17 hours ago, Captain Lackwit said:

Oh, we did. But we're back. So we need to find ways to win against it. Instead of just playing aces and crying about aces not working.

Stop crying and adapt. Play something new. Geez.

Okay, I will literally reach through the internet and smack the next person who tries the "it's only countering aces" line upside the head. It's idiotic and patently false.

2 Nantexes + whatever annihilate TIE Swarms, 6-ship TIE salads, Sinker swarms, 4-ship Rebel, 4-ship Resistance, and any number of other non-ace, multiple-small base lists. Once combat starts the average turn in the game goes something like: Nantex arc dodges one ship, Tractors a second so it has no shot, then shoots and kills a third. Repeat for each Nantex in play.

If the Nantex was just an anti-ace ship, it would probably be fine because people could just adjust their existing lists. Say by dropping an ace and adding more efficient units to combat. But it's not an anti-ace ship. It's an anti-small base ship, and thus makes 80% of the field irrelevant and forces people to warp their lists around it.

That's taking us right back to a First Edition pre-nerf Whisper scenario, and I will gladly holler about that until FFG pull their heads out and fix it.

59 minutes ago, DR4CO said:

2 Nantexes + whatever annihilate TIE Swarms, 6-ship TIE salads, Sinker swarms, 4-ship Rebel, 4-ship Resistance, and any number of other non-ace, multiple-small base lists. Once combat starts the average turn in the game goes something like: Nantex arc dodges one ship, Tractors a second so it has no shot, then shoots and kills a third. Repeat for each Nantex in play.

Whilst I agree high initiative nantex with ensnare are really nasty for small based ships, I'm not sure where this assumption they can auto-kill a target each comes from. Given that you're normally having to use your mobile arc if you're flinging yourself and your opponents hither and thither, even at range 1, even with Sun Fac's ability and even with a tractored target, they'll struggle to one-shot even a TIE fighter.

Equally, whilst it can reposition 'for free' (assuming you get to dump off your tractor token with Ensnare), it is repositioning itself once and repositioning another ship once. Which is as good as a double-reposition against that ship - arguably better, since you can double-roll or double-boost. But against the other 3-4 ships on the field it's distinctly worse. A big part of what made Whisper/Echo so terrifying was the amount of sideslip they could generate with a speed 2 'roll' or 'boost', which is definitely not the case for a Nantex using Pinpoint Tractor Array.

Don't get me wrong; I think Ensnare/Sun Fac, and to a lesser degree Ensnare/Chertek have potential to be a problem - from a player-enjoyment level if nothing else (because I've seen how much some people hate playing quadjumpers and regardless of price level, those aces are arguably quadjumpers who can actually dogfight) and I wouldn't object to seeing Ensnare go up in cost more. But I remain unconvinced the situation is quite as apocalyptic as it's being painted.

4 hours ago, DR4CO said:

Okay, I will literally reach through the internet and smack the next person who tries the "it's only countering aces" line upside the head. It's idiotic and patently false.

2 Nantexes + whatever annihilate TIE Swarms, 6-ship TIE salads, Sinker swarms, 4-ship Rebel, 4-ship Resistance, and any number of other non-ace, multiple-small base lists. Once combat starts the average turn in the game goes something like: Nantex arc dodges one ship, Tractors a second so it has no shot, then shoots and kills a third. Repeat for each Nantex in play.

If the Nantex was just an anti-ace ship, it would probably be fine because people could just adjust their existing lists. Say by dropping an ace and adding more efficient units to combat. But it's not an anti-ace ship. It's an anti-small base ship, and thus makes 80% of the field irrelevant and forces people to warp their lists around it.

That's taking us right back to a First Edition pre-nerf Whisper scenario, and I will gladly holler about that until FFG pull their heads out and fix it.

BULL.
FRAKKING.
S***.

NO single ship is SO effective that it can not only engage three ships in one turn, but GUARANTEE a kill on one every turn. Absolutely no frakking way, no way in ****. You are spoon feeding people BULL by saying that.

The "Average" engagement, come ON you KNOW that's complete hooey.

12 pages in and it's still going. How many ways can you say the same thing?

2 hours ago, Archangelspiv said:

12 pages in and it's still going. How many ways can you say the same thing?

It's an internet discussion, they will only stop once they agree (hah!) or the thread gets locked.

