2 minutes ago, Jike said:

I sit me, or are we missing some pilots here? Some of them don't seem to have all 4 as we would expect: Auzituck, K-Wing and YT2400 for example.

I wonder if they reduced the number of pilots and are gonna include 2 of the same generics instead of 2 separate ones.

16 minutes ago, zimut-X said:

Just forget to take the picture, I think ?

But Ashoka is replaced by Ezra and no title anymore for Sabine'S Tie

Where did Ahsoka go? FFG bring her back haha

15 minutes ago, thomedwards said:

Reading Juke, I became confused. "While you perform an attack, if you are evading...." Am I the only one that doesn't understand how you can evade while attacking? Or, does that mean "If you have an evade token when you attack"?

12 minutes ago, papy72 said:

I wondered the same thing about Juke.

It's the new standard language. You can see it on a few cards, like the Millennium Falcon title.

They use 'focused', 'evading' or 'locked' to mean when you have the relevant token.

I like it, it's leaner. Means there's more space on the card.

Ezra is actually in his own **** tie fighter. Thank God, did they change the name of it too?

12 minutes ago, GILLIES291 said:

Fenn was a surprise that he stayed exactly the same, except no range restriction. But I guess large ships not having boost will make a difference as he won't be able to reposition someone big.

Prediction: YT-1300 with Luke Gunner and Fenn will be the new Ghost/Fenn.

16 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

No, we already know from the unboxing stream that 'moving' includes rolling and boosting.

Oh wait, but it doesn't allow him to ignore obstacles for performing actions, so while he could roll on to an obstacle, he couldn't roll off it and also won't be able to take focus/TL on debris.

One of the blister X-wing pilots (Thane) is missing.

Interesting point about Fenn is that there's no more VI, so there are a lot more pilots who can potentially act after him; all the ones who've been forced out by VI bombers.

4 minutes ago, gamblertuba said:

Prediction: YT-1300 with Luke Gunner and Fenn will be the new Ghost/Fenn.

Piloted by Lando and Nien/Gonk Crew.

1 hour ago, Jadotch said:

Other interesting notes ...


Lt Blount is Jesse Pava lite

Blount is nothing like Jess. He adds an attack die if there is a friendly near the defender. Cost dependent, he might be pretty good.

13 minutes ago, Jike said:

I'm liking it so far, in general. Seems like the devs are exploring the design space offered by Charges pretty well. I particularly like the differences in some of the ordnance and the number of charges they have.

Is it me, or are we missing some pilots here? Some of them don't seem to have all 4 as we would expect: Auzituck, K-Wing and YT2400 for example. I'm also wondering if Mangler and Flechette cannons made the jump from 1st to 2nd edition. Mangler I can understand not being there, since it was the closest cannon to a primary weapon, but the absence of Flechette in general makes me wonder if FFG don't want stress to be weaponised this edition. Finally, love the new Homing Missile - useless against big lumbering targets and therefore a specialised anti-fighter weapon.

Probably want something new for when those ships are rereleased.

3 minutes ago, Admiral Deathrain said:

Oh wait, but it doesn't allow him to ignore obstacles for performing actions, so while he could roll on to an obstacle, he couldn't roll off it and also won't be able to take focus/TL on debris.

No, they specifically said he ignores obstacles when moving and taking actions. He can't turn his ability off anymore though, it is always on.

I imagine the 2400 will not have a gunner slot.

13 minutes ago, gamblertuba said:

Prediction: YT-1300 with Luke Gunner and Fenn will be the new Ghost/Fenn.

I think the fact that Falcon/Luke only ever shoots once per round will stop it from getting as obnoxious.

I mean, I'm not stoked about Fenn going without a nerf but I don't see this list being as bad as Fenn's 1e BS.

Gunner Han on Lando/Nien and Fenn worries me more. That's mad action economy for the rest of what we've seen in 2e. That's a large base ship that can white boost, evade and then rotate at I6 before shooting twice, once at I7.

2 minutes ago, Elbastido said:

No, they specifically said he ignores obstacles when moving and taking actions. He can't turn his ability off anymore though, it is always on.

Wouldn't be the first time they get a rule wrong. Unless taking an action now is part of moving (which wouldn't make a lot of sense, since it is part of activating) they'll have to errata Dash if they want him to work that way. Or maybe every ship can perform actions on asteroids now, which I also don't expect.

9 minutes ago, Admiral Deathrain said:

Wouldn't be the first time they get a rule wrong. Unless taking an action now is part of moving (which wouldn't make a lot of sense, since it is part of activating) they'll have to errata Dash if they want him to work that way. Or maybe every ship can perform actions on asteroids now, which I also don't expect.

