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.

Where's the gunner in the Y-wing? Or the 2 crew slots in the Arc-170?

Or more significantly, does it matter that FFG don't always follow the "canon" of a fictional universe when deciding what abilities and upgrades to give fictional space ships ???? Fortunately FFG decided to overlook "becomes a liability in a space" as well the the bombardier...

I've been a star wars fan for nearly 40 years, I've been an X-wing fan for nearly 5. Why do people get so upset when something doesn't conform to the "canon" which changes, repeatedly...

What did we get? A ship with a nice new pre-maneuver movement (really nice) with a really slow (not even a STRAIGHT 4) dial.

Because with the Ailerons forward 3 is forward 5.

Where's the gunner in the Y-wing? Or the 2 crew slots in the Arc-170?

Operating the turret and tailgun respectively. The third crew in the ARC is the crew slot.

What did we get? A ship with a nice new pre-maneuver movement (really nice) with a really slow (not even a STRAIGHT 4) dial.

Because with the Ailerons forward 3 is forward 5.

Where's the gunner in the Y-wing? Or the 2 crew slots in the Arc-170?

Operating the turret and tailgun respectively. The third crew in the ARC is the crew slot.

You mean four right Brah?

Pfff, this again?

So many ships are wildly different from the canon in-universe versions.

Gameplay/balance > fluff

What did we get? A ship with a nice new pre-maneuver movement (really nice) with a really slow (not even a STRAIGHT 4) dial.

Because with the Ailerons forward 3 is forward 5.

Where's the gunner in the Y-wing? Or the 2 crew slots in the Arc-170?

Operating the turret and tailgun respectively. The third crew in the ARC is the crew slot.

You mean four right Brah?

What did we get? A ship with a nice new pre-maneuver movement (really nice) with a really slow (not even a STRAIGHT 4) dial.

Because with the Ailerons forward 3 is forward 5.

Where's the gunner in the Y-wing? Or the 2 crew slots in the Arc-170?

Operating the turret and tailgun respectively. The third crew in the ARC is the crew slot.

You mean four right Brah?

No, 5 is correct. You aren't accounting for the space the base takes up, which is equivalent to a 1 forward.

What did we get? A ship with a nice new pre-maneuver movement (really nice) with a really slow (not even a STRAIGHT 4) dial.

Because with the Ailerons forward 3 is forward 5.

Where's the gunner in the Y-wing? Or the 2 crew slots in the Arc-170?

Operating the turret and tailgun respectively. The third crew in the ARC is the crew slot.

You mean four right Brah?

No, forward 3 on the Striker with title is the same as a forward 5, because you also have the base length between the mandatory boost and actual maneuver.

DUR... yeah of course, thanks!

What did we get? A ship with a nice new pre-maneuver movement (really nice) with a really slow (not even a STRAIGHT 4) dial.

Because with the Ailerons forward 3 is forward 5.

Where's the gunner in the Y-wing? Or the 2 crew slots in the Arc-170?

Operating the turret and tailgun respectively. The third crew in the ARC is the crew slot.

You mean four right Brah?

No. I mean five. Try it.

A forward 3 then a forward 1 on a small based ship is equivalent to a forward 5 because the base length gets added to the movement.

No. I mean five. Try it.

A forward 3 then a forward 1 on a small based ship is equivalent to a forward 5 because the base length gets added to the movement.

This.

With the title active, they arent slow. They are moving a minimum of 3, which actually is not a bad thing because it also enables them to do things other ships cant: they can 4bank/turn or 3turnK or almost rebound w/o stress to continue shooting or effectively do a 5K with a barrelroll by 1bank one way and 2sloop the other.

They are fast. I made the mistake of having a slow support ship around my first game so they basically acted without support majority of my game and still ran circles around everyone because theyre just so dang fast and turn so dang quick.

That dial is misleading. Dont look at the dial w/o the title, because otherwise youre looking at a ship thats as bad as a bomber if not slower.

Remember, its not "increase your maneuver speed by 1" its "perform a 1speed maneuver" which means basehopping, which is another 1fwd on your overall flight pattern.

What did we get? A ship with a nice new pre-maneuver movement (really nice) with a really slow (not even a STRAIGHT 4) dial.

Because with the Ailerons forward 3 is forward 5.

Where's the gunner in the Y-wing? Or the 2 crew slots in the Arc-170?

Operating the turret and tailgun respectively. The third crew in the ARC is the crew slot.

Again, well thought and typed Blue. True that the ARC has a pilot, middle crew navigator and a rear tail gunner. What I don't get is the Tail Gunner crew card. If it is an upgraded tail gunner, should it take the crew slot on the ARC? I mean the middle guy is facing forward and has no weapon facing rearward. I also think the TIE SF should be able to take Tail Gunner.....its logical on the ARC not burning the crew slot, and it being allowed on the TIE SF.

Sorry for the "rabbit trail."

I can't wait till I get a TIE Striker to learn how it flies; looks fun!

While we're on the topic of not related to cannon, where's the 7-straight maneuver on my Defender, or the 8-straight on my A-wing?

Plus, why doesn't my X-wing have a primary weapon value of 4 - it routinely killed TIEs in 1 shot?

Boba, Zuckuss, Bossk and Dengar don't work well together, so what happened there?

And why is the Emperor in a shuttle? Does he do that in unstable territory regularly?

On to the real stuff:

Giving the Striker a bomb and/or crew slot bumps its price up and over that of the bomber, which is a more durable frame that can do either crew or bombs in a far superior manner. By doing so, you're effectively shutting the Striker out of the Imperial dynamic. As is, it fills a slot of "cheap ATT 3 platform" that the imperials currently lack. Again, there are so many ships that lack all the upgrades that they should have, but they are given the necessary tools to feel right in the game.

