Precision Sensors

Modification: Tie Advanced and x1 only. -2 points.

When attacking a ship you have a target lock on, the defender reduces their agility by 1 (up to 0).

This should increase the damage potential of the Advanced without giving it 3 dice. It will likely be in alternate turns, as you take a target lock, and then the next turn attack for -1 agility, TL + F. The Tie Advanced benefits from having lots of hull and lots of agility so its an easier choice to take a TL instead of a F on any given turn. Good flying will also serve to make more use of this. It will also greatly change how one flies and how one builds for a Tie Advanced.

Removing agility also helps deal with the Falcon, which meets a better match in ships with decent hull and agility (both of which the Tie Advanced has).

This makes Proton Rockets and, especially, Pre-Wave-3.5 Missiles and Torps much more effective. Proton Torpedoes with -1 agility? Heck yes. I would gladly pay 4 points for that. Also doesn't need any fixing of the missiles themselves.

1. This stops the Tie Adv from stepping on the toes of 3 attack ships: X-wing and Interceptor.

2. This deals with a metagame problem that will simply get worse in Wave 5 with 2 more turreted ships. (Falcons, and even hitting a Phantom).

3. It makes you fly the ship in a different way, changing the way that you play the game with this ship.

4. It uses its existing advantages to allow it to fill the role of a tanky, medium fighter.

In terms of cost, the Tie Advanced is expected to be cost-ineffective by about 4 points. Outmaneuver costs 3, so should be about right. It requires you to have a TL on THAT ship, and taking a TL means that one turn you didn't have a Focus.

--

Currently, at 100 pts, you could then get 5 of these -1agi (every other turn), 2 dice ships with 3 agility and 5 hull each. You'd have 5 points left over: 1 assault missile?

That would be a good list, not overpowered except against the Swarm.

You still couldn't take 4 Tempests Adv and Vader.

With 5 points extra, you could only afford 1 Proton Rocket

An elegant idea for a more civilized age.

I like it, and as someone else had stated, until this suggestion, the best one I had seen was adding a systems slot (which honestly just doesn't fit with the fluff)

This is a good solution that corrects a problem the community has been complaining about since the Advanced was introduced.

I'm not a math-winger, so I can't comment on the point value of the upgrade, but I would be perfectly happy with it, even if it cost 0 and added the ability as Blail suggested. I don't think it needs to have a negative cost if it corrects the issues we've all been having.

Of course, now the only issue is how does FFG introduce this card? They'd pretty much have to commit to an Imperial Aces II set with the Advanced as part of that set.. Maybe introduce the Avenger as part of Aces II??

I would love to see that set - the Avenger with a tractor beam would be boss.

I think just reduicing the price and adding the Systems option would be great. Imagine them getting Accuracy Corrector. They would always get two hits! Of course, I think you get to roll first and THEN make up your mind, which is fantastic.

No need to go crazy with stuff. Just reduce the price. Maybe make more green manuevers.

And Accuracy Corrector is why I predict you will never see a systems slot on a 2 attack ship.

Although I just said that an Attack 3 Advanced is just a cheap defender, the more I think about it, the more I think I'm wrong. The dial is substantially different, and perhaps more importantly, the Defender has a Cannon slot. I've found that I use my cannon slot a lot on my Defender, and for me, it's starting to define its role. Let's say there's a 2-point title for the Advanced that adds an attack die (maybe costing a mod slot or missile slot). That makes it 7 points less than the hypothetical Defender of similar PS. 7 points for the Defender buys you the white K-turn, a shield, a cannon slot, and loses you the Evade action. Compared to the Interceptor, such an Advanced it would pay 4 points to get two shields, but lose an amazing dial and boost. I think that region, maybe at a point more, would be fairly different from either other ship. It should probably be a 3, maybe 4 point title to better split that difference.

If it's a 3 point title:

24 points for a 3/3/3/2 PS2 fighter

That seems fairly appropriate compared to other Imperial fighters, it gives you a solid medium fighter that is a bit lacking in the dial department. Compared to X-wings, it's probably a little too good, but then so are a lot of things. Is four of these in a list too good? I don't know. It'd be a tough list to face, because it's really durable with really solid firepower. It would play pretty differently than a 4 Interceptor list or a 3-elite Interceptor list. It would definitely be a solid choice if they were looking to counter turret ships. AGI 3 and 5 hit points for a reasonable cost, along with good red dice, should really be able to tear down some large ships pretty well. They also wouldn't be particularly good against Interceptors, as their dial leaves them with numerous disadvantages against maneuverable opponents.

So 24 points for an X-wing with permanent stealth device and additional barrel roll and evade actions, whilst losing the Astromech slot and swapping a torpedo for a missile. The dials are pretty similar so no gain there. Would make it a bit too good I think.

