Honestly, aside from the Raider/CR90 not being worth it in general (vs fighters), the only issue I have in Epic is that the Raider is vastly superior to the CR90 point for point that it makes the CR90 not very attractive at all.

I don't think the Raider is that much better. I think it was better designed in regards to its upgrade slots and their locations but the CR 90 has alot going for it. Especially when you have Jan Ors boosting your primary weapon along with its normal plus 1 die for an energy.

The CR90 has, in my experience against it, been a very formidable craft. It is particularly good at dismantling Raiders, Firesprays, Decimators, Shuttles... the list is fairly long but anything 2 Agility or lower has to been mindful or suffer some serious injury or possible death.

+1 Die vs a whole extra attack is not even close IMO. The few times I have flown them against each other the Raider's improved Arcs and ability to double shot innate usually means the CR90 just gets wrecked.

But I do suppose it is fluffy that the Empire has better Capitals.

A 6 die shot with Han and a Target lock? No its very scary my friend. The primary on the raider is nice don't get me wrong but it suffers from being two 4 die shots. Frequently my first shot will burn the target lock to actually hit the the second shot has nothing to modify it if I'm going for the same target.

Gunnery Team and Jonus only boost Secondary weapons so they are not much help either for the second primary shot and in so far I think Howlrunner is more effective supporting a micro swarm to get the most from her ability rather than babysitting the raider but that's still a preference matter.

EbongHawk and I have had this debate and I do think the Raider was better designed than the CR90 with the game developers learning fom their experiences. But, it's still really early to say there's a clear advantage one way or the other. And in regards to arcs it really just is what it is and it's really not that different from large based ships with Auxiliary arcs, you deploy and play them in a way that's advantageous to it.

The on BIG problem I see in Epic play is just how much you want to deploy second. If the rebel player deploys first odds are you can really put the screws to him or her and the same goes vice versa. It's a sure bet that the player with iniative has an uphill battle ahead of themselves.

How long before scum get a "most devious" pack with conversions for the transport and corvette? Of course that will just leave the poor empire farther and farther behind... Except we already have the best ships!

Everyone complains that epic ships aren't worth their points compared to a wad of fighters, but then we can't allow Biggs to effect it? We can't allow Esege? Why not complain that people stupid enough to park their 60 point Deci in front of a huge ship are actually punished?

Epic ships aren't worth their points, so let's nerf them!

TL DNR

Also why are you typing in black text ID X T

That black text is to hard to read on my cellphone screen

The on BIG problem I see in Epic play is just how much you want to deploy second. If the rebel player deploys first odds are you can really put the screws to him or her and the same goes vice versa. It's a sure bet that the player with iniative has an uphill battle ahead of themselves.

I can see what you mean, but I disagree. First, you should be able to set up in such a way that you can react to at least two likely deployments of enemy ships. It's not too complicated to pick a lane and a back up lane between obstacles that allows you to converge on the enemy. Second, if you move first you have the ability to block their force...with your entire squad! No actions for your opponent, and actions for all your ships makes for a pretty one-sided exchange. And since they shoot first, you know whether to spend your Focus for defense before you fire. I think just like in standard 100 point play there are pros and cons.

The on BIG problem I see in Epic play is just how much you want to deploy second. If the rebel player deploys first odds are you can really put the screws to him or her and the same goes vice versa. It's a sure bet that the player with iniative has an uphill battle ahead of themselves.

I can see what you mean, but I disagree. First, you should be able to set up in such a way that you can react to at least two likely deployments of enemy ships. It's not too complicated to pick a lane and a back up lane between obstacles that allows you to converge on the enemy. Second, if you move first you have the ability to block their force...with your entire squad! No actions for your opponent, and actions for all your ships makes for a pretty one-sided exchange. And since they shoot first, you know whether to spend your Focus for defense before you fire. I think just like in standard 100 point play there are pros and cons.

I think he is discussing the huge ships, deploying your huge ship first is a distinct disadvantage (here initiative matters since they are the same PS) irrespective of the other ships in play.

I didn't include this in my first post, but there is a reasonable argument to be made for not deploying on the long edges, and instead deploying on the short edges. In fact this is what I actually did in my first game of epic before I realised. I actually think it plays better that way to be honest. One of the strengths of the huge ships is their range, however, playing across the board and the range 2 deployment onto the board this advantage is effectively negated almost immediately. Ships are in the thick of it too quickly in my opinion. It would help the huge ships a bit if the fighters actually had to cross throughout the death zone, rather than moving into range 3 almost immediately.

How does this relate to the initiative issue above, it means that the width is much more constrained, so there is less chance for the huge ships to be completely isolated and have to spend the whole game slowly plodding across the board.

