is a misconception in the first place. Still, uhm nice to have you back in a more reasonable way, Goomba??!?? ;-)

And a single range band would make anything with pot-movement maneuvers immune to TLT as you can always just roll or boost out a rangeband. Not a valid solution imho. The donut works (mostly) fine, especially when combined with autothrusters. Would not mind another tool with a similar effect against TLTs for other ships, maybe an "Strafing Run" EPT with the same effect as autothrusters.

PWTs are fine, Autothrusters and TLTs counter them pretty good.

I have to disagree VERY strongly on this one. You see, PWT were bad from the start, so they invented Autothrusters. Now, Autothrusters are OVERPOWERED BY DESIGN to keep them in check. If you have an ace that can choose Autothrusters, how often are you going to choose ANY other defensive mod over it?

If PWT's get nerfed, then Autothrusters can afford to be pushed back to reasonable levels. TLT can beat PWT but is also somewhat countered by Autothrusters. It's a whole net of problems that all starts with PWT's and chains from there.

I think the auto thruster counter to out of arc shots was a pretty reasonable thing given the power of PWTs at that time - but why did FFG feel the need to put in the range 3 bit?

When I take autothrusters its more for the blank to evade at range 3 rather than PWT defence, that bit is just a bonus. More often than not you will use that blank to evade at least once per game at which point it makes it points cost back immediately (lets face is 2 points is significantly undercosted in its current state).

If autothrusters is just affects shots out of arc, then it might actually become a choice whether to take it or not - maybe something like hull upgrade would be better option in some circumstances.

Autothrusters work at range three so that they aren't just a waste of points when you don't get matched against turrets. It would be a bad card if it only ever did anything if you were playing a list with turrets.

Autothrusters wasn't designed as a fix for interceptors it just happens to be excellent on them, as it is on pretty much anything that can take it.

It wasn't? I definitely remember that the devs made some noise about having an upgrade in Wave 6 that would help bring Interceptors back into a meta that was essentially dominated by fat turrets.

PWTs are fine, Autothrusters and TLTs counter them pretty good.

I have to disagree VERY strongly on this one. You see, PWT were bad from the start, so they invented Autothrusters. Now, Autothrusters are OVERPOWERED BY DESIGN to keep them in check. If you have an ace that can choose Autothrusters, how often are you going to choose ANY other defensive mod over it?

If PWT's get nerfed, then Autothrusters can afford to be pushed back to reasonable levels. TLT can beat PWT but is also somewhat countered by Autothrusters. It's a whole net of problems that all starts with PWT's and chains from there.

I think the auto thruster counter to out of arc shots was a pretty reasonable thing given the power of PWTs at that time - but why did FFG feel the need to put in the range 3 bit?

When I take autothrusters its more for the blank to evade at range 3 rather than PWT defence, that bit is just a bonus. More often than not you will use that blank to evade at least once per game at which point it makes it points cost back immediately (lets face is 2 points is significantly undercosted in its current state).

If autothrusters is just affects shots out of arc, then it might actually become a choice whether to take it or not - maybe something like hull upgrade would be better option in some circumstances.

Autothrusters work at range three so that they aren't just a waste of points when you don't get matched against turrets. It would be a bad card if it only ever did anything if you were playing a list with turrets.

And that aspect should be kept, but toned down. Like I suggested, turn the range 3 in arc benefit to a blank -> focus conversion. Against one (or two if you are Soontir) shot thats still pretty much an identical effect, but you are actually punished again for parking within several arcs.

Even entirely removing that range 3 benefit wouldn't be the end of the world, though, since these ships are supposed to be inefficient against arced opponents whom they can easily outmanouver anyways (seriously, its not all that hard with double repositioning).

Autothrusters wasn't designed as a fix for interceptors it just happens to be excellent on them, as it is on pretty much anything that can take it.

It wasn't? I definitely remember that the devs made some noise about having an upgrade in Wave 6 that would help bring Interceptors back into a meta that was essentially dominated by fat turrets.

That is what I remember too.

Great discussion; I agree that some bumps here and there may be in order, but let's not go down the old T-65 road shall we?

It seems to me that flying fighters with arcs is far tougher than turrets, so the Autothrusters card was created to help level the field a bit without the ability to make the turreted ships have mobile firing arcs like the Shadowcaster (which I'll bet was on the table when the designers were wrestling with the fat turret problem). Much like the triple Jump issue; something had to be done and re-issuing pilot cards has never been an easy option. Simply put, fine flying skills should always have sway over easy-fly....it's logical; it's good....but more talk of or actuality of more Aces counters seems illogical for thematic and realistic gameplay; FFG needs to be very, very cautious.

I'm not into buffs now that Jumps seem to be brought back to the fold a bit (speaking of 'easy fly' ships), but some positive push could go to:

Punishers

Star Vipers

Kiraxizxaxeeraxes

NOT my beloved T-65, it's just fine

Oh, and please design and release the Imperial Gunboat.Please. Please.....no more cartoon ships until the Gunboat can fly!