I think this ship was made incorrectly.

I would think it should have a single (bomb) upgrade icon and a single (crew) upgrade icon on all models.

Perhaps some of you pricing experts could weigh in with how much that might add to each model.

This is a ground support fighter that is, according to the "Rogue One Ultimate Visual Guide", 'more speeder than fighter'.

It was developed because standard TIEs don't do very well when asked to fly in atmosphere instead of space. The TIE/sk only has a higher atmospheric speed than the TIE/ln: I would assume in space the Striker loses it's appeal.

It got me thinking a bit: maybe it would be cool to have 2 dials (space and atmosphere) for the TIEs. Likely many Rebel craft would be equally good in either environment.

Furthermore, the adaptive ailerons feature might only apply inside an atmosphere (the Striker's wings have extra repulsorlift coils in them, which would seem to be most effective near the ground).

Best of all, this space/atmosphere split might make for good integration into a ground component to this game (starfighters have to shoot AT-ATs soon in this game!)

this has been brought up repeatedly, and the standing conclusion was that the visual guide was pretty at odds with the Striker's on-screen depiction where it dropped exactly 0 bombs

it is also a good case of gameplay > fluff so as not to overcomplicate the relatively simple, accessible rules with stuff like two dials on one ship

I'd love bomb slots on these things, because adaptives make them hilarious good bombers, but alas it was not meant to be

The Lucasfilm Story Group (Pablo Hidalgo) wrote the "Ultimate Visual Guide" for Rogue One.

It's not "wrong".

I presume FFG did not know much about the Striker before making the game piece.

It's apparently a ground support craft, only faster than a standard TIE while in the atmosphere. It's got better cannons and carries bombs.

The FFG marketing material mentions the " exceptional atmospheric maneuverability" but says this 2-seat mini bomber is "sleek and agile". I would say the TIE/in is much sleeker looking (and decidedly more agile in space).

why is "wrong" in quotes when no one said it was wrong

I presume that R1 also didn't know much about the striker either, because it didn't drop bombs in that despite even rebel troops taking up entrenched positions that could've used a good airstrike or two

instead, they just chased around and shot at x-wings/u-wings (like in the game, if you ever see an x-wing)

they also never gave reason to believe they ferried crewmembers around because Krennic explicitly rode in some weirdass TIE we only see once in the movie, while strikers escorted it

honestly, these ultimate visual guides are fun and all, but they're not like religious doctrine.

they're a fun add-on to expand our appreciation for these ship designs, even though ultimately all these subtle details never actually impact even the movies the ships are in

The striker is a fun ship to fly as it is so not like i care. Had it been movie accurate it would be a super slow powerhouse that lacked the defensive capabilities to avoid being shot down first round.

Also i doubt FFG didnt have anything to go on for the striker designs. EVERY toy company out there mentioned the swivel chin guns, bomb compartments, and secondary crew container in the back. Yet FFG somehow never got the memo its suppose to have a bomb loadout and/or a crew slot?
Current iteration would be interesting with bombs though. I love seismics and its so hard to use multiples of them

Best way to do this for my money would be an alternative title - Orbital Operations (IIRC the guide said it was an orbital mine layer), gain a crew slot and a bomb slot and a free copy of EM, instead of Ailerons.

Fickle is correct this one I think. This trail has been walked back when she was spoiled. After learning how this movie was created and then filmed, altered, and parts filmed again --friend is in the industry and he says, from a 'movie making' perspective, Rogue One is a disaster, I see how the FFG designers had little to nothing to go on for the ship, and the Disney review staff had little to say in reply to the design except, "yes, it looks like that."

If you want to complain about a ship that missed the boat on a crew, it's the TIE SF; now that was done "incorrectly." They had all the info on her, and the main characters fly it and it's clear as a bell. Game-play over accuracy, I know man, I know. But this ship was to be multi-role Special Forces and that other dude does more than man the rear gun. That was a missed opportunity my friends.

Idk we only ever see poe/finn in one amd all finn does is shoot other guns

And banter, but i cant imagine the gameplay benefit there

Only miss on the sf is "damn this thing can move!"

