About the same as an X Wing firepower wise. Shields would likely be a little less than an X Wing but the sturdiness of the hull would make it very durable. An advantage that they have, which im not sure how it would work in game, is a high resistance to ion attacks. As i mentioned earlier i think the charged upper atmosphere of Corvus 3 can fry electonics easily so they tend to be very well shielded against EMP.

In the game we were playing the main villains had a Praetor class with an extra reactor simply to power the forward mounted V-150 ion cannon and to counter this the rebels used a converted Pulson D Frigate (we were having fun with the Nebulon B naming thing, Quazon, Pulson etc*L*) called the 'Ion tempest' with a similiar ion cannon mounted, which on a smaller rebel ship of course left no power or room for armaments so having escort fighters that could handle the fringes of an ion blast of that level was handy. Needless to say even the Corvan fighters cannot handle an actual hit from an ion blast of that level but against fighter mounted ones it comes in handy.

As you can imagine this made fleet action a bit brutal since in ESB we saw what happens when capital ships get hit with one of those and in the presence of the Y wing and Corvan assault bomber a ship whose weapons and shields were temporarily down has a tendency to become permanently out of the picture.

Ok, now im rambling since this game isnt about fleets. Sometimes i get carried away *L*

Gosric,

How about this?

Corvan T-4: 3/2/4/2

Corvan Assault Bomber: 2 (turret)/1/6/3 - a bit sturdier (armored?) hull and Y-wing shields

Does the ability to mount Missiles, Cannons and Bombs/Mines fit in with your vision? It also seems obvious to me that the CAB is equipped dispatch assault troops in eithe EVA or direct boarding actions, correct?

Chris

Correct. The assault bomber is designed for multi role actions bomb the hell out of a base or station then land or launch troops to finish the job, or slam its way into a docking bay and do the same. the T-4 has a single tube and a capacity of 4 concussion missiles or 3 proton torpedoes, i havent really thought about the T-4 carrying mines or bombs but i guess it could be a modification easily enough.The Assault Bomber can carry a wide variety of ordnance depending on the mission.

And the stats look good to me

Somehow, I don't see one of the Empire's most advanced starfighters being less evasive than a TIE/Ln or even the TIE Defender... especially the Defender which is substantially heavier. I think 3/3/3/3 (or at worst 3/3/3/2). I was going to give the Defender the A-wing Maneuver Dial, whereas the Avenger would use the TIE Interceptor dial. Both would have TL, Focus, Boost and I think I have been convinced that both will have Barrel Roll. What if I differentiated the Defender/Avenger by giving the (lighter) Avenger the Evade action, whereas the (heavier) Defender does not?

I wouldnt ca

Just food for thought but I'd like opinions.

Chris

Yes Chris, your opinion counts. But choose yourself a picture ... you are so ... faceless

I thought maybe it isnt the best idea to just give the Empire 2 super 3 ships, game-wise. Maybe its more fun and balanced to play with more adjusted values. Not only to make the ships cheaper point-wise.

Lets put the dial, the upgrades and the pilots aside for a moment.

The ships stats are the main figures to descripe ot to create a ship. Minor changes have a big impact but we don't have much range.

If your consider the first 2 figures (primary weapons and defence):

1: is amost as good as 0. Its not worth to think about.

2: weak

3: strong

4: very strong. probably a game breaker.

The last 2 figures of the ships stats basically gives an indication on how long the first 2 figures last in the game. Especially if you consider that a high amount of hit points and high defence multiply (jeah not really multiply math-wise, but I'm sure you get me)

So if you have like (strong)-(strong)-(last long) and a (strong)-(strong)-(last ******* long) ships for one fraction only - because you want the stats to be 'realistic' in terms of wookiepedia and some computer games - you'll probably create game breakers. I don't know. It has to be tested. I don't know whether the stats i gavve in the example would be fine or not.

This is because I outlined them as an example and not the only way to do it.

At the end FFG did't decide to give the B-Wing an attack value of 4 and make them as expensive like Han Solo.

And for the A-Wing: According to wookiepedia the A-Wing and the Tie Fighter have both the same hull value - but the game designers decided to give the A-Wings a 2 and the Tie-Fighters a 3.

New ships should be different to play and it sould be fun to have them on the board - not just to dominate all the others.

Its not like we are waging a real war and we have to develop weapon system to outclass and replace the existing ones.

Despide I love the idea of having Avengers and Defenders, I even more like the idea of having fun playing with them together with all the other ships the game offers.

I hope you got my point. I have a LEGO Tie Defender sitting of my shelf in the living room.

I want it in the game - but in a balanced way.

