I'm not sure I understand the argument here: so you'll have a ship that always has a show no matter how badly it's flown. If it's appropriately costed then you'll be able to field enough red dice against it to have a fair chance of blowing it up before it kills them all.

I will admit I'm a little worried about it being a hard counter to Interceptors. I don't think this will necessarily make it meta-dominant, as it could end up being worth its cost if you're up against interceptors but severely overpriced if you're against something else, but then we're playing Scissors, Paper, Stone where the outcome of the match is decided before the mat is unrolled. If they price it so that a squad of interceptors has a fair chance of blowing it apart before they all die, then it's going to be a very poor squadron against other things, which is fine in gameplay terms, but a bit of a shame, thematically. I think that last option is the best we can hope for.

1 minute ago, GreenDragoon said:

I think you underestimate how difficult it can be to get into this game, there is so much going on! Somehow dice change now with range, and all these actions to choose from, and what, I flew over the obstacle and the kind of obstacle decides the effect, and so on.

Being able to get a shot despite all the stuff going on is encouraging.

I dunno, I giving him the TIEs from the core set whilst you fly the X-Wing would be more fun.

1 minute ago, mazz0 said:

I will admit I'm a little worried about it being a hard counter to Interceptors.

Well that was the idea of the old '3 pillars' of joust/turret/dodge until the turret just ended up just being best in all classes. If you go all-in on any single archetype there should be something in the game that keeps it in check. And considering that all turrets are now natively susceptible to arc dodgers there is a danger that they'd be too dominant.

So yeah, I don't think we'll be getting rid of an element of rock/paper/scissors in second edition, just hopefully they're just tough matchups rather than foregone conclusions.

Let's just suppose that the mechanics effectively MANDATE that in order for Luke Falcon to survive, he has to be flown alongside an arc-dodgy wingman, or else he just becomes too easy to burn down. I suppose this could be possible if (as we suspect) the Falcon melts to focused fire. A nice cheap glass cannon would be a good way to divide the enemy up while still getting the chance to survive, but only if it can dodge arcs effectively (and with the high premium on PS and the low number of points left, it would probably be a low initiative generic or similar). This still means there's not much skill to the turret element itself, but coordinating between them and flying the wingman at least will require some skill to keep alive. We'll see how it plays out.

24 minutes ago, mazz0 said:

I dunno, I giving him the TIEs from the core set whilst you fly the X-Wing would be more fun.

As first game without all the additional rules, sure. But once someone wants to learn the rest, getting a shot all the time can be fun for some people.

Cheatcodes were extremely popular back in the day. why would a person ever cheat in a singleplayer game? Because it can be fun to see new stuff without being put under pressure or stressed out. A turret can scratch the same itch: learning about the new stuff without having to worry about the most important part: getting a shot!

8 minutes ago, __underscore__ said:

Well that was the idea of the old '3 pillars' of joust/turret/dodge until the turret just ended up just being best in all classes. If you go all-in on any single archetype there should be something in the game that keeps it in check. And considering that all turrets are now natively susceptible to arc dodgers there is a danger that they'd be too dominant.

So yeah, I don't think we'll be getting rid of an element of rock/paper/scissors in second edition, just hopefully they're just tough matchups rather than foregone conclusions.

Why is rock/paper/scissors a good thing?

seems like a terrible way to balance things in a game like x-wing. Having a list hard countered by design just is not fun, showing up with something that basically can't win because someone else brought the paper to my rock is not my idea of a good time, nor is showing up with the scissors to his paper and winning without any effort.

I would like to live in an x-wing world where any type of list if well thought out and flown well can beat any other list. I want to be able to have an all interceptor list be competitive, not just die at the list building stage to its "rock" counterpart.

Enlighten me.

1 minute ago, Icelom said:

Why is rock/paper/scissors a good thing?

seems like a terrible way to balance things in a game like x-wing. Having a list hard countered by design just is not fun, showing up with something that basically can't win because someone else brought the paper to my rock is not my idea of a good time, nor is showing up with the scissors to his paper and winning without any effort.

I would like to live in an x-wing world where any type of list if well thought out and flown well can beat any other list. I want to be able to have an all interceptor list be competitive, not just die at the list building stage to its "rock" counterpart.

Enlighten me.

Because it's better than rock/scissors, which is what joust/dodge would be.

And the reason it worked well in X-Wing for a time is that player skill comes into it. As long as each thing is a soft counter rather than a hard counter it works well.

2 minutes ago, __underscore__ said:

Because it's better than rock/scissors, which is what joust/dodge would be.

And the reason it worked well in X-Wing for a time is that player skill comes into it. As long as each thing is a soft counter rather than a hard counter it works well.

Just telling me "it works well" does not really help my understanding.

