Sorry if this has been talked about on another post but I noticed that the Lambda shuttle picture does not have a rear facing fire arc on the ship card that fits on the flight stand. It seems they can carry extra crew, a cannon upgrade and sensors. Apparently the standard configuration for the shuttle was just a rear facing twin turret and the model shown would suggest an upgunned "military configuration" with forward weaponry. Perhaps there is an upgrade card that would allow for the rear defence (the "cannon" icon), but even so I would have thought it would have the fire arcs marked on it like Slave 1.

Hopefully I am just making a small deal over nothing…

Still it is great to see all the new ships even the "mystery ship"!

Slave 1's main weapons were on turrets that allowed the weapons to swivel to a rear firing arc. This is why the Firespray has a rear arc with it's primary attack.

The Lambda shuttle in all armed configurations has the majority of it's weapons forward facing.

The standard config is 4 forward twin lasers with 1 rear twin laser.

The military config is 8 forward lasers and 2 rear lasers.

Thats a 4 to 1 ratio of weaponry. If it's primary attack is a 3, the rear arc could only really have a 1 at best (basically worthless). Beyond the rear arc having little firepower, you'd have to have rules (exclusive to that ship) that could be confusing. My guess is they decided to keep things simple and just dump the rear arc.

I agree that if the rear defence was included it should only be Attack 1 as it is a defensive weapon. I do however see it as being better than useless, if there is a target in the rear arc then it works as well as anything else. If it were an option then it should be use either the forward guns OR rear defence in the same round even if there are targets in both arcs. I am also assuming the shuttle can not perform the K turn, hence the need for rear defence, but if it doesn't have a rear gun option then perhaps it can K turn.

I am sure people will "homebrew" there own interpretations of how a rear defense weapon could be worked in without much problem.

I was also very disappointed with the lack of a rear arc. I have the action figure Imperial Shuttle and the rear turret is there, so I do wish it was reflected in the card in some way.

Im glad it doesnt have a rear shot. This is by far an undercost ship. 10 hits in total for a low low cost!

saiharris said:

I agree, if they had given it the rear arc, even with just 1 attack, they likely would have had to cost 10+ points more. I expect that the dial and the limited arc are what balances the lambda's cost. Otherwise, it is severely undercosted.

I think it is a very solid choice with the skill 8 Pilot for 27 points. You will be able to have 4 Shuttles on the table if you take generic pilots. And that with 10 hitpoints per ship and 3 frontal attacks. If that thing had a rear arc it would be a slave 1 for cheaper.

So i think they did not do it because it would have upped the cost severely and to differentiate it from the Slave!

Also even like this it must have a very bad manoeuver dial or it will be too powerful with those stats at that price!

Sorry for double post but it didn't work at first so i pushed twice and doubleposted apparently!

I would also not be shocked if the lower skill pilots have a reduced statline. If we consider the one that was previewed as one of the best pilots (likely flying the best ship), it would make sense if they reduced the attack, hull, and/or shields for a cheaper, more standard Lambda, similarly to what they did with the YT-1300.

I can see 3 or 4 shuttles just getting shot to pieces by interceptors and X-Wings, especially if the shuttle doesn't have a K Turn. All you'll have to do is survive the inital pass (and that happens against X-Wings all the time) and then just hang in the rear arc.

Endgame124 said:

Not to mention the player using the lambdas would have the nightmare of keeping his large bases from bumping everything constantly in asteroids.

Looking for a rear arc when only 1/4 of the weapons are aimed in that direction is kinda lame. First off it would require additional rules which could be confusing. A rear arc at the same attack value isn't that bad. A 360 arc isn't bad. Having multiple firing arcs with different attack values is difficult to convey.

Heck, lets just play it mathmatically and say that 1/4 of 3 is .75….so really it does have a rear arc but it's attack value is .75 of a die, and since we don't have the appropriate die, we can't use it. Or wait, maybe they can give us a new 6 sided attack die just for the lambda shuttle's rear arc. It could have a hit, an eye, and 4 misses.

If you want to get this technical then why aren't we fighting for different firing arcs on other ships? An Xwing's weapons are 'fixed' which means you have to line the fighter up directly on target at the right distance to actually hit with all or any of the weapons. However an A-wing has tracking laser cannons that have a wider firing arc. It should really have 3 arcs. 1 main arc that is represented on the current bases, but then it should have two wider side arcs that have less attack value (where only 1 laser can reach). If it flew on it's side (compaired to the other models) it would have a full attack 60 degree forward arc! Some even could fire behind them, so really if they were the advanced models and flew on their side they'd have a 360 degree arc! The YT1300 (the falcon at least) had additional weaponry that tracked also (the small retractable laser cannon). The standard lambda shuttle has some fixed forward lasers and some tracking mounts, so it should have a standard firing arc, a rear arc, and a wider secondary forward arc.

