Interesting idea but it wouldn't be hard to set up rexlar with Ptl, an hlc with jendon beside him.

Consistent 4-dice Tl+focus plus an extra focus token to flip crits.

This would be game breaking, he'd destroy anything.

Plus, vessery's whole game is setting up for Tl+focus shots anyway,what's he going to do if his action is freed up from the auto focus and he doesn't need to Tl because of his ability? Basically, this gives vessery the situational option for w free boost

While it makes brath a total howitzer.

The defender needs a fix and focus does seem crucial to the defender so I get where you're coming from, but this doesn't seem to quite pull it off.

Offense

At ranges 2-3, with a focus:

Vader gets 2.83 hits average, with breakdown {0: 0.0, 1: 0.02, 2: 0.14, 3: 0.84}, assuming only one reroll from predator.

Vessery gets 2.81 hits average, with breakdown {0: 0.0, 1: 0.01, 2: 0.16, 3: 0.82}.

At range 1, with a focus:

Vader gets 3.68 hits average, with breakdown {0: 0.0, 1: 0.0, 2: 0.05, 3: 0.21, 4: 0.74}, assuming only one reroll from predator.

Vessery gets 3.75 hits average, with breakdown {0: 0.0, 1: 0.0, 2: 0.02, 3: 0.21, 4: 0.77}.

Those are very close (a one-action tax to activate, etc.), but the always-crit from Vader tips the scales, I think. The fact that Vessery essentially loses his pilot ability when he's the last one on the board seals it.

Advantage: Vader

Defensive Stats

Vessery has an extra shield. In a vacuum, that's a pretty big deal, but we'll come back to this below in Action Bar.

Advantage: Vessery

Action Bar

Focus+evade is almost always better on defense than focus+focus, and in the common case it's so much better than I think it offsets the Defender's extra shield.

Advantage: Vader

So yeah, on the turns where Vader has to turtle it's nice to have the option to Focus/Evade. But more often you'd probably prefer to have a Focus available on defence AND attack, which Vader can't do.

Also, I think you're underestimating how much it hurts to be giving up one of your actions to establish / switch your target lock to make ATC work against a lot of lists. ATC is really strong but that loss of flexibility / increase in predictability is a real drawback.

Title: TIE Defender

Every time you hit during an attack, immediately destroy that ship.

Each time you destroy a ship, move as if executing maneuver on dial and preform another attack.

Why do people like you even bother posting? Do you seriously think of that as a fix?

It's fairly effective satire, isn't it? Reading any thread about the Defender always gives me the impression that a small but vocal minority genuinely wants GrimmyV's fix.

I'm not a fan of the free focus idea.

I don't want the Defender to simply be more effective, I also want it to be more fun and interesting.

Title: TIE Defender

Every time you hit during an attack, immediately destroy that ship.

Each time you destroy a ship, move as if executing maneuver on dial and preform another attack.

Why do people like you even bother posting? Do you seriously think of that as a fix?

It's fairly effective satire, isn't it? Reading any thread about the Defender always gives me the impression that a small but vocal minority genuinely wants GrimmyV's fix.

I think you're reading far more into those threads posts than are actually there.

As a fan of the TIE Defender, I would like it to be a competitive choice, and the poor jousting value, lack of post movement tricks and low representation at high level events suggest that it needs some help.

I like these threads, there are some genuinely interesting game ideas. Keep them coming.

I'm not a fan of the free focus idea.

I don't want the Defender to simply be more effective, I also want it to be more fun and interesting.

This one is dedicated to you:

Tie Defender only, Title

"After executing a maneuver you may rotate your ship by 360°"

...

Fun and interesting enough?

I'm not a fan of the free focus idea.

I don't want the Defender to simply be more effective, I also want it to be more fun and interesting.

This one is dedicated to you:

Tie Defender only, Title

"After executing a maneuver you may rotate your ship by 360°"

...

Fun and interesting enough?

What's your problem dude?

I find the Defender both fun and interesting. That's my opinion, though, but such things are difficult to quantify. Jousting value and mobility are easier to define.

I think it's plenty interesting.

In fact, I feel that part of its problem was that it was too interesting.