Somehow, I don't see one of the Empire's most advanced starfighters being less evasive than a TIE/Ln or even the TIE Defender... especially the Defender which is substantially heavier. I think 3/3/3/3 (or at worst 3/3/3/2). I was going to give the Defender the A-wing Maneuver Dial, whereas the Avenger would use the TIE Interceptor dial. Both would have TL, Focus, Boost and I think I have been convinced that both will have Barrel Roll. What if I differentiated the Defender/Avenger by giving the (lighter) Avenger the Evade action, whereas the (heavier) Defender does not?

I wouldnt ca

Just food for thought but I'd like opinions.

Chris

Yes Chris, your opinion counts. But choose yourself a picture ... you are so ... faceless

I thought maybe it isnt the best idea to just give the Empire 2 super 3 ships, game-wise. Maybe its more fun and balanced to play with more adjusted values. Not only to make the ships cheaper point-wise.

Lets put the dial, the upgrades and the pilots aside for a moment.

The ships stats are the main figures to descripe ot to create a ship. Minor changes have a big impact but we don't have much range.

If your consider the first 2 figures (primary weapons and defence):

1: is amost as good as 0. Its not worth to think about.

2: weak

3: strong

4: very strong. probably a game breaker.

The last 2 figures of the ships stats basically gives an indication on how long the first 2 figures last in the game. Especially if you consider that a high amount of hit points and high defence multiply (jeah not really multiply math-wise, but I'm sure you get me)

So if you have like (strong)-(strong)-(last long) and a (strong)-(strong)-(last ******* long) ships for one fraction only - because you want the stats to be 'realistic' in terms of wookiepedia and some computer games - you'll probably create game breakers. I don't know. It has to be tested. I don't know whether the stats i gavve in the example would be fine or not.

This is because I outlined them as an example and not the only way to do it.

At the end FFG did't decide to give the B-Wing an attack value of 4 and make them as expensive like Han Solo.

And for the A-Wing: According to wookiepedia the A-Wing and the Tie Fighter have both the same hull value - but the game designers decided to give the A-Wings a 2 and the Tie-Fighters a 3.

New ships should be different to play and it sould be fun to have them on the board - not just to dominate all the others.

Its not like we are waging a real war and we have to develop weapon system to outclass and replace the existing ones.

Despide I love the idea of having Avengers and Defenders, I even more like the idea of having fun playing with them together with all the other ships the game offers.

I hope you got my point. I have a LEGO Tie Defender sitting of my shelf in the living room.

I want it in the game - but in a balanced way.

TheRealStarkiller,

not having a picture allows me to retain a certain air of "Mystery". You are probably wondering: "what does he look like?" or "what sort of personal/useful information can I glean from his avatar/picture to thwart his evil machinations?" or "can't he decide what to use as a picture or how to load one?"

The TRUTH... the latter. First, I just haven't decided WHAT to use as a picture. Second, I'd have to figure out how to load it once I picked one. Plus, I'm just too busy doing other things/too **** lazy to do it

Re: game stats for Defender and Avenger- yeah, I've looked at how FFG did their stats and I've looked at how Wookieepedia stats the ships (compared to each other and other starfighters) and I am quite versed in game design/game ballance concepts, etc... I have seen other people's suggestions for the ships and have no wish to make either the TIE Defender or the Avenger into overpowered monsters. However, when the only surce material I have available says "the best starfighter in the Imperial inventory" or "best, most maneuverable starfighter in existance", I have to make the stats reflect that somehow. If that turns the Defender into one tough but incredibly expensive ship, then so be it (hey, that is one reason they are produced in such limited quantities according to the fluff back story). The TIE/Advanced "Avenger" is supposed to be "almost as good" as the Defender, with somewhat weaker shields and different weapons fit (ie. no Ion cannons). The Avenger would, accordingly be less expensive. Cost (as long as the points reflect the ships capabilities somewhat accurately) is where you get ballance. If I only have so many points to build a squad, I can take only so many "uberships". Like i needed to tell you that, sry.

So... back to the ship stats... My real challeng has been how to differentiate these too, high tech, advanced fighter designs that are both supposed to be better than just about anything the Rebels fly. Whatever stats I give them, I have to just ify it based on something and "game ballance" IS a factor but, again, that is where COST comes in. Plus, these will never be used in any official tournament and are intended to be FUN, not necessarilly COMPETITIVE (Tournament play is not my thing, I play to have fun, not just to defeat my opponent. Just the way I roll).

I would be somewhat content to give the Avenger stats identical to the X-wing, but source material (Wookiepedia) says that it was designed to be superior to X-wing, in particular (but design goals are not always met and what does "superior" really mean?). Thus 3/2/3/2 but then I have to justify that decision: guns-same, evade-should be at least as good as a TIE/Advanced X-1 (that means a "3"), hull- no reason to make it worse than existing TIEs ("3"), shields- 2 (at least) or 3 (as Wookiepedia would suggest); TL, Focus, BR, Evade (probably), Boost; Missile, System Upgrade (so it can mount a Tractor Beam- card in development), EPT, Modification(?); TIE/Interceptor maneuver dial; basic cost = ???

