For Fun...

Base Stats

Attack: 2

Evade: 3

Hull: 3

Shields: 1

Actions:

Target Lock, Focus, Boost, Barrel Roll

Upgrade Bar:

Torpedo, Torpedo

Pilots - PS 1 (24 Points), PS 3 (26 Points) PS 5 (28 Points) PS 8 (34 Points)PS 5 - Whenever you barrel roll, you may stress and take 1 damage to use the (2 Turn Left) or (2 Turn Right) template instead.

PS 8 - After your attack with a primary weapon deals at least 1 damage, you may cancel all the damage to place one damage card face up on the defender.

Why does The ship that is 100% worse than the already overcoated Advanced cost more than the Advanced. This should be around A-wing cost.

Because an A-wing level cost with a cannon, boost, target lock, and barrel roll sounds awfully OP. Could give it evade to make it valued more, but lowering the cost isn't an option since you don't want to spam hlc on cheaper ships with ton of maneuverability. Plus the abilities I posted with them would be OP if cheaper. It would also have a good dial.

I'd change it's role up for the game, why not give it 3(blue) attack, and call it's main gun an ion cannon. So it deals 1 damage on hit, and an ion token.

3i322 (light shield and hull). Upgrade bar. torpedo. Give it a dial that's similar to an interceptor, and action bar, focus, target lock, barrel and boost now add in a modification, that replaces it's main gun with a cannon slot. This modification lets you balance the hlc cost, (based on outrider title).

Now the modification makes a harder choice over cloak and hull etc...

For Fun...

Base Stats

Attack: 2

Evade: 3

Hull: 3

Shields: 1

Actions:

Target Lock, Focus, Boost, Barrel Roll

Upgrade Bar:

Torpedo, Torpedo

Pilots - PS 1 (24 Points), PS 3 (26 Points) PS 5 (28 Points) PS 8 (34 Points)PS 5 - Whenever you barrel roll, you may stress and take 1 damage to use the (2 Turn Left) or (2 Turn Right) template instead.

PS 8 - After your attack with a primary weapon deals at least 1 damage, you may cancel all the damage to place one damage card face up on the defender.

Why does The ship that is 100% worse than the already overcoated Advanced cost more than the Advanced. This should be around A-wing cost.

Because an A-wing level cost with a cannon, boost, target lock, and barrel roll sounds awfully OP. Could give it evade to make it valued more, but lowering the cost isn't an option since you don't want to spam hlc on cheaper ships with ton of maneuverability. Plus the abilities I posted with them would be OP if cheaper. It would also have a good dial.

I don't see the cannon slot anywhere. If its meant to be there then maybe. But at that point, again, it should have a 3 attack, because its costed for it.

It's only got two canons hence the two attack.

For Fun...

Base Stats

Attack: 2

Evade: 3

Hull: 3

Shields: 1

Actions:

Target Lock, Focus, Boost, Barrel Roll

Upgrade Bar:

Torpedo, Torpedo

Pilots - PS 1 (24 Points), PS 3 (26 Points) PS 5 (28 Points) PS 8 (34 Points)PS 5 - Whenever you barrel roll, you may stress and take 1 damage to use the (2 Turn Left) or (2 Turn Right) template instead.

PS 8 - After your attack with a primary weapon deals at least 1 damage, you may cancel all the damage to place one damage card face up on the defender.

Why does The ship that is 100% worse than the already overcoated Advanced cost more than the Advanced. This should be around A-wing cost.

Because an A-wing level cost with a cannon, boost, target lock, and barrel roll sounds awfully OP. Could give it evade to make it valued more, but lowering the cost isn't an option since you don't want to spam hlc on cheaper ships with ton of maneuverability. Plus the abilities I posted with them would be OP if cheaper. It would also have a good dial.

I don't see the cannon slot anywhere. If its meant to be there then maybe. But at that point, again, it should have a 3 attack, because its costed for it.

It's only got two canons hence the two attack.

Otherwise you've just nuetered your creation.

For Fun...

