Personally I'm looking forward to replacing the Firespray with the Defender in some of my squads, but thats only for theme, it kind of bugs me that I have to use a Bounty Hunter in my Imperial squad, and vise vera (I'm still waiting on more scum and villainy ships FFG!) . But looking at it solely from a competitive view, the Firespray will probably remain the better craft for its point cost. But we'll have to see what else there is to the Defender that hasn't been revealed yet.

If you allow for a couple of modifing factors and playtesting, then it still works up through wave 4. Try this out:

1) if the ratio between White and Red maneuvers is 1:1, reduce the cost by 4 (Lambda, B-Wing)

2) lowest PS ship can't cost less than 12 points. 8 ship maximum per 100pt squad (Tie Fighter, Z-95)

3) lowest PS ship with a turret slot can't cost less than 16 points. 4 ships w/ 360 R2 arcs maximum (HWK-290, Y-Wing)

4) lowest PS ship with a turret primary can't cost less than 26 points. 3 ship w/ 360 R3 arcs maximum (YT-1300)

Those are all nonlinear kludges that do nothing to fix the underlying problems.

How so?...

In general, because it's very bad practice to make post-hoc adjustments for specific data points in order to make them look right.

Specifically:

• The ratio of red maneuvers to white maneuvers is meaningless. The B-wing's dial is better than the HWK dial in every way, despite the HWK's nominally better ratio of red to white. From another perspective, I note that if the B-wing's bank-1 maneuvers were white instead of green, under your suggested regression it would increase in cost.
• Why should 12 points be the floor, rather than 11 or 13?
• Why is 16 the floor for turreted ships, rather than 18?
• Why is a turret primary attack with 2 dice so much worse than a turret upgrade with 3?

Emergent complexity is a *****.

Anyway, we still haven't seen any of the Defender's pilot abilities.

When was the last time you saw a TIE swarm without Howlrunner? How many Falcons would you see in competitive play if we didn't have Chewie?

We're missing big pieces of an extremely complex puzzle. We can make guesses about what those pieces might look like based on the shapes of the gaps, but that's about it for now.

Personally I'm looking forward to replacing the Firespray with the Defender in some of my squads, but thats only for theme, it kind of bugs me that I have to use a Bounty Hunter in my Imperial squad, and vise vera (I'm still waiting on more scum and villainy ships FFG!) . But looking at it solely from a competitive view, the Firespray will probably remain the better craft for its point cost. But we'll have to see what else there is to the Defender that hasn't been revealed yet.

Edit: Is a 32 point PS 4 defender out of the question?

Harsh realism incoming:

One of the most popular arguments for players is: "we'll see how it plays out." I'm sorry, but when someone uses that argument on me, it's basically telling me you're incapable of logical thought and/or lack the experience to make an accurate projection. 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.

As we get more information on the Defender, we will have a better understanding exactly whether or not this craft is worth the 30 points base. I have a good feeling that we won't, because for 3 more points, you have the Firespray, which has 1 less agility, but superior in every single way from the stats perspective. The only thing that remains is the dial, but I'm not holding my breath.

Incoming actual realism:

Calling others out for wanting to test out a theory before implementing it or waiting on full information before judging it does by no means make them a lesser player, just makes them cautious and patience. Calling people lesser players without complete information on a subject and then elevating yourself just makes you look like an egotistical and arrogant individual.

I have the same mentality when it comes to announced ships, wait for more info to come out before making judgement. Now does that make me a lesser player? I don't know, I usually place 1st-3rd in tournaments both in my local area and out (1-3 hour drive), so your call on whether it makes me less of a player.

Saying it might not pan out is one thing, but we have pretty good evidence that FFG knows where they wanna take the game and how to balance it out, the only ship we can say doesn't get much use is the Advance and that was a Wave 1 release. We can only truly wait and see.

