I think it is currently under revision.

In regards to the TIE Phantom, think I may have finally reached a solution to represent cloak while remaining within the rules as they exist.

Cloak: Squadrons with the Cloak keyword have a unique blue scatter defense token. This token may only be used while this squadron is unactivated. At the start of each status phase, the token is placed in its ready state on the squadron card regardless of its previous state, even if discarded.

This is going to see playtest over the weekend. I feel this may be the best way to represent the fighters near impossible to detect status before it attacks. Combined with Grit, it should make quite the unique craft.

This would require non-unique squadrons to have a defense token. Not sure that entriely within the framework of current rules.

It is more of a guideline than a rule. Currently only ace squadrons have defense tokens... It isn't expressly stated that they shouldn't. Costing them is the important part.

This would require non-unique squadrons to have a defense token. Not sure that entriely within the framework of current rules.

I'm not aware of any reason they can't have defense tokens. They just don't.

I think it is currently under revision.

In regards to the TIE Phantom, think I may have finally reached a solution to represent cloak while remaining within the rules as they exist.

Cloak: Squadrons with the Cloak keyword have a unique blue scatter defense token. This token may only be used while this squadron is unactivated. At the start of each status phase, the token is placed in its ready state on the squadron card regardless of its previous state, even if discarded.

This is going to see playtest over the weekend. I feel this may be the best way to represent the fighters near impossible to detect status before it attacks. Combined with Grit, it should make quite the unique craft.

I might find it interesting to have it replaced at the beginning of each ship activation. That way, it would require the enemy to spend a Squadron command, and move in several fighters in order to find the Phantom before it attacks.

I think it is currently under revision.

In regards to the TIE Phantom, think I may have finally reached a solution to represent cloak while remaining within the rules as they exist.

Cloak: Squadrons with the Cloak keyword have a unique blue scatter defense token. This token may only be used while this squadron is unactivated. At the start of each status phase, the token is placed in its ready state on the squadron card regardless of its previous state, even if discarded.

This is going to see playtest over the weekend. I feel this may be the best way to represent the fighters near impossible to detect status before it attacks. Combined with Grit, it should make quite the unique craft.

Looking forward to both the Imperial Venator AND the Phantom.

Both sound reeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaally cool.

My $0.02. I'm not opposed to the idea of generic squadrons having defense tokens - in fact, I like breaking molds in that way - however, my only concern is table-logistics. We can achieve the same mechanics of a scatter token without using a scatter token.

Cloak: Once per turn, if you have not made an attack this turn, you may cancel all attack dice against you from a single attack.

Still lets you move around, but the benefit is negated if you've made an attack this turn. Encourages a "wait and see" approach to a cloaked ship, which fits.

Thoughts?

I noticed the Venator vanished from the website.

I'm hopeful it and an Imperial version of the V-wing/Arc/Vader in an Eta will pop up.

I noticed too!

Bring it back, now...

Will do. Sooner rather than later, hopefully. I think we're probably good on the new stats, but I'm still waiting for some more playtest feedback. The latest version looks like this:

As an aside, I'm more or less back, but I still have tons of stuff to catch up with, so please bear with me and forgive my inability to respond to pending messages - especially you FoaS! Thanks for your awesome efforts, as soon as things are a bit more stable I'd love to work with you and see how much further a collaboration plan can take our projects

As an aside, I'm more or less back, but I still have tons of stuff to catch up with, so please bear with me and forgive my inability to respond to pending messages - especially you FoaS! Thanks for your awesome efforts, as soon as things are a bit more stable I'd love to work with you and see how much further a collaboration plan can take our projects

I'm totally down, and take your time. I'm at your disposal

This would require non-unique squadrons to have a defense token. Not sure that entriely within the framework of current rules.

I think it is currently under revision.

In regards to the TIE Phantom, think I may have finally reached a solution to represent cloak while remaining within the rules as they exist.

Cloak: Squadrons with the Cloak keyword have a unique blue scatter defense token. This token may only be used while this squadron is unactivated. At the start of each status phase, the token is placed in its ready state on the squadron card regardless of its previous state, even if discarded.

This is going to see playtest over the weekend. I feel this may be the best way to represent the fighters near impossible to detect status before it attacks. Combined with Grit, it should make quite the unique craft.

I might find it interesting to have it replaced at the beginning of each ship activation. That way, it would require the enemy to spend a Squadron command, and move in several fighters in order to find the Phantom before it attacks.

