Battlegrounds, SWG, and Rogue squadron shows, It does not take much imagination to come up with a TIE variant. The trend seems to be to have the spherical or round cockpit, with Octagonal forward cockpit window, some solar panels, and Twin Ion Engines (Or Tri-Ion Engines) and you got a new fighter.

Almost as bad naming a ship with a letter of the alphabet and adding "Wing" to it.

At least the Skipray, and Assault gunboat were unique

I am glad they gave the Hunter a bit more armor and hull strength, in was a joke in Onslaught. The Hunter is probably my favorite TIE design of the bunch, I don't mind the Phantom but they are too powerful to include as anything other than a major boss fight and too rare to use often (and if you do overuse them they lose their shock value to your players).

So... when you drop the Defender into this game (in the core book, where again, a lesser craft like the Assault Gunboat would have worked, but not have had the same "cool factor") you've got to rebalance it to work. Make it exactly like it appeared in TIE Fighter and you'll have something only the highest of the high level players can take on and even have hope of surviving. So they toned it down a little, but still kept it well within the realm of what it needs to do, and what it's supposed to do.

See the problem with that is that only the ship's stats were toned down. The other part of the system/setting mechanics was left untouched. It's still as expensive and high-rarity, it just no longer *compares* to things in the same price-range. Like more powerful, easier-to-obtain, heavily upgraded gunships.

Things like the Defender aren't meant to be balanced against bog-standard TIEs any more than a YT-1300 with escort-quads and reinforced shielding. The TIE/D just happens to have less actions per turn and will die in like a tenth the incoming hits.

See the problem with that is that only the ship's stats were toned down. The other part of the system/setting mechanics was left untouched. It's still as expensive and high-rarity, it just no longer *compares* to things in the same price-range. Like more powerful, easier-to-obtain, heavily upgraded gunships.

Then don’t use it?

See the problem with that is that only the ship's stats were toned down. The other part of the system/setting mechanics was left untouched. It's still as expensive and high-rarity, it just no longer *compares* to things in the same price-range. Like more powerful, easier-to-obtain, heavily upgraded gunships.

Then don’t use it?

The same answer could have been given if it had super-stats and people didn't like them, and I think it would have been an equally unhelpful answer.

I really think that the TIE Defender would have been fine with Speed 5 and Defense 2/-/-/2. It would then be obviously high-end, but still not unkillable by any stretch.

Eh, I uped it to speed 6 and gave it 2/2 defense, along with somewhat higher hull strength. And at the very least I have them flown by TIE Aces. Granted I haven't actually thrown them at my party (we aren't at the point in the Legends timeline where T/Ds are available) but their Ace is so crazy he'll probably win anyway.

But the current Defender stats are basically insulting; how is a ship supposed to be an "X-Wing killer" when it can't even keep pace with X-Wings?

The same answer could have been given if it had super-stats and people didn't like them, and I think it would have been an equally unhelpful answer.

I really think that the TIE Defender would have been fine with Speed 5 and Defense 2/-/-/2. It would then be obviously high-end, but still not unkillable by any stretch.

I don’t disagree with you, I just think there’s a lot of wailing and teeth gnashing in this thread and it seems to be rather much ado about nothing.

Not trying to gnash teeth, but i was serious when I mentioned that I'd have liked a few more militarized repulsorlift craft and a few less starfighters.

Not trying to gnash teeth, but i was serious when I mentioned that I'd have liked a few more militarized repulsorlift craft and a few less starfighters.

I fully support and agree with this statement. Thank you!

focus

Not trying to gnash teeth, but i was serious when I mentioned that I'd have liked a few more militarized repulsorlift craft and a few less starfighters.

This is the Ace book not the Soldier book. The Soldier book will probably have tons of speeders, tanks and walkers and few if any starfighters.

That goes back to the distasteful idea that all Aces should be space pilots despite Driver being just as much a focus of the career as Pilot (and everything the Hotshot has works just as well in a speeder as in a starfighter).

A few people have mentions the variation for large fleet engagements, but I have not noticed anyone mentioning that having Different Tie Fighters would distinguish different squadrons or even different fighter divisions. The fact that you see something than a standard Tie Fighter could mean something for story purposes. Also the preferences of different Imperial Commanders. You also have to consider with the size of the Imperial Military that as different things are rolled out they may not go Fleet Wide. They may only be reserved for certain groups based on need.

That goes back to the distasteful idea that all Aces should be space pilots despite Driver being just as much a focus of the career as Pilot (and everything the Hotshot has works just as well in a speeder as in a starfighter).

This, so bloody this!

It does bother me that whenever talking vehicle combat things go immediately to spacecraft. I'm not going to argue about spacecraft being a vital part of the setting, but it does seem kinda weak that we get a pile of (mostly perfect fine) starfighters, but the options for ground pounders are comparatively limited.

I'll make an assumption that I'll probably regret....

