The other thing that pops into my head is this: Cannon upgrades tend to default to the Heavy Laser or Ion Cannon where I've seen them, with the sole exception of Ten Numbnuts (in order to make the un-evadable attack).

The defender is the first time we've seen a cannon slot on anything which can actually manouvre reasonably well - with speed and the ability to barrel roll, the Defender seems like it would pair up with the Autoblaster disconcertingly well. Yes, that's another 5 points but it could be very nasty against defence-die-heavy ships.

I concur that a pure defender wing isn't going to do much. A lone, higher PS defender and a pack of TIE fighters, on the other hand, could be nasty. You'll struggle to hit on the defender since there's going to be four or so fighters or 'ceptors getting in the way whilst it pulls un-evadeable strafing runs back and forth.

The defender is the first time we've seen a cannon slot on anything which can actually manouvre reasonably well

The problem with the autoblaster isn't maneuverability, it's that unless you're Ten Numb (or have some other special ability involved that changes the math) it just doesn't work. Against most targets the autoblaster is barely, if at all, more effective than just taking a 4-dice shot at range 1. You're only seeing any real benefit against a few high-agility targets (Fel, etc), and it's not worth paying 5 points for such a situational weapon when a HLC is powerful against pretty much everything.

I am looking forward a lot to trying out Defenders with Ion cannons... That combined with white Kturns might be quite useful. On 1st approach ionise, stressless K turn to be behind the target, blast to pieces

I'm guessing the Highest PS pilot will be around 38 pts. So adding a Ion Cannon+EPT will be around 44pts. That leaves you with 56 pts to buy an Interceptor and 2 Tie Fighter, or 2 Interceptor or 4 Tie Fighter. That could work.

I would hope to see both 3- and 5-speed K-turns on the Defender's dial.

I bet the 5 K-turn is still red. But it would be the best for a white K-turn. The more speed on that one the better. I just am not optimistic. I think they intenionally overcosted the Defender so that they can see how a White K-turn plays out without accidentally breaking the game. They can always do some kind of Chardaan Refit later after all.

I've actually found that I prefer shorter k-turns. The B-wing's 2-K is my favorite in the game.

Well seeing as the last paragraph in the preview was:

Share your thoughts on this starfighter, its pilots, and its upgrades with other members of the X-Wing community on our community forums . Then, keep your eyes peeled for more wave four previews, including a look at the technologically advanced TIE defender and its unique maneuver!

I think it is there is a good chance we see the defender spoiled next, or possibly the phantom as we saw the cloak and decloak spoiled earlier this week.

I am looking forward a lot to trying out Defenders with Ion cannons... That combined with white Kturns might be quite useful. On 1st approach ionise, stressless K turn to be behind the target, blast to pieces

Well, the Ion cannon is the canonical weapon the defender mounted, if I remember right...

Maybe a noob question... but... and Ion cannon on a defender will have 360° firing arc?

Regarding the spoilers, I think/hope that tomorrow we will have one, maybe the Phantom as someone already stated before.

Maybe a noob question... but... and Ion cannon on a defender will have 360° firing arc?

Regarding the spoilers, I think/hope that tomorrow we will have one, maybe the Phantom as someone already stated before.

Maybe a noob question... but... and Ion cannon on a defender will have 360° firing arc?

Regarding the spoilers, I think/hope that tomorrow we will have one, maybe the Phantom as someone already stated before.

No, the Defender has a Cannon upgrade, not a turret upgrade. Cannon upgrades include Ion Cannon, Heavy Laser Cannon, and Autoblaster. Turret upgrades are what is available to Y-wings and Hawks. Different upgrade icon.

Edit: Ninja'ed

I'm guessing the Highest PS pilot will be around 38 pts. So adding a Ion Cannon+EPT will be around 44pts. That leaves you with 56 pts to buy an Interceptor and 2 Tie Fighter, or 2 Interceptor or 4 Tie Fighter. That could work.

TIE Fighters without Howlrunner doesn't usually get much traction, unless you are fielding 8 of them, or are doing something like 6 + Doom Shuttle. Replacing 3 TIEs with a single Defender is questionable at best. Even if you still use Howlrunner you get 2 less rerolls, its far less efficient.

The Defender is slightly undercosted if anything.

Base Cost = 2

Attack ((Atk-2)x8)= 8

Agility ((Agi-2)x8)= 8

Hull ((Hull-3)x4.25)= 0

Shields(Shields x 4.5)= 13.5

Pilot Skill (PS x 1)

Final Cost for PS1 = 32.5

Check out this thread: Reverse engineering Squad Point Formula. http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/72935-reverse-engineered-squad-point-formula/?hl=%20reverse%20%20engineer

It works out very accurately within a point or two, for every wave and PS, and it shows that upgrade slots and actions are not a factor. Dials only seem to factor if there's more red than green, giving a 4 point reduction to cost (B-wing, Lambda). There are a few other factors that modify cost, a maximum of eight generic pilots (TIE Fighter & Z-95), -10 points for a large base ship, etc. unique pilot skills either add to the cost or the generics recieve a 1 - 1.75 point discount.

