Since FFG seems eager to introduce Resistance ships into the game (the series I mean), I'm curious to hear if anyone here is looking forward to seeing T-85s someday, since, quite frankly, the more I think of it, the more problematic the ship might be.

First off, we all know how T-65s and T-70s function, both being solid sturdy ships with plenty of neat pilots and a great balance of speed, firepower and durability. While the T-70 design was already showing the Disney mantra of 'the same as old but slightly better', the T-85 is described as being even better than the T-70 (*groan*). Unless FFG changes their approach to X-Wing dials and how S-Foils function, I doubt there would be much room to work with in terms of designing something fresh for a faction that already has something filling the gap, not to mention T-70 aces are already pretty expensive and putting them in an even better ship would make their point costs skyrocket. Then again, the TIE/ba ship is imho distinct enough from the TIE Interceptor and Silencer, so odds are if T-85s are going to be released, they won't be simply another upgrade of their predecessors (which is what I'm personally hoping for).

Secondly, there is very little information about T-85s in the lore, hardly enough to design and flesh out a ship for a game about dogfighting. So far we know that:

- they're performing much like T-70s but better,

- move faster than RZ-1 A-Wings,

- don't have ordnance slots as far as we know (an X-Wing without torps is a pretty awkward thing if you ask me) EDIT: My bad, some newly released book says they have proton torpedo launchers, so at least there's that.

- can equip cloaking devices of some kind ( EDIT: supposedly, depending on how reliable Poe's joke is on the matter and how FFG responds to it )

All those stats combined, I would imagine the closest thing we would get is something akin to a Rebel E-Wing, with a 5 Straight move and maybe the Bank/Straight/Bank blues moved from 1 to 3, similarly to an N1 to reflect the supposed boost in speed. Basic statline of 3/2/4/3 seems appropriate, and further buffing durability of ships known for being quite durable would be a stretch imho. A cloaking device on a more agile X-Wing is asking for trouble in my opinion, so I doubt they would get a full-on cloak action without some drawback - personally I'd like to see a generic Tech upgrade without Faction restriction that would allow a ship to start Cloaked like Scimitar, but does not grant access to cloaking otherwise (2-5 points?). This way it would add some layer to planning and setting up an initial engagement for Tech factions, but wouldn't allow T-85s to do shenanigans like Phantoms do further in combat.

What are your thoughts on the ship? Would it make sense for FFG to release yet another X-Wing? Sure that's the name of the game, but... yeah. Assuming they release it, what do you think the ship should look like to make it complement the faction and not compete for niches?

Honestly if it ends up just being a resistance TIE/D, I'm okay with that.

Resistance E-wing. Except hopefully not terrible.

Yeah, the T-85 will be the superiority fighter for the faction, much like the Ewing, Defender, Silencer, etc.

1 hour ago, MegaSilver said:

Yeah, the T-85 will be the superiority fighter for the faction, much like the Ewing, Defender, Silencer, etc.

The thing that got me wondering is, well, aren't T70s filling that gap already though? Good baseline stats, robust dial, some good pilots at I5 and I6 and optional ordnance for bigger punch or utility - it all sounds exactly like a superiority fighter to me, lacking perhaps 3 Agi and sharp 1 Turns. I can be wrong on that though, so I'm curious as to what everyone's qualifiers on that are

1 hour ago, TedW said:

The thing that got me wondering is, well, aren't T70s filling that gap already though? Good baseline stats, robust dial, some good pilots at I5 and I6 and optional ordnance for bigger punch or utility - it all sounds exactly like a superiority fighter to me, lacking perhaps 3 Agi and sharp 1 Turns. I can be wrong on that though, so I'm curious as to what everyone's qualifiers on that are

Nah, T-70s are basically the standard X-wing/K-figther etc of the faction. The Resistance doesn't have a super fighter in the faction yet.

