On ‎2‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 10:29 AM, heychadwick said:

Many of the Epic ships have a lot of actions, but can only do one.

Don't the Raider and Corvette get one per half? And if they have AP, then essentially they get 3?

Page 2:

Performing Actions from a Ship with Two Ship Cards

During the "Perform Action" step, ships with two sections may perform two actions. The first action must be an action in the fore section’s action bar or an action from one of the fore section’s Upgrade cards or Damage cards. The second action must be an action in the aft section’s action bar or an action from one of the aft section’s Upgrade cards or Damage cards.

9 hours ago, Viktus106 said:

Also, i think Epic play would be better if you had to include at least one epic ship from your faction as mandatory. That stops the stupid six Jumpmasters and twelve Gamma Vets just sweeping the board.

Thematically, I _love_ the idea of a flight of A-Wings frantically unloading their missiles on 8 PTL Gamma Vets that are sweeping down on a CR-90 those A-Wings call "home".

I think that, yeah, the Alliance wouldn't even be set up like that. A Huge ship is simply not the centerpiece I think it should be. They can be a valuable addition to a fleet, but taking one out doesn't feel like priority 1 in an Epic match.

34 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

Don't the Raider and Corvette get one per half? And if they have AP, then essentially they get 3?

Page 2:

Performing Actions from a Ship with Two Ship Cards

During the "Perform Action" step, ships with two sections may perform two actions. The first action must be an action in the fore section’s action bar or an action from one of the fore section’s Upgrade cards or Damage cards. The second action must be an action in the aft section’s action bar or an action from one of the aft section’s Upgrade cards or Damage cards.

Each section can perform an action but only the action in the section's action bar or equipped to that section. So for the Raider it is a choice between reinforce or recover AND target lock or coordinate with no other upgrades.

There has been a huge ship modification that allows a ship to take a free reinforce or recover action as long as you haven't performed a reinforce or recover action.

Still with three actions what is it that you can do as long as it isn't the reinforce recover action?

55 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

Don't the Raider and Corvette get one per half? And if they have AP, then essentially they get 3?

Page 2:

Performing Actions from a Ship with Two Ship Cards

During the "Perform Action" step, ships with two sections may perform two actions. The first action must be an action in the fore section’s action bar or an action from one of the fore section’s Upgrade cards or Damage cards. The second action must be an action in the aft section’s action bar or an action from one of the aft section’s Upgrade cards or Damage cards.

Yes, the bigger ships get one per half. They usually have less actions per half. The smaller ships usually have more actions, but only one. I still think that even the bigger ships would benefit from doing more actions per turn. It turns your Epic ships into a much more support ship and center of the fight (while still being more effective).

17 minutes ago, Marinealver said:

There has been a huge ship modification that allows a ship to take a free reinforce or recover action as long as you haven't performed a reinforce or recover action.

Still with three actions what is it that you can do as long as it isn't the reinforce recover action?

See, this is the way I had first read the card, but others insist that you can
1) Target lock
2) Spend an energy to activate Automated Protocols to reinforce
3) Use the next action to recover

It seems to check out, but upon first read through of the card, it sure seems like their intent was to not let you perform a recover and reinforce action in the same round. Here's the wording from the card for reference:

Automated Protocols: Once per round, after you perform an action that is not a recover or reinforce action, you may spend 1 energy to perform a free recover or reinforce action.

AP is not bad, but I still don't quite think of it as enough.

12 minutes ago, Parakitor said:

See, this is the way I had first read the card, but others insist that you can
1) Target lock
2) Spend an energy to activate Automated Protocols to reinforce
3) Use the next action to recover

It seems to check out, but upon first read through of the card, it sure seems like their intent was to not let you perform a recover and reinforce action in the same round. Here's the wording from the card for reference:

Automated Protocols: Once per round, after you perform an action that is not a recover or reinforce action, you may spend 1 energy to perform a free recover or reinforce action.

