So has anyone tried them on a table yet? You have everything you need now. The full dial, the cards. Or are you just HERPDERPing on the forums?

Stop theorizing and give that dial a spin.

So has anyone tried them on a table yet? You have everything you need now. The full dial, the cards. Or are you just HERPDERPing on the forums?

Stop theorizing and give that dial a spin.

Your are such a party pooper

30 points for a PS1 pilot when you can get a PS3 Bounty Hunter for 33. That's -1 Agil for +4 more hull, a lot more slots and a better dial.

Bounty hunters? We don't need their scum.

There is a vast difference between a Firespray and a darting Defender.

The firespray doesn't need a 1 turn very often: 2 turn= you're in my rear arc. 3 turn = you're in my rear arc and if you kturned I am at range 3 or lucky enough to have EH and barrel roll out completely. Firespray's are awesome as soon as you figure out that you should only be shooting out of thier primary arc 1 or 2 times a game.

I am fully aware of this. But to down play the fact that this ship has every maneuver in the game outside of one forward, well it can be in a lot of places, and very well wont be in a spot you think it will be next turn. I am happy that one is not vastly superior to the other, they both fit a role that like I said, don't overlap.

You want a good tank and damage dealer? Firespray

You want a good darter that is hard to hit? Defender

I think people are to set on that all ships have to follow the same flight path or they are useless. Feel the ship out, learn where and when it would best be suited to fly one. This is all just my personal opinion though, and each person will gravitate towards the ships they find best suited to their play style.

-Flowchart deleted to save space-

You forgot to add the final

"Do you have room to perform a three speed turn - can you shoot them?"

and - I'll leave this little diagram here also

With Engine Upgrade there will be some fancy movements possible after a K-turn

-Flowchart deleted to save space-

You forgot to add the final

"Do you have room to perform a three speed turn - can you shoot them?"

and - I'll leave this little diagram here also

So. What you're saying is:

There is never any reason to do a 1 turn and take stress since you can just three turn and barrel roll...unless there is no room for that three turn.

Can you do that with a barrel Roll!? I've always taken it from the same point?!

Yup. The ability to barrel roll "forwards" or "backwards" is one of the nicest things about the action. It, along with the hard 1 turn, are the big 'secret weapons' in an Imperial player's arsenal that doesn't really translate into a straight mathematical comparison of dice*.

Combine the two, and you're not far off pivoting on the spot!

* It's also (if I was fealing suspicious) one of the less well acknowledged reasons why imperial players get rage issues over the B-wing, because when you're manouvring slowly anyway, that's a massive boost to your manouvreability.

And its been proven in the math department that the firespray and defender have nearly the same staying power if you are going for jousting.

I must have missed that then... The Defender clocks in at 81.4% jousting efficiency based on its statline. The Firespray is at 85.1%. It's not a trivial difference. The Firespray is a large base ship, so it generally has better target selection from its wider arc.

For non-jousting factors, the Defender has a white K-turn, but the Firespray has a rear arc. We'll have to see which one is "worth" more. The rest of the Firespray dial is better than the Defender's, in my opinion; the Defender has too much red on turns to add stress, and not enough green on banks to remove it. The Firespray clearly has better upgrades.

So has anyone tried them on a table yet? You have everything you need now. The full dial, the cards. Or are you just HERPDERPing on the forums?

Stop theorizing and give that dial a spin.

This! I think my next house game is going to be with three TIE "Defenders".

So has anyone tried them on a table yet? You have everything you need now. The full dial, the cards. Or are you just HERPDERPing on the forums?

Stop theorizing and give that dial a spin.

So has anyone tried them on a table yet? You have everything you need now. The full dial, the cards. Or are you just HERPDERPing on the forums?

Stop theorizing and give that dial a spin.

I mentioned this on the board before when we were doing some testing but the Tie Defender plays like a rocket. If you want to it can force the engagements to take on longer ranges with all the green straights and 3 hard turns. It's kind of a pleasant change of pace after getting into the nitty gritty of range 1 engagements you can never escape with B-Wings.

-Flowchart deleted to save space-

You forgot to add the final

"Do you have room to perform a three speed turn - can you shoot them?"

and - I'll leave this little diagram here also

This move is magic with Predator since you don't lose all your dice modding ability. Also, a Defender with an HLC and mini swarm is crazy. It doesn't have the big base so it's easier to stay at long range and the Defender just rockets on the outskirts glady taking the extra defense dice.

