I question how this would work as an Action, however, since some pilots will take their actions before Blount and some will take theirs after Blount.

Fair point. Making it not require an action means it works at whatever point in time. And no, I don't think that's too bad - not sure how many points its worth, but that's just playtesting.

Passing a stress token to an enemy is a bit harsh because you're getting a double benefit - causing an enemy to have a stress token and not having a token yourself.

Hence the suggestion of a sort of 'reverse push the limit' for crazy fliers - hell, you could even make it a crew skill; more people than Azzamen deserve access to it. Call it "Never tell me the odds!" or something. Your nearby allies get stressed out in return for you getting an advantage. Just letting you pass the stress from a red manouvre to a nearby ally is quite a good one (it's comparable to the A-wing pilot who can take actions whilst stressed - both allow you actions after a red manouvre but one sticks you with a green manouvre next turn, the other sticks a nearby ally with the same)

Please don't argue with me about whether this calculation is right or wrong - I just use this tool - I am not the creator.

But I am curious about your detailed calculation.

So please, share it with us.

I already did, the TIE Avenger breakdown was here:

http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/74919-tie-defender-values/page-6#entry897524

The TIE Defender breakdown was here:

http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/74919-tie-defender-values/page-6#entry897555

At the time you liked the breakdown.

TBH I think the formula will stop working for higher point value ships, number of ships on the board matter a lot which is part of the reason why the Slave-1 and Falcon get a point break (not just that they have large bases). Even with good stats it's hard to justify a ship which costs 3-4 times the cost of an Academy Tie. So It's worth taking that into consideration. Even if the formula comes to 38 doesn't mean that it shouldn't actually sit around 33 points. I think that was part of the problem with the Tie Advanced, the particular combination of stats should cost a certain amount, but it didn't take into account the synergy between the stats and what else you could get for the points.

Yes, if the Tie Defender will be used in epic scale battles only 'to take on the rebel capital ships'.

Chris want them to for standard battles, if I got him right.

I liked your analyses, because it was fun to read. Nevertheless its a wild guess, though I still like it.

I thought you got a tool to calculate point costs meanwhile ...

TBH I think the formula will stop working for higher point value ships, number of ships on the board matter a lot which is part of the reason why the Slave-1 and Falcon get a point break (not just that they have large bases). Even with good stats it's hard to justify a ship which costs 3-4 times the cost of an Academy Tie. So It's worth taking that into consideration. Even if the formula comes to 38 doesn't mean that it shouldn't actually sit around 33 points. I think that was part of the problem with the Tie Advanced, the particular combination of stats should cost a certain amount, but it didn't take into account the synergy between the stats and what else you could get for the points.

Do you know a working tool for point costs which would work on any ship?

TBH I think the formula will stop working for higher point value ships, number of ships on the board matter a lot which is part of the reason why the Slave-1 and Falcon get a point break (not just that they have large bases). Even with good stats it's hard to justify a ship which costs 3-4 times the cost of an Academy Tie. So It's worth taking that into consideration. Even if the formula comes to 38 doesn't mean that it shouldn't actually sit around 33 points. I think that was part of the problem with the Tie Advanced, the particular combination of stats should cost a certain amount, but it didn't take into account the synergy between the stats and what else you could get for the points.

Do you know a working tool for point costs which would work on any ship?

Yeah the human brain, and crowd sourcing. From experience designing games you can have all the formulas in the world but they never do as well as 10 informed individuals looking at the stats comparing them to other models, considering what they would pay for the model and averaging the results.... There are just too many variables for a formula to accurately match. For example a Boost is far more value on a high PS pilot than a low one. Agility acts as a multiplier for Hull and Shields. Getting Evade on a ship that already has Focus and a high Agility is next to pointless, but evade on something with 1 Agility is usefull. etc.. If you try to apply a formula you will just get ships that are either far below or above on power scale due to the interaction between stats.

... so several people should take an educated guess when it comes to the super 3 ships ...

Or just one designer saying: "This is it! Don't argue with me."

Multiple sensible people and then playtest.. The strange thing is even if some people are wildly wrong the average comes out scarily close to what it should be. Have you seen those guess how many beans in a large jar contest. They have done tests and with a large enough sample size you can get within a couple of beans.. Same is true here, you take a large enough sample and average it and you will get close to spot on.

Always check your references!

The excel formula is fundamentally flawed for several reasons:

1) Squad power is proportional to the number of units squared, so linearly adding points to one ship to gain a linear increase in attack/defense power is inherently less efficient use of points than simply getting more ships.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanchester's_laws

2) Regressive algorithms like the one used are usually NOT good at predicting future values, even if they can adequately curve fit to the existing data points. Such algorithms almost always have a large gain of high-frequency noise, so small errors in the data sample will create large errors in predictive outputs.

3) Several input parameters have synergy with certain other input parameters, which isn't taken into account. For example, adding shields and hull on a 3 agility ship is more useful than adding it to a 1 agility ship.

There's a few things that are obviously wrong with the above formulas. 5 points for a target lock is an example of the algorithm failing, and resulting in a ridiculous value because it only knows how to mathematically fit things using a very simplistic formula. We know that the target lock upgrade will only cost 2 points as an add on, which realistically means its only 1 point if its built into the ship. Also, 1 points for a hull point but 3 points for a shield is obviously too large of a spread.

