Doubt it'll be speed 4. Also, black dice are better...

The reason I think speed 4 is because they have it listed as a fast ship which they have only really listed with the CR90. Now I don't think it will turn far to well however.

Doubt it'll be speed 4. Also, black dice are better...

Black dice allow for more damage, blue dice allow for negating defenses which allows for more damage to get through.

The reason I think speed 4 is because they have it listed as a fast ship which they have only really listed with the CR90. Now I don't think it will turn far to well however.

Demolisher is what makes the Gladiator so good in my opinion along with Screed

The MC80 is a Broadsiding VSD. The MC30 is a better version of the GSD simply because it can have more red and blue dice in its hull (did I mention blue dice), it also is likely to be speed 4

we need to see more of the shrimp frigate. The GSD is very much more than the sum of its parts, especially with demolisher

we do know, however, that the shrimp frigate is fragrantly lacking a brace token which is a bit of a big deal given the range it supposedly excels at. Also, its squadron support is ass

I suppose the scout variant won't be too bad kept at long range either, kinda like a mini-fattie throwing out one less die but threatening grave danger if closed in upon

You have a point... I was surprised at the lack of Brace as well, but at least it does have a lot of shields to start with and those Redirect tokens are going to be needed. The weakness to squadrons is going to be troubling though. If anything it starts making defensive retrofits look like a worthwhile investment.

Edit: Also, on closer inspection of the text that I can make out on the two titles for the MC-30c they both appear to have something to do with defence. At least Admonition looks like it helps the ship itself defend, the other one at least has an Evade symbol, but it might be for attacking ships instead, though that might not be the case.

This is why I am thinking it is speed 4. It would be the Perfect hit and run frigate.

This is from Wookieepedia;

"It was considered one of the most powerful mid-level ships used in the war. MC30c frigates utilized proton torpedoes to bombard larger enemy starships in combat. In addition to this, it was also one of the fastest ships of its type. It featured several proton torpedo launchers as well as turbolaser batteries." (this makes speed 4 plausible)

"The largest weakness of the ship was that it had very light armor. The weapons it carried were strong enough to threaten most capital ships, but if heavy fire was concentrated on the frigate, it would most likely be destroyed." (thus the lack of brace)

Yes one side has a bunch of ships that look like an oval and the other looks like triangles.

Cuban Boy nailed it.

well the GSD is more of a wedge and the neb more of a twig

Even if they look like they'll be evenly matched, it all depends on how you and your opponent play them.

This is why I am thinking it is speed 4. It would be the Perfect hit and run frigate.

This is from Wookieepedia;

"It was considered one of the most powerful mid-level ships used in the war. MC30c frigates utilized proton torpedoes to bombard larger enemy starships in combat. In addition to this, it was also one of the fastest ships of its type. It featured several proton torpedo launchers as well as turbolaser batteries." (this makes speed 4 plausible)

"The largest weakness of the ship was that it had very light armor. The weapons it carried were strong enough to threaten most capital ships, but if heavy fire was concentrated on the frigate, it would most likely be destroyed." (thus the lack of brace)

In real world navies these assets turned out to be failures because when they meet an ship that could equal it's firepower it got smashed so they were used for hunting destroyers, cruises, convoys and escort carriers. A job that a heavy cruiser could easily do more economically and efficiently.

This is why I am thinking it is speed 4. It would be the Perfect hit and run frigate.

This is from Wookieepedia;

"It was considered one of the most powerful mid-level ships used in the war. MC30c frigates utilized proton torpedoes to bombard larger enemy starships in combat. In addition to this, it was also one of the fastest ships of its type. It featured several proton torpedo launchers as well as turbolaser batteries." (this makes speed 4 plausible)

"The largest weakness of the ship was that it had very light armor. The weapons it carried were strong enough to threaten most capital ships, but if heavy fire was concentrated on the frigate, it would most likely be destroyed." (thus the lack of brace)

I.e. It's a glass cannon AKA battlecruiser , White Star.

In real world navies these assets turned out to be failures because when they meet an ship that could equal it's firepower it got smashed so they were used for hunting destroyers, cruises, convoys and escort carriers. A job that a heavy cruiser could easily do more economically and efficiently.

