And how many interact in a meaningful way? At most a handful.

But that's not really super relevant as you'll have to test every combination to make sure it isn't broken in an unforeseen way.

I count 5 crew slots for empire which are possible to have multiple copies on 1 ship.

Intelligence Agent, Mercenary Copilot, Tactician, Recon Specialist, Flight Instructor

1 which you could assign multiple times but uses an action.

Saboteur

1 which you could assign multiple times but couldn't use multiple times (as gives a stress - unless of course Yorr is nearby).

Fleet Officer

3 which could be assigned multiple times but have effects which do not stack.

Navigator, Weapons Engineer, Gunner

5 Unique crews

Darth Vader, Mara Jade, Rebel Captive, Ysanne Isard, and the thus far unspoilt one from Decimator.

As such I make it 530 unique crew combinations for empire. (assuming 10 crew you would assign max of 1 of and 5 you might multiple assign).

With 2 slots the max is 110.

Or maybe hexis is right, and this is a herald of the wok gliders to come.

I hate to disagree, but I'm pretty sure it will be playable mynocks and a Huge space slug.

I am using my powers of prediction on this one:

Clearly playtested ;D

Yub yub, Commander.

The Decimator is basically a command vessel. You want your Star Destroyer, for all intents and purposes, and the role that such a vessel might serve?

Here you go.

And how many interact in a meaningful way? At most a handful.

But that's not really super relevant as you'll have to test every combination to make sure it isn't broken in an unforeseen way.

But a majority of the double crew combos should have been checked before from the shuttle and the Falcon, and like Aminar said is it worth wasting time playtesting a combo of Merc Copilots and Tacticians? you can only ever be in range 2 or 3 so those effects would NEVER overlap against the same target in the same round.

Despite personal feelings on some of the rulings and card abilities, the developers do know what they are doing and typically address most of the issues that arise before stuff is released (like all of the cards that say "When firing at something in your arc" to prevent abuse by turrets)or they FAQ it to clarify odd interactions, and because they know what they are doing I assume they have a system for streamlining the playtesting so they don't need to play 1000 games just to test one ship's upgrades, and not even additional combiations with escorts

And how many interact in a meaningful way? At most a handful.

But that's not really super relevant as you'll have to test every combination to make sure it isn't broken in an unforeseen way.

You don't need to test something unless it might be broken to begin with.

Nobody is testing 3 gunners. Or 3 Navigators. Or 2 Gunners and a Navigator. Or most of the combinations. I mean, Recon Specialist, Gunner, Tactician might be a little dangerous, but it doesn't have phenomenal synergy over Tactician and Gunner or double tactician and gunner so you can rule it out as broken without much thought. Etc...

They maybe had to playtest 20 of those interactions, not all of them.

In combination with EPT's, other pilots, other ships in the list, against a bunch of different lists. In normal environments as well as in Epic.

Sure, a lot of stuff you can rule out quickly, but how will Mara Jade in a Phantom impact the game? Or Ysanne Isard who, if I read it correctly, will end up giving damage to your ship for a free (evade?) action in combination with Vader.

In combination with EPT's, other pilots, other ships in the list, against a bunch of different lists. In normal environments as well as in Epic.

Sure, a lot of stuff you can rule out quickly, but how will Mara Jade in a Phantom impact the game? Or Ysanne Isard who, if I read it correctly, will end up giving damage to your ship for a free (evade?) action in combination with Vader.

One of them is this.

Take your Mara Jade on a Phantom situation.

Your Phantom went from high on the kill it list to really high on the kill it list. And it costs a ton and dies fast. At best Mara blocks K-turns for the next turn. She doesn't do much beyond that.

It's a good combo, but not broken.

That's where most things in the game come in.

What they actually have to do is write up cards and finetune them until the balance is right. I'll bet that Mara didn't start out only stressing ships that weren't stressed.

Sure, a lot of stuff you can rule out quickly, but how will Mara Jade in a Phantom impact the game? Or Ysanne Isard who, if I read it correctly, will end up giving damage to your ship for a free (evade?) action in combination with Vader.

Isard got spoiled?

Sure, a lot of stuff you can rule out quickly, but how will Mara Jade in a Phantom impact the game? Or Ysanne Isard who, if I read it correctly, will end up giving damage to your ship for a free (evade?) action in combination with Vader.

Isard got spoiled?

