Really excellent ideas there, Bilisknir. I especially like the fixed turret option.

And the fire-linked ion cannon option! I've been advocating some sort of "fire-linked" ability for awhile now, but yours is elegantly simple. I love it!

Excuse me for interupting the off topic chatter,

but perhaps this got missed in the mix.

• BTL-A4 title card, maybe like the Charadaan refit (-2) for the A-wing, locking the turret backwards (-2), or removing it completely (-4), adding the Boost ability or evade.

• Longprobe title card that adds the system upgrade.

• BTL-S3 Courier title card that removes the turret, and adds a crew, with restrictions against attack related crew.

• Light Y-wing title card, another Charadaan-like refit that removes both Torpedo slots. perhaps adding boost or evade instead of the negative cost.

• Heavy Y-wing title card that allows for two bomb upgrade slots.

• Veteran title card, the obvious one, that gives the Y-wing an EPT slot.

• Ace title card, not the obvious one, but rather one that gives the Y-wing the Boost or evade ability.

• Astromech upgrade, a droid that will share target locks, like Dutch Vander's ability, but with two other ships like Fleet Officer.

• BTL-T2 Y-wing title card, removes the two proton torpedo slots for two extra shield.

• BTL-T2W title card, extends the range of target locking for self and other ships.

• BTL-A6 Y-wing II "Recon" title card, like the long probe adds the system upgrade, but twice.

• BTL-E5 Y-wing title card, an ability that allows the removal of target locks within a range of 2.

• BTL-U8 "Easy Eight" Y-wing title card, heavily modified with two crew, more hull, less shields, and only the turret as the primary weapon.

• BTL-M2 "Medium Bomber" title card, adds two crew and an extra torpedo slot, making the turret the primary weapon.

• BTL-E9 Y-wing title card, a ship capable of performing a Jam action, same range as the Rebel transport.

• BTL-T10/FO Y-wing title card, if this ship is within range of a huge ship it doubles all target lock actions of the huge ship.

• BTL-TD11 Y-wing drone title card... not even going there, until they introduce Kamikaze ramming rules.

This is a fun set for alternate Y-Wings. I am going to have to look up some of these and read up on them more. Nice list man!

How funny is this, there people on here telling me these will never be made because they say so,

FFG couldn't keep their word about sticking to one scale even before they changed their minds,

so who would be foolish enough to believe they would stick to the shifting and blurry line they call Canon,

Taking things from comic books and video games, ha ha, never oh never.sure.

Fire-Linked Ion Turret (2 pts) Turret. Y-wing only.

When attacking at range 1-2 with your primary weapon you roll 1 additional attack die. After you perform a primary attack that hits a target at range 1-2, the defender rolls 1 attack die, on a {hit} or {crit} the defender receives 1 ion token.

*snip*

If you want to be constructive, try adding to the discussion rather than just being negative.

Unlike iPeregrine, I'll actually try to be helpful in my critique...

Though this particular option is the best of all three you posted, I still think we're missing something. Again, the problem is that we don't want the Y-wing encroaching on B-wing or X-wing territory, and the increase to the attack die alongside the ion effect does this. Additionally, the extra attack die itself is usually worth about 4 points. Instead, how about this:

Fire-Linked Ion Cannon (2pt)

Turret upgrade. Y-wing Only.

After making a primary weapon attack, if the attack hits, you may roll one attack die. On a {hit} or {crit} the defender receives one ion token.

Yes, you have a lesser chance of ionizing your target than if you just used a regular ion cannon or ion cannon turret. But the trade-off is that you have the potential of causing more than one damage with an "ion attack". At Range 1, the damage could become nasty, in addition to to ion token . You're not threatening to outclass the space superiority fighter or the heavy assault fighter with a torpedo bomber, but you're adding a nifty effect that improves the capabilities of the ship all the same.

Yeah that was the same issue I was having when designing those - I was trying to come up with a way that linking the turret without being too complicated but allowing for the linked cannon to increase firepower (i.e. hit chance) a bit. For what it is worth I don't think rolling 4 dice at range 1 for a Y-wing and getting 50% change of an ion is too overpowered.

Other thoughts I had:

You could still add the extra die but cancel one damage to guarantee an ion effect instead of rolling. But then could have a hit which does 0 damage and ions. So the ion cannon did 0 damage.

You could add the extra attack die only at range 2/3. Then still roll the extra die to determine ion effect.

You could just allow a free 3 die ion attack after any attack at range 1/2. Like a range limited Ion Cannon. This is more in keeping with how the game works, but doesn't really fit with the idea of the multiple weapons systems being linked. Firing all together should increase the chance of a hit.

I toyed with ideas of having segregated ion dice as part of the normal attack. But that gets complicated and the rules wouldn't fit on a small card.

Another possibility is to allow the defender a chance to block a damage after checking for hits.

Fire-Linked Ion Cannon (2pt)

Turret upgrade. Y-wing Only.

When performing a primary weapon attack roll 1 additional attack die. After making a primary weapon attack, if the attack hits and there is more than 1 uncancelled attack die, the defender rolls 1 defence die. On an {eye} or {evade} result then cancel one die result ({hits} first). The defender then receives 1 ion token.

Technical note:

My thinking in this game is based around the following: All the primary weapons are likely of similar power per gun tube. More guns on a ship means more shots said ship can throw in any pass on an enemy (again since the guns are all relatively similar). So attack dice are quasi related to number of guns (and in passing the fire rate of those guns). Similarly defence dice are related to both ship size and manoeuvrability. The range modifiers are there for adjusting the ease of shot. So adding an extra gun should increase hit probability. This also works with weapons malfunction critical, the critical represents that one gun tube is damaged.

