So, at what point do we all admit that we have absolutely no idea what we're talking, and concede that we need to see how the meta pans out before we pass judgment?

When the ships are released and those of us who don't use vassal can test them. And these debates will continue to happen.

i think it is overcosted and will be under used, that is until more cannons come out. you might have a white k-turn but that can be blocked, meaning your stuck using red turns which as an imp player i really dislike.

Except the white 3 turn, and the white banks, which with a barrel roll aren't exactly like a turn but can often enough do roughly the same thing. Honestly the B-wing has a red 1 turn as well, and it's 2 turn might be white but it completely lacks a 3 turn, which is white for the defender, it can slow play better but all it's high speed maneuvers are red, yet it is generally considered extremely maneuverable even without advanced sensors. I don't know where this idea that the defender lacks maneuverability comes from. It's not great at hugging curves but that just necessitates flying it differently than most other ships.

So, at what point do we all admit that we have absolutely no idea what we're talking, and concede that we need to see how the meta pans out before we pass judgment?

Admit defeat on the internet? How dare you sir, how dare you.

Yes, typically the Defender will tend more towards the mean. But I've lost two Interceptors to back to back attacks before. Over the course of a long tournament that's going to happen more and more. Sure, it might only be 1 game out of 6, but that 1 game costs me the tournament when 1/3 of my fleet is gone on turn one of combat without getting to fire, and I still have two ships firing at me to worry about. That's where reliability comes in. High agility is an illusion, a feeling of safety that can all too easily vanish.

As to what I want from the Defender. Let's look at it this way.

It pays 10 points per point of attack.

An A-wing pays 7.5(with Chaardan), and an Advanced pays 10.5. An X-wing pays 7. A B-Wing, 7.333

With a HLC the defender is paying 9.25. That's a pretty high number. The highest small ship cost per point of attack in the game.

Now, part of this is that I plan based on Murphy's law. An A-wing will take 4 hits(5 if I take an evade action). An X-wing will take 5. A Defender will take 6. A B-wing will take 8. I can't bank on agility. It's bad planning. And that makes the Defender bad. It's defense is its strength, but I can't afford to trust it.

Agility is probabilistic armor. Counting on it to deliver a non-zero number of evades on a particular roll is of course a bad idea, but one of the advantages of the longer hp track is that you can survive weak rolls--that is, trusting the Defender is a better bet than trusting other 3 Agility ships because the consequences of a failed roll are substantially less dire.

I mean, I'm not saying anything new here, but saying you can't trust 3 Agility/6 hp is odd, since it's more trustworthy than any other ship in its class.

It''s more trustworthy than any ship that isn't large or a B-wing or Y-wing, and it's very often going to last longer than than both of the latter, as well as be far more maneuverable.

It's more reliable than anything with a cost per HP greater than 5. That being, Interceptors, Phantoms, and E-Wings.

They really,really needed to at least make the PS3 ones elite. And defenders should prob have evade on their bar, or cost 1 pt less each. At least the unique pilots are a point cheaper than they "should be".

I think it will be ok. It is certainly no Tie advanced, but ya its going to be overshadowed by phantoms, firesprays and some interceptors.

Good thoughts Kinetic Operator as always, I am really interested to see how it plays out. I would certainly expect a 30 point Defender to beat a 25 point Blue + Advanced Sensors, but how the tactics play out will make or break the ship. It sounds like the extra options it affords will make it a higher player skill cap ship, but not so much as the Phantom. It is much more likely to get blocked earlier in the game, so if anything its white K-turn becomes more powerful later game, as you say.

So, at what point do we all admit that we have absolutely no idea what we're talking about, and concede that we need to see how the meta pans out before we pass judgment?

Retreat? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.

sure the B-wing has an inferior dial compared to the Defender, but it also costs 11 points less,has more shields and is 1 PS higher.

sure the B-wing has an inferior dial compared to the Defender, but it also costs 11 points less,has more shields and is 1 PS higher.

11? It's 5 Points cheaper with Advanced Sensors...

Yes, typically the Defender will tend more towards the mean. But I've lost two Interceptors to back to back attacks before. Over the course of a long tournament that's going to happen more and more. Sure, it might only be 1 game out of 6, but that 1 game costs me the tournament when 1/3 of my fleet is gone on turn one of combat without getting to fire, and I still have two ships firing at me to worry about. That's where reliability comes in. High agility is an illusion, a feeling of safety that can all too easily vanish.

