I've been on a Tie Fighter PC kick for a few weeks now, and the Tie Avenger seemed like a good platform for a few buffs for other ships, as well. I'm needing a second ship for a [CCL] Imperial Acepack I'm working on, so making it an "upgrade" of the Tie advanced fits reasonably well with the lore.

22 points (3 points above what a PS2 intercepter would be) for a PS2 Interceptor with 2 shields, a system, no boost, no hard greens, no hard 1s, has Talonrolls, and can pay 5 points for an Autocrit system. And gains a missile slot.

As another reference- Zeta Specialist with Lightened Frame has 1 more shield, a rear arc, red hard 1s, sloop 3s instead of Troll2s and 1 more PS for 3 more points, no access to ATC, and dropping 3 hards to red.

I'm open to price adjustments from -2 to +2 on this. Cant use the baseline TieAdvance for balance because even with X1 only Darth Vader ever gets used.

On any Tie that doesn't have missiles, this is a Targeting computer with a missile slot, and also free guidance chips. If a tie HAS the TL action, it already has a missile slot, and the second missile cost reduction covers the TL surcharge.

And on the Tie Bomber and Tie Punisher, this upgrade lets them go to town with cheap or free bombs missiles, and a torpedo or two. Extra Munitions isnt free, but still a strong value when it's doubling that many cheap upgrades. The point cost is a bit steep, but still a benifit to these ordinance platforms.

Inspired by Armada's "snipe" ability, this can be equipped to the Tie Advance (x1 or Avenger), Lambada, Upsilon, Tie/SF, Tie Punisher, IG88, G1A, Virago Starviper, Bwing, Ewing, Ghost, Uwing, and if my other ace pack gets accepted, anything with my R7 Prototype Astromech upgrade.

Astromech aside, most of these shps are Primary Weapon attackers, and while a 3 or 4 die attack can be a nasty suprise acros the board, against long range +1 green might not be worthwhile- especially since this card locks out FCS.

IG88, Bwing, and TLT Ghost can use this card with "direct fire" secondary weapons . Thy ignore the range die as usual, but not the extra die of "they can get out of the way AFTER you fire"

Tie Advance, Tie SF, Virago, Bwing, Ewing, Ghost and Uwing can all use this with 1 or 2 "homing" secondary weapons. This gives them an accurate alpha strike from beyond normal engageent range, but the limited ammo of munitions prevents the worst issues of "kiting".

The Tie Punisher, meanwhile, has no such limitation. Combined with the above "tie only" munition-cost reduction, the Punisher can engage from out of range for as long as the ammo lasts. It misses out on FCS, or Accuracy Corrector Cluster Missiles, but offers a unique role for a ship that isn't even included in this pack.

New pilots- I stole the art from the last season's Tie Avenger entry.

Designed to work with the Long Range targeting, her ability works at long and VERY long range.

I'm expecting this one to be controversial. It supposed to be a pilot who plays well with free missiles from Launcher Modification, while also being a low PS pilot.

Low PS usually means no EPT, though the Advance actually bucks the trend there. And low PS means that gaining a token AFTER shooting is rather pointless. But post attack shield regen?

It's limited to the number of munitions the Advance can carry, which basically glues the launcher mod to him. And if he gets a good cluster missile shot when he DOESN'T have damage, he loses regen potential. Which creates an interesting dynamic on BOTH sides, IMO.

I gave him a 2 point surcharge for the ability though that's negotiable. Remember that the extra shot title is 2 points, and the decent missiles are 1-2 points each.

The TIE Avenger card seems reasonable compared to the Interceptor as AT and IG are not in play and the other Advanced title is taken out of play. The additional turn actually makes the TIE Avenger *gasp!* agile, however maybe a 1 point cost would be in order. The dual use template setting allows high PS fighters like Vader to pick and choose whether the stress token is worth it after enemy fighters have completed their movement. 3 dice at least partially negates ATC along with being able to spend a TL to modify dice. A 1 point tax shouldn't be that much for all those improvements.

Launcher Modification needs slight tweaking. Obviously have to have the 'minimum of zero' even after all this time to offset the inevitable 'mi meesles caust -1 hurr hurr hurr'. Also, don't think it should apply to beam weapons. What do beam weapons have to do with launchers? You can replace secondary with the missile and torpedo icon for no loss of space. Kinda kills off TC though (not that it was used that much in the first place).

