Let me know how that Scyk performs for you! I see it gets just as much screen time on the world stage as the Defender does!

Don't bother flying a Defender until the fix has been released. If wasn't broke (over-costed) then FFG wouldn't bother fixing it.

Nonsense. They are opening up new solid builds for the Defender, but there's a reason HLC builds didn't get any love in Imperial Veterans. Those are already solid builds.

Well, I must have missed reading where multiple Defenders have been winning various tournaments across the world and showing up quite regularly on other top tables. Can you point me to the data, please?

You said "don't bother flying the Defender", with no qualifiers at all. I don't think winning tournaments across the world is a very good requirement for considering something a playable ship. If that was the viewpoint everyone had, we wouldn't have lists like KineticOperator's Triple K-wing/Tactician Danger Zone list. I'm not naive, and I don't think that a handful of local tournament wins and a top 4 at a Regionals should be considered data, but as far as I can tell, I'm one of the only people who's seriously even tried this sort of list. I'm pretty good, but I don't think I'm some kind of savant. There's no reason for me to think that my experiences with Defenders should be unique. I can point to specific choices I made in almost all of my losses that would have given me a better chance to win, the ship has not proven to be a limitation to me.

Knowing my own successes and limitations as a player, I can't help but think that they could have more success if people took some time to seriously play them.

Let me know how that Scyk performs for you! I see it gets just as much screen time on the world stage as the Defender does!

No problem.

Bio, what you said about the defender holds true for pretty much every ship right now. People just don't take the time to learn the ship, they immediately write things off. Hell I've had good success with generic E wings. Though they might be truly one of the last ships that just don't quite make the cut, well them and scyks.

I played a Defender. I tried Rexler, a lot. I couldn't get him to work. My conclusion was that he was over-costed for what he offers. I didn't need joust values or other modelled numbers to tell me that. I used my experience to figure out that he wasn't doing it for me. I wanted him to be good, I really tried. But, like the TIE-Advanced, I gave up flying it.

The hard data can't be disputed - Defenders do not show up often on top tables.

There might be a slight disconnect with how we are evaluating ships. Obviously I am looking at tournament data, while you're looking in a different place of general utility? You had an excellent anomalous result with Defenders. Awesome for you.

I'll try Rexler again, when the x7 is released.

No hate to you, man. I'm happy talking X-Wing all the time and happy to disagree with people's opinions. I'm also wiling to try people's opinions as well. It's just a game! It's easier talking crap at a FLGS than it is on an Internet forum.

I've placed in a tournament using the pre-fix defender paired with a firespray and a bomber.

Not the most competitive environment in the World, but the ships are by no means useless and can be made to perform very well. I can't wait to try this list after Vets comes out.

http://xwing-builder.co.uk/view/388146/hunting-party

Let me know how that Scyk performs for you! I see it gets just as much screen time on the world stage as the Defender does!

Well tournament play counts for 10% more or less of all players so I don't think that should be the sole qualifier of what is and isn't good to be honest.

People have been telling me defenders suck since release but funnily that's not stopped me winning.

Well tournament play counts for 10% more or less of all players so I don't think that should be the sole qualifier of what is and isn't good to be honest.

Especially when a lot of the major tournament players tend to take very few risks, and their lists tend to be variations on a theme. Hell, some of the players at Worlds who think outside the box and try something unexpected do very well (look at the three K-Wing list, for example).

Well tournament play counts for 10% more or less of all players so I don't think that should be the sole qualifier of what is and isn't good to be honest.

The competitive cohort of X-Wing players, have, for the most part, not been able to post top results using a Defender. The hard data shows this.

How do you define 'good' and 'not good' if you don't consider the tournament data?

Especially when a lot of the major tournament players tend to take very few risks, and their lists tend to be variations on a theme.

That just reinforces my point!

'Major tournament players' don't want to take risks using Defenders.

The hard data shows this.

Especially when a lot of the major tournament players tend to take very few risks, and their lists tend to be variations on a theme.

