1 minute ago, kmanweiss said:

Absolutely true. That the problem with the ship though. As Yavaris, it's a great little ship. Strip the title and it's a handicap. The redirect/brace is too strong of a combo for Yavaris...but would make regular Nebs more flyable.

How about upping the side arc shields to 2 damage. This only adds 1 health to Yavaris for the quick kill, so only a modest upgrade there. However, it means the stray shot against a regular Neb is easier to handle. The engineering value again helps in recovering that extra shield.

I think that would still be too much for Yavaris.

Maybe a generic title for the Neb that accomplishes this?

I'd use the Pelta more if the Command variant had access to a Turbolaser slot.

For the price of two Command Peltas with Engine Techs, an ISD-II can take Gunnery Teams, XI7s, and Leading Shots. The two Peltas have more squadron pushing, an extra activation, two sets of defense tokens, etc - so it's normal that also getting Speed 3 comes at the opportunity cost of a huge increase in shot quality.

A new Pelta ship card that copies the current Command variant, but drops the Fleet Command and/or squadron value for a Turbolaser slot, or something like that, would be neat. A pair would need to buy every upgrade twice (not to mention paying for ETs) and would lack the stuff the ISD can take instead (Avenger title, ECMs, Leading Shots, etc), so the ISD-II will always be more efficient.

And a Command Pelta with ETs and a Turbolaser card - priced somewhere in the 70s - is going to lose out to the beatstick-efficiency of a 102 point VSD bringing the Gunnery Team/XI7/Leading Shots from above plus its 5 extra natural health.

I would give the VSD a click on the first knuckle at speed 2. No more is needed. You could synergize it nicely then with JJ and an Interdictor. Slow, but very tanky. Throw in a Gladiator and you have the basis of a very effective list.

Afmk2, I would make it more potato whale ish.

Seriously though I would up the neb b's front arc by 1 dice on one variation. Keep the other as is, more or a support ship. So as to have a more distinct feel to both

55 minutes ago, Englishpete said:

I would give the VSD a click on the first knuckle at speed 2. No more is needed. You could synergize it nicely then with JJ and an Interdictor. Slow, but very tanky. Throw in a Gladiator and you have the basis of a very effective list.

I’m confused as you can already do this with JJ? He’s the one commander adjusting the first knuckle of speed would have literally no effect on...

1 hour ago, MandalorianMoose said:

I’m confused as you can already do this with JJ? He’s the one commander adjusting the first knuckle of speed would have literally no effect on...

Yes, sorry, I meant to say Motti and an Interdictor. Head thinks, fingers type something else.

Honestly the Interdictor needs an extra red and blue out the front, not a points reduction, it's supposed to be a combat ship + grav wells, not pure support like the 418.

On 11/26/2017 at 1:12 AM, Ardaedhel said:

For those that don't read satire well:

Yes, most of these suggestions would improve these ships. But they'd also increase the point costs of the ships and monotonize the game. How much fun would the game be if all the ships just had no flaws and no strengths relative to each other?

These ships are intentionally designed to have flaws. A Weapons Slot on the MC80 would be awesome. It would also be an unstoppable Ackbaring killing machine that cost like 130 points--or, more likely, just ruled out Ackbar at the mechanical level from ever being introduced into the game in the first place. A Raider with a redirect would be awesome. It would also cost like 15% more and be largely relegated to one niche role: flak would be the only thing a 65-point Raider with a redirect would be cost-effective at doing. I'll be the first to agree that the Nebulon's not a great ship, but it's not because of the lack of redirect or side shields, it's because it's outclassed in it primary role by the cheaper CR90A (different rant).

I keep seeing calls to "fix" cheaper ships by comparing them to more expensive ones. The ISD costs 150% what the VSD costs, of course it's better. Yes, a 73-point VSD can be popped by 13 damage with XI7 and an acc. A 72-point AF2 can be popped by 10 with XI7. A 63-point MC30 can be popped by 8 with XI7, and you don't need the acc. That's not a bug, that's a feature.

I can't agree.

