Regardless of their cost, these ships must feature a weakness on the board - and so far the proposed designs have none. Until such a time as they do have a weakness and aren't extremely unbalanced (which they were created to be in their PC game debut), I doubt we'll see these being officially released.
I agree, I was just taking the stance that the proposed designs would have to leave the cost as the weakness.
Regardless of their cost, these ships must feature a weakness on the board - and so far the proposed designs have none. Until such a time as they do have a weakness and aren't extremely unbalanced (which they were created to be in their PC game debut), I doubt we'll see these being officially released.
They need a "weakness" or do you really mean they should not be all strengths? I ask because you could say the Firespray or X-Wing have no "weakness" as their stats are all pretty much average or better. Giving the super TIEs everything may be over the top but their cost should reflect that. Of course to reflect that an keep certain parties happy those costs will be astronomical. For all their "power" I believe those mock ups BattlePriest put up are unplayable.
The X-wing is jack-of-all-trades and master of none. The Firespray is fine with extra upgrades but a pain to manoeuver in confined spaces without them.
The Firespray being a "pain" to maneuver in confined spaces probably has more to do with is size than anything else. I guess neither the X-Wing or Firespray have natural "movement" actions so I guess one could call that a weakness on them. Maybe someone should list all of the weaknesses that get exploited on the ships:
Low Defensive Agility: Y-Wing, Falcon, Lambda, B-Wing
Low primary firepower: Y-Wing, TIE-F/B/A, A-Wing, HWK, ORS
Durability (hull/shield): TIE Fighter/Interceptor; to a lesser extent A-Wing and even HWK/B-Wing (vulnerable to crits)
Size?: Falcon, Firespray, Lambda
No native "movement" action?: X-Wing, Y-Wing, Falcon, Firespray, HWK, Lambda
Not sure what other weaknesses we should consider and some of these may not even be considered weaknesses. Except for Durability issues the Interceptor isn't all these lists and the Avenger and Defender both do things to take care of that weakness.
There is no issue with a ship that is good at everything, as long as it's pointed correctly.. Weaknesses do matter, but being outnumbered 2-1 every game is a weakness.
The Firespray being a "pain" to maneuver in confined spaces probably has more to do with is size than anything else. I guess neither the X-Wing or Firespray have natural "movement" actions so I guess one could call that a weakness on them. Maybe someone should list all of the weaknesses that get exploited on the ships:
Low Defensive Agility: Y-Wing, Falcon, Lambda, B-Wing
Low primary firepower: Y-Wing, TIE-F/B/A, A-Wing, HWK, ORS
Durability (hull/shield): TIE Fighter/Interceptor; to a lesser extent A-Wing and even HWK/B-Wing (vulnerable to crits)
Size?: Falcon, Firespray, Lambda
No native "movement" action?: X-Wing, Y-Wing, Falcon, Firespray, HWK, Lambda
Not sure what other weaknesses we should consider and some of these may not even be considered weaknesses. Except for Durability issues the Interceptor isn't all these lists and the Avenger and Defender both do things to take care of that weakness.
One thing I've noticed is that the developers of the game seem to put a premium on tough/high evade ships like the Tie Advanced and to a lesser extent A-Wing (IMO with PTL makes it more durable than the X-Wing for 1 point more). Both of those ships are considered slightly overpriced. My theory is that in the base ship design a highly evasive ship pays more for shields/hull as they are less likely to be taken out anyway.
I would imaging the trend would continue with the Defender and may be even more exaggerated considering that most expect it to be both incredibly durable and evasive. Oddly, this would still fit the theme that it is supposed to be an incredibly rare ship.
There is no issue with a ship that is good at everything, as long as it's pointed correctly.. Weaknesses do matter, but being outnumbered 2-1 every game is a weakness.
Well no, not always. If you can't hit a ship because it's too fast and agile, and when you hit it you're just chipping away at it, and meanwhile it is dishing out massive firepower, then it doesn't really matter how many ships you have firing at it.
Case in point, Han Solo. You can spend well over 50 pts making him viable, but his weakness is that he's a hit magnet. You're going to lose health every time someone fires at you, and the Force be with you if you're at range 1. Imagine taking away this YT-1300's weakness and giving him 3 agility. If you costed this at a whopping 70 pts, you'd still have 30 to spend on the upgrades to make him virtually invincible.
