I had a thought about the ships and the fighter capacity...

why not keep the fighters off the table and deploy them as the fight progresses....

if that can be done then there can be rules for launch and recovery

say an ISD shows up in system ( deployment phase ) holding squadrons until needed.... but can hold no more than the Fighter/Hangar Stat on the ship card...

to launch you would have to spend a Squadron Command Token...

to recover fighter squadrons you would again need to spend a Squadron Command Token....

recovered fighter squadrons MAY be repaired with the expenditure of 3 engineering tokens per damage point the same as for repairing ship damage...

just theory at the moment that requires some play testing but it WAS an idea... a way to keep some units held in reserve until needed.....

Yeah, I'd love for there to be some way to delay the launch of squadrons, especially for the TIE Fighters.

just theory at the moment that requires some play testing but it WAS an idea...

I'm not saying it's a bad idea. But it's very likely someone at FFG thought of it too and tried it. But they found for whatever reason it didn't work well in this game.

I actually assumed this delayed launching was the way it would work.

I think it is mostly a matter of "keeping it simple." Having to spend a squadron command to get squadrons on the table likely messes with the prefered balance of the command dials.

I was thinking it might add that element of carrier warfare that I feel when playing

I was thinking it might add that element of carrier warfare that I feel when playing

The issue is in WW2 Carrier combat, the Carriers never got near each other. Let alone directly fired weapons at each other.

A Star Destroyer is a cross between a Carrier and a Battleship. It both brings the fighters and the big guns to the party. As such is does work the way an Aircraft Carrier does launching, recovering, rearming, and relaunching fighters while hoping it doesn't get caught by the enemy. That just isn't how SW combat is depicted. Ships launch thier Squadrons as soon as they are ready to offer battle and recover them at the end or as they attempt to retreat. You just don't see depictions of mid-combat launches of fighter compliments.

Granted... amd taking a page from WW2 Carriers and Battlestars... Generally fighters or other aircraft are launched once the theatre of battle has been determined... that being said it might be nice to have a way to recover fighters during a battle to repair them and get them back in the fight... but that's me looking at a game that last more than 6 turns or 45 minutes.....

maybe include it in a set of home spun rules for friendly play they would be more accepted and NOT to use them in competitive play....

I was thinking it might add that element of carrier warfare that I feel when playing

The issue is in WW2 Carrier combat, the Carriers never got near each other. Let alone directly fired weapons at each other.

A Star Destroyer is a cross between a Carrier and a Battleship. It both brings the fighters and the big guns to the party. As such is does work the way an Aircraft Carrier does launching, recovering, rearming, and relaunching fighters while hoping it doesn't get caught by the enemy. That just isn't how SW combat is depicted. Ships launch thier Squadrons as soon as they are ready to offer battle and recover them at the end or as they attempt to retreat. You just don't see depictions of mid-combat launches of fighter compliments.

Darth Vader lauanches mid-fight in the Battle of Yavin IV. You don't really see the launch, but it definitely happens. (But that's the only instance I can think of).

You DO see Vader launching with his wingmen, it's very quick but you see them flying out of the hangar.

What would be gained by this, though? Instead of limiting the amount of squadrons you can bring to 1/3 total fleet points, now you have to figure something else. Would it be 1/3 fleet points but also no more squadrons than the ships can carry? If that's the case, TIE Fighters become very weak — you need to bring a lot of them to a fight, a lot more than the 4 or 5 you can base per ship.

Then would you have to make rules for hyperspace- capable ships? For example, you have to base all your TIE Fighters on Star Destroyers, but those TIE Advanced fighters don't need to be? Would this free up the Rebels to bring as many fighters as they want without having to base them on ships, since (I believe) Rebe; fighters have hyperspace capability?

I was thinking it might add that element of carrier warfare that I feel when playing

The issue is in WW2 Carrier combat, the Carriers never got near each other. Let alone directly fired weapons at each other.

A Star Destroyer is a cross between a Carrier and a Battleship. It both brings the fighters and the big guns to the party. As such is does work the way an Aircraft Carrier does launching, recovering, rearming, and relaunching fighters while hoping it doesn't get caught by the enemy. That just isn't how SW combat is depicted. Ships launch thier Squadrons as soon as they are ready to offer battle and recover them at the end or as they attempt to retreat. You just don't see depictions of mid-combat launches of fighter compliments.

