Just had a random idea for an ability for the Defender:

-When defending, reduce the opponent's attack value by 1 (to a minimum of two)

Assuming a more reasonable stat line like 3/3/3/2 or whatever, this would give the Defender a means to be more survivable without pushing it out to 4 agility or otherwise hosing the 2-attack ships' chances of ever hitting it. 3 agility and 5-6 HP makes it about as survivable as a TIE advanced, which is decent but for such a potentially expensive ship it might not be enough. It also gives the Empire something besides swarm formations to take on rebel 3-attack turrets or powerful weapons like missiles and heavy laser cannons in general, to further make it worth its points.

How to implement this: as a single pilot's ability? As a modification/title? As a general ability for the Defender via a new rules insert? I do not know, but it is an idea.

I get really confused when people say that 2 hull and 4 shield is about as flimsy as 3 hull and no shields. Did I enter some bizarro world where shields are useless?

I get really confused when people say that 2 hull and 4 shield is about as flimsy as 3 hull and no shields. Did I enter some bizarro world where shields are useless?

Why should a TIE Defender have less hull than an ordinary TIE-Fighter? Shields are cool - thats not the point. With wave 3 there is a way to get around a ships shields. Maybe there will be more weaponry in futures ammo rack ignoring shields - who knowes. I am not a friend of 2 point hull ships. It reminds me of A-Wings. Shoot the A-Wings!

I get really confused when people say that 2 hull and 4 shield is about as flimsy as 3 hull and no shields. Did I enter some bizarro world where shields are useless?

It's based on point cost. I.e. an Interceptor is considered to be a glass cannon compared to a TIE fighter. Even though they both have 3 hull, you can have 3 Fighters for the same cost as 2 Ints. Fielding a squad of 2 Defenders at 4/3/2/4 would get you only 12 hull/shields, which is absolutely in glass cannon territory.

Interceptors are glass cannons, but Fighters are just glass. lol

Just had a random idea for an ability for the Defender:

-When defending, reduce the opponent's attack value by 1 (to a minimum of two)

Assuming a more reasonable stat line like 3/3/3/2 or whatever, this would give the Defender a means to be more survivable without pushing it out to 4 agility or otherwise hosing the 2-attack ships' chances of ever hitting it. 3 agility and 5-6 HP makes it about as survivable as a TIE advanced, which is decent but for such a potentially expensive ship it might not be enough. It also gives the Empire something besides swarm formations to take on rebel 3-attack turrets or powerful weapons like missiles and heavy laser cannons in general, to further make it worth its points.

How to implement this: as a single pilot's ability? As a modification/title? As a general ability for the Defender via a new rules insert? I do not know, but it is an idea.

Attack dice have an extra hit vs agility dice evades, so 3 agility minus one attacker die is actually better than having 4 agility dice outright, with essentially the same effect.

Back to topic:

So I like the idea having with a profile of 3-3-3-4 (rised shields by 1), starting at 31-32 squad points (PS 2)

with the upgrades: cannon and rocket.

to distinguish it from TIE Avenger:

TIE Avenger: 3-3-3-2 and a system upgrade slot

If the profile of the TIE Defender will be more stronger than this, it will be mere a candidate for the upcomming epic battles with large ships. A ship with an attack value of 4 don't need a cannon upgrade slot and will probably break the game.

3/3/2/3 with upgrades, or GTFO.

GTFO?

GTFO?

Inappropriate to repeat on this forum; google it.

Back on topic with more civil discussion: 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.

... TIE defender next post!

The TIE Defender is a little trickier. We'll try going with:

TIE Defender

Stats: 3/2/3/8

Cost: 41 points starting at PS3

The TIE Defender is a little trickier. We'll try going with:

TIE Defender

Stats: 3/2/3/8

...

A Defender with only 2 in defence? GTFO!!

The TIE Defender is a little trickier. We'll try going with:

TIE Defender

Stats: 3/2/3/8

...

A Defender with only 2 in defence? GTFO!!

Maneuverability is not the same thing as agility. Maneuverability is reflected in the dial, whereas difficulty to hit shows up in the agility. But yes, having the same agility as a TIE Bomber doesn't make much sense. 3/3/3/8 would probably be more accurate, the ship will just have to cost 50-60 points is all.

