It sounds crazy, I know, but I think Armada may actually allow for more diversity in terms of fighters than X-Wing ever did, if we are talking about roles versus pure stats. Hear me out on this.

In X-Wing, the ships have low diversity in terms of role, because every ship is essentially pigeonholed into a dog-fighting game. Their stats, actions, and upgrades provide a wide degree of ship difference in skin and combat capabilities, but it seems to me that they all remain basically the same thing just made over in different flavors.

A brief example: the lack of truly dedicated bombers. The expensive nature of ordnance in X-Wing has almost removed bombers as a reasonable investment. Thus, we see Y-Wings acting as a mobile turret party rather than in their intended role: as bombers. Also, B-Wings serve as jousters extraordinaire, which is the opposite of their role in much of the lore, where they are bombers needing an escort. TIE bombers shoot off one missile and then dogfight with X-Wings and A-Wings...very non-lore stuff. The role differences in X-Wing are divided into things like turrets and arc-dodgers, which are distinct, but still serve only to increase their value as dog-fighters. For X-Wing, this makes sense, as it is a game all about dog-fighting. But it leaves me feeling that the ships not meant for this role get short-changed in a way.

In this light, Armada will perhaps showcase the different varieties of fighters in a better way than X-Wing ever did (at least in terms of role diversification). Bomber, escort, heavy...all of the keywords provide a natural and interesting role development for each ship. Y-Wings and TIE Bombers become heavy ordnance delivery systems weak in the dog-fighting department, Interceptors and As become fast interceptor craft weak at hitting caps (I hope...not quite sure what their keyword does), and the X-Wing truly shines in its intended role as a jack-of-all-trades, space superiority craft-- escort, toughness, torps, the works. TIE fighters--even more swarmy than in X-Wing, which makes them feel very lore-consistent! The role diversification feels very Star Wars to me.

In sum, though the fighters will not have much statistical variance in Armada compared to X-Wing (that pretty much goes without saying), the role variance has been developed in a way that I find to be very appealing. Give me my fighter-bombers!

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE X-Wing...I am just prepared to love this even more, and not just for the capital ships!

I agree with your analysis.

I love the TIE Bomber in X-Wing, and it still works because it is cheap in points while still being very sturdy. In Armada, I'm hoping that it will really come into its own.

Yeah, the bomber is still fun to fly in X-Wing, but it doesn't feel as much like a bomber as I would like. That role looks like it is being strengthened in Armada for sure!

I agree as well. X-Wing fighters dont have a chance to play their canon roles really, since none of the reasons for those roles actually exist other than "destroy enemy fighters (or other non-capital ships)".

I was discussing this very thing with my friend last night, and i'm even more excited than before for the game. I dont know if I can handle much more optimism at this point.....

Thus far the roles that we've seen are 'escort' and 'bomber', which are also listed powers on the cards. In that power, it seems as if 'escort' means escorting other squadrons, not as a screen for a capital ship.

'Swarm' is the ability on the TIEs, which I think probably corresponds to that screening role, but not necessarily only that.

I hope that the TIE Interceptor will finally be an 'interceptor'. I know that the names applied to Star Wars things have a very weak relationship to their real-world counterparts (e.g. destroyers, which should have been the smallest regular type of vessel, rather than the largest), so maybe I should just get over it.

Star Destroyers aren't destroyers....it's a separate ship class. Confusing i know. To quote Wookiepedia:

"The term originated with the idea of a warship powerful enough to destroy entire star systems, and did not necessarily indicate a destroyer type vessel.[3] Despite this, Star Destroyers were sometimes referred to as destroyers themselves. ...In the Anaxes War College System, any warship that was between 1 and 2 kilometers in length qualifies as a Star Destroyer, excepting cases where the vessel, despite its length matching that of a Heavy Cruiser or battlecruiser, had less or more armaments than their class or role. Examples include the 900m Victory-series of Star Destroyer and the 2.2km Secutor-class Star Destroyer. Ships with a dagger profile that fall into the Battlecruiser or Dreadnaught classes are referred to as Super Star Destroyers."