No. He's speculating. I think he's a little off, as taking damage for an evade action is nigh on useless except to cancel crits in specific unique and rare scenarios.

So, perfect ability for Daala?

Sure, a lot of stuff you can rule out quickly, but how will Mara Jade in a Phantom impact the game? Or Ysanne Isard who, if I read it correctly, will end up giving damage to your ship for a free (evade?) action in combination with Vader.

Isard got spoiled?

No. He's speculating. I think he's a little off, as taking damage for an evade action is nigh on useless except to cancel crits in specific unique and rare scenarios.

The Ysane card says something about 1 damage and a shield. Equally useless to take a damage to recover a shield... perhaps after you deal 1 damage you can roll to recover shield?

At any rate, the Empire is sorely lacking ways to repair ships.

At any rate, the Empire is sorely lacking ways to repair ships.

Well traditionally the Empire viewed crew and ships as expendable so that makes sense, why fix a ship when you have a dozen that came off the assembly line while you were fixing the one? Mechanically from a game play perspective that means ships either need to be cheaper to reflect their fragility or have a higher avoidance chance to compensate and give the same theoretical livability, I feel Empire has both of those aspects covered

At any rate, the Empire is sorely lacking ways to repair ships.

Well traditionally the Empire viewed crew and ships as expendable so that makes sense, why fix a ship when you have a dozen that came off the assembly line while you were fixing the one? Mechanically from a game play perspective that means ships either need to be cheaper to reflect their fragility or have a higher avoidance chance to compensate and give the same theoretical livability, I feel Empire has both of those aspects covered

In the case of the standard TIE, yes. Not so much for the Interceptor, which you really want to fly with an EPT of some sort (putting it around 24 points minimum for the likes of Predator, Outmaneuver or PTL), or the bomber which you'll want to load with at least one secondary (usually Seismics if you want to stay cheap, putting you at 18 points a ship).

Sure, a lot of stuff you can rule out quickly, but how will Mara Jade in a Phantom impact the game? Or Ysanne Isard who, if I read it correctly, will end up giving damage to your ship for a free (evade?) action in combination with Vader.

Isard got spoiled?

No. He's speculating. I think he's a little off, as taking damage for an evade action is nigh on useless except to cancel crits in specific unique and rare scenarios.

The Ysane card says something about 1 damage and a shield. Equally useless to take a damage to recover a shield... perhaps after you deal 1 damage you can roll to recover shield?

What I can make out is:

At the start

garbled

1 Damage

your ship

a free

At any rate, the Empire is sorely lacking ways to repair ships.

Well traditionally the Empire viewed crew and ships as expendable so that makes sense, why fix a ship when you have a dozen that came off the assembly line while you were fixing the one? Mechanically from a game play perspective that means ships either need to be cheaper to reflect their fragility or have a higher avoidance chance to compensate and give the same theoretical livability, I feel Empire has both of those aspects covered

In the case of the standard TIE, yes. Not so much for the Interceptor, which you really want to fly with an EPT of some sort (putting it around 24 points minimum for the likes of Predator, Outmaneuver or PTL), or the bomber which you'll want to load with at least one secondary (usually Seismics if you want to stay cheap, putting you at 18 points a ship).

Remember though that a 24 pt interceptor Saber with PTL is about the same cost as a 23 pt Red, which has 1 less agility but 2 shields so the two I would say are approximately equal which fits because they are almost as close as possible without being the same cost

At any rate, the Empire is sorely lacking ways to repair ships.

Well traditionally the Empire viewed crew and ships as expendable so that makes sense, why fix a ship when you have a dozen that came off the assembly line while you were fixing the one? Mechanically from a game play perspective that means ships either need to be cheaper to reflect their fragility or have a higher avoidance chance to compensate and give the same theoretical livability, I feel Empire has both of those aspects covered

In the case of the standard TIE, yes. Not so much for the Interceptor, which you really want to fly with an EPT of some sort (putting it around 24 points minimum for the likes of Predator, Outmaneuver or PTL), or the bomber which you'll want to load with at least one secondary (usually Seismics if you want to stay cheap, putting you at 18 points a ship).

