Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Mako13

Tie Defender Values?

347 posts in this topic

I dislike that dial just because both the Defender and the Avenger have maneuvering thrusters as well as main thrusters.. Also it would make them very unwieldy, That dial in a lot of ways is worst than a B-Wing Dial. A lot of the times you want close tight turns over long turns.

 

In other words, it would handle like a Dog.

 

That dial is more correct for something like a Die-Wing which have powerful engines, light weight and no maneuvering thrusters.

 

Also you would need 4 banks which are not in the game

Edited by Rodent Mastermind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Adding a 4 bank isn't an issue. Just put it in the blister pack.

And yes the whole point is they don't have low speed manoeuvering. Remember they still have barrel roll and you can always daredevil if you want. But the idea is to make people fly them FAST. I suppose you could make the 2 banks white if you really want to allow some slower stuff.

I did just realise that this would be the only dial where 2 straight is not green...

 

Also I would point out, if want to talk about manoeuvering thrusters etc, why is it that every ship doesn't have all the speed 1 manoeuvers and the full stop like the shuttle? I would say it is because the manoeuvering thrusters are for slow speed moving, not combat situations!

Edited by Bilisknir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May i suggest that should we get these ships, we say they don't have boost as standard. Think of it as they already have the extra speed included in their dials.

I would also be intrigued by them having Red manoeuvers at LOW speeds, you could consider that the ships are harder to handle when the engines are throttled down. Say the reactor provides too much power and heat to shed without the engines going.

 

Both of these things show that the ships are manoeuverable and fast but still keep them interesting.

Say the dial below. Lots of potential for interesting stuff.

I wouls also have the Defender have 2 agility not 3 (tho Avenger can have 3). Think of it as a size penalty. Big ship is just easier to hit.

 

1Wf4GQ9.png

 

4 banks is an issue. The templates would be too large for the blister.

What tool did you use to create this image?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

May i suggest that should we get these ships, we say they don't have boost as standard. Think of it as they already have the extra speed included in their dials.

I would also be intrigued by them having Red manoeuvers at LOW speeds, you could consider that the ships are harder to handle when the engines are throttled down. Say the reactor provides too much power and heat to shed without the engines going.

 

Both of these things show that the ships are manoeuverable and fast but still keep them interesting.

Say the dial below. Lots of potential for interesting stuff.

I wouls also have the Defender have 2 agility not 3 (tho Avenger can have 3). Think of it as a size penalty. Big ship is just easier to hit.

 

1Wf4GQ9.png

 

4 banks is an issue. The templates would be too large for the blister.

What tool did you use to create this image?

 

 

Dunno - i think you could make them fit or it could come in two parts...

The tool was the incredibly versative and super expensive MSPaint...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would require me to be able to either access a web tool or get photoshop installed on my phone or my office pc. Strangely it seems imgur is not blocked - I guess the IT team like to look at it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question on the Avenger topic.  Do we NEED the Avenger when it is really an upgraded advanced?  Is there really room for Superiority fighter (Interceptor), Super Superiority fighter (Avenger), Mega Super Superiority fighter (Defender)?  Cutting out the Avenger or making it an upgrade card to the advanced really makes a lot of this discussion a lot easier...

 

  • TIE Fighter: cheap swarmer
  • TIE Interceptor: maneuverable glass cannon
  • TIE Advanced x1: overpriced and rarely used
  • TIE Avenger: space superiority
  • TIE Defender: high degree of customization, space superiority

I think that list is all you really need to justify making the avenger an upgrade card for the advanced. 1 extra attack and boost for 5 points or 1 attack and system upgrade for 4.

On the plus side the under used advanced gets more use and you don't need to buy another fighter. Downside is you have to use the advanced dial and remaining stat line. I think that is a fair compromise and it gives lots of room for the defender.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May i suggest that should we get these ships, we say they don't have boost as standard. Think of it as they already have the extra speed included in their dials.

I would also be intrigued by them having Red manoeuvers at LOW speeds, you could consider that the ships are harder to handle when the engines are throttled down. Say the reactor provides too much power and heat to shed without the engines going.

 

Both of these things show that the ships are manoeuverable and fast but still keep them interesting.

Say the dial below. Lots of potential for interesting stuff.

I wouls also have the Defender have 2 agility not 3 (tho Avenger can have 3). Think of it as a size penalty. Big ship is just easier to hit.