My linked method of using differential costs comparing similar ships is a MUCH more accurate way to predict future ship costs. Granted, with each new wave they add new features that change the game, so it's only a baseline. Everything also needs to be play tested, and ideally, analyzed statistically. FFG has a mixed record when it comes to balancing some of their upgrade and and ships. To be fair, I am a PhD candidate in a STEM field and I am reasonably sure that I have done more statistical analysis on some of their upgrade cards than FFG did when they designed them, otherwise they clearly would have been worded / costed differently (I'm looking at you, Expose and Autoblaster!).

A group of informed people and a playtesting session or two always worked for me. Not decrying the spreadsheet and mathematical approach , They work as well and definitely have there place in the process. But for every game or combat system i have been a part of creating there are always adjustments ranging from major rewrites to minor tweaking once the minis are on the board for the first time and the after play analysis starts

A group of informed people and a playtesting session or two always worked for me. Not decrying the spreadsheet and mathematical approach , They work as well and definitely have there place in the process. But for every game or combat system i have been a part of creating there are always adjustments ranging from major rewrites to minor tweaking once the minis are on the board for the first time and the after play analysis starts

Yup. Both are needed IMO. When playtesting you also need to be sure that you're not getting weird dice rolls which biases the impression of balance.

Speaking of custom. I just finished the newest Corvan fighter/bomber and would like some asistance with stats.

Once the Corvan remnants officially joined the rebels (those who didnt turn pirate or snap. Having your entire race and system laid waste by the Empire will do that) they started upgrading and building with a vengeance, turning their shipbuilding skills to the service of the people who were going to help avenge them. The assault bomber was the first of the ships followed soon after by the T-7 Strike fighter. An enlarged and improved 'heavy' counterpart to the T-4. Unlike the T-4 the 7 has only 2 heavy blaster cannon the two lower ones replaced by forward mounted ion cannon. This combined with the addition of another torpedo tube and a ventral bomb launcher makes the T-7 a capable strike fighter for a variety of roles.

The T-7 is among the first of the Corvan ships to be designed for compatibility with other ships and species variants as befitting its role in a multi world rebellion.

The normal reliance on heavy armour and lesser shielding is gone, with the ship using the more powerful shield generators preferred by rebel sources and a corresponding decrease in weight due to the thinner armour plating. This has also made the T-7 a bit more agile than it might look,roughly comparable to the T-4, though the Corvan tendency to prefer speed over maneuverability has resulted in the creation of an exceptionally fast gun platform.

The cockpit itself is versatile, designed wider and taller to accomodate a variety of species from standard Corvan size humanoids to Wookies. Or it can be configured as a two seater with the gunner controlling the bomb bay and torpedoes.

Ok. After that brief history any opinions are welcome. Here it is along with one more question.

http://lorelei-shipyards.tumblr.com/post/68735244319/corvan-t-7-strikefighter

I do not want to make over powered ships they annoy me but would a variant that replaces the forward ion cannon with blasters and has a Y Wing style ion cannon behind the cockpit be a but too much?

Hey all, I'm currently making some cards for a fellow forum partitioner. I want to get some final advice on the cards stats. Please feel free to give any thoughts (yays or nays) you may have.

Chris, let me know if these aren't the last versions. Thanks

Rebel Alliance

Z-95 Headhunter: (use X-Wing dial but add Red speed 1 Turns and speed 4 is red, K-turn is speed 3)

Bandit Squadron (12) 2 2 2 3 1 Focus, Target Lock

Upgrades: Missile, Modification

Tala Commandos (15) 4 2 2 3 1 Focus, Target Lock

Upgrades: Elite Pilot Talent , Missile, Modification

Lieutenant Blount (17) 5 2 2 3 1 Focus, Target Lock Unique

In the Planning Phase, he may look at one other player’s maneuver dial and then change his own, if he so chooses.

Upgrades: Elite Pilot Talent , Missile, Modification, System Upgrade

‘Ace’ Azzameen (18) 6 2 2 3 1 Focus, Target Lock Unique

Action: after executing a move, place a stress token on 1 enemy within Range 1.

Upgrades: Elite Pilot Talent , Missile, Modification

Airen Cracken (19) 7 2 2 3 1 Focus, Target Lock Unique

When taking damage, may take any face up damage card and turn it face down.

Upgrades: Elite Pilot Talent , Missile, Modification, System Upgrade

Corvan T-4: (use Y-Wing dial)

Terminator Squadron (20) 4 3 2 4 2 Focus, Target Lock, Boost

“The Corvan T-4 Attack Fighter combines heavy firepower, armor and powerful engines”

Upgrades: Astromech Droid, Elite Pilot Talent, Missile, Modification

Corvan Assault Bomber: (use Firespray-31 dial but add Red 0)

Liberator Squadron (24) 4 2 1 5 4 Focus, Target Lock

“The Corvan Assault Bomber is a compact, heavily armed small craft capable of delivering a variety of ordnance or troops against well defended targets”

Upgrades: System Upgrade, Cannon, Torpedo, Missile, Bomb/Mine, Crew, Modification

Imperial Forces

TIE/D Defender: (use TIE Interceptor dial)

Onyx Squadron (34) 4 3 3 3 4 Focus, Target Lock, Boost

“Arguably the best starfighter in existence, the TIE/Defender was also fitted with a tractor beam, increasing its lethality at close range.

