59 minutes ago, Babaganoosh said:

Cool stuff! I'm very interested to see how the playtesting goes.

One suggestion I have is to change the "Squint Plating" upgrade card's name to something more thematic (or maybe the name is a placeholder?). 'Squint' was a nickname Rebels had for Interceptors.

Some suggestions:

"Reinforced quadanium panels"

"Reinforced titanium chassis"

Or a very similar, and reasonably thematic alternative:

"Thrawn Refit": Increase your shield value by 1

Apparently I'm a rebel at heart.

Shorter and more obvious names are better for making it easy to understand. There's already enough added complexity with this Mod that anything that makes it simpler is a plus. So if "Squint Plating" sounds very un-empire like then how about simply "Interceptor Plating"?

28 minutes ago, HolySorcerer said:

Is there a compelling reason to not just increase the cost of the top tier pilots by a few points under the (almost certainly true) assumption that you're going to be putting upgrades on your aces? While your method is most certainly better balance wise, I wonder if the extra overhead would be worth the slightly more fine tuned balance.

Or, if I may plug an idea that I had a while back to handle a similar issue. What about using a simple color code on the upgrade slots on the pilot cards? If the icon is red, it costs one additional point to equip, if it's black it does not modify the price, and if the icon is green it reduces the cost of the upgrade by one. This would let you fine tune elite pilots by just making more of their upgrades red, while allowing you to give ships like the Bombers access to green munitions, making equipping them cheaper and more flexible.

Just my two cents.

First part - that works fine for pilots that have only one viable loadout option. But since the Mod's goal is to increase build diversity, the goal is not to force pilots into only one possible build; even Soontir Fel has two or three viable otions now. For pilots like Poe or Vader that can legitimately take a few different EPTs, such an approach would always force them to take most expensive EPTs since part of that cost is already "baked in" to their base cost. On the flip side, lower pilot skill generics have the additional problem that in order to be viable with a given EPT (say PS3 A-wing + PtL), their base cost has to be further reduced -- but then you run the risk of them being too good without any upgrades because the cost is too cheap.

So, shorter answer, yes, you could go back to a single cost for upgrade cards, but you would have to reduce the buid diversity to do so.

Second part -- also a cool idea, I saw that on X-wing Supremacy. It's even more complexity though, which I would rather avoid if possible. It's certainly something that might be cool for an X-wing 2.0 though.

31 minutes ago, MajorJuggler said:

Second part -- also a cool idea, I saw that on X-wing Supremacy. It's even more complexity though, which I would rather avoid if possible. It's certainly something that might be cool for an X-wing 2.0 though.

Yeah, I did pitch that to the Supremacy guys. I disagree about the complexity argument though, at least from a players point of view. As a player I have to learn three different point values for each upgrade, then I have to cross reference a tier list that states which tier the pilot I want to use is. I have to do this for each ship I want to use. This is a lot of overhead for manual list building, but even with an automated builder it's hard to brainstorm up ideas as I'll have to reference each pilot and card because of the variable costs.

My proposed alternative is just one step up from learning the upgrade bars on a ship, adding a color component to some of the upgrades. For pilots that warrant a higher cost over the baseline chassis I can just mentally add the extra point cost to the upgrade, which still retain their fixed pricing.

I enjoy a lot of granularity and complexity in systems like this and would be willing to try out this system, the people I play with would not, the complexity would make it a hard pass.

Using a fixed cost upgrade card and then adding an additional cost based on pilot tier (or upgrade color) is not really ideal either though, since the "increased cost as a function of pilot tier" is very dependant on the upgrade. Expertise and FCS get a -LOT- of value out of higher pilot tiers, whereas some other upgrade cards are basically the same value regardless of pilot tier.

13 hours ago, MajorJuggler said:

Key Cards

Attack Formation
0 / 0 / 0
TIE Fighter or Z-95 only. Title.
When attacking, if the defender is in arc of another friendly ship with "Attack Formation" equipped, you may add one <hit> result. If you do and this attack hits, the defender suffers one damage, and then cancel all dice results.