I don't even know what's going on in this thread anymore.

1) Talking about how to fix the Y-wing, the subject of why the Y-wing named pilots lack EPT slots, especially Salm, is brought up.

2) R2-D6 is brought up; many posters disregard it as a "tax".

3) One poster comments that if it was worth putting the droid on the Y-wings it would have been seen at regionals. It wasn't. Ergo, it's not worth it, and the droid doesn't solve the issue.

4) Poster brings up fact that gauging squadron composition based on regionals results is flawed, based on statistical biases caused by a preference for net decking.

5) Talk commences about why it's flawed, if it is truly so, and potential ways to correct for the issue.

6) You try to regain the original topic by posting an ASCII face that reminds me of Lumpy Space Princess.

7) I give you a play-by-play, since I've been following the thread.

8) You give me a Like, compensating me for my help.

I was going to give you a like, but then I saw your avatar and decided that you chose it just to spite me.

Great, so lets get 100% of all Regionals results.... except now people will still say (and are saying it now) that Regional lists are skewed based on copycatting.

OK, so lets get 100% of Store Championship squads.... except now people will say that THOSE results are just as skewed.

If you've got all the results of a tournament then you can compensate, because you know how many of that list there are. Then the only slightly dodgy assumption you have to make is that list quality is linear, but you already deal with this by having such a broad pool of data.

Say we've got a bag of dice, red, blue, and green. There's an unknown number of each, and they're all different shapes so if you pick one at random you've got a higher chance of picking a particular colour than the others. This represents list quality, it has a higher chance of winning. We'll call the dice with a higher individual chance "good."

We determine the probability of picking each colour by picking them at random a very large number of times to determine probability. The red comes out on top, and from that we conclude that red is the good colour.

The flaw there is the flaw I've proposed in my previous posts, that we don't know the number of lists which is skewing the probability in favour of the most numerous. Both affect the If blue's actually a better colour but we have five times as many reds, the reds come out on top more frequently. How can we possibly account for this?

Tip out and count the dice.

Turns out half of the dice in the bag are red, a quarter blue and a quarter green. Therefore, if each colour were equally weighted, half of the dice you pick should theoretically be red.

If half the wins are from red then red isn't better, simply more numerous. If just under half of the wins are red then red is actually worse but appears better because there's more of them. If three quarters of the wins are red then red is better but not by as much as it appears. Similarly, green and blue are present in equal numbers. If green wins significantly more than blue does it's pretty clear green is better than blue.

Does that make sense?

My thinking in this game is based around the following: All the primary weapons are likely of similar power per gun tube. More guns on a ship means more shots said ship can throw in any pass on an enemy (again since the guns are all relatively similar). So attack dice are quasi related to number of guns

Suggested before and debunked before many, many times. Falcon has eight. Hawk has four non-turret guns according to Wookiee (the ones on the wings). Lambda has eight.

As for guns being similar, look at the guns on the Outrider. They're colossal.

I ran a linear regression test on it once to test the claim that gun count is proportional to attack dice. It roughly works but a fair few ships completely screw it up.

It's only got two canons hence the two attack.

The firespray has two cannons and three attack. The Falcon has eight and three attack. Every gun on the phantom could fit inside either of the Outrider's dorsal guns , and yet the Outrider has 2 atk and the phantom 4 atk. The TIE interceptor technically has six guns.

EDIT: Decided to run a linear regression test. I think the R ² on this should kill this one stone dead.

The R ² value is a measure of correlation. A perfect value is 1, high values indicate good correlation. If the correlation is good then the hypothesis that (Guncount) = k(Attack Dice) works.

Here's what happens when we remove every ship that doesn't obey this:

0.9066 is a pretty respectable R ² . However, we've left out four ships!

Put the VT-49, the Lambda Shuttle, the HWK and the YT-1300 back in, and this happens:

It gets completely trashed to bits.

If the number of guns (and this is completely disregarding the size of the guns, otherwise the Outrider would be disobeying tooo) lines up with the firepower, then the VT-49 should have an attack value of 2, the HWK should have a Primary Weapon attack of 3, and the Lambda and Falcon should have no fewer than five attack dice!

FFG does this stuff by theme, gameplay and playtesting, not on gun count.

Yeah that was the same issue I was having when designing those - I was trying to come up with a way that linking the turret without being too complicated but allowing for the linked cannon to increase firepower (i.e. hit chance) a bit. For what it is worth I don't think rolling 4 dice at range 1 for a Y-wing and getting 50% change of an ion is too overpowered.

Other thoughts I had:

You could still add the extra die but cancel one damage to guarantee an ion effect instead of rolling. But then could have a hit which does 0 damage and ions. So the ion cannon did 0 damage.

You could add the extra attack die only at range 2/3. Then still roll the extra die to determine ion effect.

You could just allow a free 3 die ion attack after any attack at range 1/2. Like a range limited Ion Cannon. This is more in keeping with how the game works, but doesn't really fit with the idea of the multiple weapons systems being linked. Firing all together should increase the chance of a hit.

I toyed with ideas of having segregated ion dice as part of the normal attack. But that gets complicated and the rules wouldn't fit on a small card.

Another possibility is to allow the defender a chance to block a damage after checking for hits.

Fire-Linked Ion Cannon (2pt) Turret upgrade. Y-wing Only.

When performing a primary weapon attack roll 1 additional attack die. After making a primary weapon attack, if the attack hits and there is more than 1 uncancelled attack die, the defender rolls 1 defence die. On an {eye} or {evade} result then cancel one die result ({hits} first). The defender then receives 1 ion token.

