16 hours ago, heychadwick said:

If you add an energy cost to it then it will be useless. The point is that there are a number of actions that never get used in epic. I'm specifically thinking of Jam and Coordinate. The only way to have people want to use them would be to not cost energy and not prevent them from the better actions. I suggest not a crew/team that allows ANY free action, but one specific action. Jammer Tech - xpts: allows you to get one free Jam action per turn. That type of thing. The point cost and crew/team slot should be the only downside.

• I wouldn't say useless (I do use co-ordinate/reinforce quite a bit with a Protocols assault carrier), but at the same time I agree that they are detectably worse than other options.
• In the case of Jam, I think it's sort of an inevitability because I don't think the action itself is that tempting.
  • Jam is nice, but it's nice at killing off action-dependent aces and large ships - which, frankly, aren't very good in epic to start with, because the former lack the space to dance in and the latter lack the raw firepower of a cloud of snubfighters.
  • Added to this, it's only on the Rebel Transport and C-ROC unless you want to pay more points on the Gozanti for a Broadcast Array.
• Co-ordinate was really good.
  • Since it's been added to the core game on 30 point and even 15 point ships, not so much anymore.
  • To be fair, it was never that great since the carrier came out, because a PS4 or less imperial fleet could have all the actions it ever wanted with a Youngster Buddy Swarm*.
  • Hence, giving an epic ship an improved co-ordinate makes sense (there are already a few titles and crew which do this)
• At the same time, I'd happily make the cost lower (1 energy) or make it a different cost, but I feel like it should still have some sort of in-game cost. A totally free action that has no trigger just feels a bit too good, even if it's locked to a specific action.
  • Could be a lower energy cost (1)
  • Could be no energy cost, but 'you can't use it if you have 0 energy on the ship'
  • Could be free every turn, but with a 'discard this card if' trigger, giving your opponent a realistic way to disable it

* Youngster/Squad Leader and any number of Black Squadron Pilot/Adaptability to taste. Able to perform what's essentially a co-ordinate action on any target of PS4 or lower, at a pittance of cost compared to an epic ship.

7 hours ago, Magnus Grendel said:

• At the same time, I'd happily make the cost lower (1 energy) or make it a different cost, but I feel like it should still have some sort of in-game cost. A totally free action that has no trigger just feels a bit too good, even if it's locked to a specific action.
  • Could be a lower energy cost (1)
  • Could be no energy cost, but 'you can't use it if you have 0 energy on the ship'
  • Could be free every turn, but with a 'discard this card if' trigger, giving your opponent a realistic way to disable it

I would say that the cost of the crew/team card itself (not sure on cost, really) and the "opportunity" cost of filling the crew/team slot should be enough.

To each their own.

My only observation is that I cannot think of any other example in the game of an upgrade card which generates a positive token for you (or a negative token for your opponent) without a detectible 'trigger':

• Some cost you a positive token (Jan Ors)
• Some inflict a negative token like stress or ion (Push The Limit, Pulse Ray Shield)
• Some require an action to trigger (R7-T1, Jyn Erso)
• Some lock you in to a specific action and provide an additional bonus (TIE/v1, Recon Specialist)
• Some require you to attack (Tactician) or hit (Ion Cannon)
• Some require you to be shot at (Rebel Captive)
• Some require a specific manoeuvre speed or colour (Targeting Astromech, K4 Security Droid, TIE/x7)
• Some require a specific position or very close proximity (usually range 1, in arc, or both) of an enemy ship (Snap Shot, Mara Jade)
• Some require you to have no shields and/or to have suffered damage (R2-D2, Ysanne Isard)

I honestly can't think of any totally trigger-free effects.

Apologies; I found one. My mistake.

Kylo Ren's Shuttle is the only example I can find that pretty much just requires you 'to exist' at a fairly game-tolerant range 2 to stress an opponent (although its downside is that it essentially lets the opponent decide who gets the stress).