And its been proven in the math department that the firespray and defender have nearly the same staying power if you are going for jousting.

I must have missed that then... The Defender clocks in at 81.4% jousting efficiency based on its statline. The Firespray is at 85.1%. It's not a trivial difference. The Firespray is a large base ship, so it generally has better target selection from its wider arc.

For non-jousting factors, the Defender has a white K-turn, but the Firespray has a rear arc. We'll have to see which one is "worth" more. The rest of the Firespray dial is better than the Defender's, in my opinion; the Defender has too much red on turns to add stress, and not enough green on banks to remove it. The Firespray clearly has better upgrades.

To be fair the firespray pays for a larger firing arc with being much easier to line up multiple shots against, if the enemy is flying in a spread out or staggered formation the Defender is more likely to deny a shot or two than the Firespray is.

Less than 4% isn't "trivial" but it is near enough that you will have to play fairly often to notice the difference.

The firespray will always have an advantage in a heated mix up, that's just a fact, that rear arc is deadly, but a Defender can do some interesting things when it wants. It all depends on what else is in the list and what you need.

The one thing I really appreciate with the Defender is that it is the first ship in a long time that I look at and say: I don't really think PtL is necessary. Even the Phantom I look at and say: awesome, but PtL would be awesomer.

I had the opposite thought with the phantom. I saw whisper and though VI would be best now I might go with outmaneuver.

After all has been said here, I'm still looking forward to owning three Defenders. It's a cool looking ship with unique characteristics and some great pilot talents and upgrade cards. All good.

For non-jousting factors, the Defender has a white K-turn, but the Firespray has a rear arc. We'll have to see which one is "worth" more.

I've been thinking about this issue a lot, and I think I give the edge to the K-turn. The major problem with making auxiliary-arc attacks with a Firespray is that I find it frequently means I'm flying away from the fight. That is, I can overrun an enemy and make an auxiliary arc attack most fighters wouldn't get, but then I'm forced to K-turn the following round in any case due to increasing range or an uncomfortably close approach to the board edge.

The Defender won't have this problem. Basically it has to K-turn earlier than the Firespray might, but in the larger picture it still gains a step over the Firespray in the action economy. There's a turn in there where the Defender is better able to defend itself than the Firespray, where it does more damage than the Firespray, or where it picks up an attack the Firespray would miss due to range. Any of those situations mean the advantage belongs to the Defender.

And its been proven in the math department that the firespray and defender have nearly the same staying power if you are going for jousting.

I must have missed that then... The Defender clocks in at 81.4% jousting efficiency based on its statline. The Firespray is at 85.1%. It's not a trivial difference. The Firespray is a large base ship, so it generally has better target selection from its wider arc.

For non-jousting factors, the Defender has a white K-turn, but the Firespray has a rear arc. We'll have to see which one is "worth" more. The rest of the Firespray dial is better than the Defender's, in my opinion; the Defender has too much red on turns to add stress, and not enough green on banks to remove it. The Firespray clearly has better upgrades.

Less than 4% isn't "trivial" but it is near enough that you will have to play fairly often to notice the difference.

81.4% to 85.1% is close to the same difference as going from a TIE Advanced (82.3%) to a naked Y-wing (87.4%).

85.1/81.4 = 1.0455.

87.4/82.3 = 1.0620.

I'm excited for it, and I'll be messing around with it in house games, whenever that ends up being given my schedule. You'll absolutely need to abuse the white K-turn to make it work though, since that's the only thing that the defender has going for it, if you look at the rest of its capabilities relative to cost.

For non-jousting factors, the Defender has a white K-turn, but the Firespray has a rear arc. We'll have to see which one is "worth" more.

I've been thinking about this issue a lot, and I think I give the edge to the K-turn. The major problem with making auxiliary-arc attacks with a Firespray is that I find it frequently means I'm flying away from the fight. That is, I can overrun an enemy and make an auxiliary arc attack most fighters wouldn't get, but then I'm forced to K-turn the following round in any case due to increasing range or an uncomfortably close approach to the board edge.

The Defender won't have this problem. Basically it has to K-turn earlier than the Firespray might, but in the larger picture it still gains a step over the Firespray in the action economy. There's a turn in there where the Defender is better able to defend itself than the Firespray, where it does more damage than the Firespray, or where it picks up an attack the Firespray would miss due to range. Any of those situations mean the advantage belongs to the Defender.

