We realize we are behind the times, but our group is just now pouring over all of the card information that was provided by the Bell of Lost Souls videos to try to maintain the same faction identity and feel to the game, while providing more on the Epic scale. However, I promised additional images to the upgrades that we have been working on, so here they are. Note that we may be changing many or all of these based on our research of what's been released.

With a rewrite to this scale, we believe the rule modifications only hold so far, and that to truly test these ideas is to make modifications to the cards themselves. Again, we have no points standard to work with, so write now it is more about the feel to allow Epic to feel like a unique and special thing, while seamlessly fitting in with what's presented for Standard Play.

A couple of notes on rules that I failed to touch on earlier:

Setup: Epic ships are placed during Setup based on the lowest initiative of its two Pilot Cards.

Movement: The Fore Section does NOT have a Maneuver Dial. It is treated as having performed a Blue Maneuver when it has activated (this does NOT count as revealing a maneuver).

Hard Point Upgrades:

C ommander Upgrades:

Cargo:

Teams:

Edit: Change Image Host

Hey @pickirk01 -
I've seen a few ideas around spreading tokens such as stress as well as various other icons to crew and upgrades, however we've always found this to be a bit clunky. First, there is a whole management system there that with how are these tokens distributed? what effects do the do to each team? are the effects always viable? etc... And even if we DO come up with a system that can handle that, how intricate will it be, and does it take away from the simplistic rule base that X-wing is founded on? By making the rules more complicated, we feel we are taking away from one of the very things that makes X-wing great.

Playtesting with the Stress being on the Pilot cards and denying actions anyways, as we continue to test with what we have, we find this to still be the best option. First, none of the Maneuvers on an Epic Ship will ever be Red (though we are still playing with Epic's stopping). In addition, we do not plan on any actions to that an Epic causes itself to cause stress. Since in our designs, all upgrades in Epic and Standard do NOT cross contaminate, we have a degree of control in that. As stress is much more incidental in 2.0 and there does not appear to be a lot of cards that grant it, this makes Epic Ships less susceptible. In addition, we can control what upgrades are and are not affected by Stress, by either words on the cards or whether or not they are considered actions.

In terms of Canon, we also don't see an issue with the "Pilot" cards receiving stress, as we tend to view these as the Command Crew. Putting aside that the Gozanti, C-Roc, and GR-75 are all controlled by a minimum crew that could just as easily be found on a freighter (as seen in the Rebels TV show), even large Capitol ships suffer from when their Commander gets flustered. The most recent and greatest example of this is within the opening scenes of Episode 8, with Poe vs. Hux. Regardless of how we may feel about the movies or this stunt, it does provide an in universe example of where a Commander of a ship whose crew numbers in the Thousands causes hesitation Fleet Wide, let alone within his very ship.

I do appreciate the added thought though, and are continuing to look for new ways that can implement a stress mechanic!

The big guidelines we have set for ourselves in this type of mechanic building is:
>>Can we use an already established mechanic? If no...
>>Does the new mechanic add a level of depth, fun, and intrigue to the game to help convey actions in the Star Wars Universe? If yes...
>>Is the new mechanic streamlined with the Standard play of X-wing, or is it too intricate / involved? If yes, then its back to step 2 or drawing board.

Quick question, I noticed the crew don't regenerate charges? Was that intentional? If so, how do you go about recharging them? I ask because the weapons recharge themselves.

For stop maneuvers, have you considered a cost of removing charges? For example, doing a stop you may have to remove 2 charges, and they can come from any of the upgrades.

These are looking great!

On 7/9/2018 at 5:41 AM, LawstDragon said:

Salutations All-

So my gaming group has been looking at this very thing since FFG performed the unboxing, and have done quite a bit of work in playing with a custom redesign that hopefully has a similar feel to 2.0. We are attempting to approach this from a similar stance to how the Devs have stated in their many videos, with one of the biggest being that we aren't worrying about points cost until everything else feels right (not too mention there are still a LOT of point cost variables that have yet to be seen).

...