They are saving the tanks and such for the Soldier book because that's also where we are going to see the first set of man portable ranged weapons that can be used to engage Armor 3 and they didn't want to flood the market with Armor 3 speeders without including the weapons to deal with em, but also didn't want that weapon in this book because it seemed a better fit for the Soldier book....maybe?

I like having all the various ships they have listed, regardless of source. I may not use them all, but the choice is mine. My biggest beef is that they do not list when they come into service, by year or even by era. I spend a while researching on wookiepedia to find out whether the vessels are even plausible to fly in the era the book is written in. After all, the E-wing was developed entirely by the New Republic, and deployed first to counter Thrawn. In the era between Ep IV and V, it wasn't even on the drawing board. The TIE Phantom wasn't deployed until Hoth. The TIE defender until Endor. I just want an indication in the fluff text of when it was designed and deployed.

I like having all the various ships they have listed, regardless of source. I may not use them all, but the choice is mine. My biggest beef is that they do not list when they come into service, by year or even by era. I spend a while researching on wookiepedia to find out whether the vessels are even plausible to fly in the era the book is written in. After all, the E-wing was developed entirely by the New Republic, and deployed first to counter Thrawn. In the era between Ep IV and V, it wasn't even on the drawing board. The TIE Phantom wasn't deployed until Hoth. The TIE defender until Endor. I just want an indication in the fluff text of when it was designed and deployed.

I think they actually were right to just leave dates and times out. Wookieepedia is actually a shining example of why. The inbred nature of the EU, with one source feeding off the "coolest" parts of another and then trying to one-up it in another way makes it too hard. Thus you end up with things like "the e-wing being made to fight Thrawn" when it is simultaneously supposed to be "brand new" in Dark Empire, well after Thrawn's death. Or the A-wing appearing in the X-wing game series in campaigns that take place before the events in ANH (and then having to be retconned as "Spearheads" because some Otaku just can't handle it).

This is why the canon wiped happened.

There's just so much conflicting inbred carp out there that it's safer and easier to just say "here's the e-wing" then it is to say "the e-wing first appeared to subdue the Poodleplap crisis lead by Sen. Midicloribangs except for the 300 that appeared at the Battle of the Cold Doggy Door 23 years earlier but didn't actually do anything except look really really cool."

I like having all the various ships they have listed, regardless of source. I may not use them all, but the choice is mine. My biggest beef is that they do not list when they come into service, by year or even by era. I spend a while researching on wookiepedia to find out whether the vessels are even plausible to fly in the era the book is written in. After all, the E-wing was developed entirely by the New Republic, and deployed first to counter Thrawn. In the era between Ep IV and V, it wasn't even on the drawing board. The TIE Phantom wasn't deployed until Hoth. The TIE defender until Endor. I just want an indication in the fluff text of when it was designed and deployed.

I think they actually were right to just leave dates and times out. Wookieepedia is actually a shining example of why. The inbred nature of the EU, with one source feeding off the "coolest" parts of another and then trying to one-up it in another way makes it too hard. Thus you end up with things like "the e-wing being made to fight Thrawn" when it is simultaneously supposed to be "brand new" in Dark Empire, well after Thrawn's death. Or the A-wing appearing in the X-wing game series in campaigns that take place before the events in ANH (and then having to be retconned as "Spearheads" because some Otaku just can't handle it).

This is why the canon wiped happened.

There's just so much conflicting inbred carp out there that it's safer and easier to just say "here's the e-wing" then it is to say "the e-wing first appeared to subdue the Poodleplap crisis lead by Sen. Midicloribangs except for the 300 that appeared at the Battle of the Cold Doggy Door 23 years earlier but didn't actually do anything except look really really cool."

Yeah this isn't the first time the service entry date for a ship model has been changed. The Nebulon-B was originally stated to have been developed to counter Rebel Alliance fighter attacks but was later retroconned to enter service a few months after the Clone Wars ended and thus long before the Alliance formed.

Or the MC80. Originally the first MC80s were converted cruise liners but later it was changed so that while some of the MC80s were converted cruise liners others were retrofit deep space exploration ships tat pre-dated the Imperial conquest of Dac.

Hell even the date of first contact with Dac got changed. Originally it as discovered by the Empire but later it was changed so that it was discovered thousands of years before the Empire was formed, after a Mon Calamari appeared on Coruscant in the PT if memory serves.

Everybody gets grumpy about the TIE/d, but the B-Wing's stats are a little sideways too. Just as slow as a Y-Wing, and less maneuverable? The fluff right there in the book says it has surprising maneuverability and speed, able to more than hold it's own in a dogfight, but an X-Wing can straight up outrun it and outfly it when it comes to stats.

Considering what it looks like and the strange way it flies, the fact that it's the same speed and only that much less maneuverable is "surprising maneuverability & speed" to me.

Everybody gets grumpy about the TIE/d, but the B-Wing's stats are a little sideways too. Just as slow as a Y-Wing, and less maneuverable? The fluff right there in the book says it has surprising maneuverability and speed, able to more than hold it's own in a dogfight, but an X-Wing can straight up outrun it and outfly it when it comes to stats.