What they said on stream was that 'moving' is defined as 'dial move plus any movement actions'.

22 minutes ago, Admiral Deathrain said:

Dash may be nerfed a bit since he only says 'while moving' this could mean, depending on how the BR rules end up, that he won't be able to roll off asteroids. Still looks like he has to be deathstar levels of points!

To make this clear, unless asteroid rules are changing in 2e, being on an asteroid does not prevent you from performing an action (e.g. someone could Coordinate a friendly ship to boost/barrel roll off a rock, assuming you can put the movement template down). The act of overlapping an asteroid during your maneuver causes you to skip the Perform Action step, but Dash ignores the asteroid while moving and thus doesn't suffer the lost action for hitting it.

There is a small nerf to Dash's ability: it is is no longer optional, so once he declares a barrel roll, he's rolling, and if he lands on an asteroid, he's stuck without a shot.

52 minutes ago, Clutterbuck said:

Is there word on how many of the generic pilots come in the conversion kit? One of each, or as many as there are dials for?

So, I got curious about this, and used the pictures plus the kit contents from the 2.0 FAQ and the kit content list from the polish spoilers to run numbers. If there is a generic for each ship equal to the number of dials provided, there would need to be 94 pilot cards and 49 bases. The polish spoilers said there were 84 pilot cars and 43 bases.

I imagine then, there will be some ships that only get one generic pilot card instead of two - for example, there might only be one Outer Rim Smuggler. That would reduce both the pilot card and base total by 1. If there is 2 Smugglers and 3 named pilots, the minimum number of bases is 3, but you can get it down to two by reducing the number of generics. Same deal with the U-Wing and the Ghost (also the HWK, but it is on a small base, which I guess doesn't really matter).

Actually, if you short the Falcon, the Ghost, the U-Wing, the HWK each by one generic pilot, and you short the Z-95 by 2 generics of each type (so the two named pilots and then only two copies of each generic), that reconciles the numbers.

I don't know if any of this is right, but there are my musings.

Imgur link?

2 minutes ago, HolySorcerer said:

Imgur link?

Someone has to take the initiative. That someone could be you.

10 minutes ago, Clutterbuck said:

So, I got curious about this, and used the pictures plus the kit contents from the 2.0 FAQ and the kit content list from the polish spoilers to run numbers. If there is a generic for each ship equal to the number of dials provided, there would need to be 94 pilot cards and 49 bases. The polish spoilers said there were 84 pilot cars and 43 bases.

I imagine then, there will be some ships that only get one generic pilot card instead of two - for example, there might only be one Outer Rim Smuggler. That would reduce both the pilot card and base total by 1. If there is 2 Smugglers and 3 named pilots, the minimum number of bases is 3, but you can get it down to two by reducing the number of generics. Same deal with the U-Wing and the Ghost (also the HWK, but it is on a small base, which I guess doesn't really matter).

Actually, if you short the Falcon, the Ghost, the U-Wing, the HWK each by one generic pilot, and you short the Z-95 by 2 generics of each type (so the two named pilots and then only two copies of each generic), that reconciles the numbers.

I don't know if any of this is right, but there are my musings.

That's pretty scary analysis. If *two* kits isn't enough to run 8 bandit squadron pilots, then two imperial kits probably isn't enough to run 8 academy pilots. I'd probably be out if I need to buy 3 kits.

1 hour ago, GuacCousteau said:

In fact, it seems odd that the Y-Wing gets extra pilots and the A-Wing and B-Wing are back to only two named pilots each.

 I can only assume FFG are holding some pilots back for when the 2e A-Wing and B-Wing expansions release, to bring them back up to four named each.

They have confirmed that this is exactly what they will be doing. So we will see more pilots and upgrade cards for ships when their 2.0 expansion pack is released. They have also said that they will make the pilot/upgrade cards available to purchase without needing to purchase more ships, likely through some sort of mini-conversion kit for each wave.

I'm surprised nobody is talking about Chopper yet. The ability to recharge charges on other cards, even limited as it is, has some serious potential...

52 minutes ago, impspy said:

I wonder if they reduced the number of pilots and are gonna include 2 of the same generics instead of 2 separate ones.

I think the issue with the "missing pilots" is that conversion kits aren't meant to allow you to convert all your pilots, just all of your ships. I think some of those pilots may even disappear.

7 minutes ago, Ixidor said:

Someone has to take the initiative. That someone could be you.

Facebook is cancer and I’m on mobile.

28 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

What they said on stream was that 'moving' is defined as 'dial move plus any movement actions'.

Eugh, that is just...unneccesary. Lets hope they got their rules wrong.