Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Norsehound

What would a TIE Avenger look like?

Recommended Posts

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?

Do I think evade, boost, worst manuever dial, in exchange for 1 atk +1 pt. Yes. Youre giving up manueverability and defensive avoidance for 1 atk and increased cost.

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.

Even your own Lancaster thread doesn't match the point values of current ships correctly but you quote it as bible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what's the Advanced meant to be if it isn't the Advanced x1? The Avenger? Are you acknowledging FFG as having pooled the Avenger's stuff into their Advanced release?

 

Even your own Lancaster thread doesn't match the point values of current ships correctly but you quote it as bible.

 

His thread is a model. It does not perfectly match reality, it approximates fairly accurately. This is how pretty much all of modern scientific understanding works. It's close enough to understand what's going on. It's not accurate to one or two points but it doesn't need to be as long as it does what it's meant to do.

 

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.

Read post 70, particularly the bit with pictures.

Your ship shares the following with the A-wing and not with the X-wing:
1. Agility and Hull values. These are, relative to attack, not very significant to have slight changes to, especially when you lowered one and raised the other. We're talking Hull Upgrade Versus Stealth Device difference here.

That's it.

And what you share with the X and not the A,
Your action bar.
Your maneuver dial, all that changes is the straights are all one unit faster. The dial all but defines the ship.
Your attack value. See Vorpal's post for how significant three attack is relative to two. Just giving the Advanced x1 +1 attack would make a colossal difference to it.

You accuse us of avoiding an inconvenient point, but aren't you doing just that by refusing to even look at the X-wing's similarity to your proposal?

Edited by Lagomorphia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even your own Lancaster thread doesn't match the point values of current ships correctly but you quote it as bible.

 

Even if the formulas are off by a point or two, your TIE Avenger is still significantly under costed. There are 5 ships that it should be able to predict the value of very well. The TIE Avenger as you described it would be a 6th. Which of the 5 ships are you claiming that the Lanchester's formulas get completely wrong?
 
Edit: Included 7 here since the certainty should still be fairly good on the B-wing and Y-wing.
Edit 2: I left the discussion under each ship since it is pertinent, although long. It doesn't include quantifiable meta trends from the Store Championship thread, which correlates very strongly with the predicted results.
 
(long quote for background)

 

 

Limitations

The cost predictions here work best on ships that have no unique capabilities. I have broken down the degrees of certainty into several approximate categories. The model should, in theory, do a better job at accurately predicting the value of ships in the first category than in the lower categories. Anything less than the first tier fundamentally involves guesswork, since there are no other ships that you can correlate their unique coefficients to. Thankfully, 8 of the 16 ships through wave 4 should have a very high degree of confidence, so overall the approach should still have utility.
 
Very high degree of certainty (no unique capabilities):
X-wing
A-wing
E-wing (unreleased)
Z-95 (unreleased)
TIE Fighter
TIE Advanced
TIE Interceptor
 
High degree of certainty (minor unique traits)
Y-wing (turret with 2 base attack)
B-wing (the only small base ship with System Upgrade until wave 4)
 
Medium degree of certainty (significant unique traits)
Millennium Falcon (360 degree arc)
Firespray (rear arc)
TIE Bomber (basically requires ordnance to be useful)
 
Low degree of certainty (absolutely unique traits, not even remotely similar to any other ship)
TIE Defender* (white K-turn requires playtesting, unreleased)
Phantom (cloak, unreleased)
Shuttle (no white turns; red 0-stop)
HWK-290 (turret with 1 base attack)

 

* Once we get enough play testing on the white K-turn, and I update my dial scoring methodology, I'll probably be confident enough in moving the Defender into the "medium" category.

 

 

TIE Fighter (wave 1)

Jousting Efficiency: 100%

Cost: +0 (100%)

 

It's our baseline ship, so naturally it is going to be 100% on all measures. Almost every other ship in the game is less points efficient than it both in jousting and overall points cost, which matches with consensus: the TIE Fighter is a very good ship for its point cost. Howlrunner obviously makes them better, but isn't needed. An 8-TIE Swarm made Top 16 at Worlds 2013.

 

TIE Advanced (wave 1)

Jousting Efficiency: 82.3%

Cost: +3.4 (83.2%)

 

The general consensus on the TIE Advanced is that it is overcosted by about 2 points relative to the average ship in the game. These numbers certainly agree with that. If it costed 2 points less, then it would have a jousting efficiency of 91.4% and a points efficiency of 92.5%, putting it about on par with the X-wing. If you consider only the effect of swapping an attack dice for an agility die, the cost of a 20 point PS1 equivalent X-wing should become 20/(1.74*0.71)^0.52 = 17.9, which, not coincidentally, is the 2 points that the TIE Advanced is generally considered overcosted by.

