Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Norsehound

What would a TIE Avenger look like?

Recommended Posts

This - tieavx1.jpg

 

The Avenger is just more of everything that came before it.  Faster, Stronger, blah blah blah..

 

Game Wise though, I think many here have hit the nail on the head. 3,3,3,2.  With a dial similar to the Interceptor, and a systems slot. Canonically it was faster than an Interceptor, turned better, had Hull and Shields to rival anything the Rebels fielded at the time.  But for game purposes, that just leads to power creep.

 

Personally, I think the 3,3,3,2 is pretty darn close.  More expensive than the Advanced, though not as expensive as the Defender.  And while FFG is at it, introduce something similar to the Chardaan Refit for the Advanced.

 

If I were to kit one out, here's what I would have.

Atk - 3

Ag - 3

Hull - 3

Shield - 2

 

Barrel Roll, Evade, Target Lock, Focus.

Cannon slot

System Upgrade/Missile Slot (A combo slot, you couldn't take both, so either throw AdvS on it or Concussion missiles, but not both)

Edited by Papamambo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll begin by saying that's a completely reasonable depiction of the TIE avenger. While I wonder why the Avenger would have Sys and not the Defender, I think that's a fair depiction of the ship. But I still don't think FFG will make that.

 

Anyway, your suggestion is a 3/3/3/2 ship with an interceptor-esque dial, Barrel Roll, TL, Focus and Evade, cannons, rockets and maybe a sys slot. Sound like anything?

It sounds like the TIE defender to me.

The immediate protest? That it doesn't sound like FFG's Defender at all. The Defender has red turns, it certainly does not have an interceptor dial. But why? There's no canonical precedent for the TIE defender having turning issues, and no physical one either really considering it can do a 180 near-effortlessly. FFG made a conscious decision not to make the TIE defender have an interceptor-like dial when that would have fit it perfectly. The only reason the Defender has those red turns is to make it play differently.

If FFG added those red turns to the Defender to prevent it from being like an x1 with the maneuverability of an interceptor, why would they make an x1 with the maneuverability of the interceptor?
 

Edited by Lagomorphia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll begin by saying that's a completely reasonable depiction of the TIE avenger. While I wonder why the Avenger would have Sys and not the Defender, I think that's a fair depiction of the ship. But I still don't think FFG will make that.

 

Anyway, your suggestion is a 3/3/3/2 ship with an interceptor-esque dial, Barrel Roll, TL, Focus and Evade, cannons, rockets and maybe a sys slot. Sound like anything?

It sounds like the TIE defender to me.

The immediate protest? That it doesn't sound like FFG's Defender at all. The Defender has red turns, it certainly does not have an interceptor dial. But why? There's no canonical precedent for the TIE defender having turning issues, and no physical one either really considering it can do a 180 near-effortlessly. FFG made a conscious decision not to make the TIE defender have an interceptor-like dial when that would have fit it perfectly. The only reason the Defender has those red turns is to make it play differently.

If FFG added those red turns to the Defender to prevent it from being like an x1 with the maneuverability of an interceptor, why would they make an x1 with the maneuverability of the interceptor?

 

 

I don't have enough "likes" to give out for your posts in this thread.

 

My argument isn't really that there's no remaining design space between the Interceptor, Advanced, and Defender--it's that FFG doesn't think there's design space, with the Defender as Exhibit A. Just as you say: if they wanted a 3/3/3/2 ship with an Interceptor-like dial, they could have published the Avenger as indicated a couple of posts up, or they could have used that position in the design space to represent the Defender. But they didn't, and it's at least plausible that the reason was insufficient differentiation between the Defender, the Interceptor, and the TIE Advanced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

avenger 3-3-2-2 and cost 16 points

Cheaper than the base interceptor and significantly cheaper than the Advanced x1? Cheaper than the A-wing?

Vadar is NOT a tie advanced his ship title is advanced x1 and is a different ship then a normal tie advanced.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but look at Vader's card, at the ship name. Then look at Maarek, Storm Squadron and Tempest Squadron. FFG might just disagree with you there.

What I really want to see is ffg making the avenger 3-3-2-2 and cost 16 points for a ps1 pilot with a dial similar to the advanced with focus target lock and BR and a missle slot.