"Some disagreed with the use of Star Destroyer as a classification, feeling that it was an unfair recognition of Kuat Drive Yards, who commonly used the term for their own ships. It was ultimately included, however, as, by the time of the Clone Wars, many warships not made by KDY were referred to as Star Destroyers"

Obviously it was made up to explain the name, but it is at least some canon that might help settle that one for you

Yeah, unfortunately, the Anaxes War College system makes thing even more obtuse, because...

"Size matters not."

Classifying by size rather than purpose is ... dumb.

Thus far the roles that we've seen are 'escort' and 'bomber', which are also listed powers on the cards. In that power, it seems as if 'escort' means escorting other squadrons, not as a screen for a capital ship.

'Swarm' is the ability on the TIEs, which I think probably corresponds to that screening role, but not necessarily only that.

I hope that the TIE Interceptor will finally be an 'interceptor'. I know that the names applied to Star Wars things have a very weak relationship to their real-world counterparts (e.g. destroyers, which should have been the smallest regular type of vessel, rather than the largest), so maybe I should just get over it.

I am guessing that Interceptors and A-Wings will be pretty slick as true interceptors. I am hoping that counter gives them the ability to fire back when fired upon, which would allow you to zip them into position to pin enemy fighters without fully sacrificing the ability to shoot on that turn. That should make them very powerful pinners/distractors to free up your other ships for bombing runs, and should also allow them to keep enemy fighters well away from your capitals if that is what you desire.

That almost sounds like...an interceptor.

Of sourse, I may be totally wrong about counter, but that is my theory as of now.

Time will tell.

Yeah, unfortunately, the Anaxes War College system makes thing even more obtuse, because...

"Size matters not."

Classifying by size rather than purpose is ... dumb.

Oh yes, makes no sense at all. But this is a setting with magic space samurai using laser swords, so....honestly this issue doesn't seem so big

yes...the three classical levels of warfare...tactical, operational, und strategic! XWING is very much the tactical...meanwhile ARMADA is that flux between tactical to operational level. Brilliant observation Heere Jedhead - I fully concur and support!!

I agree as well. X-Wing fighters dont have a chance to play their canon roles really, since none of the reasons for those roles actually exist other than "destroy enemy fighters (or other non-capital ships)".

I was discussing this very thing with my friend last night, and i'm even more excited than before for the game. I dont know if I can handle much more optimism at this point.....

Yes, exactly my sentiments! I am salivating to unleash bombing runs escorted by fighters while the interceptors from either side try to occupy the enemy.

I do hope that they make the TIE Bomber more than just a TIE with the Bomber ability, which would probably make it the equal of the X-Wing or not as good, depending on the other attributes.

Well, it has more HP (4 compared to 3, I believe), and has the heavy keyword, so it can't pin down enemy squadrons as a dog-fighter. It also gets to utilize one blue and one black against squadrons (I assume to represent its missiles and laser attack). Its anti-cap attack is also a black die, so overall, it will have some significant punch against caps compared to the TIEs due to the upgraded die, and its black anti-squad die will also allow for a big punch against fighters as well, though it will have fewer total dice.

I like the black die, though; Double hits, anyone?

Well, it has more HP (4 compared to 3, I believe), and has the heavy keyword...

You've seen the cards for the bombers?

...

OH, right we can see some of the stats on the images. (duh)

With the yellow referring to speed, the TIE Bomber squadron is actually faster than anything in the Rebel squadron arsenal aside from the A-Wings.

Well, it has more HP (4 compared to 3, I believe), and has the heavy keyword...

You've seen the cards for the bombers?

...

OH, right we can see some of the stats on the images. (duh)

With the yellow referring to speed, the TIE Bomber squadron is actually faster than anything in the Rebel squadron arsenal aside from the A-Wings.

Yeah, I noticed the speed, too. FFG seems convinced that the TIE Bomber was a fast and fairly maneuverable ship. Without a doubt I think they made it too tough/evasive in X-Wing. The fluff describes them as wallowing like a Hutt, and a Hutt with no shields, at that--but compare them to an X-Wing in the miniatures game and they dodge as well as an X-Wing, can barrel roll, have equivalent speed, and are tougher to boot!

I always thought there was a major disconnect there...

