With no new squadrons in Wave 3 I have begun brainstorming the stats for the elite imperial Fighter squadrons - TIE Defenders and TIE Phantoms. I am going to list my ideas/wishes for these squadrons below and would like you guys to give some feedback and ideas as well

Note: These are only ideas, not predictions!

Generic TIE Defender Squadron

Speed: 3

Hull points: 5

AA-armament: 4 blue

Battery armament: 1 blue, 1 black

Keywords: Bomber

Point cost: 17

'Rexler Brath' TIE Defender Squadron

Speed: 3

Hull points: 5

AA-armament: 4 blue

Battery armament: 2 black

Keywords: Bomber, Grit

Special ability: While another friendly squadron with 'BOMBER' at distance 1 is attacking a ship, it may add 1 black die to its attack pool.

Defense tokens: Brace, Brace

Point cost: 25

Generic TIE Phantom Squadron

Speed: 4

Hull points: 4

AA-armament: 4 blue

Battery armament: 1 black

Keywords: Cloak

Point cost: 15

'Whisper' TIE Phantom Squadron

Speed: 4

Hull points: 4

AA-armament: 5 blue

Battery armament: 1 black

Keywords: Cloak, Counter 2

Special ability: I have no idea, your turn guys!

Defense tokens: Brace, Scatter

Point cost: 23

What do you think?

I want a named character for the Phantom, personally, but I can't think of whom to put.

Edit: Added Gareth Agamar

I'm not sure why Defenders would only be Speed 3.

Is there some math/formula/conversion from X-Wing dials (or from some lore somewhere) you're using, that puts TIE defenders at Y-Wing speeds?

(And, to clarify, this isn't me being snarky in that internet, fake-interested, sarcastic "Why did you do _______?" way, it's me genuinely wondering how you ended up with Speed 3 for them)

I want a named character for the Phantom, personally, but I can't think of whom to put.Edit: Added Gareth Agamar

https://www.google.com/search?q=x-wing+whisper&oq=x-wing+whisper&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l3.3932j0j4&client=ms-android-att-aio-us&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#imgrc=zMnxOH_Oq9Lo7M%3A

Yup - I changed the name of Gareth Agamar to "Whisper"

I'm not sure why Defenders would only be Speed 3.

Is there some math/formula/conversion from X-Wing dials (or from some lore somewhere) you're using, that puts TIE defenders at Y-Wing speeds?

(And, to clarify, this isn't me being snarky in that internet, fake-interested, sarcastic "Why did you do _______?" way, it's me genuinely wondering how you ended up with Speed 3 for them)

Because of the Corrupter Title Card.

Yes, from a lore viewpoint Defenders should be speed 4 or 5, but I'm guessing that would be game breaking or at least too OP. Think about that: A VSD with Chiraneau, Flight Controllers, Boosted Comms and the Corrupter title would boost them to 5 blue attack dice (or 3 blue, 2 black - I like that armament as posted above) and speed 4. Anything more would be too broken imho.

To be fair, "broken" is in the price, plus, that is why the limit key word was added to the ones on KDY.

I agree that broken is in the price. A good price makes you go, "Yeouch, I could have a couple of this really good unit, or I could have two of a much weaker, but pretty effective unit." I'd be wary as is without a lot of playtesting. New abilities have a way of creating synergies that cannot quite be foreseen at the development stage.

(As an aside, I really like that 'Cloak' keyword. Cleverly thought out as an interesting, but not game-breaking, ability. I'd love to see it on the Ghost.)

Defenders should be the pinnacle of imperial fighters and should be the fastest thing out there. As suggested, if overpowered is a concern limit numbers & make the cost somewhat prohibitive.

Regarding the phantom, I was given to understand that it was not a super fighter like the defender per se, rather it was the cloak that made it outstanding, If not for the cloak would it be much better than the TIE avenger, if at all?

(As an aside, I really like that 'Cloak' keyword. Cleverly thought out as an interesting, but not game-breaking, ability. I'd love to see it on the Ghost.)

You can blame Wes Janson for the cloak keyword (outstanding method of making it feel like a cloak, but keeping the logistics to a minimum, if you ask me).

Defenders should be the pinnacle of imperial fighters and should be the fastest thing out there. As suggested, if overpowered is a concern limit numbers & make the cost somewhat prohibitive.

Regarding the phantom, I was given to understand that it was not a super fighter like the defender per se, rather it was the cloak that made it outstanding, If not for the cloak would it be much better than the TIE avenger, if at all?

well, let's take a look at Wes's TIE Avenger

I feel like if the Phantom didn't have cloak, it would be much worse than the TIE Avenger, which seems to be about where it should sit.