LRT requires either the purchase of an Epic expansion (do we really want to do that to the Advanced twice?) or the inclusion of a range 4 or range 1 measurement tool. Really REALLY needs to be kept limited to the primary firing arc. We don't need the Ghost tapdancing around getting range 4 TLT shots off. Take a large base and put it in the middle of the playing mat then use an epic measuring tool and see how large a bubble range 4 creates. Additionally it kind of defeats the purpose of basing it on 'Snipe' if the sniping is being done on a free wheeling turret that has no real coordination with how the ship is moving.

Sedaya is interesting, almost a watered down ATC with a stress tacked on. Question is could she take the original Title and ATC and get better results than AC as long as she sheds the stress? At that point the only thing you have to worry about is getting a double focus in order to negate having the proxy. Probably will beg to have MKII instead of EU unless she's going to be close to a Wingman.

"Arsenal" raises my eyebrow as you expected. Shield regeneration usually has an opportunity cost associated with it: Fewer red dice, energy, sluggish movement, lost actions, hoarding focus. The only cost for "Arsenal" is to hold off on the Cluster Missiles until he's taken a few hits. That's 4 shields with the upgrade if you use it right. Maybe limit it to once per round?

Morning star needs a rewording unless your intent is to always receive a stress every time she attacks a target beyond range 2 regardless if she changes a result or not. The last line should read along the line of "if you do, receive a stress token.".

Arsenal doesn't seem to bad since it is a limited shield regeneration that you have a few tricks to go through. Also would have to pay "extra" in order for his ability to even work It seems fine to me and hardly abuseable on a tie advance that isn't vader.

Granted that it would be spendy, but the TIE/AV Avenger title + Advanced Targeting Computer means you're throwing three attack die PLUS a guaranteed crit if you've got a target lock. That seems...excessive to me.

The TIE Avenger card seems reasonable compared to the Interceptor as AT and IG are not in play and the other Advanced title is taken out of play. The additional turn actually makes the TIE Avenger *gasp!* agile, however maybe a 1 point cost would be in order. The dual use template setting allows high PS fighters like Vader to pick and choose whether the stress token is worth it after enemy fighters have completed their movement. 3 dice at least partially negates ATC along with being able to spend a TL to modify dice. A 1 point tax shouldn't be that much for all those improvements.

Launcher Modification needs slight tweaking. Obviously have to have the 'minimum of zero' even after all this time to offset the inevitable 'mi meesles caust -1 hurr hurr hurr'. Also, don't think it should apply to beam weapons. What do beam weapons have to do with launchers? You can replace secondary with the missile and torpedo icon for no loss of space. Kinda kills off TC though (not that it was used that much in the first place).

LRT requires either the purchase of an Epic expansion (do we really want to do that to the Advanced twice?) or the inclusion of a range 4 or range 1 measurement tool. Really REALLY needs to be kept limited to the primary firing arc. We don't need the Ghost tapdancing around getting range 4 TLT shots off. Take a large base and put it in the middle of the playing mat then use an epic measuring tool and see how large a bubble range 4 creates. Additionally it kind of defeats the purpose of basing it on 'Snipe' if the sniping is being done on a free wheeling turret that has no real coordination with how the ship is moving.

Sedaya is interesting, almost a watered down ATC with a stress tacked on. Question is could she take the original Title and ATC and get better results than AC as long as she sheds the stress? At that point the only thing you have to worry about is getting a double focus in order to negate having the proxy. Probably will beg to have MKII instead of EU unless she's going to be close to a Wingman.

"Arsenal" raises my eyebrow as you expected. Shield regeneration usually has an opportunity cost associated with it: Fewer red dice, energy, sluggish movement, lost actions, hoarding focus. The only cost for "Arsenal" is to hold off on the Cluster Missiles until he's taken a few hits. That's 4 shields with the upgrade if you use it right. Maybe limit it to once per round?

1 point for the title, aye.

Launcher modification- there is only 1 tie with a cannon slot, and neither the Tie/D nor the title-less HLC defender see much play. It's a loophole, but one that I see and am OK with.