((This may be my very first post on these forums, though I have been a long time lurker. Our gaming group has been playing this game for a couple years now, on both competitive and casual play. In addition, I have done a lot of custom design work for many local gaming groups in the Las Vegas area for various RPGs, Miniature, and Board games for nearly two decades.))

Please don't take the following as harsh criticism, that is not my intent. A lot of this stuff is great but it is pro level stuff. At my FLGS, I am always the one who has to twist the arms of the other guys to get in an epic game 2 or 3 times a year and too much complexity would drive them away from the format completely. As it is they usually feel a little disappointed at the relative weakness of the big ships so that is where I think a few tweaks to give just a little more punch is all we really need.

So as I have more time to digest this, I think it is getting too complicated. Epic already ends up with 20 or more ships on the table with another 20-30 upgrade cards all over the place. It is already real easy to forget to activate a ship or to use a key upgrade to modify at a key time. The "keep it simple" philosophy should be the way to go for Epic.

Splitting up the Initiative will make it real easy to forget if a ship has gone or that you had another section that could fire. Its extra complication and extra steps in a game that already has many levels of complication to worry about and often takes many hours to complete.

I think the only thing wrong with the current Energy part of Epic is there is never enough. If each ship starts with 1 or 2 more energy and all maneuvers recharge 1 more energy than they do now, then energy works just fine. Using charges for some of the team upgrades seems like a good way to mix them into the design, but since energy does roughly the same thing, it feels unnecessary.

There should be no need to "Reload" Ordnance weapons in Epic. A ship that size should easily be able to bring 20 or more of each torp or missile and the overwhelming majority of battles will end before those are all used up. Again it seems an over complication.

Being able to "Reinforce" both sections should come with a huge cost. Putting that much power into the shields should almost mean the ship cannot shoot that turn. Like at all. I am fine with making the action available to both sections, but can only ever be used by one or the other in a turn.

I LOVE your maneuver template.

I would LOVE commander upgrades, but feel they could use the energy mechanic. This would represent the Commander directing the crew to divert power to key systems like weapons or shields.

2 hours ago, Tervlon said:

Quick question, I noticed the crew don't regenerate charges? Was that intentional? If so, how do you go about recharging them? I ask because the weapons recharge themselves.

For stop maneuvers, have you considered a cost of removing charges? For example, doing a stop you may have to remove 2 charges, and they can come from any of the upgrades.

These are looking great!

What he said. The Gunnery team is basically just Crack Shot for Epic. Its not bad, but on a ship that can shoot several times a round, its very underwhelming. I would be looking for something in the team slot that I could use multiple times in a game. If you are going to make them non-rechargeable, then at least 2-4 charges per card seems reasonable, depending on cost.

First off, Raiders need to lose the double tap ability or bring the CR-90's ability up to par. The raider out classes the CR-90 with it's 5 attacks vs the CR-90s 4 attacks.

Someone else mentioned adjusting the point cost of the huge ships to cost way less. If we do this the hard points should cost much more. Make the base model with no upgrades cost 25-30 points. Then make harpoints cost around 10-15 points each. For missiles and topedoes you have a hard point upgrade that costs 8 points and you may equip 1 missile or torpedoe to that card.

Modify the CR-90s primary Turret Arc so we don't have to do the silly ship post to ship post measurement.

Huge ships should crush large or smaller base ships if they get in the way. If you really insist that they don't outright destroy a ship perhaps if a huge ship overlaps a ship with a smaller base the smaller ship is delt a number of faceup damage equal to the ships speed. Then if the smaller ship is not destroyed the player moving the huge ship displaces the smaller ship to anyware so long as it remains in base contact with the huge ship and must face the ship so it is flying away from the huge ship.

I like the idea that the manuver doesn't generate energy but rather the ship uses energy on the manuver. Huge ships could Regen energy much in the same way force regens in 2.0 in the end phase. And PLEASE give huge ships a 0 speed manuver.

@Tervlon In the version I've presented, there is a way to charge non-recurring charges on upgrades with the new action, [Energize]. The icon is that of the old energy icon, and is in the Aft section's action bar of the Pilot Cards I've already posted. With the general reduction of attack strength in 2.0, we felt that by causing some of these recharges to cost an action, it emphasized the fact that hard choices had to be made every turn. The Ordnance Tubes granting a reload option is considered to be a secondary way for the missile / torpedo to regain charges.

