Glancing through some starfighter stat lines, I've noticed the B-Wing seems to get the short end of the stick.

When we compare it to it's predecessor, the A4 Y-Wing (single pilot version). The B-wing is superior in only three categories, Shield strength, Hull trauma, and weapons systems. Even so, when you take a closer look at these three categories in regards to the entire fighter, sure you have more HT, but its only 3 more, and you have 4 less strain. Your weapons basically only make your choices wider as a pilot can only take one action anyway, and shield strength (RAW) isn't that exciting either.

To me, the B-wing is the Star Wars equivalent of an A-10 Warthog (Brrrrrt), but its stat-line just doesn't do it justice in my opinion.

To me, the B-wing is the Star Wars equivalent of an A-10 Warthog (Brrrrrt), but its stat-line just doesn't do it justice in my opinion.

It's not the most amazing starfighter ever, but take a closer look and you'll start to see advantages.

Heavy laser - It's like a laser, but with a range of Short, allowing the B-wing to plink with it's laser cannon while outside the range of most point defense guns (Close).

Linked Ion Cannons - Not exactly amazballs, but many opponents don't have as much System Strain as Hull. Plus linked 2.

Autoblasters - yes, not super powerful but Autoblasters can Auto-fire. As Sil 3 that means it's a PPPP check to hit dismounted ground troops in full auto... Not easy, but if you have the Ability and skill dice you should be able to drop 2-3 hits on a regular basis. 40+ damage and the ability to hit several groups, you'll be wiping out minion groups left and right. And against speeders with armor 1 and HTs in the single digits you'll be doing enough damage to see some returns. There's your Brrrrrt.

Sil 3, Speed 4 - so you can still take advantage of all the vehicle maneuvers and actions.

So to continue the A-10 line, imagine you're flying in support of some buddies on the ground. You come in at short range and torpedo the AT-AA. Next turn you use the heavy laser canon soften up the AT-ST and come back on turn 3 to torp it. (So far only the AT-AA had a chance to MAYBE shoot a missile at you if it even was the kind with missiles.) Turn 4 you move in close and start strafing the stormtroopers with the autoblasters, staying on target while laughing as your range and 3 shields mean their missile tubes have only a tiny chance of even critting, and can't do any HT at all. Until the TIES show up, you're pretty much the Lord of all you survey....

I had this same issue, but on the speed side. It's described as having amazing straight-line speed, but its speed stat is the same as the slow, doddering Y-Wing. When I brought this up elsewhere, someone said it makes sense because the Gain the Advantage Action difficulty is speed based, so it doesn't make sense for the B-Wing to have a higher speed and therefore be better at dogfighting.

In the game I'm going to GM soon, I'm tempted to house rule the B-Wing's speed to 5. Maybe with an additional setback die if it tries to use Gain the Advantage.

I like the interpretation. Its certainly makes sense that the B-Wing is not a Space Superiority fighter in any way. And with Y-Wing/X-Wings able to carry their load of Torpedoes for anti-Capital **** duties, a new fighter with a purely Torpedoe role seems redundant.

The way presented above, its effectively a rather versatile multi-purpose mobile weapon platform.

It can provide close air support with its array of diverse weaponry. Shooting tanks, infantry groups or unshielded piece of equipment. After all, the ion cannons can easily disable detection array, communication dishes, etc..

A combined regiment of B-Wings and ground troops with AA weapons on their own (to shoot down the unshielded TIEs) would certainly be an impressive combat force.

To this, add the usual anti-Capital capacities. As noted, the heavy laser can pull off strikes that would usually be impossible to do with anything of a similar size. A few B-Wing could seriously and safely wreck a ship like the Falcon by snipping it from a distance that makes their turrets ineffective..

Its hardly a good idea to field that starfighter on its own. But its an exploitation fighter that will do its job remarkably.

Not sure it really addresses the original question, but I like the potential of the B-Wing alongside the Rigger class, with some extensive customization. Remove the Heavy laser cannon, which is an oversized weapon mount as presented in Dangerous Covenants, which frees up 2 HP and restores 1 handling and 4 system strain I believe. Remove the Auto blasters, so now you have 4 HPs to work with. Add triple medium laser cannons, still fuzzy on this, which I believe would only cost 1 HP. Enhanced ion engine to get to speed 5. Night shadow coating and an ECM array for last 2 HPs. Along with all the rigger talents, get a +2 or +3 handling speed 5 ship, with 10-11 SS and 16 or so HT. With 3 ions cannons ,3 medium laser cannons, and linked torps. With Tricky Target it now counts as a Sil 0 craft as well, so another Sil 3 craft faces PPPP to shoot it.