LRT: this isnt a physical expansion- adding Range 4 to Vassal is a programming issue, not a matter of fitting a template in a box. Limiting it to Firing Arc, but not Primry Firing Arc, means it works fine for cannons and Non-Nera Dantles torpedoes, even from the ghost's or Tie SF's rear arc, but shuts down TLT ghost and potential future non-BTL TLT Ywings (if my other expansion is also voted in)

Sedna+ Avenger+ATC+Mk2 engines+VI runs 35 points, almost as much as a standard Poe build, but is throwing 3 dice plus 2 automatic results, at least at range 3. Balance is going to depend on how the narrow range 3 band is usable in battle.

Arsonal limited to once per round seems reasonable.

I love the avenger title!

I would maybe simplify the missile addition to "TIE only, your upgrade bar gains a (missile) icon and (target lock) and for three points rather than 2 so that targeting computer is still a cheaper option

I'd also not have the long range fire simply because I don't like the idea of non epic ships having range 4-5 attacks, but for epic games it would be awesome

Pilots are brilliant

How about this one - from my experience with x wing and tie fighter so far (all on youtube)

Blind fire: EPT

Your (missile) upgrade cards may become "attack" instead of "attack:target lock" you may not spend a target lock during this attack

I love the avenger title!

I would maybe simplify the missile addition to "TIE only, your upgrade bar gains a (missile) icon and (target lock) and for three points rather than 2 so that targeting computer is still a cheaper option

I'd also not have the long range fire simply because I don't like the idea of non epic ships having range 4-5 attacks, but for epic games it would be awesome

(...)

How about this one - from my experience with x wing and tie fighter so far (all on youtube)

Blind fire: EPT

Your (missile) upgrade cards may become "attack" instead of "attack:target lock" you may not spend a target lock during this attack

These two cards are actually a stealth Tie Punisher buff. Your suggested EPT does nothing for the Tie Punisher because the /Pu has no EPT slot.

Revised cards:

-or-

Hell for a decent punisher upgrade that could see some use elsewhere:

Micro missiles -6 pts missile upgrade

Attack 5: Target lock

Attack one ship at range 1-3

If this attack hits the defender suffers 2 damage

The attack dice for this roll may not be modified

if this attack would be obstructed, cancel all dice results.

Requires target lock, ordinance that is not discarded but cannot be modified and is useless if obstructed by rocks or debris. meant to represent one of those macross missile spams

I love the avenger title!

I would maybe simplify the missile addition to "TIE only, your upgrade bar gains a (missile) icon and (target lock) and for three points rather than 2 so that targeting computer is still a cheaper option

I'd also not have the long range fire simply because I don't like the idea of non epic ships having range 4-5 attacks, but for epic games it would be awesome

(...)

How about this one - from my experience with x wing and tie fighter so far (all on youtube)

Blind fire: EPT

Your (missile) upgrade cards may become "attack" instead of "attack:target lock" you may not spend a target lock during this attack

These two cards are actually a stealth Tie Punisher buff. Your suggested EPT does nothing for the Tie Punisher because the /Pu has no EPT slot.

Revised cards:

-or-

This is golden. The only reason I made mention of the physical templates is that I'd love for FFG to pirate these right out from under you and release them as some kind of Defender of the Empire Expansion which would include 1-2 Avenger figurines. It would release with the Assault Gunboat of course, but these ideas are great on their own.

Didn't the x7 and tie/D get bandied about as CCL ideas before they were released by FFG?

Revised cards:

-or-

This is golden. The only reason I made mention of the physical templates is that I'd love for FFG to pirate these right out from under you and release them as some kind of Defender of the Empire Expansion which would include 1-2 Avenger figurines. It would release with the Assault Gunboat of course, but these ideas are great on their own.

Didn't the x7 and tie/D get bandied about as CCL ideas before they were released by FFG?

Tie/D, but x7 was out of left field, I think. At least as Custom Cards- the CCL is a specific thing that wasnt around then.

Actually, this is going to be "boxed" with a 181st Interceptor , for a "Champions of the Empire" theme.

This title essentially invalidates the existing x/1 title, given that it functionally does the same thing but better, and charging only a single point for a primary weapon upgrade as *well* as all the rest is madness.

I would entirely ditch the first part of the text here, keeping only the Tallon Roll section. That way it's an alternative, rather than a straight upgrade, when compared to the x/1.

