45 minutes ago, ForceSensitive said:

The whole shtick to them is they now have arcs. So they should be priced like regular arc ships with consideration to their normal survivability and dial.

And consideration for the fact that their arcs (in general) rotate.

46 minutes ago, ForceSensitive said:

A Falcon bizarrely should be like 75 or maybe less before upgraded.

Isn't a base YT-1300 something like 78 points? Sounds like they're not too far off to me.

On 11/18/2018 at 3:26 AM, DakkaDakka12 said:

2nd edition changed how the ship flies

Good - flying the lancer in 1.0 was ridiculously boring.

2 hours ago, GeneralVryth said:

There is one important caveat here and that is the idea of counters. Certain ship archetypes are better against some other and worse against some others. So to know if two sets of 200 point squads what we really need to know is how they fair against a variety of list archetypes. And this brings up a very relevant point are all of the large ships that feel under powered part of the same archetype? What archetype do they fit best? Are people using them in that archetype? What archetype should they be?

For me, a lot of the ships people are expressing frustrations with are (or should be) of the style of a heavy ship with lots of firepower engaging multiple lighter ships. They aren't meant to be support craft. The reason they seem to have issues with their role is firepower, hence why the situations where someone is able to make one work usually involves several upgrades specifically to help with increase the ships firepower. I wonder if the solution (if we didn't want to just stick to the concept of point reductions) would be as simple as a gunner restricted to large base ships that makes it easier for them to attack multiple ships at once, or gives some other kind of bonus. I know about Veteran Turret Gunner, but that is generally considered one of the worst gunners because it's hard to actually get in the situation to use him without being very vulnerable. Maybe a generic and tweaked version of Bistan?

Just things to think about. I still think the real solution is cost reductions as that would help get more crew to help it (whether it be more firepower or turning it into more of a support ship). Though again my preference is the equipment points method of doing that because it removes the risk of a large ship swarms.

Pretty on point here. They are portrayed in the various mediums to be swarm battling one-ship fortresses, taking on and winning against swarms of enemy ships. But here they are half your list but don't contribute as much firepower as half a list of smaller fighters/bombers. Some are made to me support ships like the Lambda (and I feel the designers were trying to make Kanan pilot a support ship but again, 90 points naked to reduce shots on an allied ship in your arc. Which means you need to add Turrets and a docked shuttle to make it consistent enough to bring which means 124 points absolute minimum. That's more than half your team to help protect one weak ship.... yeah I can't see playing him in any squad ever.

The Ghost is dead. But long live the Ghost. I'll keep haunting space with its terrible current overcosted incarnation.

14 minutes ago, GILLIES291 said:

Pretty on point here. They are portrayed in the various mediums to be swarm battling one-ship fortresses, taking on and winning against swarms of enemy ships. But here they are half your list but don't contribute as much firepower as half a list of smaller fighters/bombers. Some are made to me support ships like the Lambda (and I feel the designers were trying to make Kanan pilot a support ship but again, 90 points naked to reduce shots on an allied ship in your arc. Which means you need to add Turrets and a docked shuttle to make it consistent enough to bring which means 124 points absolute minimum. That's more than half your team to help protect one weak ship.... yeah I can't see playing him in any squad ever.

The Ghost is dead. But long live the Ghost. I'll keep haunting space with its terrible current overcosted incarnation.

If you've docked a shuttle, then aren't you talking about having two ships? Still may not be a bargain, but the thing doesn't have to stay attached to the Ghost the entire game...

I have a theory... maybe the power/efficiency of ordnance like proton torps and barrage rockets has contributed to the semi-demise of some big ships. Low agility, high durability ships just melt against alpha strike lists. Proton torps and barrage rockets are a bargain for what they do. Sure you still need to use full mods to maximise them but squads built for action economy do just that. In summary: Big ships are a little too expensive and proton torps and barrage rockets are a little too good.

42 minutes ago, Da_Brown_Bomber said:

In summary: Big ships are a little too expensive and proton torps and barrage rockets are a little too good.

These things are true, but I don't think they are the end of the story.

Bear in mind a Howl-Swarm can melt a Falcon in about two rounds of combat, assuming it can bring its guns all to bear. Which means the Falcon (or Ghost or Outrider or Deci ) needs to constantly outfly the swarm's guns or it dies almost immediately. Meanwhile, in two rounds of combat assuming the Falcon has a Focus and it's TIE Fighter target has a Focus, the TIE isn't even likely to die... on average, it takes the Falcon about three shots per TIE Fighter to kill it. That means you're looking at like 12 Rounds of combat for a Falcon to kill four TIEs... or to basically make up its point-value. But, since the average X-Wing game is only like 13 Rounds (several of which won't have combat) and that 2-3 turns of getting ganged up on by the swarm can kill the Falcon ... the math just doesn't make any sense for the Falcon .