Tractor Beam: when targeting small ships at range 1, reduce target’s Evade by 1 (to a minimum of 0)”

Upgrades: Elite Pilot Talent, Missile, (Ion) Cannon, Modification

Rexler Brath (38) 8 3 3 3 4 Focus, Target Lock, Boost Unique

Action: after executing a barrel roll, place a stress token on 1 enemy ship at range 1.

Upgrades: Elite Pilot Talent, Missile, (Ion) Cannon, Modification

TIE/gt: (use Y-Wing dial)

Imperial Army Pilot (13) 2 1 2 4 0 Focus, Barrel Roll “ The TIE/gt was based on the standard TIE Fighter design but with the main pod elongated to accommodate a bomb bay. It was designed to be dependent on the TIE/fc (or other source), to provided it with precise targeting information ”

Upgrades: System Upgrade, Torpedo, Missile, Bomb/Mine, Modification

Imperial Navy Pilot (14) 3 1 2 4 0 Focus, Barrel Roll

“ The TIE/gt was based on the standard TIE Fighter design but with the main pod elongated to accommodate a bomb bay. It was designed to be dependent on the TIE/fc (or other source), to provided it with precise targeting information”

Upgrades: System Upgrade, Torpedo, Missile, Bomb/Mine, Modification

TIE/fc: (use TIE Fighter dial)

Imperial Recon Pilot (14) 4 1 3 3 0 Focus, Target Lock, Barrel Roll, Evade “ The TIE/fc was designed to scan enemy forces and provide precise targeting information for TIE/gt or other ordnance-carrying ships ”

Upgrades: Elite Pilot Talent, Modification

I only have only two gamemechanic suggestions. The rest has to do with back story.

First I think TALA was a air too groung fighter group meant to support the Rebel Commandos and maybe the 2nd Endor assault force. The pilots where not commandos.

Seconded the TIE/fc was used for pinpoint Turbolaser bombardments esp the super heavy laser mounted to the sides of Imperial I & II Star Destroyers, which had ranges over 10 light minutes. If it was used with the TIE/gt that is news to me.

Two drawbacks that the TIE Defender has is size and a blind spot. Maybe make it so it cant fight ships range one or less. At least make them do a spot test to be able to attack ships at range one or less.

This is my own choice but if I had to pick a special character to fly a TIE Defender it would be the Countes that flew "Red Star 1." She had the most heavily modded TIE Defender and was a rival of Baron Fel.

If you use Red Star 1 it should have skill level 9 and add + 4 or 5 to all stats.

Trust me if she where in this game her stats would be ultra high. She spent alot of money to make her TIE/D way more dangerious than anyother TIE/D. This also plays into another topic I started. The only person to beat/kill her while she was dog fighting was Baron Fel in a TIE Interceptor. The 9.3s where not stopped by Red Star 1s sheilds.

Speaking of custom. I just finished the newest Corvan fighter/bomber and would like some asistance with stats.

Once the Corvan remnants officially joined the rebels (those who didnt turn pirate or snap. Having your entire race and system laid waste by the Empire will do that) they started upgrading and building with a vengeance, turning their shipbuilding skills to the service of the people who were going to help avenge them. The assault bomber was the first of the ships followed soon after by the T-7 Strike fighter. An enlarged and improved 'heavy' counterpart to the T-4. Unlike the T-4 the 7 has only 2 heavy blaster cannon the two lower ones replaced by forward mounted ion cannon. This combined with the addition of another torpedo tube and a ventral bomb launcher makes the T-7 a capable strike fighter for a variety of roles.

The T-7 is among the first of the Corvan ships to be designed for compatibility with other ships and species variants as befitting its role in a multi world rebellion.

The normal reliance on heavy armour and lesser shielding is gone, with the ship using the more powerful shield generators preferred by rebel sources and a corresponding decrease in weight due to the thinner armour plating. This has also made the T-7 a bit more agile than it might look,roughly comparable to the T-4, though the Corvan tendency to prefer speed over maneuverability has resulted in the creation of an exceptionally fast gun platform.

The cockpit itself is versatile, designed wider and taller to accomodate a variety of species from standard Corvan size humanoids to Wookies. Or it can be configured as a two seater with the gunner controlling the bomb bay and torpedoes.

Ok. After that brief history any opinions are welcome. Here it is along with one more question.

http://lorelei-shipyards.tumblr.com/post/68735244319/corvan-t-7-strikefighter

I do not want to make over powered ships they annoy me but would a variant that replaces the forward ion cannon with blasters and has a Y Wing style ion cannon behind the cockpit be a but too much?

Gosric,

How's this for stats?

Corvan T-7 Strike Fighter

AT:2, EV:2, HU:3, SH:3

Focus, Target Lock, Boost

Astromech Droid, Cannon, 2x Missile, Bomb/Mine, Modification

Use Y-wing maneuver dial

Cost = 16 (+PS, unique pilot traits and upgrades)

Corvan T-4 Assault Fighter

AT:3, EV:2, HU:4, SH:2

Focus, Target Lock, Boost

Astromech Droid, Cannon, Missile, Modification

Use Y-wing maneuver dial

Cost = 15 (+PS, unique pilot traits and upgrades)

Corvan Assault Bomber

AT:2 (turret), EV:1, HU:5, SH:4

Focus, Target Lock

System Upgrade, Cannon, Torpedo, Missile, Bomb/Mine, Modification

Use Firespray-31 maneuver dial but add Red 0

Cost= 20 (+PS, unique pilot ability, upgrades)

Chris

Works for me, thank you. I am still working on pilots. The first one of choice was the character this all came about for, But he was actually the captain of the Ravenheart which was more of a large ship (An armed scout/patrol vessel though i suppose that would be a medium ship now the blockade runner is coming out) though he started as a fighter pilot so the skills would be there. But i have 4 more that would work well once i figure out the workings including the requisite annoying droid. i have never created a 'character' for this system so still getting my head around abilities and skills etc

Hey all, I'm currently making some cards for a fellow forum partitioner. I want to get some final advice on the cards stats. Please feel free to give any thoughts (yays or nays) you may have.

