You think we will ever see Phantoms and Defenders in Armada?

I honestly don't know if we will or not...

For the most part, my personal belief is:

Not without some sort of Canon indication that they even exist anymore...

We can't look to X-Wing for Precedence, we need to look at what is in Canon now and Canon moving forward. if they were re-introduced at some point, most certainly, but having to rely on the old EU... I don't see it. Even if we do, they'll be in the context of a new Canon, rather that exactly as we saw previously.

The same could be said for Thrawn. I really want Thrawn, after his exposure to me in the Zahn Novels (where my view is restricted) - I really liked that. But even I admit that, even if he were to be Introduced (which is a parrallel to the Garm Bel Iblis we already have), then its entirely possible that he will only be the shell of the Character Archtype rather than be attached to all of his background.

You think we will ever see Phantoms and Defenders in Armada?

I think we will, though I hope we don't as yet another "full squadron tree" type playing piece.

I'm not sure why, but I don't see them (especially not phantoms) being deployed in full homogenous squadrons that go out on assault or counter-attack style activations. I see them both being used as both heavy weapons type attachments to other squadrons. For example, in the USMC, a weapons company does not go on deployment in and of themselves as a single cohesive unit. The weapons' platoons which make up that weapons company typically get attached to other rifle companies in that battalion for heavy weapons support, rationing out heavy machine guns, AT guns, mortars, TOW missiles, etc, as the rifle platoon commanders have need for and according to the battlaion commanders' mission objectives.

-Defenders I would include as an upgrade ship type to a basic tie squadron. It would essentially be a modification to the squadron. Ex, a Defender would replace a tie model and do the following:

*ignore the first point of damage that this squadron receives.

*when attacking an enemy squadron, replace 1 blue die with a black die.

*you can ignore the "Escort" keyword of squadrons you are engaged with.

-Phantoms should be recon type/sabotage missions.

I've added the Rare keyword to KDY. As I said, it is up to Wes if he wants to use Rare instead of Limited for his interpretation of the Phantom, Avenger, and Defender - maybe you can ask him, or you can create your own version .

OMG, so I just walked to lunch and was thinking about this.

Yes, I've got it. Here's what Defenders and E-Wings (if they ever get done), or some such squadron type needs to do.

Multi-role flexibility! In addition to being cool, it stakes out its own part of the meta.

Essentially, you pay for the squadron, but it has 2 possible deployments (one on the front and one the back side of each card). You don't have to determine what type of squadron you want until you deploy it!

So, for example, imagine a Tie Defender at 16 points. You get one of the following 2 options when you deploy:

Tie Defender Type 1.

Speed: 5, Hull: 5, SqdAtt: 2 black, 2 blue. ShipAtt: 1 blue.

Counter: 1, Swarm

Versatile: when you deploy, you may use either the front of back of this card.

Tie Defender Type 2.

Speed: 5, Hull 5, Sqd Attack: 4 blue. Ship Att: 1 red

Bomber, Grit

Versatile: when you deploy, you may use either the front of back of this card.

Its a cool idea.

The only thing I don't like about it is attaching it to generic squadrons, where you have multiple squadrons all doing the one thing... With no actual flexibility in-game

Whereas, I could see this as a "Unique" Squadron, where you have One Card Per Squadron deal going on...

The Generics are just basic multirole compromises... But theUniques have the ability to shine either direction, and you throw that choice at Deployment.

Its a cool idea.

The only thing I don't like about it is attaching it to generic squadrons, where you have multiple squadrons all doing the one thing... With no actual flexibility in-game

Whereas, I could see this as a "Unique" Squadron, where you have One Card Per Squadron deal going on...

The Generics are just basic multirole compromises... But theUniques have the ability to shine either direction, and you throw that choice at Deployment.

Ah...I see what you are saying. If you pay for, for example, 3 Tie Defender squadrons, you still have to use all 3 of them as either type 1 or type 2? I don't see why you are necessarily limited to that though, unless you only have 1 copy of each card. The "blister" pack could easily come with enough cards for different things. You would also get a total of 4 squadron "tokens". one with Brath type 1, and generic type 1 on the back, the other with Brath type 2, and generic type 2 on the back, and the other 2 would have type 1 on front and type 2 on back.

I just had another thought about using Rare.

Suppose, for a moment, that the TIE Phantom has Rare 4. This means you would need 4 non-rare fighters in your fleet before you can take a TIE Phantom.

Now suppose for a moment that I wanted to by silly and only have 1 fighter in my list - a TIE Phantom. I can't do it, suddenly because I haven't spent 36 more points to get TIE Fighters.

What if we make it relative to your total point value?