To call out one but by far not the only disingenuous post, right above yours:

@Captain Lackwit ignored almost everything @DR4CO said, except the hyperbole, and then chose to focus on that and escalate the language a bit to demonstrate her outrage instead of calmly tackle the rest of the post and dismiss the hyperbole in an accessory sentence. Again, there are plenty other examples in this thread.

This kind of discussion is what gives the forum a bad name.

Why not try the other way? Try to phrase the opposite why the Nantex might be fine/NPE depending on your current viewpoint?

For me that would be:

Maybe the nantex with ensnare is fine because the majority of players can't abuse the ceiling (or get close to it) where the Nantex can be extremely unfun. Instead, the majority of players will play a 4hull ship without a defensive bonus who quite often misses the arcdodge, blanks out, eats a bad crit, etc and for most games he will not be an issue.

For me even if that were true - which it might be - it would still make ensnare problematic in principle, but ok in practice.

It remains to be seen whether a nantex by a very high level player could also be ok. I doubt it, but I don't think this specific case was explicitly discussed.

24 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

It's an internet discussion, they will only stop once they agree (hah!) or the thread gets locked.

To call out one but by far not the only disingenuous post, right above yours:

@Captain Lackwit ignored almost everything @DR4CO said, except the hyperbole, and then chose to focus on that and escalate the language a bit to demonstrate his outrage instead of calmly tackle the rest of the post and dismiss the hyperbole in an accessory sentence. Again, there are plenty other examples in this thread.

This kind of discussion is what gives the forum a bad name.

Why not try the other way? Try to phrase the opposite why the Nantex might be fine/NPE depending on your current viewpoint?

For me that would be:

Maybe the nantex with ensnare is fine because the majority of players can't abuse the ceiling (or get close to it) where the Nantex can be extremely unfun. Instead, the majority of players will play a 4hull ship without a defensive bonus who quite often misses the arcdodge, blanks out, eats a bad crit, etc and for most games he will not be an issue.

For me even if that were true - which it might be - it would still make ensnare problematic in principle, but ok in practice.

It remains to be seen whether a nantex by a very high level player could also be ok. I doubt it, but I don't think this specific case was explicitly discussed.

I've made it clear elsewhere, I'm not a his. Stop.

Now, as for everything else...

Look, I don't really care, if people are mad about Ensnare and Sun Fac. This forum is mad about everything that's remotely good and always asks for nerfs. Every time something is performing well, "The sky is falling and FFG needs to pull their head out of their a**."

I don't care if people don't want to run Mediums and Larges now. They need to, at least until January. You know why? This is a chance to learn how to play things BESIDES small bases, this is a chance to learn how to do things DIFFERENTLY, but as long as I can remember, this forum's outrage folks just hate doing that with every fiber of their being. They want small forward arc high mobility only, and anything that threatens that is an NPE or bad or unskilled or blah BLAH BLAH BLAH.

Every frakking time. Remember how folks who used PWTs in 1.0 got outright made fun of here because they, "Weren't as smart as us guys ACTUALLY playing the game!"? Do you remember that at all? I sure do.

Well, huzzah. Now there's a small base I6 that's absolutely perhaps even disgustingly amazing. He's totally unable to beat guys!

...Unless you like. Use stuff that he can't affect. Wow, such hard, very bad.

This is a chance to learn stuff about this game, because, yes. FFG will fix Sun Fac. You know how they're going to fix Sun Fac?

The same way they do EVERYTHING ELSE. You'll NEVER SEE SUN FAC AGAIN after January.

I promise you that, that given FFG's track record, given the outrage, given what people have said and demonstrated, that FFG won't know what to do and they'll do what they ALWAYS do when it comes to point adjustments.

They'll adjust him out of the game. Like every other thing that works too well for this forum to handle.

28 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

It's an internet discussion, they will only stop once they agree (hah!) or the thread gets locked.

To call out one but by far not the only disingenuous post, right above yours:

@Captain Lackwit ignored almost everything @DR4CO said, except the hyperbole, and then chose to focus on that and escalate the language a bit to demonstrate his outrage instead of calmly tackle the rest of the post and dismiss the hyperbole in an accessory sentence. Again, there are plenty other examples in this thread.

This kind of discussion is what gives the forum a bad name.

Why not try the other way? Try to phrase the opposite why the Nantex might be fine/NPE depending on your current viewpoint?

For me that would be:

Maybe the nantex with ensnare is fine because the majority of players can't abuse the ceiling (or get close to it) where the Nantex can be extremely unfun. Instead, the majority of players will play a 4hull ship without a defensive bonus who quite often misses the arcdodge, blanks out, eats a bad crit, etc and for most games he will not be an issue.

