Looks alright, but the major component when making epic ships that is often under-looked is what is the damage deck look like. After all the critical damage has a major impact on what effects the card has also can determine which section is the weaker section.

Looks alright, but the major component when making epic ships that is often under-looked is what is the damage deck look like. After all the critical damage has a major impact on what effects the card has also can determine which section is the weaker section.

But Tracking Misalignment would be doubly brutal if it applies to both primaries on the DP20. It would have to damage the section that's being attack, and since there is only one card in the deck, the ship will always have one four attack primary, and perhaps one 2 attack primary until it spends the four energy to flip the damage card, if it even can.

@gabe: I wasn't clear, and I'm sorry.

The issue isn't that your ideas are bad (although I disagree with some of them). It's that the rules text you're writing doesn't support them. You're relying on designer intent rather than solid rules, and that's really bad practice. Let's consider the Fore section...

Your intent is that when you attack with a [missile] secondary weapon, you ignore the rules text that instructs you to discard it. But the card says "This ship does not discard missiles," which has at least two problems:

• It's not limited in scope at all, so a damage card (or any other effect) that would cause you to discard the [missile] upgrade card wouldn't operate. Maybe that's okay, but the language needs to be cleaned up at least.
• It's not clear exactly what a "missile" is--or, rather, the way I'd interpret that text is that anything with "Missile" in its name isn't discarded. What you mean is [missile] secondary weapon, using the same icon that appears on the upgrade card.

So the first sentence of this card should say something like "When you are instructed to discard a [missile] upgrade card, do not discard it." The second sentence is even worse, because it introduces "reload", an entirely new game effect with no reference or explanation.

So instead, it should say "When you are instructed to discard a [missile] upgrade card, do not discard it. Instead, spend 1 energy." But that won't work either, because it doesn't include the bit about (basically) tapping the card and spending an energy to untap it. So in fact, you want this:

You must spend 1 energy to attack with a [missile] secondary weapon. When attacking with a [missile] secondary weapon, you may attack ships outside your firing arc. When you are instructed to discard a [missile] upgrade card, do not discard it.

That's (relatively) simple, it's self-contained, and it's unambiguous. It's much better rules text.

***

Now let's look at the Aft section. Basically, it's completely broken: there's nowhere else in the game where figuring out how something on Ship Card A works means you have to reference ship card B. You say it's redundant, but part of my reason for mentioning it upthread is that it's not redundant--game elements in X-wing, meaning both ship cards and upgrade cards, are always as self-contained as possible.

Again, your intent is clear but the rules text is bad. For better or worse, FFG has created a set of rules for the big Epic ships that forces one section to have primary attacks and the other to have energy. So if you have a primary attack on the Fore section, there's literally nowhere to put an attack on the Aft section card. It's also explicit in the Huge ship rules that "During the combat phase, each huge ship may perform one attack with its primary weapon..." Accordingly, it wouldn't help you even if you did put a primary attack on the Aft section: you could still only attack with one or the other.

And maybe you know that, and the point is just to give the DP20 player more flexibility in attacking. But if so, there's a much easier way to do it: add a modification or title card for the Fore section that says "When attacking with your primary weapon, your attacks are not obstructed by the blue center line." It still feels a little kludgy to me, but at least it's functional.

@gabe: I wasn't clear, and I'm sorry.

The issue isn't that your ideas are bad (although I disagree with some of them). It's that the rules text you're writing doesn't support them. You're relying on designer intent rather than solid rules, and that's really bad practice. Let's consider the Fore section...

Your intent is that when you attack with a [missile] secondary weapon, you ignore the rules text that instructs you to discard it. But the card says "This ship does not discard missiles," which has at least two problems:

• It's not limited in scope at all, so a damage card (or any other effect) that would cause you to discard the [missile] upgrade card wouldn't operate. Maybe that's okay, but the language needs to be cleaned up at least.
• It's not clear exactly what a "missile" is--or, rather, the way I'd interpret that text is that anything with "Missile" in its name isn't discarded. What you mean is [missile] secondary weapon, using the same icon that appears on the upgrade card.

So the first sentence of this card should say something like "When you are instructed to discard a [missile] upgrade card, do not discard it." The second sentence is even worse, because it introduces "reload", an entirely new game effect with no reference or explanation.

So instead, it should say "When you are instructed to discard a [missile] upgrade card, do not discard it. Instead, spend 1 energy." But that won't work either, because it doesn't include the bit about (basically) tapping the card and spending an energy to untap it. So in fact, you want this:

You must spend 1 energy to attack with a [missile] secondary weapon. When attacking with a [missile] secondary weapon, you may attack ships outside your firing arc. When you are instructed to discard a [missile] upgrade card, do not discard it.

That's (relatively) simple, it's self-contained, and it's unambiguous. It's much better rules text.