58 minutes ago, TedW said:

The thing that got me wondering is, well, aren't T70s filling that gap already though? Good baseline stats, robust dial, some good pilots at I5 and I6 and optional ordnance for bigger punch or utility - it all sounds exactly like a superiority fighter to me, lacking perhaps 3 Agi and sharp 1 Turns. I can be wrong on that though, so I'm curious as to what everyone's qualifiers on that are

They could make the T-85 very fast, but not too agile. +1 hull, comparing with the T-70. Maybe sensor slot.

The ship looks sexy and there are new (canon) pilots for it (= new habilities!).

I really like your solution for the Cloaking Device.

As MegaSliver said, the t-70 is basically your bog-standard jouster but with boost (which is certainty appreciated!)

It's fine, but it's definitely nowhere close to the same ship as the silencer/delta-B/defender etc

5 hours ago, TedW said:

Since FFG seems eager to introduce Resistance ships into the game (the series I mean), I'm curious to hear if anyone here is looking forward to seeing T-85s someday, since, quite frankly, the more I think of it, the more problematic the ship might be.

First off, we all know how T-65s and T-70s function, both being solid sturdy ships with plenty of neat pilots and a great balance of speed, firepower and durability. While the T-70 design was already showing the Disney mantra of 'the same as old but slightly better', the T-85 is described as being even better than the T-70 (*groan*). Unless FFG changes their approach to X-Wing dials and how S-Foils function, I doubt there would be much room to work with in terms of designing something fresh for a faction that already has something filling the gap, not to mention T-70 aces are already pretty expensive and putting them in an even better ship would make their point costs skyrocket. Then again, the TIE/ba ship is imho distinct enough from the TIE Interceptor and Silencer, so odds are if T-85s are going to be released, they won't be simply another upgrade of their predecessors (which is what I'm personally hoping for).

Secondly, there is very little information about T-85s in the lore, hardly enough to design and flesh out a ship for a game about dogfighting. So far we know that:

- they're performing much like T-70s but better,

- move faster than RZ-1 A-Wings (yes, apparently it's a thing, even though they are larger than T-65s and T-70s and you wouldn't be able to tell judging by the cartoon, where that Kazuda kid makes it look like he's piloting a tank),

- don't have ordnance slots as far as we know (an X-Wing without torps is a pretty awkward thing if you ask me) EDIT: My bad, some newly released book says they have proton torpedo launchers, so at least there's that.

- can equip cloaking devices of some kind

All those stats combined, I would imagine the closest thing we would get is something akin to a Rebel E-Wing, with a 5 Straight move and maybe the Bank/Straight/Bank blues moved from 1 to 3, similarly to an N1 to reflect the supposed boost in speed. Basic statline of 3/2/4/3 seems appropriate, and further buffing durability of ships known for being quite durable would be a stretch imho. A cloaking device on a more agile X-Wing is asking for trouble in my opinion, so I doubt they would get a full-on cloak action without some drawback - personally I'd like to see a generic Tech upgrade without Faction restriction that would allow a ship to start Cloaked like Scimitar, but does not grant access to cloaking otherwise (2-5 points?). This way it would add some layer to planning and setting up an initial engagement for Tech factions, but wouldn't allow T-85s to do shenanigans like Phantoms do further in combat.

What are your thoughts on the ship? Would it make sense for FFG to release yet another X-Wing? Sure that's the name of the game, but... yeah. Assuming they release it, what do you think the ship should look like to make it complement the faction and not compete for niches?

Okay I have to stop waking up to bad takes. Let's address some things here.

1: The F-22 anf Su-57 are remarkably large fightercraft, especially compared to others in their class. Guess what else they are? Dummy fast. You ever counted the thrusters of a T-85? Eight. It's eight. It has EIGHT Thrusters.

2: Handles like a tank..? If you watch..? So it's obvious that you didn't..! Because if you watch it, you'll see basically everybody rolling and juking like it's nobody's business. Did you know Kazuda's thrusters were damaged in that scene, so him "Turning it like a tank" was when he spun it just enough to hit Vonreg's TIE. Seriously.