LodF6z0.png
Yes being 1 pt cheaper then an interceptor and losing significant manueverability and evade and boost in exchange for 1 more hp and a target lock. Isn't far off. The awing is a perfect comparison, you loose boost evade and a massive amount of manueverability and gain 1 atk. That ship should cost 1 pt less. Sadly however with chardon refit the awing is still cheaper then the ship I listed.

The ship name is advanced x1, it's a different ship according to ffg. If anything ffg agrees with me.

How is a completely different ship matter in this discussion. Are you trying to imply it's the same thing because your doing a poor job of that. If you are trying to compare it to a ps1 pilot why didn't you link the scimitar squad which is ps2 and 16pts. What that didn't back up your point that 16pts is to low? You would be better off linking a picture of the prototype pilot as that is the closest ship to match what I just said. A 3/3/2/2 ps1 pilot with focus target lock and a missile slot with a middle tier dial(advanced equivalent) for 16pt Vs a 2/3/2/2 ps1 pilot with focus target lock boost evade and one of the best dials in game for 17pts.

However regardless of all the theory crafting and arguing on this site. Considering the defender discussion we just had recently as well. The same people are arguing the avenger will never happen that said the defender will never happen. And yet the defender came out fairly close to what the people theory crafting are saying. That being the case I have a feeling we will see an avenger with 3/3/3/2 stats because there is plenty of room for more ships in this game and ffg has made no inclination they are going to stop producing ships anytime s

Edited by Gungo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

avenger 3-3-2-2 and cost 16 points

Cheaper than the base interceptor and significantly cheaper than the Advanced x1? Cheaper than the A-wing?
Yes being 1 pt cheaper then an interceptor and losing significant manueverability and evade and boost in exchange for 1 more hp and a target lock. Isn't far off. The awing is a perfect comparison, you loose boost evade and a massive amount of manueverability and gain 1 atk. That ship should cost the same or 1 pt less.

If you think 16 points is 1 point cheaper than an Interceptor, then you're very bad at subtraction; if you think 16 points is at all an appropriate cost for a fighter with a 3/3/2/2 stat line, then you're not really paying attention to the game.

The Interceptor is the cheapest fighter in the game with 3 Attack, and the next cheapest three ships with 3 Attack are all 21-22 points--suggesting that the Interceptor is actually an exception in terms of attack power per point of cost.

Compare your ship not to an A-wing but to an X-wing. Your version of the Avenger has approximately the same overall durability, in terms of the number of attacks it takes to kill it; the same offensive potential; a similar dial; a better action bar; and a substantially better upgrade bar. I'd guess at about 22 points for that ship, which is pretty far from 16.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The ship name is advanced x1, it's a different ship according to ffg. If anything ffg agrees with me.

 

urc40kl.pngEpU2pBT.png

 

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/TIE_Advanced_x1

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/TIE/ad_starfighter

 

Most of the protests against the Avenger being treated as the same ship as the Advanced by FFG or just being a +1 attack title card keeping the same title is that that doesn't represent the Avenger's status as the Empire's second most powerful TIE starfighter design after the Defender. Making it cheaper than the Advanced x1 that was its predecessor, cheaper than the TIE interceptor, a mass produced swarm craft, when it's meant to be the second best TIE fighter ever designed in the GCW, hardly fits. The Avenger is not worse than the TIE interceptor and the Advanced x1. I've spent most of this thread asserting that a 3/3/3/2 Interceptor Dial Missile Slot type craft is unlikely, but it's a certainty compared to FFG making the Avenger cheap.

Edited by Lagomorphia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ship name is advanced x1, it's a different ship according to ffg. If anything ffg agrees with me.

urc40kl.pngEpU2pBT.png

What are you trying to say it's still a different title.

I see your issue. You are using the wiki as your source of info. It's wrong. If you look at the top of the wiki they merged adv x2, adv x1 with the advanced wiki. There is actually 6 or 8 versions of the advanced it was a prototype test bed and most versions never saw mass production. The avenger was a design after Vadar's ship it's based off the advanced x2 prototype.

I also don't get where it's ever stated to be the second best star fighter ever. That is your opinion. There were several prototypes in the advanced series after the avenger including the design based on the interceptor which came after the avenger. That prototype dropped the shield generator for more maneuverability. I have no idea what cannon you have that says avenger is the second best ship ever.