The wording should be refined a little too, just for consistency with similar cards:

'When you reveal a 2(HardLeft) or 2(HardRight) maneuever, you may receive one stress token to treat it as the corresponding (LeftTallon) or (RightTallon) maneuver"

This upgrade is trying to do too much in one go, and I think you need to decide whether it's supposed to be an additional 'mini-launcher' bolted on to the ship (as the image seems to suggest), or some kind of modification to existing launch systems such that missiles are made more worthwhile.

For the former:

"Your upgrade bar gains one (Missile) icon and your action bar gains the (TargetLock) action icon. You must equip 1 "Guidance Chips" Upgrade card"

3pts

For the latter:

"The squad points costs of your (Missile), (Torpedo) and (Bomb) upgrades are reduced by 3 (to a minimum of 0)"

2pts

The wording here is quite convoluted for the effect you're trying to create, and I'd be dubious about introducing Range 4 to the standard game particularly for weapons like the Heavy Laser Cannon or Homing Missiles that are already quite potent - doubly so when we consider your previous upgrade.

I'd suggest the following:

Enhanced Tracking (System)

"You may perform (Missile) and (Torpedo) secondary weapon attacks up to Range 4. When attacking at Range 4, the defender rolls one additional defence die"

2pts

Limiting this to missiles and torpedoes removes the need for the 'in arc' clause, as well as preventing permanent Range 4 capabilities (as you would gain with cannons), which I feel would be far too potent. Not being able to take Target Locks at the same range by default prevents practically unavoidable alpha strikes (when you consider how big the Range 3 'band' is, and how much bigger the Range 4 band is), but allows for a long range attack once the TL has been established - rewarding good planning.

I quite like this pilot, she just needs some cleaning up in the wording:

"When attacking, if the target of the attack is beyond Range 2, you may receive one stress token in order to change 1 blank result to a (Hit) result."

While I don't think the callsign matches the ability, I like it because of the self-limitation on it. The most he's ever going to recover at once is 2s, and he can only ever do it a maximum of twice (if the Launcher modification does add a missile slot). With that in mind, I'd be tempted to suggest making the ability stronger rather than weaker:

"After you discard a (Missile) Upgrade card, you may recover 1 shield. You may then recover an additional shield or flip that card faceup"

This way it both expands the original ability and plays into the callsign, while the change in trigger prevents any shenanigans arising from Cluster Missiles having two shots.

Personally, I do not believe that a couple of extra holes in the side panels justifies the inclusion of the Avenger in the game, although presenting it as an option for the TIE Advanced rather than a new ship is certainly an improvement.

That said, I think your upgrades as they stand are too effective and too complex in their wording - look to similar existing abilities for how to phrase certain effects, and try to avoid creating upgrades that entirely supercede old ones.

This title essentially invalidates the existing x/1 title, given that it functionally does the same thing but better, and charging only a single point for a primary weapon upgrade as *well* as all the rest is madness.

I would entirely ditch the first part of the text here, keeping only the Tallon Roll section. That way it's an alternative, rather than a straight upgrade, when compared to the x/1.

The wording should be refined a little too, just for consistency with similar cards:

'When you reveal a 2(HardLeft) or 2(HardRight) maneuever, you may receive one stress token to treat it as the corresponding (LeftTallon) or (RightTallon) maneuver"

As I said when comparing it to the Tie Intercepter and Zeta Specialist, comparisons with the x1 Advance are pointless because the only x1 that is ever actually used is Vader. Giving Vader talonrolls and +1 attack for the cost of an ATC, while good, isnt sufficently overpowering to break the game.

Also, losing the system slot means I cannot include the tie punisher fix.

This upgrade is trying to do too much in one go, and I think you need to decide whether it's supposed to be an additional 'mini-launcher' bolted on to the ship (as the image seems to suggest), or some kind of modification to existing launch systems such that missiles are made more worthwhile.

For the former:

"Your upgrade bar gains one (Missile) icon and your action bar gains the (TargetLock) action icon. You must equip 1 "Guidance Chips" Upgrade card"

3pts

For the latter:

"The squad points costs of your (Missile), (Torpedo) and (Bomb) upgrades are reduced by 3 (to a minimum of 0)"

2pts

It is simotaniously a launcher that can be bolted on to a tie fighter, can expand the capacity and usability of the various 1-missile ties, and a buff to the Tie Bomber and Tie Punisher.

