All the upgrades in the multiverse still mean nothing if you keep the costs the same. They will just make Vader more awesome and leave the others on the shelf.

The awing, which many suggested was 1pt too much got a 2 pt reduction. Many think the advanced is 2-3 too much so your reduction would need to be even more. But then again, you just make Vader better.

TIE Advanced x2 Upgrade

TIE Advanced Only Title

This title may be used on a TIE Advanced only where the pilot skill is 7 or less.

-1 Cost

sounds good

I'm not trying to convince anyone that you're wrong, just that the math isn't the be-all and end-all of the issue. I agree that Advanceds aren't a terribly useful ship in a tournament, just not why they aren't.

The Advanced may well have been left behind by the evolving meta of the game, but I don't see how that means they're overcosted.

challange accepted with my 100 points list i suggested to stone iam going to win a local store champion ship with 3 advances and 1 tie iam going to show u !!!

even i dont think its that overpriced but told ya its jsut me who thinks that way ;P

@Gullwind: I really do understand where you're coming from, but it's not the metagame that left the TIE Advanced behind--it's the game mechanics. (The only role it ever had in the metagame was "only way to get missiles on the board", and that evaporated very quickly--because the Advanced just isn't cost-effective.) There are a lot of different ways to come at that problem, but every one of them ends up concluding that the thing is somewhere between 2 and 4 points too expensive.

challange accepted with my 100 points list i suggested to stone iam going to win a local store champion ship with 3 advances and 1 tie iam going to show u !!!

even i dont think its that overpriced but told ya its jsut me who thinks that way ;P

Assuming you mean the Maarek/Storm/Storm/Dark Curse list you've posted a few times, I would really urge you not to take it to a competitive event. It's just not an effective squad.

I'm currently thinking about a 2 Advanced, 2 Interceptor list.

I guess the position I'm taking is that if the ship can win consistently one on one, but can't be successful in a group, it isn't the point cost that's the problem.

Getting a new paint job and a new driver doesn't change the performance of the car

I'd have to disagree about this statement. I could take one of the cars that they show on Top Gear UK and do utmost my best on their track. Then I hand it over to their tame racing driver, The Stig, or any of the presenters on that show for that matter, and they will get that same car to perform much better than I could. The same applies to aircraft as well.

I guess the position I'm taking is that if the ship can win consistently one on one, but can't be successful in a group, it isn't the point cost that's the problem.

Evade and barrel roll are both worth far more in 1v1 than in a 4v4, evade particularly.

What if Maarek could drop a Proton Bomb? ... would his ability trigger for the splash damage? ^^

No it would not.

His ability requires an attack. Which a bomb is not.

I guess the position I'm taking is that if the ship can win consistently one on one, but can't be successful in a group, it isn't the point cost that's the problem.

Evade and barrel roll are both worth far more in 1v1 than in a 4v4, evade particularly.

So how does that figure into the math? Should ships have different points for solo combat vs. squad battles?

I guess the position I'm taking is that if the ship can win consistently one on one, but can't be successful in a group, it isn't the point cost that's the problem.

Evade and barrel roll are both worth far more in 1v1 than in a 4v4, evade particularly.

So how does that figure into the math? Should ships have different points for solo combat vs. squad battles?

That sounds too complicated, why go through the trouble?

The "jousting value" is very informative and only considers the core stats (attack/defense/hull/shields). Guessing at the value of upgrades is trickier and is not an exact science. You can read my Lanchester's thread if you would like.

But no matter how you slice it, the TIE Advanced is significantly overcosted.

But only in a multi-ship battle. One on one it seems to be fine.

But only in a multi-ship battle. One on one it seems to be fine.

One on one, there's only one ship that even costs the same as it, so its kind of a pointless comparison.

But only in a multi-ship battle. One on one it seems to be fine.

I can't help but feel that adding an EPT slot to the nameless would be a big improvement.

But only in a multi-ship battle. One on one it seems to be fine.

One on one, there's only one ship that even costs the same as it, so its kind of a pointless comparison.

I count four altogether at 21 points, and several others a point or two off. Its trivially easy to adjust other ships to the same point total. My point is that if it isn't overcosted one on one, it can't be overcosted in a multi-ship battle. It may not be as useful in a multi-ship battle, but that doesn't mean its overcosted.

But only in a multi-ship battle. One on one it seems to be fine.

One on one, there's only one ship that even costs the same as it, so its kind of a pointless comparison.

I count four altogether at 21 points, and several others a point or two off. Its trivially easy to adjust other ships to the same point total. My point is that if it isn't overcosted one on one, it can't be overcosted in a multi-ship battle. It may not be as useful in a multi-ship battle, but that doesn't mean its overcosted.

That's logically inconsistent. A ship can be amazing 1 on 1 and yet be worthless in squad based play. The Interceptors actions help more in one verse one, only a small fraction of the board is in arc at any given time. The same goes for the evade action. If you only worry about one attack a round evade almost guarantees you won't get hit with 3 evade dice, but once it can be stripped away the action is far less useful. Being highly maneuverable matters far more in one verse one than in team based play as well. So one v one balance is not a good judge at all.

given that the game is almost always squad based, that means it can be overcosted.

I count four altogether at 21 points, and several others a point or two off. Its trivially easy to adjust other ships to the same point total.

The only ships that are 21 points at PS2 are the TIE Advanced, X-wing, and Lambda Shuttle. The shuttle is clearly a support craft and/or needs upgrades to function solo, so that's not a valid comparison. B-wings are 22 points at PS2 and will eat a TIE Advanced for breakfast. "Trivially adjusting" the points of other ships is also not an apples to apples comparison.