While i.agree that pimping a B-wing is probably a good way to turn it into something awesome, i think the initia point was about the standard ship issued by the Rebellion and its Verpine designers

I have a hard time considering the B-wing as a contender with the Y-wing (S3) since the latter gains so much from the addition of a gunner and an astromech droid.

Yeah that's one of the things I don't like about the system. Combined with how hard avoiding hits is the S3 Y-Wing's extra crewmember is a massive advantage, and ditto for the astromech that all Y-Wings have.

I also think the damage output of the B-Wing's Laser is too low. In most systems the B-Wing's main gun is the single most damaging fighter laser in existence but here many fighter lasers do the dame amount of damage and most fighters have.more then one laser.

Yeah that's one of the things I don't like about the system. Combined with how hard avoiding hits is the S3 Y-Wing's extra crewmember is a massive advantage, and ditto for the astromech that all Y-Wings have.

I also think the damage output of the B-Wing's Laser is too low. In most systems the B-Wing's main gun is the single most damaging fighter laser in existence but here many fighter lasers do the dame amount of damage and most fighters have.more then one laser.

In another few episodes of Rebels we'll see the B-wing's weapons loadout is completely different so I wouldn't spend too much energy dwelling on it...

In another few episodes of Rebels we'll see the B-wing's weapons loadout is completely different so I wouldn't spend too much energy dwelling on it...

This is also a good point. I say go with what makes sense and feels right to the GM, so long as it's not OP.

I agree with most of your points GhostofMan, I would probably replace the Ion cannons on my own B-Wing, what sticks in my throat is the fact it is supposed to be the Next-Gen Y-Wing, but has worse handling and worse SS and only marginally better HT. Otherwise I still love it.

Also Autoblaster is the essence of Brrrrt, you just have to be a really good shot.

The thing probably is "next gen" compared to the Y-wing, it's just the nuance of what "next gen" means...Compare it to something like the Tempest or H-wing while you're holding up the Y-wing. Tactics and Doctrine are funny things, and you can get as many certain points of view talking about his as you can over in the F&D boards.

It carries a heavy laser, even though it's only Sil 3, it's almost as large as a Lambda Shuttle but still manages to squeak in at SIl 3 because of the whole gyro cockpit thing, it's speed is 4, which means a player can get it up speed 5, and it only needs one meat pilot to be at 100% all for 150,000 credits (less than 2 Y-wings). And on and on... Compared to the Y-wing, Tempest, and H-wing, those are all features that could say "next-gen," especially if you're a wing-and-prayer rebellion trying to pull an advanced attack fighter directly out of your thermal exhaust port...

Is it better than a Y-wing, or a Tempest, or an H-wing? I have no idea...

Right, and its all nuanced and subjective, if I need an airstrike on a heavily armored ground target and all I have are A-wings, I'm **** out of luck. So I guess in that respect it fills its role, I just really dislike that SS number, I mean even a standard TIE has 8.

If memory serves, the B-Wing was not supposed to be a true successor to the y-wing. It was supposed to simply be a dedicated bomber while the y-wing was a heavy fighter. So it might lack in some areas where the y-wing does not for the sake of better bombing characteristics. Remember that there are some documented incidences where the B-Wing did well against heavy starships, but were absolutely decimated by a paltry number of enemy starfighters. The Y-Wing holds up better in a dogfight. It's a middle ground between the X-Wing and the B-Wing.

Well, the B-Wing wasn't technically a bomber either. It was a classified as a heavy assault fighter. Sure it can fill a bomber role. However, unlike a bomber, it doesn't run from combat once it's out of it's torpedoes. It has the defenses to shrug off hits that would total an X-Wing, and enough non-ammo based firepower to equal 2 Y-Wings. The thing is though, if they stat'd the B-Wing like it's supposed to be, it would drastically out-class it's competition. I take it's stats as the Devs simply balancing the fighter out a bit with it's counterparts.

