A suggestion I posted in the XG-1 Assault Gunboat thread:

Title:

Linked Weapon Array

(if you are equipped with an Ion Cannon) you may make a free Ion Cannon attack after a successful primary weapon attack.

This would be also awesome if it just worked for any cannon, but might be op with hlc as a free title.

That sounds pretty cool.

Cheers. I like the idea (in general) of being able to perform a free secondary weapon attack if your primary hits - think almost like a co-axial weapon - but while it could makes the generics a bit more effective it would be brutally powerful on the named pilots (who have access to EPT's). It might be too much for the Defender.

Playing X-Wing alliance again, and pretty much all the ships that have ion weapons could be configured to fire in sequence with their regular weaponry, so thematically it's plausible.

The issue is limiting it somehow - in my home brewing attempts on the Gunboat it seemed pretty essential that the Gunboat have access to Ion weaponry, but not HLC's, Manglers etc. So, the Linked Weapon Array title. Like a BTL-A4 title, but for certain cannon-using ships.

That sounds pretty cool.

Cheers. I like the idea (in general) of being able to perform a free secondary weapon attack if your primary hits - think almost like a co-axial weapon - but while it could makes the generics a bit more effective it would be brutally powerful on the named pilots (who have access to EPT's). It might be too much for the Defender.

Playing X-Wing alliance again, and pretty much all the ships that have ion weapons could be configured to fire in sequence with their regular weaponry, so thematically it's plausible.

The issue is limiting it somehow - in my home brewing attempts on the Gunboat it seemed pretty essential that the Gunboat have access to Ion weaponry, but not HLC's, Manglers etc. So, the Linked Weapon Array title. Like a BTL-A4 title, but for certain cannon-using ships.

I think then the gunboat should come with a primary weapon that deals both damage and one ion token if the attack hit. That is equivalent, more or less, to have a primary attack, and then another attack, restricted only to ion, to perform after the first one.

I think then the gunboat should come with a primary weapon that deals both damage and one ion token if the attack hit. That is equivalent, more or less, to have a primary attack, and then another attack, restricted only to ion, to perform after the first one.

Yep. The other idea I was toying around with was ignoring cannons as an upgrade slot entirely, and giving the Gunboat a Primary Weapon value of 2 / 2. - i.e. the player can choose between a regular 2 dice attack or a 2 dice ion attack as it's primary (with range modifiers where applicable.

Of course, there's no precedence for such a mechanic... yet.

But anyway, I'm derailing the thread here...

I think then the gunboat should come with a primary weapon that deals both damage and one ion token if the attack hit. That is equivalent, more or less, to have a primary attack, and then another attack, restricted only to ion, to perform after the first one.

That would require completely rewriting the rules though. Whereas it can just as easily be achieved with a Cannon.

I think then the gunboat should come with a primary weapon that deals both damage and one ion token if the attack hit. That is equivalent, more or less, to have a primary attack, and then another attack, restricted only to ion, to perform after the first one.

That would require completely rewriting the rules though. Whereas it can just as easily be achieved with a Cannon.

Completely rewriting the rules? Nah, it would take one pilot-sized rules card at most. Just like we got for Boost, or Bombs, or SLAM....

Yep. The other idea I was toying around with was ignoring cannons as an upgrade slot entirely, and giving the Gunboat a Primary Weapon value of 2 / 2. - i.e. the player can choose between a regular 2 dice attack or a 2 dice ion attack as it's primary (with range modifiers where applicable.

I would LOVE if the game had worked that way all along.

I think the idea of Cannon slots and Turret slots was a bad idea in the first place. Those things are a fundamental part of a ship model and it's identity. The fact that you can just mix and match them is stupid.

Taking the two ion cannons off the wings of a TIE Defender and replacing it with a big ol' laser bazooka is just dumb.

Ships with Ion Cannons should have looked something like this:

And other guns with other strange properties would have other symbols next to their attack numbers.

I think the idea of Cannon slots and Turret slots was a bad idea in the first place. Those things are a fundamental part of a ship model and it's identity. The fact that you can just mix and match them is stupid.

Some call it a bad idea, I think it's better to call it 'good game design' and 'gameplay trumps fluff'.

I like to think of the HLC defender as removing the Ion Cannons and fitting another two blaster cannons to the top wing. Makes more sense than sticking a couple of massive cannons on the top and not using the quad.