Remember though that a 24 pt interceptor Saber with PTL is about the same cost as a 23 pt Red, which has 1 less agility but 2 shields so the two I would say are approximately equal which fits because they are almost as close as possible without being the same cost

Nnnno, I disagree there. Because those 2 more hitpoints make all the difference here. 3 hull means one bad roll and your Interceptor goes poof against an X-wing. Losing Interceptors at in one shot at range 3 is far from unheard off, whereas losing an X-wing at that range isn't really heard of at all unless the opponent focus fires or its later in the game.

Sure, a 4 Interceptor list can beat a 4 X-wing list, but you're really going to be relying on luck over skill in the initial turns. And if the luck in the initial turns didn't work out you're going to be relying on luck even more in the later turns. Interceptors shine in range 1, but their fragility makes it hard getting there in one piece. And unlike the standard TIE swarm, they lack the numbers to shrug off initial casualties.

At any rate, the Empire is sorely lacking ways to repair ships.

Well traditionally the Empire viewed crew and ships as expendable so that makes sense, why fix a ship when you have a dozen that came off the assembly line while you were fixing the one? Mechanically from a game play perspective that means ships either need to be cheaper to reflect their fragility or have a higher avoidance chance to compensate and give the same theoretical livability, I feel Empire has both of those aspects covered

In the case of the standard TIE, yes. Not so much for the Interceptor, which you really want to fly with an EPT of some sort (putting it around 24 points minimum for the likes of Predator, Outmaneuver or PTL), or the bomber which you'll want to load with at least one secondary (usually Seismics if you want to stay cheap, putting you at 18 points a ship).

Remember though that a 24 pt interceptor Saber with PTL is about the same cost as a 23 pt Red, which has 1 less agility but 2 shields so the two I would say are approximately equal which fits because they are almost as close as possible without being the same cost

Nnnno, I disagree there. Because those 2 more hitpoints make all the difference here. 3 hull means one bad roll and your Interceptor goes poof against an X-wing. Losing Interceptors at in one shot at range 3 is far from unheard off, whereas losing an X-wing at that range isn't really heard of at all unless the opponent focus fires or its later in the game.

Sure, a 4 Interceptor list can beat a 4 X-wing list, but you're really going to be relying on luck over skill in the initial turns. And if the luck in the initial turns didn't work out you're going to be relying on luck even more in the later turns. Interceptors shine in range 1, but their fragility makes it hard getting there in one piece. And unlike the standard TIE swarm, they lack the numbers to shrug off initial casualties.

That's true, but if they can move later then they can boost or barrel roll into good shots and out of arcs. The X-Wings can't do that. If you're running 4 Sabers v. 4 Reds, there's room for upgrades on both sides. The difference is that only one of those sides can take Veteran Instincts.

That's true, but if they can move later then they can boost or barrel roll into good shots and out of arcs. The X-Wings can't do that. If you're running 4 Sabers v. 4 Reds, there's room for upgrades on both sides. The difference is that only one of those sides can take Veteran Instincts.

Moving out of range 3 arcs is harder than it sounds on paper. The X-wings don't have to position themselves to flank, they can handle a joust. The Interceptor on the other hand wants to avoid jousts when possible. Unless your opponent is exceedingly generous, a 4V4 Interceptor/X-wing match will mean you are going to get shot at before you get in optimal range (low range 2 or range 1). Whether the Interceptors can shoot before the X-wings at that stage is of less import. They will survive a range 3 joust. The Interceptors can die. Quite spectacularly.

At any rate, the Empire is sorely lacking ways to repair ships.

Well traditionally the Empire viewed crew and ships as expendable so that makes sense, why fix a ship when you have a dozen that came off the assembly line while you were fixing the one? Mechanically from a game play perspective that means ships either need to be cheaper to reflect their fragility or have a higher avoidance chance to compensate and give the same theoretical livability, I feel Empire has both of those aspects covered

In the case of the standard TIE, yes. Not so much for the Interceptor, which you really want to fly with an EPT of some sort (putting it around 24 points minimum for the likes of Predator, Outmaneuver or PTL), or the bomber which you'll want to load with at least one secondary (usually Seismics if you want to stay cheap, putting you at 18 points a ship).

Remember though that a 24 pt interceptor Saber with PTL is about the same cost as a 23 pt Red, which has 1 less agility but 2 shields so the two I would say are approximately equal which fits because they are almost as close as possible without being the same cost

Nnnno, I disagree there. Because those 2 more hitpoints make all the difference here. 3 hull means one bad roll and your Interceptor goes poof against an X-wing. Losing Interceptors at in one shot at range 3 is far from unheard off, whereas losing an X-wing at that range isn't really heard of at all unless the opponent focus fires or its later in the game.