Base Stats

Attack: 2

Evade: 3

Hull: 3

Shields: 1

Actions:

Target Lock, Focus, Boost, Barrel Roll

Upgrade Bar:

Torpedo, Torpedo

Pilots - PS 1 (24 Points), PS 3 (26 Points) PS 5 (28 Points) PS 8 (34 Points)PS 5 - Whenever you barrel roll, you may stress and take 1 damage to use the (2 Turn Left) or (2 Turn Right) template instead.

PS 8 - After your attack with a primary weapon deals at least 1 damage, you may cancel all the damage to place one damage card face up on the defender.

Why does The ship that is 100% worse than the already overcoated Advanced cost more than the Advanced. This should be around A-wing cost.

Because an A-wing level cost with a cannon, boost, target lock, and barrel roll sounds awfully OP. Could give it evade to make it valued more, but lowering the cost isn't an option since you don't want to spam hlc on cheaper ships with ton of maneuverability. Plus the abilities I posted with them would be OP if cheaper. It would also have a good dial.

I don't see the cannon slot anywhere. If its meant to be there then maybe. But at that point, again, it should have a 3 attack, because its costed for it.

It's only got two canons hence the two attack.

The number of cannons don't have a direct correlation to firepower. Beyond that, If you're overcosting a ship by 7 points(17-24) because of a single upgrade slot you might as well give it something for the cost.

Otherwise you've just nuetered your creation.

Ships with two laser canons have two attack see the z-95 tie fighter and tie advanced, ships with four laser canons have three attacks.

For Fun...

Base Stats

Attack: 2

Evade: 3

Hull: 3

Shields: 1

Actions:

Target Lock, Focus, Boost, Barrel Roll

Upgrade Bar:

Torpedo, Torpedo

Pilots - PS 1 (24 Points), PS 3 (26 Points) PS 5 (28 Points) PS 8 (34 Points)PS 5 - Whenever you barrel roll, you may stress and take 1 damage to use the (2 Turn Left) or (2 Turn Right) template instead.

PS 8 - After your attack with a primary weapon deals at least 1 damage, you may cancel all the damage to place one damage card face up on the defender.

Why does The ship that is 100% worse than the already overcoated Advanced cost more than the Advanced. This should be around A-wing cost.

Because an A-wing level cost with a cannon, boost, target lock, and barrel roll sounds awfully OP. Could give it evade to make it valued more, but lowering the cost isn't an option since you don't want to spam hlc on cheaper ships with ton of maneuverability. Plus the abilities I posted with them would be OP if cheaper. It would also have a good dial.

I don't see the cannon slot anywhere. If its meant to be there then maybe. But at that point, again, it should have a 3 attack, because its costed for it.

It's only got two canons hence the two attack.

The number of cannons don't have a direct correlation to firepower. Beyond that, If you're overcosting a ship by 7 points(17-24) because of a single upgrade slot you might as well give it something for the cost.

Otherwise you've just nuetered your creation.

Ships with two laser canons have two attack see the z-95 tie fighter and tie advanced, ships with four laser canons have three attacks.

You want to make it cost 24, Make the lowest PS 7. It would be an interesting design choice if nothing else. But as it sits right now, your design would be very much useless without a HLC.

Ships with two laser canons have two attack see the z-95 tie fighter and tie advanced, ships with four laser canons have three attacks.

And? The Falcon has 8. The Firespray has 2. The Phantom has 2. The Hunter has greater firepower than a standard Tie. It can easily be justified at 2. Otherwise your ship is quite literally useless. It costs more than an X-Wing for less attack and similar durability. It costs more than the Advanced and yet is worse. For 1 More point you can add 2 attack, 2 Pilot Skill, and lose an agility.

You want to make it cost 24, Make the lowest PS 7. It would be an interesting design choice if nothing else. But as it sits right now, your design would be very much useless without a HLC.

The Phantom has 5 cannons one on each wing and the 2 hardpoints, and technically the Falcon has 2 quads not 8 and that second set of quads seems fairly well represented with gunner instead of giving it more attack dice. As for the Firespray I guess that one falls under the size and rate of fire of the 2 cannons or the generators behind it(but this does deviate from the path somewhat)

Though some Interceptors have 6 cannons! (one on each wing and since the hardpoints are still on the cockpit 2 there as well), Can everyone imagine what Soontir/Carnor would be like with 5 attack base?