Hmmm... I think the "legend" of the B-wing has blown its expected performance a bit out of proportion. Much like the samurai sword, I'd say. Which is interesting because, according to on EU story, the fear of the rumor of the B-Wing was far more devastating to the Imperial forces... at least until they actually faced off against it. The first TIEs to encounter the B-Wing ran from it. The second TIEs to meet up with them tore the B-Wings to pieces because its lack of speed and maneuverability were a serious liability.

Even the old D6 stats (where most of its EU information was born) didn't stat it that much better than a Y-Wing. It's ability to "take punishment" was just enough to get it out of Dodge because it lacked the speed to get out faster. It was never intended to stand and fight against fighters. Just get close enough to capital ships to bloody their noses.

For example, the D6 stats gave it less of Hull code than the Y-Wing, but higher shields. Both its maneuverability and speed were lower than the Y-Wing's. Its weapons taken individually were not that great: a payload of proton torpedoes, a laser canon that was only marginally better than the X-Wing's quads, ion cannons that were no better than those on the Y-Wing, and a pretty weak auto-blaster. What it did have, though, were all those weapons on the same vessel, and, due to its gyro mechanism, the ability to deliver that firepower from a stable platform and still have some measure of evasive capability.

Don't get me wrong. The B-Wing is an impressive machine. My favorite of all the fighters. But what you're expecting from its stats is just not supported by the stats given to it over its history of being mechanically represented in various games.

Any fighter other than the Ywing (and maybe the Xwing if you have a good astromech) really needs the Master Pilot, Double action talent

One aspect that you get with FFGs system, that you didn't get with the older systems, is a differentiation between "toughness" and proneness to malfunction. The old D6 stats gave the B-Wing a low Hull code because (I suspect) because it was prone to breaking down. The Y-Wing may not have been as well armored, but it was rugged as hell. The B-Wing, a couple solid hits and it would suffer any number of mechanical issues the other fighters weren't even capable of suffering. It was just... twitchy.

With FFG, though, that can be represented by a slightly higher structural integrity (but only because it is physically bigger) with a higher Hull Trauma rating, and higher tendency to mechanical failure by a lower System Strain rating. This is represented well in the FFG stats for the B-Wing.

As for "amazing straight line speed," as mentioned in the text for the B-Wing in the book, that is really only in consideration of its expected speed in consideration of its size and configuration. It's speed characteristic in FFG gives it a speed right around that of the Y-Wing which, again, fits the theme throughout its game history. Speed in FFG just doesn't have the granularity to show the nuanced speed differences in the various fighters. Even the A-Wing isn't given its due as being faster than the TIE Interceptor.

I think that, sometimes, we tend to get hung up on wanting to see relatively minor disparity in specs between two pieces of equipment shown in the greater context of a simplified stat system that needs to accommodate a far greater sample set, and it's something that's simply not practical while still allowing the system as a whole to function with any semblance of elegance given the bottleneck of human impact on the tabletop RPG process.

You might be able to reflect the difference between an A-wing and squint's speed in a video game, where your speed value can fall at any point on an infinite numeric scale, and the computer can handle the number crunching at-speed...but to use a similar "all-encompassing" speed unit in a game like this would bog everything down. ("Hmmm...okay, your fighter has a speed rating of 37.5...let's compare that to the target's rating of 33.4...then account for that rating's proportional impact on your maneuverability rating of 23.7...")

A more blatant example would be silhouette. We just intuitively understand that while, sure, our transport at 30m long is smaller, and as a result likely harder to hit and more maneuverable than the other transport at 40m long...the difference isn't significant enough to really be worth splitting hairs.

The same is true with things like damage output of lasers, speed, maneuverability, etc. (and also the main normalizing factor that people don't really account for when mixing eras in Star Wars...sure, a lot of starfighter weapon tech improvements have been made between the ARC-170 and the X-wing...but within their own time frames, those lasers are the gold standard of damage dealing against contemporary starfighter targets, so they do the same damage when measured in abstract "damage units". If you want to mix the two up in the same furball, that's fine, but if you also want to show this disparity (now that there's a meaningful relative comparison), it's going to be far more elegant to just make a simple ruling of introducing an "antiquity" penalty...maybe 1 disadvantage die per "era" behind the ship they're interacting with...so clone wars to galactic civil war, that's 1 era/disadvantage to attack and -1 to damage results, etc.).