This is why I am thinking it is speed 4. It would be the Perfect hit and run frigate.

This is from Wookieepedia;

"It was considered one of the most powerful mid-level ships used in the war. MC30c frigates utilized proton torpedoes to bombard larger enemy starships in combat. In addition to this, it was also one of the fastest ships of its type. It featured several proton torpedo launchers as well as turbolaser batteries." (this makes speed 4 plausible)

"The largest weakness of the ship was that it had very light armor. The weapons it carried were strong enough to threaten most capital ships, but if heavy fire was concentrated on the frigate, it would most likely be destroyed." (thus the lack of brace)

I.e. It's a glass cannon AKA battlecruiser , White Star.

In real world navies these assets turned out to be failures because when they meet an ship that could equal it's firepower it got smashed so they were used for hunting destroyers, cruises, convoys and escort carriers. A job that a heavy cruiser could easily do more economically and efficiently.

Now I agree that they do not work, but thankfully in Star Wars they do. They should be speed 4 or have insane yaw values

Judging from what I've read here and my speculations, espicially the "MC30 Torpedo Frigate", it truly reminds me of Kitakami and Ooi.

They had impressive torpedo armament, in fact 20 tubes on each side, they have rather horrible defensive values owning to the pre-WW2 hull design and 14cm guns

I feel it was a mistake of FFG not to issue Imperial versions of the ship cards with the base-set for both the Neb-B and Corellian Corvette. The Nebula-B frigate is an Imperial built ship that the Rebel's have acquired through capture or defections and the corvette is used by the Empire, local defence forces, corporations, rebels, and pirates. There is even a reference in the excellent Star Wars Sourcebook (West End Games) to a VSD "GrimDeath" operated by the Rebels. So should be no harm to use the other sides ships by agreement or in custom scenarios for your own fun, though I imagine the Empire at its height would not care or need to use captured Rebel-designed ships (like AF2), unless as a ruse e.g. staged attacks on civilians to discredit the Alliance.

None of the extended background is visible in any way in the movies though, so FFG has every right to ignore it. We did not see these elusive Imperial Nebulon-B's at Hoth or Endor. We did not see a rebel taskforce capturing them from an Imperial shipyard. We just see two very distinct types of fleets, without any identical ships between them, duking it out at Endor.

regardless of extended background's relevance in the OT, there's a golden rule that makes FFG far more justified in making nebs rebel only

gameplay >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fluff

There's a problem with your equation. You're not applying it correctly.

The factional identity or uniqueness is not a matter of gameplay. Gameplay is about the mechanics of a game making that game balanced and intriguing to play. Does chess have a problem with gameplay because both sides have pawns and rooks?

Another problem with your equation is that for some people it doesn't hold. If you're the sort of person who calls it 'fluff', you might not understand why some other people are drawn to this game. Maybe they really do love the lore ("fluff" strikes me as a pejorative) and having that Star Wars feeling is primary and the mechanics of the game (do you call it "crunch"?) secondary. Is their enjoyment of the game inferior to yours?

There are nearly countless games out there with the star wars license. If you start compromising the quality of your gameplay for fluff then the game will simply not be as worth playing.

Chess, for example, is some right bull ito fluff (seriously, what kind of knight moves in Ls? what kind of rook moves at all? Unless it's supposed to be the bird? who the **** takes turns trying to kill one another? Why is there a pair of super bishops flying around and slaying fools? how come the goddamn queen is the strongest piece? Is she joan of freaking arc?) but it has endured

ito variety, armada and chess aren't attempting to meet the same goals. Chess comes prepackaged with everything you need to play and is not trying to sell you on extra pieces or factions. Armada has to balance out two factions and make them compellingly different enough to warrant inclusion. If they have to make their gameplay slightly inaccurate to the lore in order to maintain an interesting variety, then the lore can go under the bus as an acceptable sacrifice.

We're playing a game first and foremost. The lore can help shape many things such as the setting and characters of the miniatures, but slavish adherence to it is a distant second priority to making the game worth playing.