Anyways I think maybe doing a title allowing only the named pilots cannon access could be a solution if giving every Hunter a cannon is actually a problem and not just people complaining that Imperials get a cheap and maneuverable HLC carrier like a B-wing (before anyone says a Lambda it isn't anywhere near as good as a B-wing for maneuverability)

Ships with two laser canons have two attack see the z-95 tie fighter and tie advanced, ships with four laser canons have three attacks.

And? The Falcon has 8. The Firespray has 2. The Phantom has 2. The Hunter has greater firepower than a standard Tie. It can easily be justified at 2. Otherwise your ship is quite literally useless. It costs more than an X-Wing for less attack and similar durability. It costs more than the Advanced and yet is worse. For 1 More point you can add 2 attack, 2 Pilot Skill, and lose an agility.

You want to make it cost 24, Make the lowest PS 7. It would be an interesting design choice if nothing else. But as it sits right now, your design would be very much useless without a HLC.

The Phantom has 5 cannons one on each wing and the 2 hardpoints, and technically the Falcon has 2 quads not 8 and that second set of quads seems fairly well represented with gunner instead of giving it more attack dice. As for the Firespray I guess that one falls under the size and rate of fire of the 2 cannons or the generators behind it(but this does deviate from the path somewhat)

Though some Interceptors have 6 cannons! (one on each wing and since the hardpoints are still on the cockpit 2 there as well), Can everyone imagine what Soontir/Carnor would be like with 5 attack base?

Anyways I think maybe doing a title allowing only the named pilots cannon access could be a solution if giving every Hunter a cannon is actually a problem and not just people complaining that Imperials get a cheap and maneuverable HLC carrier like a B-wing (before anyone says a Lambda it isn't anywhere near as good as a B-wing for maneuverability)

Fact is that Cost is based on the stats of the ship. The upgrade's cost pays for itself. You have to work that into your cost.

The Cannon is something that can pretty easily be handled by upgrading the firepower of the ship.

I know you know what I mean. The 2 Cannon rule is pretty much coincidence(Not entirely, it's just a relative firepower thing.

Ships with two laser canons have two attack see the z-95 tie fighter and tie advanced, ships with four laser canons have three attacks.

And? The Falcon has 8. The Firespray has 2. The Phantom has 2. The Hunter has greater firepower than a standard Tie. It can easily be justified at 2. Otherwise your ship is quite literally useless. It costs more than an X-Wing for less attack and similar durability. It costs more than the Advanced and yet is worse. For 1 More point you can add 2 attack, 2 Pilot Skill, and lose an agility.

You want to make it cost 24, Make the lowest PS 7. It would be an interesting design choice if nothing else. But as it sits right now, your design would be very much useless without a HLC.

The Phantom has 5 cannons one on each wing and the 2 hardpoints, and technically the Falcon has 2 quads not 8 and that second set of quads seems fairly well represented with gunner instead of giving it more attack dice. As for the Firespray I guess that one falls under the size and rate of fire of the 2 cannons or the generators behind it(but this does deviate from the path somewhat)

Though some Interceptors have 6 cannons! (one on each wing and since the hardpoints are still on the cockpit 2 there as well), Can everyone imagine what Soontir/Carnor would be like with 5 attack base?

Anyways I think maybe doing a title allowing only the named pilots cannon access could be a solution if giving every Hunter a cannon is actually a problem and not just people complaining that Imperials get a cheap and maneuverable HLC carrier like a B-wing (before anyone says a Lambda it isn't anywhere near as good as a B-wing for maneuverability)

What do you think 2 quads mean? It means 2 sets of 4. 2 turrets times 4 guns is 8.

Fact is that Cost is based on the stats of the ship. The upgrade's cost pays for itself. You have to work that into your cost.

The Cannon is something that can pretty easily be handled by upgrading the firepower of the ship.

I know you know what I mean. The 2 Cannon rule is pretty much coincidence(Not entirely, it's just a relative firepower thing.

the difference is that it isn't really 8 separate guns it is 2 guns with 4 barrels, you wouldn't count a double barreled shot gun as 2 guns would you? or a Gatling gun as 6 separate guns? It really matters very little except for debating semantics.

