I play X-Wing because of forward arc small bases.

While I appreciate and enjoy mixing in medium/large base ships ( namely the Reaper, Kimogilia, IG, Upsilon, Infiltrator, Lamda, Lancer, and VCX etc ) and some heavily restricted turrets, its not why I am here. Those ships are flavor, side characters, supporting elements.

2.0’s general revival and re-emphasis of small base forward arc gameplay is specifically what brought me back to being enthusiastic and supportive of X-Wing. 50% of the ships in the game qualify as forward arc only small bases. At least 33 out of 65. These are the stars of the show.

In my opinion, Small base forward arcs are the most entertaining ships in the game especially when their reposition options are substantially and significantly restricted. The main reason for this semi arbitray focus on small bases is 11 out of 13 big base ships are turrets. Medium bases are more even 5 out of 10.

X-Wing is at its best when small base forward arc ships are its core. Real Starfighters. Absolutely not just “Aces”.

Forward arc small bases are so much more than that. I believe 2.0 has so far been successful by emphasizing forward arcs. It loses its identity and its connection to the player base the further it gets away from that core, as it did in 1.0.

Does X-Wing require a primary emphasis on forward arc Starfighters?

Meh. I prefer flying front arc only ships most of the time, a lot of the ships in the game that have turrets make sense to have them. I'd rather the designers have a primary emphasis on balance, asymmetrical faction properties, and interesting synergies than "forward arc starfighters". I mean, even WW2 wasn't entirely forward-attacking aircraft. Bombers were bristling with weapon points in all directions, and even some escort fighters had rear facing guns. Everything has a place. The important thing is that no ship loses it's identity. If the lore says it has big ol' turrets, give it big ol' turrets. If it says the guns were locked forward, that's where they should be.

Now. Someone please tell me there was a broadside fighter in the game. I want a small/medium base with no front or rear arcs, but two side arcs. I've been waiting for 15 waves now.

I agree with much of your assertion, but not all of it. I think that "primary emphasis on forward arc starfighters" might be an oversimplification.

Core set, first time gameplay is T65 vs 2 TIEs, all simple forward arcs.

This basic dogfight, in all of its not-ace-y, not-upgraded no nonsense purity, is exciting and easy to learn and enough to get me hooked into the game.

It's the simplicity and limitations of the intro, forward arc only dogfight that is still, well, thrilling, all by itself.

However, it's all the opportunity to personalize and modify that initial simple experience that has kept me playing X-Wing. Otherwise, it'd literally be "space checkers"; of which I might play once or twice a year.

Utilizing ships that function in different ways with different arcs and different decision priorities helps keep my creative energy invested in the game and the competitive meta.

I agree, the core, forward arc ships like T65s and TIEs should always be kept the stars and relevant in the competitive meta, but I certainly don't think that any ships should be "punished" for being anything besides a simple forward arc starfighter.

Elephant in the room: I don't think the Nantex design is any indication of a overall movement away from front arc starfighters.

The Nantex was designed to be thematic and fun according to the lore of the ship, and I believe that has been the goal of every release in X-Wing.

Nah. Vanilla X-Wing was ultimately quite boring.

1 hour ago, NakedDex said:

even WW2 wasn't entirely forward-attacking aircraft.

WW2 was quite famously not optimized for fun.

I use forward arc small bases, but they're just pieces of a puzzle to me. My enjoyment of the game is, like @Bucknife 's, mostly derived from being creative in list building, seeing how different pieces work together in different ways. One of the guys I regularly play with summed it up nicely when he said that Separatists seem like an appropriate faction for me because there's a lot of text, and for me, my lists tend towards "the more text, the better."

My current list is all small base forward arc only ships. I don’t mind other ship options though. Just depends entirely on the list I’m trying to build.

5 minutes ago, svelok said:

WW2 was quite famously not optimized for fun.

And yet, so many games are based almost entirely on it, it's concepts, and it's ideologies, including this one.

So, the forward arc small base ship is the baseline of the game. Many fun and iconic ships fit this profile.