Also, why doesn't my Falcon have 4 crew slots? I want my four crew. Han, Leia, Luke, Chewy, R2-D2, C-3PO, Lando. Wait... Six crew slots...

What did we get? A ship with a nice new pre-maneuver movement (really nice) with a really slow (not even a STRAIGHT 4) dial.

Because with the Ailerons forward 3 is forward 5.

Where's the gunner in the Y-wing? Or the 2 crew slots in the Arc-170?

Operating the turret and tailgun respectively. The third crew in the ARC is the crew slot.

You miss understand, I am more than happy with both of that, (but badly englanded... )

The bombs in the striker are small, ground attack proton bombs not the large "tie bomber" style proton bombs.

I'm simply trying to throw some perspective on the "Striker should have a crew slot and bomb slot, plus be faster (although X-wing is a non-atmosphere based game)" argument the OP put forward. With engine on the Striker I believe it's as fast if not faster than a tie interceptor, the OP has bemoaned the lack of the above extra options whilst omitting the point that it says at the bottom of his "canon" document that essentially the adaptive system and clever atmospheric and gravatic systems on the Tie Striker actually hinder its performance operating outside an atmosphere and in limited gravity situations. In this extrapolated miniature game, based on a science fiction universe, not everything comes across as people think it should... sometimes things are omitted because of relevance (or lack thereof).

Pfff, this again?

So many ships are wildly different from the canon in-universe versions.

Gameplay/balance > fluff

While I understand the sentiment, it is rather facetious. Why bother using minis at all? Why bother playing a Star Wars game then?

The issue is that FFG is designing the ships and pilots without being given any information, or at least adequate info. Because the game is set in Star Wars, I put forth that Gameplay/Balance = fluff. If not true, why play THIS game? Not to mention, one selling point is, barring epic play, all ships are in scale to each other - a purely fluff consideration.

My intent is not to complain about FFG's creation of the fighter as is, not to whine that it should have bombs or crew. The intent is to highlight the erroneous nature concerning one source or another. There will be far more people who read and buy the visual guide than the x-wing miniatures game, so perhaps our game should try to conform, the only way to do that is likely to stop trying to create material that coincides with a movie release - which may be an impossibility.

Calling out the size of the bombs is not fully valid. We have thermal detonators as a bomb type, and the only thermal detonators we have ever seen are handheld.

Why bother?

Because it is still star wars

And, more importantly, it is still fun

Not to spoil anything, but based on what is shown on-screen FFG's TIE Striker seems accurate enough. FFG could have watched the movie and came up with the ship that they did.

Not to spoil anything, but based on what is shown on-screen FFG's TIE Striker seems accurate enough. FFG could have watched the movie and came up with the ship that they did.

This seems to be our issue. I haven't seen the film yet, but based on what people are saying, it seems like with about a year of lead time there wasn't necessarily this information for them to get. Even if they watched like, a rough cut of the film they wouldn't have this. It's only come out in supplemental material released around the film, and who knows when people decided that it was a thing. It's something FFG can easily supplement, anyway. And, let's not forget, LFL signed off on all this. I don't know how much detail about the game the people who review the material do, but I hope they have enough to actually understand what they're approving. So somebody looked at the Striker, noted it didn't have the little squiggles for bombs or whatever and said "Yeah, this is fine to print, it represents this IP okay".

honestly, the only reason anyone should be upset over the lack of bombs is that bombs would be amazing with Adaptives

imagine the shenanigans!

but then we'd have people crying foul about the Striker being a better bomber than...the bomber

Perhaps this card would fix all thematic issues with the striker.

The above is a compromise. A fex thoughts I had:

- Adding a crew slot wouldnt quite cut it, nobody wants to see Hux riding a striker and it would pretty much repalce the TIE Shuttle. Also Tactician could be too powerful.

- Just adding a bomb slot would not address the second crew member and also feel a bit stale.

Do note that the Bombardier is a 1-off, costing 1 point. Hence, the cheapest option here would be seismics+bombardier for 3 points, lifting generic ps 1 strikers to 20 points - and comparing this to the actual bomber, he's still not out of the game, since he can equip extra munitions... not to mention there's deathfire.

Perhaps it's too powerful on high PS Strikers such as Duchess? Playtesting could alter its cost.

The above is a compromise.

I'd maybe even go as far as having a bomb capability preclude you from taking lightened frame.

You can either be agile OR carry bombs.

Well, in the case above it does, since its a mod.

I didn't see them dropping any bombs, or anyhow showing the assumed crewman in the movie.

They did some fast flying and were basically somewhat larger (more Hull, bigger guns, anyone?) atmospheric TIE fighters, that's it. Not a whole lot of them, either.

I can't really see where people have problems with that. For me, actual footage from the movie I went to, trumps any drawn album of "artistic vision of what's inside" nonsense.

I don't need someone to point an arrow at a gun and tell me "laser cannon barrel", or worse; make up stuff that is supposed to sound smart, but mostly end up being cringeworthy like "scientific explanations" crap in kids' shows/superhero movies.

The TIE Striker we have is functionally like the TIE Striker we see in the movie, or close enough to not care about the details.

I'd rather enjoy those sweet new, innovative movement mechanics, instead.

Just my 2 cents.

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.

It might have been something other than the Striker (I swear I saw another new type of TIE that kind of looked like a Striker but with ssomething that looked like a spoiler) but it looks like the Striker was used for troop insertion. There's a scene in the movie where a hatch in the back opens up and 4 Imperial troopers charge out of it.

If that's the case, this book contradicts what was shown on screen.

It was a different ship, with similar wings but larger body.