The Defender should be equavelent or superior in just about every way. Better/more weapons (add "Cannon" option for Ion Cannons), Shields somewhere between a Y-wing (3) and a B-wing (5) (according to the conservative estimates on Wookieepedia), so call it a "4" (but if Avenger's shields were reduced to 2, that would allow us to set the Defender's at 3), it is faster/more maneuverable than an X-wing by a large margine (superior, even, to the Avenger) so we'll use the A-wing maneuver dial with Boost. Nothing justifies giving it less hull than a standard TIE (in fact, there is some suggestion that it is "uparmored") unless you want to say it is overly complex and prone to breakdown under the high stresses the craft is capable of producing (hmmmm, food for thought...). Likewise, everyone who has played any of the computer games, whence the Defender comes will tell you how nimble the ship was in those games, so kinda hard to justify NOT giving bthe Defender the Evade ability (especially since that cow of a ship, the TIE/Bomber has the action available). Thus: 3/3/3*/4(or 3); TL, Focus, Evade, BR, Boost; System Upgrade (for Tractor Beam option); Missile, EPT, Modification(?); Cost = ??? (probably about 30 pts for basic fighter plus PS/unique abilities).

Of course, I value all constructive criticism but at least you know where I'm coming from on the stats creation.

I could use some help with Pilot ideas- what ship, PS, unique abilities, etc..., especially with the two Corvan designs (T-4 fighter and Assault Bomber), Defender, Avenger, TIE/fc and TIE/gt.

Thanks for your contributions/comments, Nick and I really appreciate being able to proof our work

Chris

Im sure you will. And If you play with more then 100 points, say 150 or even 200 - expensive super 3 ships will balance out.

I would give them 3-3-3-4 and 3-3-3-8 if it would make any sense game-wise in 100 points games

If I had the feint idea of designing a miniatures game like X-Wing ... of course I would look at pages like wookiepedia (and of course watch the movies once again - especially episode IV), grap the stats and somehow transfer them to fit the game mechanics i am going to make.

So i would come up with:

X-Wing: Lasers: 4, Hull: 20 RU, Shields: 50 SBD, Speed: high, Manoeuver: medium
Tie-Fighter: Lasers: 2, Hull: 15 RU, Shields: 0 SBD, Speed: high, Manoeuver: high
Y-Wing: Lasers: 2, Hull: 40 RU, Shields: 75 SBD, Speed: medium, Manoeuver: low
Tie-Defender: Lasers: 4, Hull: 20 RU, Shields: 200 SBD, Speed: very high, Manoeuver: very high

and maybe I would go in a different direction to break those figures down.

But choosing the FFG way i would go with

X-Wing: 4-3-4-2 (IS: 3-2-3-2)
Tie-Fighter: 2-4-3-0 (IS: 2-3-3-0)
Y-Wing: 2-2-8-3 (IS: 2-1-5-3)
Tie-Defender 4-5-4-8 (IS: tbd)

And maybe FFG did this. And im sure that they toned the stats down step by step until they matched the feeling and stuff for a fund game, not taking too long to play.
So maybe the Defender gets a 3-3-2-4 at the end, to match into the given setting. This would of course be a harsh nerve fluff-wise. Taking this into consideration I would start to try a 3-3-3-6 then 3-3-3-5 ...
In the end its up to the designer of the game.

PS: I found the stats of the Avenger - it says Hull: 14 RU Shields: 40 SBD

so shields ans hull are slightly less then X-Wing's are.

This would be a 3-3-3-2 then for the Avenger. If you want to tune the stats down further, so that it is possible to field a squad of 4 Avengers - just like the X-Wings, the basic model must not exeed 25 points.

So you have the options to either go 3-2-3-2 or 3-3-2-2.

So 3-3-2-2 would make the Avenger the empires deathly A-Wing

and a 3-3-3-5 for a Tie Defender (for a double amount of hit points)?!

The problem is the Defender on the Wookiepedia is in constant flux. They hugely altered it after the first game to bring it more into balance. So which is the correct Defender. Also you have to compare stats to things like the Falcon, which should have much higher Hull and Shields. So it's obvious that there isn't a 1 to 1 correlation.

The problem is the Defender on the Wookiepedia is in constant flux. They hugely altered it after the first game to bring it more into balance. So which is the correct Defender. Also you have to compare stats to things like the Falcon, which should have much higher Hull and Shields. So it's obvious that there isn't a 1 to 1 correlation.