The Defender is slightly undercosted if anything.

Base Cost = 2

Attack ((Atk-2)x8)= 8

Agility ((Agi-2)x8)= 8

Hull ((Hull-3)x4.25)= 0

Shields(Shields x 4.5)= 13.5

Pilot Skill (PS x 1)

Final Cost for PS1 = 32.5

Check out this thread: Reverse engineering Squad Point Formula. http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/72935-reverse-engineered-squad-point-formula/?hl=%20reverse%20%20engineer

It works out very accurately within a point or two, for every wave and PS, and it shows that upgrade slots and actions are not a factor. Dials only seem to factor if there's more red than green, giving a 4 point reduction to cost (B-wing, Lambda). There are a few other factors that modify cost, a maximum of eight generic pilots (TIE Fighter & Z-95), -10 points for a large base ship, etc. unique pilot skills either add to the cost or the generics recieve a 1 - 1.75 point discount.

I'm guessing the Highest PS pilot will be around 38 pts. So adding a Ion Cannon+EPT will be around 44pts. That leaves you with 56 pts to buy an Interceptor and 2 Tie Fighter, or 2 Interceptor or 4 Tie Fighter. That could work.

TIE Fighters without Howlrunner doesn't usually get much traction, unless you are fielding 8 of them, or are doing something like 6 + Doom Shuttle. Replacing 3 TIEs with a single Defender is questionable at best. Even if you still use Howlrunner you get 2 less rerolls, its far less efficient.

I don't know, I personaly like to use Tie Fighters as an escort/filler unit and had good success with them. The Opponents I play with tend to leave them alone and concentrate on the bigger threat. So, while I play more defensively with the bait, the Ties hit here and there. 2 Focus attack dice is still decent against the 1-2 defense dice of the rebels. That makes me think that I only play rebels vs Imperials, since I don't participate in tournament, so their efficiency probably drop a lot against the common 3 defense dice of the Empire. But in my games, they got great result. I tend to use them attacking from everywhere and dodging line of sight, like little Interceptor, not as a swarm moving together, or two-by-two at most.

As for the Defender, he seems to fit my playstyle and what I like from a unit. Fast, Maneuvrable and hit hard. I'm glad he has Barrel Roll over boost, since Boost can be added if the need be. Only thing I miss and wonder how much it will impact his survivability over other Imperial units is the lack of Evade action. But there is a token coming with the unit, so there is a way to get one. Is it from an EPT or a pilot ability remains to be seen.

Overall, I can't wait to fly it and see how it fit in my Imperial playbook. I know it's not logical and wrong but, stats is not everything, it also needs to fit your style. I'm personaly a bad player with most rebel ships and had more success with the A-Wing than the X or B.

Yeah, don't get me wrong, the 12 point TIE is a fantastic value. You just lose some if Howlrunner's benefit when you reduce the number of ships. Maybe Defender + mini swarm will work. It will likely depend on the high PS abilities.

i like the 3 across the board, if any of you have played tie fighter PC game, you will know the last ship you want to see smaller than a destroyer is a defender.

these things were crazy fast and hit crazy hard.

i will be disapointed that the attack is not 4 and that it doesnt have an evade action.

but they cannot have an all powerful ship, it would break the balance they have created in this game, i think we can all agree that this game is probably the most balanced we have ever played.

i dont want to lose the balance, so high price on this ship for what i have seen i think fits. i know we all want that one ship that just tears crap up, but then thats all we would see.

and someone mentioned 3 defenders against 3 bounty hunters would be unfair, the bounty hunters would win, clearly has never flown against ties with stealth devices.

2 defenders with stealth device = 68 points + 1 without = 99 points

i see dead bounty hunters..........................

form e the interceptor is just to high costed for a PS1 pilot in a defender where usualy the best of the best should sit in and the defender had the role of an interceptor not super heavy bomber thing what others think look it up in the wookipedia >;P

i was expecting to see jendon and yorr as pilots for the defender cause they were the first test pilots for the tie defender.

maybe we get em as pilot cards for the defender in the far far away future in the Defender Aces pack i dont know lol

. . . the far far away future in the Defender Aces pack . . .

What, you mean we can't have our best ship updated after only a relatively short time after release (I'm looking at you B-wing).

. . . the far far away future in the Defender Aces pack . . .

What, you mean we can't have our best ship updated after only a relatively short time after release (I'm looking at you B-wing).

hehe.... i guess i wont be alive until dat happens xD ( 22 ) implieng that it wont happen ;P

The Defender is slightly undercosted if anything.

