Come on, somebody tell me!

I hate all these initialisms! Is it even game related?

The correct term is TLA

Three Letter Acronym

No, his use of initialism is absolutely correct, which is rather rare in my experience. An acronym is an abbreviation that you pronounce like a word, SCUBA would be a good example of this, while an initialism is read as the individual letters, like FBI.

I've been wrong all these years - but I'm consoled by the fact that SCUBA and LASER are my favourite acronyms

I don't know quite what it would refer to, but a SCUBA LASER sounds amazing! It's... a bit like a Super LASER, but it blows up sharks?

I always thought TLA was itself ironic since it's not itself an acronym, but given it's rarely used to refer to an acronym I suppose it's not ironic at all. Or it's some sort of double irony (which cancels itself out?)...

We should start using TLI - it's great because nobody would have a clue what it meant, which is payback for them using one themselves (thus prompting use of the term).

Imperial Y-wing trading turrets and torps for missiles and cannons. Yes we want it and that is the hole in the imperial portfolio it fills.

Aside from the Y-wing bit that's the defender.

But the gunboat I would say would mirror the Y dial pretty much exactly and be cheaper. stat line about 2/1/5/2 or in that range with 7-8 hp with more hull than shields. You are talking about a base ship with 18-25 pts instead of 30+ and with more hp. Very different ship.

Imperial Y-wing trading turrets and torps for missiles and cannons. Yes we want it and that is the hole in the imperial portfolio it fills.

Aside from the Y-wing bit that's the defender.

But the gunboat I would say would mirror the Y dial pretty much exactly and be cheaper. stat line about 2/1/5/2 or in that range with 7-8 hp with more hull than shields. You are talking about a base ship with 18-25 pts instead of 30+ and with more hp. Very different ship.

You know, it sure does look like the S&V approach of game designers

"It's like rebel one, but with more hull, less shields, almost the same dial bar from epic 1-forward and 1 point cheaper"

From my personal view gunboat needs it's own mechanics not to replicate the Hog'o'War

Imperial Y-wing trading turrets and torps for missiles and cannons. Yes we want it and that is the hole in the imperial portfolio it fills.

Aside from the Y-wing bit that's the defender.

But the gunboat I would say would mirror the Y dial pretty much exactly and be cheaper. stat line about 2/1/5/2 or in that range with 7-8 hp with more hull than shields. You are talking about a base ship with 18-25 pts instead of 30+ and with more hp. Very different ship.

Fair enough, my only thought is that with the defender fix, while its still more expensive, it actually has the dial to make good use of a double tap to become a control monster. While a cheaper version would be nice I think it would be overshadowed in usefulness. If FFG were to implement I would like to see how they approached it.

Less agile, more tanky, less firepower.

All that's needed really.

I think the better question is.

Is the Assault Gunboat still cannon.

Of course the only people who can say work at Disney and are not here so all opinions on this thread are null and void.

Lucasfilm's canon policy is pretty clear. Since the Assault Gunboat hasn't shown up in any post-reboot material and did not appear in either the Star Wars movies or the CGI Clone Wars cartoon, it's not canon.

The moment the Gunboat appears again, it's canon.

Also, keep in mind whether something is canon or not has nothing to do with its quality.

Does appearing in an FFG game count?

I imagine there is this line in the sand somewhere that delineates canon from non-canon and there is the XG1 hopping back and forth saying "Canon, not canon! Canon, not canon!"

Maybe the sunrise goes up and down based on which side the Gunboat is on too, and there is a space-fox...

Find your soul mate Gunboat....

Please no.

Please no.

That's a very selfish attitude.

Please no.

That's a very selfish attitude.

No more selfish than wanting it, surely?

Please no.

That's a very selfish attitude.

No more selfish than wanting it, surely?

Those who do not want it do not need to get it, those wanting it are not forcing it up on other people, those not wanting it, wishing it not to be are forcing it's absence.

Yay logic.

Also, it's not as if the Gunboat is something truly horrid, like the Kwing or TIE Interdictor. I mean we'll never see those in the game, right?

No more selfish than wanting it, surely?

Much more selfish, actually, as that attitude denies everyone who is interested in it the opportunity to enjoy it. It's borderline trolling, in fact.

Put it this way - I personally wouldn't be interested in prequel ships being introduced into the game, but I wouldn't say "Please no FFG don't do it", because there's people out there who do want to see them, and I have absolutely no right to deny them that. I just wouldn't buy them myself.

If you don't like something, then just don't buy it. It's as simple as that. But there's no reason to be selfish about it.

No more selfish than wanting it, surely?

Much more selfish, actually, as that attitude denies everyone who is interested in it the opportunity to enjoy it. It's borderline trolling, in fact.

Put it this way - I personally wouldn't be interested in prequel ships being introduced into the game, but I wouldn't say "Please no FFG don't do it", because there's people out there who do want to see them, and I have absolutely no right to deny them that. I just wouldn't buy them myself.

If you don't like something, then just don't buy it. It's as simple as that. But there's no reason to be selfish about it.

It's hardly selfish unless he has an inside connection to FFG that would allow him to prevent it. This thread is asking if people want it, he doesn't, you do. How is one position more selfish than the other? If FFG never releases it are they being selfish because they denied you the ship? If they do release it but it removes or delays a ship he wants aren't you then being selfish?

