Generics get Ion turrets and Seismic charges, Aces are a bit more flexible. Is the bomb dropping mechanic understandable?

seems fairly clear to me, but i wonder if this is going to hit 'friendly' ships, and also if it is going to seem silly (for example dropping bombs when there are no enemy ships nearby). Could make for a big mess if the bomb drop goes off when there are 3+ ships in formation and they drop on a 1-straight.

Really, I don't know if you need to include bomb-dropping features in the AI at all.

While it could be an issue for a full squadron drop, most of the bomb drops require the triggering target to be aft of midline, so youve probably taken a few potshots at it, breaking the squadron.

1 automatic damage is also scarier to 3 hull ties than 8 health rebels, so a little friendly fire can be forgiven.

Kturns... never a bad move.

Wait, ,why so many Kturns on targets to the side, those should be 3 hard-turns like you had before.

With Imperial Veterans out, you should have experienced how good a spammable Kturn is. Itt's a speed 4 maneuver, potentially getting out of arc, and it brings the firearc to cover it's former flanks and rear. Especially if an attacker on the flanks hasnt moved yet, it's got a good chance of catching it's opponent in arc.

I'm not caring about how spammable it is. I'm caring that you are over-using it, instead of another maneuvr e when compared to using the 3-hard turn, which makes sense if an enemy is to the DIRECT SIDE of the Xwing an Ywing!!!! Both in the short and long distances...doesnt make sense to Kturn, hell the Ywing should have to do a 3 hard turn its red too. A Kturn doesnt make sense there, if the Xwing is trying to pursue a craft to the side, a 3 turn and a turn and then whatever banks....and no Kturns on the side.

I disagree. I feel those Kturns make for a smarter AI, and make pilots like TA Hobbie Kilvan more effective.

We'll see how it looks in playtesting.

It doesnt do but fulfill your love for Targetting Astro, and Kturns....if anything again this is a perfect example why we should have an entire different set of wings one for attacking non-fighters and one for dogfighting.

Overusing one manever and not using another hardly at all doesnt feel right at all. Each movement should be roughly the same in usage, or at least on sides that make sense.

Again not having a Hard turn for when a target is to the left or right is just stupid! and with the Ywing if you are wanting the red for Targetting Astro, then a Hard 3 is perfect.

Plus, you still get to keep all the Kturns for non-directly to the side and to the front and aft positions....which means on 2 sides out of 8, you have hard 3turns and the others it has a Kturn!

It doesnt do but fulfill your love for Targetting Astro, and Kturns....if anything again this is a perfect example why we should have an entire different set of wings one for attacking non-fighters and one for dogfighting.

Overusing one manever and not using another hardly at all doesnt feel right at all. Each movement should be roughly the same in usage, or at least on sides that make sense.

Again not having a Hard turn for when a target is to the left or right is just stupid! and with the Ywing if you are wanting the red for Targetting Astro, then a Hard 3 is perfect.

Plus, you still get to keep all the Kturns for non-directly to the side and to the front and aft positions....which means on 2 sides out of 8, you have hard 3turns and the others it has a Kturn!

Im pretty sure Ive told you this before, but if you feel that strongly about it, you probably already have the same MS Paint the rest of us use.

So instead of making accusations, do a little work. Then we can playtest to see whats better.

Having done quite a bit of play testing with my originals, I do not feel that adding all of the K-turns and removing almost all the hard 3's would have made them any better. They seemed to work fine as they were. Having a K-turn in the range 3 side means if you are across the table they would K-turn as opposed to turing to joust, which is what X-wings would do.

Same with the flee AI. I did both with flee as normal and flee as try to hyper. I persoanlly feel it's best to leave as normal as it's already an exisiting mechanic. Last test did flee = nearest table edge and it felt like the best approch IMO. Off table edge = clear to jump.

I disagree. I feel those Kturns make for a smarter AI, and make pilots like TA Hobbie Kilvan more effective.

We'll see how it looks in playtesting.

How many pilots are you giving TA and Hobbie? Maybe if 3/4 had them, but otherwise very few AI will benifit.

I did most of my "testing" assuming a separation of less than 4 movement for close, and a distange of 6-11 closing for long, and assuming tie pilots are aggressive, and have not yet moved.

I think that last pair of assumptions is what makes the Kturn so much more prevailant in my build than your own. I assume a 3 hard will usually overshoot when combines with the tie pilot's maneuver- which can be useful for close-in maneuvers, but given a tie fighters better turning radius is not something I want hapening. At the same time, a Kturn both brings my firing arc to cover the area the enemy would be approaching, and if predicted draws the enemy to a position I can catch with a 1 straight or 1 bank. (hence the 1 bank at long range on the flank)

In general I feel smarter generics at the cost of aces, and smarter dogfighting AI at the cost of long range sillyness, is important in a game that has a smaller number of generics fighting more PCs than HotAC Heros.

