| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16283
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
 Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2015 2:27 am Post subject: TIE Stat Reboot |
 |
|
So, over the years and in various topics, I've posited various alternate theories on TIE Fighters, and other TIEs by extension, but I've never really compiled all my thoughts into an actual stat. Therefore...
TIE/ln Starfighter
Craft: Seinar Fleet Systems' TIE/ln
Type: Space Superiority Starfighter
Scale: Starfighter
Length: 6.3 meters
Skill: Starfighter Piloting: TIE/ln
Crew: 1
Crew Skill:
Gunnery 4D
Piloting 4D+1
Sensors 4D
Cargo Capacity: 65 kg
Consumables: 2 days
Maneuverability: 3D (2D in Atmosphere)
Space: 10
Atmosphere: 415; 1,200 kph
Hull: 2D (Particle Shields: 1D)
Sensors:
Passive 20/0D
Scan 40/1D
Search 60/2D
Focus 3/3D
Weapons:
2 Heavy Blaster Cannon (Fire-Linked)
Fire Arc: Front
Skill: Starship Gunnery
Fire Control: 2D
Space Range: 1-5/10/17
Atmosphere Range: 100m-500m/1km/1.7km
Rate of Fire: 2D Auto-Fire*
Damage: 4D
*At Point Blank and Short Range, Auto-Fire dice may be applied to either Fire Control or Damage, or may be split between them. At Medium Range, no more than 1D may be applied to Damage. At Long Range, Auto-Fire dice may only be applied to Fire Control.
Changes Made, and my Reasons WhyManeuverability:
A while back, Mikael Hasselstein pointed out that 2D Maneuverability was rather low for a dedicated space superiority fighter, as it made it equally maneuverable as the Y-Wing. I hadn't really considered it before, but it made sense. In addition, since several EU sources have indicated that TIEs have reduced Maneuverability in atmospheric flight, I decided to increase the TIE's Maneuverability in Space by 1D, but leave it at 2D in Atmosphere
Particle Shields: The RAW states that a ship that loses its particle shields suffers a -2D penalty to Hull. Since this reduces TIEs to 0D automatically, I went with an alternate theory that, due to its extremely small size, the TIE has lighter particle shielding (1D rather than 2D).
Heavy Blaster Cannon:
In the films, the cannon on TIE Fighters have a noticeably higher rate of fire than the lasers mounted on the X-Wings. Since WEG has established that starfighters can mount lasers and/or blasters (see the B-Wing and the Z-95), and since I've redesigned starfighter-mounted blasters to be repeater weapons (with the rules to go with), I decided to change the TIE/ln's laser cannon into heavy blaster cannon. They lose a little in range (and damage capacity at range), but hit much harder and more accurately up close.
I'll be following this up with rebooted stats for the TIE/gt, TIE/rc and TIE/fc (possibly combining the latter two into a single platform that can perform both missions), but this will do for now.
Thoughts?
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
RexMundiAbu
Sub-Lieutenant
Joined: 17 Feb 2014
Posts: 66
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2015 3:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Very interesting , the particle shields thing bothered me as all ships supposed to have them , but without them the tie would have 0d normally which just doesnt sound right , but could be accurate as ties do seem flimsy ships . I like the extra fire rate for the weapons and think it makes sense altho the range for the weapons is a bit short for me . The maneuverability I agree with as Ties are supposed to be superior to Y-wings and your penalty for atmos also makes sense . Overall good stats , which I would prob use more as a variant rather than the norm perhaps , but that's just me . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14173
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2015 6:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Perhaps the whole partical shield thing would have been corrected if their hull had gotten boosted to say 2d+2 or even 3d..
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16283
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2015 6:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | | Perhaps the whole partical shield thing would have been corrected if their hull had gotten boosted to say 2d+2 or even 3d.. |
That could work, too. I like the TIEs being fast and fragile, though, and if you bump the stats up too far, it gets within striking distance of the Interceptor (Speed 10 / 11, Maneuverability 3D / 3D+2 and Hull 3D / 3D+2). It ends up making the Interceptor more like an upgraded TIE. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing...
On a side note, I've always wondered what the /ln meant in the designator for TIE Fighters. I assume it means Line, as in main-line fighter craft. Since TIEs are used by both Army and Navy, I've considered adding to versions: /ln for Line, Naval and /la for Line, Army. The only difference would be that /la would have a Space of 8, but retain full 3D Maneuverability in Atmosphere. My reasoning is that, since the Army uses TIEs for Ground Support operations, a TIE configured for atmospheric operations at the (slight) expense of space operations might be appropriate.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pel
Line Captain
Joined: 10 May 2006
Posts: 983
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2015 10:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I agree with your assessment. This fleshes out the venerable TIE a bit and encourages GMs to use them as something other than massed swarms of disposable fighters. Combining the rc & fc variants sounds good also and frees up a bit of deck space in the process. No reason they couldn't do both.
