So it is about as hard to kill a 30 point Defender as it is to kill a 42 YT-1300 and a little less than a 33 point firespray.

Well, the YT has a lot of things that don't easily factor in. The 360 arc means it can attack you without exposing itself to fire, and it also has a lot of upgrades that improve its durability.

But with that asterisk, yeah. The Defender, Falcon, and Firespray are all in pretty much the same class where pure durability is concerned; the next step down is the Lambda, TIE Advanced, and E-wing, which is pretty nice company.

(It has only middling defensive efficiency, in terms of the points you pay to get that durability--but in that respect it's in the same "family" as the Firespray and B-wing.)

It also has meh upgrades, a predictable dial, no 1 forward, and costs LOTS more than most small ships with equivalent firepower. Big ships work because crew upgrades are phenomenal and they can take a lot of fire. That's why I see it not working. Agility is a bad concept throughout the game.

Good input on the numbers. Also keep in mind that unlike the falcon or firespray, a Defender has a somewhat significant chance of getting 2-shot, even at R2 (say no focus via getting blocked, and two XWs open up with focus and cause 6 hits to 0 natural evades). Won't happen very often thankfully, but still will be a very sad panda moment.

The defender being a small base will be more susceptible to ion effect than the falcon or firespray. Not to mention the other benefits those 2 ships enjoy. I think the defender will be potent indeed.

Yea I think it's the third hardest ship to kill now after the firespray and named falcon. Not factoring in upgrades of course.

Yeah, my stuff was crude, and not entirely accurate, It definitely overestimated survivability, but the numbers were intended for comparison.

I just pointing out that the back-of-the-envelope analysis, in this case, agrees with a more detailed one. I completely agree with you!

So if you are saying that the real number of attacks you need to kill a Defender is 8, then what is the number for a YT-1300 of or a Firespray.

Using the same methodology--ships with 3 Attack at Range 2, all with Focus, and a Focus for the defender as well--the YT-1300 also takes about 8 shots over 2 rounds to kill (although that doesn't account for the Falcon title), and 9-10 shots over 3 rounds for the Firespray.Or, to put it another way, the Falcon and the Defender are about equally defensive, with the Firespray getting a small step ahead of both (the same way the B-wing is just a bit more durable than the X-wing).

So it is about as hard to kill a 30 point Defender as it is to kill a 42 YT-1300 and a little less than a 33 point firespray.

A 30 point Defender moves before all the ships you just listed and they have either a 360 arc or auxillary arc. They will handle a Defender just fine considering it's dial and moving first.

Is this idea accounting for how exactly the ships will be flying? Hands down if they are jousting, killing the Defender could be a problem. It has alot faster and less stressing joust capabilities. Where as other ships will lack the focus/TL/evade after K-turning. The Defender won't, this will effectively make it live longer right?

The issue comes into play when it is not jousting. Due to large wide turns and all the 1/2 hard turns being red this means it will dangerous for it to make those turns. Furthermore the flight path will be predictable after it makes a 1/2 turn. Since it has to fly straights for green maneuvers. This is where other ships will excel in fighting against the Defender, turning. By forcing the Tie Defender out of the joust style of fighting, you help reduce it's effectiveness.

This could of course vary based on the human flying, but I am pretty sure that given the dial of the Defender. If the Defender can't fight in a head on joust or stay behind it's target? Rebel fighters with tight turns will be able to sneak in behind it.

I could be wrong of course, just thought I'd bring that aspect up about the Tie Defender. To give some more thought as to what will effect it's survivability.

Since it has to fly straights for green maneuvers.

Stress is bad. But it's not like you're forced to get rid of it next turn. Can't do another red, but the Defender can do a K-Turn while stressed.

The "predictable dial" thing with the Defender is very overrated. Predictability is less about the dial than about the pilot. So you can't put PTL on it and burn it off every turn; is that the required standard? Is something mandating that you make tight turns all the time? You can K-turn at will with this beast and, last I looked, you are still allowed to have other ships in your squad so that the enemy can't focus on the Defender alone and make them pay if they do.

