Actually, it just occurred to me. The B-wing really blows the laser/firepower/cannon rules clean out of the water.

3 lasers, 3 ions, 3 autoblasters was the official armament. 2 Cannon slots would be required.

Never mind me as a Gunboat fanboy, the B-Wing alone is a reason to make Fire-Link shots a thing.

Actually, it just occurred to me. The B-wing really blows the laser/firepower/cannon rules clean out of the water.

3 lasers, 3 ions, 3 autoblasters was the official armament. 2 Cannon slots would be required.

Never mind me as a Gunboat fanboy, the B-Wing alone is a reason to make Fire-Link shots a thing.

If the B-wing wasn't the TIE Defender should be.

But then this is a precedent that started with the BLTA4, the only thing is that did it by fix aiming turrets, a cannon may well be OP.

Actually, it just occurred to me. The B-wing really blows the laser/firepower/cannon rules clean out of the water.

3 lasers, 3 ions, 3 autoblasters was the official armament. 2 Cannon slots would be required.

Never mind me as a Gunboat fanboy, the B-Wing alone is a reason to make Fire-Link shots a thing.

The B-Wing's standard armament in Wookieepedia is listed as:

• ArMek SW-7a light ion cannons (3)

• Gyrhil R-9X heavy laser cannon (1)

• Gyrhil 72 twin autoblasters (1)

• Krupx MG9 proton torpedo launchers (2)

So, 3 ion cannons, a heavy laser cannon and twin autoblasters. In the X-Wing games the Autoblasters/HLC were represented as standard lasers fired from the wing mounts.

Actually, it just occurred to me. The B-wing really blows the laser/firepower/cannon rules clean out of the water.

3 lasers, 3 ions, 3 autoblasters was the official armament. 2 Cannon slots would be required.

Never mind me as a Gunboat fanboy, the B-Wing alone is a reason to make Fire-Link shots a thing.

If the B-wing wasn't the TIE Defender should be.

But then this is a precedent that started with the BLTA4, the only thing is that did it by fix aiming turrets, a cannon may well be OP.

I've been saying that about the Defender for ages, and not just because of Brath's card art!

But seriously, the last thing we need is an OP B-Wing. There would have to be a restrictive prerequisite to firing or something (spend a Focus a lá Blaster Turret?). Still, I'd love something that can make the heavy ships hit harder and punishes low agility. B-Wings fightng B-Wings would be delicious there.

Actually, it just occurred to me. The B-wing really blows the laser/firepower/cannon rules clean out of the water.

3 lasers, 3 ions, 3 autoblasters was the official armament. 2 Cannon slots would be required.

Never mind me as a Gunboat fanboy, the B-Wing alone is a reason to make Fire-Link shots a thing.

The B-Wing's standard armament in Wookieepedia is listed as:

• ArMek SW-7a light ion cannons (3)

• Gyrhil R-9X heavy laser cannon (1)

• Gyrhil 72 twin autoblasters (1)

• Krupx MG9 proton torpedo launchers (2)

So, 3 ion cannons, a heavy laser cannon and twin autoblasters. In the X-Wing games the Autoblasters/HLC were represented as standard lasers fired from the wing mounts.

Which still soundly breaks the general laser rule.

Actually, it just occurred to me. The B-wing really blows the laser/firepower/cannon rules clean out of the water.

3 lasers, 3 ions, 3 autoblasters was the official armament. 2 Cannon slots would be required.

Never mind me as a Gunboat fanboy, the B-Wing alone is a reason to make Fire-Link shots a thing.

If the B-wing wasn't the TIE Defender should be.

But then this is a precedent that started with the BLTA4, the only thing is that did it by fix aiming turrets, a cannon may well be OP.

I've been saying that about the Defender for ages, and not just because of Brath's card art!

But seriously, the last thing we need is an OP B-Wing. There would have to be a restrictive prerequisite to firing or something (spend a Focus a lá Blaster Turret?). Still, I'd love something that can make the heavy ships hit harder and punishes low agility. B-Wings fightng B-Wings would be delicious there.

Spending focus would actually be good...

Spending focus would actually be good...

That's what I'm thinking. Makes FCS pay off more too. But make Fire-Link a cheap mod or something, similar to the E/2.

Spending focus would actually be good...

That's what I'm thinking. Makes FCS pay off more too. But make Fire-Link a cheap mod or something, similar to the E/2.

What about multi-cannon IG2K's?

Which still soundly breaks the general laser rule.

Not really, since we've ignored ion cannons in most instances.

HLC and twin Autoblasters are more effective that a standard starfighters' armament, so they'd be given a positive adjustment (just like the Falcon's Quad Guns/Decimator's turrets).

