I personally like the percentile system based on total numbers. It drives the numbers down and makes it seem a little more in proportion without resorting to a percentage of a ratio. While I'm good with it because of other miniature games, is it intuitive for others? I don't mean any insinuation behind that either, I'm seriously asking everyone on this: would percentage of total points work better or worse intuitively than percentage of fighters?

My only other question is how does it feel, and do we have something to go on? Limited 4 is approximately 64 points of TIE D (just using them for an example) which is ~16% of fleet total or ~48% of the squadron total. Do we find that that is the right number? (I can see Rare 15, it still 'sounds' high but it is certainly better than Rare 50).

I did the math for both versions earlier in the thread, but I'll redo and post them side by side in the morning for comparison's sake.

My personal take on defenders

Defenders get Elite, but not named pilots?

No.

This is a 23 point squadron.

I realize this is all a bunch of fan-made cards, but maybe it would be best to start with the basic preposition of avoiding giving squadrons special rules until the card runs out of space.

I realize this is all a bunch of fan-made cards, but maybe it would be best to start with the basic preposition of avoiding giving squadrons special rules until the card runs out of space.

If he shrunk the font down I'm sure he could add in "Rogue".

Lurtz, compare it to the Aggressor. For a 1point increase and the loss of rogue you gain +2 speed, +1 counter, strike, elite, and bomber. The fickle red battery armament is offset by the elite keyword, so there is no way I would take any other squadron except for Rhymer and Dengar.

I also dont think that limit or rare offsets any OPness. 9/10 times you would just include the max number of limited or rare squadrons you are allowed to field, but that does nothing to counter the OPness at all. Being able to take only 4/6/x Defenders is not a drawback as long as they perform substantially better than their point tag would indicate. Stuff needs to be pricey to be balanced.

Lurtz, compare it to the Aggressor. For a 1point increase and the loss of rogue you gain +2 speed, +1 counter, strike, elite, and bomber. The fickle red battery armament is offset by the elite keyword, so there is no way I would take any other squadron except for Rhymer and Dengar.

I also dont think that limit or rare offsets any OPness. 9/10 times you would just include the max number of limited or rare squadrons you are allowed to field, but that does nothing to counter the OPness at all. Being able to take only 4/6/x Defenders is not a drawback as long as they perform substantially better than their point tag would indicate. Stuff needs to be pricey to be balanced.

That "Elite" ability... have you really considered how effective it can be? 4 blue dice...with a re-roll, automatically, will let you blast about 3 damage per attack. Counter 2....with a reroll...1.5 damage per counter. Bomber...with a reroll...pretty much always hitting with red dice. Sometimes for 2. Strike means you cannot force him in anyway. Combined with the already good imperial synergies (Swarm, Howlrunner, and Flight Controllers) So Howlrunner and Flight Controllers = 6 blue dice with rerolls (on basic attack). Dengar and Howlie = 4 blue counter dice + reroll, all sitting on top of 5 health and 5 speed, and deployed against anyone he wants because...well, no escorting allowed.

I also dont think that limit or rare offsets any OPness. 9/10 times you would just include the max number of limited or rare squadrons you are allowed to field, but that does nothing to counter the OPness at all. Being able to take only 4/6/x Defenders is not a drawback as long as they perform substantially better than their point tag would indicate. Stuff needs to be pricey to be balanced.

This is my beef with this limited/rare concept, at its core. It feels like a clunky mechanic that doesn't fix the problem it's trying to get at--limiting how OP an OP fighter is. I wasn't privy to the reasoning behind the concept's original genesis, so maybe there's good reasoning behind it that I'm missing, but that's my take on it.

In my mind, the only good reason for something like this is if you're introducing a mechanic whose power scales exponentially (or at least, more than linearly) with the number of individual units in play. The example that jumps to mind, if anyone has played Smash Up, is this:

This card gets more powerful the more instances of itself are in play. If you introduced a Z-95 that had the ability "Gains +1 blue die for each Z-95 within distance 1," that would be a legitimate candidate for a hard cap that wouldn't be adequately addressed by simply increasing the point cost.