Anyway, obviously you could make it totally free of triggers, but the more stringent the trigger, obviously the cheaper the upgrade card can be (hence why Targeting Astromech is cheaper than K4 security droid). Teams more in the Thug Droid end of life than the current 4-point teams would be much more tempting (since the point is that if people already wanted to do Jam in preference to recover or target lock, they would be doing, so you really need the team 'fixing' jam to cost less than the team which helps target lock or fuel shield regen and energy weapons).

10 minutes ago, Magnus Grendel said:

To each their own.

My only observation is that I cannot think of any other example in the game of an upgrade card which generates a positive token for you (or a negative token for your opponent) without a detectible 'trigger':

• Some cost you a positive token (Jan Ors)
• Some inflict a negative token like stress or ion (Push The Limit, Pulse Ray Shield)
• Some require an action to trigger (R7-T1, Jyn Erso)
• Some lock you in to a specific action and provide an additional bonus (TIE/v1, Recon Specialist)
• Some require you to attack (Tactician) or hit (Ion Cannon)
• Some require you to be shot at (Rebel Captive)
• Some require a specific manoeuvre speed or colour (Targeting Astromech, K4 Security Droid, TIE/x7)
• Some require a specific position or very close proximity (usually range 1, in arc, or both) of an enemy ship (Snap Shot, Mara Jade)
• Some require you to have no shields and/or to have suffered damage (R2-D2, Ysanne Isard)

I honestly can't think of any totally trigger-free effects.

Apologies; I found one. My mistake.

Kylo Ren's Shuttle is the only example I can find that pretty much just requires you 'to exist' at a fairly game-tolerant range 2 to stress an opponent (although its downside is that it essentially lets the opponent decide who gets the stress).

Anyway, obviously you could make it totally free of triggers, but the more stringent the trigger, obviously the cheaper the upgrade card can be (hence why Targeting Astromech is cheaper than K4 security droid). Teams more in the Thug Droid end of life than the current 4-point teams would be much more tempting (since the point is that if people already wanted to do Jam in preference to recover or target lock, they would be doing, so you really need the team 'fixing' jam to cost less than the team which helps target lock or fuel shield regen and energy weapons).

Courier Droid gives you PS 8 without even costing a point.

@MajorJuggler , reading back through this has got me thinking about it some more, and the more I think, the more I wonder: why is this mod not just a recost? This all just, like, my opinion, man, but all these zero-point ship-fix cards are just making this mod way too complicated for me to want to play it. Partly, it's just high barrier to entry; I'd have to relearn what every frickin' ship in the game does. But more than that, a big part of what bugs me (and a lot of other players) about the current state of X-Wing is how many superfluous cards there are. If your list doesn't have at least one zero-point card, chances are you're doing it wrong. Why would I leave that game for a new version that has even more of that, plus I have to print out all the extra cards by myself, plus I have to figure out point costs? I'm sure it would be more balanced, but I'd have to wait and see if that's really worth the barrier to entry, and if we're all waiting to see, it'll never get off the ground.

Plain and simple: I don't get why 99% of these issues can't be solved with point cost adjustments. If B-Wings were 17 points, I'd fly the **** out of them. Likewise, if missiles cost more for higher-PS ships, the alpha strike wouldn't be as toxic (which is why I like the tier system you have for upgrades). I can see that some cards could be an issue (passive defense boosts like Autothrusters and Concord Dawn spring to mind for me, since they really suck for swarms), but I feel like those cards are few enough that errata'ing them would be acceptable. But as far as ship buffs go . . . the only ones that I feel would really be nececssary would be a dial fix for the X-Wing, probably an extra attack die for the HWK (to make it have an option other than turrets) and maaaaaybe some Trolls for the B-Wing, but even that's a stretch to me. It feels like right now, the goal is to bring everything up to the level that we're seeing in tournaments right now; but I gotta say, that level is a whole lot more toxic than it was a few years ago (IMO). I'd much rather see everything brought back down to the sort of level we saw when the game launched. And I feel like recosts would be a whole lot less work for you; instead of worrying about wordings on cards and exactly what mathematical effect a card will have on a ship's jousting value, just slot in the predicted points cost and you're good to go (with some adjustments for meta variation over time, of course).

