All empirical evidence.

Such as?

Tournaments prove otherwise.

No they don't.

They are seeing little competitive play.

And that's why they don't.

If they were taken and being hammered every time, that might potentialy prove something (see Firespray example above). But they're not. All their absence proves is that they're not as popular as other more "reliable" or "competitive choices. Such as the Phantom and Fat Han. Speaking of whom...

Han was not, but he wasn't really competitive until C3PO.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAno.

All the tournament data supports is a meta preference. That data can't "prove" anything other than Paul Heaver, may his reign be long, is the world champion.

All the tournament data supports is a meta preference.

And yet, meta preference is also apparently based in a great number of cases on tournament data.

I find this inordinately amusing.

Really? HSF wasn't competitive?

Depends on how you mean competitive... But Han wasn't seen in the top 32 of any major tournament that I know of, prior to 3PO/Z-95's being released.

For those of you who are inclined to believe that the Defender is too expensive, or is not competitive; I ask how many times you've played with one at a competitive level or how many friendly games you've played with them.

Today I set out to defend my Defender. I played 6 games against a few different opponents. I kept my fleet the same:

Vader - Proton Rocket + Swarm Tactics (He's going to be even more dangerous when the title fix releases!)

Delta - Ion Cannon

Delta - Ion Cannon

First game I played was against a Han and Dash build. I ran Dash off the board and then destroyed Han. Only lost one Delta.

Second game was against the Dash/Horn build. This was a tight one. Lost both Deltas, but Vader defeated Dash in a showdown at the end.

Third game I played against Biggs Walks the Dogs and it ended quickly with no losses for me.

I then played various versions of Chiraneau and Whisper. (Same opponent for three games and he changed it around between games) I won all three of these by very close margins.

The Defender is fantastic. Spend more time with it and it will reward you in game.

All empirical evidence. Tournaments prove otherwise. They are seeing little competitive play.

Something can be unbroken and still not be at s competitive level. Tie Advanced and A wings were broken. Han was not, but he wasn't really competitive until C3PO.

Yet, all forms of Defenders showed up at Worlds. In fact, Hothie faced Vessory twice in flight 1, with him having to beat the second in order to make the cut. So, while not burning up the top tier, it clearly isn't the bottom feeder most are making the Defender out to be.

The tournament data is so, so, so much more than merely the top 32 of Worlds. But, I find people look at the data and see what they want to see.

Its a strong ship for sure. But its not without its weaknesses. I see its points value and in its spot i see a juiced up Soontir / Whisper.

However Lone Wolf just made it much better IMO and i do have a list that i want to try out and see if its competitive enough.

Being able to reroll blank defensive dice when the ship doesnt have an Evade action (which i think hurts it) helped it out alot.

"em·pir·i·cal (əmˈpirik(ə)l)

adjective

based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic."

Statements like "they work for me" or "in my game" are based on observations and are by their nature empirical evidence.

Statements such as "top tournament players choose the most effective ships. If a ship is absent from top tournament games it is therefore not considered competitive" is at least a workable theory.

Regarding C3P0, the developers stated themselves it was added to make the Falcon competitive. It then won world's later that day. This is a irrefutable fact.

Edit: I also still use and fly against many Defenders. It is one of mine and my friends favorite ship. So please stop saying to fly it more.

I'm not saying the named defenders have issues, it's the unnamed one, that don't fit well. Believe me I have tried the Vader, defender list too. It can work, but versus good players they will arc dodge, and remove Vader quickly. The point is these are the best pilots in the galaxy and they don't have an EPT. Are you kidding me! This is just wrong on so many levels.

Read the fluff and some of the books and you will see how you have special forces intense training, 20 missions surviced, numerous kobashi maru type of missions, and choosen by the empires best pilots to even get a chance at flying one. How could a pilot that flies one not have a EPT.

That's my main complaint, here. Vessery and Rex are fine, but the no names need a boost to match the fluff.

The biggest problem with the Defender is that it can't turn. It's great at full speed and has that amazing k-turn, but in an environment where your opponent gets to place obstacles that force you to turn. Combine this with the fact that you get rewarded for flying into your opponents way, and you understand why the defender won't be competitive. It's 30 points for a base model you're fighting against bigger better ships at this point range. Vesserly + hlc is 43, and you could get an Outrider for that price. I love the defender, I bought one with the core set when I got into the game and have ran it every since. But, every time I play against a competitive list I just feel like my opponents' ships at the similar costs are just better.

The biggest problem with the Defender is that it can't turn. It's great at full speed and has that amazing k-turn, but in an environment where your opponent gets to place obstacles that force you to turn...

Which is your job to manage, as the pilot. As far as I can recall, obstacles are placed before you set up and don't move afterwards, so if you place your ships in a position where they potentially end up running into them, that's your own fault.