Anyways I do agree though that unless you are specifically trying to price something for balance issues such as limiting how many of a ship can be present (such as no 4 E-wing builds, or 5 X-wing/Lambda/B-wing builds) prices really need to reflect the stats and there is no way to justify 24 pts for a PS 1 on a 2 attack ship with only 1 shield, even factoring in boost

Ships with two laser canons have two attack see the z-95 tie fighter and tie advanced, ships with four laser canons have three attacks.

And? The Falcon has 8. The Firespray has 2. The Phantom has 2. The Hunter has greater firepower than a standard Tie. It can easily be justified at 2. Otherwise your ship is quite literally useless. It costs more than an X-Wing for less attack and similar durability. It costs more than the Advanced and yet is worse. For 1 More point you can add 2 attack, 2 Pilot Skill, and lose an agility.

You want to make it cost 24, Make the lowest PS 7. It would be an interesting design choice if nothing else. But as it sits right now, your design would be very much useless without a HLC.

The Phantom has 5 cannons one on each wing and the 2 hardpoints, and technically the Falcon has 2 quads not 8 and that second set of quads seems fairly well represented with gunner instead of giving it more attack dice. As for the Firespray I guess that one falls under the size and rate of fire of the 2 cannons or the generators behind it(but this does deviate from the path somewhat)

Though some Interceptors have 6 cannons! (one on each wing and since the hardpoints are still on the cockpit 2 there as well), Can everyone imagine what Soontir/Carnor would be like with 5 attack base?

Anyways I think maybe doing a title allowing only the named pilots cannon access could be a solution if giving every Hunter a cannon is actually a problem and not just people complaining that Imperials get a cheap and maneuverable HLC carrier like a B-wing (before anyone says a Lambda it isn't anywhere near as good as a B-wing for maneuverability)

What do you think 2 quads mean? It means 2 sets of 4. 2 turrets times 4 guns is 8.

Fact is that Cost is based on the stats of the ship. The upgrade's cost pays for itself. You have to work that into your cost.

The Cannon is something that can pretty easily be handled by upgrading the firepower of the ship.

I know you know what I mean. The 2 Cannon rule is pretty much coincidence(Not entirely, it's just a relative firepower thing.

the difference is that it isn't really 8 separate guns it is 2 guns with 4 barrels, you wouldn't count a double barreled shot gun as 2 guns would you? or a Gatling gun as 6 separate guns? It really matters very little except for debating semantics.

Anyways I do agree though that unless you are specifically trying to price something for balance issues such as limiting how many of a ship can be present (such as no 4 E-wing builds, or 5 X-wing/Lambda/B-wing builds) prices really need to reflect the stats and there is no way to justify 24 pts for a PS 1 on a 2 attack ship with only 1 shield, even factoring in boost

Depends on what you mean. A double barreled shotgun is in many ways two guns. It can fire twice. From two different barrels. It does more damage than a single barrel shotgun when they are fired together. If I played a minis game that had a shotgun doing 1d6 of damage I'd certainly expect the double barreld shotgun to do more damage when simultaneously firing, or be able to attack twice before reloading.

Ships with two laser canons have two attack see the z-95 tie fighter and tie advanced, ships with four laser canons have three attacks.

And? The Falcon has 8. The Firespray has 2. The Phantom has 2. The Hunter has greater firepower than a standard Tie. It can easily be justified at 2. Otherwise your ship is quite literally useless. It costs more than an X-Wing for less attack and similar durability. It costs more than the Advanced and yet is worse. For 1 More point you can add 2 attack, 2 Pilot Skill, and lose an agility.

You want to make it cost 24, Make the lowest PS 7. It would be an interesting design choice if nothing else. But as it sits right now, your design would be very much useless without a HLC.

The Phantom has 5 cannons one on each wing and the 2 hardpoints, and technically the Falcon has 2 quads not 8 and that second set of quads seems fairly well represented with gunner instead of giving it more attack dice. As for the Firespray I guess that one falls under the size and rate of fire of the 2 cannons or the generators behind it(but this does deviate from the path somewhat)

Though some Interceptors have 6 cannons! (one on each wing and since the hardpoints are still on the cockpit 2 there as well), Can everyone imagine what Soontir/Carnor would be like with 5 attack base?