Anyway, that's my 2 cents. It's been kinda nagging on my mind for a while. I don ' t think I really saw this question come up before, but maybe I just missed it or forgot about it, so sorry if I'm rehashing things.

@Magnus Grendel Thanks for all the thoughts! Touching on most:

• LWF: after I get all the ships' first cut done, and before we're beta testing TIE Strikers / Aggressors, I will go back and add the special case math for LWF. In the meantime, the costs are "pretty close" to where they should be.
• I am keeping Flechette in the back of my mind, but I'm not overly worried about it being collateral damage. I can always tweak the card.
• LWF itself is now 4/5/6 as noted upthread
• Green speed 2 banks for TIE Strikers would not be totally out of the question, but I would rather avoid it if needed; less changes are better. Punt to beta testing for now.
• Since Ailerons is +1 hull it is certainly auto-include, which forces you to do the pre-move maneuver. (which is a good thing IMO, everyone loves that aspect of the ship)
• Countdown - I'm making some assumptions about how often the ability triggers, so it'll probably get tweaked with analytical playtesting during beta.
• Duchess - if you see the jousting values and compare to other high PS arc-dodgey type ships, a cost reduction here (even with +1 hull) is really a no brainer.
• 'Mass Launch' is an idea I have pondered if they ever had come out with a Missile Boat. I would be worried about creating an alpha strike monster though.
• FYI Minefield Mapper has been reworded -- you don't have to discard the bombs (or extra munitions) when using it. This will help the TIE Punisher.

@Ailowynn Valid points. I basically have 3 options:

1. Nerf the heck out of the current stuff in the game via point adjustments. Downside: this means that you won't be able to play any of the meta lists in the last few years, because they will all clock in at well over 100 points.
2. Buff the bad ships by significantly reducing their costs. Downside: TIE Fighters become 10 points, X-wings become 16 points (17 with IA and a 1 point droid), and Bounty Hunters become 24 points. Typical games will involve 10 TIE Fighters, 6 X-wings, or 4 Bounty Hunters. I don't think I want to live in that world, it's not fun to be pushing 10 TIEs around the table.
3. Buff the old ships mostly via card upgrades that fill in their tactical weak spots, and tweak costs as needed. Downside: it's more complicated.

Pick your poison! I'm going with #3 and will be looking to prune out any extra cards if possible. In general though I'll still need quite a few new cards.

I'm not too worried about people "waiting to see" if it's balanced. Once we get a squad builder (which has now been started), and have vassal integration, the barrier to entry will be pretty low. I'll be doing several beta test tournaments to iron out the details one wave of ships at a time. I'm sure we will have plenty of takers that would be interested in helping playtest once it's easy to get ships onto the table (physical or vassal).

2 hours ago, MajorJuggler said:

1. Nerf the heck out of the current stuff in the game via point adjustments. Downside: this means that you won't be able to play any of the meta lists in the last few years, because they will all clock in at well over 100 points.

Why's that a downside? Sounds like another upside to me.

More options = maximized list diversity. IMO this = more fun. Coming up with a mod that says "sorry you can't play any of the squads from the last 3 years" seems kind of lame. A lot of people like those squads and enjoy playing them - you immediately reduce your audience significantly.

How hard would it be to calculate the adjusted point costs for each ship/upgrade with the current card text (i. e. What's the cost to implement the option #1 listed above)?

Personally I'd love to see how restrictive the build space for option #1 actually is.

If the current top-of-meta squads don't fit into 100 points, but require small to medium adjustments, that doesn't sound like the end of the world, quite the contrary.

Some changes.

Tweaked the wording on custom upgrades that grant +1 slot to be "limited" and say " You may equip one additional [xyz slot] " instead of " You may equip one additional different [xyz upgrade] ".

Evasive Thrusters can now reroll any number of blanks, and can also be discarded to reduce non-attack/overlap damage by 1 (i.e. Assault Missiles or Sabine).

