Hey,

This is inspired by SabineKey's thread,

Without much experience with the game, I find it difficult to craft lists with an understanding of their strengths and weaknesses against other lists. They're mostly just collections of solid ship builds that happen to fit in 100 points together. I could really do with an understanding of what Imperial ships are strong and weak versus which others.

For example, I've learned that TIE Interceptors are really weak versus bombers such as K-wings. I read recently that they can actually counter torpedo boats through arc dodging, though this surprised me due to their low hit points. I understand Darth Vader is weak to TLTs, but I don't really know what he's strong against. Likewise, I don't actually know what TIE Defenders are good against, just that they're efficient jousters. Biophysical has said that Quickdraw and Backdraft are decent against bombers.

I was wondering if the community would be willing to pitch in and help me figure out a breakdown of what ships each Imperial vessel is strong and weak against, sort of like an RTS breakdown of units and counter units. If so, I'll edit this post with everyone's input. As a note, differences of degree will also be helpful to my understanding, such as 'Soontir Fel just wrecks TLTs' versus 'Soontir Fel does okay against TLTs' (I think it's the former).

The end goal is to be able to respond to @SabineKey 's challenge with a list featuring one to two ships capable of dealing with each facet of the meta.

Thank you to all, and long live the Empire!

Breakdown:

Firespray-31 -- Strengths ; Weaknesses

Lambda -class Shuttle -- Strengths ; Weaknesses

TIE Advanced Prototype -- Strengths ordnance, PWT, TLT; Weaknesses stress

TIE Advanced x1 -- Strengths jousters, swarms; Weaknesses PWT, TLT

TIE Bomber (ordnance) -- Strengths ordnance, regen; Weaknesses arc-dodgers

TIE Fighter -- Strengths PWT; Weaknesses arc-dodgers

TIE Interceptor -- Strengths ordnance, PWT, TLT; Weaknesses bombers, stress

TIE Phantom -- Strengths arc-dodgers, jousters, ordnance, swarms; Weaknesses bombers, control, higher PS, PWT, TLT

TIE/D Defender -- Strengths bombers, low agility (with Tractor Beam), stress; Weaknesses large base

TIE/fo Fighter -- Strengths PWT; Weaknesses arc-dodgers

TIE/fo Fighter (Omega Leader) -- Strengths arc-dodgers, low ship count; Weaknesses swarms

TIE/sf Fighter -- Strengths arc-dodgers, bombers, jousters, stress; Weaknesses ordnance, PWT, TLT

TIE Punisher -- Strengths ; Weaknesses

TIE Striker -- Strengths jousters; Weaknesses PWT, TLT

TIE/x7 Defender -- Strengths jousters, PWT, swarms; Weaknesses blockers, regen, stress; Inconclusive arc-dodgers, bombers

Upsilon -class Shuttle -- Strengths ; Weaknesses

VT-49 Decimator -- Strengths ; Weaknesses

Categories: arc-dodgers (aces), bombers (K-wing), blockers, control (ion, stress, Tractor Beam), higher PS (Pilot Skill), jousters , large base, low agility, low ship count, ordnance (Jumpmaster), PWT (primary weapon turret), regen , stress , swarms , TLT (Twin Laser Turret)

Bolded are those I'd to establish a matchup against for every ship. The others are more specific things individuals have mentioned for particular ships. Stress appears twice, alone and under 'control'; which category is used depends on whether the ship in question is strong or weak against control broadly or just stress control in particular. Swarm ships are obviously jousters; 'jousters' here refers more to efficient ships that are too expensive to swarm, while 'swarms' emphasis two-dice-attack ships.

Each entry refers to the ship in its typical tournament form(s) (past or present), thus usually to the top one or two PS ace pilots, with exceptions where this will be generally understood (e.g. TIE Defender, TIE Fighter). Alternatively, you can consider each ship name to include the proviso, 'with sufficient Pilot Skill where applicable' (e.g. arc-dodgers aren't strong against jousters without it, or Calibri Garamond's note on Bombers against ordnance below).

