Jump to content



Photo

Tie Defender Values?


  • Please log in to reply
346 replies to this topic

#41 Rodent Mastermind

Rodent Mastermind

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,802 posts

Posted 16 October 2013 - 05:32 PM

I would go with something like the Defender can't modify evasion dice. This would stop low Agility ships bottom out, but give a serious negative across the board.

#42 Rakky Wistol

Rakky Wistol

    The Grey

  • Members
  • 2,644 posts

Posted 16 October 2013 - 07:02 PM

I like the no modifying evade dice against it. It's a mechanic the we already see in the game and doesn't break anything right out (well, kinda hoses imperials) as you're losing your own target lock/ focus to do it. Still should cost a bit and be limited to range 1 maybe 2.

Mechanically for the defender I like someone's post a few months ago about purple attack dice and black defense dice. One extra hit/evade instead of a focus. Changes the math a little without making something Exponetionally better. The Star Trek system did these as a special give away THAT WE DON'T WANT for our game but the mechanic is nice for making a ship superior in one way without too much power creep.

Imagine rolling 2 red + 1 purple with your defender. It even feels more iconic and special.

The only way I can see 4 evade dice is if the survivability goes down too. I bought a shapeways Givinex fanblade fighter and some of the conversions have it at crazy maneuverable and 4 agility with 2 power/sheild/hull. Might still be too much but at 1-2 black evade dice, again, it would feel special and iconic. If I ever get to play it I'll let ya know how it felt.

#43 aadh

aadh

    Member

  • Members
  • 224 posts

Posted 16 October 2013 - 09:46 PM

I like the 3/3/3/2 stats, I don't think those are unreasonable.

 

You wouldn't think Tractor Beam would have a movement effect instead, like the Ion Cannons?


Rebel— 12 X-Wing | 10 Y-Wing | 6 A-Wing | 6 B-Wing | 2 YT-1300 | 3 HWK-290 | 2 GR-75 | 1 CR-90 | 3 Z-95 | 3 E-Wing

Imperial— 18 TIE/ln | 18 TIE/in | 8 TIE/sa | 4 TIE/x1 | 3 Firespray-31 | 2 Lambda | 3 TIE Defender | 3 TIE Phantom


#44 oddeye

oddeye

    Member

  • Members
  • 547 posts

Posted 16 October 2013 - 09:55 PM

3/3/3/2 stats i could see being feasible.. an interceptor with shields depending on the actions and upgrades slots. More expensive point wise of course but nothing that would break the bank per say. 


I see your schwartz is as big as mine. Let's see how you handle it!


#45 Joker Two

Joker Two

    Member

  • Members
  • 445 posts

Posted 17 October 2013 - 08:34 AM

3/3/3/2 stats i could see being feasible.. an interceptor with shields depending on the actions and upgrades slots. More expensive point wise of course but nothing that would break the bank per say. 

 

I'd put that at 28-29 for a PS 2 pilot.  It depends whether or not the Avenger is released.  If it is, the Defender should probably be 3/3/3/3 just to differentiate it, but that pushes it up to 32-33 points, (not necessarily a bad thing.

 

I thought of having tractor beam cause stress, but I like the Agility modifier better.

 

Tractor Beam Projector

Weapon Upgrade Card

 

Action [Target Lock]: Spend your target lock to perform this action.  Select an enemy ship in your firing arc and Range 1.  Large Ships may select enemy ships outside their firing arc.  Decrease that ship's Agility by 1 (to a minimum of 0) until the end of the Combat Phase.

Point Cost: 6

 

You have to set it up with the target lock, and not use that lock for your attack, but Agility -1 against ALL your attacks is pretty powerful.



#46 Millennium Falsehood

Millennium Falsehood

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,046 posts

Posted 18 October 2013 - 01:14 AM

Considering one of the reasons the Empire didn't field more of them was that they were WAY too expensive, having them >30 pts seems legitimate.