Edited by Gungo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll begin by saying that's a completely reasonable depiction of the TIE avenger. While I wonder why the Avenger would have Sys and not the Defender, I think that's a fair depiction of the ship. But I still don't think FFG will make that.

 

Anyway, your suggestion is a 3/3/3/2 ship with an interceptor-esque dial, Barrel Roll, TL, Focus and Evade, cannons, rockets and maybe a sys slot. Sound like anything?

It sounds like the TIE defender to me.

The immediate protest? That it doesn't sound like FFG's Defender at all. The Defender has red turns, it certainly does not have an interceptor dial. But why? There's no canonical precedent for the TIE defender having turning issues, and no physical one either really considering it can do a 180 near-effortlessly. FFG made a conscious decision not to make the TIE defender have an interceptor-like dial when that would have fit it perfectly. The only reason the Defender has those red turns is to make it play differently.

If FFG added those red turns to the Defender to prevent it from being like an x1 with the maneuverability of an interceptor, why would they make an x1 with the maneuverability of the interceptor?

 

 

I can't disagree with you.  But with that being said, I think the Avenger could have an  "interceptor-esque" dial.  Obviously tweaks would need to be made.  Or hell, just give it the Advanced Dial.

As for the system slot, I think FFG dropped the ball on that one to be honest.  The Defender by all rights SHOULD have a system slot, and to my way of thinking, the omission is inexcusable.  As much as these are all variations on a theme, the TIE category is quickly getting over-saturated.  There really isn't a lot of wiggle room any more other than by assigning different slots and abilities to any new variant that is released.

 

The hierarchy of TIE's should look like this - TIE Fighter, TIE Bomber, TIE Interceptor, TIE Advanced (costed slightly less than it is currently-maybe 2 points like the Chardaan Refit), TIE Avenger (Costed just slightly above current Advanced cost - 1 point, so there is a 3 point difference between a refitted Advanced and the Avenger), TIE Defender.  The Phantom is an oddball that fits a specific role, so it probably is costed right IMO.

 

After that, I really think FFG should stop concentrating on TIE's altogether, and look at other fighter/support ships like the Assault Gunboat, the Skipray, Missile Boat, Assault Shuttle etc.

 

If they ever want to re-visit the TIE Realm again, what else is there? Tie Droids maybe - costed under a generic TIE fighter??  Beyond that though I really don't know..

 

I'm just spitballin' here though.  The Avenger is a ship we should have, but how to get it without breaking the system as it is right now is beyond me.  I have great faith that FFG can do it, and should do it based on the desires of the community.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

avenger 3-3-2-2 and cost 16 points

Cheaper than the base interceptor and significantly cheaper than the Advanced x1? Cheaper than the A-wing?
Yes being 1 pt cheaper then an interceptor and losing significant manueverability and evade and boost in exchange for 1 more hp and a target lock. Isn't far off. The awing is a perfect comparison, you loose boost evade and a massive amount of manueverability and gain 1 atk. That ship should cost the same or 1 pt less.
If you think 16 points is 1 point cheaper than an Interceptor, then you're very bad at subtraction; if you think 16 points is at all an appropriate cost for a fighter with a 3/3/2/2 stat line, then you're not really paying attention to the game.The Interceptor is the cheapest fighter in the game with 3 Attack, and the next cheapest three ships with 3 Attack are all 21-22 points--suggesting that the Interceptor is actually an exception in terms of attack power per point of cost.Compare your ship not to an A-wing but to an X-wing. Your version of the Avenger has approximately the same overall durability, in terms of the number of attacks it takes to kill it; the same offensive potential; a similar dial; a better action bar; and a substantially better upgrade bar. I'd guess at about 22 points for that ship, which is pretty far from 16.
Compare it to the prototype pilot it's nearly the same ship except loses massive manueverability, evade, boost and gains 1 atk how is that not comparable your trading 2 significant actions and the best dial in game for 1 atk. Mind you most people considered the prototype pilot overcosted anyway. Edited by Gungo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Compare it to the prototype pilot it's nearly the same ship except loses massive manueverability, evade, boost and gains 1 atk how is that not comparable your trading 2 significant actions and the best dial in game for 1 atk. Mind you most people considered the prototype pilot overcosted anyway.

Okay, I'll repeat myself:

Compare your ship not to an A-wing but to an X-wing. Your version of the Avenger has approximately the same overall durability, in terms of the number of attacks it takes to kill it; the same offensive potential; a similar dial; a better action bar; and a substantially better upgrade bar. I'd guess at about 22 points for that ship, which is pretty far from 16.

