Would a 0 point Advanced/X1 title that let it swap the K-turn for the new S-turn make it stand out?
For those Tie Advanced players, I am fixing my ship
Interesting - maybe people prefer pilots that synergize with other ships than a vader that is a solitary character?
If this were the case you would expect people to not play Soontir or Whisper, since they are both solitary ships that don't synergize with others. Vader does not see play and it is Darth Vader; An extremely popular star wars character.
MajorJuggler is right, here: the Advanced has a serious problem (although I don't think it's precisely a cost problem), and it's not just that people are uninterested in Vader.
Yeah, it's definitely not just a points problem, because even if it costed 17 points, people would still be scratching their heads thinking "Why would I take this?". But it would at least be well balanced if they did, and they could beef up the rest of their squad elsewhere.
The 2 point reduction with a built in FCS is a really good idea, because it starts to give the Advanced a more unique role. I can't remember whose idea it was originally to add the FCS, I wish I could claim credit for it, it is a great idea.
All I did was figure out what cost reduction it needs on top of the FCS to finally be balanced.
Any ship can become playable and competitive when the points are low enough.
The only problem with the TIE Advanced is that it currently costs a few too many points for what it offers.
Considering the lore, the TIE Advanced in X-Wing accurately represents the limitations of the canonical ship, with a significant increase in cost for a minor increase in performance. If you think about it this way, the TIE Advanced is exactly as it should be: sturdier than a standard TIE, but cost-prohibitive for mass production. (Also, Darth Vader is the only pilot to make notably effective use of it.)
Of course, that explanation doesn't make the TIE Advanced any more competetive. I'll admit to toying with my own pet "fixes" for the TIE Advanced, for the logical reason that the Empire doesn't have a comparable ship to the X-Wing at a reasonable cost and for the personal reason that I secretly want it to be good.
I've arrived at conculsions similar to the common suggestions. Swapping an agility die for an attack die just turns the TIE Advanced into an X-Wing with a poorer dial (that 5-speed straight manuever isn't nearly as useful as the green 1-speed, though having a barrel roll and evade action makes it kind of a toss-up). The Fire-control System and point-reduction-refit ideas have crossed my mind, and the math is solid, though neither quite fits how I imagine the TIE Advanced. Since all of the TIE Advanced were prototypes of some sort, here's my alternative fix:
Advanced Prototype (Title)
Cost 0
Your upgrade bar gains the systems upgrade icon. Reduce the cost of any chosen systems upgrade by 2, to a minimum of 0.
You can still get your free Fire-control System if you want it, but you also have the option of taking another system upgrade for a discount. Advanced Sensors and Sensor Jammers fit thematically, and the newly-announced Accuracy Corrector is an enticing choice. I know the TIE Advanced is still slightly over-costed, but I felt that two discounts on one upgrade card would be too much. (Plus, it's a TIE Advanced. It's supposed to be a little expensive.) I wouldn't be opposed to a Chaardan Refit -type card, though.
Edited by LaserBrain
Juggler, I'm curious. If you were to build your jousting values around the x-wing(set as an ideal balance point) versus against the Tie Fighter(as the most points efficient), what would the cost of the Advanced look like. Assuming of course that you could do that simply. (Would a simple ratio work?)
Because I think our earlier conversation stems from you pushing everything to its most jousting efficient cost, while I would rather see things balanced more towards the idea of playable is good enough.
A simple ratio would work for the jousting values, yes. Ditto for the total efficiency values, which I rarely quote.
It's fundamentally a relative measurement, so it doesn't matter what you use as the "standard" 100% measurement. You could multiply everything by 10x or 100x, or 0.001x, and everything would stay in exactly the same proportion relative to each other.
I'm not universally advocating pushing everything towards its 100% jousting value. That would be a really bad idea, because then ships like the TIE Interceptor would be clearly better than everything else. I'm advocating generally buffing poorly performing ships so they are closer towards the total value. In the case of the TIE Advanced, the jousting value and the total value are virtually identical.
Juggler, I'm curious. If you were to build your jousting values around the x-wing(set as an ideal balance point) versus against the Tie Fighter(as the most points efficient), what would the cost of the Advanced look like. Assuming of course that you could do that simply. (Would a simple ratio work?)
Because I think our earlier conversation stems from you pushing everything to its most jousting efficient cost, while I would rather see things balanced more towards the idea of playable is good enough.
