2 hours ago, Piratical Moustache said:

The Lancer would be a small ship rather than a flotilla, it's 250 meters long, 100 meters longer than the Raider.

Do flotillas have to be small tiny ships only?

7 minutes ago, TallGiraffe said:

Do flotillas have to be small tiny ships only?

Not necessarily but that's all we have at the moment.

21 minutes ago, TallGiraffe said:

Do flotillas have to be small tiny ships only?

Technically the rules would allow you to have a flotilla of ships on a large base.

The only determiner for flotilla is they have multiple ship models instead of a single one. There is no other indicator.

in fact, the rules are wide open on base size - we just only happen to have small ones, and it would be a little funky...

for example, if you had a flotilla on a large base, presumably of medium or small ships, but on a large base, they would still confirm to the flotilla rule and would not give a damage card to a CR90 if rammed....

4 hours ago, ISD Avenger said:

There does seem to be this weird thing about 3 anti fighter on a ship, like it would be the end of armada as we know it.

I don’t get it. A 3 dice anti fighter ship can be limited in other areas to make it viable.

As for role redundancy. Most imp fighters are very specialised, no reason a ship can’t be the same.

I'm hesitant to allow/support/permit such a break in convention without some rigorous testing to establish boundaries and feel out what works.

Which, for I'd say 90% of these customs, nobody ever does.

11 hours ago, ISD Avenger said:

There does seem to be this weird thing about 3 anti fighter on a ship, like it would be the end of armada as we know it.

I don’t get it. A 3 dice anti fighter ship can be limited in other areas to make it viable.

As for role redundancy. Most imp fighters are very specialised, no reason a ship can’t be the same.

My biggest issue with this is how people tend to design it. It's a bad combination of cost, upgrade slots available, hull, and the fact that it is a ship, so it can attack every single squad in an arc. I see this a lot with a Weapons Team slot. What this means is that with Ruthless Strategists, a meaty squad or two, and this ship you could quite literally wipe out many of the generics that exist in the game at medium range. A lot of people also include an Offensive Retrofit slot, so with Dcaps and a squad dial, you could throw some Imp squads across the board, pop Dcaps, and decimate enemy squads. Combine this with the fact that a lot of people are making it on par with or less expensive than an HH and harder to kill, and it quickly becomes OP. I'm fine with a dedicated squadron flotilla or the like, but it has to be balanced within the game. At this point, I honestly believe that means no 3 AS dice ships.

2 hours ago, Astrodar said:

My biggest issue with this is how people tend to design it. It's a bad combination of cost, upgrade slots available, hull, and the fact that it is a ship, so it can attack every single squad in an arc. I see this a lot with a Weapons Team slot. What this means is that with Ruthless Strategists, a meaty squad or two, and this ship you could quite literally wipe out many of the generics that exist in the game at medium range. A lot of people also include an Offensive Retrofit slot, so with Dcaps and a squad dial, you could throw some Imp squads across the board, pop Dcaps, and decimate enemy squads. Combine this with the fact that a lot of people are making it on par with or less expensive than an HH and harder to kill, and it quickly becomes OP. I'm fine with a dedicated squadron flotilla or the like, but it has to be balanced within the game. At this point, I honestly believe that means no 3 AS dice ships.

Dcaps doesn't work with squadrons though.

4 hours ago, TallGiraffe said:

Dcaps doesn't work with squadrons though.

You are correct. I forgot it was against ships only. I stand by everything else.

7 hours ago, Norsehound said:

I'm hesitant to allow/support/permit such a break in convention without some rigorous testing to establish boundaries and feel out what works.

Which, for I'd say 90% of these customs, nobody ever does.

With 2 blue & 1 Black it would be very situational to pop a fighter in one go (especially given ace squadrons seem to dominate over generics).

And as mentioned before, you temper this ability with other limitations, poor shields, no scatter, poor anti ship battery etc etc. Most players would be wary of getting into the thick of it in such circumstances. Same as a quasar currently.

If I can't get a Lancer can I get an anti-squadron upgrade for the Raider?

41 minutes ago, Piratical Moustache said:

If I can't get a Lancer can I get an anti-squadron upgrade for the Raider?

I like the concept. I made a similar card a while ago but 8 points is a lot. Compare that to flechette torpedos(3), extra damage is nice but not 5 points more than an activated fighter. 4 is a reasonable cost I'd say.

51 minutes ago, Piratical Moustache said:

If I can't get a Lancer can I get an anti-squadron upgrade for the Raider?

I see you and raise

1 hour ago, Piratical Moustache said:

If I can't get a Lancer can I get an anti-squadron upgrade for the Raider?

I find it unfitting: The Name Flak doesnt sound "Star Wars-ish" and nothing like this exists in the lore: Lasercannons (not Turbolasers) fulfil this role. The Raider already has them.

Another name could help.

But I still want the Lancer.

Did I mention:

38 minutes ago, DScipio said:

I find it unfitting: The Name Flak doesnt sound "Star Wars-ish" and nothing like this exists in the lore: Lasercannons (not Turbolasers) fulfil this role. The Raider already has them.

Another name could help.

But I still want the Lancer.

Actually, there are references to it - abtisquad lasers being Flak - specifically in a short story as part of “A certain point of view”.

