Or, since Defenders LOVE shuttle support anyway, bring Yorr & never worry about stress again.

That sentence alone makes clear that you never actually flew Yorr as stress support for fighters.

I actually fly Yorr quite a lot. Even ships that dish out stress don't dish out enough to where they can overcome Yorr. And range 2 is a large distance from a large based ship, giving you lots of room to maneuver. I usually run Yorr as a doom shuttle. 27 points keeps him nice and cheap, let's him do damage when he needs to and you don't mind if he explodes for the late game.

No White Hard Turn-1 or-2, No Forward-1.

There is only one TIE craft in the game with a Forward 1, which is the TIE bomber. Are all the other TIEs awful for lack of it? Speaking of the TIE bomber, it has a 1 forward but a worse turning setup than the TIE defender, red two, white 3, no 1 at all.

If you're crippled by the lack of those two maneuvers you're trying to fly it like an X-wing or a TIE interceptor.

You are aware that when most of the ships in the game have Hard 2's, Forward 1 (Rebels primarily), etc. and you do not; then you are forced to play a different maneuver game, right?

And FFG gave us one maneuver to compensate (4K white)..

I am not crippled by the lack of maneuvers, the Defender is (as well as the general lack of action economy).

It is supposed to be an advanced, high performance, superiority fighter.

It is none of those.

But it does have a nice stat-line.. for about 1/3rd of your points.

Now - I get where you are coming from, you love the defender (me too!), but blindly defending it when the ship's performance so far has been and still is - lacklustre, well.

*shrug*

Blindly defending it??!!! It's been the reason I've won several games. YOU CAN'T MANEUVER IT LIKE A NORMAL SHIP, IT DOESN'T WORK.

I don't know about TP's experiences with it, but I can tell you that it my games, the Defender has been one of the best fighters I've flown.

Kudos to you. You weren't being quoted though.

Now we just need to see it perform at the top tables worldwide.

Prove the majority wrong.

Create a list with one or more Defenders that performs consistently well vs the strongest builds you opponents can throw at you.

(more often than not during tournaments but not necessarily imo)

And write up some lovely batreps.

Prove the majority wrong.

Create a list with one or more Defenders that performs consistently well vs the strongest builds you opponents can throw at you.

(more often than not during tournaments but not necessarily imo)

And write up some lovely batreps.

Biophysical has been with a 2 Defender build no less... https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/136321-putting-my-money-where-my-mouth-is-on-tie-defenders-step-2-the-store-championship/

I think there is a difference between "strong tournament builds" and less than that. The OP was playing in casual games and not at the highest levels of the game. To me, I've found these highest levels of the game to be a bit boring as it only takes specific builds to win. Just because the top 20 X-wing players in the world don't like it as it's not the most optimal use of points doesn't mean it's a bad ship, especially if it works for you. I think Defenders can do well in local tournaments against the strongest builds, but maybe it doesn't rate with the ultra elite X-wingers. Then again, few ships do. That is what makes it so boring to me.

You are aware that when most of the ships in the game have Hard 2's, Forward 1 (Rebels primarily), etc. and you do not; then you are forced to play a different maneuver game, right?

And FFG gave us one maneuver to compensate (4K white)..

I am not crippled by the lack of maneuvers, the Defender is (as well as the general lack of action economy).

It is supposed to be an advanced, high performance, superiority fighter.

It is none of those.

But it does have a nice stat-line.. for about 1/3rd of your points.

Now - I get where you are coming from, you love the defender (me too!), but blindly defending it when the ship's performance so far has been and still is - lacklustre, well.

*shrug*

Wow. Wow. You were making a decent point before you had to throw it all away with that last line.

The white K-turn isn't compensation for the lack of white turns, it is the Defender's maneuver game. If you're trying to fly it slow, it'll fail you.

You are more than welcome to prove us all wrong this year at World's.

Nothing in this game would please me more than to see it "kick ass and take names".

You are more than welcome to prove us all wrong this year at World's.

Nothing in this game would please me more than to see it "kick ass and take names".

How high would it have to get to be considered "decent" by the interwebs? Does it have to win? Does it have to be Top 32? If only one makes it to Top 32, is that good enough? Or is it a fluke?

You are more than welcome to prove us all wrong this year at World's.