On 7/9/2018 at 2:41 AM, LawstDragon said:

>> Energize: When performing an Energize action, you may spend any number of [Charge] to regain an equal number of [Charge] on any number of your Pilot or Upgrade cards. For example: If you spend 2 charge from your Aft Section, you could either give one Upgrade two [Charge] OR your Fore Section and one upgrade one [Charge] each OR two upgrades one [Charge] each. 

In terms of the Gunnery Team, we have been in debate to make the number of charges 2 so it can be applied on two attacks per round, but yes, the fact that not all upgrades have a recurring charge was purposefully done, again because of the Energize action.

@pickirk01 First, we don't mind disagreeing opinions or 'harsh criticisms' as long as they have constructive reasoning and intent. In fact, we invite them! If we thought everyone was going to agree with everything we did, we wouldn't be putting it on these forums for discussion and playest, so please, keep making them as long as they are constructive!

In terms of the differing pilot skill, there are some here who agree that it may be too difficult to manage. The largest reasons for its development in that way was in the attempt to remove the Epic Activation special phase (ironically to simplify Epic integration to the normal game), and still move the ships somewhat last in Activation. The other thing we have been looking at (and would appreciate any thoughts or playtests on) is giving Epic ships a single Pilot Skill and moving in normal initiative order. We are trying to determine if Epic Ships MUST move last (previous assumptions were yes, but no we are no longer certain), as our assumptions behind FFG's thinking was due to the auto-destruct ramming.

We originally had Reinforce as you stated, however, with the changes in 2.0 with Reinforce (where it reduces damage to a minimum of one, per the FFG Unboxing video), playtesting showed that Epics still suffer heavily from multiple shots coming its way and their lack of agility However, the disadvantage to Reinforcing both halves is again the loss of any other actions you may otherwise be taking (such as Energize, Target Lock, or from Upgrades).

And thanks for compliment on the maneuver template. We are quite proud of it.

Edit: Just realized I missed your point on keeping the energy mechanic. The main reason we are eliminating this is because of the charge mechanic presented in 2.0. As you have stated, the two are very similar, and since 2.0 is doing alot of work to standardize the systems in X-wing to make the game overall, we are trying to do the same in Epic and use the system they already have instead of adding another on. Theoretically, this makes for an easier learning curve / play experience. This may come of as confusing, and my apologies if it does, but our groups mentality in this re-design is "Can this be easily learned and adapted if you've played 2.0 standard, but never Epic and capture the Epic feel ", versus "Can we adapt Epic 1.0 rules and systems into 2.0".

@CPTRhino In terms of point cost, we are of similar thinking. Currently we are again utilizing the estimates of the VCX-100 and VT-49 for points per section, and adjusting for ship ability / "pilot" ability, and the obstruction ruling. We all agree that Hard Points should be much more expensive than normal weapon upgrades, as they provide an additional attack option. We are looking at hard points costing 24+ (12+ in 1E) points each (with the exception of Ordnance Tubes), as it can be comparable to having another ship on the board. Again, points are still very tricky for balancing, as it is still pending the FFG 2.0 App for comparison.

For the Raider double tap ability, there are a couple here who think we should emulate Corran Horn's E-wing, and have it restricted to a 'bulls-eye' arc (the next graphic for the bases will have these standardized for the fore section), though not the weapons disabled token. We haven't played too much with it, mostly because our focus has been elsewhere. Opinions are most welcome!

The CR-90 and appropriate upgrades is what we are currently working to complete, and should hopefully have those done today or tomorrow. The big wait on this was trying to figure out what version of a standard base to use for Epics, because of the CR-90's turret and Hard Point turret upgrades. Now that we have settled on Version D, we are playing more and more with various ways to manage arcs on Hard Points and ships.

