TIE Interceptors, while they have 4 lasers in the Legends EU, which X-Wing Miniatures Game follows, only actually appear in one source in the current canon - ROTJ.

And in ROTJ, Interceptors have the same laser cannons as TIE Fighters and TIE Advanced x1s. Upon watching ROTJ again, it seems Interceptors do have the 4 wing tip lasers too, making 6 cannons canon

Yes but, like you, and I, said, X-Wing Miniatures is based on the EU. Where it has 4.

Theres a hierarchy of canon, and the movies are at the top. Most of the EU is wrong.

Theres a hierarchy of canon, and the movies are at the top. Most of the EU is wrong.

Yes, but we're talking about the X-Wing Miniatures game. The game goes by the EU. That's why it's Interceptor has the attack value of a ship with 4 laser cannons.

Theres a hierarchy of canon, and the movies are at the top. Most of the EU is wrong.

Yes, but we're not talking about the movies, we're talking about the X-Wing Miniatures game, which goes by the EU. That's why it's Interceptor has the attack value of a ship with 4 laser cannons.

im looking more seriously at the defender. i think a name firespray co-pilot could work.

TIE Interceptors, while they have 4 lasers in the Legends EU, which X-Wing Miniatures Game follows, only actually appear in one source in the current canon - ROTJ.

And in ROTJ, Interceptors have the same laser cannons as TIE Fighters and TIE Advanced x1s. Upon watching ROTJ again, it seems Interceptors do have the 4 wing tip lasers too, making 6 cannons canon

Yes but, like you, and I, said, X-Wing Miniatures is based on the EU. Where it has 4.

Can't trump the films themselves.

The EU's explanation (and likely the new canon which is following suit in practically everything but plot) was that they have four standard but because the TIE ball cockpits is a standard component shared between the TIE fighter and TIE interceptor they still have the mounts for the chin guns: the reason they don't mount them is because the onboard power plant can't take it. Some modified interceptors with beefier power systems have those chin cannons installed.

It's fairly moot though because attack dice are a gameplay abstraction, there's no formula for them. They're linked to firepower so more guns (assuming similar guns) usually means more attack dice but there's no hard and fast formula and no reason FFG can't defy that casual link as and when they feel the gameplay benefits from it. Most sources depicted the phantom as undergunned before FFG made it a wrecking ball in the firepower department.

Can't trump the films themselves.

You can if the game is based on the EU, and not the films. Which XWMG is.

I've tried most of the oddball lists that made top 8's, just to see what they are capable of. The defender list was one of the least effective. I don't doubt that he had strong opponents, but that win is on the player, not those ships.

Jack: I don't think [insert anything] will ever do well.

Jill: [That thing] did well.

Jack: It must be some other reason.

indeed

generally players have very little influence over the success of their lists in tactical miniature games

I've tried most of the oddball lists that made top 8's, just to see what they are capable of. The defender list was one of the least effective. I don't doubt that he had strong opponents, but that win is on the player, not those ships.

Jack: I don't think [insert anything] will ever do well.

Jill: [That thing] did well.

Jack: It must be some other reason.

indeed

generally players have very little influence over the success of their lists in tactical miniature games

I never said the double-D player didn't have influence over his success by being skilled. I agree he did. I'm pointing out the fallacy that TTR discounts the value of the list due to his pre-conceived belief.

Can't trump the films themselves.

You can if the game is based on the EU, and not the films. Which XWMG is.

It's fairly moot though because attack dice are a gameplay abstraction, there's no formula for them.

Are you sure?

Because so far, it looks like 2 lasers = 2 attack, 3-4 lasers = 3 attack, 5 lasers = 4 attack.

I haven't looked at every ship in the game yet, but if there are exceptions to this, I haven't seen any.

In the Legends continunity the films still overrule everything. However, what the films stated are that TIE interceptor with working chin cannons exist. That's not the same as all TIE interceptors have working chin cannons.

On the guns, firstly correlation does not equal causality. Secondly, Lambda's got eight I think, nobody's quite sure how many the HWK has but it's not one, Decimator and Falcon have either eight or two depending on if you count the whole mount, if you count the whole mount then the Firespray has two, the Kihraxz has two but three attack, the CR-90 has a turbolaser on it and who knows where the primary on the Raider is.

