Why title?

WHy not Double-sided "reloadable" cluster missiles?

Why not mod with pre-move barrelroll for extra knife fight goodness

Why not a rotary flechette dakkagun?

Why not a torp with Action header?

All scyk-only, all at discount pricing.

The cluster missiles mean you don't see naked nor cannon scyks.

The barrel roll mod leaves them without even the pretense of missile and torpedo options.

Flechettes dakkagun had the same problem, meaning there is precisely one ship configuration.

Torps, same deal, different slot.

Unless you intend for a single access pack to come with several of these, at which point you ideally want them to carry three or four thereof... but now you've designed three cards specifically to give the ship three options, and very little future compatibility.

Better, surely, to let scyks be scyks, and simply patch them to do it properly.

* * *

I actually put my money on the eventual fix being in the modifications slot. As with x-wings, they seem pretty comfortable with the idea of putting ordinance fixes out there, then having ships with ordinance slots having no incentive to use them whilst others reap the rewards.

Still, they may take an approach with two different upgrades (a la defender titles), with one tasty on cannon and naked craft, the other somehow ridiculously worthwhile enough for ordinance to be attractive.

Why title?

WHy not Double-sided "reloadable" cluster missiles?

Why not mod with pre-move barrelroll for extra knife fight goodness

Why not a rotary flechette dakkagun?

Why not a torp with Action header?

All scyk-only, all at discount pricing.

So your solution is a nigh-compulsory upgrade choice, locking the Scyk into a specific build that ignores its intended base configuration or upgrade paths?

The cluster missiles mean you don't see naked nor cannon scyks.

The barrel roll mod leaves them without even the pretense of missile and torpedo options.

Flechettes dakkagun had the same problem, meaning there is precisely one ship configuration.

Torps, same deal, different slot.

Unless you intend for a single access pack to come with several of these, at which point you ideally want them to carry three or four thereof... but now you've designed three cards specifically to give the ship three options, and very little future compatibility.

Better, surely, to let scyks be scyks, and simply patch them to do it properly.

* * *

I actually put my money on the eventual fix being in the modifications slot. As with x-wings, they seem pretty comfortable with the idea of putting ordinance fixes out there, then having ships with ordinance slots having no incentive to use them whilst others reap the rewards.

Still, they may take an approach with two different upgrades (a la defender titles), with one tasty on cannon and naked craft, the other somehow ridiculously worthwhile enough for ordinance to be attractive.

Why SHOULD it carry all at the same moment?

You know, every Systems slot locks you into some build, most EPTs lock you into some build. Most turrets and cannons lock you into some build. Most titles lock you into some build.

That's not something new nor is it a problem.

Scyk isn't meant to be a powerhouse, it's supposed to be a ship that CAN be built for one of many roles.

Want it to be a missile-spitter? DO IT!

Want it to be an ace-smashing Alpha-striker? Why not?

Want it to be a thorn in the side that can precisely damage highly maneuverabe targets (named Interceptor for a reason!) but low damage output? Just name it.

Want to be the king of PTL in the furball? Okay, you are. No chips no problem.

You could argue that it should happen with many cards.

It never once has.

I doubt they'll start, so we must instead play in the framework we're given. Even X-wings got their fix card into a slot, yeah?

There is no reason the "fix" card can't just take an existing slot. It's not like some ships don't have multiple titles to choose from so giving the Scyk an alternative to the Heavy Scyk title is a pretty easy place to start.

Hope many of those ships have one title as a balance patch and the other not?

Defenders have two different balance patches. Firespray has two different upgrade slot picks.

I wish they had an illicit slot. Cloak...Stygium...

Might not be cost effective, but sure as hell would be fun.

Maybe we'll see a "Scum Aces" or "Scum Veterans" that addresses the issues. I'm not a huge fan of the pilot abilities of the Scyk and would love to see alternatives.

-Cal

Light Scyk

Title, Scyk only

Your action bar gains the boost action.

1 point.

Should of had boost from the start.

Or be one point cheaper. I still think that the PS 1 generic Scyk needs to be a viable ship in it's own right. Whatever fix should also fix that.

As long as the scyk fix is a sick fix i'll be happy.