 

TIE Interceptor (wave 2)

Jousting Efficiency: 89.0%

Cost: +0.9 (94.8%)

 

Prior to the TIE Phantom, its Attack / Durability rating of 1.75 made it the biggest glass cannon. Its jousting efficiency is probably just a bit too low to be used consistently in the competitive arena, especially since one bad roll will ruin your night. Their points efficiency is higher, which means that if you can fly them like ninjas, they can be effective. Against a turret list, they basically default to their jousting cost, making them inferior to most other ships that see play. Against non turret lists, the maneuverability can help mitigate their fragility, especially on higher PS pilots. The point structure here seems to agree with reality: mediocre at jousting, and the extra points spent on maneuverability is too easily neutered by the prevalence of turrets, essentially killing them off in the competitive metagame.

 

X-wing (wave 1)

Jousting Efficiency: 91.9%.

Cost: +1.3 (93.3%)

 

The X-wing is a very balanced ship, although technically it is a slight glass cannon. According to the math here, it is slightly overcosted relative to the PS1 TIE Fighter. Every so often there's chatter about how it should cost 20, and then someone else points out that FFG probably wanted to have 4 X-wings max in a 100 point squad. Still, until the arrival of the B-wing it was essentially the only game in town, and continues to be a competitive craft. I'm very comfortable with this points prediction.

 

Y-wing (wave 1)

Jousting Efficiency: 87.4%

Cost: +1.6 (90.3%)

 

The Y-wing is an odd craft, in that its jousting efficiency isn't great, but its turret upgrade can help it quite a bit. There were 2 squads in Top 16 Worlds 2013 that had Y-wings: Rebel Convoy, and a 5 ship rebel build. Rebel Convoy has been talked about at great length elsewhere, and is a great example of taking advantage of tactics provided by some very specific upgrades and squad builds. The 5 ship rebel builds with Y-wings as filler will likely phase out in favor of Z-95's when wave 4 hits. Bottom line, the math here says that it is almost certainly overcosted relative to the TIE Fighter, and I'm inclined to agree, but the occasional odd squad like Rebel Convoy proves that it can sometimes be very good when not playing into its jousting weakness. Again, I'm very comfortable on this cost prediction.

 

A-wing (wave 2)

Jousting Efficiency: 87.2%

Cost: +1.3 (92.5%)

 

The A-wing actually has a similar point efficiency than the X-wing, so what gives? Is the math here fundamentally broken? Probably not. The A-wing's jousting cost is lower, which is an important point. Furthermore, the A-wing is a tank. And tanks fundamentally don't need to evade arcs, they want to be aggroing the fire onto them. So unfortunately paying for all that extra maneuverability on the A-wing is not quite as useful as it is on the TIE Interceptor, which NEEDS to dodge arcs because it is a glass cannon. That said, if you can manage to flank with it and fly perfectly to get in range 1 and/or use it as a PS1 blocker, then it can be an OK ship. However I am very much inclined to agree that it is overcosted by at least a point relative to the TIE Fighter, and this is a case where I am heavily leaning towards a 1 point reduction for house rules. Once the Z-95 comes in wave 4, expect the PS1 A-wing to go the way of the Dodo for what little it ever saw of competitive play. Its jousting efficiency is just too low to use if you can at all avoid it, with the X-wing and especially B-wing being much better choices. Conclusion: the math is working, as long as you realize that the cost predictions don't care that you're paying for a maneuverable tank.

 

B-wing (wave 3)

Jousting efficiency: 97.2%.

Cost: +0.3 (98.5%)

 

Move over X-wing, there's a new Sherrif in town! Yup, it's good. Really good, both naked and with upgrades. From a jousting perspective, you're essentially paying 1 more point over an X-wing to get an additional 20% durability. Yes please! These numbers line up with what I think many people are seeing on the gaming tables: lots of B-wings. Paul winning Worlds 2013 with Advanced Sensor B-wings certainly doesn't hurt either. Summary: I think the formula is pretty much dead on with this ship.

 
Edited by MajorJuggler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what's the Advanced meant to be if it isn't the Advanced x1? The Avenger? Are you acknowledging FFG as having pooled the Avenger's stuff into their Advanced release?

 

Even your own Lancaster thread doesn't match the point values of current ships correctly but you quote it as bible.

 

His thread is a model. It does not perfectly match reality, it approximates fairly accurately. This is how pretty much all of modern scientific understanding works. It's close enough to understand what's going on. It's not accurate to one or two points but it doesn't need to be as long as it does what it's meant to do.

