11 hours ago, Velvetelvis said:

Man, in 1 month kylo and 2 boats went from looking really strong, but fell like a stone from a bridge off the competitive map.

On one hand it's interesting seeing things get countered quickly. But on the other. ...well....the "looking for new list blues" is a drag.

Point is..the world is going by fast these days.

The world moves like it always did. You're just getting older.

15 hours ago, Stay On The Leader said:

When you try to polish a turd you often just wind up covered in you know what.

Mythbusters proved you can polish a turd. Just takes time.

6 hours ago, Vontoothskie said:

X-wing 2.0 kids

Not for a long time. Too much in the movie pipeline for a revamp now.

6 hours ago, clanofwolves said:

FFG just wants to insure classic Star Wars ships with 80 degree arcs don’t show up at major event finals....for some unknown reason; facts don’t lie.

"There are three types of lies. Lies, Damned Lies and statistics". Benjamin Disraeli.

Turrets need a penalty for shooting out of arc.

5 hours ago, clanofwolves said:

I introduce people to this amazing game, and they all want so badly to fly X-Wings, TIE Fighters, A-Wings, TIE Advanced, Interceptors, B-Wings, and they have so much fun...they go to the LGS and ask “what is that ship?” Most quickly become disinterested. Casual people walk around and have to ask what the game is; when told they’re puzzled and just don’t believe you. Most I’ve introduced get uninterested due to the lack of iconic ships; few playnow and then in home games; most just move on to other games. It’s sad the core/heart of this game is almost dead.......

True, unfortunately.I find those that stay just enjoy the game. Pushing little spaceships around a 9 square ft. area can be fun, entertaining and very therapeutic.

4 hours ago, Favoritism Flight Games said:

Nope. The devs are completely asleep at the wheel. Mostly because they spend an absolute minimum of hours on X-Wing. They're being pulled in too many directions with other games. So bascially for X-Wing they just throw a bunch of poorly tested, rushed products out and hope that things work out. If they don't they'll do emergency nerfs, but they often miss the mark, nerfing upgrades instead of OP chassis.

I'm actually starting to feel bad for the devs. They are obviously not supported fully by management and are having to try and shoestring X-Wing along without proper support and playtesting.

I wouldn't say completely asleep. There's a lot of small problems that snowball into into what X-wing has turned into. I'll make an assumption that release dates and production schedules play a huge part of the Charlie Foxtrot. Too much, too soon has bitten the game in the rear.

4 hours ago, ficklegreendice said:

und fixed

FFG hasn't really "known" what it was doing since Wave 0 released and saw the more maneuverable TIE fighter being mathematically superior (for the points) than the clunkier X-wing

and we know from experience with the TIE Phantom just how hard they go about trying to fix a meta problem after several doomed-to-fail attempts

Whatever metric they used initially for design was obviously flawed. (20/20 hindsight) Either they never corrected it or their attempts made things worse. I think it was the latter.

18 minutes ago, All Shields Forward said:

Turrets need a penalty for shooting out of arc.

The whole point of turrets is to shoot out of arc. Why penalise them for doing what they were designed to do?

More control guys, more arc dodging and more ions.

A 3 SV list just shredded out the 4 wookie defenders. It's just an example.

But going in a tournament playing just those 3 lists it's obvious unhealtly for the game.

6 hours ago, Stoneface said:

The whole point of turrets is to shoot out of arc. Why penalise them for doing what they were designed to do?

But in a game which should be about outmaneuver your enemy, a shot out of arc should be penalized. The advantage is that you can shoot at all.

I would add a line in the Core Rules in the chapter about the firing arc: "When a ship is able to shoot (with equipped turret or a PWT) at enemies that are not inside their firing arc, the defender rolls one additional defense die."

I think this would enough of a nerf for Turrets and PWT to make them less powerful. On the other side its only TLT thats that broken. Maybe finally a nerf to TLT?

10 hours ago, Stoneface said:

The whole point of turrets is to shoot out of arc. Why penalise them for doing what they were designed to do?

