46 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

Whoa. Those ARC-170 costs seem really off, MJ. Any details on the process? I think Braylen got too much of a cost break, and Shara didn't get enough. But it's a big spread of costs (in current terms): 21, 23, 26.5, 29? Thane's and Shara's PS and abilities are really worth those jumps?

Thanks for the sanity check @Jeff Wilder !

Braylen

Only version I looked at is the gunner/stressbot version, and compared to what a "fair" jousting efficiency of a stresshog should be. Braylen's efficiency largely depends on how often he can pull the 2nd stress off so he can get an action; at 55 points I have it ranging from 64.5% (0% actions) to 78.8% (100% actions). A reasonable number is probably in the 30% action (69% efficiency) to 60% action (73% efficiency) range.

Ok, so what's a stresshog worth? That's a harder question. Back in the day, an actionless stresshog was around 73.7% efficient, using the wave 3 meta power curve as a baseline. Using the new power curve it's 68% today, which partially explains why it doesn't get used. Braylen's better in that he has a rear arc, but worse in that he sometimes doesn't trigger gunner. I'm going to spitball a guesstimate that we want him around 70%. That would correspond to a 40% action rate. Now, a good argument can be made that the rear arc really does make him worth more even -- if the target efficiency number is more like 65% (ouch), then his cost would have to get increased a point or 2. I wouldn't be surprised if we tweak Braylen's cost later once we get to beta. First I need to go back to the Y-wing BTL title and give it a buff, so the new stresshog gets a boost, and then run it through wave 1 & 2 beta testing.

Ok, fair enough, I bumped his cost up 1 to 43. He still sees a pretty significant drop in cost though.

Thane

Thane is pretty straightforward, he sometimes gets a free action, which I model as a free TL for his attack. At 46 points and no upgrades, that puts his efficiency anywhere between 85% (never triggers his ability) to 104% (always triggers his ability). If he triggers his ability half the time then its 95%, which is about right. Probably will get tweaked later during testing, but it's pretty close. Since there's a lot of counterplay, he might need to be cheaper, but I would rather take a "wait and see" approach. He's also got both droid slots open at cheap tier 3 pricing, so that's a plus.

Shara

Shara's pilot tier is 3, so that helps a lot with upgrades. So I baselined Shara Bey around the really simple case of equipping Adaptability (-1 points) and Weapons Engineer (+3 points). If she grabs a target lock about every round then she essentially has ATT3 + TL for attack (native ATT3, plus the differential buff to her buddy). Her durability depends if she has a focus for defense. At 55 points that gives her a jousting efficiency between 92.4% (never has focus) to 95.7% (always has focus). I went with an assumption that she will have focus on defense about 60% of the time. There's my problem - if she's always target locking she never has focus. Other intangibles working against her: 1) target locking your desired target is hard if they move after you 2) target locks have to be on different ships which precludes focus fire. Intangibles working for her: 1) the droid slot is still open, 2) combo shenanigans may be better than the simple approach I assumed.

Net result: I just dropped her points by 2, so 51 base.

Loaded up with Adaptability / Weapons Engineer, she's 53 points, and Jousting efficiency is still 96% even if she never gets a focus on defense. Should be about right with the rear arc.

Norra

The jousting efficiency at the new power curve of the three Nora loadouts above are 103% (R2), 100% (BB-8), and 108% (R2-D2, regen every other turn). She's stuck on greens so I could probably risk lowering her a point, but I would rather err on the side of caution. Meta-Wing has her as pilot #20 going back to November 1, so she's not in a terrible place.

P.S. All jousting efficiency numbers are relative to the new power curve unless otherwise stated, which is pretty close to the current state of the game.

21 hours ago, vladamex said:

I know you're already committed to path #3 (which tries to keep the current builds viable by buffing up the sub-par ships with both point discounts and rule changes) but as others have explained this takes us quite a bit away from the current game. I feel like trying to tweak the game by changing the point costs is way simpler (both to implement and to learn/test), and possibly not that far out in terms of overall quality and appeal.

Using the above example of "Tie Fighters would cost 10 points and we don't want to see more than 8 ships per side on the table" --> well we can limit the max number of ships per side to 8, so if you want to bring Tie Fighters you can take the more expensive pilots, or you can take 7 academies and a 30 point, or say 6 academies + 40 points Soontir . How much of a problem is the fact that I can't run a mono-academy-tie-fighter squad in 100 points? Well not a big problem at all, IMO.