When defending, you may discard this card to reroll any number of blank results. When you are dealt a damage card that is not due to being the target of an attack or overlapping an obstacle, you may discard this card to discard that damage card.

TIE Fighter pilot cost tweaks:

• Chaser : cost reduced 1 to 27.
• Wampa : cost reduced 1 to 28.
• Dark Curse : cost reduced 1 to 30.
• Scourge : cost increased 1 to 33.

X-wing's Incom Refit now a single-sided card:

You may equip one additional modification. When you reveal a speed 3 <left bank> or <right bank> maneuver, you may instead treat it as a red speed 3 <left sloop> or <right sloop> of the same bearing as the revealed maneuver.

B-wing's Gyroscopic Cockpit changed to single sided like the X-wing's Incom Refit.

When you reveal a speed 1 <left turn> or <right turn> maneuver, you may treat it as a red speed 1 <left talon roll> or <right talon roll> of the same bearing as the revealed maneuver. When you reveal a 2 <kturn> maneuver, you may treat it as a red 3 <kturn> maneuver.

B-wing's B-wing/E1 changed to work on any secondary weapon. This only affects cannon B-wings that also equip torpedoes.

When attacking with a secondary weapon, if the defender's agility is less than 2 you may change one die result to a <hit> result.

Firesprays lose the mobile arc, lose the Patrol Armament upgrade (title to reduce cannon cost), but gain Firespray Mk. II :

You may equip one additional modification. After executing a maneuver, if you did not overlap an obstacle or a ship, you may perform a free focus or barrel roll action.

Corresponding Firespray tweaks across the board. Change summary here :

On 12/1/2017 at 11:24 PM, MajorJuggler said:

Imperial & Scum Firesprays

Overview

This is fundamentally a very difficult ship to balance, because a 3/2/6/4 statline isn't worth anywhere near a third of your list with a fixed forward (and rear) arc.

• Firesprays can now take a free focus or barrel roll action after a non overlapping maneuver. This accomplishes two things: one, it brings their jousting value up to par, and two, it breathes some life into their rear arc without fundamentally changing the arc mechanics (i.e. no need to change it to a mobile arc).
• The Slave-I title has been tweaked so secondary weapons can be used out the mobile arc.
• Imperial Kath, Imperial Boba Fett, and Scum Boba Fett all get tweaked pilot ability wording, see below.
• Scum Boba Fett's ability has been tweaked to get away from the anti-synergy of range 1 on a large base, but he can only reroll one die (see below).

Pilot Tiers

• Scum Boba Fett is tier 1.
• Bounty Hunter (PS3) is tier 3.
• All other Firesprays are tier 2.

Pilot Costs and Ability Changes

Imperial :

• Bounty Hunter (PS3): cost decreased from 66 to 59.
• Krassis Trelix: cost decreased from 72 to 70.
• Kath Scarlet: cost decreased from 76 to 72, and pilot ability changed to: " When attacking, the defender receives 1 stress token if he cancels at least 1 <crit> or 1 <hit> result."
• Boba Fett: cost decreased from 78 to 73, and pilot ability changed to: " When you reveal your maneuver dial, you may rotate your dial to another maneuver of the same speed."

Scum :

• Mandalorian Mercenary (PS5): cost decreased from 70 to 66.
• Emon Azzameen: cost reduced from 72 to 68.
• Kath Scarlet: cost remains 76.
• Boba Fett: cost remains 78, and pilot ability changed to: "When attacking or defending, you may reroll 1 die if there is at least one enemy ship in your firing arc at Range 2."

Key Card Changes

Firespray MK. II
0 / 0 / 0
Modification. Firespray-31 only. Limited.
You may equip one additional modification. After executing a maneuver, if you did not overlap an obstacle or a ship, you may perform a free focus or barrel roll action.

Slave-I
2 / 3 / 3
Title. Unique. Firespray-31 only.
Your upgrade bar gains the <Torpedo> upgrade icon. You may perform secondary weapon attacks using your auxiliary arc.