Nothing in this game would please me more than to see it "kick ass and take names".

Performing well at worlds isn't necessarily a good indicator of the quality of a ship. Case in point, if Paul Heaver was flying a sub-optimal list and I was running the current hotness I would put money on him beating me.

Also if I remember correctly, the Firespray barely had a showing at Words and the Firespray is an excellent ship.

Because (and no offense to anybody when I say this) hurt fans wanted a super squint at the cost of a b-wing, and got a defender priced and performing like a defender.

/rant

Seriously it is NOT overcosted. If it was cheaper, it would be overpowered.

The ship is a monster that is underrated because it is playing in a meta where people think that 30 points is the most you can sink on a small ship.

Performing well at worlds isn't necessarily a good indicator of the quality of a ship. Case in point, if Paul Heaver was flying a sub-optimal list and I was running the current hotness I would put money on him beating me.

Also if I remember correctly, the Firespray barely had a showing at Words and the Firespray is an excellent ship.

Just wondering; what *is* a good indicator to you of the quality of a ship?

You argument about Paul heaver means nothing. It says more about him than you.

Performing well at worlds isn't necessarily a good indicator of the quality of a ship. Case in point, if Paul Heaver was flying a sub-optimal list and I was running the current hotness I would put money on him beating me.

Also if I remember correctly, the Firespray barely had a showing at Words and the Firespray is an excellent ship.

Just wondering; what *is* a good indicator to you of the quality of a ship?

You argument about Paul heaver means nothing. It says more about him than you.

With the Paul Heaver thing that's kind of the point. I can take what people consider to be an excellent list and he can take what people consider a substandard list and he'd most likely beat me. Performance at worlds has a hell of a lot more to do with the player than the individual ships, though they do matter. But that is more about figuring out what will counter the meta, which again...is about the player. So using Worlds as the indicator of the quality of a ship is not good.

For me, a ship is good if I can consistently get more out of it than what I put into it. So, if it consistently kills more points than what I put into it, it's performing well. But, as this game is really about squads and not about individual ships...it's more if that ship performs well in its squad and helps the whole squad consistently win games. Which for me, the Defender does that so it's a good ship. The Defender lacks the panache of a lot of the other ships, but it's a solid workhorse that gets the job done.

Performing well at worlds isn't necessarily a good indicator of the quality of a ship. Case in point, if Paul Heaver was flying a sub-optimal list and I was running the current hotness I would put money on him beating me.

Also if I remember correctly, the Firespray barely had a showing at Words and the Firespray is an excellent ship.

Just wondering; what *is* a good indicator to you of the quality of a ship?

You argument about Paul heaver means nothing. It says more about him than you.

yar that's the problem

with a game this complex, a good indicator of any absolute claim is going to be very difficult to come by. Juggler has the closest thing we can get using mathematiics and statistics, but while the model is great for comparing how ships wear each other down in a straight war of attrition, simple math can't hope to capture the scope of interactions players are afforded in this wonderful wonderful game

While high performance at a world's tier event can do wonders to cement the viability of a ship in the playerbase's mind, the lack thereof doesn't really prove the opposite because the amount of people that can actually go to worlds let alone play to a world's standard is a puny fraction of the overall x-wing playerbase.

The closest thing you can get to an objective "this ship sucks" is in relation to ordinance weaponry, which is by its very nature woefully inconsistent, and the ships that were designed to depend on it (most notably, going by its wave 1 preview article, the Tie Advance....while the A-wing was patched in Rebel Aces and the Bomber, though sorely lacking in variety because of the current state of ordinance, has great defensive stats for its cost and has access to the errataed prox mine plus Jonus' interaction with cannons)

This is why I try to edge towards "Defenders are great because defenders can do great work" and steer well the **** away from "Defenders are not viable"

I personally believe X-wings overall are worse off than defenders naturally because they have an inefficient jousting value but, unlike the Defender, have no way to avoid jousting (red 4k, no barrel-roll, no post maneuver movement of any sort etc). I still love them because certain characters or configurations are still unduly powerful (stress wing baby!) but it's a good example to bring up. I hold the mathematical inefficiency of the Defender as being moot next to its ability to dominate the joust, while the X-wing is not so lucky.