I like to think of the HLC defender as removing the Ion Cannons and fitting another two blaster cannons to the top wing. Makes more sense than sticking a couple of massive cannons on the top and not using the quad.

That's what I've always assumed.

Some call it a bad idea, I think it's better to call it 'good game design' and 'gameplay trumps fluff'.

I don't think it IS good game design though, because it causes the exact same kinds of problems that they were supposedly trying to avoid when they made it so you could put any pilot in any ship. The same things happen with ships being equipped with cannon and turrets they were never intended to have.

Title~ TIE Defender only

Ion Conversion Matrix-

Roll attack dice as normal. For each die result which deals damage add one Ion token to the defending ship(Standard Ion token rules apply).

Once per round at the end of the combat round you may remove one Ion Token from an enemy ship at range 1 and regain one shield.

This gives the Defender some uniqueness and to some degree mitigates the overcost by giving an solid but not overpowering mechanic. It also wouldn't be necessary to equip a cannon (further adding to the cost). The Ion Shield mechanic gives a limited way to replenish shields while possibly having to sacrifice the Ionization of an opponent to do so. It would be possible to ionize large ships but might require some luck and or choosing between regaining a shield and ionizing an enemy.

Some call it a bad idea, I think it's better to call it 'good game design' and 'gameplay trumps fluff'.

I don't think it IS good game design though, because it causes the exact same kinds of problems that they were supposedly trying to avoid when they made it so you could put any pilot in any ship. The same things happen with ships being equipped with cannon and turrets they were never intended to have.

But that's the thing, cannons and turrets are designed with the ships that can carry them in mind. Not making them slots makes game design way harder and list building way more lame. Increased options is almost always a good thing if they can be balanced and it's far easier to balance a set of 10-15 weapons on a handful of ships than all of the pilots on all of the ships. They're of vastly different scale, which is what makes cannons and turrets good and moving pilots around bad.

Sounds hypocritical to me. More options is good, except when they're not, then they break the game?

Sounds hypocritical to me. More options is good, except when they're not, then they break the game?

I'm sorry it doesn't make sense to you, but it's the case. I explained the difference in scale and magnitude and if you can't understand that it makes a difference then I can't help here.

I'm sorry it doesn't make sense to you, but it's the case. I explained the difference in scale and magnitude and if you can't understand that it makes a difference then I can't help here.

No, I understood. I just think you're wrong.

Some call it a bad idea, I think it's better to call it 'good game design' and 'gameplay trumps fluff'.

I don't think it IS good game design though, because it causes the exact same kinds of problems that they were supposedly trying to avoid when they made it so you could put any pilot in any ship. The same things happen with ships being equipped with cannon and turrets they were never intended to have.

The reason everyone jumps for the Heavy Laser Cannon on the TIE defender is long ranged combat. It dies very quickly up close.

The pilots are shiplocked because then you'd have to design every pilot ability for every ship in that faction, it'd either be a phenomenally ardrous task with inferior results (as you'd be very limited on pilot abilities) or it'd break and you'd end up with a few power combos and everything else'd be junk. The TIE phantom (which was capped at PS7 for could reason) simply couldn't have happened, or would have to have been done very differently.

If a ship's really unsuitable for the cannon upgrade you have the option to not give it a cannon slot (I wouldn't give the Assault Gunboat one, or would add it via a title that prevents it from taking cannons costing more than 3 points). You can't not give it a pilot slot. Furthermore, swapping out modular components isn't thematically jarring: you can fit a blaster weapon to a Y-wing's turret. Look at Second World War tanks (especially the German ones) to see just how realistic adapting a chassis to a new role is.

The trick is designing ships such that the Heavy Laser Cannon isn't autoinclude. That means not putting cannons on 2 attack ships without special traits (on the YT-2400 they either compete with the ship's turreted nature if locked forward or they are the turret and leave a hole to be exploited, on the Scyk it comes with a 2 point tax). Most cannon ships are 3 attack, and most Heavy Laser isn't the dominant upgrade: the Lambda, B-wing and Firespray all operate as well if not better with their primaries. The Aggressor and Defender leap for the Mangler or Firespray because they're long range combatants (happiest fighting at Range 3) that rely on their agility and all too often get chewed up at Range 1.

It's one of the reasons they're so odd to fly: most ships tend to Range 1 because it powers up their primaries. The Defender doesn't. HLC and even Mangler synergise strongly with this: Autoblaster, Flechette and Ion don't.

