The ships that can take tail gunner already have the ability to shoot out the back so the tail gunner card isn't adding another crew member. When you think it out the card is actually upgrading a crew member already present in the ship so why does it require the use of the slot? The card should read

"When attacking from your rear-facing auxiliary firing arc, reduce the defenders agility value by one (to a minimum of zero). This upgrade does not require the use of the crew slot."

The way it stands now the picture should have Porkins and some small dude crammed into one seat. That would at least be funny enough to use.

eh...I don't personally agree

Tail Gunner is fairly solid as far as upgrades go, the only bizarre thing about it being that the poor YV can't use it

sure, it'd be weird for the YV to have side-facing "tail guns" but it's a game, man!

This seems like it would be broken on firespray with k4. Also fluff isn't as important as balanced gameplay so this change wouldn't make much sense to me.

This seems like it would be broken on firespray with k4. Also fluff isn't as important as balanced gameplay so this change wouldn't make much sense to me.

Broken? Hardly the firesprays see very little use currently and I don't think that combo would make them instantly overpowered.

This seems like it would be broken on firespray with k4. Also fluff isn't as important as balanced gameplay so this change wouldn't make much sense to me.

Keeping ships in your rear arc is hard. I've very much wanted to make the Firespray work for me and found that consistently using the rear arc is easier said than done.

This seems like it would be broken on firespray with k4. Also fluff isn't as important as balanced gameplay so this change wouldn't make much sense to me.

Nothing would have made FS broken.

it's a ship that never reached competitive level.

The ships that can take tail gunner already have the ability to shoot out the back so the tail gunner card isn't adding another crew member. When you think it out the card is actually upgrading a crew member already present in the ship so why does it require the use of the slot? The card should read

"When attacking from your rear-facing auxiliary firing arc, reduce the defenders agility value by one (to a minimum of zero). This upgrade does not require the use of the crew slot."

The way it stands now the picture should have Porkins and some small dude crammed into one seat. That would at least be funny enough to use.

I agree that thematically it makes no sense. The argument for no extra crew on turreted ships was that the turret operator has a full-time job on the turret. Rear arcs are in the same vein.

That said, it is justified by game balance.

This gets me thinking, what about an upgrade for a Y-wing that replaces the turret slot with a crew slot? It probably wouldn't go very far as the turrets are what make Y-wings viable. I suppose it could work for an ordnance build though.

This seems like it would be broken on firespray with k4. Also fluff isn't as important as balanced gameplay so this change wouldn't make much sense to me.

Not at all the Firespray has very few green maneuvers to make strong use of K4.

This seems like it would be broken on firespray with k4. Also fluff isn't as important as balanced gameplay so this change wouldn't make much sense to me.

Nothing would have made FS broken.

it's a ship that never reached competitive level.

Bounty Hunters were amazing in Wave 2.

If shuttles actually had a rear arc this would be amazing.

If shuttles actually had a rear arc this would be amazing.

Probably the best ship for it, I agree.

Given that currently you shoot as well from the rear as from the front (with ships using the same weapons for each direction anyway) the existence of a rear arc doesn't necessarily indicate the presence of a dedicated gunner - I envisage it being the pilot shooting via a screen displaying the rear view.

Given that currently you shoot as well from the rear as from the front (with ships using the same weapons for each direction anyway) the existence of a rear arc doesn't necessarily indicate the presence of a dedicated gunner - I envisage it being the pilot shooting via a screen displaying the rear view.

The arc 170 has a 3 person compliment so the rear gunner is already accounted for. The crew slot should be for the third person not a rear gunner upgrade that takes a slot.

Given that currently you shoot as well from the rear as from the front (with ships using the same weapons for each direction anyway) the existence of a rear arc doesn't necessarily indicate the presence of a dedicated gunner - I envisage it being the pilot shooting via a screen displaying the rear view.

The arc 170 has a 3 person compliment so the rear gunner is already accounted for. The crew slot should be for the third person not a rear gunner upgrade that takes a slot.

The ARC-170 is probably the worst example you can give, as it makes the case against you more than for you. If it has 3 people, then one can be accounted for by the pilot, one for the crew slot & (much like the Tail Gunner crew) one to give the benefit of the focus to crit conversion.

OP has a valid point...

...think of it, in the ARC's case, of a third crew member whose tasks include assisting the rear weapon operator in target prioritisation, acquisition and predictive targeting.

(for the rest of the time, their duties do not have a noticeable effect on game-play)

Given that currently you shoot as well from the rear as from the front (with ships using the same weapons for each direction anyway) the existence of a rear arc doesn't necessarily indicate the presence of a dedicated gunner - I envisage it being the pilot shooting via a screen displaying the rear view.

The arc 170 has a 3 person compliment so the rear gunner is already accounted for. The crew slot should be for the third person not a rear gunner upgrade that takes a slot.