***

Now let's look at the Aft section. Basically, it's completely broken: there's nowhere else in the game where figuring out how something on Ship Card A works means you have to reference ship card B. You say it's redundant, but part of my reason for mentioning it upthread is that it's not redundant--game elements in X-wing, meaning both ship cards and upgrade cards, are always as self-contained as possible.

Again, your intent is clear but the rules text is bad. For better or worse, FFG has created a set of rules for the big Epic ships that forces one section to have primary attacks and the other to have energy. So if you have a primary attack on the Fore section, there's literally nowhere to put an attack on the Aft section card. It's also explicit in the Huge ship rules that "During the combat phase, each huge ship may perform one attack with its primary weapon..." Accordingly, it wouldn't help you even if you did put a primary attack on the Aft section: you could still only attack with one or the other.

And maybe you know that, and the point is just to give the DP20 player more flexibility in attacking. But if so, there's a much easier way to do it: add a modification or title card for the Fore section that says "When attacking with your primary weapon, your attacks are not obstructed by the blue center line." It still feels a little kludgy to me, but at least it's functional.

I'll take your rewording into consideration as I was never wholly pleased with it anyway. But as for the aft being broken, I don't think so. All current official huge ships have only one primary weapon, so the rule as is for one attack with "the" primary fits, it's only there to tell you that every weapon fires only once.

But then introduce the Raider fore section card to the mix and you have a huge ship that is firing it's primary weapon twice. I think you missed that because it's the same thing almost, just that the Raider has to spend two energy to get he second attack with it's primary.

By the way, I've made cards where I made room for both the Energy value and the Attack value on the same card. It doesn't look great, but you can't say "there's literally nowhere to put an attack on the Aft section card" because I did it with my first version of the Gozanti Cruiser card that was to be used with the GR-75 as a proxy.

*I've updated the cards at their last posting.

I'll take your rewording into consideration as I was never wholly pleased with it anyway. But as for the aft being broken, I don't think so. All current official huge ships have only one primary weapon, so the rule as is for one attack with "the" primary fits, it's only there to tell you that every weapon fires only once.

But then introduce the Raider fore section card to the mix and you have a huge ship that is firing it's primary weapon twice. I think you missed that because it's the same thing almost, just that the Raider has to spend two energy to get he second attack with it's primary.

What's on the Raider (I'm quite familiar with it) is a simple, self-contained, and unambiguous set of rules. It says how often you can use that ability, when you can use it, what the cost is, and exactly what happens. Your rules for the DP20's aft section don't meet that standard.

The rules for the attack don't appear on the card at all: you have to look at the card for the Fore section (and by the way, what happens to the aft turret when the fore section is crippled?), and as I pointed out, if you intend the DP20 to make two attacks per round with its primary weapon then it's definitely ambiguous.

I hope you're having fun with your homebrew DP20, regardless of my criticism.

I always forget the crippled cards.

The rules for the attack don't appear on the card at all: you have to look at the card for the Fore section (and by the way, what happens to the aft turret when the fore section is crippled?), and as I pointed out, if you intend the DP20 to make two attacks per round with its primary weapon then it's definitely ambiguous.

I was stuck in my own rightness and missed what you meant, but it's a rather easy fix.

I really like how this looks. Gabe, I have not been able to play test my DP20 since the CR90 came out. I'll try to play test the cards above and report back.

I really like how this looks. Gabe, I have not been able to play test my DP20 since the CR90 came out. I'll try to play test the cards above and report back.

Well you're the only person I know of that doesn't have to proxy the DP20 so I'm sure you'd have no problem playing Scum DP20 versus Rebel CR90

Since working on the Scum GR75 stuff

I'm tempted to do a few Scum DP20 title cards:

The Dark Revenge was a DP20 frigate that was used by the pirate organization Dharus' Buccaneers during the time of the Galactic Civil War.

The Loose Cannon was a DP20 frigate operated by a group of privateers known only by the name of this vessel.

The Sable II was a Corellian gunship commandeered by the pirate Karn Granzor. It was destroyed in battle with the Anto's Star which was manned by former crewmembers of Sable II.

The Slader's Raider II was a DP20 frigate that was owned and operated by the pirate and smuggler Roark Slader during the early years of the New Republic.

The Gunship was the name of Niles Ferrier's personal DP20 frigate.

That last one I remember from the Thrawn trilogy, and he used a Conner Net too !

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Niles_Ferrier

Hahaha
Assameen

I know right, it's way better than the official Star Wars

wikia image, which I couldn't imagine using.

Have to choose one of these Niles Ferrier styles, more the rogue or the enforcer.

Burt Reynolds or Hugh Jackman?

I was more making a joke about how his name is Azzameen, but uh.

Go with Rogue.