For me even if that were true - which it might be - it would still make ensnare problematic in principle, but ok in practice.

It remains to be seen whether a nantex by a very high level player could also be ok. I doubt it, but I don't think this specific case was explicitly discussed.

I think that's the main issue. No one is going to say, gee you are totally right and I have been wrong this whole time.... FFG will not change the Nantek, they may increase it's cost, they may decrease it's cost. But until there is some substantial tournament play, what you see is what you get. It's like the JM5K, people said it was rubbish, then triple scouts plagued us and because of that time, the JM5K was nerfed to rubbishville and hardly gets play except a wild Dengar now and then. It took them a while to clean up the TIE/ph, they fiddled with cost etc, then they just straight up changed a slot.

I guess what I am trying to say is, the arguments have been had, lets wait and see how they fair at the big tournaments, they may get owned, they may dominate. But lets get back to what the Forum used to be and that was an inclusive spot in wild space that people could have discussions and a variety of topics, not have a back and forth of I am right, no I am right.

Everyone's opinion is valid, but it is FFG who matters most at the end of the day. They might love that it shakes up the scene, make people buy ships etc.

Let me see if I can't sum all of this up...

"METAS CAN'T CHANGE!!!"

"I WAS DOING REALLY GOOD AND NOW I'M NOT ANYMORE!!"

"HOW DARE THEY TAKE THE META I WAS GOOD IN AND CHANGE IT TO ONE SOMEONE ELSE IS GOOD AT!?!?!"

That is all,

P.S. Dash Rendar would like a word with all of you in the other room

13 minutes ago, Captain Lackwit said:

I don't care if people don't want to run Mediums and Larges now. They need to, at least until January.

That is not something I can agree with. It clashes with my experience, as I know several people who simply quit instead. There are other games to be played, why would I spend time on something I don't want, something that isn't fun? It is something that drives even me away, too.

11 minutes ago, Captain Lackwit said:

I don't care if people don't want to run Mediums and Larges now. They need to, at least until January. You know why? This is a chance to learn how to play things BESIDES small bases, this is a chance to learn how to do things DIFFERENTLY, but as long as I can remember, this forum's outrage folks just hate doing that with every fiber of their being. They want small forward arc high mobility only, and anything that threatens that is an NPE or bad or unskilled or blah BLAH BLAH BLAH.

As has been stated numerous times before, it's not about people not trying other lists; nor is it exclusively small-base, forward-arc players who find it NPE. If that's truly what has you so worked up, then you really don't have anything to be upset about.

2 minutes ago, Dr Moneypants said:

Let me see if I can't sum all of this up...

"METAS CAN'T CHANGE!!!"

"I WAS DOING REALLY GOOD AND NOW I'M NOT ANYMORE!!"

"HOW DARE THEY TAKE THE META I WAS GOOD IN AND CHANGE IT TO ONE SOMEONE ELSE IS GOOD AT!?!?!"

That is all,

P.S. Dash Rendar would like a word with all of you in the other room

Once you're done practicing on that strawman, would you like to try engaging with the real arguments?

You'll all get your changes, and then you'll go right back to playing it how you used to, unable to adapt or change or try new things.

Thanks to felgercarp like this, we have to spend entire actions- sometimes red, to rotate turrets, instead of focusing or doing something else useful.

So, thanks. Really.

3 minutes ago, Captain Lackwit said:

You'll all get your changes, and then you'll go right back to playing it how you used to, unable to adapt or change or try new things.

Thanks to felgercarp like this, we have to spend entire actions- sometimes red, to rotate turrets, instead of focusing or doing something else useful.

So, thanks. Really.

I really want to understand your point of view. Am I correct in breaking it down to:

Sun Fac + Ensnare hard counters a part of the game you feel has dominated X-Wing (high init small base aces) and therefore will force the meta to shift towards medium and large bases which is a positive move in your opinion?

19 minutes ago, Captain Lackwit said:

Thanks to felgercarp like this, we have to spend entire actions- sometimes red, to rotate turrets, instead of focusing or doing something else useful..

So...rotating turrets isn't useful? Then why do it?

Seriously, though, the point of adding red actions and rotate actions was precisely to have more meaningful decisions during the game itself. Of course there's an opportunity cost! That's why these even exist!