Chris, let me know if these aren't the last versions. Thanks

Rebel Alliance

████████████████████

Z-95 Headhunter:

(use X-Wing dial but add Red speed 1 Turns and speed 4 is red, K-turn is speed 3)

• Bandit Squadron (12) 2 2 2 3 1

Focus, Target Lock

Upgrades: Missile, Modification

• Tala Commandos (15) 4 2 2 3 1

Focus, Target Lock

Upgrades: Elite Pilot Talent , Missile, Modification

• Lieutenant Blount (17) 5 2 2 3 1

Focus, Target Lock Unique

In the Planning Phase, he may look at one other player’s maneuver dial and then change his own, if he so chooses.

Upgrades: Elite Pilot Talent , Missile, Modification, System Upgrade

• ‘Ace’ Azzameen (18) 6 2 2 3 1

Focus, Target Lock Unique

Action: after executing a move, place a stress token on 1 enemy within Range 1.

Upgrades: Elite Pilot Talent , Missile, Modification

• Airen Cracken (19) 7 2 2 3 1

Focus, Target Lock Unique

When taking damage, may take any face up damage card and turn it face down.

Upgrades: Elite Pilot Talent , Missile, Modification, System Upgrade

Corvan T-4:

(use Y-Wing dial)

• Terminator Squadron (20) 4 3 2 4 2

Focus, Target Lock, Boost

“The Corvan T-4 Attack Fighter combines heavy firepower, armor and powerful engines”

Upgrades: Astromech Droid, Elite Pilot Talent, Missile, Modification

Corvan Assault Bomber:

(use Firespray-31 dial but add Red 0)

• Liberator Squadron (24) 4 2 1 5 4

Focus, Target Lock

“The Corvan Assault Bomber is a compact, heavily armed small craft capable of delivering a variety of ordnance or troops against well defended targets”

Upgrades: System Upgrade, Cannon, Torpedo, Missile, Bomb/Mine, Crew, Modification

Imperial Forces

██████████████████████

TIE/D Defender:

(use TIE Interceptor dial)

• Onyx Squadron (34) 4 3 3 3 4

Focus, Target Lock, Boost

“Arguably the best starfighter in existence, the TIE/Defender was also fitted with a tractor beam, increasing its lethality at close range.

Tractor Beam: when targeting small ships at range 1, reduce target’s Evade by 1 (to a minimum of 0)”

Upgrades: Elite Pilot Talent, Missile, (Ion) Cannon, Modification

• Rexler Brath (38) 8 3 3 3 4

Focus, Target Lock, Boost Unique

Action: after executing a barrel roll, place a stress token on 1 enemy ship at range 1.

Upgrades: Elite Pilot Talent, Missile, (Ion) Cannon, Modification

TIE/gt:

(use Y-Wing dial)

• Imperial Army Pilot (13) 2 1 2 4 0

Focus, Barrel Roll “ The TIE/gt was based on the standard TIE Fighter design but with the main pod elongated to accommodate a bomb bay. It was designed to be dependent on the TIE/fc (or other source), to provided it with precise targeting information ”

Upgrades: System Upgrade, Torpedo, Missile, Bomb/Mine, Modification

• Imperial Navy Pilot (14) 3 1 2 4 0

Focus, Barrel Roll

“ The TIE/gt was based on the standard TIE Fighter design but with the main pod elongated to accommodate a bomb bay. It was designed to be dependent on the TIE/fc (or other source), to provided it with precise targeting information”

Upgrades: System Upgrade, Torpedo, Missile, Bomb/Mine, Modification

TIE/fc:

(use TIE Fighter dial)

• Imperial Recon Pilot (14) 4 1 3 3 0

Focus, Target Lock, Barrel Roll, Evade “ The TIE/fc was designed to scan enemy forces and provide precise targeting information for TIE/gt or other ordnance-carrying ships ”

Upgrades: Elite Pilot Talent, Modification

OMG!

so much better without the dark blue and the red,

it's not hurting my brain or my eyes anymore.

The color selection was my first complaint way back on post #3.

Lt. Blount: Needs to change the timing to the start of the movement phase instead of happening during the planning phase. I mean if it happens during the planning phase what's to keep the opponent from resetting his own dial(s) and what's to keeping the player from setting his dials based on the information? For that power I also wonder if he shouldn't give up the EP slot.

Cracken: Why not word it just like Chewbacca? It would make things easier.

OK, here is the latest version. Please note that there are a few details still missing. For example, we still need some TIE/Avenger pilots and skills plus a unique pilot skill for "Easy" Nerwal and maybe another Avenger and Defender pilot, plus Gosric has promised some Corvan pilots for the T-4 and Assault Bomber. On tho the show...