Anyways I think maybe doing a title allowing only the named pilots cannon access could be a solution if giving every Hunter a cannon is actually a problem and not just people complaining that Imperials get a cheap and maneuverable HLC carrier like a B-wing (before anyone says a Lambda it isn't anywhere near as good as a B-wing for maneuverability)

What do you think 2 quads mean? It means 2 sets of 4. 2 turrets times 4 guns is 8.

Fact is that Cost is based on the stats of the ship. The upgrade's cost pays for itself. You have to work that into your cost.

The Cannon is something that can pretty easily be handled by upgrading the firepower of the ship.

I know you know what I mean. The 2 Cannon rule is pretty much coincidence(Not entirely, it's just a relative firepower thing.

the difference is that it isn't really 8 separate guns it is 2 guns with 4 barrels, you wouldn't count a double barreled shot gun as 2 guns would you? or a Gatling gun as 6 separate guns? It really matters very little except for debating semantics.

Anyways I do agree though that unless you are specifically trying to price something for balance issues such as limiting how many of a ship can be present (such as no 4 E-wing builds, or 5 X-wing/Lambda/B-wing builds) prices really need to reflect the stats and there is no way to justify 24 pts for a PS 1 on a 2 attack ship with only 1 shield, even factoring in boost

Depends on what you mean. A double barreled shotgun is in many ways two guns. It can fire twice. From two different barrels. It does more damage than a single barrel shotgun when they are fired together. If I played a minis game that had a shotgun doing 1d6 of damage I'd certainly expect the double barreld shotgun to do more damage when simultaneously firing, or be able to attack twice before reloading.

That's the way the Falcon's guns work too, it does the same damage as an X-wing( both have 4 barrels) but due to the size and nature of the Falcon and her guns in order to fire the second set effectively it needs a crew member to assist the pilot(aka Gunner/Luke) and realistically you can't line up both a ventral and dorsal turret at the same target very well anyways.

Back on topic I wish they add a new action to the game "cruise" where the SFoils are closed you can do a 2 straight but you can't fire that round, it would work for X-wings, B-wings and Tie Hunters if they were released

I like the concept of a cheap cannon caddy, especially on a 2 attack ship that makes the autoblaster more viable. Maybe a way to balance it is to not give them target lock. Or alternatively, could you add a light cannon upgrade slot and either provide cut down versions of the cannons, or that it can upgrade with cannon cards, but takes a stress token to use it

One thing I wonder is, why do all different models have to be radically different? Why can't a TIE Hunter and a TIE Defender or Interceptor essentially be the same stats? Different pilot abilities and different PS levels alone will get them both seeing play. And sometimes, even if everything else is the same, its nice to see people flying different ships because they want to. If we're ok with re-paints, why not also new models with the same baseline?

FFG's policy. They want every ship to have its own role. Why does the Defender have red turns? Stops it being Interceptor+.

Alright, I'm hearing a lot of hate for this. I was actually hoping of potentially making this a viable platform for the Autoblaster, given it actually has the benefits of good maneuverability and since the low attack dice are default it makes it worth it to engage at Range 1.

Stats aside, given FFG has already used this ship once (Age of Rebellion: Assault on Arda I Sourcebook) it has a good chance of showing up. Same with the Lancer: that's in AoR Core.

One thing I wonder is, why do all different models have to be radically different? Why can't a TIE Hunter and a TIE Defender or Interceptor essentially be the same stats? Different pilot abilities and different PS levels alone will get them both seeing play. And sometimes, even if everything else is the same, its nice to see people flying different ships because they want to. If we're ok with re-paints, why not also new models with the same baseline?

FFG's policy. They want every ship to have its own role. Why does the Defender have red turns? Stops it being Interceptor+.

Ships with two laser canons have two attack see the z-95 tie fighter and tie advanced, ships with four laser canons have three attacks.

And? The Falcon has 8. The Firespray has 2. The Phantom has 2. The Hunter has greater firepower than a standard Tie. It can easily be justified at 2. Otherwise your ship is quite literally useless. It costs more than an X-Wing for less attack and similar durability. It costs more than the Advanced and yet is worse. For 1 More point you can add 2 attack, 2 Pilot Skill, and lose an agility.

