I think you're already past it, but if the problem was the word "Heavy" on a ship, representing a slower, bulkier ship, but having the similarity to the Squadron Word...

... Why not "Ponderous" instead?

Also, I started having a bit of a poke around... Would people be adverse to me pointing out some Rules-Holes where I see them?

I wouldn't have a problem with it, the only thing is, lots of people use it to create custom upgrades that just they will use. So, it would probably be better to ask for permission before ripping someone's upgrade, ship, squadron, or damage card apart.

Dras,

I welcome it, for one.

I know that people have been tagging cards they particularly want feedback on

http://kdyards.com/tagged.php?tag=Needs+playtesting

http://kdyards.com/tagged.php?tag=Needs+Point+Value

http://kdyards.com/tagged.php?tag=Needs+playtesting

I wouldn't have a problem with it, the only thing is, lots of people use it to create custom upgrades that just they will use. So, it would probably be better to ask for permission before ripping someone's upgrade, ship, squadron, or damage card apart.

That's basically what I was trying to be doing - asking here - anyone who said it was cool, would be someone I would look at - if they didn't say anything, I'd stay quiet

Plus, really, I'm looking at this purely from the Rules perspective - just to run a pass over and see if there's any interactions that are mis-worded, incorrectly worded, or fly in the face of the rules for the most part... I'll leave the Playtesting and the Points to people with that ability - I'm just not able to do anything but theorise at times

I'll do my best to be... Diplomatic ...

(20 seconds later, cue:)

Please Drasnighta, feel free to comment on any of mine. What seems bulletproof at 3 am, may not be as solid as it originally seemed.

Having a quick look, Cyanbloodbane - I can certainly get the gist and the intention of most of the things - all I'll really be doing is suggesting some wording and text that is more consistent with the Rules as presented in the RRG and on other upgrade cards

Yeah Dras. Feel free to "rip my cards apart" too. I need some constructive criticism.

I just picked up a cruiser group for the dindrenzi and sorylian from firestorm to be my mandalorian and CSA ships, respectively.

This will be fun

Cross-posting from the Squadron Upgrade Thread.

I'm going to be adding the Squadron Upgrade type to KDY.
If people would rather use it as a across-the-fighter-type upgrade, they can do that.
If they want to do it using the per-squadron idea that I laid out (meaning to use the little squadron ID token as keeping track of who has what?) they can do that too.

I will also be adding a new printing template to KDY as well - a full set of ID tokens that you can slot into squadrons.
They will have a range of numbers, letters, and symbols as well as a multitude of colors so that you have a HUGE range of differentiation.

As I said, I will be going for option 'B' myself.

Additionally, a new upgrade type will be added: Station upgrades.

I'm also going to change a few things with Upgrade Flags ("Flagship Only", "Modification", etc). From here on out, it will be a freeform field, so now you'll have more control over that.

Latest changes to the system

• Squadron Upgrade Type added
• Station Upgrade Type added
• Upgrade Flags (such as 'Modification', 'Flagship', etc) is now a freeform field. Comma-separate your upgrade flags and the card renderer will split them up appropriately.

I understand that Squadron Upgrades may not be everyone's thing, but I find value in them, so I'm adding them.

There seems to be two camps to using Squadron Upgrades (excluding those who don't want them, which is fair): Per-Squadron or All-Squadrons-of-a-type. I recommend pricing them on a per-squadron basis so that you buy the upgrade for each squadron that has it, that works for the second camp, too, because they would simply buy it and apply it to ALL squadrons of a given type.

Another quick update.

You can now add Keyword symbols and Upgrade symbols to your text fields.

After a small discussion with the folks over in the Elite Imperial Squadrons thread, I've added the Rare keyword.

It functions much like the Limited keyword, except that instead of an absolute limit, it requires you to have X number of non-rare squadrons before you can take 1 of the rare squadron.

It works in the opposite direction of Limited, though. The higher the Rare value, the more squadrons you need in your fleet before you can take the rare squadron.

I've changed "Rare" to be percentage based instead of other-squadron based. There are 4 version of Rare: 5, 10, 15, and 20. Each of them indicates how much of your Total Fleet Point Value you can use on fighters of this type.

For ease of things if people want to convert to Rare, here are the conversions to Rare for squadrons that currently have Limited (except for the Flight Groups because they will definitely stay as Limited)

Inquisition Squadron by Cynan: Rare 10

Missile Boat by Wes Janson: Rare 10

Special Forces Pilot by Viperous: Rare 10

Star Viper by Viperous: Rare 10

Vaksai Modified Starfighter by Viperous: Rare 10

D5 Mantis by Viperous: Rare 10

GAT-12m by Viperous: Rare 10

TIE Phantom by Wes Janson: Rare 15

Delta-7 Squadron by Viperous: Rare 10

Eta-2 Squadron by Viperous: Rare 10

Ixiyen Fast Attack Craft by Viperous: Rare 10

Rihkxyrk Assault fighter by Viperous: Rare 15

StarViper by Viperous: Rare 15 (I think this one or the other one is actually Xizor, and if that's the case, you don't really need Limited or Rare)

TIE/D by Viperous: Rare 15

TIE Defender by Wes Janson: Rare 20

TIE Avenger by Wes Janson: Rare 15

Hyena-class Bomber by Viperous: Rare 15

TIE/fo by Viperous: Rare 10

Kihraxz Assault Fighter by Viperous: Rare 10

So, I thought about this again, and when I get home in going to make one more change. Instead of the reference being the total fleet point value, I'm going to make the reference as the total SQUADRON value instead. This gives you a bit more granularity on the amount you can spend.