So I have found three good roles:

Swarms

Aces

Heavy Hitters

Swarms- pretty obvious how this works. Get a bunch of Fighters, Interceptors, Bombers, Strikers, etc. Fly them all.

Pros: Opponent dies fast. Getting caught in 4-6 attacks in one round ain't fun

Cons: Expensive to get a swarm, and not that fun

Aces- People like Soontir, Vader, the Inquisitor, etc, These guys can get caught in the open and die fast, but they are tremendous fun to fly

Pros: Cheap and fun. Iconic pilots

Cons: The ships typically aren't that strong.

Heavy Hitters (my personal favorite)- The way I do this is pretty unorthodox and against all X-Wing common sense. Get a Decimator, a Lambda (I found a pretty effective way to fly these well), maybe a TIE Striker and Imp Vets. They last forever and have some amazing abilities

Pros: Lasts forever, looks badass, lots of fun!

Cons: Definitely more expensive than Aces. And we don't have this yet:

There's a lot to discuss here, but I'll answer in part, and perhaps others will fill in.

Ships with multiple actions per turn, the boost+barrel roll combo, and Autothrusters are particularly strong agaidnt TLT, because they have Autothrusters to get bonus defense against nearly every TLT shot, and they have the mobility to exploit the range 1 blind spot of the TLT to get shot fewer times.

Another:

TIE/SFs are decent against K-wing bombers because they have 6 hit points,as opposed to the 3-4 hit points seen for most Imperial Aces, and they have a rear arc, so they can damage K-wings while flying away from them, making bombs drops harder to achieve.

3 minutes ago, Biophysical said:

There's a lot to discuss here, but I'll answer in part, and perhaps others will fill in.

Ships with multiple actions per turn, the boost+barrel roll combo, and Autothrusters are particularly strong agaidnt TLT, because they have Autothrusters to get bonus defense against nearly every TLT shot, and they have the mobility to exploit the range 1 blind spot of the TLT to get shot fewer times.

Thanks. That's exactly the kind of thing I'm looking for. I also have to apologize, because I mistakenly attributed to Parakitor what you said about /sfs. Had Interceptors on the brain, I guess.

TIE Interceptors: Range and arc are limitations to firing a torpedo and can be exploited by an Interceptor. Using PTL, an Interceptor can both boost and barrel roll to get into a good position. Higher PS than the target will allow you to better judge what actions are necessary and what position you can get into. With autothrusters, TIE Interceptors have a solid defense against turrets, making the Jumpmaster's primary less threatening. Similar use of arc and range control help against TLTs as well. Important to remember that with Interceptors, it is more important to get out of range/arc than it is to take a shot. Exchanging fire is not ideal.

Because Interceptors rely on ensuring that shots at them are on their terms (either not taken cause they got out of the way, or when they are properly tanked up with green dice and tokens), bombs are very effective against them because they can ignore all that. Repositional shannanagans don't mean much when a Bomber moves before you to drop their bombs, and bombers with Advanced Slam have a repositional element of their own. That combined with Sabine boosting damage on bombs and the low health of Interceptors make for a bad day.

Vader: Vader's PS and pilot ability make him a good Ace who can easily be given VI to out PS who he needs to. His limitations come from no natural boost, making him more expensive to get it and no access to autothrusters, as well as his low attack value. The latter is helped by the title and Advanced Targeting Computer, but that still comes with some limitations. A hit point value of 5 is nice too.

TIE Defenders: These boys are tanks. With the x7 title, they can get in the thick of things and survive like few other Imperial ships can. They are strong against other jousters and a few of the pilots (like Ryad) can actually pull of some maneuvers that make arc dodging them hard. Beware of blockers and stress mechanics. Can take on bombers, but there flight pattern can make them easy to predict if you aren't careful.