Yeah, I've found that people expect the green maneuver while stressed way too much. There are times, when keeping the stress is preferable over the green maneuver. Which with the Defender and it's K-turn, will be fun.

The "predictable dial" thing with the Defender is very overrated. Predictability is less about the dial than about the pilot. So you can't put PTL on it and burn it off every turn; is that the required standard? Is something mandating that you make tight turns all the time? You can K-turn at will with this beast and, last I looked, you are still allowed to have other ships in your squad so that the enemy can't focus on the Defender alone and make them pay if they do.

It's the fact it only has one K-turn and will primarily be moving in a straight line to clear stress. All dials are predictable, but when you have a 30Plus point ship you can't afford to lose shots with it. I guess the predictable part is really that it's the only ship in its cost range to have no extra firing arc space, and limkted turns.

The "predictable dial" thing with the Defender is very overrated. Predictability is less about the dial than about the pilot. So you can't put PTL on it and burn it off every turn; is that the required standard? Is something mandating that you make tight turns all the time? You can K-turn at will with this beast and, last I looked, you are still allowed to have other ships in your squad so that the enemy can't focus on the Defender alone and make them pay if they do.

That will be my hope while I ram a mini-swarm straight down their throat.

Wow, its dial isn't that bad. Yes two of its hard turns are red, but it also has all three hard turns. No other ship has that. People talk about how much they like the B-wing Dial, it has 1 red turn and white turn (two turns all together) I think we have to put 1 white and 2 red ahead of 1 white and 1 red turn.

That ability to k-turn while stressed cannot be overstated. Especially when you talking about all the red on the dial.

Offensively I don't think it will be quite as good as the Firespray or the YT-1300, because it lacks crew or a 360 firing arc. But it isn't a slouch there either. 3 attack dice, with plenty of opportunities to buff that with upgrades. (I am starting to lose my love for the HLC, but I think I might try it again on the Defender.)

I think we will have to wait to see to find out really how it plays. But I think it is going to be solid one way on the other. Top tear defense and Top Tear attack (of course the top tear for attack in pretty large group)

It is also significant to point out that there are advantages to being a small base. They are easier to maneuver, harder to block and get through asteroids easier.

I'm not too woried about ion fire being any more threatening to the Defender than any one else. Remember you have to hit to ionize.

As part my Lanchester's thread calculations, I ran some average numbers and came up with durability modifiers for different dice rolls. Normalized to 3 defense dice these are:

@ Juggler

I always lover your posts.

I'm not sure I would value a shield to be 1.25 of a hull. about 1 in four hits are crits (Ignoring marksmanship and other special rules and upgrades) but a crit isn't really as bad as two hits. It can be as bad two hits only in the worst possible case. There are tons of crits that have little or no effect on the game. Those that are really annoying are no wear near as annoying as simply having the ship die. Even when it is a crit that you totally hate, the ship usually doesn't last that much longer in the game anyway. If if got critted on there is a better than fair chance that your pretty damaged anyway.

To take an example from Star Trek Attack Wing (I know mentioning this game is an X-wing sin). One crit in that game forces you to roll a dice every turn and on a crit roll your ship is simply destroyed. You can spend an action to change the effects of the card. But most players of that game don't spend the action because the ship probably doesn't have long for this world anyway. I know the analogy isn't perfect. Things die a lot faster in Attack Wing, but it does illustrate my point.

The TIE Defender is an investment vehicle.

You spend some of your initial points on a fighter which is currently inefficient.

But then you protect and nurture your investment, and it begins to pay dividends!

@MajorJuggler

I think we are beginning to run up against the limitations of your Lanchester's analysis. The Defender isn't well suited to such analysis as it's most important traits are difficult to quantify.

Some light playtesting suggests to me that the Defender is appropriately costed - so long as it's not the first ship to die. If it is the first to die, of course, you're boned.

As part my Lanchester's thread calculations, I ran some average numbers and came up with durability modifiers for different dice rolls. Normalized to 3 defense dice these are:

4 dice: 1.4194

3 dice: 1.0000

2 dice: 0.7111

1 dice: 0.5166

I count shields as being worth 1.25x a hull, so using a TIE Fighter as a reference point, that gets us some normalized numbers.