Unofficial Mods for X-Wing Miniatures Game V 4.1

Upgrades: Missile, Modification

Upgrades: Elite Pilot Talent , Missile, Modification

“Specializing in recon missions, Lt. Blount’s Headhunter has been specially modified to take a variety of mission packages and system upgrades.”

Upgrades: Elite Pilot Talent , Missile, Modification, System Upgrade

Action: after executing a move, place a stress token on 1 enemy within Range 1.

Upgrades: Elite Pilot Talent , Missile, Modification

When taking damage, may take any face up damage card and turn it face down.

Upgrades: Elite Pilot Talent , Missile, Modification

“The Corvan T-4 Attack Fighter combines heavy firepower, armor and powerful engines”

Upgrades: Astromech Droid, Elite Pilot Talent, Missile, Modification

“The Corvan Assault Bomber is a compact, heavily armed small craft capable of delivering a variety of ordnance or troops against well defended targets”

Upgrades: System Upgrade, Cannon, Torpedo, Missile, Bomb/Mine, Crew, Modification

“ Incorporating the previous successes of the TIE series starfighters, along with those of the Rebel Alliance, the TIE Avenger was one of the first production starfighters to break away from the Imperial doctrine of quantity over quality”

Upgrades: System Upgrade, Elite Pilot Talent, Missile, Modification

Unique

“???”

Upgrades: System Upgrade, Elite Pilot Talent, Missile, Modification

“When your attack deals a face up Damage card to the defender, instead draw 3 Damage cards, choose 1 to deal, and discard the others”

Upgrades: System Upgrade, Elite Pilot Talent, Missile, Modification

“Arguably the best starfighter in existence, the TIE/Defender was also fitted with a tractor beam, increasing its lethality at close range.

Tractor Beam: when targeting small ships at range 1, reduce target’s Evade by 1 (to a minimum of 0)”

Upgrades: System Upgrade, Cannon, Elite Pilot Talent, Missile, Modification

“When your attack deals a face up Damage card to the defender, instead draw 3 Damage cards, choose 1 to deal, and discard the others”

Action: after executing a barrel roll, place a stress token on 1 enemy ship at range 1.

Upgrades: System Upgrade, Cannon, Elite Pilot Talent, Missile, Modification

Upgrades: System Upgrade, Torpedo, Missile, Bomb/Mine, Modification

“ The TIE/gt was based on the standard TIE Fighter design but with the main pod elongated to accommodate a bomb bay. It was designed to be dependent on the TIE/fc (or other source), to provided it with precise targeting information”

Upgrades: System Upgrade, Torpedo, Missile, Bomb/Mine, Modification

Upgrades: Elite Pilot Talent, Modification

Again, we invite comments.

Chris

First of all, that's a lot of great work!

I have posted about the TIE Avenger and TIE Defender in other threads, and would like to put in my 2 cents here too. It's your mods, so you are obviously free to take it or leave it. I do have a good handle on statistics, so I aim to make everything balanced.

That said, I would suggest the following for the TIE Avenger:

3 attack, 3 defense, 3 hull, 4 shields.
Actions: Focus, Evade, Target Lock, Barrel Roll, Boost.
Dial: Upgraded version of the A-Wing dial. 3 banks and 3 turns are now green. AKA the only white maneuvers are 1 turns.
Ship slots: 1 Missile

Rationale based on old TIE Fighter PC game:

• The Avenger had 100 SBD, twice that of an X-Wing, so its shields should be 4, not 3. There is no debate on this one, unless you intentionally want to nerf it for balance reasons and break from being "historically" accurate.
• It was also significantly more maneuverable than an A-wing or a TIE Interceptor. It's hard to implement that with the current game mechanics, but we can approximate by adding a whole ton of green on the dial. The Avenger was extremely fast, it was 30% faster than the TIE Interceptor. Proportionately, it would be able to do a straight 6 or straight 7, so pulling green 3's would be trivial for it.
• It did have the capability to have a tractor beam, but was rarely used. In practice it was the ultimate space superiority fighter, frequently used as an escort for more vulnerable ships like Assault Gunboats.
• It was better than the post-nerf (aka post TIE-Fighter PC game) TIE Defender in straight-up dogfighting, but it was less versatile than the Defender. I wouldn't give the Avenger the System Upgrade, to thematically fit the lore, and to give it a unique role in the tabletop game.

That all being said, the next step is to balance it. There are at least two ways to approach this.

Method 1

Use the differential point cost and stat upgrades going from the standard TIE Fighter to the TIE Interceptor, and likewise from the TIE Fighter to the TIE Advanced.

First off, we will use the following as a baseline:

PS1 TIE Fighter: 12 points
PS1 TIE Advanced: 18 points
PS1 TIE Interceptor: 18 points

The TIE Advanced points is weird, let me explain. First, I took off 2 points from the TIE Advanced, because it is horribly overpriced. You can read about this in several of my other posts in the "Fixing the TIE Advanced" thread. Then, we remove one more point to get us to the same PS1 baseline.

Next: The TIE Avenger is basically a TIE Advanced with the following stat improvements:

• +1 attack, better maneuverability (+2 tiers), boost action.
• +2 shields

Compare this to:

• +1 attack, better maneuverability (+1 tier), boost action = TIE Fighter to TIE Interceptor = 6 points
• +2 shields, target lock, missile slot = TIE Fighter to TIE Advanced = 6 points

The above two almost equal out. If we consider the +1 extra tier of maneuverability to be an approximate wash with targeting computer and missile slot, then the TIE Avenger should cost 12 points more than the TIE Advanced.