 

1Wf4GQ9.png

 

No. Just no. If anything, if you wanted to be true to canon, the Avenger should get a free Boost action every round. But that's a bit over the top and I don't actually support going that far. But to put it in perspective, as far as maneuverability is concerned, the Avenger is to the TIE Interceptor as the TIE Interceptor is to an X-wing, or possibly even to a Y-wing. The Avenger's dial should basically be all green, except for the K-turns.

 

I do agree that the Defender could be given 2 agility vs 3 for the Avenger. It's a bigger ship and theoretically therefore easier to hit, IF you can get it in your sights.

 

Edit: I actually like the idea of the 4 bank, if at all possible to implement. I would add a green 6 straight while I was at it, except that you couldn't get it to fit in the standard sized expansion pack.

Edited by MajorJuggler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Question on the Avenger topic.  Do we NEED the Avenger when it is really an upgraded advanced?  Is there really room for Superiority fighter (Interceptor), Super Superiority fighter (Avenger), Mega Super Superiority fighter (Defender)?  Cutting out the Avenger or making it an upgrade card to the advanced really makes a lot of this discussion a lot easier...

 

  • TIE Fighter: cheap swarmer
  • TIE Interceptor: maneuverable glass cannon
  • TIE Advanced x1: overpriced and rarely used
  • TIE Avenger: space superiority
  • TIE Defender: high degree of customization, space superiority

I think that list is all you really need to justify making the avenger an upgrade card for the advanced. 1 extra attack and boost for 5 points or 1 attack and system upgrade for 4.

On the plus side the under used advanced gets more use and you don't need to buy another fighter. Downside is you have to use the advanced dial and remaining stat line. I think that is a fair compromise and it gives lots of room for the defender.

 

 

I think you are oversimplifying it. To go from the TIE Advanced x1 to the TIE Avenger entails:

  1. drastically changing the physical shape and appearance of the ship
  2. +1 attack dice
  3. +1 shield
  4. boost action
  5. Improving the dial from the mediocre TIE Advanced x1 to the TIE Interceptor dial
  6. Now improving the dial a 2nd time to make the TIE Interceptor look sluggish by comparison.

 

The first reason alone is enough reason, for me personally, that I would very much like for them to release the TIE Avenger as a new craft. Your title suggestion of adding +1 attack and boost still doesn't get the dial right, which is A Big Deal.

BattlePriest likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also I would point out, if want to talk about manoeuvering thrusters etc, why is it that every ship doesn't have all the speed 1 manoeuvers and the full stop like the shuttle? I would say it is because the manoeuvering thrusters are for slow speed moving, not combat situations!

 

Physics has never been a strong point for the TIE series. It's a frictionless system, so there shouldn't even be a top speed, only acceleration limits. But keeping track of vectorized momentum between rounds would be too hard to keep track of in a tabletop game. Yo could do it in a PC/console game, but clearly that wasn't done either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are oversimplifying it. To go from the TIE Advanced x1 to the TIE Avenger entails:

  1. drastically changing the physical shape and appearance of the ship
  2. +1 attack dice
  3. +1 shield
  4. boost action
  5. Improving the dial from the mediocre TIE Advanced x1 to the TIE Interceptor dial
  6. Now improving the dial a 2nd time to make the TIE Interceptor look sluggish by comparison.

 

The first reason alone is enough reason, for me personally, that I would very much like for them to release the TIE Avenger as a new craft. Your title suggestion of adding +1 attack and boost still doesn't get the dial right, which is A Big Deal.

 

 

There is a limit to how maneuverable / evasive you can make a ship in this game, between actually being able to be hit and not having the movement templates you end up with a certain cap.  The certainty is that the Defender is the top dog.  Personally, I'm quite ok with skipping the avenger entirely to make a kicking Defender, but since there seems to be a lot of love for the Avenger, I'm cool with it being represented by an upgrade to the advanced.  Yes, it deviates from the computer game specs by using the Advanced dial, but I'm still OK with that as it leaves plenty of room for the Defender to be the ship its supposed to be.  

 

As for the visuals, maybe I'm thinking of a different ship then, because, to me, the Avenger is the Advanced with pointy wings. You get a much bigger bang for the buck visually in the imperial spectrum on the Defender than you do between the advanced and the avenger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As for the visuals, maybe I'm thinking of a different ship then, because, to me, the Avenger is the Advanced with pointy wings. You get a much bigger bang for the buck visually in the imperial spectrum on the Defender than you do between the advanced and the avenger.