That just reinforces my point!

'Major tournament players' don't want to take risks using Defenders.

The hard data shows this.

The "risk" involved is using something that doesn't have established, quantifiable results, not a risk of using a worse list. Your conclusion doesn't follow.

The "risk" involved is using something that doesn't have established, quantifiable results, not a risk of using a worse list. Your conclusion doesn't follow.

That's a guess as to why 'major tournament players' are not using Defenders. You have no data to support that opinion.

An alternative explanation (guess) is that 'major tournament players' have tried using Defenders and decided that they were not good enough, based on their own established and quantifiable internal play-testing results.

I have no data to support that opinion, but I would be surprised if 'major tournament players' did not have at least some casual experience with each ship. If a ship isn't performing well during internal play-testing would you run it at higher level competitions?

The undeniable and indisputable fact is that tournament data shows that Defenders are mostly absent from top tables.

Why is that so, if the Defender is currently a solid ship?

The tournament players also didn't want to shift away from fat turrets even after the big bad phantom got changed.

Why? Because to win you take the safest choice with the fewest risks so all tournament lists show is which ships can survive cold dice and mistakes consistently.

So no I don't slavishly take tournament players word a ships good or bad because they tend to play things safe for legitimate reasons, I make my own judgment based on actually flying the ships.

Not all of us are scared of taking a little risk.

Hobo, none of what you typed helps to explain why the tournament data shows that Defenders are (mostly) absent from top tables.

Why is it absent from top tables if it is a solid ship?

Wouldn't a solid ship have better top table results than what the Defender has posted?

I'm waiting for the Defender to be good. I want it to be good. However, past tournament data has shown that it is not a competitive ship at the top tables.

Anyway, it's midnight in Australia. I have to go bed.

Hopefully, overnight, someone can explain to me how a ship can be considered solid and good, even though the tournament data completely disagrees. Why do we bother collecting tournament data if we choose to ignore it?

Remember, it's all academic. I'm having fun here and I would love to sit around a table talking with you all face-to-face.

Hobo, none of what you typed helps to explain why the tournament data shows that Defenders are (mostly) absent from top tables.

Why is it absent from top tables if it is a solid ship?

Wouldn't a solid ship have better top table results than what the Defender has posted?

I'm waiting for the Defender to be good. I want it to be good. However, past tournament data has shown that it is not a competitive ship at the top tables.

Anyway, it's midnight in Australia. I have to go bed.

Hopefully, overnight, someone can explain to me how a ship can be considered solid and good, even though the tournament data completely disagrees. Why do we bother collecting tournament data if we choose to ignore it?

Remember, it's all academic. I'm having fun here and I would love to sit around a table talking with you all face-to-face.

The listjuggler data, last time I looked, shows Defenders largely absent at all, not just absent from the top tables. They're sample size is incredibly small. Maybe it's because people try them and don't have success, and so they aren't even fielded in tournaments in the first place. Better players than me have tried them and found them wanting. Consequently, I see it as a lack of data about Defender's success in the competitive arena, not a presence of data showing that a Defender performs poorly in tournaments. This is part of the reason I've written regarding my experiences pretty extensively, I'm both trying to get more people to give it a shot, and to help interested players get through some of the initial difficulties of using a TIE Defender. I'm trying to generate data. Not much success so far, admittedly.

The "risk" involved is using something that doesn't have established, quantifiable results, not a risk of using a worse list. Your conclusion doesn't follow.

How do you know that's the cause of the risk?

That's a guess as to why 'major tournament players' are not using Defenders. You have no data to support that opinion.

An alternative explanation (guess) is that 'major tournament players' have tried using Defenders and decided that they were not good enough, based on their own established and quantifiable internal play-testing results.

I have no data to support that opinion, but I would be surprised if 'major tournament players' did not have at least some casual experience with each ship. If a ship isn't performing well during internal play-testing would you run it at higher level competitions?