There's a fairly strong link between the number of laser cannons and attack dice, but it's a casual one, not a design formula. Usually if a ship's got more guns on it it hits harder so it has higher attack dice. The X-wing has three dice not because it has four guns but because it wouldn't work great with two or with four.

All Tie Models featuring the standard eyeball-cockpit have the chin-cannon mounds.

But only the Tie Fighters actually use them.

It was also sayd that the Tie Interceptors in ROTJ were prototypish and had 2 laser cannons and 4 blaster cannons in the wingtips. But well.

Tie Defenders have 4 laser cannons and 2 ion cannons. But even in the computer games you could not fire all at the same time. You switched. You attacked shielded targets with ion cannons first to kill the shilds twice as fast as you did with lasers, then you switched to lasers to attack the hull. The interesting part also was the Energy Management. Both cannon types had their own energy banks. if one was depleted, you switched to the other cannon type while the banks of the first one were recharged...

The Tie Phantom actually use the chin cannons and the wing cannons at the same time. So attack value 4 is just perfect.

For X-Wing basically it goes this way:

2 Light Laser Cannons = 1 die

2 Medium Laser Cannons = 2 dice

3 Medium Laser Cannons = 3 dice

4 Medium Laser Cannons = 3 dice

5 Medium Laser Cannons = 4 dice

I've tried most of the oddball lists that made top 8's, just to see what they are capable of. The defender list was one of the least effective. I don't doubt that he had strong opponents, but that win is on the player, not those ships.

Jack: I don't think [insert anything] will ever do well.

Jill: [That thing] did well.

Jack: It must be some other reason.

indeed

generally players have very little influence over the success of their lists in tactical miniature games

I never said the double-D player didn't have influence over his success by being skilled. I agree he did. I'm pointing out the fallacy that TTR discounts the value of the list due to his pre-conceived belief.

it's a pretty good pre-conceived belief in this case, however, in that it's not at all unfounded

the defender has no evade, no thrusters, (no guaranteed damage cancellation), a startlingly low amount of health for a 2-ship build, minimal action efficiency and almost useless pilot abilities because the build does nothing to enable them. 2 defender list is very much a crapshoot without dice modifications beyond the one focus and possibly predator

this isn't really the fault of the defender's overall quality, just that it objectively does not have the tools that make for an effective (re: reliable) 2-ship build. I wouldn't be surprised to see it crop up elsewhere (Esp when Vessery gets his friendly ATC buddies), but if the current stock of defenders ever make for a popular competitive 2-ship build then I will be more than a little surprised.

I've tried most of the oddball lists that made top 8's, just to see what they are capable of. The defender list was one of the least effective. I don't doubt that he had strong opponents, but that win is on the player, not those ships.

Jack: I don't think [insert anything] will ever do well.

Jill: [That thing] did well.

Jack: It must be some other reason.

indeed

generally players have very little influence over the success of their lists in tactical miniature games

I never said the double-D player didn't have influence over his success by being skilled. I agree he did. I'm pointing out the fallacy that TTR discounts the value of the list due to his pre-conceived belief.

it's a pretty good pre-conceived belief in this case, however, in that it's not at all unfounded

the defender has no evade, no thrusters, (no guaranteed damage cancellation), a startlingly low amount of health for a 2-ship build, minimal action efficiency and almost useless pilot abilities because the build does nothing to enable them. 2 defender list is very much a crapshoot without dice modifications beyond the one focus and possibly predator

this isn't really the fault of the defender's overall quality, just that it objectively does not have the tools that make for an effective (re: reliable) 2-ship build. I wouldn't be surprised to see it crop up elsewhere (Esp when Vessery gets his friendly ATC buddies), but if the current stock of defenders ever make for a popular competitive 2-ship build then I will be more than a little surprised.

If the meta changes and it begins to do well in tournaments, will you refuse the evidence because of your pretty good pre-conceived belief?

well sure I'd change my tune, but it has to do well consistently in tournaments first. Why, if mathmaticians ever discover the 361st degree then 2 defenders could trump PWTs and well become dominating overnight! Hell, after that we'd unearth the next meta terror in PTL + double ADV proton rhymer!

given that there's no real game mechanic in place currently for 2 defenders to do well apart from small size and white 4k (which makes them ace against aggressors, turns out; just have to properly abuse obstructions and the robits' giant bases) though, especially without any guaranteed defenses to reign in those green dice, basically all I can say is

(you're going to need it)

Secondly, Lambda's got eight I think

Standard configuration is 4 laser cannons(consistent with it's 3 attack), and 6 blaster cannons(represented by the Heavy Laser Cannon in it's Cannon slot).

