Super interesting thread @Norsehound , thank you for your insight.

Following those recommandations, can I have your opinion on this refit of the Nebulon-B (hoping to fill the gap of the rebel carrier problem).

http://v1.kdyards.com/ships.view.php?id=9639

I try to balanced it but have not play tested it yet.

Ok I'll take a look

Modifying ships like the Nebulon-B is a tricky thing, because you rarely see Nebulons taken without the Yavaris title, and it's a distinct difference when a Nebulon is fielded without it. Like giving a Gladiator multiple torpedo slots (which can be abused by Demolisher), what first stood out to me was how much Yavaris would like to use this ship. Nevermind that it's only 9 points more than the standard Nebulons, the dual offensive retro and weapons team means you can inflate this to fighter 4 (5 with a token), command at long range, wielding bomber command center, and add a blue die to your fighters to double-tap with. Considering Yavaris is in some cases better than most other available carriers, it's an avenue of abuse I wouldn't condone.

The drawbacks I see- decreased AA range (not much of one since it trades range for hit percentage), 9 points increase in cost, speed 2, and no aft battery is not worth the dramatically increased potential out of this platform (Yavaris setup, Fleet Support Slot, decrease in command rating to 1). Nebulons are weak I'll grant, but in my experience it isn't worth the dramatic trade off here when Yavaris already can one-shot many ships in one activation without anyone to oppose them and isn't racing to get anywhere with speed 3.

The Yavaris issue aside;

Battery is close to standard, with a slight increase in the side arcs. Ackbar is going to like this ship better if you're brave enough to point the broadside at someone, which is not often in a Nebulon. Chances are you'll use this for the fighter supremacy but a little incidental Ackbar bonus is also helpful. I'll assure you nobody is going to miss the dice out of the rear arc, since I don't believe Nebulons live long enough to pass their targets and fire out the rear. Your battery die trades range for effectiveness off the Escort Frigate version, which is acceptable since the various ISD versions also play with AA die effectiveness. This weapons setup is interesting enough to make this nebulon a variant of its own, especially if you take this and exchange the support team for a weapons slot on the escort version.

Looking at your Command ratings I should probably add a rule to the OP of respecting precedent, since I always do this when creating new ship variants. There's typically a reason for FFG doing what they do (after multiple rounds of in-house testing), and it saves you time on testing everything. I say this because I can't think of a reason to decrease the command rating of this ship to 1, where every other Nebulon is at 2. Fighter 3 already makes this better than the Nebulon Escort frigate and will likely make that platform obsolete (especially for Yavaris, see above). Engineering 3 is standard, so no comment there.

Your defense token setup is also standard, also retaining the Nebulon-B's dramatic weaknesses when shot into the side arcs. Weak as this setup is, since it isn't as dismal as the Quasar Fire's defensive setup. I still don't feel this is as big of a drawback as the rest of the carrier. Hull is also standard for the class, which is good.

Your maneuver chart takes a drawback off of speed, which is a kiss of death in most cases. However again, with the Yavaris platform you're already playing it slow in order to stay with your fighters (which are likely B-Wings), and keep your forward arc aimed at your opponent. I don't see it as much of a detriment to this setup, if this were a Nebulon-B designed for flanking maneuvers it would be different. As a carrier this feels like a minor hiccup it can live with, especially with clicks at all points on the chart.

Your upgrade suite as I mentioned above is overly generous to the Nebulon, inflating the 3 upgrade slots to 5 and giving you everything you need for a carrier-full-of-abuse with the Nebulon. Even without the Nebulon title this is a better setup for a carrier than arguably the Pelta since you'll retain fighter 5 with boosted comms after token support. This ship isn't going to miss losing speed 3.

If you wanted to test the potential of abuse out of this, I'd recommend a gaggle of ace fighters on this with Yavaris, Flight Controllers, Boosted Comms, Bomber Command Centers, and Expanded Hangars with a GR-75 passing a fighter token. Hand it to someone with experience flying Yavaris, then try to beat it. I'd put money on most players not wanting to face 10 attacks out of 5 ace fighters with a free re-roll for their bombers (and blue dice if Toryn is on the GR).

I see what you're doing here, but Yavaris is one of those albatrosses in the game that make it difficult to balance for (same thing with Demolisher, and Rieekan, and the original Rhymer). Rebel fighters are already superior combatants in all things, which is why FFG hasn't been eager to give them a really fantastic carrier. It's all well and good for players to design such ships for them (as I imagine the MC85 Raddus will one day be such an expensive carrier), but putting it on a small ship- especially the Nebulon- is an avenue of abuse I wouldn't condone in spite of its glaring weaknesses.