Technical note:

My thinking in this game is based around the following: All the primary weapons are likely of similar power per gun tube. More guns on a ship means more shots said ship can throw in any pass on an enemy (again since the guns are all relatively similar). So attack dice are quasi related to number of guns (and in passing the fire rate of those guns). Similarly defence dice are related to both ship size and manoeuvrability. The range modifiers are there for adjusting the ease of shot. So adding an extra gun should increase hit probability. This also works with weapons malfunction critical, the critical represents that one gun tube is damaged.

The printed primary attack value is an abstract combination of the number of weapons, their individual/combined strength, and their fire rate. It does not directly correlate to any values given in the fluff for said characteristics. The Y-wing's primary weapons are slower than, for example, and X-wing's (not to mention that there's half the count), so despite them having the same theoretical damage capabilities, the Y-wing will have fewer attack dice. The A-wing's blasters are tiny, but they have a very rapid rate of fire, giving them 2 attack dice. But like I said, the concept is abstract in nature, and there is (and by all rights shouldn't be) a concrete mechanic to determine it.

As far as game mechanics go, the Y-wing does not need three primary attack dice, even if it pays a premium for them. It's not supposed to be on the same terms as ships such as X-wings and E-wings (space superiority fighters) or B-wings (heavy assault fighters). Two attack dice is perfect. The Y-wing's purpose is to be a tough special weapons platform, whether that consists of turrets or torpedoes. It absolutely doesn't need more attack dice.

As for your turret mechanics...the beauty of this game is that each individual thing you do (each maneuver, action, effect, etc.) is small in terms of necessary mechanics. The more complicated things get, the worse it is. Your concepts on the idea aren't necessarily poor, but they are needlessly complicated. Simple is better. Actions and effects should be able to be resolved in one to two steps. Three steps is pushing it.

If you must improve the Y-wing's primary attack, whilst giving it something special to do under the theme of a turret slave-linked to the pilot's primary weapons, my version is still honestly (and as humbly as I can sound whilst advocating my own idea) the best. It doesn't make the primary weapon overpowered in damage output (which any upgrade that adds a straight die will do)*. It allows for ionization simultaneous with damage output (thus accomplishing the "fire-linked" theme). It has one timing condition, one trigger, and one step to resolve, making it incredibly efficient (which so far only one of your ideas has been close to).

*Effects such as Expose and Opportunist have their own [heavy] opportunity cost, and so are excluded from this.

I was going to give you a like, but then I saw your avatar and decided that you chose it just to spite me.

I didn't do it cause you hate A-wings, I did it because I like them. And also because I've been foruming on my iPad, which the settings manage for the forum won't let me upload images from, preventing me from doing the custom avatar I use for everything else on the web. When I get around to a PC I'll swap me around anyways.

Great, so lets get 100% of all Regionals results.... except now people will still say (and are saying it now) that Regional lists are skewed based on copycatting.

OK, so lets get 100% of Store Championship squads.... except now people will say that THOSE results are just as skewed.

If you've got all the results of a tournament then you can compensate, because you know how many of that list there are. Then the only slightly dodgy assumption you have to make is that list quality is linear, but you already deal with this by having such a broad pool of data.

Say we've got a bag of dice, red, blue, and green. There's an unknown number of each, and they're all different shapes so if you pick one at random you've got a higher chance of picking a particular colour than the others. This represents list quality, it has a higher chance of winning. We'll call the dice with a higher individual chance "good."

We determine the probability of picking each colour by picking them at random a very large number of times to determine probability. The red comes out on top, and from that we conclude that red is the good colour.

The flaw there is the flaw I've proposed in my previous posts, that we don't know the number of lists which is skewing the probability in favour of the most numerous. Both affect the If blue's actually a better colour but we have five times as many reds, the reds come out on top more frequently. How can we possibly account for this?

Tip out and count the dice.

Turns out half of the dice in the bag are red, a quarter blue and a quarter green. Therefore, if each colour were equally weighted, half of the dice you pick should theoretically be red.

If half the wins are from red then red isn't better, simply more numerous. If just under half of the wins are red then red is actually worse but appears better because there's more of them. If three quarters of the wins are red then red is better but not by as much as it appears. Similarly, green and blue are present in equal numbers. If green wins significantly more than blue does it's pretty clear green is better than blue.

Does that make sense?

My thinking in this game is based around the following: All the primary weapons are likely of similar power per gun tube. More guns on a ship means more shots said ship can throw in any pass on an enemy (again since the guns are all relatively similar). So attack dice are quasi related to number of guns

Suggested before and debunked before many, many times. Falcon has eight. Hawk has four non-turret guns according to Wookiee (the ones on the wings). Lambda has eight.

As for guns being similar, look at the guns on the Outrider. They're colossal.

I ran a linear regression test on it once to test the claim that gun count is proportional to attack dice. It roughly works but a fair few ships completely screw it up.

It's only got two canons hence the two attack.

The firespray has two cannons and three attack. The Falcon has eight and three attack. Every gun on the phantom could fit inside either of the Outrider's dorsal guns , and yet the Outrider has 2 atk and the phantom 4 atk. The TIE interceptor technically has six guns.

EDIT: Decided to run a linear regression test. I think the R ² on this should kill this one stone dead.

The R ² value is a measure of correlation. A perfect value is 1, high values indicate good correlation. If the correlation is good then the hypothesis that (Guncount) = k(Attack Dice) works.

Here's what happens when we remove every ship that doesn't obey this:

0.9066 is a pretty respectable R ² . However, we've left out four ships!