Sample Loadouts

(All Firesprays have Firespray Mk. II)

Imperial :

• Bounty Hunter + Heavy Laser Cannon + Recon Specialist + Slave-1 (76 points)
• Krassis + Heavy Laser Cannon + Slave-1 + Recon Specialist (92 points)
• Kath Scarlet + Veteran Instincts + Heavy Laser Cannon + Recon Specialist + Slave-1 (96 points)
• Boba Fett + Veteran Instincts + Navigator + Heavy Laser Cannon + Slave-1 (95 points)

Scum :

• Mandalorian Mercenary (PS5) + Fearlessness + Recon Specialist (73 points)
• Mandalorian Mercenary (PS5) + Predator + Recon Specialist (76 points)
• Kath Scarlet + Predator + Recon Specialist (86 points)
• Kath Scarlet + Predator + Heavy Laser Cannon + Recon Specialist (100 points)
• Boba Fett + Fearlessness + Heavy Laser Cannon + Recon Specialist + Slave-1 (103 points)

1 hour ago, vladamex said:

How hard would it be to calculate the adjusted point costs for each ship/upgrade with the current card text (i. e. What's the cost to implement the option #1 listed above)?

Personally I'd love to see how restrictive the build space for option #1 actually is.

If the current top-of-meta squads don't fit into 100 points, but require small to medium adjustments, that doesn't sound like the end of the world, quite the contrary.

To go through all the pilots as I have been, a significant amount of work. So, not going to happen anytime soon. But, to give a general idea, 35 point Soontir Fel would have to become 40-41 points.

5 hours ago, MajorJuggler said:

Valid points. I basically have 3 options:

1. Nerf the heck out of the current stuff in the game via point adjustments. Downside: this means that you won't be able to play any of the meta lists in the last few years, because they will all clock in at well over 100 points.
2. Buff the bad ships by significantly reducing their costs. Downside: TIE Fighters become 10 points, X-wings become 16 points (17 with IA and a 1 point droid), and Bounty Hunters become 24 points. Typical games will involve 10 TIE Fighters, 6 X-wings, or 4 Bounty Hunters. I don't think I want to live in that world, it's not fun to be pushing 10 TIEs around the table.
3. Buff the old ships mostly via card upgrades that fill in their tactical weak spots, and tweak costs as needed. Downside: it's more complicated.

Pick your poison! I'm going with #3 and will be looking to prune out any extra cards if possible. In general though I'll still need quite a few new cards.

Or you could meet in the middle and do some cost adjustments up or down as needed and fill in the gaps with new custom stuff. A few OP meta lists might be forced out, but that has happened to some extend via FFG FAQs anyways. If stuff is overpowered I'd rather see it costed higher or reduced in power. I get that you're already very heavily invested in option #3 but a compromise approach may be worth thinking about.

As an example, TLT could A) cost 8 or B) be nerfed to let the defender get the extra green die at R3. For A) 4 TLT Y's would be out at 8, but 3 + something else would then be possible. For B) 4 TLT Y's would still be an option but it wouldn't be as effective. I think either one would help with balance.

Thought about that, the problem is that a combination of 1 and 2 gets you some of the worst of each: you're still going to have 9 TIE Fighters and 5 X-wings (easily), and you still won't be able to take any of the top-tier lists from the last few years.

Some of the basic goals here are:

• people can still fly the same squads that are currently in the meta
• you can't have more than 8 ships in a list

The only way to achieve those two goals simultaneously is to buff the old ships.

I think the fire spray should have a systems upgrade

Quadjumper

Overview

• The Quadjumper gets some increased durability if it takes the Spacetug Tractor Array, but otherwise only gets some cost updates and a pilot ability tweak for Sarco Plank.

Pilot Tiers

• All Quadjumpers are tier 3.

Pilot Costs and Ability Changes

• Jakku Gunrunner (PS1): cost decreased from 30 to 28.
• Unkar Plutt (PS3): cost decreased from 34 to 31.
• Sarco Plank (PS5): cost decreased from 36 to 32, and ability changed to: " When defending, if you executed a speed 2 or speed 3 maneuver this round, you may roll one additional defense die. "
• Constable Zuvio (PS7): cost decreased from 38 to 34.