So I agree with your points re: Alpha Strike Ordnance. But I'd also add that even middling-attack swarms present a mathematically nonsensical challenge for a fat turret. It just takes a Falcon multiple rounds to kill anything , and on turns that it is spending actions to Rotate or to Boost those are rounds it's losing offensive mods for damage output. Lando + Han can mitigate this a bit with their pilot abilities, but not enough.

small based ships should roll for damage when landing on large base ship.

5 hours ago, AllWingsStandyingBy said:

These things are true, but I don't think they are the end of the story.

Bear in mind a Howl-Swarm can melt a Falcon in about two rounds of combat, assuming it can bring its guns all to bear. Which means the Falcon (or Ghost or Outrider or Deci ) needs to constantly outfly the swarm's guns or it dies almost immediately. Meanwhile, in two rounds of combat assuming the Falcon has a Focus and it's TIE Fighter target has a Focus, the TIE isn't even likely to die... on average, it takes the Falcon about three shots per TIE Fighter to kill it. That means you're looking at like 12 Rounds of combat for a Falcon to kill four TIEs... or to basically make up its point-value. But, since the average X-Wing game is only like 13 Rounds (several of which won't have combat) and that 2-3 turns of getting ganged up on by the swarm can kill the Falcon ... the math just doesn't make any sense for the Falcon .


So I agree with your points re: Alpha Strike Ordnance. But I'd also add that even middling-attack swarms present a mathematically nonsensical challenge for a fat turret. It just takes a Falcon multiple rounds to kill anything , and on turns that it is spending actions to Rotate or to Boost those are rounds it's losing offensive mods for damage output. Lando + Han can mitigate this a bit with their pilot abilities, but not enough.

So what do you suggest, that YTs should be all but guaranteed to take out a TIE or two a turn? That would help balance against swarms, but it would mean other lists would simply melt before it, and even more so with a couple lucky rolls.

Besides the obvious point cost reduction (to the ship's, and in some cases their titles), I'm sure there will be future crew/gunners who will give better action economy to ships with the rotate action.

With action economy being what it is in 2.0, I'm surprised no one has mentioned the rotate tax.

I also have an idea for an upgrade that's probably overpowered: something like "Military Grade Plating. Large ship only. When attacked by a ship with a primary attack value of two or less, after rolling dice, you may change one of the attacker's results to a focus result."

Keep in mind freighters were actually designed to put up a fight in the Star Wars universe. The galaxy was a dangerous place, and so too were cargo shipment jobs. Some ships had military grade armor and weapons, or could easily be modified to.

8 hours ago, JJ48 said:

And consideration for the fact that their arcs (in general) rotate.

Isn't a base YT-1300 something like 78 points? Sounds like they're not too far off to me.

They rotate at the cost of mods. That's equivalent to K-turn price. So to get the same arc they have to pay a price. Again, that was the intent with new design. Agile gunner is probably priced so high because they want to keep that cost to effect in play present.

And while the base is close, to go up to the name pilot and I6 Han it's an extra 14. The same jump on an X is 11. Knock the whole spread back three points, and the names down a few more and we would see more folks willing to try them.

Punishers and heavy ordinance presence would still beat the Force out of them though. th

10 hours ago, GILLIES291 said:

...Kanan pilot a support ship but again, 90  points naked to reduce shots on an allied ship in your arc. Which means you need t  o add Turrets and a docked  shut  t  le   to make it consist  en   t ...

Are you saying you need 270* of arc to get his ability to proc...?

If you can’t manage to fly the Ghost in such a way that you can keep your main ace on one side of him then of course Kanan is gonna be too expensive.

I flew Kanan alongside Luke, with Ezra in a TIE just for sake of playing around with the force pilots early on. And it wasn’t terrible. You just fly the Ghost up one side, keeping him a touch behind Luke, and you make one of the most evasive ships in the game even harder to kill... while shooting 4-die attacks out the front, often with a force point to spare for dice mods. All that behind 14 health? 90 might be a bit much, but it’s not terrible.