Yeah there is a lot of things for huge ships that are on debate, the exploit is that you can do a target lock in one section (because most sections tend to group recover and reinforce together). then use automated protocals to do either a recover or reinforce as a free action. Now when it comes time for your section with R&R actions you can't do the same action twice (like recover) so you would simply to the other one. there you get a Target lock, Reinforce, Recover for your corvette.

Just now, Marinealver said:

Yeah there is a lot of things for huge ships that are on debate

Nailed it. I think it's been said before, but we all agree Epic rules need a little attention and clarification. One day.

36 minutes ago, heychadwick said:

Yes, the bigger ships get one per half. They usually have less actions per half. The smaller ships usually have more actions, but only one. I still think that even the bigger ships would benefit from doing more actions per turn. It turns your Epic ships into a much more support ship and center of the fight (while still being more effective).

OK. Kinda hoping I wasn't doing something wrong.

Personally, rather than change the basic large ship action rules, I think it would be more fun (and thematic) if certain crew, teams, or upgrades ADDED actions to the ships. Then, the crew complement/loadout would determine whether the ship was a support vessel, gunboat, comms/relay ship, etc.

And, as has been mentioned before, battlefield commanders who are Epic-only crew and had broad powers over the gameplay environment would be a nice area to explore. For example:

Admiral Piett: When ships you control overlap an asteroid, they do not lose their action. ("Asteroids Don't Concern Me")

2 hours ago, WWHSD said:

I haven't tried it but it seems like Epic matches would be better if the deployment zones were along the short ends of the mats instead of the long ones. It makes the weapons that can hit out past range 3 more powerful.

Gaddam Right... now see that is just common sense wargaming... why can't you get it right FFG?

Cards... Boards... Wacky FFG game-stuff in a $100 box.

DATS why we are not going to get a glorious LAND WAR GAME IN SCALE. If they didn't do it for ROGUE ONE... Whew!

8 minutes ago, Joe Boss Red Seven said:

DATS why we are not going to get a glorious LAND WAR GAME IN SCALE. If they didn't do it for ROGUE ONE... Whew!

I have to admit, I have long been against the land war idea for X-Wing. It's a space battle game, for crying out loud. But then, there was the Battle of Scarif. And the battle at Maz's temple. And of course, the Battle of Hoth. Plus cloud cars in Bespin.

I dare say its high time for airspeeders and atmospheric "space" battles.

46 minutes ago, Parakitor said:

Nailed it. I think it's been said before, but we all agree Epic rules need a little attention and clarification. One day.

And take away from tournament play development?? Sacrilege!!

I just watched the episode of Star Wars: Rebels Season 2 where Phoenix Squadron is reluctant to enter Mandalorian territory without permission. Commander Sato made a remark that caught my attention. It went something along the lines of, 'We can't go through that territory or those fighters will tear our fleet to pieces.' The fighters he was referring to: 8 Protectorate Starfighters. Eight! Against a CR90, VCX-100 and a small squad of A-wings. That's like 200 points of Scum vs. 275 points of Rebels, give or take. That doesn't seem to me to be a losing fight, although they would likely suffer more damage than they could afford in their circumstances. I mulled that over a bit, and realized that the design team may have nailed the true nature of these small capital ships after all. I mean, these characters are always afraid of taking damage from starfighter attacks, which strongly mirrors how we, the players feel in Epic X-wing. Maybe we have no right to complain? Even in the X-wing and TIE Fighter video games, a lone starfighter had the capability of disabling or destroying capital ships.

However, I do want to offer some counterpoints. These all revolve around our expectations of how huge ships should perform.

1. From the campaign booklet that comes with the Imperial Raider expansion pack: "The Raider -class corvette proved extremely durable and skilled at suppressing Rebel fighter attacks."
2. There is a limit on the number of huge ships you can bring in a tournament, dictated by the number of Epic Points each huge ship is worth. Surely if it's limited that means it is so powerful that it would be broken to have too many, right?
3. Just as the X-wing video game series had capital ships vulnerable to starfighter attack, other video games (e.g. Empire at War) reversed those roles, with these corvettes playing anti-fighter roles. Maybe video games aren't the best place to look for rationale. But they do serve to shape our biases and expectations as we approach Epic play.
4. Finally, why would anybody bring a huge ship if it was inherently weaker than the alternative of bringing starfighters and small freighters, shuttles, etc.? It doesn't make sense for the integrity of Epic play as an alternative format for the X-wing Miniatures Game.