As to what I want from the Defender. Let's look at it this way.

It pays 10 points per point of attack.

An A-wing pays 7.5(with Chaardan), and an Advanced pays 10.5. An X-wing pays 7. A B-Wing, 7.333

With a HLC the defender is paying 9.25. That's a pretty high number. The highest small ship cost per point of attack in the game.

Now, part of this is that I plan based on Murphy's law. An A-wing will take 4 hits(5 if I take an evade action). An X-wing will take 5. A Defender will take 6. A B-wing will take 8. I can't bank on agility. It's bad planning. And that makes the Defender bad. It's defense is its strength, but I can't afford to trust it.

Agility is probabilistic armor. Counting on it to deliver a non-zero number of evades on a particular roll is of course a bad idea, but one of the advantages of the longer hp track is that you can survive weak rolls--that is, trusting the Defender is a better bet than trusting other 3 Agility ships because the consequences of a failed roll are substantially less dire.

I mean, I'm not saying anything new here, but saying you can't trust 3 Agility/6 hp is odd, since it's more trustworthy than any other ship in its class.

It''s more trustworthy than any ship that isn't large or a B-wing or Y-wing, and it's very often going to last longer than than both of the latter, as well as be far more maneuverable.

Not when you account for the cost. It's significantly more expensive per hit it can take than most other ships.

It's more reliable than anything with a cost per HP greater than 5. That being, Interceptors, Phantoms, and E-Wings.

I was being somewhat ironic. What your talking about is not reliability; it's cost efficiency, and it's an argument that has been made to death.

It's also reducing the cost efficiency, IMO, to a very simplistic level. I mean, you have made statements here that almost imply green dice have no value whatsoever. I have great respect for Major Juggler's math and "jousting value" that is more complex than I could work, but one of my concerns with it is that it is too shallow, especially as we see ships like the phantom and, yes, the defender, but he has a lot of research and computations behind it at least.

Meanwhile, we have a top notch x-wing player, kinetic operator, who has actually played it and makes a pretty solid argument about why he thinks it's costed appropriately, which, IMO, should be worth more than any math-winging we're doing here.

sure the B-wing has an inferior dial compared to the Defender, but it also costs 11 points less,has more shields and is 1 PS higher.

... and has 2 less agility dice. I know they aren't the most reliable things in the world, but you can't discount them completely.

See, I trust math a whole lot more than I trust talented players experience. A talented player can make anything work, and will often outplay everyone around them to an extent that leaves finding value difficult.

What I']m talking about is that yes, Green Dice are worthless, When it comes to planning.

They are harder to modify, less reliable just based on the dice alone, and he game works against them in any number of ways. This overcosts durable ships with high agility somewhat, unless they've changed things from Wave 1.

Beyond that, I've also compared it to any number of other ships and how the points addition is enormous compared to every other ship released so far.

But the whole argument is points efficiency.

The Defender has the worst small base offesive points efficiency in the game, bar the Tie Advanced, and turretless Hawks. Even adding a HLC doesn' help because then you've payed 37 points for a 4 attack ship and cut defensive efficiency further.

It has the 4th worst Total hits taken points efficiency in the game.

It has 3 defense dice that might make up for this, but that cannot be expected to because planning for green dice to roll evades is bad planning, and bad statistically across the course of a tournament. Those 3 green dice contribute to what I consider an overcost of the ship. I'd rather it had 8 hits and 2 Evade. Or 10 hits and 1 Evade. The way I see it, a high green number is worse than a low green number, assuming the total Hull and shields are accomodated for.

Maybe when we get a better cannon upgrade the Defender will look better. Maybe White K-turns are better than they look. They're certainly amazing 1 on 1. But I don't think they make up for the only greens being straight, and the good turns being red.

It's also reducing the cost efficiency, IMO, to a very simplistic level. I mean, you have made statements here that almost imply green dice have no value whatsoever. I have great respect for Major Juggler's math and "jousting value" that is more complex than I could work, but one of my concerns with it is that it is too shallow, especially as we see ships like the phantom and, yes, the defender, but he has a lot of research and computations behind it at least.

Meanwhile, we have a top notch x-wing player, kinetic operator, who has actually played it and makes a pretty solid argument about why he thinks it's costed appropriately, which, IMO, should be worth more than any math-winging we're doing here.