The second version cleans up the wording a bit.

The wording here is quite convoluted for the effect you're trying to create, and I'd be dubious about introducing Range 4 to the standard game particularly for weapons like the Heavy Laser Cannon or Homing Missiles that are already quite potent - doubly so when we consider your previous upgrade.

I'd suggest the following:

Enhanced Tracking (System)

"You may perform (Missile) and (Torpedo) secondary weapon attacks up to Range 4. When attacking at Range 4, the defender rolls one additional defence die"

2pts

Limiting this to missiles and torpedoes removes the need for the 'in arc' clause, as well as preventing permanent Range 4 capabilities (as you would gain with cannons), which I feel would be far too potent. Not being able to take Target Locks at the same range by default prevents practically unavoidable alpha strikes (when you consider how big the Range 3 'band' is, and how much bigger the Range 4 band is), but allows for a long range attack once the TL has been established - rewarding good planning.

The "Target lock from range 4" is nessisary because you'll neverget to use the ability outside epic if it was missiles only AND reqired closing to range 3 to get a TL, then escaping range entirely, THEN getting back in arc. This locks out Fire Control system, too, so you cant even chain missiles, which defeats the purpose of a Punisher buff.

Hows this:

Only applies to Torpedos or missiles, simplifies the long range TL into "equip this other thing". Can only be combined with the lauchers on the Tie Punisher and Tie SF, which arnt exactly tearing up the meta.

However, this change means Sedna's ability goes to crap, because range 3-4 is afr mor useful than range 3 only.

As I said when comparing it to the Tie Intercepter and Zeta Specialist, comparisons with the x1 Advance are pointless because the only x1 that is ever actually used is Vader. Giving Vader talonrolls and +1 attack for the cost of an ATC, while good, isnt sufficently overpowering to break the game.

Also, losing the system slot means I cannot include the tie punisher fix.

Something of a sweeping statement (I've seen and used plenty of the other Advanced pilots in anecdotal experience), but regardless, giving any ship +1 attack and reactive (this is a huge factor, especially for Vader who can be anywhere from PS9-11) Tallon Rolls for a single point is ludicrous, never mind the system slot as well. Taking the same idea as the 'x/1' title and just making a better version is quite poor design. You can still quite happily include the 'Punisher fix' because the Advanced would still have access to the System slot through the original title.

If a ship is going to have multiple available titles, they should each aim to be a viable choice providing different options, not just be practically a straight upgrade of the other.

It is simotaniously a launcher that can be bolted on to a tie fighter, can expand the capacity and usability of the various 1-missile ties, and a buff to the Tie Bomber and Tie Punisher.

The second version cleans up the wording a bit.

That was precisely my point - it's one upgrade trying to do three different things, and I do not see a reason why it should. If you want both a 'bolt-on' launcher and an improvement to missile usability, make two seperate upgrades dedicated to the tasks rather than try to cram it all into one card's text.

The "Target lock from range 4" is nessisary because you'll neverget to use the ability outside epic if it was missiles only AND reqired closing to range 3 to get a TL, then escaping range entirely, THEN getting back in arc. This locks out Fire Control system, too, so you cant even chain missiles, which defeats the purpose of a Punisher buff.

Hows this:

Only applies to Torpedos or missiles, simplifies the long range TL into "equip this other thing". Can only be combined with the lauchers on the Tie Punisher and Tie SF, which arnt exactly tearing up the meta.

However, this change means Sedna's ability goes to crap, because range 3-4 is afr mor useful than range 3 only.

The 'Target Lock from Range 4' part can be acquired with Long Range Scanners - since it's geared towards Punishers (I assume) it seems fair to pay the opportunity cost of your Modification slot to get such an alpha strike, because as I covered before, Range 4 is very large and doubly so on a table half the size of where Range 4 is usually used, so I think extreme care has to be taken when trying to introduce it to the standard game.

As for the setup without LRS, I don't think it's as unlikely as you think. After a munitions-carrying ship has a target lock on you, wouldn't you perhaps try to eliminate the possibility of getting hit by said munitions by trying to escape the weapon range? Fast ships like Defenders, Interceptors, A-Wings, the Lancer, etc. are all very capable of doing that, so having that little extra 'threat range' is a much bigger deal than you are giving it credit.

