Yeah that's the thing, there have been several posts on this very thread about good uses for the Defender that have been more or less ignored.

The generic pilots are some of the best HLC platforms in the game.

Vessery if used properly can be quite effective, especially paired with a Buzzsaw

And Rexler Brath is absolutely lethal against big ships. ThatOneGuy gave an example of that, and I have another:

Rexler Brath + Predator

Bounty Hunter + Seismic Charges

Omicron Group Pilot + Vader

or

Rexler Brath + Predator

Bounty Hunter

Omicron Group Pilot + EU + FCS

The first one is pure damage output ultimately ending with Brath dealing massive criticals fairly routinely. The second one is more effective against lists with big ships mixed with more maneuverable allies. I have yet to lose an epic game (2 played) or a game against a list containing a large based ship (6 games, including tearing through 3 of the popular HSF lists) when using these lists.

My favorite part: playing a friendly game against someone flying Chewie with Expert Handling. Get two hits with Rexler and one focus, decide I'd rather deal maybe one crit than two regular hits. So Chewie rolls his evade and gets it. So that one hit goes through, and I flip it...

Injured Pilot.

Yeah that's the thing, there have been several posts on this very thread about good uses for the Defender that have been more or less ignored.

The generic pilots are some of the best HLC platforms in the game.

Vessery if used properly can be quite effective, especially paired with a Buzzsaw

And Rexler Brath is absolutely lethal against big ships. ThatOneGuy gave an example of that, and I have another:

Rexler Brath + Predator

Bounty Hunter + Seismic Charges

Omicron Group Pilot + Vader

or

Rexler Brath + Predator

Bounty Hunter

Omicron Group Pilot + EU + FCS

The first one is pure damage output ultimately ending with Brath dealing massive criticals fairly routinely. The second one is more effective against lists with big ships mixed with more maneuverable allies. I have yet to lose an epic game (2 played) or a game against a list containing a large based ship (6 games, including tearing through 3 of the popular HSF lists) when using these lists.

My favorite part: playing a friendly game against someone flying Chewie with Expert Handling. Get two hits with Rexler and one focus, decide I'd rather deal maybe one crit than two regular hits. So Chewie rolls his evade and gets it. So that one hit goes through, and I flip it...

Injured Pilot.

Brath's ability is nasty against large ships. Pair Outmaneuver with him, and most don't roll any agility dice. At range 1 with a TL and focus (saving the focus when shields are down) can dish out 4 crits. If the Falcon has shields, it's typically 4 hits. Of those crits, 1 of them has a decent chance at being a Direct Hit (making it 5 hits), but even better, about a 30% chance of pulling pilot damage cards (such as Injured Pilot).

With the Defender, you could rinse and repeat at least every other round. Players flying large ships against the Defender cannot afford to let it flank.

Yeah that's the thing, there have been several posts on this very thread about good uses for the Defender that have been more or less ignored.

The generic pilots are some of the best HLC platforms in the game.

Vessery if used properly can be quite effective, especially paired with a Buzzsaw

And Rexler Brath is absolutely lethal against big ships. ThatOneGuy gave an example of that, and I have another:

Rexler Brath + Predator

Bounty Hunter + Seismic Charges

Omicron Group Pilot + Vader

or

Rexler Brath + Predator

Bounty Hunter

Omicron Group Pilot + EU + FCS

The first one is pure damage output ultimately ending with Brath dealing massive criticals fairly routinely. The second one is more effective against lists with big ships mixed with more maneuverable allies. I have yet to lose an epic game (2 played) or a game against a list containing a large based ship (6 games, including tearing through 3 of the popular HSF lists) when using these lists.

My favorite part: playing a friendly game against someone flying Chewie with Expert Handling. Get two hits with Rexler and one focus, decide I'd rather deal maybe one crit than two regular hits. So Chewie rolls his evade and gets it. So that one hit goes through, and I flip it...

Injured Pilot.