In full disclosure, the Jousting Math doesn't take into consideration the dial. Even if I tried to give the dial a weighting, the degree of confidence in predicting the Defender's value is near the bottom of the list of all 16 ships, since it is such a unique feature. So if KO says that it's good, then it's probably pretty good. The final test will certainly be the competitive meta game.

Edit: in the hands of less skilled players, its performance regresses back to the raw mathematical jousting value. I would expect its cost efficiency to be something halfway between jousting with a TIE Advanced and jousting with a TIE Interceptor.

There's a reason B-wings are so good, along with YT's, shuttles, and Firesprays.

There's a reason the only 3 agility ship to see regular competitive use is the Tie-Fighter.

It's that these ships manage a form of long term reliability. They perform well over a series of games, either through sheer numbers, or sheer damage taking ability. They excel at mitigating luck through support ships or upgrades.

The Defender does this completely backwards.

Maybe it will work, but I honestly think it's going to have issues holding up under fire too often to be reliable over a series of games.

Thank you for the kind words guys.

In any case, while I disagree with Aminar's assessment of the Defender as a whole, I don't want to overstate my case. I believe the Defender has an appropriate cost at 30. It doesn't have the amazing meta-bending efficiency that the introduction of Advanced Sensors on B-Wings had, but it doesn't fall with a resounding thud like the TIE/Ad. It plays like the Y-Wing. 18 points for a ship that will get you about 18 points worth of value on the table. In this case, 30 points that will get you about 30 points worth of value. More points for a more capable ship.

Just like any ship, if you refuse to play to its strengths you won't get your money's worth out of it. I admit that at 30 points, misusing a Defender will almost certainly cost you the game, where misusing a single Y-Wing probably will not. This is what I believe MajorJuggler was referring to when he said that it was "a higher player skill cap ship". But if the Defender were significantly cheaper than 30 points, I believe it would warp the meta by being too powerful for its cost. Certainly I find myself very suspicious that the other Imperial ship in Wave 4 may be just that, too powerful for its cost. Not unbeatable, not impossible to deal with, just overly efficient for its points in a way that will bend the game around a single ship (at least until a new shiny ship comes along).

Thank you for the kind words guys.

In any case, while I disagree with Aminar's assessment of the Defender as a whole, I don't want to overstate my case. I believe the Defender has an appropriate cost at 30. It doesn't have the amazing meta-bending efficiency that the introduction of Advanced Sensors on B-Wings had, but it doesn't fall with a resounding thud like the TIE/Ad. It plays like the Y-Wing. 18 points for a ship that will get you about 18 points worth of value on the table. In this case, 30 points that will get you about 30 points worth of value. More points for a more capable ship.

Just like any ship, if you refuse to play to its strengths you won't get your money's worth out of it. I admit that at 30 points, misusing a Defender will almost certainly cost you the game, where misusing a single Y-Wing probably will not. This is what I believe MajorJuggler was referring to when he said that it was "a higher player skill cap ship". But if the Defender were significantly cheaper than 30 points, I believe it would warp the meta by being too powerful for its cost. Certainly I find myself very suspicious that the other Imperial ship in Wave 4 may be just that, too powerful for its cost. Not unbeatable, not impossible to deal with, just overly efficient for its points in a way that will bend the game around a single ship (at least until a new shiny ship comes along).

And that the Firespray is a better ship, and the Tie Defender doesn't fit with current tactical doctrine.

And Average has never been competitive. I've never said it will always perform badly. I've said that over the course of a tournament it's likely to screw up one time too many, and at its point cost, cost you the game.

And that the Firespray is a better ship, and the Tie Defender doesn't fit with current tactical doctrine.

You mean like interceptors (Over costed much am I right)? And how people said they are not useful or worth the points due to being glass cannons and not reliable for a tournament? Tell me about how the regionals saw an increase of interceptors. More health doesn't mean better in this game, its more "dice" friendly. The more B-wings, Y-Wings, and lambda's on some ones list, I just see as quick focus fire targets that will most DEFINITELY fall to focused fire. Once people learn to fly the craft and pilots, each has its own unique niche (Advance withstanding) and do you TRULY believe FFG didn't learn from the advanced? I mean really now?