Because turrets are actually hard to shoot at planes coming in at an angle.

Also balance because they've taken over the game.

1 hour ago, All Shields Forward said:

Because turrets are actually hard to shoot at planes coming in at an angle.

Also balance because they've taken over the game.

Turret gunning aint nearly as easy as the make it out to be in the Falcon.

12 hours ago, Stoneface said:

The whole point of turrets is to shoot out of arc. Why penalise them for doing what they were designed to do?

Because it's bad design

Mobile arc is the way to go, the turret mechanic is a lazy holdover from back when they had no idea how popular the game would get

2 hours ago, All Shields Forward said:

Because turrets are actually hard to shoot at planes coming in at an angle.

Also balance because they've taken over the game.

Well considering they developed hper space travel, accurate targeting with a turret isn't a far stretch.

31 minutes ago, ficklegreendice said:

Because it's bad design

Mobile arc is the way to go, the turret mechanic is a lazy holdover from back when they had no idea how popular the game would get

The problem is the Lancer has a forward arc in addition to the mobile arc, which is the only turreted ship that does.

The mechanic might be a lazy holdover but a two attack turret is next to useless and with more 3 agility ships, autothrusters and other upgrades, it will be hard to do a balanced nerf.

If the mobile arc is "the way to go", then PWT ships should be given a means to perform two actions per turn w/o a stress.

55 minutes ago, Stoneface said:

Well considering they developed hper space travel, accurate targeting with a turret isn't a far stretch.

Because the combat in Star Wars is based on WW2 combat. Also game balance.

37 minutes ago, Stoneface said:

The problem is the Lancer has a forward arc in addition to the mobile arc, which is the only turreted ship that does.

The mechanic might be a lazy holdover but a two attack turret is next to useless and with more 3 agility ships, autothrusters and other upgrades, it will be hard to do a balanced nerf.

If the mobile arc is "the way to go", then PWT ships should be given a means to perform two actions per turn w/o a stress.

Are you just on this thread to defend PWT?

I called Kylo DOA from the moment he was revealed. He costs way too much for a 3-die ship with a terrible ability, no defensive options, or offensive upgrades.

As for turrets, how about not letting them modify dice fired out of arc? Turret gunning is hard and imprecise, it should be an option in the game, but it shouldn't be superior to having a target in your sights.

I do wish that the turret mechanic was fixed to the mobile mechanic as a free action. I also wish that the shield mechanic was used like a reinforce where it worked either front or rear. Both would add to the flying mechanics of the game.

4 hours ago, Stoneface said:

The problem is the Lancer has a forward arc in addition to the mobile arc, which is the only turreted ship that does.

The mechanic might be a lazy holdover but a two attack turret is next to useless and with more 3 agility ships, autothrusters and other upgrades, it will be hard to do a balanced nerf.

If the mobile arc is "the way to go", then PWT ships should be given a means to perform two actions per turn w/o a stress.

I'm not even sure what you're trying to say here.

Sadly, the shadowcaster is just as much of a pain as the PWTs and Dash are. And they play largely the same. Fly around the edge of the map kiting everything with front and side.

I said it before, and I repeat it now. Too expensive for just an arced 3 dice attack. I thought they learnt something with the TIE defender fiasco, but no.

Oh and it HAD missiles, FFG.

6 hours ago, All Shields Forward said:

Because the combat in Star Wars is based on WW2 combat. Also game balance.

True, Lucas used some gun camera footage and scenes from "The Dam Busters" as inspiration for filming ship-to-ship combat and the trench run. But you forget that there was an early analog computer controlling the turrets on the B-29.

Game balance is the only reason that a nerf for PWT's to be considered. IMO the only ship that needed a nerf got it and it wasn't for the PWT. That was the Jumpmaster.

This is not the first Wave to give us "Monster of the Week" Meta-material. The one list I truly could relate to all those "The Meta is stale" threads was Bumpmasters, and even that went through iterations.

I sometimes truly wonder how many people notice they're complaining about different things every other week... Man, I love flying casual. Things are fun over here.