12 minutes ago, whittaker007 said:

I have to admit that I tend to agree with this sentiment of keeping things simple and lowering the point cost of base ships to compensate. A squad unit limit is a decent solution for cheap ship proliferation. And you could keep all the cool new titles, just put a points cost on them.

There are quite a few abusive cards that need to get reigned in, which you can't really fix with just cost changes. Things like R2-D2 regen every round and Engine Upgrade on large base ships need to get mechanically tweaked. Cost adjustments really aren't the right way to deal with this. If you make R2-D2 more expensive then Corran Horn just ends up being a bigger point fortress. I don't think it's worth sacrificing balance integrity (which is the whole point of the mod) just to make it marginally easier to deal with updated card text for the well-known OP cards. Also, some pilots... just need their abilities changed. For example, nobody is going to argue against Lorrir's ability getting changed, or giving Horton an EPT. So updating some upgrade card text, and updating some pilot text is fairly non-negotiable. It's fundamental to nerfing OP stuff and making useless pilots playable.

In regards to ships, rather than talk globally about no chassis updates, I think it's more constructive to talk specifics about each ship. Cost-only adjustments will work better on some ships than others. Some ships need tweaks that go beyond cost. For example if you make TIEs cheap, they still can't hit high agility targets, and they still die stupidly easily. So if you make them ultra cheap to compensate but limit ships to 8, then if you want to fly a TIE Swarm you really have to throw all the low PS Fighters in the trash and replace them all with TIE Interceptors. That's... not exactly what I'm going for.

In the name of simplicity...

TIE/v1 title reverted back to 2 / 2 / 2 points, and pilot costs all increased by 2 accordingly. There's no net change in total point costs, unless you want to run without the TIE/v1 title.

TIE/x7 title reverted to -4 / -4 / -4, and TIE/D title now -1 / -1 / -1. Pilot costs all increased by 4 across the board, so no net change... except I revised Vessery and Steele's cost each down by 1 point while I was in the neighborhood.

1 hour ago, MajorJuggler said:

There are quite a few abusive cards that need to get reigned in, which you can't really fix with just cost changes. Things like R2-D2 regen every round and Engine Upgrade on large base ships need to get mechanically tweaked. Cost adjustments really aren't the right way to deal with this. If you make R2-D2 more expensive then Corran Horn just ends up being a bigger point fortress. I don't think it's worth sacrificing balance integrity (which is the whole point of the mod) just to make it marginally easier to deal with updated card text for the well-known OP cards. Also, some pilots... just need their abilities changed. For example, nobody is going to argue against Lorrir's ability getting changed, or giving Horton an EPT. So updating some upgrade card text, and updating some pilot text is fairly non-negotiable. It's fundamental to nerfing OP stuff and making useless pilots playable.

Adjusting the text of "obvious mistakes" cards like Lorrir, Horton and similar makes sense to me, especially since you can cost the changes to these cards appropriately. Simple, straightforward changes to these cards would make the build space richer with very little additional complexity (no new mechanics), which is great.

When it comes to cards like EU and R2-D2, I'm not convinced that mechanical fixes (plus the non-trivial complexity they bring) provide a better cost/benefix "package" compared to point adjustments (which are less powerful balancing tool, but are simple and straightforward).

The argument of "making the R2-D2 more expensive makes Corran an even larger point fortress" is fair, and your goal of trying to make the current builds viable (to the extent possible) is a very noble one, however, changing the mechanics significantly to be able to achieve this goal doesn't necessary result in a "better" overall state. Perhaps the "new and nerfed" R2-D2 and large-base-EU will cause some of the current builds to disappear (for example: some of the current Corran builds might not be viable with the nerfed R2-D2).

Beta testing can help validate whether simple point tweaks can go "far enough" in terms of balance, or stronger fixes are needed (such as rules changes). Ideally testing would start from a simpler fix and then move towards more elaborate solutions if needed.

You seem convinced that a significant number of mechanical fixes are required to achieve the proper game balance. However, it looks like there are a number of folks (myself included) that feel like the costs of going this route may outweigh the benefits. It seems like you are much less concerned than we are about the additional complexity of the new rules, and the possibly significant drift of the final product from the original game. So it'd be great if you can shed some additional light on your thinking here.