People need to move to the fact that this game is a maneuvering game and not just a pure dice game. Just because X doesn't equal Y, doesn't mean the ship is not worth its points. It might not fit into your flight style but this doesn't make the ship not worth the points to everyone, just you. Also you are right, it doesn't fit current jousting doctrine, it means you have to think outside of the box.

I see the defender dial and I see unpredictability (literally every movement in the game outside of a 1 forward), bait and switch tactics (Oh hey I'm stressed guess I will be going STRAIGHT! .... Nah I like it over here or hey look at that I get to shoot you now, also I have that nifty predator/Vessery skill to reroll my attack while stressed also I have the health and agility to survive the barrage of attacks with out tokens) , and most importantly easy access to arc dodging (K-turn BR is just a mean mean thing in rapid succession).

You have valid opinions based on your meta and personal flying style, but not everyone flies like you, you have your own take on squad building and flying, but so will the next person. Wait and see on the defender, I might be dead wrong and it might flop, but in all honesty I don't see that happening. I see it finding its niche with time.

There's a reason the only 3 agility ship to see regular competitive use is the Tie-Fighter.

There's a reason the only 3-HP ship to see regular competitive use is the TIE Fighter.

That's what you meant to say there, or at least what you should have said.

The 3-agility ships aren't touchy in competitive play because they rely on agility - they're touchy because they rely entirely on agility. They have no shields and very little overall life, meaning that even a slightly bad die roll is very bad news, and a moderately bad roll can be catastrophic. The Defender does not have this problem. A TIE Fighter or Interceptor can potentially die in 2 uncanceled hits, with the right crit. The Defender requires a minimum of 5. That's a rather massive difference.

Is it just me or does the counter to a Defender look like tight turning?

I think it will take a pincer movement if you've got a Defender on your tail because if you just take a tight turn, he will K-Turn, focus, fire.

And if it's a Defender with EU it'd be even harder to get rid of him.

But you might use that to your advantage by trying to lure him into a chase and sweep behind him with a couple of heavy hitters.

I think we may have reached the fabled magic triangle of rock paper scissors. Heavy Fighters (Defenders and I guess Firesprays too, to an extent)>Turretted Tanks (YTs, Y-wings, to lesser extent HWKs)>Interceptors(Tie Interceptors, and A-wings) which in turn are > than the Heavy FIghters.

In the middle would be the "general purpose" ships X-wings, Tie Advanceds, Tie Fighters, Z-95s, I would say E-wings as well which do about the same no matter what they face. B-wings (in my opinion)would be half in this category and half in the heavy fighter category. E-wings are this category because they are more durable than the interceptors but nimbler than the Heavy FIghters.

Lambdas and Bombers are just sorta there, not really fighters, sort of tanky but with out the advantages of the turrets, maybe Rock Paper Scissors Lizard Spock would be a better description?

Maybe a chess designation?

Lambda's and YT's as kings, TIE's and X-Wings as pawns, Interceptors and A-Wings, Phantoms and B-Wings as knights

It's also reducing the cost efficiency, IMO, to a very simplistic level. I mean, you have made statements here that almost imply green dice have no value whatsoever. I have great respect for Major Juggler's math and "jousting value" that is more complex than I could work, but one of my concerns with it is that it is too shallow, especially as we see ships like the phantom and, yes, the defender, but he has a lot of research and computations behind it at least.

Meanwhile, we have a top notch x-wing player, kinetic operator, who has actually played it and makes a pretty solid argument about why he thinks it's costed appropriately, which, IMO, should be worth more than any math-winging we're doing here.

In full disclosure, the Jousting Math doesn't take into consideration the dial. Even if I tried to give the dial a weighting, the degree of confidence in predicting the Defender's value is near the bottom of the list of all 16 ships, since it is such a unique feature. So if KO says that it's good, then it's probably pretty good. The final test will certainly be the competitive meta game.

Edit: in the hands of less skilled players, its performance regresses back to the raw mathematical jousting value. I would expect its cost efficiency to be something halfway between jousting with a TIE Advanced and jousting with a TIE Interceptor.

It doesn't include higher pilot skill, pilot abilities, or action bar, correct? I completely agree and understand your last statement as well as the point about the meta, which I agree with.

My point was that the math doesn't, and can't, tell the whole story, even if it can give us a decent baseline.

Thank you for the kind words guys.