Your version of the Avenger is better than X-wing, and about 30% less expensive. Please address the disparity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I also don't get where it's ever stated to be the second best star fighter ever. That is your opinion. There were several prototypes in the advanced series after the avenger including the design based on the interceptor which came after the avenger. That prototype dropped the shield generator for more maneuverability. I have no idea what cannon you have that says avenger is the second best ship ever.

Name one TIE-class fighter in the Galactic Civil War period, apart from the TIE defender, that's superior to the Avenger.

 

I have no idea what cannon you have that says avenger is the second best ship ever.

The X-wing/TIE fighter/X-wing Alliance series of space sims which the only things the TIE avenger actually appears in. What are you basing it being inferior to the interceptor on?

 

I see your issue. You are using the wiki as your source of info. It's wrong.

I'm using the cards themselves. The name on Maarek and the generics is different to the name on Vader's. That suggests that FFG doesn't consider the ships flown by the generics or by Maarek as x1s.

 

it's nearly the same ship except loses massive manueverability, evade, boost and gains 1 atk

So not nearly the same ship. Very different dial, actions, and different stats too. Unless you're saying the X-wing and A-wing are practically the same, or B-wing and Y-wing are practically the same.

Edited by Lagomorphia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Compare it to the prototype pilot it's nearly the same ship except loses massive manueverability, evade, boost and gains 1 atk how is that not comparable your trading 2 significant actions and the best dial in game for 1 atk. Mind you most people considered the prototype pilot overcosted anyway.

Okay, I'll repeat myself:

Compare your ship not to an A-wing but to an X-wing. Your version of the Avenger has approximately the same overall durability, in terms of the number of attacks it takes to kill it; the same offensive potential; a similar dial; a better action bar; and a substantially better upgrade bar. I'd guess at about 22 points for that ship, which is pretty far from 16.

Your version of the Avenger is better than X-wing, and about 30% less expensive. Please address the disparity.

Again I'll repeat myself you're comparing to a different ship instead of the ship it most closely matches. Instead you insist on comparing to a ship with a higher ps, droids slot, torpedoe slot, the same action bar and more hp with a significantly different maneuver dial. And why do you insist on comparing it to a ship that's complete different design and role because the ship that most closely resembles doesn't support your excuse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Compare it to the prototype pilot it's nearly the same ship except loses massive manueverability, evade, boost and gains 1 atk how is that not comparable your trading 2 significant actions and the best dial in game for 1 atk. Mind you most people considered the prototype pilot overcosted anyway.

Okay, I'll repeat myself:

Compare your ship not to an A-wing but to an X-wing. Your version of the Avenger has approximately the same overall durability, in terms of the number of attacks it takes to kill it; the same offensive potential; a similar dial; a better action bar; and a substantially better upgrade bar. I'd guess at about 22 points for that ship, which is pretty far from 16.

Your version of the Avenger is better than X-wing, and about 30% less expensive. Please address the disparity.

Again I'll repeat myself you're comparing to a different ship instead of the ship it most closely matches. Instead you insist on comparing to a ship with a higher ps, droids slot, torpedoe slot, the same action bar and more hp with a significantly different maneuver dial. And why do you insist on comparing it to a ship that's complete different design and role because the ship that most closely resembles doesn't support your excuse.

Your suggested fighter has 3 Attack, no boost, and a dial similar to the TIE Advanced. In what way is it more like an A-wing than like an X-wing?

But okay, you don't like the X-wing. Let's compare it to the Interceptor! It gains one hit point (that is, increases its durability by 25%), loses boost, gains target lock, gains access to system upgrades, and has a dial that goes from good to merely average--and for all of that it receives a 10% discount.

Or let's compare it to the Defender: loses 1 hit point two hit points, gets a dial that's likely a bit less restrictive, has a very similar action bar, has a better upgrade bar, and is approximately half the cost.

There is no ship to which you can compare a 3/3/2/2 and come up with a cost that's cheaper than any ship in the game except the TIE Fighter, TIE Bomber, Z-95, and (post-Refit) A-wing. Look at what those four ships have in common, and then look at your proposed Avenger; it's not a difficult puzzle.