I did most of my "testing" assuming a separation of less than 4 movement for close, and a distange of 6-11 closing for long, and assuming tie pilots are aggressive, and have not yet moved.

Actual play testing (models on table) I found when they did overshoot, they would often just K-turn next anyway as both red and green rear/rear side have a 50% chance to K-turn already.

How many games have you run with your AI card? Maybe you encountered different varaibles then me.

I didnt and cant do any work on MS paint since I dont have device that can upload the images to this page (my internet access is pretty much only restricted to my tablet). Plus my paint skills are quite crap when it comes to editing much other than black and white images on my computer too, due to other issues. Last time I used paint, my image turned granular, in quality.

I can come up with the formulas Rakydos, but other than that what is he point since you have in your head that you have the best system,so shoot down everything I say!

And you even edited the 3hardturns off the Xwing, so you can easily put them back on the direct side of the left/right...literally 2 little kturns to be replaced. Again, fine if you think the Kturn is best on the forward and back (they are) and if you think they are better than a hard turn when fighters are at a slight forward of aft angle, then fine, whatever, they MIGHT be.

I'm saying give the 2 fighters hard turns when a fighter is to the side!!!!!

Also when we've played Heroes and a fighter kturns about times in a row, is pretty dumb looking...which I guess you think is a great thing, probably so you can manipulate the crap out of Targetting Astro, but unless you give every single fighter Targetting astro- which doesnt make sense, then it doesnt do all that much.

Oh and wasnt there discussion that giving the Xwing constant free Target Locks a bad idea? Again an ace here or there with Hobbie's ability and the Targetting Astro wont be crippled by losing literelly a few Kturn options, when there is still a chance for it on almost every other angle....ad if you put TA and Hobbie on a Ywing the Hard 3 turn will STILL ACTIVATE!

Considering im still road tripping right now, the card I posted is still untested in actual games. I intend to test it thusday with my regular group, along with bomber Ys.

Knave, anything offensive the 3 hard can do at long range, the 2 hard can do as well and I believe is more likely to get a shot. Ignore the kturn for a second, the 2 hard is the real reason there is no 3 hard.

Oh and wasnt there discussion that giving the Xwing constant free Target Locks a bad idea? Again an ace here or there with Hobbie's ability and the Targetting Astro wont be crippled by losing literelly a few Kturn options, when there is still a chance for it on almost every other angle....ad if you put TA and Hobbie on a Ywing the Hard 3 turn will STILL ACTIVATE!

Yes, free TL on the X-wing is too much. When it then gets the focus for regular action, it gives almost sure thing of 3+ hits. As we all know how fickle green dice are, before I updated and removed it. I had 2 early games when 2 AI X-wing tabled 4 player TIE/ln's as it put their damage output too high. Allowing ace X-wing access makes sence (some HotAC ace combos were pretty evil) genaric's getting it is too much.

Play test it, maybe your green dice will allow you to survive better. Hobbies with a TA in the campaingn is going to need to be a high level ace as it's very powerful.

Yes, but it still doesn't make sens e to not use the 3-hard turn at all... it doesn't make sense game balance wise, nor pilot wise, and its on the actual dial....I'm pretty sure there is an even-ish spread on the Ties for heroes' AI movements.

And after looking at it, the TIE's AI the hard 3turn is used on the long range directly to the side movements, (not the short), and also the long range forward side-angle long range movements...one would think the AI would work very similar!
So those are the ones that should be changed for the X-wing and Ywing. So again only 2 changes. A changes that make more sense than K-turning does if the enemy is far away to the side. And made sense to use/start with and keep for 7 versions of Heroes.

Knave, anything offensive the 3 hard can do at long range, the 2 hard can do as well and I believe is more likely to get a shot. Ignore the kturn for a second, the 2 hard is the real reason there is no 3 hard.

Actually no, it cant be used offensively the same as you say. A TIE is much faster than an Xwing, you will more than likely lose arc completely on a long range target that is to the side with a Kturn, and maybe a 2 hard turn. The 3 hard turn at least has a chance to keep up with a fleeing TIE fighter. and also offensively when it comes to the Y-wing, You have the 3-turn being red, so it can still get Targeting Mech's bonus (which seems your main drive for it)!


