Blount is pilot skill 6

Fel, Jax, and Turr = Blount DOA

(DROPS MIKE.......WALKS OFF......)

I couldn't cross this off just yet either. Blount has a slot for EPT and Biggs still exists as a pilot. The fact is that this guy erases Stealth Devices just by pointing at them. Personally, I don't think any ability to render something that you pay for worthless, it stinks of bad design. I'm not saying that I think it's too strong, I just don't like how they handled his ability.

And then we have Dark Curse and Carnor Jax who makes the Blaster Turret useless, without even shouting at it, and it cost 4. There is now the little risk of running into Blount when you decide to take Stealth upgrade, just like running into DC or Jax with a blaster turret. And quite frankly, it's not because you lose the Stealth Upgrade that you're automatically dead, I flew a lot of time without it and my ships didn't explode on sight.

Marksmanship is the answer against those two meanies, even though it takes an EPT and action, it can deal a crit as well, which is not that bad.

Anyone else think the interceptor should have 4 agility base?

As a unique modification maybe, but it should not be stackable with Stealth Upgrade. So an Advanced Stealth Upgrade that you don't lose when hit.

i actually like the idea of either a pilot upgrade card that increases either attack or defense.

we have a PS modifier card = Veteran Instincts

we have sheild upgrade

hull upgrade

why not upgrades to the attack and defense?

right now we only have situational modifiers for these stats.

how do these sound if you think just straight up modifications dont seem balanced?

Pilot upgrade

Hard Target = Action: Increase defense by 2 in the next combat phase. (Then maybe even add that you gain a stress token as well)

Modification

Over charge Weapons = Action: Increase Primary Attack by 2, then roll 1 attack die. On a crit, deal 1 face up damage card to your ship.

Man, wouldn't it be lame if you used 'Over Charge Weapon' and ended up getting a 'blinded pilot' crit?

Man, wouldn't it be lame if you used 'Over Charge Weapon' and ended up getting a 'blinded pilot' crit?

I have played Orks in 40K for over 2 decades now.

I love this kind of risk. It adds an element to the game that I enjoy.

Side note: I am pulling away from GW due to the lack of love for my Orks. They released 6th edition over a year ago and I am still using a 4th edition codex. You dont show my army the love, i dont show you my money. I wrote them a letter and told them how i felt, and that i would be the 2nd in my group to stop playing GW. They responded with "The ork codex is coming, please be patient. I play orks too and cant wait to see the new codex. Product release is a safely gaurded secret here at GW so i cannot share any information on when it will come out."

as FFG has proven, letting the people know what you are working on and showing us what the releases are going to be does not discourage sales. I think it does the oposite.

Whooooaaa! get off your soap box dude,

sorry about the rant, GW just gets under my skin. K-out

(1) Interceptor design is fundamentally dissimilar from the design of other ships.

(2) As a consequence, some upgrades, pilot abilities, and other game elements that are appropriate for the rest of the game are particularly damaging for Interceptors.

(3) Therefore, those game elements should not be published.

I'm not sure I want to get into 3, but looking at 1 and 2, what other ship would you compare to the Interceptor? It has the worst cost:HP ratio in the game. It lives and dies based on its defense dice in a way that no other ship does. The only comparable ship defensively, the TIE Fighter, usually puts twice as many ships into a squadron than you can fit Interceptors. Heck, I'd have to check the list but I think there are even more crits to hose the Interceptor than most other ships.

I do think the Interceptor is actually in a unique position compared to most ships because of a combination of high cost and randomized fragility...

If you look at defensive efficiency--not just overall durability, but durability per unit cost--the next step down is the X-wing, and it's not a big step. Offensive efficiency is likewise, actually: the Alpha and Rookie are parading hand-in-hand down the aisle, #2 and #3 (behind the Phantom, which is beside the point).

The X-wing has a number of advantages, of course: relying on hit points instead of dice makes it more consistent, and relying on shields instead of hull makes it less vulnerable to crippling criticals. Of course those advantages (offset by the Interceptor's dial, and in addition to the X-wing's generic PS advantage), are why the X-wing is more expensive.

But when you dig down into the fundamental bits of the game, the X-wing and Interceptor really are more similar than they are different--and they're more like one another than either is like most other ships.

Interceptors are good when they're at the top of their game, but they're maddeningly inconsistent. I'm not arguing that point--I have played and will continue to play Interceptors, at least in casual games where I know I won't have them consecutively one-shotted by Falcons. I think the difference between my perspective and the perspective you and Rakky and a few others seem to share is just that I don't think Interceptors are uniquely different, so it doesn't make sense to me that the Interceptor gets a privileged position when it comes to game balance.