Rodent,

I agree about the 1:1 correlation or rather the lack of such. And I am one to completely disregard the more rediculous claims I have seen on Wookieepedia and other sites, especially for the Defender. But, lacking another source of comparative data, the Defender should be better than just about every Rebel fighter in every respect. Note: that does not mean every Rebel fighter in every respect. Wookieepedia stats aside, the "fluff" text implies (sometimes states) the the Defender is better armed, faster, more maneuverable than an X-wing. It is also stated that it is "the most maneuverable fighter in the Imperial arsenal". So that means that, as a minimum, it should have the following stats:

Defender: 3/3/32 (more likely, 3/3/3/4, though some arguement could be made for 3/3/2/4, with reduced Hull ratings representing a certain amount of unreliability of the cutting-edge technology/maintenance nightmare)

With the above stats, we could then have an Avenger with the following minimum stats:

Avenger: 3/3/3/2 (more likely, 3/3/3/3 or at worst, 3/3/2/2, but if the TIE/Advanced X-1 is reliable enough to warrant a 3 Hull, then so should the production Avenger)

Give the Defende the A-wing maneuver dial and the Avenger the TIE/Interceptor dial. Both have Missile, System Upgrade, TL, Focus, Evade, BR and Boost. Defender also has Cannon option (for Ion Cannons). Both also have Tractor Beam options which could be ignored or you could create something to fill this gap (which I propose as a new System card).

BTW- I greatly admire and enjoy your repaints! Thanks for the inspiration?

Chris

I have developed a bit of a liking for the TIE Avenger (not the oval cockpit vesion, that is just weird) it seems to me that it would be a better candidate for Imperial ultra fighter if for no other reason that it is a logical extrapolation of technology Imepprial tech.X-1 to Interceptor to Avenger.

My issue with the Defender (other than just not liking it) is that eventually i would think that you would get to a point of diminishing returns where adding more panels to a TIE would increase mass, production cost and time and just stop being effective. The point of the TIE after all was a very light fighter with simple engines low cost and the ability to show up in swarms.

If the Imps were going to develop something better than the rebels then why wouldnt they just trot over to Incom and bug the non traitorous designers in the company that designed the X Wing. After all it is canon that the X Wing was originally going to be a new Imp fighter and it would be like the Empire to say "Give us something better or you and your families will die, we havent forgotten the defection of your buddies". Ok, they probably wouldnt say buddies.

But it is a moot point i know that people associate the TIE look with the Empire and that the Defender is supposed to be the king of the line, and also if the Imperials suddenly started flying something that looked like an X Wing it wuld be odd. But if nothing else since the aesthetic of the original TIE is the root of them all If you want a fighter that looks like the ultimate Imp attack craft then take the one that combines the features of the X-1 and the Interceptor.

There i go again rambling.i think at 5:30am when my insomnia kicks in i should turn the computer off to prevent it *L*

I have developed a bit of a liking for the TIE Avenger (not the oval cockpit vesion, that is just weird) it seems to me that it would be a better candidate for Imperial ultra fighter if for no other reason that it is a logical extrapolation of technology Imepprial tech.X-1 to Interceptor to Avenger.

[...]

But if nothing else since the aesthetic of the original TIE is the root of them all If you want a fighter that looks like the ultimate Imp attack craft then take the one that combines the features of the X-1 and the Interceptor.

Exactly! The Avenger is a TIE with ... shields, live support and hyperdrive engine from TIE Advanced Prototype and the quad cannons and speedy engine from TIE Interceptor (the ones with the oval cockpit have a beam weapon in addition) ... and this all comes with a price.

A drawback.

A flaw in design.

Too much mass and not enough energy left for inertia damper (3-2-3-2) respectively a reduced hull plating to compensate this (3-3-2-2). Choose either you want to

The solution to this problem was to develop a new design with 3 wings. Now all systems got enough energy to smoothly operate plus there was room for a pair of ion cannons left. So the Tie Defender was developed. So the Defenders have a 3-3-3-X

Only a few saw action in Battle of Endor ... just like the rebels B-Wings

So thats why it has the odd cockpit. It just hurts my eyes no matter the reason, i just couldn't bring my self to make one that looks so much like a giant eye *L* As for the choice,I'd go with the reduced hull plating. It seems to fit better with the general fragility of the TIE design

I don't like the oval cockpit either

It seems that there are 3 "Tie Advanced" versions or "TIEs with shields" prior to the TIE Defender:

Vader's prototype Tie Advanced X1

Tie Advanced MK II "Avenger", a round cockpit, no beam weapon

Tie Advanced MK II "Avenger", oval cockpit, tractor beam - Maarek Stele flew this version

I don't know where the round cockpit version is coming from ... made by designers disliking the oval cockpit version maybe?