Well I can easily adjust the cost to a higher count. Though I would have to take a look at that, 23 feels maybe 1 or 2 to high on a gut feeling. Though I could be wrong.

But the stats and keywords are all where id want them to me.

It started out with interceptor stats, thus the speed 5 but has shields that make it roughly as durable as x wings thus the 5 hull. It has armaments that are actually in excess to interceptors given its ion battery but I didnt see a great way of modeling that. The red dice and bomber simulate its anti ship capabilities which were at least as impressive as X wings as im given to understand.

Strike simulates its ability to carry rare but effective anti fighter missle armaments. Effectively being able to select and fire at targets while entertaining other threats. Counter 2 is there expressly because the interceptors have it and defenders really are jut beefy interceptors.

And finally Elite is obvious, the requirements for pilots to be accpeted to fly these things were fierce. I do plan on doing named pilots though Roc?

Well I can easily adjust the cost to a higher count. Though I would have to take a look at that, 23 feels maybe 1 or 2 to high on a gut feeling. Though I could be wrong.

But the stats and keywords are all where id want them to me.

It started out with interceptor stats, thus the speed 5 but has shields that make it roughly as durable as x wings thus the 5 hull. It has armaments that are actually in excess to interceptors given its ion battery but I didnt see a great way of modeling that. The red dice and bomber simulate its anti ship capabilities which were at least as impressive as X wings as im given to understand.

Strike simulates its ability to carry rare but effective anti fighter missle armaments. Effectively being able to select and fire at targets while entertaining other threats. Counter 2 is there expressly because the interceptors have it and defenders really are jut beefy interceptors.

And finally Elite is obvious, the requirements for pilots to be accpeted to fly these things were fierce. I do plan on doing named pilots though Roc?

Understood, but you can't entirely base the rules on the fluff. Let's be honest, in a real battle, a couple of CR90's and Neb B's are NO Match for an ISD. But things need to be "jiggered" with for balance and a fun game.

I'd recommend:

-keep "bomber" but change the battery attack to blue.

-getting rid of the "elite" keyword. I understand your fluff reasoning, but if Soontir Fel and Wedge don't have "Elite" (or anything like it) than I don't think these guys should either.

-change counter to "1"

-change "strike" to something like this "If, at the end of your activation you are no longer engaged (presumably because you destroyed an enemy squadron), you may make a battery attack. This attack is made without the benefit of bomber."

Essentially "Strike" allows you a 50-50 follow up shot after you blow up an enemy squadron, while Bomber gives you a 75% chance of pushing 1 damage through.

I think that justifies a 17-18 pt. ship.

I disagree, thats the whole reason for a point system. Im not interested in de buffing the defender to fit it into the game, and you're I do disagree with a few of the stats as given in the vanilla game. the speed of B wings for instance, but those arent hard for me to change. So I assume fluff values and i suppose you could look at this Defender as a fluff Defender if that helps to justify i in your eyes.

Im more interested in what you then think something with those stats/abilities would cost? you said 23 before. Do you still feel that?

I disagree, thats the whole reason for a point system. Im not interested in de buffing the defender to fit it into the game, and you're I do disagree with a few of the stats as given in the vanilla game. the speed of B wings for instance, but those arent hard for me to change. So I assume fluff values and i suppose you could look at this Defender as a fluff Defender if that helps to justify i in your eyes.

Im more interested in what you then think something with those stats/abilities would cost? you said 23 before. Do you still feel that?

You are of cause free to create own cards as you see fit, thats the very essence of homebrewing after all. I agree with Rocmistro in that you have to keep track of the synergies all those key words and stats have with each other to derive a fitting point value. Mind however that some ideas cannot be balanced by pointcosts alone..and if you would like to introduce unique defender squadrons, you should leave some room for their additional abilities, both pointswise and cardspacewise.

Start with 23 points and play some generic squadron enagements, how does the defender perform against vanilla squadrons? Once you have arrived at a point value you might add a point or two as tax, since you tailored the most versatile squadron that can compete with specialist squadrons in their respective field.