Sure, a 4 Interceptor list can beat a 4 X-wing list, but you're really going to be relying on luck over skill in the initial turns. And if the luck in the initial turns didn't work out you're going to be relying on luck even more in the later turns. Interceptors shine in range 1, but their fragility makes it hard getting there in one piece. And unlike the standard TIE swarm, they lack the numbers to shrug off initial casualties.

That's true, but if they can move later then they can boost or barrel roll into good shots and out of arcs. The X-Wings can't do that. If you're running 4 Sabers v. 4 Reds, there's room for upgrades on both sides. The difference is that only one of those sides can take Veteran Instincts.

One of the Reds could take R2-D6 and Vet Instincts =P

At any rate, the Empire is sorely lacking ways to repair ships.

Well traditionally the Empire viewed crew and ships as expendable so that makes sense, why fix a ship when you have a dozen that came off the assembly line while you were fixing the one? Mechanically from a game play perspective that means ships either need to be cheaper to reflect their fragility or have a higher avoidance chance to compensate and give the same theoretical livability, I feel Empire has both of those aspects covered

In the case of the standard TIE, yes. Not so much for the Interceptor, which you really want to fly with an EPT of some sort (putting it around 24 points minimum for the likes of Predator, Outmaneuver or PTL), or the bomber which you'll want to load with at least one secondary (usually Seismics if you want to stay cheap, putting you at 18 points a ship).

Remember though that a 24 pt interceptor Saber with PTL is about the same cost as a 23 pt Red, which has 1 less agility but 2 shields so the two I would say are approximately equal which fits because they are almost as close as possible without being the same cost

Nnnno, I disagree there. Because those 2 more hitpoints make all the difference here. 3 hull means one bad roll and your Interceptor goes poof against an X-wing. Losing Interceptors at in one shot at range 3 is far from unheard off, whereas losing an X-wing at that range isn't really heard of at all unless the opponent focus fires or its later in the game.

Sure, a 4 Interceptor list can beat a 4 X-wing list, but you're really going to be relying on luck over skill in the initial turns. And if the luck in the initial turns didn't work out you're going to be relying on luck even more in the later turns. Interceptors shine in range 1, but their fragility makes it hard getting there in one piece. And unlike the standard TIE swarm, they lack the numbers to shrug off initial casualties.

The point I was just trying to make is even though the 2 ships are similar they still espouse the different design philosophies of their faction, Rebels use shields because they can't afford to replace pilots/ships as often as the Empire, and the Empire prefers to avoid shields for faster more maneuverable craft that are cheaper

As for the VT, we can assume all of the existing 2 grew Combos have been tested and yes adding 1 more slot adds more it doesn't lead to nearly as many additional interactions. (Adding an extra Weapons, Engineer/Gunner is useless. Adding an additional Merc Copilot doesn't really require testing does it? there are a few other things of course, and the Imperials have less unique crew which generally would be the ones causing the weird interactions)

Even supposing crew members are never duplicated, if there are X crew members, two crew slots lead to X^2 - X possible combinations. Three crew slots lead to X^3 - 3X^2 + 2X combinations. If X=12 for the Empire (which I think it does), then there are 121 132 [edit for mathfail] combinations of two crew and 1,320 combinations of three crew.

Or more generally, for N crew slots:

X! / (X-N)!

At any rate, the Empire is sorely lacking ways to repair ships.

Well traditionally the Empire viewed crew and ships as expendable so that makes sense, why fix a ship when you have a dozen that came off the assembly line while you were fixing the one? Mechanically from a game play perspective that means ships either need to be cheaper to reflect their fragility or have a higher avoidance chance to compensate and give the same theoretical livability, I feel Empire has both of those aspects covered

In the case of the standard TIE, yes. Not so much for the Interceptor, which you really want to fly with an EPT of some sort (putting it around 24 points minimum for the likes of Predator, Outmaneuver or PTL), or the bomber which you'll want to load with at least one secondary (usually Seismics if you want to stay cheap, putting you at 18 points a ship).