On 11/17/2018 at 11:34 PM, Da_Brown_Bomber said:

what about a free gyroscopic targeting ability of large ships with turret? could be linked to a blue maneuver.

it's called Agile Gunner

2 hours ago, StriderZessei said:

I also have an idea for an upgrade that's probably overpowered: something like "Military Grade Plating. Large ship only. When attacked by a ship with a primary attack value of two or less, after rolling dice, you may change one of the attacker's results to a focus result."

That's an interesting idea. Maybe re-word it as "when the attacker is rolling two or fewer dice"?

That would mean there are ways to negate it (range 1, trickshot, etc.) to make it a bit less powerful...

6 minutes ago, Wiredin said:

it's called Agile Gunner

Which is locked from the ship that had the ability originally...

1 minute ago, Hiemfire said:

Which is locked from the ship that had the ability originally...

shadow caster doesn't need it.

Just now, Wiredin said:

shadow caster doesn't need it.

The Lancer is a 3 die front arc with a turret arc giving the player deploying it the middle finger...

10 hours ago, JJ48 said:

If you've docked a shuttle, then aren't you talking about having two ships? Still may not be a bargain, but the thing doesn't have to stay attached to the Ghost the entire game...

But when the other docked ship is AP-5.... well let's say that AP-5 isn't really known for being a combat powerhouse. You can dock an attack shuttle but it costs more and the effect that it grants the Ghost turns it into a way overcosted ARC-170 with veteran tail gunner on board. 104 points versus 54 points (if you pick the cheapest VCX/Attack shuttle and ARC) to put out the front and rear shot, which will also be easier to find targets with a smaller base.

So if combat-wise there are vastly superior options for the same points, way more mobile ships for the same and way more survivable ships again for the same points or in all these cases much cheaper. I would wager that there is something wrong with the costing of the large ship.

Again these are just my observations and opinions and I'll keep flying my girl even though she's just target practice. You are pretty much stuck to reinforcing each turn as your only action to try and compensate for having 0 agility. Which means no offense mods unless the rest of your list is things with coordinate/squad leader, but at that point your whole build is to make one 4 dice shot sightly more accurate.

Something else that may work for the Ghost is to have something like Minister Tua but for the Rebels on board. Being able to reinforce at the start of the engagement phase and still be able to take a different action earlier would help a bit.

6 minutes ago, GILLIES291 said:

104 points versus 54 points (if you pick the cheapest VCX/Attack shuttle and ARC) to put out the front and rear shot, which will also be easier to find targets with a smaller base.

...with an extra die in both arcs, and with the ability to remove the rear arc and fly it around separately, if desired. Whether that and the extra hull are worth the extra 50 points may be questionable, but the comparison doesn't seem as straightforward as you're making it sound.

6 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

...with an extra die in both arcs, and with the ability to remove the rear arc and fly it around separately, if desired. Whether that and the extra hull are worth the extra 50 points may be questionable, but the comparison doesn't seem as straightforward as you're making it sound.

It really is though, my point is it's so cheap you can run the two cheapest ARCs, with veteran tail gunners for 109 points, now you have 6 dice out the front, 4 out the rear. Along with a combined total of 12 hull and 6 shields compared to the Ghosts 10 and 4, and they also both have 1 agi, and some basic reposistioning, also pilot abilities that actually do something (compared to the cheapest generic VCX, if you switch to a named pilot then it becomes even pricier and actually cheaper to run the two ARCs. In every sense of the word why would someone bring a combat Ghost/Attack Shuttle over two ARCs ever?

On the other comparison, running a generic VCX with Ion Turret and Veteran Turret Gunner and that's 84 points. For generic Y-Wing equipped the same its 92 for two of them. You get more dice, HPs and mobility including wider arc coverage with the Ys.

And on the note of Y-wings. To run a base VCX with Protorps it's 79 points, and I don't get why the Ghost even has the ability to carry Torpedos. The 1.0 had the ability to fire out its rear arc so it may have been a leftover from that world but 4 die torp isn't worth paying for over a 4 die primary. Anyways for Ordanance comparison's sake: 79 points for generic with torps. 82 points for two Y-wings, and don't forget they can actually reload and are tougher/more agile. Even two Torp loaded X-wings is slightly more at 100 but you get way more survivability at 2 agi with boost/barrel rolls.

How about that 4 die primary that has to be good on its own no? Well the YT-2400, though overcosted on its own has the 4 die on a swivel that you can double tap with Bistan or pay the Luke tax for the free rotate so you always get the shot off, two great options. The Ghost can do neither with its 4 die primary and is easily out-flown by any arc dodger.

