So this thread isn't meant to trash on FFG for anything in particular. I love the game and have been playing it from the beginning. But I was looking up some info on A-Wings on Wookieepedia and came across a few things and wondered why isn't this represented in the game.

I already knew the A-Wing's side mounted laser cannon could swivel up and down a bit. But some

A-Wing's had those same cannons modified to rotate in a full 360 degrees motion. How cool would it be to have a rear firing arc on those little guys. They could also carry up to 12 concussion missiles.

But ordnance is a whole other issue.

So what do know about any given ship in the game that isn't represented in the best way.

The biggest thing in my opinion is the lack of a rear arc on the Shuttle.

Falcon.

Tie Advanced.

And shuttle.

Also sad that Tie Bombers really kinda suck. Even got the stats to back that up. Makes it even sadder.

Only one that gets me is the lack of a sensor slot on the A-wing. In the fluff that was their reason for existing.

They could also carry up to 12 concussion missiles.

But ordnance is a whole other issue.

One ordnance upgrade card is already representing multiple individual projectiles. A T-65 X-Wing's 6 torpedoes are a single Proton Torpedo upgrade card, while a BTL-S3 Y-Wing's 10 torpedoes are two. Going off of that, a single Cluster Missiles upgrade card could certainly represent a RZ-1 A-Wing's 12 missiles, since that card is making two attacks.

I think they did really well, considering the number of varying and even contradictory sources they've had to work with. The Advanced is more a victim of role skew (overwhelming defensive emphasis) and squad point thresholds (cost one less and you get a whole 'nother ship) than anything else. And they did a great job re-working the A-Wing, so I expect the TIE Advanced will be fine when the promised changes arrive.

There's plenty of stuff that didn't make it into the game, (or at least hasn't yet, Aces- and Most Wanted-style expansions are a great way to add new content for existing ships) but I can't think of anything that has been included that I'm not satisfied with the accuracy of.

Also sad that Tie Bombers really kinda suck. Even got the stats to back that up. Makes it even sadder.

Your lack of faith disturbs me...

Royal TIEinterceptors dont have fins = (

One ordnance upgrade card is already representing multiple individual projectiles. A T-65 X-Wing's 6 torpedoes are a single Proton Torpedo upgrade card, while a BTL-S3 Y-Wing's 10 torpedoes are two. Going off of that, a single Cluster Missiles upgrade card could certainly represent a RZ-1 A-Wing's 12 missiles, since that card is making two attacks.

I can get on board with this.

One ordnance upgrade card is already representing multiple individual projectiles. A T-65 X-Wing's 6 torpedoes are a single Proton Torpedo upgrade card, while a BTL-S3 Y-Wing's 10 torpedoes are two. Going off of that, a single Cluster Missiles upgrade card could certainly represent a RZ-1 A-Wing's 12 missiles, since that card is making two attacks.

I can get on board with this.

personally I agree 100%. it would have been less effective to give them 4 slots for 1 die missiles or torpedo's.. and it makes perfect sense. Seems many people have issues with how the ordnance works and is viewed. I think this was the explanation I have been looking for, but had not had this epiphany.

I'm also in the camp of the rear arc for the Lambda..

There are bound to be a few inaccuracies, especially considering how many books and what not these ships are portrayed in and how many different viewpoints you could go with for each one. But, in general, they've done pretty well.

On the subject of ordnance, I'd also like to point out that the maximum capacity isn't necessarily relevant, especially for the Rebellion. You can't have your X-Wing pilots going through six torps in a small skirmish. In fact, I seem to remember reading somewhere that the Rebels often didn't stock munitions fully a lot of the time, but I might be making that up. Big galaxy, lots to remember.

The biggest thing in my opinion is the lack of a rear arc on the Shuttle.

Dude, not having that rear gun peeves me to no end.

Well the B-wing only has 3 laser cannons where the X-wing has 1 more yet they both have the same firepower. Also it is funny that the B-wing tends to be better in dog fights than Interceptors.

So this thread isn't meant to trash on FFG for anything in particular. I love the game and have been playing it from the beginning. But I was looking up some info on A-Wings on Wookieepedia and came across a few things and wondered why isn't this represented in the game.

I already knew the A-Wing's side mounted laser cannon could swivel up and down a bit. But some

A-Wing's had those same cannons modified to rotate in a full 360 degrees motion. How cool would it be to have a rear firing arc on those little guys. They could also carry up to 12 concussion missiles.

But ordnance is a whole other issue.

So what do know about any given ship in the game that isn't represented in the best way.

I really wanted swiveling cannons on the A-Wing too, as I have read the same information. Maybe I'll just have to come up with my own upgrade card for it.

The biggest thing in my opinion is the lack of a rear arc on the Shuttle.

Shuttles should be allowed to equip a turret restricted to rear arc and reduced cost by 1 point.

The biggest thing in my opinion is the lack of a rear arc on the Shuttle.

Shuttles should be allowed to equip a turret restricted to rear arc and reduced cost by 1 point.

I can sort of see why they didn't Firesprayed the shuttle's firing arc. The rear arc firepower =/= the front arc primary firepower. Now for the slave one they could flip the main cannons back thus getting the same firepower for the rear arc as the front. If they did that with the shuttle they would have to make separate values and these values would be in comparison to the front armaments so you would be comparing 2 cannon blaster turret to 10 laser cannon front armament. So if the front is only 3 firepower then the rear will have to be 1 (not 2). So the modification for APL is a good alternative IMHO.

Well the B-wing only has 3 laser cannons where the X-wing has 1 more yet they both have the same firepower. Also it is funny that the B-wing tends to be better in dog fights than Interceptors.

That's because the B-wings bottom laser is an HLC. Same with the E-wings top laser. Less guns doesn't equal less firepower, a certain laser could have more blast power than another one.

Not all Lambda's had the rear gun, most didn't and really that's the anti pursuit lasers. The Escort shuttles did however...

The biggest thing in my opinion is the lack of a rear arc on the Shuttle.

Shuttles should be allowed to equip a turret restricted to rear arc and reduced cost by 1 point.

I can sort of see why they didn't Firesprayed the shuttle's firing arc. The rear arc firepower =/= the front arc primary firepower. Now for the slave one they could flip the main cannons back thus getting the same firepower for the rear arc as the front. If they did that with the shuttle they would have to make separate values and these values would be in comparison to the front armaments so you would be comparing 2 cannon blaster turret to 10 laser cannon front armament. So if the front is only 3 firepower then the rear will have to be 1 (not 2). So the modification for APL is a good alternative IMHO.

Actually its 4 laser cannons (like a X-Wing) + 2 Ion Cannons (or 8 Laser Cannons for the military version - BUT Han solo also had 8 laser cannons on his ship). And retractable aft blaster cannons or laser cannons (2).

So it would have been 3 attack front arc and 2 attack rear arc.

Or a rear arc that cannot be used unless you mount a turret weapon, like i wrote above.

Not all Lambda's had the rear gun, most didn't and really that's the anti pursuit lasers. The Escort shuttles did however...

Take a model and look closely. There actually ARE aft cannons on the model we use.

The biggest thing in my opinion is the lack of a rear arc on the Shuttle.

Shuttles should be allowed to equip a turret restricted to rear arc and reduced cost by 1 point.

I can sort of see why they didn't Firesprayed the shuttle's firing arc. The rear arc firepower =/= the front arc primary firepower. Now for the slave one they could flip the main cannons back thus getting the same firepower for the rear arc as the front. If they did that with the shuttle they would have to make separate values and these values would be in comparison to the front armaments so you would be comparing 2 cannon blaster turret to 10 laser cannon front armament. So if the front is only 3 firepower then the rear will have to be 1 (not 2). So the modification for APL is a good alternative IMHO.

Actually its 4 laser cannons (like a X-Wing) + 2 Ion Cannons (or 8 Laser Cannons for the military version - BUT Han solo also had 8 laser cannons on his ship). And retractable aft blaster cannons or laser cannons (2).

So it would have been 3 attack front arc and 2 attack rear arc.

Or a rear arc that cannot be used unless you mount a turret weapon, like i wrote above.

Not all Lambda's had the rear gun, most didn't and really that's the anti pursuit lasers. The Escort shuttles did however...

Take a model and look closely. There actually ARE aft cannons on the model we use.

Take the anti pursuit lasers card and look closely.... There actually ARE anti pursuit lasers on the model we use. Given that the X-wing miniatures game takes all the inspiration from the 20 year old video games - Lambda has no rear shootings as default.

The biggest thing in my opinion is the lack of a rear arc on the Shuttle.

Anti Pursuit Lasers.

Also, if you want rear shooting shuttles you want this: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Delta-class_JV-7_escort_shuttle

I'd have this proxy for an Imperial firespray... it makes more sense.

The biggest thing in my opinion is the lack of a rear arc on the Shuttle.

Shuttles should be allowed to equip a turret restricted to rear arc and reduced cost by 1 point.

I can sort of see why they didn't Firesprayed the shuttle's firing arc. The rear arc firepower =/= the front arc primary firepower. Now for the slave one they could flip the main cannons back thus getting the same firepower for the rear arc as the front. If they did that with the shuttle they would have to make separate values and these values would be in comparison to the front armaments so you would be comparing 2 cannon blaster turret to 10 laser cannon front armament. So if the front is only 3 firepower then the rear will have to be 1 (not 2). So the modification for APL is a good alternative IMHO.

Actually its 4 laser cannons (like a X-Wing) + 2 Ion Cannons (or 8 Laser Cannons for the military version - BUT Han solo also had 8 laser cannons on his ship). And retractable aft blaster cannons or laser cannons (2).

So it would have been 3 attack front arc and 2 attack rear arc.

Or a rear arc that cannot be used unless you mount a turret weapon, like i wrote above.

Not all Lambda's had the rear gun, most didn't and really that's the anti pursuit lasers. The Escort shuttles did however...

Take a model and look closely. There actually ARE aft cannons on the model we use.

Take the anti pursuit lasers card and look closely.... There actually ARE anti pursuit lasers on the model we use. Given that the X-wing miniatures game takes all the inspiration from the 20 year old video games - Lambda has no rear shootings as default.

I know the APL stands for the rear gun. But this isn't satisfying.

ALP works like an electric fence, not like a gun.

In the 20 year old video games the lambdas hadn't no electric fences either.

Also, if you want rear shooting shuttles you want this: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Delta-class_JV-7_escort_shuttle

I'd have this proxy for an Imperial firespray... it makes more sense.

It does not. Even the ugly escort shuttles had only 2 aft laser cannons. So an attack value of 2 for rear arc.

Also, if you want rear shooting shuttles you want this: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Delta-class_JV-7_escort_shuttle

I'd have this proxy for an Imperial firespray... it makes more sense.

It does not. Even the ugly escort shuttles had only 2 aft laser cannons. So an attack value of 2 for rear arc.

Actually if you look it did say turbolasers...

The biggest thing in my opinion is the lack of a rear arc on the Shuttle.

Shuttles should be allowed to equip a turret restricted to rear arc and reduced cost by 1 point.

I can sort of see why they didn't Firesprayed the shuttle's firing arc. The rear arc firepower =/= the front arc primary firepower. Now for the slave one they could flip the main cannons back thus getting the same firepower for the rear arc as the front. If they did that with the shuttle they would have to make separate values and these values would be in comparison to the front armaments so you would be comparing 2 cannon blaster turret to 10 laser cannon front armament. So if the front is only 3 firepower then the rear will have to be 1 (not 2). So the modification for APL is a good alternative IMHO.

Actually its 4 laser cannons (like a X-Wing) + 2 Ion Cannons (or 8 Laser Cannons for the military version - BUT Han solo also had 8 laser cannons on his ship). And retractable aft blaster cannons or laser cannons (2).

So it would have been 3 attack front arc and 2 attack rear arc.

Or a rear arc that cannot be used unless you mount a turret weapon, like i wrote above.

Not all Lambda's had the rear gun, most didn't and really that's the anti pursuit lasers. The Escort shuttles did however...

Take a model and look closely. There actually ARE aft cannons on the model we use.

Take the anti pursuit lasers card and look closely.... There actually ARE anti pursuit lasers on the model we use. Given that the X-wing miniatures game takes all the inspiration from the 20 year old video games - Lambda has no rear shootings as default.

I know the APL stands for the rear gun. But this isn't satisfying.

ALP works like an electric fence, not like a gun.

In the 20 year old video games the lambdas hadn't no electric fences either.

It might not be satisfying, but it's what you got.

I can see the argument for a S2 rear firing arc. I'd prefer it over how APL works, but we have APL and that's that really. This said, I suspect how APL works is more efficient than S2 in causing damage. Any mathwing experts care to check this?

Also, if you want rear shooting shuttles you want this: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Delta-class_JV-7_escort_shuttle

I'd have this proxy for an Imperial firespray... it makes more sense.

It does not. Even the ugly escort shuttles had only 2 aft laser cannons. So an attack value of 2 for rear arc.

Actually if you look it did say turbolasers...

Turbolasers - even better.

It makes no sense, but you should take the rules for single turbolasers from CR90 then.

Or even its main gun, sinve its a double turbolaser...