Put the VT-49, the Lambda Shuttle, the HWK and the YT-1300 back in, and this happens:

It gets completely trashed to bits.

If the number of guns (and this is completely disregarding the size of the guns, otherwise the Outrider would be disobeying tooo) lines up with the firepower, then the VT-49 should have an attack value of 2, the HWK should have a Primary Weapon attack of 3, and the Lambda and Falcon should have no fewer than five attack dice!

FFG does this stuff by theme, gameplay and playtesting, not on gun count.

Oh look boring spreadsheets.

Look I am not saying that eactly the number of guns should determine attack. More that they are related. Rate of fire, manoeuvrability of firing platform are both important.

So the Falcon has 2 turrets, but only one can fire at any single target. So that's out. If we restrict to the ORS then 2 dice represent the smaller turrets.

The Lambda is a hulking beast with guns in turrets on the rear (which are ignored), and big guns up front. But it isn't a combat ship but a shuttle. So fire rate is probably down on pure combat ships. In addition it is big and heavy - not exactly a great firing platform.

Similarly the HWK is not a combat ship. It is retrofitted for combat but is a hulking beast. Hence the turret. That is its combat weapon.

Now if we look at the Outrider. That's easy, the gun is probably a heavy laser cannon on the model. Not the standard turret. Even if it isn't it could just be a less efficient model of cannon, or one designed to allow longer firing periods.

The Phantom is a slightly special case in that it gets a buff given it is decloaking to fire. So nice little surprise bonus.

The VT-49 is a military transport. It is listed as having two laser turrets. No idea about tube count or rate of fire on those but would have thought they would at least match the falcon.

Sure we can go around for hours arguing this. I never said it is how they determine attack. Merely that it works in my head and affects how I think of the game.

Oh look boring spreadsheets.

They say the gun theory is wrong.

So the Falcon has 2 turrets, but only one can fire at any single target.

Because? I've seen this quoted over and over and it's wrong. If you fly straight at something you can easily shoot with both. And before you say you won't line the ship up like that, almost every other ship in the game has to.

But it isn't a combat ship but a shuttle. So fire rate is probably down on pure combat ships.

Military shuttle used for transporting very important officials. They're not going to skimp on armament.

Look I am not saying that eactly the number of guns should determine attack. More that they are related. Rate of fire, manoeuvrability of firing platform are both important.

Size of gun, power of gun, tech level of gun, maneuverability, fire rate, combat advantage, FFG's playtesting, game balance, there are so many things that saying "this ship has four guns and thus three attack" is a throughly invalid statement. FFG sets attack based on the ship's role in the game. Theme heavily influences that role, but unless you want to claim the HLC and TIE phantom (particularly the phantom) hit with the force of a turbolaser blast the attack dice are set for gameplay. FFG are making a game, not a sim.

Yes, you get a correlation between guncount and attack dice with most ships.

Now if we look at the Outrider. That's easy, the gun is probably a heavy laser cannon on the model. Not the standard turret. Even if it isn't it could just be a less efficient model of cannon, or one designed to allow longer firing periods.

The heavy laser cannon that fits in a little hatch inside the Firespray? (Which I'll add has one barrel and four dice), that fits on the B-wing and the TIE defender easily? I agree that the big guns fit HLC Outrider much better than the 2 dice YT-2400,

Similarly the HWK is not a combat ship. It is retrofitted for combat but is a hulking beast.

Heavy starfighter sized, starfighter agility. Neither hulking nor a beast. FFG put it in a support role so it has one attack and a turret. Those things on the wings are guns, four of them, easily bigger than the TIE fighter's, and yet it has one attack. Why? Give it more and you change its role in the game.

Yeah that was the same issue I was having when designing those - I was trying to come up with a way that linking the turret without being too complicated but allowing for the linked cannon to increase firepower (i.e. hit chance) a bit. For what it is worth I don't think rolling 4 dice at range 1 for a Y-wing and getting 50% change of an ion is too overpowered.

Other thoughts I had:

You could still add the extra die but cancel one damage to guarantee an ion effect instead of rolling. But then could have a hit which does 0 damage and ions. So the ion cannon did 0 damage.

You could add the extra attack die only at range 2/3. Then still roll the extra die to determine ion effect.

You could just allow a free 3 die ion attack after any attack at range 1/2. Like a range limited Ion Cannon. This is more in keeping with how the game works, but doesn't really fit with the idea of the multiple weapons systems being linked. Firing all together should increase the chance of a hit.

I toyed with ideas of having segregated ion dice as part of the normal attack. But that gets complicated and the rules wouldn't fit on a small card.

Another possibility is to allow the defender a chance to block a damage after checking for hits.

Fire-Linked Ion Cannon (2pt) Turret upgrade. Y-wing Only.

When performing a primary weapon attack roll 1 additional attack die. After making a primary weapon attack, if the attack hits and there is more than 1 uncancelled attack die, the defender rolls 1 defence die. On an {eye} or {evade} result then cancel one die result ({hits} first). The defender then receives 1 ion token.

Technical note:

My thinking in this game is based around the following: All the primary weapons are likely of similar power per gun tube. More guns on a ship means more shots said ship can throw in any pass on an enemy (again since the guns are all relatively similar). So attack dice are quasi related to number of guns (and in passing the fire rate of those guns). Similarly defence dice are related to both ship size and manoeuvrability. The range modifiers are there for adjusting the ease of shot. So adding an extra gun should increase hit probability. This also works with weapons malfunction critical, the critical represents that one gun tube is damaged.

