Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
mazz0

Are mobile arcs the shape of things to come?

Recommended Posts

Mobile arc seems a bit clunky with the number of ships that have multiple actions available to them and the mobile arc costs an action to move, unless you have Ptl then it's almost worthless moving the arc as you won't have any dice modification to back up your attack, plus it is almost pointless vs high pilot skill arc dodgers as they can already stay out of aux arcs and they don't mind you using your action to move it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think my original statement stands firm enough.  Maybe read it again if you're not convinced?  But now you can see proof of my statements in the comments below it.  PWT haters show up whenever discussion arises and start slinging mud.  Yes, I called people childish - for shame DC you can't offend people!  Sod that.  This whole argument has reached critical mass and I'm calling out all the BS.  Because that's what it is, it's BS.  This is a game, if you don't like the rules you don't play.  You don't get to complain to the judge until he finally throws up his hands and changes the rules.  Paid professionals have put more work into X-WIng than most of us have in our own careers.  Let's just leave it at that.

 

FFG gives us some awesome new toys, and what is the first thing that happens?  The vocal majority (is it a majority, or do the bulk of real world people not give a **** what the FFG forums thinks?) rises up and demands FFG now take away part of the game.  People almost mindlessly babbling on about component kits to fix PWTs, not even realizing the selfishness of their statements.  You think I'm going to buy more stuff so that I can play your fixed version of X-Wing? 

 

I would rather have an entire faction of Prequel ships than see PWTs removed from X-WIng.  I would rather have the Vong. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... People almost mindlessly babbling on about component kits to fix PWTs, not even realizing the selfishness of their statements. 

 

I'm not sure we're all suggesting PWT's need to be "fixed" - rather, that if the Mobile Arc turns out to be a good game mechanic, suggesting ways that it could be retrofitted to existing PWT ships IF, AND WHEN, players wish to.

 

Maybe the idea would be a non-starter, or too complex for the variety of ships/upgrades/rules involved to be ever usable for tournament play, but surely there's no harm in discussing such ideas [which maybe could be house-ruled for casual matches]...as a comparatively new player, it seems to me that FFG have picked up on a number of solutions/ideas that have been thrown up by this and other forums and made them 'legitimate' ?

 

Cheers

 

EDIT: Ninja'd again - I need to type faster  :(

Edited by ianmiddy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ships with PWT pay for that privilege.  For the most part if you get shots at them you will hit while even if you do get a shot at those arc-dodgers they are often protected by a relatively large number of defense dice.  I know that we could talk about fickle dice vs. solid hull/shields and could mention all of the other damage mitigation available but for the most part anything with a PWT is an easy target while most of the boost/BR crowd can be seen as pretty evasive.

 

If the amount of reactive movement boost/BR give is so small then how would arc-dodging be useful in the first place?

 

It's not about whether they're unbalanced, it's about whether they're un-fun, which is a point you can't argue because it's entirely subjective.  You're not going to persuade people who think they're not fun that they are.

If a person wants to insist that Candyland is a skill intensive, fun game, they're free to spout their subjective opinion all they want.

Fat turrets ruin the game. If the game wasn't saturated with them during wave 5 we wouldn't have needed Autothrusters. We'd be able to damage things at range 3 again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

EXACTLY.

 

If you want to remove the PWT from the game because it "takes maneuvering out of the game" then you should also remove Boost and BR because they just add extra maneuverability to the game.

 

Two sides to the same coin.

 

Actually I can totally see what people mean.  My problem with turrets is that they detract from the core mechanic of picking your movements carefully without having seen your opponent's movement, and the same thing can be said for repositioning actions, since they're reactive.  The difference for me is that repositioning actions, while still guilty, are guilty to a far lesser extent than turrets.  The amount of reactive movement that they give you is pretty small, so your initial movement is still critical.  That said, I don't want every ship to be repositioning all the time, I think that will spoil the game.  I hope the vectoring/ed thrusters don't become too common.

 

 

a few massive distinctions, though

 

  • if you deny actions, you deny repositioning. You cannot deny PWTs; you can deny mobile arcs
  • high PS repositioning has some powerful counters in detonate on overlap mines, especially conners, and other such effects which occur before the enemy has even activated
  • repositioning is not always reaction, as lower PS can do it as well which is a huge advantage for blockers (esp the A). PWT has no such distinction and always works unless you've run aground or are in b2b or have biggs lurking around.

