I know this doesn't address small-base ships with a lot of health (though as noted, there's meta splash damage on that) but you could easily do a "Anti-Ship Missile" which does an extra damage or something to a large base ships. Flechette torpedoes is only 2 points for it's effect, something which punishes larger ships could be similar.

Or if you want to have a tank killer in general, do reverse prockets. A munition which rolls less attack dice based on the AGI of the defender. 5 ATK vs 0 AGI ships to 2 ATK vs 3 AGI ships. That's probably got more general spread.

I like that. Maybe even make it not be one use.

Armor piercing rockets: Attack(target lock): Reduce the number of attack dice by the target's current agility value, to a minimum of 2.

Attack value 5: range 1-3

Missile slot: 3 points

Heavy Ion Cannon
3 points (4 points?)
3 attack dice, Range 1-2

If this attack hits, the defender suffers 1 damage and receives 2 ion tokens. Then cancel all damage results.

Essentially an alternate to the original Ion Cannon. While the normal version lets you ping targets at range 3 and deprive your targets of a range bonus, this version sacrifices range for additional ionization power. This makes it stronger against large and Epic ships, but less effective against smaller fighters.

Just give small ships range bonus against ordnance. Done. Aces can control range. They should be harder to hit from distance. Large ships can already do that by spending 3pts and a mod slot for countermeasures.

Or give a 0pt upgrade that counters guidance chips. "When defending against a "missile" or "torpedo" attack, you may have the attacker re-roll 1 die." This is a weak elusiveness that only works against ordnance. It is a reroll instead of an automatic, because offense > defense in this game. Maybe make it a 0pt mod?

10 hours ago, RufusDaMan said:

So arc dodgers are pushed out of the meta by bombs (K-Wing, soon the Scurrg and what a surprise, the Jumpmaster), and large based ships like the Shadowcaster and... you guessed it, the jumpmaster. These are strong against the arc dodgers, because they concentrate on their weaknesses. Reliance on PTL and low hull. Bombs are tailor made ace killers. AND THAT IS FINE.

I don't want to see Sabine nerfed, or Miranda, or bombs. It's all part of a game to have counters against certain archetypes. My issue is, that aces have nothing to do against large, turreted ships. Yeah, autothrusters is helpful, but its more of a defense mechanism, delaying the inevitable.

So how bout an offensive answer against these ships, to even the star field.

This would make small ships more viable, and would greatly help out the imperials. It would also be an indirect nerf against most TLT carriers (With the exception of the TIE Aggressor, HWK, and Attack Shuttle)

However, if aces gain a foothold again, due to this card, it will rapidly lose value, because against other aces it is useless... Now you have to choose, and so Balance is restored....


What do you think?

Lt. Blount

I have mentioned it a while ago, I think a great X wing title fix would be getting an extra red die against large based ships. Almost every competitive list has at least one large based ship in it

11 hours ago, RufusDaMan said:

So arc dodgers are pushed out of the meta by bombs (K-Wing, soon the Scurrg and what a surprise, the Jumpmaster), and large based ships like the Shadowcaster and... you guessed it, the jumpmaster. These are strong against the arc dodgers, because they concentrate on their weaknesses. Reliance on PTL and low hull. Bombs are tailor made ace killers. AND THAT IS FINE.

I don't want to see Sabine nerfed, or Miranda, or bombs. It's all part of a game to have counters against certain archetypes. My issue is, that aces have nothing to do against large, turreted ships. Yeah, autothrusters is helpful, but its more of a defense mechanism, delaying the inevitable.

So how bout an offensive answer against these ships, to even the star field.

This would make small ships more viable, and would greatly help out the imperials. It would also be an indirect nerf against most TLT carriers (With the exception of the TIE Aggressor, HWK, and Attack Shuttle)

However, if aces gain a foothold again, due to this card, it will rapidly lose value, because against other aces it is useless... Now you have to choose, and so Balance is restored....


What do you think?

Good idea, but scum players only use large ships (with the exception of the Fang Fighter and the fact that guns for hire and the scurrg come out) so this would be a huge dis-advantage. Also it should be way over 3 points.

1 hour ago, BadMotivator said:

I like that. Maybe even make it not be one use.