The fluff describes them as wallowing like a Hutt, and a Hutt with no shields, at that--but compare them to an X-Wing in the miniatures game and they dodge as well as an X-Wing, can barrel roll, have equivalent speed, and are tougher to boot!

I always thought there was a major disconnect there...

Well, if you think of the 'lore' as just 'fluff', what does it matter? It's just there to give English majors a job, right?

It sounds crazy, I know, but I think Armada may actually allow for more diversity in terms of fighters than X-Wing ever did, if we are talking about roles versus pure stats. Hear me out on this.

In sum, though the fighters will not have much statistical variance in Armada compared to X-Wing (that pretty much goes without saying), the role variance has been developed in a way that I find to be very appealing. Give me my fighter-bombers!

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE X-Wing...I am just prepared to love this even more, and not just for the capital ships!

I agree with you.

Bring the ten boxes of fighters on!

Not five of each faction either...

Star Destroyers aren't destroyers....it's a separate ship class.

Absolutely true. The designation is a different class of ship

There are whole star systems whose gross domestic product is less than the cost of and Imperial Star Destroyer.

There were some less industrialized nations, which throughout their recorded history, do not use as much energy as an Imperial Star Destroyer expends to make a single hyper space jump.

I quote from the Imperial Sourcebook [West End Games 1989], which predates Wookiepedia and was the source material of all the authors before there was Google or an Expanded Universe.

During the time of the Old Republic the line was the most amorphous level of organization in the Republic Navy. In theory a line should have five capital ships [ships of the line], but the percentage of lines which actually have five ships is about eight percent.

Lines vary from as few as three capital ships to 20 or even more if circumstances warrant, the type of capital ship would vary as well dependent on the role they were to fill.

There were attack lines, heavy assault lines, pursuit lines, recon lines, skirmish lines, torpedo lines, troop lines and planetary invasion lines. Again the number and class of capital ships were dependent on the need of the line.

A Star Destroyer is considered a line in itself. Further Star Destroyers were the first craft that were considered to be capable of fulfilling all the roles of each of the lines.

An Imperial Naval Staff study concluded that a Star Destroyer was not the equivalent of a single line but rather it was at least the equivalent a capital ship squadron [composing of at least three lines] of the time, and would be more properly categorized as such, a Star Destroyer was more in class with a full capital ship squadron rather than a line.

The Fleet Admiralty agreed with the analysis, but disagreed with the conclusion. The Admiralty felt that as there were more lines than squadrons, designating the Star Destroyer as a line unit would get them more Star Destroyers. The Admiralty's thinking prevailed.

I also recall a letter I saw in Bantha Tracks, from 1980 where an MIT grad student proposed that the name "Star Destroyer" came from the fact that the fuel source of the ship was actually it siphoning and consuming energy from a Sun, and therefore destroying the star in the process. That idea never took off but it was cool reasoning back then to my 9 year old self.

Oh yes, makes no sense at all. But this is a setting with magic space samurai using laser swords, so....honestly this issue doesn't seem so big

Agreed. Star Wars is not sci fi. Star Wars is SPACE OPERA.

And I thank The Almighty for that.

Star Destroyers aren't destroyers....it's a separate ship class.

Absolutely true. The designation is a different class of ship

There are whole star systems whose gross domestic product is less than the cost of and Imperial Star Destroyer.

...

I also recall a letter I saw in Bantha Tracks, from 1980 where an MIT grad student proposed that the name "Star Destroyer" came from the fact that the fuel source of the ship was actually it siphoning and consuming energy from a Sun, and therefore destroying the star in the process. That idea never took off but it was cool reasoning back then to my 9 year old self.

Er... well, okay, let's hope that the Interceptor naturally has an interception role, so that we can believe that the SWU uses logical nomenclature.

Er... well, okay, let's hope that the Interceptor naturally has an interception role, so that we can believe that the SWU uses logical nomenclature.

Agreed. The lines in the above message was designation for capital ships, not fighter squadrons.

Capital ship lines were expected to have their own support, escort, recon, etc. fighter and smaller vessels all in support of the line.

I would hope and expect TIE Interceptors and A Wings have the ability to showcase what they were designed for, their in game speed being just the first to highlight this.