1 hour ago, MajorJuggler said:

In regards to ships, rather than talk globally about no chassis updates, I think it's more constructive to talk specifics about each ship. Cost-only adjustments will work better on some ships than others. Some ships need tweaks that go beyond cost. For example if you make TIEs cheap, they still can't hit high agility targets, and they still die stupidly easily. So if you make them ultra cheap to compensate but limit ships to 8, then if you want to fly a TIE Swarm you really have to throw all the low PS Fighters in the trash and replace them all with TIE Interceptors. That's... not exactly what I'm going for.

I really like the idea laid out by @whittaker007 that new cards/titles should be optional (i.e. have a point cost attached to them) if possible. That way one could possibly run a "vanilla" academy tie fighter at 10 points (or whatever is the right price), or run a academy with the 2-point "Tie Fighter refit" title that introduces the new abilities (Evasive Thrusters and Attack Formation) for 1`2 points. Is something along these lines possible (and easy enough) to do? If yes, that may provide a nice hybrid between the two paths.

1 hour ago, vladamex said:

Beta testing can help validate whether simple point tweaks can go "far enough" in terms of balance, or stronger fixes are needed (such as rules changes). Ideally testing would start from a simpler fix and then move towards more elaborate solutions if needed.

You seem convinced that a significant number of mechanical fixes are required to achieve the proper game balance. However, it looks like there are a number of folks (myself included) that feel like the costs of going this route may outweigh the benefits. It seems like you are much less concerned than we are about the additional complexity of the new rules, and the possibly significant drift of the final product from the original game. So it'd be great if you can shed some additional light on your thinking here.

I am more than happy to discuss specifics, if you have anything in particular in mind that you are thinking of!

[Edit] R2-D2 seems like a pretty simple no-brainer, regen every single turn is just way too good. Makes Corran nearly unkillable end game regardless of his cost.

EU I originally just had more expensive for large base ships, but it's still super abusable. [And also harder for a squad builder to manage, which I am trying to avoid.] 3 bank + boost, every single turn on a large base. EU was literally the only reason that high PS large base ships were viable, if a card is auto-include then there's a problem with the design of the card.

1 hour ago, vladamex said:

I really like the idea laid out by @whittaker007 that new cards/titles should be optional (i.e. have a point cost attached to them) if possible. That way one could possibly run a "vanilla" academy tie fighter at 10 points (or whatever is the right price), or run a academy with the 2-point "Tie Fighter refit" title that introduces the new abilities (Evasive Thrusters and Attack Formation) for 1`2 points. Is something along these lines possible (and easy enough) to do? If yes, that may provide a nice hybrid between the two paths.

That definitely increases the possible builds, but also sounds complicated, especially from a balance perspective. Also more cards to keep track of.

Related to Engine Upgrade, I put up a poll on the Facebook page to see how people generally want to deal with it.

10 hours ago, MajorJuggler said:

I am more than happy to discuss specifics, if you have anything in particular in mind that you are thinking of!

[Edit] R2-D2 seems like a pretty simple no-brainer, regen every single turn is just way too good. Makes Corran nearly unkillable end game regardless of his cost.

EU I originally just had more expensive for large base ships, but it's still super abusable. [And also harder for a squad builder to manage, which I am trying to avoid.] 3 bank + boost, every single turn on a large base. EU was literally the only reason that high PS large base ships were viable, if a card is auto-include then there's a problem with the design of the card.

That definitely increases the possible builds, but also sounds complicated, especially from a balance perspective. Also more cards to keep track of.

I totally agree that there are several no-brainer fixes needed for some cards and abilities. And I definitely think you are on the right track here. I do think that new titles adding new abilities are the right way to bring old ships up to current meta standards, and some nerfing of cards that are too efficient is also required to bring balance to the force.

But there is also something to be said for having a viable option for rebalancing without adding these things. This is especially true for the casual space where we want to be able to attract new players with a low barrier of entry but still give somewhat balanced play options no matter where their personal taste in ships lies.

A simple recalibration of cost without titles increases the design space, and keeping all those titles with appropriate costs means having your cake and eating it.

Sure, lowly tie fighters can’t push damage through to arc dodging aces, but they might be used in a scenario, or in something like Arturi Cluster, or a casual match. But you could also do something like a mini-swarm paired with a Decimator or something to make up for their deficiencies in a competitive match too.