About the only exception I can think of is if the game offers a narrative experience in place of robust game mechanics. While players can certainly add their own narrative to their games, FFG has released this as a competitive strategic game and has their priorities straight.

The factional identity or uniqueness is not a matter of gameplay.

That's not really true though. factional identity is part of the game play. All the upgrades, units, abilities, ect... for a given faction is going to be based in part on its identity. That's why for example all ties have barrel roll in X-Wing. The same is and will continue to be true for Armada, upgrades, future ships, ect... will all be designed around what the factions identity is.

Another problem with your equation is that for some people it doesn't hold.

Again that's not really true. A game that holds 100% to the lore, but is no fun to play is still no fun to play. There may be a few people out there who are willing to overlook the issues, but those will be very few and not enough to see profit.

That said, at the same time lore has to have some meaning and influence or else the game won't do well. There's plenty of games out there that while being very well made never sell very well because they lack the hook of a good IP like Star Wars, or Star Trek, or 40k.

But game design has to be about balanced units and enjoyable game play, with the lore coming 2nd. Again going to X-Wing for an example, does anyone really think a lore correct Tie Defender would be good for the game? When it has stats like 6 Attack, 8 Shields, 5 Hull and 4 Evade?

I'm one of the few who has faith in using the Neb B escort. It does prove a challenge to use and I have yet found a correct way to use it but the titles make it a fun ship.

As for the wave 2 expansion coming up. I look at it like this as a rebel player...I already have broadside attack fun with the Assault frigate MkII, and now here comes the Mon Cal cruiser with more broadside goodness and cute little MC30's to boot " also outfitted with broadside fun". Its an obvious choice of what I'm going to field once wave 2 hits. I'm going to unleash broadside hell

The distinction is not so much on what the Empire and the Rebels can do but on what strategy you want to play and how you use upgrade cards to implement them. Each side has traditional strengths but there is no reason why you cannot cross over and play the other side's style. Even a Neb-B with Salvation can mimic a VSD's forward shooting to an extent and a GSD can do hit-and-run tactics similar to what Corvettes do. The type of game you want to play is usually more important than what faction you choose to be.

it's true that the factions can approximate similar playstyles, but there are massive differences between the above ships

Salvation gets no bonuses for getting into close range while a VSD more than doubles its firepower. The VSD is also far slower and bulkier. Even if both are purposed for long range (Warlord + H9 for the VSD), they're going to go about engagements very differently.

The Corv and GSD are similarly speedy, but one is far cheaper and cost effective at medium/long range while the other is beefier (Esp with that brace, while the corv's double evade sharply cut off in effectiveness the closer they get, MM being the exception) and an ungoldy terror at close range (and is also the only ship thus far that can move then shoot ala Demolisher)

their interactions with available squadrons which are also radically different across factions changes the dynamic even further

for example, a floatilla of Nebs with B-wings can drive right towards VSDs and plow right through them (done it already, it's glorious ) while a carrier VSD can fling rhymer's bombers further than Nebs can shoot and then have them unload bombs at medium range.

The factional identity or uniqueness is not a matter of gameplay.

That's not really true though. factional identity is part of the game play. All the upgrades, units, abilities, ect... for a given faction is going to be based in part on its identity. That's why for example all ties have barrel roll in X-Wing. The same is and will continue to be true for Armada, upgrades, future ships, ect... will all be designed around what the factions identity is.

I guess you have a different interpretation of what identity means then. What I mean is that identity is based in the lore, and that they try to use lore-derived material and attempt to translate into workable game mechanics.

What do you mean by factional identity?

Another problem with your equation is that for some people it doesn't hold.

Again that's not really true. A game that holds 100% to the lore, but is no fun to play is still no fun to play. There may be a few people out there who are willing to overlook the issues, but those will be very few and not enough to see profit.

I don't disagree with that at all. I believe that gameplay outweighs lore. But saying gameplay > lore is not the same as saying "gameplay >>>[...]>>> fluff", which strongly implies that the lore of Star Wars is nothing more than a sales gimmick which should be discarded at a moment's inconvenience.

There are nearly countless games out there with the star wars license. If you start compromising the quality of your gameplay for fluff then the game will simply not be as worth playing.