The Defender has a hard 3 turn, 1, 2 and 3 banks and the Barrel Roll action. It's not as nimble as a TIE fighter or TIE Interceptor, but it hardly "can't turn". Watch your deployment, plan out your moves in advance, and if necessary (or you think you can get away with it), don't be afraid to use the red 2 turn.

I can see another Imperial Aces pack down the road adding another type of cannon or even a title that could give the Defender an evade action at 0 cost. But I don't think the Tie Defender needs anything as severe as the Tie Advanced.

I'm actually surprised the Tie Defender didn't come with the Boost Action.

Maybe a Tie Bomber/Defender Aces pack is in the cards for down the road.

Oh, my bad, it can once and then can't take an action or or do it again until it wastes a turn heading straight. To me, compared to just about every other ship in this price range, that's the same as not being able to turn.

The obstacles don't need to move if they're passed correctly to stifle your movement, so please drop the 'get good' routine.

Oh, my bad, it can once and then can't take an action or or do it again until it wastes a turn heading straight. To me, compared to just about every other ship in this price range, that's the same as not being able to turn.

The obstacles don't need to move if they're passed correctly to stifle your movement, so please drop the 'get good' routine.

And he pointed out that those very obstacles are placed BEFORE you place your ships down...hard turns are not the only way to move sideways and you don't HAVE to clear stress right after you get it (and there are other ways to clear outside of green moves)...so maybe you need to drop the "there's rocks in my way"...that comes Down to how YOU are deploying and flying. There are only 6 asteroids...and YOU get to place 3 of them...

"em·pir·i·cal (əmˈpirik(ə)l)

adjective

based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic."

Statements like "they work for me" or "in my game" are based on observations and are by their nature empirical evidence.

Statements such as "top tournament players choose the most effective ships. If a ship is absent from top tournament games it is therefore not considered competitive" is at least a workable theory.

FYI, empirical evidence would include things like tournament data. Pretty much every scientific theory ever is based on empirical evidence, and is verified with empirical evidence.

What you should be objecting to is anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence is when somebody says something like "I ran it last Wednesday and it did well for me," or "I brought one to a tournament once and I lost every match." They're generally a very small sample size, they have no set parameters for measuring, and they typically favor whatever point the person employing them wants them to, due to the vagaries of human memory.

Right, so I get to see an area of the board I can't fly into, I can stay away from it, and my opponent can do the opposite by sticking close to it forcing me to have to deal with it. Turning isn't so that I can just avoid obstacles, a Lambda can "just avoid obstacles" you also need to keep your targets in arc. Something you can't do when you can't turn.

Obstacles, pfft. I laugh at rocks. Seriously, i play lambdas alot (i love them) and i'll happily go through a rock and roll for the damage because my red dice rolls suck, i usually roll an eye or a blank! Thats what's called turning a frown (rolling poorly) upside down

Yes, but do you fold up the wings and claim you're just landing on the rocks? Just saying!

There's nothing about the defender that stops you from flying anywhere on the board. The problem with the way you and others are thinking is that you're trying to fit the defender into a box of your own creation. Let's call it the standard squint-eyed-dashing-ghost template. Instead, you should be working out just what kind of box the defender is and mold yourself to its flight style.

By the reasoning of many, I could write into whichever monarch created chess and say, "well the knight can't do a straight or diaganol, it should be able to do what the queen does!!" If I believed this, I would be missing out on the incredible attributes of a unique piece that has a role of its own. Likewise, y'all have the same perception of the defender. You want it to fit into your box and because of this, you're missing out on a brilliantly, uniquely designed game piece.

I'm not missing out on a ship I jam into every list. My first post says as much how I've owned and run one for as long as I've played the game.

I'm not missing out on a ship I jam into every list. My first post says as much how I've owned and run one for as long as I've played the game.

Then maybe you need to continue and modify how you fly it till you get it to work the way you want it to...

So many of the "fixes" I see want to trim this into a shielded interceptor...which it isn't designed, in this game anyway, to be...

While I think this ship would be more fitting for a "fix" than the xwing everyone has been cavitching about lately I still don't feel one is super warranted...people need to adjust their thinking...

By the reasoning of many, I could write into whichever monarch created chess and say, "well the knight can't do a straight or diaganol, it should be able to do what the queen does!!" If I believed this, I would be missing out on the incredible attributes of a unique piece that has a role of its own. Likewise, y'all have the same perception of the defender. You want it to fit into your box and because of this, you're missing out on a brilliantly, uniquely designed game piece.

Oh, but there's is a radical difference. In chess you are forced to play and use all the pieces. In X-Wing you can choose what you play.

Now, imagine a chess in which you have an allotment of points to buy your pieces. Better pieces costing more... I'm pretty confident that in that chess, everyone will just play with just 5~6 queens and the spare points maybe filled with some cheap pawns to block.