As far as I know, the oval cockpit is the original version of the Tie Advanced MK II.

All look good for their ships. The pilot skills look a bit harsh across the board.

I agree Blount is a bit harsh; either give him the ability to read a ship's dial or give him the ability to change his own, not both as one skill.

Equally, just dropping a stress token on someone as an action is a bit harsh, especially for a decent skill pilot. I get why doing it as an action is important (because if it comes later it may vanish before it ever has an effect) but unless Azzamen is really really annoying to be around, he should have to do something to trigger the stress. I might add a rider that 'you may only make attacks at this ship' or something similar. It's cool mechanically, but it doesn't seem to make sense how he's doing it.

Cracken's ability essentially make him immune to criticals...which is harsh but fine for the top-end pilot.

Other options for Z-95 pilots are, as noted, Mara Jade and also Kenix Kil. The latter is easy to write a special rule for, because his pilot skill and ability should be identical to Kir Kanos (since it's the same guy...)

All look good for their ships. The pilot skills look a bit harsh across the board.

I agree Blount is a bit harsh; either give him the ability to read a ship's dial or give him the ability to change his own, not both as one skill.

Equally, just dropping a stress token on someone as an action is a bit harsh, especially for a decent skill pilot. I get why doing it as an action is important (because if it comes later it may vanish before it ever has an effect) but unless Azzamen is really really annoying to be around, he should have to do something to trigger the stress. I might add a rider that 'you may only make attacks at this ship' or something similar. It's cool mechanically, but it doesn't seem to make sense how he's doing it.

Cracken's ability essentially make him immune to criticals...which is harsh but fine for the top-end pilot.

Other options for Z-95 pilots are, as noted, Mara Jade and also Kenix Kil. The latter is easy to write a special rule for, because his pilot skill and ability should be identical to Kir Kanos (since it's the same guy...)

Magnus,

yeah, Lt. Blount is the one that is giving me the molst trouble- which is why I've asked for help on it- so far, nobody has really helped other than point out that it could cause problems. I know there are problems... what are the possible solutions? I need something to reflect that he is a skilled Recon Specialist. Here are three possible solutions:

1. Give him basically the same ability as that on the Recon Specialist crew card: When you perform a focus action, assign 1 additional focus token to your ship.

2. Give him basically the same ability as that on the Intelligence Agent crew card: At the start of the Activation phase, choose 1 enemy ship at Range 1-2. You may look at that ship's chosen maneuver.

3. Give him the unique ability to add mission upgrades to his ship by adding System Upgrade to his upgrade bar (while other Z-95s lack that option).

I never really thought that the Recon Specialist and Intelligence Agent abilities teally fit with their card titles. I mean, what do they really represent? I know the game effect but how is this actually achieved? That said, #2 is the lower cost option (as far as points cost per Crew card) at only 1 point, and would be easy to implement as it is an already existing ability. #3 would allow the fitting of such things as Fire Control, Advanced Sensors and Sensor Jammer, all things that currently exist and make sense in his Recon role.

What thinks, You?

Re: 'Ace' Azzameen's skill- How is it overpoered? It already mimics an ability possessed by another pilot (can't remember which one). What if we changed it to an Action or require him to perform a Red maneuver in order to cause stress? Perhaps, being able to remove a Focus token from one enemy ship within range 1 would better reflect my intention (he is a dangerous, unpredictable pilot to does things that prevent opponents from engageing him effectively)?

Thoughts on Azzameen?

Re: Z-95 pilots- OK, what are these pilots skill / unique abilities:

Mara Jade?

Kenix Kil (aka Kir Kanos)?

Sorry, I know relatively nothing about them.

Your help on this project is greatly appreciated.

Chris

I don't like the oval cockpit either

It seems that there are 3 "Tie Advanced" versions or "TIEs with shields" prior to the TIE Defender:

Vader's prototype Tie Advanced X1

Tie Advanced MK II "Avenger", a round cockpit, no beam weapon

Tie Advanced MK II "Avenger", oval cockpit, tractor beam - Maarek Stele flew this version

I don't know where the round cockpit version is coming from ... made by designers disliking the oval cockpit version maybe?

As far as I know, the oval cockpit is the original version of the Tie Advanced MK II.

OK, you seem to be something of a subject matter expert, let me pick your brain.

Give me suggestions for 4 Avenger pilot cards: 1x Generic Squadron card, 3x unique pilots (PS4-9).

I'd gladly take suggestions for TIE/gt, TIE/fc, or any of the others, as well.

Chris

Correct. The assault bomber is designed for multi role actions bomb the hell out of a base or station then land or launch troops to finish the job, or slam its way into a docking bay and do the same. the T-4 has a single tube and a capacity of 4 concussion missiles or 3 proton torpedoes, i havent really thought about the T-4 carrying mines or bombs but i guess it could be a modification easily enough.The Assault Bomber can carry a wide variety of ordnance depending on the mission.