The printed primary attack value is an abstract combination of the number of weapons, their individual/combined strength, and their fire rate. It does not directly correlate to any values given in the fluff for said characteristics. The Y-wing's primary weapons are slower than, for example, and X-wing's (not to mention that there's half the count), so despite them having the same theoretical damage capabilities, the Y-wing will have fewer attack dice. The A-wing's blasters are tiny, but they have a very rapid rate of fire, giving them 2 attack dice. But like I said, the concept is abstract in nature, and there is (and by all rights shouldn't be) a concrete mechanic to determine it.

As far as game mechanics go, the Y-wing does not need three primary attack dice, even if it pays a premium for them. It's not supposed to be on the same terms as ships such as X-wings and E-wings (space superiority fighters) or B-wings (heavy assault fighters). Two attack dice is perfect. The Y-wing's purpose is to be a tough special weapons platform, whether that consists of turrets or torpedoes. It absolutely doesn't need more attack dice.

As for your turret mechanics...the beauty of this game is that each individual thing you do (each maneuver, action, effect, etc.) is small in terms of necessary mechanics. The more complicated things get, the worse it is. Your concepts on the idea aren't necessarily poor, but they are needlessly complicated. Simple is better. Actions and effects should be able to be resolved in one to two steps. Three steps is pushing it.

If you must improve the Y-wing's primary attack, whilst giving it something special to do under the theme of a turret slave-linked to the pilot's primary weapons, my version is still honestly (and as humbly as I can sound whilst advocating my own idea) the best. It doesn't make the primary weapon overpowered in damage output (which any upgrade that adds a straight die will do)*. It allows for ionization simultaneous with damage output (thus accomplishing the "fire-linked" theme). It has one timing condition, one trigger, and one step to resolve, making it incredibly efficient (which so far only one of your ideas has been close to).

*Effects such as Expose and Opportunist have their own [heavy] opportunity cost, and so are excluded from this.

So you really don't get what I'm saying. I do not want the Y-wing to become a mini X-wing or B-wing. It should stay as heavy support fighter. Now clearly it will have similarities to the B-wing. Given the B-wing was supposed to be a replacement for the Y-wing in a number of respects.

As to the gun issue. Yes the Y-wing has fewer guns. Hence why it has 2 attack not 3. We know nothing about them being slower than the X-wing's guns. (In fact wookiepedia states that X-wings and Y-wings shared at least 1 model of cannon). One benefit of the Y-wing layout would be to allow more concentrated fire (as the guns are central and parallel so no need to zero them at a given range). But however we look at it isn't really important. Wee have what has already been produced by FFG.

Sure we know the Y-wing is supposed to be a heavy weapons platform But we all agree it isn't great at that at the moment. Pretty much the only way it is taken is Gold + Ion. Torpedoes are too expensive and the Elites are lacking in EPT (which I happen to think was on purpose). So we want some way to include them in the game without having to take an expensive turret.

I agree this game is generally simple. Hence why I discarded a bunch of my ideas for how to make the Fire-Linked turret work. The problem is how to get the effect we want, which is to allow a reasonable chance of a forward attack to hit and possibly ion the target without making the damage output go up. Please tell me other ways you think we could word this. I am open to suggestions on that. I am all for efficiency.

I do think your idea has merit. But the problem is it is too weak. For 2 points you get a 50% chance of an ion if you hit . But you are still trying to hit things with 2 attack dice. Meaning against anything agility 3 you are going to have a horrible lack of output. It means the 4 points for the Ion turret is still significantly better. You give up 1 possible damage for a guaranteed ion effect and 360 deg attack.

I would actually prefer if the Y-wing got a buff for torpedoes in terms of my previous ideas with target locks or cost reductions.

Yes the Y-wing has fewer guns. Hence why it has 2 attack not 3.

" We're using Y-wings because of their greater firepower. But they move like a sleepy Hutt, so watch it. " - Luke Skywalker, Rogue Squadron 3D

Oh look boring spreadsheets.

They say the gun theory is wrong.

So the Falcon has 2 turrets, but only one can fire at any single target.

Because? I've seen this quoted over and over and it's wrong. If you fly straight at something you can easily shoot with both. And before you say you won't line the ship up like that, almost every other ship in the game has to.

But it isn't a combat ship but a shuttle. So fire rate is probably down on pure combat ships.

Military shuttle used for transporting very important officials. They're not going to skimp on armament.

Look I am not saying that eactly the number of guns should determine attack. More that they are related. Rate of fire, manoeuvrability of firing platform are both important.

Size of gun, power of gun, tech level of gun, maneuverability, fire rate, combat advantage, FFG's playtesting, game balance, there are so many things that saying "this ship has four guns and thus three attack" is a throughly invalid statement. FFG sets attack based on the ship's role in the game. Theme heavily influences that role, but unless you want to claim the HLC and TIE phantom (particularly the phantom) hit with the force of a turbolaser blast the attack dice are set for gameplay. FFG are making a game, not a sim.

Yes, you get a correlation between guncount and attack dice with most ships.

Now if we look at the Outrider. That's easy, the gun is probably a heavy laser cannon on the model. Not the standard turret. Even if it isn't it could just be a less efficient model of cannon, or one designed to allow longer firing periods.

The heavy laser cannon that fits in a little hatch inside the Firespray? (Which I'll add has one barrel and four dice), that fits on the B-wing and the TIE defender easily? I agree that the big guns fit HLC Outrider much better than the 2 dice YT-2400,

Similarly the HWK is not a combat ship. It is retrofitted for combat but is a hulking beast.