The Post to Post measurement we have also eliminated for the time being. In terms of targeting an Epic ship, we are currently allowing either section to be targeted, however, if the measurement from closest point to closest point goes through the other section, the shot is treated as being obstructed (huge ships do NOT obstruct themselves). Part of this is we are hoping to standardize the Epic Damage Deck. The current debate is whether or not to have One Damage deck specific to each Epic Ship, or a Single Epic Damage deck that any Epic Ship can use. Either way, the consensus here is to remove the damage deck per section. Again, this hasn't been a focus for us due to other things having higher priority, but any thoughts are welcomed!

The auto destruct on Ramming we are against, but there are a couple here thinking we may have removed too many teeth from the ability. We may go from instead of rolling dice that it just inflicts that number of damage. Something else we are playing with, and hope to get more tests in for the next couple of weeks. Again, Opinions and Thoughts welcome!

We are also starting to lean towards adding the 0 maneuver, and are looking for it to be the only 'white' maneuver, with the other cost being none of the Aft ship abilities will grant extra [charge] on the 0 maneuver.

Unfortunately, we are not able to Playtest this every day (or even necessarily every week), so some of this may come slow. But any input the community can give would be greatly appreciated.

So after a few rounds of play testing and discussion, we have determined the separate Initiative causes a number of previously unforeseen problems. We are now looking to see if Epic Ships must move last, or if we can have them move during the normal activation phase.

Also, since the FFG has released the new 2.0 Rulebook, we are beginning to look through that to see what additional adjustments we may need to take. As a result, we want to take a closer look at the upgrades before putting them up here.

However, as promised, here are the the CR90 Ship Cards that we have been working on. We will be adding the range to the Imperial Raider ones, along with the new share arc, as well as adjusting the Initiative. Upgrades are next, possibly to be followed by the Gozanti.

One of the fundamental things I think that the epic ships from 1.0 are lacking is purpose on the table. As many have said, these ships don't seem to have their own true space in the design continuum. I've been trying out Lawst Dragon's suggestions, and many of them are quite solid. I definitely like the idea of adding to their shield and hull, BUT (hear me out here) I think part of the reason for the low hull and shields was to save on materials cost and table bloat when developing the box sets. The epic ships real dollar value picks up where the shadowcaster and ghosts and shuttles left off, they step up in price point so there is no appreciable gap in the MSRP of the ships. This means that if someone walks into the game store with XX amount to spend, they will find a single-box kit at that price point which might entice them to buy. This could keep them coming back later to pick up the multiple, smaller individual ships they were considering for that price. (Ex, "I have saved 100 for X wing I could either pick up HotR and a couple of T-70's, or I can pick up this Tantive IV now while I have this chunk of change, and get the other ships one at a time later.) BUT I digress.. big time.

Additionally, if we upgrade to 20 shields per ship.. like... the tokens, man. We'd need an entire additional sprue per box, just to ship them. Then, the amount of space on the table would be obscene. This could be solved with one of several ways. Personally use the tiny Chessex dice to represent shield values on all the ships, but there could also be white shield tokens worth 5 or 10. Not a major concern unless your'e talking about continuity from small ships to large.

Another point where the ships are missing out on their identity within the play space, is they don't seem to have a true role. Their weapons are simply "Bigger" versions of whats already in the game. This is potentially fine for their default weapon, but its definitely unsuitable for hardpoint design. There was an interesting idea where a user proposed something like "If this attack hits, cancel all dice results, then roll 8 attack dice. For each hit/ crit rolled, the defending ship suffers corresponding damage. These dice cannot be modified in any way." I initially read this and skipped past it with the feeling of "meh..." but its been festering.

If the Turbolasers rarely hit small, agile ships, but dealt major damage if the green dice failed them, that hardpoint (one unique to epic scale ships) would function within its own design space AND it would capture that glorious (almost) one shot effect on smaller ships, while being uniquely designed for epic vs epic (or vs Decimator/Ghost) warfare. The opportunity cost here is very cool as well, because then, the ship might not be free to take any anit small ship hardpoints. There is not a whole lot of unique interplay between ordinance, small ships, epic ships, and their hardpoints.