Aye. If you take that Phantom with escort you are overpaying on a tie fighter. If you take without its still a hull three ship which will go down in a Wedge Antilles ball of flame.

I really don't like the idea above of limiting a squadron to only three per fleet. That tells me only that it's imbalanced in its current form and needs a better combination of pros and cons.

Defenders should be the pinnacle of imperial fighters and should be the fastest thing out there. As suggested, if overpowered is a concern limit numbers & make the cost somewhat prohibitive.

Regarding the phantom, I was given to understand that it was not a super fighter like the defender per se, rather it was the cloak that made it outstanding, If not for the cloak would it be much better than the TIE avenger, if at all?

Actually the TIE-Avenger is better than the Defender in some ways.

TIE Avenger: TIE-Defender:

Speed 145 MGLT 144 MGLT

acceleration 16 MGLT/s 21 MGLT/s

Manuverability 150 DPF 110 DPF

Shields 100 SBD 100 SBD

Hull 20 Ru 14 Ru

Hyperdrive Yes Yes

Laser 4 4

Ion - 2

Warhead Capacity 4 Capacity 4

Tractor Optional Optional

So the Defender has slightly better armament and better acceleration, while the Avenger is more agile, a bit faster and better armoured.

I really don't like the idea above of limiting a squadron to only three per fleet. That tells me only that it's imbalanced in its current form and needs a better combination of pros and cons.

I also dont like limited squadrons. They should be expensive and perhaps have a worse point ratio than TIE-Fighters, but why not only see defenders/Avangers/Phantoms. What if somebody wants to play a Zaarin campaign?

I really don't like the idea above of limiting a squadron to only three per fleet. That tells me only that it's imbalanced in its current form and needs a better combination of pros and cons.

Why? This is essentially no different than "unique" title / officer and named squadron cards. Would you argue the same about them?

I really don't like the idea above of limiting a squadron to only three per fleet. That tells me only that it's imbalanced in its current form and needs a better combination of pros and cons.

Why? This is essentially no different than "unique" title / officer and named squadron cards. Would you argue the same about them?

It makes sense that there's only one Han Solo/Millennium Falcon in the universe.

It doesn't make sense that in a 1000 point "for funsies" game you're limited to X squadrons of a certain type, which is exactly the same limit you'd have at 300 points. It's a clumsy mechanic. If you want to represent a certain type of squadron being a rare inclusion, I'd recommend some kind of sliding restriction like...

Rare (Imperial): You are limited to one Rare squadron for every 2 non-Rare TIE squadrons in your fleet.

Pump the Restriction even further by adding "... for every 2 non-rare, non-unique squadrons in your fleet."

I mean, it opens up to let people take R&V instead of basic Fighter/Interceptor/Bomber/Advanced - but also doesn't let Rhymer+Vader/Dengar/Soontir to attempt to Qualify. Which, y;know, a bunch of people would use anyway...

That basic tie defender is just too good for the points in my opinion.

I really don't like the idea above of limiting a squadron to only three per fleet. That tells me only that it's imbalanced in its current form and needs a better combination of pros and cons.

Why? This is essentially no different than "unique" title / officer and named squadron cards. Would you argue the same about them?

It makes sense that there's only one Han Solo/Millennium Falcon in the universe.

It doesn't make sense that in a 1000 point "for funsies" game you're limited to X squadrons of a certain type, which is exactly the same limit you'd have at 300 points. It's a clumsy mechanic. If you want to represent a certain type of squadron being a rare inclusion, I'd recommend some kind of sliding restriction like...

Rare (Imperial): You are limited to one Rare squadron for every 2 non-Rare TIE squadrons in your fleet.

Of course (regarding Han Solo). It also makes sense that elite, expensive, air-superiority fighters are less available than cheap, mass produced swarm fighters. The basic cost difference, (8pts. vs. <whatever>) alone does not reflect this.

To each his own, I suppose, but for me, it doesn't "make sense" nor fit the lore that an Imperial fleet would deploy 8 squadrons of Tie Defenders but not a single basic tie fighter.

EDIT: Yes, the "Rare" property addresses this. Although, I really don't see too much effective difference between this and his "Limited" keyword. They are both basically achieving the same thing.

EDIT: Yes, the "Rare" property addresses this. Although, I really don't see too much effective difference between this and his "Limited" keyword. They are both basically achieving the same thing.

- Scalability. That's the difference.

