So, some of you XWM players might not know, but FFG's "Dawn of Rebellion" supplement for the star wars RPGs is hitting shelves now, and it covers a lot of Rebels/R1 era materials. It includes stats for the U-Wing and TIE/SK Multirole fighter. I don't have the book myself, but have had some stuff reported to me across the internet. While obviously, the two product lines don't always mesh (I'm reminded of thoughts by an RPG dev on the characteristics of the VCX-100 which are highly ironic, and also the TIE/AG statline in AoR is way more limited) there is always some interesting information to be had with what LFL will let the RPGs publish which can be informative, and I thought I'd share.

First off, yes Imperial players, you might want to be slightly disappointed. Not only does the TIE Striker have a backseat gunner/bombardier, and the option to equip a proton bomb chute, but it actually has an extra set of laser cannons (Or rather x2 light laser cannons and x4 Heavy blaster cannons so maybe that evens out? Blaster cannons are weaker) and is reported as having a low-level shield generator. On the other hand, instead of Adaptive Ailerons turning off when you get stressed, the TIE/SK has a dramatically reduced speed and maneuverability any time it's in space, so maybe just take the benefit of the doubt there.?

Now, on to the U-Wing, there isn't much to report, other than it seems a lot like their X-Wing parameters match their capability in the RPG. It's a SIL 4 ship, which is how most "Large Ships" are treated by the RPGs (barring, again, the unfortunate treatment of the VCX-100). It also does talk about the door guns, which are Personal Scale weapons - that is damage stats relevant to people. They could theoretically deal damage to lightly armored vehicles, but I'm fairly certain they would not be able to inflict significant damage on the types of ships used in the game - we're talking about arms weaker than even than the stuff which in XWM is modeled as inflicting one damage. So while I'm sure FFG could stretch it, the idea really does seem to be that the door guns shouldn't have any relevance in this sort of fighter on fighter conflict and you probably shouldn't get your hopes up for a door gunner card. At the very least, not something like giving it actual attacks. Take APL if you want to simulate it.

43 minutes ago, UnitOmega said:

First off, yes Imperial players, you might want to be slightly disappointed. Not only does the TIE Striker have a backseat gunner/bombardier, and the option to equip a proton bomb chute, but it actually has an extra set of laser cannons (Or rather x2 light laser cannons and x4 Heavy blaster cannons so maybe that evens out? Blaster cannons are weaker) and is reported as having a low-level shield generator. On the other hand, instead of Adaptive Ailerons turning off when you get stressed, the TIE/SK has a dramatically reduced speed and maneuverability any time it's in space, so maybe just take the benefit of the doubt there.?

FFG YOU F*CKWADS! WHERE ARE MY BOMB SLOTS AND CREW SLOTS AND SHIELDS AND CANNON SLOTS??!

This is just getting ridiculous at this point. I really hope that a card in the TIE Reaper fixes this.

14 minutes ago, Celestial Lizards said:

FFG YOU F*CKWADS! WHERE ARE MY BOMB SLOTS AND CREW SLOTS AND SHIELDS AND CANNON SLOTS??!

This is just getting ridiculous at this point. I really hope that a card in the TIE Reaper fixes this.

Optimized Prototype striker, my dude.

Otherwise, maybe in a future Epic a TIE/SK title for maybe like, your choice of bomb or crew (since the Bomb system is theoretically optional)

Aside from a cross section not a lot really even supports the TIE Stiker even having a bomb slot or secondary crew.

31 minutes ago, Captain Lackwit said:

Aside from a cross section not a lot really even supports the TIE Stiker even having a bomb slot or secondary crew.

Honestly this is why I'm not too harsh on FFG. Like, sure, it has an elongated pod, but that could just be to fit the wings. There was definitely rumblings about it having some utility space before the film came out, but only secondary material has ever actually taken note of the crewman and bomb potential. Same with the shields. Nothing I saw would suggest to me it was a thing. I was very surprised when I was told it had Defense 1/0 (I/E forward shields in the mechanics). It does leave plenty of room open if FFG ever feels the want or need to change the TIE Striker to better match "TIE/SK Multirole Fighter".

3 hours ago, UnitOmega said:

First off, yes Imperial players, you might want to be slightly disappointed. Not only does the TIE Striker have a backseat gunner/bombardier, and the option to equip a proton bomb chute, but it actually has an extra set of laser cannons (Or rather x2 light laser cannons and x4 Heavy blaster cannons so maybe that evens out? Blaster cannons are weaker) and is reported as having a low-level shield generator. On the other hand, instead of Adaptive Ailerons turning off when you get stressed, the TIE/SK has a dramatically reduced speed and maneuverability any time it's in space, so maybe just take the benefit of the doubt there.?

This makes me hopeful we’ll get a second Striker release Imperial Veterans style. Maybe it could be called Imperial Prototypes which is quite thematic reflecting the advanced tech the Imperials have.

9 hours ago, Sasajak said:

This makes me hopeful we’ll get a second Striker release Imperial Veterans style. Maybe it could be called Imperial Prototypes which is quite thematic reflecting the advanced tech the Imperials have.

Imperial Prototypes sounds awesome! But I'm not sure the Striker should be a priority item for it. My reasoning is that it's a great ship. Yeah, you can make the argument that it could be a bomber or have a crew slot, but would that actually make it better? Plus, it's one of the few cases of a ship that only comes in a single blister that has more than one of its pilots being flown on a regular basis. Countdown, Pure Sabaac, and Duchess are all flown well in different niches and each do something very special for the Striker in their own way. We also aren't in need of a cheap bomber, we already have that in the TIE Bomber, and it wouldn't be able to do it as well as the Bomber because it doesn't have a Torp slot. Crew could boost the Striker's efficacy a bit more, but it'll only get one, then what good will that slot even do?

It think priority ships to see more pilots and maybe some fixes would be the Aggressor, Punisher, and the Phantom. The Phantom fits perfectly into the Imp Proto theme, only had two non-generics, and is not seeing play. The Aggressor hasn't really ever seen play except as a Quad TLT set, and that seems mind-numbingly boring to fly; it needs some spark. The Punisher could really use some sort of title fix, especially since so many of the things that help it are competing for the same Modification slot. Otherwise, we would getting another fix for an Imperial ship that's already been "fixed". Defenders don't need one, Interceptors could use something Imperial only, but I don't know what, Bombers are solid, the only Advanced anyone really loves is still Vader, and the Inquisitor is back on the rise. TIE Fighters are TIE Fighters - I agree with some that there could be a formation kind of title (precedent set by Crossfire Formation), but it can't really cost anything or it won't get used. First Order ships are up to snuff, I think, and don't really need anything else since they have the Tech slot.

So, as much as I would like to see a second release for the Striker, there's a lot of other ships that could use some help before it. We could still see some sort of Defenders of Scariff pack a wave or two down the road, but I think we'll have to wait until the Reaper is well-established before we see anything of that kind.

@Praetorate of the Empire can’t disagree with anything you say. But still I’d love to see an alternate versions of the Striker.

It took them six years to notice S-Foils, which are featured by name in a very memorable sequence that's now over 40 years old. I wouldn't hold my breath on them getting to something not featured on screen and just referenced in a tech manual.