If you want to move on from here I'd recommend one or two dramatic and fearful cuts to the design that preserve whatever it is you want out of it, but also not making it stand out over other Nebulons. A couple of points I can suggest, though don't apply all of them since it may severely underpower the design;

> Keep one offensive retrofit slot and leave it at fighter 2 (if you want to keep command 1).

>Reduce all battery dice by 1 (in exchange for the great fighter control ability).

>If you want to keep it at Fighter 3, eliminate the weapons team and one offensive retrofit OR both offensive retrofits.

>If you want to tweak the Escort Nebulon slightly, just overlay the Escort version with your battery/AA setup. Bring it up to command 2 and swap out the support team slot for a fleet support slot. I'd say you could also swap out the turbolaser slot for an offensive retrofit if you bring Fighter 2 down to fighter 1, to limit Yavaris abuse.

Sorry if that's a bit intense, but that's how I see it. I think any one of the highlights about this thing could be interesting but all in one package, it's too much. And Yavaris is a problem going above what you bring in this design.

Thanks you for your analyse. When your are not ready the take critics, don't ask for them! 😉

As you said, the idea was to make a more efficient Yavaris. I didn't realized the squadron token could make you activate an additional fighter making a total of 5 (10 attacks), which is clearly too much. I'm quite new to the game (only 4 games played), so there is still some mechanics to incorporate.

I thought that if somebody fill it with all the upgrade cards you mentioned (the same I though myself), the cost would increase dramatically to +35 making it a 95 pts ship with only 5 hull. That would be prime target for the Imperial, but a realize now that's this is not enough compare to the advantage it would be of the battlefield.

I like your suggestions and your analyse point by point of my design, and that made me think, what do I really want with that carrier:

1) The bomber command center. It's really to fragile on a GR-75. Counting on the vast number of fighters having the Bomber attribut, it really worth it, and range is 1-5.

2) Control more then 2 fighters (but not 5!). Token now understood, what are the alternatives. Increase the base Squadron value or put offensive retrofits. The later cost you points which is a drawback compare to base value. If I put just 1 offensive retrofits, it make me choose between Expended hangar bay or Boosted comms or possible commandos (with weapon team). I like that.

I want it to be better then the Nebulon-B Escort frigate (so a bit more costly) but not with the same role. So it would not totally make it obsolete. Like you said, FFG test played their stuff, so lets make it not so far from the original.

So lets go with those changes:

A) Lets keep the changes with the Battery . It make it different from the other variations, and not over powerful. I like the idea of having a good effectiveness on AA rather then range just like actual aircraft carriers of today.

B) Come back to a Command value of 2 and a squadron value of 2.

C) Keep the current defense to stick to the model.

D) I like it to be slower and like you said for a carrier it's not such a big problem. So lets keep the maneuver rating to 2.

E) Main course: Upgrades . If we take back squadron value to 2, we need an offensive retrofits in order to upgrade it. In that case, with only one offensive retrofits, that will allow the Yavaris to activate 4 (with token and dial) but only at medium range (putting it more into the battle) or 3 at long range. Keeping Weapons Team rather then Support team for Commandos. So that would mean: Title, Officer, Weapons team, Offensive Retrofits and Fleet Support.

I still find it interesting to play with, and bringing another role to the Nebulon-B. With those changes (+1 command, -1 Squadron, -1 offensive retrofits) do you think 61 pts is a good cost for it?

Thanks again.

(sorry for any grammar mistake, i'm french speaking...)

@Norsehound do you have some thoughts about these MC40 variants?

I am trying to slot them in as a medium base ship between the MC30 and the AF Mk2 in terms or combat capability and points. And then filling a couple of other niches in the rebel fleet - a forward arc ship with less firepower than the Liberty, and roughly equivalent to the Interdictor if both the INT and MC40 have double arc shots.

The blue die version has 2 niches - a dual ion upgrade combatant, or as a light carrier given the Weaps team/offensive retro combo.

I have 3 titles, and will add them as well to get your feedback.

Both versions have only been on the board once, and I feel like I have a mental wall that is blocking a valid self-assessment, which is why I'm bringing them up here.

Thanks

Here are the titles...

3 hours ago, Cap116 said:

Here are the titles...

Some notes / questions:

1. Shadow should probably read as "Recover one shield on your front hull zone. Your Front Hull Zone shield value may exceed the printed shield value but cannot exceed '5'" Alternatively, just have the maximum shield value of the front hull zone increased by 2 (which would start the ship with those shields, and probably merit a point increase).

2. Are Ardent and Valiant supposed to apply to anti-squad attacks? And if so, I'd consider increasing their points by a good amount. [As is, they are still probably too good, but that's a separate issue.]

3. Also, did you look at this with Sato? Because it seems like it may be a bit good with Sato. [by that I mean, probably way too good, as Ardent and Valiant work with him really well, and while one of those seems intentional, the other doesn't.]

