You need to discount rebels when it comes to measurements they are going for an aesthetic look over precise representation as we see with the giraffe star destroyer.

You need to discount rebels when it comes to measurements they are going for an aesthetic look over precise representation as we see with the giraffe star destroyer.

Of course, you just have to get the dig in.

The Gozanti would be fine at Epic scale, so long as there wasn't any way to physically attach TIE fighters to it.

It would also be fine at 1/270 scale if there WAS a way to physically attach TIE Fighters to it.

(assuming you used unofficial measurements like Mel's Miniatures did for his Shapeways version).

Whichever way you choose, you're going to annoy the section of the fanbase who wanted it the other way around.

Why would you need a mechanic for a ship to release TIEs? The game starts with them already deployed. The only mechanic I can get behind to represent the docking feature is maybe making all TIEs (fighters, Interceptors, ect.) cost less, like a one or two point reduction.

Why would you need a mechanic for a ship to release TIEs? The game starts with them already deployed. The only mechanic I can get behind to represent the docking feature is maybe making all TIEs (fighters, Interceptors, ect.) cost less, like a one or two point reduction.

Who said anything about a game mechanic? Pretty much this entire page (including the comment you quoted) has been about scale and aesthetics!

I wonder if it could be made as a single based huge ship. Using the rules for huge ships, but being mounted on a single base.

Erm didn't this thread die 6 months ago?

Maybe people have given up hoping the raider will come. Maybe people are just trying to guess what ship is going to be next imperial epic ship..... The raider or something else they haven't even started on.

bump#105

My life is missing something when this thread is dormant.

I need an Imperial epic ship with an array of turrets ... because of TURRETS.

The Raider would have been so cool with turrets instead of this trapdoors as weapons.

Erm didn't this thread die 6 months ago?

What is dead may never die. But rises again, harder and stronger...

Sounds like the Drowned God got vengeance on FFG's Raider shipment when they forgot to pay the iron price.

I need an Imperial epic ship with an array of turrets ... because of TURRETS.

The Raider would have been so cool with turrets instead of this trapdoors as weapons.

I like it but I do have to admit that I am not in love it.

The Vigil is much closer to badass than the Raider is.

Oh well...

Badass...

Cool...

Nothing all that new either...

Better than nothing.

If anything, I find the Raider a bit offensive.

Just because you put TIE panels on a baby Star Destroyer doesn't mean I'm going to buy it FFG! I'm not THAT stupid!

The Gozanti would be fine at Epic scale, so long as there wasn't any way to physically attach TIE fighters to it.

It would also be fine at 1/270 scale if there WAS a way to physically attach TIE Fighters to it.

(assuming you used unofficial measurements like Mel's Miniatures did for his Shapeways version).

Whichever way you choose, you're going to annoy the section of the fanbase who wanted it the other way around.

Why would you need a mechanic for a ship to release TIEs? The game starts with them already deployed. The only mechanic I can get behind to represent the docking feature is maybe making all TIEs (fighters, Interceptors, ect.) cost less, like a one or two point reduction.

any chance that this new RAIDER will be in the new movie?.......bwa-ha-ha

(PS. happy dad day to all dad's!...)

Cheaper ships to me comes no where close to relating the idea that I have a carrier in the fight.

It doesn't help that there is no benefit to having a carrier in a fight. Carriers are a necessity to get ships to the fight, they have zero benefit over some other similarly armed vessel. And since the game starts out with all your ships on the field already, there's no reason to have it. Starting out a battle inside your carrier would be a detriment, not a benefit.

The only way you could possibly represent the benefit of a carrier was if you were able to replace ships that get destroyed during the battle.(i.e. One of your TIE's gets destroyed. Next round, place the exact same ship, undamaged, next to the carrier, etc.)

That would be a ridiculously powerful ability though. And one that wouldn't even really apply to the Gozanti, since it only carries 4 ships to begin with, and externally, so it's not like you have this huge hanger full of reinforcement ships.

I still don't get this.

So what WOULD you do for a carrier mechanic? The reason a points discount keeps coming up is because there is no mechanical benefit to a carrier mechanic at this scale. No one has postulated something for carriers to do in this game that would make you WANT to use them, mechanically.

"Because it would be cool and it fits the fluff" is not sufficient reason to create new rules. That is what GW dies and it leads to either chronically underpowered units that no one ever takes (or buys), or super-over-powered units that break the game.

If you want to convince people that there should be a carrier mechanic in the game, cone up with something for them to do that would be fun without screwing with the games power level.

The Gozanti would be fine at Epic scale, so long as there wasn't any way to physically attach TIE fighters to it.

It would also be fine at 1/270 scale if there WAS a way to physically attach TIE Fighters to it.

(assuming you used unofficial measurements like Mel's Miniatures did for his Shapeways version).

Whichever way you choose, you're going to annoy the section of the fanbase who wanted it the other way around.

Why would you need a mechanic for a ship to release TIEs? The game starts with them already deployed. The only mechanic I can get behind to represent the docking feature is maybe making all TIEs (fighters, Interceptors, ect.) cost less, like a one or two point reduction.

