Anyone else really want to see a First Order Bomber?

If I could kit out a low PS version of this sooo many lists would become instantly competitive....probably broken...but an Imperial can dream!!

Tie F/O Bomber

2 Attack

2 Agility

6 Hull

2 Shields

1 Crew

2 Missiles

2 Bombs

No more Shuttle Title removing all the bombs and missiles. Even just a new Tie Bomber Tile on the existing Bomber with negative cost that just allows you to drop the bomb or the missiles in exchange for the 2x crew would be amazing.

Maybe exclude LWF from working with it given the 8 hp? And probably have something that forces you to choose between bombs and missiles during the place forces step no matter how you kit it out.

Or maybe there will be a Gunboat title that adds 1 crew

That would make me just as happy.

Im not a game designer so I have no idea what would actually be balanced or whatever but I do know it would be awesome to see a stronger imperial small ship crew platform that can still fit with 2 aces.

The key is the crew slot with the option to keep one of the missiles, torps, or bombs.

So, no extra munitions? Pay extra for the second set of bombs?

8 minutes ago, Knave Squawk said:

So, no extra munitions? Pay extra for the second set of bombs?

Oh right! Torps to! Or maybe not...a part of me almost rather have the crew than the extra shot.

I would probably be pretty happy with just having 1 missile shot or infinite bomblets and 1 crew on a semi movable small base. Although missiles are maybe to OP already...bah stupid balanced faction.

I hate asking for power creep but...look at wookie wagons..

That alone would complement a # of lists very well.

I did this just after the first spoiler:

Not particularly. I am over bombs 3 waves ago.

PS your idea is cool, but I am over bombs in general.

55 minutes ago, Odanan said:

I did this just after the first spoiler:

I'd say remove a Torpedo slot and add another bomb slot, but otherwise I like it.

I might write the name as "F/O Bomber" without the TIE, because of the awkward way that FFG has written their title rules, and the potential overlap with either TIE Bomber or TIE/FO titles.

I like the premise of including the crew baseline in the upgrade bar. I'd go [Elite], Crew, Torpedo, Missile, Bomb, Tech, Tech, and include a "F/O Bomber" only Tech upgrade which can become either a Torpedo, Missile, or Bomb. That'd allow for EM/Torpedo, Unguided Rockets, or Bomblet Generator, but not all at once. Double-slots on munitions could make it hard to fit an Elite upgrade.

As to another Tech upgrade... I love the concept of a card which allows you to pick a Torpedo, Missile, or Bomb for your ship after seeing the enemy list. I'm completely unsure of the best wording for such an upgrade (particularly since it'll need to work with Extra Munitions and Ordnance Silos), but I think it'd need some sort of premium cost, 1 or 2 additional points for the flexibility. I've got a name though: Multi-Warhead Munitions.

I like the idea, but please no more mines (bombs) and no EPTs. Otherwise I like.

5 hours ago, Odanan said:

I did this just after the first spoiler:

With the Tech slot, you're going to have that upgrade that lets you store a focus token. Add long range scanners to that, and you can basically launch torpedoes on turn 2. Granted: that makes your attacks slightly less effective than if you had Guidance Chimps.

This could be a very effective little bomber. I'd be interested in seeing it on the table.

19 is too much for a ps2 generic, considering:

- it has one shield, and it burns up fast, so it is an overcosted Scimitar.

- you have to pay for at least 3/5 points of ordnance to make it deal at least ONE punch.

- Tech Slot also is going to burn up points.

- higher pilots will also have to pay for their ept.

So in the end we have a 25/27 point generic with a ps2 and no ept that would probably die even from the simplest toilet seat scouts.

9 hours ago, Stealthcmc1974 said:

I'd say remove a Torpedo slot and add another bomb slot, but otherwise I like it.

I was thinking in a TIE/sa title (that fitted both Bombers). Something like this:

Id give it 6 hull, 1 shield, 2 agi, 2 attack.

Reload, TL, Focus, BR

18 point ps 2 generic, 20 pt ps 5 ept generic

Bomb, Missile, Missile, Torpedo, Tech.

That way it is expensive and powerful.

I think the F/O bomber should be the first ship with a new ordnance icon, 3 of them, allowing them to equip missiles, bombs or torps in any configuration. Along with a tech, crew and EPT slots (for all but the lowest generics)

Statwise It can be 2/2/6/2, with TL, Focus, BR, Reload.

10 hours ago, Arma Quattro said:

19 is too much for a ps2 generic, considering:

- it has one shield, and it burns up fast, so it is an overcosted Scimitar.

- you have to pay for at least 3/5 points of ordnance to make it deal at least ONE punch.

- Tech Slot also is going to burn up points.