That doesn’t mean that everything has to be totally baseline FFG with a points calibration. Some fixes are necessary and need to be fixed regardless. Not even a filthy casual like me wants to fly a HWK with a 1 die attack

I made a new post relevant to this project on the patreon page for the Vassal module

https://www.patreon.com/posts/16275838

Sorry I rambled a bit above and didn’t really make a concise point. Let me have another go:

I think the approach you are taking to re-balance all ships to bring them up to the same meta-competitive level is the right one.

However if you make the starting points cost based off the ships as they stand without assuming the upgrade titles will be added is useful as a starting point.

One reason is that it provides a simple entry point for new users and helps open it up to a wider audience of casual players and newbies.

Another reason is that lowering the base cost of a ship without an upgrade title makes a ship better able to fill a role as a cheap filler or blocker or upgrade carrier, making it still useful in a competitive meta where you have other ships to make up for the deficiencies of the ship compared to others.

I also concede that it’s probably not as simple as I’m trying to make out. There are considerations that need to be made for not wanting powerful abilities to be attached to the cheapest possible frame. For example we maybe don’t want to make Biggs any cheaper than necessary and you’d want to be careful with spamming cheap turrets. But that should be able to be addresed by the pilot tiers and upgrade points cost.

So maybe in some cases you might want to increase the base cost of tier one pilots and lower the cost of the title. And in some cases maybe you still want to have a base cost for a ship that is higher than the raw stats suggest. TLT (and other upgrade) abuse is best addressed by fixing the upgrade itself rather than the ship.

And I see nothing wrong with tweaking ships and pilots directly in some cases without adding cards - giving Horton an EPT and increasing the HWK base attack to 2 for example.

I guess the last point I would like to raise is that FFG put out many of the ship titles as fixes because they couldn’t fix the ships directly. We don’t have those constraints.

It’s highly unlikely that someone would field a Tie Defender without one of the titles, but that really constrains them. It would be great if their base points cost was appropriate in the first place and change the cost of the titles instead. I would love to fly Defenders with decent cannons even if I can’t use the TIE-D title.

It also means we could fix the base cost of the Jumpmaster without the hacky fixes FFG have made. We could get to a point where we have a fairly costed ship with appropriate upgrade slots and make FFG’s errata’d fixes into a title that reduces the cost.

We should look at our own titles with this philosophy: as a way to specialise a ship, rather than as a fix for points cost. Fix the points cost in the ship itself and add optional titles to suit a particular loadout.

Norra won Chicago regionals! I feel better about essentially leaving her cost where it is.

Well ... she wouldn't have won if R2-D2 was once every other round, right?

Some tweaks.

Protectorate Starfighter

• Concord Dawn Protector: cost reverted back to 2 / 2 / 2, and decreased all pilot costs by 2 (no net change when using the title). For simplicity I'm keeping things as close as possible to stock, like my recent TIE x7 reversion.
• Fenn and Old Teroch cost reduced by 1 each, although they still see a point increase relative to stock.

X-wing S-foils : now primary weapon only:

X-wing only. Limited.

" You may equip one additional modification. If you are unstressed when attacking with a primary weapon, you may either reroll one blank attack die, or, if you have a target lock on the defender you may convert all <eye> results to <hit> results."

Attack Formation : now primary weapon only, and can be equipped by TIE Fighters, Z-95s, and M3-A. (M3-A updates coming soon):

Attack Formation
0 / 0 / 0
TIE Fighter, Z-95, or M3-A Interceptor only . Title.
When attacking with a primary weapon, 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.

Engine Upgrade : wording changed, so it now simply gives a stress after use if equipped to a large base ship:

" Your action bar gains the <boost> action icon. If this card is equipped to a large base ship, receive a stress token after performing a boost action. "

Some preemptive changes for ships that I haven't gotten to yet:

Miranda pilot ability only works in arc:

" Once per round when attacking a ship inside your firing arc, you may either spend 1 shield to roll 1 additional attack die or roll 1 fewer attack die to recover 1 shield."

Trajectory Simulator : B/SF-17 Bomber only .

Curious how TLT will fall out when you get to that point. I love what you did with Miranda and would suggest looking at something similar for TLT. Perform this attack twice if the defender is in your primary arc.

Yeah, the arced jousters are way more efficient now, so we will give TLT a try as is first, with just cost tweaks. Will be able to test this right in wave 1 testing with Y wings.