Another facet of the Defender is the TIE/D title. This makes them less tanky, but gives them a more powerful punch and a freer dial. A TIE/D with a tractor beam can be an unholy terror against low agi ships like K-Wings. The control element of the cannons the title can use is a very important part of the build. Those elements don't work so well on big base ships, though.

TIE/sf: This is probably the most versatile ship the Imps have currently. It's slots lead to some nice cards (like Fire Control System, Pattern analyzer, etc) and Lightweight Frame gives them a need boost to defense. They can even get in on the Ordinance game, if they wish. The combo of Health and tricks in their arsenal (Quickdraw's double tapping and Backdraft's odd flying pattern) can make them excellent versus bombers and jousters. High PS and back arcs make them harder to arc dodge. Have a little problem with turrets and aren't quite tanky enough to feel completely comfortable taking on alpha strike lists.

Anyway, hope this was in some way helpful. I'm sure I missed something, but hopefully others can fill in the blanks I've missed.

Adding some:

Defenders (x7) - Solid all around. Especially good vs other jousters with only 2 red attack dice. Ok vs. turrets as well with strong jousting values and the white K making it a lot easier to keep PWT:s in arc. Weak(ish) against stress, rebel regen and solid arc-dodging aces.

Tie Bomber (built for ordnance, typically Tomax or GSV). Strong vs. regen (just kill it in one turn), lower PS ordnance carriers. Weak vs aces. Has a weak endgame.

Tie Phantom - Strong vs. most jousters and other aces, and pretty much everything that is not a PWT or a TLT. Also pretty weak vs control effects and bombs, but clocking and the new timing on the decloak works to your advantage. Very difficult to fly, very strong endgame.

Tie Fo - Typical tie fighter with better dial and upgrades, but worse jousting efficiany. Omega Leader is the best pilot of the bunch. She is a great closer, very strong vs aces but weak vs. swarms of jousters.

If there is anything Attani Mindlink squads have shown us, it's that focus tokens are important. Stress control can be a huge hurdle for any ship, but especially those that absolutely rely on actions. As such, I think we should add that hyper-mobile ships, such as Push the Limit TIE interceptors and TIE Advanced Prototypes, REALLY HATE STRESS! With the nerf to the TIE/x7 defenders, I think they can get lumped in this group as well, even though they don't self-stress.

So what Imperial ships don't care too much about stress? TIE/D defenders are the first to come to mind, because they're rolling two attacks, and can still flip around with the white-K-turn. I'd like to posit that the TIE/sf is also relatively stress resistant. They don't have the white-K-turn, but they do have an auxiliary firing arc, and Fire-control System is practically stapled into that systems slot. These things make them relatively stress resistant. You can even build on that by equipping Primed Thrusters so that they can still barrel roll, though this build is not very common.

Thanks to everyone so far. A lot of good insights and detailed explanations. I've updated the OP with the beginnings of a complete breakdown and a note that will help me with standardization (let me know if I forgot any important categories).

So far, this seems like a good list. I only have one comment about the TIE Phantom: Any list of weaknesses is terribly incomplete without mentioning anything with a higher pilot skill. I know it breaks your system, but it's probably the most important consideration to make during list building with the TIE Phantom.

Also, without having played it, I'm pretty sure you can fill in TLT and PWT as a weakness of the TIE Striker. And probably jousters as a strength because of the unpredictability and mobility.

I disagree about arc-dodgers being a weakness to TIE/x7 Defenders. The white K-turn and defensive action economy makes it really hard for aces to dodge arcs and get modified shots at you. I recommend watching the final of last years Australian Nationals on youtube: Palp, Vessery, Ryad vs. Palp, Soontir, Inquisitor. It's a perfect example of this. Yes, this was including Ryad, but Vessery definitely also pulled his weight.

