So one thing I was thinking about. I know a lot of people are excited to see strikers get a bomb slot in 2.0. However, how much is that slot going to cost us? So let’s just say in 1.0 it would take a base TIE Striker from 17 up to 20 without the LWF. Now striker swarms are not a thing or as much. They also don’t fill the gap between TIE/LN’s and TIE/IN’s like they can now. The Aces are now more in line with Interceptor Aces and other Aces rather than the more Low end cost Aces they are now.

This changes thier roll and functions pretty significantly. Not sure if this is really a change we’d want to see. So how would this adjust the way you would use them in 2.0?

Who says it's going to cost anything? 2.0 is likely going to use a very different formula from 1.0.

And there's no way in **** that adding a bomb slot in 1.0 would cost 3 full points. That's crazy.

1 minute ago, PhantomFO said:

Who says it's going to cost anything? 2.0 is likely going to use a very different formula from 1.0.

And there's no way in **** that adding a bomb slot in 1.0 would cost 3 full points. That's crazy.

Likely not but again being hypothetical. Still worth asking the questions.

I'm assuming Lightweight Frame isn't in 2.0. So if the bomb slot bumps them up to 20 points, you could still run 5 of them, which should still be good.

Unfortunately, I'm betting the Conversion Kit won't allow for more than 2 of the same kind of generic, and I'm only getting a single Conversion Kit anyway, so I'm planning to run two of the lowest initiative, one ace like "Duchess," and one TIE Reaper. Here's a 1.0 example of this type of build:

Major Vermeil (26)
Adrenaline Rush (1)
ISB Slicer (2)
Director Krennic (5)
Lightweight Frame (2)
Advanced Ailerons (0)

"Duchess" (23)
Veteran Instincts (1)
Lightweight Frame (2)
Adaptive Ailerons (0)

Imperial Trainee (17)
Lightweight Frame (2)
Adaptive Ailerons (0)

Imperial Trainee (17)
Lightweight Frame (2)
Adaptive Ailerons (0)

Total: 100

View in Yet Another Squad Builder

Granted, there won't be Veteran Instincts or Lightweight Frame in Second Edition, but this illustrates what kind of squad I'm looking at. If there is room for Seismic Charges on my TIE strikers, I will certainly equip those, because it makes us dominant in the asteroid field - nobody would be crazy to follow us or risk taking damage. TIE strikers already navigate asteroid fields pretty well, so I would hope to not have to use the bombs. Of course, with the TIE reaper as a medium ship, maybe destroying a key obstacle could open up a new lane. That's where I am regarding TIE strikers in Second Edition.

If you can run 5 strikers with bombs (that may have 2 charges) you can do a carpet bombing run all over the map. Twice.

I suspect that slots won't have an inherent cost in 2e, or at least will have a greatly reduced inherent cost, and probably that ordnance will be cheaper generally - one of the things the designers seem to have recognised is that slots have no inherent value unless they're filled, and that there is an opportunity cost to filling them with anything

there's no synergy between bombs and Strikers anymore now that bombs drop during the systems phase after than during dial reveal (which would be post ailerons and therefore amazing)

No cost. We should've learned not to overvalue slots from wave 1-2's premium on missiles.

2 hours ago, ficklegreendice said:

there's no synergy between bombs and Strikers anymore now that bombs drop during the systems phase after than during dial reveal (which would be post ailerons and therefore amazing)

No cost. We should've learned not to overvalue slots from wave 1-2's premium on missiles.

What if Ailerons trigger in the system phase? that would make them more interesting. Can't wait till we see rules in August.

1 minute ago, PanchoX1 said:

What if Ailerons trigger in the system phase? that would make them more interesting. Can't wait till we see rules in August.

They were still triggering before dial reveal on the TC game with Alex.

1 minute ago, HolySorcerer said:

They were still triggering before dial reveal on the TC game with Alex.

and e Two Tubes was doing his s-foils trick which he can't based on the cards released yesterday.