Brath's ability is nasty against large ships. Pair Outmaneuver with him, and most don't roll any agility dice. At range 1 with a TL and focus (saving the focus when shields are down) can dish out 4 crits. If the Falcon has shields, it's typically 4 hits. Of those crits, 1 of them has a decent chance at being a Direct Hit (making it 5 hits), but even better, about a 30% chance of pulling pilot damage cards (such as Injured Pilot).

With the Defender, you could rinse and repeat at least every other round. Players flying large ships against the Defender cannot afford to let it flank.

I think this is most likely going to be the Defender's biggest role going forward. It is an elite big ship hunter. It's a decent dogfighter, but it really starts to shine when large and huge ships are on the table.

I would hope no one disputes that, Red Castle.

We all have our own opinions.

I just wanted to point out that saying the Defender is perfectly fine because it has been playtested is a very biased statement.

Not only are we not aware of the process of playtesting, but we know from past experience that even if playtesting and design were synchronized that there are ships that don't get played very often (A-Wings and Tie Advanceds). This is evidence to me that the process is imperfect.

I enjoy most of the ships, but again, using the excuse that I should rely on playtesting and that they know what they are doing has little bearance on the usability of the Defender within the X-Wing community.

Although for that matter, only time will tell if even this thread has any bearance at all on the future of the Defender.

Okay, this is getting ridiculous.

Then I write:

Then continue with:

To which, we replied to me with:

And I replied with:

And you came in saying that developpers has the last word, that even if playtester saw the flaw, maybe the developper didn't gave a **** and:

Yet, of all these quotes, I'm the one you tag as making a very biased statement? Yeah, of course. Whatever. If you can't tell that I'm just giving my opinion and not stating fact, there is really nothing I can say to you.

Playtesters is part of the developing team so you could just switch, in my quotes, the word playtester with FFG. I trust that FFG would have listened to their playtesters if they said that the ship was unplayable or cost too high. And just to be sure, I might be wrong, this is just my opinion. I'm not making any biased statement.

Yeah that's the thing, there have been several posts on this very thread about good uses for the Defender that have been more or less ignored.

Exactly. There is more people in this thread saying that the Defender is fine, that they had good experiences with the ship, than people saying that its bad.

It didn't even started with a 'The Defender is bad!' statement, just that it would have been nice if it came with the Evade action and that Field Officer will help it a lot. So why exactly have we to justified the value of the ship if some don't like it?

I would hope no one disputes that, Red Castle.

We all have our own opinions.

I just wanted to point out that saying the Defender is perfectly fine because it has been playtested is a very biased statement.

Not only are we not aware of the process of playtesting, but we know from past experience that even if playtesting and design were synchronized that there are ships that don't get played very often (A-Wings and Tie Advanceds). This is evidence to me that the process is imperfect.

I enjoy most of the ships, but again, using the excuse that I should rely on playtesting and that they know what they are doing has little bearance on the usability of the Defender within the X-Wing community.

Although for that matter, only time will tell if even this thread has any bearance at all on the future of the Defender.

Okay, this is getting ridiculous.

And if you ask me, I still think that FFG way overrated the white K-turn. In fear of making the ship too powerful, FFG sliced every other aspect of the ship due to an ability that will truly provide an advantage... how many times? Once? maybe 2 times per entire battle?

I'm unsure if this is true or not, but I feel like the Defender must have been overlooked in playtesting. My guess is this was the result of needing to over-playtest the new "cloaking" mechanic on the Phantom.

The Defender is fine, it's the pilots which imo suck terribly, this ship needed a noname pilot with an EPT slot, but instead got 2 pilots with abilities which have certain conditions like a lot of Empire pilots have. FFG obviously hasn't learned from some past mistakes.

That's why I believe people are so upset with the dial... Many drawbacks to pay for an experimental advantage.

Then I write:

Right or wrong, FFG consider that the Defender is correctly priced.

Then continue with:

Concerning the only straight green, I would also have loved it if they at least gave one green bank turn option. But they didn't. And they playtested the ship. Do you really think that all the playtesters didn't see this flaw? They didn't gave it for a reason. Maybe, just maybe, allowing this ship to clear stress easily made it too strong. Maybe, giving it 2 actions with PtL and the Boost possibilty made it too strong in certain case. Being able to barrel roll after a k-turn is nice, being able to barrel roll and boost after a k-turn any turn you want... I think would have created a couple of amusing thread. So, from a game design, you have to limit the possibilty. You can do it, but for a price; Take a wingman or Yorr and give PtL to the Defender and Boost.