Performing well at worlds isn't necessarily a good indicator of the quality of a ship. Case in point, if Paul Heaver was flying a sub-optimal list and I was running the current hotness I would put money on him beating me.

Also if I remember correctly, the Firespray barely had a showing at Words and the Firespray is an excellent ship.

Just wondering; what *is* a good indicator to you of the quality of a ship?

You argument about Paul heaver means nothing. It says more about him than you.

They are defining effectiveness as their own personal experience. There's no way to argue with someone who makes decisions like that.

Prove the majority wrong.

Create a list with one or more Defenders that performs consistently well vs the strongest builds you opponents can throw at you.

(more often than not during tournaments but not necessarily imo)

And write up some lovely batreps.

Biophysical has been with a 2 Defender build no less... https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/136321-putting-my-money-where-my-mouth-is-on-tie-defenders-step-2-the-store-championship/

I won't say the tournaments I've taken this list to are top tier, or necessarily have the strongest builds (I simply don't know how the players in my area stack up to recognized "good" players), but I do know that the Defenders were sufficient, and I made mistakes in the games I lost (not trying to take anything away from those that beat me). I don't get to play all that often (spend way more time in these boards), so I know I have not reached the ceiling of the list.

I have won tourneys and come in second multiple times with this list:

Rexlar, Predator

Fell, Targeting Computer, Shield Upgrade, PTL (nowadays I would probably replace SU with AT)

Academy X2

Fel flanks. The Academies fly ahead of Rex, blocking and creating easier targets. Rex takes the heat off of Fel and hits like a hammer. Rex also hits large base ships hard in such a way that they cannot go after Fel.

I have taken down Fat Han. I have taken out Whisper and Deci lists.

It works real well. Nowadays, I might replace the Academies and +2 pts from AT with a Shuttle of some type or maybe a TIE Advanced when that drops.

Performing well at worlds isn't necessarily a good indicator of the quality of a ship. Case in point, if Paul Heaver was flying a sub-optimal list and I was running the current hotness I would put money on him beating me.

Also if I remember correctly, the Firespray barely had a showing at Words and the Firespray is an excellent ship.

Just wondering; what *is* a good indicator to you of the quality of a ship?

You argument about Paul heaver means nothing. It says more about him than you.

They are defining effectiveness as their own personal experience. There's no way to argue with someone who makes decisions like that.

That's what everyone in the thread is doing. The only real tools we have are Mathwing which doesn't tell the whole story. And also, Mathwing does say that Vessery w/ consistent target locks (which is pretty easy to get) has good efficiency.

with a game this complex, a good indicator of any absolute claim is going to be very difficult to come by. Juggler has the closest thing we can get using mathematiics and statistics, but while the model is great for comparing how ships wear each other down in a straight war of attrition, simple math can't hope to capture the scope of interactions players are afforded in this wonderful wonderful game

What MJ has frequently said is that the math can tell you how much more damage the ship needs to do than its baseline jousting potential in order to be competitive. You don't have to just drop the defender's lackluster stats as soon as players pick up a dial. The math tells you how much extra damage that dial and action bar need to give you.

Ships that score poorly on his scale are consistently underplayed. That's not all groupthink. It's a real, measurable phenomenon. Defenders aren't Knave Squadron bad, but they're pretty low on the scale.

what if we had a 0-1 cost title something along the lines of

"add the system upgrade slot to your upgrade slot thing (idk what its called) after firing your primary weapon, you may fire an ion cannon secondary weapon attack (and possibly flechette)"

this may work better as 2 seperate upgrades one title one system for defender only but here is my thinking: it limits your options (by specifying a cannon that you must use) but gives it a system upgrade to give you back your options. it works with the fact that defenders had ion cannons and that they were highly advanced fighters. the title would be cheap in working with those who say that the defender costs too much and since the ion cannon does max 1 damage it isnt going to utterly demolish things such as the HLC+primary or the mangler + primary which would reck most ships.

with a game this complex, a good indicator of any absolute claim is going to be very difficult to come by. Juggler has the closest thing we can get using mathematiics and statistics, but while the model is great for comparing how ships wear each other down in a straight war of attrition, simple math can't hope to capture the scope of interactions players are afforded in this wonderful wonderful game

What MJ has frequently said is that the math can tell you how much more damage the ship needs to do than its baseline jousting potential in order to be competitive. You don't have to just drop the defender's lackluster stats as soon as players pick up a dial. The math tells you how much extra damage that dial and action bar need to give you.