Although I just said that an Attack 3 Advanced is just a cheap defender, the more I think about it, the more I think I'm wrong. The dial is substantially different, and perhaps more importantly, the Defender has a Cannon slot. I've found that I use my cannon slot a lot on my Defender, and for me, it's starting to define its role. Let's say there's a 2-point title for the Advanced that adds an attack die (maybe costing a mod slot or missile slot). That makes it 7 points less than the hypothetical Defender of similar PS. 7 points for the Defender buys you the white K-turn, a shield, a cannon slot, and loses you the Evade action. Compared to the Interceptor, such an Advanced it would pay 4 points to get two shields, but lose an amazing dial and boost. I think that region, maybe at a point more, would be fairly different from either other ship. It should probably be a 3, maybe 4 point title to better split that difference.

If it's a 3 point title:

24 points for a 3/3/3/2 PS2 fighter

That seems fairly appropriate compared to other Imperial fighters, it gives you a solid medium fighter that is a bit lacking in the dial department. Compared to X-wings, it's probably a little too good, but then so are a lot of things. Is four of these in a list too good? I don't know. It'd be a tough list to face, because it's really durable with really solid firepower. It would play pretty differently than a 4 Interceptor list or a 3-elite Interceptor list. It would definitely be a solid choice if they were looking to counter turret ships. AGI 3 and 5 hit points for a reasonable cost, along with good red dice, should really be able to tear down some large ships pretty well. They also wouldn't be particularly good against Interceptors, as their dial leaves them with numerous disadvantages against maneuverable opponents.

I agree. Having a three attack dice ship that could actually turn and dog fight would have a roll completely different from the Defender. At the beginning of the year this same argument cropped up as a reason the Defender couldn't fit in the game at all! So I don't give merit to those propagating it Again.

However, I don't think it fits the Advanced thematically. I think a new ship would fit that role better. That way the dial could be more distinct. Hopefully with a segnor turn!

Although I just said that an Attack 3 Advanced is just a cheap defender, the more I think about it, the more I think I'm wrong. The dial is substantially different, and perhaps more importantly, the Defender has a Cannon slot. I've found that I use my cannon slot a lot on my Defender, and for me, it's starting to define its role. Let's say there's a 2-point title for the Advanced that adds an attack die (maybe costing a mod slot or missile slot). That makes it 7 points less than the hypothetical Defender of similar PS. 7 points for the Defender buys you the white K-turn, a shield, a cannon slot, and loses you the Evade action. Compared to the Interceptor, such an Advanced it would pay 4 points to get two shields, but lose an amazing dial and boost. I think that region, maybe at a point more, would be fairly different from either other ship. It should probably be a 3, maybe 4 point title to better split that difference.

If it's a 3 point title:

24 points for a 3/3/3/2 PS2 fighter

That seems fairly appropriate compared to other Imperial fighters, it gives you a solid medium fighter that is a bit lacking in the dial department. Compared to X-wings, it's probably a little too good, but then so are a lot of things. Is four of these in a list too good? I don't know. It'd be a tough list to face, because it's really durable with really solid firepower. It would play pretty differently than a 4 Interceptor list or a 3-elite Interceptor list. It would definitely be a solid choice if they were looking to counter turret ships. AGI 3 and 5 hit points for a reasonable cost, along with good red dice, should really be able to tear down some large ships pretty well. They also wouldn't be particularly good against Interceptors, as their dial leaves them with numerous disadvantages against maneuverable opponents.

I agree. Having a three attack dice ship that could actually turn and dog fight would have a roll completely different from the Defender. At the beginning of the year this same argument cropped up as a reason the Defender couldn't fit in the game at all! So I don't give merit to those propagating it Again.

The Alpha Squadron Pilot isn't really a problem for the Tempest Squadron Pilot, as those are very different ships--and would be even at 3/3/3/2 for the Advanced. Prior to Imperial Aces, I would have said that you could absolutely justify something like an Avenger title for +1 Attack.

A 3/3/4/1 Royal Guard Pilot is a problem for Maarek and Vader, though: 29 points puts it right in the same range as the named Advanced pilots, which means there's a lot of competition there. And with the Interceptor dial, which is worth considering in comparison to the Advanced dial, Maarek probably isn't worth taking even with a small cost break. But Vader's pilot ability is so good that it's worth paying a small premium (1-2 points) and taking the worse dial, so that's a problem.

And the 3/3/3/3 Defender is a problem for every Advanced. I wasn't making that case with regard to the Defender before its release, but I'm making it now--and I'm right. The Advanced dial is substantially different from the Defender's dial, but it will never be a ship that "could actually turn and dog fight": no 1-turn means it can't knife-fight very effectively, and no 1-straight means it can't slow its approach if it needs to. That actually means it does basically what the Defender does, but the Defender's white K-turn means it's just flat better at it.