Which still soundly breaks the general laser rule.

Not really, since we've ignored ion cannons in most instances.

HLC and twin Autoblasters are more effective that a standard starfighters' armament, so they'd be given a positive adjustment (just like the Falcon's Quad Guns/Decimator's turrets).

Oh I agree there, my point is more against the pure guns shown-cannons = if 2 then 2 if 4 then 3. listing.

E-wing kinda breaks it too, so maybe 3 = 3.

Oh bleh. The more accurate "abstract based on number of guns, rate of fire, accuracy, weapon strength and phase of moon" works better.

I'd REALLY argue against a single HLC / autoblasters being better.

Two of which only work at range 1 and one doesn't work at said range, so it'd be 3 at range 2, 2+1 at range 1 and 2 at range 3.

"What feels right"

Spending focus would actually be good...

That's what I'm thinking. Makes FCS pay off more too. But make Fire-Link a cheap mod or something, similar to the E/2.

What about multi-cannon IG2K's?

It would have to be something written to only allow you to add one cannon to your primary attack. Again, still not positive of how I'd work out all the details (although I definitely want to iron them out later if I get a chance).

I dunno, if someone blows 14 points on HLCs I am thinking they should get to use them...

... while shouting BLAMBLAMBLAMBLAMBLAMBLAMBLAM.

I'd REALLY argue against a single HLC / autoblasters being better.

Two of which only work at range 1 and one doesn't work at said range, so it'd be 3 at range 2, 2+1 at range 1 and 2 at range 3.

We're talking representations of canon (one "n") firepower here. There's weapons, and there's heavy weapons. An X-Wing or TIE fighter's laser is a weapon. A B-Wing's HLC or the Falcon's quad guns are heavy weapons, and should be weighted accordingly.

Canonically, the B-Wing was armed with a HLC, twin Autoblasters and 3 ion cannons, as above. The HLC and Autoblasters were considered to be more effective than "standard" starfighter weaponry. Which is why the B-Wing packs more firepower as standard than a TIE fighter, and also carries a cannon (two "n"'s) upgrade slot.

Slap an Ion Cannon on a B-Wing and it has pretty much the same damage output as it does in the video games. Three lasers, three ion.

The fact that we also get HLC's and Autoblasters as cannon (two "n"'s) upgrades confuses things slightly, but can be considered a "fluffy" named firepower upgrade,

My point is the power of the cannons is a loose representation of canon (oh I know the difference).

It's rounded to t'feels right' which we are all fine with.

Another great example is the HWK's huge guns. They look like they pack a mean punch. Blaster turrets are... kinda meh.

My favourite example, which has already been mentioned is the stock YT, the outer rim smuggler.

In the Xwing games, the firepower of the Gunboat was definitely in line with other "2 atk" ships and wasn't anywhere close to the Xwing. It's role was actually closer to that of the ywing.

Translated in game it would be something like:

2 atk, 2 def, 3 shield, 3 hull

TL, Focus

Torpedo, cannon

18 pts

I think the biggest detractor of the ship from FFGs standpoint is that the ship is very rebel like.

As for the missile boat, translated in game it would look something like:

1 atk, 2 def, 2 shield, 3 hull (Shield and hull values are a guess since it's been a while, but it wasn't overly tanky)

TL, Focus, SLAM

Torpedo, Torpedo, Missile, Missile, Missile

14 pts

Personally, I think that is a terrible ship, you could give it 2 atk, but then it is essentially a Tie Bomber with SLAM. But then again, if it got an exclusive mod/title than gave it a free TL, it could work. But really, since the ship got passed up in the ordnance wave, I don't expect to see this ever.

Which still soundly breaks the general laser rule.

Not really, since we've ignored ion cannons in most instances.

HLC and twin Autoblasters are more effective that a standard starfighters' armament, so they'd be given a positive adjustment (just like the Falcon's Quad Guns/Decimator's turrets).

When you throw that many adjustments onto it it stops being a rule.

My point is the power of the cannons is a loose representation of canon (oh I know the difference). It's rounded to t'feels right' which we are all fine with.