Final thought: the scene I mentioned above actually sounds more like it came out of a huge ship campaign book than a tournament game. I think the power level of huge ships is pretty good in the campaigns, or at least the CR90 campaign, "Point of No Return," on the run, barely escaping destruction. That's not what you want when you send your ships in ready to square off in battle against an opposing 300 point squad. So while there is ample evidence to suggest that these huge ships may actually be relatively weak vessels, this does not make for a great gaming experience in a 300 point epic match, in my opinion. Yes, X-wing is focused on the daring starfighter pilots, so it's nice to see them as the heroes here, slaying giant behemoths, but we come back to the question: why would anybody take a huge ship if it is so vulnerable to starfighters in a game that's saturated with starfighters?

(Disclaimer: while I have played a lot of Epic, I haven't ever had my huge ship burned down as quickly as other people report. It could be that I just haven't faced anti-huge ship fighter squads, or it could be that deployment and number of points sunk into the huge ships make a, well, HUGE difference).

On February 24, 2017 at 7:46 PM, Darth Meanie said:

I have to admit, I have long been against the land war idea for X-Wing. It's a space battle game, for crying out loud. But then, there was the Battle of Scarif. And the battle at Maz's temple. And of course, the Battle of Hoth. Plus cloud cars in Bespin.

I dare say its high time for airspeeders and atmospheric "space" battles.

Only if it slows down the furious model expansion release rate to near sunlight slam drive speeds.

27 minutes ago, Parakitor said:

I just watched the episode of Star Wars: Rebels Season 2 where Phoenix Squadron is reluctant to enter Mandalorian territory without permission. Commander Sato made a remark that caught my attention. It went something along the lines of, 'We can't go through that territory or those fighters will tear our fleet to pieces.' The fighters he was referring to: 8 Protectorate Starfighters. Eight! Against a CR90, VCX-100 and a small squad of A-wings. That's like 200 points of Scum vs. 275 points of Rebels, give or take. That doesn't seem to me to be a losing fight, although they would likely suffer more damage than they could afford in their circumstances. I mulled that over a bit, and realized that the design team may have nailed the true nature of these small capital ships after all. I mean, these characters are always afraid of taking damage from starfighter attacks, which strongly mirrors how we, the players feel in Epic X-wing. Maybe we have no right to complain? Even in the X-wing and TIE Fighter video games, a lone starfighter had the capability of disabling or destroying capital ships.

However, I do want to offer some counterpoints. These all revolve around our expectations of how huge ships should perform.

1. From the campaign booklet that comes with the Imperial Raider expansion pack: "The Raider -class corvette proved extremely durable and skilled at suppressing Rebel fighter attacks."
2. There is a limit on the number of huge ships you can bring in a tournament, dictated by the number of Epic Points each huge ship is worth. Surely if it's limited that means it is so powerful that it would be broken to have too many, right?
3. Just as the X-wing video game series had capital ships vulnerable to starfighter attack, other video games (e.g. Empire at War) reversed those roles, with these corvettes playing anti-fighter roles. Maybe video games aren't the best place to look for rationale. But they do serve to shape our biases and expectations as we approach Epic play.
4. Finally, why would anybody bring a huge ship if it was inherently weaker than the alternative of bringing starfighters and small freighters, shuttles, etc.? It doesn't make sense for the integrity of Epic play as an alternative format for the X-wing Miniatures Game.