In 1E, I played numerous games against lists that did the same thing every turn. The player dialed in a blue maneuver, then went through the exact same actions. There was never any thought needed in choosing which action to take.

In 2E, we have more actions, more limitations in how we combo them, and greater costs for some of them. This is a good thing, in my opinion.

EDIT: Is it intentional irony that you complain about what you view as others being unwilling to adapt to new gameplay, but then yourself complain about how you don't like 2E's new gameplay?

10 minutes ago, Micanthropyre said:

I really want to understand your point of view. Am I correct in breaking it down to:

Sun Fac + Ensnare hard counters a part of the game you feel has dominated X-Wing (high init small base aces) and therefore will force the meta to shift towards medium and large bases which is a positive move in your opinion?

Yes.

Absolutely. Too long have small bases reigned supreme, I think. I REALLY DO think that. We're almost six waves into 2.0, and... What, have large bases ever REALLY been relevant? Parking Break Han and Double Tap Dash don't even count. In the grand scheme, they were barely blips on the radar.

How many large base ships are you aware of that are actually useful in the meta? Maul? Dooku..?

How many Medium base ships? Certainly more than Larges, but far far less than Smalls. What is it, the U-Wing, ARC-170, and uh... I don't know, the Firespray? Specifically Boba, and really only Boba if we're actually, fully, wholly, totally honest?

Meanwhile how many I5-6 Small base ultra-nimbles are valid?

How many Agility-1 Smalls are valid?

How many fillers are valid?

The list goes on.

Sun Fac hits the meta where it hurts the most, and for that he's **** near a hero of mine. ****, if I were a separatist player tried and true I'd consider running him just because of that. But no, I play Resistance, FO, and Republic. And Republic has these great things called ARC-170s that I can totally rely on. They're good, great even.

See what I'm getting at here?

Sun Fac shuts down a lot of options, and yes. That's bad in the long run. I have never denied that. Yes, I WANT that point adjustment to come... But... Not right now. Not right now. No, for now, I want people to explore their options, learn what else they can use, and find other cool magic combos they were overlooking for so long because what they relied on was just better. That stuff is too dangerous. Maybe play with U-Wing squads with good crew. Maybe dust off the TIE Punishers, Reapers, Lambdas. Maybe explore the various mediums and larges of X-Wing Miniatures.

It's doable.

10 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

So...rotating turrets isn't useful? Then why do it?

Seriously, though, the point of adding red actions and rotate actions was precisely to have more meaningful decisions during the game itself. Of course there's an opportunity cost! That's why these even exist!

In 1E, I played numerous games against lists that did the same thing every turn. The player dials in a blue maneuver, then went through the exact same actions. There was never any thought needed in choosing which action to take.

In 2E, we have more actions, more limitations in how we combo them, and greater costs for some of them. This is a good thing, in my opinion.

EDIT: Is it intentional irony that you complain about what you view as others being unwilling to adapt to new gameplay, but then yourself complain about how you don't like 2E's new gameplay?

No, see, I'm fine with red actions- but red rotates are a design failure because you'll literally NEVER do them. But I hate how rotates come at the cost of dice mods. Honestly, I really just wish that rotates were linked to things. The TIE/SF is a design success BECAUSE of this! Exclusively because of this..! It's the best turreted ship in the game, there's no contesting that, but the others didn't have to be so god awful that the SF looked THAT GOOD by comparison.

I far prefer 2.0's Gameplay, I REALLY do. But there's some absolutely stupid design choices in this game. Like, ****, it's just... UGH. Why do some turrets have range restrictions for crying out loud? WHY ARE THERE ONLY TWO TURRET MODIFICATIONS IN THE ENTIRE GAME.

God, why can you take agile gunner on ships that don't even have turret indicators?

3 hours ago, Captain Lackwit said:

Maybe dust off the TIE Punishers, Reapers, Lambdas. Maybe explore the various mediums and larges of X-Wing Miniatures.

In our group, at least, I've seen VT-49s all over the place since 2E released. I played Lambdas just because I liked them, but ever since the TIE Phantom lost its Crew slot, I've seen a lot of others taking Lambdas and Reapers as Crew-carriers, too. Maybe other factions are different, but Imperials have been getting use out of their Medium and Large ships for a while now.

1 hour ago, JJ48 said:

Once you're done practicing on that strawman, would you like to try engaging with the real arguments?

Why would I bother arguing with someone who has proven over 12 pages of this thread (and several other people's threads who dared to disagree) that you are correct and there's really no way you're going to change your mind?