On 5/20/2019 at 9:13 PM, diploworld said:

Thanks you for your analyse. When your are not ready the take critics, don't ask for them! 😉

That's a good mentality to have!

Yes I agree with your guess that, even with upgrades, it's still going to leverage enough firepower out of it in order to destroy most big ships. Rieekan is still viable after all, as a means to deal with things like Raddus drops or superlaser Cymoons that would ordinarily destroy Yavaris at range (if the Yavaris player doesn't have a countermeasure). My opinion.

To your points;

1. It's odd to suggest the Nebulon-B would be more robust than a GR-75 (on account of scatter), but the GR-75 is also cheap for a reason. The power that it can bring to the table by enabling constant re-rolls is offset by how fragile it is. By also forcing a support slot to a different specialized ship it means enabling such amaze-balls fighter swarm combination requires a minimum of two ships to be purchased. Removing the GR-75 means freeing up 18 points to take towards a more amazing fighter.

2. I feel that Fighter 2 makes this enough of a threat against the Escort variant that I'd want to push it down to Fighter 1. Persisting Fighter 2, I think, would have the effect of doing what Kuat ISDs have done to ISD-Is in terms of choosing a close combat role (or ISD-IIs for gunships, losing out to Cymoons). Fighter 2 with most of this is going to make the Nebulon Escort obsolite, since I'd wager everyone takes the Escort version for Fighter 2 more than the blue AA dice (since the best anti-fighter upgrade is a fighter squadron).

A). Agreed with Battery, the changes to the configuration make it interesting at both long range and close range protection. I'd still say you could overlay these changes on top of the Support frigate and play with the points to have a decent ship.

B). Agreed on Command 2. I still caution Fighter 2- with your new ship card you may want to put it in front of other Rebel players and ask them which ship they'd want. If they're always picking your ship, I'd question this configuration.

D). I still discourage the fleet support upgrade slot, but I think Officer / Wep Team / Offensive Retrofit is good.

61 points sounds decent for what you have in there now (considering the base Nebulon Escort is 57). It may come down to tweaking at this point through repetitive testing but at least you've done something about Yavaris abuse. This still remains the greatest threat to balance on the ship and should be tested with the Yavaris title by experienced Rebel fighter drivers.

(You came through clearly, and I'm happy to help!)

3 hours ago, Cap116 said:

@Norsehound do you have some thoughts about these MC40 variants?

I am trying to slot them in as a medium base ship between the MC30 and the AF Mk2 in terms or combat capability and points. And then filling a couple of other niches in the rebel fleet - a forward arc ship with less firepower than the Liberty, and roughly equivalent to the Interdictor if both the INT and MC40 have double arc shots.

The blue die version has 2 niches - a dual ion upgrade combatant, or as a light carrier given the Weaps team/offensive retro combo.

I have 3 titles, and will add them as well to get your feedback.

Both versions have only been on the board once, and I feel like I have a mental wall that is blocking a valid self-assessment, which is why I'm bringing them up here.

Thanks

Yeah I'll give these a look. Mc40 is one of my favorite craft because it comes from TIE Fighter.

I think my first impression is that it's trying to be a Rebel Victory but with better speed. Comparisons between the ship's Upgrade slots and Navigation Charts make it better than the Assault Frigate, yet it's supposed to be underneath the Assault frigate in terms of power, or on-par?

Let's break this down.

Battery is an interesting arrangement, well accomplishing what you'd like to do by being a lesser Liberty. The Escort version is the forward attacker of the rebellion by having all the slots it wants to be a gunship (Gunnery Team, Turbolaser of choice). With the Nebulon's Battery and better defenses than the Nebulon in many respects it might make that ship obsolete. This ship might be comfortable enough packing a TRC to use when it closes with it's target, which it can do with speed 3.

The Patrol Cruiser stands out immediately with two ions and it's upgrade configuration. You can have D-Caps with two ion cannons of your choice and a choice weapons team (C&S unquestionably to get the crits you need off of blues). In both respects I kind of feel this ship is a bit powerful on the battery- it's certainly more attractive than the arc-shooting Assault Frigate. But the cost is lower. Hmm.

The AA rating is what I'd expect from the MC40 by virtue of being a decent carrier every Assault Gunboat doesn't want to kite too close to. In terms of balance this also makes it stand out over the Assault Frigate by providing those two dice on a platform cheaper than it's cheapest.

Your Command ratings are what I'd expect for the MC40 if it were smaller than the Assault Frigate. However with that bigger battery I'm not certain, and against the A/F Command 2 is more appealing. I do like you splitting the fighter rating 2/3 between the versions, and I like where they are in place. Engineering 3 is also interesting (as opposed to the 4 on the Pelta and A/F), which could leverage into an adequate Achilles' heel.

