I think one can assume that FFG simply did not have all the information. They've gone to great lengths to make ships as accurate as possible to their canonical representations. LFL probably didn't communicate everything.

I'm pretty sure that these mistakes can, and will, be fixed in an aces style expansion.

I understand the wanting (need) to cash in on the movie release - it is marketing. But, unlike the Hasbro toys where some leeway I can understand. This game needs some semblance of cohesion with what other sources say.

I can understand some ideas, like the SF, the TIE/SK not having crew, but with the bomb rack - and remember we have thermal detonators as a bomb type in game, represented by how the handheld ones look - it should be represented.

I kind of wish that FFG could wait a bit for some things, so they don't come off as completely incorrect.

While the knee-jerk reaction is certainly to point fingers at FFG...

...I mean, Lucasfilm/Disney has an entire department of people whose ONLY JOB is to ensure consistency of 'accuracy' across all the various licensees.

The TIE Striker seems a particularly egregious breach of that, given we now have:

- TIE Strikers that are fast and maneuverable with no weapons more substantial than a TIE Interceptor (FFG)

- TIE Strikers with a 360 'turret' gun (Hasbro)

- TIE Strikers with the same main weapons as a TIE Interceptor, alongside a second crew, bombs/mine dispenser, and 'heavy cannons' (Official Visual Guide) that are described as slow and unmaneuverable

It's just...owww. What the heck is the whole point of having people on the payroll to monitor and provide feedback on what is 'canon' or not if they can whiff this badly...

(I certainly don't envy the wiki writers who try to make heads or tails of this mess...)

And people say Legends was inconsistent and that's why they needed to scrap it . . .

Yeah. This is the first time I've been genuinely unimpressed with Disney's QA on Star Wars. Granted, the thing only ever got shot down...

Looking at the visual guide - the bombadier and "bombs" seem to be more anti-personnel or anti-ground. I.e. - of little use in a dogfight. Adding a bomb slot on the card would therefore go against its canonical intended use - you could stick big bombs or mines on a craft that isnt meant to hold or drop such ordnance.

Same goes for the number of laser canons. I am so sick of people saying "yeah, but this ship has x-number of canons, therefore it should have x-number of attack dice". Number of cannons is different from offensive potential. We dont know the relative energy of the blast compared to an X-wing or Squint. Plus 2 of the 6 appear to be, again, anti-ground/anti-armour. So again - not relevant to a space doghfighting game

Finally, FFG would have developed this ship months ago - going back as far as half a year, probably, considering production lead times. Could have been more even. They would have had likited, if any, access to footage from Lucasfilm or to concrete technical information. And yet if they just announced it today - to come outside in the summer, i can guarantee there would be people on here whining that they have to wait to re-enact Scarif.

We got a fun and interesting new ship to add to the Imperial Fleet. I don't need it to have a 4 die primary, and a cannon slot would be wasted on a ship this expensive with this few hull.

Bombs could be interesting, sure.

The new ships don't have the benefit of decades of fan discussion and EU fiction nitpicking every last detail.

Official sources are some dude making up stuff about imaginary spaceships.

And why does the Striker look like a cocktail wiener with wings?

I really which they would just wait on the movie releases. It's better to have one good release than one mess up followed by a correction that just adds more complication to the game (cough *HotR* cough).

(Not that I don't like HotR. I just wish that it had taken the place of the TFA core).

I think one can assume that FFG simply did not have all the information. They've gone to great lengths to make ships as accurate as possible to their canonical representations. LFL probably didn't communicate everything.

I'm pretty sure that these mistakes can, and will, be fixed in an aces style expansion.

It's not like the writers of the Visual Guide were only tipped off as to what the ship needed to look like a day before they had to go to press.

No, they would have had to have basically everything seen on that page many, many months ago, themselves.

Honestly, this is really mostly the fault of Disney's "story group" for dropping the ball on their QA.

Haven't seen the movie yet, but perhaps that's all FFG had to go on. If all they saw was a few scenes with Strikers going "pew, pew," and none of the schematic stuff was available, they probably just sat down and were like, "So...it flies in the atmosphere." Does it drop bombs or fire lasers of alternate color in the movie? If not, what would they have to go on? Nothing.