If what they were gunning for was a 30pt uber-B-wing, the super-funky dial distracted them from giving the Imperials a vicious bruiser in the name of a gimmick ship... which unlike the phantom, didn't quite manage the 'gimmick' part.

If it'd been closer to the Agressor ended up, I honestly think I'd have been happier - awesome (if not utterly bonkers) dial would've been fine attached to an expensive but potent frame with lots of upgrade space, y'know? The imperials have /plenty/ of phenomenally talented sneaky tricky ships in the 30-something range. They're still looking for a bruiser that isn't a TIE swarmlet. Granted, a TIE swarm does make for some pretty good bruisin'...

I find the Defender both fun and interesting. That's my opinion, though, but such things are difficult to quantify. Jousting value and mobility are easier to define.

I'm just curious why you find the TIE Defender fun and interesting. It's my favourite ship in Star Wars EU and I rarely play it because I'm not a great fan of flying up and down the board in a straight line. Sure, I can take turns, but then my opponent can predict my next 2 to 3 moves with fair ease.

...Reading any thread about the Defender always gives me the impression that a small but vocal minority genuinely wants GrimmyV's fix.

I think you're reading far more into those threads posts than are actually there.

Look at DarthEnder's fixes, as outlined upthread:

Nope. The correct solution is still this combined with this and this.

He thinks the Defender needs +2 shields, boost, evade, the sensor slot, and a double-tap, all at the same time. And then there are these suggestions, from the "Hypothetical: what if the Defender had boost?" thread:

'Onyx Squadron Elite'

Title - TIE Defender Only

0pts

If your Pilot Skill is "5" or lower, increase your Pilot Skill by 2, and your upgrade bar gains one EPT icon.

After executing a green manoeuvre, you may recover 1 shield.

Modification

Reduce the point cost of secondary weapons by 2 points

"After performing a white or green maneuver, you may immediately perform an attack with one secondary weapon."

...oh, and yea, give them boost for the love of the Emperor.

I have yet to see any thread on Defenders that doesn't include at least one person with an outlandishly broken personal fix.

Hey, none of those cards are broken if costed correctly. That's why none of mine have costs.

The Defender should have the shields of a B-Wing. The maneuvering options of an Interceptor. And the ability to carry Ion Cannons and a Tractor Beam at the same time.

And all ships should have the ability to fire their ion cannons and lasers together.

It's up to FFG to figure out what cost you would have to give those things to make them balanced.

Hey, none of those cards are broken if costed correctly. That's why none of mine have costs.

The Defender should have the shields of a B-Wing. The maneuvering options of an Interceptor. And the ability to carry Ion Cannons and a Tractor Beam at the same time.

And all ships should have the ability to fire their ion cannons and lasers together.

It's up to FFG to figure out what cost you would have to give those things to make them balanced.

Well, what you're outlining is like Corran, but better. Corran costs 35, with one less hull. So bump up the hull and he goes up...I dunno, some points. Add on another two shields, there are some more points. Now eliminate the downside of his double tap, that should be a bunch of points.

And so okay, you can have your super defender, if you don't mind it costing as much as (more than?) a loaded RAC.

And so okay, you can have your super defender, if you don't mind it costing as much as (more than?) a loaded RAC.

And I don't. It's the most powerful starfighter in the galaxy. It should perform as such. And then be costed to balance.

And so okay, you can have your super defender, if you don't mind it costing as much as (more than?) a loaded RAC.

And I don't. It's the most powerful starfighter in the galaxy. It should perform as such. And then be costed to balance.

I'd rather have a ship with interesting pros and cons than a boring super-ship.

I find the Defender both fun and interesting. That's my opinion, though, but such things are difficult to quantify. Jousting value and mobility are easier to define.

I'm just curious why you find the TIE Defender fun and interesting. It's my favourite ship in Star Wars EU and I rarely play it because I'm not a great fan of flying up and down the board in a straight line. Sure, I can take turns, but then my opponent can predict my next 2 to 3 moves with fair ease.

It's fun, to me, because it's a fast, maneuverable Cannon carrier, and there just aren't many of those in the game. It's also rewards risk taking, thanks to its 3 Green dice, but gives you a little leeway to take risks because of a pretty sizable hit point total. With an HLC you can just overwhelm defenses, and I find it fun to zoom in, take shots, and then zoom away before K-turning to repeat the process.