Remember though that a 24 pt interceptor Saber with PTL is about the same cost as a 23 pt Red, which has 1 less agility but 2 shields so the two I would say are approximately equal which fits because they are almost as close as possible without being the same cost

Nnnno, I disagree there. Because those 2 more hitpoints make all the difference here. 3 hull means one bad roll and your Interceptor goes poof against an X-wing. Losing Interceptors at in one shot at range 3 is far from unheard off, whereas losing an X-wing at that range isn't really heard of at all unless the opponent focus fires or its later in the game.

Sure, a 4 Interceptor list can beat a 4 X-wing list, but you're really going to be relying on luck over skill in the initial turns. And if the luck in the initial turns didn't work out you're going to be relying on luck even more in the later turns. Interceptors shine in range 1, but their fragility makes it hard getting there in one piece. And unlike the standard TIE swarm, they lack the numbers to shrug off initial casualties.

The point I was just trying to make is even though the 2 ships are similar they still espouse the different design philosophies of their faction, Rebels use shields because they can't afford to replace pilots/ships as often as the Empire, and the Empire prefers to avoid shields for faster more maneuverable craft that are cheaper

But they're not cheaper, that's the point. Sure, you can field one more Interceptor when you field the 18 point version naked, but when flying against X-wings and the like, Interceptors want an EPT so they can boost and barrel roll out of firing arcs and on your tail more effectively. That puts you at 24 points minimum, which is a more expensive craft than the X-wing.

Interceptors as they are in the game have the fragility, but not the cost of the design philosophy.

At any rate, the Empire is sorely lacking ways to repair ships.

Well traditionally the Empire viewed crew and ships as expendable so that makes sense, why fix a ship when you have a dozen that came off the assembly line while you were fixing the one? Mechanically from a game play perspective that means ships either need to be cheaper to reflect their fragility or have a higher avoidance chance to compensate and give the same theoretical livability, I feel Empire has both of those aspects covered

In the case of the standard TIE, yes. Not so much for the Interceptor, which you really want to fly with an EPT of some sort (putting it around 24 points minimum for the likes of Predator, Outmaneuver or PTL), or the bomber which you'll want to load with at least one secondary (usually Seismics if you want to stay cheap, putting you at 18 points a ship).

Remember though that a 24 pt interceptor Saber with PTL is about the same cost as a 23 pt Red, which has 1 less agility but 2 shields so the two I would say are approximately equal which fits because they are almost as close as possible without being the same cost

Nnnno, I disagree there. Because those 2 more hitpoints make all the difference here. 3 hull means one bad roll and your Interceptor goes poof against an X-wing. Losing Interceptors at in one shot at range 3 is far from unheard off, whereas losing an X-wing at that range isn't really heard of at all unless the opponent focus fires or its later in the game.

Sure, a 4 Interceptor list can beat a 4 X-wing list, but you're really going to be relying on luck over skill in the initial turns. And if the luck in the initial turns didn't work out you're going to be relying on luck even more in the later turns. Interceptors shine in range 1, but their fragility makes it hard getting there in one piece. And unlike the standard TIE swarm, they lack the numbers to shrug off initial casualties.

The point I was just trying to make is even though the 2 ships are similar they still espouse the different design philosophies of their faction, Rebels use shields because they can't afford to replace pilots/ships as often as the Empire, and the Empire prefers to avoid shields for faster more maneuverable craft that are cheaper

But they're not cheaper, that's the point. Sure, you can field one more Interceptor when you field the 18 point version naked, but when flying against X-wings and the like, Interceptors want an EPT so they can boost and barrel roll out of firing arcs and on your tail more effectively. That puts you at 24 points minimum, which is a more expensive craft than the X-wing.

Interceptors as they are in the game have the fragility, but not the cost of the design philosophy.

But I think many would agree that PTL+1 agility and a built in engine upgrade is worth 1 pt more than 2 shields.

Heck let's compare the ships naked since that is what matters in a design philosophy, yes you (and many others) may feel PTL is "mandatory" for Interceptors, it really doesn't mean jack to represent "real" world ships which is what the general design philosophy is based on. An Empire ship is cheaper my the nature of said philosophy, if you feel like adding upgrades fine go ahead. but that does not represent the ship's design that is your personal feeling regarding an in game choice on how to upgrade said ship not the ships themselves.

A Saber is 21pts, Reds are 23, for 2 points you gain 2 shields and a target lock at the cost of 1 agil, a much worse dial (imo) and losing boost/BR/evade