I think that inconsistency is actually unique, though. It creates a very expensive unit which simply isn't reliable enough for competitive play. I've had games where Fel ran the table, and games where he ate a 1-shot kill at Range 3 and I was down 1/3 of my points in one roll. There's nothing else in the game that takes that risk.

Stealth Device and Push the Limit were both options to help mitigate that inconsistency. Stealth gives you more dice that have to come up blanks, and PtL either gives you more tokens to play with or lets you make an (I freely admit) unmatched series of action movements so you never have to rely on the dice in the first place. Unfortunately, both of these options have seen some rather effective counters materialize in recent previews. My mantra is that a tokenless Interceptor is a dead Interceptor - which isn't strictly true, but you're left utterly at the mercy of the dice, and especially if your opponent's sporting tokens while you're not, it's not far off.

I think this is why so many Imperial-leaning players see such a disconnect between the two Aces sets. The Interceptor got some fun new pilots, but nothing terribly scary, and honestly very little that will fix the unreliability at the core of the discontent surrounding the ship. Yes, you can double up the Shield/Hull Upgrades, but the cost is extreme. On the flip side, the A-wing got absolutely very solid improvements. Even ignoring a pilot nobody could dislike (built-in pseudo PtL AND still has an EPT slot) it got an actual point break, which fixes the problem most people seemed to have with the A-wing - that its combat efficiency just didn't justify the cost unless it was as a missile carrier.

So we get an Interceptor pack that doesn't do much to actually fix the squint's inconsistency. We get new pilots/upgrades that neutralize the primary tools Interceptor pilots use to mitigate that inconsistency. And then we get a pack that addresses exactly the main concern with the A-wing.

I think that inconsistency is actually unique, though. It creates a very expensive unit which simply isn't reliable enough for competitive play. I've had games where Fel ran the table, and games where he ate a 1-shot kill at Range 3 and I was down 1/3 of my points in one roll. There's nothing else in the game that takes that risk.

Stealth Device and Push the Limit were both options to help mitigate that inconsistency. Stealth gives you more dice that have to come up blanks, and PtL either gives you more tokens to play with or lets you make an (I freely admit) unmatched series of action movements so you never have to rely on the dice in the first place. Unfortunately, both of these options have seen some rather effective counters materialize in recent previews. My mantra is that a tokenless Interceptor is a dead Interceptor - which isn't strictly true, but you're left utterly at the mercy of the dice, and especially if your opponent's sporting tokens while you're not, it's not far off.

I think this is why so many Imperial-leaning players see such a disconnect between the two Aces sets. The Interceptor got some fun new pilots, but nothing terribly scary, and honestly very little that will fix the unreliability at the core of the discontent surrounding the ship. Yes, you can double up the Shield/Hull Upgrades, but the cost is extreme. On the flip side, the A-wing got absolutely very solid improvements. Even ignoring a pilot nobody could dislike (built-in pseudo PtL AND still has an EPT slot) it got an actual point break, which fixes the problem most people seemed to have with the A-wing - that its combat efficiency just didn't justify the cost unless it was as a missile carrier.

So we get an Interceptor pack that doesn't do much to actually fix the squint's inconsistency. We get new pilots/upgrades that neutralize the primary tools Interceptor pilots use to mitigate that inconsistency. And then we get a pack that addresses exactly the main concern with the A-wing.

There is a risk reward element to the Interceptor. If this was mitigated, would the Interceptor still be an Interceptor?

The question is how much risk is necessary, and how much reward should there be.

PtL and Stealth both work to reduce the risk. I think there's a fair argument that neither does it enough. Fel manages to make it acceptable, but even he isn't exactly burning up the meta.

Were PtL/Stealthed Interceptors performing as well as, say, Falcons? Or, heaven forbid, B-wings? I'd generally say no to either. Yet for some reason we get new abilities aimed squarely at those two things, and the B-wing gets a boost (the big ships get a new threat from the Ion Pulse Missile - show me an Imperial-only EPT that can do that every turn for a stress).

So I'd suggest that while there were some tools to mitigate the risks of the interceptor, there's still far more risk than reward. The risk/reward balance was certainly still there, and now it's swung even more heavily to risk.

I disagree. With the B wing being as popular as it is, the Imperial players should be fielding MORE Interceptors. Nothing eats B wings like an Interceptor.