Should this be primary weapon only so Z-95s can't use it for Missiles? I'm think of S-tracers here primarily, because as written you can get Tracers to actually do damage.

2 minutes ago, Jo Jo said:

Should this be primary weapon only so Z-95s can't use it for Missiles? I'm think of S-tracers here primarily, because as written you can get Tracers to actually do damage.

Good point, haven't spent much time thinking about missiles yet. I will almost certainly add the primary only restriction to it, since that's how it was intended.

Glory be, the game is saved...

Been looking forward to this for a while and I’m not disappointed. Really like what you’ve done here. I actually think the tier system is ingenious—really helps balance out upgrades.

Can’t wait to see where it goes!

I'm also not sure about the tier system, and like the rest.

One thing to avoid using is a colour coding that uses red and green: too many people are red/green colour-blind. Otherwise, it's a very neat method for making some upgrades on a given pilot better or worse.

27 minutes ago, MajorJuggler said:

Using a fixed cost upgrade card and then adding an additional cost based on pilot tier (or upgrade color) is not really ideal either though, since the "increased cost as a function of pilot tier" is very dependant on the upgrade. Expertise and FCS get a -LOT- of value out of higher pilot tiers, whereas some other upgrade cards are basically the same value regardless of pilot tier.

Your system is certainly more flexible and accurate, but it comes at a heavy complexity cost. Playtesting will reveal if it's worth that cost though.

8 minutes ago, Gilarius said:

I'm also not sure about the tier system, and like the rest.

One thing to avoid using is a colour coding that uses red and green: too many people are red/green colour-blind. Otherwise, it's a very neat method for making some upgrades on a given pilot better or worse.

Sure, any color scheme will work, I was just using those for example as they are pretty universal for good/bad, plus/minus, go/stop.

Man, this all looks awesome! A lot to absorb and search through. I thought I saw a change to the Firespray allowing the use of secondary weapons in the rear/auxiliary arc but I can't find it again. Did I make that up?

7 minutes ago, Q10fanatic said:

Man, this all looks awesome! A lot to absorb and search through. I thought I saw a change to the Firespray allowing the use of secondary weapons in the rear/auxiliary arc but I can't find it again. Did I make that up?

That would be a change to the Slave 1 title. The biggest change to the Firespray is it can now treat the Aux arc as a mobile arc, and rotate it. I am open to other suggestions of how to make the Firespray better without having to resort to excessive cost reductions, it is a challenging ship to buff.

23 minutes ago, MajorJuggler said:

That would be a change to the Slave 1 title. The biggest change to the Firespray is it can now treat the Aux arc as a mobile arc, and rotate it. I am open to other suggestions of how to make the Firespray better without having to resort to excessive cost reductions, it is a challenging ship to buff.

I have always liked the idea of allowing small ship only upgrades on the Firespray.

Are you planning on collaborating with these guys ?

Or is that a completely different effort ?

29 minutes ago, MajorJuggler said:

That would be a change to the Slave 1 title. The biggest change to the Firespray is it can now treat the Aux arc as a mobile arc, and rotate it. I am open to other suggestions of how to make the Firespray better without having to resort to excessive cost reductions, it is a challenging ship to buff.

Can't say as I care for that fix, mostly because it just doesn't make sense--the Firespray doesn't have any kind of turret, does it? It can shoot forward and backward; that's it. Besides which, it makes the Firespray compete directly with the Lancer, and the Lancer has a better dial and some really solid pilot abilities to go with that arc (although Scum Kath would be nasty). I feel like you quickly get to a point where one is basically just better than the other, though.

Giving it one turns and a native barrel roll would help a lot. Or native boost--that could be cool, since it would give them access to Autothrusters, which gives them a cool niche. Maybe an (extra) illicit slot; they have a problem with passive defense, so Glitterstim is nice. Aside from that, though, I have to ask--what's wrong with excessive cost reductions? It honestly seems like the simplest route. No additional rules text.