A simple ratio would work for the jousting values, yes. Ditto for the total efficiency values, which I rarely quote.
It's fundamentally a relative measurement, so it doesn't matter what you use as the "standard" 100% measurement. You could multiply everything by 10x or 100x, or 0.001x, and everything would stay in exactly the same proportion relative to each other.
I'm not universally advocating pushing everything towards its 100% jousting value. That would be a really bad idea, because then ships like the TIE Interceptor would be clearly better than everything else. I'm advocating generally buffing poorly performing ships so they are closer towards the total value. In the case of the TIE Advanced, the jousting value and the total value are virtually identical.
Interesting - maybe people prefer pilots that synergize with other ships than a vader that is a solitary character?
Vader with squad leader is brutal. I've had some success with Vader in squads alongside defenders and bombers. The ability to grant an action to anyone within range two is pretty potent, as double actions don't do much for Vader with his two attack dice, but allowing a defender with HLC or a bomber loaded with torpedoes to double up on their offensive actions can be extremely potent.
When I play him well, Vader is a great addition to ships who could really benefit from a double action. His attack is low enough that opponents don't consider him a threat, meanwhile he is flanking, getting the odd range 1 shot in, and constantly handing out actions to the remaining ships in your squad, making them far more potent. If your opponent realizes this and tries to take vader out, all the better, his ship is fast and agile. Vader stops handing out his second action and battens down the hatches,and a focus-evade combo on 3 agility every round is probably the most defensive ship in the game.
If they dont attack Vader, as they usually dont, this just increases the chances that Vader is in the late-game, where he is one of the best.
But he's awfully easy to kill sometimes, and he just can't do enough damage consistently, even with the double offensive actions. He's a bit expensive, if he were 4 points cheaper, I reckon I'd just spend that 4 points on a shield upgrade and be satisfied.
Edited by force kinMaybe. But Getting it to X-Wing level of effectiveness should not take cutting off 4 points.
- The generic X-wing is overcosted by 1 point relative to a TIE Fighter.
- The Z-95 en masse is a better value than the generic X-wings.
- Generic X-wing usage in wave 4 meta has been very low, and its performance has been even lower.
- #3 follows from #1 and #2.
So sure, you can reduce the cost of the TIE Advanced by 3 points instead of 4, if you want to make it about equivalent to an X-wing. And if you do, you can still be almost certain that it wouldn't see much competitive use.
And I've always hated the "Make it special by auto including FCS idea." It goes against the customization part of the game. Any ship with a positioning action has more to it than cost though, especially at higher pilot skills. There has to be a better method of fixing it than completely trumping the Bomber and Interceptor Generics by putting it at 17 points or 19 with FCS...
How does a 19 point TIE Advanced with FCS completely trump a 16 point Bomber or an 18 point Interceptor?
The TIE Advanced can only take 1 missile; the bomber can get a full loadout. Ordnance and the Bomber needs its own tweaking but that is a separate issue.
Likewise, a 19 point TIE Advanced isn't even remotely similar in play style to a TIE Interceptor. One is a glass cannon and the other is a tank.
Maybe. But Getting it to X-Wing level of effectiveness should not take cutting off 4 points.
- The generic X-wing is overcosted by 1 point relative to a TIE Fighter.
- The Z-95 en masse is a better value than the generic X-wings.
- Generic X-wing usage in wave 4 meta has been very low, and its performance has been even lower.
- #3 follows from #1 and #2.
So sure, you can reduce the cost of the TIE Advanced by 3 points instead of 4, if you want to make it about equivalent to an X-wing. And if you do, you can still be almost certain that it wouldn't see much competitive use.
And I've always hated the "Make it special by auto including FCS idea." It goes against the customization part of the game. Any ship with a positioning action has more to it than cost though, especially at higher pilot skills. There has to be a better method of fixing it than completely trumping the Bomber and Interceptor Generics by putting it at 17 points or 19 with FCS...
How does a 19 point TIE Advanced with FCS completely trump a 16 point Bomber or an 18 point Interceptor?
The TIE Advanced can only take 1 missile; the bomber can get a full loadout. Ordnance and the Bomber needs its own tweaking but that is a separate issue.
Likewise, a 19 point TIE Advanced isn't even remotely similar in play style to a TIE Interceptor. One is a glass cannon and the other is a tank.
Wow. He really knows his stuff about this ship.