10 minutes ago, Icelom said:

Just telling me "it works well" does not really help my understanding.

Arc dodging beats jousting, always. The problem is that every ship can potentially arc dodge, but some are naturally better at it.

If turrets are introduced then we get a counter to arcdodging, and that counter loses to jousting, so all looks fine?

But, and this is why I generally agree that full turrets are horrible, that counter is not available to everyone, and there is nothing to be done against it.

Jousters can fan out, cover more area, block etc to get arc dodgers, and they can arcdodge themselves. But no arcdodger can ever prevent a turret shot in 1.0, nor can they turret attack another arcdodger.

A great solution is the mobile arc where dodging is possible but difficult(edit: not certain is better than difficult). A full turret is bad if it‘s a common, widespread mechanic.

I know I‘ve been defending gunner luke all this time, but that‘s because I trust FFG to make him too expensive to be used in competitive play. As long as that‘s true he‘s fine for the repeatedly stated (and casually dismissed reasons).

Just now, Icelom said:

Just telling me "it works well" does not really help my understanding.

Then you'll have to raise another point for me to talk about, because I don't understand your pov in a vacuum.

You post seemed to say that you don't want auto-loss matchups. I'm agreeing with you on that point because playing against nothing but arc dodging lists with insane bids is as boring for jousters as facing nothing but Super Turrets was. But being able to look at a board state and categorise the units involved to build an idea of the tactical state of the game works as well with spaceships as it does with 'infantry/spear/cavalry'. It's a bit more accessible that a sea of grey with slight stat changes.

1 minute ago, __underscore__ said:

Then you'll have to raise another point for me to talk about, because I don't understand your pov in a vacuum.

You post seemed to say that you don't want auto-loss matchups. I'm agreeing with you on that point because playing against nothing but arc dodging lists with insane bids is as boring for jousters as facing nothing but Super Turrets was. But being able to look at a board state and categorise the units involved to build an idea of the tactical state of the game works as well with spaceships as it does with 'infantry/spear/cavalry'. It's a bit more accessible that a sea of grey with slight stat changes.

I routinely run 5x mangler m3a's a pretty much 100% jouster list and do not have the issues against arc dodging lists... it's a fun matchup where I attempt to outguess my opponent or use one of my jousters to block him and crush him.

Jousters have tons of tools against arc dodgers if you know how to fly them. Arc dodgers are definitely not a hard counter to jousters, nor should they be. They are both good against each other.

While the turret dynamic is simply better against arc dodgers then against jousters. All types should imo be on an equal footing against any other type.

That is just how I feel.

13 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

Arc dodging beats jousting, always.

I guess I just fundamentally disagree with this statement... (i have never had an issue running a pure jousting list against a pure arc dodging list, it can most definitely be outflown. Nothing was more satisfying then landing the blocking maneuver against soontir fel with a 12 point z-95 and crushing him with the rest of my list.)

We are at an impasse.

2 hours ago, Icelom said:

Your math is simply wrong.

2 dice with a focus averages 1.5 hits

3 dice naked average 1.5 hits

And that's with a focus let alone a weaker force token. 3 dice also give a higher possible cap.

2 dice with a force token average 1.438 damage so less then 3 naked dice.

Why lie?

My apologies, my stats class was a while back, and single die modification is particularly hard to model.

1 minute ago, Icelom said:

Jousters have tons of tools against arc dodgers if you know how to fly them. Arc dodgers are definitely not a hard counter to jousters, nor should they be. They are both good against each other.

While the turret dynamic is simply better against arc dodgers then against jousters. All types should imo be on an equal footing against any other type.

That is just how I feel.

I think your experience has been coloured by going against completely overpowered super turrets. You'll be surprised what you can get out of most arc dodgers chassis once things have been toned down.

I"d say the issue is that if we're going rock/paper/scissors with turret/joust/arc-dodge then the issue is that turret in X-wing is getting a boost against joust.

It isn't simply that turret beats arc-dodge but that turret also gets an advantage against joust because the turret can shoot while the jouster prepares to come back down the tilt. So the turret end up as rock in a game of rock/scissors/scissors.

I have little experience flying or flying against a Shadowcaster (mobile turret). How often was it not getting ships in arc? How well does the 'mobile turret' actually nerf the PWT? Obviously it can sap the action economy, and be stress/blockable to move the turret, but is the mobile turret still getting arc 80% of the time or whatever despite that?

18 minutes ago, Icelom said:

I guess I just fundamentally disagree with this statement..

Hold on, I also said this:

31 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

Jousters can fan out, cover more area, block etc to get arc dodgers, and they can arcdodge themselves

So to reconcile the two statements which are at odds if taken without better explanation:

in a 1v1 the same points in arc dodger beat the same points in jouster

A much better way to look at arcdodger and jouster is this (I can‘t credit the guy who first described it that way because I don‘t know who it was, but definitely not me!):

There is a different preference for the two classes with one difference

Jousters:

1. Get own shot, dodge enemy shot
2. Get own shot, allow enemy shot
3. Get no shot, dodge enemy shot
4. Get no shot, allow enemy shot

Arcdodgers:

1. Get own shot, dodge enemy shot
2. Get no shot, dodge enemy shot
3. Get own shot, allow enemy shot
4. Get no shot, allow enemy shot

That means EVERYONE prefers to be an arcdodger, and that‘s why turrets did not really fit in. There is no option for non-turrets to just always get a shot independent of arcdodging.

Mobile arcs changed that, and now they, too, are part of this system and can both arcdodge and be arcdodged. But they get more often a shot while (generally) paying a higher price if they get dodged.

34 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

Cheatcodes were extremely popular back in the day. why would a person ever cheat in a singleplayer game? Because it can be fun to see new stuff without being put under pressure or stressed out. A turret can scratch the same itch: learning about the new stuff without having to worry about the most important part: getting a shot!

I don't know about that analogy, I mean, how do you feel about people cheating in multiplayer games, which X-Wing is?

Look, I also think the new player experience is important, but I don't think Luke gunner is the way to go about it. As you said, to not have a negative effect on the game he can't be viable competetively. Not just 'not the best choice', flat out not viable. So now the new player may have a shot every turn, but still lose because his list is just woefully inefficient. I'd say this feels worse than getting outplayed. Furthermore, why Luke? I'd rather see him as an interesting card that is fun to use and good enough to consistently see play, since he is an OT character. Why not use someone from the second row, like Kanan, who is recognizable enough for new players both young and parents, but not a main character of two movie trilogies? I'd still not be entirely comfortable with the idea of a card that is planned to be obsolete, but at least Luke would be part of the core game.

11 minutes ago, __underscore__ said:

I think your experience has been coloured by going against completely overpowered super turrets. You'll be surprised what you can get out of most arc dodgers chassis once things have been toned down.

ah, but most arc dodger chassis have also been toned down

just about all, in fact, are either less arc-dodgey or less token-stacky or both

7 minutes ago, Frimmel said:

I"d say the issue is that if we're going rock/paper/scissors with turret/joust/arc-dodge then the issue is that turret in X-wing is getting a boost against joust.

It isn't simply that turret beats arc-dodge but that turret also gets an advantage against joust because the turret can shoot while the jouster prepares to come back down the tilt. So the turret end up as rock in a game of rock/scissors/scissors.

aye, this is a problem as it directly contrasts the designer's intentions to emphasize maneuvering over list building

6 minutes ago, Glucose98 said:

I have little experience flying or flying against a Shadowcaster (mobile turret). How often was it not getting ships in arc? How well does the 'mobile turret' actually nerf the PWT? Obviously it can sap the action economy, and be stress/blockable to move the turret, but is the mobile turret still getting arc 80% of the time or whatever despite that?

1.0 shadow caster is not entirely relevent because

1.) The Shadow Caster mobile arc is now 2-dice (probably because it was easier to get people in one of the two arcs)

2.) the yts and K have arcs that cannot overlap to form one "giant arc", making them a lot harder to get shots with (note the primary weapon icon)

they literally covered all their bases

...except gunner luke

1 hour ago, mazz0 said:

Won't that be a boring introduction to the game for your dad? "Just do whatever you like and roll dice and see what happens"?

This is the thing, though; it's not that there's no effect to using it well.

I agree with @ficklegreendice that 'perfect' 360 degree coverage needs to cost a tonne of points. But it's not just perfect coverage, because there is a reward for not needing to rotate your arc - a free (mini) focus token.

Equally, there is a reward for not needing to boost; an evade token. And there is a reward for positioning yourself cleverly on the board - han's reroll.

In short, there is more to a tooled-to-the-nines falcon than the "one-forward-to-victory!" of a twin laser turret swarm or similar, and you will be able to tell the difference between a good player with Han/Luke/Falcon/Engine Upgrade and a mediocre one.