My thoughts on a TLT fix would be to make it a gunner-like effect where you can make a second attack if the first one fails to hit. Or if that’s too much of a nerf, just add the “You cannot perform another attack this round” clause.

Cost tweak should probably do it if Miranda gets a nerf. Although the Ghost double tap is pretty impressive as well. But the Ghost actually dies if you keep shooting it.

I have a half-witty, half serious poll up on the Facebook page about how half points should be handled. Go vote.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/533092997035866/

M3-A Interceptor

Overview

The M3-A "Scyk" Interceptors' primary adjustment is via cost changes. However both titles have been tweaked so all ships can also use "Attack Formation", which is useful when making primary weapon attacks when other M3-A Interceptors have the same target in arc.

Pilot Tiers

• Serissu and Genesis are tier 2.
• All other M3-A Interceptors are tier 3.

Pilot Cost and Ability Changes

• Sunny Bounder (PS1): cost decreased from 28 to 26.
• Cartel Spacer (PS2): cost decreased from 28 to 27.
• Inaldra (PS3): cost remains 30.
• Tansarii Point Veteran (PS5): cost decreased from 34 to 32.
• Laetin A'shera (PS6): cost remains 36, and ability changed to: " Once per round when defending, if you are not stressed, you may receive one stress token to change one defense die to an evade result. "
• Quinn Jast (PS6): cost decreased from 36 to 34.
• Genesis Red (PS7): cost decreased from 38 to 35.
• Serissu (PS8): cost decreased from 40 to 36.

Key Card Changes

Attack Formation
(see TIE Fighter post)

Light Scyk Interceptor

• title. M3-A Interceptor only.
• cost remains -4 / -4 / -4
• All Damage cards dealt to you are dealt faceup. You may treat all bank maneuvers (<Left Bank> or <Right Bank>) as green maneuvers. You cannot equip Modification upgrades. You may also equip the "Attack Formation" title.

Heavy Scyk Interceptor

• title. M3-A Interceptor only.
• cost decreased from 4 to 0 / 2 / 2
• Your upgrade bar gains the Cannon, Torpedoes or Missiles upgrade icon. Increase your hull value by 1. You may also equip the "Attack Formation" title.

Pulsed Ray Shield

Cost changed from 4 to 5 / 6 / 7

Sample Loadouts

Light Scyk and "Attack Formation" titles equipped

• Sunny Bounder (22 points)
• Cartel Spacer (23 points)
• Inaldra + Open EPT (26 points)
• Tansarii Point Veteran + Open EPT (28 points)
• Laetin A'shera (32 points)
• Genesis Red + Veteran Instincts (34 points)
• Serissu + Adaptability (33 points)

Heavy Laser Cannon, and Heavy Scyk and "Attack Formation" titles equipped

• Sunny Bounder (37 points)
• Cartel Spacer (38 points)
• Inaldra + Open EPT (41 points)
• Tansarii Point Veteran + Open EPT (43 points)
• Laetin A'shera (47 points)
• Genesis Red + Veteran Instincts (54 points)
• Serissu + Adaptability (53 points)

Heavy Laser Cannon, Pulsed Ray Shield, and Heavy Scyk and "Attack Formation" titles equipped

• Sunny Bounder (42 points)
• Cartel Spacer (43 points)
• Inaldra + Open EPT (46 points)
• Tansarii Point Veteran + Open EPT (48 points)
• Laetin A'shera (52 points)
• Genesis Red + Veteran Instincts (60 points)
• Serissu + Adaptability (59 points)

Already more than half of the ships done, nice work here @MajorJuggler !

I'm really looking forward to the squadron builder thing, since my usual partners are very interested by those rules, but won't change from our current houserules system (which is not as complex, but compatible with builders) without it ^^

BTW, I wonder how you will adress the YT-2400, and particularly the Outrider Title. Have you thought about a price dependant of the equipped cannon, so that more option become viable ? Like, Title for free, but doubles the cost of the Cannon upgrade ? Just a suggestion, maybe it is too much to add this to the Tier system of upgrade costs.

Incidentally doubling the cost of the cannon is exactly what I had in mind for the yt2400! But I haven't run all the numbers yet. The wording would be along the lines of "increase the cost of this title by the cost of your equipped cannon upgrade."

Bit of a pain for the squad builder, oh well.