What do you thing of a design space of "Snub Fighters with ordinance > Raider with (the above) Turbolasers> Tantive with Point Defenses > Snub fighters with ordinance." The ability to choose the different hardpoints would give a ship the ability to tweak that rock paper scissors a bit, but I think this flow captures the star wars universe quite well.

Also on the point defenses, there could be a great hardpoint card that influences missile attacks in a defensive way. Anti-Warhead battery "When an enemy ship at range 2-3 attacks you with a secondary weapon with a missile indicator in the range bonus field , you may spend 2 charges from this card to cancel all dice results." recovers one charge per turn, holds three charges... recovers no chares, etc. Cool way to stop the alpha strike at the cost of other options.

I really liked the drifty maneuver templates from FFG, over the notched ones from LD's group. I think they really captured the feel of a heavier ship moving through the same space that the fighters do. And in terms of the stop maneuver, I only have an issue with this because a ship should not be able to go from full 4 forward to a stop next turn. Maybe not even from anything faster than a 1 or 2 speed.

Also, epic ships should still be able to smash smaller stuff. Maybe not large base ships, but there should definitely be some kind of Rogue One esque situation of ships bouncing off the front of larger ships and being destroyed. Its adds zone denial to the larger ships, based on the threat of being smashed off the board.

@FiFTy FooT FoX

In terms of the tokens, we are adding near the same amount per ship card as the VCX-100, so I don't think it was a logistical choice. However, I cannot deny the logistical issues that it has. In terms of a solution, a quick idea would be simple a counter in a form similar to the 1.0 Manuever Dials. You could even put a blue shield symbol on the front of the dial, and a red shield dial on the back for aesthetics and similar feel of 'flipping' a token to second. But in all reality, this is definitely off-subject from the meat of the design we are after, so as we were...

20 hours ago, FiFTy FooT FoX said:

the Turbolasers rarely hit small, agile ships, but dealt major damage if the green dice failed them,

20 hours ago, FiFTy FooT FoX said:

it would capture that glorious (almost) one shot effect on smaller ships  ,

Agreed and fantastic sense of adding a new potential spot for Turbolasers that I now want to test when our group gets back together. In fact, let me bring up the template and make a couple changes...
Note: This isn't playtested in the slighted, and is only a concept that we will bring to the table. Opinions?

This could very much be an interesting type functionality to give to the Hardpoint weapons that are larger than 'standard' scale weapons. It is also much cleaner in function. And since the new 'special weapon' rules allow for range bonuses, this could be a difficult shot to make. But if made... Just not sure how viable it may be.

Point Defense Weapons is actually another upgrade we have been working on and have playtested to a point to where I should be able to upload it once the card is given the 'finalized' look. Essentially a short range weapon that has several arcs for fighter defense. Another upgrade we have also been playtesting that is along lines you spoke of is "Missile Defense System". Currently we are in debate between Hard Point and Cargo, and are leaning heavily into Cargo. We are also looking at possible restrictions on a majority of these hard points (with the Missile Defense System requiring ships with [Jam] for example). These and a few others I am hoping to have up with the next batch, which may be this week, but possibly the weekend.

I can understand the opinion of the maneuver template, but politely disagree in that it adds to the heavy feel. This may be slightly off topic, but Star Wars physics is less true space vacuum, minute gravity physics and more akin to aircraft in atmosphere for fighters, and large naval vessels for capital sized craft. In that, the level of fishtailing emulated was really only seen on ships that have rudders providing turns much sharper than 30 degrees. If you watch videos of large naval vessels perform turns, you will see the aft, outward corner almost never leaves the line that the outward side would draw had the vessel gone straight. But I digress...

In terms of the hard stop, that is one of the main arguments outside of should a capital ship be able to sit round-to-round. However, the chief argument made is more game related, as it would be almost equally hard for ships such as the YV-666 (Hound's Tooth) after performing a three speed or faster maneuver. With the increasing number of vessels in 2E gaining a hard stop ability, the thought is quickly turning to giving these ships a hard stop.

Another thing we are focusing on is the Ramming rules. Instead of rolling dice, the group is now looking heavily at just dealing X number of damage cards or inflicting X damage based on size. Hoping to test more during our next session.

