The implications of DBM is a fair criticism, but DBM != Barrage Rockets.

1 minute ago, Cerebrawl said:

The implications of DBM is a fair criticism, but DBM != Barrage Rockets.

I never said barrage and the double missile makes of course both available.

Though, even there it is a strict upgrade from the primary due to range bonus denial. And it allows Poe to focus+roll/boost instead of locking and still get double mods (if it's in bullseye). So for the case where Poe needs to roll/boost to get bullseye, HLC is actually strictly worse (1.2) versus barrage ( 1.6 ) at range 3 and not anymore at range 2 (1.8 vs 1.6).

I still don’t understand how someone gets slots and type confused. Unless they are wanting to read it that way to fit their argument.
By asking can X take Y, then having an argument all ready for a counter screams rules lawyering to me.
I hate rules lawyering.

Huge ships have Hardpoints not missile slots.

Can they not equip Brockets?

12 minutes ago, Shockwave said:

Huge ships have Hardpoints not missile slots.

Not true - the Raider and Corsair Refit C-ROC have a single missile slot each (and Ordnance Tubes no longer adds slots or upgrades, so they're the only ones that can take missiles).

1 minute ago, Subhntr said:

Not true - the Raider and Corsair Refit C-ROC have a single missile slot each (and Ordnance Tubes no longer adds slots or upgrades, so they're the only ones that can take missiles).

Fair enough, so they can't take Brockets.

New Question. Reload action allows you to "recharge" one of your "Missile" upgrade cards. Can you or can you not Reload your "Missile Missile" upgrade card?

Alright, let's be more practical about this

Who would actually be bothered by scyks with barrage rockets; maybe finally getting the m3-a on the gosh darn table?

12 hours ago, Nyxen said:

This thread right now

Come on guys, we're (usually) better than this.

Yes.... but are we really?

6 hours ago, Archangelspiv said:

I still don’t understand how someone gets slots and type confused. Unless they are wanting to read it that way to fit their argument.
By asking can X take Y, then having an argument all ready for a counter screams rules lawyering to me. I hate rules lawyering.

Yes.

Plus, there just isn't much room in this little thingy:

But there is a **** load of room in this bigger thingy:

44 minutes ago, ficklegreendice said:

Alright, let's be more practical about this

Who would actually be bothered by scyks with barrage rockets; maybe finally getting the m3-a on the gosh darn table?

Not I.

But if we are talking practicality, we have to take a lot more into consideration. If Weapon Hardpoint is ruled to allow double slot weapons, that a) means the T-70 can do it too, b) also means they can equip the AOE Diamond -Boron Missile, and c) puts more limiters to not only new double missile slot upgrades, but double torp and double cannon design space.

I’m not saying there can’t be satisfactory solutions to the potential issues, but they have to be considered along with the question “would BR Scyks be that bad?”

30 minutes ago, clanofwolves said:

Plus, there just isn't much room in this little thingy:

Its hard points aren't internal. I'm frankly surprised you've forgotten.

5 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:

Its hard points aren't internal. I'm frankly surprised you've forgotten.

But an energy based cannon is very different than a rocket delivery system complete with ammo.

2 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

But an energy based cannon is very different than a rocket delivery system complete with ammo.

Not really:

8 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:

Not really:

Fair correction. However, the aircraft those I guess missile pods are attached to is classified as a Fighter-bomber. That’s a very different role from a light interceptor like a Scyk. Remember, they stripped the A-Wing down to make it an Interceptor. The kind of weight those things would carry would affect speed.

1 minute ago, SabineKey said:

Fair correction. However, the aircraft those I guess missile pods are attached to is classified as a Fighter-bomber. That’s a very different role from a light interceptor like a Scyk. Remember, they stripped the A-Wing down to make it an Interceptor. The kind of weight those things would carry would affect speed.

That maybe what they call it, but with how they've set it up in game (dial and action bar kill the designation) it is more of a light fighter. This is before taking into account the earliest weapons used by interceptors, outside of heavy machine guns, were rockets.

20 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:

That maybe what they call it, but with how they've set it up in game (dial and action bar kill the designation) it is more of a light fighter. This is before taking into account the earliest weapons used by interceptors, outside of heavy machine guns, were rockets.

Yeah, not buying your dismissal of the Scyks actual classification. You may not think it is distinct enough in gameplay, but that doesn’t change its in-universe role. And even if I did, you still kinda proved my point by calling it “light”.