That leaves us at 31 points for a PS2 pilot.

Method 2

You can use Lanchester's Laws to figure out a point cost for the TIE Avenger by comparing it directly to the TIE Interceptor, and then add a few points for the extra bells and whistles.

Short summary: a ship's cost should be proportional to:

C = (A*D)^0.5

where C = the cost, A is the attack (damage output per round) and D is the defense (surviveability, which depends on HPs and agility). Normally it is difficult to compare ships of different types, because the attack and defense dice may be different, but in this case the TIE Interceptor and TIE Advanced both have 3 attack and defense dice. So, we're basically just figuring out how much a balanced cost would be to add 4 shields to an Interceptor. Notice that I did NOT use 16 as the answer, because paying for upgrades is always overpriced.

So, we have: PS1 TIE Interceptor with 4 shields should cost 18*(7/3)^0.5 = 27.5.
Now we need to add the bells and whistles, which includes: target lock, missile slot, +1 tier of maneuverability. I'm going to call all of that collectively 2.5 points. Finally, we add 1 point to get back to PS2.

So, that again leaves us with 31 points for a PS2 pilot.


So, I would suggest the following:

PS2 pilot @ 31 points
PS4 pilot w/ elite pilot slot @33 points

You can then fill in with the standard point cost progression for however many higher PS pilots you would like, i.e.
PS6 pilot w/ elite pilot slot + pilot ability @36 points
PS7 pilot w/ elite pilot slot + pilot ability @37 points
PS8 pilot w/ elite pilot slot + pilot ability @38 points
PS9 pilot w/ elite pilot slot + pilot ability @39 points

The TIE Defender is a little trickier to figure out. Looks like you are going with the nerfed version, which is fine. I will post on the Defender later.

Edit: emphasis on the fact that I would NOT put the system upgrade on the TIE Avenger. It was a great dogfighter but wasn't as versatile as the TIE Defender. I feel that the lack of a Cannon slot and System Upgrade slot properly reflect this.

First of all, that's a lot of great work!

I have posted about the TIE Avenger and TIE Defender in other threads, and would like to put in my 2 cents here too. It's your mods, so you are obviously free to take it or leave it. I do have a good handle on statistics, so I aim to make everything balanced.

That said, I would suggest the following for the TIE Avenger:

3 attack, 3 defense, 3 hull, 4 shields.

Actions: Focus, Evade, Target Lock, Barrel Roll, Boost.

Dial: Upgraded version of the A-Wing dial. 3 banks and 3 turns are now green. AKA the only white maneuvers are 1 turns.

Ship slots: 1 Missile

Rationale based on old TIE Fighter PC game:

• The Avenger had 100 SBD, twice that of an X-Wing, so its shields should be 4, not 3. There is no debate on this one, unless you intentionally want to nerf it for balance reasons and break from being "historically" accurate.
• It was also significantly more maneuverable than an A-wing or a TIE Interceptor. It's hard to implement that with the current game mechanics, but we can approximate by adding a whole ton of green on the dial. The Avenger was extremely fast, it was 30% faster than the TIE Interceptor. Proportionately, it would be able to do a straight 6 or straight 7, so pulling green 3's would be trivial for it.
• It did have the capability to have a tractor beam, but was rarely used. In practice it was the ultimate space superiority fighter, frequently used as an escort for more vulnerable ships like Assault Gunboats.
• It was better than the post-nerf (aka post TIE-Fighter PC game) TIE Defender in straight-up dogfighting, but it was less versatile than the Defender. I wouldn't give the Avenger the System Upgrade, to thematically fit the lore, and to give it a unique role in the tabletop game.

That all being said, the next step is to balance it. There are at least two ways to approach this.

Method 1

Use the differential point cost and stat upgrades going from the standard TIE Fighter to the TIE Interceptor, and likewise from the TIE Fighter to the TIE Advanced.

First off, we will use the following as a baseline:

PS1 TIE Fighter: 12 points

PS1 TIE Advanced: 18 points

PS1 TIE Interceptor: 18 points

The TIE Advanced points is weird, let me explain. First, I took off 2 points from the TIE Advanced, because it is horribly overpriced. You can read about this in several of my other posts in the "Fixing the TIE Advanced" thread. Then, we remove one more point to get us to the same PS1 baseline.

Next: The TIE Avenger is basically a TIE Advanced with the following stat improvements:

• +1 attack, better maneuverability (+2 tiers), boost action.
• +2 shields

Compare this to:

• +1 attack, better maneuverability (+1 tier), boost action = TIE Fighter to TIE Interceptor = 6 points
• +2 shields, target lock, missile slot = TIE Fighter to TIE Advanced = 6 points

The above two almost equal out. If we consider the +1 extra tier of maneuverability to be an approximate wash with targeting computer and missile slot, then the TIE Avenger should cost 12 points more than the TIE Advanced.

That leaves us at 31 points for a PS2 pilot.

Method 2

You can use Lanchester's Laws to figure out a point cost for the TIE Avenger by comparing it directly to the TIE Interceptor, and then add a few points for the extra bells and whistles.