Rare 10: You can spend no more than 10% of your fleet total on squadrons of this type.

that's potentially a lot of math, though (but at least it has the virtue of being up front) and the way that KDY works would mean that I could only do a few variants (Rare 5, Rare 10, Rare 15, Rare 20).

I just had another thought about using Rare.

Suppose, for a moment, that the TIE Phantom has Rare 4. This means you would need 4 non-rare fighters in your fleet before you can take a TIE Phantom.

Now suppose for a moment that I wanted to by silly and only have 1 fighter in my list - a TIE Phantom. I can't do it, suddenly because I haven't spent 36 more points to get TIE Fighters.

What if we make it relative to your total point value?

Rare 10: You can spend no more than 10% of your fleet total on squadrons of this type.

that's potentially a lot of math, though (but at least it has the virtue of being up front) and the way that KDY works would mean that I could only do a few variants (Rare 5, Rare 10, Rare 15, Rare 20).

I like the "Rare x" (where x is a number of basic ties you would need to field).

Its a cool idea.

The only thing I don't like about it is attaching it to generic squadrons, where you have multiple squadrons all doing the one thing... With no actual flexibility in-game

Whereas, I could see this as a "Unique" Squadron, where you have One Card Per Squadron deal going on...

The Generics are just basic multirole compromises... But theUniques have the ability to shine either direction, and you throw that choice at Deployment.

Ah...I see what you are saying. If you pay for, for example, 3 Tie Defender squadrons, you still have to use all 3 of them as either type 1 or type 2? I don't see why you are necessarily limited to that though, unless you only have 1 copy of each card. The "blister" pack could easily come with enough cards for different things. You would also get a total of 4 squadron "tokens". one with Brath type 1, and generic type 1 on the back, the other with Brath type 2, and generic type 2 on the back, and the other 2 would have type 1 on front and type 2 on back.

... because this follows on my point previously as Backwards Rules Compatible.

The Standard Rules state that, for General (non-unique) Squadrons, you use only one copy of the card for all of those Squadrons.

If you're going to make an Exception to the Standard Rules. Make it Exceptional.

The trouble with the double-token side of things, is you're basically disassembling and reassembling squadrons at deployment, which adds a further layer of complexity to the game - and adds more time. Increases Breakages... That sort of thing.

Not saying its wrong, I just feel that the added complexity - in how you designate 1 vs 2, either all or nothing, etc... Is just a little too much for the benefit.

I mean, if it came out, I'd be happy with "All Defender Squadrons are Type 1, or Type 2, at deployment"... But I'd certainly want to have a Unique or Two that I could flip the other way

@FoaS

So long as the final one is somehow scalable to differing point values, I feel we've taken everyone we can into account

My point was that if you need to limit a ship to X per fleet, there might be a balancing problem with it. And in this case, I think that's true because the **** thing is just too good. ^^

I do follow your logic, and I'm not opposed to seeing versions that don't use the limited or rare keywords, but I think it does work as a balance and lore friendly way to do it. Just my £0.02 mind you.

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.

Okay. I'm still not sure I agree, but thanks for getting back to me.

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

Same here, I am thinking about buying a set and just placing them on the Tie Advanced base and use them as a Tie Advanced. True it defeats the purpose. But they look so much better

Okay, so some of this has gotten me thinking. There have been many good points made, and I have kind of combined a few of them.

For one, why couldn't you require that the more advanced TIE's be deployed from certain class of ships? It certainly doesn't make sense, fluff wise, to put the most advanced, limited in production fighters on something like a backwater patrol ship. Yes, this ties your hands into including an IMP 2 in your build (for example, who knows what's still coming) but Elite units don't get based off regular warships for day to day assignments.

Also, I agree that exceptions should be for exceptional units, but also like the multi-role flexibility. So, here's this idea: What if you give the TIE Defender the "Refit" ability? Allow them to take a turn to "land" on their base ship, turn your card over to a new payload, and then return them combat in this new role. I think ideally this would be a better ability for an actual carrier ("Units within range 1 with the Refit ability may be reassigned payloads. These units may not perform other actions this turn?"), but since we don't have those (yet?) just use what we have. I agree it's a bit rushed and simplistic, but I also think it's unreasonable to expect a refit to use up turns in a game only six turns long. Granted, the point value for the Defender would have to be the same in either load out, but it might add an interesting flexibility to the game?

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

Same here, I am thinking about buying a set and just placing them on the Tie Advanced base and use them as a Tie Advanced. True it defeats the purpose. But they look so much better

It makes more sense to have the advanced as defenders...they made more defenders over like...12 advanced right?

On the topic of Imperial-aligned squadrons that we may see in the distant future:

The Nssis-class Clawcraft is quite possibly the coolest looking fighter in the Star Wars universe, in my opinion. While not strictly Imperial, they may be hurting for squadrons to use in the game if/when the game gets to wave 6 or 7. I would assume the Clawcraft would serve a generalist role as a slightly more expensive, slightly stronger TIE Fighter. It could also carry the rare trait as suggested for some of the other squadrons in this topic.