[edited to rank in terms of absolute durability, and fixed the B-wing]

Firespray: 0.7111*(4*1.25 + 6)/3 = 2.6

YT-1300 (named): 0.5166*(5*1.25 + 8)/3 = 2.45

TIE Defender: 1*(3*1.25 + 3)/3 = 2.25

TIE Phantom (cloaked): 1.4194*(2*1.25 + 2)/3 = 2.13

Shuttle: 0.5166*(5*1.25 + 5)/3 = 1.9372

E-wing: 1*(3*1.25 + 2)/3 = 1.92

YT-1300 (ORS): 0.5166*(4*1.25 + 6)/3 = 1.90

TIE Advanced: 1*(2*1.25 + 3)/3 = 1.833

B-wing: 0.5166*(5*1.25 + 3)/3 = 1.59

Y-wing: 0.5166*(3*1.25 + 5)/3 = 1.51

A-wing: 1*(2*1.25 + 2)/3 = 1.5

TIE Bomber: 0.7111*6/3 = 1.42

X-wing: 0.7111*(2*1.25 + 3)/3 = 1.30

HWK-290: 0.7111*(1*1.25 + 4)/3 = 1.24

TIE Phantom (not cloaked): 0.7111*(2*1.25 + 2)/3 = 1.07

Z-95: 0.7111*(2*1.25 + 2)/3 = 1.07

TIE Fighter: 1*3/3 = 1

TIE Interceptor: 1*3/3 = 1

Durability per equivalent PS1 cost, normalized to the TIE Fighter, tells a slightly different story. The ranked list is [edit: fixed the B-wing here as well]:

A-wing (refit): 1.5*12/15 = 1.2

Shuttle: 1.94*12/20 = 1.16

TIE Bomber: 1.42*12/15 = 1.14

TIE Advanced = 1.833*12/20 = 1.1

Z-95: 1.07*12/12 = 1.07

Y-wing: 1.51*12/17 = 1.06

A-wing: 1.5*12/17 = 1.06

Firespray: 2.6*12/31 = 1.01

TIE Fighter: 1*12/12 = 1

HWK-290:1.24*12/15 = 1.0

B-wing: 1.59*12/21 = 0.91

TIE Defender: 2.25*12/30 = 0.9

E-wing: 1.92*12/27 = 0.85

YT-1300 (ORS): 1.90*12/27 = 0.84

X-wing: 1.30*12/20 = 0.78

YT-1300 (named): 2.45*12/39 = 0.75

TIE Interceptor = 1*12/18 = 0.67

TIE Phantom (not cloaked): 1.07*12/23 = 0.56

Conclusion: the TIE Defender is slightly below average, as far as durability vs price is concerned.

The attack per PS1 equivalent cost, normalized to a TIE Fighter is:

TIE Interceptor = 1.74*12/18 = 1.16

X-wing: 1.74*12/20 = 1.04

Shuttle: 1.71*12/20 = 1.03

TIE Fighter: 1*12/12 = 1

Z-95: 1*12/12 = 1

B-wing: 1.74*12/21 = 0.99

TIE Phantom: 1.74*12/23 = 0.91

A-wing (refit): 1*12/15 = 0.8

TIE Bomber: 1*12/15 = 0.8

E-wing: 1.74*12/27 = 0.77

Y-wing: 1*12/17 = 0.71

A-wing: 1*12/17 = 0.71

TIE Defender: 1.74*12/30 = 0.70

Firespray:1.74*12/31 = 0.67

TIE Advanced = 1*12/20 = 0.6

YT-1300 (named): 1.74*12/39 = 0.54

YT-1300 (ORS): 1*12/27 = 0.44

HWK-290: 0.42*12/15 = 0.34

Conclusion: the TIE Defender has below average damage output per cost.

The most competitive ships (B-wing, TIE Fighter, X-wing, YT-1300, Firespray) don't necessarily need great durability per price, because they can make up for it with good attack per price. The YT-1300 of course has a 360 arc which helps it significantly.