I agree.
I think it should get a systems slot though... or, I used to, until now that dumb Accuracy Corrector makes giving any 2-dice ship a system slot a dumb idea. Way to go FFG.
Also, it really needs a role based on cost and what its good at: tankiness.
Its good at delivering a payload that hits. Good dodging. Point cost should be at least 2 or 3 points lower, allowing for it to fit right into the (18-22) midrange slot for a tanky multirole fighter that NOTHING ELSE IN THE IMPERIAL ARMADA FITS.
I just thought of a real fix for the advanced.
Make it a leadership platform with buffs for its allies. It's supposed to be a command ship of sorts, and it is incredibly hard to kill.
Imagine Howlrunner in an advanced. Make new unique pilots with pretty cool buffs who want to be protected. And voila.
Then retcon all of the non-unique pilots to have an elite pilot slot. Done. People would fly the advanced all day.
Maybe. But Getting it to X-Wing level of effectiveness should not take cutting off 4 points.
So sure, you can reduce the cost of the TIE Advanced by 3 points instead of 4, if you want to make it about equivalent to an X-wing. And if you do, you can still be almost certain that it wouldn't see much competitive use.
- The generic X-wing is overcosted by 1 point relative to a TIE Fighter.
- The Z-95 en masse is a better value than the generic X-wings.
- Generic X-wing usage in wave 4 meta has been very low, and its performance has been even lower.
- #3 follows from #1 and #2.
And I've always hated the "Make it special by auto including FCS idea." It goes against the customization part of the game. Any ship with a positioning action has more to it than cost though, especially at higher pilot skills. There has to be a better method of fixing it than completely trumping the Bomber and Interceptor Generics by putting it at 17 points or 19 with FCS...
How does a 19 point TIE Advanced with FCS completely trump a 16 point Bomber or an 18 point Interceptor?
The TIE Advanced can only take 1 missile; the bomber can get a full loadout. Ordnance and the Bomber needs its own tweaking but that is a separate issue.
Likewise, a 19 point TIE Advanced isn't even remotely similar in play style to a TIE Interceptor. One is a glass cannon and the other is a tank.
Does you statement about the X-Wing being over costed take into account the astromech slot? That has to be worth something.
I think it should get a systems slot though... or, I used to, until now that dumb Accuracy Corrector makes giving any 2-dice ship a system slot a dumb idea. Way to go FFG.
Why does the Accuracy Corrector make a systems slot on the Advanced a dumb idea?
[EDIT: Trimmed the quote block down.]
Edited by Vorpal SwordWhy does the Accuracy Corrector make a systems slot on the Advanced a dumb idea?[EDIT: Trimmed the quote block down.]I think it should get a systems slot though... or, I used to, until now that dumb Accuracy Corrector makes giving any 2-dice ship a system slot a dumb idea. Way to go FFG.
It would always do max damage at range 2-3. I could see a systems upgrade granted by a title working, as long as it has a cost.
Watch the team covenant interview with the lead designers, they hint at fixing the Advanced.
Edited by Radarman5Where/what/how/when??? A link, if you please....
My bad - thx.
It would always do max damage at range 2-3. I could see a systems upgrade granted by a title working, as long as it has a cost.Why does the Accuracy Corrector make a systems slot on the Advanced a dumb idea?[EDIT: Trimmed the quote block down.]I think it should get a systems slot though... or, I used to, until now that dumb Accuracy Corrector makes giving any 2-dice ship a system slot a dumb idea. Way to go FFG.
I understand how Accuracy Corrector would function on a TIE Advanced. I'm wondering why that makes it a bad idea.
Obligatory post, here's my house rule:
Title. TIE Advanced only.
Cost: -1 (Vader) / -2 (others)
After you perform an attack, you may acquire a target lock on the defender.
TL;DR MathWing justification:
- TIE Advanced is overcosted by 4 points.
- -2 cost and a free FCS is about 4 points.
- It makes TIE Advanced the preferred platform for Cluster Missiles (which has its own issues, but 1 thing at a time).
- It's more than just a TIE Fighter with 2 shields.
- Darth Vader gets his cost retroactively tweaked, to encourage use of the other pilots.
For the first attack, you spend the TL and presumably have a focus to modify the results, then acquire a TL with which to modify the second attack.
Built-in FCS is an elegant solution to the TIE Advanced.