There is a risk reward element to the Interceptor. If this was mitigated, would the Interceptor still be an Interceptor?

The question is how much risk is necessary, and how much reward should there be.

PtL and Stealth both work to reduce the risk. I think there's a fair argument that neither does it enough. Fel manages to make it acceptable, but even he isn't exactly burning up the meta.

Were PtL/Stealthed Interceptors performing as well as, say, Falcons? Or, heaven forbid, B-wings? I'd generally say no to either. Yet for some reason we get new abilities aimed squarely at those two things, and the B-wing gets a boost (the big ships get a new threat from the Ion Pulse Missile - show me an Imperial-only EPT that can do that every turn for a stress).

So I'd suggest that while there were some tools to mitigate the risks of the interceptor, there's still far more risk than reward. The risk/reward balance was certainly still there, and now it's swung even more heavily to risk.

Just a (relatively) quick post, as I'm getting ready to head to work--but again, I think the problem is that if you look at the bigger picture, PTL had to change.

Setting Interceptors aside for a moment, it's clear that Push the Limit is one of the most powerful elements in the game. It allows you to monkey with the action economy, producing effects that otherwise require a great deal of coordination and a much higher investment of points to achieve. If you have a ship with an EPT slot, the first question to answer is whether or not you're going to use PTL. The most obvious combo for E-wings? PTL + R2, or PTL + R2-D2 if they have enough greens on their own. The first combo I saw anyone propose after R2-D6 was spoiled: Horton + R2-D6 + PTL. The first EPT I saw anyone on this board suggest for Whisper, when (s)he was spoiled: PTL.

PTL is used as a defensive tactic: on BGG, there was a long-running debate (never really settled) on whether PTL or Stealth Device alone was better protection for Howlrunner. It's used as an offensive tactic, as on Wedge + PTL + R2 + Engine Upgrade. It's used on Falcons, on Vader, and in places I suspect it wasn't ever intended--because the only thing better than an action is two actions, and we all figured that out pretty quickly.

So first, what I think a lot of people are viewing as a hit to Interceptors is a hit to PTL, which Interceptors also happen to like. This is part of what I mean when I say that Interceptors don't get a privileged place in game balance: stress is clearly serving a larger role in the game moving ahead, as something your opponent can do to you, rather than something you can do to yourself. That means that PTL, and other abilities that cause stress, require a lot more thought about when to activate--that is, PTL is no longer a talent you use almost every turn, but one you activate when you can afford it.

But again, that's not a change that targets the Interceptor. I think it's debatable whether it affects the Interceptor disproportionately, but even if it does--should PTL be locked in place at its current level of effectiveness forever because Interceptors like it, even if it's being abused elsewhere in the metagame?

I can safely say that when Wingman comes out PtL will be taking a back seat on my Ints. The chance to K-Turn and then drop stress is just to good to pass up regardless of what PtL does for them now. I haven't put PtL on an Int in months even with what we have now. I've been using Swarm Tactics a lot for 4 x PS9 shooting and VI for 4 x PS6 and Stealth devices.

I am really trying to get off of the PtL crutch. mainly because for a while I had suspected it was going to see some form of counter to it coming up.

Trust me, you do not need PtL. It's good, but flown well, there are equally good options.

I am really liking this list as it utilizes ships that may not be first 'goto', but should be highly effective.

I agree entirely about the place where PtL lived.

But I'm not honestly sure that it actually needed to change. And if it did, they're certainly sending mixed messages about it. If we look at the new Rebels so many of us are floored by, many of them have to do with action economy. It seems very strange to me that they'd say "Wow, two actions a turn is crazy good... TOO crazy good!" and then introduce Jake, and Farlander, and Cracken, and Tarn... all of whom have or grant extra actions.

If anything, Push the Limit was the one tool that would let older pilots match up with the action advantage so many of the new pilots seem to have. Maybe there's an argument that PtL on top of those would be too much - but if that's the case, you just don't give the new pilots an EPT. Which is what happened to poor Lorrir.

The problem I see with the eventual nerfing of PtL is that it affects much more the Empire than the rebellion. The rebels have many pilots that gives action to others or a second action when doing X. There is plenty of way to get a second action for them, and some of them doesn't even need them to keep in close formation, read range 1 of each other. While some pilots gain a free actions in the Empire, PtL really helped them to gain that TL+Focus, or focus+evade or whatever combo you can think about. That's what I think is missing, some pilots that give free actions to others in the Empire. Give them that, and PtL will see much less playtime.