I've said it before, but I'll say it again: the Scyk is special because of it's title that allows it to carry one of 3 different types of secondary weapons upgrades. Any fix to the Scyk MUST NOT take that away. If you want to do a title, fine. But that title needs to allow the Heavy "Scyk" Interceptor title to still be played on the same ship. Otherwise, it sort of changes what the Scyk was meant to be. Now, am I saying that Scyks should always be equipped with secondary weapons? No. I would like to Scyks be viable with and without ordnance secondary weapons. However, boosting the Scyk through title that replaces the old title without doing what the old title did will mean that Scyks without secondary weapons are now more viable, but the Heavy Scyks still suffer. I'd really rather see a fix (or fixes) that help out both types. Think of the TIE Defender titles. We got one title that's great on even a naked Defender, and then we've got another title to help out the cannon types. We need something that will allow that sort of diversity with Scyks (though it doesn't mean we necessarily need two new upgrades).

I've said it before, but I'll say it again: the Scyk is special because of it's title that allows it to carry one of 3 different types of secondary weapons upgrades. Any fix to the Scyk MUST NOT take that away. If you want to do a title, fine. But that title needs to allow the Heavy "Scyk" Interceptor title to still be played on the same ship. Otherwise, it sort of changes what the Scyk was meant to be. Now, am I saying that Scyks should always be equipped with secondary weapons? No. I would like to Scyks be viable with and without ordnance secondary weapons. However, boosting the Scyk through title that replaces the old title without doing what the old title did will mean that Scyks without secondary weapons are now more viable, but the Heavy Scyks still suffer. I'd really rather see a fix (or fixes) that help out both types. Think of the TIE Defender titles. We got one title that's great on even a naked Defender, and then we've got another title to help out the cannon types. We need something that will allow that sort of diversity with Scyks (though it doesn't mean we necessarily need two new upgrades).

You could have a cannon carrying title and an ordnance title load and be fine. Had the Hvy Scyk title not had a cost associated with it the ship would probably see play as an inexpensive cannon but the point tax is just too high.

I've said it before, but I'll say it again: the Scyk is special because of it's title that allows it to carry one of 3 different types of secondary weapons upgrades. Any fix to the Scyk MUST NOT take that away. If you want to do a title, fine. But that title needs to allow the Heavy "Scyk" Interceptor title to still be played on the same ship. Otherwise, it sort of changes what the Scyk was meant to be. Now, am I saying that Scyks should always be equipped with secondary weapons? No. I would like to Scyks be viable with and without ordnance secondary weapons. However, boosting the Scyk through title that replaces the old title without doing what the old title did will mean that Scyks without secondary weapons are now more viable, but the Heavy Scyks still suffer. I'd really rather see a fix (or fixes) that help out both types. Think of the TIE Defender titles. We got one title that's great on even a naked Defender, and then we've got another title to help out the cannon types. We need something that will allow that sort of diversity with Scyks (though it doesn't mean we necessarily need two new upgrades).

Precisely this; hence why my (somewhat cludgy, I admit) method of adding in a title that does not replace the Heavy Scyk version, and makes all versions of them a better value proposition in general.

The Scyk needs a sick fix to lick sick ships like a scyk ship should.

Should of had boost from the start.

And would be a simple Errata-based fix that would not take up a upgrade slot...

... though question then moves to if cost is still fair, or over-corrected.

I've said it before, but I'll say it again: the Scyk is special because of it's title that allows it to carry one of 3 different types of secondary weapons upgrades. Any fix to the Scyk MUST NOT take that away. If you want to do a title, fine. But that title needs to allow the Heavy "Scyk" Interceptor title to still be played on the same ship. Otherwise, it sort of changes what the Scyk was meant to be. Now, am I saying that Scyks should always be equipped with secondary weapons? No. I would like to Scyks be viable with and without ordnance secondary weapons. However, boosting the Scyk through title that replaces the old title without doing what the old title did will mean that Scyks without secondary weapons are now more viable, but the Heavy Scyks still suffer. I'd really rather see a fix (or fixes) that help out both types. Think of the TIE Defender titles. We got one title that's great on even a naked Defender, and then we've got another title to help out the cannon types. We need something that will allow that sort of diversity with Scyks (though it doesn't mean we necessarily need two new upgrades).

Precisely this; hence why my (somewhat cludgy, I admit) method of adding in a title that does not replace the Heavy Scyk version, and makes all versions of them a better value proposition in general.

