They're not going to give the non-epic version of the Reinforce action to a ship with a normal firing arc, because then the "aft" area would be so much bigger than the "fore" area.
End of PSA.
PSA: Reinforce Will Not Be The X-Wing Fix
No, but then at least Red Leader can finally say his line.
Set Your Deflector Screens To Double Front
At the start of the Combat Phase you may remove a shield token to assign a Reinforce token to your ship with the Fore side face-up
You're right, it's utterly impossible.
8 minutes ago, Stay On The Leader said:Set Your Deflector Screens To Double Front
At the start of the Combat Phase you may remove a shield token to assign a Reinforce token to your ship with the Fore side face-up
You're right, it's utterly impossible.
Woof. That does not sound like a good trade!
But yeah, that's a way they could do it. I hadn't considered the possibility of only ever getting "fore" tokens.
Either designed to combine with regen, or a flip card to recover the shield.
I think you're right but I think your logic is wrong. It's in vs out of arc. Lots of things use that mechanic and it's fine.
A mechanic that only works in the firing arc would be ok, and work towards the jousting aspects of the Xwing. So a free forward reinforce token after executing a maneuver that doesn't bump or land on an obstacle. (talk about a Biggs boost)
22 minutes ago, Stay On The Leader said:Either designed to combine with regen, or a flip card to recover the shield.
Front reflectors only with a Regen droid to make/encourage a Rebel super-jouster? Sign me up!
27 minutes ago, charlesanakin said:I think you're right but I think your logic is wrong. It's in vs out of arc. Lots of things use that mechanic and it's fine.
Lots of things use one or the other of those things. This is the only thing that makes you choose, at runtime, whether it works in arc or out of arc. And for most ships those areas are very different sizes.
2 hours ago, digitalbusker said:Lots of things use one or the other of those things. This is the only thing that makes you choose, at runtime, whether it works in arc or out of arc. And for most ships those areas are very different sizes.
And...? Who says size the the most important factor in this mechanic. It works just like choosing Lancers mobile firing arc. The size doesn't matter it's a tactical choice.
Can a mod edit out the "not" from the title? This guy found us a winning fix!!
(The X-Wing doesn't need a fix.)
4 hours ago, Slugrage said:No, but then at least Red Leader can finally say his line.
That was gold leader. However I already mentioned the problems with reinforce actions on different firing arcs. They could be grouped into three different patterns.
- Huge Ship & 180 Degree Auxiliary firing arc .
The origin and natural mechanics for the Reinforce action. Since reinforce was huge ships designed for fore or aft half of the ship. This is the only pattern that allows for the reinforce action without any additional algorithms to the rule set. However for huge ships they used the blue section line which is used for damage, line of sight, movement and other stuff where on the smaller 180 degree firing arcs are used for firing. Thus locking any ship with reinforce action to a 180 degree auxiliary arc.
- Standard Primary Arc & Primary Weapon 360 Degree Turret
As some players have stated that it would be easy to determine the front half from the back I will point out that statement is merely a fallacy. If reinforce actions were to go here it would be affecting either in arc or outside of arc. However this mechanic will require an errata to be made to apply to small and large ships with standard and PWTs exclusively thus excluding the huge ships of epic and the current 180 aux arcs. No doubt declaring reinforce outside of arc would be the optimal use of reinforce action as it covers 3 of the 4 sides. Such action would force arc dodgers to get inside firing arc or at least put a threatening ship like a TIE Defender in arc first causing a reinforce inside the arc while a flanker can get around to the side and deal more damage. PWTs will be included in this category because although their primary weapon is 360 they still have a primary firing arc for the underutilized secondary weapon slot that a ship may carry.
- Rear Auxiliary Firing Arc & Mobile Firing Arc
More of a directional set up this could be done in one of tow ways. Specifying a single side (fore, left, aft, right) thus making it the most ineffective reinforce action of all covering only 1 of the 4 sides. Or select 2 adjacent arcs (Front-Left, Front-Right, Aft-right, Aft-left) giving it the standard 180 degree coverage of the reinforce action. Again more errata to add the necessary algorithms separating small and large ship reinforce actions from huge ships and separating all the small and large ships by their respective firing arc pattern.
But I think the general consensus is along the side with the OP. While these could be added they would just be too clunky to be implemented and would require a full page on the reinforce action itself where the coordinate (and inevitable jam action) could easily fit on a standard rule supplement card.
"Power to rear shields."
Rebel only. Modification.
At the start of the combat phase you may assign a Weapons disabled token to your ship, if you do, assign a re-enforce token to your aft.
1 point.
. Possibly a dual card..... title: S foils attack position add +1 attack to primary/ (other side) S foils closed, assign a reinforce token at the start of the activation phase. Flip when executing maneuver. That way, you come in get that free reinforce for the joust and extra attack for that crucial round of combat. This would not be a free title by any means, I'd pin it around 3 points.
49 minutes ago, tsuruki said:"Power to rear shields."
Rebel only. Modification.
At the start of the combat phase you may assign a Weapons disabled token to your ship, if you do, assign a re-enforce token to your aft.
1 point.
Stabilize rear deflectors.
works great with snap shot or bombs. Or action torpedoes.
Reinforce should have been the fix for the B Wing
13 hours ago, digitalbusker said:They're not going to give the non-epic version of the Reinforce action to a ship with a normal firing arc, because then the "aft" area would be so much bigger than the "fore" area.
End of PSA.
I don't see why they wouldn't. The X wing is supposed to be a jouster, this makes it better able to joust.
It would be a pretty elegant fix if Biggs didn't exist. But then, if Biggs didn't exist the X Wing probably wouldn't need fixing in the first place...
Whatever expansion they use to give the X-wing, the B-wing, or whatever other ship reinforce tokens, they could just add a little cardboard overlay (much like the Lancer's arc selector) that adds a 180 degree "Fore/Aft Arc" to the ship base. A rules card would be needed to explain that primary or secondary weapons cannot be used to fire using this arc.
Solved.
Reinforce arc or reinforce out of arc. Wouldn't this be perfect for a jouster? Maybe a title card of some sort.
2 hours ago, thespaceinvader said:
It would be a pretty elegant fix if Biggs didn't exist. But then, if Biggs didn't exist the X Wing probably wouldn't need fixing in the first place...
2 hours ago, thespaceinvader said:
Biggs is the only reason the t-65 sees play anymore. If Biggs didn't exist then we could get a good x-wing fix.
11 hours ago, ViscerothSWG said:(The X-Wing doesn't need a fix.)
Really? Why is that Biggs is the only pilot that sees play anymore then?
2 minutes ago, Clancampbell said:Biggs is the only reason the t-65 sees play anymore. If Biggs didn't exist then we could get a good x-wing fix.
You won't find me disagreeing. Biggles is why Rebels can't have nice things (that cost less than 50-ish points to make it difficult to run them alongside biggs, and even then...) and he really needs FAQing so they don't have such trouble designing around him IMO.