Yes. The next best PS Pilot is PS3. Now, if they cost 1 point more and have an EPT we could see PS5 for 32 points, but I'll bet that costs 34. After that We're likely hitting the 36-37 point range for the PS6 Pilot with abilities(Unless they alter the Pilot Skill/ability cost structure from what we've seen before.) We'll have to see some amazingly good ship abilities to justify the cost.

Harsh realism incoming:

One of the most popular arguments for players is: "we'll see how it plays out." I'm sorry, but when someone uses that argument on me, it's basically telling me you're incapable of logical thought and/or lack the experience to make an accurate projection. 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.

As we get more information on the Defender, we will have a better understanding exactly whether or not this craft is worth the 30 points base. I have a good feeling that we won't, because for 3 more points, you have the Firespray, which has 1 less agility, but superior in every single way from the stats perspective. The only thing that remains is the dial, but I'm not holding my breath.

Incoming actual realism:

Calling others out for wanting to test out a theory before implementing it or waiting on full information before judging it does by no means make them a lesser player, just makes them cautious and patience. Calling people lesser players without complete information on a subject and then elevating yourself just makes you look like an egotistical and arrogant individual.

I have the same mentality when it comes to announced ships, wait for more info to come out before making judgement. Now does that make me a lesser player? I don't know, I usually place 1st-3rd in tournaments both in my local area and out (1-3 hour drive), so your call on whether it makes me less of a player.

Saying it might not pan out is one thing, but we have pretty good evidence that FFG knows where they wanna take the game and how to balance it out, the only ship we can say doesn't get much use is the Advance and that was a Wave 1 release. We can only truly wait and see.

Yeah, no, that's not how it works.

You can still use the information in front of you to accurately predict where the ship will go in terms of power level and performance. If YOU are unable to do so, that's not my problem. But saying "let's wait and see" is straight up backwards stupid. I don't care how you feel or what you think about me, but you don't need to wait and see everything to make a prediction. That's why theory and prediction exists in the first place.

There's only two type of peoples who can't make theorize and predict based on logic and comparison. Either you're new at the game and lack the experience, or you're just an unintelligent human being. Without theory and prediction, we wouldn't exist as a species. You shouldn't feel inferior or intimidated by this post unless you're a gamma-class male who's used to being a follower, not a leader.

So instead of giving me a meaningless speech on charm, how about you address the fact that for 3 points more, you have the Slave. From what we've seen, it's better in every single stat for less points, plus its able to block more targets and serve as a mainstay for more lists. Are you going to argue this at all? I eagerly await something worthwhile to respond to.

Get a load of this guy...

Get a load of this guy...

Seriously, lol.

From what we've seen, it's better in every single stat for less points, plus its able to block more targets and serve as a mainstay for more lists. Are you going to argue this at all? I eagerly await something worthwhile to respond to.

I'm going to. Drop the ad hominem attacks on Hujoe though, nobody's impressed by it. You just look insecure.

Anyway, onto the rebuttal!:

Saying the Firespray is better in every stat is factually wrong. When compared against the Defender, the Firespray matches on attack and loses on agility. The Firespray is less agile but has 10 health compared to the Defender's 6. It soaks up four more hits before it goes boom. The Firespray certainly has other advantages, like its upgrade bar, and its base makes it good for blocking but also makes it more likely to hit things or end up on an asteroid unable to shoot or take actions. Firespray has Lock. Defender has Barrel Roll. Firespray has the backwards arc. Different situational strengths. Different situational weaknesses. Lots of variables.

The fallacy of the direct Defender to Firespray comparison is your dismissal of the dial. Imagine the Y-wing or A-wing with X-wing dials and the effect on them. Imagine the Lambda with a Firespray dial, or the TIE Advanced with an Interceptor dial. A ship's dial is a huge part of defining its playstyle.

The TIE defender. White K turn and probably a pretty impressive selection of other manuveurs. The Firespray's got the X-wing dial, pretty much. It's one tough son of a Boba but it's going to get shot. Will the Defender? That depends on the dial.

