Adults? Really? Seems more or less the reverse of my experience.
Wow.
You seem like exactly the type of person I wouldn't enjoy conversing with. Like most people that communicate online more than they do in person, I usually agree with what you have to say, but I almost never appreciate the way you deliver it.
Also, can this thread die already? It's making me sad.

It is honestly amusing me no end, how so many of your posts seem to be describing your own input.

Tractor would have been just fine as a mechanic  if it just lowered agility and didn't reposition at all.  It's NPE for many players, understandably.  It's also overly complicated...  More so with the new "stress to rotate" rule.

 

I've been messing around with him in leebo lists

Or perhaps it has some forward movement where you execute a turn, but then rotate your ship 90 degrees so it's facing the original direction it was facing.  I've been wanting to see a maneuver like that for years.

Or perhaps it has some forward movement where you execute a turn, but then rotate your ship 90 degrees so it's facing the original direction it was facing.  I've been wanting to see a maneuver like that for years.

I still don't get why cannon costs aren't dependent from the primary weapon value. 
That's basically been the problem with cannons since v1. And that's also the reason why they had to add special rules (double-taping defenders, now B-wings, Aggressors..) to make them interesting for 3 red-dice ships.

5th Gunner up from 9 to 11. 
 
FFG... If you don’t want him used so much, give Imperials some freaking options.  

Gunner upgrade costing  by turret type? Why that's just elegant. 
I'd even price it higher in descending order of ship base size as well. Prevent turret spam, but give value to large ships in action economy rotates. 
 
Little ideas like yours are why I love throwing my ideas and observations out there. Fun groupthink stuff. You deserve a cup of hot coffee!

While perusing these forums, I’ve noted concern with lowering ships point cost past a certain threshold for fear of spam (for example, the T-65 X-Wing and the TIE Interceptor). While pondering this, I started to wonder if inputting specific chassis limits would allow for a little more flexibility in pricing while avoiding the spam? Going back to the T-65 example, if a 4 X-Wing limit was placed on the chassis per 200 points*, Blue Squadron Escort and/or Cavern Angel Zealots could be dropped below 41 points without the fear of 5 x-Wings. We already have an lower and upper limit on number of ships that can be taken (2-8). 
This could also see a little more flexibility when dealing with potential spam problems. Instead of making Juke too expensive for ships without extra evade generation, what if we limited the Phantom chassis to 2-3 per 200 points*? It could be shown in the Point lists and be adjustable like the points themselves and slots.
Thoughts? Concerns? Suggestions?
 
*Using the “per 200 points” to give Epic higher limits. Though, it might be best to have Epic have its own independent chassis limits, if any.
Special Note: I’ll go ahead and say here that I am only for limits of 1 on a chassis per list in extreme cases, and after other attempts have been tried.

One more thing: I really want to see Expert Handling get cut in half.  1/2/3 points for S/M/L Bases.  Just feels too expensive.

I was hoping the upcoming card packs would add scope for faction specific upgrades... for minimal cost to produce FFG could design and release a pack containing some new illicits and some new pilots. i honestly dont really mind what ship they would be for just as long as they added something new and interesting to scums arsenal  
Lumping new pilots from all factions together into the the same card pack really dilutes the usefulness for every faction in there. BY giving each faction a little of something they are in reality giving then only lukewarm options...

"When the beam hits your TIE and you're sure you will die, that's Maclunkey."

Maclunkey is clearly when you whiff on range 1 double modded shots.

The internet

um.
https://www.samhsa.gov/find-help/national-helpline

Like many people, I'd like to see missiles that are actually functional on 3-dice primary ships, since several of them have the missile slot. That largely means offering something other than just "more damage" (because otherwise they'd be too good on 2-dice ships!).
For cruise missiles, I was thinking a fun implementation might be to make them true dumbfire: treat them as a remote which is launched out the front, does a 4-straight every turn, and explodes on the first thing it touches or moves through. Probably easy to avoid from long range, but might be annoying if it blocks the lane you planned to take...

The game comes alive with more ships.  I know you might not be inclined to buy more stuff if you're not really feeling the game, but 200 point lists going at it are where it's at.  I enjoy escalation games but they take all afternoon to complete.

The game comes alive with more ships.  I know you might not be inclined to buy more stuff if you're not really feeling the game, but 200 point lists going at it are where it's at.  I enjoy escalation games but they take all afternoon to complete.

It’s the opposite problem to the TIE Defender. The TIE/D has a fantastic action bar but no action economy whatsoever.
Edrio has incredible action economy but nothing to do with it.

Rather than using shields to recharge the generator, I would have preferred something like recovering a charge on a blue maneuver (you have extra power from the engines to shunt into recharging the generator) or if that is too easy, taking a disarm/strain/stress token or something like that.

Edit:  Ooh, maybe an ion token?  So you can recharge once for free but the next one will force you into a 1-straight?

Rather than using shields to recharge the generator, I would have preferred something like recovering a charge on a blue maneuver (you have extra power from the engines to shunt into recharging the generator) or if that is too easy, taking a disarm/strain/stress token or something like that.

Edit:  Ooh, maybe an ion token?  So you can recharge once for free but the next one will force you into a 1-straight?

I think they overnerfed it.  I always took it on my U-Wings if I didn't need the space for something else, but at 6 points, I will rarely if ever take it anymore.  I think 4 points would have put it in the sweet spot.  And seriously, did they need to nerf EVERY aspect of Beef?  

Except that they don't seem to be releasing anything additional in the re-release ships.  If it wasn't in the conversion kit, it probably won't be in the Jumpmaster.  I'm very underwhelmed by both the Scyk and JM5K rereleases for that reason.  Both ships could stand a pick-me-up (esp. the Jumpmaster).

I've been thinking it'd be fun to make a config that could help out both the JM5K and the Shadowcaster.  Bring back Gyroscopic Targeting!  To work well with both ships you wouldn't want to tie it to moving fast anymore, but maybe non-straight maneuvers?  Something like (just pulling this out of my *** here):

Gyroscopic Targeting
Configuration: Large Ship, Single-Arc Turret Only
1 Charge.  During the End Phase, you may spend 1 <charge> to rotate your turret arc.  After you fully execute a bank or turn maneuver, regain 1<charge>