I'm definitely getting one, since Swarm Leader is a must have card for any self-respectinging imperial player, but probably not more. The ship seems kinda underwhelming, and will probably get a buff with a new modification (not title) in the future anyway, so expect bomb and cannon slot then.

TRIGGER WARNING:

Also, since we now have an imperial ship with both bomb and cannon slots, kiss your hopes of a gunboat good-by.

It is of note that my dissapointment is less from there being a mistake, and more that this is not the first, nor the last, time this issue will happen. It certainly stems from Lucasfilm not divulging info to FFG, or Pablo Hidalgo (and other powers that be) writing material after FFG has already planned the expansion.

Take Poe as an example; we get the lower pilot skill version first because FFG was not given anything about how good a pilot he was and what we see on film. This is why we get red and blue ace opposed to the named pilots after films release. So we get an ace pack with an effective reprint card.

Sadly, FFG is given the word to make a ship TIE'd into the movie, because the licence demands it, and then the new media proves it incorrect.

Gamers are a niche market, of a niche (star wars fans) and at the bottom of the chain for info.

In addition, I imagine FFG actually prefers to wait, bit I'd bet my socks that Disney pressuring them hard to they the movie March out in a timely fashion.

Soo.. according to the visual dictionary for Rogue One, the TIE striker has a pilot and a bombardier. Yep.. this experimental craft drops bombs.

Perhaps version 2.0 of x-wing will TRY to follow canon.

I smell a Title card at a later date.

Pretty simple fix actually since AA isn't auto-include by any means.

Title: Tie/Sk. Your upgrade bar gains either a crew slot or a bomb slot. You may spend up to 3pts on bombs or crew.

Title: Tie/SK SF: You may attack outside your forward arc. Treat this attack as a secondary weapon. 5pts?

20pts for a striker with a proximity mine? sold. 22pts for a small ship turret with a really slow but dogfighty dial?

Yeah. This is the first time I've been genuinely unimpressed with Disney's QA on Star Wars. Granted, the thing only ever got shot down...

The first . . . But not the last.

Well looks like Boss Central Game Room One will have to have a nice HEAVY STRIKER Title that adds Cannon and Bomb slots... up in the stacks of paper; YUP!

After that we got the terrible /sf and the meh Striker, neither of which accurately represent the ship they are modeled after.

I'm guessing you've gotten like, what, 2 game in with both those ships you so easily write off. I have a feeling we will see more /SFs now that people have had their hands on them longer. The striker is way to early to call out yet. Man, it's like the x7 and Palpatine complaining that it wasn't enough before people have even tried the ships.

Well, I always said it should have a bomb slot...

Sooner or later, FFG will have to make a errata/revision pack of cards.

It's unavoidable. It's their destiny.

I understand the wanting (need) to cash in on the movie release - it is marketing. But, unlike the Hasbro toys where some leeway I can understand. This game needs some semblance of cohesion with what other sources say.

I can understand some ideas, like the SF, the TIE/SK not having crew, but with the bomb rack - and remember we have thermal detonators as a bomb type in game, represented by how the handheld ones look - it should be represented.

I kind of wish that FFG could wait a bit for some things, so they don't come off as completely incorrect.

While the knee-jerk reaction is certainly to point fingers at FFG...

...I mean, Lucasfilm/Disney has an entire department of people whose ONLY JOB is to ensure consistency of 'accuracy' across all the various licensees.

The TIE Striker seems a particularly egregious breach of that, given we now have:

- TIE Strikers that are fast and maneuverable with no weapons more substantial than a TIE Interceptor (FFG)

- TIE Strikers with a 360 'turret' gun (Hasbro)

- TIE Strikers with the same main weapons as a TIE Interceptor, alongside a second crew, bombs/mine dispenser, and 'heavy cannons' (Official Visual Guide) that are described as slow and unmaneuverable

It's just...owww. What the heck is the whole point of having people on the payroll to monitor and provide feedback on what is 'canon' or not if they can whiff this badly...