Armor piercing rockets: Attack(target lock): Reduce the number of attack dice by the target's current agility value, to a minimum of 2.

Attack value 5: range 1-3

Missile slot: 3 points

If you are doing it like that just make it work the same way as the Single Turbo Laser in epic where you double the target's agility, the concept and underlying lore is the same.

The issue with this whole concept is that dispite the overbearing rage this forum has always harbored for them dating back to even before the days of Fat Han, large based ships are not really overpowered. They tend to have large numbers of upgrade slots allowing for unique combos as well as fancy arcs and so many people see them as being cheap but they are not really more potent point for point then other ships. Additionally because they tend to draw in tons of point investment they are almost always the centerpiece of any list they are in which makes them feel way more powerful to play against due to the effect of "Wow it's taking all my ships just to bring down this one thing?!" The Jumpmaster amplified that by a ton with some genuinely toxic builds like the U-Boats which although not overwhelmingly overpowered because FFG miscalculated how easy to use they would be almost completely rendered low agility high shield ships useless and Dengaroo which in addition to amplifing the aforementioned "Wow that ship is soloing my squad" effect disproportionately screwed ships which relied on TLs and rewarded running away and hiding with one ship the whole game.

Though these have been fixed the Jumpmaster also created it's feeling of dominance not due to a flaw it had in it's design but from one it lacked. See almost all ships since wave one generally had one competitively priced pilot, usually the top PS ace, and a bunch of others which mostly felt like filler. I think this is because FFG generally does their testing on on their testing on the top ship then uses a formula to determine how much to decrease the cost per pilot skill by, problem being that the formula is **** and they significantly undervalue PS increases so ever ship but the top ace is over priced unless they have a truely outstanding ability. They seem to be at least trying to do better about this lately because recent releases but with the Jumpmaster they inexplicably knocked the ball out of the park and created a ship where every single pilot is viable. This should be the case with every ship but even their recent efforts have really only added one extra competitive pilot per ship and that only exaggerates the feeling that the Jumpmaster is overpowered and everywhere.

This is even further increased by the extreme follow the leader mentality that afflicts the X-Wing competitive scene, case and point being the bomb use explosion(pun fully intended). Miranda, Sabine, and all other parts of that build have been around for over a year but it was only recently, after they made a huge competitive showing that they suddenly started being use everywhere and the forums began moaning about how "bomb-wing" the end of the game as it should be and that arcdodging was dead.

The idea is great, but the example of "Easy target" doesn't work well, because there are (in my opinion too many) small ships affected:

• ARC, Auzituck, K-Wing, Scurrg, Y-Wing
• TIE Bomber, TIE Punisher
• Quadjumper, Scurrg, Y-Wing

And several ships are prevented from hull upgrade, though I don't know how often that might be the case (StarViper, Fangfighter, Hawk, Misthunter, Kihraxz, TIE Aggressor, TIE Striker).

Flechette torpedoes were mentioned, and an example was made that is based on agility of the target. But I don't think these are the fixes we're looking for.
The probem is that the fix should be available to all "aces" (whatever we define as such).

If we were very lenient, we could define these 16 as potential aces:
M3-A Interceptor, Fangfighter, Starviper, Khiraxz; A-, E-, T-70-X, X-Wing and Attackshuttle; TIE Advanced/ATP/Interceptor/Phantom/SF/Defender/Striker. [Side note: the X-Wing and Khiraxz really stand out among this group because they are the only two that have neither evade, barrell roll nor boost]

Now 5 have torpedo slots and 6 have missile slots, 5 have neither.

That means that the fix either ignores 2/3 of the ships, or that's based on something else. But that something else needs to be a modification (unlikely because autothrusters) or a basic game effect. Personally I'd love a permanent "outmaneuver" effect against large based ships, so reduce agility by 1 if you're not in their arc. But then again that would be a great core rule in general.

Perhaps a modification?

Target finders

Small ship only. Modification. Limited.

Once per round, when attacking a ship with a shield value of 5 or higher, reduce its agility value by 1.

Perhaps if ordnances do get improved, there could be a counter card for large ships.

Flare payload

Large ship only. Modification.

Once per round, when defending against a (Missile) or (Torpedo) secondary weapon, increase your agility by 2.

Change 'hull value 5' to 'Jumpmaster' and you're all set.