"Intentionally designed to have flaws" sounds like, "It sucks because of the lore," which can be the same excuse given to how the TIE Advanced was so impotent for so long after wave 2 came out. Nevermind that many of us like the ship and bought several- the game changed, it wasn't addressed, and we're supposed to be happy with that. And how can you justify producing an craft that you know will be obsolete? That way leads to the Attack Wing mentality of things: The next wave of overproduced crap is more powerful than the last, so people will keep buying what we put out anyway.

300 points is a different universe from 400. At a lower point level there are fewer sources of outrageous damage that just trash VSDs. Now that 400 is the norm, there are more things and they hit harder, but there wasn't any scaling to allow other ships to keep up. This leaves the only mediums in the universe people take for a reason being the hyper specialists. If you need a ship to do a thing, you either go big with a heavy or go more with lights.

It's one thing to have a choice between ship capabilities based on what they do. Do I want a GSD or an ARQ, based on their capabilities? I feel between the VSD and the ISD, it should be a matter of whether I want upgrades on my craft or raw battery firepower with some extra hull? I feel like the latter decision boils down to, "Can I afford to lose this ship on the first rounds of shooting, or not?" Right now the ISD always wins this debate because the VSD will never have a capability stand out over the ISD.

I will admit though, D-Caps might upgrade my opinion of the VSD to 'Glass Cannon', because 6 dice base downrange is incomparable. Even if you scale up the Cymoon with it, a VSD-II still has the better firepower. That's great! Except you're still yoked to the defensive suite and hull amount it's got, hence a glass cannon. It's not going to last long if it's caught under the guns of a ship that might not have as strong of an alpha strike, that might shrug off the 6+ dice you're throwing at it, and crush the VSD.

1 hour ago, Norsehound said:

how the TIE Advanced was so impotent for so long after wave 2 came out.

Huh? The TIE Advanced wasn't common in W2 because squadrons in general weren't common, but its prevalence was pretty proportionate with that of squadrons overall. There were two major types of Imp fighter builds: one based around Howlrunner and swarm for the alpha striking, killy squadrons; and one based around Soontir/Mauler and the TIE Advanced to force autodamage. It may not have shown up in your area, but it was quite common in mine, and on Vassal.

Regardless, lore didn't have anything at all to do with it. I have no idea where that idea came from, or what it has to do with:

1 hour ago, Norsehound said:

"Intentionally designed to have flaws" sounds like, "It sucks because of the lore,"

These are not the same thing at all. Everything has flaws on purpose. I even listed a few. Here, I'll be more explicit with some:

------

The MC80's are its lack of a weapons team, its low speed, and its weak front and rear arcs.
The Raider's is the disconnect between its most obvious role as flak boat and its defensive suite.
The MC30's are its extreme brittleness in the face of XI7, particularly at its optimal offensive range, its low hull, and its lack of contribution to the squadron game.
The B-wing's are its low speed and relatively expensive antisquadron armament.
The TIE Defender's is its lack of synergy with the rest of the highly-synergy-focused Imperial squadron suite.
The ISD's are its large base, extremely high price, and vulnerable flanks and aft hull.

------

All of those flaws are one part of what differentiates one ship from the other. The only way one ship can be stronger in an area is if another is weaker in that area. To use your example:

1 hour ago, Norsehound said:

Do I want a GSD or an ARQ, based on their capabilities?

Some of the GSD's capabilities are:
- It's a robust platform with decent hull paired with a diverse set of defense tokens including Brace
- Ridiculous expected burst damage
- Good maneuverability charts with ET that synergizes well with its positioning-dependent armament suite.

Some of the Arquitens' capabilities are:
- The ability to put out effective sustained long-range damage
- Threatens a wide area with overlapping fire that mitigate its poor odds of rolling accs
- Weathers multiple small attacks well both at range and from squadrons, with the option to pay for a defensive retrofit
- Has no really weak hullzones from a defensive standpoint

Some of the Arquitens' flaws are:
- It's hampered at close range by its mediocre token suite and lack of a Brace
- Very low expected burst damage
- Absolutely pisspoor maneuverability chart that is only improved by paying significantly more the version that can take ET, and only really uses it defensively.