Yeah I agree, the rear arc is great.... but only for one round. Then you usually have to K-turn and you're out of the fight since you're so far out. Occasionally you can 1 turn instead to get something in arc.

For non-jousting factors, the Defender has a white K-turn, but the Firespray has a rear arc. We'll have to see which one is "worth" more.

I've been thinking about this issue a lot, and I think I give the edge to the K-turn. The major problem with making auxiliary-arc attacks with a Firespray is that I find it frequently means I'm flying away from the fight. That is, I can overrun an enemy and make an auxiliary arc attack most fighters wouldn't get, but then I'm forced to K-turn the following round in any case due to increasing range or an uncomfortably close approach to the board edge.

The Defender won't have this problem. Basically it has to K-turn earlier than the Firespray might, but in the larger picture it still gains a step over the Firespray in the action economy. There's a turn in there where the Defender is better able to defend itself than the Firespray, where it does more damage than the Firespray, or where it picks up an attack the Firespray would miss due to range. Any of those situations mean the advantage belongs to the Defender.

Yeah I agree, the rear arc is great.... but only for one round. Then you usually have to K-turn and you're out of the fight since you're so far out. Occasionally you can 1 turn instead to get something in arc.

And its been proven in the math department that the firespray and defender have nearly the same staying power if you are going for jousting.

I must have missed that then... The Defender clocks in at 81.4% jousting efficiency based on its statline. The Firespray is at 85.1%. It's not a trivial difference. The Firespray is a large base ship, so it generally has better target selection from its wider arc.

For non-jousting factors, the Defender has a white K-turn, but the Firespray has a rear arc. We'll have to see which one is "worth" more. The rest of the Firespray dial is better than the Defender's, in my opinion; the Defender has too much red on turns to add stress, and not enough green on banks to remove it. The Firespray clearly has better upgrades.

Ah yes that is very true, but the inverse is true here, the defender being a small base has a smaller target area but most likely will get the target it wants in its sights while having a small base will help minimize return fire at it. If approaching a target from one side, let's say the target is a swarm, only a portion of the target will have firing solutions on the defender, if the firespray did the same thing with the same center point, the swarm would still more then likely be able to hit the back half of the firespray. Again they fly differently, and the firespray may preffer to go head on to the group in full while the defender is going to strike a portion at a time. Just my thoughts.

For non-jousting factors, the Defender has a white K-turn, but the Firespray has a rear arc. We'll have to see which one is "worth" more.

I've been thinking about this issue a lot, and I think I give the edge to the K-turn...

Yeah I agree, the rear arc is great.... but only for one round. Then you usually have to K-turn and you're out of the fight since you're so far out. Occasionally you can 1 turn instead to get something in arc.

I tried writing in a 1-turn on my Firespray dial, but for some reason my opponent still wouldn't let me do it.

And with respect to the jousting efficiency of the Defender, I'd like to point out (again, and gently) that I think the Lanchester's model suffers when applied to very expensive ships--by which I mean I think it's penalizing them more than the game itself does. The Firespray's 85% efficiency in the model doesn't do a very good job of explaining its very acceptable level of performance, and while you've used a unique weight for the rear arc to improve the fit in your fair-value model, that weight (and the similarly unique weight for the Falcon) might be acting to obscure a problem with the overall shape of the curve.

For non-jousting factors, the Defender has a white K-turn, but the Firespray has a rear arc. We'll have to see which one is "worth" more.

I've been thinking about this issue a lot, and I think I give the edge to the K-turn...

Yeah I agree, the rear arc is great.... but only for one round. Then you usually have to K-turn and you're out of the fight since you're so far out. Occasionally you can 1 turn instead to get something in arc.

I tried writing in a 1-turn on my Firespray dial, but for some reason my opponent still wouldn't let me do it.

And with respect to the jousting efficiency of the Defender, I'd like to point out (again, and gently) that I think the Lanchester's model suffers when applied to very expensive ships--by which I mean I think it's penalizing them more than the game itself does. The Firespray's 85% efficiency in the model doesn't do a very good job of explaining its very acceptable level of performance, and while you've used a unique weight for the rear arc to improve the fit in your fair-value model, that weight (and the similarly unique weight for the Falcon) might be acting to obscure a problem with the overall shape of the curve.

