This is the talk page for the article "TIE/ad starfighter."

This space is used for discussion relating to changes to the article, not for a discussion about the topic in question. For general questions about the article's topic, please visit the Knowledge Bank. Please remember to stay civil and sign all of your comments with four tildes (~~~~). Click here to start a new topic.


I've obtained a pretty image of the TIE Avenger from TIE Fighter, as I've done in the Missile Boat article, and I've uploaded it to Wookieepedia here. I'd put the image in the article myself, but I'm still new to the Wiki æsthetic--so I don't want to do something wrong. So I'd like to ask that someone embed it in the article somewhere. I think it's a nice image, especially since the view of the TIE is angled--and it's a historically appropropriate shot of an experimental craft. --GrandAdmiralJello 02:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

This image does not match the one hosted in the Databank - the latter is more closely resembling the TIE interceptor, as seen in Rebel Strike series.

  • Hmm... Interesting. Well, the Databank has made errors before. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 12:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I think that picture is what a production model would look like. A mass produced version would be made similar to other TIEs to share standardized components, storage, etc... Reignfire (Holocron) Revanchist Sith 04:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I suppose so... Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 11:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
        • I added a graphic from TIE95 of the Avenger in the hanger, aswell as clean shot of Zaarin loading Beam weapons into T/A's MIS Tau 1
          • Loaded image of TIE Avenger from TIE Fighter, rear angle--MIS Tau 1 17:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • As a matter of fact, can someone tell me what is the actual, agreed-upon, canonical image of the Avenger? Because I have about a half-dozen different versions of the Avenger: one from X-Wing: Alliance, one from what I think is Galaxies, and two different versions from the TIE Fighter game itself: the one pictured in the manual and cutscenes, and the one in the game itself (like in the screen right before you use it for a training mission.) They differ greatly in the shape of the concussion missile launchers (air intake shaped or double barreled shotgun shaped), the size of the wing struts (wide or narrow), the bars on the solar panels (slanted or vertical), the overall shape of the solar panels themselves, and even the exact positions of the thrusters. Can someone clear this up? Kenix Kil 18:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

You should change title to TIE AvengerEdit

It is pretty much known as TIE Avenger, even by the Empire and the starfighters own designers, even though thats just its common name, thats about the only thibg it was ever called in any real way.

  • No, we use proper designations. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 23:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
    • For the sake of the sanity of the out-of-universe audience, shouldn't the article be called "TIE Avenger"? I mean, when I'm looking through the list of TIE models and I see TIE/ad starfighter, how in pete's sake am I supposed to remember which one it refers to? "TIE Avenger" gets the point across, "TIE/ad starfighter" does not. If the manual of style dictates that the official in-universe designation be used, well then I say the manual should be changed. Lalala la (talk) 18:14, April 10, 2017 (UTC)


The Avengers speed is listed as 145 MGLT. According to the MGLT article, this equates: 1 MGLT=400 meters/second. 400 x60=24000 meters/minute. 24000 x60=1440000 meters/hour. 1440000 :1000=1440 km/h. 1 MGLT=1440 Km/h. 1440 x145=208800 km/h. 145 MGLT=208800 km/h!!!!

1. Should we convert this into a more understandable unit of speed?

2. This number is insanely high. Is it any chance either the MGLT article, or the speed of the Avenger is fanon? Or are my calculations wrong? Otheriwse this seems to be the fastest realspace ship in canon.DarthMRN 19:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

  • 1) This is the unit of speed we use. 2) It's possible the speed is wrong, but we need to know where it came from first. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 20:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    • What I meant was, should we not write the Avengers speed in Km/h like every other spaceship article, in stead of a unit of measurement that very few can relate to? When we know the canonical speed equaivalent of 1 MGLT, surely it cannot be canon breach to convert the Avengers speed to Km/h even if the original source says 145 MGLT.DarthMRN 21:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


Are you sure this is called the TIE Avenger?

In every game, including but not limited to, X-Wing, TIE Fighter, X-Wing vs. TIE Fighter, and X-Wing Alliance, the ship was called the TIE Advanced.

Three games, all of which call it the TIE Advanced throughout (except for one pilot in TIE Fighter calling it a 'TIE Avenger' once). The only other sources listed are a cut book and another game (in which it apparently doesn't actually appear). TIE Avenger is simply wrong. Lenzar (talk) 10:53, October 9, 2014 (UTC)

General EditingEdit

  • I added some more meat to the article, added a quote, sourced, and generally expanded it. There are some points in the history that were from the previous edit, I have no references to source these statements, but I believe them to be true, is there anyone that can source those statements? Tomorrow I may try to add one more image now that the page is substantially longer, perhaps the T/A from the SW:CCG card.--MIS Tau 1 23:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
    • It looks like Darth Culator has already added that image. If another image of the Decipher version is still desired, there's this card, or you could grab a screenshot of the Quicktime movie linked on this page.jSarek 23:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Nice. I'll look around, the CCG laser cannon card it a nice image, I've considered at least one shot from TIE Fighter. My thanks to Darth Culator for the image change--MIS Tau 1 12:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

TIE Interceptor vs. TIE AvengerEdit

Under History various statements are made about the comparison between the T/I and the T/A. These statements predated my edit, and are unsourced. According to TIE Fighter, the T/I was already in service prior to the advent of the TIE Avenger. Does anyone know the conflicting source so we can improve this article?--MIS Tau 1 02:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

In fact, there were two separate runs of T/As - the first one was developed from TI/x1 through TIE/x, and came armed with two laser cannons; it was "overrun" by TIE Interceptor. Then, after Hoth, Zaarin improved the design (including four lasers and new, miniature hyperdrive) and reintroduced the craft as seen in the TIE Fighter. As for the sources, the problem originates in Decipher's CCG card for TIE/ad - it was made basing on the starfighter from TIE Fighter, but the story was twisted (introducing the TIE Interceptor mention, which would be OK for TIE/x1 and its direct descendants, but not for the fighters in the video game). NLoriel 09:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

x1 in X-wing: Alliance Edit

The article states that both the TIE Avenger and the TIE Advanced x1 were featured in the X-wing Alliance game. In my recollection the x1 was only added by the XWAUP project, and its appearance would therefore be unofficial. Dengar Antilles 23:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

"Brights" Edit

In the introduction, it says that the TIE Advanced were known as "brights" to the Rebel pilots. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall reading that the term "brights" was used to refer to any prototype or unknown advanced fighter.-- 13:25, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Harkov's Avengers Edit

As Harkov recieved his TIE Advanced before the conflict at Mylok IV, are these an earlier model that lacked hyperdrive? Lenzar 00:16, June 17, 2010 (UTC)

Miniature Tractor Beam Edit

Shouldn't the miniature tractor beam be added to the armaments in a similar fashion to the TIE Defender? It was developed for the TIE Avenger after all. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 05:36, November 22, 2010 (UTC)

Harkov Defection Edit

The first paragraph of the Harkov Defection section seems to be really specific. I worry that it explains not what canonically happened, but instead explains the strategy that one player (the author) chose to employ. Things like "dumped all laser power into engines" and "moved to the protective cover of the Osprey. Can we confirm that this is from a canonical source, and not just the technique one player used to beat that level? Taral, Dark Lord of the Sith -Just shy, not antisocial: You can talk to me!- 20:04, February 8, 2012 (UTC)