I agree that it is not outside of the rules vs simply being outside of the current build logic. The Phantom is also going to be burdened by the limited keyword and high cost. We also want it to have a sort of risk vs reward for its activation order. Its previous variations were terrible on the table or underwhelming at best. The trickiest squadron I have had to try and work with to date.

I noticed the Venator vanished from the website.

I'm hopeful it and an Imperial version of the V-wing/Arc/Vader in an Eta will pop up.

I noticed too!

Bring it back, now...

Will do. Sooner rather than later, hopefully. I think we're probably good on the new stats, but I'm still waiting for some more playtest feedback. The latest version looks like this:

A playtest he wants. A playtest have I. I ran this this past Monday, albeit against myself since my usual opponent had other engagements. The objective of this test was to examine the effectiveness of the new Venator, the Eta-2, and non-droid starfighters I previously proposed here .

Republic:

2x Venator-class Star Destroyer

- Obi-Wan Kenobi, Commander

- Enhanced Armament x2

- Assault Concussion Missiles x2

- Engineering Captain x2

Plo Koon, Delta-7

Mace Windu, Eta-2

Ahsoka Tano, Eta-2

3x ARC-170

Oddball, ARC-170

CIS:

2x Munificent-class Star Frigates

- Electronic Countermeasures

- Turbolaser Reroute Circuits

1x Recusant-class Light Destroyer

- Count Dooku

- Advanced Projectors

- XX-9 Turbolasers

2x HMP

4x Nantex-class Interceptors (4HP, Speed 3, 2B A/S, B Battery, Counter 2, 10 pts)

2x Porax-38 Starfighters

Cad Bane, Porax-38 Starfighter

Asajj Ventress, Ginivex-class Starfighter

Objective: Advanced Gunnery, CIS 2nd Player

Objective Ships: General Kenobi's Star Destroyer, One of the Munificent-class Star Frigates

Losses: Ahsoka Tano, Plo Koon, Kenobi's pride (His ship had 2HP left, mostly due to poor droid aim); 2x Munificent-class Star Frigates, 4x Nantex-class Interceptors, 1x Porax-38 Starfighter, Asajj Ventress

Battle Summary: The GAR plan was to slice the Venators between the CIS ships and batter them to rubble while the Jedi dealt with fighters with support from the ARC-170s. The CIS plan was to block one Venator with both Star Frigates and have the Recusant slide alongside and around the rear. I misaligned the CIS plan on obstacles, so theirs went to hell in a handbasket, and was a solid 70% of the reason for the resounding Republic victory. With Advanced Gunnery a head-on approach into massed Munificents is exactly as bad an idea as it sounds, though General Kenobi survived (the other Venator was barely touched, since it made up one end of the battle zone) to shred the Munificent's in close quarters. The Venators, at least the combat heavy variant, I believe to be balanced, given that the broadside requires black range to actually be intimidating. The Eta-2s are devastating, and I can vouch for Oddball's ace ability as in my roster every time I can afford him. He was redundant this game since much of the furball was on an asteroid anyway, but a hands-on experience with that effect in a large engagement (6 squadrons total playing King of The Asteroid) was quite enlightening.

For the CIS I have a litany. The Porax-38s do their intended job quite well, consistently wearing down opponents despite the chronic lack of accuracy. They are definitely ready, after a corroborating test. The HMPs never saw action due to fancy Jedi footwork and the sacrifice of General Koon for Kenobi's sake, so I can't speak to them. The Recusant also never fought, firing once at Kenobi, so I have no solid opinion on it, other than it requires a deft hand at the helm, as we intended. The Nantex can use a speed boost, maybe not to 5, but a kick up to 4 would make them much more effective. Averaging mine and the newer one above would be a good starting place (his is overpowered/too cheap, mine underpowered/expensive). A counter wouldn't hurt Ventress, and add flavor (at least in my opinion). The next test will be (probably) another droid wall and Gunray Phalanx (Myrmecology's turn of phrase) against a GAR fleet to include more Eta-2s and LAAT/is.

Would anyone on here like a review of Disney's new diecast ISD (spoiler, it's an ISD-2 like its FFG sisters) here or on a new thread? I have one now, and I fully intend to put her into service as soon as I can build/buy a stand interface; her bone-white complexion shines next to her sisters' gun-metal grey color. (At the moment she adds character to my desk at work.)

