+6 Hull, -3 Agility?

Dorovio Bold in a 4-ship "Battle of Endor" pack.

****, my post was lost. Edit: Gadge, I think wound-points would still be as sophisticated and unbalanced as MOV by favoring certain lists. I also agree with you on having multiple formats, maybe something with objectives or wave restrictions to spice things up. Fickle, I said something about Autothrusters being lazy because they only catered to a certain niche of ships in the competitive meta, and by niche I mean Fel. Fel being busted as hard as PWT is an easy argument to make, but it doesn't take away the fact that MOV encourages and rewards boring strategies such as turrets or Fel or turrets AND Fel.

It is getting a bit tiresome seeing really bad ideas for fixing turrets, here's a few I recall: -When firing outside of an arc, reduce the attacker's primary attack and/or increase defender's agility. -There should be a moveable arc piece on the baseplate that is adjusted as part of the activation phase. -Split attack values for whatever reason. -Banhammer (facetious, I know). Here's my proposition for "fixing" not only turrets, but the competitive meta as a whole: Get rid of Margin of Victory (MOV). I believe MOV is literally the only thing making turrets "too good" and is at the root of causing all the whining and suggested patches to the game that are unnecessary, especially since it is mainly a competitive problem and people playing casually could really care less. But with MOV, you get something like Autothrusters out of it. Lets slap a dice modifier that triggers beyond range 2 and out of arc and turns blanks to evades. Only time it isn't working? Range 1-2 in arc. All yours for 2 points. Now you have a mathematically busted Soontir Fel, able to consistently evade 3 damage on a less-than-decent dice roll against a turret or Range 3 shot. This is something I like to call lazy design. It feels like they over-produced a card to help an ailing symptom of the competitive aspect of the game, not taking action by doing something that will actually cure the problem. Now you have Fel, typically run at 35-36 points, with a Fat Decimator, a turret, shooting up the meta and reaping the rewards of both turret and anti-turret/arc-dodgey shenanigans. That's not to say Autothrusters are unnecessary for a healthy meta, just that it is something that came from something else that couldve been fixed awhile back. Why do people choose to fly Fel and a Decimator? Or Falcons and Outriders with Z's and Corran? Simply put, they are protecting their investment in points by using combos or desirable elements to deny the scoring of points. You can call it holding points hostage, points needed to score well on MOV are not awarded because you didn't "score" them. End of round, if a Chewie gets down to 1 Hull after the rest of the list has been obliterated and you're sitting there with a single B-Wing, the Chewie player receives a modified win because he left more points on the table. Same goes for Soontir-Decimator, Falcons and pre-nerf Phantoms. This does two things: 1: It rewards "Fat" lists and two-ship lists, far more than it rewards lists utilizing formations and skilled maneuvering such as Rebel Control or our beloved and missed TIE Swarm. 2: People can abuse the scoring system of MOV through modified wins, which also rewards the "Fat" meta mentality. Unfortunately, X-Wing doesn't have a best of X round games like Magic: The Gathering has to determine victory and set solid tiebreakers. And before we go on about how "X-Wing isn't MtG", we can still take elements from that game's competitive scoring, placement and ranking system and apply it to X-Wing. In X-Wing, we still have Win-Loss-Draw ratios, however, MOV messes all that up in the way that mediocre strategies are more widely present and commonly played and diverse list building isn't encouraged. The concept of MOV is so bad an A-Wing player can blow up a single ship and skirt around the table until time is called and win. The A-Wing player's MOV is horrible, but theoretically, they can win a tournament by blowing up a single ship each round running away. In Magic, when time is called, you have a 5-turn grace period to finish the game, allowing the players to try to play it out before a draw is determined. But, a draw is determined regardless of the life totals. Once the 5th turn is over, if no victory conditions have been met (reducing life to 0, receiving 10 poison counters, decking the opponent out of cards to draw, etc.), the match ends in a draw. Not a "modified win", no partial points are calculated. You either win, lose or draw. If we were to do away with MOV as a determining factor of victory and left it to a barebones win condition of "victory is only achieved when your opponent's list is completely destroyed" and rank players like MtG does, 3 points for a Win, 0 points for a Loss and 1 point for a Draw, you will still be able to pair players together based on performance ratios, but now you've eliminated the bonus reward that "Fat" meta lists received by being able to hold points hostage. Example: RAC Fel vs. XXXXA. Three X's and the A are blown up but took the Decimator down. Now Soontir needs to beat the X-Wing or they both run the risk of receiving a draw. Yes, the X-Wing player can try to play keep away from Soontir until time in order to draw, but the draw will hurt that player's record as well. Not to mention, Soontir will be sweating bricks to try to pop that X-Wing in time and that X-Wing player will try to retaliate. This encourages better playing, discourages slow playing and will lead to more interesting engagements. Example 2: Han blows up Dash at the loss of his Z-95s and running down to 7 hull. Now, Corran (or whoever was Dash's compliment) has a chance to spring back and take out Han, and Han can't hold his 60ish points hostage because he'll take a draw that will hurt that player's record, and Corran needs to hustle up or his record is shot, too. Now, that turret player needs to kill Corran by engaging them instead of boosting out of range and evading two hits each turn. From there, the game can go either way: Han blasting Corran out of the galaxy or Corran double-tapping Han for the finishing blow. By taking away the ability for "Fat" meta lists to hold points hostage, players are forced to design lists with X-Wing's hearty and attractive game design: Dogfighting. By changing the mentality of the tournament/competitive meta from "keeping my points alive" to "destroying all of the enemy's points" you encourage lists like TIE/M3-A Swarm to have a shot at the meta. Now, keep in mind, "Fat" meta lists will still be relevant and competitive, they are just no longer rewarded above other lists by MOV's system. No unnecessary mechanical nerf, no more requiring the design of roundabout upgrade cards built specifically for the competitive meta, no revision in the FAQ, now you'll have people playing to actually win the game by eliminating points, not preserving them. Problems I can see with an MtG-like scoring system: -You'll get point-suicide players who've been paired up and decided to cut their losses and try to intentionally draw to ruin their opponent's score, but even then, their opponent should fly for the sake of trying to take that bastard down for the win. -Time will need to be extended either on the clock or on a X-number of turn grace period after time is called. This could be troublesome for the players' personal commitment and the scheduling and logistics aspect of running events at an LGS. But, if someone is going to run or participate in a tournament, they should be able to commit the time to do so. But I understand that that is easier said than done for most people -Any other foreseeable problems, I'd like to hear. Turrets are fine as-is. Yes, 360 arcs exist, but it is balanced at the cost of a premium investment in list building. Yes, there are some combos that are better than others, but a lot of games have a combo-building strategic element as well as other strategies to utilize. Eliminating MOV will just remove the bonus reward that favors one strategy over all other strategies. I'd like to hear your opinions on this. If there are any misunderstandings, I will do my best to clarify. I'm just hoping this suggestion will hopefully ease this forum's seemingly endless hatred and frustration towards turrets since other types of lists should have a better chance without MOV. LET'S MAKE MOV DISAPPEAR!