- higher pilots will also have to pay for their ept.

So in the end we have a 25/27 point generic with a ps2 and no ept that would probably die even from the simplest toilet seat scouts.

I had thoughts about all of that, however!

At 19 points with it's current configuration, it is stepping _very much_ on the toes of the TIE Bomber. Any cheaper and it would be strictly better.

Right. But sitting at 18 points instead of 19 would make a huge difference in terms of what kind and how many types of ordnance it could carry.

Granted, with the actual format bombers should avoid pumping up squad point usage since they often don't even get to shoot the stuff they carry

10 minutes ago, Arma Quattro said:

Right. But sitting at 18 points instead of 19 would make a huge difference in terms of what kind and how many types of ordnance it could carry.

Granted, with the actual format bombers should avoid pumping up squad point usage since they often don't even get to shoot the stuff they carry

I tend to agree with all of your points, which means this TIE F/O Bomber should probably be redesigned to fill a unique niche, rather than simply be an upgrade of an existing ship.

The problem with the new paradigm is that it doesn't matter whether we'd like to see it - it's up to a movie director over at Disney to decide whether or not there'll be one on screen, and by inference, in any given wave or not.

Bummer, huh?

20 hours ago, theBitterFig said:

I might write the name as "F/O Bomber" without the TIE, because of the awkward way that FFG has written their title rules, and the potential overlap with either TIE Bomber or TIE/FO titles.

I like the premise of including the crew baseline in the upgrade bar. I'd go [Elite], Crew, Torpedo, Missile, Bomb, Tech, Tech, and include a "F/O Bomber" only Tech upgrade which can become either a Torpedo, Missile, or Bomb. That'd allow for EM/Torpedo, Unguided Rockets, or Bomblet Generator, but not all at once. Double-slots on munitions could make it hard to fit an Elite upgrade.

As to another Tech upgrade... I love the concept of a card which allows you to pick a Torpedo, Missile, or Bomb for your ship after seeing the enemy list. I'm completely unsure of the best wording for such an upgrade (particularly since it'll need to work with Extra Munitions and Ordnance Silos), but I think it'd need some sort of premium cost, 1 or 2 additional points for the flexibility. I've got a name though: Multi-Warhead Munitions.

It'll need the 'TIE' declension in order to use mods like lightweight frame and twin ion engine mk.2.

I'd say remove the duplicate missile and torp slot and add the reload action.

Since they added the Reload action, adding it to this ship would be really awesome. you could cut down to 1 torp (EM if wanted), 2 missiles (Unguided Rockets), 2 bombs, and a tech slot.

2 hours ago, BVRCH said:

It'll need the 'TIE' declension in order to use mods like lightweight frame and twin ion engine mk.2.

If folks want those upgrades to be options. In the OP, @Boom Owl discussed the possibility that perhaps the ship shouldn't be able to take LWF. I had that in mind, but never really explained it in my post.

It's a fair point, though. In which case, the name probably exclude both Bomber and F/O. Interdictor is likely out, but the basic direction of going for some sort of more colorful or flavorful name would be wise.

56 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:

If folks want those upgrades to be options. In the OP, @Boom Owl discussed the possibility that perhaps the ship shouldn't be able to take LWF. I had that in mind, but never really explained it in my post.

It's a fair point, though. In which case, the name probably exclude both Bomber and F/O. Interdictor is likely out, but the basic direction of going for some sort of more colorful or flavorful name would be wise.

I don't play imperials much but if I did I'd certainly want this ship to have access to those upgrades, whether or not I choose to use them. I'm sure when this ship is released (as in the official movie bomber) it will have it's own designation just as all the TIE's have had before (e.g. OT Bomber = TIE/sa, Silencer = TIE/vn etc) and I don't see why that couldn't be used for the purpose of X-wing.

It would make a lot of sense for a bomber to have crew slot(s). IRL fighter-bombers are often two seaters to ease the pressure on the pilot. I would love a bomber with a crew like this:

Weapons Systems Officer (1 pts) - When attacking with a secondary weapon or defending, you may change one blank result to a [Focus] result.

WHY ARE WE TALKING ABOUT THIS???

WE NEED A TIE REAPER THREAD SO THE DEVS WILL MAKE IT HAPPEN!!!

I would love to see an F/O bomber! The shield and tech slot are a must, including a slightly improved dial, but the point cost is where it gets interesting. A scimitar with LWF and unguided rockets is only 20 points which effectively make it a 3 3 6 0 ship. An F/O bomber's point cost with those attachments will be compared to a scimitar, and if the point cost difference is too much, even with an additional shield, it may never see competitive play. On the other hand, it'll be a very fun ship to run for casual play. All hypothetical of course.