Heavy starfighter sized, starfighter agility. Neither hulking nor a beast. FFG put it in a support role so it has one attack and a turret. Those things on the wings are guns, four of them, easily bigger than the TIE fighter's, and yet it has one attack. Why? Give it more and you change its role in the game.

Falcon:

The reason for turrets is that the pilot doesn't have to point the ship where you want to fire. So yes theoretically in plane with the ship (not just in front) both turrets could engage any surrounding fighters. But not necessarily easily. So we assume 1 turret attack per round.

Lambda:

Yes you may be right - they may not skimp on armament. It may well have the same or better rate of fire. But it isn't an assault shuttle like say the Republic Dropships. So I'm happy to maintain its weapon systems are not designed for dogfighting.

Bumf:

So we agree on this. Whether FFG set a role in the game basis the ship's history (which it seems they don't from the HWK) and thus more gun ships have a more attacking role or whatever. More guns, in general, means more attack dice.

HLC:

Yeah so the HLC to me is the exception. I guess it represents a larger calibre fast firing weapon. Like the difference between an assault rifle and a heavy belt fed 50cal.

HWK

Actually it was supposed to use its agility and speed to escape fights. Also only the Mouldy Crow was so armed. But given we have a slow support ship not a fast nimble light freighter I think we can probably discard the HWKs history and say FFG just used the shape and name!

More guns, in general, means more attack dice.

What I'm trying to say is it isn't direct, which I think is what you're trying to say too, just from the other direction. More guns usually means more firepower, but many other things also influence firepower. Then firepower and attack style give the basis for attack dice: the shuttle's got a hellava lotta gun but as you said it flies like a shuttle. The TIE phantom doesn't have the firepower of a turbolaser but it attacks from nowhere. Then the basis for attack dice is overridden by FFG game design decisions wherever they feel necessary, see HWK, Outrider, Falcon and the others.

If you've got more guns chances are you'll have more attack dice, but that's where it ends. Gun count is just one variable amongst many and thus the "two guns means two attack dice" statement is wrong, hence why it irks me when people use it to insist on how many dice a ship should have. A two gun ship can have three or even four dice if it works for gameplay. A Y-wing can have three dice thematically and gameplay-wise. The question of "should it?" should be based on its effect on the gameplay rather than how many sticks stick out the cockpit.

More guns, in general, means more attack dice.

What I'm trying to say is it isn't direct, which I think is what you're trying to say too, just from the other direction. More guns usually means more firepower, but many other things also influence firepower. Then firepower and attack style give the basis for attack dice: the shuttle's got a hellava lotta gun but as you said it flies like a shuttle. The TIE phantom doesn't have the firepower of a turbolaser but it attacks from nowhere. Then the basis for attack dice is overridden by FFG game design decisions wherever they feel necessary, see HWK, Outrider, Falcon and the others.

If you've got more guns chances are you'll have more attack dice, but that's where it ends. Gun count is just one variable amongst many and thus the "two guns means two attack dice" statement is wrong, hence why it irks me when people use it to insist on how many dice a ship should have. A two gun ship can have three or even four dice if it works for gameplay. A Y-wing can have three dice thematically and gameplay-wise. The question of "should it?" should be based on its effect on the gameplay rather than how many sticks stick out the cockpit.

Indeed.

So you really don't get what I'm saying. I do not want the Y-wing to become a mini X-wing or B-wing. It should stay as heavy support fighter. Now clearly it will have similarities to the B-wing. Given the B-wing was supposed to be a replacement for the Y-wing in a number of respects.

As to the gun issue. Yes the Y-wing has fewer guns. Hence why it has 2 attack not 3. We know nothing about them being slower than the X-wing's guns. (In fact wookiepedia states that X-wings and Y-wings shared at least 1 model of cannon). One benefit of the Y-wing layout would be to allow more concentrated fire (as the guns are central and parallel so no need to zero them at a given range). But however we look at it isn't really important. Wee have what has already been produced by FFG.

Then again, this is all fluff, and has only a minor say in the way an abstract system determines how many dice they throw...

Sure we know the Y-wing is supposed to be a heavy weapons platform But we all agree it isn't great at that at the moment. Pretty much the only way it is taken is Gold + Ion. Torpedoes are too expensive and the Elites are lacking in EPT (which I happen to think was on purpose). So we want some way to include them in the game without having to take an expensive turret.

I do think your idea has merit. But the problem is it is too weak. For 2 points you get a 50% chance of an ion if you hit . But you are still trying to hit things with 2 attack dice. Meaning against anything agility 3 you are going to have a horrible lack of output. It means the 4 points for the Ion turret is still significantly better. You give up 1 possible damage for a guaranteed ion effect and 360 deg attack.

I would actually prefer if the Y-wing got a buff for torpedoes in terms of my previous ideas with target locks or cost reductions.

" We're using Y-wings because of their greater firepower. But they move like a sleepy Hutt, so watch it. " - Luke Skywalker, Rogue Squadron 3D

HLC:

Yeah so the HLC to me is the exception. I guess it represents a larger calibre fast firing weapon. Like the difference between an assault rifle and a heavy belt fed 50cal.

HWK

Actually it was supposed to use its agility and speed to escape fights. Also only the Mouldy Crow was so armed. But given we have a slow support ship not a fast nimble light freighter I think we can probably discard the HWKs history and say FFG just used the shape and name!

oh, it appears I'm not finished laughing at you.

How about a Y-wing mod/title.

Battle Computer (1 pt)
Modification. Y-wing only .
When you acquire a target lock you may choose to gain a target lock

on all ships inside your firing arc that are within range 3.

When you spend a target lock discard all your blue target lock tokens.