And Bio's suggestion that the Defender's cannon slot makes it sufficiently different doesn't work for me: the Defender does like that slot a great deal, but not all Defenders take it--and not all Defenders need it. You have to consider both the "will" and "won't" options when you consider what an upgrade slot adds to a ship, and the "won't" version is better than a hypothetical 3/3/3/2 Advanced at everything it does. So now you're faced with a difficult problem: the Defender is more durable than the Advanced and has a better dial for what both ships will likely end up doing. Whatever the cost difference between the two, it would have to precisely match the gap in value.

If there even is a "right" cost for a 3/3/3/2 Advanced, it would be hard to find. If the new Advanced were too expensive, the Defender would never be run; if the new Advanced were too cheap, it would immediately consume the role the Defender is just now starting to carve out for itself. The cost of making an error with a +1 Attack title or modification, then, is very high.

FFG is not going to do that to the Advanced again, and they're not going to do that to the Defender either. If it were the only option they would be in a really hard place, but fortunately there's the option of not going there. There's just no reason to start from a worse hole than they're already in with the Advanced, so a +1 Attack fix doesn't make sense.

Precision Sensors

Modification: Tie Advanced and x1 only. -2 points.

When attacking a ship you have a target lock on, the defender reduces their agility by 1 (up to 0).

This is brilliant!

Although I just said that an Attack 3 Advanced is just a cheap defender, the more I think about it, the more I think I'm wrong. The dial is substantially different, and perhaps more importantly, the Defender has a Cannon slot. I've found that I use my cannon slot a lot on my Defender, and for me, it's starting to define its role. Let's say there's a 2-point title for the Advanced that adds an attack die (maybe costing a mod slot or missile slot). That makes it 7 points less than the hypothetical Defender of similar PS. 7 points for the Defender buys you the white K-turn, a shield, a cannon slot, and loses you the Evade action. Compared to the Interceptor, such an Advanced it would pay 4 points to get two shields, but lose an amazing dial and boost. I think that region, maybe at a point more, would be fairly different from either other ship. It should probably be a 3, maybe 4 point title to better split that difference.

If it's a 3 point title:

24 points for a 3/3/3/2 PS2 fighter

That seems fairly appropriate compared to other Imperial fighters, it gives you a solid medium fighter that is a bit lacking in the dial department. Compared to X-wings, it's probably a little too good, but then so are a lot of things. Is four of these in a list too good? I don't know. It'd be a tough list to face, because it's really durable with really solid firepower. It would play pretty differently than a 4 Interceptor list or a 3-elite Interceptor list. It would definitely be a solid choice if they were looking to counter turret ships. AGI 3 and 5 hit points for a reasonable cost, along with good red dice, should really be able to tear down some large ships pretty well. They also wouldn't be particularly good against Interceptors, as their dial leaves them with numerous disadvantages against maneuverable opponents.

I agree. Having a three attack dice ship that could actually turn and dog fight would have a roll completely different from the Defender. At the beginning of the year this same argument cropped up as a reason the Defender couldn't fit in the game at all! So I don't give merit to those propagating it Again.

The Alpha Squadron Pilot isn't really a problem for the Tempest Squadron Pilot, as those are very different ships--and would be even at 3/3/3/2 for the Advanced. Prior to Imperial Aces, I would have said that you could absolutely justify something like an Avenger title for +1 Attack.

A 3/3/4/1 Royal Guard Pilot is a problem for Maarek and Vader, though: 29 points puts it right in the same range as the named Advanced pilots, which means there's a lot of competition there. And with the Interceptor dial, which is worth considering in comparison to the Advanced dial, Maarek probably isn't worth taking even with a small cost break. But Vader's pilot ability is so good that it's worth paying a small premium (1-2 points) and taking the worse dial, so that's a problem.

And the 3/3/3/3 Defender is a problem for every Advanced. I wasn't making that case with regard to the Defender before its release, but I'm making it now--and I'm right. The Advanced dial is substantially different from the Defender's dial, but it will never be a ship that "could actually turn and dog fight": no 1-turn means it can't knife-fight very effectively, and no 1-straight means it can't slow its approach if it needs to. That actually means it does basically what the Defender does, but the Defender's white K-turn means it's just flat better at it.

And Bio's suggestion that the Defender's cannon slot makes it sufficiently different doesn't work for me: the Defender does like that slot a great deal, but not all Defenders take it--and not all Defenders need it. You have to consider both the "will" and "won't" options when you consider what an upgrade slot adds to a ship, and the "won't" version is better than a hypothetical 3/3/3/2 Advanced at everything it does. So now you're faced with a difficult problem: the Defender is more durable than the Advanced and has a better dial for what both ships will likely end up doing. Whatever the cost difference between the two, it would have to precisely match the gap in value.