Edited by Vorpal Sword

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Compare it to the prototype pilot it's nearly the same ship except loses massive manueverability, evade, boost and gains 1 atk how is that not comparable your trading 2 significant actions and the best dial in game for 1 atk. Mind you most people considered the prototype pilot overcosted anyway.

Okay, I'll repeat myself:

Compare your ship not to an A-wing but to an X-wing. Your version of the Avenger has approximately the same overall durability, in terms of the number of attacks it takes to kill it; the same offensive potential; a similar dial; a better action bar; and a substantially better upgrade bar. I'd guess at about 22 points for that ship, which is pretty far from 16.

Your version of the Avenger is better than X-wing, and about 30% less expensive. Please address the disparity.
Again I'll repeat myself you're comparing to a different ship instead of the ship it most closely matches. Instead you insist on comparing to a ship with a higher ps, droids slot, torpedoe slot, the same action bar and more hp with a significantly different maneuver dial. And why do you insist on comparing it to a ship that's complete different design and role because the ship that most closely resembles doesn't support your excuse.
Your suggested fighter has 3 Attack, no boost, and a dial similar to the TIE Advanced. In what way is it more like an A-wing than like an X-wing?But okay, you don't like the X-wing. Let's compare it to the Interceptor! It gains one hit point (that is, increases its durability by 25%), loses boost, gains target lock, gains access to system upgrades, and has a dial that goes from good to merely average--and for all of that it receives a 10% discount.Or let's compare it to the Defender: loses 1 hit point, gets a dial that's likely a bit less restrictive, has a very similar action bar, has a better upgrade bar, and is approximately half the cost.There is no ship to which you can compare a 3/3/2/2 and come up with a cost that's cheaper than any ship in the game except the TIE Fighter, TIE Bomber, Z-95, and (post-Refit) A-wing. Look at what those four ships have in common, and then look at your proposed Avenger; it's not a difficult puzzle.
Hint, it's the 2 attack that makes the Advanced so awful to begin with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also don't get where it's ever stated to be the second best star fighter ever. That is your opinion. There were several prototypes in the advanced series after the avenger including the design based on the interceptor which came after the avenger. That prototype dropped the shield generator for more maneuverability. I have no idea what cannon you have that says avenger is the second best ship ever.

Name one TIE-class fighter in the Galactic Civil War period, apart from the TIE defender, that's superior to the Avenger.

 

I have no idea what cannon you have that says avenger is the second best ship ever.

The X-wing/TIE fighter/X-wing Alliance series of space sims which the only things the TIE avenger actually appears in. What are you basing it being inferior to the interceptor on?

 

I see your issue. You are using the wiki as your source of info. It's wrong.

I'm using the cards themselves. The name on Maarek and the generics is different to the name on Vader's. That suggests that FFG doesn't consider the ships flown by the generics or by Maarek as x1s.

 

it's nearly the same ship except loses massive manueverability, evade, boost and gains 1 atk

So not nearly the same ship. Very different dial, actions, and different stats too. Unless you're saying the X-wing and A-wing are practically the same, or B-wing and Y-wing are practically the same.

Tie hunter, tie predator, tie phantom are all better fighters. Seriously you basing your analogy on a video game. I never said it was superior to the interceptor. I stated the interceptor was based on a advanced prototype after the avenger. It even said that in the wiki you linked. It gained improved maneuverability at the loss of the shield generators. This all comes from the link you provided.

Seriously you might have a problem reading because I said that the advanced x1 and the generics are different ships. I don't understand how you can confuse that? Is English your first language?

The a wing is the closest comparison. It has the same actions (minus 2), same upgrade, closest comparable stats with only the atk+1, and similar dial (both with 5 forward) with less green, 1 less kturn, and 1banks instead of turns and same PS and most of all the same price point which is the point of the debate. So instead of comparing it to the ship it most closely resembles you insist on comparing it to a ship where everything is completely different completely obscuring the issue? What's the point? Oh that's right the other ship completely disproves your point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The jousting value alone of a 3/3/2/2 stat line is around:

 

12*(1.74*1*(1.25*2+2)/3)^0.52 = 19.76

 

That's at PS1 relative to a PS1 TIE Fighter. 16 points would be horribly overcosted. 6 ships at 3/3/2/2 would destroy any squad in the game, hands down.