 

 

Don't forget the Ovoid cockpit and the side mounted missile launchers.  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

May i suggest that should we get these ships, we say they don't have boost as standard. Think of it as they already have the extra speed included in their dials.

I would also be intrigued by them having Red manoeuvers at LOW speeds, you could consider that the ships are harder to handle when the engines are throttled down. Say the reactor provides too much power and heat to shed without the engines going.

 

Both of these things show that the ships are manoeuverable and fast but still keep them interesting.

Say the dial below. Lots of potential for interesting stuff.

I wouls also have the Defender have 2 agility not 3 (tho Avenger can have 3). Think of it as a size penalty. Big ship is just easier to hit.

 

1Wf4GQ9.png

 

No. Just no. If anything, if you wanted to be true to canon, the Avenger should get a free Boost action every round. But that's a bit over the top and I don't actually support going that far. But to put it in perspective, as far as maneuverability is concerned, the Avenger is to the TIE Interceptor as the TIE Interceptor is to an X-wing, or possibly even to a Y-wing. The Avenger's dial should basically be all green, except for the K-turns.

 

I do agree that the Defender could be given 2 agility vs 3 for the Avenger. It's a bigger ship and theoretically therefore easier to hit, IF you can get it in your sights.

 

Edit: I actually like the idea of the 4 bank, if at all possible to implement. I would add a green 6 straight while I was at it, except that you couldn't get it to fit in the standard sized expansion pack.

 

If you want a straight 6 just do straight 2 and 4 rulers end to end?

 

Also if you think the dial is far too harsh, then make the following changes.

 

EeCCvxr.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now this is getting off-hand with the need of new templates.

 

An easier solution would be like "If the TIE Defender boosts it uses the 2' template.

 

Well it would have to be a new action.. Maybe the boost action icon with double arrow. Rather than a ship specific ability, but I'm not against the idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed!

 

As an alternate idea, why not give it a red speed 1 turn, but put a special rule on the ship.

"Immediately after a speed 1 manoeuver you must attempt to perform a boost action. If you are unable to boost take an additional stress token. You may not perform any further actions, even free actions, this round." (We might have to add an anti Adv sensors caveat if we give it a system slot)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always thought that the Defender would be heavier and a little bit slower than ties, and certainly slower than interceptors. 

Defenders have all that extra equipment.  Cannon slot, shields, etc. 

I'm thinking, y-wing-ish.

Edited by Viceroy Bolda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless of how grossly exaggerated its capabilities have or have not been in various video games, the defender has been established in EU as an Imperial top of the line starfighter.  Whether you want to give it agility 2 or some other strategy to try and make room to fit in the avenger or whatever, the TIE defender's capabilities are clearly far superior to a Y-wing.  Even if you go the route of trying to make it some kind of multirole heavy weapons platform it would still have to be a very fast and maneuverable weapons platform, or you have basically discarded the premise of what the ship actually was/is.

BattlePriest likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Background says that a TIE Defender is about 4 times the costs of a TIE Fighter.

So about 40 - 50 points for the TIE Defender base model would be 'quite realistic'.

 

Thats about the region of the unique falcon pilots.

Now imagine a small base model with large base model qualities and you have it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wanted to throw in my 2 cents. I think your stats are off. I would go:

A:3

D:3

H:3

S:3 or 4 has to be balanced

Maybe 30 points or 28 would have to be heavily play tested

I could also see a Dodge of 4 with an attack of 2 maybe in a defensive mode.  As they were extremely agile even while not moving fast, but That might be reserved for Tie droid.

 

Reason: First off the Tie defender is the second most advanced Tie. First is the Tie Phantom.  Cant wait to see those.  Also the tie has the same base structure of the regular Ties, but with more advanced guts in it. Hence the 3 Hull.  It did have shields so I would give it shields. How many? Not 8! thats just broken.  I would do no more than 4 maybe 3.  You have to remember that Tie defenders are not a cheap or easily learn ship.  Pilots were practically  aces and the systems were very expensive.  Thats why i give it a high cost.  Mine would also be a base tie defender with about 5 or 6 PS no name pilot.  Again everything has to be heavily play tested.

 

Cant wait to see what they come up with.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Black Knight Leader

 

I made a Royal Guard TIE Defender. I was thinking about giving the Royal Guard Title to them, but now that they have been released, I think that would be a HUGE point dump. I had them about 2 - 3 points less than they are now, but had a less effective movement dial for them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0