The Firespray's weapons are gatling lasers.

Where does it say that? They seriously don't look like the word "gatling" has anything to do with them.

The Firespray's weapons are gatling lasers.

Where does it say that? They seriously don't look like the word "gatling" has anything to do with them.

The Firesprays' primary weapons are 2 rapid-fire laser cannons.

If you imagine that they fire twice as fast as standard laser cannons, you technically have the same firepower as an X-Wing = 3 dice

The Firespray's weapons are gatling lasers.

Where does it say that? They seriously don't look like the word "gatling" has anything to do with them.

The Firesprays' primary weapons are 2 rapid-fire laser cannons.

If you imagine that they fire twice as fast as standard laser cannons, you technically have the same firepower as an X-Wing = 3 dice

While I don't disagree, "gatling" describes a rotating multi-barreled weapon. Gatling and rapid fire aren't synonymous, so I'm wondering what his source is that they're "gatling lasers"?

Decimator and Falcon have either eight or two depending on if you count the whole mount, .

Decimator and Falcon both have a quad laser turret(consistent with their 3 attack), though neither ship's rules seem to acknowledge that they have 2 turrets.

The Gunner and Luke Skywalker Crew represent the second turret.

The Firespray's weapons are gatling lasers.

Where does it say that? They seriously don't look like the word "gatling" has anything to do with them.

The Firesprays' primary weapons are 2 rapid-fire laser cannons.

If you imagine that they fire twice as fast as standard laser cannons, you technically have the same firepower as an X-Wing = 3 dice

While I don't disagree, "gatling" describes a rotating multi-barreled weapon. Gatling and rapid fire aren't synonymous, so I'm wondering what his source is that they're "gatling lasers"?

True - I would rather imagine Autoblasters and Flechette Cannons as 'Gatling' lasers. In fact, I don't thin there was a Mr. Gatling in the Star Wars Universe to invent those.

Decimator and Falcon have either eight or two depending on if you count the whole mount, .

Decimator and Falcon both have a quad laser turret(consistent with their 3 attack), though neither ship's rules seem to acknowledge that they have 2 turrets.

The Gunner and Luke Skywalker Crew represent the second turret.

The Firespray's weapons are gatling lasers.

Where does it say that? They seriously don't look like the word "gatling" has anything to do with them.

The Firesprays' primary weapons are 2 rapid-fire laser cannons.

If you imagine that they fire twice as fast as standard laser cannons, you technically have the same firepower as an X-Wing = 3 dice

While I don't disagree, "gatling" describes a rotating multi-barreled weapon. Gatling and rapid fire aren't synonymous, so I'm wondering what his source is that they're "gatling lasers"?

True - I would rather imagine Autoblasters and Flechette Cannons as 'Gatling' lasers. In fact, I don't thin there was a Mr. Gatling in the Star Wars Universe to invent those.

I like that Gunner/Luke represent the second turret. That actually makes a whole lot of sense... although they should just give 2 shots instead of a shot only if the first misses. But that'd be very OP.

True - thats about balancing.

If you think about it - tecnically a gunner just make sense if there is a turret that can be manned.

Or at least a weapon system thats works independently.

It may be also balancing that the gunner don't work with the Outrider.

True - thats about balancing.

If you think about it - tecnically a gunner just make sense if there is a turret that can be manned.

Or at least a weapon system thats works independently.

It may be also balancing that the gunner don't work with the Outrider.

Yep, that also fits quite well with how the cards state "primary weapon attack" - so if you use a HLC, Ion Cannon or Mangler with the Lambda, Firespray or B-Wing/E2 then the gunner uses the primary...

True - thats about balancing.

If you think about it - tecnically a gunner just make sense if there is a turret that can be manned.

Or at least a weapon system thats works independently.

It may be also balancing that the gunner don't work with the Outrider.

Yep, that also fits quite well with how the cards state "primary weapon attack" - so if you use a HLC, Ion Cannon or Mangler with the Lambda, Firespray or B-Wing/E2 then the gunner uses the primary...

Yeas ... almost. I had more weapons system in mind that are able to aim (almost) independently from the direction of the craft and pilot. Those cannons are fixed to the front. A dedicated gunner that fires them would just make no sense. So a turret would be the best example - but also ordnance with guidance systems.