You want to make it cost 24, Make the lowest PS 7. It would be an interesting design choice if nothing else. But as it sits right now, your design would be very much useless without a HLC.

The Phantom has 5 cannons one on each wing and the 2 hardpoints, and technically the Falcon has 2 quads not 8 and that second set of quads seems fairly well represented with gunner instead of giving it more attack dice. As for the Firespray I guess that one falls under the size and rate of fire of the 2 cannons or the generators behind it(but this does deviate from the path somewhat)

Though some Interceptors have 6 cannons! (one on each wing and since the hardpoints are still on the cockpit 2 there as well), Can everyone imagine what Soontir/Carnor would be like with 5 attack base?

Anyways I think maybe doing a title allowing only the named pilots cannon access could be a solution if giving every Hunter a cannon is actually a problem and not just people complaining that Imperials get a cheap and maneuverable HLC carrier like a B-wing (before anyone says a Lambda it isn't anywhere near as good as a B-wing for maneuverability)

The Firespray does have 4 blaster cannons. It has a pair of Twin Blaster cannons.

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Slave_I

You can clearly see them here:

http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20081015144046/starwars/images/0/0b/SlaveI_egvv.jpg

Number of cannons and attack value are pretty correlated. The only ship that doesn't follow is the B-wing because it has 3, but you can't roll 2.5 dice and the Shuttle. The Lambda has a combination of 8 fixed forward laser and blaster cannons. Also it has the rear turret.

It's only got two canons hence the two attack.

The firespray has two cannons and three attack. The Falcon has eight and three attack. Every gun on the phantom could fit inside either of the Outrider's dorsal guns, and yet the Outrider has 2 atk and the phantom 4 atk. The TIE interceptor technically has six guns.

EDIT: Decided to run a linear regression test. I think the R² on this should kill this one stone dead.

The R² value is a measure of correlation. A perfect value is 1, high values indicate good correlation. If the correlation is good then the hypothesis that (Guncount) = k(Attack Dice) works.

Here's what happens when we remove every ship that doesn't obey this:

0.9066 is a pretty respectable R². However, we've left out four ships!

Put the VT-49, the Lambda Shuttle, the HWK and the YT-1300 back in, and this happens:

It gets completely trashed to bits.

If the number of guns (and this is completely disregarding the size of the guns, otherwise the Outrider would be disobeying tooo) lines up with the firepower, then the VT-49 should have an attack value of 2, the HWK should have a Primary Weapon attack of 3, and the Lambda and Falcon should have no fewer than five attack dice!

FFG does this stuff by theme, gameplay and playtesting, not on gun count.

I'd like to see it fit in the fiddly bit different than tie fighter and interceptor range rather than interceptor to defender range.

The number of guns isn't enough. There's also the energy of the shots, frequency of fire, and accuracy. The number of attack die is not a straight representation of any of those things, they represent only the potency of primary armaments in dogfighting combat. A ship that can fire eight times with two guns in one second twice as many shots than a ship that can fire twice with four guns. That might mean twice as many hits, but the accuracy and power of each shot may be less, so that translates to even fewer average hits and less damage caused by each one. In the game, hit results correspond to discrete damage values to hulls and shields. The Heavy Laser Cannon might not be firing faster, but it may be more lethal when it actually hits. Neither Offence nor Agility values need correspond to any concrete numbers for the ship, it's just the results of those dice that reveal the overall outcome of the engagement in terms of damage inflicted. A whole match is really just a simplefied model of a hypothetical engagement in 3 dimensional space. Evidently one set in a universe without conservation of momentum, if the Ion token rules are anything to go by, but that's another matter entirely.

Development of a game is all about making the game work. The design phase may be more fluff-considerate. But that was probably more important in the designer's minds when the game was new. Back then the point was to make rules for ships with well-known and well-loved roles, and to make the ships fit those roles within then game. At this late stage, introducing more ships is more about making them fit within the established game without upsetting the board too much- meaning resisting power creep, not duplicating ship roles and keeping the factions different while balanced. So we'll see a combination of looking farther for ships whose roles fit new needs and gaps in the game, and also altering the ones it does find so that they'll fit. they'll be doing that more now than with the first few waves.

