6 hours ago, Ailowynn said:

I just don't get why it's called Trajectory Simulator. What's that mean? How is it...simulating?

Considering this ugly beast has already been scandalously named after the legendary B-17, I believe trajectory simulator is a fancy way of saying bomb sight without getting copyright sued. More specifically the norden bomb sight.

In universe in would make sense to have a hyper accurate bombs. So a bomb sight that could accurately simulate a precise drop and then calculate ship movements to match the simulated drop trajectory would prove very useful.

If this card launches bombs forward pre-movement then I think it is a really good buy for 1pt. I've been messing around with a 3 ship Nym and Miranda build that doesn't have the points for Advanced Sensors AND Engine on Nym. Trajectory Simulator could fit nicely in a list that doesn't have a lot of points to spare to open up a lot of options.

From screwing around in Vassal, Large base ships can avoid their own launched bomb with all turns while small base ships can also do all the 1 maneuvers. A small based ship with this card turns into a really good jouster. I could see a Tie Punisher with this, bomblets and unguided rockets being decent for 27pts.

2 hours ago, FlyingAnchors said:

Considering this ugly beast has already been scandalously named after the legendary B-17, I believe trajectory simulator is a fancy way of saying bomb sight without getting copyright sued. More specifically the norden bomb sight.

In universe in would make sense to have a hyper accurate bombs. So a bomb sight that could accurately simulate a precise drop and then calculate ship movements to match the simulated drop trajectory would prove very useful.

I would imagine it's more about "trajectory simulator" sounding more Star Warsy than about copyright issues. I don't think "bomb sight" is a unique enough term for anyone to own the copyright for it.

3 hours ago, FlyingAnchors said:

Considering this ugly beast has already been scandalously named after the legendary B-17, I believe trajectory simulator is a fancy way of saying bomb sight without getting copyright sued. More specifically the norden bomb sight.

In universe in would make sense to have a hyper accurate bombs. So a bomb sight that could accurately simulate a precise drop and then calculate ship movements to match the simulated drop trajectory would prove very useful.

Are you suggesting that a bomb sight is a term someone could copyright?

That would be like suing someone for the use of "scope". Its a general use term.

Now whatever the Norden device is actually have a trademark associated with it, but I highly doubt that spefiic name was ever in the running to be used.

I don't get why this card would suddenly allow you to drop bombs with the front guides. Its just fluff text that explains why the bombs go further than useual. Launched instead of dropped.

16 minutes ago, Dwing said:

I don't get why this card would suddenly allow you to drop bombs with the front guides. Its just fluff text that explains why the bombs go further than useual. Launched instead of dropped.

it's not fluff text. Launch would be a completely new keyword that prevents interactions from any ability involving "drop" triggers (such as deathrain's free barrel-roll)

also

just add "without the ACTION header" and change to five forward and you'd have the simulator if it were just a distance bump

I think it will be rear guides launch.

Only based on fluff and usability.

If you pre-movement drop a bomb 5 FWD out the front guides, the # of moves that make you hit that bomb is high (without game pieces with me Im guessing only 1 fwd, 1 banks, maybe hard turns are safe). Rebels usually care about their pilots greatly, and would never invent/use technology which puts themselves in danger. Id expect FFG to design upgrades the same way.

That sounds more "Scummy". Basically GENIUS 2.0.

2 minutes ago, phild0 said:

I think it will be rear guides launch.

Only based on fluff and usability.

If you pre-movement drop a bomb 5 FWD out the front guides, the # of moves that make you hit that bomb is high (without game pieces with me Im guessing only 1 fwd, 1 banks, maybe hard turns are safe). Rebels usually care about their pilots greatly, and would never invent/use technology which puts themselves in danger. Id expect FFG to design upgrades the same way.

That sounds more "Scummy". Basically GENIUS 2.0.

As per my post above:

You can do all turns with a Large base.

You can do all turns and all 1 maneuvers with a small base. This would make the Punisher a good jouster...but jousters aren't really good in this meta...

6 minutes ago, phild0 said:

I think it will be rear guides launch.

Only based on fluff and usability.

If you pre-movement drop a bomb 5 FWD out the front guides, the # of moves that make you hit that bomb is high (without game pieces with me Im guessing only 1 fwd, 1 banks, maybe hard turns are safe). Rebels usually care about their pilots greatly, and would never invent/use technology which puts themselves in danger. Id expect FFG to design upgrades the same way.

That sounds more "Scummy". Basically GENIUS 2.0.

Trajectory simulator is not rebel only, and the resistance bomber does not need to dedicate its system slot to it

fluff inspires gameplay design but should not arbitrarily restrict variety through subjective thematic constraints, especially when the bomber seems to come with an upgrade designed to counter the effects of hitting your own bomb for (presumably) an additional investment

besides, we all know about that hammerhead in rogue one (which has been lovingly replicated in Armada as a title that causes face-up damage when ramming as opposed to the normal face-down on both ships involved). Rebels are no strangers to pyrrhic tactics, and really you gotta be willing to embrace them as the underdog against a far more capable military

1 minute ago, bmf said:

As per my post above:

You can do all turns with a Large base.