22 minutes ago, Yearfire said:

So far, this seems like a good list. I only have one comment about the TIE Phantom: Any list of weaknesses is terribly incomplete without mentioning anything with a higher pilot skill. I know it breaks your system, but it's probably the most important consideration to make during list building with the TIE Phantom.

Also, without having played it, I'm pretty sure you can fill in TLT and PWT as a weakness of the TIE Striker. And probably jousters as a strength because of the unpredictability and mobility.

I disagree about arc-dodgers being a weakness to TIE/x7 Defenders. The white K-turn and defensive action economy makes it really hard for aces to dodge arcs and get modified shots at you. I recommend watching the final of last years Australian Nationals on youtube: Palp, Vessery, Ryad vs. Palp, Soontir, Inquisitor. It's a perfect example of this. Yes, this was including Ryad, but Vessery definitely also pulled his weight.

No problem, there are already a few others that are there for only one ship.

I've moved 'arc-dodgers' to 'inconclusive' for the TIE/x7 until that point is resolved. Thanks for the video suggestion; I'll try and watch that tonight! I do really want to rely on the collective wisdom of the community for this breakdown, as my own analysis or assumptions may be flawed due to inexperience -- so I'll still leave it to the community to hash out after I watch the video. But I look forward to some excellent X-Wing and to enhancing my own (second-hand) experience!

Imperials have (as all the factions, but perhaps more so than the two others) some ships and builds that is more or less it's own thing, and might not fit that well into the ship category. This is usually in the cases where you mainly don't pay for the chassis, but for an ability (or combination of abilities).

The best example is perhaps the FO and Omega Leader. She is weak against swarms as you say, but you might consider adding the category "Small ship count lists" just for her, as that is her specialty. But the TIE/FO can also fit into a swarm build with focus on jousting (usually generics or Zeta Leader). Then the strengths and weaknesses will be like the normal swarm/jouster archetype (strong against turrets, weak against arc dodgers).

Sorry to really ruin your system

19 minutes ago, Yearfire said:

Imperials have (as all the factions, but perhaps more so than the two others) some ships and builds that is more or less it's own thing, and might not fit that well into the ship category. This is usually in the cases where you mainly don't pay for the chassis, but for an ability (or combination of abilities).

The best example is perhaps the FO and Omega Leader. She is weak against swarms as you say, but you might consider adding the category "Small ship count lists" just for her, as that is her specialty. But the TIE/FO can also fit into a swarm build with focus on jousting (usually generics or Zeta Leader). Then the strengths and weaknesses will be like the normal swarm/jouster archetype (strong against turrets, weak against arc dodgers).

Sorry to really ruin your system

No, no problem at all! If different varieties of the same ship are sufficiently different, I can break them off into separate listings; I'll try doing that with OL now and include what you've said. The different categories are mostly so I/we don't forget something, like Interceptors being good against swarms despite it not really being a meta issue right now (that's true, isn't it; I can add that in?).

46 minutes ago, TheHumanHydra said:

No, no problem at all! If different varieties of the same ship are sufficiently different, I can break them off into separate listings; I'll try doing that with OL now and include what you've said. The different categories are mostly so I/we don't forget something, like Interceptors being good against swarms despite it not really being a meta issue right now (that's true, isn't it; I can add that in?).

I'd break each ship down into "Low PS", "Mid PS" and "High PS."

A high PS Intercepter is a good arcdodger, whereas a low PS intercepter is an average blocker, average jouster.

A low PS Bwing is a strong jouster, but Farlander and Ten Numb are not nearly so good.

11 minutes ago, Rakaydos said:

I'd break each ship down into "Low PS", "Mid PS" and "High PS."

A high PS Intercepter is a good arcdodger, whereas a low PS intercepter is an average blocker, average jouster.

A low PS Bwing is a strong jouster, but Farlander and Ten Numb are not nearly so good.

