The inside of the nubs is NOT the width of the bullseye firing rectangle area. That area is slightly smaller. Check out the spread image and look closely at the base of the mounted ship
I used the ref card to figure out the pixel width of that bullseye arc for Vassal, here shown in my WIP Kimogila ship
Every ship in the game should have only had a bullseye arc, for realism. You can only shoot at ships that are inside it. Turret ships have a bullseye arc that rotates before they move, and are costed appropriately. Make this a real dogfight, where I’ve gotta spend five or six rounds flying around the board trying to line up a shot!
Then every game will remind me of my terrible time playing X-Wing vs. TIE Fighter (like when I was flying an A-Wing, mortally wounded a GUNBOAT, and then spent five minutes chasing it trying to line up a shot as it casually barrel rolled out of the way of all my shots.) It’ll be awesome!!!
Maybe a Scariff pack that gives it to T65s and TIE fighters?
4 minutes ago, Kieransi said:Every ship in the game should have only had a bullseye arc, for realism.
X-Wing hard-core mode.
8 minutes ago, Kieransi said:Every ship in the game should have only had a bullseye arc, for realism. You can only shoot at ships that are inside it. Turret ships have a bullseye arc that rotates before they move, and are costed appropriately. Make this a real dogfight, where I’ve gotta spend five or six rounds flying around the board trying to line up a shot!
I think the arc is meant to be somewhat of an abstraction. In a real dogfight, you're not moving to a position, stopping, and then firing; rather, you're juking around and your particular facing (where your shots are going) may not always perfectly align with your heading (where you're flying). When turning, you could also be firing a little earlier or a little later, too. This is just abstracted as an arc, just like evading a shot is abstracted as rolling dice rather than your ship model actually moving.
8 minutes ago, Kieransi said:Then every game will remind me of my terrible time playing X-Wing vs. TIE Fighter (like when I was flying an A-Wing, mortally wounded a GUNBOAT, and then spent five minutes chasing it trying to line up a shot as it casually barrel rolled out of the way of all my shots.) It’ll be awesome!!!
You can barrel-roll in that game?!
Something like this could be modified to add the Bullseye arc.
https://www.etsy.com/listing/483874759/ship-identifier-overlays-10-for-use-with
Just now, JJ48 said:I think the arc is meant to be somewhat of an abstraction. In a real dogfight, you're not moving to a position, stopping, and then firing; rather, you're juking around and your particular facing (where your shots are going) may not always perfectly align with your heading (where you're flying). When turning, you could also be firing a little earlier or a little later, too. This is just abstracted as an arc, just like evading a shot is abstracted as rolling dice rather than your ship model actually moving.
I was mostly kidding. It would be fun, and make the game more about flying and less about just mindlessly netlisting and then jousting your opponent, but I do think that increasing the learning curve isn’t great (it’s already a pretty hard game to learn), and high-PS arc-dodgers become stupid, broken good. Although if you reprice everything, you could just make Darth Vader cost like 90 points and then it becomes really thematic. But yeah, it was really just a goofy thought/joke.
3 minutes ago, JJ48 said:You can barrel-roll in that game?!
On my Logitech game controller, you hold down the Y-button (I think that’s the target lock button) and then press either side-move button to roll. And it cracked me up when that GUNBOAT rolled like a boss! That’s why hard mode is the only good way to play any video game.
...Honestly, I can't decide if the Bullseye arc is better for the X-Wing, A-Wing, or Y-wing.
9 minutes ago, Captain Lackwit said:...Honestly, I can't decide if the Bullseye arc is better for the X-Wing, A-Wing, or Y-wing.
X-Wing, definitely.
A-Wings have speed and maneuverability.
Y-Wings have turrets or double (or triple) tap, torps and bombs.
X-Wings have...
...er...
Edited by FTS Gecko5 minutes ago, FTS Gecko said:X-Wing, definitely.
A-Wings have speed and maneuverability.
Y-Wings have turrets or double (or triple) tap, torps and bombs.
X-Wings have......er...
Thing is, what makes the T-65 have it, but not the T-70?
Simple solution. Make a PS* T-65 X-Wing Pilot with cost **: The X-Wing veteran FanBoy/Copycat. It has a cardboard base with the bulleseye markings. While designing your squad, choose another T-65 X-Wing pilot card. That becomes the cost and pilot skill and ability of your X-Wing. SIMPLE.
.
Edited by EstarriolEdited by Estarriol2 hours ago, FTS Gecko said:
2 hours ago, FTS Gecko said:Bullseye arc was just made for X-Wings.