They are only dead if they get shoot. So don't get shoot =]

Not pointing to you specifically BK on this one, but can we stop using this defense? If you are routinely having games of dogfighting where you're ships aren't being shot at, you are:

A: a much better pilot than I

B: playing opponents much below your skill level

C: very lucky

Of course there is D: some combination of the 3. Which is how I often feel when running interceptors...some days I can't be touched, others I die if my opponent looks at me funny... But reality is somewhere in the middle.

I am saying the interceptor is special. It's my favorite ship to fly. It's also the only ship to get an update that didn't solve any of its problems despite being released 6 months later, and the released among a pile of things that is going to make this special ship even more difficult to field consistently, even higher risk reward, and less viable in all aspects of play: competitively, cinematic/epic, and casually where those previous areas mix.

I do not think the meta should be held hostage by one ship. Just pointing out why imperial pilots are probably feeling a bit sour at the $20-$60 they just dropped on new fun and shiny toys that even before released were a bit tarnished and rusty.

Honestly, I think PtL is over used more times than not. The Interceptor is a great fit because of all the actions available to it. Other ships need to add modification upgrades to really take advantage of PtL. While I understand an X-wing with PtL, I think there are cheaper and better options for that ship in the long run. I love the fact that PtL is so popular on ships that could be much more devastating with another EPT. With the ease that the Rebels are passing around focus and TLs, I am overjoyed to see an EPT slot and 3 points invested into an upgrade that causes stress to my opponent and no direct damage to my Imperial ships.

Honestly, I think PtL is over used more times than not. The Interceptor is a great fit because of all the actions available to it. Other ships need to add modification upgrades to really take advantage of PtL. While I understand an X-wing with PtL, I think there are cheaper and better options for that ship in the long run. I love the fact that PtL is so popular on ships that could be much more devastating with another EPT. With the ease that the Rebels are passing around focus and TLs, I am overjoyed to see an EPT slot and 3 points invested into an upgrade that causes stress to my opponent and no direct damage to my Imperial ships.

I think PTL is a great upgrade for Wedge and soon to be Porkins. Wedge mainly for the damage boost and potential for Boost via Engine Upgrade. R2 just makes it so easy.

I think it is wrong to consider the interceptor in a vacuum.
It is (I think) possible to build a list that hates the interceptor. If you play a list specifically designed to destory interceptors, you will loose. Such a list would not be common at tournaments unless interceptors are a dominant and succesful option.

We should also remember that Wave 4 appearantly will provide the empire with two deadly ships. The Defender that is lauded as a much superior x-wing and a Tie Phantom with 4 attack and a cloaking device will probably strengthen our side quite a bit. Sure the Rebels gets an x-wing upgrade in the e-wing, but even if it is a better x-wing, I doubt that it will change much- it will play like an x-wing, it will crash and burn like an x-wing. The headhunter might give fits initially, but without Barrel roll and with (I presume) an inferior manouver dial it is not going be impossible kill it off.

So I rest easy -I think the interceptor is going to stay a valid choice for a good period still.

I think it is wrong to consider the interceptor in a vacuum.

It is (I think) possible to build a list that hates the interceptor. If you play a list specifically designed to destory interceptors, you will loose. Such a list would not be common at tournaments unless interceptors are a dominant and succesful option.

We should also remember that Wave 4 appearantly will provide the empire with two deadly ships. The Defender that is lauded as a much superior x-wing and a Tie Phantom with 4 attack and a cloaking device will probably strengthen our side quite a bit. Sure the Rebels gets an x-wing upgrade in the e-wing, but even if it is a better x-wing, I doubt that it will change much- it will play like an x-wing, it will crash and burn like an x-wing. The headhunter might give fits initially, but without Barrel roll and with (I presume) an inferior manouver dial it is not going be impossible kill it off.

So I rest easy -I think the interceptor is going to stay a valid choice for a good period still.

This is just a poor way of thinking about the state of the game. Just because Empire gets the Defender and Phantom doesn't mean the Interceptor has an excuse to suck. The same applies to TIE Advanced or any other ships in the game.

As Buhallin has said many times over, the problem with the Interceptor is that it's already priced higher than it should be. Adding upgrades to it only compounds on this issue and the entire Imperial Aces expansion pack is about adding more points to an already-expensive craft. On the other hand, the Rebel Aces and Rebel Convoy seems like a pretty good deal. Where the Imperial Aces shifted the Interceptor meta left to right with obvious plus and minuses, the Rebel Aces/Convoy simply improved the X-Wing, B-Wing and A-Wing especially.