Short summary: a ship's cost should be proportional to:

C = (A*D)^0.5

where C = the cost, A is the attack (damage output per round) and D is the defense (surviveability, which depends on HPs and agility). Normally it is difficult to compare ships of different types, because the attack and defense dice may be different, but in this case the TIE Interceptor and TIE Advanced both have 3 attack and defense dice. So, we're basically just figuring out how much a balanced cost would be to add 4 shields to an Interceptor. Notice that I did NOT use 16 as the answer, because paying for upgrades is always overpriced.

So, we have: PS1 TIE Interceptor with 4 shields should cost 18*(7/3)^0.5 = 27.5.

Now we need to add the bells and whistles, which includes: target lock, missile slot, +1 tier of maneuverability. I'm going to call all of that collectively 2.5 points. Finally, we add 1 point to get back to PS2.

So, that again leaves us with 31 points for a PS2 pilot.

So, I would suggest the following:

PS2 pilot @ 31 points

PS4 pilot w/ elite pilot slot @33 points

You can then fill in with the standard point cost progression for however many higher PS pilots you would like, i.e.

PS6 pilot w/ elite pilot slot + pilot ability @36 points

PS7 pilot w/ elite pilot slot + pilot ability @37 points

PS8 pilot w/ elite pilot slot + pilot ability @38 points

PS9 pilot w/ elite pilot slot + pilot ability @39 points

The TIE Defender is a little trickier to figure out. Looks like you are going with the nerfed version, which is fine. I will post on the Defender later.

Edit: emphasis on the fact that I would NOT put the system upgrade on the TIE Avenger. It was a great dogfighter but wasn't as versatile as the TIE Defender. I feel that the lack of a Cannon slot and System Upgrade slot properly reflect this.

Major Juggler,

thank you so much for your input. It is yours and others input that has helped to get us to this point. Allow me to comment on your comments.

1. TIE/Avenger shield value- I set my values for the Defender first, and that WAS listed as having a shield factor of '150' on Wookieepedia but is now listed as '100' (same as the Avenger), which is somewhere between the values listed for the Y-wing and B-wing. And since I need the Defender to have a higer value than the Avenger, that meant that I had to downgrade the Avenger. So, YES, your suggestion of a value of ' 4 ' for both is correct and what we shall use.

2. TIE Avenger & Defender maneuver dials- My gut, experience and education tell me that a lower mass ship should be more "nimble" than a more massive ship (all things being equal). As far as the various SW computer games/flight sims, the stats seem to be very subjective and depend on the designers personal prejudices (same with mine, I suppose) making them somewhat unreliable or at least questionable. Then there are statements like: "the TIE Defender was the most maneuverable ship in the Imperial arsenal and superior to any Rebel starfighter". Just what does maneuverable mean in the context of the X-Wing Miniatures Game? Does it necessarily mean faster? Does it mean that it should have Barrel Roll and/or Evade actions? Does it mean that it should have a high Evade value (ie. 3+)? Does it require a new maneuver dial (or can an existing one suffice)? It is very easy to create game-breaking monstrosities and I have seen a few of those. I have no desire to go down that path; I would rather keep things "reasonable" and balanced and, as much as possible, within the already established norms. Thus, I would prefer o use as much stock FFG components as possible (ex. Maneuver Dials). That said, a minor modification to an existing dial should not break anything.

-Which of the two (Avenger or Defender) should have the better Maneuver Dial?

-Is there anything one could do that the other could not?

3. Tractor Beam- I have already given my rational for my version of the Tractor Beam (as fitted to small craft like the TIE/Defender and Avenger). Both the Defender and Avenger list the TB as an optional weapon. How common were these fitted? Is it even worth modeling in the game? If so, how to do it? Personally, I feel that if it is going to be included, making it a "System" card is the way to go. But, is it really worth it?

4. Point Values system- I have seen numerous "systems" proposed on this and other forums but until FFG releases their in-house method, anyone's guess is just that... a guess. What I did is study the various ships, compared them and looked for common denominators and other indicators of "value". I took every ship that uses a given maneuver dial (because this is the real "X-Factor" with no numeric value that I could determine), stripped them down stat by stat. Then I looked at another ship and did the same thing. The system I came up with seems to be simpler and works just as good as some of the more complicated methods I have seen. The results are at least consistent. I also use a "fudge factor" to adjust things +/- 1 for play balance IMO. In short, I have my own method that gets reasonable results (within 1 point of most other systems). There will always be some adjustment for "play balance" as all point systems are subjective regardless of what system you use, official or otherwise (see FFG's TIE/x-1).

Again, thanks for the input, this has really been a collaborative effort. Do you have any suggestions for any pilots/skills for Avenger or Defender?

Chris

Can't reply in full, but quick update:

There is some confusion on the Defender's stats, since they were drastically changed at least once. Most people probably think of the original crazy awesome Defender stats when they imagine the ship, but then use the nerfed stats when they implement it, to keep it balanced.

The original version of the TIE defender was really crazy, as it was introduced in the PC TIE Fighter game. It had 200 SBD shields (8 shields in this game!!), maneuverability was 175 (vs 150 for the Avenger and low 100's for the Interceptor), and speed was 155 (vs 145 for the Avenger and 111 for the Interceptor). The fact that the original Defender was even a hair more maneuverable than the Avenger was quite impressive given that it was physically larger. I think Wookiepedia might still reference this - again, it has some mixed references between the original and nerfed stats, so you kind of have to sort through the details there. Post-nerf it was NOT the most maneuverable ship.

