Why on earth are you and everyone else stat-ing B-Wings giving them Barrel Roll? That thing is hardly nimble enough to do so, and not even the A-Wing was given a Barrel Roll when it's the most nimble fighter in the Rebellion!

It appears to be strictly an Imperial function. It may or may not be conferred to the Bomber.

Also dumb down the dodge dice to 1. The B-Wing is NOT more nimble than the Y-Wing in any regard. Same goes for the Bomber. If the Y-Wing is dodge 1, so should they. Change expanded cockpit to say "Change the first Focus result rolled for this fighter on this turn to a blank."

I also don't see the need to pull more upgrade classes out of a hat when we already have some perfectly legitimate ones now. Bombers should carry Torpedoes standard with an upgrade option to switch them out to concussion missiles (say a 3-point modification card). They were designed with heavy ordinance delivery in mind and in a pinch go into combat dogfighting.

The Heavy Rockets look good though… I just hope it isn't too OP for the game.

Just my opinion, but I think the barrel roll is to replicate the B-wing's ability to have the fuselage roll around the cockpit pod as it moves. Its not exactly a barrel roll, but it gives the idea.

Something I was thinking about for a pilot ability was to gain an evade token when you acquire a target lock. Maybe that could be a "ship" ability in place of barrel roll?

Gullwind said:

I think a high agility or evade would be more appropriate, since rolling and barrel rolling are two different things. (Remember that maneuverability and agility are two different stats in x-wing.)

Anyway, seems that the conclusion is that in order to make these ships useful in dogfights new missions need to be introduced. Someone mentioned that the TIE Bomber is likely a lighter version of the Firespray, or a glass cannon, and as I see it its purpose must be to destroy big things.

So the question boils down to what wouold these missions look like? Support ships supplying bombers with ammunition is already mentioned. What would a strafing run mission look like? Any other missions you could think of?

tinnitus said:

Evade would probably make the most sense, because you would be concentrating on not getting shot while the body us moving around. The B-Wing was not agile.

tinnitus said:

Well, the bombers actually have the ability to fill 2 roles. Tie bombers will be able to carry torpedoes, missiles, or potentially bombs/mines. Likely 2, maybe even 3. It gives FF the ability to make objective ships, along the lines of bulk transports, freighters and things along those lines. Most likely they will be a cardboard counter unles there is overwhelming demand for something like that.

The missions themselves could be wide range of on board objectives in the vein of destroying some strategic target, even repurposing the asteroids as secret rebel communcation relays or listening posts or something. One we have been kicking around for future use is fighter escort of bombers to a predetermined line on the board which represents the optimum firing point for some sort of bombardment. You would score VPs for firing your torp loads which means you could use some of them in the dogfight on the way there if you wanted, and even try to have some act as decoys, or provide cover on the way out.

Luckily, I found one of those big blockade runner models for $30 and we will be using that for our next convention events. Although, without bombers it would have to be toned down so the fighters actually have a chance to stop it.

tinnitus said:

I feel I should point out that the X-Wing, standard ship and more manuverable than the B-Wing, has only Focus and Target Lock. Honestly I don't see how a rotating cockpit gives the pilot anything more than changing his perspective in relation to his fighter. I've never seen anywhere the magical barrel-rolling ability conferred to the B-Wing through any representation I've seen in Star Wars.

Because of how limited in space each expansion is I'm not expecting to see any scenarios attached to the fighters. Maybe I could be wrong and they could be included in place of the special ability cards, but if we're talking about objectives to shoot at (other than senator shuttles), I doubt we'd see them in the B-Wing/TIE Bomber expansions.

Norsehound said:

I admit that my knowledge of B-wing performance is limited at best, I was speaking generally. A hard to hit ship should have high Agility and/or Evade. Barrel roll requires a maneuverable ship.

If not new missions we are left with the original question, what would be their role in the game? On the other hand FFG have posted additional scenarios for several other games on their website, why not X-wing? Come to think of it, one fun way to go about it is to post the missions beforehand to show how esssential these ships are.

There are lots of ways they could take the b-wing and bomber, but many people haven't considered how pilot skills and ship upgrades might effect the ships.

Lets assume the B-Wing has 2 or 3 torpedo icons, and the bomber has 2 torpedo icons and a missile icon, then try a few of these:

Elite Pilot Skill:
Barrage (2 points): When this ship spends a target lock to fire a weapon with header Attack [Target Lock] , it may fire any number of weapons with the header Attack [Target Lock]

Ship Upgrade:
Extended Ordanance Bays (4 points): If a secondary weapon requires you to discard the card to performe the attack, do not discard until you have performed 2 attacks with that weapon.