I think the real issue with X-EPIC is that many people just do not know how to play the game. Also there are some issues with how FFG has kitted the older ships. There is a gap just like how TIE ADV sucked for a good while becuase it was an old ship in the modern game. Now I am not shooting zingers at my fellows here. It is what it is. Many people have not had a good reason to buy the HUGE ships other than as fun collectibles.

This should all change now... I think.

X-EPIC is going to get better in time. Until then it is good, just tweak some of the issues you have at home and have fun.

Nailed it, ever had rule confusion in the first game, notice all the pages of FAQs and erratas? Epic has much more of that. So many question come up with huge ships after the first or second time they are played but for most players this is the first time they played epic with or against a huge ship. Hence it is a much slower game.

Having played Armada now 3 times I have to say that what is missing from X-Epic is objective play. My last X-Epic was the 3rd raider scenario that has the objective of the Imps killing a designated rebel ship before it can fly off the board. With that objective in play it changes X-Epic completely. Both Epic ships remained in play the entire game and were slugging it out because the focus was not on killing everything but on completing the objective. Deathmatch is much more viable for the small fast ships it doesn't play as well for the more tactical X-Epic.

X-wing in general could use objectives but it is almost like call of duty for board games. It is balanced for deathmatch and nothing else. CTF KotH all those are just other "casual" play modes but MLG competitive is deathmatch.

Armada needed mechanics such as objectives and 6 turn limit. Games can take so long that without those two mechanics game could go on forever.

Epic might be needed some tweaking.

But its fun, nevertheless.

What ruinds the fun right now are TLTs.

No Epic ship can stand the magnitude of the firepower of 4 Y-TLTs

Its just laughable.

A TLT only does one damage. The Reinforce action makes the TLT useless against an Epic ship.

Does a reinforced section take damage from in ion cannon or turret? Doesn't a reinforce count as 1 evade dice (two for bright hope) not 1 negative damage?

Correct. Reinforce counts as 1 evade result per attack. This often ruins 2 die attacks ships' day. I, like others on this forum, also like to load up the hard points with Quad Cannons. These eat agility 1 and 2 ships for breakfast.

I've had an entire swarm with TLs shoot the fore section of my Raider and they barely scratched it. Next round performed a recover action and then ran over 3 of them. Quads finished the stragglers.

When 2 or 3 HLCs (or like ordnance) fire on a big ship, that's when you worry.

I think the real issue with X-EPIC is that many people just do not know how to play the game. Also there are some issues with how FFG has kitted the older ships. There is a gap just like how TIE ADV sucked for a good while becuase it was an old ship in the modern game. Now I am not shooting zingers at my fellows here. It is what it is. Many people have not had a good reason to buy the HUGE ships other than as fun collectibles.

This should all change now... I think.

X-EPIC is going to get better in time. Until then it is good, just tweak some of the issues you have at home and have fun.

Nailed it, ever had rule confusion in the first game, notice all the pages of FAQs and erratas? Epic has much more of that. So many question come up with huge ships after the first or second time they are played but for most players this is the first time they played epic with or against a huge ship. Hence it is a much slower game.

Having played Armada now 3 times I have to say that what is missing from X-Epic is objective play. My last X-Epic was the 3rd raider scenario that has the objective of the Imps killing a designated rebel ship before it can fly off the board. With that objective in play it changes X-Epic completely. Both Epic ships remained in play the entire game and were slugging it out because the focus was not on killing everything but on completing the objective. Deathmatch is much more viable for the small fast ships it doesn't play as well for the more tactical X-Epic.

X-wing in general could use objectives but it is almost like call of duty for board games. It is balanced for deathmatch and nothing else. CTF KotH all those are just other "casual" play modes but MLG competitive is deathmatch.

Armada needed mechanics such as objectives and 6 turn limit. Games can take so long that without those two mechanics game could go on forever.

All dat we typed plus... we are very experianced (Just say it: BAD ASS GAMER DOGGS!) and we know how to fix stuff and run cool-ass=games. The FFG people are wonderful and I love most of what they are doing... but... BUT: If it sucks I can and WILL Fix It!

The newer kids did not grow up like we old-doggs did... they need people to fix and lead... we don't.

I have to say, even taking all the things mentioned in this thread into account, the biggest issue with Epic battles is how long they take to play. We've had to scrap a few battles because after four hours there was still no clear winner. Granted the group I play with are not practiced tournament veterans, but that doesn't make not compleating a game any less frustrating.

That being said, Epic is a lot of fun and we continue to play it over standard play. The Assault carrier is only going to add to the fun. And, I sure hope Scum & Villany get entries in the huge category soon.

There are ways to speed things along.

1) The more you play, the less confusion on rules

2) Don't use more than 1-3 named Pilots. Special rules slow the game down. Stick to generics.