... because sure, this is so much more CANON

than a Y-wing with the Jam action, ha ha ha.

"Canon" is for bullies so they can make themselves feel important.

"Canon" is for bullies so they can make themselves feel important.

Just another word for theme, fluff, lore, the stuff this game is based on. However, it's not the reason you wouldn't get a Jam Y-wing. The reason is because it would be completely broken. Run two of them and your opponent can say goodbye to his actions permanently. Look at how expensive and conditional stressing astromechs are. Jam's on the transport but you can never run more than two and only in 300pt Epic.

"Canon" is for bullies so they can make themselves feel important.

Just another word for theme, fluff, lore, the stuff this game is based on. However, it's not the reason you wouldn't get a Jam Y-wing. The reason is because it would be completely broken. Run two of them and your opponent can say goodbye to his actions permanently. Look at how expensive and conditional stressing astromechs are. Jam's on the transport but you can never run more than two and only in 300pt Epic.

I wouldn't equate the Jam action with 300 points or Epic.

(1) you're thinking of the CR90 which is 3 points, two GR75s would be 4 of the 5 points

(2) A 200 point epic team build (x2) could have three GR75 with the combined 6 team points.

(3) If FFG wants to make a Y-wing only Jam action upgrade they can also decide the restrictions.

"Canon" is for bullies so they can make themselves feel important.

Just another word for theme, fluff, lore, the stuff this game is based on. However, it's not the reason you wouldn't get a Jam Y-wing. The reason is because it would be completely broken. Run two of them and your opponent can say goodbye to his actions permanently. Look at how expensive and conditional stressing astromechs are. Jam's on the transport but you can never run more than two and only in 300pt Epic.

I wouldn't equate the Jam action with 300 points or Epic.

(1) you're thinking of the CR90 which is 3 points, two GR75s would be 4 of the 5 points

(2) A 200 point epic team build (x2) could have three GR75 with the combined 6 team points.

(3) If FFG wants to make a Y-wing only Jam action upgrade they can also decide the restrictions.

(1) No, I'm pretty sure he's not thinking just of the Corvette.

(2) If you actually read the Team Epic rules, you'd see that each side has just 3 epic points. That means each can have a single Epic ship.

(3) FFG isn't going to make a Y-wing only Jam upgrade, because it's out of place on a cheap ship with a small base.

(2) A 200 point epic team build (x2) could have three GR75 with the combined 6 team points.

(2) If you actually read the Team Epic rules, you'd see that each side has just 3 epic points. That means each can have a single Epic ship.

oh, it appears I'm not finished laughing at you.

How about a Y-wing mod/title.

Battle Computer (1 pt)

Modification. Y-wing only .

When you acquire a target lock you may choose to gain a target lock

on all ships inside your firing arc that are within range 3.

When you spend a target lock discard all your blue target lock tokens.

... because sure, this is so much more CANON

than a Y-wing with the Jam action, ha ha ha.

Well in the X-wing books their droids are capable of designating targets 1 2 3 etc and which makes it easier for them ro just rip torpedoes off right away. I assume if X-wings and their droids can do it Y-wings can as well

TIE Hunter

Armament

• Ion cannons (2)
• Laser cannons (2)
• Proton torpedo launcher
  • Standard load: 12 torpedoes in total

So tell me again how a Y-wing with this or that upgrade,

or X many weapons can be too powerful?

TIE Hunter

Armament

• Ion cannons (2)
• Laser cannons (2)
• Proton torpedo launcher
  • Standard load: 12 torpedoes in total

So tell me again how a Y-wing with this or that upgrade,

or X many weapons can be too powerful?

Unfortunately the fact the Hunter is not yet in the game doesn't help you case(that said I want the Hunter to go with the Virago for wave 6)

I don't think we'll ever see a Virago, since that was a one-of-a-kind ship for a pirate king (Prince Xizor). No other copies of it were made. We may eventually see a TIE Hunter. We could also see a TIE Droid and a TIE Avenger. (Though the latter isn't likely).

I'd love to see a CloakShape. The early Empire had them, and the Alliance found themselves having a few. Then again, the slot of "cheap missile boat" has been filled by the Z-95...

I'd love to see a Skipray even more though, give the Imps a turret slot finally. Imagine an Imperial HWK-290, but with better weapons, agility, and shields, and a better maneuver dial.

"Canon" is for bullies so they can make themselves feel important.

Just another word for theme, fluff, lore, the stuff this game is based on. However, it's not the reason you wouldn't get a Jam Y-wing. The reason is because it would be completely broken. Run two of them and your opponent can say goodbye to his actions permanently. Look at how expensive and conditional stressing astromechs are. Jam's on the transport but you can never run more than two and only in 300pt Epic.

I wouldn't equate the Jam action with 300 points or Epic.

(1) you're thinking of the CR90 which is 3 points, two GR75s would be 4 of the 5 points

(2) A 200 point epic team build (x2) could have three GR75 with the combined 6 team points.

(3) If FFG wants to make a Y-wing only Jam action upgrade they can also decide the restrictions.

But you can't run GR-75s in 100pt. You can get a max of two jammer ships in Epic, on highly expensive Huge ships. All jammer Y-wings and you could have up to 12 jammers flying around in an Epic game.

I don't think we'll ever see a Virago, since that was a one-of-a-kind ship for a pirate king (Prince Xizor). No other copies of it were made.

After Xizor's death Mandal Hypernautics built a very large amount of them. The Zann Consortium fielded them in squadrons.

Just joined the forum. First post ever!