Your revised version is utterly bonkers - allowing a ship to equip LRS without using up the Modification slot, even if it can't normally equip it, and then giving some of the most powerful secondary weapons infinite range? This allows some truly ridiculous turn 1 alpha strikes, and the game would break in half.

As I said when comparing it to the Tie Intercepter and Zeta Specialist, comparisons with the x1 Advance are pointless because the only x1 that is ever actually used is Vader. Giving Vader talonrolls and +1 attack for the cost of an ATC, while good, isnt sufficently overpowering to break the game.

Also, losing the system slot means I cannot include the tie punisher fix.

Something of a sweeping statement (I've seen and used plenty of the other Advanced pilots in anecdotal experience), but regardless, giving any ship +1 attack and reactive (this is a huge factor, especially for Vader who can be anywhere from PS9-11) Tallon Rolls for a single point is ludicrous, never mind the system slot as well. Taking the same idea as the 'x/1' title and just making a better version is quite poor design. You can still quite happily include the 'Punisher fix' because the Advanced would still have access to the System slot through the original title.

If a ship is going to have multiple available titles, they should each aim to be a viable choice providing different options, not just be practically a straight upgrade of the other.

It is simotaniously a launcher that can be bolted on to a tie fighter, can expand the capacity and usability of the various 1-missile ties, and a buff to the Tie Bomber and Tie Punisher.

The second version cleans up the wording a bit.

That was precisely my point - it's one upgrade trying to do three different things, and I do not see a reason why it should. If you want both a 'bolt-on' launcher and an improvement to missile usability, make two seperate upgrades dedicated to the tasks rather than try to cram it all into one card's text.

The "Target lock from range 4" is nessisary because you'll neverget to use the ability outside epic if it was missiles only AND reqired closing to range 3 to get a TL, then escaping range entirely, THEN getting back in arc. This locks out Fire Control system, too, so you cant even chain missiles, which defeats the purpose of a Punisher buff.

Hows this:

Only applies to Torpedos or missiles, simplifies the long range TL into "equip this other thing". Can only be combined with the lauchers on the Tie Punisher and Tie SF, which arnt exactly tearing up the meta.

However, this change means Sedna's ability goes to crap, because range 3-4 is afr mor useful than range 3 only.

The 'Target Lock from Range 4' part can be acquired with Long Range Scanners - since it's geared towards Punishers (I assume) it seems fair to pay the opportunity cost of your Modification slot to get such an alpha strike, because as I covered before, Range 4 is very large and doubly so on a table half the size of where Range 4 is usually used, so I think extreme care has to be taken when trying to introduce it to the standard game.

As for the setup without LRS, I don't think it's as unlikely as you think. After a munitions-carrying ship has a target lock on you, wouldn't you perhaps try to eliminate the possibility of getting hit by said munitions by trying to escape the weapon range? Fast ships like Defenders, Interceptors, A-Wings, the Lancer, etc. are all very capable of doing that, so having that little extra 'threat range' is a much bigger deal than you are giving it credit.

Your revised version is utterly bonkers - allowing a ship to equip LRS without using up the Modification slot, even if it can't normally equip it, and then giving some of the most powerful secondary weapons infinite range? This allows some truly ridiculous turn 1 alpha strikes, and the game would break in half.

It's too late to buff the x1 to a reasonable level. You still havnt addressed the comparisons to the Tie Intercepter and the Tie SF. I honestly dont care about obsoleting the x1.

One card that does all three is one card that is useful to many ships, not just one. I disagree about breaking it into multiple cards when you need all the effects to get the results intended- taking away multiple customization slots is a problem.

The first version is a bit complicated, which is why I revised it.

I fundamentally disagree about Long Range guidance. I feel we are not going to come to any kind of agrement on this card, so I'm going to stick with the original "primary and secondary weapons" version until someone ELSE has a problem with it. If it means I lose your vote for the Custom Card League, so be it.

It's too late to buff the x1 to a reasonable level. You still havnt addressed the comparisons to the Tie Intercepter and the Tie SF. I honestly dont care about obsoleting the x1.

One card that does all three is one card that is useful to many ships, not just one. I disagree about breaking it into multiple cards when you need all the effects to get the results intended- taking away multiple customization slots is a problem.