Advanced Guidance Systems (2 points): When this ship spends a target lock to fire a weapon with header Attack [Target Lock], you may reroll any number of attack dice on that attack.

tinnitus said:

And I've already illustrated what they can do for X-Wing:

TIE Bomber is a warhead attacker. Low natural attack, primary reliance is on what kind of warheads it is given for upgrades. If you want a minefield, give them bombs. If you want ranged attackers, give them Torpedoes. It won't last long if X-Wings tag-team them but the idea is that their slow move with a TIE Fighter screen can keep the Rebel fighters at a distance for the Bombers to attack them.

The B-Wings have high attack and great resiliency but no speed and almost no dodge. So they'll wade into the fray firing left and right and hoping to kill as many enemy TIEs before they succum to their pathetic dodge in the face of so many attack dice. They'll wallow like a YT, but have similar hitpoints and a greater attack value with better direct-attack upgrades and a smaller base. You'd loose the turret attack but be greatful for an autoblaster that can, say, re-roll all blank results in a primary attack?

Both of these ships would be vulnerable to the Interceptors introduced in Wave 2, but the idea isn't to introduce successive expansions to counter the previous ones like Magic. The purpose of expansions is to introduce different ways for you to play the game .

And given the fighters I just illustrated above, I kind of look forward to trying a bomber build with Torpedoes escorted by a TIE Fighter screen, or a tide of Death with as many B-Wings as I can to go killing unprepared players in a straight line.

Ok. Long post following. I ran a battle using the B-Wings today. I'm certainly not claiming I did everything tactically right, but here it is.

2 B-Wings (Farlander and Blue Squadron Pilot) vs. 5 TIE fighters (Howlrunner, Backstabber and three Obsidian Squadron Pilots). B-Wings upgraded with Autoblaster and two Proton Torpedoes, Farlander also had Elusiveness. Howlrunner upgraded with Expose. 77 points on both sides. Order of movement is TIEs 3-5, Blue Squadron Pilot, Backstabber, Farlander, Howlrunner. Attack in reverse order. I also gave Farlander the pilot ability to gain an evade when acquiring a target lock (as I suggested this morning).

First round: TIEs in a vee formation, charging straight across the board (straight 5). B-wings side by side, about range 2 from each other and turn right 2. No combat first round.

Second round: TIEs Bank 3 left, B-wings Turn 3 left. Howlrunner is at range 2 to Farlander. All TIEs focus, B-wings acquire target locks (Farlander to Howlrunner (gains Evade token), Blue Squadron to TIE 3). Howlrunner fires, two hits (using Focus), Farlander rolls one evade and uses evade token. No damage. Farlander fires Proton torpedoes at Howlrunner at range 2. Rolls 2 Damage, 1 Critical, 1 Focus. Changed Focus to Critical. Howlrunner rolls 2 evades, 1 blank. Two critical hits (Injured pilot and Direct Hit - 2 dmg). Howlrunner is destroyed. Backstabber fires at Farlander at range 3, rolls two hits. Farlander rolls two evades. Blue Squadron fires at TIE 3 with Proton Torpedoes. Rolls four Damage, TIE 3 rolls 1 evade and 2 blank. TIE 3 is destroyed.

Third round: TIEs Bank 2 right and Focus. B-Wings go Straight 1, Farlander acquires target lock on Backstabber (gains evade token), Blue Squadron Pilot focuses. Farlander attacks with primary weapon, rolls 1 damage, 1 critical, 1 focus and 1 blank. Spends Target lock to reroll focus and blank and gets 2 damage. Backstabber rolls 2 evades and 1 blank. 1 damage and 1 critical to Backstabber, critical is another Direct Hit, Backstabber is destroyed. Blue Squadron Pilot attacks TIE 5, rolls three focus and 1 blank. Changed all focus results to damage results. TIE 5 rolls 2 focus and 1 evade. Spends focus token to change focus results to evades, no damage. TIE 4 attacks Farlander at range 1, rolls 2 damage, 1 focus. Changes focus to damage. Farlander roll 1 focus and 1 blank. Spends evade token to cancel 1 damage, 2 damage to shields. TIE 5 attacks Blue Squadron pilot and rolls 1 damage, 1 critical and 1 focus. Blue Squadron rolls 1 blank and 1 focus. Both ships already spent their focus tokens, so Blue Squadron takes 2 shield damage.