Talkingvabout the fighter boss of base one (yavin 4) who is marking off deaths as they happen and causes on her datapad.

“Red Six, Porkins. Flak.”

”TIE, TIE, Flak, Flak, TIE, TIE, Mechanical, TIE, TIE, Flak, Flak, TIE, TIE, TIE, **TIE**...”

its really quite depressing, but shows it is in use at least.

Esoecially when you see the Quad Laser Cannons on the DCS in EP1 basically acting as Flak Guns too (including telltale explosions) there is room for it being both a general and specialized term.

1 hour ago, DScipio said:

I find it unfitting: The Name Flak doesnt sound "Star Wars-ish" and nothing like this exists in the lore: Lasercannons (not Turbolasers) fulfil this role. The Raider already has them.

Another name could help.

But I still want the Lancer.

The guns pictured from Episode III, and are called flak guns by Wookieepedia. During the Clone Wars flak guns of this type were very popular on Venators, Munificents, and Providences.

10 hours ago, ISD Avenger said:

With 2 blue & 1 Black it would be very situational to pop a fighter in one go (especially given ace squadrons seem to dominate over generics).

And as mentioned before, you temper this ability with other limitations, poor shields, no scatter, poor anti ship battery etc etc. Most players would be wary of getting into the thick of it in such circumstances. Same as a quasar currently.

Would this further push generics into irrelevancy, though? Even with Sloane, is taking massed TIE Fighters a practical option, especially in light of area-effect aces like Ten and (especially) mauler mithel? Once Mithel gets into the thick of all those TIEs, two hits on 2 AA die is going to kill them. Move the Lancer up first into the fighter ball, then follow on the next turn with the Lancer AA'ing the entire fighter ball. Then it's crap shoot to see how many generics remain on the table.

With something like that, and given how temperamental TIE Fighters are, I feel it's going to make a bad decision already worse. If that's okay with you we might as well throw up our hands and say generic TIE Fighters will never be relevant again.

Besides, you dodged a critical point I made in this post: It needs testing. This conflict of opinions isn't going to get anywhere without hard data, since my skepticism will remain until I see something on the table to prove it to be true. 3 die AA plus ruthless strategists means you might score 3 hits, or 2 hits with an accuracy, and punch an additional damage. What about pairing this with Mauler Mithel and Boba Fett, how quickly can you clear out the smaller-hull imperial fighters (including aces)? Depending on that outcome, allowing this ship may not be acceptable regardless of how fragile it is.

After all, people get by plenty with Raiders, and I feel that's a pretty fragile craft given what the primary target is.

But in part this is why the fighter game sucks. TIE Fighters as the lowest end of the game feel as restrictive as Biggs did in X-Wing 1.0. We couldn't have great defensive elite pilot talents for aces because putting it on you-must-shoot-Biggs was not permissable. Same thing with fantastic auto-kill abilities to rack up 3 hull points of damage in a single activation. Either you pay a lot of points for it (Mithel, GSD, need hits/activation for it all), or it just can't happen.

4 hours ago, DScipio said:

Did I mention:

I feel this guy has too many upgrade slots for his size. Since Strike Cruisers are supposed to be disposable and fragile, drop the Defensive retrofit. A single offensive retro covers the flexibility of some of the Strike Cruiser's design and, more importantly, it provides an offensive retrofit slot to this point category on a decent squadron carrying combat ship which right now, the Empire doesn't have. (It's got cheaper with the GZ and more expensive with the VSD, but ARQ/GSDs are not good carriers).

I'd be tempted to drop the turbos to keep the ions, so this class is not all-encompassingly great. But there's also more flexibility out of the turbos than Ions, and this configuration has a decent amount of red dice. Could be a variant switch to go between ions and turbolasers.

Everything else I think looks good. If you wanted to play to the it-will-explode-if-hit-the-wrong-way like Rogue squadron likes to emphasize, drop the hull to 4 and increase the shields. It would also give the ship an obvious weakness that virtually every Imperial ship has in some way, shape, or form.

Not sure about this one.

Feels like a missed double Ion / Ion-Ord opportunity

18 minutes ago, TallGiraffe said:

Not sure about this one.

I really like it as a sort of alternative to the Mk2.

17 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

Feels like a missed double Ion / Ion-Ord opportunity

True....

20 minutes ago, Piratical Moustache said:

I really like it as a sort of alternative to the Mk2.

I see it as a small alternative to mc30s actually. Something cheaper to put exodus fleet on too.

2 minutes ago, TallGiraffe said:

I see it as a small alternative to mc30s actually. Something cheaper to put exodus fleet on too.

The only (small) problem with this is the defensive retrofit slot is reserved by ECMs just like the Mk2.

The truth is that ECM is a too good bordering on essential upgrade for ships that can take it.

7 hours ago, chr335 said:

I see you and raise

That would certainly help MC80 battle cruisers and Cymoons in a big way.

13 minutes ago, Piratical Moustache said:

That would certainly help MC80 battle cruisers and Cymoons in a big way.

Sure, but I don’t like the idea of a Raider shooting a brace ace for 6 damage ... AFTER the brace, and getting a reroll to enable it..

(Black-Black, Plus ConF, Plus Kallus, with Ord ex rerolls)

Since it’s potentially and easily doing 6 to Generics SIMULTANEOUSLY