 

  • 24 hull / shields at 3 agility: more durable than the TIE Swarm.
  • six 3 dice attacks, 18 dice total = more firepower than anything else by a large margin

Without even getting into nitty-gritty specifics, it is very obvious that 16 points at 3/3/2/2 is a terrible idea.

Edited by MajorJuggler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Compare it to the prototype pilot it's nearly the same ship except loses massive manueverability, evade, boost and gains 1 atk how is that not comparable your trading 2 significant actions and the best dial in game for 1 atk. Mind you most people considered the prototype pilot overcosted anyway.

Okay, I'll repeat myself:

Compare your ship not to an A-wing but to an X-wing. Your version of the Avenger has approximately the same overall durability, in terms of the number of attacks it takes to kill it; the same offensive potential; a similar dial; a better action bar; and a substantially better upgrade bar. I'd guess at about 22 points for that ship, which is pretty far from 16.

Your version of the Avenger is better than X-wing, and about 30% less expensive. Please address the disparity.
Again I'll repeat myself you're comparing to a different ship instead of the ship it most closely matches. Instead you insist on comparing to a ship with a higher ps, droids slot, torpedoe slot, the same action bar and more hp with a significantly different maneuver dial. And why do you insist on comparing it to a ship that's complete different design and role because the ship that most closely resembles doesn't support your excuse.
Your suggested fighter has 3 Attack, no boost, and a dial similar to the TIE Advanced. In what way is it more like an A-wing than like an X-wing?.
Same upgrades, same ps, same actions (with the awing having boost and evade), all stats are the same except atk (1 less on awing), same manuever (both go to 5) except less green maneuvers an 1 turn instead of banks, and 1 less k turn and most importantly same price point which is the point of the debate.

It's abundantly clear your avoiding the comparison because it completely conflicts with your point by comparing it to ships completely different in not only roles but in every other category. Seriously the defender? Why not just compare it to the falcon?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The TIE phantom, by far one of my favourite ships, is a cloaking fighter that has a different role entirely.

The "TIE hunter" is a TIE copy of the X-wing, a ship to which the TIE avenger is superior. The hunter is also in the "silly TIE" category in that save for one book that was trying to be the text version of Wookieepedia, no other SW source will touch it. Look at the source list for Avenger and for Hunter.
The TIE predator was made over a hundred years later and thus isn't a GCW ship. You've put the TIE avenger at second to bottom on the TIE Space Superiority Starfighter ranking. Are you saying it's inferior to the TIE interceptor and the TIE advanced x1 it was successor to?

 

I said that the advanced x1 and the generics are different ships.

Are you trying to say that the TIE advanced x1 is not the same thing as the TIE advanced? Then why, in your mind, is the TIE advanced? The only TIE Advanced without an x number is the TIE Avenger.

Anyway,

Your proposed ship:

 5Aoz78W.png

 

qdCAPf0.png3t8R4I9.png

And your proposed dial was the Advanced one, yes?

8pZuvgp.png6LyTFvo.jpg
 

The X-wing and Advanced dials differ only in that the straights have been pushed up.

 

and most importantly same price point which is the point of the debate.

The price you gave is a number you came up with. To use your logic, I could declare a 1/1/1/1 very similar to the Firespray because I costed it at 31 points.

Edited by Lagomorphia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The jousting value alone of a 3/3/2/2 stat line is around:

 

12*(1.74*1*(1.25*2+2)/3)^0.52 = 19.76

 

That's at PS1 relative to a PS1 TIE Fighter. 16 points would be horribly overcosted. 6 ships at 3/3/2/2 would destroy any squad in the game, hands down.

 

  • 24 hull / shields at 3 agility: more durable than the TIE Swarm.
  • six 3 dice attacks, 18 dice total = more firepower than anything else by a large margin
Without even getting into nitty-gritty specifics, it is very obvious that 16 points at 3/3/2/2 is a terrible idea.

While I don't agree with your equation which doesn't accurately represent all ships we have in game. A stripped down ship w few actions/upgrades to reduce cost and 3 atk 3 evade and 4hp is extremely powerful and likely never to occur for balance reasons. However cost wise it's still comparable to a prototype pilot (17) and alpha squad interceptor (18).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*facedesk*

The cost of this Avenger is a wrong number you made up. It is not valid for comparing ships in any way, shape or form. You compare ships on stats and dials and cost them based on that. If we put goats in spacesuits in the game, we can't say they're comparable to A-wings because we arbitrarily write 17 on their 0/0/1/0 stat card.

