6 hours ago, Qark said:

I think the 5 Y-wing list (or 4 with extras) is a problem. Not as big of a problem as the 3 first order shuttles but still a problem. I think the best way to deal with VTG is variable points based on the ships other arcs. If you have a PRINTED firing arc (y-wing for example) the cost should be higher than if you don't (YT-1300). That way big ships can still use it at an effective price since they don't double tap the same target but ships that can use it for two attacks on the same target have to pay a little more.

I don't understand the whole "5 Y-wings is a problem" lament. It's relatively easy to consistently to beat it. In 6 matches my friend has beaten it 5 times using 3 different builds. I believe in 4 of those wins he didn't lose a ship. The worst part of facing it is chipping away at 40 points of health.

Adjust your play style and not the points.

I'm with @theBitterFig. VTG don't need to be the card to balance gunners to large bases.

VTG - like all upgrades - must be priced according to it's most effecient use, and that is in the forward position as a jouster. Y-wings are really good right now, but they only move and shoot forward (for the most part). That means they can be costed correctly, and VTG is part of that equation.

Gunners on large ships with bowties needs to do something else, because the ship does something else.

I've been saying this for maybe five years now:

"A list does not need to be unbeatable to be too good."

Or maybe:

"Just because a list has counters doesn't mean it isn't a problem."

The double-tap Y-wing at 41 points is simply stronger than a 41 point ship should be. Especially when you bring multiple. And control effects need to be watched very carefully as well.

In first edition, this would be a tough spot. They aren't errata-nerf-hammer worthy and we would probably just have to live with them like the old stress-hog. But (thank the force) we don't live there anymore.

Ion turret could easily go back up one point. Control effects should have a premium. And, if FFG really wants to get granular, I really like the suggestion to make VTG cost more on a ship with a primary arc. Double taps should not be cheap. Did we learn nothing from TLT?

24 minutes ago, gamblertuba said:

I've been saying this for maybe five years now:

"A list does not need to be unbeatable to be too good."

Or maybe:

"Just because a list has counters doesn't mean it isn't a problem."

The double-tap Y-wing at 41 points is simply stronger than a 41 point ship should be. Especially when you bring multiple. And control effects need to be watched very carefully as well.

In first edition, this would be a tough spot. They aren't errata-nerf-hammer worthy and we would probably just have to live with them like the old stress-hog. But (thank the force) we don't live there anymore.

Ion turret could easily go back up one point. Control effects should have a premium. And, if FFG really wants to get granular, I really like the suggestion to make VTG cost more on a ship with a primary arc. Double taps should not be cheap. Did we learn nothing from TLT?

All of those fixes you suggest would hit the TIE Aggressor harder than the Y-Wing, and that ship barely sees play, even with +1 agility, a better dial and a lower cost. If 4-5 Y-Wings is a problem, increase the cost of the Y-Wing itself, not its options.

The VTG/Ion Turret Y is also nothing like the TLT. It fires twice, sure, but in two (different or overlapping) 90 degree arcs, not 360 degrees. The TLT could hit you at R3 and negate your range bonus, while the Ion Turret caps at R2. If this list poses a problem, maybe bring some I3 ships that are good at range control? FFG just released two new factions, one with slippery I3-4 aces and generics (Jedi Knight, Ahsoka, Luminara, Mace, Saesee, etc.), and one with 22 point I3 token stackers. Even before that you could make Y-Wing players cry by skipping around at R3 with Inquisitors pelting them with Concussion Missiles.

But I suppose if you only play trip aces lists (or, force forbid, Poe & Han or something like that), this list is going to be an uphill battle. That's fine though, since mid level uniques and generic aces struggle against your I566s.

3 hours ago, gamblertuba said:

I've been saying this for maybe five years now:

"A list does not need to be unbeatable to be too good."

Or maybe:

"Just because a list has counters doesn't mean it isn't a problem."

The double-tap Y-wing at 41 points is simply stronger than a 41 point ship should be. Especially when you bring multiple. And control effects need to be watched very carefully as well.

In first edition, this would be a tough spot. They aren't errata-nerf-hammer worthy and we would probably just have to live with them like the old stress-hog. But (thank the force) we don't live there anymore.

Hard agree on the core premise: a double-tap Y-Wing is stronger than a 41 point ship should be.

I'll also agree with @Okapi below that a Y-Wing isn't nearly TLT-like. VTG is the old BTL-A4, and that wasn't a problem in itself (though Stressbot caused some issues).

3 hours ago, Okapi said:

All of those fixes you suggest would hit the TIE Aggressor harder than the Y-Wing, and that ship barely sees play, even with +1 agility, a better dial and a lower cost. If 4-5 Y-Wings is a problem, increase the cost of the Y-Wing itself, not its options.

TIE Aggressor is too expensive of a base chassis. 2 Agility/5HP is noticeably worse than 1 Agility/8HP as a defensive statline. Heck, 1/8 is probably better than 2/6 even. Based on raw stats alone, a TIE/ag could probably be 28 like an M3-A or TIE/fo.

The problem isn't the Y-Wing itself, which is probably spot-on in any situation where it doesn't have VTG. Of all the levers to adjust, Y-Wings, Turrets, VTG, I'd say the best one to adjust is VTG.

But I suppose that's one of those perspective things. I think it's better to say the Y-Wing itself is priced correctly, but the Aggressor is priced incorrectly. I guess it'd be possible to view the TIE/ag as correctly priced, but the Y-Wing as too cheap.

26 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:

But I suppose that's one of those perspective things.

what he told you was true, from a certain point of view. You're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depends greatly on our own point of view.

14 hours ago, BenDay said:

I am thinking about trying a RAC list but 5th brother seems redundant. Minister Tua seems better for a point less. Or do you do both?

Minister Tua is stapled to RAC, the action efficiency at Initiative ∞ and protection against blocking is too good to pass up unless you are trying something like the Grand Inquisitor, but that's another story/discussion. Never not run Tua. I will give up Fifth Brother if the points are needed elsewhere before giving up Tua.

Fifth Brother compliments RAC's pilot ability. You are going to either Reinforcing or Locking/Rotating and using Tua to Reinforce, so your pilot ability and 5th are used to mod your Focus results, and 5th allows you an option to defensively mod certain corner cases that do pop up more often than you would suspect (range 3 or obstructed flankers, for example). Also, there is no such thing as pushing too many crits onto someone, as it really does up his damage potential, or allowing you to reinforce to the side that you are going to take the most damage from, while still being able to modify the attack against someone not in that arc, such as finishing someone off who is running instead of switching targets to an undamaged attacker.

He adds options to RAC.

37 minutes ago, Yearfire said:

what he told you was true, from a certain point of view. You're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depends greatly on our own point of view.

I think, er, no, I mean, er, yes
But it's all wrong
That is I think I disagree