Chess, for example, is some right bull ito fluff (seriously, what kind of knight moves in Ls? what kind of rook moves at all? Unless it's supposed to be the bird? who the **** takes turns trying to kill one another? Why is there a pair of super bishops flying around and slaying fools? how come the goddamn queen is the strongest piece? Is she joan of freaking arc?) but it has endured

ito variety, armada and chess aren't attempting to meet the same goals. Chess comes prepackaged with everything you need to play and is not trying to sell you on extra pieces or factions. Armada has to balance out two factions and make them compellingly different enough to warrant inclusion. If they have to make their gameplay slightly inaccurate to the lore in order to maintain an interesting variety, then the lore can go under the bus as an acceptable sacrifice.

We're playing a game first and foremost. The lore can help shape many things such as the setting and characters of the miniatures, but slavish adherence to it is a distant second priority to making the game worth playing.

About the only exception I can think of is if the game offers a narrative experience in place of robust game mechanics. While players can certainly add their own narrative to their games, FFG has released this as a competitive strategic game and has their priorities straight.

I'm not sure if you're purposefully trying to miss my point here. What I am saying is that in chess does not have different pieces in one faction as it does the other. That does not mean that gameplay is flawed.

What I mean is that identity is based in the lore, and that they try to use lore-derived material and attempt to translate into workable game mechanics.

No I think I just wasn't very clear, because that's what I mean too.

For example in Armada, the Imperial ships should be big, lots of firepower but slower and more cumbersome. The game does this by giving the SD's lots of dice, a large command stack and slower turning ships.

In X-Wing, the Imperial ships on the other hand tend to be quick and nimble, but have poor firepower and/or little health.

I also don't believe that the Star Wars IP is a gimmick they use to sell stuff. FFG does IMO a good job of capturing the feel of Star Wars. But at the same time, a fluff/lore correct Tie Defender would be massively broken.

It's actually because of the Lore that you will never see a Imperial CR-90 or Neb B. Sure they're actually Imperial ships if you dig into the EU, but they're still Rebel ships because the only time you see them in the movies is with the Rebel fleet.

For example in Armada, the Imperial ships should be big, lots of firepower but slower and more cumbersome. The game does this by giving the SD's lots of dice, a large command stack and slower turning ships.

In X-Wing, the Imperial ships on the other hand tend to be quick and nimble, but have poor firepower and/or little health.

Indeed, but I'd say that the Gladiator is far from being slow and cumbersome. With Engine Techs, I've been able to zip them around the battlespace like a corvette. With the Raider coming out, the Empire will have another fast craft, while the Rebels will be getting other relatively slow and cumbersome craft coming out.

So, will Wave 2 (all the detailed differences notwithstanding) still encapsulate that different gameplay identity based on speed and cumbersomeness?

I also don't believe that the Star Wars IP is a gimmick they use to sell stuff. FFG does IMO a good job of capturing the feel of Star Wars. But at the same time, a fluff/lore correct Tie Defender would be massively broken.

It's actually because of the Lore that you will never see a Imperial CR-90 or Neb B. Sure they're actually Imperial ships if you dig into the EU, but they're still Rebel ships because the only time you see them in the movies is with the Rebel fleet.

I agree, and this is largely due to the sketchy nature of some of the EU. You mentioning the TIE Defender gets to one of the worst parts of it - the even-increasing need for sooper-dooperness. Let's call it Sun Crusher syndrome. In the face of a lot of crappy EU, it's safe to stick to the movies,... but it's also clear that FFG is quite happy to draw from the EU.

I'd say that nerfing the TIE Defender was an excellent move, because it would have broken the balance of the game. But why would letting the Empire have Nebulon-B frigates break the game?

I would say there are three core differences even as we look towards Wave 2:

1 - The Empire has a far greater degree of standardization. Most of the ships are not manueverable, and those that are make major sacrifices elsewhere to achieve this and are not well rounded. The best of the bunch is the Gladiator, but I've seen more than one fly off the table because that thing turns a lot less than people expect without careful Nav planning at speed 3. It is the Ford Mustang of ships: fast, until you turn. The rebels, by contrast, are uniformly decently quick, but other than that, kind of all over the map as a mashup of what they have.