The previous list of conversions will be updated once I've redone the math.

Alright - Rare now reads as this:

Rare X: You cannot spend more than X% of your total squadron point allowance on squadrons of this type.

It comes in 10% increments from 20 to 50 (so 20, 30, 40, and 50)

Updated the previous calculations in case anyone wants to start using the new Rare keyword instead of Limited in order to support larger (or smaller) fleet sizes.

Inquisition by Cynan: Rare 30

Missile Boat by Wes: Rare 30

TIE/SF by Viperous: Rare 30

Star Viper (black sun) by Viperous: Rare 30

Vaksai by Viperous: Rare 20

D5 Mantis by Viperous: Rare 30

GAT-12m by Viperous: Rare 20

TIE Phantom by Wes: Rare 40

Delta-7 by Viperous: Rare 30

Eta-2 by Viperous: Rare 30

Ixiyen by Viperous: Rare 30

Rihkxyrk by Viperous: Rare 50

Star Viper (zann) by Viperous: Rare 40

TIE/D: Viperous by Rare 40

TIE Defender by Wes: Rare 50

TIE Avenger by Wes: Rare 50

Hyena by Viperous: Rare 40

TIE/fo by Viperous: Rare 30

Kihraxz by Viperous: Rare 30

How much, if any, testing of the swathe of new Objectives, particularly relating to Fleet mode has been done? A friend of mine and I are seriously considering it for this weekend to spice up our regularly scheduled (not really but it sounds nice) bouts.

On a tangent note, can I trouble the denizens of KDY to dig into the New Class Modernization Program Phase 2 Expansion please? Many of those ships have existed in one form or another for a while, but constructive criticism from those outside my meta while we await the return of a proper customs thread on here would be most appreciated.

Also, whoever it was that came up with Expansions, since I apparently missed that discussion, you're a genius. It's really nice have all those things in one place.

I don't know how much anything has been tested. Frankly, I feel like if people HAVE playtested it, they should comment on it with their feedback - be it positive, negative, or neutral.

Tag your cards with "Needs Playtesting" and "Needs Feedback" and folks will likely give their £0.02

as far as the expansions feature idea? That'd be me

Giled if you are talking about my fleet game/objectives the answer would be very little playtesting.

Mainly ive played with my best friend, its gone quite well. But we play more for the roleplay expiereance than to be competetive so there isnt a good case study as of yet.

If you do play them, id love to hear of your results.

Totally missed a bug for a few days. At some point only one version of Counter, Limited, and Rare was showing up on the squadron editor - this has been fixed.

I am also very very undecided about the Rare keyword and I want your guys' advice.

Using fighter allowance as reference

Rare 20: 20% of 134 (27 points)

Rare 30: 30% of 134 (41 points)

Rare 40: 40% of 134 (54 points)

Rare 50: 50% of 134 (67 points)

vs

Using total allowance as reference

Rare 5: 5% of 400 (20 points)

Rare 10: 10% of 400 (40 points)

Rare 15: 15% of 500 (60 points)

Rare 20: 20% of 500 (80 points)

which would you rather see?

I vote total points, as it makes the math easier. As it is I use Warlords so I don't have to do any math while I am concentrating on building a fleet concept.

FoaS, I have a request. When I skim through the squadrons on the squadron listing page, all of your Flight Groups to date list their type (TIE Interceptor, X-wing, etc.) in parentheses (e.g."Rogue Squadron (X-wing Squadron)"). When I start searching either of the Elite expansions though, that parentheses carrying the type goes away. Could I trouble you to correct that for usability's sake? Also, I commented on KDY about costing, don't know if you've seen that yet.

Cynan if/when youre not to busy can you give all my ships the needs playtesting keyword.

Also I liked your wording of battleship. Much better than mine

FoaS, I have a request. When I skim through the squadrons on the squadron listing page, all of your Flight Groups to date list their type (TIE Interceptor, X-wing, etc.) in parentheses (e.g."Rogue Squadron (X-wing Squadron)"). When I start searching either of the Elite expansions though, that parentheses carrying the type goes away. Could I trouble you to correct that for usability's sake? Also, I commented on KDY about costing, don't know if you've seen that yet.

I have made the change so that both terms for fighters show up on the Expansion list.