Hey all, it's been some time since I've made a topic for one of my favorite EU fighters and I sorely think that it's time to re-evaluate and implement some new ideas into the game. For those who don't know the TIE Hunter, here we are below.

http://www.x-wing.pl/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/tiehunter5ra.jpg

http://www.swleague.ru/_pu/2/81034580.jpg

The TIE Hunter was developed for the exclusive use by the elite Imperial Storm Commando squadrons. They're capable of high speeds and tight turns while also boasting a small profile and heavy loadout, including ion cannons, hyperdrive systems and modest shielding. However, their wings, while capable S-Foils like the Rebellion's X-Wing and B-Wing designs, would not gain enough power while in high speed mode to allow the weapons to fire simultaneously.

Base Stats

Attack: 2 (The double front laser cannons are the same as the TIE Fighter)

Evade: 4 (A very small profile, even smaller than the A-Wing)

Hull: 3 (Standard allows of the TIE Fighter series)

Shields: 1 (Shields are included, but weak. This is also for the sake of game balance)

Actions:

Target Lock, Focus, Boost, Barrel Roll (They're extremely fast, and require Target Lock for use of their torpedoes)

Upgrade Bar:

Cannon, Torpedo, Torpedo

At the moment I'm thinking of the base cost, and I'm open to suggestions. I thought about giving them a System slot upgrade but was unsure if that would be too powerful. Is 22 Points for a PS 1 pilot reasonable for a bar slightly better than the Advanced X1 but not as good as the Interceptor?

I would like to see this in game BUT some of the stats dont see right. There many Laser cannons, and mods of those models, TIEs use, you see them more offten in elite wings groups squadrons ect... If I rember correctly Hunters have the 7.2 which is very lethal.

I dont think it much smaller than a Intercepto, except when pannels are locked in noncombat postion. I dont think it should get a evade 4 because of size unless a game mechanic is added for geometric s-foil craft, which is cool too me.

I think as far as Ions go I think it should have the same house rulls for star Wings or Defenders if they got Ions and they fire link lasers and ions. Roll attack dice all hit that are not dodged stack and cause one ion.

The number of guns isn't enough. There's also the energy of the shots, frequency of fire, and accuracy. The number of attack die is not a straight representation of any of those things, they represent only the potency of primary armaments in dogfighting combat. A ship that can fire eight times with two guns in one second twice as many shots than a ship that can fire twice with four guns. That might mean twice as many hits, but the accuracy and power of each shot may be less, so that translates to even fewer average hits and less damage caused by each one. In the game, hit results correspond to discrete damage values to hulls and shields. The Heavy Laser Cannon might not be firing faster, but it may be more lethal when it actually hits. Neither Offence nor Agility values need correspond to any concrete numbers for the ship, it's just the results of those dice that reveal the overall outcome of the engagement in terms of damage inflicted. A whole match is really just a simplefied model of a hypothetical engagement in 3 dimensional space. Evidently one set in a universe without conservation of momentum, if the Ion token rules are anything to go by, but that's another matter entirely.

Development of a game is all about making the game work. The design phase may be more fluff-considerate. But that was probably more important in the designer's minds when the game was new. Back then the point was to make rules for ships with well-known and well-loved roles, and to make the ships fit those roles within then game. At this late stage, introducing more ships is more about making them fit within the established game without upsetting the board too much- meaning resisting power creep, not duplicating ship roles and keeping the factions different while balanced. So we'll see a combination of looking farther for ships whose roles fit new needs and gaps in the game, and also altering the ones it does find so that they'll fit. they'll be doing that more now than with the first few waves.

I mostly agree with you. I think thats also take size, pilot awarness, ecm , eccm, and other counters into consideration. A direct hit from a single 9.3 would be enough too literally vap As & Xs as well as blast apart Ys. So unless anything with 9.3 has downed a ship in most cases it has actully damaged the ships with the beam passing by not directly hitting it.

The reason Phantoms have a attack 4 isnt because of there guns, its the mechanics takeing into account that the enemy of the phantom is being surprised attacked and are probably at a bad angle.

Hello! First timer in the FFG Forums.

My takes on the TIE Hunter:

I need one more unique (canonical) pilot for the Hunter. Can anyone help me?