Fourth round: Both remaining TIEs do Koiogran 3 maneuvers to get behind the B-Wings. No actions due to red maneuvers. B-Wings turn 3 Left, Farlander acquires target lock on TIE 4 (who is at range 2) and gains an evade token. Blue Squadron pilot also acquires a target lock on TIE 4 at range 3. Farlander has no one in arc, so Blue Squadron Pilot fires his Autoblaster twice. First attack rolls 2 damage, 1 focus. TIE 4 rolls 1 evade and 3 focus, so 1 damage on TIE 4. Second attack, Blue Squadron Pilot rolls three blanks, spends target lock to reroll and gets 3 damage. TIE 4 rolls 1 evade, 2 focus and 1 blank. 2 more damage, so TIE 4 is destroyed. TIE 5 attacks Blue Squadron Pilot, rolling a damage and a focus. Blue Squadron Pilot rolls 1 evade and 1 blank. No damage.

I stopped at this point, because the game was pretty heavily in favor of the B-Wings. It might have taken a turn or two to get the last TIE into arc based on the relative positions, but with only a couple points of shield damage on each, I don’t see the TIE whittling them down before they nail him.

Recommendations: I’m sure I could have played the TIEs better, but the B-Wings seem a bit strong. I’d say reducing their agility to 1 would be a start. I didn’t barrel roll with them, but I agree that that action doesn’t really fit with this ship. Farlander got a lot of use out of the target lock – evade token ability. I’m not sure what to think about the Autoblaster that was proposed. It destroyed a TIE at range 3, rolling two attacks with 3 attack dice vs. 4 defense dice, though I grant that the TIE did not have any focus or evade tokens available. I like the idea of attacking twice, but I sure wouldn’t want to be on the receiving end of this weapon.

I would also like to propose a change to the Upgrade bar. According to canon, the B-Wing has a laser cannon, autoblasters and 3 ion cannons. What about adding a second cannon upgrade icon? If we consider the autoblaster to be the primary weapon, then the existing heavy laser cannon and the ion cannon would neatly fill out the “official” weapons loadout with no additional cards needed. Thoughts?

Also, I noticed that removing the Koiogran turn from the maneuver chart means the B-Wing has no red maneuvers at all. I propose making the 4 Straight maneuver red.

Sorry for the length of this post, but I wanted to give as much detail as possible. I think the B-Wings are certainly playable, if a bit overpowered as proposed but a bit of tweaking should take care of that. I started a game with the TIE Bombers, but realized I'd forgotten the bomber-specific upgrades and gave up. The bit I did seemed quite in line with the official ships, though.

Norsehound said:

New ships are added to the game to increase the number of ways to play the game, I completely agree with you there. A new wave is not added to counter the last one, I concur. That's why I started this thread, to find out how they could enhance the game.

If a B-wing is a slow cumbersome heavy hitter then it isn't much different from a double torp fitted y-wing, is it? Though with a couple of tweeks I bet it could find its way into many commanders list of viable options of ships to bring into battle.

To field a maximum fitted TIE Bomber in a dog fight is playing with really high stakes. As I see it there's a high risk it's going to get blown up before it has gotten to launch all its firepower, screened or not. I can't remember it being used in a dog fight anywhere in the movies and I suppose it's for a reason. One way to go about it though could be to add some sort of incentive to make the Bombers exit the board alive. They shoot once or twice, then leave. Maybe you could buy waves of Bombers, you unlock the next one by exiting the board.

tinnitus said:

Well, of the two the TIE Bomber would be the closest to a double-torp Y-Wing because that's how it's so dangerous. It would have less hull though, with a greater magazine/upgrade capability (concussion missiles and bomb slots). The TIE Bomber would join the ranks of ships that are best when attacking at range, like double-Torp Y-Wings and Firesprays with Heavy lasers.

The B-Wing is similar to the Y-Wing only in resiliency and manuver capabilities. It would have a much higher natural attack (at 3), and be able to equip the cannon upgrade instead of the turret upgrade. Instead of pointing and laughing at the Y-Wing for being so ineffectual and special-purpose, the B-Wing would be the first thing the empire wants to destroy because if left alone it can wipe out half your squadron!

I think some are approaching the Tie Bomber in the wrong way. It is a bomber and should be used to attack ground or capital ships. Fighters would be in an escort roll much as Mustangs were in WWII for the B-17s. Scenarios along those lines make perfect sense for additions to the game. Adding another gee wiz capability to make it an interceptor or attack fighter is looking at it wrong.

