Wave 5 — February 2015

Wave 6 — August 2015

Wave 7 — February 2016

Wave 8 — August 2016

Wave 9 — February 2017

Rebel Aces — August 2017

Wave 10 — February 2018

I think the pattern seems to follow historical precedent, to a point.

The effect of re-prints of existing material (including the base game) on the production schedule is not being shown here.

Base Game & Wave 1- Aug 2012

Wave 2- Feb 2013

Wave 3- Aug 2013

<reprints, etc. slowing things down, so that nothing makes it into the "Feb 2014 slot"; if the pattern was ever meant to be Aug/Feb>

Wave 3.5- Mar 2014 (only one package, Imperial Aces)

Epic/Cinematic- was listed to have gone out in Feb 2014, according to Game Trade Magazine (i.e. from Alliance Game Distributors, FFG's largest game distributor, no doubt), but it didn't make it. Don't know when they'll be on sale.

Wave 4- I would think they'll be hoping for Aug 2014.

Wave 5- I can't imagine they'd be able to get back on track for Feb 2015; as the re-print delay problems will get worse as you add more expansions to re-print.

Presumably you could get another batch like the 2014 releases out before the new movies, so you might be able to get to another Wave or two plus some re-paints.

The problem will be one of coming up with enough Rebel ships that are worth making, in my estimation.

Also not sure you roll right into the new Sequel Trilogy era with the X-Wing Miniatures game as it is. Somehow I think they won't do it that way and they'll reboot the game with new art and new ships from the new movies.

Don't know what they'll even call such a product line, as the very name of this game is tied to the iconic vessel of the Rebellion era.

At the beginning of the maneuver phase chose one opponent withing your primary firing arc. All moves are considered red maneuvers for the remainder of this phase. You do not get an action phase.

This idea has it's flaws, but the core of it might be adapted. How about: Green maneuvers are treated as white maneuvers, white maneuvers are treated as red maneuvers. Red maneuvers cannot be executed (or alternatively, cause one damage/roll a damage die, etc.). Make it an attack, like a secondary weapon. Attack value 3. Range 1-3, I think. The effect would have to kick in on the next turn, so we would get a new token, yay!

This idea is crazy, and probably too much of a pain, but let the hull value determine the number of evasion dice. Something like hull/2, rounding down. 2-3 hull ships get one die; 4-5 get two, etc. Ships with more mass should be more difficult to tractor beam, and hull is a reasonable proxy for mass. It isn't perfect, obviously. The TIE Bomber is a significant outlier, and to a lesser extent so is the Y-Wing; however, I think hull value is better than a large base/small base system.

What I like about this conception is that heavy ships are difficult to tractor beam, while ships with powerful engines (Interceptors, A-Wings) can still use those to mitigate the effect.

Still useful, but not game breaking. The main drawback of this approach is that an Ion Cannon is superior. I just thought of this approach, and I thought to post it so someone else could keep building on the concept.

I kind of felt that Tractor beams would be one of those things that drops tokens, like ions do. Oddly I think Ion token effects are better suited to behaving like tractor beams than Ions do!

TIE Fighter tractor beams didn't affect the speed of the target ship at all, just prevented them from turning. If you had a steady hand and enough power in the beam you could halt a ship long enough for a target lock to finish cycling and then let off a weapon You could hold the ship all the way until the missile hit as well. It was essential against the likes of A-Wings, TIE Avengers, and TIE Defenders.

Now, I'd kind of expect a Tractor Beam to be a systems upgrade slot but even with that you must consider the ramifications. What about a B-Wing having it, and slowly cruising after a ship that cannot turn? It can already take Ions, would it be worse than that? The Shuttle and E-Wing can also carry them. Right now I don't think the Empire has any systems slots on small ships do they? Certainly not the Defender, which was one of the frequent users of the tractor beam. So a modification? A cannon instead?

As for the Assault Gunboat, I kind of imagined it as the Imperial assault fighter counterpart to the X-Wing, straddling the line between the Y-Wing and X-Wing with its abilities. The dial wouldn't be that great, but it could carry cannon/system/missiles for upgrades and have a few interesting abilities. Couldn't die to an X-Wing in one hit but it would be allergic to being shot at (agility 2 at most, based on their AI performance in the sim). Question is apart from FFG's producers making the command to do it, what need would it have in the game for the Empire that isn't covered by better fighters?

The same goes for the TIE Avenger, but somehow I think it could work.

As for the Assault Gunboat, I kind of imagined it as the Imperial assault fighter counterpart to the X-Wing, straddling the line between the Y-Wing and X-Wing with its abilities. The dial wouldn't be that great, but it could carry cannon/system/missiles for upgrades and have a few interesting abilities. Couldn't die to an X-Wing in one hit but it would be allergic to being shot at (agility 2 at most, based on their AI performance in the sim). Question is apart from FFG's producers making the command to do it, what need would it have in the game for the Empire that isn't covered by better fighters?