And if you can show me that those early interceptor rockets were carried in a similar manner and quantity needed for the descriptor “barrage”, then I can see your point.

Also, I would feel better if you could find an example that was Air-to-air, not air-to-ground as your last one is.

17 minutes ago, SabineKey said:

And if you can show me that those early interceptor rockets were carried in a similar manner and 1. quantity needed for the descriptor “barrage”, then I can see your point.

Also, I would feel better if you could find an example that was 2. Air-to-air, not air-to-ground as your last one is.

1. What qualifies as a "barrage" can be very subjective...

2. Specifically the German R4M had both air to air and air to ground variants. Technically, depending on doctrinal collateral damage and munition expenditure allowances, just about any high impulse HE rocket works.

8 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:

1. What qualifies as a "barrage" can be very subjective...

2. Specifically the German R4M had both air to air and air to ground variants. Technically, depending on doctrinal collateral damage and munition expenditure allowances, just about any high impulse HE rocket works.

Let’s start with the dictionary definition:

a concentrated artillery bombardment over a wide area.

from there, we also take a look at the definition of “bombardment”:

a continuous attack with bombs, shells, or other missiles .

So, based on those definitions, I would conclude that a single barrage rocket attack requires multiple rockets. Even it’s ability to spend charges to reroll dice makes sense in this explanation as your are firing more rockets to try to ensure hits. If you have grounds to disprove this interpretation, please share.

Based on that definition, I don’t think the images to the R4M are show sufficient numbers to account for the “barrage” descriptor. Or, at least, not for potentially 5 separate barrages. Put on more means more weight. And that affects speed and maneuverability.

While I have you, I would like to open up a second line of questioning on the game design front. You seem to maintain that the Weapon Hardpoints are intended to work with double slot secondary weapons. If this is the case, where are mentions of this in articles, demos, and quick build options for both the Scyk and the T-70? If it was a feature, rather than a bug, why haven’t FFG presented it as such?

@SabineKey Are they a missile upgrade or something else? If they are not a missile upgrade then they are not equipible to the ships with the Weapon Hardpoint ability, but that also means every missile/missile and payload/payload upgrade do not qualify for the reload procedure outlined in the RR. Which is interesting since the payload/mod (EPB) upgrade specifically calls out that its charges cannot be renewed...

41 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:

@SabineKey Are they a missile upgrade or something else? If they are not a missile upgrade then they are not equipible to the ships with the Weapon Hardpoint ability, but that also means every missile/missile and payload/payload upgrade do not qualify for the reload procedure outlined in the RR. Which is interesting since the payload/mod (EPB) upgrade specifically calls out that its charges cannot be renewed...

Which seems like an example of poor explained definitions, not intent for the Weapon Hardpoint ability to do something different than when it was the Heavy Scyk title back in 1E. You have still yet to prove to me that your interpretation of the rule is what was intended.

Now, Let me be more direct with my last line of questioning. Can you show me any example of a ship with the Weapon Hardpoint ability using a double slot missile upgrade (I use this definition because there are two) in any official article, demo, or the Quickbuild system? If you can, then I think you have a leg to stand on in terms of intent. If not, I remain unconvinced of you stance.

To give context, I have been active in 2E since it started over a year ago. In that time, this thread is the first hint I have ever gotten that someone was confused by the Weapon Hardpoint/Barrage Rocket relationship. That’s about a year of regular casual games, and trying to go to a tournament about once a month, from small store events, to a System Open. No hint of this debate. That makes me highly dubious of your interpretation. Also add that there has yet to be a provided quote from the devs or other source other than your interpretation that this is the case.

So. If the devs intentionally made Weapon Hardpoint more powerful than the clause in the Heavy Scyk, if they forgot to mention this when first showing off the 2E Scyk, if they forgot to mention it when the Scyk expansion was announced, if they forgot to mention it when advertising for the Resistance kit and T-70, if they didn’t think to put that capability to use on even one Quickbuild card, and if the devs were never curious enough to ask why Barrage Rocket Scyks don’t show up anywhere in the data, then you are likely right.

Or

If the devs attempt to streamline wording, and if that attempt caused for the wording to not be air tight, then we end up where we are.

This is where I apply the paraphrased Occam’s Razor. If you feel I missed any “ifs”, or added one unduly, please bring it up. You still have a direct question on the matter to get an answer from and may have found an historical piece of FFG content that supports your hypothesis. I’m not saying you can’t be right, but you have not convinced me that you are.