Shouldn't we be using the "Salvo Model"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvo_combat_model

Lanchester's model is meant for high volume low accuracy attacks (like bullets) hitting targets that can't really deflect them (like my face). The Salvo model is supposed to be for lower number of higher accuracy attacks that can be intercepted (in X-Wing minis this would mean evaded), like modern day naval ships using missiles and intercepting them with close in missile interception systems. It shouldn't be too hard to apply the Salvo model to our little X-Wing pew pew toys.

For non-jousting factors, the Defender has a white K-turn, but the Firespray has a rear arc. We'll have to see which one is "worth" more.

I've been thinking about this issue a lot, and I think I give the edge to the K-turn...

Yeah I agree, the rear arc is great.... but only for one round. Then you usually have to K-turn and you're out of the fight since you're so far out. Occasionally you can 1 turn instead to get something in arc.

I tried writing in a 1-turn on my Firespray dial, but for some reason my opponent still wouldn't let me do it. And with respect to the jousting efficiency of the Defender, I'd like to point out (again, and gently) that I think the Lanchester's model suffers when applied to very expensive ships--by which I mean I think it's penalizing them more than the game itself does. The Firespray's 85% efficiency in the model doesn't do a very good job of explaining its very acceptable level of performance, and while you've used a unique weight for the rear arc to improve the fit in your fair-value model, that weight (and the similarly unique weight for the Falcon) might be acting to obscure a problem with the overall shape of the curve.

Those faults in the model come from the things the Lanchester model doesn't account for fully(Upgradeability, the incomplete manuever dial understanding, alternate arcs, etc.) The Defender is the least adaptable ship in its point class...

Those faults in the model come from the things the Lanchester model doesn't account for fully(Upgradeability, the incomplete manuever dial understanding, alternate arcs, etc.) The Defender is the least adaptable ship in its point class...

I've raised those issues in the past, but that's not what I'm addressing now. What I'm saying here is that the most atypical thing about the Falcon and Firespray, from the standpoint of the model, may be that they cost at least 50% more than the next most expensive ship in the game. The jousting model doesn't fit those ships very well, and MJ is currently dealing with that in his "fair value" model using two unique weights. That's shaky methodology from my standpoint, but I understand what he's doing and why.

But with the release of Wave 4 we suddenly have two starfighters in the same neighborhood as the Firespray, which aren't relevant to MJ's rationales for those weights. What I'm saying is that those weights could be obscuring more general model fit issues, with residuals proportional to cost.

Shouldn't we be using the "Salvo Model"?

Probably; one of the principal issues with a model based on Lanchester's Square Law is that Lanchester proposed a set of relationships that operate in continuous time, and X-wing operates in discrete time. In fact, MajorJuggler has expressed a desire to put together such a model when he has the spare time...

But MJ and I are both doc students, and while it's not really hurting anything for me to spend a few minutes every hour checking around message boards, taking 30 hours to put together a simulation using a combat salvo model would definitely have an impact on my real work. I presume he has the same issue.

Those faults in the model come from the things the Lanchester model doesn't account for fully(Upgradeability, the incomplete manuever dial understanding, alternate arcs, etc.) The Defender is the least adaptable ship in its point class...

I've raised those issues in the past, but that's not what I'm addressing now. What I'm saying here is that the most atypical thing about the Falcon and Firespray, from the standpoint of the model, may be that they cost at least 50% more than the next most expensive ship in the game. The jousting model doesn't fit those ships very well, and MJ is currently dealing with that in his "fair value" model using two unique weights. That's shaky methodology from my standpoint, but I understand what he's doing and why.

But with the release of Wave 4 we suddenly have two starfighters in the same neighborhood as the Firespray, which aren't relevant to MJ's rationales for those weights. What I'm saying is that those weights could be obscuring more general model fit issues, with residuals proportional to cost.

Shouldn't we be using the "Salvo Model"?

Probably; one of the principal issues with a model based on Lanchester's Square Law is that Lanchester proposed a set of relationships that operate in continuous time, and X-wing operates in discrete time. In fact, MajorJuggler has expressed a desire to put together such a model when he has the spare time...

But MJ and I are both doc students, and while it's not really hurting anything for me to spend a few minutes every hour checking around message boards, taking 30 hours to put together a simulation using a combat salvo model would definitely have an impact on my real work. I presume he has the same issue.

UNACCEPTABLE!

But really no worries. Especially when it comes to time constraints. At least its on someone's mind who actually understands numbers instead of thinking about them as evil things or a forbidden no man's land on the keyboard.