(I certainly don't envy the wiki writers who try to make heads or tails of this mess...)

And people say Legends was inconsistent and that's why they needed to scrap it . . .

Looking at the visual guide - the bombadier and "bombs" seem to be more anti-personnel or anti-ground. I.e. - of little use in a dogfight. Adding a bomb slot on the card would therefore go against its canonical intended use - you could stick big bombs or mines on a craft that isnt meant to hold or drop such ordnance.

Same goes for the number of laser canons. I am so sick of people saying "yeah, but this ship has x-number of canons, therefore it should have x-number of attack dice". Number of cannons is different from offensive potential. We dont know the relative energy of the blast compared to an X-wing or Squint. Plus 2 of the 6 appear to be, again, anti-ground/anti-armour. So again - not relevant to a space doghfighting game

Finally, FFG would have developed this ship months ago - going back as far as half a year, probably, considering production lead times. Could have been more even. They would have had likited, if any, access to footage from Lucasfilm or to concrete technical information. And yet if they just announced it today - to come outside in the summer, i can guarantee there would be people on here whining that they have to wait to re-enact Scarif.

Read your post, and I immediately knew you were way too sensible to be a common contributor to these forums. Thanks for being clear and precise in your evaluation of the topic being discussed.

Looking at the visual guide - the bombadier and "bombs" seem to be more anti-personnel or anti-ground. I.e. - of little use in a dogfight. Adding a bomb slot on the card would therefore go against its canonical intended use - you could stick big bombs or mines on a craft that isnt meant to hold or drop such ordnance.

Same goes for the number of laser canons. I am so sick of people saying "yeah, but this ship has x-number of canons, therefore it should have x-number of attack dice". Number of cannons is different from offensive potential. We dont know the relative energy of the blast compared to an X-wing or Squint. Plus 2 of the 6 appear to be, again, anti-ground/anti-armour. So again - not relevant to a space doghfighting game

Finally, FFG would have developed this ship months ago - going back as far as half a year, probably, considering production lead times. Could have been more even. They would have had likited, if any, access to footage from Lucasfilm or to concrete technical information. And yet if they just announced it today - to come outside in the summer, i can guarantee there would be people on here whining that they have to wait to re-enact Scarif.

Read your post, and I immediately knew you were way too sensible to be a common contributor to these forums. Thanks for being clear and precise in your evaluation of the topic being discussed.

Just to be clear - you are complimenting a poster who suggests orbital mines are meant to be 'mostly anti-ground or anti-personnel'?

Or did you maybe just not look at the thing the OP posted, as the person you quoted obviously hadn't?

As an Imperial player, FFG has been whiffing on our ships for a while now. I haven't liked any of the new ships in a long time. Every other ******* scum or terrorist ship can carry crew, but our crewed fighters can't. Every other faction gets loads of great unique crew and upgrade slots. We get very little crew and have no unique upgrades.

I'm tired of dealing with the terrorist sympathizers at FFG. It's time the dev staff were sent to the mines and replaced with some true loyalists.

Funny, I've heard similar complaints about the Imperial sympathizers at FFG. Providing unique pilots with great abilities and high PS, ships that can fly rings around most of the Rebelships, over pricing Rebel ships and pilots... Each faction has similar complaints about the FFG developers. The only thing that varies is the particulars of the complaint. On the tedium scale it's up there with X-Wing fixes and the Gunboat.

Yeah, I figured as much when that mobile game update made them a bomber. At least for FFG, it's an easy fix. TIE/SK title, gain some combination of Crew, Bomb and Cannon Slot. It reflects the slowness because it removed Ailerons from the ship, so it's a max 3 speed craft.