On a related note, what's up with the Lambda getting a rear arc? It makes sense with the canon, but where to I get my new cardboard? (And this is just personal preference, but I kinda like the ol lumbering space cow the way it is; giving it a rear arc messes with the 'feel' . . . again, I have to wonder: why not just recost it?)

5 minutes ago, Nehekharan said:

Or is that a completely different effort ?

My understanding was that the two were separate efforts.

36 minutes ago, Ailowynn said:

Can't say as I care for that fix, mostly because it just doesn't make sense--the Firespray doesn't have any kind of turret, does it? It can shoot forward and backward; that's it. Besides which, it makes the Firespray compete directly with the Lancer, and the Lancer has a better dial and some really solid pilot abilities to go with that arc (although Scum Kath would be nasty). I feel like you quickly get to a point where one is basically just better than the other, though.

Giving it one turns and a native barrel roll would help a lot. Or native boost--that could be cool, since it would give them access to Autothrusters, which gives them a cool niche. Maybe an (extra) illicit slot; they have a problem with passive defense, so Glitterstim is nice. Aside from that, though, I have to ask--what's wrong with excessive cost reductions? It honestly seems like the simplest route. No additional rules text.

On a related note, what's up with the Lambda getting a rear arc? It makes sense with the canon, but where to I get my new cardboard? (And this is just personal preference, but I kinda like the ol lumbering space cow the way it is; giving it a rear arc messes with the 'feel' . . . again, I have to wonder: why not just recost it?)

Re Firespray: yeah I have gotten feedback that the mobile arc isn't thematic. The problem is that whatever we come up with for the Firespray has to make the PS3 Bounty Hunter sufficiently better, because I don't want to cut its points so far that you can take 4 of them. Barrel Roll alone won't get you there, you need something to boost its raw efficiency, or else lower its target efficiency (which a mobile arc does nicely). Sticky problem to solve. Keep the ideas coming everyone.

Re: Lambda: The cardboard on the rear arc is annoying, my solution is "use firesrpay cardboard". Which is still not ideal, but it works if you just have one type of Lambda-shuttle in your list. I can't drop the cost any more, because it already makes a really good Palp carrier. (Citation: Duncan Howard. )

1 hour ago, MajorJuggler said:

That would be a change to the Slave 1 title. The biggest change to the Firespray is it can now treat the Aux arc as a mobile arc, and rotate it. I am open to other suggestions of how to make the Firespray better without having to resort to excessive cost reductions, it is a challenging ship to buff.

I've always felt that the Firespray (natively or as part of Slave I title) should have the Sensor slot. FCS would really help Kath and the lower (Scum) Sprays. Boba would love to have Adv. Sensors or Sensor Jammer. Although your Boba may not benefit as much. Emon Azameem with Trajectory Simulator is somewhat fluffy.

Re Firespray: I think what's lacking is maneuverability, and just about any sort of additional movement option would help as long as it was cheap and didn't take up a valuable slot. Red 3-speed Tallon rolls would be fun.

1 hour ago, MajorJuggler said:

I can't drop the cost any more, because it already makes a really good Palp carrier. (Citation: Duncan Howard. )

So...make Palp more expensive? I mean, if he’s the problem, the solution should involve him, not the shuttle. You could also try making the OGP a tier 2 pilot, if you’re specifically worried about the combination of the two. I’m just spitballing here.

21 minutes ago, DagobahDave said:

Re Firespray: I think what's lacking is maneuverability, and just about any sort of additional movement option would help as long as it was cheap and didn't take up a valuable slot. Red 3-speed Tallon rolls would be fun.

I agree, but Trolls on a large ship are...problematic, since you ca slide the base so far. Sloops would be cool though.

One more suggestion: add a playtest status tracking spreadsheet, so that people know what matchups have and haven't been tested, and to what extent. That might make the community playtesting more efficient for you.