 

That tractor beam upgrade is better than what I came up with. :) I can imagine a Defender+Tractor Beam with Colonel Jendon + STS-321 giving a Rebel player a VERY bad day, plus you'd have about 25-30 points to spend on something else.


Edited by Millennium Falsehood, 18 October 2013 - 01:16 AM.

Rebel Alliance: 7 X-wings, 5 Y-wings, 4 A-wings, 1 YT-1300, 2 HWK-290s, 3 B-wings, 1 GR-75, 1 CR-90, 5 Z-95 Headhunters, 1 E-wing

Galactic Empire: 7 TIE Fighters, 1 TIE Advanced, 2 Firespray-31s, 1 Lambda class Shuttle, 3 TIE Bombers, 2 TIE Interceptors, 3 181st TIE interceptors, 3 Royal Guard Interceptors

 

"Main characters defeat a Star Trek villain? Give 'em a Star Wars celebration!"


#47 Mystic Force

Mystic Force

    Member

  • Members
  • 29 posts

Posted 18 October 2013 - 09:08 AM

The reason I suggested it hindering high evade ships is for the mechanistic reason that across the board reduction just tends to beat up on the low agility ships all the time it would be nice for it too only hurt the high ones for a change. If ihad to argue "physics" then how about lower agility ships are bigger and heavier and therefore more powerfull engines so you would have to put in more energy to have the same effect.

But mainly because I prefer it is a little different.

#48 KineticOperator

KineticOperator

    Member

  • Members
  • 775 posts

Posted 18 October 2013 - 09:52 AM

If that is what you want, why not make it more straightforward.

 

Tractor Beam.  Secondary Weapon (Cannon), Range 1.  Cost: 5

Attack [Target Lock] : Spend your Target Lock to reduce the defenders agility to 1 until the end of the turn.  You may immediately make a primary weapon attack against this same target.


Edited by KineticOperator, 18 October 2013 - 09:55 AM.


#49 Jehan Menasis

Jehan Menasis

    Member

  • Members
  • 561 posts

Posted 18 October 2013 - 10:41 AM

If that is what you want, why not make it more straightforward.

 

Tractor Beam.  Secondary Weapon (Cannon), Range 1.  Cost: 5

Attack [Target Lock] : Spend your Target Lock to reduce the defenders agility to 1 until the end of the turn.  You may immediately make a primary weapon attack against this same target.

 

Hm... I'm not convinced by this, because essentially, if you use any 'weapon' on any 'ship', it should always suffer a given 'ill consequence'.

 

By your ruling, some ships are rendered immune to tractor beam effects, and that doesn't feels right. All ships should experience a difference between being hit by a tractor beam or not being hit.

 

For example, something like "reduce the defende'rs agility value by 2 (to a minimum of 0) until the end of the turn/combat phase" would sound more appropiate.

 

Also, if your are going to treat 'tractor beam' as an aimed weapon, then the defender should a have a chance to avoid it by using its defense roll or evade tokens.



#50 Breaking The Law

Breaking The Law

    Member

  • Members
  • 395 posts

Posted 18 October 2013 - 10:46 AM

"What is dead may never die"



#51 Drakhan Valane

Drakhan Valane

    Member

  • Members
  • 307 posts

Posted 18 October 2013 - 11:23 AM

With strange aeons even death may die.
  • aadh likes this
Rebel Alliance: 3 X-Wings, 1 Y-Wing, 4 A-Wings, 2 B-Wings, 2 HWK-290s, 1 YT-1300
Empire: 2 TIE Fighters, 1 TIE Advance, 1 Lambda Shuttle

#52 Gungo

Gungo

    Member

  • Members
  • 228 posts

Posted 18 October 2013 - 11:56 AM

Here is the idea for a non game breaking tie defender.
Atk2:1
Def3
Hull3
Shield2
Same actions as tie interceptor plus target lock
Same movement as interceptor w green 3 banks instead of white and red 2 instead of red 3
Add In torpedoes or other random upgrades that make it stand out. Then it becomes a durable slightly more potent interceptor and a more offensive advance X1. The tie adv needs a title for an extra EPT. Slot. And all three ships have a place.