 

the PWT is a passive mechanic that just takes the opposing player out of the game unless it has a range restriction or thrusters to worry about (though thrusters are still iffy due to it affecting dice rather than completely rewarding player skill)

 

 

the biggest irony, though, is that the PWT is the ship type that has the easiest time arc-dodging because their facing doesn't affect their ability to fart dice

 

 

I don't see how re-positioning and PWTs even begin to approach each other on how much they remove the opposing player from the equation. Repositioning can be countered by anything as even the base game mechanics (blocking, obstacles) allow action denial outside a few exceptions (re: phantom advanced cloaking device); PWTs can't they can only be mitigated by an upgrade only a select group of ships can take

 

Yeah, I agree, they have a similar issue but to a hugely different extent; I'm just saying I'd like reactive repositioning specifically not to be something every ship can do, cos even though it's nowhere near as bad as a turret it can still detract from the predicting part of the game.

 

Again though, I'm talking more about fun than balance.

 

Only way you could stop Reactive positioning is if all Boost/Barrel Roll ships had a capped PS. As long as someone has PS8+ and options to postion they are ALWAYS going to use them. I dont see them reprinting Fel as a PS5/6 pilot just because of his crazy movement shenanigans. Also Reactive positioning is part of ANY kind of strategy game. Unless they removed the PS move order and Everyone moved at the same time there will always be a reaction element to movement.

 

Well, just for the sake of nit picking, reactive positioning doesn't have to be part of the game at all, they could simply not have any movement action, but I'm not arguing for that.  Interceptors are one of my favourite ships, maybe even favourite, I just don't think it should be something every ship does, which is easily controlled by it giving every ship a movement action.

 

Well as far as I remember Not EVERY ship has reposition abilites. Just that when you have ships that do and dont those that do outshine those that dont. This goes back to me saying the only way to reduce reactive movement is its elimination. Im not suggesting its removal either, but Ive played enough games to know reactive movement is in pretty much EVERY miniatures game Ive ever played.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well as far as I remember Not EVERY ship has reposition abilites. Just that when you have ships that do and dont those that do outshine those that dont. This goes back to me saying the only way to reduce reactive movement is its elimination. Im not suggesting its removal either, but Ive played enough games to know reactive movement is in pretty much EVERY miniatures game Ive ever played.

Yes, I know not every ship has repositioning actions, like I said that's how you control it.

I'm not sure what you mean about the only way to reduce it is to eliminate it. Are you saying that only ships with repositioning actions are playable at present?

You say reactive movement is in all minis games, but how many minis games are based on a system like X-Wing where movement is chosen blind?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PP and Wyrd have both shown that it is not impossible to update to 2.0 in a card intensive minitures game while allowing folks to use their old figures. In both cases, they ended up redoing their old metal figs into plastic due to increasing tin prices, but that will not be an issue here.

In both cases people who owned old figures just bought decks of new cards.

This would drive some folks out of the game; updates always seem to do this.

But, IF mobile arcs supplanting non-arched turrets makes a more interesting game(subjective, yes I know) that is good by me.

I will wait until I know more about MAs before I judge harshly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Consider that mobile arcs emphasise high pilot skill just like boost+barrel roll icon pairs do the arc-dodgers. The 360 degree primary might have its problems, bit it at least only cares for PS in arc dodging, not arc hunting as well.

Which is say: while the idea of PWTs having incentive to attack ships in arc has merit, one must be very careful what you wish for in such sweeping changes.

Do you really want PS9-11 fat Han (now cheaper, don't forget!) all over the place again?

How do mobile arcs emphasise high pilot skill more than normal, single arc ships?

Because changing your mobile arc is an action, so you have more information to make a mobile arc change with a high pilot skill. Same reason boosting and barrel rolling emphasize high pilot skill. 

 

What some of us are suggesting is not to get rid of PWT, but to allow the use of an optional mobile firing arc for those that do prefer another playstyle.

I would be all for this, but I don't see it happening. "This expansion lets you field your primary weapon turret ships as mobile firing arc ships!" is not a great selling point. 

Edited by WingedSpider

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because changing your mobile arc is an action, so you have more information to make a mobile arc change with a high pilot skill. Same reason boosting and barrel rolling emphasize high pilot skill.

Ah yes, of course. Still, I'd be fine with that. If you put the points in to take a high pilot skill pilot then you deserve to reap the rewards, and people who want to arc dodge have to bid for it. The difference would be they can do so.

Edited by mazz0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

To those saying a 2.0 X-Wing would be hard here is the answer. Update Box: 15$ includes 2.0 Base rules and Reference book along with Cards and Base inserts for any ships that had any major changes (In this situation all the PWT Ships).

 

And how do they decide ho wmany copies of the different cards and inserts to include?  One person is going to have 1 copy of a ship, while the next might have 5 (or however many fit in a 100 point list), while a third might have 12 (to play max number in epic).  