In later games they nerfed the Defender stats: shields were reduced to 100 SBD, and the maneuverability was reduced to the Interceptor level. So the Avenger and the nerfed Defender both would have 4 shields. Wookiepedia generally references the nerfed stats. Not sure where 150 SBD ever came from.

So, bottom line: if you are going with the "nerfed" Defender, then it should use the A-wing dial and have 4 shields. The Avenger should have the better dial, basically the ultimate dial in the game. You could probably get away with even giving it a green 1 turn. That probably requires some playtesting, but if there was a ship that could be green everything, the Avenger (or pre-nerf Defender) would be the only one that comes to mind.

As for the Defender's defense dice, you can argue for either 2 or 3 dice. 2 dice because it has a larger physical profile, or 3 dice because it's still fairly agile. Personally, I would give it 2 dice, since that reflects the ship's larger size, since that makes it more unique, and gives it a more unique role for the tabletop game. If you were using the original Defender stats, then I could see 3 agility simply because it was so absurdly fast and maneuverable: sure it provided a larger cross sectional area to shoot at, but the bloody thing wouldn't sit still in one spot for longer than a moment to get a shot off at it. Post-nerf: not so much.

So comparison for Avenger vs nerfed Defender:

• Avenger was a better dogfighter
• Defender could equip many many more kinds of upgrades, and was routinely outfitted on a per mission basis. The Defender routinely used a tractor beam, which would probably be implemented as a cannon in this game. So, cannon upgrade and system upgrade makes perfect sense for the Defender.
• Avenger was more maneuverable, but both would have boost / barrel roll.
• I think the Defender could carry more missiles / torpedoes. Would have to look that up to be certain. It might make sense to give it a missile and a torpedo slot, one of each. Not 100% sure, just an idea.

Think of the nerfed Defender as a hyper-maneuverable version of the B-Wing, and the Avenger as the ultimate hunter killer.

I can come up with some stats for both versions of the Defender later.

Re: tractor beam: I have a suspicion that FFG is going to release a tractor beam as a cannon upgrade slot in the future. I don't have any special insight, it's just a hunch. I'm not even sure what the best way to implement a tractor beam would be. Maybe something like "reduce opponents agility by 1 if in range 1"? It should be able to work with both primary and secondary weapons, Maarek Steele used it with Rockets to hit otherwise more agile targets (starfighters). This topic probably deserves its own thread to good ideas the community can come up with. Absolutely give the Defender tractor beam capability. Avenger technically could use it too, but it was so uncommon that I would leave it out. Besides, you want ships to have different functions for the tabletop game, so the cannon upgrade slot helps to differentiate the Defender.

Re: point values - I'll look at the other ships later, but I think your general approach is good. The regressive curve-fitting type algorithms do NOT work to accurately set point costs.

If you start with the Interceptor dial, give the Defender a green 5 straight (making it the same as an A-Wing) as it has better straight line speeds, and give the Avenger a green 1 turn as it has better maneuvering for dogfighting (but leave the 5 straight white)

There has been a lot of discussion about the Advanced, the Avenger and the Defender.

There are different approaches and the resulty vary largely - depending on what is the most important aspect: playability in 100 points lists, balancing, background or just personal preferences.

After all I would start with the TIE Advanced and give it a better dial and more firepower.

We know that the Advanced is overpriced by 2 or 3 points. So I'll go with the Tempest and subtract 2 points:

19 points

Now I add +1 firepower for 4 points (I think 4 points are fair to get from 2 to 3 firepower) = 23 points

Then I would add +1 for the better dial, and 1 point for a system upgrade slot (or beam weapon slot ) =

25 points for a 3-3-3-2 TIE Avenger with PS2

Despide the background telling they had 100 SBD shields ... there are also sources telling of 40 SBD http://www.jedipedia.de/wiki/TIE-Avenger

Now I would go for the Defender:

I add 2 shields for 3.5 points each ('natural' shields are cheaper then upgrades by modifications): 32 points.

then I add a cannon upgrade slot: 33 points

and a better dial for 1 point

which gives me a

34 points for a 3-3-3-4 TIE Defender with PS2

At this point, maybe it would be wise to reduce costs by 1 point, so that people buy 3 Defenders, instead of just 2.

Sales figures matter! But also a balanced gameplay does.

Finally I would try:

33 points for a 3-3-3-4 TIE Defender with PS2

So I'd would test the 3 x 33 points vanilla Defender against ...

... 3 Bounty hunters

... 4 X-Wings with upgrades

... Swarm, HSF and B-Wing lists

and so on

I think it's also worth noting that expensive ships like the Slave and the Falcon have a reduced value, some people say because of the large base, but I think it's more likely that numbers on the board matter, and therefore the higher points you go the more any formula breaks down and the more cost reduction you need to slip in to make them worth their cost.

I agree that "-1 Agility on defender at Range 1" is the right way to go with the Tractor Beam, and it should be a system upgrade. So the Defender can tractor the enemy while firing an ion cannon at them if they want.

If you start with the Interceptor dial, give the Defender a green 5 straight (making it the same as an A-Wing) as it has better straight line speeds, and give the Avenger a green 1 turn as it has better maneuvering for dogfighting (but leave the 5 straight white)

There is no way the 5 straight should be white for the Avenger. It's significantly faster than the A-Wing.