No more selfish than wanting it, surely?

Much more selfish, actually, as that attitude denies everyone who is interested in it the opportunity to enjoy it. It's borderline trolling, in fact.

Put it this way - I personally wouldn't be interested in prequel ships being introduced into the game, but I wouldn't say "Please no FFG don't do it", because there's people out there who do want to see them, and I have absolutely no right to deny them that. I just wouldn't buy them myself.

If you don't like something, then just don't buy it. It's as simple as that. But there's no reason to be selfish about it.

Well, to use the example of prequel ships, it would matter to me if they were added.I hate the Prequels and everything in them, and having prequel ships in the game would negatively impact my enjoyment of the game. Even though I personally wouldn't buy it, but I'd have to fly against people flying the hideous N1s or the stupid 170s, with Stupid Kid Anakin as a pilot, saying 'this is podracing!' etc.

So to me, my desire to keep prequel ships out of the game is no more selfish than those wanting to add them. They don't want them added for any altruistic or philanthropic reason, they just want them because they personally want them.

Granted, the Assault Gunboat is cool as hell, and I want it, but I'm under no pretenses it's not a selfish desire.

so.. I waited..

it's time for a *sigh*

I'm (more than) okay with not everybody wanting the gunboat. I would have -no!- joy in fielding it if it was now everybody's "new hotness".

but if some of us want it and others not, where exactly is the harm in having the option?

@OP and sorry, but simply the tone of the question is bordering on trolling - IMHO. it won't influence what ffg does, it just puts different heads against each other and boils up needless conflicts, when there is really NO reason to do so..

*end of thread* - for me at least.

Selfish or not, I want it. I doubt we'll get it, but for me, it's literally THE ship I want most.

Imperial Y-wing trading turrets and torps for missiles and cannons. Yes we want it and that is the hole in the imperial portfolio it fills.

Aside from the Y-wing bit that's the defender.

But the gunboat I would say would mirror the Y dial pretty much exactly and be cheaper. stat line about 2/1/5/2 or in that range with 7-8 hp with more hull than shields. You are talking about a base ship with 18-25 pts instead of 30+ and with more hp. Very different ship.

You know, it sure does look like the S&V approach of game designers

"It's like rebel one, but with more hull, less shields, almost the same dial bar from epic 1-forward and 1 point cheaper"

From my personal view gunboat needs it's own mechanics not to replicate the Hog'o'War

Well yes, it needs differentiation, but the Mist Hunter is basically a S&V Bwing, except changed so much it really isn't. That is basically where I would take the Gunboat from, basically a Y-wing but with enough alterations that it is distinct. I would take the Y-wing dial but shift the greens and reds so it was better at turning than the Y but worse at going fast. It would have white 1 turns instead of just white 1 banks. I mean it would obviously need lots of testing and design but that is the general concept.

Similar to the Y-Wing in durability, agility and role, yes absolutely. But with a cannon slot (maybe limited to maximum 3 points?) instead of a turret.

I think the obvious answer to the thread title is; Yes we want the Gunboat.

Should we have it and would it be any good is a different question.

I say make it already so we can find out!

Do I want it? Here I'll simply answer yes.

Does the game need it? Probably not but you'll never know until it shows up.

Would it be any good or at least cost effective? That will all depend on the stats and also the metagame that it plays to.

I'd like to see the Assault Gunboat. I believe it would be similar to the Y-Wing except with cannon instead of turret and missile instead of torps. Sure, that sounds a little like the Defender except the Defender's dial should be a good bit better.

I'd also like to see the Missile Boat. While it probably would compare to the Punisher, which I don't care for, I always saw them as fast and maneuverable ships that carried a bunch of ordnance but had no native firepower to speak of. This would be a great candidate for a 1 die primary attack. I'd also like to see it bring in some unlimited ordnance which would require multiple slots although that means the Bomber and Punisher are likely to be able to use it as well.

I think the better question is.

Is the Assault Gunboat still cannon.

Of course the only people who can say work at Disney and are not here so all opinions on this thread are null and void.

Lucasfilm's canon policy is pretty clear. Since the Assault Gunboat hasn't shown up in any post-reboot material and did not appear in either the Star Wars movies or the CGI Clone Wars cartoon, it's not canon.

The moment the Gunboat appears again, it's canon.

Also, keep in mind whether something is canon or not has nothing to do with its quality.

Also bear in mind that we're getting the Mist Hunter and Punishing One in Wave 8, had the Kihraxz, K-Wing and TIE Punisher in Wave 7, along with the Decimator, E-Wing, TIE Phantom and TIE Defender in earlier waves so whether a ship is officially "canon" or not is largely irrelevant.

You'd be surprised. A few of the silly mobile app games that came out recently made a lot of ships canon, including if I recall the Decimator, HWK and Defender.

Also, while yes we do need another gunboat...

... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dq4aOaDXIfY

Okay, I'm back on board. Let's have that Gunboat!

And maybe a bit of brunch?

Short answer because it looks like most points I'd make have already been covered by other people:

Love the assault gunboat, definitely hope it gets added to the game.