So back when the Transports were released, I made a topic that I fear, that Übertransports could kill some flavour of the game. I argued that its already silly that an armed (sometimes even commercial) transport could withstand or even destroy a whole squadron of something around 10-12 fighters (https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/178321-fighter-stands-how-many-do-they-represent/#entry1637670).

The overall receptions was: Wait an see.

So I waited and what I saw was people that asked: should I take 4-5 firesprays or TIE-Bombers? How do 4 YT-2400 against the firesprays.

And this is what I feared: the Übertransports are a valid choice beside fighters. So valid, that you could exchange all fighter for them.

Its a bit sad, because it takes the Star Wars appeal and the military fleet charakter a bit out of the game. It reminds me of strange powerlists in other tabeltops that dont match the background lore.

I would have really liked it more if the transports would be nice supporters but not a valid choice besinde fighter or even bomber squadrons.

Right there with you mate.

Forced to agree - sure, the Millennium Falcon and Slave 1 ought to be powerful. But generic versions of those ships? They shouldn't even be options - it's a fleet game, why do you suddenly have no-name bounty hunters wandering around in prison transports? Further, the cool thing about the Falcon, Slave 1 and the Outrider was that they were unique character ships - I know there are other YT-1300s out there, but the Falcon is special because we only ever see one of it. Just like Serenity in 'Firefly'.

Totally with you, it's actually a real shame what it's done to the game.

I think you're missing the understanding that these larger "transports" are obviously reconfigured to be militarized gunships. Heck the YT-2400s are armed with dual heavy laser cannons aren't they?

If I were a bounty hunter looking to arm up a YV-666, that's a lot of room to give it huge quad lasers behind retractable doors, making it into some kind of Star Wars version of the AC-130. Or a concussion missile projector with plenty of ammunition.

It isn't so much the invidual ships then the hull that is large ehough to mount the guns on them. A bigger ship means possibly a bigger gun (or larger equipment in the case of the intel carriers). That is what I see when I look at these "transports".

Of course as an Imperial fan I wished we could rely on standard Imperial equipment for the same roles... The escort shuttles would make wonderful (and legal) alternatives to the mercenary firesprays. But, it is what it is.

This is why I only have one R+V set.

I get the 'refitted and upgunned' argument, and it makes sense, but no matter how well equipped it is a converted civilian air(space)craft shouldn't be such a viable, en masse alternative to the purpose built dedicated military snubfighter and bombers. Barring the 'hero' ships like the Falcon, there should be no contest between TIE bombers and a Firesray, or Y Wings/B Wings and a YT-1300.

These ships should serve as boosters for nearby squadrons, adding power and flexibility to your squadrons, but there should DEFINITELY be a law of diminishing returns as far as they are concerned. Taking multiple firesprays should never be as good as taking one or two o supplement your TIE bombers, and taking multiple YT2400s should not be as effective or efficient as taking one or two to supplement your X Wings and B Wings.

I have no issue with R&V, or with generic alternatives.

I get the 'refitted and upgunned' argument, and it makes sense, but no matter how well equipped it is a converted civilian air(space)craft shouldn't be such a viable, en masse alternative to the purpose built dedicated military snubfighter and bombers. Barring the 'hero' ships like the Falcon, there should be no contest between TIE bombers and a Firesray, or Y Wings/B Wings and a YT-1300.These ships should serve as boosters for nearby squadrons, adding power and flexibility to your squadrons, but there should DEFINITELY be a law of diminishing returns as far as they are concerned. Taking multiple firesprays should never be as good as taking one or two o supplement your TIE bombers, and taking multiple YT2400s should not be as effective or efficient as taking one or two to supplement your X Wings and B Wings.

Ok, so what specific changes do you propose to each R&V squadron so that they fulfill the role you think they should, and tension balanced?

Ok, so what specific changes do you propose to each R&V squadron so that they fulfill the role you think they should, and tension balanced?

I dunno, just spitballing, but something like "All non-Rogue, non-Grit friendly squadrons within distance 1 may re-roll one die when attacking"

Or something like that.

EDIT: Or they could have added a 'support' key word that does a similar thing, to save space on the card.

Oh, so kind of like Swarm.

Kind of, but it only works on non R&V ships. So by including more of those ships, the ability becomes devalued.

Or something like that, it's only an idea off the top of my head.

I think you're missing the understanding that these larger "transports" are obviously reconfigured to be militarized gunships. Heck the YT-2400s are armed with dual heavy laser cannons aren't they?