I was able to ask the first question at the in-flight presentation Friday morning at gencon. I asked the CEO about the power creep that eventually infects games like this. I said I have played games like Wizards of the Coast Star Wars miniatures or 40k where the developers are more interested in getting something new and cool out and don't care if it wrecks game balance. I asked what his opinion was on how they will continue to make new content that doesn't make the stuff we have already not worth playing. He said that he felt like they had done a very good job so far keeping all the ships a viable choice while introducing new content. After he answered I stated that I did agree they have done an excellent job with all but the Tie Advanced. He moved right along and did not respond to my comment about the Tie Advanced. I am sure something is in the works. I just wanted to make sure that with all those important FFG folks sitting in that room that the first question addressed what is so often discussed on these boards and the Tie Advanced is a weekly topic.
I was able to ask the first question at the in-flight presentation Friday morning at gencon. I asked the CEO about the power creep that eventually infects games like this. I said I have played games like Wizards of the Coast Star Wars miniatures or 40k where the developers are more interested in getting something new and cool out and don't care if it wrecks game balance. I asked what his opinion was on how they will continue to make new content that doesn't make the stuff we have already not worth playing. He said that he felt like they had done a very good job so far keeping all the ships a viable choice while introducing new content. After he answered I stated that I did agree they have done an excellent job with all but the Tie Advanced. He moved right along and did not respond to my comment about the Tie Advanced. I am sure something is in the works. I just wanted to make sure that with all those important FFG folks sitting in that room that the first question addressed what is so often discussed on these boards and the Tie Advanced is a weekly topic.
First, they're not idiots. Second, they have made it clear that they are aware of what goes on on these boards, which incidentally are owned by FFG. Third,I don't see how you can compare this game to a game in which everything new is intended to out class everything old. For every new challenge did they introduced into the game, they have included some new items which are intended specifically to revitalize older pieces which have become less effective, or were not as effective in practice as they were intended to be.
It would always do max damage at range 2-3. I could see a systems upgrade granted by a title working, as long as it has a cost.Why does the Accuracy Corrector make a systems slot on the Advanced a dumb idea?[EDIT: Trimmed the quote block down.]I think it should get a systems slot though... or, I used to, until now that dumb Accuracy Corrector makes giving any 2-dice ship a system slot a dumb idea. Way to go FFG.
I understand how Accuracy Corrector would function on a TIE Advanced. I'm wondering why that makes it a bad idea.
First, they're not idiots. Second, they have made it clear that they are aware of what goes on on these boards, which incidentally are owned by FFG. Third,I don't see how you can compare this game to a game in which everything new is intended to out class everything old. For every new challenge did they introduced into the game, they have included some new items which are intended specifically to revitalize older pieces which have become less effective, or were not as effective in practice as they were intended to be.I was able to ask the first question at the in-flight presentation Friday morning at gencon. I asked the CEO about the power creep that eventually infects games like this. I said I have played games like Wizards of the Coast Star Wars miniatures or 40k where the developers are more interested in getting something new and cool out and don't care if it wrecks game balance. I asked what his opinion was on how they will continue to make new content that doesn't make the stuff we have already not worth playing. He said that he felt like they had done a very good job so far keeping all the ships a viable choice while introducing new content. After he answered I stated that I did agree they have done an excellent job with all but the Tie Advanced. He moved right along and did not respond to my comment about the Tie Advanced. I am sure something is in the works. I just wanted to make sure that with all those important FFG folks sitting in that room that the first question addressed what is so often discussed on these boards and the Tie Advanced is a weekly topic.
The only dumb question is the one that was never asked. I wanted to make sure that we did we did not just assume they knew that almost to a person we think that the Tie Advanced is not worth the points. I made it my goal to get it front and center. Now I know from the CEO down that we feel there is an issue. Who knows maybe without it being brought up there would not have been the team covenant video that addresses the advanced.
Who knows maybe without it being brought up there would not have been the team covenant video that addresses the advanced.
Particularly given the pie chart in the Inflight Briefing, there's just no way anything gets added to or changed in their product pipeline over the course of a day or two.
The question isn't an unreasonable one in the context of a two-on-two interview between representatives of a gaming news site and the designers. It might have been a bit less appropriate--by which I mean, less likely to get a useful response--in the context of a mass Q&A with the company CEO, though everything I know about what you actually said is secondhand.
Edited by Vorpal Sword