The specialness with this fighter is a new purple atk die. So for atk you roll 2 red and 1 purple atk die. The purple atk die has 1 less blank and 1 more crit. Increasing chance to hit and crit without increasing the max hit potential.

Cool thing is this means you can create 3-4 purple die Capitol ship weapon batteries that are deadly but statistically survivable.

Edited by Gungo, 18 October 2013 - 05:38 PM.


#53 Jmach

Jmach

    Member

  • Members
  • 2 posts

Posted 18 October 2013 - 01:03 PM

Personally to me the stats would look like

 

ATK 3

DEF 3

HULL 3

SHIELD 4

 

with a movement dial similar to tie interceptor.  Probably base cost of 30-33 for a PS 1 or 2.  That's what comes to my mind when I think of the defender.  4 Defense base to me seems way too outrageous, especially when you think of things like range 3 and stealth device giving it 6 dice to roll.  However it could have 4 hull as well.  My question would be if it would have all 5, focus, evade, target lock, boost, barrel roll, on the action bar or just 4 of them and if so, what 4?



#54 allistorpreist

allistorpreist

    Member

  • Members
  • 16 posts

Posted 18 October 2013 - 01:15 PM

One big factor that doesn't seem to come up is niche protection.So far every version of this seems to have the offense and manueverability of the interceptor, with the survivability of the Advanced if not more.  I will admit I am a new player, but without a substantial point difference the only reason I would take the Advanced if this was available is Vader. Finding the middle ground while emulating the original is tricky, but the goal should be getting this model on the board without taking others off. At 22 points, why would I ever take the Advanced, at 30, why not take the fire spray? This isn't aimed at any particular design, it just seems in general like the poor Advanced is getting forgotten.



#55 StevenO

StevenO

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,101 posts

Posted 18 October 2013 - 03:41 PM

One big factor that doesn't seem to come up is niche protection.So far every version of this seems to have the offense and manueverability of the interceptor, with the survivability of the Advanced if not more.  I will admit I am a new player, but without a substantial point difference the only reason I would take the Advanced if this was available is Vader. Finding the middle ground while emulating the original is tricky, but the goal should be getting this model on the board without taking others off. At 22 points, why would I ever take the Advanced, at 30, why not take the fire spray? This isn't aimed at any particular design, it just seems in general like the poor Advanced is getting forgotten.

 

If your basic PL 1 version of the defender was the power of the Interceptor with the durability of the Advanced at 26 points (Interceptor with equivalent of two shield upgrades) the minimum Advanced saves 3 points but gives +1 PL.  Perhaps the issue here is that besides Vader are any of the TIE Advanced models ever played to begin with?  When the answer is almost an overwhelming "NO" it gets to hard to say a Defender would take its niche (despite costing a little more) as that niche really does not currently exist.

 

Now in a lot of ways the Defender could be a mirror to the Firespray.  This doesn't mean the Firespray disappears but rather which ship gets used depends on what you're looking for in your squadron.  The raw firepower between the Defender and Firespray could be similar but then which you'd choose to use depends on how you want your defense.  If the Firespray still has twice the hull and shield then giving up a die of defense isn't as big although as the Defender is tougher than the typical Interceptor it is more likely to increase the ship's survival.  In some ways the Firespray or Defender decision could come down to one similar to what a rebel player would make when deciding "X-Wing or B-Wing?" 