If there even is a "right" cost for a 3/3/3/2 Advanced, it would be hard to find. If the new Advanced were too expensive, the Defender would never be run; if the new Advanced were too cheap, it would immediately consume the role the Defender is just now starting to carve out for itself. The cost of making an error with a +1 Attack title or modification, then, is very high.

FFG is not going to do that to the Advanced again, and they're not going to do that to the Defender either. If it were the only option they would be in a really hard place, but fortunately there's the option of not going there. There's just no reason to start from a worse hole than they're alread

y in with the Advanced, so a +1 Attack fix doesn't make sense.

Precision Sensors

Modification: Tie Advanced and x1 only. -2 points.

When attacking a ship you have a target lock on, the defender reduces their agility by 1 (up to 0).

This should increase the damage potential of the Advanced without giving it 3 dice. It will likely be in alternate turns, as you take a target lock, and then the next turn attack for -1 agility, TL + F. The Tie Advanced benefits from having lots of hull and lots of agility so its an easier choice to take a TL instead of a F on any given turn. Good flying will also serve to make more use of this. It will also greatly change how one flies and how one builds for a Tie Advanced.

Removing agility also helps deal with the Falcon, which meets a better match in ships with decent hull and agility (both of which the Tie Advanced has).

This makes Proton Rockets and, especially, Pre-Wave-3.5 Missiles and Torps much more effective. Proton Torpedoes with -1 agility? Heck yes. I would gladly pay 4 points for that. Also doesn't need any fixing of the missiles themselves.

1. This stops the Tie Adv from stepping on the toes of 3 attack ships: X-wing and Interceptor.

2. This deals with a metagame problem that will simply get worse in Wave 5 with 2 more turreted ships. (Falcons, and even hitting a Phantom).

3. It makes you fly the ship in a different way, changing the way that you play the game with this ship.

4. It uses its existing advantages to allow it to fill the role of a tanky, medium fighter.

In terms of cost, the Tie Advanced is expected to be cost-ineffective by about 4 points. Outmaneuver costs 3, so should be about right. It requires you to have a TL on THAT ship, and taking a TL means that one turn you didn't have a Focus.

--

Currently, at 100 pts, you could then get 5 of these -1agi (every other turn), 2 dice ships with 3 agility and 5 hull each. You'd have 5 points left over: 1 assault missile?

That would be a good list, not overpowered except against the Swarm.

You still couldn't take 4 Tempests Adv and Vader.

With 5 points extra, you could only afford 1 Proton Rocket

An elegant idea for a more civilized age.

I like it, and as someone else had stated, until this suggestion, the best one I had seen was adding a systems slot (which honestly just doesn't fit with the fluff)

This is a good solution that corrects a problem the community has been complaining about since the Advanced was introduced.

I'm not a math-winger, so I can't comment on the point value of the upgrade, but I would be perfectly happy with it, even if it cost 0 and added the ability as Blail suggested. I don't think it needs to have a negative cost if it corrects the issues we've all been having.

Of course, now the only issue is how does FFG introduce this card? They'd pretty much have to commit to an Imperial Aces II set with the Advanced as part of that set.. Maybe introduce the Avenger as part of Aces II??

I would love to see that set - the Avenger with a tractor beam would be boss.

I would really love to see something like this in an Imperial Aces II with the Tie Advanced. It really needs some new pilots too.

I'm actually really in favor of the ship getting a multitude of titles or mods so that we have different variations of the ship to use, in the generally more tanky role mid-20s Imperial fighter. Otherwise, even with my suggested change, there's not the most variation you can do besides picking what kind of missile and what kind of ship you want to kill.

Can't even use it as a tanky EPT holder.

Good job mis-quoting the part of my post makes your post irrelevant.

I was addressing both you and Biophysical, as well as the large number of people who have brought up the same "fix" in the past without acknowledging the issues it brings along.

But if you'd rather I post pithy one-line responses directed exclusively at you, I can oblige. Just let me know.

some new ideas...

MISSILE PODS

TIE advance only

0 point - modification

You gain aditional missile slot. Missiles cost 1 less to equip.

CLOACK GENERATOR

TIE advance only

2 point - modification

You gain cloack action.

SHIELD REGENERATOR

TIE advance only

4 point - modification

At the begining of combat phase, if don't have any stress token, regain 1 shield.

TIE advanced MK II

TIE advance only

1 point - title

You gain cannon upgread slot.

Good job mis-quoting the part of my post makes your post irrelevant.

I was addressing both you and Biophysical, as well as the large number of people who have brought up the same "fix" in the past without acknowledging the issues it brings along.But if you'd rather I post pithy one-line responses directed exclusively at you, I can oblige. Just let me know.

Don't bend my statements to make more strawmen.

LASER BATTERY

(Missile Slot, TIE Advanced only)

If you don't attack in the combat phase, you may attack in the following round twice.

2 points

ADVANCED CIRCUITS

(Modification, TIE Advanced only)

You get a System Upgrade slot. System Upgrades cost 2 points less.

0 points

BLACK SQUADRON TRAINING

(Title, TIE Advanced only)

You get an additional EPT. The second Elite Pilot Training cost 1 point less.

0 points

NEW PS 7 Pilot:

When attacking in range 2-3, if you roll at least 2 hits without using a focus token, add an additional hit to your result.

+ EPT

NEW PS 6 Pilot:

After you hit, and you have assigned at least one tress token, you may assign up to one of your stress tokens to your defender.

I still like the idea of an onboard shield booster. Maybe shield batteries that recharge the shield to full capacity. One time use, Advanced only, and eats a missile slot. Or Shield Breeder Reactor which basically works like R2D2. Anything to give the Imps some durability that let's them recover shields or hull. Right now that is a Reb-only ability, and most of their ships are already beefy enough.

This is off topic, did you make that card yourself? I'm trying to find a custom mini card maker to complete some of my own ships.

LASER BATTERY

(Missile Slot, TIE Advanced only)

If you don't attack in the combat phase, you may attack in the following round twice.

2 points

ADVANCED CIRCUITS

(Modification, TIE Advanced only)

You get a System Upgrade slot. System Upgrades cost 2 points less.

0 points

BLACK SQUADRON TRAINING

(Title, TIE Advanced only)

You get an additional EPT. The second Elite Pilot Training cost 1 point less.

0 points

NEW PS 7 Pilot:

When attacking in range 2-3, if you roll at least 2 hits without using a focus token, add an additional hit to your result.

+ EPT

NEW PS 6 Pilot:

After you hit, and you have assigned at least one tress token, you may assign up to one of your stress tokens to your defender.

I like where you`re going, but I think Black Sq training is a little too similar to A-Wing Test Pilot. And to allow EPT`s to cost less is WAY OP. Even the idea for Advanced Circuits is a good one, but again, allowing System Upgrades at 2 points less might be a bit overkill. (Ok, a LOT overkill..) I can just imagine Advanced Ties everywhere running with Advanced Sensors..

That sounds fun. Again. The tie advanced is over costed by something like 4 points. So even a free ept is actually still under balanced.

This is off topic, did you make that card yourself? I'm trying to find a custom mini card maker to complete some of my own ships.

For the text I decided not to spend time doing it the hard way this time,

and I just used this older card maker for the small text only.

http://home.comcast.net/~jason.fuller/cardGenerator.html

But usually it's just cut and paste together and paint.

You are going to need 'overpowered' stuff for the Advanced to make it reliable at last.

OK, I thought of a few.

Adv only title. Twitch controls.

When you are the target of an attack: immediately after the attack dice are rolled, you MAY perform a free barrel roll. you may then add one evade result to your next defense roll. ONCE PER TURN.

* would be fun to play as it would create some fun positional thinking.**not sure how to word it, but the roll is required to get the evade.

Adv only title. Interference.

At the start of combat choose one enemy ship at range 1-3, and in your arc. That ship cannot modify attack dice in any way until the end of the turn.

* instead of buffing the attack of the advanced....bring them down to your level?

Really liked Blail's idea!

In a previous Advanced thread, which I can't seem to find anymore, I proposed to give the Advanced an Illicit upgrade.

After all, those illegal upgrades must come from somewhere before the Empire forbids them.

Some Imperial Remnant commander might wish to use them.

Somewhat like:

Test Platform

Title, TIE Advanced Only

Add one Illicit Upgrade slot.

Cost: 0

I will leave it to the more experienced mathwingers to calculate if this is too cheap/over powered, after FFG spoils some of the Illicit Upgrades.

For pilots:

Add the Inquisitor with pilot skill 8 and add another with pilot skill 5 or 6

1000th! Post!!!

There is nothing I believe in more than a fair society where all ships have a balanced place and aspiring advantages to a role where they may be useful.

Thus I firmly believe in:

Using the Tie Advanced existing advantages to create multiple roles it can fill.

Reducing its point cost so that it fits right at the empty slot of the mid-cost Imperial tanky, fighter.

Not stepping on the toes of other existing ships.

Customization for more game fun and stylistic flying!

Styles of fighting arise form an equilibrium of many styles being effective. There list power goes down and sheer practice and skill will win the day. (excepting that fickle mistress, luck).

--

Whee.

Star wars ships =)

Graduating portrait of Mauler Mithel, Backstabber and Howlrunner

1000th! Post!!!

There is nothing I believe in more than a fair society where all ships have a balanced place and aspiring advantages to a role where they may be useful.

Thus I firmly believe in:

Using the Tie Advanced existing advantages to create multiple roles it can fill.

Reducing its point cost so that it fits right at the empty slot of the mid-cost Imperial tanky, fighter.