I think that, sometimes, we tend to get hung up on wanting to see relatively minor disparity in specs between two pieces of equipment shown in the greater context of a simplified stat system that needs to accommodate a far greater sample set, and it's something that's simply not practical while still allowing the system as a whole to function with any semblance of elegance given the bottleneck of human impact on the tabletop RPG process.

You might be able to reflect the difference between an A-wing and squint's speed in a video game, where your speed value can fall at any point on an infinite numeric scale, and the computer can handle the number crunching at-speed...but to use a similar "all-encompassing" speed unit in a game like this would bog everything down. ("Hmmm...okay, your fighter has a speed rating of 37.5...let's compare that to the target's rating of 33.4...then account for that rating's proportional impact on your maneuverability rating of 23.7...")

A more blatant example would be silhouette. We just intuitively understand that while, sure, our transport at 30m long is smaller, and as a result likely harder to hit and more maneuverable than the other transport at 40m long...the difference isn't significant enough to really be worth splitting hairs.

The same is true with things like damage output of lasers, speed, maneuverability, etc. (and also the main normalizing factor that people don't really account for when mixing eras in Star Wars...sure, a lot of starfighter weapon tech improvements have been made between the ARC-170 and the X-wing...but within their own time frames, those lasers are the gold standard of damage dealing against contemporary starfighter targets, so they do the same damage when measured in abstract "damage units". If you want to mix the two up in the same furball, that's fine, but if you also want to show this disparity (now that there's a meaningful relative comparison), it's going to be far more elegant to just make a simple ruling of introducing an "antiquity" penalty...maybe 1 disadvantage die per "era" behind the ship they're interacting with...so clone wars to galactic civil war, that's 1 era/disadvantage to attack and -1 to damage results, etc.).

I agree with this to a point. Obviously they can't make the statistics perfectly reflect the continuity. It would add ridiculous levels of crunch to the game to even try. They could however, try and capitalize on the highlights of the different fighters. I think the B-Wing is fairly well done. It is by no means the underpowered fighter people are making it out to be.

That said, it could be made better. The big things to capitalize on the B-Wing are it's firepower and durability. I think the firepower is fairly well represented. 3x Ion Cannons with Linked 2, and Proton Torpedoes with several loads of ammo. What bugs me a bit is the Heavy Laser. It's range is a definite bonus, but it's damage is identical to the Medium Laser. It's a Heavy Laser, not an extended range Medium Laser. I houserule ALL Heavy Lasers to 7 damage. This helps add a bit more umph behind the B-Wing.

Now the durability is a trickier issue. The B-Wing is rated as having exactly 50% more hull armor, and approximately 225% greater shield strength then the Y-Wing. The stats provided by FFG are flat out a bad representation of the difference between B-Wing and Y-Wing durability. Also, while the B-Wing was known to breakdown, I don't believe System Strain was very representative of this issue. It means that the B-Wing is significantly weaker to Ion weapons, which isn't accurate either. For those who keep talking about B-Wing straight line speed, the B-Wing's actual maximum thrust was only about 10-15% lower then the Y-Wing's. It was considered fast for it's size, not because it was actually capable of outrunning other fighters in a straight line sprint!

So to sum it up, the B-Wing as written isn't underpowered, but it's also not really accurate either.

I can certainly get behind that.

I'm not as up on the nuances of FFG ship-statting as most, but speaking from an in-universe standpoint, As fighters go, you've got overall profiles as follows:

Y-Wing : General purpose workhorse. Jack of all trades, but master of none. Speed: Medium/Low, Maneuverability: Medium/Low, Durability (shields & hull): Very High, Dependability: Extremely High, Adaptability/Repairability: High, Offensive Ability: High

X-Wing : Specialty Workhorse. No weak areas, but no unique advantages. Speed: Medium/High, Maneuverability: HIgh, Durability: High, Dependability: Medium/High, Adaptability/Repairability: Medium, Offensive Ability: Med-High

A-Wing : Highly specialized speed demon. Blazing fast, enough armament to be effective...at the expense of nearly everything else. Speed: Extremely high, Maneuverability: High, Durability: Low, Dependability: Medium/Low, Adaptability/Repairability: Low, Offensive Ability: Medium

B-Wing : Highly specialized gunnery platform, fighter sized. Gunboat armament in a fighter-sized package...with all of the headaches that entails. Speed: Medium/Low, Maneuverability: Low, Durability: High, Dependability: Low, Adaptability/Repairability: High (Adapt), Low (Repair)

