turn it into his usual You-Must-Believe-My-Viewpoint-of-the-Empire thread.

Well, do you really think Disney are likely to rewrite the Empire to be more sympathetic and awesome?

When SW Rebels comes out and the Empire gets its ass kicked every week in the same way Cobra gets its ass kicked every week by G.I. Joe isn't it gonna be better if they lose for some kind of in universe reasons rather than just because the good guys have plot armour?

Plus for the purposes of this game the Empire need to be evil enough to make a typical PC group look like the good guys and inept enough that it doesn't seem totally nuts that they get constantly outmanoeuvred and outfought by typical PC groups. I think that means they need to be pretty nasty and pretty inept, but maybe you play with nicer and less bungling players that I do.

I don't think that plot-armour justifies the use of how to look at the setting from an in-game perspective.

I mean, there are other ways of viewing the things that happens in the movies and other sources then how they are told to make them more believably.

The Empire loses because it's the plot, the Rebels wins because of the plot. The chance of the Rebels winning a real war against the Empire, or even a minor conflict would be far smaller than it implies in the setting.

If one doesn't like this, like myself, you have to find other explanations. Other then "teh rebelz art awesum and far better and more 1337 and frekking more guud then the Evulz Empire"

Jeffrey Jacob "J. J." Abrams is Jewish. Do people think he is going to portray the space nazis sympathetically?

Because a professional lets his personal religion get in the way of the creative process?

Either way, can you please take your massive thread derail to somewhere where people care? This is meant to be about mechanics, not "THE EMPIRE ARE NAZIS AND IF YOU DISAGREE YOU ARE A NAZI SYMPATHISER".

Because a professional lets his personal religion get in the way of the creative process?

Either way, can you please take your massive thread derail to somewhere where people care? This is meant to be about mechanics, not "THE EMPIRE ARE NAZIS AND IF YOU DISAGREE YOU ARE A NAZI SYMPATHISER".

Not to mention the fact that "The Empire is a brutally efficient military machine" is hardly sympathetic...

On subject, Armor 5 is really too high.

Someone can say "But the Y-Wing has more Wound threshold" Yeah. 2 more, The same amount of armor the X-Wing has over it, meaning the ONLY situation that would make a Y-Wing tougher than an X-Wing is a Breach 4 or higher weapon.

Without Breach, it takes a single hit of the same strength to destroy either (15 damage). And once you get under that big of a hit, it takes MORE to destroy the X-Wing. (2 nine point hits will destroy a Y-Wing, but would take 3 to destroy an X-Wing, 3 seven point hits will destroy a Y-Wing, while it would take 5 to take down the X-Wing, 4 six point hits would take out a Y-Wing, but it would take a whopping TEN six point hits to take out an X-Wing).

The 5 armor is beyond absurd, and I can't figure out the justification for it.

Jeffrey Jacob "J. J." Abrams is Jewish. Do people think he is going to portray the space nazis sympathetically?

When did the Empire become space nazis? And even if they where, why would that be relevant?

When did the Empire become space nazis? And even if they where, why would that be relevant?

You're trying to ascribe a sensible rationale to ErikB's posts?

Talk about a waste of effort. Seriously, just ignore the guy. The bulk of his posts are just attempts to incite flame wars rather than being sensible contributions to a discussion.

On subject, Armor 5 is really too high.

Someone can say "But the Y-Wing has more Wound threshold" Yeah. 2 more, The same amount of armor the X-Wing has over it, meaning the ONLY situation that would make a Y-Wing tougher than an X-Wing is a Breach 4 or higher weapon.

Without Breach, it takes a single hit of the same strength to destroy either (15 damage). And once you get under that big of a hit, it takes MORE to destroy the X-Wing. (2 nine point hits will destroy a Y-Wing, but would take 3 to destroy an X-Wing, 3 seven point hits will destroy a Y-Wing, while it would take 5 to take down the X-Wing, 4 six point hits would take out a Y-Wing, but it would take a whopping TEN six point hits to take out an X-Wing).

The 5 armor is beyond absurd, and I can't figure out the justification for it.

Yeah, 5 is way to high

Ah actually explains a lot! And it reminds me why I shouldn't read forums when I'm tired, I've to try really hard not to get upset by people so instead I try to take everything written seriously.