Base Cost = 2

Attack ((Atk-2)x8)= 8

Agility ((Agi-2)x8)= 8

Hull ((Hull-3)x4.25)= 0

Shields(Shields x 4.5)= 13.5

Pilot Skill (PS x 1)

Final Cost for PS1 = 32.5

Check out this thread: Reverse engineering Squad Point Formula. http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/72935-reverse-engineered-squad-point-formula/?hl=%20reverse%20%20engineer

It works out very accurately within a point or two, for every wave and PS, and it shows that upgrade slots and actions are not a factor. Dials only seem to factor if there's more red than green, giving a 4 point reduction to cost (B-wing, Lambda). There are a few other factors that modify cost, a maximum of eight generic pilots (TIE Fighter & Z-95), -10 points for a large base ship, etc. unique pilot skills either add to the cost or the generics recieve a 1 - 1.75 point discount.

The regression formula worked really well in Wave 1. It worked only sort of well for Wave 2: it says A-wings are overpriced by 1-3 points, and that one turned out to be right. But it also says the named Falcons are underpriced by 8.75 points (or overpriced by 1.25 if you use a 10-point discount for a large base), and the ORS is overpriced by 1.25 points (or underpriced by 8.75 if you use a 10-point discount).

And it worked downright badly for Wave 3: B-wings are underpriced by 4.5, HWKs are overpriced by 11.25, and Lambdas are underpriced by 14 (or 4 if you use the 10-point discount).

Bottom line: the regression formula does an increasingly bad job of predicting point costs after Wave 1, and there's no reason to expect that it will do a good job at valuing ships in Wave 4.

Unless of course the formula was changed from wave to wave or the new data points have to be worked out. I mean the Wave 1 regression only covers 4 ships. It needs to be reworked.

The Defender is slightly undercosted if anything.

Base Cost = 2

Attack ((Atk-2)x8)= 8

Agility ((Agi-2)x8)= 8

Hull ((Hull-3)x4.25)= 0

Shields(Shields x 4.5)= 13.5

Pilot Skill (PS x 1)

Final Cost for PS1 = 32.5

Check out this thread: Reverse engineering Squad Point Formula. http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/72935-reverse-engineered-squad-point-formula/?hl=%20reverse%20%20engineer

It works out very accurately within a point or two, for every wave and PS, and it shows that upgrade slots and actions are not a factor. Dials only seem to factor if there's more red than green, giving a 4 point reduction to cost (B-wing, Lambda). There are a few other factors that modify cost, a maximum of eight generic pilots (TIE Fighter & Z-95), -10 points for a large base ship, etc. unique pilot skills either add to the cost or the generics recieve a 1 - 1.75 point discount.

Correction: The Defender is slightly undercosted compared to the value predicted by a linear regression tool . And no, it is not accurate for all waves. The Z-95 and to an extent the TIE Defender both broke the model.

There are several fundamental problems with using regression formulas:

1. The power of a squad goes as the number of ships squared . Therefore the value of a ship is proportional the the square root of its (damage output times its durability). You can debate the exact exponent for small squad size, I came up with around 1.92, but value absolutely does NOT go up linearly with ship capabilities. How this affects regression formulas: they will tend to underestimate the cost of low-value ships, and overestimate the cost of high value ships. That formula predicts that a TIE Fighter should be 10 points, and a Z-95 should be 7.5 points. On the other end, a Bounty Hunter would be 44.5 points, so a fudge factor of -10 points was added for the large ships.
2. It is purely a statistical tool that requires zero knowledge of the game mechanics.
3. It does not predict what a ship's value is, it only tries to make a fit for what FFG's historical point costs have been.
4. It has very little predictive value for future ships, due to all of the above.

According to that formula, a 2/2/1/2 ship would be 3 points, so you could field 33 of them. And a 1/1/28/0 ship would cost 100 points.

Coming up with a curve fit to match ships' printed costs is fairly trivial. Predicting ships' value , even just the jousting value, is not.

Unless of course the formula was changed from wave to wave or the new data points have to be worked out. I mean the Wave 1 regression only covers 4 ships. It needs to be reworked.

No, it needs to be scrapped. It's trivial to find a best-fit curve that predicts point costs, but meaningless; there are just too many wrenches thrown in the works by FFG getting imaginative with dials, new actions, etc.

Unless of course the formula was changed from wave to wave or the new data points have to be worked out. I mean the Wave 1 regression only covers 4 ships. It needs to be reworked.

No, it needs to be scrapped. It's trivial to find a best-fit curve that predicts point costs, but meaningless; there are just too many wrenches thrown in the works by FFG getting imaginative with dials, new actions, etc.

Unless you think FFG makes up the point values they have some kind of system. The more data points there are to work with the better the formula can be determined. 4 and even 12 Data points are nowhere near enough, but anybody who wants to put in the effort and who has the knowledge can go for it. The last formula didn't look at dials, actions, or mod slots very well.

Unless you think FFG makes up the point values they have some kind of system.

I believe that it is called "playtesting".