Maybe this has already been mentioned as a possible Defender fix, but I would go with:

Linked Ion Cannon

Cannon Upgrade (not a secondary weapon)

TIE Defender Only

3 Points

When you attack with your primary weapon, if the attack hits, the defender receives one Ion token.

Maybe it could be 2 points, and maybe 2 ion tokens, but you get the idea.

--mjg

Maybe this has already been mentioned as a possible Defender fix, but I would go with:

Linked Ion Cannon

Cannon Upgrade (not a secondary weapon)

TIE Defender Only

3 Points

When you attack with your primary weapon, if the attack hits, the defender receives one Ion token.

Maybe it could be 2 points, and maybe 2 ion tokens, but you get the idea.

--mjg

I'd make it free, actually, but that's exactly the same thought I've had a couple of times.

Maybe this has already been mentioned as a possible Defender fix, but I would go with:

Linked Ion Cannon

Cannon Upgrade (not a secondary weapon)

TIE Defender Only

3 Points

When you attack with your primary weapon, if the attack hits, the defender receives one Ion token.

Maybe it could be 2 points, and maybe 2 ion tokens, but you get the idea.

--mjg

My issue with this is that you are preventing any other ion-capable craft from doing the same thing. Linked Guns should be a modification that works with any cannon, or a cannon slot that forces the user to take an ion cannon as well, like that Punishing One title.

I totally want that effect, but I want Bwings and Gunboats (and I suppose IG2000s too) to have it too, and have it be priced appropriately. Which still leaves the Defender overpriced.

Seriously, can people STOP making new threads to post their own personal Defender fix idea? We already have a thread for that.

That said, the correct answer is still:

+

These are the only canonical suggestions I've seen on this thread. My one suggestion would to change the title to something like "Gain an additional cannon slot if you take a tractor beam.", instead of just adding another slot.

My one suggestion would to change the title to something like "Gain an additional cannon slot if you take a tractor beam.", instead of just adding another slot.

I'd be fine with that. Something that forces at least one of the two Cannon slots to be...canon slots.

Seriously, can people STOP making new threads to post their own personal Defender fix idea? We already have a thread for that.

That said, the correct answer is still:

+

These are the only canonical suggestions I've seen on this thread. My one suggestion would to change the title to something like "Gain an additional cannon slot if you take a tractor beam.", instead of just adding another slot.

Flavor and lore are important, but they always take a back seat to solid game design. Always.

I will respectfully have to disagree.

I think if this was a generic IP, I would completely agree. However, because this is sold as a Star Wars game there is an inherent expectation that the game matches the Star Wars universe.

That still requires balance, an expectation of fairness, which is achieved through the points system.

I will respectfully have to disagree.

I think if this was a generic IP, I would completely agree. However, because this is sold as a Star Wars game there is an inherent expectation that the game matches the Star Wars universe.

That still requires balance, an expectation of fairness, which is achieved through the points system.

A strong game sold under a popular license will pick up new players, keep old players around, and continue to grow as a hobby. A crappy game sold under a popular license will... well, how many people showed up for WotC's Star Wars Miniatures this year at GenCon? How about the Star Wars CCG from Decipher? And how's Star Trek: Attack Wing doing?

Given the choice between a TIE Defender faithfully built to its original Mary Sue specifications and one that casts a recognizable sketch of the canon Defender while remaining an interesting and unique game element, I'll take the latter every time.

Given the choice between a TIE Defender faithfully built to its original Mary Sue specifications and one that casts a recognizable sketch of the canon Defender while remaining an interesting and unique game element, I'll take the latter every time.

Well, given that the ship currently ISN'T the latter, and the former is not a problem as long as the ship has the proper cost, I'll take the former.

Given the choice between a TIE Defender faithfully built to its original Mary Sue specifications and one that casts a recognizable sketch of the canon Defender while remaining an interesting and unique game element, I'll take the latter every time.

Well, given that the ship currently ISN'T the latter, and the former is not a problem as long as the ship has the proper cost, I'll take the former.

Recognizable as a Defender? Powerful, fast, and maneuverable. Check.

Interesting and Unique? Dial like no other, no obvious power builds, useful against a wide array of opponents.

Check.

How is it not the latter?