TIE/ln : Speed: Medium High, Maneuverability: High, Durability: Low, Dependability: Medium, Adaptability/Repairability: Low/Medium, Offensive Ability: Medium-Low

TIE Interceptor : Speed: Very High, Maneuverability: Extremely High, Durability: Low, Dependability: Medium, Adaptability/Repairability: Low, Offensive Ability: Medium

TIE Bomber : Speed: Medium Low, Maneuverability: Medium Low, Durability: Medium-Low, Dependability: Medium, Adaptibility/Repairability: Medium-High, Offensive Ability: Medium High

As such, civil war era fighter combat is very much a rock/paper/scissors type of warfare, with pilot skill being the wildcard on the small scale, and numbers on the large scale (one on one, all things equal, an X-wing will defeat a TIE 75% of the time...but in most engagements, the TIEs outnumber the X-wings by 50% or more, making it mostly a wash).

For an in-game perspective, I think it's very important that a GM incorporate *all* aspects of fighter operation to avoid making it a matter of "the B-wing has the most weapons, it's the best". Especially in the early days of the B-wing's service career, by all means let the players have them if it makes sense to do so...but they're going to come out the worse anytime they're confronted by other fighters...and after nearly every engagement, they're going to need repairs to their gyro system and stabilizers...repairs that will be hard to come by, since they require trained repair personnel, qualified facilities, and OEM parts. Had they chosen Y-wings, they could land in nearly any port on the Rim and buy/trade/scrounge parts, be they made by Koensayr, or any of a dozen other aftermarket suppliers, or even fabbed at a local shop or cobbled together from stuff on hand...it'll work well enough.

Similarly, the repairs are *difficult*. So you've blown a stabilizer (because you turned too much...yeah), well it's of a custom Verpine design, and there's none to be found where you are. Either gotta get back to the Fleet for repairs, or haul it out to the Roche asteroids to let the grasshoppers take a look at it...and since they're proprietary, that one stabilizer is going to cost quadruple what an equivalent unit might be for a Y-wing, and double the cost of a sealed-box replacement from Incom for an X-wing.

Could be worse though...had they chosen an A-wing, that stabilizer may just simply not be available anywhere, and they'll have to leave it with the fleet until the next batch of them is shipped from a secret Alliance manufacturing facility, which could take months (and a hairy escort mission on the part of the crew...which is now an A-wing short).

The whole point I'm trying to make is that the GM should really embrace the idea that these ships are good, but good at one thing...at the expense of being pretty lousy in many other areas...they're prima donnas, and a pain in the butt to keep running.

I can certainly get behind that.

I'm not as up on the nuances of FFG ship-statting as most, but speaking from an in-universe standpoint, As fighters go, you've got overall profiles as follows:

Y-Wing : General purpose workhorse. Jack of all trades, but master of none. Speed: Medium/Low, Maneuverability: Medium/Low, Durability (shields & hull): Very High, Dependability: Extremely High, Adaptability/Repairability: High, Offensive Ability: High

X-Wing : Specialty Workhorse. No weak areas, but no unique advantages. Speed: Medium/High, Maneuverability: HIgh, Durability: High, Dependability: Medium/High, Adaptability/Repairability: Medium, Offensive Ability: Med-High

A-Wing : Highly specialized speed demon. Blazing fast, enough armament to be effective...at the expense of nearly everything else. Speed: Extremely high, Maneuverability: High, Durability: Low, Dependability: Medium/Low, Adaptability/Repairability: Low, Offensive Ability: Medium

B-Wing : Highly specialized gunnery platform, fighter sized. Gunboat armament in a fighter-sized package...with all of the headaches that entails. Speed: Medium/Low, Maneuverability: Low, Durability: High, Dependability: Low, Adaptability/Repairability: High (Adapt), Low (Repair)

TIE/ln : Speed: Medium High, Maneuverability: High, Durability: Low, Dependability: Medium, Adaptability/Repairability: Low/Medium, Offensive Ability: Medium-Low

TIE Interceptor : Speed: Very High, Maneuverability: Extremely High, Durability: Low, Dependability: Medium, Adaptability/Repairability: Low, Offensive Ability: Medium

TIE Bomber : Speed: Medium Low, Maneuverability: Medium Low, Durability: Medium-Low, Dependability: Medium, Adaptibility/Repairability: Medium-High, Offensive Ability: Medium High

As such, civil war era fighter combat is very much a rock/paper/scissors type of warfare, with pilot skill being the wildcard on the small scale, and numbers on the large scale (one on one, all things equal, an X-wing will defeat a TIE 75% of the time...but in most engagements, the TIEs outnumber the X-wings by 50% or more, making it mostly a wash).