It's pretty straightforward, really:

TIE/ln Fighter

• 2 x SFS L-s1 laser cannons (2)

TIE/sa Bomber

• 2 x SFS L-s1 laser cannons (2)

TIE/in Interceptor

• 4 x SFS L-s9.3 laser cannons (3)

TIE/d Defender

• 4 x SFS L-s9.3 laser cannons (3)

TIE/ph Phantom

• 5 x laser cannons (4)

Z-95 Headhunter

• 2 x Taim & Bak KX5 laser cannons (2)

BTL-A4 Y-Wing Starfighter

• 2 x Taim & Bak IX4 or KX5 laser cannons (2)

Incom T-65 X-Wing Starfighter

• 4 x Taim & Bak KX9 or IX4 laser cannons (3)

RZ-1 A-Wing Starfighter

• 2 x Borstel RG-9 laser cannons (2)

YT-1300 Light Freighter

• 1 or 2 laser cannon turrets (2)

YT-2400 Light Freighter

• 2 x CEC 1D servo turret laser cannon (2)

M3-A Scyk Fighter

• 2 x light laser cannons (2)

The weighting is pretty straightforward - ships with two primary weapons have 2 attack dice, ships with four primary weapons have 3, the Phanton (canonically with five) has 4.

So from this, we can deduce that the XG-1 Assault Gunboat would have 2 primary attack dice, as it's standard primary armament is identical to a Y-Wing or Z-95.

XG-1 Assault Gunboat

• 2 x Taim & Bak KX5 laser cannons (2)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This method of determining primary attack dice only really changes when you start to look at ships with have either been modified or improved from their original configuration or which operate more powerful, advanced or heavy weaponry as standard. Naturally, such armament receives an appropriate weighting:

VT-49 Decimator

• 2 x laser cannon turrets (3)

Firespray-31 Patrol & Attack Craft

• 2 x GN-40 twin rotating blaster cannons (3)

A/SF-01 B-Wing Starfighter

• 1 x Gyrhil R-9X heavy laser cannon & 1 x Gyrhil 72 twin autoblasters (3)

E-Wing Escort Starfighter

• 3 x Taim & Bak IX9 medium laser cannons (3)

Millennium Falcon (custom modified YT-1300)

• 2 x modified Corellian Engineering Corporation AG-2G quad laser cannons (3)

IG-2000 Aggressor Assault Fighter

• 2 Arakyd heavy laser cannons (3)

Outrider (custom modified YT-2400)

• 2 x Dymek heavy dual laser cannon turrets (4) represented by HLC & Outrider title

StarViper-class Attack Platform

• 2 x twin Taim & Bak Ht-12 heavy laser cannons (3)

..and so forth, so on.

There's only a few exceptions to this method, the most notable ones being the HWK-290 (zero weapons stock, lots on the Moldy Crow), the Imperial Shuttle, which has four weapons in it's standard configuration (which would normally give it the 3 attack dice on it's profile) but which are twin-linked, and the Kihraxz, which as pointed out earlier is just, well, bizarrely way off the mark when it comes to it's canon payload.

Lambda-class T-4a Shuttle

• 2 x Steerable forward twin Taim & Bak KX5 laser cannons, Taim & Bak GA-60s twin laser cannons (3)

It's military configuration is listed as having ten ( 10! ) laser cannons, which is pretty much an insane amount of firepower for a ship of its size. Of course, the addition of a cannon slot to the ship's profile gives it a bit of flexibility in this regard.

Kihraxz Assault Figher

• 1 x Light blaster cannon (3)

Even if you class what is described as a light weapon as a heavy weapon, it's still way off and oddly out of role.

So yeah, in conclusion - and to get us once again back on topic:

the XG-1 Assault Gunboat would have 2 primary attack dice.

plus some kind of option for an ion secondary and missiles up the wazoo.

You forgot the HWK. 4 Dual laser cannons, and that's not including the turret.

Things get squirrelly around the TIE Phantom, as depending on the ketchup it has 2, 3 or 5 lasers. Then The Firespray -31. That said at least with the firespray it's two-twin. (so four).

It's a good generalization, but it has it's exceptions. and when you start assigning heavy weapons it falls kinda short.

I do agree with the generalization of 2 attack dice for the gunboat, but it should be accepted that the ship may be re-imagined into something new and special.

Even if you class what is described as a light weapon as a heavy weapon, it's still way off. Odd

Because this is a loose trend, not a model.

This method of determining primary attack dice only really changes when you start to look at ships with have either been modified or improved from their original configuration or which operate more powerful or advanced weaponry as standard.

Or, to paraphrase: ships with better guns.

A ship's firepower is based on the power of its guns as well as the number, which means gun counting only works if you assume all weapons are equivalent. They're really, really not.

And this is where everything falls apart: once you start making exception after exception to make your rules work your rules weaken: you need new rules. Otherwise, rather than covering every ship, your rules cover every ship except the ships they don't cover.

This:

So from this, we can deduce that the XG-1 Assault Gunboat would have 2 primary attack dice, as it's standard primary armament is identical to a Y-Wing.

is valid reasoning. Saying the Assault Gunboat has two weapons/guns/whatever isn't. What if those weapons were the Falcon's quads?

And then you need to account for the platform too. Take your Lambda.