And as Salted Demon kind of just said, Targeting Astro everywhere is going to give a major bonus to both fighters with that many reds (which yet doesnt change in my Ywing suggestion, it just isnt a foolish Kturn)

Just went back and looked, and I specifily did not pair Hobbie and TA on any X-wing or Y-wing ace. My notes were just stratch pads and I threw out and moddified alot of setups. Pretty sure I did that on purpose as I was going through and testing combos. I did 1vs1 usually in a Interceptor vs AI, and I think I tried it and threw it out as it was near impossible to not get hit (unless range 3 with stealth and even then fickle green can fail)

I changed Hobbies ability to gain a focus when gain or spend a TL on 1 X-wing ace. Still not sure about it, but only 1 X-wing with that ability is about the same as some Imp ace cards.

Knave, if you keep using derogatory language, I may have to set you to ignore. Insulting me is not any way to get me to do work you feel you are incapable of.

Salted, The playtests I've been doing have usually not been 1 to 1. in my "Final Exam" excercise, 2 ships face 1 and 1 and 1 in short order- 3 ships face 2 and 1 and 1. perhaps thats why I am aiming for a higher power per rebel ship.

Salted, The playtests I've been doing have usually not been 1 to 1. in my "Final Exam" excercise, 2 ships face 1 and 1 and 1 in short order- 3 ships face 2 and 1 and 1. perhaps thats why I am aiming for a higher power per rebel ship.

I would caution this then building AI/ace. As the player levels up, it's (probably) going to be more 1vs1 ratio unless you're going swarm. But the same problem remaines. In HotAC it was your "powerful" ship vs weak swam + 1-2 better aces ratio (so 1 vs 2/3), the 1 powerful ship could win though better firepower and durability (and regen). As players get higher leveled, they will have to face more or better rebel aces to keep balance. What happens if you make the genarics too much then add the aces? There are a few missions in HotAC that were difficult, but nothing that good teamwork (and a little luck) could not overcome. It is a very fine line between a challange and over powered.

Salted, The playtests I've been doing have usually not been 1 to 1. in my "Final Exam" excercise, 2 ships face 1 and 1 and 1 in short order- 3 ships face 2 and 1 and 1. perhaps thats why I am aiming for a higher power per rebel ship.

I would caution this then building AI/ace. As the player levels up, it's (probably) going to be more 1vs1 ratio unless you're going swarm. But the same problem remaines. In HotAC it was your "powerful" ship vs weak swam + 1-2 better aces ratio (so 1 vs 2/3), the 1 powerful ship could win though better firepower and durability (and regen). As players get higher leveled, they will have to face more or better rebel aces to keep balance. What happens if you make the genarics too much then add the aces? There are a few missions in HotAC that were difficult, but nothing that good teamwork (and a little luck) could not overcome. It is a very fine line between a challange and over powered.

That's just a matter of scaling encounters properly, which relies on playtesting.

Also on consistant Ace design, so any ace is scary but still beatable if there's enough imperials left.

Seuging into ace design...

I've mentioned TA, but buffing R2D2 and BB8 with built in R2 astrmech is in line with the kind of buffs various pilot abilities got for imperial ace cards- "Any speed 1-2" is easier than explainng green maneuvers on an AI that doesnt use stress the same way.

Aces with PTL, Engine Upgrade, and/or Vectored thrusters need action list overrides, so we probably should have a good format for that.

Do we want unique pilot abilities to remain unique between aces? Do we want unique crew and astromechs to remain unique,or just unique combinations?

Ideally I'd like any number of unique combinations (of the same approximate power), so I can have, say, R7 Tarn Sharra on an Xwing and Tarn Dutch Weapon Engineer on a HWK. If we can get a thick enough stack of aces, we can have a "dead aces stay dead" rule where aces that dont hyper out are removed from the deck.

I like the idea of R2 built in for the BB-8 and R20D2 abilities, same with the the idea of having dead aces.

As for the format of special options on aces with upgrades, yeah a different AI might be in order. Say an ace AI but one that literally covers all aces by saying the same thing as the Interceptor and TIE say- "boost/barrell roll to get target in arc." which needs to be added in front of focus, etc.

And I think that single line there solves the issue with Enging Upgrade and Vectored Thrusters.

As for the aces being dead, I love that idea!

And if we made each pilot ability unique that would limit us in aces so they wouldnt be able to stay dead. It would be better if we had them instead be unique in combinations only...giving us more ace possibilities.

If we can get a thick enough stack of aces, we can have a "dead aces stay dead" rule where aces that dont hyper out are removed from the deck.

While a cool idea, you are aware of the number of ace cards needed for such. HotAC had like 4 per type (6 for intercpetors) For a stay dead, you'd need like 12 minimum per ship (so total of 48 for A,X,B,Y) for a campaign if generics don't count as ace cards. As you level up if you focus down and always kill the ace how would you keep balance? Would be your super squad just poping AI, not much challenge there IMO.

Simply put, too many ace cards would be needed to make it practical.

It could be where if an ace is "killed" they are again used only if all other aces of that fighter type have been shot down. Thus recirculating them again but only under a specific condition and if the players are doing well.