And the stats look good to me

Gosric,

do you have pilot suggestions for the T-4 and/or Assault Bomber? Perhap from your campaign?

Chris

OK, you seem to be something of a subject matter expert, let me pick your brain.

Give me suggestions for 4 Avenger pilot cards: 1x Generic Squadron card, 3x unique pilots (PS4-9).

I'd gladly take suggestions for TIE/gt, TIE/fc, or any of the others, as well.

Chris

Flattery!

I'll try to take on the Avengers ... if you wish so.

Which version do you want to use? The one with the overstressed inertia damper or the reduced hull plating?

As far as ship stats are concerned, just toss out some I deas and we'll mill thse over and come to some sort of conclusion (which will, of course, not please everybody). What ever you propose, please state WHY you think it is logical/reasonable/ not rediculous. What I'm really after is Pilots/Squadrons and unique pilot abilities.

Chris

Correct. The assault bomber is designed for multi role actions bomb the hell out of a base or station then land or launch troops to finish the job, or slam its way into a docking bay and do the same. the T-4 has a single tube and a capacity of 4 concussion missiles or 3 proton torpedoes, i havent really thought about the T-4 carrying mines or bombs but i guess it could be a modification easily enough.The Assault Bomber can carry a wide variety of ordnance depending on the mission.

And the stats look good to me

Gosric,

do you have pilot suggestions for the T-4 and/or Assault Bomber? Perhap from your campaign?

Chris

Let me give that a bit of thought

yeah, Lt. Blount is the one that is giving me the molst trouble- which is why I've asked for help on it- so far, nobody has really helped other than point out that it could cause problems. I know there are problems... what are the possible solutions? I need something to reflect that he is a skilled Recon Specialist. Here are three possible solutions:

1. Give him basically the same ability as that on the Recon Specialist crew card: When you perform a focus action, assign 1 additional focus token to your ship.

2. Give him basically the same ability as that on the Intelligence Agent crew card: At the start of the Activation phase, choose 1 enemy ship at Range 1-2. You may look at that ship's chosen maneuver.

3. Give him the unique ability to add mission upgrades to his ship by adding System Upgrade to his upgrade bar (while other Z-95s lack that option).

I never really thought that the Recon Specialist and Intelligence Agent abilities teally fit with their card titles. I mean, what do they really represent? I know the game effect but how is this actually achieved? That said, #2 is the lower cost option (as far as points cost per Crew card) at only 1 point, and would be easy to implement as it is an already existing ability. #3 would allow the fitting of such things as Fire Control, Advanced Sensors and Sensor Jammer, all things that currently exist and make sense in his Recon role.

What thinks, You?

The first is simplest, but whilst I've no problem with keeping rules simple, a straight duplication seems a bit off (yes, i know that's what I said for Kenix Kil but the point there is that it's specifically the same guy, just like some theoretical future 'rogue squadron' pack including Soontir Fel in a Rebel fighter). System upgrade slot is nice one and can go on in addition to any rule. 'Recon Package' fighters are kind of unique, and things like 'fire control system' would make a fighter nasty by itself.

As to his rule...Since recon is apparently about focus tokens, he should have the ability to generate more than normal, but, why not make it a bit different?

Soemthing like 'spotting a trap' - Action: For the rest of the turn, if any enemy ship within Range 1-2 of Lt. Blount gains a focus token, Lt. Blount also gains a focus token.

It's not garuanteed to give you a benefit, but it might give you 2+ focus tokens. Plus, it might psych players out of focusing with their ships in favour of something else.

What if we changed it to an Action or require him to perform a Red maneuver in order to cause stress? Perhaps, being able to remove a Focus token from one enemy ship within range 1 would better reflect my intention (he is a dangerous, unpredictable pilot to does things that prevent opponents from engageing him effectively)?

I apologise, I didn't recognise it as one that exists (blame my own lack of knowledge of the game.

That, however, is a very nice idea; if he performs a stressful red manouvre, the idea that everyone else nearby (range 1) also ends up stressed - "what is that madman doing!!?!? He's...wait, how is he on my tail?" - is a very nice and characterful idea.

Alternatively, something akin to the navigator/boba fett - you can change your manouvre when revealed, as long as it's changed to a RED manouvre?

Mara Jade is an ex/current Imperial, later smuggler, later rebel, later Jedi. She's not explicitely a superb pilot (so only mid-ish skill) but benefits from non-specific Jedi bad-assness at everything. Specifically, she was a spy, and has a near-perfect eidetic memory, so Intelligency-type abilities might work. Alternatively, a lot of people don't trust her early on in the stories, so maybe have her stress out other people on her side in order to perform better?