Darth Vader lauanches mid-fight in the Battle of Yavin IV. You don't really see the launch, but it definitely happens. (But that's the only instance I can think of).

From a Death Star, not a Star Destroyer...

A Death Star which is 160km in diameter. bit of a difference wouldn't you say.

What would be gained by this, though? Instead of limiting the amount of squadrons you can bring to 1/3 total fleet points, now you have to figure something else. Would it be 1/3 fleet points but also no more squadrons than the ships can carry? If that's the case, TIE Fighters become very weak — you need to bring a lot of them to a fight, a lot more than the 4 or 5 you can base per ship.

Then would you have to make rules for hyperspace- capable ships? For example, you have to base all your TIE Fighters on Star Destroyers, but those TIE Advanced fighters don't need to be? Would this free up the Rebels to bring as many fighters as they want without having to base them on ships, since (I believe) Rebe; fighters have hyperspace capability?

These are all very good points. I think the big thing with squadrons needing to be based on ships is it signigicantly adds to the complexity for not enough more fun.

Yeah, i think the issue of turn limits is what makes this no good. On a semi related note to an earlier comment, i wish they would put a time limit in the rules instead of just for tourament play. Anyone can add or delete rules as they desire, but these games are so much better when they dont take all night and it's easier to get someone to play RAW, especially strangers.

I see the ups and downs to this and just put the idea back on the shelf for now.... maybe after wave 2 I will revisit this idea but right now I will stick a pin in it and come back to it later...

What would be gained by this, though? Instead of limiting the amount of squadrons you can bring to 1/3 total fleet points, now you have to figure something else. Would it be 1/3 fleet points but also no more squadrons than the ships can carry? If that's the case, TIE Fighters become very weak — you need to bring a lot of them to a fight, a lot more than the 4 or 5 you can base per ship.

Then would you have to make rules for hyperspace- capable ships? For example, you have to base all your TIE Fighters on Star Destroyers, but those TIE Advanced fighters don't need to be? Would this free up the Rebels to bring as many fighters as they want without having to base them on ships, since (I believe) Rebe; fighters have hyperspace capability?

Edit: I don't think hangar rules should be anything higher than optional, at both player's agreement.

I've got an idea of what could be offered.

You know how the space station offers repairs to any component that overlaps it? Ships with hangars could offer that 1 point of hull repair to a number of squadrons up to their Command value. That could extend the life of fighters as 'screens' to protect from bombers.

Separately, and this is far closer to my personal interests, hangars offer an exciting array of utility for Campaign rules and scenarios. For example, if a force is ambushed, they probably wouldn't have their full complement of fighters deployed, or any fighters deployed if Imperial.

For a Campaign, part of the game becomes resource management. Hangars would be integral to supporting fighter squadron components of the fleet and would give more differentiation between the different capital ships.

Reading over this, I kind of like it. Now a couple of things with how I look at it, first I look at each fighter base as three fighters, so with that my VSD could hold two squadrons or eight bases of fighters. That would give you more than you could use by points. I see this as something to add for fun for campains and the like but not stand alone games. I also like the thought of being able to repair your fighters up to your squadron limit one point a turn. So just thinking on screen here, if you are limited to launching or landing, and only up to your squadron value, also guessing no repairs are done on the turn of landing or launching. I would think that expanded hangers would work for this but command and tokens whould have no effect. This would not make a big impact on a "standard" six turn game, it would take three turns just to fix one point. If you are playing with out a turn limit than I can see it makeing a impact. It would also give more value to the Nebulan-B as according to wookiepedia it can also carry two squadrons of fighters. Well stoping my rambling now.

I suggest allowing the Squadron command to apply to the repairs, so that if you use the squadron command, the fighters could move into contact with the activating ship, and then instead of attacking get 1 point of damage repaired. That would allow for better action economy and meaningful choice when selecting command dials.

As others mentioned above, I suspect this idea was brought up during playtesting as most people tend to think in terms of launching fighters. Likely due to either a timing issue or balance issue, it was discarded.

That being said, there are many upgrade and title cards that are beneficial to squadrons, either offensively or defensively.