And that's the other side of the problem with the proposed UberTIE stats - too many added upgrade options.
Edited by redxavierWell no, not always. If you can't hit a ship because it's too fast and agile, and when you hit it you're just chipping away at it, and meanwhile it is dishing out massive firepower, then it doesn't really matter how many ships you have firing at it.
I would agree if it was Agility 4 or 5... but this is not the case, it's still Agility 3. It can still be hit by any ship in the game. And 2 or 3 ships vs 1 means that it has to fly very carefully or will never make it's points back, a decent player will give it no place it can move to without taking a shot using overlapping fire arcs.
Also hardly any of the suggestions have it dishing out any more firepower than a B-Wing. Put it this way a 3/3/3/3 Defender has double the survivability of a Interceptor but does exactly the same amount of damage and is not much more maneuverable. Therefore I would rather face 1 Defender than 2 Interceptors, every time. A 3/3/3/3 Defender is only really worth about 1.5 Interceptors. Yes almost all of the versions of it allow it to equip a Heavy Laser Cannon, but even then would I rather face it with one 4 dice Attack or two Interceptors with a 3 dice attack each, I still think it's not quite equal to 2 Interceptors.
People have been pricing the 3/3/3/3 Defender at around 33pts for a PS4 which is roughly 1.5 x the cost of a Saber Interceptor. With a Heavy Laser Cannon it's 40pts which is almost the same cost as 2 Saber Interceptors. This feels right even if it is slightly more maneuverable than the Saber.
And this seems to have been what everyone that has playtested them have said.
Edited by Rodent MastermindThe native stat line isn't necessarily the problem but point cost and upgrades. You throw on a Stealth Device, PTL, and Advanced Sensors you would have the most maneuverable/durable ship in the game. It would put the B-Wing to shame in a knife fight, be way more durable than anything else in the game and from when we tried it out was frankly frustrating to play against unless you were limited to only two vs a 100 pt list.
I like the 3's across the board but I'd up it to 34 (33 if it doesn't have an EPT) for the base model, Interceptor/A-wing maneuver dial, and keep the action bar and upgrades of the Tie Advanced.
Edited by JansonBattlepriest, interesting thoughts all around. I'll address the TIE-Avenger first. Several comments:
*The uber version of the TIE Defender was just a little tiny bit more maneuverable than the TIE Avenger, but translated into this game the two would basically be the same. The Defender doesn't deserve to have a green K-turn.
The following uses differential point costs with the ships that we already have, to infer what the TIE avenger's cost should be.
here's an estimated cost breakdown, using existing FFG values, on how the Avenger and Defender could be made with my previous suggestions.
TIE Avenger
Stats: 3/3/3/4
Cost: 33 points at PS2.
Dial: A tad better than the Interceptor dial (nix my idea of "advanced maneuvers" for now)
Actions: Focus, Evade, Barrel Roll, Boost, Target Lock
Upgrades: Missiles x1
PS starting at 2 and 4
The empire would now have a pure superiority fighter. Stat-wise, it is essentially a super-interceptor, and you can field three of them in a 100 point squad. Personally, I really like this idea. Now, why the 33 cost @ PS3? I'll use the cost progression from the TIE Fighter to TIE Interceptor, and TIE Fighter to TIE Advanced to try and figure it out. You can't use the upgrade cards to directly try figure out how much the cost progression should be, because upgrade cards are always more expensive than built in cost.
TIE Fighter to TIE Advanced
8 points (14 @ PS4 vs 22 @ PS4)
Target Lock (+1)
A hair worse dial (0)
2 shields (+6)
missile x1 (+1)
I am going out on a limb and reducing the baseline cost of the TIE Advanced by 1 here, because I think it is over costed. Vader is good for his points, but that's because his pilot ability is amazing, not because the ship is cost effective. The dial is close enough that we'll call it a wash. Basically what we're looking for here is to see that 2 shields costs about 6 points. If you do a similar analysis on the cost progression going from the Outer Rim Smuggler, then you get a similar result:
Outer Rim Smuggler to Chewbacca
15 points (27 @ PS1 vs 42 @ PS5)
+4 PS (+4)
+1 attack (+4)
+1 shield (+3)
+2 hull (+4)
Next piece: TIE Interceptor
TIE Fighter to TIE Interceptor
7 points (13 @ PS3 vs 20 @ PS3)
+1 attack (+4)
Better dial (+1)
Boost (+2)
We can nitpick the relative weightings of these three upgrades, but it really doesn't matter since the TIE Avenger is essentially a TIE Advanced, plus 2 shields, plus the TIE Fighter to TIE Interceptor upgrades. So, that leaves us with the TIE Advanced to Tie Avenger cost differential:
TIE Advanced to TIE Avenger
13 points (20 @ PS2 vs 33 @ PS2)
+1 attack (+4)
Better dial (+1)
Boost (+2)
2 shields (+6)
For game balance reasons I could see the values getting tweaked slightly. Three Avengers gets you 21 hull/shields, so 3/3/3/3 with an improved dial for 31 points @ PS2 could also be a viable alternative.