However, as it is the baseline, it is what is commonplace. Thus, I find alternative ways of flying to charging the enemy (whether jousting, flanking Ace, or so on) more appealing. Take ships with back arcs. I love the options given to me by them to do some weird move to get a shot. This was true way back in 1.0 with the SFs (Backdraft, me old matey). I got a kick charging the enemy, then breaking to the side to shoot at them as they zoom past. In 2.0, this lives on in my favorite ships and pilots, such as Firesprays, RZ-2s, ARCs (Wolffe in particular), and SFs. Even full Turret ships like the Falcon give me a smile when I put the arc sideways to “broadside” an enemy.

All in all, while there is and should be a place for forward arc small base ships (still some favs that qualify), the standard feel of their gameplay has me enjoying ships that allow me to do things differently. In the end, if I’ve got a couple different play styles represented in my list, I’m feeling pretty good.

Some of us aren't here for forward-arc only gameplay. I'm sure not.

I enjoy having turrets, bombs and effects. I enjoy having things that aren't just straightforward guns, even if I think Fenn Rau is the actual best pilot of the game.

I like having a mixed toolset, because, let me tell you something.

4v4 Battle Rifles, was never how Halo was meant to be played. It was how elitist "Major League" players, who couldn't deal with, "Unfair, unclean" mechanics, such as... Radar. Plasma weapons. Power Weapons. Wanted to play it. They brutalized a game about an open, balanced sandbox of well thought out weapons into focus tested three-round-headshot-capable-burst-only stuff and proceeded to pull over a decade of entirely unwanted gatekeeping.

Tell me this.

Do you want that for X-Wing? Do you want the various flavors to be lost, because Vanilla is the optimal flavor, thus the only valid one?

Or do you want to see many flavors, and just stick to your own, content with it? Because the bases you love are fine. They're healthy. They're in vogue.

But they should not ever be all that is acceptable.

8 hours ago, Boom Owl said:

I play X-Wing because of forward arc small bases.

While I appreciate and enjoy mixing in medium/large base ships ( namely the Reaper, Kimogilia, IG, Upsilon, Infiltrator, Lamda, Lancer, and VCX etc ) and some heavily restricted turrets, its not why I am here. Those ships are flavor, side characters, supporting elements.

2.0’s general revival and re-emphasis of small base forward arc gameplay is specifically what brought me back to being enthusiastic and supportive of X-Wing. 50% of the ships in the game qualify as forward arc only small bases. At least 33 out of 65. These are the stars of the show.

In my opinion, Small base forward arcs are the most entertaining ships in the game especially when their reposition options are substantially and significantly restricted. The main reason for this semi arbitray focus on small bases is 11 out of 13 big base ships are turrets. Medium bases are more even 5 out of 10.

X-Wing is at its best when small base forward arc ships are its core. Real Starfighters. Absolutely not just “Aces”.

Forward arc small bases are so much more than that. I believe 2.0 has so far been successful by emphasizing forward arcs. It loses its identity and its connection to the player base the further it gets away from that core, as it did in 1.0.

Does X-Wing require a primary emphasis on forward arc Starfighters?

Nope.

If you play Imperials, you are essentially playing "pure" Xwing. A forward arc, a dial, and belief in your own skill.

If that is what you like pick that sort of faction.

I love that, but there is also room for the Han players skirting around with their Falcon.

Just be aware that on occasion (5 A2Wings), other ships will be able to do things you can't (shoot backwards).

Yes.

Or more subtly: restrictions, restrictions on movement, attack angle = breeds creativity.

Dial creep in 1.0 and 2.0 is a thing also. We should not allow FFG to do that easily either. (Much as I do like sloops)

My favorite list is a forward arc, a forward and rear arc, and a turret/bomber (I'll never reveal it's TRUE identity!!).

While I sympathize with OP's sentiment, I think like any table top game, the fun comes in learning all the facets and strategies in the game and finding what is most fun for the player, as well as being able to adapt to the ever changing game. I would have never found my favorite and most fun rebel (little hint) squad had I stayed overly attached to the base forward arc game.