 

 

 

Id do 1/2 of any large base and 3/4 of any small base. Yes there will be outliers which own 5 Falcons of more, but if they where already willing to spend 150 on JUST Falcons then I dont see they would have an issue with paying 30-45 for the inserts and new cards. And we already have a precedent, The Most Wanted pack. 30$ and had replacement inserts for the Firespray and the Hawk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Consider that mobile arcs emphasise high pilot skill just like boost+barrel roll icon pairs do the arc-dodgers. The 360 degree primary might have its problems, bit it at least only cares for PS in arc dodging, not arc hunting as well.

Which is say: while the idea of PWTs having incentive to attack ships in arc has merit, one must be very careful what you wish for in such sweeping changes.

Do you really want PS9-11 fat Han (now cheaper, don't forget!) all over the place again?

How do mobile arcs emphasise high pilot skill more than normal, single arc ships?

I'm not sure people would mind fat Hans if they had mobile arcs instead of PWTs.

 

Because you have to choose your arc at the time of movement, moving later lets you choose the arc more reliably, a bit like when you pull a 1 straight (or whatever) then depend on Boost to keep your guns on an enemy target.

 

If you move last, and moving your turret is a free action (And yes, there looks to be an upgrade that makes it a free action for this ship), then there's essentially no difference between the mobile arc and a PWT in terms of shots-on-target.

 

For the PS2-3 generic, though, there's a world of difference, because they have to straight-up guess and hope. Thus, mobile arcs favour high PS just like repositional abilities do: Just in this case you're repositioning your arc rather than your whole ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think with all the bolted-on rules and titles currently, there should eventually be a 2.0 I think.

I think 2.0 should be conservative though. 1) Just fix the point costs on the ships to do away with title card bloat.

2) Mobile firing arcs instead of PWT.

3) Fix munitions.

4) Release all ships and bases with a conversion kit like descent.

5) Maybe use a 200pt system instead of a 100 pt system to allow for more granular progression to costs.

6) integrate huge ships better somehow.

Don't screw around with the Base game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Consider that mobile arcs emphasise high pilot skill just like boost+barrel roll icon pairs do the arc-dodgers. The 360 degree primary might have its problems, bit it at least only cares for PS in arc dodging, not arc hunting as well.

Which is say: while the idea of PWTs having incentive to attack ships in arc has merit, one must be very careful what you wish for in such sweeping changes.

Do you really want PS9-11 fat Han (now cheaper, don't forget!) all over the place again?

How do mobile arcs emphasise high pilot skill more than normal, single arc ships?

I'm not sure people would mind fat Hans if they had mobile arcs instead of PWTs.

Because you have to choose your arc at the time of movement, moving later lets you choose the arc more reliably, a bit like when you pull a 1 straight (or whatever) then depend on Boost to keep your guns on an enemy target.

 

If you move last, and moving your turret is a free action (And yes, there looks to be an upgrade that makes it a free action for this ship), then there's essentially no difference between the mobile arc and a PWT in terms of shots-on-target.

 

For the PS2-3 generic, though, there's a world of difference, because they have to straight-up guess and hope. Thus, mobile arcs favour high PS just like repositional abilities do: Just in this case you're repositioning your arc rather than your whole ship.

Actually, as far as gyro targeting in the shadowcaster, from what i can tell it actually lets you rotate at the end of a phase, not after your move. If you get to rotate at the end of the activation phase (on a 3-5 speed maneuver it looks like), thrn pilot skill wont even matter. Theres gotta be some other limit you cant make out besides just the speed of the maneuver. Otherwise mobile turrets could be rven WORSE for some people than PWTs are (assuming thry stop autothrusters)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, as far as gyro targeting in the shadowcaster, from what i can tell it actually lets you rotate at the end of a phase, not after your move. If you get to rotate at the end of the activation phase (on a 3-5 speed maneuver it looks like), thrn pilot skill wont even matter. Theres gotta be some other limit you cant make out besides just the speed of the maneuver. Otherwise mobile turrets could be rven WORSE for some people than PWTs are (assuming thry stop autothrusters)

 

Yeah, we'll have to wait and see I think.  At least if that's using up a valuable slot people might not take it much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have, many times, wished FFG tried to correct turret ships. It's illogical to think a gunner can make as good of a shot from 180 degrees from their current viewpoint as their focused viewpoint. I like what they're thinking about in their arc shooting dynamics, but turrets are the "dumbness" of this game (or the least fun/easiest) if there is one; and actually piloting small single focused fighters is the "smartness" (or the most fun/toughest) if there is one.....but they're all "in the toy box" now.

 

The reason Turret ships function the way they do is because they are operated by crew.  The pilot doesn't have to do anything so they will find and track targets automatically.  The new mobile arc is a pilot controlled turret so it requires use of the pilots actions to control it.