Final thought: the scene I mentioned above actually sounds more like it came out of a huge ship campaign book than a tournament game. I think the power level of huge ships is pretty good in the campaigns, or at least the CR90 campaign, "Point of No Return," on the run, barely escaping destruction. That's not what you want when you send your ships in ready to square off in battle against an opposing 300 point squad. So while there is ample evidence to suggest that these huge ships may actually be relatively weak vessels, this does not make for a great gaming experience in a 300 point epic match, in my opinion. Yes, X-wing is focused on the daring starfighter pilots, so it's nice to see them as the heroes here, slaying giant behemoths, but we come back to the question: why would anybody take a huge ship if it is so vulnerable to starfighters in a game that's saturated with starfighters?

(Disclaimer: while I have played a lot of Epic, I haven't ever had my huge ship burned down as quickly as other people report. It could be that I just haven't faced anti-huge ship fighter squads, or it could be that deployment and number of points sunk into the huge ships make a, well, HUGE difference).

I lobbied the Mynock Squadron to have you as an Epic guest on one of their podcast. Keep up the insight. Please.

Our discussions at GenCon were invaluable. Really wished we had that third round even though I think I would have played a 1 loss person due to my MoV.

BTW...I have only had a Huge ship destroyed by a SCUM large based fleet, the rest I have tried to match on my own with my unique build. Always close games. My opponent seemed to want to destroy my fighters first thinking my Engine Boost lumbering CR90 would be nothing....nothing....but they have been wrong on so many occasions. I do think that Huge based ships should either get an additional action (either section) or more fighter support similar to the Comms Booster, perhaps target locking assistance.

I like what Darth Meanie said " Personally, rather than change the basic large ship action rules, I think it would be more fun (and thematic) if certain crew, teams, or upgrades ADDED actions to the ships. Then, the crew complement/loadout would determine whether the ship was a support vessel, gunboat, comms/relay ship, etc. "

I mean, if you want to get into fighter/anti-fighter tactics, some Corvettes are used as fighter defenses and screens because they're armed with nimble, point-defense weapons and rapid firing laser batteries which can pick off fighters, especially slower, heavier ones which like to carry a lot of proton torpedoes. As seen with Rebels and Rogue One, torps carry a lot of punch, you really don't want them to get close especially if your shields are being weakened by enemy capital ship fire. The ISD has a glaring flaw in that the Empire thought nobody would ever mass fighters which could target their heavy ships against them, their only defense is their fighter screen with TIEs.

The Corvettes in Rebels seem variably fragile, and Vader was able to destroy a bigger Pelta-class ship in a couple passes (yet lightsabers can harmlessly deflect TIE lasers into the ground only a few feet away... Are ships made of explodium alloy?) and Protectorate fighters are armed with covert Torpedo launchers. They're a real threat if the Corvettes aren't loaded with anti-fighter weapons (which they don't look like they are, BTW, they look like the broadside complement is the single turbolasers). And Rebels As... well, the less said about all those poor A-Wing pilots wearing read jumpsuits, the better. Of course, game to screen comparisons also might not always be fair too. You never have to set aside points in the actual narrative to give say, an X-Wing a generic astromech it needs, or the six total torpedoes it carries.

I haven't played any Epic, but part of the advice and element to the more combative huge ships is that they're there to burn down other huge gunships and can easily get tore up in situations where fighters, possibly utilizing ordnance the big ships can't really evade, get the drop on them with the "death by 1000 cuts". That's pretty keeping with the lore and tactics - it may just be that people don't like "study" Epic as much as normal competitive play and harkened on to common great tactics or maybe if that is a problem more anti-fighter upgrades should emerge. Or people learn to fly their escorts. Given how many of the ships in Epic are generally described as very modular the game may also want for more... interesting upgrades to add options and effectiveness.

(Also, the Raider is actually a pretty bad anti-fighter design, which is probably why even FFG has the Raider II remodeled to serve traditional roles as a patrol and heavy escort - it only has a few heavy laser turrets which aren't 360 and are only dorsal - the underside and rear are completely exposed)

16 hours ago, UnitOmega said:

possibly utilizing ordnance the big ships can't really evade

Plopping a bomb in front of an Epic ship is a risky proposition, since you will lose your bomber in a heartbeat if it gets run over.