The first version is a bit complicated, which is why I revised it

I fundamentally disagree about Long Range guidance. I feel we are not going to come to any kind of agrement on this card, so I'm going to stick with the original "primary and secondary weapons" version until someone ELSE has a problem with it. If it means I lose your vote for the Custom Card League, so be it.

Well, you should care, because regardless of the medium your design process should not be so far removed from FFG's that you'll willingly obsolete the previous title (that was a 'fix' in of itself) just to fit in a ship you happen to like. It's a dreadful example of power creep and I wouldn't want to see it in the game in any form, official or otherwise.

One card that does too much for no good reason is bad design. Why would the tiny little 'bolt-on' launcher suddenly also make missiles more plentiful and accurate? There's no logic to it other than the fact that you want it to be that way, and 2pts is certainly far too little for all the potential effects there.

Cards that are focused in what they are providing, and can use as little text as possible to describe that effect, and/or match up with the 'fluff' are well designed. Yours is not.

My opinion on the matter is not worth less simply because I disagree with you, and I resent the implication that only someone else can verify the flaws I've already pointed out.

Your stubbornness on the last card is not why you lose my vote. You've lost it with your antagonistic, rude attitude and refusal to accept any criticism, and I cannot imagine anyone else viewing the entry will be very disposed towards giving you their vote either, nor will they want to expend effort to assess your work the way I have, because they would be wasting their time.

Posting a CCL entry by it's very nature invities comment and criticism - if you're so violently opposed to that, don't post one.

It's too late to buff the x1 to a reasonable level. You still havnt addressed the comparisons to the Tie Intercepter and the Tie SF. I honestly dont care about obsoleting the x1.

One card that does all three is one card that is useful to many ships, not just one. I disagree about breaking it into multiple cards when you need all the effects to get the results intended- taking away multiple customization slots is a problem.

The first version is a bit complicated, which is why I revised it

I fundamentally disagree about Long Range guidance. I feel we are not going to come to any kind of agrement on this card, so I'm going to stick with the original "primary and secondary weapons" version until someone ELSE has a problem with it. If it means I lose your vote for the Custom Card League, so be it.

Well, you should care, because regardless of the medium your design process should not be so far removed from FFG's that you'll willingly obsolete the previous title (that was a 'fix' in of itself) just to fit in a ship you happen to like. It's a dreadful example of power creep and I wouldn't want to see it in the game in any form, official or otherwise.

One card that does too much for no good reason is bad design. Why would the tiny little 'bolt-on' launcher suddenly also make missiles more plentiful and accurate? There's no logic to it other than the fact that you want it to be that way, and 2pts is certainly far too little for all the potential effects there.

Cards that are focused in what they are providing, and can use as little text as possible to describe that effect, and/or match up with the 'fluff' are well designed. Yours is not.

My opinion on the matter is not worth less simply because I disagree with you, and I resent the implication that only someone else can verify the flaws I've already pointed out.

Your stubbornness on the last card is not why you lose my vote. You've lost it with your antagonistic, rude attitude and refusal to accept any criticism, and I cannot imagine anyone else viewing the entry will be very disposed towards giving you their vote either, nor will they want to expend effort to assess your work the way I have, because they would be wasting their time.

Posting a CCL entry by it's very nature invities comment and criticism - if you're so violently opposed to that, don't post one.

STILL not seeing any discussion of comparison to Tie Intercepter or Tie SF.

Adding missiles to a tie without them IS making missiles more plentiful. 1 is bigger than 0 after all. Since Guidance Chips is the baseline, adding a missile slot without allowing chips is pointless.

As for cost vs cost reduction, that is a debate worth having. it's supposed to be breakeven on single missile ships, an advantage on ships that already have a missile, and a straight out buff to primary munition platforms.

STILL not seeing any discussion of comparison to Tie Intercepter or Tie SF.

Adding missiles to a tie without them IS making missiles more plentiful. 1 is bigger than 0 after all. Since Guidance Chips is the baseline, adding a missile slot without allowing chips is pointless.

As for cost vs cost reduction, that is a debate worth having. it's supposed to be breakeven on single missile ships, an advantage on ships that already have a missile, and a straight out buff to primary munition platforms.

The Interceptor and TIE/SF are irrelevant to the discussion. Your title is far too powerful on it's own - the fact that you also don't care that you are obsoleting an older card is the icing on the power-creep-filling cake.