 

For what its worth, looking at the numbers quoted above, it is hard to argue that the error band on any of these 7 ships is more than 1 point, let alone 1.5 or 2.0. Regardless, it is certainly not 4 points, which is how large it would need to be to accommodate a 3/3/2/2 stat line and good dial/upgrades at 16 points!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Then how is it distinct from the Defender beyond being weaker?

 

Its not a big target and doesn't have a major blind spot.  It's these two factors that have made high manuverability fighter dangerous too the TIE Defender.  The A-Wing, TIE Avenger, and TIE Interceptor is a good example.  Baron Fel took on the most advanced TIE Defender known as Red Star 1 and killed it with a TIE Interceptor.

 

 

I'm talking X-wing here, not the TIE fighter video game. TIE fighter overblew the Defender so much that pretty much every other source to touch it has tried to nerf it into the dust to make it sensible. The Avenger's never strayed outside TIE fighter and thus never got the same treatme

 

The Defender wasn't nerfed unless you are counting the game mechanics of the battlefront series or the rts games, in which case you shouldn't because nothing in them counts as being true to canon UNLESS those things were introduced in those games and they didn't appear in other mediums. 

 

JFYI The Defender is not nerfed in X-Wing alliance.  Its shields are halved BUT they recharge twice as fast.  take in mind if your saying the Baron beat Red Star 1 because a nerf that is not so.  The reason he won was because he is the greatest pilot in SW, and their plenty of real world aces that used less manuverable craft to deafeat highly manuverable craft.  2nd the TIE Interceptor is the Empires greatest dog fighter ref Complete vehicles, and was one of the greatest dog fighter of the civil war over all including everyone craft ref vehicles and vessels.  3rd the fire power they both carry is good enough to one shot eachother.

 

As far as stats go in this game all the attributes I mentioned for the Avenger do play an important roll in determining its stats.  I have come to the realization that the stats for the ships are not purely based on a single attribute of the craft the represent.

 

For example the TIE Interceptor attack dice are 3 when it should easily be a 7 or more.  The attack dice are taking the  eccm, targeting capabilities and damage capabilities of the craft as a whole while the defensive dice are including the ecm, reg counter measures, and manuverability of the craft.

 

This is why the TIE Phantom has more base attack dice than other craft, it sure as heck didnt have the fire power of the Avenger, Defender, and Interceptor.  They are taking into consideration that the craft has appeared out of nowhere catching the enemy by surprise.

 

This is also why the Defender has 3 defensive dice, it has the tightest turns in SW but it is a huge ship with a big blind spot.

 

Taking this into consideration I think the Avenger should have 4 defensive dice with more white Interceptor dial

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

take in mind if your saying the Baron beat Red Star 1 because a nerf that is not so.

I don't think anyone else has mentioned that dogfight, actually.

For example the TIE Interceptor attack dice are 3 when it should easily be a 7 or more.

Um, what?

Taking this into consideration I think the Avenger should have 4 defensive dice with more white Interceptor dial

So, translated into mechanics for this game, you're saying that the TIE Avenger should be essentially untouchable by any ship that doesn't roll 4 attack dice?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need the current Tie Advanced fixed before we can go around theorycrafting what role an Avenger should have. After that, why not? It looks cool, and if FFG wants to put it in they'll find a way. I'd prefer an Assault Gunboat first though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there are a couple of people other than myself making an Avenger on Shapeways. Mine is closer to the fractal sponge version rather than having the oval cockpit which some like i know, but bugs the heck out of me.

 

mine

 

https://www.shapeways.com/model/1056361/tie-avenger-1-270.html?li=my-models&materialId=60

 

And Mels which i think might be the one in the pic but has yet to be updated evidently. I dont know what that means

 

https://www.shapeways.com/model/923878/tye-vengador-2-0-1-270.html

 

There is another but i cannot remember the designers name and if i type in avenger i get a lot of 'Avengers' stuff

 

As for the Gunboat. you do the stats i have the mini *L*

Edited by Gosric

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

take in mind if your saying the Baron beat Red Star 1 because a nerf that is not so.

I don't think anyone else has mentioned that dogfight, actually.

For example the TIE Interceptor attack dice are 3 when it should easily be a 7 or more.

Um, what?

Taking this into consideration I think the Avenger should have 4 defensive dice with more white Interceptor dial

So, translated into mechanics for this game, you're saying that the TIE Avenger should be essentially untouchable by any ship that doesn't roll 4 attack dice?

