The Ion Pulse Missile only has one shot.

... And you're adding that to his assessment because you think it contradict something.

"...that can ionize a big ship with one shot..."

And then it's spent. The proposed quad ion can shoot every turn.

And my point is that he didn't have that qualifier in what he first wrote, just "two ion tokens in one shot."

Yeah....my initial suggestion for the 2-ion token cannon was for a Huge Ship only slot, almost like a hard point. Somehow, it got mounted onto a basic Y-Wing, turned into a 360 firing arch, increased range, and increased attack dice/chance to hit. I dunno. It breaks game balance. One huge ship nullifying the energy production of another huge ship is one thing. A small snub fighter repeatedly shutting down a corvette in one shot is something else entirely...The suggestion was not meant to turn the Y-Wing into a super weapon.

But I have shut a huge ship down, it is possible without the turret upgrade I made, you're wrong to suggest it isn't possible. We already have the means. I took two Y-wings with Ion Cannon Turrets, two B-wings with Ion Cannons, and two A-wings, each with Ion Pulse Missiles as part of my fleet and it was enough to shut down a huge ship long enough to destroy it. But it certainly takes a lot more than you suggest, more than two ion tokens per turn. And originally you said "anti-huge ship, maybe huge ship only" so I don't feel like I took your suggestion incorrectly since you didn't have a "definitely huge ship only." I believe almost anything can be costed correctly for the game, and so wouldn't unbalance the game if the cost is correct. You're ignoring Heavy Laser Cannons for some reason, and the Outrider title card, I don't see that breaking the game.

(these are for my own reference)

How is this worse than those?

Thanks. I thought a quad-turret on a fighter was pushing it.

I believe the K-wing has a Quad Turbolaser on it, but that is supposed to be to the B-wing what the B-wing is to the Y-wing

How do you mean that comparison? That the K-wing is a super-B-wing?

I don't think it would be an Aces release but I think it could be an interesting candidate for a Rebel wave 6 ship (could be paired against an Imperial Virago(aka StarViper) It would introduce Rebel Bomber (if they Y-wing doesn't get it with an Aces) the Quad Turbolaser could be added (maybe 4 dice range 1 only since it specifies shortrange on the Wookiepedia page) and we could see an upgrade for Plasma Torpedoes.

Seriously? a quad turbolaser for fighters? I've got to look that up.

I do not wish to speculate on a statline but I assume it would be HWKish in terms of its attack (requiring a turret and/or ordnance to be viable) and its dial and with the need to load it for bear with ordnance/turret I would expect the point cost to be fairly low for its statline in order to facilitate the upgrades

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/T-33_plasma_torpedo

There are a couple of great ideas for upgrades there, thanks for that.

Working out the mechanics of that plasma torpedo should be interesting.

Thanks. I thought a quad-turret on a fighter was pushing it.

I believe the K-wing has a Quad Turbolaser on it, but that is supposed to be to the B-wing what the B-wing is to the Y-wing

How to mean that comparison? That the K-wing is a super-B-wing?

I mean the K-wing was intended to replace the B-wing as a frontline bomber/heavy assault fighter and would fill the role the B-wing did in universe, much like the B-wing was supposed to replace the Y-wings duties for attacking capital ships

I don't think it would be an Aces release but I think it could be an interesting candidate for a Rebel wave 6 ship (could be paired against an Imperial Virago(aka StarViper) It would introduce Rebel Bomber (if they Y-wing doesn't get it with an Aces) the Quad Turbolaser could be added (maybe 4 dice range 1 only since it specifies shortrange on the Wookiepedia page) and we could see an upgrade for Plasma Torpedoes.

Seriously? a quad turbolaser for fighters?

1. This isn't any different in principle for you proposing a quad ion cannon, except this one actually exists in the EU rather than the Quad Ion which doesn't

2. The entry (mine and Wookiepedia's) specifically specifies " Short-Ranged" Obviously a fighter doesn't have the juice to have a capital ship weapon installed without some sort of drawback and rather than sacrifice hitting power the designers thought to sacrifice the range.

3. a 4 Dice turret limited to range one only would hardly be game breaking, many other ships can attack at range one with 4 dice, one of which also has a turret and also can use that turret to extend pass range 1

4. Aren't you the one that said

I believe almost anything can be costed correctly for the game, and so wouldn't unbalance the game if the cost is correct.