Some of the GSD's flaws are:
- Inability to stand toe-to-toe with ranged opponents on a sustained basis
- One of the smallest threatened areas in the game and zero-to-low chance to roll accs
- Lack of duplicate defense tokens or defensive retrofits means they're all one-use before burning them and subject to good rolls, and weak to squadrons, particularly due to...
- Rear hull zone is significantly weaker than the front and thus vulnerable to, in particular, squadron attacks and ranged attacks into that hull zone.

See the pattern? You could construct this same chart for every pair of ships in the game. A flaw is not an absolute this-ship-is-bad, it's the other side of the coin to another ship's strengths. What are you doing when you call a ship "good" or "bad" but relative comparisons of a given aspect of the ship in question?

The Arquitens is good at ranged attacks... unless you're comparing it to a Gunnery Teams AF2. But then of course the potato is bad at being cheap when compared to the Arquitens. But then the potato is bad at range compared to a double-arcing MC80A Defiance triggering QBT, but pretty good at being cheap compared to that beast.

I'll reiterate for umpteenth time: I do not think this game is perfect. There are definitely minor issues. But when you're spitballing what changes you wish you could see on your favorite ship, you have to account for the fact that a buff to your favorite ship is a relative nerf to one or multiple others that might be in a pretty precarious place. An absolute buff without a commensurate nerf or accounting for the points cost of that newly-improved ship is a great way to break the game.

Yeah, a second brace on the VSD would be awesome. It would also be super powerful. You see the vulnerabilities that were cooked into the Liberty and the Nebulon to account for those double braces, and they don't bring anywhere near the direct close-range threat that a VSD1 does at the price point. Nor do they also have double redirects. The addition of that single defense token--which would be relatively minor on, like, a Gozanti--would be a huge deal for the VSD, especially the VSD1. I'm not a game designer, but I'd ballpark that at like a 10-15-point price increase for the VSD1. Similarly, +1 speed on there would be a really big deal. The VSD1 is one of the most point-efficient platforms in the game overall; look at the price hike on the VSD2 for evidence that that's balanced by the difficulty of getting it into position. Exactly like the B-wing. Exactly like how the Raider's super-efficient flak is balanced by its defensive vulnerability to squadrons, and the MC80's ludicrous side arcs are balanced by the lack of a weapons slot.

All I'm saying is, consider what you're actually asking for when you propose these changes, because simply complaining about a ship's flaws or proposing ways that it could have not had those flaws isn't really constructive when they're all supposed to have flaws. It's what gives the game its diversity.

/rant

38 minutes ago, Ardaedhel said:

- Lack of duplicate defense tokens or defensive retrofits means they're all one-use before burning them and subject to good rolls, and weak to squadrons, particularly due to...

It would be a shame if someone was to bring sensor teams.....

2 minutes ago, Ginkapo said:

It would be a shame if someone was to bring sensor teams.....

If I'd taken space to address every exception and ramification to every one of those items, I'd still be writing that screed well into tomorrow.

As it is, all of like 3 people are actually going to read it. It's pretty much just stating the obvious anyway... at least, obvious to my mind.

22 hours ago, Ardaedhel said:

The TIE Advanced wasn't common in W2...

Allow me to clarify, In X-Wing. The TIE Advanced was introduced at the start of the game and was balanced to counter the T-65. It didn't fare well when Interceptors came to the scene, more maneuverable craft that hit harder and turned better. Then turrets came, and Imperial players figured it was easier to swarm cheap TIE Fighters than to invest in something expensive that hit hard only once (with missiles) and fired softballs the rest of the game. With Ordnance cards as bad as they were, Imperial players concluded the TIE Advanced was a dud if it didn't hit any harder than the much cheaper TIE Fighters.

The TIE Advanced in X-Wing didn't return to competitiveness until it was patched some three years after the game was released, in the Raider expansion pack, with a specific title giving it access to and a discount on an upgrade type invented two waves later.

I'm pretty sure you could have used the "but features!" reasoning of fighter strengths/weaknesses to justify how non-competitive the TIE Advanced was. After all it had missiles, it had shields- both are advantages over the TIE Fighter, with a bit of TIE Bomber advantage thrown in. But between the maneuvering dial and how bad Ordnance was performing, Imperial players concluded it wasn't worth it and TIE swarms were in ascendance for a long time. I don't see the VSD in that bad of a spot, but it could be. I feel if one of two flaws were fixed it could work better.

