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?

The issue I see is that this will always have a HLC. To offset that give it 3 attack, but drop the hull to 2(Small small ship)

It will see more varied use then, and be less broken. You could cost it around 22 then. Similar durability to an X-Wing with agility counted in, Similar firepower.

Otherwise you're looking at every use of it being 4 4 3 1, which is remarkably similar to the Phantom.

Hull 2, but outright disable HLC.

"Fighter is too small for Heavy Laser Cannon."

If not that, make it expensive. The issue with the TIE Hunter is that it's... BASICALLY a TIE Defender before TIE Defenders existed in the EU. timeline wise.

I honestly don't see why I have to make them so expensive: the B-Wing is 22 points and can carry a HLC and has 3 as its default attack. Besides the added mobility and evasiveness it's still pretty weak and still can't benefit from system upgrades. I'm thinking 23 points for the lowest end fighter is perfectly reasonable.

I honestly don't see why I have to make them so expensive: the B-Wing is 22 points and can carry a HLC and has 3 as its default attack. Besides the added mobility and evasiveness it's still pretty weak and still can't benefit from system upgrades. I'm thinking 23 points for the lowest end fighter is perfectly reasonable.

Think of it this way. What's better

a 2 4 3 1 for 22

or a 4 4 3 1 for 29. The second option by far.

But 3 4 2 1 fo 22 versus 4 4 2 1 for the same price cost leave the base model far more playable. It does cut into the Interceptor market a little, but for 4 points your buying a single agility, the loss of the evade action, and the cannon upgrade changes things. Plus the vulnerability to Proton bombs.

All things considered, finding the right Niche for the hunter is tough, but being too much better than the Defender is a problem.

You'd be looking at 32 points for a Defender minus one shield, but with the HLC already affixed. That's way too good.

Easy fix:

Upgrade Bar: Torpedo, Torpedo

TIE Hunter (title) "You may take the Ion Cannon upgrade" (0 pts for this title)

If it only is meant to have ion cannons then that is what it should have, really this should apply to the Defender as well.

Easy fix:

Upgrade Bar: Torpedo, Torpedo

TIE Hunter (title) "You may take the Ion Cannon upgrade" (0 pts for this title)

If it only is meant to have ion cannons then that is what it should have, really this should apply to the Defender as well.

Yeah because the game needs more gimmicky ships.... Attack 4 Agility 4 is the new standard we should all be aiming for with "customization" even if it doesn't actually represent the ship it is loosely based on.

Hlc would indeed be the default choice on a fighter like that and it would make the defender worthless as soon as it was released.

Auto include ion cannons and it's fine.

Ngggh. The TIE hunter is basically an uncreative TIE/x-wing. Problem is, it's shown up in FFG's Age of Rebellion guides and thus has a fair chance of showing now. I'd much rather see the Avenger than... than this... thing.

Yeah because the game needs more gimmicky ships.... Attack 4 Agility 4 is the new standard we should all be aiming for with "customization" even if it doesn't actually represent the ship it is loosely based on.

Gimmicky ships are the best ships. 4 4 statlines should be avoided. Too many of them, and any by default will skew the game. One very limkited one will not.

I agree with Lagomorphia. Its uncreative, and with the ships we already have its totally redundant.

I think what the OP needs to implement and reevaluate is how quickly power creep kills a game. Why can't you just play the defender or appreciate the phantom, you don't need to make something better than both of them combined.

Because the Hunter looks cool and has a cool name! Not to forget it is also from a cool unit, Commandos!

Can't forget that "cool" factor! LOL!

I'm not sure if the proposed ship is "better" than a Defender or a Phantom. I'd be wary of putting a 7 point cannon on something that fragile too.

I always had a low opinion of the TIE hunter because it feels like it tries too hard. S-Foils? Exclusive deployment? Even the TIE/D had a problematic development schedule and fought the empire as much as it did the rebellion.

I can kind of believe this as a competitor to the TIE Avenger, but ultimately the Avenger won out for mass production because of its similarities with the X1 series. The Hunter then went to the storm corps because they were still useful.