Using that line of reasoning, what would be considered overcosted?

Beats me, that's why I say the math doesn't show the whole picture. We don't know how FFG allocates the points for these ships.

Do you think adding a two-point modification to the Advanced would suddenly start making them appear in tournament lists?

But only in a multi-ship battle. One on one it seems to be fine.

One on one, there's only one ship that even costs the same as it, so its kind of a pointless comparison.

I count four altogether at 21 points, and several others a point or two off. Its trivially easy to adjust other ships to the same point total. My point is that if it isn't overcosted one on one, it can't be overcosted in a multi-ship battle. It may not be as useful in a multi-ship battle, but that doesn't mean its overcosted.

That's logically inconsistent. A ship can be amazing 1 on 1 and yet be worthless in squad based play. The Interceptors actions help more in one verse one, only a small fraction of the board is in arc at any given time. The same goes for the evade action. If you only worry about one attack a round evade almost guarantees you won't get hit with 3 evade dice, but once it can be stripped away the action is far less useful. Being highly maneuverable matters far more in one verse one than in team based play as well. So one v one balance is not a good judge at all.

given that the game is almost always squad based, that means it can be overcosted.

It can be overcosted in one area but not in another, but that's not the situation we have in this game. It makes no distinctions regarding how the ship is used. Ships have one point cost, regardless of whether they are used alone or in a group. With the Advanced, they seem to be fine by themselves, but overcosted in groups. My position is that they are not overcosted, they just aren't as useful in groups. Its a characteristic of how the ship is designed.

It can be overcosted in one area but not in another, but that's not the situation we have in this game. It makes no distinctions regarding how the ship is used. Ships have one point cost, regardless of whether they are used alone or in a group. With the Advanced, they seem to be fine by themselves, but overcosted in groups. My position is that they are not overcosted, they just aren't as useful in groups. Its a characteristic of how the ship is designed.

Your question earlier was whether there could be one cost for ships in a one-on-one engagement, and another for squad-based dogfights. And you could. But in order to justify it, you would need to know:

(1) that those costs are typically different from one another, and

(2) that both are used often enough to be needed.

I don't think (1) is the case for most ships, and I don't think (2) is the case for most players.

Do you think adding a two-point modification to the Advanced would suddenly start making them appear in tournament lists?

From the Store Championship thread:

Top Tier

TIE Fighter 21.57%

X-wing 19.72%

B-wing 16.88%

Firespray 12.72%

YT-1300 9.88%

Middle Tier

Y-wing 5.72%

TIE Interceptor 4.21%

Bottom Tier

TIE Bomber 2.61%

A-wing 2.20%

Lambda Shuttle 1.93%

HWK-290 1.69%

TIE Advanced 0.86%

Adding FCS and reducing the cost of non-Vader Advanced by 1 point would give the TIE Advanced a much needed buff. It would theoretically start to see some more occasional (successful) tournament use, but I don't think it would be overpowering at all. FYI both cases of a TIE Advanced being used were with Vader.

It can be overcosted in one area but not in another, but that's not the situation we have in this game. It makes no distinctions regarding how the ship is used. Ships have one point cost, regardless of whether they are used alone or in a group. With the Advanced, they seem to be fine by themselves, but overcosted in groups. My position is that they are not overcosted, they just aren't as useful in groups. Its a characteristic of how the ship is designed.

Your question earlier was whether there could be one cost for ships in a one-on-one engagement, and another for squad-based dogfights. And you could. But in order to justify it, you would need to know:

(1) that those costs are typically different from one another, and

(2) that both are used often enough to be needed.

I don't think (1) is the case for most ships, and I don't think (2) is the case for most players.

My question (I believe) was whether there should be. I don't think so, and no one else did either. My point was that if there is only one cost for the ship, and it works fine on one situation, then the shouldn't be considered overcosted in another situation. Not as useful, but not overcosted.

Do you think adding a two-point modification to the Advanced would suddenly start making them appear in tournament lists?

From the Store Championship thread:

Top Tier

TIE Fighter 21.57%

X-wing 19.72%

B-wing 16.88%

Firespray 12.72%

YT-1300 9.88%

Middle Tier

Y-wing 5.72%

TIE Interceptor 4.21%

Bottom Tier

TIE Bomber 2.61%

A-wing 2.20%

Lambda Shuttle 1.93%

HWK-290 1.69%

TIE Advanced 0.86%

Adding FCS and reducing the cost of non-Vader Advanced by 1 point would give the TIE Advanced a much needed buff. It would theoretically start to see some more occasional (successful) tournament use, but I don't think it would be overpowering at all. FYI both cases of a TIE Advanced being used were with Vader.

Try an Advanced with a free FCS in a one on one with an X-Wing. I think you'll find that the Advanced mops the floor with the poor rookie every time. What I think it needs is something that makes it valuable in a group.

Honestly, I'm shocked at the seeming lack of use of the HWK. I've never lost a game where I have fielded one. I believe the HWK should be the inspiration for the Advanced Aces.

My point was that if there is only one cost for the ship, and it works fine on one situation, then the shouldn't be considered overcosted in another situation. Not as useful, but not overcosted.

That doesn't make any sense. Accepting for the sake of argument that that Advanced is correctly costed for head-to-head play, that's a relatively uncommon situation; by contrast, the context in which it fails to earn back its cost is quite typical. A ship's cost should, if not exclusively based on the latter, certainly be heavily weighted toward it.