To which, we replied to me with:

No, I'm sure they saw the flaw clearly. What I think is that they preferred to be over-cautious and go with it anyways.

The reason probably was that they a little afraid on how a white K-Turn would affect the meta. Unfortunately, both for the players and devs, it seems that the impact will be negligible... By lack of usage of the ship, mainly.

And I replied with:

You really don't give the playtesters a lot of credit, do you?

Not only they decided to put a ship on the market even though it has a flaw that, acording to some, make the ship unplayable (I personally don't think so), but they also couldn't predict how the white k-turn, that they've been playtesting for months, would affect the game. So they decided to overprice the ship just in case, while it looks like it took the community less than a month to figure it out. What are they hiring?

And you came in saying that developpers has the last word, that even if playtester saw the flaw, maybe the developper didn't gave a **** and:

I'm also one to believe that for the timeline they focused more intently on a ship that caused new rules to come out (Cloak/ Decloak) as an imbalance on cloaking has a much larger chance of breaking the game than some ship with 3s.

To ensure that there's no imbalance would be my priority if I was a designer or playtester.

Yet, of all these quotes, I'm the one you tag as making a very biased statement? Yeah, of course. Whatever. If you can't tell that I'm just giving my opinion and not stating fact, there is really nothing I can say to you.

Playtesters is part of the developing team so you could just switch, in my quotes, the word playtester with FFG. I trust that FFG would have listened to their playtesters if they said that the ship was unplayable or cost too high. And just to be sure, I might be wrong, this is just my opinion. I'm not making any biased statement.

Playtesting is never perfect. Lots of mistakes make it through playtesting in systems far simpler than X-Wing. I trust them too, but not to be perfect. The Defender is on the bottom edge of playability, but what may have happened is it hit a point where any fix they thought of either didn't matter(adding redundant actions, or made the ship too powerful. More than that, Playtesters played less total games with the Defender than the people on this forum at this point. The masses buildd up games fast and learn new things. They understand the game on a different level, often a more in depth one than the design team. We've dissected the mechanics and found ways to perfect and tweak them.

The Defender was a dangerous ship to release. Add too much manueverability with that K-Turn and it would be as hard to get a modified shot on than the Phantom while being far more durable.

In the end, for now it's not enough to help the Defender. But they might know about some things coming down the pipes that really make it shine, but that they didn't want to include in wave 4.

And Vessery is a dangerous dangerous pilot. One of the bet in the game. If he had a natural PS8 he'd be among the best ships in the game despite an expensive platform.

I think this is most likely going to be the Defender's biggest role going forward. It is an elite big ship hunter. It's a decent dogfighter, but it really starts to shine when large and huge ships are on the table.

Which really, given the number of Capital ships you kill in TIE Fighter, makes perfect sense.

I've been trying to figure out a good Defender list with 4 TIE fighters (because everything is good with a mini-swarm), and just had a test game against XXBB with the following:

Rexler Brath, Veteran Instincts, HLC 45

Howlrunner, Adrenaline Rush 19

Academy Pilot 12

Academy Pilot 12

Academy Pilot 12

During the game, I was trying to figure out what the HLC Defender brought that a Bounty Hunter (the other main Imperial gun carrier) didn't. The primary advantage, I decided, was range control. The Defender has the 1 banks for going slow, or the 5 straight for going fast. You can flank and cautiously approach, firing the HLC at max range, but you can rapidly close when you need to. Once the dogfight starts, the Defender is just insane with the HLC and white K-turn. You're throwing 4 dice everywhere, but not really worrying about trying to close to Range 1 to get the extra die. Theoretically, Brath with VI and an HLC or Ion Cannon is really interesting to me, because he's a pretty good counter to all the jukey ships out there (PTL Interceptors, A-wings, Phantoms). They won't know where he's going, and he doesn't need to get close to land a day-ruining sort of shot. No Interceptor with PTL will have higher PS, and no Phantom will have higher PS. The white K-turn again comes into play because you can effectively attack from two directions, so it's harder to predict what arc they'll need to dodge.