MOV is what takes a massive, steaming dump on the meta. Two ship lists will hold points hostage simply because they are highly survivable and dominate because they are incredibly evasive, regenerative or are able to mitigate damage to near-pointlessness. If we got rid of MOV and just left it to Win-Lose-Draw ratios, we'd see things like four-ship and TIE Swarm pop up again and we'd have a much healthier, diverse meta because victory will only be declared if you've completely annihilated the enemy list, the way 100-point death match should be. People wouldn't slow play or play keep-away-til-time anymore because the draw will bring their record down, turrets aren't nerfed because they don't need a nerf and people will feel more confident in taking not-turrets. Nerfing turrets in a competitive system that uses MOV as ranking/placement factor is only detrimental to the diversity of the game, turrets themselves are not detrimental at all.

Did the calculations a few weeks back, I have abut $1,500 MSRP in X-Wing. However, a majority of it was paid for by selling collections of Magic, Warhammer and store credit earned by playing Magic. I must say that I am thankful and lucky that I get in at least 4-5 games a week on a consistent basis. I have made several trips out to local tournaments and I do my best to teach people how to play X-Wing when I have the chance. And where a majority of many players have commitments to significant others and children, I don't have those commitments so I'm able to spend a good amount of time to X-Wing. Now, with my intention on buying 3 Raiders, I'm pretty sure I might have a problem...

Nothing wrong with turrets, leave as is.

Any idea what the inside temp of your car was? Summer is coming up and anyone using plastic miniatures shouldn't keep them in the car anyway.

Could try: Mando Merc Push the Limit Mangler Cannon Rec Spec Engine Upgrade 49 x 2 Total: 98 All the guns!

Good Shot, Janson! - Destroy an Imperial ship with Wes Janson.

Flown everything I own at least 5 times with the exception of the Lambda and Bomber because to me they are just crap.

Any side loading Ultra Pro binder works well. Fits two small cards per large card slot. Never had any problem with the cards slipping out while they were sleeved.

Are those bases the same size as the AF2 and VSD, or are they getting bigger bases?