2 minutes ago, ficklegreendice said:

Only miss on the sf is "damn this thing can move!"

This.

As well, thx!

4 minutes ago, ficklegreendice said:

but i cant imagine the gameplay benefit there

I can.....

3 minutes ago, ficklegreendice said:

Idk we only ever see poe/finn in one amd all finn does is shoot other guns

And banter, but i cant imagine the gameplay benefit there

Only miss on the sf is "damn this thing can move!"

Exactly. The only thing we know about the Tie/SF is it has two seats,(so a crew could or could not be appropriate) it has lasers, missiles, and " mag-pulse" and " can really move!" That last bit was said by arguably the best pilot in the SW universe who learned to fly in an Awing and currently flies a T70. Then we get the Tie/SF and it flies like a brick. A little bit annoying.

5 minutes ago, clanofwolves said:

I can.....

I wish

Backdraft would have a f'ing field day if he could get that crew and not sacrifice anything.

His farts are nasty as it is.

Also, it doesnt have a crew because of the aux arc. Finn wasnt sitting there doing nothing, he was operating a gun.
Crew slots indicate theres a seat on the ship that isnt mandatory to fly the ship to begin with.

Just now, Vineheart01 said:

Backdraft would have a f'ing field day if he could get that crew and not sacrifice anything.

His farts are nasty as it is.

Basically norra but without the defense

In fluff, though, i think crew gunners are just extra guns

Like han and luke in the falcon

Or on the arc, which has two buttguns and is a 3-seater (pilot controls big guns, then conceivably you get the aux arc guy and the third guy helping him out)

not sure about the spray. Guess itcis easier to fly around while you got someone else taking care of the 180 swively guns than if you had to both fly and aim them

Except Norra requires action stacking to be a real threat, Backdraft requires FCS and multiple strikes at the same target, which both having an aux arc can do easily.

hell, often my Backdraft play is dedicated to barrelrolls for his action and nothing else, leaving the TL to do the modding and autocrit from ability. Im already putting Outmaneuver on him, if i could stack Tailgunner too? good god.

8 minutes ago, Vineheart01 said:

Crew slots indicate theres a seat on the ship that isnt mandatory to fly the ship to begin with.

What about TIE Phantom?

Pablo also has said that the visual guides and other material have to be written while the film is in production and complete and edited and ready to publish before the film is released, same problem FFG has with ships. So even if they're "canon" (which Pablo's also said some things about on twitter) that doesn't make FFG's design choices "wrong" or incorrect or anything. U-Wings don't have torpedo launchers standard - do people who talk about how ships are "wrong" ever complain in favor of a ship having less options?

Similarly, Y-Wings have been around since Wave 1, nobody really complains it didn't start with a crew slot (obviously that didn't exist yet but still - the Y-Wing as released in XWM is the two-seater, there's a guy operating the turret, that's why the title prevents attacks out of arc) and FFG did not add one when they overhauled it with Most Wanted. Some people think it would help them out, but still it's not a "wrongness" about the ship. /SF is the same way, back seater does guns and their special qualities are granted by the title. Maximum "Crew" on light freighters like the Falcon is actually something like 6 - you have pilot, co-pilot, two gunners and then a couple seats in the cockpit people can use for engineer or navigator roles (since they look like they have access to some consoles). The slots are not necessarily literal, but rather a mechanical construct of the capabilities.

On the subject of the Striker, if FFG ever decides it needs some new toys, TIE/sk Title, add crew or bomb (I say against both as if you have bombs, the guy in back needs to be operating the bomb chute) and crew is okay because in some early materials Strikers were supposed to have orbital transfer roles as well, but the newly named "Reaper" may actually have that role now and been split from the original Striker.

Two seater, but i dont remember where the ship was introduced. I do remember a screenshot of two people in one, though

Ffgs Armada "Whisper" art has cockpit view it

And its actually hilarious because whispers all angry and pointy while her copilot looks exceptionally confused

8 minutes ago, evanger said:

What about TIE Phantom?