 

 

Yes we have had this talk before the 9.3 is powerful enough that adirect on a-wings and x-wing vaps them with a single beam.  It smashes Y-Wings with a single beam.  It has shown just passing by starfighter to cause explosions, which would mean in this game any hit that isnt a kill is caused by the beam passing by the ship.  A full quad link hit on cap ship causes horrific damage both in pictures in source books and in the Rogue Squadron series.

 

How ever many dice is reguired to one shot kill a Y A and X would be = dice rolled for a single beam from a 9.3. used by the Avenger Defender and Interceptor.

 

Going by your math a Avenger with 4 defence would not be immune to attacks from ships with attack dice less than four.  Four dice is a problem why is it ok under the right conditions E-Wings can have really high defensive dice.  I only looked at the topic once but one guy said it could have up to like 5 or 6.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For example the TIE Interceptor attack dice are 3 when it should easily be a 7 or more.

Um, what?

 

Yes we have had this talk before the 9.3 is powerful enough that adirect on a-wings and x-wing vaps them with a single beam.  It smashes Y-Wings with a single beam.  It has shown just passing by starfighter to cause explosions, which would mean in this game any hit that isnt a kill is caused by the beam passing by the ship.  A full quad link hit on cap ship causes horrific damage both in pictures in source books and in the Rogue Squadron series.

Yes, we have had this talk before, and it still sounds crazy. I haven't read every single EU source, but I'm not familiar with any source in which a single bolt from an Interceptor's cannon kills a Y-wing, nor one in which a single Interceptor causes "horrific" damage to a capital ship. And the idea that it causes ships to explode with just a near-miss is… unsupported by any source with which I'm familiar.

Moreover, it doesn't make any sense from an in-universe perspective. If the Empire can fit weaponry like that on a starfighter, why does it have any fighters without that capability? And why, in fact, would it need any other ships at all? It already has a fleet of mini-Death-Stars! Point them toward enemy fighters, and they won't even have to hit to blow things up; let even a single Interceptor get close to a Rebel capital ship and that ship is dead.

 

Taking this into consideration I think the Avenger should have 4 defensive dice with more white Interceptor dial

So, translated into mechanics for this game, you're saying that the TIE Avenger should be essentially untouchable by any ship that doesn't roll 4 attack dice?

Going by your math a Avenger with 4 defence would not be immune to attacks from ships with attack dice less than four.  Four dice is a problem why is it ok under the right conditions E-Wings can have really high defensive dice.  I only looked at the topic once but one guy said it could have up to like 5 or 6.

Assuming both sides get an action, the typical hit percentage for a ship with 3 Attack against 4 Agility is 27%. In a typical combat round, four X-wings might expect to do about 2.5 damage to a ship with 4 Agility. An E-wing with Stealth and R2-F2 can get to 5 Agility, and that's absolutely going to change the game--but even then it's only situational, and it's going to be relatively expensive and require a lot of support to get it working and keep it working.

And that's because there's a huge difference between increasing your Agility to 4+ with a temporary or conditional boost, and having 4 Agility all the time. Currently the only way to get there is by equipping a Stealth Device, which goes away as soon as you get hit, or by being a Phantom and sacrificing a round's worth of attacks. I'd like to see it stay that way.

Edited by Vorpal Sword

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, I just decided to check this thread out and read through the last couple pages.  I'm really very glad Gungo isn't playtesting or developing this game.  Additional attack dice, especially going from 2-3 are worth rather more than just about any other change to a ship, barring massive dial issues.

 

And people also have to realize that it's completely unreasonable to pull out various EU references to argue every little point, like the model of laser cannons fitted to the Avenger, and how they did this or that in a novel or game or cutscene.  The game developers can't be expected to conform to every single circumstance shown in the books and still maintain balance or sanity. Books/movies/comics/etc are all about plot and the story, the miniatures game is all about gameplay and balance.  Another great example is the Zero-G Stormtrooper thread, where people were pointing out a handful of the troopers did massive damage at the Bilbringi shipyards.  And a single proton torpedo killed the Death Star, what's your point?

 

I'd like to see the Avenger represented, but probably as a title for the existing Advanced.  I'd rather see that ship get more love and options than another cookie cutter TIE model.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the look of the avenger and I would like to see the advanced get some love. If we can have reprints, why not a model change? Release an aces pack with an advanced using the avenger sculpt. Give it a refit to get the attack to 3 and boom we all win.