Here are a few scenarios I came up with after putting some thought into Epic this weekend: Capture the Flag: -Set up lengthwise on a 6x3 -Deployment range 1-2 of edge -Each faction assigns a "flag token" [proton bomb token] -Flag token is deployed within range 1 of the deployment zone -To get a hold of the flag token, base must overlap it -Ships holding the flag token gain the boost and barrel action and cannot perform attacks -If the flag holder is destroyed, the flag token is set along the front or back pegs before the ship that was holding it is removed -To return the flag to its deployment zone, a ship from the defending team must overlap the token -The flag token is captured when both flags are in the team's flag deployment zone Winning: -The game is won when one team captures the enemy flag any number of times decided on, recommended once without Respawn Rules and three times with Respawn Rules Special rules: -Large base ships holding the flag token do not gain the barrel roll action -A ship holding a flag token cannot overlap a friendly flag token to return it Sabotage: -Set up lengthwise on a 6x3 -One team plays as the defenders and the other team is the saboteurs -Saboteurs assign a ship with the "bomb token" [proton bomb token] -If the ship holding the bomb token is destroyed, another friendly ship may overlap it to pick it up -Defenders assign a large ship base "target" within range 1 with its pegs parellel of the deployment zone edge -The large ship base "target" is considered to be PS1 and has a 360 degree arc and can move 1-2 straight in any direction parallel to the deployment zone edge Winning: -The saboteurs win if the ship holding the bomb token overlaps the defenders' large ship base "target" -The defenders win if they destroy the ship holding the bomb token and overlap the bomb token Special Rules: -The large ship base "target" cannot fly off the board -Saboteurs must assign the bomb token to a small-base ship when deploying, a large base ship is allowed to pick it up if the deployed ship is destroyed Respawn Rules: -Before the beginning of the activation phase, each player rolls an attack die. On a hit result, the player's opponent picks one of the player's destroyed ships and that player deploys it within range 1 of their deployment zone edge. On a crit result, the player gets to pick which ship to deploy within range 1 of the deployment zone edge. Let me know if it seems I am missing anything or if there are kinks I need to work out! I plan on trying these out tomorrow night!

You gotta get into R1 of Dash and kick him in the ****.

B's also have barrel roll to potentially dodge arcs and block while Dash sweeps up.

Biggest epic lore fail from FFG is that Lando's card art shows the Falcon escaping the flames of the second Death Star with its radar dish still attached.

Yeah, 3x3 isn't great for Epic t all. We tried 3,000 points in a 3x4 space and that was a huge mistake.

So, when are we getting an only rear-firing arc large ship with the SLAM action?

This. I played 300 points of my imperial fighters vs. a Tantive and meager escort...it was a steamroll by turn 6, with about 65% of my fighters left vs. his Tantive. I felt bad cause the guy had just opened it but at least it seemed like he had a good time for the few turns it did get to shoot. My buddy ran the Tantive to act as a well-balanced support ship and a weapons platform that tore my fighters apart. He took a range 5 shot at Soontir and toasted him even with Autothrusters since I didn't focus at that distance. And by the time my Defender phalanx and remaining Interceptors got to the CR-90, they've already taken hits from sweeping up the fighter escorts and were blown up way too easily. I still had fun getting stomped, but I learned that it would've been better to deal with the Tantive first before engaging my heavier ships with the fighter escorts.

I've been playing a lot of Epic games lately simply because it is so much more fun than 100 point standard for me. After Store Champs season was over I went into super-mega-competitive play test mode and was feeling burnt out on 100 point deathmatch. BBBBZ, Brobots and RACFel get boring to play against after 40+ games, so we busted out Epic lists and had a blast. I had my butt kicked every single time, but I figured its because I haven't adjusted to the bigger point limits. I just love what you can do in Epic like making ridiculous triple HLC Defenders your hammer in a list or flying a barebones GR-75 off the board because you deployed it parallel to the table edge. I honestly feel like this is X-Wing at its finest. Instead of a single dogfight amongst a couple of aces or sliver a squadron, you can field the whole squadron with the aces in a battle where the pressure is on whenever you gain or lose leverage. And when people say "I have Armada for big ship stuff," I just don't understand the reasoning behind that. X-Wing is X-Wing, Armada is Armada. Two very different games that fulfill different entertainment purposes. Epic has everything you love about X-Wing with more points, mechanics and more thought thought that goes into lists and gameplay. You don't even have to use Epic ships, just have a massive 300 point battle through a bunch of rocks and debris. It could also be that my love for X-Wing is undying and I am a sucker for everything about it, but honestly, if you haven't tried Epic or if you've tried it and didnt like it, I insist on giving it another go just to see if you really dislike. I just went into the format with my only expectation being to have fun, and I haven't been disappointed. I also have been brainstorming new lists and tactics just for Epic, which has improved my ability to play in standard as well, because you can take setups and do things you normally wouldn't do in a competitive environment. Just have fun with it! And as a final thought, I'm still super pumped for the Raider. Imperial vs. Rebel Epic sized ships will be a blast to see and field on the table. So, what are your thoughts on Epic?

I think X-Wings are fantastic to spam, especially for dealing with enemy fighters, but I've only played one game of armada so far so I wouldn't know.

Hopefully it isn't too late for FFG to change the Dash art. Unfortunately, hope has failed me before.

As long as we don't get the Starchaser and Gunboat, I will be happy.

You don't need them. We already have graphs.