Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Norsehound

What would a TIE Avenger look like?

Recommended Posts

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.

The E-wing doesn't have Boost Either. Barrel roll and a good dial is all a flanker needs anyway. 26-27 is much more fair than 25, as 4 of them would be one of the most efficient fleets in the game. It would certainly outclass 4 X-wings, and probably 2X2B's as well. Noting that the second is one of the most effective fleets in the game.

Beyond that it's hands down way way better than the Defender at anything less than 27, and nullifies the Defender pretty hard even then, as one less shield and an Interceptor dial is certainly worth saving three points.

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.

 

 

 

You can find most of those sources in the first rogue squadron volume.  The refrences to killing ships with just beams passing by and one shot kills with one beam on Y-Wings is in Rogue Squadron in the service of the empire.

 

The reason you don't see every fighter in the Empire with those canons is because of energy requirements and size of the cannons.  In the crosssections it shows that the cannon is actully neary the whole length of the solar pannel.  The 9.3 has the most mass out of every fighter cannon created in SW.

 

Actully it does make since to have fighter that powerful and still have cap ships because of the need of strategic diversity.  Despite being as powerful as I posted they are still at risk at being taken out by anti-fighter defences.  The Mon Cal have giant cluster bombs on their hulls just for killing fighters.  The range of the Imperial I and 2 SD broadsides is around 15 light min while 9.3 has around 50 miles, so if ecm is not a problem which cannon whould you rather use, the one with a 50 mile range or the one with a 15 light min range?  And don't forget their goal was to replace all the current TIE Fighter fleets with Interceptors.

 

The soul reason the 9.3 was created was to defeat shielded fighter ergo making shields on Reb fighters pointless.  The Interceptor is an interceptor and Interceptor need powerful weapons to deny enemies air space and kill threats to a fleet or friendly base.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

 

 

Actully the stats could follow canon if ever hit scored is a result of the beam passing by.

 

When did a singel proton torpedo kill a death star?  Don't forget on the first death star the exaust port was a vulnarble spot your comparing a event where a fighter exploted a vulnerable spot on a spacestation to shipyards conflict which was more of slug match.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And BKR is baaaaack! Begin the crazy!!! :)

 

JFYI it says in the crossections, and shows in the crosssections, the solar energy accumulated by the solar pannels is used as a catalyst in the reactor of the TIE.  You kinda left that out when you were poking fun at the authors of the crossections books eventhough they are astrophysicist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And BKR is baaaaack! Begin the crazy!!! :)

 

JFYI it says in the crossections, and shows in the crosssections, the solar energy accumulated by the solar pannels is used as a catalyst in the reactor of the TIE.  You kinda left that out when you were poking fun at the authors of the crossections books eventhough they are astrophysicist.

Just to let the thread continue to degrade, I'll point out that the idea of a solar panel on a space fighter is completely silly, and--being astrophysicists--the authors of whatever book certainly know that.

The biggest difference between your view of the SW universe and mine, I think, is that you seem to feel that it's a cohesive whole with underlying rules and principles you can discern if you know enough about it; I'm comfortable with the idea that it's a contradictory, self-refuting mess whose major purpose is to allow fantastic storytelling--or, in our case, gameplay.

That is, the mechanics of the SW universe exist solely to facilitate the narrative. So when you go to tell a story or build a game in Star Wars, you pick the bits that fit, modify or invent new bits when no existing bit will do, and aim simply to have as much fun as you possibly can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

And BKR is baaaaack! Begin the crazy!!! :)

 

JFYI it says in the crossections, and shows in the crosssections, the solar energy accumulated by the solar pannels is used as a catalyst in the reactor of the TIE.  You kinda left that out when you were poking fun at the authors of the crossections books eventhough they are astrophysicist.

Just to let the thread continue to degrade, I'll point out that the idea of a solar panel on a space fighter is completely silly, and--being astrophysicists--the authors of whatever book certainly know that.