- Expanded Hangar Bay allows for an extra squadron to be activated when using Squadron commands (assuming an Offensive Retrofit upgrade slot)

- The title card Yavaris on a Neb B allows for Squadron commanded fighters to attack twice (sadly, Neb B can't equip Expanded Hangar Bay)

- The title card Gallant Haven on the Assault Frigate reduces all damage to nearby friendly squadrons by 1, which *greatly* boosts their survivability

- The title card Corrupter on the VSD allows you send a chunk of Tie Bombers at speed 5 on a Squadron command, which combined with the named pilot Major Rhymer can give you the longest reaching bombing wing in the game. Seriously. I am buying two squadron packs just so I can do this, lol

I'm sure others will come along that will really fix a particular ship as a 'carrier', even if it doesn't actually launch squadrons per se.

That's a good point as well. I like the customization the upgrade cards allow.

- The title card Corrupter on the VSD allows you send a chunk of Tie Bombers at speed 5 on a Squadron command, which combined with the named pilot Major Rhymer can give you the longest reaching bombing wing in the game. Seriously. I am buying two squadron packs just so I can do this, lol

I'm sure others will come along that will really fix a particular ship as a 'carrier', even if it doesn't actually launch squadrons per se.

Holy ****, I just checked Major Rhymer ability. This is crazyness!

With Corrupter title, Expanded Hangar Bay, a Sqdrons token and bomber squadrons lead by Rhymer, your bombers can basically shoot something at range 8 (medium range is about range 3 if I am not mistaken).

This means you could get 5 bombers shotting stuff that is past range 4 from the other side on first turn! On 2nd turn you can basically shoot whatever you want where ever it is

- The title card Corrupter on the VSD allows you send a chunk of Tie Bombers at speed 5 on a Squadron command, which combined with the named pilot Major Rhymer can give you the longest reaching bombing wing in the game. Seriously. I am buying two squadron packs just so I can do this, lol

I'm sure others will come along that will really fix a particular ship as a 'carrier', even if it doesn't actually launch squadrons per se.

Holy ****, I just checked Major Rhymer ability. This is crazyness!

With Corrupter title, Expanded Hangar Bay, a Sqdrons token and bomber squadrons lead by Rhymer, your bombers can basically shoot something at range 8 (medium range is about range 3 if I am not mistaken).

This means you could get 5 bombers shotting stuff that is past range 4 from the other side on first turn! On 2nd turn you can basically shoot whatever you want where ever it is

DELETE THIS POST!!!!!! we can not let the rebels figure out our secrets.

Seriously my 300pt list is 2x Vic2s with OLPS, 3 TIE/In, 4x TIE Bombers, and Rhymer.

OLPs straight neuter defensive tokens with screeds autocrit and then you bombing run 6ish black dice into a ship.

So i think the stage of battle we are seeing is both fleets have already engaged and fleets have been deployed. Carrier rules would really favor the person with iniative as the 2nd person would basically have to deploy squadrons off the rip or eat a potentially nasty alpha strike (see above). it almost becomes an unmitagatable missile. and if player 2 deploys squadrons and doesnt carrier them, then player 1 deploys them to not eat a nasty alpha and boom the game is exactly what it is right now. Carrier rules are cool but fighters move faster than a ships combat speed (except Vettes) so its not necessary IMHO.

Oh I think with Rhymer, a rebel ship gets bombed in the first or second round no matter what. Medium range far exceeds a squadron's regular engagement range. The trick is to also send in the Tie interceptors to immediately tie up the opposing squadrons so they don't go chasing around your bombers in the following rounds. Mind you, if you really want to play it safe, include a single Tie Advanced with your bomber wing to soak up the hits.

Edit: While I'm leaning towards playing Imperials most of the time, cause, come on, Star Destroyers, I do want to learn to play Rebel also. Which means attempting to find a counter to the very same lists I am planning for Imperial

Edit: While I'm leaning towards playing Imperials most of the time, cause, come on, Star Destroyers, I do want to learn to play Rebel also. Which means attempting to find a counter to the very same lists I am planning for Imperial

This will only make you a better imperial officer.....its why i have been playing rebels lately.

It makes sense that carriers would mass launch when they're about to come under fire, what's out fighting can't be destroyed in the hanger. It makes sense that ships see each other before the battle and launch at longer range.

What would be cool, but too complicated would be for squadrons to be able to land and be repaired using an engineering token. Say a point for every engineering point spent. It could launch the following turn.