And the dial isn't just something you can throw at a spreadsheet and out comes which is the better ship. The amount of variables is astronomical. The Firespray's tougher but the Defender's being more manuverable and using that manuveurability well means not being shot at all or being shot from long range. And let's not forget the white K-turn. It can dance around without getting stressed, which means more focus and more hits, giving it more punch than the Firespray. The manuveurability means it's lining up better shots too if flown well. But the Firespray then has the backwards arc, and we haven't even began to go into upgrades. Getting complex and tangled? That's because it is. Both ships have their strengths and have their weaknesses; the Defender isn't a mini Firespray-31, it has its own strengths and weaknesses relative to other craft. Number of variables, sky high.

Chances are, neither is the better ship in every situation. If you fly a Defender like a Firespray then yes, it's probably going to be worse than a Firespray. But what if you fly a Firespray like a Defender? We don't know, and the only way we'll find out is empirically, by waiting and seeing how the Defender gets used. Empirical evidence beats speculation based on only half the information every time.

Comparisons are solid when you're comparing one variable at a time. You're comparing a ton here, and that, my friend, is bad science. Once we see the dial, then we can start to get a rough idea of how good it is, not before. And we won't know until it's been played and we see where it ends up in tournament lists and things.

I'm mostly jk. Mostly. Serious about the "wait and see" part though.

*redacted*

Serious about the "wait and see" part though.

This bit, right?

One of the most popular arguments for players is: "we'll see how it plays out." I'm sorry, but when someone uses that argument on me, it's basically telling me you're incapable of logical thought and/or lack the experience to make an accurate projection. 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.

It's not an argument, it's an acknowledgement that they can't call how good the ship is based on only two spoiled manuveurs and its stat numbers. That, and/or they're not confident enough in whatever predictions they make to say they've got a better grasp on this with that small amount of info than FFG's entire X-wing playtesting and design team. 30 wasn't a number pulled out of a hat, it was the number FFG, who it's fair to say know this game pretty well, thought it was worth.

Chances are, neither is the better ship in every situation. If you fly a Defender like a Firespray then yes, it's going to be worse than a Firespray. But what if you fly a Firespray like a Defender? We don't know, and the only way we'll find out is empirically, by waiting and seeing how the Defender gets used. Empirical evidence beats speculation based on only half the information every time.

Let's go a little further into the future, when you saw the TIE Phantom's cloak/decloak unravel, do you have to put it on the table to know what it's going to do? Or can you accurately and logically use the tools and knowledge you already have to make sense of it?

There are TONS of variables, sure, but some of the you can knock out by just reading and making sense of it. You can practice with cloak/decloak mechanics by using a 2-ruler barrel roll. That's a physical tool that you have available to see how it can play out on the battlefield. You don't need the actual ship itself.

Unless you're a newb or unintelligent, X

You don't seem to get it.

This is an argument from fallacy.

No statement you plug into "X" can ever have any merit whatsoever.

Your "position" (to give it more dignity than deserved) is perfectly indefensible - period.

What if your prediction on the Defender turns out to be completely wrong? Does that make you an unintelligent newb?

>>>>

And exactly what predictions would that be? That right now it looks like the Slave is a better deal? Sure, I'll take that wager :>

Community predictions are never wrong. (Look back at the Assault Missile-pocalypse of 2012)

HERO, I thank you for that laugh. I have rarely get to see one so defensive on a public forum before. Let us go into using your model for predictions, we know the base line states, the full card for the PS1 pilot, and the PS level of the other 3 pilots (but not all the upgrade options they will have IE will the PS 3 have an EPT like the A-wing?). We are missing one of the most important aspects of a dog fighting game, what the ship will be able to maneuver like.

Now lets take that you are comparing this to a well know ship that has its fair share of use, the firespray. It by no means is a bad ship, it finds its way into my imperial list quite often with just a plain BH with a rebel captive or recon specialist. Now for an analogy I will be using something we are all quite familiar with, the prequel series of movies.

