Jump to content
Cpt ObVus

Talk to me about TIE Aggressors

Recommended Posts

29 minutes ago, gadwag said:

Let this thread henceforth be about all 2-agility ships with 5-6 health.

hehe... 

JakkuGunrunnerPilotCard

23 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:

  But always being able to have a focus for those 2 green dice, plus always have a shot,

I'm not seeing the always part.

Maneuver hwk-290

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Linked rotate->Focus is nice, but at initiative 2 you're going to get much better time on target with a dorsal aggressor's 180 degree arc.

The HWK has excellent action and upgrade bars, but it is not an efficient generic filler ship. If you think it's a good deal at 30pts, I suggest you try out the aggressor with dorsal or ion turret - you might be pleasantly surprised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, gadwag said:

Linked rotate->Focus is nice, but at initiative 2 you're going to get much better time on target with a dorsal aggressor's 180 degree arc.

Or I1 with no access to Leia who is the key to @theBitterFig's "fun" build... Still 30 pts...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the HWK and Gunrunner are great examples of why the Aggressor is good.

As is this table: 

ZzJIOVA.png

I compared 2.0 cost for a bunch of pilots that were pretty similar to their 1.0 version, with a little bit of ballpark adjustment where appropriate for things like important linked actions, stat changes etc.

Its not the same thing as a power level guide as obviously the starting point for power level in 1.0 wasn’t the same.  But I think it gives some good insights anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Hiemfire said:

I'm not seeing the always part.

Well, it's the always of conversation.

To be sure, you have to anticipate, but with a bit of that, it's not too hard to get a tonne of shots that most other ships couldn't get.

7 hours ago, gadwag said:

If you think it's a good deal at 30pts, I suggest you try out the aggressor with dorsal or ion turret - you might be pleasantly surprised.

That's what I've been saying the whole thread. =P

Aggressors and HWKs and naked TIE/sf. =D

7 hours ago, gadwag said:

The HWK has excellent action and upgrade bars, but it is not an efficient generic filler ship.

I guess part of my point is that time-on-target can allow something to go beyond the efficiency.  And I'm not quite saying HWKs are secret top-tier ships, just that they're way better than they'd look like they are.

Edited by theBitterFig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, gadwag said:

Linked rotate->Focus is nice, but at initiative 2 you're going to get much better time on target with a dorsal aggressor's 180 degree arc.

The HWK has excellent action and upgrade bars, but it is not an efficient generic filler ship. If you think it's a good deal at 30pts, I suggest you try out the aggressor with dorsal or ion turret - you might be pleasantly surprised.

The HWK does has a small advantage of the turret going out to range 3, and access to Leia or Drea. Whether that outweighs the advantage of a front arc, I don't know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, theBitterFig said:

That's what I've been saying the whole thread. =P

Apologies, I got confused about who was making what argument in the initial comparison between aggressors and triple ace lists. (I think it's wrong to say aggressors are worse than triple aces, but most imperial players are in the faction for aces, not tanky turret ships, which is why aces are preferred).

14 hours ago, 5050Saint said:

The HWK does has a small advantage of the turret going out to range 3, and access to Leia or Drea. Whether that outweighs the advantage of a front arc, I don't know.

Adding a full front arc is a lot better than adding a range 3 band to the turret. As for support, aggressors have access to Howlrunner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, gadwag said:

Apologies, I got confused about who was making what argument in the initial comparison between aggressors and triple ace lists. (I think it's wrong to say aggressors are worse than triple aces, but most imperial players are in the faction for aces, not tanky turret ships, which is why aces are preferred).

No worries, hence smileys.  Particularly don't worry, since I have also made an argument that aces kinda crowd out generics like Aggressors.  It's hard to pin down exactly how much of that is power vs perception, but the results are kinda the same.

 

As to my pro-turret leanings, mostly what I've been saying in this thread is that, when folks say "There's no point to the Aggressor since it's a worse TIE Bomber" I keep saying "But Turrets!"  Turrets are a worthy end in themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/9/2020 at 4:28 AM, Stay OT Leader said:

ZzJIOVA.png

I noticed something wrong with this table here (unless I'm missing something). The rank 1 Inquisitor didn't have an equivalent in 1st Edition, so I don't know how we got the 1.0 base price.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Its what @gadwag said.  Over on the rightmost column is the adjust factor, which was +14pts for the Inquisitor.  That breaks down into:

+6pts for good linked actions.  It’s not as good as a full Push The Limit but PTL was likely undercosted anyway.

+8pts for a single force point 

Its all really subjective but that’s the reasoning behind it 🙂

Edited by Stay OT Leader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Stay OT Leader said:

+6pts for good linked actions.  It’s not as good as a full Push The Limit but PTL was likely undercosted anyway.

I'm curious. Did you bring in to account things like the TIE/v1 or Concord Dawn Protector titles? Concord Dawn is now baked into to Fenn and the Fangs, and TIE/v1 essentially had 1 point (2 points in 2nd) PTL with Lock + Evade.

I apologize for my over-criticality, I just want to understand the methodology. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 5050Saint said:

I'm curious. Did you bring in to account things like the TIE/v1 or Concord Dawn Protector titles? Concord Dawn is now baked into to Fenn and the Fangs, and TIE/v1 essentially had 1 point (2 points in 2nd) PTL with Lock + Evade.

I apologize for my over-criticality, I just want to understand the methodology. 

When it got you closer to the 2.0 ship I included it (like Concord) but if not (like v1) I didn’t.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 5050Saint said:

I'm curious. Did you bring in to account things like the TIE/v1 or Concord Dawn Protector titles? Concord Dawn is now baked into to Fenn and the Fangs, and TIE/v1 essentially had 1 point (2 points in 2nd) PTL with Lock + Evade.

This reminds me that I'm kind of sad you can't link a Lock into a red Evade on TIE/v1s in 2e, just in a thematic sense, but I know that it's for the best in terms of balance that we can't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/24/2020 at 12:25 PM, theBitterFig said:

This reminds me that I'm kind of sad you can't link a Lock into a red Evade on TIE/v1s in 2e, just in a thematic sense, but I know that it's for the best in terms of balance that we can't.

might be cute on non-vader Tie /x1 (though evade -> red lock would be better for passive sensor purposes), but there's the vader problem again though its a problem for 3.0 to solve

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.


×
×
  • Create New...