Key Card Changes

Spacetug Tractor Array

• Quadjumper only.
• Cost remains 4 / 4 / 4.
• Increase your hull value by 1. Action: Choose a ship inside your firing arc at Range 1 and assign a tractor beam token to it. If it is a friendly ship, resolve the effect of the tractor beam token as though it were an enemy ship.

12 hours ago, MajorJuggler said:

it's not fun to be pushing 10 TIEs around the table.

Oh yes it is !! ^^

11 hours ago, MajorJuggler said:

Valid points. I basically have 3 options:

1. Nerf the heck out of the current stuff in the game via point adjustments. Downside: this means that you won't be able to play any of the meta lists in the last few years, because they will all clock in at well over 100 points.
2. Buff the bad ships by significantly reducing their costs. Downside: TIE Fighters become 10 points, X-wings become 16 points (17 with IA and a 1 point droid), and Bounty Hunters become 24 points. Typical games will involve 10 TIE Fighters, 6 X-wings, or 4 Bounty Hunters. I don't think I want to live in that world, it's not fun to be pushing 10 TIEs around the table.
3. Buff the old ships mostly via card upgrades that fill in their tactical weak spots, and tweak costs as needed. Downside: it's more complicated.

Pick your poison! I'm going with #3 and will be looking to prune out any extra cards if possible. In general though I'll still need quite a few new cards.

I'd agree - and, to be fair - it appears that so do/did Fantasy Flight; whilst you can argue with the effectiveness of their changes, the concept of 'fix cards' for weaker stuff seems to have been their original approach, even if now it's drifted into the realms of more common application of the nerf hammer instead.

Just as an observation: as a dedicated swarm-head, I agree that the current limit of 8 ships is more than enough. Even when I'm used to flying them, I still feel bad that I take so much time setting dials and moving, and adding two more ships to the mix would make it worse. Not to mention that the nature of an obstacle-laden board, limited movement options and an effective field of fire (in arc, range 1-2) which isn't actually that big makes concentrating large numbers of TIE fighters on a target not that easy.

I like the idea of a slight boost for the generic TIE fighter - Attack Formation makes sense, although I can imagine keeping track of which of a swarm has and hasn't used Evasive Thrusters might be more mental effort than its worth for an 8-ship squad.

Quote

I don't think I want to live in that world, it's not fun to be pushing 10 TIEs around the table.

A lot of good mechanics in the game now started out as 'gimmicks' in cinematic play scenarios, from ships with multiple elite slots, to 'where-did-he-come-from' deployment, to the ability to create debris markers mid-game. One that I've always wondered about would be the reinforcement mechanic in quite a few core set boxes - whilst I wouldn't want to start with 10 TIE fighters on the board, some sort of 'endless ranks' ability to 'respawn-and-not-count-as-dead' using a combination of the scenario reinforcement mechanics and Tel Trevura's ability might be interesting. It adds TIE fighter 'swarm feel', gives them a 'positional advantage' (depending on how freely you can deploy the incoming reinforcement) and preserves the one edge a generic TIE swarm has - it's numbers - without needing to ever have you exceed 8 ships on the table.

Back to the subject, I understand why you need to buff some ships, but I have some worries after the Firespray and Starviper getting free actions. Do we really want that good action economy for so many ships?
Having multiple actions decreases the importance of the choice of the action; I think choosing the good action after your move should still be something important.

13 minutes ago, Giledhil said:

Back to the subject, I understand why you need to buff some ships, but I have some worries after the Firespray and Starviper getting free actions. Do we really want that good action economy for so many ships?
Having multiple actions decreases the importance of the choice of the action; I think choosing the good action after your move should still be something important.

Agreed, but the Firespray I think is a good candidate. The bounty hunter has always had the issue since it was released of having every secondary weapon slot and every token generating action going (and paying points for the privilege) but only being able to use one of them at a time; meaning your ability to evade (for example) virtually never got used.