#56 Hrathen

Hrathen

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,558 posts

Posted 18 October 2013 - 04:18 PM

Let's try this
At: 2 (you'll see why latter)
Def: 3 (I agree 4 is just to high, it means 2 attack dice ships are likely useless against it. which is a lot of ships)
Hull: 2 (to me it looks ever more sleak than a TIE fighter)
Shields: 3 (this is actually a lot for any small agile ship in the game)

Actions: Target Lock, Barrel Roll, Evade, Focus, Boost
Upgrades: missiles, cannon

Dial: just make it a little better than the TIE Interceptor

In the Game TIE Fighter it really is just a little better than the TIE Advanced. If you look at the TIE Advanced it is pretty comparable to an X-wing.

I gave it the cannon so you could put an Ion cannon on it. I think a heavy laiser cannon on it is a bit of over kill, but the Imperials could use a manuverale fighter with one.
Putting an end to this distructive conflict and bringing order to the galaxy.

#57 Gungo

Gungo

    Member

  • Members
  • 228 posts

Posted 18 October 2013 - 05:30 PM

One big factor that doesn't seem to come up is niche protection.So far every version of this seems to have the offense and manueverability of the interceptor, with the survivability of the Advanced if not more.  I will admit I am a new player, but without a substantial point difference the only reason I would take the Advanced if this was available is Vader. Finding the middle ground while emulating the original is tricky, but the goal should be getting this model on the board without taking others off. At 22 points, why would I ever take the Advanced, at 30, why not take the fire spray? This isn't aimed at any particular design, it just seems in general like the poor Advanced is getting forgotten.


The advanced is overpriced and has its own issues. All they can do to fix it is provide a title card to boost them. The most relevant and powerful title they could give it is the ability to take an extra elite pilot talent. This would make these ships unique and potentially useful but expensive for 2 atk ship.

#58 StevenO

StevenO

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,101 posts

Posted 18 October 2013 - 05:36 PM

If you want a title card to upgrade the Advanced then I'd suggest making it the "Avenger" title which will cost a few points but give it that 3rd attack die and maybe an elite pilot talent.  Now if it added an elite pilot upgrade just think how interesting things could get if you could have TWO pilot upgrades on Vader.



#59 Gungo

Gungo

    Member

  • Members
  • 228 posts

Posted 18 October 2013 - 07:24 PM

A 3 atk vader ship with 2 elite pilot talents would make for some crazy overpower combos. But I like the idea of naming the adv x1 title card the avenger except its wings were pointed not rounded. I think the only way to tame broken dual EPT combos is putting it on a low atk overpriced ship like the advx1. Sad thing is it kinda makes sense on the adv x1 since the named pilots in the advx1 pack are the best pilots in the imperium. Keep it 2 atk and make it a free title on all advx1 of pilot skill 4+ and you still make the tie adv x1 relevant in games.

Edited by Gungo, 18 October 2013 - 07:35 PM.


#60 allistorpreist

allistorpreist

    Member

  • Members
  • 16 posts

Posted 18 October 2013 - 07:27 PM

The basic tie advanced does have its own issue (at least on paper) but it still has a niche between the the Interceptor and the Bomber. The Defender stats I have seen so far completely eliminate that niche. The are Advanced stats, but better, and a better wheel.

 

Hrathen's seems the closest to not knocking out the the Advanced while providing different options, loosing modification for cannon and hull for shield. If it were similarly costed, I could see making a choice. It would usually be the defender, but not always. (although, yeah, usually the cheaper ties or a character).

 

I think the Advanced with a basic pilot will always be an uncommon choice, but you don't want to completely punch that choice in the faces, especially since the Defender would also get fancy pilots to compete for the Advanced slot.

 

The X-Wing and B-Wing are actually great for comparisson. The B-Wing ggets a lot of extra upgrades and barrel roll, but its dial is much more limiting than the X wings, or at least a lot more stressfull. Also, Astromech. At the Firespray point level, the Defender is less invasive, but at the Advanced point level, the Defender just stomps all over the Advanced. In what already appears to be an unpopular choice, you don't want to make things worse. And lets be honest, the base Tie-D is not going to have a 1 pilot skill.






© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS