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...

Arguably yes, though conceivably since these guns are designed for rear arc protection they have been cut down for closer use. My argument stands that the Escort shuttle would be an appropriate stand in model for the firespray - and truly in imperial use unlike said spray.

Don't get me wrong, I love the firespray, I love the design. I am a big boba fett fan. Hell, look at my avatar for petes sake. It's just not a true Imperial ship. This segues nicely into what I believe is the single biggest inaccuracy in the game. It made sense before Scum. It doesn't make sense after.

Of course this said i'd have done scum as a dogs of war style system incorporating all non military craft - including both YT's and the firespray. The YT is not a rebel ship in itself either.

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?

Check the topic again: It says "Ship Inaccuracies".

The shuttle don't had an electric fence hull. No matter if this is more effective then a gun or not.

I don't even want to have a S2 rear arc.

Best would be an 'empty' rear arc and the possibility to equip turrets to use this arc.

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?

Check the topic again: It says "Ship Inaccuracies".

The shuttle don't had an electric fence hull. No matter if this is more effective then a gun or not.

I don't even want to have a S2 rear arc.

Best would be an 'empty' rear arc and the possibility to equip turrets to use this arc.

I guess my point is that I don't feel that it's an inaccuracy. The mechanic is on par either way. APL covers what the shuttle has. The mechanic itself is electric fence as you call it, but really it's a point defense system. close up blasters for hitting anything that comes too close - it makes sense to me.

a S2 R1-2 rear arc would work too.

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?

Check the topic again: It says "Ship Inaccuracies".

The shuttle don't had an electric fence hull. No matter if this is more effective then a gun or not.

I don't even want to have a S2 rear arc.

Best would be an 'empty' rear arc and the possibility to equip turrets to use this arc.

I guess my point is that I don't feel that it's an inaccuracy. The mechanic is on par either way. APL covers what the shuttle has. The mechanic itself is electric fence as you call it, but really it's a point defense system. close up blasters for hitting anything that comes too close - it makes sense to me.

a S2 R1-2 rear arc would work too.

Yeah. Your blasters even fire at a ship in front of the shuttle right through the shuttles cockpit.

Maybe this a point defence system. But its not the rear blaster you might expect when seeing the model.

It works more like the "Hotshot" Blaster which can be everywhere on the ship.

Good for you if you are satisfied with APL as the shuttles rear blaster cannons - I am not.

Check the topic again: It says "Ship Inaccuracies".

The shuttle don't had an electric fence hull. No matter if this is more effective then a gun or not.

I don't even want to have a S2 rear arc.

Best would be an 'empty' rear arc and the possibility to equip turrets to use this arc.

I guess my point is that I don't feel that it's an inaccuracy. The mechanic is on par either way. APL covers what the shuttle has. The mechanic itself is electric fence as you call it, but really it's a point defense system. close up blasters for hitting anything that comes too close - it makes sense to me.

a S2 R1-2 rear arc would work too.

Yeah. Your blasters even fire at a ship in front of the shuttle right through the shuttles cockpit.

Maybe this a point defence system. But its not the rear blaster you might expect when seeing the model.

It works more like the "Hotshot" Blaster which can be everywhere on the ship.

Good for you if you are satisfied with APL as the shuttles rear blaster cannons - I am not.

Remember the miniatures game is not an exact representation of what would be going on in a space battle, 3 dimensions and all, in reality the ship probably isn't cockpit to cockpit.

This said, fair enough we can't agree on everything.

Its been bugging me for a bit but the three black smoke exhaust plumes on the Falcon are angled on the hull.

Should be straight back...

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.

I'm pretty sure I remember the B-Wing putting out more power than the X-Wing in X-Wing.

Check the topic again: It says "Ship Inaccuracies".

The shuttle don't had an electric fence hull. No matter if this is more effective then a gun or not.

I don't even want to have a S2 rear arc.

Best would be an 'empty' rear arc and the possibility to equip turrets to use this arc.

Yeah, I wouldn't mind a mod or title to allow a rear arc 2 attack weapon on the Shuttle, but I don't see it happening, unless it came with a new base!

On the APL don't look at it as an electric fence.. none of these ships actually touch on overlaps. Think of it as the guns fire when someone gets too close, and to the benefit of the upgrade, it doesn't matter where.. a rear arc would on ly be there and APL covers all sides.

Even though I would like a rear arc gun for the lambda, the APL does do a fine job of what it's designed to do.

Why? Because gameplay.

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.

Overlapping doesn't mean touching. Remember this is a simulated 3d environment in a 2 dimensional area. The ships are not solid cubes in shape either but as far as the mechanics and game rules are concern they might as well all be Borg ships. There is allot of representational modifications to the game to make them balanced and fit to theme. Take a look at the scale from X-wing to Falcon to Tantive IV. They are not to the same scale but they still feel about right for that scale.

I'm all for the Turbolaser upgrade on the Lambda.

I'm all for the Turbolaser upgrade on the Lambda.