3) Play with different PS pilots of the same type. Don't take all Academy Pilots when you can spread out the PS between PS 1-4. Might not be 100% efficient for points, but makes gameplay much much faster when you don't have one guy moving 8 ships at the same PS.

I have to say, even taking all the things mentioned in this thread into account, the biggest issue with Epic battles is how long they take to play. We've had to scrap a few battles because after four hours there was still no clear winner. Granted the group I play with are not practiced tournament veterans, but that doesn't make not compleating a game any less frustrating.

That being said, Epic is a lot of fun and we continue to play it over standard play. The Assault carrier is only going to add to the fun. And, I sure hope Scum & Villany get entries in the huge category soon.

There are ways to speed things along.

1) The more you play, the less confusion on rules

2) Don't use more than 1-3 named Pilots. Special rules slow the game down. Stick to generics.

3) Play with different PS pilots of the same type. Don't take all Academy Pilots when you can spread out the PS between PS 1-4. Might not be 100% efficient for points, but makes gameplay much much faster when you don't have one guy moving 8 ships at the same PS.

I agree. 300 points gives you the room to be squad efficient. Build 2 or 3 squads and pick a PS number to keep them in.

Maybe you have a TIE Fighter squad and you build them around PS1. Then you might have a bomber and escort squad and you build those around PS 4. If you're playing in teams it will help keep your ships from just running into each other and will bust up movement. Also... 300 points is just a suggestion. Play 350 or 280 if that better suits the needs of the squads/game.

I don't think the Raider is that much better than the CR-90 (It's a little better, sure, but that's why it costs 100 points instead of 90). The Raider is, however, much better suited to a strict offensive role. It wants to drive forward and shoot things. It's also hiding a lot of its upgrades it its Aft, which is less exposed than it's fore section. The CR-90, on the other hand, is focused on broadsides, and has a big, "Kill me first!" sign painted on it's fore section. This makes it a bit harder to fly. However, it also gets much more mileage out of it's crew slots; The rebels have a lot of awesome support Crew; Leia and Riekan can both have a huge impact on the turn. Raymus and Toryn have spectacular debuff abilities. Plus, you've got 3P0 and R2-D2 for defense, and Han gives makes your target locks a bit better.

Ozzel, Needa, and Chirpy on the other hand are all focused on their own ship. Tarkin and Palpatine are the Imperial's only support options, and they can't share a ride because the emperor hogs all the space.

The CR 90's potential 6 die shot also only costs 1 energy compared to 2 Energy to fire a second primary attack from the Raider which also grants a second chance to evade said shot.

IMO they are both good but different.

here are some things that bother me.. NOT because I think it's unbalanced, but it's just not fitting to how these huge things should behave:

-roark, esege, jonus, howlrunner etc: a huge ship should NOT profit from abilities small ones have/give.

Could not agree more!

the huge ships should feel like huge ships.. that quirky interaction with small ones is just "off".

and you can see that by the simple fact that in 100p games roark oder jonus are not often taken (though I like them, but well..)..

in epic game THE FIRST thing you buy if you use a huge ship is your roark or jonus.. as the cherry that makes the pie tasty..

that's wrong.

IMO. YMMV ;-)

Indeed. Ideally they'd be the first thing you'd buy in Epic to boost your small craft now that you have the "elbow room" to field them.

I've gone back and forth on this one. Generally I'm not fond of the idea of a small ship buffing a capital ship. However it also makes sense them wise that you would deploy a ship with electronics to add your firing. So I'm in the undecided column.

I hope that esege doesn't start giving out whatever to capital ships and wished that if Howlrunner and Jonus was to work they was be in front of the capital ship not behind. Or in the same firing arc for the effect to work. The same is true for Roark, if he is going to act as scout and boost the Pilot Skill then he should be in the front arc.

I think they need to compile, clarify, and condense all the various epic rule books into one. One reason there is a lot of confusion is that the huge ship rules and the epic tournament rules don't always agree. the tournament rules have been tweaked and are much better, the huge ship rules are still outdated.

They need an epic rulebook 2.0 as a download that incorporates the fAQ and errata as well as the tournament rules framework (which includes the changes to starting energy and less defense beyond range 3.)

If someone goes and buys any of these huge ships and does not know about the other rules floating around, they are going to learn to play it wrong.

I think they need to compile, clarify, and condense all the various epic rule books into one. One reason there is a lot of confusion is that the huge ship rules and the epic tournament rules don't always agree. the tournament rules have been tweaked and are much better, the huge ship rules are still outdated.

Once I was on this forum and was discussing rules. When I said I was using the rules I was told that I was wrong and to NEVER use just the rules. He also said that 'Absolutely everyone used the tournament rules'. I thought that statement odd as I've always considered myself someone that would be in the 'everyone' group and I wasn't using the tournament rules. LOL.

Yes it would be nice to have a concise set of rules that included things from the FAQ.