Final conclusion: for its cost, the TIE Defender is mediocre at defense, and poor at attack. You'll need to repeatedly abuse its white K-turn to make it cost effective. The math and numbers aren't perfect, but they are very reasonable. Changing the underlying assumptions won't substantially change the results here. I hope this helps put things in perspective.

It's looking at the math like this that really hammers home how much the Imperials pay for the much-vaunted "mobility advantage" they have over the Rebels.

It's notable from looking at success on the table (especially with the B-Wing) how meaningless the FF view of "mobility advantage" really is.

Will a Defender be tough to kill?

Sure.

But it's going to struggle to kill enough of the enemy before it goes down anyway thanks to lack of arc options and limited dial.

@ Juggler

I always lover your posts.

I'm not sure I would value a shield to be 1.25 of a hull. about 1 in four hits are crits (Ignoring marksmanship and other special rules and upgrades) but a crit isn't really as bad as two hits.

Thanks. With regards to hits vs crits, it's actually even more complicated than that for a couple of reasons:

1. Because the meta favors Focus over Target Lock, the number of hits vs critical hits on attack dice is greater than 3:1.
2. Because the defender cancels critical hits last, there are less hits landing on ships than you would get from simply looking at the 3:1 ratio (or whatever the number is from using focus).

One of these days I'm sure I'll analyze it statistically to get a better answer. The answer will likely depend on how many defense dice you have, which is interesting because it means that shields could be worth different amounts on ships with different numbers of defense dice. Then the only issue is what weighting to give critical hits.

@MajorJuggler

I think we are beginning to run up against the limitations of your Lanchester's analysis. The Defender isn't well suited to such analysis as it's most important traits are difficult to quantify.

Some light playtesting suggests to me that the Defender is appropriately costed - so long as it's not the first ship to die. If it is the first to die, of course, you're boned.

Yes, my Lanchester's based formulas have always only worked best on ships that do NOT have unique capabilities. I would break down the "certainty" into categories something like:

Very high degree of certainty (no unique capabilities):

X-wing

A-wing

B-wing

E-wing

Z-95

TIE Fighter

TIE Advanced

TIE Interceptor

Good degree of certainty (minor unique traits)

Y-wing (turret with 2 base attack)

Medium degree of certainty (significant unique traits)

Millennium Falcon (360 degree arc)

Firespray (rear arc)

TIE Bomber (basically requires ordnance to be useful)

Low degree of certainty (absolutely unique traits, not even remotely similar to any other ship)

TIE Defender (white K-turn requires playtesting)

Phantom (cloak)

Shuttle (no white turns; red 0-stop)

HWK-290 (turret with 1 base attack)

Once we get enough play testing on the TIE Defender, and I update my dial scoring methodology, I'll probably be confident enough in moving the Defender into the "medium" category. But anything less than the first tier fundamentally involves guesswork, since there are no other ships that you can correlate them to. Thankfully, half the ships should have a high degree of confidence, so overall the approach should still have utility.

And yes, losing 1/3 of your fleet before it ever gets to fire is always very bad. But even if it is getting focus fired, a PS1 Defender should be able to get at least ONE shot off.

Let's just assume that the attacker has 3 attack dice (with no actions or bonuses)

That is an expected number of hits of 1.5 hits.

Three agility means the TIE Defender will roll 1.125 evades on average.

This is a little crude (and not entirely accurate, but its close) to about .375 hits per shot.

It takes 6 hits to kill the TIE Defender 6/.375 is 16 shots. It is going to take about 16 shots from your x-wing or b-wing to kill the TIE Defender.

Let'd compare that to the YT-1300

1 agility means it will only evade about .6 hits per turn. Meaning the YT-1300 will take about .9 hits per time it gets shot at. (let's assume it is the 13 hit version). 13/.9 is 14.444 shots.

It takes about 14 shots to kill a (Character) YT-1300 and 16 to kill a TIE Defender.

When you consider that a TIE Defender is significantly cheaper than (a 13 hit) YT-1300 .

There are other ships in the game that are hard to kill, A-wing, TIE-Advanced, Firespray, but only the Firespray is really all that dangerous by itself.

Just one more reason the Defender is far scarier than a Bwing.