I still don't get this. Cheaper ships to me comes no where close to relating the idea that I have a carrier in the fight. Hell it doesn't relay anything to me other than a mispricing of the ships referenced, because after all you could just make the ship with that ability cost an appropriate amount of points cheaper since you know the point limit of your format games. All the disparity in intent is compounded by the fact that since ties are short range and support dependent, the game implies that there is a docking location nearby anyway. So what card would let me say, well we're fighting by the Death Star, and it has the best facilities and all, so all my shops are five points cheaper, and basic ties are free. Real talk, explain this to me please because I do want to understand.

It might not be a wast of time to reply to you... so here goes.

Short answer: Deep (strategic) Deployment .

A carrier will protect it's ships and bring them right to the objective. Then the ships are ready to rock on the doorstep of the enemy all fresh and ready like...

Imagine Fel with all of his protection suddenly knocking on your defense satellite's front door at range two. His three or more friends are right there with him and ready too rock. Until they make there first movement the squad is protected by the carriers shields.

Of course this is not Fel actually (it could be and that is crazy) but I used him because he represents the whole protection example that a carrier would offer. Any ship should/would be protected very well, and would thus have a great chance to come into the game right where they need to be to accomplish their mission, all fresh and ready like.

Party Time.

Imagine Fel with all of his protection suddenly knocking on your defense satellite's front door at range two. His three or more friends are right there with him and ready too rock. Until they make there first movement the squad is protected by the carriers shields.

Makes sense for a carrier with an internal hanger, but not for the Gozanti. Who's externally mounted docks do nothing to protect the ships in them.

A carrier could provide asylum to damaged TIEs, denying your opponent MOV...

Imagine Fel with all of his protection suddenly knocking on your defense satellite's front door at range two. His three or more friends are right there with him and ready too rock. Until they make there first movement the squad is protected by the carriers shields.

Makes sense for a carrier with an internal hanger, but not for the Gozanti. Who's externally mounted docks do nothing to protect the ships in them.

Right, but they would get the extra green dice rolls from the carriers shielding. In the Rebels show that was just cute action for their heroes gonna win stuff .

The TIE's would of been well protected if the heroes did not need to look cool. Sure you can shoot at them, they are right there... but so is Fel, and so is Fat Han... you know what I mean, I think.

A carrier could provide asylum to damaged TIEs, denying your opponent MOV...

Yup... that too.

Taking a crack at the carrier feel, even a limited carrier like the Gozanti, after a good bit of thought I think the fire support feel is there by virtue of on board guns, and support shields already represented in the shield projector card (albeit fairly poorly). I don't think maintenance/repair should be there at all due to the fast pace of the dog fight feel, plus the lack of a hangar or even a proper flight deck. You might get away with fuel supply but that's never really referenced cinematically except as a plot point, so should be saved for a scenario where it's already shown up a couple times in X-Wing. Running out of options now I come to command and control support. Having a tower nearby or an AWACS is always helpful, and this ship could fill that role well. But that's already kind of been done with a pile of mechanics from coordinate action, targeting coordinator, sensor jammer, and a few others. But for me that type of focus would be best suited for the feel.

All that in mind I start looking at the things that can be improved by CnC presence and how we relate that in mechanics. Action generation has been a big one, along with stress. In fact it's basically the only one when you get right down to it. Pilot abilities are intended to be very unique and granting a pilot ability can be difficult to do simply and potentially unbalancing. It takes an entire card for the robots to share an ability that's printed on a second card for Pete sake. So between the three things (counting EPT's as pilot abilities) of pilot skill, pilot ability, action economy, pilot skill stands out. But actions are still on the table.

Looking at how to have our carrier feel like a command and control center in an action oriented strategy game I now need to find a way to quantify the benefit, and then project the benefit from the game piece. In this particular instance I'm actually going to start with the ability projection method. Huge ships get their effects from their own initiative sub-sequence in activation phase which includes an energy step, a normal shooting phase, and a couple static or timed upgrade AOE types. Making the command and control feel pop to me says radio contact, visual support and sensor linking kind of stuff. So I'm going to use AOE to represent that. Now I'm limited to hard item things like the visual range and what not and don't have the force to call on like Palpatine, and I want the ability to feel centrally connected to the ship it's coming from so I'm going to tie a range limit to it. Figuring in sight from our ships view ports and sensor range and existing epic play equipment I'll say range 2-4 for now.

Now I need to quantify the increase to a pilots skill representative of the data my command and control ship is providing. We've seen plus two, set as twelve, set as zero all used. Let's try something different for interests sake: plus OR minus 1(min zero, max twelve). This will feel like the ship is directing a few fighters to fight strictly better and others to race into blocking positions. But that's not a lot of benefit, and we have a good sized AOE so let's give it multiple targets. We'll say two for now.

Then it's off to set a timing. It doesn't do a lot strategically to have this effect not work in activation phase. So for now I'm going to set it as a trigger at start of activation/to end of round.

So I arrive at a fairly functional testing mechanic of:

Gozanti cruiser, pilot card ability, at the start of the round select up to two friendly ships at range 2-4. Increase or decrease their pilot skill by one until the end of the round.

Then test the hell out of it. Maybe try it as a unique ships title, a cargo/equipment upgrade, a team or crew, maybe a modification even.