Also notice I did not mention any points values I merely stated that such a ship would be able to provide a new Turret Upgrade, New Torpedo upgrade and it would have room to be an Alliance ship with Bombs as I am trying to leave the specifics to the professionals, I am merely throwing this out there as an Idea as it seems like it could be an interesting ship.

If you take a look at my posts in this thread you'll see I'm not the one who started with the character attacks, I ignored some and counter attacked others. I note some users just show up to troll and add nothing related to the thread title, and I'm not the one who has tried to derail the thread and stop any kind of relevant discussion.

I just went back to see where all the "character attacks" started, and it was actually you with post #220.

Thanks for that; I knew there had to be some users out there that aren't all about trashing and trolling.

You would find that there are a lot more of those users if you stop defining "trolling" as "posting anything that criticizes my brilliant ideas".

How is this worse than those?

Do you honestly not see the difference between spending 8 points for a 360* ion turret that requires a 40-50 point ship with a unique title to carry it, and spending 8 points for a 360* ion turret that rolls an additional die to see if it hits, inflicts two ion tokens instead of one, and can go on a 16 point ship? This is like saying "well, the x-wing has three attack dice, so what if we give the a-wing four attack dice with a 360* turret?", and then claiming that you have no idea how your idea could possibly be a bad one.

Thanks. I thought a quad-turret on a fighter was pushing it.

I believe the K-wing has a Quad Turbolaser on it, but that is supposed to be to the B-wing what the B-wing is to the Y-wing

How to mean that comparison? That the K-wing is a super-B-wing?

I mean the K-wing was intended to replace the B-wing as a frontline bomber/heavy assault fighter and would fill the role the B-wing did in universe, much like the B-wing was supposed to replace the Y-wings duties for attacking capital ships

I don't think it would be an Aces release but I think it could be an interesting candidate for a Rebel wave 6 ship (could be paired against an Imperial Virago(aka StarViper) It would introduce Rebel Bomber (if they Y-wing doesn't get it with an Aces) the Quad Turbolaser could be added (maybe 4 dice range 1 only since it specifies shortrange on the Wookiepedia page) and we could see an upgrade for Plasma Torpedoes.

Seriously? a quad turbolaser for fighters?

1. This isn't any different in principle for you proposing a quad ion cannon, except this one actually exists in the EU rather than the Quad Ion which doesn't

2. The entry (mine and Wookiepedia's) specifically specifies " Short-Ranged" Obviously a fighter doesn't have the juice to have a capital ship weapon installed without some sort of drawback and rather than sacrifice hitting power the designers thought to sacrifice the range.

3. a 4 Dice turret limited to range one only would hardly be game breaking, many other ships can attack at range one with 4 dice, one of which also has a turret and also can use that turret to extend pass range 1

4. Aren't you the one that said

I believe almost anything can be costed correctly for the game, and so wouldn't unbalance the game if the cost is correct.

Also notice I did not mention any points values I merely stated that such a ship would be able to provide a new Turret Upgrade, New Torpedo upgrade and it would have room to be an Alliance ship with Bombs as I am trying to leave the specifics to the professionals, I am merely throwing this out there as an Idea as it seems like it could be an interesting ship.

I was thinking in terms of different calibers (laser, blaster, turbolaser), and I didn't consider a Quad Ion to be as high a caliber as a Quad turbolaser, but I can see the range one restriction as a fair interpretation for a fighter based turboslaser, I suppose, and if it's for a heavy bomber then it should have the power for it. Perhaps it may have to be a new weapon, like a "Heavy Turret" slot. or something like a minimum hull/shield requirement to suggest the ship's power capabilities. A Quad Ion cannon would still only do one damage, whereas a Quad Turbolaser turret could do up to five.

You think this is more balance then?

When I first found this card I didn't give it a second thought.

I was thinking in terms of different calibers (laser, blaster, turbolaser), and I didn't consider a Quad Ion to be as high a caliber as a Quad turbolaser, but I can see the range one restriction as a fair interpretation for a fighter based turboslaser, I suppose, and if it's for a heavy bomber then it should have the power for it. Perhaps it may have to be a new weapon, like a "Heavy Turret" slot. or something like a minimum hull/shield requirement to suggest the ship's power capabilities. A Quad Ion cannon would still only do one damage, whereas a Quad Turbolaser turret could do up to five.

You think this is more balance then?

I think the double ion token is too powerful for a turret that can be used as often as every round, so I'd make that a single token. I'd also back away from 4 Attack, since that's also very likely unbalanced; if it's too accurate, it will be a negative play experience for people who play against it. With 3 Attack instead, you could probably stand to loosen the range up to 1-2, and also drop the cost back--maybe to 5.