In the coordinate realm of things, handing out free coordinate for 100 points minimum is obviously not as good as simply bringing AP-5 for budget coordinate, or the HWK for its squad leader/extra arc gifts, or even the U-wing Saw/Magva much cheaper and better leaders.

Also new reinforce compared to having higher agility and evade tokens isn't even comparable. The Ghost gets vaporized in one turn by a TIE swarm or two turns if it reinforces.

So it's not good at fighting, not good at staying alive against any type of squad, not good with ordnance or Turrets, not good at coordinating. But for all of these things it's terrible at its still one of the most costliest ships in the game, and when you dock its phantom which is needed to make most of its tricks work, it becomes the most expensive ship in the game, and will give you almost nothing for that cost.

On 11/17/2018 at 4:30 AM, WAC47 said:

Exactly this.

Please, everyone, stop suggesing text-based errata. It’s never been that helpful to begin with, and now it’s completely unnecessary.

Just wait. They'll eventually give us an ability that will require text errata. My money is on the FO/Resistance waves.

26 minutes ago, Koing907 said:

Just wait. They'll eventually give us an ability that will require text errata. My money is on the FO/Resistance waves.

Players suggesting text errata is unnecessary. There maybe a few cards which will need a language fix, but nerfs like the ones to TIE/x7, Emperor Palpatine, Manaroo, Zuckuss, or Biggs Darklighter will hopefully be very rare, and should be the absolute last resort from FFG. As such, they should also be the last thing we're yammering on about in these threads.

It really doesn't matter that I think Thane Kyrell really should have exposed a *random* damage card--like every other effect in the game which exposes a damage card--because FFG is almost surely not going to revise Thane Kyrell. They'll increase him to 50 points, or 52 points, long before they change his card text. As it should be.

Community input on points costs makes a lot more sense, however. A lot of folks are concerned about Juke pricing. Suggesting "oh, they could change Juke to work in some other way" is utterly unhelpful. It's not going to happen. Adjusting the points cost of Juke might happen, however. They almost surely won't add a front arc to a Jumpmaster, or give it a ship ability for rotating it's arc after certain conditions. These suggestions are utterly useless. But FFG might add a Gunner slot, or have a points reduction.

13 hours ago, theBitterFig said:

Community input on points costs makes a lot more sense, however. A lot of folks are concerned about Juke pricing. Suggesting "oh, they could change Juke to work in some other way" is utterly unhelpful. It's not going to happen.

I mean to be fair none of our input makes a lick of difference, FFG will act as they feel is best to boost their sales. While that most likely means balancing the game to some extent, I highly doubt that they are going to consult the forums for specific price changes. At the absolute best they are going to check and see what the vast majority of people are complaining about. And if all we are doing is chatting about what we wish was, we may as well suggest the truly impossible. It makes for better reading.

1 hour ago, Toph said:

I mean to be fair none of our input makes a lick of difference, FFG will act as they feel is best to boost their sales. While that most likely means balancing the game to some extent, I highly doubt that they are going to consult the forums for specific price changes. At the absolute best they are going to check and see what the vast majority of people are complaining about. And if all we are doing is chatting about what we wish was, we may as well suggest the truly impossible. It makes for better reading.

I just disagree that it's more interesting. We had years of idiotic suggestions for TLT errata, because FFG wouldn't just make them cost more.

27 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:

I just disagree that it's more interesting. We had years of idiotic suggestions for TLT errata, because FFG wouldn't just make them cost more.

Fair enough dude

Out of curiosity I checked out all the ships with a built in secondary arc or primary turret or even available turret slot, and they all have a gunner slot in imperial and rebels(with the exception of the hwk, and lambda which makes sense as both are support craft)

scum as a faction lacks gunner slot on most ships that could use a gunner slot.

-The scurrg has no gunner slot( yet tie bomber and punisher do....scurrg drops bombs and has a turret slot if anything it could use the slot more than a tie bomber)

-jumpmaster5k has a primary weapon single sided turret, yet has no gunner slot?

-the lancer has no gunner slot.

-the firespray has no gunner slot without the title. If ffg is wondering why the only firespray title seeing a lot of use is marauder, its because gunner slot is probably the strongest upgrade slot in 2.0

The firespray doesn’t need the slot as the marauder title is bolted to the ship, but the others should have a gunner slot unless ffg releases crew that can turn turrets.

Ships with a focus on their turret should have a gunner, and my argument for the scurrg is bombers get a gunner slot for bombardier, and the scurrg has a turret slot, thus even more reason for a gunner slot.