It's the same issue generic TIE interceptors have - and the reason Adaptive Ailerons is so good for the TIE striker - not that it's equivalent to Boost but that it's an equivalent to Boost that doesn't leave me tokenless after I use it (alpha squadron pilots having boost is still good, but largely just because they're one of the only heavy swarmers which can equip autothrusters and stay at 20 points or less)

Add to that that it's now (with cheap, non-unique Flight Assist Astromechs a thing for X-wings and Y-wings and Vaksai Vectored Thrusters a thing for Khiraxz) one of the only ships with no realistic access to action repositioning, which is a problem given it's relatively unwieldy dial (not bad for a small ship, but big ships have trouble with the same moves)

At the same time, it does make the Bounty Hunter seriously nasty.

• Dropping it to 30 points (effectively) means you can have three, all with recon specialists.
• That's three ships, each of which has 10 hit points, agility 2, and generates 2 agility and an evade token every turn.
• That's essentially equivalent to 3 TIE/x7 defenders:
  • each ship has agility 2 instead of 3 but has 10 hit points instead of 6 - that feels a touch better given the 'extra' focus token
  • the ships lack a white Koiogran turn but have a rear auxiliary arc (meaning no out-of-arc bonuses) which is probably equivalent
  • The free focus or maneuver action works on any non-red manoeuvre, meaning you can use your speed 1-2 moves and still benefit (which given the Firespray's white speed 2 turn and rear arc, gives it significantly more effectiveness than the defender.
  • If you take a barrel roll, you get barrel roll/evade (equivalent to the /x7) or barrel roll/focus/focus (potentially superior since presumably you did this anticipating a good shot), and large ship barrel rolls are very powerful.

This isn't me saying "too powerful" but Firespray MkII is a big, big hit of capability.

If you look at the cost:performance ratio for the Firespray and the Starviper, then their action economy isn't actually "broken good" even with the free action, unlike the action economy of stock Inquisitor or 35 Fel. The Firespray has 3 actions on its bar, plus potentially action bombs, but can only take one action, so it is very action-deprived. Getting a free focus is a major help because now it can grab a free target lock or evade. I modeled them with both, but evade generally wins out by a hair on most configurations. Of course tactically, a good player will be able to optimize the evade vs target lock. And getting barrel roll is a game-changer for actually being able to use the rear arc. That being said, there is a lot of counterplay against this new mechanic: if the Firespray gets blocked then it loses two actions, not one. So the strategy to killing them, is block their large base and then focus fire them down -- a Firespray with two focus and an evade is WAY more durable than a tokenless one. The only question is now what the target jousting efficiency should be. I pegged my initial estimate lower than an ideal jouster (due to rear arc and barrel roll option), but higher than a high-PS dual action arc dodger. Beta testing will show out how often they get gummed up by blocks, or how often they can really utilize the barrel roll shenanigans.

In the case of the Starviper, it's still a very pricey ship for being a generic, so some sort of action economy buff was needed to keep it up to par without significantly dropping its price. It has exactly the same jousting action economy as before, but now gets a free purely positional action instead. I decided to double down on what makes the ship fun and unique, so now you aren't heavily punished for taking the banked barrel roll, especially versus turrets.

Wording update for Engine Upgrade, so it doesn't have to be a dual sided card. The text is long, but mechanically it is pretty simple. If you're a large base ship, then put a stress on the card after boosting. Can't boost while there is stress on the card. Remove the stress by performing a green without removing a stress from your ship.

Your action bar gains the <boost> action icon. You cannot perform a boost action if there is a stress token on this card. If this card is equipped to a large base ship, place a stress token on this card after performing a boost action. If you execute a green maneuver and do not remove a stress token from your ship, remove a stress token from this card.

22 hours ago, MajorJuggler said:

To go through all the pilots as I have been, a significant amount of work. So, not going to happen anytime soon. But, to give a general idea, 35 point Soontir Fel would have to become 40-41 points.

Frankly, I don't see anything wrong or bad with the 35pt Soontir going up in price to 40ish points. So you can't run 3 fully loaded interceptors anymore? No problem at all. Use a sub-30 point ace ships (OL or a similar) as your third pilot. Or don't use Soontir. Or trim some of his gear. If he's too good for his price, he should cost more.