So if a Tie Bomber had a crew slot, it would be possible in theory that the pilot operates the laser cannons while the 'Gunner' operates the Missiles. But we know thats not like things work in the star wars universe - even for missiles to lock you have to pinpoint the target with the crosshairs you use for the fixed laser cannons.

As for the Firespray the gunner could operate the primary weapons, which are flexible and not fixed into one position as we know - while the Pilot operates the ion/heavy cannons which are fixed.

Hence the Gunner (and Luke crew) came with the Falcon and the Firespray to game!

Eventually, refusal to acknowledge an obvious pattern just becomes stubbornness.

Oh, I certainly acknowledge a link between gun count and attack dice is there. But again, correlation doesn't necessarily equal causality. There's a good correlation between dropping pirate numbers and rising temperatures.

What I'm not buying is that it's a deliberately crafted formula based on the number of laser cannons that FFG will not break whenever it suits them. Yes, you can explain most of the ships that don't fit the model but once you're fitting the facts to the model rather than the model to the facts you've got to ask yourself how good the model was in the first place.

There's a link between gun count and attack dice because there's a link between gun count and firepower and then a link between firepower and attack dice. The more heavily armed ships have higher attack dice, the ships with higher firepower and the ability to bring that firepower to bear have higher attack dice. The Lambda's very heavily armed but not a particularly maneuverable platform, the Falcon can't use both its turrets at once unless it's coplanar with its target, and the phantom attacks from under a cloak. There's more to it than just how many guns they've got. And sometimes canonical firepower is ignored completely in favour of gameplay.

And again, Kihrax Fighter.

Eventually, refusal to acknowledge an obvious pattern just becomes stubbornness.

Oh, I certainly acknowledge a link between gun count and attack dice is there. But again, correlation doesn't necessarily equal causality. There's a good correlation between dropping pirate numbers and rising temperatures.

What I'm not buying is that it's a deliberately crafted formula based on the number of laser cannons that FFG will not break whenever it suits them. Yes, you can explain most of the ships that don't fit the model but once you're fitting the facts to the model rather than the model to the facts you've got to ask yourself how good the model was in the first place.

There's a link between gun count and attack dice because there's a link between gun count and firepower and then a link between firepower and attack dice. The more heavily armed ships have higher attack dice, the ships with higher firepower and the ability to bring that firepower to bear have higher attack dice. The Lambda's very heavily armed but not a particularly maneuverable platform, the Falcon can't use both its turrets at once unless it's coplanar with its target, and the phantom attacks from under a cloak. There's more to it than just how many guns they've got. And sometimes canonical firepower is ignored completely in favour of gameplay.

And again, Kihrax Fighter.

Like already stated in this thread, Lambdas have a standard armament of 4 laser cannons, just like X-Wings.

-> 3 red dice.

The 'military version' got ion cannons or + 4 laser cannons in addition. The latter is represented by the heavy laser in the box.

8 laser cannons at a time would just blast the game.

The military version Lambdas were used to attack/disable capital ships.

-> It IS how many guns they've got + balancing

I've tried most of the oddball lists that made top 8's, just to see what they are capable of. The defender list was one of the least effective. I don't doubt that he had strong opponents, but that win is on the player, not those ships.

Jack: I don't think [insert anything] will ever do well.

Jill: [That thing] did well.

Jack: It must be some other reason.

indeed

generally players have very little influence over the success of their lists in tactical miniature games

I never said the double-D player didn't have influence over his success by being skilled. I agree he did. I'm pointing out the fallacy that TTR discounts the value of the list due to his pre-conceived belief.

it's a pretty good pre-conceived belief in this case, however, in that it's not at all unfounded

the defender has no evade, no thrusters, (no guaranteed damage cancellation), a startlingly low amount of health for a 2-ship build, minimal action efficiency and almost useless pilot abilities because the build does nothing to enable them. 2 defender list is very much a crapshoot without dice modifications beyond the one focus and possibly predator

this isn't really the fault of the defender's overall quality, just that it objectively does not have the tools that make for an effective (re: reliable) 2-ship build. I wouldn't be surprised to see it crop up elsewhere (Esp when Vessery gets his friendly ATC buddies), but if the current stock of defenders ever make for a popular competitive 2-ship build then I will be more than a little surprised.

If the meta changes and it begins to do well in tournaments, will you refuse the evidence because of your pretty good pre-conceived belief?