To me, the Interceptor is simply a difficult ship to fly. It's damage potential is good, the dials are good and the action selection is plentiful. This comes at price though because its durability is the same as the TIE Fighter once you shoot at it. Most Interceptors worth taking are literally over 2x the cost. While I understand the concept of not getting shot, against equal or better opponents, it is an absolute certainty that you will get shot.

Finally, to talk about PTL a bit. To make a long discussion short, I never looked at it as an EPT because I think there's ships out there that makes massive gains from it but not so much for other ships. If the Interceptor was priced at 18 with built-in PTL, I don't think ANYONE would be complaining. Frankly, I'm a bit surprised that when I got the Interceptor expansion pack, it didn't have PTL built into a mainframe. The same could be said about the A-Wing. If both of those craft had the ability to PTL without the EPT, imagine how that would change things. Sorry for the mini game design rant.

I had a few ideas what could make Interceptors better actually, but the double EPT, Enhanced Scopes, Chardaan Refit, and Advanced Sensors all ended up on Rebel ships. Now that's what I find most intriguing.

This is just a poor way of thinking about the state of the game. Just because Empire gets the Defender and Phantom doesn't mean the Interceptor has an excuse to suck. The same applies to TIE Advanced or any other ships in the game.

As Buhallin has said many times over, the problem with the Interceptor is that it's already priced higher than it should be. Adding upgrades to it only compounds on this issue and the entire Imperial Aces expansion pack is about adding more points to an already-expensive craft. On the other hand, the Rebel Aces and Rebel Convoy seems like a pretty good deal. Where the Imperial Aces shifted the Interceptor meta left to right with obvious plus and minuses, the Rebel Aces/Convoy simply improved the X-Wing, B-Wing and A-Wing especially.

...

Finally, to talk about PTL a bit. To make a long discussion short, I never looked at it as an EPT because I think there's ships out there that makes massive gains from it but not so much for other ships. If the Interceptor was priced at 18 with built-in PTL, I don't think ANYONE would be complaining. Frankly, I'm a bit surprised that when I got the Interceptor expansion pack, it didn't have PTL built into a mainframe. The same could be said about the A-Wing. If both of those craft had the ability to PTL without the EPT, imagine how that would change things. Sorry for the mini game design rant.

I had a few ideas what could make Interceptors better actually, but the double EPT, Enhanced Scopes, Chardaan Refit, and Advanced Sensors all ended up on Rebel ships. Now that's what I find most intriguing.

The thing is, interceptors don't "suck." They are a good ship that has a high variability in how they perform and that is the issue with their tournament viability, as you've already discussed. I think the store championship results show they can be competitive and I'd bet good money they are performing far better percentage wise than a lot of other ships because they are likely flown in fewer lists than other types of ships.

I actually think people would complain about ints with PTL built in at their current costs, it just wouldn't be the same people that are complaining now. I think it would be horrible game design and make the interceptors too good. Hopefully there is some design space left for the interceptor if it needed something like that, but the Chardaan refit would never have been a good option for ints as the only possible upgrades on them are EPTs (and that's only some of them) and modifications.

EDIT: I wanted to add that in terms of "competitive balance," especially as I tire of the complaints about the "doom of the interceptor."

Consider that It is actually possible to be competitive with an "all interceptor list" in tournaments. Not many ships can say that (A-Wing, Y-Wing, Advanced). Meanwhile a 3 Xwing build has gone somewhat out of style but the 3 interceptor builds seems to be played more and having more success. I'm not saying I think the interceptor is perfectly pointed out, but it's certainly not as far off, and I can understand the blase' feel of the Imperial Aces when compared with the new rebel stuff, and can get the fear, but we'll see how it plays out.

I think the store championship results show they can be competitive and I'd bet good money they are performing far better percentage wise than a lot of other ships because they are likely flown in fewer lists than other types of ships.

There's a decent argument here for a very narrow range of Interceptor uses - as I pointed out above, if you look closer at the results, 75% of them use PtL, Stealth, or both. With the possible exception of shuttles, I can't think of another ship which so clearly depends on specific upgrades in order to function.

We should probably also be careful about making assertions like "they're flown in fewer lists so they're doing better". We don't actually have any numbers on that. It's one thing to draw inferences based on a sample set which is almost certainly skewed, but it's something else entirely to just make up claims.