EDIT: Note: The Venators were played by Imperial-class Star Destroyers, including arcs. The Munificents were subbed by Victories, and the Recusant by an Assault Frigate. All the arcs seem well suited to the ships. The Munificents might benefit from the broadside arcs extending to the aft corners while leaving fore alone, and the Recusant from MC80-type arcs, as an interesting gameplay complication. The ongoing battlecruiser experiments have demonstrated arcs that touch corners have interesting defensive properties for a commander deft enough to use them to block LoS. Just an idea.

I noticed the Venator vanished from the website.

I'm hopeful it and an Imperial version of the V-wing/Arc/Vader in an Eta will pop up.

I noticed too!

Bring it back, now...

Will do. Sooner rather than later, hopefully. I think we're probably good on the new stats, but I'm still waiting for some more playtest feedback. The latest version looks like this:

Reeeeeeeeeeeally looking forward to the Imperial version.

I've been reading Tarkin as of late, and they seem to still see heavy use in the new order.

As I got more into this game, I noticed how front arcs rarely matter as the battle progresses...and those side batteries are where the fun is...and the Venator is a MUCH needed Imperial broadsider.

Plus with upgrades...two of them could run a mob of ties and not even bat an eye at expanded hanger bays.

Edit: what's up with the Venator not being able to turn at all at speed 3? I'd think that would make going speed three totally pointless?

Edit: what's up with the Venator not being able to turn at all at speed 3? I'd think that would make going speed three totally pointless?

Nav Order lets you add a click, of course.

Edit: what's up with the Venator not being able to turn at all at speed 3? I'd think that would make going speed three totally pointless?

Nav Order lets you add a click, of course.

Yes but that is a command dial that I could spend on something more useful, like fighter initiative as the Venator is essentially a massive carrier. Or a concentrate fire as I come to broadside.

Its an old bird.

Older than the Victory.

You get what you pay for.

Its an old bird.

Older than the Victory.

You get what you pay for.

Speed 2 it is then

<3<3<3 Venator <3<3<3

Anyway, I have a question of sorts for you guys.

It's about the ole' Nebulon-B. I think it's a sucky ship.

Yavaris/Salvation makes it sort of a niche product, but I've left wondering how it could have been useful even without

I'm no looking at changing the points cost.

My current options are:

Side shields increase from 1 to 2

Replace one Brace with Redirect

Add one Redirect (total of 4 def tokens)

Add in a Defensive upgrade (not very useful unless there are some tweaks to Defense tokens)

Add in an Offensive Upgrade (this could make Yavaris a bit OP though, so maybe Offensive for the Support and Defensive for the Escort?)

I'm also considering adding a second blue to the side arc.

Anyone ever contemplate anything along those lines?

Re-balancing existing ships is outside the scope of the Shipyards project, except when there is a faction change (see e.g. the Republic-era VSD , which gains the much-needed Defensive Retrofit and Support Team upgrade slots).

I did create an Imperial card for the Nebulon-B, which you can find here . No stat changes, but the titles should make up for it.

There's also a Nebulon-B2 card , which is a considerable upgrade over the B. You can always use that with a regular FFG model.

This link will take you directly to the Kuat Drive Yards page with the TIE Project my group has been working on. Figured it makes it easier to look up this way instead of me posting Excel format stats.

The Nebulon is perfectly balanced when you use it in it's intended role: support ship. It is meant to throw red dice at long range to plink away at shields, or sneak around and with expanded armament is a fantastic flanker. I've taken down ISD's because they ignored it.

Alright you all challenged me to work out a better idea for Cloak with no logistics. We talked out a new idea that was fairly easy and not previously explored. how about this:

Cloak: Squadrons with the Cloak keyword are only hit by dice rolls with a [r:crit] icon.

This would make the frequency of damage recieved far less, while requiring no record keeping or tokens.

Alright you all challenged me to work out a better idea for Cloak with no logistics. We talked out a new idea that was fairly easy and not previously explored. how about this:

Cloak: Squadrons with the Cloak keyword are only hit by dice rolls with a [r:crit] icon.

This would make the frequency of damage recieved far less, while requiring no record keeping or tokens.

I like it because it specifically makes the Phantom more unqiue as it has it's own special rule, and it's super easy to plug into the existing mechanics.

Besides critical on blue dice are hold to roll anyway.

My one question though wouldn't it make the Phantom VERY hard to destroy...I mean is there any downside to using a Tie Phantom?

Its 15 pts and only has 4 hit points. That and as it is currently you are limited to how many can be in your build.

Its 15 pts and only has 4 hit points.

Can they attack under the cloak or need to decloak to fire?