Hmm. That makes a lot of sense, but would also make the table massive ... my assumption, which maybe I should have spelled out, is that each entry refers to the ship in its typical tournament forms (past or present): for most ships, that means the top one or two ace pilots, with exceptions where they will be generally understood (e.g. TIE Defender, TIE Fighter). (If I were to do Rebels, I'd probably have to break B-wings down like for TIE/fos, as both generics and aces are known quantities like that.)

Another way to look at it would be to mentally append 'given sufficient Pilot Skill, where relevant' to each ship title.

I'll add in a note to this effect.

Because of this categorization, I thought for a while about Autothruster aces. How did we end up with arc-dodgers being strong against ships with turrets. After all, the traditional list building categorization considers jousters, turrets and arc-dodgers the three pillars of X-wing where everyone is weak against one and strong against another. Arc-dodgers are supposed to be strong against jousters and weak against turrets.

And I think that's still true. The exception is weapons like TLT where the free modification and the ability to reposition into a blind zone is key. A weapon that denies you your main strategy (getting out of arc to not be shot) can't be a strength. But thrusters makes the match more survivable.

TLDR: Remove PWT as a strength for interceptors and Adv.prototype (but don't place it as a weakness), but keep TLT.

24 minutes ago, Yearfire said:

Because of this categorization, I thought for a while about Autothruster aces. How did we end up with arc-dodgers being strong against ships with turrets. After all, the traditional list building categorization considers jousters, turrets and arc-dodgers the three pillars of X-wing where everyone is weak against one and strong against another. Arc-dodgers are supposed to be strong against jousters and weak against turrets.

And I think that's still true. The exception is weapons like TLT where the free modification and the ability to reposition into a blind zone is key. A weapon that denies you your main strategy (getting out of arc to not be shot) can't be a strength. But thrusters makes the match more survivable.

TLDR: Remove PWT as a strength for interceptors and Adv.prototype (but don't place it as a weakness), but keep TLT.

Sure, I can switch it to 'inconclusive' for those.

I'd like to play with the theory a little bit, though. PWTs are generally large-based, expensive ships, so there's usually only one in a list, or they're Jumpmasters with only two attack. Without the ability to arc-dodge, the ace evades and focuses (or double-focuses for Fel). With Autothrusters, the two-dice attack is not threatening at all. Against a single three-dice attack, focus and evade behind three or more defence dice is the definition of a rock-solid defence. Unless the PWT player can bring another gun to bear (and then we get consider the rest of our list, too), aren't we pretty safe?

Just want to push it a little bit for the sake of my understanding.

Also, that Australian Nationals video was pretty convincing.

4 hours ago, Yearfire said:

And I think that's still true. The exception is weapons like TLT where the free modification and the ability to reposition into a blind zone is key. A weapon that denies you your main strategy (getting out of arc to not be shot) can't be a strength. But thrusters makes the match more survivable.

Math suggests that you are wrong. An AGI 3 ship with Autothrusters is ridiculously survivable out of arc against a turret.

1 hour ago, Biophysical said:

Math suggests that you are wrong. An AGI 3 ship with Autothrusters is ridiculously survivable out of arc against a turret.

I guess you're right. But it still doesn't seem quite right, given that against a non-PTW they wouldn't have been shot at all.

33 minutes ago, Yearfire said:

I guess you're right. But it still doesn't seem quite right, given that against a non-PTW they wouldn't have been shot at all.

That's true, but most arc-only ships don't cost 50-60 points. What high AGI combined with Autothrusters does is bring a more expensive ship down to the level of a cheaper ship, from an offensive standpoint.

2 hours ago, Biophysical said:

Math suggests that you are wrong. An AGI 3 ship with Autothrusters is ridiculously survivable out of arc against a turret.

Am I correct assuming that includes Evade actions taken and perhaps also Stealth device is playing interceptors?

4 minutes ago, Ram said:

Am I correct assuming that includes Evade actions taken and perhaps also Stealth device is playing interceptors?

Yes on Evade action, no on Stealth Device, although that pushes things further in favor.