Haven't been around this forum long enough to start recognize different people. It's hard because we can't upload our own profile pictures and I'm really awful with names.

On subject, Armor 5 is really too high.

Someone can say "But the Y-Wing has more Wound threshold" Yeah. 2 more, The same amount of armor the X-Wing has over it, meaning the ONLY situation that would make a Y-Wing tougher than an X-Wing is a Breach 4 or higher weapon.

Without Breach, it takes a single hit of the same strength to destroy either (15 damage). And once you get under that big of a hit, it takes MORE to destroy the X-Wing. (2 nine point hits will destroy a Y-Wing, but would take 3 to destroy an X-Wing, 3 seven point hits will destroy a Y-Wing, while it would take 5 to take down the X-Wing, 4 six point hits would take out a Y-Wing, but it would take a whopping TEN six point hits to take out an X-Wing).

The 5 armor is beyond absurd, and I can't figure out the justification for it.

Yeah, 5 is way to high

I Can actually see a justification for armour 2. It's not that much more armoured than a TIE, but a higher HTT would mean it can take a hit or two more. Combine that with the shields, and it's more resilient overall than a TIE, but less than a Y-wing.

-EF

On subject, Armor 5 is really too high.

Someone can say "But the Y-Wing has more Wound threshold" Yeah. 2 more, The same amount of armor the X-Wing has over it, meaning the ONLY situation that would make a Y-Wing tougher than an X-Wing is a Breach 4 or higher weapon.

Without Breach, it takes a single hit of the same strength to destroy either (15 damage). And once you get under that big of a hit, it takes MORE to destroy the X-Wing. (2 nine point hits will destroy a Y-Wing, but would take 3 to destroy an X-Wing, 3 seven point hits will destroy a Y-Wing, while it would take 5 to take down the X-Wing, 4 six point hits would take out a Y-Wing, but it would take a whopping TEN six point hits to take out an X-Wing).

The 5 armor is beyond absurd, and I can't figure out the justification for it.

Yeah, 5 is way to high

Agreed on that!

It's really strange that the X-wing is way better in the ways of armor in comparison with the Y-wing.

And 5 in armor it's just insane! The CR90 Corvette and the Correlian DP20 Gunship, both capital class have armor 5.

A 3 or 4 would really suffice to the X-wing. (4 maybe if the developers think that armor is not only metal armor but also a bit of the shields not counted in the defense stat)

As was mentioned earlier in the thread, the Y-Wings that we see in the Original Trilogy have had the bulk of their armor stripped off, leaving a lot of the more vulnerable parts exposed. I'd imagine with the armor put back on, the Y-Wing would have an Armor of at least 4. The A-10 Thunderbolt is noted as being a fairly rough and rugged plane, but how tough would it be if you stripped away most of the outer body and left all the innards exposed to enemy fire?

"Toughness" of a ship in EotE and AoR it seems is more a blend of Armor, Hull Threshold, and Strain Threshold. I honestly don't think the X-Wing's Armor is "way too high." As said before, I think a reduction to 4 is both sufficient and reasonable, making it a bit more able to shake off a hit, but a bit more vulnerable once a hit gets past that armor.

Ah actually explains a lot! And it reminds me why I shouldn't read forums when I'm tired, I've to try really hard not to get upset by people so instead I try to take everything written seriously.

Haven't been around this forum long enough to start recognize different people. It's hard because we can't upload our own profile pictures and I'm really awful with names.

What you can do from your profile page is set it up so that certain posters (like ErikB) are automatically ignored. Makes it easier to skip past the crap and see which posts are actually worth reading. And on the off chance such ignored posters have something worth contributing, you have the option to view their posts on an individual basis.

When did the Empire become space nazis?

Son, I am just not sure you are bright enough to be arguing on the internet.

Mr. Abrams family wasn't very religious and he married a Catholic, but he is proud of his heritage and takes his children to services on holidays.

I suspect it behoves us to identify the reasons the Empire always lose.

Except that every source comments on the Y-Wings being the tough workhorses of the Rebellion that are slow as slugs but can take a beating, and the Rebellion is never shown fielding any Y-Wings without the stripped down nacelles.