(I tried to place an image here but the image extension isn't the proper one. What is the proper image extension for this forum?)

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

Same here, I am thinking about buying a set and just placing them on the Tie Advanced base and use them as a Tie Advanced. True it defeats the purpose. But they look so much better

It makes more sense to have the advanced as defenders...they made more defenders over like...12 advanced right?

Talked with the guy I play with here in Japan (Military Base and it is only us that plays) he agreed to my changing the Squads from Tie Advanced look to the Tie Defender. So I ordered my Tie Defenders

I too use Tie-defender models as my Tie-advanced. Okey technically they should have higher stats than the base advanced has, but you could remedy that by using Vader. Imho Vader makes the near perfect Tie-defender squadron, it's the most versatile and 'best' squadron you can buy, but its so bloody expensive you almost can buy half a gladiator for it.

I too use Tie-defender models as my Tie-advanced. Okey technically they should have higher stats than the base advanced has, but you could remedy that by using Vader. Imho Vader makes the near perfect Tie-defender squadron, it's the most versatile and 'best' squadron you can buy, but its so bloody expensive you almost can buy half a gladiator for it.

but man does the dark lord look dope on the table top....

Just adding an addendum to what Dscipio said earlier: the numbers and relative power of the Avenger vs. Defender depends on what you use as a source. In the Tie Fighter game, the Defender is far better than the Avenger: with double the shields (200 vs. 100), almost twenty percent more manoeuvrable (175 DPF vs. 150), a faster base speed (155, MGLT, faster than an Interceptor or an A-wing) and the Ion cannon system, in addition to matching hull values. It was toned down in later iterations and initially left out of X-wing vs. Tie fighter because it was 'unbalanced'. It's an OP ship, and at least in Armada, it can be priced that way and still used to its original hideous effect.

I kind of like Wes's version's base stats, but I'm almost tempted to say 'leave out Bomber and add Grit”. After toying around with the version in Tie fighter and Alliance, they really are a sort of heavy escort/superiority craft. I do like the 'Strike' keyword.

With Rare vs. Limited I prefer Limited because I can say 'in epic/campaign mode, double your Limited value for games exceeding 400 points”. That scales it for most purposes. Assuming the existing Limited 4, that would give you the potential for 9 Tie D (8 basic +1 unique), for a total of 150 pts instead of the maximum of 86 points in standard play.

Plus, if you want to have fun with it, you could always had some ship officer upgrade unique to the tune of "Admiral Zaarin: Any craft with Limited may add 2 to their value". And now you got your special strike squadron with an additional 'OP tax'.

The later Rare would be harsh if I wanted to use a flight group/squadron of just 2 Defenders and Rexler. Assuming we use Rare 2, that would require an additional 6 Tie Ln minimum, or 102 points total. That's a minimum 1:1 point tax just to unlock access to the squadrons I want. As an anecdotal counterpoint: Zaarin used a lot of Defender and Avengers but only a few hyperdrive/shield modded Tie Ln and bombers.

Now the question is, “do I need 2, 3, or 5 Defenders?” No comment on Phantoms. I'm curious as to what people think, but I never exactly liked those things.

Hey Vykes,

After a short conversation with Dras, we ended up changing how Rare works. Rare X reads as "You cannot spend more than X% of your total squadron point allowance on squadrons of this type, including upgrades."

I'll use "Rare 30" for the following example. Let's say you're running a 400 point game, this means you cannot spend more than 41 points on that squadron. ((400 / 3) * 0.30). For a thousand point game "Rare 30" gives you 101 points to work with.

So, its much more like Limited now, except that it scales with your point allowance, instead of being an absolute value. The 1-to-X ratio just wasn't working.

Aye mate, I did see it I just... am not sure what to make of it yet. Part of that is just the way that it appears as a big value next to something else. You know. Counter 2, Rare 45, Bomber. It's mechanically fine but looks a little wonky. Petty, I know, but petty is my middle name: Vykes Petty L'Esquire.

Still love to see a unique officer that could change that, but I ain't gots no bleedin' clue 'ow to price somethin' like dat!

I actually agree on the large numbers, but I only have one elegant solution to it.

Using fighter allowance as reference

Rare 20: 20% of 134 (27 points)

Rare 30: 30% of 134 (41 points)

Rare 40: 40% of 134 (54 points)

Rare 50: 50% of 134 (67 points)

vs

Using total allowance as reference

Rare 5: 5% of 400 (20 points)

Rare 10: 10% of 400 (40 points)

Rare 15: 15% of 500 (60 points)

Rare 20: 20% of 500 (80 points)