Here is a ship profile I would like to see in Armada.

What do you think?

Which fraction would it belong to? (I'm pro Rebel on this, but your opinion do matter )

Which ship from the excisting Star Wars universe would fit this profile?

Point value? (I'm venturing something in 100pts 75pts range on this, but your opinion do again matter )

Combat Frigate specification: A-11A7

Ship size: Medium

Hull: 7

Anti Squadron: 2x Blue

Command: 3

Squadron Command:1

Engineering: 4

Fire arcs and shields:

Forward arc: 2x Red, 3x Shields

Side arcs: 4x Red, 3x Shields

Rear arc: 1x Red, 2x Shields

Defence Tokens:

1x Brace 2x Brace

2x Redirect

1x Evade

Speed and Yaw: (left most is the first yaw joint)

Speed 1: 2x yaw

Speed 2: 1x yaw, 1x yaw 1x yaw, 2x yaw

Speed 3: Naught, 2x yaw, Naught Naught, 1x yaw, 2x yaw

Upgrades:

Title

Officer

Weapons team

Support team Defensive Retrofit

Defensive Retrofit

Turbolaser

Carrier Frigate specification: B-11B7

Ship size: Medium

Hull: 7

Anti Squadron: 2x Black

Command: 3

Squadron Command:2 4

Engineering: 4

Fire arcs and shields:

Forward arc: 2x Blue, 3x Shields

Side arcs: 4x Blue, 3x Shields

Rear arc: 1x Blue, 2x Shields

Defence Tokens:

1x Brace 2x Brace

2x Redirect

1x Evade

Speed and Yaw: (left most is the first yaw joint)

Speed 1: 2x yaw

Speed 2: 1x yaw, 1x yaw 1x yaw, 2x yaw

Speed 3: Naught, 2x yaw, Naught Naught, 1x yaw, 2x yaw

Upgrades:

Title

Officer

Support team

Support team Offensive Retrofit

Offensive Retrofit

Ion Canon

Added comments:

Titles:

I would like to have a low cost title, 1 point perhaps, that have the following effect:

You may replace one upgrade slot with a Weapons Team upgrade slot.

Or

You may replace one upgrade slot with a Defensive Retrofit upgrade slot.

I think it's a pretty bad design, Kiwi.

2 brace, 2 redirects, 11 shields (evenly distributed) and 2 defensive retrofits for 75 points? Along with outstanding maneuverability and 4 engineering?

With ECM, this ship will need to be shot 2x per round with 4 accuracy hits on each shot to have any hope of pushing through damage. ECM and Adv Proj. will make it nigh indestructible. With 7 hull and 4 engineering, it will still be fairly resilience to damage with overcomes shields (Luke, Asteroids, ramming, APT).

What is the point of this ship? What are you trying to achieve here?

What is the point of this ship? What are you trying to achieve here?

Sorry, have to agree with Roc. The combat frigate is way undercosted. (maybe 100 points?) Plus, combining long range firepower, fast speed & turns, excellent tokens, high hull & defensive retrofits means that it's synergized in a way that makes it hard to balance.

The carrier version is very different from the combat version, much more than any other ship design pair in Armada. Going from Sq1 to Sq4 implies a whole lot of changes to the deck plan that would result in other changes as well. If I were building a ship that made that sort of change between versions, I'd probably drop the engineering value significantly to reflect the massive holes ripped into the ship to fit those extra fighters in.

If you want to make custom ship designs, then I would suggest you start with Roc's question: what is your goal? Then ask yourself why would someone take some other, equally costly, ship over this? Make sure there's a good reason to take the other ship, and a good reason to take the ship you designed. The answer should never be "my ship is better in all respects."

Thats not a Frigate. . . Frigates are small ships like the Neb. . . this first one is a Heavy Cruiser at best. . .

This second one. . . same issues

These are Star Crusier priced ships. . . Interdictor at the minimum. . .

Its basically an assault frigate thats improved in every aspect

I'd also just like to point out that compared to the MC80 assault, it's got almost the exact same red die armament but with the ability to take gunnery teams. As a rebel ship with Ackbar...that'd be crazy. It's also more red dice and much better survivability than the Af-B for about the same price. It's 4 less shields and one less hull than the MC80. 1 less shield and 1 more hull than the AF. With double brace and double defensive retrofits. Significantly better navigation chart than both. This ship would be OP in a rebel fleet.

Granted it has no offensive retrofit, and the ship is purely an attack vessel with high survivability.