VR
James Mattes

Er…no, I think we're approaching it the right way. We're trying to think of ways to make the TIE bomber a viable option in a space dogfighting game, not dismissing it for a role that will never happen in the engine. Capital ships as we know them will never appear outside of fanmade productions.

I think there's no right or wrong yet. In a sense you're both right. I certainly agree that, either way, TIE Bombers will need escorts (I like your allegory with WWII, Vojvoda). Yes, they are built for targeting large things and not fighters, but unlike a B-17 they carry armaments that can be used to target fighters in a pinch. But then again, why bring them to a dogfight when a couple of TIE/ln are probably both cheaper and better suited for the job? I agree that introducing the TIE Bomber to the game without new scenarios would be something of a stretch. But not unthinkable.

I'm starting to like your take on the B-wings, Norsehound. Resilient ships with strong primary guns would be dangerous if left inchecked.

Bringing back the movies, the only scene they're in they aren't destroying anything they are searching the asteroid field for the Falcon. With this in mind, could it be possible to introduce non combat modifications (i.e. scanning equipment) for certain ships? Supposing a TIE Bomber scanning the satellites in the Dark Whispers-mission at greater range, or could transfer data to other ships. A dangerous and expensive strategy, but it could pay off in the hands of a skilled commander. (This alone wouldn't be enough to introduce it to the game, though.)

All playing information is public, so unless you'd make hidden objectives a normal and mandatory part of gameplay I don't see the use for scanning equipment on TIE Bombers.

Proton Torpedoes are one of the standard anti-capital ship munitions of the Star Wars Universe already. Not only were they used in the Death Star (which was hardly a strike craft), but the Flight simulators portray Proton Torpedoes as heavy anti-ship ordinance best used against slow-moving ships and transports (in dogfights it was effective against Rebel X, Y, and B Wings and TIE Bombers).

So anti-capital weapons exist in the game already in my opinion, just that this munitions class needs to be expanded. Heavy Rockets were another primary anti-capital weapon used by the Empire that had tremendous punch but a very reduced homing capability. Perhaps all hits are changed to crits for this weapon but the target can re-roll any of his dodge dice? Useful only against slow-moving ships and eventually capital vessels? The Mag-Pulse warhead is another heavy weapon that I wanted to see… kind of like an ion cannon but for attacks.

The most 'utility' I can think of to get out of a TIE bomber would be enabling Proton Bombs to remove asteroid terrain. Proton Bombs were used in TIE Fighter against capital ships, but since no capital ships exist yet I can't see how to implement them. Maybe if FFG does capital ships, they can introduce specialized anti-ship ordinance along with the vessel and scenario to help counter-attacks.

When FFG introduced proton torpedoes in the starter to use them in their dogfighting game I knew pushing the TIE bomber into a similar role was possible. What would make it extremely deadly is the ability to let the Bomber use another Target Lock in addition to the Target Lock it spends on the Proton torpedo.

Norsehound said:

Why does it have to be hidden? The mission rules state that you need to overlap to scan a satellite, then you put it on the card of the ship that scanned it. My proposotion is simply that a properly equiped Bomber could scan at a greater range and/or transfer the data (i.e. the satellite token) to another ship that is more likely to get off the board.

The utility you suggest (proton bombing asteroids) is a good idea, and doesn't need implemented capital ships for it to work as a mission. Objective: Clear the board of asteroids. Why? So the capital ship can move in, of course. As often with missions, it's a vital part of a bigger picture.

And my point was that this ability for the bomber is very scenario-specific. If we give the bomber capabiliites like that it would be better served if it had a wider flexibility and mission appeal. How often are you doing scanning in a pickup battle?

Besides, such a scanning ability might be better served for those ships that exist with special scanners… like the TIE Scout and TIE Vanguard. The Bomber is a pure attack craft and was never employed on special sensor missions unless no other vehicles were available. I still think it's very versatile as a missile truck if we give the bomber more kinds of missiles to carry.

The flexibility concern goes for Proton Bombs too. Not every scenario has terrain pieces. So while I brought up that suggestion i wonder if it might be over-specialized for general scenario play.

Norsehound said:

No, your point was that hidden objectives were needed. Other than that, your right - it IS mission specific.

Norsehound said:

The Bomber is a large ship that seems to be easily fitted whith what is needed. And it didn't look like it was blowing up asteroids in EP V. It's not everyday a commander has access to what is best suited for the task, so why not put a scanner in a Bomber.

Norsehound said:

Yes, mission specific.