These attributes make him a really solid elite/big ship hunter, and the TIE fighters are TIE fighters. Howlrunner with three APs can't really be ignored, and hits really hard for the points. If you have the mini-swarm and Brath split wide, the other side pretty much has to go after the TIEs, because 4 TIE Fighters (3 with re-rolls) chewing up your formation. This leaves Brath (or a different Defender) free to hit the flank. The range control dynamic comes into play here also, you can approach slowly with the Defender forcing the other side to commit before you enter firing range with the Defender.

Playtesting is never perfect. Lots of mistakes make it through playtesting in systems far simpler than X-Wing. I trust them too, but not to be perfect. The Defender is on the bottom edge of playability, but what may have happened is it hit a point where any fix they thought of either didn't matter(adding redundant actions, or made the ship too powerful. More than that, Playtesters played less total games with the Defender than the people on this forum at this point. The masses buildd up games fast and learn new things. They understand the game on a different level, often a more in depth one than the design team. We've dissected the mechanics and found ways to perfect and tweak them.

The Defender was a dangerous ship to release. Add too much manueverability with that K-Turn and it would be as hard to get a modified shot on than the Phantom while being far more durable.

In the end, for now it's not enough to help the Defender. But they might know about some things coming down the pipes that really make it shine, but that they didn't want to include in wave 4.

And Vessery is a dangerous dangerous pilot. One of the bet in the game. If he had a natural PS8 he'd be among the best ships in the game despite an expensive platform.

I don't know how FFG handle things, but I've been a playtester for a game expansion (Heavy Gear Blitz) and know how it can works. The experience I had was that we played games, report our observations, and they modified the units accordingly. Then repeat a couple times. They made the modifications according to our reports and in the end, the units were fine. Maybe not always something I would personally play, but fine regardless.

So, based on my experience, I trust game's playtesters. If FFG are like DP9, they pick players that have a good understanding of the game. Of course they can't be perfect, nobody is, but since the unit has been out for less than a month, I prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt until proven wrong instead of being a doom sayer.

Some thoughts on why the Defender does not have the Evade or Boost action. The boost action I'm pretty isn't included because of the white K-turn. Because suddenly, it has a 4 k-turn and a pseudo 2 k-turn, that could also bank it's angle. Frankly, that maneuver is a little crazy. Granted, you can end up doing similar things with other ships, but it requires some combos or using a different Elite Talent. As for the Evade action, it sort of changes the strength of it's defense. Especially, when you have unique pilots with Elite Talents that can make up for your lack of actions.

Certain things had to be dropped in order for the ship to fit their design intent and for balance. Also, I doubt we will get a normal sized ship with more than 4 actions. Not enough room on the card.

The biggest problem with the defender is for 1 more point i can have a firespray

The biggest problem with the defender is for 1 more point i can have a firespray

To be fair, both play differently. So its more a matter of taste about how you prefer to spend your points than a Defender problem. And technically, if you don't mind being a PS1 instead of 3, it's 3 more points.

First, the Defender has a small base. It means that it is easier to fly in small places, like an asteroid field or a knife fight. It's also harder to block and, since the base is smaller, harder to target/keep in line of sight.

Second, the Defender has a better dial. It can go as fast with a straight 5 compared to the straight 4+big base of the Firespray, but it can go slower with the banking 1. Remember that when making the same maneuver, the big base actually go faster by the value of 1 base. Also, even though it is a Red Maneuver, the Defender has the Hard 1 turn, so it can make very tight turn if need be. It has the White 4 K-Turn that once you try in a couple games, you can just fall in love with it. The only edge of the Firespray dial over the Defender one is the green bank, something the Defender lack. Also, the Firespray has a Rear Fire Arc, so it doesn't need to be as maneuvrable to be effective.