And when considering the carrier version, it gets 4 squadron plus the ability to take both hangar bays and boosted comms. That makes it a better carrier than the MC80 command. Granted it gets less weapons range and no defensive retrofits, but is still packs a punch and has those double redundant tokens.

Calm down guys. Reread the original post. He's really asking us what we think the points value should be, not to rubbish his suggestion.

As far as it goes, my first thoughts on the A variant was 'whoa that's quite tough, but without TRC's it's also not that reliably killy. Four reds out the side just isn't consistent.' Since then, listening to others, they have some good points. Gunnery teams would give quite the increase. Ackbar is the same. Competes too closely with the AFMKII.

It feels like a Rebel ship, but I can't help but wonder the 'what if?' of it being an Imperial ship. That would solve two of the problems. Also, in the Rebel side the A version would just be more of the same as we already have. In the Imperials on the other hand...

For the B version, I like Baltanok's suggestion of dropping the engineering value.

Points value? No idea!

Okay I can see that the 75pts suggestion really got some of you up from the Chair.

As it is something in between hull/shield strength wise of an AF2 and a MC80 Star Cruiser, how about 89 points???

One have to remember that its front or rear are not that stellar when it come to gunnery.

And the Reds without evade is as Flengin pointed out are less reliable, so in order for the ship to do significant damage overtime it needs to survive a bit longer hence the Double Brace and Redirects.

Its a sort of a "Death by steady medium punches" ship

4 squads, was perhaps a bit over the top, so good call and the logic on the huge difference between 1 and 4 squads.

And to be honest I only had the A version in mind when I came up with this crazy specification. The B version was entirely and afterthought, to keep it consistant with the norm of having two versions of one ship.

I would much prefer only to have the A version only.

Let us directly compare, Step by Step, from this First One, to an AFMK-IIA....

BETTER
WORSE

Combat Frigate specification: A-11A7

Ship size: Medium

Hull: 7 +1

Anti Squadron: 2x Blue

Command: 3

Squadron Command:1 -1

Engineering: 4

Fire arcs and shields:

Forward arc: 2x Red, 3x Shields -1 Shield, -1 Blue

Side arcs: 4x Red, 3x Shields +1 Red -1 Blue

Rear arc: 1x Red, 2x Shields

Defence Tokens:

2x Brace +1

2x Redirect +1

-1 Evade

Speed and Yaw: (left most is the first yaw joint)

Speed 1: 2x yaw

Speed 2: 1x yaw, 2x yaw

Speed 3: Naught, 1x yaw, 2x yaw

Upgrades:

Title

Officer

Support team Weapons team

Defensive Retrofit

Defensive Retrofit

Turbolaser

- Offensive Retrofit

Okay, Let's institute the "Australian Pub Test"... In which we assume everything is equal, and just count ups and Downs...

Effectively, this is UP. By 2 Points, I believe.

So even if you assumed the benchmark of the AFMK-II at 81 points, you cannot be any worse than that. Simply cannot. Full stop. End of Story.

This is of course, the assumption that everything is rated equally - when, we know it is not... A Red Die is priced higher than a Blue Die, so losing Blue Dice to get Red dice is not a wash. Its better to have Reds (as far as FFG is concerned, and its their pointing system).

Shields, and the availability of said shields, would definitely be priced differently, knowing that you not only have REDUNDANT Defense Tokens (the AFMK-II suffers by only having 1 of each), as well as DOUBLE DEFENSIVE Retrofit.

Just even on the face of it, it doesn't pass the Pub Test, and will need greater revision.

Personally, I think the BIGGEST part of it that's out of Whack is the Navigation Chart. Placing Double-Yaws at the End of EVERY Speed screams hyper-maneuverable, because its usually THAT tick that determines your Double Arc or Not.... The AFMK-II is considered a VERY maneuverable ship, and it doesn't have it...

If it maintains its yaw at speed, its failing a big part of the pub test... I mean, its Yaw is SO GOOD that, really, you only get benefit from a madine Dial at speed 3...

I think it's a pretty bad design, Kiwi.

2 brace, 2 redirects, 11 shields (evenly distributed) and 2 defensive retrofits for 75 points? Along with outstanding maneuverability and 4 engineering?

With ECM, this ship will need to be shot 2x per round with 4 accuracy hits on each shot to have any hope of pushing through damage. ECM and Adv Proj. will make it nigh indestructible. With 7 hull and 4 engineering, it will still be fairly resilience to damage with overcomes shields (Luke, Asteroids, ramming, APT).