_________________
Aha! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16283
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 12, 2015 2:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Next up, the TIE Advanced x1. Ordinarily, I'd make some more changes, but since the x1's storyline is that it is a prototype that was eventually rejected in favor of the Interceptor, it makes some sense that the stats would not be up to those of the Interceptor. Under WEG's rules, the lower Maneuverability would be offset by Vader's high Starfighter Piloting skill, and its relative toughness would be reflective of Vader's general combat style, so it makes a good ship for him. However, I do think a couple changes are in order...
Craft: Sienar Fleet Systems TIE Advanced x1 Prototype
Type: Space Superiority Starfighter
Scale: Starfighter
Length: 7.8 meters
Skill: Starfighter Piloting: TIE Advanced x1
Crew: 1
Crew Skill:
Astrogation 4D
Gunnery 5D
Piloting 6D
Shields 4D
Sensors 4D
Cargo Capacity: 150 kilograms
Consumables: 1 week
Hyperdrive Multiplier: x4
Nav Computer: 10 jump maximum
Maneuverability: 1D+1
Space: 10
Atmosphere: 415; 1,200 kph
Hull: 3D
Shields: 1D+1
Sensors:
Passive 20/0D
Scan 40/1D
Search 60/2D
Focus 3/3D
Weapons:
2 Heavy Auto-Blaster Cannon (Fire-Linked)
Fire Arc: Front
Crew: 1
Skill: Starship Gunnery
Fire Control: 3D
Space Range: 1-8/25/40
Atmosphere Range: 100m-800m/2.5km/4km
Rate of Fire: 2D Auto-Fire*
Damage: 4D
*At Point Blank and Short Range, Auto-Fire dice may be applied to either Fire Control or Damage, or may be split between them. At Medium Range, no more than 1D may be applied to Damage. At Long Range, Auto-Fire dice may only be applied to Fire Control.
Special Rule: Lock-OnSkill: Starship Sensors
Time To Use: 1 standard action
How To Use:
-Target must be in Front Fire Arc, and must be within Search Range.
-Make a Sensor Focus roll, with a base Difficulty of Easy (target may attempt to dodge, just like an attack).
-Lock-On holds for one round, or indefinitely if target does not evade. If the target continues to evade, re-roll every round to maintain the lock.
Effect: A successful Lock-On adds +2D to Fire Control.
SIDEBAR: Auto-BlastersThe Auto-Blaster is the next generational step up from standard blaster cannon. Normal blaster cannon bolts tend to scatter at longer ranges, reducing the weapon's peak damage capacity. Auto-Blasters partially solve that problem by mounting the blaster cannon on a stabilized gimbal mount that greatly reduces the beam scattering found in standard blaster cannon, resulting in greatly increased range. In addition, the auto-stabilization system has been tied into the fighter's sensor package, allowing it to track off-bore and engage a designated target even if that target is not directly ahead of the ship. These two features combine to make auto-blasters the deadliest anti-starfighter energy weapon currently in service.
Changes Made, and My Reasons Why:Crew Skill: The WEG stats say "See Darth Vader", but it is far more likely your characters are going to run into a more normal pilot operating this thing, so I included higher than average crew stats to represent an elite pilot.
Weapons: In addition to sharing the much higher rate of fire seen on the TIE Fighters, film footage shows the blaster fire tracking out and away from the fighter's line of travel. It also shows the fire control system attempting to lock-on to the Alliance fighters before taking the shot. The RAW does not reflect either of these abilities, so I decided to write up something that did. I poached the auto-blaster on the B-Wing and greatly expanded the idea into something new and exciting.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jmanski
Arbiter-General (Moderator)
Joined: 06 Mar 2005
Posts: 2065
Location: Kansas
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 12, 2015 7:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | garhkal wrote: | | Perhaps the whole partical shield thing would have been corrected if their hull had gotten boosted to say 2d+2 or even 3d.. |
That could work, too. I like the TIEs being fast and fragile, though, and if you bump the stats up too far, it gets within striking distance of the Interceptor (Speed 10 / 11, Maneuverability 3D / 3D+2 and Hull 3D / 3D+2). It ends up making the Interceptor more like an upgraded TIE. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing...
On a side note, I've always wondered what the /ln meant in the designator for TIE Fighters. I assume it means Line, as in main-line fighter craft. Since TIEs are used by both Army and Navy, I've considered adding to versions: /ln for Line, Naval and /la for Line, Army. The only difference would be that /la would have a Space of 8, but retain full 3D Maneuverability in Atmosphere. My reasoning is that, since the Army uses TIEs for Ground Support operations, a TIE configured for atmospheric operations at the (slight) expense of space operations might be appropriate. |
I read somewhere that it was TIE Line. Don't remember where, though....
_________________
Blasted rules. Why can't they just be perfect? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16283
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 12, 2015 7:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jmanski wrote: | | I read somewhere that it was TIE Line. Don't remember where, though.... |
I think we are in the same boat. What I'm thinking is that, according to the TIE article in AJ10, there was a TIE Fighter predecessor to the TIE/ln that only had a Space of 8. I'm thinking of making that the "Army" TIE that I mentioned above.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pel
Line Captain
Joined: 10 May 2006
Posts: 983
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 12, 2015 11:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You are correct. Page 248 of AJ 10 lists the TIE (second version of the original T.I.E. that is only mentioned).