It will boil down to two things, both of which were extent issues in 1.0:

• Jouster beats Turret beats Arc Dodger beats Jouster is a fine theory (although it is just a theory and as @Icelom says it's not so forgone a conclusion as all that), but the problem is when you have already-fast-with-boost large ships because they become a high-end arc dodger with a turret (Engine upgrade Dash, for example)
  • Provided that boost remains red (or at least costs through the bloody nose to turn white) such that the turret is unsupported, it essentially has to play arc dodger because it's facing an entire squad solo.
• The 'quality' of the shots. A turret (in theory) always has a shot, whilst a jouster (in theory) rarely has a shot but turns you to paste with missiles/cannons/multiple ships firing when it does. The problem in 1.0 was that arc dodgers also had the highest passive defences (focus/evade/stealth interceptors, even before autothrusters, were a nightmare), and weren't a great deal more fragile than the jousters (there is only 2 hit points between an X-wing and a TIE interceptor). Which mean that turrets had to have the power to crack these defences, which meant that they outgunned jousters....which meant that arc dodgers defences went up to the point that they could essentially park in front of a jouster and laugh at a 'normal' 3 dice attack.
  • There is supposedly a reduction in firepower and a much more noticeable difference in the durability of arc dodgers and jousters - the TIE striker has essentially lost a green die whilst the interceptor loses autothrusters and gets a weaker version of the evade token, whilst the X-wing, Khiraxz, E-wing and Defender have all gained a hit point compared to their originally printed rules. This is right because a ship which is hard to get a shot at should be easier to kill when you do, and means that a relatively weak turret attack remains a threat to (say) a striker whilst being more of an annoyance to a Khiraxz.

10 minutes ago, Frimmel said:

I"d say the issue is that if we're going rock/paper/scissors with turret/joust/arc-dodge then the issue is that turret in X-wing is getting a boost against joust.

It isn't simply that turret beats arc-dodge but that turret also gets an advantage against joust because the turret can shoot while the jouster prepares to come back down the tilt. So the turret end up as rock in a game of rock/scissors/scissors.

Yeah, the only balance to that is jousters (in theory) having numbers and efficiency on their side against similar costs. Obviously that broke down in 1st Edition, but at least in 2nd with points adjustment we can actually see whether that holds up.

46 minutes ago, Admiral Deathrain said:

I don't know about that analogy, I mean, how do you feel about people cheating in multiplayer games, which X-Wing is?

I mentioned singleplayer cheating because one reason behind is the same as using a turret - less stress, less pressure. Maybe easiest difficulty would have been better because there is no way to understand it another way.

Cheating in multiplayer - depends what you mean. Flat out ignoring rules is never ok of course, but that‘s where the analogy breaks down because that is simply not possible in a computer game (outside of glitches and hacks... abusing those is definitely not as common). Cheating by (ab)using easy mode is where the analogy still stands.

46 minutes ago, Admiral Deathrain said:

As you said, to not have a negative effect on the game he can't be viable competetively. Not just 'not the best choice', flat out not viable. So now the new player may have a shot every turn, but still lose because his list is just woefully inefficient. I'd say this feels worse than getting outplayed

I mean, I would never put NymMiranda on the table against a guy learning, or 3BQD or GhostFenn and so on.

LukeGunner can be viable against non-meta lists, and that‘s perfectly fine. The dynamic points should allow for such a fine tuning. In that sense I don‘t think it‘s a problem.

46 minutes ago, Admiral Deathrain said:

Furthermore, why Luke? I'd rather see him as an interesting card that is fun to use and good enough to consistently see play, since he is an OT character. 

That‘s imo the best argument against Luke, but personally I just disagree. At some point in competitive play it does not matter so much to me which ship I‘m using, or what arbitrary name a card has.

It does when I want to put a certain ship on the table when playing for fun. But not when playing competitively. And only that PoV counts here IMO because you can housrule whatever you want outside of it. I can add myself as Starwars character with the ability to change arc for X points if I want.

If thinking from FFG‘s perspective I think that the most iconic combo is a good place to start for marketing purposes. But it‘s always the same problem, and I personally dislike it quite a bit because of the always same consequence: the most iconic, most famous characters are added first and end up being the worst because of power creep.

That problem is now generally solved because of dynamic cost. It‘s just that Luke Gunner is so unfun on a competitive level that now they reintroduced the same problem again.

I do understand why adding the same problem again in such a limited way might be more worth it, though, and that‘s why I don‘t mind.

5 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

I mean, I would never put NymMiranda on the table against a guy learning, or 3BQD or GhostFenn and so on.

LukeGunner can be viable against non-meta lists, and that‘s perfectly fine. The dynamic points should allow for such a fine tuning. In that sense I don‘t think it‘s a problem.

But one of the selling points of 2.0 is moving the extreme ends of the meta, the very top and the never used, a lot closer together, so if Luke is not viable competetively, there is a good chance he won't be viable at all.

2 hours ago, __underscore__ said:

Because it's better than rock/scissors, which is what joust/dodge would be.

And the reason it worked well in X-Wing for a time is that player skill comes into it. As long as each thing is a soft counter rather than a hard counter it works well.

Actually, rock/scissors would be fine, as it can be balanced with points costing (since you don't have to worry about how it affects the balance with paper).

Super arc dodgers like the original TIE phantom were just as bad as turrets. Any list that could effectively win before playing the game if not facing its counter was awful.