2 - Full frontal assault vs. broadsides. The two playstyles are very different, and are only being reinforced with wave 2, where the rebels add the MC ships (side specialists to go with the AF2 and the wide front arc of the 'vette) and the Imperials add a harassing raider that won't be the mainstay of fleets and another full frontal bombardment star destroyer.

3 - Squadrons. Man, squadrons. And how / why you use them. I think this is the most underexplored part of the game so far.

I would say there are three core differences even as we look towards Wave 2:

1 - The Empire [...] ships are not manueverable, ..

2 - Full frontal assault vs. broadsides. ..

3 - Squadrons. ...

Yes, quite so, but aside from point 2, aren't we seeing convergence as we get more ships? (My original point.) With the Raider-class, I'm fairly confident that we'll get a ship that's quite maneuverable and will be able to keep up with the CR90.

While the two are, and remain, different, I'd say that you have to acknowledge that the variance has diminished.

Take the fighters expansions. The huge difference between the TIE Fighters and X-Wings being the only fighters has been mitigated, now that the TIE Interceptors are the rough equivalent to the A-Wing as a fast-attack fighter with Counter. The Y-Wing and the TIE bomber are roughly equivalent. Admittedly, the Empire does not have a versatile starfighter like the X-Wing, but the TIE Advanced at least has Escort, even if it doesn't have Bomber. If'n'when we get the TIE Defender, will the Empire have an equivalent to the B-Wing?

I would say there are three core differences even as we look towards Wave 2:

1 - The Empire [...] ships are not manueverable, ..

2 - Full frontal assault vs. broadsides. ..

3 - Squadrons. ...

Yes, quite so, but aside from point 2, aren't we seeing convergence as we get more ships? (My original point.) With the Raider-class, I'm fairly confident that we'll get a ship that's quite maneuverable and will be able to keep up with the CR90.

While the two are, and remain, different, I'd say that you have to acknowledge that the variance has diminished.

Take the fighters expansions. The huge difference between the TIE Fighters and X-Wings being the only fighters has been mitigated, now that the TIE Interceptors are the rough equivalent to the A-Wing as a fast-attack fighter with Counter. The Y-Wing and the TIE bomber are roughly equivalent. Admittedly, the Empire does not have a versatile starfighter like the X-Wing, but the TIE Advanced at least has Escort, even if it doesn't have Bomber. If'n'when we get the TIE Defender, will the Empire have an equivalent to the B-Wing?

Well when comparing the Raider to the CR90, you still find a distinct difference.

The CR90 has range and flits across the board with finesse, striking at long and medium range.

The Raider likes to get in close to do the dirty work and shows this by having a brace token instead of the redirect, and 2 shields all around compared to the 1 shield rear that it's rebel counterpart has.

It will be interesting to see how people field it since those 2 evades will become useless fast. . .

With Engine Techs, I've been able to zip them around the battlespace like a corvette.

But you had to pay both in points, opportunity cost, and a command to do so, and you still haven't really matched the speed of a Vette.

So, will Wave 2 (all the detailed differences notwithstanding) still encapsulate that different gameplay identity based on speed and cumbersomeness?

I'd say so yes. I expect the MC80 to be fairly nimble for such a large ship, and the MC30 to be like the Vette in terms of speed and turning. The Raider may be quick and nimble, but it's a Vette so it should be, but a single ship does not destroy the factions feel or identity. Slow and cumbersome isn't even the whole of the Empires identity, it's also the forward arc, the swarms of fighters, and more.

But why would letting the Empire have Nebulon-B frigates break the game?

It won't at least not alot, but it would take away from the RA's identity. But IMO the reason it won't happen is less to do with game design and pretty much everything to do with the lore. Despite what the EU says, the Neb B is a Rebel ship, not an Imperial one.

It doesn't look like an Imperial ship, it's the wrong color, it's the wrong shape, it's never seen in an Imperial fleet, it's only ever seen in the Rebel's fleet. For those reasons you'll never see a Imperial Neb B, because it was never intended to be an Imperial ship. It's not that I am against such a thing, I just don't see it happening for the above reasons.