If I were a bounty hunter looking to arm up a YV-666, that's a lot of room to give it huge quad lasers behind retractable doors, making it into some kind of Star Wars version of the AC-130. Or a concussion missile projector with plenty of ammunition.

It isn't so much the invidual ships then the hull that is large ehough to mount the guns on them. A bigger ship means possibly a bigger gun (or larger equipment in the case of the intel carriers). That is what I see when I look at these "transports".

Of course as an Imperial fan I wished we could rely on standard Imperial equipment for the same roles... The escort shuttles would make wonderful (and legal) alternatives to the mercenary firesprays. But, it is what it is.

Thats also not really right. Even the Falcon was not a "militarized gunship" but just a armed transport, as the whole YT-series. The YT-2400 is a light freighter that has 2(!) Laser cannons. I agree with you that the Headhunters mostly could use gunboats, but this is not the case. Even the YV-666 is just a light freighter.

And while I can live wiht having them some use in battle, I dont see how a YT-1300 could mess with 10 TIE-Fighters or X-Wings.

I suppose ideally you'd want the table to have more Xwings and Tiefighters on it than YT2400s and Houndstooths. A more accurate representation of the way a Star Wars battle looks.

Xwing had a similar problem, when pairs of (unrecognisable to most people) IG88s started showing up all over the tournament scene and Xwings became rare in their eponymous game. If something is clearly better you can't blame players for taking it, but it was a bit of a shame that it became hard for a casual observer to tell what universe the game was set in.

The issue here is YT2400s came out later, with the vital valuable Rogue rule, and Xwings came out early with the Escort rule.

All is not lost however! Jan Ors has breathed new life into Xwing fleets, and who knows what else FFG have in store for us. They're at least as committed to a true Star Wars universe experience as even the most Geeky player.

Soooooo people are surprised that the Millenium falcon can take on two squadrons of ties and win? Its not like that has been a key part of the films at all....

Also in a massive galaxy is it really inconceivable that somewhere there are retrofitted freighters fighting the rebellion in fleets?

I kinda struggle with the concept as well. 6+ YT-2400's just seems 'wrong'. I don't have a big enough problem that it spoild the game for me, but it breaks theme a bit. Same with having all those Aggressors flying around.

I think R&V should have been a pack that was unique pilots only and then stuff like shuttles, defenders and K-wings should have been added to the game. (probably will be at some point)

I have actually replaced the little model for my YV-666's and Aggressors with Mels Lambda shuttle and Mels Defender models, same bases and cards, just makes me feel better :-)

Soooooo people are surprised that the Millenium falcon can take on two squadrons of ties and win? Its not like that has been a key part of the films at all....

Also in a massive galaxy is it really inconceivable that somewhere there are retrofitted freighters fighting the rebellion in fleets?

Actually the Falcon struggled in a fight with 4 TIE-Fighters which is only 1/3 of a squadron.

And its not that there maybe some rag-tagged freighters that help fight for one side. I would love that, however they should not be BETTER than military crafts or even squadrons of them.

Do you really dont see anything wrong with 5 YT-2400 fighting 5 Firesprays beside a MC 80 and and VSD II battling each other?

I kinda struggle with the concept as well. 6+ YT-2400's just seems 'wrong'. I don't have a big enough problem that it spoild the game for me, but it breaks theme a bit. Same with having all those Aggressors flying around.

I think R&V should have been a pack that was unique pilots only and then stuff like shuttles, defenders and K-wings should have been added to the game. (probably will be at some point)

I have actually replaced the little model for my YV-666's and Aggressors with Mels Lambda shuttle and Mels Defender models, same bases and cards, just makes me feel better :-)

Hmmm 6 YT-2400s loaded with cargo with rebel ships trying to force an Imperial blockage .....

sounds like a new mission to me. Tho I side with those asking the combat worthiness of this general class of ships. There should be only ONE tricked out Falcon with Solo and Chewie at the controls. Not to say there aren't other good pilots, but if in general the generic hardware can blow Imperial TIE fighters etc out of the sky with ease, that speaks volumes for the lack of effectiveness for Imperial fighters. Heck makes it sound like the life of a smuggler isn't that hard!

As an example, it just feels like the YT-2400 should lose a couple of blue die, perhaps 1/2 it's hull, lose it's anti-ship die and likewise have the cost drop by 1/2.

Minor point here: in lore, Firesprays were designed to be military spacecraft from the ground up. They're patrol ships, just relatively rare by the time of the GCW.

The points on all the other random-ass freighters still stands, though.