I'm gonna lean toward this was probably being LFL's fault. In recent article (which was on StarWars.com, interestingly enough) they actually talked about the Rogue One ships for X-Wing, and mentioned FFG has been working on them for about a year, and playtesters had to operate ships and cards under codenames. So, if the Striker doesn't bomb stuff on screen, so it wasn't, say, a critical component of the ship's description, it's presence in the script or in early design notes... then FFG wouldn't get that information until whoever decided this was a good fact to include. Then, of course, you're racing the clock on the movie being released with printing and shipping and all that fun stuff - if LFL took note of an "error" in the TIE Striker design for the miniatures game, it's possible FFG couldn't do anything without delaying the product - which I'm sure neither they or Lucasfilm/Disney would want. Now, in about 12 months now that this book is out and there's no whisper of an aces box or an epic bundle with a Striker in it, we might revisit this conversation about FFG not doing their due diligence to depict ships as accurately as they can.

people will complain to complain, no matter the reason. The only bit i complain about that i feel is genuine is the entirety of the JM5k, but thats a specific and single ship not a faction's overpower or underpower tendencies.

I wouldnt ever say the imperials are favored or being picked on. The striker really should have had a bomb slot, i can understand no crew since theyre operating the bombs. But after playing with the striker, i think giving it bombs might be a bit strong. I had an unbelievable amount of positions where a bomb would have been delicious to drop.

Looking at the visual guide - the bombadier and "bombs" seem to be more anti-personnel or anti-ground. I.e. - of little use in a dogfight. Adding a bomb slot on the card would therefore go against its canonical intended use - you could stick big bombs or mines on a craft that isnt meant to hold or drop such ordnance.

Same goes for the number of laser canons. I am so sick of people saying "yeah, but this ship has x-number of canons, therefore it should have x-number of attack dice". Number of cannons is different from offensive potential. We dont know the relative energy of the blast compared to an X-wing or Squint. Plus 2 of the 6 appear to be, again, anti-ground/anti-armour. So again - not relevant to a space doghfighting game

Finally, FFG would have developed this ship months ago - going back as far as half a year, probably, considering production lead times. Could have been more even. They would have had likited, if any, access to footage from Lucasfilm or to concrete technical information. And yet if they just announced it today - to come outside in the summer, i can guarantee there would be people on here whining that they have to wait to re-enact Scarif.

Read your post, and I immediately knew you were way too sensible to be a common contributor to these forums. Thanks for being clear and precise in your evaluation of the topic being discussed.

Just to be clear - you are complimenting a poster who suggests orbital mines are meant to be 'mostly anti-ground or anti-personnel'?

Or did you maybe just not look at the thing the OP posted, as the person you quoted obviously hadn't?

Perhaps version 2.0 of x-wing will TRY to follow canon.

To be fair(R1 spoiler):

And seems rather specifically designed to be anti-ship.

It's still fixable with a new title - if we get a 'Rogue One' core set or something like that. Perhaps the Adaptive Aileron + Lightened Frame combo reflects a stripped-down 'fighter' version and we'll get a new title something like...I dunno...

I kind of wish that FFG could wait a bit for some things, so they don't come off as completely incorrect.

(I certainly don't envy the wiki writers who try to make heads or tails of this mess...)

Looking at the visual guide - the bombadier and "bombs" seem to be more anti-personnel or anti-ground. I.e. - of little use in a dogfight. Adding a bomb slot on the card would therefore go against its canonical intended use - you could stick big bombs or mines on a craft that isnt meant to hold or drop such ordnance.

Same goes for the number of laser canons. I am so sick of people saying "yeah, but this ship has x-number of canons, therefore it should have x-number of attack dice". Number of cannons is different from offensive potential. We dont know the relative energy of the blast compared to an X-wing or Squint. Plus 2 of the 6 appear to be, again, anti-ground/anti-armour. So again - not relevant to a space doghfighting game

Finally, FFG would have developed this ship months ago - going back as far as half a year, probably, considering production lead times. Could have been more even. They would have had likited, if any, access to footage from Lucasfilm or to concrete technical information. And yet if they just announced it today - to come outside in the summer, i can guarantee there would be people on here whining that they have to wait to re-enact Scarif.

Well the good news is the TIE striker doesn't actually bomb things in a dogfight... bad news is, those of you wanting a ground campaign are going to have to homebrew it... for now.