Concerning the action bar, you don't have the Evade action but you do have the Barrel Roll, giving you even more maneuvrability over the Firespray. There has been a lenghty discussion concerning Evade vs Focus at the start of the thread so which action you prefer to have between Barrel Roll and Evade is for you to decide. I personally prefer Barrel Roll.

As for survivability, the Firespray takes it with his 10 hit points over the Defender 6, even if it has 1 less agility. But, remember that it is easier to target with the big base and it doesn't maneuver as well, so it might get shot more often. Still, the Firespray is a better tank.

Upgrade bar goes to the Firespray hands down. It has many more option with Bombs, Crew and torpedoes. But if you decide to go vanilla (the 1 point difference you mentioned for basic crafts), the Upgrade bar is useless. But still, Recon Specialist, Rebel Captive, Tactician, Seismc Charges... Very very nice upgrades!

Finally, if you decide to go all-in, the Defender has much much better Elite Pilots. Krassis can't take EPT and his ability is to reroll one dice when shooting with a secondary weapon; Vessery, when paired accordingly, has a full target with the weapon of his choice, it even works with missiles. Kath is taken only for her PS and EPT slot and Boba might start to see some play now to counter the Phantom. Brath, especially when Fleet Officer will be out, can tear high Hull ship appart.

So, for me at least, both serve their purpose and fly differently. Which one you should take is a matter of taste and depends on what you are looking for, not just points. I don't consider the Firespray an upgrade compared to the Defender.

The biggest problem with the defender is for 1 more point i can have a firespray

To be fair, both play differently. So its more a matter of taste about how you prefer to spend your points than a Defender problem. And technically, if you don't mind being a PS1 instead of 3, it's 3 more points.

First, the Defender has a small base. It means that it is easier to fly in small places, like an asteroid field or a knife fight. It's also harder to block and, since the base is smaller, harder to target/keep in line of sight.

Second, the Defender has a better dial. It can go as fast with a straight 5 compared to the straight 4+big base of the Firespray, but it can go slower with the banking 1. Remember that when making the same maneuver, the big base actually go faster by the value of 1 base. Also, even though it is a Red Maneuver, the Defender has the Hard 1 turn, so it can make very tight turn if need be. It has the White 4 K-Turn that once you try in a couple games, you can just fall in love with it. The only edge of the Firespray dial over the Defender one is the green bank, something the Defender lack. Also, the Firespray has a Rear Fire Arc, so it doesn't need to be as maneuvrable to be effective.

Concerning the action bar, you don't have the Evade action but you do have the Barrel Roll, giving you even more maneuvrability over the Firespray. There has been a lenghty discussion concerning Evade vs Focus at the start of the thread so which action you prefer to have between Barrel Roll and Evade is for you to decide. I personally prefer Barrel Roll.

As for survivability, the Firespray takes it with his 10 hit points over the Defender 6, even if it has 1 less agility. But, remember that it is easier to target with the big base and it doesn't maneuver as well, so it might get shot more often. Still, the Firespray is a better tank.

Upgrade bar goes to the Firespray hands down. It has many more option with Bombs, Crew and torpedoes. But if you decide to go vanilla (the 1 point difference you mentioned for basic crafts), the Upgrade bar is useless. But still, Recon Specialist, Rebel Captive, Tactician, Seismc Charges... Very very nice upgrades!

Finally, if you decide to go all-in, the Defender has much much better Elite Pilots. Krassis can't take EPT and his ability is to reroll one dice when shooting with a secondary weapon; Vessery, when paired accordingly, has a full target with the weapon of his choice, it even works with missiles. Kath is taken only for her PS and EPT slot and Boba might start to see some play now to counter the Phantom. Brath, especially when Fleet Officer will be out, can tear high Hull ship appart.

So, for me at least, both serve their purpose and fly differently. Which one you should take is a matter of taste and depends on what you are looking for, not just points. I don't consider the Firespray an upgrade compared to the Defender.

It could be argued that the big base brings as much advantages as disadvantages. Although more ships will be able to shoot at you, you will have more potential targets yourself due to you arc being so much bigger. This combined with the double arc of the firespray gives it a significant target area over small ships.