P.S. my rebel squad went 5-0 in 1.0 in personal and league play and 2-0 in 2.0 until my buddy played a modified version of my own squad against me! I count it as a win for the list overall. This is the fun you could be having!

Adapt! Change! And most importantly...have fun moving plastic spaceships around your table with friends!

Wait, you’re playing a Star Wars game and you’re defining the Falcon as a supporting character and not a star? It’s a game with many challenges. Embrace them all

****, I enjoy flying pretty much everything. I struggle with large base turret ships, but that's most likely an issue with list-building rather than anything else.

counterpoint

ArcsArcsArcs

If you like small base, fixed arc ships, cool.

If you like medium base chonk, cool.

If you like large base turrets, cool.

One of the huge things that 2.0 got right is “fixing” turrets, which means that even though they remain a little more forgiving than fixed arcs, they still require skill to fly effectively, and upgrades that remove that skill requirement (Luke gunner) are generally super expensive.

Ultimately, whatever you like to fly is cool, just have fun. I do wish the Ghost was a little more viable than it currently is, but I also understand that it is still in time-out from 1.0. The only issue comes in when you try to enforce your idea of fun on other people. I personally think fixed arc ships with no or limited repositioning fighting other similar ships would get eye-wateringly boring. That’s my feeling, but you do you. For my money, going back to the days of TIE Fighter, I have loved interceptor style ships. Flying a rocket with guns and a cockpit bolted on is a gloriously fun experience, and for me that translates to X-Wing. RZ-2s (which, let’s be honest, is what the A-Wing always should have been) and Aethersprites are an absolutely blast to fly, and are my favorite ships in X-Wing, but I’m not going to force someone else to play interceptor style ships exclusively.

Also, as an added point, there are ships that have turrets or multiple arcs and yet play like fixed arc ships (I’ve never once rotated Rey’s arc, for example). You may want to look at them and see if they also fit your playstyle.

1 hour ago, ficklegreendice said:

counterpoint

ArcsArcsArcs

Likewise,

I like arcs of all directions and ability thanks. Makes it more fun.

59 minutes ago, FatherTurin said:

I personally think fixed arc ships with no or limited repositioning fighting other similar ships would get eye-wateringly boring.

This may just be 1E bias on my part, but having actually experienced the complete opposite, I respectfully disagree. In 1E, the vast majority of games I played were against lists consisting of one large, fat turret and one hyper-mobile Ace. When every single turn becomes, "Ok, you move all of your ships, then my turret moves without really caring where your ships are, while my Ace ignores his dial to just move anywhere he wants on the board at any facing," that's when the game gets boring for me.

Playing X-Wing leaves me convinced that real starfighters will probably have turrets.

That said, this is a SW game and small based F arc ships need to be viable.

For me, forward arc only small base is not really the core experience. It's more the "we both secretly plot where we're going and then see who guessed right". In that, I find 1.0 turrets less annoying than double repo aces or pre-move aces. Why am I messing with this piece of cardboard if you just get to look at the board state and go where you want? And I see this frustration reflected by other players all the time, both new and experienced. It just feels like it's undermining what should be the most engaging part of the game.

Small base front arc ships definitely get hurt the most by this plastyle (although a handful use it) and also generally reflect some of the most movie iconic ships, so I guess you would say that I'm with you at least tangentially.

19 minutes ago, Pewpewpew BOOM said:

Playing X-Wing leaves me convinced that real starfighters will probably have turrets.

That said, this is a SW game and small based F arc ships need to be viable.

Eh, real world experience has shown that, even with electronic assistance, a fast moving object trying to shoot at another fast moving object in 3 dimensional space with non-foward facing, non-missile weapons to be largely unviable. There are a lot of issues with trying to implement turret-based weapons on anything smaller than maybe a large bomber (even then, no modern bombers have turrets) and missiles just raise the question of "why bother?" Since the range and lethality advantage is considerable (even more so in space where there's a lot less interference for missile tracking).

I am on team FASBU for Worlds.

Though I'll probably bring some medium base rear arcs for hangar bay