The Lambda has those tiny guns on the butt but no rear arc.

I wish it had a rear arc that only had an attack value of 1, or 2.

the anti pursuit lasers upgrade is the rear turret.

APL was a sorry excuse for the rear turret. Grr....

I agree. Anti Pursuit Lasers should allow for reach out to range 1 at a 1 attack. Oh well.

The Lambda is already a good ship, as long as you know how to fly it. Adding a rear arc would have made it too good, I think. Especially if you had four shuttles at once.

I feel like it should have been stock, yeah.

Wait for Lambda Aces, coming Q3 2016.

The Lambda is already a good ship, as long as you know how to fly it. Adding a rear arc would have made it too good, I think. Especially if you had four shuttles at once.

Or way more expensive. I remember in the old X-wing game, the Shuttle was one of the toughest ships to kill. I hated that it could fire backwards.

IIRC they added the Delta Escort Shuttle with the turret on the back because they removed the turret from the Lamda class.

Flying behind the Lambda was an easy kill for you. Fyling behind a Delta was an easy kill for them.

So the FFG space cow is actually closer to the X-Wing Sim Lambda rather than the canon shuttle, in that way.

I'd certainly pay more points for a Lamda that had a rear arc.

I wonder if they will ever make the larger imperial shuttle - troop transport.

Slightly off-topic... Wasn't there a version of the A-wing which could turn it's guns backwards?

I assume they want to keep the Firespray unique, but I wouldn't mind an upgrade card that lets you shoot backwards with A-wings.

I personally think the APL upgrade should have been a 1 attack rear arc shot instead of its current incarnation, I would have loved to see the A-wing test pilot give rear arcs to A-wings instead of a second EPT as well

It irks me as well that the rear turret on the Lambda can't fire. Anti-Pursuit Lasers just don't cut it - at all!

Yeah, I think they should have made the shuttle more expensive and included a lower strength auxiliary fire arc. I think that it would have better represented the shuttle both thematically and capability wise. They should be expensive and bad ass! Even the Emperor used them for getting around.

The Lambda is already a good ship, as long as you know how to fly it. Adding a rear arc would have made it too good, I think. Especially if you had four shuttles at once.

Yeah, that'd be almost as unfair as a banana.

If APL was guaranteed damage and maybe even R1 from the back side of the shuttle it'd be totally cool.

Most other large ships have rear firing so Itd be less useful there.

I agree that the aft weapons should be able to fire.

Even if it's only very limited say one dice range 1-3 or two dice range 1.

It just would have been nice to have that aft ark printed on the base.

Oh well it's still a **** good ship and my most played next to the ever trusty Tie/ln

The Lambda has those tiny guns on the butt but no rear arc.

I wish it had a rear arc that only had an attack value of 1, or 2.

the anti pursuit lasers upgrade is the rear turret.

APL was a sorry excuse for the rear turret. Grr....

I think the reason they did this was so they didn't have to have two different primary weapon firepower values in the profile. Sounds wired but the only ship with an auxiliary firing arc the Firespray-31 has the same value for primary and auxiliary firing arc.

If they had to do an actual rear turret they would have to give another value and then re-clarify the rules to avoid confusion. I know it might sound stupid to not know which arc would be 3 and which arc would be only 1 but if you take a look at all the confusion between rules as it is now it is best to follow the principle of KISS (Keep It Stupidly Simple)

Wait for Lambda Aces, coming Q3 2016.

Why so far away? Just need to paint Han and Chewbacca on the cockpit, include new bases with a rear arc and put Tyderian and Rebel crest stickers on the boxes.

The Lambda is already a good ship, as long as you know how to fly it. Adding a rear arc would have made it too good, I think. Especially if you had four shuttles at once.

Yeah, that'd be almost as unfair as a banana.

I see what you did there . . .

Lack of a rear arc on the Lambda annoys me to no end.

It makes sense as to why they omitted it, though. The Firespray already had an auxiliary fire arc, and how crappy would that be for the Imperials to have two ships, LARGE ships at that, to have two secondary arcs while the Rebels have one large base turret. Speaking, of course, at the point in time when wave 3 was released.

Having said that, the rear arc on the Firespray makes NO sense. I get that the stupid guns on the bottom are supposed to swivel around, but that's a horrible, crappy, stupid and retarded justification.

In the middle of a fire fight those guns have to swing backwards, aim, hit the target, then perhaps swing back around to fire forwards again, all in a split-second. Never once have we seen any Firespray in any form do this in either a movie or game. Looking at the model, it doesn't even seem possible, as the guns would hit the hull before it was pointing backwards.

Meanwhile the Lambda has static guns permanently aiming backwards that could potentially fire both at the same time, but that's fudging the game mechanics, so whatever.

Here's a thought experiment I haven't heard before: what would you think if the Firespray had a single forward-facing firing arc with the option for APL and the Lambda had the auxiliary arc? Keeping the same dial, of course.

I think this is how it should have been.

Someone build a time machine.

Slightly off-topic... Wasn't there a version of the A-wing which could turn it's guns backwards?

I assume they want to keep the Firespray unique, but I wouldn't mind an upgrade card that lets you shoot backwards with A-wings.

That would be Mk. II. The original ones could raise and lower the guns about, I believe, 30 degrees. Then the Mk. II version was capable of turning them completely backwards. That was also within the timespan for the game, so it would totally be possible to add as a modification.