So that method gets us in the ballpark of 33 points at PS2 for a 3/3/3/4 Avenger, although since we're making the dial even better than the Interceptor then we ought to add another point. So we're basically at 34 points for a 3/3/3/4 TIE Avenger, aka a PS2 Interceptor with 4 shields, targeting computer, a missile slot, and a better dial.
An even better way to judge costs is to use Lanchester's Laws, which essentially says that the cost of a unit is proportional to the square root of its health. So we can start with a TIE Interceptor, and add 4 shields, the cost is therefore:
18*(7/3)^0.5 = 27.5.
Now add the following:
... and you're back at 34 points for a PS2 3/3/3/4 TIE Avenger.
Both of the above methods are very good approximations at getting a balanced cost, but the real test still has to be extensive on table playtesting. Sadly, we're not at 33 points for a TIE Avenger so you can't run 3 in a squad at 100 points, unless we reduce its cost by 1, or allow for a PS1 Avenger. The Interceptor never really sees competitive use, so reducing the cost to 33 at PS2 would likely still be balanced. Even at 33 points, a squad of 3 Avengers would have the following weaknesses:
I'd agree that some suggestions have gone overboard with upgrade suggestions but Y-Wings get four, B-Wings get four or five, and TIE Bombers get five or six so three to five aren't so many depending on which ship we're looking at. Although a more survivable ship could get more from a given upgrade one still needs to pay for them which is part of the reason that some titles don't cost anything as they don't actually add anything all by themselves.
We may talk about cost and balance but it seems that a lot of the time people are arguing that 3/3/3/3 for a defender is "not representative " or "too weak" when it is clearly better than any other fighter in the game. That is where the madness is in my book.
I'd agree that some suggestions have gone overboard with upgrade suggestions but Y-Wings get four, B-Wings get four or five, and TIE Bombers get five or six so three to five aren't so many depending on which ship we're looking at. Although a more survivable ship could get more from a given upgrade one still needs to pay for them which is part of the reason that some titles don't cost anything as they don't actually add anything all by themselves.
We may talk about cost and balance but it seems that a lot of the time people are arguing that 3/3/3/3 for a defender is "not representative " or "too weak" when it is clearly better than any other fighter in the game. That is where the madness is in my book.
I agree with you. I understand the viewpoint you should try to represent the craft as accurately as possible and the game is one of the only sources that provides concrete numbers as to stats. IMO it doesn't seem that anything really follows the game stats anyway and FFG has done a good job capturing each ship's character fairly accurately while making each unique and fun to play.
My viewpoint on the defender from some of the proposed rules is based on the worst case scenario. Play against 2 defenders with Adv S, PTL, Stealth Device, and HLC and it's no fun. You just stack target lock/focus at range and then focus/evade/boost/barrel roll up close. Its the closest I've gotten to feeling that playing the game was futile and I never had a chance.
Thanks everyone. Great discussion. Upon reading this, it is over the top for these stats.
It'll be great to continue to talk on how to translate the "cannon" into viable ggame terms that is not broken.
I really wish they would release a TIE Defender. They are way more superior than interceptors and TIE/LNs. I am reading a star wars book right now about them and Rogue Squadron has a hard time fighting them. Wedge, Tycho, and Wes. BTW the book is Luke Skywalker and the Shadows of Mindor.
For the movement, I realized these few points:
* One extra K-turn means alot
* One white K-turn is insane
* One green K-turn is insanely broken
*the movement stats for both the Avenger and the Defender in the game should be around the same?
Then probably the dial for both crafts would be taking an A-wing dial and add a red K-turn at speed 4? like this?