When you Game Design, you game design with the intention that your design will be solid at a certain value (in this case, 400pt Standard Battles, with 134pts in Squadrons)... But you need to see how that is going to change based on Larger and Smaller Point Values.

A Restriction set for 400pt should be malleable so it gives effectively the same restriction at 600, 800, 1000, et al.

That's why - for example - Squadrons themselves are limited to One Third Your Total Points, rather than "100 points" ... Because a Proportion is Scalable, a Flat-Value is not.

I am okay with adding a Rare X Keyword, but its use on the Defender, Phantom, and Avenger, will be at Wes's discretion as those are his designs.

Rare X: You cannot have more than 1 of this squadron for every X non-rare, non-unique squadrons in your fleet.

Basically, the higher the rare value, the more rare it is. Does this wording work for folks?

In either case, I will be keeping Limited as there are some applications that I have made use of for it that would not work well for Rare, such as my Flight Groups.

EDIT: Yes, the "Rare" property addresses this. Although, I really don't see too much effective difference between this and his "Limited" keyword. They are both basically achieving the same thing.

- Scalability. That's the difference.

When you Game Design, you game design with the intention that your design will be solid at a certain value (in this case, 400pt Standard Battles, with 134pts in Squadrons)... But you need to see how that is going to change based on Larger and Smaller Point Values.

A Restriction set for 400pt should be malleable so it gives effectively the same restriction at 600, 800, 1000, et al.

That's why - for example - Squadrons themselves are limited to One Third Your Total Points, rather than "100 points" ... Because a Proportion is Scalable, a Flat-Value is not.

Understanding that my original rebuttal was toward Discipio, I'm not going to argue against that, Dras. Of course, I absolutely agree with you. My point had more to do with "unique cards" in general, and questioning the paradigm of "only 1 Han Solo".

Sure, there's only 1 (any named person or ship title) in the Galaxy. But let's not pretend that Han Solo alone has the unique ability to move at the beginning of the ship phase. Surely there is some other pilot in the galaxy with a custom ship able to do what he does in game, or some other Nebulon B that is able to convert crits into double hits, etc. Stripped of the fluff, these cards are just unique things which affect the game, but are "so powerful" that the designers intended that there should only be 1 of them ever fielded at a time. 10 Millenium Falcons, in other words (260 pts, or ~1/3 of an 800 pt. list), would break the game. *That* is why the Millenium Falcon's ability is coupled to a single unique squadron card, and not some other powerful squadron that can be fielded in multiple iterations but is otherwise costed appropriately. (And not because "it was SO necessary that they give the Falcon that ability because it fits the lore perfectly, pewpew!!". Likewise for every other unique thing in the game.)

Luke is another great example. Activating 6 Luke Skywalkers (120 pts in standard game), with a squadron command + token + expanded hangar bays from MC80, would single-handedly destroy any ship with 6 or fewer health in a single activation with just about no possible response from the opponent. That's why we don't see Luke's ability on any other card but a unique one. It's not because we ever see Luke do anything even remotely like what's on his unique squadron card. (In the entirety of the OT, if I'm not mistaken, Luke makes exactly 1 battery attack, and its effective not becaues it bypasses shields, but because he's guided by the force.)

TL;DR: Simply because we must limit the game to 1 Luke Skywalker doesn't make his ability unbalanced in and of itself; and don't kid yourself, it's limited to 1 because of mechanical reasons, not fluff reasons.

I want tie defenders so bad....quite possibly my favorite TIE variant of them all....

I also dont like limited squadrons. They should be expensive and perhaps have a worse point ratio than TIE-Fighters, but why not only see defenders/Avangers/Phantoms. What if somebody wants to play a Zaarin campaign?

A Robust Campaign system should have campaign rules that overrwrite Cards in exception to the Golden Rule if need be.

You just include that in your Campaign rules.

That way, you're not breaking things for someone who doesn't want to play in said campaign space.

"While playing the Zaarin Campaign, the limited keyword is ignored for Defenders, Avengers and Phantoms"

I also dont like limited squadrons. They should be expensive and perhaps have a worse point ratio than TIE-Fighters, but why not only see defenders/Avangers/Phantoms. What if somebody wants to play a Zaarin campaign?

A Robust Campaign system should have campaign rules that overrwrite Cards in exception to the Golden Rule if need be.

You just include that in your Campaign rules.

That way, you're not breaking things for someone who doesn't want to play in said campaign space.

"While playing the Zaarin Campaign, the limited keyword is ignored for Defenders, Avengers and Phantoms"

Yup - for my own campaign there is a bonus you can buy that doubles the limited keyword, and another that lets you ignore it all together.