The biggest problem with the defender, is that it is far too predictable, even with the White K. I am almost certain that it is the most predictable ship in the game. So far in all the games I have played with or against it, it has been way too easy to outflank, block, and/or pin down. It gets better when you put stuff like HLC and Advanced Engines or when you take the character pilots. But then you are spending even more points, reaching the high 40s or low 50s, and it simply does not bring as much to the table as a falcon (or cheaper fully equipped Echos/Whispers) to justify that point cost.

What would make the Defender much better IMHO would be any 1 or combination of several things that help offset its two most damaging features, a lackluster dial, and a huge point cost:

1. Green 2 + 3 bank.

Makes the Defender far less predictable and gives it other options to clear stress besides "go straight". Keeping it at high speeds helps keep its theme.

2. EPT on all pilots.

All Defender pilots are supposed to be veterans so this makes sense. It would have given the ship a unique desirable quality other than an easily blocked white k turn.

3. Higher Pilot Skill.

Enough said.

4. Native boost.

Again, helps keep the Defender far less predictable.

Playtesting is never perfect. Lots of mistakes make it through playtesting in systems far simpler than X-Wing. I trust them too, but not to be perfect. The Defender is on the bottom edge of playability, but what may have happened is it hit a point where any fix they thought of either didn't matter(adding redundant actions, or made the ship too powerful. More than that, Playtesters played less total games with the Defender than the people on this forum at this point. The masses buildd up games fast and learn new things. They understand the game on a different level, often a more in depth one than the design team. We've dissected the mechanics and found ways to perfect and tweak them.

The Defender was a dangerous ship to release. Add too much manueverability with that K-Turn and it would be as hard to get a modified shot on than the Phantom while being far more durable.

In the end, for now it's not enough to help the Defender. But they might know about some things coming down the pipes that really make it shine, but that they didn't want to include in wave 4.

And Vessery is a dangerous dangerous pilot. One of the bet in the game. If he had a natural PS8 he'd be among the best ships in the game despite an expensive platform.

I don't know how FFG handle things, but I've been a playtester for a game expansion (Heavy Gear Blitz) and know how it can works. The experience I had was that we played games, report our observations, and they modified the units accordingly. Then repeat a couple times. They made the modifications according to our reports and in the end, the units were fine. Maybe not always something I would personally play, but fine regardless.

So, based on my experience, I trust game's playtesters. If FFG are like DP9, they pick players that have a good understanding of the game. Of course they can't be perfect, nobody is, but since the unit has been out for less than a month, I prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt until proven wrong instead of being a doom sayer.

And again, Vessery outclasses every Firespray Pilot, so there's that.

It could be argued that the big base brings as much advantages as disadvantages. Although more ships will be able to shoot at you, you will have more potential targets yourself due to you arc being so much bigger. This combined with the double arc of the firespray gives it a significant target area over small ships.

Which is why I said several time that it is a matter of taste. I never said that being a small base was only an advantage over the big one. Just that it fly differently and has its advantages, a reason why you could take the a Defender over a Firespray. Which one you prefer is up to you.

Usually, yes. But not always. Playtesters are fallable and possibly overcautious. In this case they made an effective ship, but one that is too easy to learn to play against.

I didn't say that I give them all my faith and that they can't never be wrong, I said that I trust them and give them the benefit of the doubt until proven wrong instead of saying the ship is terribly flawed less than a month after its release like some people do (not you) and try to find a fix to a ship that might not be broken in the first place.

Things are not always black or white. It's not because you personally like a ship that suddenly it should be included in all your list. It's not because you find advantages in something that the opposite have none. Its not because you trust someone or a company that suddenly they can't be wrong. It's not because you like a ship design that it is perfect. Is my english that bad?

Is my english that bad?

No, fella. It's that you're arguing with someone on the Internet. Sorry. Even when keeping things cordial, since there's no face-to-face or constraints on time, these things drag out for days.

Now if y'all will excuse me, I'mma go up to my FLGS and play some Epic. Defender time!

Played today 150 against my friend I took three defenders and a shuttle against lando two x-wings, two z-95s and a b-wing.