3: Yes. They have proton torpedo launchers. Everybody thinking they didn't because the ports aren't obvious has been absolutely asinine to me. Again, modern fightercraft tend to eschew external hardpoints unless the mission demands it. The F-22, 35, J-20, Su-57, and even the Su-47 all have internal weapons bays - that may not be exclusively what they use, but the precedent is most certainly there- and now even the BTA-NR2 Y-Wing, that carries more than the BTL-A4, does not have obvious tubes. I'm glad people finally realize this.

4: It doesn't have a cloaking device!! If anything it has a really powerful sensor package, so expect System+Tech! Geez, the ONLY reason anybody thinks this is an offhand joke by Poe about having asked The New Republic for T-85s with cloaking devices. NOWHERE in the new technical manual does it state S**T about a cloaking device. But it sure tells us EVERYTHING else! Conclusion? There's no such thing for T-85s stock! ****!

Oh yeah, TNR is gonna' give up TOP of the line craft! The T-70, RZ-2, and MG-100 CLEARLY display that there's some kind of precedent for giving the best stuff, and not like, you know.

Stuff that even The First Order turns into DRONES...

I'm not mad at you. I'm mad at the wilful misunderstanding of things today. It's absolutely baffling. Now, as to what the T-85 might end up being for The Resistance...

Oh yeah, its TIE/D and at LEAST 90 points when fully equipped, no this thing is a mad dog. Expect 3/2/5/5 ish, **** you might even get 3/3/5/5. I really cannot overstate how insane this thing is.

We won't see it for a hot minute though. But Poe and his squad are very likely to be pilots, as well as Kazuda.

Anyway, I'm not mad at you. I'm mad at spread misinformation about this blue boy.

49 minutes ago, KCDodger said:

NOWHERE in the new technical manual does it state S**T about a cloaking device. But it sure tells us EVERYTHING else! Conclusion? There's no such thing for T-85s stock! ****!


I'm not mad at you. I'm mad at the wilful misunderstanding of things today. It's absolutely baffling. Now, as to what the T-85 might end up being for The Resistance...

Oh yeah, its TIE/D and at LEAST 90 points when fully equipped, no this thing is a mad dog. Expect 3/2/5/5 ish, **** you might even get 3/3/5/5. I really cannot overstate how insane this thing is.

Anyway, I'm not mad at you. I'm mad at spread misinformation about this blue boy.

These all seem like very extreme reactions to a discussion about made-up toy spaceships.... Using real world examples and the "new technical manual" to "prove" your point is pretty silly when what you're talking about doesn't actually exist.

To use your words, "it's absolutely baffling".

3 hours ago, KCDodger said:

Okay I have to stop waking up to bad takes. Let's address some things here.

1: The F-22 anf Su-57 are remarkably large fightercraft, especially compared to others in their class. Guess what else they are? Dummy fast. You ever counted the thrusters of a T-85? Eight. It's eight. It has EIGHT Thrusters.

2: Handles like a tank..? If you watch..? So it's obvious that you didn't..! Because if you watch it, you'll see basically everybody rolling and juking like it's nobody's business. Did you know Kazuda's thrusters were damaged in that scene, so him "Turning it like a tank" was when he spun it just enough to hit Vonreg's TIE. Seriously.

3: Yes. They have proton torpedo launchers. Everybody thinking they didn't because the ports aren't obvious has been absolutely asinine to me. Again, modern fightercraft tend to eschew external hardpoints unless the mission demands it. The F-22, 35, J-20, Su-57, and even the Su-47 all have internal weapons bays - that may not be exclusively what they use, but the precedent is most certainly there- and now even the BTA-NR2 Y-Wing, that carries more than the BTL-A4, does not have obvious tubes. I'm glad people finally realize this.

4: It doesn't have a cloaking device!! If anything it has a really powerful sensor package, so expect System+Tech! Geez, the ONLY reason anybody thinks this is an offhand joke by Poe about having asked The New Republic for T-85s with cloaking devices. NOWHERE in the new technical manual does it state S**T about a cloaking device. But it sure tells us EVERYTHING else! Conclusion? There's no such thing for T-85s stock! ****!

Oh yeah, TNR is gonna' give up TOP of the line craft! The T-70, RZ-2, and MG-100 CLEARLY display that there's some kind of precedent for giving the best stuff, and not like, you know.