In any case, while I disagree with Aminar's assessment of the Defender as a whole, I don't want to overstate my case. I believe the Defender has an appropriate cost at 30. It doesn't have the amazing meta-bending efficiency that the introduction of Advanced Sensors on B-Wings had, but it doesn't fall with a resounding thud like the TIE/Ad. It plays like the Y-Wing. 18 points for a ship that will get you about 18 points worth of value on the table. In this case, 30 points that will get you about 30 points worth of value. More points for a more capable ship.

Just like any ship, if you refuse to play to its strengths you won't get your money's worth out of it. I admit that at 30 points, misusing a Defender will almost certainly cost you the game, where misusing a single Y-Wing probably will not. This is what I believe MajorJuggler was referring to when he said that it was "a higher player skill cap ship". But if the Defender were significantly cheaper than 30 points, I believe it would warp the meta by being too powerful for its cost. Certainly I find myself very suspicious that the other Imperial ship in Wave 4 may be just that, too powerful for its cost. Not unbeatable, not impossible to deal with, just overly efficient for its points in a way that will bend the game around a single ship (at least until a new shiny ship comes along).

And Average has never been competitive. I've never said it will always perform badly. I've said that over the course of a tournament it's likely to screw up one time too many, and at its point cost, cost you the game.

And that the Firespray is a better ship, and the Tie Defender doesn't fit with current tactical doctrine.

Average, IMO, means balanced, and that's a good thing. If every ship that came in challenged the top 2-3 ships for dominance, you'd have power creep, as Kinetic Operator points out. Right now, there's only one ship type in the game that doesn't see regular tournament use, and I think that's pretty impressive.

Is it just me or does the counter to a Defender look like tight turning?

Every ship and tactic should have a counter. That's just good game design.

Just like any ship, if you refuse to play to its strengths you won't get your money's worth out of it. I admit that at 30 points, misusing a Defender will almost certainly cost you the game, where misusing a single Y-Wing probably will not. This is what I believe MajorJuggler was referring to when he said that it was "a higher player skill cap ship". But if the Defender were significantly cheaper than 30 points, I believe it would warp the meta by being too powerful for its cost. Certainly I find myself very suspicious that the other Imperial ship in Wave 4 may be just that, too powerful for its cost. Not unbeatable, not impossible to deal with, just overly efficient for its points in a way that will bend the game around a single ship (at least until a new shiny ship comes along).

Yes -- its a higher skill cap because you have to really optimize your flying to take advantage of it. This isn't nearly as much the case with, say, TIE Fighters, B-wings, X-wings. With those ships you can get away with simply pointing your ship at the other guy and rolling the dice, because they are good at jousting.

Also - I am in agreement about the Phantom that's going to be a very interesting meta shakeup...

It's also reducing the cost efficiency, IMO, to a very simplistic level. I mean, you have made statements here that almost imply green dice have no value whatsoever. I have great respect for Major Juggler's math and "jousting value" that is more complex than I could work, but one of my concerns with it is that it is too shallow, especially as we see ships like the phantom and, yes, the defender, but he has a lot of research and computations behind it at least.

Meanwhile, we have a top notch x-wing player, kinetic operator, who has actually played it and makes a pretty solid argument about why he thinks it's costed appropriately, which, IMO, should be worth more than any math-winging we're doing here.

In full disclosure, the Jousting Math doesn't take into consideration the dial. Even if I tried to give the dial a weighting, the degree of confidence in predicting the Defender's value is near the bottom of the list of all 16 ships, since it is such a unique feature. So if KO says that it's good, then it's probably pretty good. The final test will certainly be the competitive meta game.

Edit: in the hands of less skilled players, its performance regresses back to the raw mathematical jousting value. I would expect its cost efficiency to be something halfway between jousting with a TIE Advanced and jousting with a TIE Interceptor.

It doesn't include higher pilot skill, pilot abilities, or action bar, correct? I completely agree and understand your last statement as well as the point about the meta, which I agree with.

My point was that the math doesn't, and can't, tell the whole story, even if it can give us a decent baseline.

Correct, I'm just looking at the jousting cost efficiency for the equivalent PS1 cost. I can and do take into consideration the dial and upgrades to predict an overall value, and this works pretty well with about half of the ships. However the Defender dial is so unique that I don't have much confidence in the prediction since I have no other baseline.