I know you're already committed to path #3 (which tries to keep the current builds viable by buffing up the sub-par ships with both point discounts and rule changes) but as others have explained this takes us quite a bit away from the current game. I feel like trying to tweak the game by changing the point costs is way simpler (both to implement and to learn/test), and possibly not that far out in terms of overall quality and appeal.

Using the above example of "Tie Fighters would cost 10 points and we don't want to see more than 8 ships per side on the table" --> well we can limit the max number of ships per side to 8, so if you want to bring Tie Fighters you can take the more expensive pilots, or you can take 7 academies and a 30 point, or say 6 academies + 40 points Soontir . How much of a problem is the fact that I can't run a mono-academy-tie-fighter squad in 100 points? Well not a big problem at all, IMO.

I think if we hypothetically tried to do approach #1 (adjust the point costs but keep the current rules to the extent possible) it may come up that there are a handful of rules tweaks that are really important/useful. Taking a very limited number of "surgical" rules changes would be totally OK, as long as they are easy to remember and explain As things are shaping up now, many of the ships are overhauled to the extent that they require the players to learn and internalize quite a bit of new rules at once, and acquire a lot of new material (cards & cardboard). This is starting to look like XVM 2.0 rather than a "mod" to the current game. Squad builders and Vassal support makes the process easier, but it's still not easy.

My 2c.

EDIT: re-reading the above, I think it may sound overly harsh or critical, which was not the intention. I really appreciate and respect the work you're doing, and the effort/thought you're putting into this. I'm trying to provide constructive feedback/suggestions, which will (hopefully) help land this into a spot where it really fly off

Arc-170

Overview

• The Arc-170 just gets some cost tweaks.

Pilot Tiers

• Norra Wexley is tier 2.
• All other Arc-170 pilots are tier 3.

Pilot Costs and Ability Changes

• Braylen Stramm (PS3): cost reduced from 50 to 43.
• Thane Kyrell (PS4): cost reduced from 52 to 46.
• Shara Bey (PS6): cost reduced from 56 to 51.
• Norra Wexley: cost remains 58.

Key Card Changes

None

Sample Loadouts

• Braylen + Gunner / R3A2 (56 points)
• Thane + Jyn (49 points)
• Shara Bey + Adaptability / Weapons Engineer (53 points)
• Norra Wexley + Push the Limit / Kyle Katarn / R2 (71 points)
• Norra Wexley + Push the Limit / Kyle Katarn / BB-8 (73 points)
• Norra Wexley + Push the Limit / Kyle Katarn / R2-D2 (75 points). Note: R2-D2 nerfed, see X-wing post

Whoa. Those ARC-170 costs seem really off, MJ. Any details on the process? I think Braylen got too much of a cost break, and Shara didn't get enough. But it's a big spread of costs (in current terms): 21, 23, 26.5, 29? Thane's and Shara's PS and abilities are really worth those jumps?

21 hours ago, vladamex said:

I know you're already committed to path #3 (which tries to keep the current builds viable by buffing up the sub-par ships with both point discounts and rule changes) but as others have explained this takes us quite a bit away from the current game. I feel like trying to tweak the game by changing the point costs is way simpler (both to implement and to learn/test), and possibly not that far out in terms of overall quality and appeal.

Using the above example of "Tie Fighters would cost 10 points and we don't want to see more than 8 ships per side on the table" --> well we can limit the max number of ships per side to 8, so if you want to bring Tie Fighters you can take the more expensive pilots, or you can take 7 academies and a 30 point, or say 6 academies + 40 points Soontir . How much of a problem is the fact that I can't run a mono-academy-tie-fighter squad in 100 points? Well not a big problem at all, IMO.

I have to admit that I tend to agree with this sentiment of keeping things simple and lowering the point cost of base ships to compensate. A squad unit limit is a decent solution for cheap ship proliferation. And you could keep all the cool new titles, just put a points cost on them.