Kir Kanos is one of two members of the Royal Guard who survive the post-endor shennanigans. He essentially ends up disgusted with the assorted powermongers and moneygrubbers who try and grab for power in the wake of palpatine's death and decides to kill most of them. Kenix Kil is the bounty hunter false identity he creates to do so.

Here you have it.

In order to not to exeed 25 points for the standard model I cancelled TL and the missile slot. TL can be equipped with a modification for 2 points and for missiles we have the Advanced and the Bomber.

I also started with PS2 to match the X-Wing pilots.

So here we go.

Point costs need to be fine-tuned ... and for the names .. well - see for yourself

TIE Advanced MKII
3-3-2-2
dial: Inerceptor (slight mod)
Actions: Focus, Evade, Barrel Roll, Boost
Upgrades: System Upgrade

Scynce Squadron Pilot - PS2 (25 points)

Reaper Squadron Pilot - PS4 (27 points)
+ elite slot

Grimaldi - PS5 (28 points)
Personality: sharpshooter; offensive, hates to miss his target
Ability: When you attack, enemy ships wont' get any defence bonuses through obstacles or range.
+ elite slot

Maarek Stele - PS7 (30 points)
Personality: Force user, offensive, knows about the enemies' weaknesses
Ability: When your attack deals a faceup Damage card to the defender, instead draw 3 Damage cards, choose 1 to deal, and discard the others.
+ elite slot

Starkiller - PS8 (32 points)
Personality: High Experience, ruthless, loves to hunt and kill prey
Ability: When you hit your target, discard one stress token.
+ elite slot

Manfred von Richthofen - PS9 (34 points)
Personality: High Experience, Jack-of-all-trades
Ability: 2 elite slots, the cheaper elite ability comes for free.

Magnus,

RE: Lt. Blount- "Since recon is apparently about focus tokens..." I kinda like your suggestion: Action: For the rest of the turn, if any enemy ship within Range 1-2 of Lt. Blount gains a focus token, Lt. Blount also gains a focus token. 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. Then, again, TL, Focus, Marksman, etc... are Actions taken after movement (in the "Action" phase) that do not really have an effect until the Combat phase. Also, most unique pilot abilities do not require an "Action" but are automatic; is this too powerful to be automatic?

Re: 'Ace' Azzameen- just to clarify, my intent was that 1 (and ONLY one) enemy ship within range 1 would gain a Stress token not every ship within range. I think every ship would be too much, unless there was a die roll, or something, involved.

Re: Mara Jade- I like some of your ideas... Maybe, to represent others lack of trust in her (as well as hher firsthand knowledge and latent Force abilities) she could cause Stress in ALL ships (friendly AND enemy) at range 1. Too much? Or perhaps when she performs a Red maneuver she MUST pass that stress token to the nearest ship (friend or foe)?

Chris

The TIE Avenger shields are 100 SBD. I don't know who put that it has only 40 SBD, but that is absolutely incorrect. I made a few detailed posts on the TIE Avenger and TIE Defender stats on the Defender Values thread. The summary is here.

The TIE Avenger is not merely a slightly better version of the X-Wing. TIE Avengers could fly circles around TIE Interceptors with ease (let alone X-Wings), and the Avengers had twice the shields of an X-Wing, and better evasion. Avengers would eat X-Wings for breakfast without breaking a sweat.

TIE Avenger summary:

3/3/3/4

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

Upgrades: Missile (1x)

Dial: You need new dial mechanics to properly reflect its maneuverability. The closest you can get with the current dial is to give it the TIE Interceptor dial, and make everything other than K-Turns green, possibly even making the 5 K-turn white.

The TIE Defender is more tricky. The original version as introduced in the TIE Fighter PC game was insanely powerful, and would be:

3/3*/3/8

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

Upgrades: Missiles, Cannon, System Upgrade, (Torpedoes?)

Dial: Slightly better than the TIE Avenger. Again - impossible to reflect with the current dial.

* You could argue for 2 agility not three, since it has a larger profile than the Avenger.

In later games, Lucas Arts nerfed the Defender's stats WAY down, so it was no longer the ultimate fighter in the galaxy that struck fear into the opponents. Instead, it was a multi-purpose craft that was still very good, but inferior to the TIE Avenger in regards to dogfighting. The nerfed stats would be:

3/3*/3/4

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

Upgrades: Missiles, Cannon, System Upgrade, (Torpedoes?)

Dial: Identical to the TIE Interceptor dial.

* Same as uber version, but with the drastic reduction in its relative maneuverability it is much easier to justify 2 agility for the nerfed version.

Edit: you're making your own ships so obviously you are free to do whatever you want, I'm just relaying what the values would be if you wanted to be accurate.