 

The upside is they can now limit additions of PWT's to only ships that it really makes sense for while still providing a method for a larger arc than standard without just using fixed AUX arcs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm new to miniatures games like this. When other games undergo a 2.0 revision, what happens to all the 1.0 product? Is it still compatible or do you need to rebuy everything? do they come out with a 2.0 upgrade kit that includes a whole wack of revision tokens and cards to update the stuff prior? Or is it, this is 2.0 and we are starting fresh, no 1.0 stuff allowed. If you wanna go play 1.0, you need to go over there and play with the people who already spent a small fortune on ships. 

 

I can see it now... "why is there suddenly $1000 on the credit card from the local gaming store?" "well you see honey, X-Wing 2.0 came out and now I gotta buy all new stuff." "why can't you use the old stuff" "because its 2.0"

 

insert mistakes were made comic

 

This game cannot have a 2.0 revision.  It would be financially crippling for the customers, stores or FFG as well as a logistical nightmare beyond anything actively managing the product line has ever been.  Just try and do a little business math on it.  Unless the big mouse demands it and drops millions of dollars on it there is no chance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The argument against turrets can be more obviously observed if we look at mirror matches.

 

Say we face off with identical Palp+Aces list in a series of 5 games, who wins? In all likelihood the player that can better read his opponent will come out on top. We still have a luck factor with the die, but skill and decision making still remain supreme.

 

Now let's do the same with identical double YT1300 list, who wins? It's likely that beyond the initial engagement both players ships will have a shot 90% of the time, and the times they don't the enemy also will not have a shot. In such a situation it comes down purely to the dice to decide the victor.

 

The game basically becomes monopoly with space ships. Now some people like monopoly, obviously as it has been around for decades and will likely outlive us all(Sadly). I on the other hand F#%@ing hate monopoly. It's a game where human input is so minimal you can just as easily play it with your self rolling for each separate piece as you can with other people. It's more luck based than many forms of gambling. That's the basis of why people hate PWT ships so much, it replaces skill with luck.

 

The fact that they had to design a card that quickly became mandatory on arc dodgers specifically to counter turrets is a good indicator of poor design, mandatory upgrades are generally bad, unless we're talking the titles they're now using to give ships special abilities outside unique pilots.

 

As for the possibility of 2.0, I don't see why not, beyond FFG's stated desire not to make cardboard only expansions. Revamping the rules after a point almost becomes a necessity. With a constant string of expansions the problems of rule bloat, power creep, and shelf only units will continue to increase. Just about every long term wargame I can think of goes through this eventually, it seems to be the natural progression. As for the cost to consumers, I don't see it being that bad unless they stick to their guns on the cardboard thing. Realistically they could release card packs like Netrunner boxes that contain the updated ship cards and bases, then just switch back to their previous business model for 2.0. I honestly wish they did this anyway just so we could get new pilots for our favorite ships every now and then.

Edited by BomberGob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The game basically becomes monopoly with space ships. Now some people like monopoly, obviously as it has been around for decades and will likely outlive us all(Sadly). I on the other hand F#%@ing hate monopoly. It's a game where human input is so minimal you can just as easily play it with your self rolling for each separate piece as you can with other people. It's more luck based than many forms of gambling. That's the basis of why people hate PWT ships so much, it replaces skill with luck.

 

It doesn't sound like you've ever played Monopoly with anyone that was very good at it. If the game is coming down to just dice rolls, no one is taking winning the game very seriously. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no problem with having to select an arc for your Aux turret to be facing. It's fairly balanced since the Aux arc doesn't trigger autothrusters, but you have to use an action to move the arc. If all ships with the ability to fire 360 deg worked like this, then we wouldn't need the autothruster upgrade in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

funny thing about the caster is there are ways around the mobile arc to a degree, specifically the requiring an action

 

in particular, these two builds

 

Sabine

*dengar

*stims

*stims

[42 + (title if you want)]

 

 

Ketsu

*PTL

*dengar/k4

*EU

[48]

+ choice of illicits

 

 

the builds minimize/trivialize the action requirement of the mobile arc move (losing out on an evade at most), for as long as the stims hold anyway in sabine's case, but there's still the whole having to predict your opponent thing and moving such that the mobile arc can be used to the best of its abilities (Regarding both the pilots' abilities and moving such that the mobile-arc action isn't required, which can land you an evade token instead)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This would make existing turret ships trash. It makes sense for a single pilot controlling a turret to expend an action. The Falcon had gunners onboard so Han was just piloting.

The amount of salt over PWTs this long after Autothrusters and while Rebels are basically shut out of the meta is silly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...