Imagine the base of a LAAT. There'd be at least 5 attack arcs! Yes, yes, thats not OT, but I think you get the point I'm trying to make. In games, we have to suspend disbelief sometimes to allow the game to flow and play easily. The no rear arc of the lambda is just another minor foot note in a long list of modifications made by FFG to make the game fun and quick instead of a complicated mess of miniature rules.

Fact: The shuttle has a rear gun.

To say thay for pure playability and to avoid confusion that this cannot be represented in the game is pretty poor. The game has plenty of complexity with combos and the like. I am not looking at it for points cost effectiveness just the simple fact that the shuttle was designed with a rear gun, why is this not represented?

So feel free to saw the gun barrels off your models as having these could also cause confusion

DB Draft said:

Fact: Star Wars is a fictional universe and X-Wing is a game based on it. Based; as-in not identical

I whole-heartedly disagree. What value does having the rear gun represented add, aside to make you feel better about the fluff? Pretty much none. It makes perfect sense to abstract this out. If it bothers you so much, design your own cards, but good luck representing and balancing it within the bounds of the existing cards. Obviously adding multiple varying arcs to the same ship would over-complicate the game, as was already noted.

Its a GAME. Abstractions are needed unless you want a game that is way over-complicated with every "real life" situation. That no one will play. Do you really think that pilots look out the windows and say "hmm… I think that that TIE is going to go left, so I will too. ohsnap! I ran into him. Guess that broke my ability to do anything…"? No? well then I guess you've already given into some level of abstraction in the game. Why is this such a problem?

I'd much rather the Lambda NOT have the rear gun (which I would argue makes little sense game-wise anyway) and be distinct from the Firespray, than have the gun and be basically the same ship.

Fact: this is hilarious!

"Sir we have the new design for our Imperial Shuttle… it has many outstanding and highly advanced features…. one of which is a rear gun that cannot be used…. EVER…."

I really love this game and the models are exceptional. If you were playing a WW2 air combat game and had the chance to fly a SBD Dauntless dive bomber that could only use its forward firing guns I think you would also feel something is missing when a Zero parks on your tail.

I appreciate your comments.

Fact: Luke Skywalker costs 28 points. Fact The top rated Lambda pilot costs you 27 points and will fire at the same time Luke fires. Fact, Luke Skywalker blew up a Death Star and is one of the best pilots in The Star Wars Universe. Fact: If you drive what is considered by most to be a transport / support ship (it's not like the military grade ones were fighting in dog fights) you should not be allowed to fire at an 8. Fact 10 total hull/shields for said Lambda Shuttle pilot costs you 27 points, X-Wing has 5 total hull/shields for Luke (and Wedge) and The YT-1300 at Chewbacca's Level of 42 has 13 total Hull/Shield. Fact: The Lambda shuttle is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyy undercosted, adding a rear gun is adding insult.

Fact: you are all missing my point.

If you want to talk about the cost of this and that then I cannot defend any of this because it is a game with a point system and therefore is designed for people to "maximise" their list with the best combos etc….. Take it up with management.

What would make the shuttle play differently from Slave 1? No K turns, turns like a brick. Now that would be "worth" the "undercost" wouldn't it?

Why would someone design a ship that couldn't handle that well in a dogfight? Well they give it a defensive armament… look there it is on the back!

Rear defense has been around since the very first aircraft so why not introduce it to the game? Surely other ships could benefit from this. Does this suddenly become a cheesy combo… nope.

I agree with DB Draft. I remember the lambda shuttle kicking my butt in the x-wing vs. tie fighter game. You definitely had to keep your distance or take advantage of its blind spots. To model a ship with a tail gun and not be able to man it with a tail gunner is just lame. If a tail gunner would up the cost let the player be able to make the choice at least if he wants to spend the points on the upgrade or not even if it means small squad.

This would make a squad made up of:

One Lambda Shuttle

Two academe tie fighters

So freaking awesome!!!

But this is coming from a guy that only plays casually. So take my rant with a grain of salt.

DB Draft said:

They did the same thing to the Y-Wing (did not give it a rear weapon), which could be flown by 2 pilots for the same reason you give about the Lambda. Same thing could be said about later model B-Wings. I think FFG made it clear that this is a support ship. If you make it too powerful, it's not much of a support ship, it would become most player's squad leader. Take it for what it is, the Lambda Shuttle will be very useful, even without that rear firing weapon.

Looking at the pixelated card spreads FFG have distributed there seems to be a modification card in the Shuttle expansion pack that adds a rear-firing laser - either an anti-missile one or anti-pursuit.