Dear MajorJuggler

Your Version of the TIE Avenger would cost about 38 points at a pilot skill of 1 - so about 42 points at PS4

Do you think your avenger is worth 2 Rookie X-Wings?

You should test it! Play with 4 Rookies against 2 of your TIE Avengers

As the basic Version of the TIE Defender would cost about 52 points at a pilot skill of 1 - so about 56 points at PS4

Lets see ... you want to pilot an ace with stunning abilities ... say 63 points

+ HLC (7), + stealth(3) + beam weapon (lets say 3 points for the beam) + ptl (3) + homing missiles(5) = 84 points

Cool almost a complete squad in a single ship, now you should be able to face 4 Rookie X-Wings - just like background says?!

You should test it! Play with 4 Rookies against this TIE Defender

When you (respective the testers) say like "Wow this is amazing gameplay" then you might be on the right way. Go for it!

If thi is what Chris want to have, GZ! There you have it.

Don't shoot the messenger!

The ship is what it is, he has two options: use the actual stats and then balance the points, or make a new ship with stats forked from the original. As I said, obviously his choice.

I agree with your premise that "Ship X is too expensive at Y points". Your conclusion is that Ship X simply should not exist. My conclusion is that the points Y would need to be revised downward from your figures to be balanced.

It's not clear where your cited numbers are coming from. I did a detailed analysis in the Defender thread and came out with a 3/3/3/3 or 3/3/3/4 TIE Avenger in the ballpark of 33 points at PS1. In a straight up slugfest, (shoot at each other across the field English Redcoat style) a continuous-time simulation shows three ships at 3/3/3/4 actually ends up losing slightly against five ships at 3/3/3/0. I.e. three PS1 3/3/3/4 Avengers (99 points) has a worse firepower / survival / cost ratio than five 3/3/3/0 PS1 Interceptors 5 (90 points), so 33 points for 3/3/3/4 at PS1 is not completely unreasonable. But yes, 38 points at PS1 would be way too high. We agree on that much.

Stacking massive amounts of upgrades on one ship is obviously cost ineffective. The top 8 at Worlds all went for numbers over upgrades. Your 84 point Defender example is clearly cherry picking and given our different point structures, is also a straw man argument. See above - no need for me to reply.

Here's a couple Avenger squads that could be play tested.

Squad 1

3/3/3/4 Avenger PS1 (33 points) x3

Squad 2

Ship 1 (52 points)

3/3/3/4 PS9 Avenger, piloted by Soontir Fel (42)

Push the Limit (3)

Stealth Device (3)

Concussion Missiles (4)

Ship 2 (48 points)

3/3/3/4 PS9 Avenger, piloted by Vader (42)

Push the Limit (3)

Stealth Device (3)

Edit: concussion missiles might be better on Fel, but obviously a 2 ship squad is going to have firepower issues. You could also drop Stealth Devices and Concussion Missiles, and instead get Homing Missiles, one for each. The first squad would be more competitive, and it would be interesting to see how it would play out. 21 hull/shields is more than you're used to seeing from Imperials, but it has far less firepower than a Swarm, or even rebel 4 ship squads.

Ok, lets discuss on the Avenger first.

For points calculation I use an Excel sheet from Boardgame Geek. Basically you just type in the stats and features and you get your point costs. I don't say that the result is exacly like FFG would price their ships. But it is amazingly exact when it comes to wave 1 ships and shows where FFG wary from linear calculation, for balancing reasons, I guess.

So, the result of a linear point calculation is the first step, but not the last word. The ships and point costs are balanced for 100 point games. According to this Excel sheet, the PS1 Tie Fighter is only worth 10 points. Imagine the mayham of 10 Tie Fighters on the board ... or even worse: 10 vs. 10 Ties ... so FFG rised the costs. 8 Ties are still a word.

Ok here is the point calculation in detail:

Calculation starts with -20 points for a ship.

-20 Points

Pilot 1 = 1 Point = -19 Points

Attack 3 = 15 Points = -4 Points

Defence 3 = 9 Points = 5 Points

Hull 3 = 3 Points = 8 Points

Shield 4 = 12 Points = 20 Points

Target Lock = 5 Points = 25 Points

Barrel = 3 Points = 28 Points

Evade = 2 Points = 30 Points

Focus comes for free

Boost (wasnt on the list, but its like the barrel) = 3 Points = 33 Points

Dial (X-Wings have a 1, Tie Fighter a 2, Tie Interceptors have a 3 then) = 3 Points = 36 Points

Missile Slot = 1 Point = 37 Points

Beam Weapon Slot = 1 Point = 38 Points

OK, you havn't got a Beam slot in your version - so its only 37 Points - my fault.

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.