It's surprisingly maneuverable and fast for a ship with a Heavy Laser mounted- given that's normally a Sil. 4 weapon. The B is a heavy anti-cap killer, so the fact it can dogfight at all is pretty impressive.

But yeah, the system isn't very granular and they've been veeeery leery of adding ship-specific special rules. Something like "Huge Engines: The B-Wing can increase speed by 2 rather than 1 when taking an Accelerate/Decelerate Maneuver" would go a long way to adding flavour.

Really, a lot of the ships need just one simple special rule adding to make them feel individual (and to stop half of them being redundant). I mean, the fact that an X-Wing's S-Foils have no mechanics is a bit off- something as simple as a Boost die on Gunnery checks when open, Piloting checks when closed would be enough. Sturdy CEC freighters could use Damage Control for hull repairs twice/combat. The specific bonuses are irrelevant, they're just intended to show that there's plenty of design space for simple, low-complexity solutions.

Really, a lot of the ships need just one simple special rule adding to make them feel individual (and to stop half of them being redundant). I mean, the fact that an X-Wing's S-Foils have no mechanics is a bit off- something as simple as a Boost die on Gunnery checks when open, Piloting checks when closed would be enough. Sturdy CEC freighters could use Damage Control for hull repairs twice/combat. The specific bonuses are irrelevant, they're just intended to show that there's plenty of design space for simple, low-complexity solutions.

Having played warhammer 40k, I'm gonna disagree. Special rules for everything, even one rule, gets tedious.

Really, a lot of the ships need just one simple special rule adding to make them feel individual (and to stop half of them being redundant). I mean, the fact that an X-Wing's S-Foils have no mechanics is a bit off- something as simple as a Boost die on Gunnery checks when open, Piloting checks when closed would be enough. Sturdy CEC freighters could use Damage Control for hull repairs twice/combat. The specific bonuses are irrelevant, they're just intended to show that there's plenty of design space for simple, low-complexity solutions.

Having played warhammer 40k, I'm gonna disagree. Special rules for everything, even one rule, gets tedious.

Yea, I really want to play either warhammer or 40k. But when I tried I wasn't beaten by the other player, or his army, I was beaten up by the rulebook and the mysterious "errata" and "FAQ" that only appeared in a magazine I had no access to

Not to derail the topic, at least that parts gotten better in 40k. The special rules are a lot more consolidated more (Universal Special Rules in the main book and such) and the FAQs are all online. It's a complex system but not unlearnable. Helps if you have someone willing to take the time to teach you, rather than blast you across the table. It took us about three 'games' to teach a friend of mine from scratch, using an escalation style. (Infantry vs. infantry, than add a character, than add a vehicle, etc.)

To add an on topic statment. I agree that adding a special rule per ship can add flavor, but it also adds a layer of complication you'll have to remember for every ship combat, not only for the player ship but for every enemy. I've found it also tends to lead to rule shopping by players, at least thats what happened in Saga. That and rulebegging, which happened in my Saga group. Plus, there's only so many rules before your either doubleing up (defeating your uniquity) or making up new but simmilar rules for the sake of being unique.

Several ships in Enter the Unknown had special rules, but this seems to have slowed since that product.

Really, a lot of the ships need just one simple special rule adding to make them feel individual (and to stop half of them being redundant). I mean, the fact that an X-Wing's S-Foils have no mechanics is a bit off- something as simple as a Boost die on Gunnery checks when open, Piloting checks when closed would be enough. Sturdy CEC freighters could use Damage Control for hull repairs twice/combat. The specific bonuses are irrelevant, they're just intended to show that there's plenty of design space for simple, low-complexity solutions.

Having played warhammer 40k, I'm gonna disagree. Special rules for everything, even one rule, gets tedious.

Really? I mean, a typical fight in AoR will contain maybe 3-5 units each taking a single action (plus the extra crew actions from PCs riding along that're ship-independent), rather than 10-15 each making multiple rolls, and PCs have one ship to remember rather than a whole codex worth.

Warmachine/Hordes is probably a marginally better comparison than 40k given it's a skirmish game with low unit counts, but even *then* it's still not really very similar as there's far fewer points for special rules to trigger/influence (given EotE has much less detailed combat mechanics) and the only person who needs to remember multiple ship abilities is the GM. Plus, given the GM generally uses Rivals and Minions any abilities that key off Strain can be ignored by them.

Really comparison with wargames fails as RPGs are very asymmetric. Whilst in a wargame forgetting an ability might be a game winning/losing thing (and both sides want to win), in an RPG the only people who're strongly attached to their 'units' succeeding are the PCs- who have far fewer rules to remember already. They won't mind if you forget to add a Boost die.

Yeah, but all the B-Wing fluff says it can and frequently does tangle with TIEs, and blows them away when it does. Not just because it's got unholy shielding, but also because it can keep pace with the X-Wings.