Overall, I'd say a balanced version of that card would look more like this:

I was thinking in terms of different calibers (laser, blaster, turbolaser), and I didn't consider a Quad Ion to be as high a caliber as a Quad turbolaser, but I can see the range one restriction as a fair interpretation for a fighter based turboslaser, I suppose, and if it's for a heavy bomber then it should have the power for it. Perhaps it may have to be a new weapon, like a "Heavy Turret" slot. or something like a minimum hull/shield requirement to suggest the ship's power capabilities. A Quad Ion cannon would still only do one damage, whereas a Quad Turbolaser turret could do up to five.You think this is more balance then?

I think the double ion token is too powerful for a turret that can be used as often as every round, so I'd make that a single token. I'd also back away from 4 Attack, since that's also very likely unbalanced; if it's too accurate, it will be a negative play experience for people who play against it. With 3 Attack instead, you could probably stand to loosen the range up to 1-2, and also drop the cost back--maybe to 5.Overall, I'd say a balanced version of that card would look more like this:

Wait a minute, that one looks familiar...

I was thinking in terms of different calibers (laser, blaster, turbolaser), and I didn't consider a Quad Ion to be as high a caliber as a Quad turbolaser, but I can see the range one restriction as a fair interpretation for a fighter based turboslaser, I suppose, and if it's for a heavy bomber then it should have the power for it. Perhaps it may have to be a new weapon, like a "Heavy Turret" slot. or something like a minimum hull/shield requirement to suggest the ship's power capabilities. A Quad Ion cannon would still only do one damage, whereas a Quad Turbolaser turret could do up to five.You think this is more balance then?

I think the double ion token is too powerful for a turret that can be used as often as every round, so I'd make that a single token. I'd also back away from 4 Attack, since that's also very likely unbalanced; if it's too accurate, it will be a negative play experience for people who play against it. With 3 Attack instead, you could probably stand to loosen the range up to 1-2, and also drop the cost back--maybe to 5.Overall, I'd say a balanced version of that card would look more like this:

I was thinking in terms of different calibers (laser, blaster, turbolaser), and I didn't consider a Quad Ion to be as high a caliber as a Quad turbolaser, but I can see the range one restriction as a fair interpretation for a fighter based turboslaser, I suppose, and if it's for a heavy bomber then it should have the power for it. Perhaps it may have to be a new weapon, like a "Heavy Turret" slot. or something like a minimum hull/shield requirement to suggest the ship's power capabilities. A Quad Ion cannon would still only do one damage, whereas a Quad Turbolaser turret could do up to five.You think this is more balance then?

I think the double ion token is too powerful for a turret that can be used as often as every round, so I'd make that a single token. I'd also back away from 4 Attack, since that's also very likely unbalanced; if it's too accurate, it will be a negative play experience for people who play against it. With 3 Attack instead, you could probably stand to loosen the range up to 1-2, and also drop the cost back--maybe to 5.Overall, I'd say a balanced version of that card would look more like this:

Vorpal, are you suggesting some kind of weapon that fires OUTSIDE of the firing arc? First of all, that doesn't even make any sense. Secondly, it is potentially game breaking. So you just have a ship that can float around and do any maneuver it wants to? Stupid.

For the K-wing I would like

The rear arc is for the little Twin Laser cannon (probably could swap to a turret, but I like the rear arc better than that idea)

Boost is there because of http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/SubLight_Acceleration_Motor that it comes with. Personally I think the dial is decent enough. Major Juggler could probably run the math on how fair the point value is (one card creator said 18ish) I thought boost,a rear arc and an extra shield probably put it closer to a B-wing than a Y-wing for points

As for the Quad Turbolaser I would go 4 attack range 1 you may attack ships outside your arc you may change one <hit> to a <crit> maybe 6 points.

Plasma Torpedoes 4 attack range 2-3 Attack Target lock discard your target lock to perform this attack. Each uncancelled <hit> removes 2 Shield tokens instead of the usual 1, each uncancelled <crit> removes 3 shield tokens instead of the usual 1 Maybe 6 points.

Edit:No idea why the pilot card has the weird capitalization

I'll be honest. I do not like the K-Wing, and I think it ONLY serves the purpose of, "haha pew pew kaboom!" escalation.

We do not need that.

I'm a little concerned since Gabe "liked" one of my posts. Apparently the sarcasm and humor in it wasn't well aimed.