Falcon and a z-95 died first quickly followed by my cheap defender and shuttle, at that point I had vessery and rexlar versus two full health x-wings a full health z and a b-wing with a shield, out numbered and out gunned my defenders cleared the board only taking a single hit.

The k-turn allowed me to outfly a superior force and win the day.

It felt strange only having only four ships but I was confident my defenders would not let me down.

Took some ships into an Epic game, 300 points today. Double Defenders were part of the build, and they certainly puled their weight. Rexler's HLC and Predator were great, and I didn't get to use his ability at all but he still got some crits through the good old fashioned way. Vessery, on two occasions, evaded all damage coming his way thanks to the three greens (or 4). And rolled two perfect evades that match. Though my opponents CR-90 dealt out heavy damage to the shuttle I had, and killed or helped kill two of my named TIEs early on, once they closed to close range it was over for that big feller in about 3 rounds of firing. It got pincered between the TIEs k-turning with Wingman support, while Interceptors cleaned their flanks and then helped, and the Defenders approached and dealt heavy damage to the CR or supporting CAP. Also managed to get some bomb and ion pulse damage on the thing, shutting it down for at least a round.

Throughout the battle, Rexler never took a hit and Vessery survived with good health long after he should have been just dead. Neither of them even got down to hull damage (making the hull upgrades i spent points on sort of pointless, but in a good way).

I would hope no one disputes that, Red Castle.

We all have our own opinions.

I just wanted to point out that saying the Defender is perfectly fine because it has been playtested is a very biased statement.

Not only are we not aware of the process of playtesting, but we know from past experience that even if playtesting and design were synchronized that there are ships that don't get played very often (A-Wings and Tie Advanceds). This is evidence to me that the process is imperfect.

I enjoy most of the ships, but again, using the excuse that I should rely on playtesting and that they know what they are doing has little bearance on the usability of the Defender within the X-Wing community.

Although for that matter, only time will tell if even this thread has any bearance at all on the future of the Defender.

Okay, this is getting ridiculous.

And if you ask me, I still think that FFG way overrated the white K-turn. In fear of making the ship too powerful, FFG sliced every other aspect of the ship due to an ability that will truly provide an advantage... how many times? Once? maybe 2 times per entire battle?

I'm unsure if this is true or not, but I feel like the Defender must have been overlooked in playtesting. My guess is this was the result of needing to over-playtest the new "cloaking" mechanic on the Phantom.

The Defender is fine, it's the pilots which imo suck terribly, this ship needed a noname pilot with an EPT slot, but instead got 2 pilots with abilities which have certain conditions like a lot of Empire pilots have. FFG obviously hasn't learned from some past mistakes.

That's why I believe people are so upset with the dial... Many drawbacks to pay for an experimental advantage.

Then I write:

Right or wrong, FFG consider that the Defender is correctly priced.

Then continue with:

Concerning the only straight green, I would also have loved it if they at least gave one green bank turn option. But they didn't. And they playtested the ship. Do you really think that all the playtesters didn't see this flaw? They didn't gave it for a reason. Maybe, just maybe, allowing this ship to clear stress easily made it too strong. Maybe, giving it 2 actions with PtL and the Boost possibilty made it too strong in certain case. Being able to barrel roll after a k-turn is nice, being able to barrel roll and boost after a k-turn any turn you want... I think would have created a couple of amusing thread. So, from a game design, you have to limit the possibilty. You can do it, but for a price; Take a wingman or Yorr and give PtL to the Defender and Boost.

To which, we replied to me with:

No, I'm sure they saw the flaw clearly. What I think is that they preferred to be over-cautious and go with it anyways.

The reason probably was that they a little afraid on how a white K-Turn would affect the meta. Unfortunately, both for the players and devs, it seems that the impact will be negligible... By lack of usage of the ship, mainly.

And I replied with:

You really don't give the playtesters a lot of credit, do you?

Not only they decided to put a ship on the market even though it has a flaw that, acording to some, make the ship unplayable (I personally don't think so), but they also couldn't predict how the white k-turn, that they've been playtesting for months, would affect the game. So they decided to overprice the ship just in case, while it looks like it took the community less than a month to figure it out. What are they hiring?

