• X-Wings
  
• Y-Wings
  
• E-Wing
  

• TIE Bombers
  
• TIE Punishers
  
• Y-Wings (not sure about this one if it takes the title)
  
• K-Wings
  

• Only one unique pilot can be used in a game per side.
  
• Named pilots must include the ships Title .
  

• Any Green non-straight or Green straight maneuver faster than speed three is treated as white.
  
• Any Primary Weapon Attack value that exceeds 1 is reduced to 1.
  
• Generic pilots cannot preform actions except those granted through a modification, crew or other upgrade.
  
• Generic pilots do not have EPT.
  

Actual I think this may improve the game a little, perhaps even a lot. It makes freighters behave like freighters without a ton of new rules. Yet it still allows for your favorite pilot from the movies or else where (Dash, Dengar, etc), you just don't have 3 contracted scout or two TY-1300s. It makes bombers act like bombers and it gives you a zero point Astromech because this is Star Wars and you should be required to fly with and Astromech.

For the astromech thing, can it not be simply assumed that the X-Wing pilot either could not acquire an astromech, or not one that was noteworthy enough to impact the list?

Yay! yet another thread I can bore people with my obsession with a BTL-S3 title for the Y-Wing

Now I know how the CoGs feel

I like the "no ability" astromech, maybe -1 point cost.

I suppose you could try it, but it'd break the game a bit mechanics-wise. Fun to see everything a bit more realistic though. (If we can use that term whilst playing with little Star Wars spaceships )

"Named pilots must include the ships Title."

That totally breaks Eaden Vrill.

"Named pilots must include the ships Title."

That totally breaks Eaden Vrill.

I see your point. But one pilot out of so many isn't bad. Of course not counting generic freighter pilots as they would all be broken to.

Or we could remove that bit since only one named pilot is allow anyway and the title could be optional.

I'm the opposite to you, clearly. I actually don't really care about Star Wars all that much (my secret is out). I like this game because it's dogfighting. It's not even dogfighting in space, necessarily. It's Wings of War with a skin and considerably more engaging rules.

Nerfing the living hell out of generic ships like that would actually kill a section of the game to me, and would murder epic play, too. Forcing ordnance on to ships seems equally mad, especially if there isn't a discount compensation for doing so. I get the concept of ordnance ships actually carrying ordnance, but what happens to the TIE Shuttle card? Why do Y's suddenly require torpedoes when they're supposed to be multirole, rather than a carrier?

The zero point astromech is fine, but I don't think it adds anything to the game, apart from being a free shield for X-wings with IA. Beyond that, it's just a blank filler card with no actual usefulness in the game mechanic.

I'm not a big Star Wars fan, as I've said, but I'm not someone who cries against theme. Heck, theme is what's dividing the factions up in personality and making the game interesting, but when theme encroaches on game mechanics, it encroaches on balance, and inevitably the fun of playing the game at all.

I suppose you could try it, but it'd break the game a bit mechanics-wise. Fun to see everything a bit more realistic though. (If we can use that term whilst playing with little Star Wars spaceships )

Speaking of Star Wars being 'real,' this morning at breakfast I mentioned that the last Star Wars book I read was not canon. My daughter asked what that meant. I said it meant it wasn't real and my wife laughed at me.

I was really disappointed when the YT-1300 came as 3 millennium falcon pilots all with millennium falcon stats.

I was disappointed again with the Jumpmaster 5000s all having the astromech and turret weapons that were unique to the Punishing one.

And soon with the Heroes of the Resistance expansion we can run 4 millennium falcons all at the same time... :S really ruins the game theme.

Wish game design had thought about names on ships or stats on titles.

Nerfing the living hell out of generic ships like that would actually kill a section of the game to me, and would murder epic play, too.

Yes it would nerf/kill the competitive generic freighter pilots for sure. But there isn't that many type of ships that would fit into this category. As far as Epic goes you could always 'house rule' that multiple unique pilots can be in and Epic battle. Perhaps 1 per 100 points per side. But for some

I was really disappointed when the YT-1300 came as 3 millennium falcon pilots all with millennium falcon stats.

I was disappointed again with the Jumpmaster 5000s all having the astromech and turret weapons that were unique to the Punishing one.

And soon with the Heroes of the Resistance expansion we can run 4 millennium falcons all at the same time... :S really ruins the game theme.

Seeing multiple YT-1300s in a game, especially when everyone calls them Falcons, puts off other people.

I'm not a big Star Wars fan, as I've said, but I'm not someone who cries against theme. Heck, theme is what's dividing the factions up in personality and making the game interesting, but when theme encroaches on game mechanics, it encroaches on balance, and inevitably the fun of playing the game at all.

I fully know these are just my ideas and have no chance of becoming official. But having said that:

1. As far as mechanics they add a new class of ship which every release does anyway.
2. As far as balance, maybe it could help make it more balanced since most freighters shouldn't out preform fighters anyway.
3. As for fun. There is the old adage that one can't please everyone. So no matter if you like these idea or not someone, perhaps Kael will not have as much fun without them and, perhaps you will not have as much fun with them.