The TIE Defender is a little trickier. We'll try going with:

TIE Defender

Stats: 3/2/3/8

...

A Defender with only 2 in defence? GTFO!!

Maneuverability is not the same thing as agility. Maneuverability is reflected in the dial, whereas difficulty to hit shows up in the agility. But yes, having the same agility as a TIE Bomber doesn't make much sense. 3/3/3/8 would probably be more accurate, the ship will just have to cost 50-60 points is all.

Actually i was joking. I like your analysis about those two ships. And maybe you're right - thinking about epic scale battles, the TIE Defender will be there to take on the rebels capital ships

I still think that the Defender should have more attack and less shielding than 8.

People choose not to play tie advanced because two academy pilots are better than one advanced. After the advanced uses its missile, it is a less maneuverable tie with more hp. A defender that throws 3 attack and 8 shields, I think, would work much the same. For 60 points, one could get one defender or three interceptors, which throw 3x as many dice.

Inappropriate to repeat on this forum; google it.

Back on topic with more civil discussion: here's an estimated cost breakdown, using existing FFG values, on how the Avenger and Defender could be made with my previous suggestions.

Just to be clear (and though I think 8 shield value for any starfighter is game-breaking ridiculous), my comment wasn't meant to be un-civil. Irreverant and a little silly, but nothing more.

3/3/3/3 with an Interceptor Dial

Focus, Barrel Roll, Boost, Target Lock

Elite Pilot Skill, 2 Missiles

It's as fast and maneuverable as anything in the game, tougher than an X-Wing, and can have quite the punch. This gives us a straight superiority fighter in the mid-30's range (say 33 for a PS prototype?). It's strong, but not absurdly so and it can still be brought down.

Up the shields to 4 and give it some way to equip ion cannons and I'd be happy with that.

The TIE Defender is a little trickier. We'll try going with:

TIE Defender

Stats: 3/2/3/8

...

A Defender with only 2 in defence? GTFO!!

Maneuverability is not the same thing as agility. Maneuverability is reflected in the dial, whereas difficulty to hit shows up in the agility. But yes, having the same agility as a TIE Bomber doesn't make much sense. 3/3/3/8 would probably be more accurate, the ship will just have to cost 50-60 points is all.

Off topic, but did you used to go by the handle MagicJuggler?

3/3/3/3 with an Interceptor Dial

Focus, Barrel Roll, Boost, Target Lock

Elite Pilot Skill, 2 Missiles

It's as fast and maneuverable as anything in the game, tougher than an X-Wing, and can have quite the punch. This gives us a straight superiority fighter in the mid-30's range (say 33 for a PS prototype?). It's strong, but not absurdly so and it can still be brought down.

Very close to where I would put it.. I might add a System Upgrade slot as they were at least as advanced as a B-Wing, and I would give it a Cannon slot, as they were quite often equipped with Ion Cannons.

I don't think it would be over the top if it was.. EPS (on some pilots), System Upgrade, Cannon, 2x Missile. You would rarely use all of the slots but it would give it options.

Sorry for the wall of text...

What the heck, let's all chime in...

The Rebels wouldn't get a ship similar to the Defender because none exists. The Defender is far and away the most advanced starfighter ever made. OP's original stats were not arbitrary, contrary to what some here like to claim. They were derived, quite clearly and linearly, from the original TIE Fighter (video game) stats. The Defender was designed to break the game. It was so bad, that later versions, expansions, and sequels toned down the stats. That's why OP was talking about their inconsistencies. (At one point I think the Defender was unplayable, and if you tried, you got a message like Dream on Rookie, this ship is too powerful for you, or some such).

The problem isn't the Defender's stats, it's the game engine here. With all due respect to FFG, this was not a well-designed game. Tabletop game, that is. It's a board game (with some fantastic playing pieces). It was designed to keep the math hidden and use a narrow range of values, and add diversity via special-case rules (the same problem that plagues GW offerings, BTW). It does a good enough job for what it's meant to do. But because of that, any legitimate version of the Defender is going to break the game. It should have stats higher than anything else, it should cost a ton of points, and in a 100pt game, it very well could be the only model on the table that that player gets. Per the sources, it's faster than anything, more maneuverable than anything, and more heavily armed than anything, and has heavier shields than anything. It's a munchkin ship. It is never going to fit right in this game.