20 hours ago, Herowannabe said:

My initial reaction is to say that I love everything EXCEPT the 3-tiered point cost structure for upgrades. It seems to add a lot of complication to the list building process- and I’ve learned from experience that the more complicated you make something the less interested (most) people will be. If there is any way to make this work without the triple-tiered cost, I would strongly encourage you to do that.

My thoughts as well.

For the firespray...

The point reduction is a big help already. I'm big on a second crew slot so I can take tail gunner. It's one of two ships that can take the upgrade, but it competes with other crew you want to take.

Heck make it auto include if you're worried about Palp firesprays.

My 2nd choice would be some kind of defensive bonus when enemy ship's are firing into your blindspots on the sides.

TIE Advanced

Overview
Advanced Targeting Computer gets a minor defensive buff when defending against someone you have locked to slightly help the TIE Advanced action economy. Otherwise, TIE Advanced get buffed via cost adjustments. Lower PS generics with accuracy corrector may still need to leverage the missile slot to get spiked damage through some targets, but missiles haven't been fully retooled yet, so they may get tweaked in the future.

Pilot Tiers

• Darth Vader is tier 2.
• All other TIE Advanced are tier 3.

Pilot Cost and Ability Changes

• Tempest Squadron Pilot: cost reduced from 42 to 36.
• Lieutenant Colzet: cost reduced from 46 to 38.
• Storm Squadron Pilot: cost reduced from 46 to 38.
• Commander Alozen: cost reduced from 50 to 41.
• Zertik Strom: cost reduced from 52 to 40.
• Maarek Stele: cost reduced from 54 to 44.
• Juno Eclipse: cost reduced from 56 to 45.
• Darth Vader: cost reduced from 58 to 55.

Key Changed Cards

Advanced Targeting Computer
8 / 12 / 12
System. TIE Advanced only.
When attacking with your primary weapon, if you have a target lock on the defender, you may add 1 <critical> result to your roll. If you do, you cannot spend target locks during this attack. When defending, if you have a target lock on the attacker, you may reroll one defense die.

TIE/x1
0 / 0 / 0
title. TIE Advanced only.
Your upgrade bar gains the System upgrade icon. If you equip a System upgrade, its squad point cost is reduced by 8 (to a minimum of 0).

Card Comments
Advanced Targeting Computer is now effectively free with TIE/x1, except for Vader who must still pay 4 points for its use. In theory you can run him with Accuracy Corrector, but for simplicity's sake I may just increase Vader's base cost by 4 and decrease ATC to 8/8/8 across the board.

Sample Loadouts

• PS2 + TIE/x1 + Accuracy Corrector (36 points)
• Colzet + TIE/x1 + FCS (38 points)
• Maarek Stele + TIE/x1 + ATC + VI (46 points)
• Juno Eclipse + TIE/x1 + ATC + VI (48 points)
• Vader + TIE/x1 + ATC + Engine Upgrade {free EPT slot} (66 points)

On 28/11/2017 at 5:04 AM, MajorJuggler said:

Key Cards

Attack Formation
0 / 0 / 0
TIE Fighter or Z-95 only. Title.
When attacking, if the defender is in arc of another friendly ship with "Attack Formation" equipped, you may add one <hit> result. If you do and this attack hits, the defender suffers one damage, and then cancel all dice results.

I noticed that Scyks still are on the to-do list. Is that the reason they cannot have attack formation, or is it theme-wise (scum and mercs not disciplined enough for formations or Scyk as budget Interceptor not a strict formation flyer)? Normally I do not try to fly Scyks in formation, but the card would enable another playstyle for them.

THanks for doing this MJ. It’s goong to be amazing.

I don't know if you necessarily want to minimize the amount of FAQs, but you could avoid the S-foils one if you make it a dual card with the additional text, "When attacking, after rolling attack dice, you may flip this card" to separate the 'or' clauses.