They'd need to find a niche somewhere in the imperial lists for the tabletop. They can't be more maneuverable than the TIE Interceptor, and they can't be as fast or as powerful as the TIE Defender. My hope would be that we could fit the TIE Avenger somewhere, but where would a Hunter go if all that was the case?

I'd avoid 4 natural agility. A stealth device and rolling 5 evades? At least you didn't give it the evade action!

I always had a low opinion of the TIE Hunter thanks to the missions it's in. You could barely kill them fast enough for points because they just flew around into the space. And by that, what I actually mean is they fly right into the big bubble barrier in the level you fight them on and simply destroy themselves. It's very simply hard to be awestruck by suicide pilots who don't attack anyone but still manage to die spectacularly.

with the ships we already have its totally redundant.

Well I think we could stand for some Imperial fighters with Torpedoes (Bombers are well Bombers, and the only other Imperial options are the VT and Slave-1)

A better statline IMO for it would be 2 3 2 2 Interceptor dial trading the green 2 turns for a green 5 torpedo slot and have the PS 1 pilot be like 19 pts and have a "built in" Ion cannon, and then maybe a modification that lets you upgrade it to a "heavy ion cannon" (and one that could be used on other ships) that either does 2 damage when a ship is Ioned, it assigns a face up card when a ship is Ioned, and/or assigns 2 ion tokens.

I am very leery of a 4 agility base ship, the Phantom Sort of works because it is situational and will not have a stealth device equipped. But I think if we get ships running around with 5 base agility that can still shoot we are becoming too dice dependent or just making games take too long

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?

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. While I totally see where everybody is coming from I don't see the issue with having 3 of these on the field with HLC when we already can have 3 B-Wings with HLC. 3 pretty good B-Wings at that, or even aided with a Bandit or Tala Z-95 for that matter if they're stripped down. Are people really that scared for ships that have similar stats to the Phantom without the benefits and challenges of the Phantoms' Stealth abilities?

Yes, I'm completely aware of power creep and how it can totally potentially ruin the game, and by no means do I have any intention of dissuading anyone from wanting to play because of those reasons, but it's not as if green dice are infallible, because time and time again this forum has proven that they're not. They also lack the backing of what many people feel are essential, or at least highly lauded upgrade slots (Crew, Astromechs and Sensors). I don't see how this is any more or less OP than what we have now. Please, oh please, tell me how this is the case, because I'm sincerely interested in knowing!

B-Wing: PS 2, 3(4)/1/3/5 (heavy laser cannon); bar: TL, BR & F; dial: 1T (Red), 1B (G), 1S (G), 2T (W), 2B (W), 2S (G), 2K (Red), 3B (Red), 3S (W) & 4S (Red)

TIE Hunter: PS 1, 2(4)/4/3/1 (heavy laser cannon); bar: TL, boost, BR & F; dial = TIE fighter (presumeably?)

If both cost 29 pts, then the TIE Hunter is waaaaay better. You could reduce its effectiveness by reducing the dial....maybe ditch the 1T, 3K & 5S? Or maybe turn a bunch of manoeuvres red? Otherwise it ought to cost a few points more. Either way, having the cannon upgrade does seem to invade the Defender's niche space, and being able to boost gives it significant utility that ought to increase its cost (considering the 4 pts that either the B-wing or Defender would have to pay to get equivalency).

Actually I was thinking about the action economy of it earlier, so I agree it should be more expensive for the cost of Boost.

What if we dropped Barrel Roll but kept Boost? Also, perhaps we could turn the 1 turn red and drop the 1 banks.

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.

2321... TL/focus/evade. Torp slot(s). Tie fighter dial but faster with low end reds and 2 k turn options. Give one of the named Jake Ferrel like ability. You get a ship with different options, a defender wingman, and should play nicely. Give it an odd range of PS to further differentiate.

Should fall between alpha interceptor and ties.

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.

Edit: Was supposed to have cannon.

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.