You may yet get to fire out of the rear arc of your shuttle

Hey, whatever happens it will be another cool looking model!

I think the Y wing with an ion cannon turret pretty much is the "rear gunner" option with 360 degree action, the crew icon just would not work with the Y wing so it is an easy fix to represent the rear gunner with the turret option. I think there is a good chance of an "autoblaster" turret being available which I am really happy about.

As no ship can (yet) target more than one ship (unless they have the gunner crew option) the idea for the rear gun and forward gun option is still valid, you use one or the other not both in the same round. I am sure the game developers have toyed with the idea and yet may have a solution to satisfy everyone's taste. An option card would be one way to do this. Hopefully they will release more info on the Lambda shuttle first!

I do agree with previous posts that the cost of the Lambda shuttle is rather strange and even a really poor set of maneuvers would be hard to justify.

I agree with DB Draft, the design challenge is surely to get the points right and ensure the ships capabilities are reflected in the game.

Only that way will we see the roles, tactics and more importantly the relationships between the other ships play out. After all, this is "Star Wars" - we have long established ships here.

In any other Star Wars ship game, if you had a damaged ship, you would not go up into the rear arc of the Shuttle.

But in this game, that woudl be the best option. The complete opposite, therefore not as good a representation at it might be.

PotentialSolution: Give it up upgrade card that costs a fair amount, giving it shots from the rear arc? I don't see how that would confuse anyone. The rules could be on the card, just like any other card!

How good would a new pack of cards be some day!

Cheers

Steve

Well yeah the reasons for no rear arc are probably pointwise balancing and differentiation from other ships (Slave).

Also, if we wanted to be dogmatic about weapons, why do A-Wings have no rear-firing arc as they could spin their laser cannons backwards pretty much like the slave (well they could not in the video games, nor do you see it in the movies, but same thing for the Lambda and i think the Slave too). but the fluff speaks about the fact they were designed like that. It is clearly a game design decision not to give this weaponsto the shuttle or the A-Wing, but to the Slave.

I struggle to understand why there is a need to "make it different" by not having a rear arc, the Firespray and Shuttle have plenty of different options available, no one is going to confuse the two. There are plenty of ships that are very similar in basic performance. The Slave can fire it's primary weapons fore and aft. The shuttle has different weapons fore and aft. The design has a rear arc so why is ignoring it better? I never heard that about the A wings weapons, but I would have thought there is a big difference in one pilot firing backwards than having a dedicated rear gunner. My view on Star Wars shooting is that it is more closely associated with old skool "point 'n shoot" or "spray 'n pray" than the more sophisticated "fire 'n forget".

As for points, we were talking about a Y wing blaster turret worth 5 points for a 360 degree fire arc and 2 Attack dice being worth about 5 points, what would a 1 Attack die rear arc only weapon be worth?

So is the blaster turret now confirmed at 5 points? Okay so be it.

Let's say they gave it a rear arc for 5 more points, then you would have kagi at 27 points going to 32 points. Okay now then you have no more reason to have a bounty hunter. Same hitpoints, one less agility, same firepower, better skill and a bonus pilot skill on top. Generic shuttle pilots come in much cheaper and disqualify the bounty hunter completely.

The options are different, sure but not that much. Cannon, Crew, Medal for certain ones. Then 1-2 different ones.

Yes they are different ships optically but it would make one of them redundant. I would only buy it only for the upgrade cards then…

If they give it a back arc considering its weaker back armament okay, what would that be? 1 attack die? That would be a real waste and make the ship more expensive. Then i'd rather have FFG say it is a shuttle version without back weapon.

I like it as it is. It is different from slave and that is a good thing to me. You ask why they have to be different? Because redundancy encourages spam lists, be it in card games or tabletops… Now i don't have a problem with that in X-Wing, but i enjoy to have a large choice of very different ships very much. But this is only my personal opinion.

In the end like it seems you can now choose to run 4 cheap shuttles or 3 cheap slaves, or whatever you want and are willing to buy. I like that diversity abd balancing aspect in X-Wing more than to have an ultrarealistic game where every button and perk on a ship is represented according to fluff… That's why i brought the A-Wing exaple. They don't have a rear arc and i am fine with that.

Like the shuttle is now, you can take multiple otf them or have enough points for a substantial escort which the shuttle supports and vice-versa. Without a back arc, your ships have to do what was usual in wave 1. Support each other. And through their cheap cost, our shuttles can support each other very well because there are lots of them even if they turn badly or if they had no k-turn (which is not confirmed)

I acknowledge that you say you don't care about maximising a list for competition but i am afraid, the game balance is a really important aspect of it and not all players are pure friendly gamers.