Honestly, I just feel leaving the X-Wing armor higher than the Y-Wing armor just doesn't seem accurate to the portrayal in the fiction. (Unless you only count the movies, in which we have no idea the toughness difference, because almost all the ships go down in 1-2 hits... and that is regardless of deflector shields as well).

I would say Armor 3 on both, higher Hull on the Y-Wing.

I suspect it behoves us to identify the reasons the Empire always lose.

You keep saying that. Its almost like you didn't even watch Empire Strikes Back...

You keep saying that. Its almost like you didn't even watch Empire Strikes Back...

Despite facing massively overwhelming numbers the rebels still manage to escape to fight another day.

Yes, the rebels are doing so wonderfully. That is why they were on an iceball of a planet in the middle of nowhere to begin with.

Seriously though, I'm not responding to this bull derailing anymore. Not only is it not germane to the topic, its really idiotic. You've got some really moronic leaps in logic: The Empire isn't incompetent = THE EMPIRE IS SYMPATHETIC!, The Imperial troops aren't cowards = THE IMPERIAL TROOPS ARE MISUNDERSTOOD HEROES!

The Rebels were losing the war. After the Death Star is destroyed the next 10 years until Return are spend with the Rebels getting the a$$ handed to them. The attack on the second Death Star is a last ditch attack, if it had failed the Empire would have won the final victory they needed because every ship the rebels had was there. Maybe 25% of the Empires Star Destroys were there.

Except that every source comments on the Y-Wings being the tough workhorses of the Rebellion that are slow as slugs but can take a beating, and the Rebellion is never shown fielding any Y-Wings without the stripped down nacelles.

Honestly, I just feel leaving the X-Wing armor higher than the Y-Wing armor just doesn't seem accurate to the portrayal in the fiction. (Unless you only count the movies, in which we have no idea the toughness difference, because almost all the ships go down in 1-2 hits... and that is regardless of deflector shields as well).

I would say Armor 3 on both, higher Hull on the Y-Wing.

This is the change for me. As it is in AoR, but reduce Armor to 3.

I strongly suspect a liberal Jew in Hollywood working for Disney (CEO Bob Iger, also Jewish and holder of the highest award of the USC Shoah Foundation Institute for Visual History and Education) isn't going to treat the Empire as anything other than the villains they were intended to be, so if you want something else I suspect you are not going to get it from the mainstream of Star Wars material.

Just something to keep in mind as Star Wars moves in to its new era.

Honestly, the most difficult part of this whole debate (The ON TOPIC ONE!) is the simple fact that we need to balance all the fighters around the Y-Wing - because it's already official in Edge. And that frankly leaves a lot less room. The easiest solution would be dropping the X to 4 and upping the Y to 4 as well, then suddenly it would be tougher. But that's not an option (I don't think?) short of errata to Edge.

One thing we should be considering though? The X-wing is supposed to be an upgunned Z-95. Slightly better, etc. Obviously more guns. To me this means it should probably have the same armor, but the better durability and weapons make it the superior fighter.

I strongly suspect a liberal Jew in Hollywood working for Disney (CEO Bob Iger, also Jewish and holder of the highest award of the USC Shoah Foundation Institute for Visual History and Education) isn't going to treat the Empire as anything other than the villains they were intended to be, so if you want something else I suspect you are not going to get it from the mainstream of Star Wars material.

Just something to keep in mind as Star Wars moves in to its new era.

Ok, this is really getting stupid. Like monumentally stupid.

Answer one question: How is the Imperial military being generally competent and disciplined make them not villains?

(I know, I know, I said I wouldn't respond to this again, but I just have to figure out the moronic logic jump here that makes it make sense to him)

Except that every source comments on the Y-Wings being the tough workhorses of the Rebellion that are slow as slugs but can take a beating, and the Rebellion is never shown fielding any Y-Wings without the stripped down nacelles.

Honestly, I just feel leaving the X-Wing armor higher than the Y-Wing armor just doesn't seem accurate to the portrayal in the fiction. (Unless you only count the movies, in which we have no idea the toughness difference, because almost all the ships go down in 1-2 hits... and that is regardless of deflector shields as well).

I would say Armor 3 on both, higher Hull on the Y-Wing.

This is the change for me. As it is in AoR, but reduce Armor to 3.

Same, I think the X-Wing should have Armour 3.