I think a clarification from my part is in order; I don't mind playing missions - on the contrary. I welcome mission play since I think that a pitched battle is rather… dull. If the TIE Bomber comes out as a mission specific ship I would not hesitate to buy it! I'm not sure this oppinion is a general one, though, which may be why FFG chooses to make the Bomber non-mission specific.

tinnitus said:

Actually they were bombing the large asteroid to flush out the Falcon. Right after they show the bombers the next scene shows Hon or Leia in the falcon’s cockpit listing the bomb impacts as the bombers pass.

Boomer_J said:

oops listening to not listing to

Boomer_J said:

Which is searching. We don't know if they have scanners or not.

Come to think of it, wouldn't bringing a couple of TIE Bombers to one of the three "destroy target" missions give a tremendous edge? I think it could possibly be so, especially if the Bomber is so powerful as you suggest, Norsehound. I'm starting to lean more and more towards Vojvoda's approach: the TIE Bomber is meant to destroy large things (making it a purely mission specific ship). I would like that.

I'll note your surprise when FFG implements it and it doesn't turn out to be as mission-specific as you're expecting it to be.

Seriously, X-wing is a dogfighting space simulator game. If something is going to be implemented, it will be done in such a way to support and fit within the dogfighting mechanics. I mean, look at the Y-Wing. The Y-Wing in star wars is a bomber that is not often depicted in glorious dogfights. In the flight sims, NPC Y-Wings typically fly in straight lines on bombing missions, or are used by desperate pirates or pushover third-parties and are almost always chewed to pieces. Yet we have the Y-wing in X-Wing and despite it's lackluster performance, it works after a fashion. It has two torpedoes and a turret upgrade. I'd expect the TIE Bomber, coming with a similar role, to be stat'ed and equipped very similarly.

Calling it scenario specific is a waste and I'd be utterly flabbergasted if FFG pulled such a self-restricting manuver. Their expansions so far are successful because they are not mission specific. You could use any fighter in any of the scenarios and it would work just as well as any other.

The alternative is to never create a TIE bomber for the game, but I think that's very unlikely since the Y-Wing exists, and the Y-Wing is often the Bomber's counterpart in other games.

I'm just stating my oppinions - as do you. I know as well as you do that what I WANT from FFG is not always what I GET, so stop laying words in my mouth.

Your predictions may very well come true, but so far they're just speculations and we'd do best to treat them like that until we know better. And unti then we might as well speculate.

You mentioned the computer games, but they too have designers. And those designers have also discussed the various ships' roles in those games and tweaked them to fit those roles. Or do you really think the designers know EXACTLY how various ships perform in different circomstances, and if they do know they keep true to that knowledge? They are games meant to entertain and sell, not to be dogmatically true to canon - just like x-wing.

You keep saying that key parts of the miniature game has been tweaked to fit the dogfighting setting and that FFG are probably going to do the same with the Bomber and the B-wing, and at the same time you present some ships that are supposed to be true to canon (although with game-adapted torpedos) and thus way to powerful to fit the game. Stop contradicting yourself, please.

And stop pretending that you know more about game design or star wars or whatnot than me. The designers are probably having a discussion simillar to ours, although perhaps more civil. They too speculate.

I don't understand how I'm contradicting myself through my presumptions of these ships, but maybe letting some leeway in my interpretation might be considered 'contradictory' as I'm discussing opinions. Either way, I'd rather discuss capabilities and possibilities with these ships.

I've done some game design myself so my comments come off as I know how I would approach the game and through my understanding of what FFG is doing. As a player and as a designer I know how I would approach these ships, and it seems like a sensible and reasonable way to me beyond gratuitous hours of testing to prove or disprove points which I don't have the time and effort for. They make sense to me.

I don't think the B-Wing is too powerful for the game the way I picture it. With 1 dodge it is not going to evade the firepower coming at it. If a TIE swarm decides to blow it up, it'll throw everything it has at it and that generic B-Wing may very well die before it gets to let off a shot in spite of the heavier protection. Also, a B-Wing can only ever shoot at one target per turn. So even if it has superior attack capabilities with cannon options, it's still blowing up only ONE fighter a turn. Not overpowered in my opinion; I judge my hypothetical B-Wing as what Y-Wings wish they were. It also seems quite cannonical to me, barring fans' demands to accurately represent EVERY weapon the B-Wing has, which I feel is a waste of effort. I concede that FFG may very well do something different and unexpected and end up being satisfying either way. We'll just have to see.

I suppose I'm too opinionated in my thoughts on this matter, but I love the game.