Not stepping on the toes of other existing ships.

Customization for more game fun and stylistic flying!

Agree with the above. The designers have hinted about a title-card which should be unique for each ship.

So probably no cost reduction. They probably don't want it to change to much to a defender or interceptor either.

Because of this I don't expect an increase in attack or the addition of a boost action.

To increase customization and a more distinct style the advanced needs an upgrade of some sort.

System or illicit, both seem interesting.

I will be looking forward to it, unless they pair it with an epic ship.

I stick to fighter size only.

If you've been on the forums for a while, its more apparent that the Advanced is over-costed. That's why we keep throwing these -2 -3 -1 costs at it. There's a bunch of threads that talk about this.

Also, even if the ship is at the 18 pt slot same as the Interceptor, they fly very differently due to stats. the Advanced has 5 hull and 3 agility and a crappy dial, which is much beefier than the Interceptor, which has a much better dial.

It is probably not a good idea to raise its attack to 3 though, then it starts riding into the Interceptors' and Xwings' space.

Precision Sensors

Modification: Tie Advanced and x1 only. -2 points.

When attacking a ship you have a target lock on, the defender reduces their agility by 1 (up to 0).

This should increase the damage potential of the Advanced without giving it 3 dice. It will likely be in alternate turns, as you take a target lock, and then the next turn attack for -1 agility, TL + F. The Tie Advanced benefits from having lots of hull and lots of agility so its an easier choice to take a TL instead of a F on any given turn. Good flying will also serve to make more use of this. It will also greatly change how one flies and how one builds for a Tie Advanced.

Removing agility also helps deal with the Falcon, which meets a better match in ships with decent hull and agility (both of which the Tie Advanced has).

This makes Proton Rockets and, especially, Pre-Wave-3.5 Missiles and Torps much more effective. Proton Torpedoes with -1 agility? Heck yes. I would gladly pay 4 points for that. Also doesn't need any fixing of the missiles themselves.

1. This stops the Tie Adv from stepping on the toes of 3 attack ships: X-wing and Interceptor.

2. This deals with a metagame problem that will simply get worse in Wave 5 with 2 more turreted ships. (Falcons, and even hitting a Phantom).

3. It makes you fly the ship in a different way, changing the way that you play the game with this ship.

4. It uses its existing advantages to allow it to fill the role of a tanky, medium fighter.

In terms of cost, the Tie Advanced is expected to be cost-ineffective by about 4 points. Outmaneuver costs 3, so should be about right. It requires you to have a TL on THAT ship, and taking a TL means that one turn you didn't have a Focus.

--

Currently, at 100 pts, you could then get 5 of these -1agi (every other turn), 2 dice ships with 3 agility and 5 hull each. You'd have 5 points left over: 1 assault missile?

That would be a good list, not overpowered except against the Swarm.

You still couldn't take 4 Tempests Adv and Vader.

With 5 points extra, you could only afford 1 Proton Rocket

OK, this sounds like a really good idea, so I had to run the numbers, plugging it into my existing script framework, using the same numbers as everything else. I used a very simple assumption: if the attacker has an action, he reduces the attacker's agility by 1, to a minimum of 0. I'm assuming that the attacker will have an action on offense 2/3 of the time.

This resulted in a damage increase of about 25%, so that's not bad. Now we need to figure out how much that is worth. Assuming that the TIE Advanced's durability has not changed (it has, and we'll get to that in a moment), then it has a normalized durability of about 1.61x a TIE Fighter. This is based on unpublished data that I have, calculating the average number of shots required to kill a ship, considering double damage crits, and then scaling to account for non-damage critical hits.

x = 1.61*1.25 = 2.03 (using the original unrounded #s)

So, how much is that worth? To properly account for more expensive ships, the curve I am now using is:

y = 12*(x^(1/E1) + k2*x^(1/E2) - k2)

where:

Plug in x = 2.03 to the above, and you get a PS1 jousting value of 17.7. And it costs 21-2-1 = 18, so the jousting efficiency is 97%, which using my new durability methodology is almost unheard of for a ship with more 4 hit points.

But wait! This TIE Advanced will not have a focus for defense very often, since he will be using Target Lock as the action. So now we have to calculate a new durability. I normally assume that the defender has a focus token 50% of the time. Lets back that down to 16% of the time (1/6) for this new breed of TIE Advanced. I now get a normalized durability of 1.35 instead of 1.61, only about 84% of the value before. So now we get:

x = 1.35*1.25 = 1.70 (using the original unrounded #s)

So, compare that to the "generic" TIE Advanced, which is:

x = 1.61*1 = 1.61

So, 1.70 is still greater than 1.61, but it's not nearly as significant as 2.03. The jousting value in this case is now about 16.1, vs. 15.6 for the "generic" TIE Advanced.