@LawstDragon

You mentioned point defense and going with a "hard to hit but big damage when it does" modification to the turbo lasers. These were some things I tossed around a few months ago. Some were changes to existing weapons, some were new ideas. They were intended for 1.0 and were just untested ideas but if you can use any part of it for what you are doing, have at it.

• Ion Cannon Battery (Energy 2, Attack 4, Range 2-4) - Attack (Energy): Spend 2 energy from this card to perform this attack. If this attack hits, the defender receives 2 ion tokens. (deleted dice canceling and gave greater Ion benefit against Large & Huge bases)
• Quad Laser Cannons (Energy 2, Attack 3, Range 1-3 ) - Attack (Energy): Spend 1 energy to perform this attack. If this attack does not hit, you may immediately spend 1 energy from this card to perform this attack again.
• Single Turbo Lasers (Energy 2, Attack 4, Range 3-5) - Attack (Energy): Spend Two energy form this card to perfo rm this attack. The defender doubles his agility value against this attack. You may change one of your focus results to a hit result. If this attack hits, cancel all dice results and add 3 Crit results.

Some ideas for new hardpoint weapons:

• Point Defense Lasers (Energy 2) - When (a friendly ship at range 1 is)* defending against an attack from a Missile or Torpedo secondary weapon, before rolling defense dice you may spend any number of energy from this card to cancel that many "hit" results. *Am not sure if this should only protect the big ship or also close in friendlies for a greater cost.
• Barrage Missiles (Attack 3, Range 2-4) - Attack (Target Lock): Spend your Target Lock to perform this attack against the Locked ship and up to 1 other enemy ship at range 1 of the Locked ship.
• Tractor Array (Energy 2, Attack 3, Range 1-3) - Attack (Energy, Target Lock): Spend your target lock and 1 energy from this card to perform this attack against a Small Base ship or 2 Energy against a Large base ship. If this attack hits, cancel all dice results. Then assign the "Tractored" Condition to the defender.

Tractored Condition: Reduce your agility value by 2. You may not perform boost or barrel roll actions. You may not decloak. During the planning phase, do not assign a maneuver dial to this ship. During the Activation phase, this ship moves as if it were assigned a white 0 maneuver. At the end of the activation phase, remove this card.

I have attached some additional upgrades below.

A few notes:
Commander Sato was made with the thought to change the Ramming rules to instead of rolling a number of dice as we originally stated, it deals an equal number of damage cards.
Missile Defense System is currently Cargo, but may be moved to Hardpoint.
Tractor Array is what we have been testing with, but the name was completely taken from @pickirk01 's suggestions. Way better than Capital Tractor Beam or Heavy Tractor Beam.

I have also attached an untested new version of the Heavy Ion Cannon , based on the same concept with the new Turbolaser, as inspired by @FiFTy FooT FoX .

Commanders:

Cargo:

Hardpoints:

Again, any opinions, ideas, or playtest results with any of this stuff is greatly appreciated.

14 hours ago, LawstDragon said:

I have attached some additional upgrades below.

A few notes:
Commander Sato was made with the thought to change the Ramming rules to instead of rolling a number of dice as we originally stated, it deals an equal number of damage cards.
Missile Defense System is currently Cargo, but may be moved to Hardpoint.
Tractor Array is what we have been testing with, but the name was completely taken from @pickirk01 's suggestions. Way better than Capital Tractor Beam or Heavy Tractor Beam.

I have also attached an untested new version of the Heavy Ion Cannon , based on the same concept with the new Turbolaser, as inspired by @FiFTy FooT FoX .

Commanders:

Cargo:

Hardpoints:

Again, any opinions, ideas, or playtest results with any of this stuff is greatly appreciated.

Oh wow, these are all very well done.

Akbar is very interesting. Possibly very situational but powerful when used.

Rieekan was one of my favorites from 1.0. Very nice design. Combined with backup generators (if not limited) and you may have a way to recharge his ability but it will take a long time to pull it off.

Sato: I like his change to friendly ramming.

Antilles: Much needed action economy on the big guys.