But yeah, it's prob the same. I was just thinking out loud. It would be cool. but prob wont happen.

53 minutes ago, HolySorcerer said:

They were still triggering before dial reveal on the TC game with Alex.

The TIE/sk pilots that have been revealed have 'before you reveal your dial' timing.

3 hours ago, ficklegreendice said:

there's no synergy between bombs and Strikers anymore now that bombs drop during the systems phase after than during dial reveal (which would be post ailerons and therefore amazing)

No cost. We should've learned not to overvalue slots from wave 1-2's premium on missiles.

Tired: Increasing the cost of a naked TIE Striker, because they can equip bombs now.

Wired: Increasing the cost of all bombs attacked to a TIE Striker.

//

FFG had better not be charging for slots in 2E, since they can just increase the cost of the attached upgrade.

Probably. I currently have no bombs, but if you buy me a second striker I can check.

21 hours ago, PhantomFO said:

Who says it's going to cost anything? 2.0 is likely going to use a very different formula from 1.0.

And there's no way in **** that adding a bomb slot in 1.0 would cost 3 full points. That's crazy.

True, but even one point could mess up Striker swarms depending on where it lands.

This is the first that I've heard about them getting bombs. Seems like you could just remove EVERY single asteroid in the game by loading a few with seismic bombs.

I have high hopes those bombs hurt rebel scum.

I think it's somewhat likely that the bomb slot cost would be included in the bomb cost itself, since they can do different upgrade costs per ship now.

Slots should have a cost associated with them, because they allow for synergy.

Consider this: (Obviously theoretical, and exaggerated to illustrate a point.)

You have two identical ships, in every way but their slots.

On Ship A, you have a single Talent slot with a modification slot, and an awesome pilot ability

On Ship B, you have the same slots, plus a system, and astromech and an illicit slot, and the same pilot ability.

Yes, you spend more points on ship B if you fill all those slots, but when you do that, you do not only gain the individual power of each upgrade independently of each other, but you also gain the synergistic bonus of the upgrades together.

In my opinion, ships should cost a premium depending on how many upgrade slots they have.

I also hoped that the upgrade slots will be made equal, but as far I have seen the Crew and Gunner slots are way more powerful than anything else.

4 minutes ago, Commander Kaine said:

Slots should have a cost associated with them, because they allow for synergy.

Consider this: (Obviously theoretical, and exaggerated to illustrate a point.)

You have two identical ships, in every way but their slots.

On Ship A, you have a single Talent slot with a modification slot, and an awesome pilot ability

On Ship B, you have the same slots, plus a system, and astromech and an illicit slot, and the same pilot ability.

Yes, you spend more points on ship B if you fill all those slots, but when you do that, you do not only gain the individual power of each upgrade independently of each other, but you also gain the synergistic bonus of the upgrades together.

In my opinion, ships should cost a premium depending on how many upgrade slots they have.

I also hoped that the upgrade slots will be made equal, but as far I have seen the Crew and Gunner slots are way more powerful than anything else.

Why not include the slot cost in the upgrade cost though? An empty slot gives you no benefit.

Taking your example, let's say the system slot on ship B is valued at 2 points. Why make ship B 2 points more expensive instead of just making any system upgrade you put on it cost base upgrade price +2 points?

I think most ships that get hit by bombs would get hurt

So yes, I imagine Strikers are no exception, and will be hurt by bombs ?

44 minutes ago, LordBlades said:

Why not include the slot cost in the upgrade cost though? An empty slot gives you no benefit.

Taking your example, let's say the system slot on ship B is valued at 2 points. Why make ship B 2 points more expensive instead of just making any system upgrade you put on it cost base upgrade price +2 points?

Because that same system upgrade provides less benefit on one ship, than another.

Advanced sensors on a lambda is not the same as advanced sensors on a Kylo Ren. Push the limit on an A-Wing is less valuable than on a TIE interceptor.

The only way to make sure everything is 100% balanced, is to adjust costs on individual basis, which will never happen.