Stuff that even The First Order turns into DRONES...

I'm not mad at you. I'm mad at the wilful misunderstanding of things today. It's absolutely baffling. Now, as to what the T-85 might end up being for The Resistance...

Oh yeah, its TIE/D and at LEAST 90 points when fully equipped, no this thing is a mad dog. Expect 3/2/5/5 ish, **** you might even get 3/3/5/5. I really cannot overstate how insane this thing is.

We won't see it for a hot minute though. But Poe and his squad are very likely to be pilots, as well as Kazuda.

Anyway, I'm not mad at you. I'm mad at spread misinformation about this blue boy.

Okay, let's put emotional aspects aside, since you made plenty of good points, and that's what I made the post for in the first place - to have a discussion. I by no means claim to be correct on the assumptions I made, and spreading misinformation is the furthest thing from what I meant to convey here. Yes, it's all theoretical assumptions and hardly any concrete facts, since we have very few sources on the matter, and the Resistance cartoon isn't very clear when it comes to judging actual ship capabilities given the artstyle they go for and the plot itself. Let's be fair, much like ARC-170s blowing up from a single cannon bolt in RotS, Vonreg failing to kill Kazuda is a pretty obvious case of story over logic (or simply plot armor), so let's take the presentation with a grain of salt. In regards to what you wrote:

1. That's a very fair point and I agree with that. My initial assumption was mostly based on one of the many unwritten tendencies when it comes to presenting starfighters in Star Wars (a space fantasy, not sci-fi), and let's be fair, the general rule of thumb is the larger a ship is, the less maneuverable and more sluggish it is. I did present it badly by putting speed and maneuverability in the same basket, so it's my bad for making my point unclear (I'll need to remember not to post on Friday work breaks, when the mind is longing for the weekend, heh).

And no, T-85 has 4 thrusters, not 8. I have no idea where you got the 8 thruster mention, but I double checked the wiki page and it lists 4 thrusters - just as many as T-65s and T-70, only slightly more advanced.

2. Yes, I did in fact watch the whole scene, and you are right they're spinning around quite gracefully. However, the moment I was referring to wasn't the barrel rolls and ailleron rolls, but the sharp Tallon Roll (or was it a KTurn?) he made while covering the others' escape - at this points his ship was fully functional and only after the turn his engine was damaged. The whole turn along with the shot of Kazuda in the cockpit made it look like he was struggling to pull the ship around (possibly to the rapid decrease of speed) - hence my assumption, probably it's the exaggerated cartoon presentation that made the image stuck in my head. It's pretty subjective too, we have no point of reference to judge whether it was a quick or slow turn for a ship, and we will likely never know. If I were to assume whether it was made to show T-85s have difficulty turning or if it was made for the sake of presenting drama and intensity, I'd go for the latter - that's what the show seems to go for anyway, but as it stands, it's unclear at best.

3. You responded to a point I wasn't making. I don't question miniaturization and things like that, it's all fine and we've seen it plenty of times in Star Wars. The point I was making was there was no confirmation of torpedo inclusion beforehand (which I thankfully caught on later, since I didn't notice the guide's new information until after I've made the post - again, I'm not trying to mislead anyone, I quickly corrected myself). I've been checking the wiki a few times before in the past month and I clearly remember no mention of projectile launchers until today's visit, which is possibly why I was too hasty to skim over that particular update and omit that fact - my bad.

4. It doesn't have it listed, that's true. My assumption was based on FFG's approach to design - they often adapt the slightest mentions of things in the lore and make it work (like nantex' tractor array being that powerful or non-deltas having spare parts canisters). Whether Poe's joke was accurate or not, we can't be sure, we can only guess whether it was a part of technology that was issued along T-85s or if it was part of the joke too. That's what my loose idea was there for (again, a loose idea for possible inclusion, not a hard fact, although I may have gone too far to assume it to be a fact, my bad here) - to be in line with FFG's approach by making a cloaking device usable as a Tech for more ships. Whether FFG does that thing or not (I mean, a cloaking device might as well be a powerful sensor jammer for all we know), it remains to be seen and neither of us is right or wrong on this, it's simple theories as to what it could mean.