The same goes for the TIE Avenger, but somehow I think it could work.

But for the Avenger, you have the even less enviable task of sliding a knife blade between the Advanced and Defender. You could go with 3/3/3/2 for the stat line, but then you're relying really heavily on upgrades and dial to make it distinct. It's not that it couldn't be done, but I think it would work much better as some kind of extension/upgrade from the Advanced than as its own ship.

I think the pattern seems to follow historical precedent, to a point.

The effect of re-prints of existing material (including the base game) on the production schedule is not being shown here.

Base Game & Wave 1- Aug 2012

Wave 2- Feb 2013

Wave 3- Aug 2013

<reprints, etc. slowing things down, so that nothing makes it into the "Feb 2014 slot"; if the pattern was ever meant to be Aug/Feb>

Wave 3.5- Mar 2014 (only one package, Imperial Aces)

Epic/Cinematic- was listed to have gone out in Feb 2014, according to Game Trade Magazine (i.e. from Alliance Game Distributors, FFG's largest game distributor, no doubt), but it didn't make it. Don't know when they'll be on sale.

Wave 4- I would think they'll be hoping for Aug 2014.

Wave 5- I can't imagine they'd be able to get back on track for Feb 2015; as the re-print delay problems will get worse as you add more expansions to re-print.

Presumably you could get another batch like the 2014 releases out before the new movies, so you might be able to get to another Wave or two plus some re-paints.

The problem will be one of coming up with enough Rebel ships that are worth making, in my estimation.

Also not sure you roll right into the new Sequel Trilogy era with the X-Wing Miniatures game as it is. Somehow I think they won't do it that way and they'll reboot the game with new art and new ships from the new movies.

Don't know what they'll even call such a product line, as the very name of this game is tied to the iconic vessel of the Rebellion era.

I don't think they've ever tried to have just two big releases a year, it's just ended up that way with delays. It seems to me that they try to release something new every three or four months, but delays keep pushing their releases into being six months apart. So my predictions take that into account.

Imperial Aces was supposed to be released December 2013, three months after Wave 3. And as you said, the huge ships were supposed to be released in February 2014 according to that trade magazine (and corroborated by the PowerPoint slide revealing their existence that said quarter one 2014 was the targeted release timeframe). And I'll bet they planned last year on releasing Wave 4 around May, three months after they would have released the huge ships.

Instead, Imperial Aces are coming in March 2014, six months after Wave 3, and it appears the huge ships will still be two months later, in May — and Wave 4 will be two months after that, in July, unless another delay pushes it into August. This is evidence of FFG's plans ending up with significant delays.

As for the Episode 7 ships, you're right, they may "reboot" the game with a new core set for those. I hadn't considered that, but it seems likely considering it'll be in a different timeframe. Even if that happens, I think the release schedule I predicted will still hold fairly true.

...For the Gunboat, how do you slot a fighter in between the TIE Bomber and TIE Defender? Maybe 2/2/3/2 with torpedo and cannon upgrade slots could work, making it sort of half of a Firespray.

But for the Avenger, you have the even less enviable task of sliding a knife blade between the Advanced and Defender. You could go with 3/3/3/2 for the stat line, but then you're relying really heavily on upgrades and dial to make it distinct....

I like this sort of analysis. Grounded in the reality of differentiating the stat lines, etc. We could probably make guesses as to how many more ships could really fit into the spectrum and still be different from each other.

I would imagine the game designers really don't want to essentially duplicate vessels and they may not even wish to duplicate essential roles on the battlefield.

Perhaps we can speculate from that sort of reasoning where gaps may be in the Rebel and Imperial arsenals, and from there speculate on potential ships to fill those needs. Keeping in mind that some of these mismatches are due to philosophical differences between the sides (quality Rebels vs quantity Imperials, etc).

1. Play-style gap: e.g. the Z-95 bringing the "swarm build" to Rebels, more elite Imps getting shields

2. Functionality gap: e.g. Rebels cannot drop bombs right now. Seems like a good possibility for a new ship. Imps don't have a turret yet

3. Symmetry gap: e.g. the crew slot mismatch (Imps lead), the large base mismatch (Imps lead), the Epic/Cinematic mismatch (no huge Imperial ships yet...makes me think CR90 Imp re-paint)

Well I think on page 3 of this thread I gave a pretty reasonable example of an Assault Gunboat in this game that would be different enough to warrant making.

Attack: 2

Defense: 2

Hull: 4

Shields: 2

Target Lock, Focus

System Upgrade, Cannon, Missile, Missile, Torpedo, Torpedo

Dial similar to a TIE Bomber's. PS1 might be 18 points?