What is the point of this ship? What are you trying to achieve here?

So you envision that people don't give their ships upgrades such as XI7, HTT, or APT.

I think a ISD II will still have better survivability.

May I point out that the MC80 assault cruiser has 8 hull 4 engineering and can take ECM and Adv Proj. And somehow they still get blown out of the sky in games I've played

The A-11A7 lacks Contain, so it wont be able to ward off criticals, so it has a weakness there.

Let us directly compare, Step by Step, from this First One, to an AFMK-IIA....

BETTER

WORSE

Combat Frigate specification: A-11A7

Ship size: Medium

Hull: 7 +1

Anti Squadron: 2x Blue

Command: 3

Squadron Command:1 -1

Engineering: 4

Fire arcs and shields:

Forward arc: 2x Red, 3x Shields -1 Shield, -1 Blue

Side arcs: 4x Red, 3x Shields +1 Red -1 Blue

Rear arc: 1x Red, 2x Shields

Defence Tokens:

2x Brace +1

2x Redirect +1

-1 Evade

Speed and Yaw: (left most is the first yaw joint)

Speed 1: 2x yaw

Speed 2: 1x yaw, 2x yaw

Speed 3: Naught, 1x yaw, 2x yaw

Upgrades:

Title

Officer

Support team Weapons team

Defensive Retrofit

Defensive Retrofit

Turbolaser

- Offensive Retrofit

Okay, Let's institute the "Australian Pub Test"... In which we assume everything is equal, and just count ups and Downs...

Effectively, this is UP. By 2 Points, I believe.

So even if you assumed the benchmark of the AFMK-II at 81 points, you cannot be any worse than that. Simply cannot. Full stop. End of Story.

This is of course, the assumption that everything is rated equally - when, we know it is not... A Red Die is priced higher than a Blue Die, so losing Blue Dice to get Red dice is not a wash. Its better to have Reds (as far as FFG is concerned, and its their pointing system).

Shields, and the availability of said shields, would definitely be priced differently, knowing that you not only have REDUNDANT Defense Tokens (the AFMK-II suffers by only having 1 of each), as well as DOUBLE DEFENSIVE Retrofit.

Just even on the face of it, it doesn't pass the Pub Test, and will need greater revision.

Personally, I think the BIGGEST part of it that's out of Whack is the Navigation Chart. Placing Double-Yaws at the End of EVERY Speed screams hyper-maneuverable, because its usually THAT tick that determines your Double Arc or Not.... The AFMK-II is considered a VERY maneuverable ship, and it doesn't have it...

If it maintains its yaw at speed, its failing a big part of the pub test... I mean, its Yaw is SO GOOD that, really, you only get benefit from a madine Dial at speed 3...

You forgot to give a minus red and blue on the rear arc

Double arcing with the A-11A7 fewer guns to front and rear is less stellar than a AF2. so the extra maneuvrablility gives less in firepower, than it would in a otherwise heaviler armed ship.

FYI the AF2 has also only full benefit from Madine at speed 3, so...?

Still, Arc Lines themselves are something that aren't discussed - and if it has Arc Lines similar to the Broadsiding AFMK-II and MC80, then although you may pass the most basic of pub tests, you simply will not pass it off as anything cheaper than 81pts...

And of course, Passing the Pub Test simply means you won't get beaten and tossed outbefore you finish your beer.

You'll get to finish before people decide wether they'll do that...

So some work needs to be done to make it 'reasonable'... Because a lot of its Positives are completely and utterly out-weighing its Negatives.

Still, Arc Lines themselves are something that aren't discussed - and if it has Arc Lines similar to the Broadsiding AFMK-II and MC80, then although you may pass the most basic of pub tests, you simply will not pass it off as anything cheaper than 81pts...

And of course, Passing the Pub Test simply means you won't get beaten and tossed outbefore you finish your beer.

You'll get to finish before people decide wether they'll do that...

So some work needs to be done to make it 'reasonable'... Because a lot of its Positives are completely and utterly out-weighing its Negatives.

That is also why I rose the point value to 89pts, as it lies inbetween a AF2 and MC80 Starcruiser.

I believe the Star Cruiser is a poor choice in the matter there, as you are comparing to something that has a completely different use...

You should be midway between 81 (AFMK-A), and 114 (MC80 Assault) as they both have Broadside builds, two Blue AA Dice, and Reduced Squadron Capability in order to pack on more weapons than their Bretherin...