As long as the make the game more diverse without breaking it. Maybe they could work and add more depth which could mean even more fun.

That's just my point though; this seems like something that's much better to house rule in for a theme night than to outright add to the game. If anything, I think it'd make the game less diverse and deep. It doesn't really add a new class of ship, just a restriction on existing ones that essentially makes them useless.

I have seen most people calling the 1300 a Falcon, and even calling the 2400 a "Dash" and the YV-666 a "Bossk", but I've never seen or heard anyone being put off by it. The Falcon reference is pretty self evident, and Dash is usually flying "Dash" anyway. The YV one can cause some confusion if Bossk crew is being used elsewhere, but I've never seen anyone actually complain about any of the naming schemes. I've heard far more people complain about calling the fully crewed YV the "Party Bus", in fact.

I'm not at all saying don't keep thinking of ways to make the game fun for you, but I would contend these changes wouldn't make the game fun for the vast majority.

That's just my point though; this seems like something that's much better to house rule in for a theme night than to outright add to the game. If anything, I think it'd make the game less diverse and deep. It doesn't really add a new class of ship, just a restriction on existing ones that essentially makes them useless.

and that's basically all that has to be said here

if you want to self impose restrictions, go nuts. otherwise it's just a lot of unnecessary restriction

hell, in some cases it's utterly redundant

you'll almost never see Xs without astros anymore (yay integrated), Bombers without ordnance (they're decently efficient without, but the Tie Fighter is simply more efficient) or Punishers without ordnance (these guys are hideously inefficient ; need ordnance to not suck horribly)

You will see Ys without ordnance, because Horton and Drea (and deadeye r4 Kavil, technically) are the only ones who can re-roll the dice on their torpedoes, but you will basically always see Ys with turrets (with or without BTL-a4); they're too inefficiently priced to be run naked

in other cases, it's just annoying. For example, Ks with ordnance.

Trust me, running Ks with ordnance is actually pretty dang frustrating because FFG didn't deem fit to dive the K wing a K-turn

on the other hand, I would never run a K without bombs anymore. Sure, Miranda with TLT and c3po is a chunky and powerful regenerator, but with bombs she just becomes a complete monster

she is become death, destroyer of Tie Swarms

Yay! yet another thread I can bore people with my obsession with a BTL-S3 title for the Y-Wing

The BTL-S3 is in the game.

It's the Y-wing without BTL-A4. The crew member is the turret gunner.

Nerfing the living hell out of generic ships like that would actually kill a section of the game to me, and would murder epic play, too.

Yes it would nerf/kill the competitive generic freighter pilots for sure. But there isn't that many type of ships that would fit into this category. As far as Epic goes you could always 'house rule' that multiple unique pilots can be in and Epic battle. Perhaps 1 per 100 points per side. But for some

I was really disappointed when the YT-1300 came as 3 millennium falcon pilots all with millennium falcon stats.

I was disappointed again with the Jumpmaster 5000s all having the astromech and turret weapons that were unique to the Punishing one.

And soon with the Heroes of the Resistance expansion we can run 4 millennium falcons all at the same time... :S really ruins the game theme.

Seeing multiple YT-1300s in a game, especially when everyone calls them Falcons, puts off other people.

I'm not a big Star Wars fan, as I've said, but I'm not someone who cries against theme. Heck, theme is what's dividing the factions up in personality and making the game interesting, but when theme encroaches on game mechanics, it encroaches on balance, and inevitably the fun of playing the game at all.

I fully know these are just my ideas and have no chance of becoming official. But having said that:

1. As far as mechanics they add a new class of ship which every release does anyway.
2. As far as balance, maybe it could help make it more balanced since most freighters shouldn't out preform fighters anyway.
3. As for fun. There is the old adage that one can't please everyone. So no matter if you like these idea or not someone, perhaps Kael will not have as much fun without them and, perhaps you will not have as much fun with them.

As long as the make the game more diverse without breaking it. Maybe they could work and add more depth which could mean even more fun.

your freighter rules would just eliminate options that people rarely take anyways (besides slaver/scout) i dont see how that would add diversity

And the firespray is a patrol craft, not a freighter. It's supposed to be pretty heavily armed.

Yay! yet another thread I can bore people with my obsession with a BTL-S3 title for the Y-Wing

The BTL-S3 is in the game.

It's the Y-wing without BTL-A4. The crew member is the turret gunner.

Nooooooooooooooooooo!

OK - yeah, you're right

Although if you check the Gold Squadron pilot card and the back of the blister pack it is described as a BTL-A4 - not an S3

My justification is that the title replicates someone in the gunner's seat who's a veteran gunner who's learned a trick or two in their time, as opposed to some kid who's fresh from a moisture farm in the boondocks - so, for a price, you can pull off a few extra tricks with your turreted y-wings

It's not a fix - because the y-wing doesn't really need one - just extra options, because that was the hallmark of the y-wing, versatility

It;s not a crew slot either - or at least it's a crew slot that's restricted to y-wing only crew - less potential to combo badly with certain turrets and astros

But then what's the Y-wing without either title?

But then what's the Y-wing without either title?

for someone who loves logic and reason I really hate logic and reason sometimes