And the problem with the Defender would be that, in that chess, it may perform as 'The horse', with his fancy trick and all, but it costs like 'The Queen', which is unarguably better. That's why, at the end of the day, you are just better taking a queen in its place.

I haven't put much thought into it, but I think that the defender's issue isn't so much that the ship is underpowered for the points, but that the costs don't fit well into 100 point lists. Vessery and Brath with HLCs only leave 14 points. If tournament rules were 150pt standard, I suspect that they'd be amazing, because you could take 3 and a support ship. Consider:

Colonel Vessery (35)

Predator (3)

Heavy Laser Cannon (7)

Rexler Brath (37)

Predator (3)

Heavy Laser Cannon (7)

Delta Squadron Pilot (30)

Heavy Laser Cannon (7)

Omicron Group Pilot (21)

Total: 150

View in Yet Another Squad Builder

It's not a great list, but the points fit nicely, and you can start to play around with things like making the delta an RGP to free up points for FCS/Fleet Officer/EU/etc. I think that it remains to be seen if pairing with a decimator is as viable as Dash+Corran. I've been trying to do a 3-ship pairing with Echo and Backstabber, but it's not clear if it's the list or poor piloting that is holding it back. Swapping Echo for ATC Vader should work nicely; I think that having the TA+TD is going to present some tough choices for who to target first.

"em·pir·i·cal (əmˈpirik(ə)l)

adjective

based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic."

Statements like "they work for me" or "in my game" are based on observations and are by their nature empirical evidence.

Statements such as "top tournament players choose the most effective ships. If a ship is absent from top tournament games it is therefore not considered competitive" is at least a workable theory.

Regarding C3P0, the developers stated themselves it was added to make the Falcon competitive. It then won world's later that day. This is a irrefutable fact.

Edit: I also still use and fly against many Defenders. It is one of mine and my friends favorite ship. So please stop saying to fly it more.

Which is why I pointed out that Defenders had a decent showing at Worlds, despite what the common belief of the ship is. All four pilots had representation. And one was at the upper tables at the last round. So, no, the Defender did not make the cut. But if you want to say that the only top tier viable ships are the ones that made the top 32 at Worlds, I think that is not exactly a fair assessment looking at 1/6 to 1/7 of the 200 person tournament.

I'm not saying the Defender doesn't have issues or is a top tier gatekeeper. But neither is it the crappy ship that many are claiming it is. It is a ship that you need to practice with and develop a different flying style.

I'm not missing out on a ship I jam into every list. My first post says as much how I've owned and run one for as long as I've played the game.

Then maybe you need to continue and modify how you fly it till you get it to work the way you want it to...

So many of the "fixes" I see want to trim this into a shielded interceptor...which it isn't designed, in this game anyway, to be...

While I think this ship would be more fitting for a "fix" than the xwing everyone has been cavitching about lately I still don't feel one is super warranted...people need to adjust their thinking...

That my favorite part of every "fix the defender thread". They should really just be "I want the Defender to be more like an Interceptor" threads.

There's a serious mindest problem people have with the defender, and i think it mostly comes with many being familar with the video games. There, the Defender is the best at literally everything. Shields, Weapons, Speed, Manueverability, it was the top of every tier. The one thing i think it was weak on was hull strength compare to say a Y wing or B wing. Even worse was its power resources. I fondly remember rerouting spare laser energy into my engines to allow me to outrun torpedoes even. If FFG were to take that exact same "wonderfighter" and put it on the tabletop, it'd be horrendous. It would first of all make the Interceptor obsolete, since its a direct upgrade in every single respect. So FFG made something different. I don't think they exactly got it right, but they did NOT make the Defender from the video game, and the "fixer uppers" need to recognize this. It will never be that starfighter from the video game.

That being said, the defender dial does pose some problems. It relies a lot on straight forward movement, having all of the straights but the 1, and all of the banks. This gives it some problems turning around to face foes. Ah! but we have the unique(currently) 4 Kturn. Unfortunately, it is a VERY predictable K-turn, and i've seen quite a few blocked by ships a 3rd or less of the Defender's point cost, leaving them out of position and shortly dead. You could argue that the defender is supposed to be a "Boom and zoom" fighter making a pass and then using a 5 straights or hard 3's and BR's to get out and then get turned around, but the nature of dice in this game doesn't favor such tactics. That would rely on a turn or two not firing back, and the lack of evade particularly hurts the defender in this respect.

In fact the more i think about ti, the more i feel that was what the defender was supposed to do. The manuevers hardest on a pilot in terms of Gforce would be the Hard 1's and 2's. K turn as well for most ships but the defender is "special", and gets that as a white to make up for it i guess. That would reflect the Defender using its High speed to blast through the engagement zone, then turn around and make another pass.

As far as an actual "fix" or modification, what would you think if the Defender had Boost instead of BR and added Evade as an action for the same point cost? Would that be more attractive to people?