• 2 x Steerable forward twin Taim & Bak KX5 laser cannons, Taim & Bak GA-60s twin laser cannons

KX5 laser cannon. Two KX5s is, based on the value you gave for the Y-wing earlier, two attack dice. You've got two sets, so that's four KX5s, so 3 attack. Then there's the GA-60 twin laser cannon which is at least one die if not two. That's a 4 attack or 5 attack Lambda.

That predicts six dice for the Lambda.

Why isn't a six dice ship? The answer's game design. But to rationalise it thematically, the Lambda maneuvers like a pig. It'll have a hard time bringing that armament to bear, and thus its firepower is toned down. Similarly, the quad guns on the Decimator and Falcon are about 3 dice each by the look of them, but they can't both shoot at the same target at once.

Armament definitely affects attack dice, but armament is a lot more than "number of weapons."

Because this is a loose trend, not a model.

No one has suggested otherwise.

A ship's firepower is based on the power of its guns as well as the number, which means gun counting only works if you assume all weapons are equivalent. They're really, really not.

Again, no-one has suggested otherwise. That very fact is actually accounted for in the post you're quoting. DId you miss it?

is valid reasoning. Saying the Assault Gunboat has two weapons/guns/whatever isn't. What if those weapons were the Falcon's quads?

I'm glad you agree. The XG-1 has two primary laser weapons; see above, and they're not the Falcon's quads either; see above. The point is moot.

KX5 laser cannon. Two KX5s is, based on the value you gave for the Y-wing earlier, two attack dice. You've got two sets, so that's four KX5s, so 3 attack. Then there's the GA-60 twin laser cannon which is at least one die if not two. That's a 4 attack or 5 attack Lambda. That predicts six dice for the Lambda.

So you agree that the Lambda is an anomaly, then, as pointed out in the post you're quoting. Good, I'm glad you agree.

I think the Kihraxz is a prime example of FFGs gameplay - first mentality. They'll make the gunboat whatever they want it to be to fit what they want to have in game. That said, the Kihraxz is described as a customizable fighter from an obscure source where as the gunboat is more established and wouldn't make much sense for it to have more than 3 atk. In fact 2 atk is arguably better as it gives mangler and HLC much more value.

No one has suggested otherwise.

A great many people have suggested otherwise. I've lose count of the amount of times I've come across the weapon counting and the barrel counting "models." Models based on gun count alone assume all weapons are equivalent by nature.

Again, no-one has suggested otherwise. That very fact is actually accounted for in the post you're quoting. DId you miss it?

"Again, we're discussing weapons, not gun barrels. The Lambda has four (twin) weapons, the Falcon and Decimator both have two (heavy) weapons." - FTS Gecko

"The Falcon has two primary weapons, not eight.

The Lambda has four primary weapons, not eight." - FTS Gecko

That came across a lot like your basis is "number of weapons" and the implication that all the weapons are somehow equivalent. I'm assuming this isn't the case based on your more recent responses, but that was the point I thought you were trying to make.

The XG-1 has two primary laser weapons; see above, and they're not the Falcon's quads either; see above. The point is moot.

Evading the question, huh?

If the XG-1 had the Falcon's quads, would it have an attack of two?

So you agree that the Lambda is an anomaly, then, as pointed out in the post you're quoting.

It's not an anomaly, it's a counterpoint to weapon counting, as is the Firespray, as is the Decimator. When you take into account everything else that affects attack values (that weapon counting models assume are equivalent across the board) it makes perfect sense.

The attack value of a ship is an is a combination of weapon power, weapon fire rate, weapon number, the ability of the platform to maximuse use of those weapons and designer fudging to make the ship fit its desired role. Are we in agreement here?

It is people counting barrels or counting weapons, treating it as an inviolate model and claiming a ship must have X attack based on that that I object to.

The attack value of a ship is an is a combination of weapon power, weapon fire rate, weapon number, the ability of the platform to maximuse use of those weapons and designer fudging to make the ship fit its desired role.

And we will still arrive at a atk of 2 for the gunboat (barring any "fudging).

The attack value of a ship is an is a combination of weapon power, weapon fire rate, weapon number, the ability of the platform to maximuse use of those weapons and designer fudging to make the ship fit its desired role.

And we will still arrive at a atk of 2 for the gunboat (barring any "fudging).

Until the card is released no we don't.

But I suppose that's what you mean by fudging. It would be easy to assign the gunboat atk 2, but it doesn't have to be.

They could give it attack3+auto ion. (or ion without cancelling dice)

They could give it ATK3+cannon

ATK2+Cannon linked.

ATK4 gunboat reboot.

As canon is constantly being re-written, and despite its coolness and my own nostalgia for the X-wing series of games, it could be re-imagined.