I also calculated the damage from adding a Fire-Control System, simulating it as getting a free target lock 50% of the time. So instead of the [no action, focus, focus+TL] action economy being [ 1/3 2/3 0 ], it is [1/6 1/2 1/3], which resulted in a normalized damage of 1.20. So this approach doesn't quite increase the damage as much, but there is no tradeoff with the potential loss of focus for defense.

So in summary here are 4 versions:

TIE Advanced Type PS1Cost Value Efficiency

Generic TIE Advanced 20 15.6 78.0%

Precision Sensors T/A (no def. penalty: 50% focus) 18 17.7 97.1%

Precision Sensors T/A (w/ def. penalty: 16.7% focus) 18 16.1 87.9%

FCS TIE Advanced 18 17.3 95.5%

Moral of the story: fairly small changes can make a big difference in a ship's efficiency! The last 3 all have the same -2 cost adjustment, but play out quite differently. I think you can still make Precision Sensors work, but you need to either tweak the wording, or use defensively conservative tactics. I.e. take the TL once, keep it, and then take focus for the remaining turns until the target is dead. I didn't calculate that approach, but it would probably be somewhere between the two that I calculated.

I am still partial to the -2 cost FCS, but not because of the efficiency calculations. Rather, it opens up the design space to use Missiles on TIE Advanced, especially coupled with some of my other House Rules, specifically a 1 point cost reduction on Cluster Missiles and Concussion Missiles.

For 22 points you could have a PS2 TIE Advanced, with Cluster Missiles and a Fire-Control System. That is really interesting, and contributes to the paper / rock / scissors dynamic: it would be great at hunting down Fat Falcons, but would probably do very poorly against Phantoms. But being a standalone ship, you could splash one of these in an otherwise normal anti-Phantom squad, or even a squad that has a Phantom, to mitigate your weakness to Falcons.

At a point cheaper and easier to fire, won't proton rockets take the missile slot on the advanced?

And what I'd really like to see is:

Serissu's ability (or more like it) on pilots

And

Lots of titles. Make each one unique. More options = more better!

Precision Sensors

Modification: Tie Advanced and x1 only. -2 points.

When attacking a ship you have a target lock on, the defender reduces their agility by 1 (up to 0).

This should increase the damage potential of the Advanced without giving it 3 dice. It will likely be in alternate turns, as you take a target lock, and then the next turn attack for -1 agility, TL + F. The Tie Advanced benefits from having lots of hull and lots of agility so its an easier choice to take a TL instead of a F on any given turn. Good flying will also serve to make more use of this. It will also greatly change how one flies and how one builds for a Tie Advanced.

Removing agility also helps deal with the Falcon, which meets a better match in ships with decent hull and agility (both of which the Tie Advanced has).

This makes Proton Rockets and, especially, Pre-Wave-3.5 Missiles and Torps much more effective. Proton Torpedoes with -1 agility? Heck yes. I would gladly pay 4 points for that. Also doesn't need any fixing of the missiles themselves.

1. This stops the Tie Adv from stepping on the toes of 3 attack ships: X-wing and Interceptor.

2. This deals with a metagame problem that will simply get worse in Wave 5 with 2 more turreted ships. (Falcons, and even hitting a Phantom).

3. It makes you fly the ship in a different way, changing the way that you play the game with this ship.

4. It uses its existing advantages to allow it to fill the role of a tanky, medium fighter.

In terms of cost, the Tie Advanced is expected to be cost-ineffective by about 4 points. Outmaneuver costs 3, so should be about right. It requires you to have a TL on THAT ship, and taking a TL means that one turn you didn't have a Focus.

--

Currently, at 100 pts, you could then get 5 of these -1agi (every other turn), 2 dice ships with 3 agility and 5 hull each. You'd have 5 points left over: 1 assault missile?

That would be a good list, not overpowered except against the Swarm.

You still couldn't take 4 Tempests Adv and Vader.

With 5 points extra, you could only afford 1 Proton Rocket

OK, this sounds like a really good idea, so I had to run the numbers, plugging it into my existing script framework, using the same numbers as everything else. I used a very simple assumption: if the attacker has an action, he reduces the attacker's agility by 1, to a minimum of 0. I'm assuming that the attacker will have an action on offense 2/3 of the time.

This resulted in a damage increase of about 25%, so that's not bad. Now we need to figure out how much that is worth. Assuming that the TIE Advanced's durability has not changed (it has, and we'll get to that in a moment), then it has a normalized durability of about 1.61x a TIE Fighter. This is based on unpublished data that I have, calculating the average number of shots required to kill a ship, considering double damage crits, and then scaling to account for non-damage critical hits.

x = 1.61*1.25 = 2.03 (using the original unrounded #s)

So, how much is that worth? To properly account for more expensive ships, the curve I am now using is:

y = 12*(x^(1/E1) + k2*x^(1/E2) - k2)

where:

E1 = 1.85; % first order exponent

E2 = 0.8; % 2nd order exponent

k2 = 1/150; % 2nd order coefficient

Plug in x = 2.03 to the above, and you get a PS1 jousting value of 17.7. And it costs 21-2-1 = 18, so the jousting efficiency is 97%, which using my new durability methodology is almost unheard of for a ship with more 4 hit points.