Well, and T-16 Skyhoppers...
It would need a different rule card saying “when attacking womprats”
IF the missing SKU turns out to be a new Resistance A-Wing AND Poe gets one then I hope it has the bullseye arc.
My big issue with the Bulls Eye Arc is the area of coverage, unlike a standard firing arc thanks to the templates being at increments of 45 degrees there is a lot of gaps in the coverage of bulls eye arcs that pilots cannot cover unless they bump their own ships.
I would like it better if there was some way of doing an oblique maneuver on your banks where you can chose after revealing a bank maneuver to not go the full length of the bank as if you overlapped another ship base. But that would probably bring a lot of inch pinching (arguments of model placement) of which the standard templates have left out of X-wing thus far.
Edited by MarinealverThis is not hard to do. Make a transparent plastic base with a bulls-eye arc that slides over the existing cardboard base.
I would give this to several jousting ships that are currently having problems. T65, T70, A-Wing make total sense for Rebels. TIE, TIE/fo, TIE Interceptor, TIE Advanced , TIE Advanced Prototype for Empire. I don't fly Scum, so no clue which ships need it there. I mean, those ships only don't have it because they came up with it in Wave 12. Same as Tallon Rolls and Segnor's Loops.
I think a lot of the wave 1-5 ships could really benefit from some of the newer mechanics. Reinforce on X-Wings when in arc (double front deflectors), reload on B-wings, Jam on U-wing.... for example.
On 2017-11-03 at 4:40 PM, the1hodgy said:
That would be 5 dice when in R1, with carnor token ability......I think i just thrown up a little.
You should have that checked up...
Its quite easy to fix. Just make it R2-3.
On 11/3/2017 at 2:18 PM, Marinealver said:My big issue with the Bulls Eye Arc is the area of coverage, unlike a standard firing arc thanks to the templates being at increments of 45 degrees there is a lot of gaps in the coverage of bulls eye arcs that pilots cannot cover unless they bump their own ships.
I would like it better if there was some way of doing an oblique maneuver on your banks where you can chose after revealing a bank maneuver to not go the full length of the bank as if you overlapped another ship base. But that would probably bring a lot of inch pinching (arguments of model placement) of which the standard templates have left out of X-wing thus far.
While it's true that in any given turn there are limits to where a bullseye arc could end up, a barrel roll, which can be adjusted in an analog fashion, changes where your bullseye arc can end up on future turns when you bank (compared to where they could end up if you didn't barrel roll the previous turn).
I guess what I am trying to say is that without buming a ship or barrel rolling there is a sort of grid on the whole map which determines all possible bullseye arcs for a single ship, but barrel rolling can move a ship off of this grid and removes the limitation (when considering all possible game states, while still limited for any individual round).
On 4.11.2017 at 8:32 PM, Wiredin said:I think a lot of the wave 1-5 ships could really benefit from some of the newer mechanics. Reinforce on X-Wings when in arc (double front deflectors), reload on B-wings, Jam on U-wing.... for example.
Exactly my point.
A clear plastic overlay that would plug into one of the id token slots would work so it doesn't wiggle. It could be a modification for small base ships, (it would need to allow for an additional mod), and if you want ship differentiation, titles could add to it.
X/E-Wing and Interceptors(would need a 2nd title) can add an additional die at range 2, B-wings can fire an equipped cannon and primary weapon. Though Corran makes the Ewing OP, so once per round.
On 11/4/2017 at 2:32 PM, Wiredin said:I think a lot of the wave 1-5 ships could really benefit from some of the newer mechanics. Reinforce on X-Wings when in arc (double front deflectors), reload on B-wings, Jam on U-wing.... for example.
Hey, a fellow Battlefront player! Yeah, the U-Wing having a jamming ability would be absolutely fantastic. ****, doubt front could be...
*Action:* During the Action Phase, assign one extra shield token to your X-Wing until the end of the Attack Phase. Remove if an enemy lands a hit that is in your primary firing arc. If you receive damage from outside of your firing arc, draw one damage card and place it face up, receive a stress token.
Basically: You better know what you're doing and be sure you're angling that deflector shield correctly. Just as well, only gives you that extra shield token until the end of that round. Thematic, good for jousting, extremely punishing if you use it incorrectly- but doesn't force you to draw critical damage.
I definitely think B-Wings would work really well with this bullseye arc.
Plays into the lore too, with them being the heavy assault fighter of the Rebellion. Ten Numb or Keyan with VI... oh man.