@SabineKey

1. None of the articles state that Weapon Hardpoint (M3-A or T-70) is limited to single slot upgrades. The only 2.0 official source for that limitation is the Squad Builder which, as has been pointed out by others, permits illegal lists to be made. It is not outside of reason that portions of the Squad Builder have been misprogrammed causing it block the building of some legal lists (It did refuse to save what the SB developers termed the "Special" upgrade option on the M3-A at release and had a similar issue with the T-70's "Special" option when it was updated for the Resistance and FO factions iirc).

2. Basing any conclusion for the non-quickbuild formats on what is permitted in Quick Build as an indicator of intent is questionable (The Wave 5, Threat 2, Jamming Beam/Ion Cannon/Intimidation/Shield Upgrade Cartel Spacer Quick Build being a prime example of a Quick Build that breaks even my reading of how the rules for Weapon Hardpoint work).

3. I know you've been dealing with 2E since the start, we've been in discussions together on this forum several times since before 2 E was announced. The question has come up before, and it is coming up again because someone has asked again.

4. The position against Weapon Hardpoint applying as written reeks of people bending over backwards grabbing at anything they can to preserve the status quo from 1E. The 2E ability says nothing about slots.

5. If the 2 ships with the Weapon Hardpoint ability ("Weapon Hardpoint: You can equip 1 , , or upgrade.") cannot equip upgrades with the double missile slot requirement due to their type, then any multi-slot upgrade that has missile, torpedo or payload as one or more of the slot reqs cannot be reloaded (RR, Reload , Page 16: "1. Choose one of the ship’s equipped , , or upgrade cards that has fewer active than its charge limit.").

@Hiemfire *Sigh* Call me when you have actual evidence to support your theory. Until you have something concrete from the devs (none of what you just posted qualifies), I don’t think there is anymore to say. I find your arguments unconvincing. Good night.

From the app, from lore, and from common sense, It’s patently obvious that the devs didn’t intend to allow Barrage Rockets or DBM on the Scyk or T-70.

Still, the use of upgrade type instead of slot technically means that they made an accident and will have to issue an FAQ or errata. Jonus and Rhymer do in fact use the same type of wording.

It’s silly, but unfortunately it’s true.

Then again, I wouldn’t mind Jonus not working with barrage. I never liked barrage swarms anyway, and I love the TIE Bomber.

3 minutes ago, ClassicalMoser said:

Still, the use of upgrade type instead of slot technically means that they made an accident and will have to issue an FAQ or errata. Jonus and Rhymer do in fact use the same type of wording.

So does Reload.

14 hours ago, Hiemfire said:

Its hard points aren't internal. I'm frankly surprised you've forgotten.

I miss the ARC Caster. I wish it would return, if only because I love the idea of bolting a ******* Teslacoil to the wing of a Scyk.

6 hours ago, Hiemfire said:

@SabineKey

1. None of the articles state that Weapon Hardpoint (M3-A or T-70) is limited to single slot upgrades. The only 2.0 official source for that limitation is the Squad Builder which, as has been pointed out by others, permits illegal lists to be made. It is not outside of reason that portions of the Squad Builder have been misprogrammed causing it block the building of some legal lists (It did refuse to save what the SB developers termed the "Special" upgrade option on the M3-A at release and had a similar issue with the T-70's "Special" option when it was updated for the Resistance and FO factions iirc).

2. Basing any conclusion for the non-quickbuild formats on what is permitted in Quick Build as an indicator of intent is questionable (The Wave 5, Threat 2, Jamming Beam/Ion Cannon/Intimidation/Shield Upgrade Cartel Spacer Quick Build being a prime example of a Quick Build that breaks even my reading of how the rules for Weapon Hardpoint work).

3. I know you've been dealing with 2E since the start, we've been in discussions together on this forum several times since before 2 E was announced. The question has come up before, and it is coming up again because someone has asked again.

4. The position against Weapon Hardpoint applying as written reeks of people bending over backwards grabbing at anything they can to preserve the status quo from 1E. The 2E ability says nothing about slots.

5. If the 2 ships with the Weapon Hardpoint ability ("Weapon Hardpoint: You can equip 1 , , or upgrade.") cannot equip upgrades with the double missile slot requirement due to their type, then any multi-slot upgrade that has missile, torpedo or payload as one or more of the slot reqs cannot be reloaded (RR, Reload , Page 16: "1. Choose one of the ship’s equipped , , or upgrade cards that has fewer active than its charge limit.").

What's to say that the double missile symbol makes it 2 upgrades?