But wait! This TIE Advanced will not have a focus for defense very often, since he will be using Target Lock as the action. So now we have to calculate a new durability. I normally assume that the defender has a focus token 50% of the time. Lets back that down to 16% of the time (1/6) for this new breed of TIE Advanced. I now get a normalized durability of 1.35 instead of 1.61, only about 84% of the value before. So now we get:

x = 1.35*1.25 = 1.70 (using the original unrounded #s)

So, compare that to the "generic" TIE Advanced, which is:

x = 1.61*1 = 1.61

So, 1.70 is still greater than 1.61, but it's not nearly as significant as 2.03. The jousting value in this case is now about 16.1, vs. 15.6 for the "generic" TIE Advanced.

I also calculated the damage from adding a Fire-Control System, simulating it as getting a free target lock 50% of the time. So instead of the [no action, focus, focus+TL] action economy being [ 1/3 2/3 0 ], it is [1/6 1/2 1/3], which resulted in a normalized damage of 1.20. So this approach doesn't quite increase the damage as much, but there is no tradeoff with the potential loss of focus for defense.

So in summary here are 4 versions:

TIE Advanced Type PS1Cost Value Efficiency

Generic TIE Advanced 20 15.6 78.0%

Precision Sensors TIE Advanced (no penalty) 18 17.7 97.1%

Precision Sensors TIE Advanced (w/ penalty) 18 16.1 87.9%

FCS TIE Advanced 18 17.3 95.5%

Moral of the story: fairly small changes can make a big difference in a ship's efficiency! The last 3 all have the same -2 cost adjustment, but play out quite differently. I think you can still make Precision Sensors work, but you need to either tweak the wording, or use defensively conservative tactics. I.e. take the TL once, keep it, and then take focus for the remaining turns until the target is dead. I didn't calculate that approach, but it would probably be somewhere between the two that I calculated.

I am still partial to the -2 cost FCS, but not because of the efficiency calculations. Rather, it opens up the design space to use Missiles on TIE Advanced, especially coupled with some of my other House Rules, specifically a 1 point cost reduction on Cluster Missiles and Concussion Missiles.

For 22 points you could have a PS2 TIE Advanced, with Cluster Missiles and a Fire-Control System. That is really interesting, and contributes to the paper / rock / scissors dynamic: it would be great at hunting down Fat Falcons, but would probably do very poorly against Phantoms. But being a standalone ship, you could splash one of these in an otherwise normal anti-Phantom squad, or even a squad that has a Phantom, to mitigate your weakness to Falcons.

To be honest, I got the idea from the -2FCS version. Both together would be rather fun too hahaha.

Thanks for checking out the numbers!

What exactly does no penalty mean? I read it twice and I'm still having a little trouble understanding.

Yeah. I was trying to just give it something that would bring it closer to a useful value proposition without going overboard. I'd let people figure out how to utilize the ship best. Not all ships are at 100% jousting value anyway, but we make them work in some fashion when we use them for a specific purpose.

I did actually want to create a change that would also change how you'd have to fly the ship, compared to other ships, so that it made it feel more unique. Perhaps either combining the FCS idea or changing it to -3. I'm not really fond of the latter because if Precision Sensors is a mod, you can't upgrade the ship any other way to add back some hull value.

I think any mod to the TL helps those missiles. Mine makes them hit a bit harder.

For campaign fun I also have the pre-wave3.5 missiles and torps and bombs down 1 point. (with seismics at 1.5)

I saw many different good ways to handle ordnance in other formats, but having to rebuy them and equip them as part of the squad cost just felt like it should be an easy reduction.

--

Oh another thing, MJ, does the math account for the 3 hit/crit rolls where you wouldn't spend the TL?

And what happens if you do TL and hold it all game? (Though, that would be a sad sad non-change of gameplay).

I have a feeling it might not make a meaningful difference, as you'll relock if you have a target you think you'll hit, and you'll have a focus like normal the rest of the time, even if you might not be attack the TL'ed ship.

So maybe even -3. or combined with the FCS idea.

I personally liked letting you pick a systems upgrade, as then you could do more customized roles than just picking what missile for what you wanted to kill. (But Accuracy Corrector ruined that all.)

Also, it might be less effective as sometimes you won't be facing the same person you TLed in a previous turn. (A reason I don't put FCS on my Phantoms, I have a hard time getting them to focus something and like the unpredictability more. Never used a FCS given TL on the Phantom before.)