You can do all turns and all 1 maneuvers with a small base. This would make the Punisher a good jouster...but jousters aren't really good in this meta...

also bmf's got it figured out

turns especially don't hamper the bomber much as it has a pwt

10 hours ago, Ailowynn said:

I just don't get why it's called Trajectory Simulator. What's that mean? How is it...simulating?

Well, what would you call the Star Wars version of the Continuously Computed Release Point & Continuously Computed Impact Point?

Trajectory simulator, sure, good enough.

Sorry I am not convinced launched is anything but flavor text. The pack does not come with a new rule explanation card, and altering bombs so you can suddenly use the front pegs, without actually mentioning it on the card seems to wierd to me.

There is no rules explanation card because the "launch" keyword will be explained in the booklet that comes with the ship. It's a large base expansion after all.

1 minute ago, Dwing said:

Sorry I am not convinced launched is anything but flavor text. The pack does not come with a new rule explanation card, and altering bombs so you can suddenly use the front pegs, without actually mentioning it on the card seems to wierd to me.

Did the Faclon come with a card explaining turrets? Or was it explained in the accompaning rulebook?

I'm pretty excited about the card and launching mechanic. Unfortunately I am majorly bummed that Tie Bombers can't do it. It would have been so awesome to finally have bombers be good at something!

21 minutes ago, Rakaydos said:

Did the Faclon come with a card explaining turrets? Or was it explained in the accompaning rulebook?

Absolutely no clue, but why assume a new game mechanic, when it could just as easily just be slinging bombs a bit further than useual?

because bombadier already exists for that purpose and provides the exact wording you'd need for flinging bombs out further than usual

6 minutes ago, AngryAlbatross said:

I'm pretty excited about the card and launching mechanic. Unfortunately I am majorly bummed that Tie Bombers can't do it. It would have been so awesome to finally have bombers be good at something!

Given the bomber is a TIE fighter ito cost/quality, we can't expect much from it. It's the mass produced model of bomber, so it ain't going to be spectacular in any area outside their numbers.

it does have Deathfire, though

course the punisher is supposed to be the premier quality bomber, but we know ffg doesn't always stick the landing

im pleased the tie-punisher will likely get some love from this. that guy has been on my shelf for far too long. regular tie-bombers too, they might actually see some play

10 minutes ago, Dwing said:

Absolutely no clue, but why assume a new game mechanic, when it could just as easily just be stilling bombs a bit further than useual?

Because it says "launch bombs...instead of dropping them". Wording is very important in games. It's certainly possible that they simply mean "launch" to mean "drop using the 5 template", but especially the parallels between a trajectory simulator and a bomb sight seem to imply forward motion to me.

<shrug> I guess we'll find out in an article closer to release.

12 hours ago, JJ48 said:

Because it says "launch bombs...instead of dropping them". Wording is very important in games. It's certainly possible that they simply mean "launch" to mean "drop using the 5 template", but especially the parallels between a trajectory simulator and a bomb sight seem to imply forward motion to me.

<shrug> I guess we'll find out in an article closer to release.

YES... I am not ready to bet money on this, but until explained, I will assume its just bombs being launched further backwards.

Not too excited for bomber launchers. Would appreciate some bomb counters though. Give be an ani-bomb...bomb, where I can launch in front of me, and bombs cant be placed within range 1 of that anti-bomb...bomb.

The text on the other picture from the article shows a different wording... FFG and their articles...
Here it seems like its just replacing the 1 straight template with a 5 straight... Which sounds reasonable. It cost 1 point. Did people really think "launch" means throwing it from the side or front? haha, 1 point, people. That would be OP. FFG would never release something OP for 1 point.. never................

51 minutes ago, HOBOBOI said:

The text on the other picture from the article shows a different wording... FFG and their articles...
Here it seems like its just replacing the 1 straight template with a 5 straight... Which sounds reasonable. It cost 1 point. Did people really think "launch" means throwing it from the side or front? haha, 1 point, people. That would be OP. FFG would never release something OP for 1 point, people. That would be OP. FFG would never release something OP for 1 point.. never................

Wow - well spotted!

We're so fixated on the fully revealed picture (and text thereon) that no one had brought this up before.

I think the specifically revealed pic would trump the mocked-up spread though (this could be their "intentional error" - if that really is a thing).

Aside from that AND given the text for Bombardier, Emmon and Sixxa already set the text formula for using a different template, I'd suggest the spread pic was "When you drop a bomb when you reveal your manoeuvre dial, you may deploy it using the front guides" but they decided that it would be more useful to catapult it further.

Just thought of somthing... with Silo is the resistance bomber going to take this over Mapper?

4 hours ago, Rakaydos said:

Did the Faclon come with a card explaining turrets? Or was it explained in the accompaning rulebook?

It woulda been in the rule book since it is part of the cardboard. Falcon came with a boost card to explain the boost action available via engine upgrade.