As of Wave 4, the only Imperial small base with a cannon would be the TIE Defender and the only Imperial small base with a system upgrade would be the TIE Phantom. This Assault Gunboat would combine both of those traits, plus have all the ordnance of a TIE Bomber (minus the bomb slot).

Or maybe the tractor beam idea that's being bandied about would appear on the Assault Gunboat (in lieu of a system upgrade). That would make it more unique, too.

Well I think on page 3 of this thread I gave a pretty reasonable example of an Assault Gunboat in this game that would be different enough to warrant making.

Attack: 2

Defense: 2

Hull: 4

Shields: 2

Target Lock, Focus

System Upgrade, Cannon, Missile, Missile, Torpedo, Torpedo

Dial similar to a TIE Bomber's. PS1 might be 18 points?

As of Wave 4, the only Imperial small base with a cannon would be the TIE Defender and the only Imperial small base with a system upgrade would be the TIE Phantom. This Assault Gunboat would combine both of those traits, plus have all the ordnance of a TIE Bomber (minus the bomb slot).

Or maybe the tractor beam idea that's being bandied about would appear on the Assault Gunboat (in lieu of a system upgrade). That would make it more unique, too.

I meant to complement this guess--sorry if that didn't come across, but I was feeling too lazy to multiquote. My biggest concern would be that at 6 hp it's too close to the Bomber for me; dropping the hull by 1 helps differentiate them a little more, and more clearly outlines the risk you take of running one fully loaded. TIE Bomber hit points are currently a little too cheap, IMO, and at 18 I think they might still be too cheap for a ship that can also run HLC+FCS.

Well I think on page 3 of this thread I gave a pretty reasonable example of an Assault Gunboat in this game that would be different enough to warrant making.

Attack: 2

Defense: 2

Hull: 4

Shields: 2

Target Lock, Focus

System Upgrade, Cannon, Missile, Missile, Torpedo, Torpedo

Dial similar to a TIE Bomber's. PS1 might be 18 points?

As of Wave 4, the only Imperial small base with a cannon would be the TIE Defender and the only Imperial small base with a system upgrade would be the TIE Phantom. This Assault Gunboat would combine both of those traits, plus have all the ordnance of a TIE Bomber (minus the bomb slot).

Or maybe the tractor beam idea that's being bandied about would appear on the Assault Gunboat (in lieu of a system upgrade). That would make it more unique, too.

I meant to complement this guess--sorry if that didn't come across, but I was feeling too lazy to multiquote. My biggest concern would be that at 6 hp it's too close to the Bomber for me; dropping the hull by 1 helps differentiate them a little more, and more clearly outlines the risk you take of running one fully loaded. TIE Bomber hit points are currently a little too cheap, IMO, and at 18 I think they might still be too cheap for a ship that can also run HLC+FCS.

Ah, OK, fair enough. I think dropping the HP to 3 makes sense.

As for the Avenger, which was brought up a little earlier, I have to admit that it would be like slicing the game design spectrum with a scalpel to find a place for it. I loved that ship in "TIE Fighter" when I was a kid, so I really want to see it. I'd been hoping we'd see it in Wave 4, then get the TIE Defender in Wave 5 — the big distinction being that the TIE Defender gets a beam weapon slot and a system upgrade slot, while the Avenger wouldn't, and the Avenger would have something like a 3-3-3-2 stat line while the Defender would have a 3-4-3-4 stat line.

Now, I'm not sure how to fit the Avenger in. I don't think FFG left it enough room with how underpowered the Defender is relative to its portrayal in "TIE Fighter."

Be careful with those stats regarding the Gunboat. You don't want to create a ship that would make the Bomber obsolete. Giving it 2 shields with the same dial and much the same stats means the only reason you'd fly a bomber is for the pilots.

I'm thinking the gunboat would be harder to turn than the Bomber and have fewer ordinance slots but be price-compeditive with the Bomber. Not as fast, more red dice, but a slower K-Turn. One slot for missiles/torpedoes, if that. I'd expect concussion missiles.

As for the Advanced I wonder if it could be easier to go faster with and harder to turn with. I think Avengers were even faster than Defenders and could match their newer siblings in the right hands. Avengers carried beam mounts and missiles, they just lacked the ion cannons and power of the Defender. I would guess like TIE fighters the only 1 moves they would have are Hard turns... which might even be red. But most of thier greens are at faster speeds, meaning the Avengers HAVE to move fast and far and try to avoid hitting obstacles or the edge of the board. Advanced Sensors would not go amiss here, since on occasion these ships would need to activate barrel roll to clear obstacles they couldn't avoid otherwise.