We have past experience with a movie of the same line (The firespray)

We have the trailers and previews of the movie (The PS 1 card and PS levels of the other pilots)

We have trust in the fact that it is a series that we love, that being Star Wars and had Georges stamp of approval (The stat line and actions we can use to compare to other ships)

We don't have the complete plot of the movie! (the dial and pilot abilities)

Now, if we take all the things we have, it MUST mean the movie will be complete success, we have a series we love, past experiences with the last 3 movies, and the previews make us all salivate at the very thought of continuation of the story. Yet...everything goes wrong. We have been BAMBOOZLED! We were given a series that reflects poorly on our past experiences! It gave us great lines like "That is so wizard!", midichlorians, and lets not forget the character we all now love, Jar Jar Binks. Yes it had its moments and did give us a taste of everything we missed.

See how using just parts of something with out the whole picture can lead to unexpected results? Kinda like why the saying goes "Don't judge a book by its cover" comes from.

Lets break down what the firespray has and what we know of the defender right now so we can draw some comparisons.

FIRESPRAY :

+Large Base = Larger firing arcs

+Durability of damage soak (Hull and shields)

+Evade action

+High customization Crew member slot, Bomb Slot, Missile and Cannon Slot

+Base PS of 3

+Rear firing primary firing arc

+3 natural attack dice

Neutral: Dial that has the same maneuverability of an X-wing but on a large ship (Though this isn't so much a negative, its kinda the medium level dial of this game)

Neutral: Medium level evade (2 dice)

Neutral: Large Base = Faster then it seems, both a blessing and a curse

-Large Base = Easier to keep it inside the firing arcs of the enemy

-Large Base = Harder to maneuver in tight asteroid belts and clumps of enemy ships

-Higher point cost for base model (Though this isn't that bad, but is moot for this example due to similar costs of the defender)

-Named pilot with out EPT

Now lets move to the

Defender:

+Small Base = Easier to avoid firing arcs

+Small Base = Easier to maneuver in tight corridors.

+Durability of damage soak 3rd(?) highest small base hull/shields

+3 natural attack dice

+Cannon and missile slots for modding

+Barrel Rolling (which is one of the most useful navigation tools in this game)

+White K-Turn at unknown speed

+High evade dice (Causing the lowered soak to last longer possibly)

-High Base cost (again moot because of the comparison to a firespray)

-Lose of evade token

-Not as modifiable as its comparison of fighter on the rebel side the E-Wing or on the imperial side the firespray

-PS 1 base pilot

Things we don't know out side of the few shown maneuvers, the dial, the pilot skills (which is one of the reasons they were not added to the firespray list), and the customization of the generic pilot (again the EPT) and the cost of him.

To me, its not enough data points on this to draw a good conclusion, I can only draw that we have two ships that will have lasting potential of roughly the same in a straight up fight, but will fly vastly differently. We know the defender can K-turn with out stressing which is a rather large feat, this adds a multitude of next turn starting points due to being able to barrel roll out (and with PtL and engine mod, boost as well) leaving it outside of targets firing arcs and which I do believe will add to the shenanigans to be had. The firespray on the other hand can just plow right through the enemy force making them either want to shoot it (or possibly not if its carrying a rebel captive), choosing not to K-turn and taking an action to get a better shot on the enemy, BUT leaving its next turns to follow possibly out of combat due to angling to get back in or just flying further out (K-turning).

Each ship is a completely different beast and will function as different aspects of a squad. Do you want that large base to help block out high level PS ships but then against a swarm they cause you to have to fly out of THEIR way but still be able to fire back if you choose to fly through? Or do you want a strike fighter that will be able to live through a barrage if it has chosen poorly in the planing phase, then being able to quickly return to the fight from behind the enemy and possibly disabling it with an ion cannon? And if we know the dial, stay up with even the likes of an interceptor?

Till we get more info though, we can assume it might not work, or will. We really cant say x is better then y, because y might have a z counterpart we weren't told of.