This I think is part of the reason the Aggressor has two cannon slots: a combat cannon is almost a necessity, and the second cannon slot gives them the option for a control cannon.

So, with this in mind, if you want a fix for the TIE defender's lack of Ion Cannons I'd suggest a TIE defender only cannon upgrade.

Firelinked Ion Cannon

Probably about 5 to 7 points, but you can discount it to effectively reduce the cost of the TIE defender.

Attack Value of 3.

If this attack hits, assign one ion token to the defender.

It's effectively an ion cannon without the dice cancellation.

If a ship's really unsuitable for the cannon upgrade you have the option to not give it a cannon slot (I wouldn't give the Assault Gunboat one, or would add it via a title that prevents it from taking cannons costing more than 3 points).

You COULD, but they aren't going to.

No ship with Ion Cannons isn't going to have a cannon slot now, because that's how they chose to implement ion cannons.

No ship with Ion Cannons isn't going to have a cannon slot now, because that's how they chose to implement ion cannons.

There are other ways to implement ion weapons if they want to, the Ion Cannon Turret already exists, for example. They could even do an ion primary.

That, or make the Gunboat like the B-wing: 3 dice primary and good close up. HLC and Mangler become much less attractive because the primary is pulling its weight and support cannons become more attractive. The Defender, Outrider and Aggressor all take damage cannons to replace their primaries, hence they rarely go for Ion or Flechette Cannon.

I like FTS Gecko's version better. It's simpler, and is useful for more ships.

Ion Cannon without the "cancel all dice line" is more complex than a BTL-A4 effect?

His forces the TIE defender to use its primary and makes the ion attack an afterthought. It almost defeats the point of the ion mechanic, which is to ionise a target at the most opportune moment. To ionise a ship that way you'd have to hit twice.

If you removed the "must hit" requirement then you've given BTL-A4 to everything. I'm not sure Warthog B-wings are something I want to see.

If you removed the "must hit" requirement then you've given BTL-A4 to everything.

With cannons instead of turrets, but yes, because in X-Wing Alliance, everything could do that.

But I do actually think your idea of making it a Cannon instead of a Modification makes more sense. So you can't use it with other cannon types.

Linked Ion Cannons:

After you perform a primary weapon attack, you may immediately perform this attack. If this attack hits, the defender suffers 1 damage and receives 1 ion token. Then cancel all dice results.

All the other stats are just the same as the Ion Cannon(except the cost of course).

How about Age of Sigmar style?

"If you run around the table while making laser gun noises, you may attack again."

...

...

nevermind

A suggestion I posted in the XG-1 Assault Gunboat thread:

Title:

Linked Weapon Array

(if you are equipped with an Ion Cannon) you may make a free Ion Cannon attack after a successful primary weapon attack.

A suggestion I posted in the XG-1 Assault Gunboat thread:

Title:

Linked Weapon Array

(if you are equipped with an Ion Cannon) you may make a free Ion Cannon attack after a successful primary weapon attack.

That sounds pretty cool.

To limit this, how about a Corran type or wording where if you perform the free ion attack after a primary you get a weapons disabled token for the next round?

To limit this, how about a Corran type or wording where if you perform the free ion attack after a primary you get a weapons disabled token for the next round?

I don't see why it needs to be limited. Just charge more points for it.

To limit this, how about a Corran type or wording where if you perform the free ion attack after a primary you get a weapons disabled token for the next round?

I don't see why it needs to be limited. Just charge more points for it.

I was under a time crunch when I posted and after thinking it thru, not only do I agree that there is no reason to limit it, but it almost becomes completely useless if you do.

One of the advantages of Ion-ing a ship is knowing where it will be so you can hammer it from a safe place on the next turn. If your own weapons are disabled however, there is little or no advantage gained in using Ion weapons.

I have flown defenders pretty extensively, and the issue i have is not the firepower or the dial. They put out good damage even without a cannon. The issue is defense. If i spend that many points, i want to keep the ship alive. Right now the survivability is less than 2 tie fighters (same hp, no evade). I think the title fix should be something like:

When you take a focus action, assign 2 focus tokens to your ship. 0 points

This solves the defense problem, provides some offense (dont have to save token for defense), and makes Rexlar's ability much more reliable. And as recon specialist costs 3 points to do the same thing, it should be about the right price discount.