Exactly. I'm not against a dual-title fix for the Scyk at all because that will still be unique among all other ships. I mean, if dual mods or dual Elites are acceptable, why not dual-titles? And this allows the Scyk to still be either heavy or light.

Should of had boost from the start.

And would be a simple Errata-based fix that would not take up a upgrade slot...

... though question then moves to if cost is still fair, or over-corrected.

No ship in the game has had all 5 actions natively.

To be honest, they kinda wouldn't fit.

As for price... congratulations, you now have a naked Scyk running autothrusters for 16 points. It's still one point cheaper than an A-wing in return for an entire hit point missing. Better? Sure. Enough? Probably not; especially with their dial leaving PTL a middling pick at best.

If something in the dual-title vein was to be a fix, I'd like to see it emphasise speed/manoeuvrability over durability (ie, not just the +1HP suggestion).

I think the big rocket engine aesthetic lends itself to something of the boost-like variety.

A pre-manoeuvre boost-like move (but not actually an action) with specific conditions to offset the 'free-action' aspect of it.

Or perhaps something really wacky, like 'After you perform a green manoeuvre, you may immediately perform a red manoeuvre of the same speed and bearing.' (pedal-to-the-metal!)

Should of had boost from the start.

And would be a simple Errata-based fix that would not take up a upgrade slot...

... though question then moves to if cost is still fair, or over-corrected.

No ship in the game has had all 5 actions natively.

To be honest, they kinda wouldn't fit.

As for price... congratulations, you now have a naked Scyk running autothrusters for 16 points. It's still one point cheaper than an A-wing in return for an entire hit point missing. Better? Sure. Enough? Probably not; especially with their dial leaving PTL a middling pick at best.

I think the title should of granted TL to reflect the upgrade to fire torps and missiles.

Should of had boost from the start.

And would be a simple Errata-based fix that would not take up a upgrade slot...

... though question then moves to if cost is still fair, or over-corrected.

No ship in the game has had all 5 actions natively.

To be honest, they kinda wouldn't fit.

As for price... congratulations, you now have a naked Scyk running autothrusters for 16 points. It's still one point cheaper than an A-wing in return for an entire hit point missing. Better? Sure. Enough? Probably not; especially with their dial leaving PTL a middling pick at best.

I think the title should of granted TL to reflect the upgrade to fire torps and missiles.

except that Double Title is weird as hell, and not gonna happen.

And it still Scyks.

Here is my idea for an upgrade to the Scyck.

Modification

Cost: 1

Reinforced Structure

Heavy Scyk Only.

+1 Hull value.

Secondary weapons with an attack of 3 or less cost -2 points.

Title

Cost: 3

Souped Up

Scyk Only.

Your upgrade bar gains the Illicit slot.

After you perform an action, you may perform a free boost action.

These upgrades help differentiate the two roles for the Scyck.The heavy scyk becomes a stronger harder hitting ship sacrificing any other modifications or the extra maneuverability of the new title, It also makes the options for missiles or torpedoes a bit more appealing, while also limiting the desire for some of the harder hitting secondary weapons like Heavy Laser cannon.

The new title brings more maneuverability and a new upgrade option to the standard Scyk, giving it a better ability to arc-dodge and have some dirty tricks up it's sleeve. It also leaves the modification slot open but doesn't allow for auto-thrusters.

I just wish the title were erratad to provide -2 point cost to the selected upgrade type.

I just wish the title were erratad to provide -2 point cost to the selected upgrade type.

Then why not just errata the title's cost. Spending 2 points to save 2 points doesn't make any sense.

I can see where FFG was worried about super cheap HLC carriers

in which case, they could've just had the title be 0 points and limit it ala Tie/x7 (i.e no 4+ point cannons, though Manglers aren't super great so it'd be 5+ limit)

18 points for a 3 dice ship...is still kinda naff because that's an alpha squadron pilot, but it is a secondary weapon at least

I would have been happy if the title was 0 points.

I just wish the title were erratad to provide -2 point cost to the selected upgrade type.

Then why not just errata the title's cost. Spending 2 points to save 2 points doesn't make any sense.

Because then the title would get used without any upgrades to just make them cheaper

I'd love something to give them a Tech slot so they can take Comm Relay and bank an evade token. That 1 Shield/2 Hull combo is just death.