13 minutes ago, Dr Moneypants said:

Why would I bother arguing with someone who has proven over 12 pages of this thread (and several other people's threads who dared to disagree) that you are correct and there's really no way you're going to change your mind?

Because discussions aren't just about proving yourself right, but also about understanding each other, maybe?

Anyway, it just makes more sense to me than attributing to others statements that have nothing to do with anything they've said, simply in an attempt to make them look foolish.

here is my current scum list which already gained some victories against Nantex and other Aces:

M12-L-Kimogila-Jäger - •Torani Kulda - 67
•Torani Kulda - Rodianische Auftragsmörderin (48)
Jagdinstinkt (2)
Ionentorpedos (6)
Clusterraketen (5)
R3-Astromechdroide (3)
Illegale Kybernetik (3)

G-1A-Sternenjäger - •4-LOM - 65
•4-LOM - Umprogrammierter Protokolldroide (49)
Meisterhafter Schuss (1)
Verbesserte Sensoren (10)
•Ketsu Onyo (5)

Leichter YV-666-Frachter - •Latts Razzi - 66
•Latts Razzi - Kampfkünstlerin (59)
•0-0-0 (5)
•Unkar Plutt (2)

Total: 198/200

View in the X-Wing Squad Builder

Middle/big bases reduce the main danger from nantexes and having a built in tractor mechanic on my own is als a plus

12 minutes ago, Banjo79 said:

here is my current scum list which already gained some victories against Nantex and other Aces:

M12-L-Kimogila-Jäger - •Torani Kulda - 67
•Torani Kulda - Rodianische Auftragsmörderin (48)
Jagdinstinkt (2)
Ionentorpedos (6)
Clusterraketen (5)
R3-Astromechdroide (3)
Illegale Kybernetik (3)

G-1A-Sternenjäger - •4-LOM - 65
•4-LOM - Umprogrammierter Protokolldroide (49)
Meisterhafter Schuss (1)
Verbesserte Sensoren (10)
•Ketsu Onyo (5)

Leichter YV-666-Frachter - •Latts Razzi - 66
•Latts Razzi - Kampfkünstlerin (59)
•0-0-0 (5)
•Unkar Plutt (2)

Total: 198/200

View in the X-Wing Squad Builder

Middle/big bases reduce the main danger from nantexes and having a built in tractor mechanic on my own is als a plus

I have to say, I like the sound of "Sternenjäger" a lot more than the English "starfighter".

25 minutes ago, Banjo79 said:

here is my current scum list which already gained some victories against Nantex and other Aces:

M12-L-Kimogila-Jäger - •Torani Kulda - 67
•Torani Kulda - Rodianische Auftragsmörderin (48)
Jagdinstinkt (2)
Ionentorpedos (6)
Clusterraketen (5)
R3-Astromechdroide (3)
Illegale Kybernetik (3)

G-1A-Sternenjäger - •4-LOM - 65
•4-LOM - Umprogrammierter Protokolldroide (49)
Meisterhafter Schuss (1)
Verbesserte Sensoren (10)
•Ketsu Onyo (5)

Leichter YV-666-Frachter - •Latts Razzi - 66
•Latts Razzi - Kampfkünstlerin (59)
•0-0-0 (5)
•Unkar Plutt (2)

Total: 198/200

View in the X-Wing Squad Builder

Middle/big bases reduce the main danger from nantexes and having a built in tractor mechanic on my own is als a plus

Man - German sounds so much better for cool starfighter names. Can you imagine a triple Sternenjäger attack? It sounds so much more fearsome - especially since I enjoy Pacific Rim!

2 hours ago, Captain Lackwit said:

Thanks to felgercarp like this, we have to spend entire actions- sometimes red, to rotate turrets, instead of focusing or doing something else useful.

I can't automatically shoot just by being on the board, oh no! Nope, no bonus for merely existing! I have to *gasp* point my gun in the right direction? And if I made a mistake and don't have it pointed right, I have to pay a penalty? Use my action to rotate? Now you're going to say some nonsense like only 1 bonus attack per turn, or finite regen?/s

I thought turning every turret into the Shadowcaster was heralded as the main excitable core change to the game. Both players play, not just one or whoever mashes this list against that. Sure, I'm not panicking about the Nantex, because the next best change of 2nd e (POINTS AND SLOTS! POINTS AND SLOTS!) will fix ensnare to be a toy for epic. Then the Nantex can get its mod slots back and dial back a few points. And there are a lot of undiscussed things that terrify the Nantex. Many of them require only an upgrade or two changed out.