If someone makes a ship that has literally the same stats as a B-wing and cost it at 12 that doesn't make its closest cousin the TIE fighter. All it means is that they're clueless when it comes to setting point costs.

Edited by Lagomorphia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your suggested fighter has 3 Attack, no boost, and a dial similar to the TIE Advanced. In what way is it more like an A-wing than like an X-wing?.

Same upgrades, same ps, same actions (with the awing having boost and evade), all stats are the same except atk (1 less on awing), same manuever (both go to 5) except less green maneuvers an 1 turn instead of banks, and 1 less k turn and most importantly same price point which is the point of the debate.

It's abundantly clear your avoiding the comparison because it completely conflicts with your point by comparing it to ships completely different in not only roles but in every other category. Seriously the defender? Why not just compare it to the falcon?

Okay, let's compare to the A-wing. Your proposed fighter loses boost but gains barrel roll, which is an even trade or even a good one for your Avenger. It has the same upgrade bar as the A-wing (or, rather, a better bar than the 15-point post-Refit A-wing). Your proposed fighter goes from an A-wing-like dial to an X-wing-like dial. It gains +1 Attack.

To sum up, then, in comparison to a 15-point Prototype Pilot your proposed ship has an action bar with similar value, the same Agility and hit points, a slightly worse dial, and an Attack value that's twice as effective. You think all of that is worth… one point.

So tell me: if +1 Attack and a moderately worse dial is worth 1 point, why is the Interceptor 6 points more expensive than the TIE Fighter? Why does a Heavy Laser Cannon cost 7 points? Why is the X-wing 6 points more expensive than the post-Refit A-wing, despite the fact that the A-wing has a better action bar and better dial? Why is the B-wing 4 points more expensive than a Y-wing, despite having a much worse dial?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*facedesk*

The cost of this Avenger is a wrong number you made up. It is not valid for comparing ships in any way, shape or form. You compare ships on stats and dials and cost them based on that. If we put goats in spacesuits in the game, we can't say they're comparable to A-wings because we arbitrarily write 17 on their 0/0/1/0 stat card.

If someone makes a ship that has literally the same stats as a B-wing and cost it at 12 that doesn't make its closest cousin the TIE fighter. All it means is that they're clueless when it comes to setting point costs.

You do realize we are talking about a ship everyone is making up stars for? If anything comparing it to the most similar ship in game is likely the most accurate depiction. There is no wrong number since it doesn't exist except in comparison to the awing.

Furthermore I still don't understand how you are completely benign to the fact I am agreeing with you that the advanced and advanced x1 are different ships on the ffg titles. And yet you continue to argue the same thing. If ffg made a modification that said "tie advanced" only that modification would not be usable on vadar unless a FAQ stated otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The jousting value alone of a 3/3/2/2 stat line is around:

 

12*(1.74*1*(1.25*2+2)/3)^0.52 = 19.76

 

That's at PS1 relative to a PS1 TIE Fighter. 16 points would be horribly overcosted. 6 ships at 3/3/2/2 would destroy any squad in the game, hands down.

 

  • 24 hull / shields at 3 agility: more durable than the TIE Swarm.
  • six 3 dice attacks, 18 dice total = more firepower than anything else by a large margin
Without even getting into nitty-gritty specifics, it is very obvious that 16 points at 3/3/2/2 is a terrible idea.

While I don't agree with your equation which doesn't accurately represent all ships we have in game. A stripped down ship w few actions/upgrades to reduce cost and 3 atk 3 evade and 4hp is extremely powerful and likely never to occur for balance reasons. However cost wise it's still comparable to a prototype pilot (17) and alpha squad interceptor (18).

 

 

You can read my Lanchester's thread on where the jousting equation there comes from. You are free to disagree with the equation without first understanding it, but I (and pretty much everyone else here, by the looks of it) am free to disagree with your opinion as unsubstantiated and therefore meaningless.

 

Edit: point being, 3/3/2/2 is around a baseline value of 20 points before you consider the dial, actions, etc. It is a very coarse measurement, but even at that level makes it extremely clear that 16 points is extremely under costed. You seem to be burying your head in the sand with regard to fundamental mechanics. That is all.

Edited by MajorJuggler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...