Well, given that the ship currently ISN'T the latter

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/TIE/D_Defender/Canon

I believe he was suggesting it's not longer canon, but I may be misreading.

Recognizable as a Defender? Powerful, fast, and maneuverable. Check.

Interesting and Unique? Dial like no other, no obvious power builds, useful against a wide array of opponents.

Check.

It's no more fast or maneuverable than half the other ships in the game.

Other than that white K-turn, it's dial is terrible for what is supposed to be the most maneuverable starfighter in the galaxy.

It has about half the durability that it's supposed to.

And it currently can't carry the Ion Cannons and Tractor Beam that it's supposed to be able to.

So, no, it's a pretty ****ing **** representation of the Defender.

It's a pretty accurate representation of the Defender after all the "Imperial Homer" **** has been stripped away~?

What is that?

This is not a very granular game. The TIE Defender can be a reasonable approximation of the more modest video game representations and not have vastly different stats than other ships in some categories.

This is not a very granular game. The TIE Defender can be a reasonable approximation of the more modest video game representations and not have vastly different stats than other ships in some categories.

The point is, it's supposed to be categorically faster and more maneuverable than, say, the Interceptor or the A-Wing. And if it at least MATCHED those ships, I would be like "Okay, no granularity, they're at least in the same broad category of "fastest ships"."

But it's not. Those ships both have Boost. Making them faster. They have much better dials and Evade, and the equal agility. That makes them much more maneuverable than the Defender overall. It's NOT in the same category. It's a category below, when it's supposed to be a category above.

People, please, this Iisnt about interesting canon ways to make the defender good. This is about BORING ways to fix the defenders numbers.

Im not opposed to linking ion cannons, but itvshould be balanced for BBBB and Brobots, not relegated to being a mere defender fix.

Boring? Defender title: -3 points

Im not opposed to linking ion cannons, but itvshould be balanced for BBBB and Brobots, not relegated to being a mere defender fix.

I do agree with this. Firing Laser and Ion cannons simultaneously was something that every ship with Ion cannons could do in Alliance. Not just Defenders. That upgrade shouldn't be limited to just Defenders.

To fix the Defender, they need to add 3 hull and 1 shield. And give it the evade action.

That might unbalance things a bit, so lower the agility down to 2 and remove the white K-turn. Might as well give it some non-red hard turns.

Hmm, but we still want it to joust well, let's give it an auxillary firing arc.

That might be too good actually. Increase the cost of the ship by 3 points.

Now put it on a large base.

Perfect!

I will respectfully have to disagree.

I think if this was a generic IP, I would completely agree. However, because this is sold as a Star Wars game there is an inherent expectation that the game matches the Star Wars universe.

That still requires balance, an expectation of fairness, which is achieved through the points system.

Most consumers don't know about that part of the Star Wars universe, that no longer exists btw. There is no reason for them to promote materials they won't make a profit off of.

The linked Ion cannon could be something like this:

Cannon

Tie Defender Only - 2 points

Once per turn, when you hit an enemy ship wth your primary weapon, you may reduce the damage you deal by 1 to give the defender an Ion token.

The tie fighter version was Mary sue in the extreme faster more manuverable with stronger shields and fantastic firepower I loved it.

But it's got no place on the table top if you want to preserve balance.

The tie fighter version was Mary sue in the extreme faster more manuverable with stronger shields and fantastic firepower I loved it.

But it's got no place on the table top if you want to preserve balance.

Unless it was 40+ points.

In the EU the TIE Defender was literally the best Starfighter ever created, though it was hideously expensive and required ace pilots to use. That can translate very well to X-wing if you ask me. Just look at the relationship between the Z-95 and X-wing, or the TIE Fighter and TIE Interceptor.

Most consumers don't know about that part of the Star Wars universe, that no longer exists btw.

It exists as much as it ever did. The EU has never been canon to the films. And now it, still isn't. Nothing has changed.

In the EU the TIE Defender was literally the best Starfighter ever created, though it was hideously expensive and required ace pilots to use. That can translate very well to X-wing if you ask me. Just look at the relationship between the Z-95 and X-wing, or the TIE Fighter and TIE Interceptor.

Exactly. It's not like this game doesn't already have ships that take up more than half of the points of a competitive list.

The Defender should be the most powerful starfighter in the game, and should cost as such.