Do not be glib - you know precisely that I was referring to the 'cheaper munitions' effect of your card.

In any case, the fact you have refused to address the actual points I've made three times means I am finished here. I hope against hope that this ship does not make it into the CCL.

Good day.

A Possibly more appropriate cost/reduction ratio, given the existance to TC and the assumption of missile filling those missile slots. For everyone except the dedicated missile carriers, it's an extra slot and chips, with appropriate actions, for appropriate price. The only thing going on for them is slot-compression.

This is a pretty clear-cut example of power creep.

The initial title seems like confusing design to me. As was already pointed out, it makes the existing title obsolete, which is not good design. Then it adds the third red die, which is an extremely strong bonus. Just look at the 'Punishing One' for how that's been costed in the past (albeit on a large PWT ship). Finally, it adds reactive maneuver changing, an extremely strong ability. All of that for 1 point?

The Launcher to me is even more eye-raising. You make every TIE a better ordinance carrier than anything in any of the other factions. There is absolutely nothing even comparable to this upgrade in the game.

Long Range Targeting is absurd. Infinite range missiles plus free LRS? Open up a whole new range for only one faction of the game, plus in the same pack give them cheaper missiles for all TIEs? This is flat out unfair.

--

These all just make one faction and ship much, much better than anything else available in the game.

It also absolutely negates the factor of opportunity cost from all of them. If the Launcher didn't have the additional bit of allowing Chimps too, then maybe it would not be so egregious because at least you have to make a choice to have it. If the Avenger were a Advanced-only systems upgrade that worked in conjunction with the x1, so instead of the ATC's auto-crit you got an extra dice and the maneuver changing, that would be an interesting choice. Long Range Targeting completely negates the already existing choice of LRS or Chimps, and gives you an absurd ability that breaks the game, so there's no helping that one.

Sedaya and Arsenal both seem fine without the upgrades in this pack.

Yea, I backed down from infinite range missile REAL quick. Please ignore that digression in favor of the "Ewings and Bwings can shoot lasers to range 4" version.

The most recent version of the lanucher is now priced appropriately for everything it gives, with only the isue of it all being compressed in one slot. I wouldnt call it making every tie the best ordinance carrier in the game (though the Tie bomber or punisher may become so)

I'm not sure why people ignore the original x1 title having a -4 point discount attached to it. That's an incredible point swing, and the fact that one of the more popular choices is a 3 point system is an artifact of 2 reds with Accuracy Corrector.

Giving a system slot WITHOUT that discount changes the emphasis from "the best systems, regardless of cost" to "the best value", and opens up some design space for other buffs. The extra red also dillutes the power of accuracy corrector, further separating it from x1.

An extra red with bonuses costs the M3A 6 points (title+mangler) and another one on top if it costs 9 (title+HLC) So the price may be a little low... or the Tie Advance x1 may be worse off than the numbers suggest.

Which is why I repeatedly point to the Tie Intercepter and Tie SF as comparison points.

I know this is a change/update to an existing ship, not a new ship, BUT one of the winners of last season was the Tie Avenger. So maybe send Babaganoosh a message asking if it's still cool.

I know this is a change/update to an existing ship, not a new ship, BUT one of the winners of last season was the Tie Avenger. So maybe send Babaganoosh a message asking if it's still cool.

Mmm, true.

The CCL policy is that you can't submit alternate versions of anything that made it into last season's Vassal extension. (Even if we end up throwing it out before the season 2 vassal extension is made).

This is a bit of a borderline case, since it is not a new ship but instead a title upgrade to an existing ship, but I think that at the end of the day it's a TIE Avenger and we already had a TIE Avenger in season 1.

This expansion should probably be re-skinned if you want to submit it.

Hmm. Could have swore there was something about gunboat being possible if it didnt have the same statline as last season, but I cant find it.

We might adjust some cards from season 1, if we decide to bring them into season 2.

Cards in last season's extension (the final cards) will have one of 3 fates:

Accepted for season 2 without revision

Accepted for season 2 with revisions (last season's gunboat I think will fall into this category but there'll be a vote for it)

Rejected for season 2 (these cards will be thrown out, and new versions will be legal submissions in season 3)

Yeah I didn't want to put a downer on stuff. More that I didn't want you to put loads of time and effort in and have it dismissed from the comp right away.

Hopefully something can be sorted.