22 hours ago, Ardaedhel said:

look at the price hike on the VSD2 for evidence that that's balanced by the difficulty of getting it into position.

I just chalked this up to wave 1 weirdness that we never see again in successive waves, because of experience on the part of the design team. Do you really think what you get in Dominator is worth 12 points? Was Demolisher really only worth 10? How great are people finding Paragon? Unless I'm mistaken, the point differential between the VSD versions is the largest gap in the game. 30 points over the VSD-II and you get a lot more capability and options if you want a gunship. 30 points is about two hefty squadrons or a gozanti with a comms net.

If we're arguing over the degree of fix I've suggested for the VSD, sure, I can concede that maybe a second brace is too powerful. And I didn't say I'd be opposed to changing the cost as well for re-balancing. But would you at least agree that the VSD dies too easily for the points you put into it? Here, if we're listing strengths and weaknesses in a platform, this is what I see when I think about using VSDs competitively:

Strengths:
-Decent carrier, has the right slots for any fighter enhancement of your choice (loses to QF to exchange robustness for a more deadly alpha)
-Best Battery for this ship size, D-Caps on the II variant only make this exceptional.
-Hull and shields are good for a medium
-Superb offensive upgrade spread across both versions
-Warlord combination allows 1-auto-damage on all squadrons in medium range.

Weaknesses:
-No defensive retrofit for any damage mitigation/Def-token manipulation prevention (fixed only for one craft by exchanging the officer slot).
-Highly susceptible to critical effects with no ability to prevent it
-No support team means no enhancement to repair/speed
-Locked at speed 2 makes it hard to commit the second row of battery.
-AA is the poorest degree possible
-Titles are overpriced / ineffective compared to others (Dominator is no Devestator, Corruptor is no Squall) Only Warlord stands out.
-Expensive for what it offers, too pricey to be considered expendable and not robust enough to last
-Sensitive to commanders in the fleet, commanders/upgrades are essential to patch this ship's shortcomings. JJ is needed to help the ship turn, but Motti is needed to help the ship survive.

High offense, low speed, low defense. Best used in defensive situations where you are camping objectives and forcing the opponent to come to you. Either they enter long/medium range to be D-Capped to death or they overshoot, end up in VSD-I ordnance range. Against big batteries they only have their total aggregate health to sustain them before they are destroyed, contrasted to the ISD with options (defensive retro, contain) or the INT (high engineering). Not worth the investment with terror ships like christmas tree ISDs and swarms of red dice shooting space gnats in the universe.

If the ship had more speed (like Engine techs), both versions could get into position quicker to use that second row of battery dice faster, in spite of the poor protection suite. It could be like getting the most out of a Raider before it goes pop.

If it had more protection, it could survive big shots or shrug off the gnat bites for longer while it plods on the approach.

All I'd want to see is one or the other. My vote's for Protection. And I don't feel that would invalidate other ships... the INT is still the only ship to have access to an experimental retrofit, and the ISD is always going to have a bigger battery in most situations and better capability in general. The QF is never going to compete with the VSD for battery or robustness- it's entire job is to push and exploit fighters. So I don't see what's wrong with giving the VSD a little more in the protection category so it can actually hold a slugging match with heavies, or being outgunned.

I'd actually love to see some task force titles for the neglected midrange ships to get multiples of them on the table more; candidates seem to be (in increasing order of necessity):

VSD - got a boost with DC, solid escort carrier, wants a task force that keeps it alive another turn, maybe something that causes obstruction or prevents crits at medium+ range
AF2 - still a solid generalist, but the conga line is decreasing in popularity with more options to disrupt formations, wants a task force that focuses it into a single role a little more
Arq - One or none seems to be the most popular approach with this ship; I'd love to see a task force that untaps DTT on a neighbor
Neb - Using generic titles is the ideal fix for the basic neb, since it can't boost Yav or Salv at all. You could go pretty powerful with it, too, but I think it's better to improve the strengths of the ship rather than shore up its weaknesses; improved long range fire, improved flak, dice fixing; something to bring it on par on a per-point basis with a TRC90

I would like to see the Arquitens cheaper a bit and both variants get support teams. Maybe the command variant can have a fleet support slot in addition.