Really? At 30 points for a PS1 pilot before upgrades? How do you call that cost-effective?

In all honesty, all the doomsaying here reminds me of how much the Firespray was called a POS before release and now it's a staple. And all the wringing of hands at how Lambda was too cheap and was Imperial power creep and would break the game, and it takes dedicated articles to get people to use the things now. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but excuse me if I believe it's going happen yet again and the ship will turn out fine. Wave 4 looks like it's bringing 4 top notch ships, Defender included, and frankly I can't wait until it's released. I imagine the Defender will earn a fair rep. Maybe not to the impossibly efficient TIE or B-Wing level, but hardly down the HWK, Advanced, or (pre-Aces) A-Wing either.

Durability Check 1.1:

Lets assume the Defender got a Hull Upgrade. Now its 33 points, just like the Bounty Hunter:

TIE Phantom (cloaked): 1.4194*(2*1.25 + 2)/3 = 2.13

with Hull Upgrade:

TIE Phantom (cloaked): 1.4194*(2*1.25 + 3)/3 = 2.6022

This would even exeed the Firespray's durability.

with Shield Upgrade:

TIE Phantom (cloaked): 1.4194*(3*1.25 + 2)/3 = 2.7205

Looks like we have found the winner

Final conclusion: for its cost, the TIE Defender is mediocre at defense...

3 agility, barrel roll available, and 3S/3H for health is mediocre at defense? What more should it have? Auto 4 evade tokens? 5 agility?

No, it just would need the boost action, so there is place for a hull upgrade

It also has meh upgrades, a predictable dial, no 1 forward, and costs LOTS more than most small ships with equivalent firepower. Big ships work because crew upgrades are phenomenal and they can take a lot of fire. That's why I see it not working. Agility is a bad concept throughout the game.

Canon upgrade is not really meh - as with time there will hopefully be more, but the HLC is very strong, and an Ion cannon on a defender should be pretty awesome. Missiles are also starting to become more and more interesting with the variations we've seen - Ion pulse missiles, whatever the proton rockets are - easily missiles are the most diverse of secondary weapon systems. Those two upgrade slots means that the type of role you want for a defender can really be well customized.

As for a predictable dial? no - i disagree, it's only predictable when flown by someone who feels they must immediately pull a green to recover from a red, and a player that uses the red in the first place. Given the defender dial - and taking predator - you'd rarely ever actually need your action (for offense) - it'd be a really mean ship I think.

Final conclusion: for its cost, the TIE Defender is mediocre at defense, and poor at attack. You'll need to repeatedly abuse its white K-turn to make it cost effective. The math and numbers aren't perfect, but they are very reasonable. Changing the underlying assumptions won't substantially change the results here. I hope this helps put things in perspective.

Sorry, this statement seems somewhat ridiculous to me - It's got equal agility and one more shield than the tie advanced, which is well known for being a durable tanky ship - and it's got 3 attack dice, and can sport a canon + missile, which is pretty high on the attack list. Ignoring cost for the moment - it's neither mediocre at defense nor poor at attack.

I understand you've qualified with "For it's cost". The Tie fighter (which you've used as a baseline) is probably slightly undercosted, and one of the most efficient ships in the game - and the tie bomber may have the most efficient hit point cost. I'm not sure that's the right baseline to look at. Also - we're looking at offense and defense in a package together, somehow it feels to me like they're being separated out and shouldn't be.

So - What ships can we compare it with that have strong defense and good attack? Given the average number of shots to take something out - and your first list, I'm inclined to think Firespray and Falcon are good comparisons (3 attack + missiles + good survivability) - it's 3 points less than a bounty hunter for 2 less p.s. - and it's a whole lot cheaper than a named falcon - or 3 points more than an ORS which doesn't compare nearly as well. Some have said that the firespray may also be a little aggressively costed - in such a comparison, the defender really doesn't seem that out of place. While it doesn't have an auxilliary arc, it does have a white k and can effectively point itself in any direction - and it's got a smaller base, which means that it's harder to get in arc (compared to the large ships).

When we view the defender as a "small sillohuette" large ship - it really seems to make sense in cost, and as to how it should fit in list building.