Backup Generator: Provides a nice little boost twice a game.

Missile Defense System: This seems really powerful for slowing down alpha strikes against, but does have a maximum of 2 uses per round and only recharges one back per turn (or two twice with Backup Gens.)

Heavy Ion cannon: This is Perfect. People are going to complain that you will never hit fighters with only 2 dice, but this is a Capital Ship killer. (Assumption that Ions affect 2.0 epic ships and charges in a similar way to how Ions affected Energy.) Used against things like YT's, Punishers, Y-Wings or other Huge ships and it will do damage and offer outstanding control.

Point Defense Cannons: Simple, effective, 'nough said.

Tractor Array: Again, well done. Crits doing damage is even justifiable in that the jolt to the ship was powerful enough to cause structural stain. (Semantics question: Should this card say, "If this attack hits, the defender suffers 1 Hit and 1 tractor token for each uncancelled Crit result, and 1 tractor token for each uncancelled hit result?")

Keep it up guys!

I forgot to include the CR90 Ship Tile with the ship cards. An error I am now correcting.
Also, the finished Raider Tile is attached with the unified Initiative and corrected arc fill.
Note: The center "cutout" circle is the size of the black bearings that connect the Maneuver Dials. The though being that these would be used to attach Arc Indicators.

@pickirk01
You are absolutely correct in that the wording needs correcting. Antilles and Vader need some wording corrections as well, a few upgrades need the wording corrected to follow 2.0 trends, and I noticed a few misspellings that snuck through. All of these will be corrected and posted once I have a everything else up (though I am beginning to think I should create a Master Post that contains all the upgrades, ship cards, and tiles so that I can just correct them all on the one post, as well as add new additions).

Tractor Array: " Attack [L]: If this attack hits, instead of damage, for each uncancelled [d] result the defender suffers 1 tractor token, and for each uncancelled [c] result suffers 1 tractor token and 1 [d]."

Raymus Antilles: "After your fore or aft section activates, you may spend 1 [C] to have that section perform an action on its action bar or equipped [T] Upgrade Card."

Darth Vader: "After your fore or aft section has performed an action, you may spend 1 [F] to have that section perform an action on its action bar or equipped [T] Upgrade Card."

10 hours ago, LawstDragon said:

though I am beginning to think I should create a Master Post that contains all the upgrades, ship cards, and tiles so that I can just correct them all on the one post, as well as add new additions).

Yeah, you should start a new thread. Sometimes people see these older topics that they checked out and were not interested in and never look at them again.

Get this stuff out there.

Agreed.

New Thread

There is one thing I have always found odd about epic play. The fact that both halves of a ship have separate shields. I can understand splitting the Hull into two sections but not the shields. You can, for example, cripple the fore section of a CR-90, while the aft section still has shields. I have always thought it would be more thematic if shields were a shared resource between those sections. A ship should either have shields or it shouldn't, and as far as I know, that's how it works in Star Wars.

Having shields as a shared pool, would allow for an overall reduction in the number of shields per epic ships. As just adding up the total shields on a ship and applying them for overall damage mitigation before putting damage on the hull, would likely be too overpowering. So the total could be higher than it now stands but not significantly so. I think this would have the effect of making epic ships stronger in the short game , but weaker in the long game.

2 hours ago, acesandeights said:

There is one thing I have always found odd about epic play. The fact that both halves of a ship have separate shields. I can understand splitting the Hull into two sections but not the shields. You can, for example, cripple the fore section of a CR-90, while the aft section still has shields. I have always thought it would be more thematic if shields were a shared resource between those sections. A ship should either have shields or it shouldn't, and as far as I know, that's how it works in Star Wars.

Having shields as a shared pool, would allow for an overall reduction in the number of shields per epic ships. As just adding up the total shields on a ship and applying them for overall damage mitigation before putting damage on the hull, would likely be too overpowering. So the total could be higher than it now stands but not significantly so. I think this would have the effect of making epic ships stronger in the short game , but weaker in the long game.

Nope...

In "Empire" the Falcon loses all aft shields. Threepio warns another hit on the back quarter and they are done for prompting Han to put all power into the forward deflectors and make an attack run on a Star Destroyer.