And last but not least, a genuine thank you for the response (even if a bit heated^^), I really appreciate constructive discussions

10 hours ago, KCDodger said:

Anyway, I'm not mad

Haven’t seen the show. If they come to our minis game, I’ll evaluate them based on what their stat line appears to be and if I want to mess with them.

I finally came to a place where I don’t HAVE to have everything a faction has to offer. I’m happy with my GCW era factions right now, though I’m all in on the inevitable Scum expansion for Razor Crest.

I think the prequels are going to get the most love from me, because it’s an era I like. I’m for sure getting the Tie baron because the FO just plain needs another chassis. I’m not too upset with my Resistance options at present. I’m probably skipping the Fireball because I haven’t seen the show and I don’t see what it offers me so far.

19 hours ago, TedW said:

Okay, let's put emotional aspects aside, since you made plenty of good points, and that's what I made the post for in the first place - to have a discussion. I by no means claim to be correct on the assumptions I made, and spreading misinformation is the furthest thing from what I meant to convey here. Yes, it's all theoretical assumptions and hardly any concrete facts, since we have very few sources on the matter, and the Resistance cartoon isn't very clear when it comes to judging actual ship capabilities given the artstyle they go for and the plot itself. Let's be fair, much like ARC-170s blowing up from a single cannon bolt in RotS, Vonreg failing to kill Kazuda is a pretty obvious case of story over logic (or simply plot armor), so let's take the presentation with a grain of salt. In regards to what you wrote:

1. That's a very fair point and I agree with that. My initial assumption was mostly based on one of the many unwritten tendencies when it comes to presenting starfighters in Star Wars (a space fantasy, not sci-fi), and let's be fair, the general rule of thumb is the larger a ship is, the less maneuverable and more sluggish it is. I did present it badly by putting speed and maneuverability in the same basket, so it's my bad for making my point unclear (I'll need to remember not to post on Friday work breaks, when the mind is longing for the weekend, heh).

And no, T-85 has 4 thrusters, not 8. I have no idea where you got the 8 thruster mention, but I double checked the wiki page and it lists 4 thrusters - just as many as T-65s and T-70, only slightly more advanced.

2. Yes, I did in fact watch the whole scene, and you are right they're spinning around quite gracefully. However, the moment I was referring to wasn't the barrel rolls and ailleron rolls, but the sharp Tallon Roll (or was it a KTurn?) he made while covering the others' escape - at this points his ship was fully functional and only after the turn his engine was damaged. The whole turn along with the shot of Kazuda in the cockpit made it look like he was struggling to pull the ship around (possibly to the rapid decrease of speed) - hence my assumption, probably it's the exaggerated cartoon presentation that made the image stuck in my head. It's pretty subjective too, we have no point of reference to judge whether it was a quick or slow turn for a ship, and we will likely never know. If I were to assume whether it was made to show T-85s have difficulty turning or if it was made for the sake of presenting drama and intensity, I'd go for the latter - that's what the show seems to go for anyway, but as it stands, it's unclear at best.

3. You responded to a point I wasn't making. I don't question miniaturization and things like that, it's all fine and we've seen it plenty of times in Star Wars. The point I was making was there was no confirmation of torpedo inclusion beforehand (which I thankfully caught on later, since I didn't notice the guide's new information until after I've made the post - again, I'm not trying to mislead anyone, I quickly corrected myself). I've been checking the wiki a few times before in the past month and I clearly remember no mention of projectile launchers until today's visit, which is possibly why I was too hasty to skim over that particular update and omit that fact - my bad.