For an in-game perspective, I think it's very important that a GM incorporate *all* aspects of fighter operation to avoid making it a matter of "the B-wing has the most weapons, it's the best". Especially in the early days of the B-wing's service career, by all means let the players have them if it makes sense to do so...but they're going to come out the worse anytime they're confronted by other fighters...and after nearly every engagement, they're going to need repairs to their gyro system and stabilizers...repairs that will be hard to come by, since they require trained repair personnel, qualified facilities, and OEM parts. Had they chosen Y-wings, they could land in nearly any port on the Rim and buy/trade/scrounge parts, be they made by Koensayr, or any of a dozen other aftermarket suppliers, or even fabbed at a local shop or cobbled together from stuff on hand...it'll work well enough.

Similarly, the repairs are *difficult*. So you've blown a stabilizer (because you turned too much...yeah), well it's of a custom Verpine design, and there's none to be found where you are. Either gotta get back to the Fleet for repairs, or haul it out to the Roche asteroids to let the grasshoppers take a look at it...and since they're proprietary, that one stabilizer is going to cost quadruple what an equivalent unit might be for a Y-wing, and double the cost of a sealed-box replacement from Incom for an X-wing.

Could be worse though...had they chosen an A-wing, that stabilizer may just simply not be available anywhere, and they'll have to leave it with the fleet until the next batch of them is shipped from a secret Alliance manufacturing facility, which could take months (and a hairy escort mission on the part of the crew...which is now an A-wing short).

The whole point I'm trying to make is that the GM should really embrace the idea that these ships are good, but good at one thing...at the expense of being pretty lousy in many other areas...they're prima donnas, and a pain in the butt to keep running.

This exactly. It's similar to the arguments that were flying around about the Defender being underpowered. Each ship has a role so if you play true to that role all will be good.

Now the durability is a trickier issue. The B-Wing is rated as having exactly 50% more hull armor, and approximately 225% greater shield strength then the Y-Wing. The stats provided by FFG are flat out a bad representation of the difference between B-Wing and Y-Wing durability. Also, while the B-Wing was known to breakdown, I don't believe System Strain was very representative of this issue. It means that the B-Wing is significantly weaker to Ion weapons, which isn't accurate either. For those who keep talking about B-Wing straight line speed, the B-Wing's actual maximum thrust was only about 10-15% lower then the Y-Wing's. It was considered fast for it's size, not because it was actually capable of outrunning other fighters in a straight line sprint!

So to sum it up, the B-Wing as written isn't underpowered, but it's also not really accurate either.

In almost every EU account of the B-Wing, it is a maintenance and financial nightmare. It is highly prone to both mechanical and electrical failure. This would include a high susceptibility to ion damage. So the low strain is right on target.

The only thing that is missing from the B-Wing stats is what happens to its flight characteristics when the gyro mechanism fails. As with most innovative tech, it was prone to failure and expensive to fix.

It is important to remember that, no matter where the EU takes the story of the B-Wing now, it's original concepts of flight performance, durability, and firepower were born out of the balancing quality that it was rare due to its mechanical instability and extreme expense to maintain. Things that developed in the story may have altered its expectations as far as availability or stability, but other factors remained making it a less than plausible design.

I can certainly get behind that.

I'm not as up on the nuances of FFG ship-statting as most, but speaking from an in-universe standpoint, As fighters go, you've got overall profiles as follows:

Y-Wing : General purpose workhorse. Jack of all trades, but master of none. Speed: Medium/Low, Maneuverability: Medium/Low, Durability (shields & hull): Very High, Dependability: Extremely High, Adaptability/Repairability: High, Offensive Ability: High

X-Wing : Specialty Workhorse. No weak areas, but no unique advantages. Speed: Medium/High, Maneuverability: HIgh, Durability: High, Dependability: Medium/High, Adaptability/Repairability: Medium, Offensive Ability: Med-High

A-Wing : Highly specialized speed demon. Blazing fast, enough armament to be effective...at the expense of nearly everything else. Speed: Extremely high, Maneuverability: High, Durability: Low, Dependability: Medium/Low, Adaptability/Repairability: Low, Offensive Ability: Medium