I guess I won't worry too much until it becomes a trend, like that time on BGG when he started "liking" all his own posts to make it look like he had allies in his point of view. :-/

I'm a little concerned since Gabe "liked" one of my posts. Apparently the sarcasm and humor in it wasn't well aimed.

I'm not sure Gabe understands the concept of sarcasm.

[ADMIN: Edited for inappropriate language.]

For the K-wing I would like

The rear arc is for the little Twin Laser cannon (probably could swap to a turret, but I like the rear arc better than that idea)

Boost is there because of http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/SubLight_Acceleration_Motor that it comes with. Personally I think the dial is decent enough. Major Juggler could probably run the math on how fair the point value is (one card creator said 18ish) I thought boost,a rear arc and an extra shield probably put it closer to a B-wing than a Y-wing for points

As for the Quad Turbolaser I would go 4 attack range 1 you may attack ships outside your arc you may change one <hit> to a <crit> maybe 6 points.

Plasma Torpedoes 4 attack range 2-3 Attack Target lock discard your target lock to perform this attack. Each uncancelled <hit> removes 2 Shield tokens instead of the usual 1, each uncancelled <crit> removes 3 shield tokens instead of the usual 1 Maybe 6 points.

Edit:No idea why the pilot card has the weird capitalization

Thanks for the research,

BTL-S8 K-wing assault starfighter

Armament

• Medium-range twin laser cannon turret (1)
• Short-range quadturbolaser turret (1)
• Hardpoints (18; various configurations)

Crew

• Pilot (1)
• Bombardier (1)
• Gunners (2)

I like your interpretation, but I think there should be at least one crew, if I have that ratio correct.

I like the hit to crit idea for your fighter turbolaser.

But the plasma torpedo is a radiation explosion, and if I understand correctly doesn't damage hull. So perhaps something like one point of damage like ion weapons, or discarding all damage cards except those face up cards that have the Fire in the title.

If you use that card making site, the reason you get the capitalized WAS is that it's being translated automatically from French for the English version. I think he is working on fixing it because it hasn't done that for me today.

BTL-S8 K-wing assault starfighter

Armament

• Medium-range twin laser cannon turret (1)
• Short-range quadturbolaser turret (1)
• Hardpoints (18; various configurations)

Crew

• Pilot (1)
• Bombardier (1)
• Gunners (2)

I like your interpretation, but I think there should be at least one crew, if I have that ratio correct.

I like the hit to crit idea for your fighter turbolaser.

But the plasma torpedo is a radiation explosion, and if I understand correctly doesn't damage hull. So perhaps something like one point of damage like ion weapons, or discarding all damage cards except those face up cards that have the Fire in the title.

Adding a crew clot means dropping one of the ordnance upgrades or the high PS pilots would not get an EPT, because there physically would not be enough room on the bars. Possible because we have a Lambda and Y-wing without EPTs, but personally after having the Y-wing have no EPTs I think I would rather have an EPT than a crew slot,

" The radiation burst was described as "several times the output of a capital ship's ion cannon batteries," but this description has not been explicitly quantified." from Wookiepedia

If a fighter Ion cannon can do 1 damage to hull, and these torpedoes have "several times the output" I would imagine these could still damage hull as well

BTL-S8 K-wing assault starfighter

Armament

• Medium-range twin laser cannon turret (1)
• Short-range quadturbolaser turret (1)
• Hardpoints (18; various configurations)

Crew

• Pilot (1)
• Bombardier (1)
• Gunners (2)

I like your interpretation, but I think there should be at least one crew, if I have that ratio correct.

I like the hit to crit idea for your fighter turbolaser.

But the plasma torpedo is a radiation explosion, and if I understand correctly doesn't damage hull. So perhaps something like one point of damage like ion weapons, or discarding all damage cards except those face up cards that have the Fire in the title.

Adding a crew clot means dropping one of the ordnance upgrades or the high PS pilots would not get an EPT, because there physically would not be enough room on the bars. Possible because we have a Lambda and Y-wing without EPTs, but personally after having the Y-wing have no EPTs I think I would rather have an EPT than a crew slot,

"The radiation burst was described as "several times the output of a capital ship's ion cannon batteries," but this description has not been explicitly quantified." from Wookiepedia

If a fighter Ion cannon can do 1 damage to hull, and these torpedoes have "several times the output" I would imagine these could still damage hull as well

Ywing and HWK should be rebel aces II. imo

Please let this thread die already.

Gabe, you should make another thread for your ideas so people won't be baited into thinking this is 21 pages of speculation.