Next up is bombs, then turrets, then missiles/torpedoes. Then back to the rest of the ships.

I'll echo the appreciation (and the pining for a squad builder, without which I can barely get over the barrier to test, much less my current-X-wing-sucks buddies). I'm watching with a lot of interest and -- as you know, MJ -- a hopefully helpful critical eye.

My goal in the next couple of weeks is to get all the wave 1 content ready to go for beta testing, which includes bombs, missiles, torpedoes, and turrets. That way when the squad builder goes live we can hit the ground running with wave 1 testing.

Bombs

Overview

Most of the mechanical linkages that have allowed bombs to hit targets in very specific ways have either been nerfed by FFG already, or have been newly nerfed here. To help compensate for this, bombs get less expensive across the board, especially for generics. The bomb prices will get ironed out better during playtesting, which can start to happen as early as wave 1 beta testing.

Changes are highlighted , otherwise any details listed here are the same as the stock game.

I'm taking suggestions for the Andrasta title, so if you have any ideas please speak up!

Bomb Card Changes

Bomblet Generator

• Cost changed from 6 to 4 / 6 / 8
• Card text changed to: "When you reveal your maneuver dial, you may either remove 1 bomblet token from this card to drop 1 bomblet token , or you may add one bomblet token to this card to a maximum of one. A dropped bomblet token detonates at the end of the Activation phase."

Cluster Mines

• Cost changed from 8 to 5 / 6 / 6

Conner Net

• Cost changed from 8 to 6 / 6 / 6

Ion Bombs

• Cost remains 4 / 4 / 4

Ordnance Silos

• B/SF-17 Bomber only
• Cost changed from 4 to 0 / 0 / 0
• Card text changed to: "When you equip this card, place 3 ordnance tokens on each other equipped <bomb> Upgrade card. When you are instructed to discard an Upgrade card, you may discard 1 ordnance token on that card instead. When dropping a bomb using a 1 <straight> template, you may discard one ordnance token from that bomb's Upgrade card to drop an additional copy of that bomb. "

Proton Bombs

• Cost reduced from 10 to 7 / 7 / 7

Proximity Mines

• Cost reduced from 6 to 4 / 5 / 5

Seismic Charges

• Cost reduced from 4 to 3 / 3 / 4

Thermal Detonators

• Cost reduced from 6 to 5 / 5 / 6

Related Card Changes

Andrasta

• TBD

Cad Bane (crew)

• Cost reduced from 4 to 3 / 3 / 3
• Card text: Your upgrade bar gains the <bomb> upgrade icon. Once per round, when an enemy ship rolls attack dice due to a friendly bomb detonating, you may choose any number of <eye> and blank results. It must reroll these results.

Genius

• Cost remains 0 / 0 / 0
• Card text changed: "After you reveal and execute a maneuver, if you did not overlap a ship, you may discard 1 of your equipped <bomb> Upgrade cards without the "Action:" header to drop the corresponding bomb token. If you do, this bomb and its effects cannot be ignored this round. "

Minefield Mapper

• Cost increased from 0 to 3 / 3 / 3
• Card text changed to: "During setup, after the "Place Forces" step, you may choose any number of your equipped <bomb> upgrade cards. Place all corresponding bomb tokens for each chosen <bomb> card in the play area beyond range 3 of enemy ships , and without overlapping any other bomb tokens. "

Minefield Mapper FAQ: You do not discard any equipped <bomb> upgrade cards or discard any ordnance tokens when you use Minefield Mapper. For each physical <bomb> upgrade card equipped, you can only place one bomb token (or set of tokens in the case of a multi-token bomb such as Cluster Mines), even if you have Extra Munitions equipped.

Sabine Wren (crew)

• Cost remains 4 / 4 / 4
• Card text: Your upgrade bar gains the <bomb> upgrade icon. Once per round, when an enemy ship rolls attack dice due to a friendly bomb detonating, you may change one die result to a <hit> result .

Trajectory Simulator

• B/SF-17 Bomber or TIE Punisher only
• Cost remains 2 / 2 / 2
• Card text: You may launch bombs using the 5 Straight template instead of dropping them. You cannot launch bombs with the "ACTION:" header in this way.

Loads of points reduction here. Do you get rid of Extra Munitions?

Also, I feel that Sabine should be limited to the normal range of the bomb : at Range 1 for a dial-drop bomb, under the template for action-drop mines.