So we end up with people trying to severely tone down the stats to make it playable, raising the concern that it displaces other ships. What do you expect? Regardless, that's not a bad thing. Units get obsoleted. That's just the way it works. The arguments have amounted to But if its stats are a little better and it costs a little more, then why would I fly x? You can make that argument about single ship in the game. If it's a pick up game, then who cares what you bring? It's a throw away game, pretty much by definition. It's not going to be tournament sanctioned, that aspect is irrelevant. One-off games don't have stories that actually matter (a scenario and a story are two different things), so who cares? Fly what you want and have fun. But if you want it to make a difference, then you need to play campaigns. Then how many uber-ships you can field becomes a real issue, and your (allegedly) obsolete ships are right back at the front. It's like asking why the German's didn't build anything but Tiger 2's.

As far as the Advanced and Avenger... "Advanced" was a whole line of experimental ships, not just one design. AFAIK, Vader's X1 was unique. Keeping "in-universe", no player should ever field more than one X1, and it should always have Vader with it. Contrary to what was said, the Avenger was not the production version of Vader's X1 (and let's be honest, when people say Advanced, they're talking about Vader's personal bird). They're as closely related as any other TIEs are, and that's it. It's significantly faster (fast than an Interceptor by a lot) and more maneuverable, has more than twice the laser firepower, stronger shields, has a tractor beam... It's the second most powerful TIE, behind the Defender, but more affordable. It was supposed to replace the Interceptor but didn't due to politics. In the canon, Stele preferred flying an Avenger over a Defender, even against Defenders.

In each instance, PS6+ should be required, maybe even PS7+. In a 100 point game you should be able to field 2 Avengers and that's it. Or 1 Defender and 2 TIE/LN.

Frankly I don't think we're ever going to be happy with Defender or Avenger stats, even in the unlikely event that FFG makes them. So debate here for what you want the stats to be, but don't count on there being a real consensus, and don't worry what other people fly in their own games.

I honestly don't think that FFG will make them. The IA expansion and the new-paint X-wing with the Blockade Runner, and the fact that they're making the Blockade Runner at all, hint at this. I think we're much more likely to see more re-paints than we are to see EU ships. While the game can handle larger engagements, FFG pushes 100pt games for tournaments, and the vast majority of players play 100pt games. And the game engine being the way it is, it's just not a good fit for munchkin ships.

For the record, I have enjoyed reading all the ideas put forth.

Any ship is going to be only as obsolete as FFG allows it to be. I think the Imperial Aces pack shows this. And that is on a ship with very, very limited upgrade options. Despite the Defender's status as a munchkin ship, nothing I've seen says that FFG is incapable of making it balanced. A 30-40 pt ship before upgrades is going to be powerful. While it is always fun to speculate, FFG will likely come up with something that works better.

Wave 4 is coming. And it isn't repaints (see Imperial Aces) and it isn't the capital ships. So what is it? There are plenty of EU ships that have enough recognition to be made. And, as the HWK shows, some that aren't readily thought of that they are willing to make.

And really, the game is expanding past the traditional 100pt format. Epic format IS a tournament format. And FFG is fine with supporting multiple formats, see Game of Thrones LCG. I hope FFG drops some more info about the capital ships and Epic formats during Worlds, just to get more hyped up for it.

I played the Tie Fighter video game and the Defender was a beast, but I also played the Star Wars Rebellion Game as well.

In Rebellion its comparative stats were:

Laser power at 120% of an X-Wing or B-Wing (most firepower of any fighter) (That makes it a 3 or 4 but its close call)

Shielding equal to an A or X-wing (2)

Hull equal to all other fighters (lets call it a 3)

Sublight speed equal to an X-wing (4 forward)

Manevuerability barely above a TF, but lower than a TI or A-Wing (Something between a TF and TI dial with no 5 option, 3 agility)

No Ion Cannons, but it did have torpedoes.