Also, just pitching in that 3 3 3 2 or even 3 3 2 2 should cost more than 16 at ps1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The big reason for no model change is expense.  Getting a new sculpt, and new mold made costs MUCH more than just telling your painters to use a different color.  If you're going to go to that trouble, just make it a totally new ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*shrug* I don't doubt there is cost involved. I think that the sales would offset it though. In terms of cost they save nothing by making a new ship. Cards, tokens and whatnot are all still going in. This gives a chance to adjust balance for the advanced and produce something new that I would have to buy where as I would likely turn my nose up at an advanced that was just a repaint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok ... thats how my Tie Avenger would look like:

 

3-3-3-2

Actions: BR, TL, Focus, Evade

Upgrades: Missile, Beam Weapon

 

Dial: Interceptor with Tie-Fighters' K-turns

 

PS2 Pilot: 25 Points

PS4 Pilot: 27 Points (+ EPT)

PS7 Pilot: 31 Points (Wingman/Support/Defence-Ability + EPT)

PS8 Pilot: 33 Points (Generating Hits-Ability + EPT)

 

 

~~~ Beam Weapons:

 

Decoy Beam (1 p):

You can't be a target of a Target Lock action at range 3 or further.

 

Jammer Beam (2 p):

When defending at range 1, the attacker don't get the +1 attack bonus when attacking with primary weapons.

 

Tractor Beam (3 points)

When attacking a small base ship from outside it's firing arc at range 1-2, reduce the defender's agility value by 1 (to a minimum of 0).

 

~~~~~~~

 

But I think the Tie Advanced would need a fix first ... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So compared to an X-wing...

You improve the dial.

You give it BR and Evade

You give it an extra defence die.

You give it a beam weapon which balances removing the astromech slot.

 

All for 4 points? Yeah - so that is never going to happen....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok ... thats how my Tie Avenger would look like:

 

3-3-3-2

Actions: BR, TL, Focus, Evade

Upgrades: Missile, Beam Weapon

 

Dial: Interceptor with Tie-Fighters' K-turns

 

PS2 Pilot: 25 Points

PS4 Pilot: 27 Points (+ EPT)

PS7 Pilot: 31 Points (Wingman/Support/Defence-Ability + EPT)

PS8 Pilot: 33 Points (Generating Hits-Ability + EPT)

 

 

~~~ Beam Weapons:

 

Decoy Beam (1 p):

You can't be a target of a Target Lock action at range 3 or further.

 

Jammer Beam (2 p):

When defending at range 1, the attacker don't get the +1 attack bonus when attacking with primary weapons.

 

Tractor Beam (3 points)

When attacking a small base ship from outside it's firing arc at range 1-2, reduce the defender's agility value by 1 (to a minimum of 0).

 

~~~~~~~

 

But I think the Tie Advanced would need a fix first ... ;)

That's a little close to the E-wing to be 25 points. The dial is too good not to be around 27 points, making it the Imperial E-Wing in the same way the Advanced is the Imperial X-Wing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, you cant use the beam slot if you use 4 basic ships of those.

But if you go with 4 Rookies you can use Droid + Flechette torps.

Or go with 4 Red Squadrons + Flechette Torps.

- against 4 basic PS2 Tie Avengers - this should be quite balanced.

 

Yeah we don't know how the dial of the E-Wing will be.

But the E-Wing will have System Upgrade + Droid ... thats a lot

Edited by TheRealStarkiller

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, you cant use the beam slot if you use 4 basic ships of those.

But if you go with 4 Rookies you can use Droid + Flechette torps.

Or go with 4 Red Squadrons + Flechette Torps.

- against 4 basic PS2 Tie Avengers - this should be quite balanced.

 

Yeah we don't know how the dial of the E-Wing will be.

But the E-Wing will have System Upgrade + Droid ... thats a lot

While true, your version has functionally everything an E-wing has but a better projectile weapon, and a cannon option That's in many ways, just as good as an Astromech). Beyond that 4 Reds with Flechette Torps will get rocked by your pilots. Flechette Torps against a 3 agility ship will do less damage than a TL shot, and the stress on a ship with an Interceptor dial is negligable. Once the furball starts the reds will have trouble getting good shots in due to the superior manueverability.

That isn't the real issue though. Your ship leading/ running flanker a Tie Squadron is the real issue. It will be beastly with the correct support, and you can fit 6 Ties in there as a primary group. Or have the best ship in the game to support two Bounty hunters with Recon Specialists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not neccessarily. The Avenger miss the boost action, so its more a jouster then a flanker.

You would of course fire 2 Flechettes at one Avenger, so it would lose its action in the comming turn.

 

You could go up to 26 points base cost, thus permitting 4 of those in a 100 point game, of course.

 

Looks like FFG son't want to spiol the E-Wings dial ... so we need to be patient.

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...