Agreed, I think that would be a great future upgrade.

Its been bugging me for a bit but the three black smoke exhaust plumes on the Falcon are angled on the hull.

Should be straight back...

Couldn't point this out at work:

Notice how the "grime" goes off on the diagonal, instead of straight on.

Some people don't seem to understand that in the context of a game, changes have to be made for the purpose of balance. The stats and upgrade bars are representational of what the ship can do in the game, not what it can do.

If A-Wings had a sensor slot it would indeed be very fluffy...however you then give a highly manoeuvrable ship even more manoeuvrability with advanced sensors and it would also increase the cost of the A-Wings even more as well as blur the lines between it being a flanker and a heavy hitter thanks to things like FCS.

It is highly debatable, however sometimes sacrifices must be made to not break the game or allow the ship to find its place within the game.

Add me to the multitude of voices demanding a rear arc for the Lambda. It just doesn't feel right without the rear arc!

It's always nice to get other peoples points of views on gameplay or mechanics. After reading some of the post made here I can look at certain things now with a different perspective and live with what we got. And whose knows maybe we'll get a upgrade card for A-Wing's in the future for that rear arc or same with the shuttle. Or could hope to win Worlds this weekend and make that upgrade I want.

Something else I like to see is something representative of how some fighters can lock their laser cannons in sequential mode or fire them simultaneously. Maybe a once per game with a +1 attack.

I originally had an issue with the shuttle not having an auxiliary fire arc. After some consideration, I've come to think that the anti pursuit lasers are actually a good representation for the rear gun. With the Firespray-31, it's the pilot himself that's firing the guns to the back and is able to pilot the ship in order to make his mark easier. The rear turret on a shuttle is fired by a gunner, and not being able to predict the movements of the shuttle, or your target, would make it much more difficult to hit your mark, unless that target is up close and pursuing.

One thing that I noticed is that TIE/Fighters have 3 hull. I always felt them more fragile than that. I'd have given them 2 (again, in keeping with the X-wing series of games). It would also massively fix the swarm is king problem.

One thing that I noticed is that TIE/Fighters have 3 hull. I always felt them more fragile than that. I'd have given them 2 (again, in keeping with the X-wing series of games). It would also massively fix the swarm is king problem.

Yea if the stats were more like the games, I think the core ships would be something like this:

Tie Fighter: 2 Hull

Tie Advanced: 2 Hull, 4 Shields

Tie Bomber: 5 Hull

Tie Interceptor: 2 Hull

X-Wing: 2 Hull, 2 Shields

Y-Wing: 4 Hull, 3 Shields

A-Wing: 2 Hull, 2 Shields

B-Wing: 6 Hull, 5 Shields

Game design comes before matching lore. I've no doubt they tried reverse arc A-wings and reverse arc Lambdas. They decided against it and gave us the current ship designs that work very well indeed.

Tinterceptor, X-wing and Bomber are about right. Rest i'd agree with.

Game design comes before matching lore. I've no doubt they tried reverse arc A-wings and reverse arc Lambdas. They decided against it and gave us the current ship designs that work very well indeed.

Yes. But would the TIE swarm be "fixed" if they only had 2 hull.

Honestly I love the game as it is, and I believe this discussion to be 99% academic.

This said, in a hypothetical X-wing miniatures 2nd edition. I'd LOVE pilot cards to be seperate from ship cards...

TIE swarm's just fine. If it were king there wouldn't be all the Fat Han complaint threads.

Once again, given how high the TIE fighter's hull looks do you really believe FFG's designers didn't try 2 Hull TIE fighters? Everyone keeps pointing out a lore inaccuracy and suggesting FFG missed a trick: they likely saw it, tried it and decided against it. Game design comes first.

TIE swarm's just fine. If it were king there wouldn't be all the Fat Han complaint threads.

Once again, given how high the TIE fighter's hull looks do you really believe FFG's designers didn't try 2 Hull TIE fighters? Everyone keeps pointing out a lore inaccuracy and suggesting FFG missed a trick: they likely saw it, tried it and decided against it. Game design comes first.

You do realize that i'm not disagreeing with this, right?

It's pointing out a pseudo lore deficiency, as in many games that are not the original X-wing quartet a TF and a TI have the same hit points, this said both are INCREDIBLY fragile. The gameplay is fine, though I am querying how different it would be with 2 hull in terms of balance.

TIEs would die in one shot a lot more. If you want jousting values for how much this'd hurt the TIE I'm sure Juggler could provide them. They'd also probably be cheaper, which would mean nine TIE swarms. That, I think, has an awful lot to do with it.

Lorewise, personally I prefer them not being made of glass. They're cheap, light, low maintenance and not the toughest of ships, built to be mass produced on an unprecedented scale to patrol a galaxy rather than fight a conventional war. While they're not exactly Firespray durability and rely more on not being hit than on surviving hits it makes sense to me that with all the Empire's technology they wouldn't be total deathtraps. An unshielded ship especially is going to be made of reasonably sturdy stuff.