That and/or we have some very similar build,with only 1 difference or so on abilities or modifications/droid. That could givemore aces without changing it too much, and making so many.

Doing about 12 per ship could work...and again with the number of times some of us have played the Heores campaign we could throw in some of our builds. And still if they are all shot down, then they get recirculated back in...but not until all of that type are shot down.

Proposed Imperial ship Tier list: (fully loaded)

Tie Phantom (ACD vs lower PS)

Royal Guard Intercepter

Defender X7

Defender Tie/D

Intercepter

Tie Inquisitor (v1)

Tie Phantom (Modified ACD- autocloak at end of round)

Tie Punisher

Tie Fighterx2

Tie Bomber

Tie Punisher (minus 1 Elite slot)

Tie Advance (x1)

Defender (no title)

Tie FO

Lambada shuttle

Tie Shuttle

Tie Phantom (vs higher PS Ace)

Tie Phantom (no ACD)

Tie Fighter

Thoughts?

I don't get yet what the 'autocloak at end of round' means for the phantom. What kind of benefit would I have from the cloak at end of round when everyone already shot? Is that just for the advanced mobility next turn? Or forced mobility rather, sicne I have to decloak again to have a shot. I don't think the Phantom with no ACD ranks the same as a standard TIE. Sure it is a glass cannon, but it still has 4 ATK dice, and if you have Engine Upgrade instead you can boost and barrel roll like an interceptor. If you slap an additional hull upgrade on it's basically like an X-Wing with 1 more ATK. I think the plain phantom would be in the blue setting at least, if not green. And the Stygium Particle Accelerator is not that bad either to be honest, giving a free Evade token when cloak/decloak. You have to fly the phantom very carefully without the ACD but it still pretty awesome just because it packs a punch. With the majority of rebels having only 1 or 2 evade dice, 4 attack power makes for a difference and short work of an x wing.

Also I like the Lambada Shuttle, does it dance well? Not sure if you really want to include that one huge base ship into the line-up. I don't think flying the Lambda is particularly fun as it is a frikken brick. After like 2, maybe 3 shots you'll have to rely on assists until it turned around (or you get lucky with spawns in sight). I would skip that, same with the TIE FO, unless you want to bring Palpatine to the table? I that case you could still house-rule it that he fits into the TIE shuttle, but I think the small fighters are more ept for this.

Does the Royal Guard TIE Title really add so much to add it to another level compared to the normal interceptor? Considering it is only applicable from level5+ onward and it's just one more modification slot. After the stealth device and autothrusters it just comes down to shields isn't it? Does one more shield token really help that much to lift it to another level when I hit level 5? I'm not convinced.

I think the vanilla defender is more or less on par with the Interceptor, so should belong in the yellow area. It's trading some of the maneuverability vs. a cannon slot and 3 more shields. I think it's a fair trade, I don't think a fully loaded TIE defender (without title) is lacking much compared to a fully loaded Interceptor. (Twin Ion Engine Mk. II + Engine Upgrade + Autothrusters + Stealth Device and the defender can do almost everything the Interceptor can, has 3 more shields, target lock and a heavy laser cannon). I do think however, that taking the titles makes the defender overpowered, and I think a fully loaded TIE/D is better than a fully loaded Royal Guard Interceptor.

Kturns... never a bad move.

@Rakaydos

Just for agrument, I tried a game with your K-turn happy AI last night. 2 X-wing's vs 2 Interceptors. 1 higher PS ace and 1 genaric. The low PS one did a K-turn almost EVERY TIME. This sometimes gave it a shot, but more often put it in posistion to be arc dodged. And even when it did get a shot, with no way to mod dice, it usually failed to get a hit though. The higher PS ace got more damage though, but that was due to abilities, and was still no enough to kill either TIE before they went down. Ace died when he had red range side, and did a hard 3 away, lined himself up for a BR right onto his tail. All your AI had for him to do was either K-turn for straight 1 once behind at red range. Keeping him stuck in the same direction means easy to deal with; either I bump or am lined up for a shot. Result is the same next turn.

I encourage you to preform your own playtesting, but in my one test, it made them much worse then before. Just my input.

Thank you for your feedback. The rear close "bump or kill" abuse is exactly the kind of problem I'm looking to fix in these cards.

It seems to me, though, that any turn the AI does has the same problem as the Kturn and doesnt offer a return shot. The 1 foreward bump-or-overshoot is intended, but now that you mention it, may be a problem for aces.

Do you think shiftng the probabilities toward the Kturn, or just dropping them both to 2/6 and putting in 3 hards?

you say that the generic kturns "set the ship up to be arcdodged." Given that you're playing interecepters, how many maneuvers could it have done, that you could NOT have arcdodged?