Defense tokens being at one each doesn't get any special remarks from me, since it's the basic three most ships like to have. As an MC version I'm tempted to suggest flipping out the evade for a redirect to make it lean more into it's faux VSD role, and to set it apart from the A/F and Pelta. Taking away the evade also takes TRCs off the table in close-range combat for the Escort version.

Your hull is the same as the Pelta's, less than the A/F's, but your shield rating is better. Moreover with that defense slot it's always going to have ECM, standing over the Pelta and remaining on-par with the A/F while having a better maneuver chart and battery and also commanding fighters.

Maneuvering is another standout over the Pelta and A/F by being faster and having more clicks. I'd caution going overboard here as well, as I'm going down the list I'm mentally noting the advantages this ship has over the Pelta and the A/F. You're already outrunning the pelta and out-turning the A/F. It might need to be toned down here to necessitate a support team slot, which is also something the A/F doesn't have and might help the MC40 lean better into a carrier role it's remembered for.

Upgrade suite as mentioned matches the A/F. The Escort version packs an additional torpedo slot and the Patrol version mounts the extra ion for more ion flexibility. So that you're still not making the A/F and Pelta Obsolite I'd try knocking out some of the upgrade slots and retain the things that make it unique, like the double ion slots.

I feel like the ship does gunship and carrier roles equally well to the point of making the Assault Frigate and Pelta obsolete. If it were me I'd emphasize more of the carrier roles, maybe dropping a die out the battery of both versions and doing some switching around of the upgrades. Between the weapons team, Defensive Retro, and Offensive Retro... remove one from all classes, or increase the cost a little more to match with the Assault Frigate with an according increase to command 3. If it were me I'd drop the defensive retrofit if you wanted to keep the carrier and utility D-Cap roles present for the ship. If you felt up to it, knock speed 3 out and give it a support team slot to allow players to lean into either the gunship role or the carrier role.

It's good that you've gotten this ship to the table, which is more than most other designs can claim. The best balancer, I think, is just to get the ship back to the table again and again and get feedback from the people who have tested it. Ask other rebel players if they see this ship as a replacement or alternative to other ships in play now. Ideally the game could use more alternatives.

I made my own Versions of the MC-40 a while ago.

Though I think it never added an ion cannon slot to the cruiser variant.... Both of these would be small class ships. I never got the cruiser variant to how I like it, however I feel like the carrier option is nice.

Also could never get concepts for the Titles just right. I wanted 3 of them, one to boost squadrons, one to boost offensive capabilities, and the last to boost defensive capabilities. I like @Cap116 shield boosting one though.

Hey @Norsehound and @Do I need a Username thanks for the feedback on the titles and ship design, it is awesome feedback, and has given me a lot of points to consider with the design. I've made some revisions to the stats, and cleaned up the titles, and added them to an imgur post for further review.

Initially I didn't think about how the MC40 would step on the AF Mk2 or the Pelta, but will have to consider that in further development.

For the next playtest Ive changed the defense tokens, the speed 3 nav chart, and the upgrade slots, but left the forward battery armament the same, and knocked off a die from the sides.

Hopefully the gallery posts...

http://imgur.com/gallery/4Oqr5OS

I don't know if this applies but what do you guys think of this for an ISD tittle for 12 points

"You can make a third attack during your activation if you don't command any squadrons. When an enemy ship or squadron attacks you many spend a defence token or take one damage to take a shot at them using 2 red dice (add in other upgrades that could apply from that arc). When you activate you may gain one shield."

Probably a little broken but I wanted to make the ISD the king again and so it can kill swarms

Thanks you Norsehound for your help.

Final cost for now will be 63 (same difference as between Support and Escort) making it higher then Pelta and same cost as Torpedo MC30. Maybe the price difference will cut at the end to choose Escort if you need those few points to finish your fleet.

Final design for now until play tested (feel free to try it and comment!): http://v1.kdyards.com/ships.view.php?id=9639

Thanks you all. (Think I revived that thread, which I find beautiful and full of good peoples working to make that game so great.)

16 hours ago, starbat861 said:

I don't know if this applies but what do you guys think of this for an ISD tittle for 12 points

"You can make a third attack during your activation if you don't command any squadrons. When an enemy ship or squadron attacks you many spend a defence token or take one damage to take a shot at them using 2 red dice (add in other upgrades that could apply from that arc). When you activate you may gain one shield."

Probably a little broken but I wanted to make the ISD the king again and so it can kill swarms

This seems quite overpowered. And it’s quite ‘busy’. You have too many effects crammed into 1 card.

2 hours ago, ISD Avenger said:

This seems quite overpowered. And it’s quite ‘busy’. You have too many effects crammed into 1 card.

ok thanks