It's interesting, to me, because it's a ship that isn't reactive (except for the modest but quite useful Barrel Roll), but proactive. You do well with it by planning a few turns in advance and using asteroids to break up formations and deny access to large ships. It has potent, but not efficient, jousting ability, so you use its dial to set up advantageous positions. You try and make the other player respond to you, and you use the board to work the other player's ships into positions where they can't respond very well. That's interesting to me. Almost none of my games involve flying back and forth in a straight line, that is until the end, when it's one on one, and the Defender is just mopping up. I flank, I attack through asteroid fields, I dodge arcs in close with the Barrel Roll, I intentionally bump to deny shots, I try and avoid K-turn traps when my opponent is expecting me to K-turn.

And so okay, you can have your super defender, if you don't mind it costing as much as (more than?) a loaded RAC.

And I don't. It's the most powerful starfighter in the galaxy. It should perform as such. And then be costed to balance.

Yeah, well you know, that's just like, your opinion, man.

I'd rather have a ship with interesting pros and cons than a boring super-ship.

Well then buddy, you're in luck! Because the game is full of such ships!

Since Blade Mercurial was kind enough to give us a bit of playtest data, it seems that a flat out free focus token (no exceptions no limits) is a bit much, but very much in the right direction. Figuring out the proper limits for it will give a fix for every defender.

We specifically do NOT want to take the easy option (make it a free focus action, and so deny it on stress or on regular focus actions)

Making it fail when ionized would add a specific counterplay, but it may be too specific.

The Defenders white Kturn is still it's most notable feature.

How about this?

At the start of the combat phase, gain a focus token if you have an enemy in your arc at range 3 or less.

So it only works if you've got a shot, however flimsy, but a Delta can still use it on defence. Ion weapons make it easy to arcdodge, and stress forces you to pick between keeping them in arc or clearing stress for a normal action. Bumping doesnt stop it, but adding a clause to do so is just more words- it's a lever we can pull if this is still too powerful.

Since Blade Mercurial was kind enough to give us a bit of playtest data, it seems that a flat out free focus token (no exceptions no limits) is a bit much, but very much in the right direction. Figuring out the proper limits for it will give a fix for every defender.

I think it needs to be adjusted downward substantially, but it's an interesting start.

One problem here is that you're considering each of these in isolation, and I think it's making you underestimate the value of the second Focus token. You're declaring that Focus+Evade is better than Focus+Focus on defence (which obviously it is) while simultaneously assuming that Vader's spending a Focus on his attack to keep pace with the Defender's offensive output.

So yeah, on the turns where Vader has to turtle it's nice to have the option to Focus/Evade. But more often you'd probably prefer to have a Focus available on defence AND attack, which Vader can't do.

That's an interesting point. I'm curious how big of a gap we're talking about, so let's maths:

Here are the rounded distributions of results from three defense dice. E=natural evade, e=evade from focus, f=focus, x=blank, with the totals and running advantage for evade listed (comparing having one of either token type):

EEE  5%
EEf 11%
EEx 16%
Eff  7%
Efx 21%
Exx 16%
fff  2%
ffx  7%
fxx 11%
xxx  5%

total evade focus diff
4:     5%    0%   + 5%
3:    27%   25%   + 7%
2:    44%   44%   + 7%
1:    25%   27%   + 5%
0:     0%    5%   + 0%

Also note that Vader's less likely to need to spend his focus on attack, since he's rolling fewer dice.

Also, I think you're underestimating how much it hurts to be giving up one of your actions to establish / switch your target lock to make ATC work against a lot of lists. ATC is really strong but that loss of flexibility / increase in predictability is a real drawback.

Vessery suffers similarly. Yes, a bomber or TIE/fo (or Vader) is the one that needs to set up the TL, but there's still an action tax involved. I suppose there's the setup where you have multiple target painters for Vessery, which is something that Vader can't have.

"Well, hell, it's Vader. If anyone was going to be underpriced, at least it's him, right?"

That's a good point.

Since Blade Mercurial was kind enough to give us a bit of playtest data, it seems that a flat out free focus token (no exceptions no limits) is a bit much, but very much in the right direction. Figuring out the proper limits for it will give a fix for every defender.