The biggest difference between your view of the SW universe and mine, I think, is that you seem to feel that it's a cohesive whole with underlying rules and principles you can discern if you know enough about it; I'm comfortable with the idea that it's a contradictory, self-refuting mess whose major purpose is to allow fantastic storytelling--or, in our case, gameplay.

That is, the mechanics of the SW universe exist solely to facilitate the narrative. So when you go to tell a story or build a game in Star Wars, you pick the bits that fit, modify or invent new bits when no existing bit will do, and aim simply to have as much fun as you possibly can.

 

 

 

It all depends on how they are used.

 

So are you going too skip over my earlyer post our are you going to go straight for the personal insults?

Edited by Black Knight Leader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

And BKR is baaaaack! Begin the crazy!!! :)

 

JFYI it says in the crossections, and shows in the crosssections, the solar energy accumulated by the solar pannels is used as a catalyst in the reactor of the TIE.  You kinda left that out when you were poking fun at the authors of the crossections books eventhough they are astrophysicist.

Just to let the thread continue to degrade, I'll point out that the idea of a solar panel on a space fighter is completely silly, and--being astrophysicists--the authors of whatever book certainly know that.

The biggest difference between your view of the SW universe and mine, I think, is that you seem to feel that it's a cohesive whole with underlying rules and principles you can discern if you know enough about it; I'm comfortable with the idea that it's a contradictory, self-refuting mess whose major purpose is to allow fantastic storytelling--or, in our case, gameplay.

That is, the mechanics of the SW universe exist solely to facilitate the narrative. So when you go to tell a story or build a game in Star Wars, you pick the bits that fit, modify or invent new bits when no existing bit will do, and aim simply to have as much fun as you possibly can.

 

 

 

It all depends on how they are used.

 

So are you going too skip over my earlyer post our are you going to go straight for the personal insults?

 

 

Get the popcorn

The following video is not for young viewers

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And BKR is baaaaack! Begin the crazy!!! :)

 

JFYI it says in the crossections, and shows in the crosssections, the solar energy accumulated by the solar pannels is used as a catalyst in the reactor of the TIE.  You kinda left that out when you were poking fun at the authors of the crossections books eventhough they are astrophysicist.

Just to let the thread continue to degrade, I'll point out that the idea of a solar panel on a space fighter is completely silly, and--being astrophysicists--the authors of whatever book certainly know that.

The biggest difference between your view of the SW universe and mine, I think, is that you seem to feel that it's a cohesive whole with underlying rules and principles you can discern if you know enough about it; I'm comfortable with the idea that it's a contradictory, self-refuting mess whose major purpose is to allow fantastic storytelling--or, in our case, gameplay.

That is, the mechanics of the SW universe exist solely to facilitate the narrative. So when you go to tell a story or build a game in Star Wars, you pick the bits that fit, modify or invent new bits when no existing bit will do, and aim simply to have as much fun as you possibly can.

 

 

It all depends on how they are used.

 

So are you going too skip over my earlyer post our are you going to go straight for the personal insults?

Sorry for the lengthy quote, but I'm on my phone and it's difficult to trim.

If you'd like to point out where you believe I made a personal attack, I'm happy to apologize. I was trying to say that think we view the game and the setting very differently; I don't think that's a bad thing, but it does make our opinions on this point rather incommensurable.

I think the Interceptor should have 3 Attack, and I know that 4 (base) Agility is too much. You think the Interceptor should have 7 Attack, and that an Avenger should have 4 Agility to be consistent with the game's fiction. I think you're wrong, of course, but at this point I don't think there's any chance I'm going to convince you, so I'm satisfied with dropping it entirely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

When did a singel proton torpedo kill a death star?  Don't forget on the first death star the exaust port was a vulnarble spot your comparing a event where a fighter exploted a vulnerable spot on a spacestation to shipyards conflict which was more of slug match.

 

 

You're right, Luke fired two.  My bad!

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...