On 2/26/2017 at 1:04 AM, Parakitor said:

1. Just as the X-wing video game series had capital ships vulnerable to starfighter attack, other video games (e.g. Empire at War) reversed those roles, with these corvettes playing anti-fighter roles. Maybe video games aren't the best place to look for rationale. But they do serve to shape our biases and expectations as we approach Epic play.
2. Finally, why would anybody bring a huge ship if it was inherently weaker than the alternative of bringing starfighters and small freighters, shuttles, etc.? It doesn't make sense for the integrity of Epic play as an alternative format for the X-wing Miniatures Game.

In Empire at War it is true that the corvette tore up the fighters, but the bombers tore up the corvette without much effort or loss. As for X-Wing, no there probably isn't any reason to bring Epic/Huge ships. Yet if you're playing theme or missions they still have a great effect. I would agree that in Epic games you should be required to field at least three, maybe two, Epic points or more. Epic ships should not be without an escort and deploying along the short side puts your fighter screen to better use.

The only problem with short side deployment is it sort of takes away tactical flying options for the epic ship. You basically have no choice but to joust. I might suggest, instead, deploying on the long side but from diagonal corners. This way there is room to operate your long guns but you also have a more varied set of approach options open to you. You can knife up the middle or skirt around the edges.

31 minutes ago, wfain said:

The only problem with short side deployment is it sort of takes away tactical flying options for the epic ship. You basically have no choice but to joust. I might suggest, instead, deploying on the long side but from diagonal corners.

Isn't this effectively the same thing -- or very close to it -- as deploying on the short side? (In fact, doing it from the corners gives fewer open options that allowing the entire short side.)

11 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

Isn't this effectively the same thing -- or very close to it -- as deploying on the short side? (In fact, doing it from the corners gives fewer open options that allowing the entire short side.)

I don't think so. Any short side deployment means you have a likelihood of being directly across from one another where the epic ships pretty much have to run straight on at one another. There isn't much room to turn them. If you deploy on the long side but force the diagonal opening position you can fly your epic ship diagonally across the map, up the short side before turning toward the opponent or down the long side trying to keep a broadside engagement. Short side always ends up being fly straight then try to turn around if you survive.

Why not deploy on long edge but only on right half?

20 minutes ago, wfain said:

I don't think so. Any short side deployment means you have a likelihood of being directly across from one another where the epic ships pretty much have to run straight on at one another. There isn't much room to turn them. If you deploy on the long side but force the diagonal opening position you can fly your epic ship diagonally across the map, up the short side before turning toward the opponent or down the long side trying to keep a broadside engagement. Short side always ends up being fly straight then try to turn around if you survive.

I'm really not visualizing what you're saying. Maybe you''re misunderstanding what we mean by "deploy on the short side"? (We mean deploy on the opposite 3-foot edges, rather than the opposite 6-foot edges.) Deploying on the diagonals (and, BTW, you don't need to say "long side diagonals," because there are only four corners, all of which are both long-side and short-side adjacent) is more restrictive than allowing deployment anywhere on the short side, not less restrictive.

In any event, we haven't felt constrained in our Epic ship flight paths. Just the opposite, as I mentioned in an earlier post. There are a lot more tactical options open.

Playing the game in "portrait" rather than "landscape" makes it very difficult to maneuver the large ships effectively. Especially the CR-90 will find it hard to use its guns well.

11 minutes ago, gamblertuba said:

Playing the game in "portrait" rather than "landscape" makes it very difficult to maneuver the large ships effectively. Especially the CR-90 will find it hard to use its guns well.

Agreed. I don't like the "fish in a barrel" approach to Portrait Mode. It all-but-eliminates any PilotSkill-Placement-Strategy as you have 5-10 rounds to slow-roll.

Landscape Mode all day and night. Putting Turn-0 Placement Strategy to work.