I think It's a mistake to think of such a close correlation between in-game crew numbers and fluff crew numbers. The Falcon can clearly take a whole bunch of crew, and a gunner (or two) wouldn't take up space in the cockpit. There are many such examples. The number of crew is an abstraction.

I'd concur. I just can't see Tail Gunner being worth using that much. It only works on half your arcs.

Scum have much, much better crew options (Dengar for accuracy, 4LOM/Zuckuss for defence penalties) which are either better or cheaper or both, and Imp Firesprays are just... terrible anyway and these 2 points don't make them better.

There really doesn't seem to be anything in the ARC that's been spoiled so far that isn't just a touch disappointing.

Unless the Action: Torp is good, I will have no problem completely ignoring it.

Vectored thrusters will see play, you can be sure. A-wings will love it even more than autothrusters - especially green squadron pilots with PTL. Tail gunner can be made to work well on the scum firespray:

Kath Scarlet (38)

Heavy Laser Cannon (7)

Veteran Instincts (1)

Tail Gunner (2)

Ion Projector (2)

Total: 50 pts.

5 die attacks from a rear arc with the defender suffering -1 Agility is nothing to scoff at. In addition, you're not limited to doing only green moves and a K4/PTL action economy.

It's nothing to scoff at, but you're investing 7 points in your front arc and 2 in your back arc, which is an expensive combination of things that don't have any synergy at all.

You'd be better off with Dengar to reroll dice in both arcs than Tail Gunner to penalise defence in one - or 4LOM/Zuckuss to penalise defence in both rather than just one.

I just struggle to see it being worth taking when everyone who make any use of it has better options for what they could use in the slot instead.

Vectored thrusters will see play, you can be sure. A-wings will love it even more than autothrusters - especially green squadron pilots with PTL. Tail gunner can be made to work well on the scum firespray:

Kath Scarlet (38)

Heavy Laser Cannon (7)

Veteran Instincts (1)

Tail Gunner (2)

Ion Projector (2)

Total: 50 pts.

5 die attacks from a rear arc with the defender suffering -1 Agility is nothing to scoff at. In addition, you're not limited to doing only green moves and a K4/PTL action economy.

Why Veteran Instincts on a ship with no ability to reposition, and which you want other ships to bump into? Wouldn't Adaptability be better?

Vectored thrusters will see play, you can be sure. A-wings will love it even more than autothrusters - especially green squadron pilots with PTL. Tail gunner can be made to work well on the scum firespray:

Kath Scarlet (38)

Heavy Laser Cannon (7)

Veteran Instincts (1)

Tail Gunner (2)

Ion Projector (2)

Total: 50 pts.

5 die attacks from a rear arc with the defender suffering -1 Agility is nothing to scoff at. In addition, you're not limited to doing only green moves and a K4/PTL action economy.

Why Veteran Instincts on a ship with no ability to reposition, and which you want other ships to bump into? Wouldn't Adaptability be better?

The better question is 'why ion projector on a ship that really wants to swing its butt round a lot; take Engine Upgrade'.

Engine Upgrade without any additional action or way to modify your attack? Waste of the extra die isn't it?

This seems like it would be broken on firespray with k4. Also fluff isn't as important as balanced gameplay so this change wouldn't make much sense to me.

Nothing would have made FS broken.

it's a ship that never reached competitive level.

Triple Firespray was a thing in Wave 2.

Engine Upgrade without any additional action or way to modify your attack? Waste of the extra die isn't it?

Not when it might get you arc when you had none at all, or out of arc and avoid getting shot. EU on big ships is usually a very strong option, doubly so when you have a rear arc to get on target.

Vetern instincts is there because, at PS 7, you won't be clocking anything anyway. By PS 9, all swarms will have to K-turn through you once you approach range 1. If your supporting ship(s) fly directly behind, carrying your more powerful guns (such as 2 y-wings with TLT and unhinged astromech, you can block all but 5 K-turns. This means that almost all opposing ships will either have to bump you, potentially stressing on the K-turn, and then have a 50/50 chance of being ionised. Once ionised, you can either stay where you are and deny an enemy ALL actions repeatedly or fly off with a perfect rear arc shot for multiple rounds.

Your escort really doesn't need actions to be effective, but since they're turreted they won't have any problem just flying around the enemy and doing damage here and there. The reason for PS 9 VI over PS 8/6 Adaptability is that, at PS9 enemy super aces like soontir and whisper must guess where you will end up (provided you give them initiative or they take it for themselves to protect whisper). Making you infinitely harder to hit than an engine upgrade would. HLC is a bit of a point sink, but it generally pays off over time. You could swap it out for a more powerful escort like 2 U-boats or Bossk, or maybe even trde it for a connor net and extra munitions.

Ion Projector is half the points of engine upgrade, for one. Secondly it can and has been used to great effect against PTL aces (such as Zach Bunn at the Hoth Open). Bumps are bad, but a bump, ion and stress are far, far worse.

I don't stand by this list, I just whipped it up to demonstrate that it makes unorthodox pilots more effective in different situations.