I mean, Take the MC80 Assault. It has, what, 4 more Shields overall, some more Blue Dice (but the same amount of Reds Front and Side), an Ion Slot... It keeps the Double Defensive Retrofit, has Redundant Redircts (But only a Brace and a Contain)... One More Hull... BUT, it has a FRACTION of the Movement Chart, AND the Speed... And its 114 Points... Well. Over. One. Hundred.

4 Shields and a Hull, well, losing that isn't anything to sneeze at... But a Redundant Brace means DOUBLE the amount of hits it takes is Reduced by Half. That is a Lot. A Lot of a Lot.

Speed 3 with its Move Chart is just... Goddess Above and Below, I don't think I'd fly anything else given that Maneuver Chart. There is absolutely no downside to it...

Basically, it boils down to this feeling:

Is the Loss of:
4 Shields
1 Hull
4 Blue Dice (total)

An Ion Slot

Worth the Gain of:

Speed 3
Double Yaw at the End of Every Speed

-15 to 20 Odd Points.

You feel it is.

I feel it isn't.

Custom Designs should always be inherently more expensive than baseline designs, because in the very instance of a custom design, you are getting what you want, with a baseline design, you're not.

I believe the Star Cruiser is a poor choice in the matter there, as you are comparing to something that has a completely different use...

You should be midway between 81 (AFMK-A), and 114 (MC80 Assault) as they both have Broadside builds, two Blue AA Dice, and Reduced Squadron Capability in order to pack on more weapons than their Bretherin...

I mean, Take the MC80 Assault. It has, what, 4 more Shields overall, some more Blue Dice (but the same amount of Reds Front and Side), an Ion Slot... It keeps the Double Defensive Retrofit, has Redundant Redircts (But only a Brace and a Contain)... One More Hull... BUT, it has a FRACTION of the Movement Chart, AND the Speed... And its 114 Points... Well. Over. One. Hundred.

4 Shields and a Hull, well, losing that isn't anything to sneeze at... But a Redundant Brace means DOUBLE the amount of hits it takes is Reduced by Half. That is a Lot. A Lot of a Lot.

Speed 3 with its Move Chart is just... Goddess Above and Below, I don't think I'd fly anything else given that Maneuver Chart. There is absolutely no downside to it...

Basically, it boils down to this feeling:

Is the Loss of:

4 Shields

1 Hull

4 Blue Dice (total)

An Ion Slot

Worth the Gain of:

Speed 3

Double Yaw at the End of Every Speed

-15 to 20 Odd Points.

You feel it is.

I feel it isn't.

Custom Designs should always be inherently more expensive than baseline designs, because in the very instance of a custom design, you are getting what you want, with a baseline design, you're not.

That's sound valid, so which point cost would you suggest? 114pts? 120pts?

Okay there is a 33pts difference between an AF2 and a MC80 Assault. so if we say at least half way if not two thirds up, that would land us in the 97pts to 103pts range....hmmm

So that would be right smack in the MC80 Liberty point cost range.

That could really raise the question: "Would you prefer a A-11A7 over a MC80 Liberty?"

Hey the more options we have the merrier

If any other have a point cost suggestion please throw some numbers at me.

That could really raise the question: "Would you prefer a A-11A7 over a MC80 Liberty?"

Do I have Ackbar?

Then Yes.

That could really raise the question: "Would you prefer a A-11A7 over a MC80 Liberty?"

Do I have Ackbar?

Then Yes.

Going once, Goinge twice.... Sold! To the gentleman in the Wookiee furcoat in the third row

Again, that's part of the problem with it.

It would be almost exactly what I wanted for that price point...

Its got:

1) Outrageous Defensive posture, with multiple redundant tokens, in a game era where people are transiting away from XI7s and HTTs in order to further utilise ACC results (such as through QTTs or H9s)

2) Outrageous Maneuverability at speed 3. Outdoing even the vaunted Assault Frigate.

3) Completely cut the crap on its shooting. It shoots Reds, it abuses its speed and nav chart to stay at Range.

4) Doesn't have Great Squad Capability, but can still assist the Squad Game by having the Support slot take Flight Coordination Teams.

5) Is Priced a chunk cheaper than an MC80 Assault Retrofit, (even at 95-100 points) while providing every ounce the long-range firepower.

6) Is Redundant in BOTH of the most important tokens... The only way its better is if it had a Scatter!

So, yeah. I'd take it. I'd take it in a heartbeat, because its everything I want in a ship at that point...

And that's a bad thing. To me, at least.

It is too good. It would have to be 100+ at least.

Made a edit, does it make it more of a challenge now?