The speed is one thing, but I'm even more interested in their role text. I have a feeling they might posess more defense tokens while either having better attacks against enemy squads (more dice, rerolls?) or have the ability to move when normal squads would be forced to engage. :3

The speed is one thing, but I'm even more interested in their role text. I have a feeling they might posess more defense tokens while either having better attacks against enemy squads (more dice, rerolls?) or have the ability to move when normal squads would be forced to engage. :3

It looks like counter is their thing, though interceptors have swarm as well. That right there combined with the speed gives them a totally different role from the other ships.

I am also guessing that the more maneuverable hero squadrons get scatter to replace one of their brace defense tokens as well, which should make those squadrons more survivable than comparable non-maneuverable hero squadrons. I would guess TIE fighter, A-Wing, and Interceptor heroes get a brace and a scatter, and everyone else double braces. The expansion packs come with one scatter for the Rebels that we know of, and two for the Imps, so if that is in fact the total scatters those ships make the most sense to me, especially as we know Howlrunner gets a scatter, and every other hero we can see for sure (Luke, Keyan, Rhymer) all get double brace. Nimble ships = one scatter one brace, slower ships= two brace seems likely to me.

Maybe we should also think harder about what interception means. Traditionally, it was meant for short-range fighters intercepting enemy bombers before those bombers could strike their targets. Short-range was their defining characteristic.

Maybe in this case it's about quickly flying out to intercept naval bombers before they get into striking range of one's capital ships, in which case speed is the defining characteristic.

Now, is that also what A-Wings are for, or were A-Wings intended for flanking and/or reconnaissance?

Maybe we should also think harder about what interception means. Traditionally, it was meant for short-range fighters intercepting enemy bombers before those bombers could strike their targets. Short-range was their defining characteristic.

Maybe in this case it's about quickly flying out to intercept naval bombers before they get into striking range of one's capital ships, in which case speed is the defining characteristic.

Now, is that also what A-Wings are for, or were A-Wings intended for flanking and/or reconnaissance?

This! Most people don't realise that interceptors are light weight response craft. You don't send them into enemy territory, you don't have them escorting bombers.

They need to do three things: have high firepower (to kill bombers), be able to scramble and intercept quickly, and be fast to do that.

Now, to be fast, things happen:

You cut down on mass to increase horsepower to weight ratio.

You make the engines bigger and have higher performance.

What weighs a lot and you typically bring a lot of? Gas. Not blaster gas, but fuel. Cutting back on fuel might reduce flight time from 9 hours to 1, but the bombers will be over head for 15 minutes anyways, so its fine.

Cutting away redundancies also helps in lighten the craft and increases agility at the cost of ruggedness.

("But there is no gravity in space!" you claim. Well, your wrong, but I'm not talking about weak gravity. I'm talking about mass and interia)

Increasing performance in engines typically involves making compromises, or else you have just made a better engine and you should put it in everything. Increasing performance usually means your making modifications that lower the engines life expectancy, darasticly lowering its efficiency, and increasing the maintiance time required on the engines. However, the farther you go, the faster and more powerful it becomes. Ever wonder why sport cars are such gas guzzelers? (Hint: high performance).

Anyways, take a look at the a-wing, a poorly designed intercepted craft (that we love).

Does it have the firepower to quickly dispatch the enemy before they complete their objective/you run out of fuel? NO (unless you include missiles)

Does it sacrifice fuel range, integrity, and non-essential systems for that increase in speed? NO. (It has a frickin heat shield! A heavy, massive, heat shield! Also, all that electronic war rare equipment and shields and missiles and life support and secondary systems... what would it be like if it lost all that? Agility 5? Sheesh.)

Does it require frequent maintiance? YES: one source on wookiee said that it was 20 hours maintiance time to each hour of flight time.

Is it fast? YES: it is described as balls to the wall fast. Sonic got nothing on you, a-wing! Imagine how fast they could make it though, if they made it lighter.

The tie interceptor is a good interceptor: cuts all reduntant systems and some vital systems to save mass, then gives it a high performance reactor to feed the ion engines. Overcharging the ion engines must burn them out after a while, but I bet you could just swap them out with new ones when it happens. Saves time on maintince too! Plenty of guns, light weight, short range, and inexpensive. Perfect for a galactic empire.