And you came in saying that developpers has the last word, that even if playtester saw the flaw, maybe the developper didn't gave a **** and:

I'm also one to believe that for the timeline they focused more intently on a ship that caused new rules to come out (Cloak/ Decloak) as an imbalance on cloaking has a much larger chance of breaking the game than some ship with 3s.

To ensure that there's no imbalance would be my priority if I was a designer or playtester.

Yet, of all these quotes, I'm the one you tag as making a very biased statement? Yeah, of course. Whatever. If you can't tell that I'm just giving my opinion and not stating fact, there is really nothing I can say to you.

Playtesters is part of the developing team so you could just switch, in my quotes, the word playtester with FFG. I trust that FFG would have listened to their playtesters if they said that the ship was unplayable or cost too high. And just to be sure, I might be wrong, this is just my opinion. I'm not making any biased statement.

But just for you, I'll point it out again:

We, the community, are not made aware of FFG's internal processes.

It's fine to have complete faith in FFG and to believe that they always release ships with perfect balance and fairness.

But you don't know or can't tell us that the playtesters had complete control of the final product.

That's like saying a movie will be perfect because it has good actors. There might be so many more actors involved in the process.

Okay there is a very big misunderstanding here. If in one of my post you read that I have 100% blind faith in playtester and FFG, or that I'm telling that playtester have complete control of the final product, you really misunderstood me.

As I said many time, I give them the benefit of the doubt instead of condemning them like some others do. I've been a playtester for a game, so I know how it can works. You have no control about the product, you just send feedback to the company members that modify the unit acordingly, but keeping it in line with what they had in mind. That was not FFG so obviously it's not the same. When I'm talking about the playtesters, I'm talking about the process overall and the whole team. The guys that test them and those from the company that modify them according to the feedback.

Now, this is really off-topic, so don't bother replying to this message, cause I won't continue on this subject.

Okay there is a very big misunderstanding here. If in one of my post you read that I have 100% blind faith in playtester and FFG, or that I'm telling that playtester have complete control of the final product, you really misunderstood me.

As I said many time, I give them the benefit of the doubt instead of condemning them like some others do. I've been a playtester for a game, so I know how it can works. You have no control about the product, you just send feedback to the company members that modify the unit acordingly, but keeping it in line with what they had in mind. That was not FFG so obviously it's not the same. When I'm talking about the playtesters, I'm talking about the process overall and the whole team. The guys that test them and those from the company that modify them according to the feedback.

Now, this is really off-topic, so don't bother replying to this message, cause I won't continue on this subject.

Your back and forth is really weird to watch because you both have the same avatar...

Okay there is a very big misunderstanding here. If in one of my post you read that I have 100% blind faith in playtester and FFG, or that I'm telling that playtester have complete control of the final product, you really misunderstood me.

As I said many time, I give them the benefit of the doubt instead of condemning them like some others do. I've been a playtester for a game, so I know how it can works. You have no control about the product, you just send feedback to the company members that modify the unit acordingly, but keeping it in line with what they had in mind. That was not FFG so obviously it's not the same. When I'm talking about the playtesters, I'm talking about the process overall and the whole team. The guys that test them and those from the company that modify them according to the feedback.

Now, this is really off-topic, so don't bother replying to this message, cause I won't continue on this subject.

Your back and forth is really weird to watch because you both have the same avatar...

hehehe

there is not a big variety of avatar on this site so, it is bound to happen sometimes. Maybe if they decide to make some for Edge of the Galaxy or Age of Rebellion.

Honestly y'all should probably just end by now. No one is gonna budge.

Honestly y'all should probably just end by now. No one is gonna budge.

Yup, my thinking exactly. That's why I said I won't continue on the subject.

Nothing to see here.

So, back to how survivable the Defender is...

So far for me they come out on top of every Epic game I've played. Sometimes with some hurt, sometimes essentially unscathed. Six HP and the evasion to keep it. Soon to be even better with Fleet Officer. I can't wait to use these things even more, I'm getting more use and fun out of them than even my Phantom (which is really just cruel to fly).