4. It doesn't have it listed, that's true. My assumption was based on FFG's approach to design - they often adapt the slightest mentions of things in the lore and make it work (like nantex' tractor array being that powerful or non-deltas having spare parts canisters). Whether Poe's joke was accurate or not, we can't be sure, we can only guess whether it was a part of technology that was issued along T-85s or if it was part of the joke too. That's what my loose idea was there for (again, a loose idea for possible inclusion, not a hard fact, although I may have gone too far to assume it to be a fact, my bad here) - to be in line with FFG's approach by making a cloaking device usable as a Tech for more ships. Whether FFG does that thing or not (I mean, a cloaking device might as well be a powerful sensor jammer for all we know), it remains to be seen and neither of us is right or wrong on this, it's simple theories as to what it could mean.

And last but not least, a genuine thank you for the response (even if a bit heated^^), I really appreciate constructive discussions

The wiki is wrong and stupid.

1: It has 8 thrusters. I am not wrong about ships often.

And I'm especially not wrong here.

2: Exaggeration for sure. The T-85 is a nimble, graceful craft. It isn't worse in any way to its predecessors. Starfighters just do not work like that, and never have in the Star Wars universe.

3: Thank you. Many people have been assuming it wasn't there because of the fact that there were no immediately apparent launchers... Which given its thicc arsed size, would be a bizarre omittance to me..! "Hey, remember how we killed the death star?" "Yeah." "Let's remove that feature."

Like, said NO Rebel EVER.

4: Maybe, it's just that it makes no sense for the governing body of the galaxy's MAIN fighter to have a cloak and dagger space superiority fighter. Specialized, sure, but the United States doesn't rely on the F-22 or 35 solely (yet, TBD on that last one), and it sure isn't our most numerous. But the T_85 IS The New Republic's most ubiquitous fighter. Cloaking arrays, stygium or not, would just be too costly. Now, bafflers and scramblers, yeah. That the T-85 probably, if not definitely has.

Anyway, yeah. I care about Resistance's material getting proper, real representation. So, thank you for engaging with me on this, unironically.

28 minutes ago, KCDodger said:

The wiki is wrong and stupid.

1: It has 8 thrusters. I am not wrong about ships often.

And I'm especially not wrong here.

2: Exaggeration for sure. The T-85 is a nimble, graceful craft. It isn't worse in any way to its predecessors. Starfighters just do not work like that, and never have in the Star Wars universe.

3: Thank you. Many people have been assuming it wasn't there because of the fact that there were no immediately apparent launchers... Which given its thicc arsed size, would be a bizarre omittance to me..! "Hey, remember how we killed the death star?" "Yeah." "Let's remove that feature."

Like, said NO Rebel EVER.

4: Maybe, it's just that it makes no sense for the governing body of the galaxy's MAIN fighter to have a cloak and dagger space superiority fighter. Specialized, sure, but the United States doesn't rely on the F-22 or 35 solely (yet, TBD on that last one), and it sure isn't our most numerous. But the T_85 IS The New Republic's most ubiquitous fighter. Cloaking arrays, stygium or not, would just be too costly. Now, bafflers and scramblers, yeah. That the T-85 probably, if not definitely has.

Anyway, yeah. I care about Resistance's material getting proper, real representation. So, thank you for engaging with me on this, unironically.

If you want to get technical, there are only 4 engines on the T-85. It has 4 Incom-FreiTek 5L9 fusial thrust engines and 4 thrust control jets. Anytime I see "thrust control" I think the manipulation of thrust not additional thrust.

How many "thrusters" do the RZ-1 and RZ-2 have?

41 minutes ago, dsul413 said:

If you want to get technical, there are only 4 engines on the T-85. It has 4 Incom-FreiTek 5L9 fusial thrust engines and 4 thrust control jets. Anytime I see "thrust control" I think the manipulation of thrust not additional thrust.

How many "thrusters" do the RZ-1 and RZ-2 have?

Ugh. You know what I mean. There's eight four wooshy glowy spots in the back that make the ship go wooshy zoomy woowie forward. You know what I mean dude.

2 minutes ago, KCDodger said:

Ugh. You know what I mean. There's eight four wooshy glowy spots in the back that make the ship go wooshy zoomy woowie forward. You know what I mean dude.