We specifically do NOT want to take the easy option (make it a free focus action, and so deny it on stress or on regular focus actions)

Making it fail when ionized would add a specific counterplay, but it may be too specific.

The Defenders white Kturn is still it's most notable feature.

How about this?

At the start of the combat phase, gain a focus token if you have an enemy in your arc at range 3 or less.

So it only works if you've got a shot, however flimsy, but a Delta can still use it on defence. Ion weapons make it easy to arcdodge, and stress forces you to pick between keeping them in arc or clearing stress for a normal action. Bumping doesnt stop it, but adding a clause to do so is just more words- it's a lever we can pull if this is still too powerful.

There's also the converse, where the Defender gets a focus token if it's in-arc of someone. That would make it weak to turrets, but not allow TL+focus ion-walking, and would still allow a defensive focus on a turn where the Defender(s) bugged out to regroup. It also emphasizes the defensive nature of the buff, which is where I think the Defender needs the most help.

There is also the aspect that you'd have to / get to measure ranges and arcs at the start of combat. Not sure how I feel about that one.

Other options:

"At the start of combat, if an enemy ship is at r1-2, you may assign this ship a focus token."

"At the start of combat, if another friendly ship is at r1-2, you may assign this ship a focus token."

"Once per round, after resolving an attack against you, you may assign this ship a focus token."

I'm liking the focus-if-in-arc. It helps their straight-up Jousting value, and rewards counter-play - not only are you avoiding their fire, you're avoiding giving them tokens to spend on defense.

Better yet, in day to day play with the defender's combos, it makes little difference - if there's nothing in arc, Rexlar doesn't need it anyway.

It might be still too 'easy', but it at least rewards flying spaceships well, and I think that's key to all good fixes, so it feels like it's on the right track.

@ wicked grey "So unless I made a mistake, having an evade is strictly better than a focus when rolling three green dice. That almost certainly changes at 4 dice, but it still feels to me like Vader's the clear winner here. I'm kind of surprised at evade still being better with three green dice; can someone double check my numbers? I suppose it makes sense, since otherwise you'd only evade on 2 AGI ships ever, and most of those don't have the action."

Not so much a mistake as some assumptions. Focus v evade on 3 greens has always been a risk, more possible evades or a guaranteed evade.

Your assumptions are in rolling 3 dice, and in needing to spend the token and a single attack.

Range 3 / behind a rock changes the calculus.

Low p.s will know if they must spend evade for offense or defense

Being attacked twice is like rolling 6 dice (or more with range/cover)

Further evade makes it difficult to one shot a tie fighter with 3 attack, the hp on a defender can withstand being one shot (by 3 dice) this means full health p.s.1 defenders may genuinely prefer the offensive focus in a 1v1 situation with 3 attack. I think focus is better in most early/mid game situations.

It might be still too 'easy', but it at least rewards flying spaceships well, and I think that's key to all good fixes, so it feels like it's on the right track.

The reward for the other player being able to dodge arcs is a good point; I think I'd be sold on your approach if it weren't turning Engine Upgrade into a must-have modification. I've still got some lingering concerns about the TL+focus ion-walk (but that was a consideration in my original idea too).

Not so much a mistake as some assumptions. Focus v evade on 3 greens has always been a risk, more possible evades or a guaranteed evade.

Your assumptions are in rolling 3 dice, and in needing to spend the token and a single attack.

Range 3 / behind a rock changes the calculus.

Low p.s will know if they must spend evade for offense or defense

Being attacked twice is like rolling 6 dice (or more with range/cover)

Further evade makes it difficult to one shot a tie fighter with 3 attack, the hp on a defender can withstand being one shot (by 3 dice) this means full health p.s.1 defenders may genuinely prefer the offensive focus in a 1v1 situation with 3 attack. I think focus is better in most early/mid game situations.

Well, no, by my math, when ignoring offense, an evade is strictly better than a focus when looking at the probability of getting a certain number of evades on three dice.

As you note, obstacles and r3 primary shots change the math, as does being able to spend the un-used defensive focus on offense, but the situation being examined was if focus-focus or focus-evade was better for defense, assuming that the focus would be spent on offense.

It's possible that I'm missing your point, though. I'd love to see some probability tables that illustrate what you're saying.