I've been playing the game for about 6 months now; I started playing interceptors and loved my ability to reposition for days. However, TLTs and Gunner PWTs made me acutely aware that my favorite imperial ships were little more than paper mache, and since then I've been paying less agile and more survivable space boats.
Well nuts to that. I want my repositioning back.
To that end, I want to run strikers. Being cheaper to kit out than interceptors and having built-in maneuvering economy means I can once again dance around my opponents without being heartbroken when one dies.
Of course, strikers are still very frail, and a striker swarm doesn't have the survivability to keep those 3 reds relevant, so my plan is to run my strikers as flank support to a jousting list. With that in mind, I have two lists, and I'd love some input on the strengths and weaknesses of either.
The common thread of both lists is a pair of ps3 Tie SFs, kitted as follows:
TIE/sf Fighter: Zeta Specialist (23)
Fire Control System (2)
Special Ops Training (0)
TIE/sf Fighter: Zeta Specialist (23)
Fire Control System (2)
Special Ops Training (0)
-- TOTAL ------- 50p. --
That's a 50pt base. The rest of the list is either list A:
TIE Striker: Black Squadron Scout (20)
Predator (3)
Lightweight Frame (2)
Adaptive ailerons (0)
TIE Striker: Black Squadron Scout (20)
Predator (3)
Lightweight Frame (2)
Adaptive ailerons (0)
-- TOTAL ------- 50p. --
Or list B:
TIE Striker: · "Duchess" (23)
· Lone Wolf (2)
Lightweight Frame (2)
Adaptive ailerons (0)
TIE Striker: · "Countdown" (20)
Lightweight Frame (2)
Adaptive ailerons (0)
-- TOTAL ------- 49p. --
The way I see it, A has more firepower and I can run the strikers together, while B has more survivabity but forces me to spread my ships farther apart. B also has an initiative bid, which is more relevant for Duchess than anyone else.
I'm open to any criticism. Thanks!
-Hargle