But for full disclosure, my lists are less effected by the Nantex than others'. And I can see where the panic is happening: we may end up with a deck building game again.

2 hours ago, Captain Lackwit said:

Yes.

So I think that your assessment of the viability of large and medium base ships is a little off (Jendon Taps, Hatchetman, Double Deci, Obi and 3 ARCs, Quad U-Wings, Ketsu, Upsilons, and Dooku have all seen success post points and pre Sun Fac).

As far as lower initiative and filler, Sear Swarm, Torkil Seevor 3K, TIE Swarm, 5SF, Dooku and 6, Jendon Inquisitors, Black Suns, Barrage Bombers, and 5 RZ-2s all have seen success.

If you want to talk about their attractiveness to the average player, and you want to see more of the larger ships on the table because you want to change player preferences through the vehicle of Sun Fac as a catalyst for that change, well thats the question. Is this what you really want to see? From your post it sounds like you don't believe that those things are viable... but the tournament results show differently.

I think thats where a lot of the miscommunication is coming from: you are saying one thing (large and medium bases aren't good) and people are roundly rejecting that statement for the same reasons I pointed out above. And then instead of making that the debate, what is getting injected is what I'm asking: do you want to force people to play other things by making the things they like not good?

3 hours ago, JJ48 said:

In our group, at least, I've seen VT-49s all over the place since 2E released. I played Lambdas just because I liked them, but ever since the TIE Phantom lost its Crew slot, I've seen a lot of others taking Lambdas and Reapers as Crew-carriers, too. Maybe other factions are different, but Imperials have been getting use out of their Medium and Large ships for a while now.

Good! Great!

1 hour ago, player3010587 said:

I can't automatically shoot just by being on the board, oh no! Nope, no bonus for merely existing! I have to *gasp* point my gun in the right direction? And if I made a mistake and don't have it pointed right, I have to pay a penalty? Use my action to rotate? Now you're going to say some nonsense like only 1 bonus attack per turn, or finite regen?/s

I thought turning every turret into the Shadowcaster was heralded as the main excitable core change to the game. Both players play, not just one or whoever mashes this list against that. Sure, I'm not panicking about the Nantex, because the next best change of 2nd e (POINTS AND SLOTS! POINTS AND SLOTS!) will fix ensnare to be a toy for epic. Then the Nantex can get its mod slots back and dial back a few points. And there are a lot of undiscussed things that terrify the Nantex. Many of them require only an upgrade or two changed out.

But for full disclosure, my lists are less effected by the Nantex than others'. And I can see where the panic is happening: we may end up with a deck building game again.

I don't mind having to rotate. I just hate when I have to rotate, geez. I'd like to do it in the systems phase, or end of the turn. Agile Gunner should be automatic.

TBH i agree mostly with what @Captain Lackwit is saying, compared to alot of other people in this thread.

You'd think for a game that has a high component of creativity, we'd have several creative solutions to "problem" ships. For this community, compared to many other different gaming communities i've been a part of, that is the exception as opposed to the rule. If FFG exploded right now and ceased to exist, I bet you we'd have not one, but several, build solutions to the "SunFac menace." And I bet you anything that overtime we'd have build solutions to counter those solutions. Everything would probably be fine.

Instead I mostly just see a bunch of kneejerk forum complaints for whatever the hot topic of the day is, instead of really taking some time to apply creativity, or try something new.

And what have we seen so far? Boba, HWKS, proton torps, rebel beef, quackjumpers, super-natural reflexes, (just off the top of my head anyway) all with 'slight' points-adjustment, but effectively priced out of existence before *most* of them really needed to be imo. It'll happen to the nantex too, whether or not it deserves it.

11 minutes ago, Captain Lackwit said:

Good! Great!

I don't mind having to rotate. I just hate when I have to rotate, geez. I'd like to do it in the systems phase, or end of the turn. Agile Gunner should be automatic.

As a title or at least cheaper, I'm cool with a more accessible Agile Gunner. Should still take the slot. Flying a bunch of SF's and JM5K's, I don't want the pricetag of my turreted ships to go up for the compensation of the immense power of action free rotate (moreso on the JM5K, be it with Dengar gunner on the non-Dengar, or especially when BT rides Dengar to pressure the decision of my opponent to my favor when my blocking Manaroo's 000 triggers).