Why is Ragnar Lothbrok on the bridge of the Enterprise?

Why is Ragnar Lothbrok on the bridge of the Enterprise?

Sharp eye, first one to notice. I started with Ragnar's face and decided on that particular bridge for the background, and it just happens to be the 2009 Enterprise. If you have other ideas (face/background/uniform) I might give it a shot to see if it looks better, but I've gotten good feedback on the Captain Lothbrok one and I like it better than the Star Wars Wikia image.

I was more making a joke about how his name is Azzameen, but uh.

Go with Rogue.

Looks great so far.

Looks great so far.

This is what I meant by your preference...

As for the card ability for "The Gunship" since it has a Conner Net, I thought the title card could just add a bomb slot in the rear section at 4 points, and have the Conner Net cost 0 points.

Hopefully I can think of a crew card ability that has some synergy with the title card without just simply being a copy of Bombardier.

Any problem in running a CR-90 as an IMP one? just changing out crew of course? I purchased an Extra one long time ago when MM had a deal of the day and was/am going to paint it Imperial colors. This was before the raider was announced.. Just wondering if there was any weird imp crew interactions with the CR-90 the nerfed it or over powered it..

Any problem in running a CR-90 as an IMP one? just changing out crew of course? I purchased an Extra one long time ago when MM had a deal of the day and was/am going to paint it Imperial colors. This was before the raider was announced.. Just wondering if there was any weird imp crew interactions with the CR-90 the nerfed it or over powered it..

We play it, just no uniques.

It IS an Imperial ship, surrender it at once Senator Organa.

Any problem in running a CR-90 as an IMP one? just changing out crew of course? I purchased an Extra one long time ago when MM had a deal of the day and was/am going to paint it Imperial colors. This was before the raider was announced.. Just wondering if there was any weird imp crew interactions with the CR-90 the nerfed it or over powered it..

The Cards:

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/108071-cr90-imperial-version-or-proxy-miniature/?p=1142845

I have to say Tactician with Quad Laser Cannons can be quite crazy,

especially combined with Mara Jade and Rebel Captive.

Although I haven't tried it, perhaps 3 Ion Cannon Battery

in that combo might be a lot worse for your opponent.

Makes me tempted to add Slicer Tools in the mix also.

The coordinate action and Fleet Officer.

One of these days I'm going to try 3 Intelligence Agents

and high PS escorts that all have Stay On Target.

I would think that now that they have been spoiled

you might be interested in trying out the Imperial Only

• Grand Moff Tarkin

• Captain Needa

• Admiral Ozzel

• Emperor Palpatine (not CR90)

...

• Agent Kallus

• Moff Jerjerrod

• Darth Vader

• Mara Jade

• Rebel Captive

• Fleet Officer

it's not that long a list, but I think your answer is no.

Any plans on making a Scum version of the CR-90?

Any plans on making a Scum version of the CR-90?

No I didn't.

But since I know you're not talking about a collaboration, just a repaint...

EDIT: Corrected the attack turret that should have been an energy symbol, lol.

Semi-topical:

It'd be nice to see Scum cards for the CR-90. The Renthal's Fist springs to mind considering we've already got Drea on the table.

Title - Renthal's Fist

"Other ships within range one of this ship must cancel critical results before hit results"

1 pt

This represents her "no unnecessary casualties" pirating philosophy.

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Renthal's_Fist

"the Renthal's Fist was equipped with a pair of capital ship grade proton torpedo launchers."

I like the idea of removing a cargo slot or team slot in the fore section for a torpedo slot or two.

Perhaps with three ordinance tokens to start

Any plans on making a Scum version of the CR-90?

No I didn't.

But since I know you're not talking about a collaboration, just a repaint...

True, while I have no interest in making a S&V CR-90 I would say the CR-90 would be easier to convert than the GR-75. All you would need to do is change the skin as a few of the scum only crew (Greedo Bossk) can play a roll on the CR-90 where as with the GR-75 none of the Scum only crew would be compatible. IMHO it wouldn't even need the illicit upgrade.

In speaking of illicit upgrade slot did you increase the point section of each card by 2 for that slot? Just wondering.

I would guess one of the things that is holding up the Scum Epic ship, whatever ship(s) they may choose, is that they have to figure out ( playtesters would know ) if they can allow the illicit slot on them. When I consider that they will probably never mix standard weapons and epic weapons, and the fact that plenty of illicit upgrades cause damage, I believe that we won't be seeing any illicit slots on official scum epic ships. That being said, if we are going to add illicit slots to the GR-75 I don't see why not the CR-90 or any other crossover ship, regardless of crew relevance. Scum Epics for the moment are unofficial/casual game ships and we both have made up custom crew cards to balance the lack of crew anyway, so I would rather be consistant with illicit slots.

As with these two also, yes I added two points per illicit slot.