I think a good approach may be to examine the design space of the game, both through ship role, but also overall play styles. I'm going to draw upon knowledge as a Magic player, and say that there are three base styles of play, with hybrids styles formed from each -

1. Aggro - Players play aggressively, and muscle through all opposition through sheer numbers or damage (TIE Swarms and alpha strike lists)
2. Combo - Players build a combo of ships and interactions that try to break the game, and win the game based on the combo alone (Dutch Vander, Garven Dreis, Kyle Katarn, and push the limit are good examples of combo pieces, where all of a sudden each ship is taking multiple actions)
3. Control - Players play to win the game through attrition. They avoid the damage race like aggro players, instead relying on economy of action, disruption, and devaluation of their opponents ships (Ion mechanic, stress mechanic, asteroids). I feel that the design space for aggro play has been much better developed, with combo following, and control last. It also stands to reason that most new players prefer aggro, as it's the easiest play style to pick up (point and shoot).

It has been argued that the Y-wing is should remain a secondary weapons platform. I see three other ships on the rebel side that serve this role:

• The B-Wing serves as a heavy 'Gun Ship', with strong attack and shields, multiple torpedo slots, and a cannon slot. It is meant to be an aggressive attacker, with all other ships under-gunned in comparison. This is perfect for aggro players. With the addition of the Rebel Aces, it gains a crew slot, which opens up the opportunity for combo players to take a look. That said, I think most players will stick to the aggro role it was designed for.
• The Z-95 serves as a cheaper generalist ship. Most players think it serves as a cheap ordinance platform, and though I don't disagree, I see it more as a cheap x-wing. The single missile slot (rather than 2 or 3 like the TIE Bomber) also pushes it towards generalist. It was also designed as a counter for imperial swarms. I would say it can fit into all three styles of play.
• The HWK-290 serves as a Support Ship, with a turret and crew slot. It is the hallmark ship of combo play, with some control elements thanks to the Ion turret .

Based on the above, I assert then that the Y-wing is destined to be a control ship. Control can then be split into 3 factors: board control, economy, and disruption.

Board control is just as it sounds. The player controls the actual board space, preventing opponents from finding optimal firing solutions and preventing opponents from reaching certain areas (forcing them to remain in an asteroid field, for example). In x-wing, as in chess, the player that controls the center of the board will have greater advantage, because he will have more options available. I think the option to swap out torpedoes for bombs would be a wise design decision, as bombs are meant for board control. The ability to launch ordinance in 360 degrees (as spoiled with the newest b-wing pilot) would also be a good example of some board control.

Economy is also a fairly simple concept, though complex in nature. The entire premise is to eliminate threats at a reduced cost. This can be in terms of squad points, actions, movements, or attacks. For example, If my lone TIE fighter takes out your fully loaded Wedge, I've obviously come out ahead in points vs points economy. Similarly, if my cheap 23 point Y-Wing has Ion-ed your 40-point Shuttle out of the game, I have achieved an economic advantage. I feel that this is a space that the Y-wing could be expanded upon. Ordinance such as the Assault missile and proton bomb somewhat fill this space, with the ability to hit multiple targets at once. I feel that this can be expanded, given the need of 2 ion tokens on large ships. As it stands, the Ion cannon turret is a good example. Something that fills this space more effectively would be a go a long way towards establishing the Y-wing a foothold.

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?

I don't think we'll ever see a Virago, since that was a one-of-a-kind ship for a pirate king (Prince Xizor). No other copies of it were made.

After Xizor's death Mandal Hypernautics built a very large amount of them. The Zann Consortium fielded them in squadrons.

Virago was apparently destroyed in a battle over Coruscant, when Darth Vader's flagship Executor destroyed Xizor's skyhook. Soon after Xizor's death, MandalMotors regained the rights to the StarViper design and began producing inferior versions of the original craft.

*holycrapitshumongous snip*

Also, the Y-wing is already a control beast with the Ion Cannon Turret. You usually see them in pairs since they're decently cheap, or as an add on to a named Y-wing (who am I kidding) Dutch Vander for opportunity targets. There is the Ion Pulse Missile for ionizing large targets, but you won't see them on a Y-wing. The ships were meant for heavy target assault, hence the torpedo slots.

The design space for the Y-wing is somewhat limited, if you're only making items concerning the Y-wing, though it's not as restricted as a specific forum member likes to think.

• Torpedoes could use a boost, yes. But you won't see that as a title for Y-wings, as there's not much that can be done with a title card. As I said earlier in the thread, they're probably reluctant to drop the points, because that makes Flechette Torpedoes way too cheap. Thus they'll have to increase the efficacy of the torpedo to make them worth the cost, through modifications (less likely) or through pilot abilities of new Y-wing pilots (more likely). Nera Dantels is a curious way of doing this, and Horton Salm already does do...then again, few people use Salm anyways. You could also add more torpedoes to the game, but those can then go on any ship and won't be Y-wing-specific. If there was an AMAZING torpedo! the best ever! how many people would stick it on a Y-wing and start to fly them again?
• Astromechs are even more limited. Any effect on an astromech has two other ships it can go on, and might better serve there. Also, we already see the fact that a decent number of astromechs aren't used in the first place...does anyone use the one where you flip a crit with the "Ship" keyword face down during the end phase? You'd be hard-pressed to make an astromech only for Y-wings (as you can't straight limit it, due to precedence).
• That leaves turrets. I've already taken someone's idea and made it [what I feel is] appropriate, balanced, and fluffy. There are other options as well, all of which improve/diversify the Y-wing's almost!uniqueness...yes, it will benefit the HWK-290 as well, so it has an added benefit.

(...that's what she said...)