Here's a thought, the speed of the X-wing is a typical 100, the Tie interceptor 111, A-wing 120, Avenger 145, Defender 155 (the uber mode version)
Wouldn't this suggest some things for the dial?:
1. The Interceptor and A-wing is one speed grade above the x-wing and their dial reflects that with their movement at speed 2 all green, instead of at speed 1.
Since the Avenger and Defender is 1 speed grade above the Interceptor and A-wing, wouldn't their green movements be at speed 3?
2. since the Avenger and Defender are too fast, should all their speed 2 be taken off, except for the tight-2s?
3. since they are so fast, should there be turns at speed 4?
And I must apologize, apparently people have play tested 3-3-3-3 quite a bit and it seems to be pretty balanced, and people have suggested that the Avenger is 3-3-3-2, then they would seem like this?
Then the Avenger would be a non-glass Intercepter/upgraded Advanced, but with significant cost?
The Defender would be a Tie Bomber/B-Wing hybrid?
MajorJuggler, thank you, I believe yours is a better calculation of the use of points. Even though my favourite ship is the Tie-Defender, including it would break the game and I would prefer a Tie Avenger if the stats are to be reduced. I have based my cost of the Avenger on the consideration that people might find a 34point 3-3-3-4 "too cheap".
And I find the following interesting, and agreeable, a lot of the abilities of the named pilots go beyond the "staple" 3 damage. I don't know why (maybe the dice-"gods" hate me), my Tie Interceptors and fighters gets blown up with 1 shot most of the time, even with a stealth device on, and sometimes at range 3.
Yea, and the 360degree turret kills hurts... lol
Both of the above methods are very good approximations at getting a balanced cost, but the real test still has to be extensive on table playtesting. Sadly, we're not at 33 points for a TIE Avenger so you can't run 3 in a squad at 100 points, unless we reduce its cost by 1, or allow for a PS1 Avenger. The Interceptor never really sees competitive use, so reducing the cost to 33 at PS2 would likely still be balanced. Even at 33 points, a squad of 3 Avengers would have the following weaknesses:
- All the extra points spent on maneuverability are worthless against turrets, just like TIE Interceptors.
- 3 TIE Avengers at 3 dice each will have lower firepower compared to almost any competitive squad currently in the game. Comparison to 3 Firesprays at PS3 is actually the best comparison from a balance point of view, even though it's a large ship base.
- 21 hit points is certainly not glass cannon territory like TIE Interceptors (9-15 hit points for 3-5 ship squads), but is the same as a 7 TIE swarm (21 at 3 agility) and slightly more than 4 rebel ship builds (20 at 2 agility for 4 X-wings as a baseline).
But I rather prefer 3-3-3-3 for the Avenger (with missile and Target Lock, sorry, didn't have time to put it on my picture yet) and 3-3-3-4 for the Defender (with something else to make it uniquely different than the Avenger)
Edited by BattlePriestI've always liked the idea of making the Avenger better at low speeds, tighter turning circle. And the Defender better at high speeds.
So Interceptor dial with the following changes
So a 2 and 4 K-Turn on the Avenger,
A 3 and 5 K-Turn on the Defender,
give the Avenger access to white 1-banks and straight, lose the 5-Straight
give the Defender green 3-banks and 5-Straight
They would both have excellent dials but they would feel different.
Sorry, but I prefer something like this for an Avenger (as suggested before) and the Defender like this.
I know that the 3-3-3-3 has been playtested by some and it is ok, how about a 3-3-3-4 with different upgrades? (and also note the point costs)
Pretty good suggestions, making them feel unique, yet better than the Interceptor dial.
I've always liked the idea of making the Avenger better at low speeds, tighter turning circle. And the Defender better at high speeds.
So Interceptor dial with the following changes
So a 2 and 4 K-Turn on the Avenger,
A 3 and 5 K-Turn on the Defender,
give the Avenger access to white 1-banks and straight, lose the 5-Straight
give the Defender green 3-banks and 5-Straight
They would both have excellent dials but they would feel different.
Question on the Avenger topic. Do we NEED the Avenger when it is really an upgraded advanced? Is there really room for Superiority fighter (Interceptor), Super Superiority fighter (Avenger), Mega Super Superiority fighter (Defender)? Cutting out the Avenger or making it an upgrade card to the advanced really makes a lot of this discussion a lot easier...