It actually fits a fair bit with the rebels having a random conglomeration of ships. So on the rebel side, I don't mind it.

The imperials? The sneer they had at bounty hunters, and general superiority complex... I don't see it with a fleet that's not a frontier fleet (which may have random old crap, like VSDs.)

As far as a stock YT-2400's firepower, yeah, it's out of whack. A single fighter has more firepower. (Or most of the stock ships for that matter.) Though they generally are tougher than individual fighters. (In Star Wars there is a correlation between bigger and tougher in starfighter scale, generally.)

It actually fits a fair bit with the rebels having a random conglomeration of ships. So on the rebel side, I don't mind it.

The imperials? The sneer they had at bounty hunters, and general superiority complex... I don't see it with a fleet that's not a frontier fleet (which may have random old crap, like VSDs.)

As far as a stock YT-2400's firepower, yeah, it's out of whack. A single fighter has more firepower. (Or most of the stock ships for that matter.) Though they generally are tougher than individual fighters. (In Star Wars there is a correlation between bigger and tougher in starfighter scale, generally.)

Indeed, but tougher than 12! starfighters?

Gotta keep in mind that we're just assuming that a squadron base is 12 fighters and a freighter base is 1 ship. Unless I've missed it there hasn't been any confirmation from FFG about what the scale of a base is. Might be literal, with 3 fighters or 1 freighter per base. Or maybe it's a bit more of an abstraction, with a sliding scale depending on the power of the fighters.

I get the feeling that someone's playing fast and loose with the number a vessels a base represents here.

Are you saying that 1 base of YT2400s is tougher than 4 bases of starfighters (as shown by the miniatures)? Or are you saying that a base represents a squadron, and a squadron is 12 starfighters even if they're not all shown? In which case why aren't you also taking into account that it's a YT2400 squadron?

I get the feeling that someone's playing fast and loose with the number a vessels a base represents here.

Are you saying that 1 base of YT2400s is tougher than 4 bases of starfighters (as shown by the miniatures)? Or are you saying that a base represents a squadron, and a squadron is 12 starfighters even if they're not all shown? In which case why aren't you also taking into account that it's a YT2400 squadron?

I agree. If a squadron is 12 single-man fighters (which is how I imagine it anyways), then you'd have to assume that the R&V single-model bases are 4 of the same, or some variant thereof. So 4 Firesprays or 4 YT-1300s or some such. Maybe Han Solo is leading a mixed attack wing of X-Wings and the like, maybe it's him and a bunch of junky freighters, who knows.

So back when the Transports were released, I made a topic that I fear, that Übertransports could kill some flavour of the game. I argued that its already silly that an armed (sometimes even commercial) transport could withstand or even destroy a whole squadron of something around 10-12 fighters.

That's your mistake, though.

Fighter stands do not represent 10-12 fighters, they represent closer to 3.

If they are three, it makes perfect sense that the Millennium Falcon could destroy a stand or three during the game. Remember in RotJ, when Lando has a fully crewed and fully gunned Falcon, there's a six or seven second long scene in which the Falcon vaporizes three TIE Interceptors. So that seems very thematic and realistic.

If you make the ludicrous assumption* that a fighter stand is like 12 Fighters, than you have to assume the Falcon represents like 4-6 modified freighters.

See Reasoning, for instance, here: Why I Choose to Believe Squadrons are 3 Fighters

Synopsis:

+ In the Battle of Endor, Blue Squadron kills two ISD Star Destroyers. If Blue Squadron was a single Fighter Stand, they'd not even be able to get past an ISD's repair dial even if they were rolling perfectly. If Blue Squadron was four or more fighter stands, it becomes more plausible that they could kill an ISD.

+ If fighter stands were an entire squadron, then a relatively tiny fleet with 10 X-Wings would have something like 120 fighters, which is quadruple what the entire Rebel Alliance was able to throw against the Death Star, and about five times what the entire Resistance could throw against Star Killer base. It's also more than the massed Rebel Fleet could deploy in the Battles of Endor or Coruscant. So why should some little skirmish exchange between a half-dozen ships have substantially more fighters than the most grand engagements in the Galactic Civil War?

+ etc, etc, etc, (read above for the full case)

Once you accept that a fighter stand is about three fighters, so many more things in the game make far more sense, including the relative power between the Millennium Falcon and a fighter stand.

*Of course, all of this is tongue-in-cheek, because I could not care less how many fighters others think are represented by an abstract stand, as long as it's what makes them happiest when they play