Ywing and HWK should be rebel aces II. imo

Thing is, there's not much else you can do with the HWK. It's fine as it is.

I mean, unless you want to strap a missile launcher to it or something.

Ywing and HWK should be rebel aces II. imo

Thing is, there's not much else you can do with the HWK. It's fine as it is.

I mean, unless you want to strap a missile launcher to it or something.

I like how its utility increases every time new Copilot upgrades come out. You might even see Leebo (crew) show up in one. Ioning yourself when you were planning on going 1 forward with a turret weapon isn't too bad.

Ywing and HWK should be rebel aces II. imo

Thing is, there's not much else you can do with the HWK. It's fine as it is.

I mean, unless you want to strap a missile launcher to it or something.

I like how its utility increases every time new Copilot upgrades come out. You might even see Leebo (crew) show up in one. Ioning yourself when you were planning on going 1 forward with a turret weapon isn't too bad.

That's why I love the HWK. It was verstile upon release, and is only becoming more and more versatile as time goes on.

Seriously one of the best Rebel units.

Ywing and HWK should be rebel aces II. imo

Funny I hadn't even considered the HWK,

but you're right, they make a good pairing.

Ywing and HWK should be rebel aces II. imo

Thing is, there's not much else you can do with the HWK. It's fine as it is.

I mean, unless you want to strap a missile launcher to it or something.

I like how its utility increases every time new Copilot upgrades come out. You might even see Leebo (crew) show up in one. Ioning yourself when you were planning on going 1 forward with a turret weapon isn't too bad.

You have any ideas for new Co-pilot cards or other upgrades??

I noticed over at the TIE/SR: "Scout" thread their talking about two System upgrades.

Quite a different group than the ones who bashed that idea here.

My mantra is that anything that increases viable build diversity is a good thing. So new droids and turrets are always good, as long as they are balanced. I personally would also like to see the naked Y-wing (no turret) viable without simultaneously making the turret Y-wing too powerful. You could do new droids and turrets in addition to helping out the naked Y-wings. But you have to be careful not to try and help out the naked Y-wing and just end up making the turreted version more appealing.

Alternatively, you can do nothing and just accept that Y-wings should never be run without a turret weapon.

Alternatively, you can do nothing and just accept that Y-wings should never be run without a turret weapon.

Personally I think that a Y-Wing should always have a turret weapon of some sort. Every image of one I've seen has one, so IMO it's more fluffy to make changes that somehow incorporate one.

Just joined the forum. First post ever!

... ... ...

Finally, disruption is all about ruining your opponents plans through denial. Stress and Ion tokens are excellent examples, as this limit movement and action, respectively. I think this is where the Y-Wing has the most potential as a place to grow. Something like limiting attacks would be a logical place to go, given that there is a trinity of steps per turn (movement, action, attack). I'm sure FFG has toyed with the idea, and perhaps we'll see it with new releases. Obviously, the cost of something like that would also be important, like giving up your attack to stop an attack, taking a stress token to stop dice modification, or giving up a movement and an action to prevent an attack. I think something like this would go a long way to making the Y-Wing a more competitive ship.

Similarly, dispensing disruption over multiple ships would play into disruption AND economy. Something like an Ion Bomb (where multiple ships are ion-ed), flash bomb (opponents can't attack/modify dice because the pilot is blinded) or stress bomb (where multiple ships are stressed) would be logical choices, given how the various missiles and torpedoes have developed. Ion turrets coupled with the ability to equip bombs to Y-Wings and more bomb variety would be very good at establishing the Y-Wing as a control ship. It would single-handedly carve out a bigger space for control-based play, and make the Y-Wing the basis for all rebel control players.

How's that for a first post?

The autoblaster was reintroduced during the Galactic Civil War, now as an updated version of blaster technology. Designed for the B-wing fighter, this modern autoblaster had an even higher rate of fire than other blasters, but was not available to other models until after the Battle of Endor.

Not a very serious suggestion, but not an off canon one either.

The other card was such a big hit I thought I would try

another modification upgrade that might be cool for

REBEL ACES 2.

Some what ironic and vindicating now that a third fraction has been announced

which includes a pirate Y-wing with a new paint job.

Why do you keep Necro-ing this thread? Just let it die in peace.

Why do you keep Necro-ing this thread? Just let it die in peace.

Your stupid forum lingo doesn't mean anything to me anyway.

I guessed the B-wing/E before it was announced, and now this time a new Y-wing.

Mua-ahk-ahk-ahk.