Also give the support neb a fleet support slot too.

I would like to nominate the SSD. My purposed fix is for FFG to make the darn thing.

Wat about a crew upgrade:

ADITIONAL GUNNERS

You gain a weapons team icon in your upgrade bar

You can not equid this card to a medium or large ship with a weapons team icon in its upgrade bar.

costs the same as Tua and it would really help out ships like the MC-80 home one and the interdictor.

49 minutes ago, Skullfett said:

Wat about a crew upgrade:

ADITIONAL GUNNERS

You gain a weapons team icon in your upgrade bar

You can not equid this card to a medium or large ship with a weapons team icon in its upgrade bar.

costs the same as Tua and it would really help out ships like the MC-80 home one and the interdictor.

I would love to have something like this for Rebels but for Offensive Retrofit, without the restriction - let Imps have the heavy guns, let Rebels focus on using their superior fighters to win the day. It's also tehamtic that way. You could make it like Tua where it take sup the office slot to bring the ORetro online, making users pro/con the cost & space and having it be unique.

The MC80L, Pelta, Neb-B, AFMk II, could all make great use out of such an upgrade.

Red dice from the gsd1. I am sure it is an errata and they are black but ffg didn't notice yet.

not just one ship I know but it does bug me the most about the game. "no ship would be as fast as the slowest fighter."

13 hours ago, ouzel said:

not just one ship I know but it does bug me the most about the game. "no ship would be as fast as the slowest fighter."

Why is this? Han Solo brags that the Falcon can outrun cruisers.

So they must usually be fast enough to catch small ships.

6 minutes ago, Democratus said:

Why is this? Han Solo brags that the Falcon can outrun cruisers.

So they must usually be fast enough to catch small ships.

You got him backward, he's saying fighters are faster than ships, so it's weird that a CR-90 outruns B-Wings every time.

That said, there's no particular reason for this to hold true; fighters will be more agile, with better acceleration, deceleration, and turning, for sure, because of lower mass, but maximum speed in space is bounded only by fuel reserves and thrust.

5 minutes ago, OlaphOfTheNorth said:

You got him backward, he's saying fighters are faster than ships, so it's weird that a CR-90 outruns B-Wings every time.

That said, there's no particular reason for this to hold true; fighters will be more agile, with better acceleration, deceleration, and turning, for sure, because of lower mass, but maximum speed in space is bounded only by fuel reserves and thrust.

No. Han is bragging that his ship can outrun cruisers.

That means that cruisers can usually outrun small ships.

I just want my Gladiators to have two more black dice on the side arcs, and one more red die in the front. Just because. ??

41 minutes ago, OlaphOfTheNorth said:

You got him backward, he's saying fighters are faster than ships, so it's weird that a CR-90 outruns B-Wings every time.

That said, there's no particular reason for this to hold true; fighters will be more agile, with better acceleration, deceleration, and turning, for sure, because of lower mass, but maximum speed in space is bounded only by fuel reserves and thrust.

He's definitely referring to being faster than bigger ships.

"I've outrun Imperial starships. Not the local bulk cruisers mind you, I'm talking about the big Corellian ships now."

On 11/27/2017 at 10:54 PM, Norsehound said:

And how can you justify producing an craft that you know will be obsolete? That way leads to the Attack Wing mentality of things: The next wave of overproduced crap is more powerful than the last, so people will keep buying what we put out anyway..

Actually, STAW has taken pains to address obsolete ships that now include a functional recosting of some of the generic designs that never see the table. The most recent tech upgrade card that came out is designed specifically to be a counter to stacking massive prmary attack alpha strikes. The rules had a serious update to balance out stacking upgrades and to stop needlessly punishing cloaking

Attack Wing actually FIXED major issues in way that don’t require you pissing $80 away on a useless “epic” ship. FFG should use them as an example.

Last, all three ships from the core set still see the table. Maybe not a lot, but they do. XWMG can’t really claim that. In the last six months, I haven’t seen a non-Biggs Xwing or any Imperial TIE Fighter. So stop bashing STAW and try paying attention.

As for the topic: oh please please please please let FFG mess up hard enough to give my precious Home Ones a Gunnery Team.