Space: 8
1 Double Laser Cannon: FC 2D, Damage 3D, Space range 1-3/12/25.
The rest looks the same as the TIE/ln
_________________
Aha! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16283
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 23, 2015 7:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
TIE/la Starfighter
Craft: Seinar Fleet Systems' TIE/la
Type: Space Superiority Starfighter
Scale: Starfighter
Length: 6.3 meters
Skill: Starfighter Piloting: TIE/ln
Crew: 1
Crew Skill:
Gunnery 4D
Piloting 4D+1
Sensors 4D
Cargo Capacity: 65 kg
Consumables: 2 days
Maneuverability: 3D
Space: 8
Atmosphere: 365; 1,050 kph
Hull: 2D (Particle Shields: 1D)
Sensors:
Passive 20/0D
Scan 40/1D
Search 60/2D
Focus 3/3D
Weapons:
2 Heavy Blaster Cannon (Fire-Linked)
Fire Arc: Front
Skill: Starship Gunnery
Fire Control: 2D
Space Range: 1-5/10/17
Atmosphere Range: 100m-500m/1km/1.7km
Rate of Fire: 2D Auto-Fire*
Damage: 4D
*At Point Blank and Short Range, Auto-Fire dice may be applied to either Fire Control or Damage, or may be split between them. At Medium Range, no more than 1D may be applied to Damage. At Long Range, Auto-Fire dice may only be applied to Fire Control.
Capsule:
This older TIE Fighter is the predecessor to the current TIE/ln. Originally known simply as the TIE Starfighter, it has largely been replaced in naval service, with most models being transferred to the Imperial Army's Ground Support Wings. As the number of TIE variants has grown, the ship has been redesignated as the TIE/la (for Army, with the TIE/ln indicating Navy). The primary difference between the two models is that the later naval variant sacrificed some of its atmospheric maneuverability in trade for greater speed. Since Army operations are almost always in atmosphere or orbit, Army Command prefers the slower TIE/la over the TIE/ln.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16283
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 30, 2019 3:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Giving this a bump because my stats for the TIE/rb put a new twist on the TIE Fighter development timeline. Another factor is that, upon close examination of film footage, TIE fighters in ANH and ESB appear to be equipped with two different weapon systems; I based giving them heavy blaster cannon on the observed rate of fire in ANH, but in ESB, they're clearly equipped with the slower firing but harder hitting laser cannon. Since both TIEs are part of elite units, it speaks to a few options: A) an upgrade, where the heavy blasters were replaced by lasers (possibly better suited for use against the tougher Alliance fighters), B) two different sub-types of craft, each equipped with different weapons, or C) a modular TIE, capable of swapping out its armament for different cannon based on mission requirements (like what I did with the TIE Interceptor).
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sutehp
Commodore
Joined: 01 Nov 2016
Posts: 1797
Location: Washington, DC (AKA Inside the Beltway)
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 30, 2019 11:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | Giving this a bump because my stats for the TIE/rb put a new twist on the TIE Fighter development timeline. Another factor is that, upon close examination of film footage, TIE fighters in ANH and ESB appear to be equipped with two different weapon systems; I based giving them heavy blaster cannon on the observed rate of fire in ANH, but in ESB, they're clearly equipped with the slower firing but harder hitting laser cannon. Since both TIEs are part of elite units, it speaks to a few options: A) an upgrade, where the heavy blasters were replaced by lasers (possibly better suited for use against the tougher Alliance fighters), B) two different sub-types of craft, each equipped with different weapons, or C) a modular TIE, capable of swapping out its armament for different cannon based on mission requirements (like what I did with the TIE Interceptor). |
It might also be entirely possible that the TIEs shooting at the Millennium Falcon in ESB were shooting at a slower rate because they were trying to herd and/or capture the Falcon rather than blow it out of the sky. After all, Vader wanted the Falcon captured so he could use her crew as bait for Luke. Then again, this is just supposition on my part as there's no indication that Vader gave such orders to have the Falcon captured until he met with the bounty hunters on the Executor. It sure as hell looked like those TIE fighters and the Avenger were shooting to destroy the Falcon while inside the Hoth asteroid field. They missed alot (though the Avenger did get in one lucky shot) but that could just be the usual crappy Imperial marksmanship.
_________________
Sutehp's RPG Goodies
Only some of it is for D6 Star Wars.
Just repurchased the X-Wing and Tie Fighter flight sim games. I forgot how much I missed them.
Last edited by Sutehp on Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:31 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16283
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2019 1:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't think that's it. A close examination of the weapons' fire from the TIEs in ANH and ESB/RotJ shows two markedly different fire rates and audio effects. The only other explanation I can think of is that blasters can shift between low and high power modes, with low power being capable of a much higher RoF (see Splinter of the Mind's Eye), but I'm already pretty fixed on the path of Blasters vs. Laser Cannon being two different things...
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