You're right, I do. You just made a really strong statement on the matter and I want to be clear that nomenclature in Star Wars is all over the place. The added thrust control jets actually add to your argument that the ship is better in every way, to include improved maneuverability. The RZ-1/RZ-2 most would argue have the two behemoth sublight/thrust engines, also have thrust vector control on those exhausts, AND have 4-ish thrust control jets which the now-canon manual specifically calls out as adding to their maneuverability. Then you have the traditional B-Wing that has one engine but 4 "thrusters" off that engine.

The wiki is right, and you are right, you're just categorizing it differently.

44 minutes ago, dsul413 said:

You're right, I do. You just made a really strong statement on the matter and I want to be clear that nomenclature in Star Wars is all over the place. The added thrust control jets actually add to your argument that the ship is better in every way, to include improved maneuverability. The RZ-1/RZ-2 most would argue have the two behemoth sublight/thrust engines, also have thrust vector control on those exhausts, AND have 4-ish thrust control jets which the now-canon manual specifically calls out as adding to their maneuverability. Then you have the traditional B-Wing that has one engine but 4 "thrusters" off that engine.

The wiki is right, and you are right, you're just categorizing it differently.

Look, I know that the nomenclature is all over the place, because I DO design Starships in my free time- and I know what nomenclature to use.

But when talking Star Wars, I figure it's all pretty interchangable- and I should really only care about as much as the guys developing it do. Now I can do better, sure. For the sake of the argument..

The X-Wings have several engines, but technically eight thrusters each. Four back, and four forward- where we tend to associate the intakes appearance wise. This is true for the other ships of this design, and in The Last Jedi we ACTUALLY DO see them in use!

As always, The Last Jedi does things as right as humanly possible with all things Star Wars.

Anyway, when it comes to the T-85, it's got twelve thrusters. 8 rear, four forward- the orange ones I imagine actually related to the potential SLAM feature of the starfighter. I figure it probably plays the same role as Poe's tacked on Thruster. That's the idea, anyway. I could be wrong and they could just make the thing stupidly faster. Or all the additional mass required entirely different thrusters. Who knows.

All I know is that the T-85 X-Wing has the most woosh power we've ever seen on an X-Wing.

On 11/29/2019 at 7:33 AM, MegaSilver said:

Nah, T-70s are basically the standard X-wing/K-figther etc of the faction. The Resistance doesn't have a super fighter in the faction yet.

You're running into a nomenclature issue.

In common terminology an air superiority fighter is basically any fighter designed to keep the skies clear. Basically every fighter that isn't a specialized recon, interceptor, or attack craft is air superiority.

By that line of thinking, TIE LN/FO, x wings, K-fighters are space superiority fighters, and that designation has been used before.

The idea you're going for is, as you said above, "Super fighters."

40 minutes ago, Octarine-08 said:

You're running into a nomenclature issue.

In common terminology an air superiority fighter is basically any fighter designed to keep the skies clear. Basically every fighter that isn't a specialized recon, interceptor, or attack craft is air superiority.

By that line of thinking, TIE LN/FO, x wings, K-fighters are space superiority fighters, and that designation has been used before.

The idea you're going for is, as you said above, "Super fighters."

I was not aware of aircraft terminology. I thought super was just shorthand for superiority.

In any case, in X-wing I meant a ship that is super strong in on aspect, and generally very expensive. E-wing (double modded attack), Defender (double modded defense, tanky) Starviper (Maneuverability), Silencer (Beefy ace/maneuverability, it has some overlap). I have a feeling the T-85 would be a cross between an E-wing and Silencer. Right now I think for CIS the Nantex would be there Super fighter, due to the tractor shenanigans.

Instead of a cloak mechanic based on the cloak action, how about based on the jam mechanic?

(Ship ability) Advanced Long Range Scanners: You may acquire locks beyond range 3. You may not acquire locks at range 1. When you acquire a lock on a ship beyond range 3, that ship receives one jam token.

Very strong, but in my headcanon the t-85 still only has a 3/2/4/4 statline so I want something to make it cost more than just a t-70 plus a shield.

Also, its dial is a naboo plus 4-straights are blue and it has a 5-k.