Seconds later the Falcon no longer appears on the Destroyers scopes.

4 hours ago, acesandeights said:

There is one thing I have always found odd about epic play. The fact that both halves of a ship have separate shields. I can understand splitting the Hull into two sections but not the shields. You can, for example, cripple the fore section of a CR-90, while the aft section still has shields. I have always thought it would be more thematic if shields were a shared resource between those sections. A ship should either have shields or it shouldn't, and as far as I know, that's how it works in Star Wars.

Having shields as a shared pool, would allow for an overall reduction in the number of shields per epic ships. As just adding up the total shields on a ship and applying them for overall damage mitigation before putting damage on the hull, would likely be too overpowering. So the total could be higher than it now stands but not significantly so. I think this would have the effect of making epic ships stronger in the short game , but weaker in the long game.

Nah they haven't worked like that in star wars ever. A new hope there is a line about angling the shield forward.

Plus the 90s games show that in practice up to and including full fore or full aft. And that's just starfighters bigger ones have more generators in more locations so more granular control.

Well until we get 2.0 Epic (around Wave 4 or something) I think one of the better things is to make use of Threat for starfighter sized ships and just use 1.0 squadron points for huge ships.

The more you spend on huge ships the less threat you have.

• <40: 16 threat
• 40-60: 12 threat
• 60-80: 10 threat
• 80-100: 8 threat
• 100-120: 6 threat
• 120+: 4 threat

Some things I would love to see in epic 2.0:

A separation between epic as a play style and the big ship's themselves. I would love for 'huge ships' (to coin a size class) become available in standard play as long as you have enough points, while 'epic' becomes a distinct style of play that gives more options to large point value battles. Sorta like how in warhammer 40k superheavies were made an option for regular play armies (if you were willing to devote so many points to them) and 'armageddon' just became a play mode for large battles, giving extra options for objectives and such.

It would make for more interesting play, and let people use their huge ship collections more often.

I would also like to see an expansion of the docked fighter mechanic. We've now seen that you can dock fighters with a CR90 (in Rebels) to make it a pocket carrier, and seen that the Raider has a cargobay easily adapted to carrying a couple fighters as well. And it doesn't take much imagination to see how a C-Roc or GR75 could be modified to do something similar. So I'did love to see a upgrade of some kind that could be applied to those ships (but not the Gozanti) to let them carry a pair of small base fighters. Perhaps something that uses up multiple cargo slots, or whatever.

Borrow the "displace" mechanic from Armada for overlap. It's a rules nightmare to write, but it's the most fair.

Replace energy with charges that have a special color code so they can still be interacted with by cards like Chopper, but don't interfere with other interactions. Maybe have some of the hard point weapons be their own charge source.

Keep the forward and rear section thing, but with each section having three arcs to play with. Simple clean lines are good. Something that even FFG won't screw up by forgetting to print a blue line ha ha!

I want to see Ion weapons have a greater impact on epic ships. Not just restrictions on movement but also weapons and other actions.

We see the ion cannon cripple a star destroyer in Empire Strikes Back and more recently the gold squadron Y wings cripple the Star Destroyer in Rogue One. If they can do that to a star destroyer, they should be able to make light work of a Raider or Gozanti.

18 minutes ago, Braddock76ie said:

I want to see Ion weapons have a greater impact on epic ships.

At least make it so that a heavily ironed ship doesn’t move fast.

1 hour ago, Braddock76ie said:

I want to see Ion weapons have a greater impact on epic ships. Not just restrictions on movement but also weapons and other actions.

We see the ion cannon cripple a star destroyer in Empire Strikes Back and more recently the gold squadron Y wings cripple the Star Destroyer in Rogue One. If they can do that to a star destroyer, they should be able to make light work of a Raider or Gozanti.

keep in mind that the Ion Cannon in ESB was the size of a corvette itself, while in Rogue One it took 5 Y-wings firing about 15-20 torpedoes to do the same thing to an ISD.

but i agree, Fighter scale Ion weapons (guns or torps) ought to do a number on corvette sized ships.