Ships that score poorly on his scale are consistently underplayed. That's not all groupthink. It's a real, measurable phenomenon. Defenders aren't Knave Squadron bad, but they're pretty low on the scale.

some ships are not played commonly

some ships are played very commonly

fat han being a very prominent and very large example

why? because there are gameplay elements at work in this game that keep it from being a value-off. It really doesn't matter how cost efficient your tie fighters are when they're never getting shots on or through Whisper, for example, until you disregard it completely and go for the more complex gameplay element of blocking the **** out of her. There are mechanics at work far above and beyond mere jousting values, else we'd just be stuck bashing tie fighters into Z-95s (or, more likely, moving onto a more interesting game). The Defender's white 4k and ion/flechette cannons are prime examples of this.

Don't forget that some aspects of tournament play favor certain ships over others. Just listen to Nova Squadron's discussion on partial points for tournaments. Right now, the rules favor large ships that are hard to kill. In 60 minutes, it is optimal to lose as few points as possible.

There is high level tournament play and then there is normal people playing the game for fun. I enjoy being in the latter.

Don't forget that some aspects of tournament play favor certain ships over others. Just listen to Nova Squadron's discussion on partial points for tournaments. Right now, the rules favor large ships that are hard to kill. In 60 minutes, it is optimal to lose as few points as possible.

There is high level tournament play and then there is normal people playing the game for fun. I enjoy being in the latter.

::sigh:: I wish more people around here were interested in playing for fun. I'm SICK TO DEATH of 100pt tournament format. Just tired of playing the same game, with the same objectives against the same builds over and over again.

with a game this complex, a good indicator of any absolute claim is going to be very difficult to come by. Juggler has the closest thing we can get using mathematiics and statistics, but while the model is great for comparing how ships wear each other down in a straight war of attrition, simple math can't hope to capture the scope of interactions players are afforded in this wonderful wonderful game

What MJ has frequently said is that the math can tell you how much more damage the ship needs to do than its baseline jousting potential in order to be competitive. You don't have to just drop the defender's lackluster stats as soon as players pick up a dial. The math tells you how much extra damage that dial and action bar need to give you.

Ships that score poorly on his scale are consistently underplayed. That's not all groupthink. It's a real, measurable phenomenon. Defenders aren't Knave Squadron bad, but they're pretty low on the scale.

some ships are not played commonly

some ships are played very commonly

fat han being a very prominent and very large example

why? because there are gameplay elements at work in this game that keep it from being a value-off. It really doesn't matter how cost efficient your tie fighters are when they're never getting shots on or through Whisper, for example, until you disregard it completely and go for the more complex gameplay element of blocking the **** out of her. There are mechanics at work far above and beyond mere jousting values, else we'd just be stuck bashing tie fighters into Z-95s (or, more likely, moving onto a more interesting game). The Defender's white 4k and ion/flechette cannons are prime examples of this.

Agreed. But they don't make the ship 30% better or whatever its cost and stats would require. In order to justify its cost that white K needs to up its effectiveness by a LOT. It just isn't enough.

My weekly game night is really good. It's been a lot of fun as the guys are just out to have a good night. The only problem is when I do try to make it to a tournament, I am not really prepared for the crazy. Still, did good at my SC. Thinking of going to Regionals, but am also tempted to not go. I kind of want to play my 4 Tie Bomber list just to be a spoiler for those guys with large, turreted ship lists. If I only ruin a few Fat Hans and Decimators, I'll be happy.

Don't forget that some aspects of tournament play favor certain ships over others. Just listen to Nova Squadron's discussion on partial points for tournaments. Right now, the rules favor large ships that are hard to kill. In 60 minutes, it is optimal to lose as few points as possible.

There is high level tournament play and then there is normal people playing the game for fun. I enjoy being in the latter.

::sigh:: I wish more people around here were interested in playing for fun. I'm SICK TO DEATH of 100pt tournament format. Just tired of playing the same game, with the same objectives against the same builds over and over again.

If you're playing over and over again against the same builds, you're doing it wrong (or rather your opponents are).