But shouldn't low-evade ships have a worse time against a tractor beam than a high-evade ship? Low-evade ships presumably have to push their engines to the limit in order to maneuver at all. I would think a tractor beam would give a low-evade ship's pilot a very bad day.
If you notice most of the maneuverable crafts are less massive as well. So while they may have better engines they just have less to move so the tractor beam would be more effective on them, not less.
Question on the Avenger topic. Do we NEED the Avenger when it is really an upgraded advanced? Is there really room for Superiority fighter (Interceptor), Super Superiority fighter (Avenger), Mega Super Superiority fighter (Defender)? Cutting out the Avenger or making it an upgrade card to the advanced really makes a lot of this discussion a lot easier...
But I rather prefer 3-3-3-3 for the Avenger (with missile and Target Lock, sorry, didn't have time to put it on my picture yet) and 3-3-3-4 for the Defender (with something else to make it uniquely different than the Avenger)
One shield difference is not going to differentiate those two crafts. But the following upgrades on the Defender will:
Are we having fun yet?
Even a nerfed Defender at 3/3/3/4 or even 3/2/3/4 with the above upgrades would be a VERY powerful and unique craft - and costed accordingly. The TIE Avenger is just a straight up space superiority fighter without any of the above upgrades, so I don't see a problem with having a 3/3/3/4 Avenger in addition to an upgrade slot heavy Defender.
Then in this case, I am fine with a nerfed Defender, being it able to be customized to suit different needs.
But I rather prefer 3-3-3-3 for the Avenger (with missile and Target Lock, sorry, didn't have time to put it on my picture yet) and 3-3-3-4 for the Defender (with something else to make it uniquely different than the Avenger)
One shield difference is not going to differentiate those two crafts. But the following upgrades on the Defender will:
- Beam Weapon Upgrade
- Cannon Upgrade
- System Upgrade
Are we having fun yet?
Even a nerfed Defender at 3/3/3/4 or even 3/2/3/4 with the above upgrades would be a VERY powerful and unique craft - and costed accordingly. The TIE Avenger is just a straight up space superiority fighter without any of the above upgrades, so I don't see a problem with having a 3/3/3/4 Avenger in addition to an upgrade slot heavy Defender.
ha ha, you said it way better than I could. I love all the crafts released, but wanted more Imperial crafts with more customization. Maybe I'll have to play more with the bombers and Lambdas... the Advanced is just not worth the cost, except Vader, he fits that cost (and I play 'pure' Imperial, no Merc Scum for me [even though I bought more than one copy of the Slave 1 ship just for the cards and then traded off the model and pilots]).
Edited by BattlePriest
Question on the Avenger topic. Do we NEED the Avenger when it is really an upgraded advanced? Is there really room for Superiority fighter (Interceptor), Super Superiority fighter (Avenger), Mega Super Superiority fighter (Defender)? Cutting out the Avenger or making it an upgrade card to the advanced really makes a lot of this discussion a lot easier...
- TIE Fighter: cheap swarmer
- TIE Interceptor: maneuverable glass cannon
- TIE Advanced x1: overpriced and rarely used
- TIE Avenger: space superiority
- TIE Defender: high degree of customization, space superiority
The way I look at it the X-Wing and the B-Wing are similar to the Avenger and the Defender.
They both cost similar points, both have similar roles, and are both about as survivable as each other (8 HP with 1 Agility works out around the same as 5 HP with 2 Agility). However just down to upgrade options and dial they feel very different.
You could go 3/3/3/3 with the Avenger, and actually go 3/2/4/5 or 3/2/3/6 with the Defender... which would be about as survivable as each other but it would be easier to hit as it's less maneuverable than the Avenger, but has far more hit points (and would actually come close to it's shield strength in the games).
Edited by Rodent MastermindMay i suggest that should we get these ships, we say they don't have boost as standard. Think of it as they already have the extra speed included in their dials.
I would also be intrigued by them having Red manoeuvers at LOW speeds, you could consider that the ships are harder to handle when the engines are throttled down. Say the reactor provides too much power and heat to shed without the engines going.
Both of these things show that the ships are manoeuverable and fast but still keep them interesting.
Say the dial below. Lots of potential for interesting stuff.
I wouls also have the Defender have 2 agility not 3 (tho Avenger can have 3). Think of it as a size penalty. Big ship is just easier to hit.