Now I am not saying these are the right stats to use, but they are just as "accurate" as the stats from the Tie Fighter game and an equally valid interpretation of the ship. Personally, I would like to see a Tie Defender that is somewhere between these two versions; 3 FP with an cannon upgrade slot and missiles. I could also see it having one more shields. A small ship in the low thirties would be good for the toolbox.

I think some people are making the TF game the standard and thats not necessarily the case (although I did love that game).

I'm not saying that FFG *can't* do EU stuff... I'm just dubious. Once you start down the path of re-paints, forever will it dominate your destiny... There's a lot of stuff that could/should be done before repaints even entered into the conversation. I hope I'm wrong.

I'm also not saying that FFG can't make *a* Defender playable, just that it probably wouldn't be *the* Defender. Munchkin status and all, I give the nod to original TIE Fighter version. It fits what the ship was supposed to be. That thing was a BIG deal, to the point that ships were designed to take IT out (Missile Boats) and TWO rebellions were put down (each led by a different Grand Admiral) and the Defenders and Avengers were the prizes.

Subsequent versions were (comparatively) nerfed to make them playable. And I am okay with that (that probably did not come through before; my apologies).

It just wouldn't be *the* Defender.

It's like with American muscle cars in the '70's, pre- and post- regulation. Sure you wanted one, but the new ones were muscle cars in name only.

3/3/3/3 with an Interceptor Dial

Focus, Barrel Roll, Boost, Target Lock

Elite Pilot Skill, 2 Missiles

It's as fast and maneuverable as anything in the game, tougher than an X-Wing, and can have quite the punch. This gives us a straight superiority fighter in the mid-30's range (say 33 for a PS prototype?). It's strong, but not absurdly so and it can still be brought down.

That, to me, is a nearly perfect description of a TIE-Avenger, although the dial should be better than an Interceptor. That's hard to do with the current templates though; while you could make 1 turns green, it would be hard to now add a straight 6.

The TIE Defender is a little trickier. We'll try going with:

TIE Defender

Stats: 3/2/3/8

...

A Defender with only 2 in defence? GTFO!!

Maneuverability is not the same thing as agility. Maneuverability is reflected in the dial, whereas difficulty to hit shows up in the agility. But yes, having the same agility as a TIE Bomber doesn't make much sense. 3/3/3/8 would probably be more accurate, the ship will just have to cost 50-60 points is all.

Off topic, but did you used to go by the handle MagicJuggler?

NA, just MajorJuggler. I think I used it first back in my StarCraft 1 days.

The Rebels wouldn't get a ship similar to the Defender because none exists. The Defender is far and away the most advanced starfighter ever made. OP's original stats were not arbitrary, contrary to what some here like to claim. They were derived, quite clearly and linearly, from the original TIE Fighter (video game) stats. The Defender was designed to break the game. It was so bad, that later versions, expansions, and sequels toned down the stats. That's why OP was talking about their inconsistencies. (At one point I think the Defender was unplayable, and if you tried, you got a message like Dream on Rookie, this ship is too powerful for you, or some such).

But because of that, any legitimate version of the Defender is going to break the game. It should have stats higher than anything else, it should cost a ton of points, and in a 100pt game, it very well could be the only model on the table that that player gets. Per the sources, it's faster than anything, more maneuverable than anything, and more heavily armed than anything, and has heavier shields than anything. It's a munchkin ship. It is never going to fit right in this game.

Frankly I don't think we're ever going to be happy with Defender or Avenger stats, even in the unlikely event that FFG makes them. So debate here for what you want the stats to be, but don't count on there being a real consensus, and don't worry what other people fly in their own games.

I honestly don't think that FFG will make them. The IA expansion and the new-paint X-wing with the Blockade Runner, and the fact that they're making the Blockade Runner at all, hint at this. I think we're much more likely to see more re-paints than we are to see EU ships. While the game can handle larger engagements, FFG pushes 100pt games for tournaments, and the vast majority of players play 100pt games. And the game engine being the way it is, it's just not a good fit for munchkin ships.

Really good thoughts here. I would settle for an Avenger that could fit reasonably well into the game engine.