The only reason the Tie Phantom has a crew slot is because in the game it was introduced in(Rebel Assault 2) the main character and his friend steal one and both fit in it. The friend pilots and you shoot. It really probably shouldn't have a crew slot based on the logic of this game(dedicated gunners are not crew but special arcs or turrets) but that is in the past at this point.

I understand your points, but still want a crew slot for the Y-wing, the TIE/sf, and the TIE/sk.

And a bomb slot for the TIE/sk.

The B-wing can be an E2 variant. The TIE/sa can become a shuttle. The TIE Phantom's "co-pilot/gunner" gets a crew slot, while the other craft with the same extra crew designation do not. This need not be a contrived argument about balance.

Price it as needed for balance.

I am just saying it would be three important things: cool, thematic, and pro-synergy. All things we should want in this sort of game.

1 minute ago, ficklegreendice said:

Two seater, but i don't remember where the ship was introduced. I do remember a screenshot of two people in one, though

I made a topic about this

In the original Rebel Assault II, two characters steal one and sit in it, the screenshot is visible on the Wookieepedia article.

Sourced from FFG's own work, Stay On Target , the second seater is a co-pilot/gunner, but this book was published like 6 months after the Phantom already came out for minis. I assume the idea in the mini is that the second seat role was ambiguous enough to allow the crew slot so that you might spend points to put a specific specialist in the other seat, and the RPG book kind of keeps it that way with it still being a versatile seat.

Just now, JJFDVORAK said:

The only reason the Tie Phantom has a crew slot is because in the game it was introduced in(Rebel Assault 2) the main character and his friend steal one and both fit in it. The friend pilots and you shoot. It really probably shouldn't have a crew slot based on the logic of this game(dedicated gunners are not crew but special arcs or turrets) but that is in the past at this point.

The place where the TIE/sf was introduced featured a cool guy and his buddy both fitting inside and taking it on a joy ride.

1 minute ago, evanger said:

The place where the TIE/sf was introduced featured a cool guy and his buddy both fitting inside and taking it on a joy ride.

And when they release a Rebel SF it can have a new title so it has crew.

Anyway, IIRC Rebel Assault was a rail shooter, right? So for purposes of game design it makes logical sense to have one person fly and then the player shoots. But that's still a game mechanic (much like the crew slot is). The crew slot on the Phantom lets you pay points to insert a "Hotshot Copilot" or a "Gunner". We accept that even if you don't pay 5 points to use the gunner card, a ship like the Falcon probably technically still has gunners, right? They're just part of the PWT mechanic unless you invest additional points in them. Since the phantom does not have a special mechanic to represent a second seater (like a PWT or Aux arc), it gets an upgrade slot instead (much like the Y-Wing has a turret).

its also probably along the lines of the Falcon. Its intended for 2 pilots but it can be flown solo.

Honestly i always assumed they gave the Phantom a crew because its literally the only random crew slot ship Imperials have . All of our crew ships are shuttles, the Firespray (which is only imperial because it appeared before Scum), or the Evil Falcon (which if that big ass mofo didnt have crew wtf)

Kinda the only reason i hope the TIE Reaper shows up is another solo crew slot ship. Phantom is too pricy to make use of it other than for itself.

53 minutes ago, UnitOmega said:

I made a topic about this

In the original Rebel Assault II, two characters steal one and sit in it, the screenshot is visible on the Wookieepedia article.

Sourced from FFG's own work, Stay On Target , the second seater is a co-pilot/gunner, but this book was published like 6 months after the Phantom already came out for minis. I assume the idea in the mini is that the second seat role was ambiguous enough to allow the crew slot so that you might spend points to put a specific specialist in the other seat, and the RPG book kind of keeps it that way with it still being a versatile seat.

Unlike the TIE/sf, the Phantom doesn't get any special rules to account for that gunner crew (unless that take Gunner crew). The TIE/sf on the other hand gets an auxiliary arc to attack in. If they've got special forces training that slotless crew member can add to the attack made out the front or attack a different target in the rear arc.