I have to say that the Interceptor DOES NOT suck. It is a great ship, fragile, yes, but lethal. It struggles against turrets, primarily the named YT's (everything does, but hell they cost an average of 48-50 pts to field with an upgrade), Y-Wings are annoying, but not the end.

I like to fly a full Int list, but in honesty, the game is "easier" with mixed ship lists, it was designed that way.

You need to be good and lucky to win with 4 or 5 Int's. Take 3 and stick em with a Firespray and the game gets easier.

I am not saying I am good but I played 3 games at the weekend against high quality opponents with 4 Sabres with VI and Stealth Device. I got wrecked by a 3 B-Wing and Dutch list. (The dice abandoned me and my opponent got 15 out of 15 hits, such is dice)

I soundly beat a Lando, Biggs and Garven list and gave a good thumping to a Dutch, 2 Red and Green with PtL list.

There is nothing wrong with the Int, it has not suffered with a "poor" aces release, it got better.

It will not suffer adversely with the new rebel aces stuff. You have to adapt with it.

This game is beyond well balanced, have fun with it, fly like a true Int pilot, shields are for sissies :-)

(and now I step off my soap box)

I think the store championship results show they can be competitive and I'd bet good money they are performing far better percentage wise than a lot of other ships because they are likely flown in fewer lists than other types of ships.

There's a decent argument here for a very narrow range of Interceptor uses - as I pointed out above, if you look closer at the results, 75% of them use PtL, Stealth, or both. With the possible exception of shuttles, I can't think of another ship which so clearly depends on specific upgrades in order to function.

We should probably also be careful about making assertions like "they're flown in fewer lists so they're doing better". We don't actually have any numbers on that. It's one thing to draw inferences based on a sample set which is almost certainly skewed, but it's something else entirely to just make up claims.

I used very clear qualifying words and phrases "I'd bet.." and "likely." Those aren't definitive statements. I didn't actually write "they're flown in fewer lists so they're doing better;" I simply pointed out that I think it's a good possibility. But, we've all been making a lot of statements without definitive evidence. For example, the entire future doom of the interceptor. So, if you'll begrudge my use of those phrases as qualifiers, I'll certainly not pick-on the lack of data we have for dozens of other statements and theories people have posted regarding their theories on interceptors.

With regard to their "narrow" usage, they don't have a lot of options for upgrades, but it's a fair point. I'll just say that there other ships don't even have that advantage of being as successful as interceptors with any upgrades.

I'm not saying I think the interceptor is perfectly pointed out, but it's certainly not as far off, and I can understand the blase' feel of the Imperial Aces when compared with the new rebel stuff, and can get the fear, but we'll see how it plays out.

Any experienced player will be able to judge scale, power, weigh the pros and cons, understand cause and effect, just by reading cards and letting their superior experience, game knowledge and skill guide them.

Saying "we'll see how it plays out" is quite simply a pillowfort for lesser players who lack the tools to decipher what's in front of them.

I think the store championship results show they can be competitive and I'd bet good money they are performing far better percentage wise than a lot of other ships because they are likely flown in fewer lists than other types of ships.

There's a decent argument here for a very narrow range of Interceptor uses - as I pointed out above, if you look closer at the results, 75% of them use PtL, Stealth, or both. With the possible exception of shuttles, I can't think of another ship which so clearly depends on specific upgrades in order to function.

We should probably also be careful about making assertions like "they're flown in fewer lists so they're doing better". We don't actually have any numbers on that. It's one thing to draw inferences based on a sample set which is almost certainly skewed, but it's something else entirely to just make up claims.

I used very clear qualifying words and phrases "I'd bet.." and "likely." Those aren't definitive statements. I didn't actually write "they're flown in fewer lists so they're doing better;" I simply pointed out that I think it's a good possibility. But, we've all been making a lot of statements without definitive evidence. For example, the entire future doom of the interceptor. So, if you'll begrudge my use of those phrases as qualifiers, I'll certainly not pick-on the lack of data we have for dozens of other statements and theories people have posted regarding their theories on interceptors.

With regard to their "narrow" usage, they don't have a lot of options for upgrades, but it's a fair point. I'll just say that there other ships don't even have that advantage of being as successful as interceptors with any upgrades.

I also want to point out that I went 4-0 in my store tournament with Vader, Turr and Fel.

When I say Interceptors suck, I mean they suck in the fact that they take a lot of work for their points. That, and their expansion was lackluster, and that Rebel Aces was much superior in design and execution.