B-Wing : Highly specialized gunnery platform, fighter sized. Gunboat armament in a fighter-sized package...with all of the headaches that entails. Speed: Medium/Low, Maneuverability: Low, Durability: High, Dependability: Low, Adaptability/Repairability: High (Adapt), Low (Repair)

TIE/ln : Speed: Medium High, Maneuverability: High, Durability: Low, Dependability: Medium, Adaptability/Repairability: Low/Medium, Offensive Ability: Medium-Low

TIE Interceptor : Speed: Very High, Maneuverability: Extremely High, Durability: Low, Dependability: Medium, Adaptability/Repairability: Low, Offensive Ability: Medium

TIE Bomber : Speed: Medium Low, Maneuverability: Medium Low, Durability: Medium-Low, Dependability: Medium, Adaptibility/Repairability: Medium-High, Offensive Ability: Medium High

As such, civil war era fighter combat is very much a rock/paper/scissors type of warfare, with pilot skill being the wildcard on the small scale, and numbers on the large scale (one on one, all things equal, an X-wing will defeat a TIE 75% of the time...but in most engagements, the TIEs outnumber the X-wings by 50% or more, making it mostly a wash).

For an in-game perspective, I think it's very important that a GM incorporate *all* aspects of fighter operation to avoid making it a matter of "the B-wing has the most weapons, it's the best". Especially in the early days of the B-wing's service career, by all means let the players have them if it makes sense to do so...but they're going to come out the worse anytime they're confronted by other fighters...and after nearly every engagement, they're going to need repairs to their gyro system and stabilizers...repairs that will be hard to come by, since they require trained repair personnel, qualified facilities, and OEM parts. Had they chosen Y-wings, they could land in nearly any port on the Rim and buy/trade/scrounge parts, be they made by Koensayr, or any of a dozen other aftermarket suppliers, or even fabbed at a local shop or cobbled together from stuff on hand...it'll work well enough.

Similarly, the repairs are *difficult*. So you've blown a stabilizer (because you turned too much...yeah), well it's of a custom Verpine design, and there's none to be found where you are. Either gotta get back to the Fleet for repairs, or haul it out to the Roche asteroids to let the grasshoppers take a look at it...and since they're proprietary, that one stabilizer is going to cost quadruple what an equivalent unit might be for a Y-wing, and double the cost of a sealed-box replacement from Incom for an X-wing.

Could be worse though...had they chosen an A-wing, that stabilizer may just simply not be available anywhere, and they'll have to leave it with the fleet until the next batch of them is shipped from a secret Alliance manufacturing facility, which could take months (and a hairy escort mission on the part of the crew...which is now an A-wing short).

The whole point I'm trying to make is that the GM should really embrace the idea that these ships are good, but good at one thing...at the expense of being pretty lousy in many other areas...they're prima donnas, and a pain in the butt to keep running.

If I remember right from the old x-wing v tie fighter video games and other starwars video games that feature the x wing and the y wing and other lore sources (specifically NOT WEG). They mentioned the first fighters the rebellion could get their hands on were y wings for interplanatery flight. They also could get their hands on z-95 head hunters but that craft was an airspeeder, they had to mod the z-95 to get it to fly in space or use hyperdrives. After the x wing design defected to the rebellion they could put the z-95s in mothballs and use the y wing for other things that "main fighter" since the x wing was now the "main fighter". This meant the Y wing became "kind of a bomber" then when the B wing rolled around it was a more dedicated bomber than the Y wing. So I agree with your interpretation of the Y wing as a general purpose workhorse. When I used a B wing in the x-wing v tie fighter video games it is just as fast in a straight line as a Y wing. it is SLIGHTLY more manoeverable than a y wing but not enough to handle a tie intercepter, basically it is manoeverable enough to keep jinking out of a tie-ln's guns LOTS of payload though, and LOTS of ioncannons, the thing had 3 laser canons and 3 ion cannons 1 of each at the end of every wing cannard, and the ion cannons did more damage. the y wings ion cannons were smaller and just 2 of them.

If I remember right from the old x-wing v tie fighter video games and other starwars video games that feature the x wing and the y wing and other lore sources (specifically NOT WEG).

......................you do know that the "NOT WEG" lore sources you're talking about pretty much copied their lore from WEG right?