The undeniable and indisputable fact is that tournament data shows that Defenders are mostly absent from top tables.

Why is that so, if the Defender is currently a solid ship?

I didn't say anything about Defenders there but I'm willing to engage with that subject too.

The only risk I can identify in the use of "safer" lists in a tournament is that of bringing something that hasn't been tested to a degree comparable to popular netlists. It's one thing to test your list yourself, and it's always a good idea, but it can't compete with the collective of information we compile on the web. As such, it's a risk in an insurance sense: it's a variable that hasn't been or can't be rigorously examined to produce repeatable, quantifiable results.

As far as Defenders go, I agree that they were overcosted and lacked access to important flexibility to stand against popular metagame decisions since their introduction. Their impressive statline and...unusual dial were made too expensive for what they could provide against Large-base turrets while also being ineffective in the face of arc-dodging high-PS ships. Their cost needed to be more approachable, and their 3AGI could not consistently preserve their 6HP without the Evade action . The forthcoming x7 title addresses both of these points pretty dang handily. The TIE/D title is a nice option for both damage and control at, again, a better price point (adding only a 1-3 point Cannon to gain two R1-3 attacks each round is unprecedented; even the BTL-A4 title requires a much more expensive Turret investment for more limited returns).

I've always felt the Defender to be a solid little ship that swam away from the metagame too early; it didn't have the action bar/economy to compete against fat turrets, its top pilot was a poor arc-dodger, and to top it all off it it was immediately overshadowed by the obviously-superior TIE/ph. But even despite all that, I have always been able to earn a degree of success using them. I maintain the Delta Defender has always been the best blocker in the game, and Col. Vessery has a pilot ability that partly addresses his stiff action economy; both of these are made even better by the forthcoming titles. But finally the Onyx pilot and Rexlar Brath may very well become competitive due to the options present to them.

The fact that these ships are not represented whatsoever at top-level competitive play is, frankly, partly due to their lack of representation at top-level competitive play. It's a very recursive system and always has been; we watch Regionals results to learn what to fly at Nationals, watch Nationals to see what to bring to Worlds...what gets played is what has success, generally, and what generates success is that which is consistent. The Defenders (and the Scyk, and the E-Wing besides Corran Horn, and the generic StarVipers) lack consistency in performance compared to Han Solo or Soontir Fel. That's the crux of the issue. I never brought a Defender to a tournament because I had no way of knowing if it would last through two rounds of combat or ten; it's done both in my personal experience, so I can't rely on it over 6 games back-to-back. The error bars were too large, and I wanted something more likely to return consistent results. I imagine many other players felt similarly.

I can appreciate your desire to have a good-natured academic discussion about this! I feel the same way. However, please stop calling for data when we can instead have an exchange of opinions; that isn't conducive to positive discussion.

Back to the topic of Defender+Firespray, what are people's thoughts on this?

91 points

Rexler

-HLC

-Predator

-TIE Mk II

Kath

-mangler cannon

-gunner

I'm having a bit of trouble figuring out the last 9 points. After guidance chips come out I'm probably going to ditch the cannon for missiles and torpedoes, but I'm not sure until then.

I flew a defender+firespray list last regionals season and it was fun but not a good meta call. Both had hlc and predator and boba was carrying a fleet officer to boost rexler's ability. The problem was it's a 2 ship joust list which crushed other big+small ship lists at the time but it itself was a 2 ship list which got smacked by bbbbz. Even after the fix(es) you end up with a really good jouster (defender) and a meaty anchor ship (firespray) but you get chewed on by other super joust lists since the firespray just burns down hard against heavy fire. Arc dodgers are also pretty annoying.

As an aside to the other discussion, defenders have always been solid but neither of their pilots are impressive enough to carry them so far. Vessery was too parasitic before ties that like target locks (fo, atc advanced, tap) and rexler is just awful at action economy. In a tournament setting you usually don't take just solid ships unless they're really cheap like bwings. Tournament play revolves around ships that aren't just fine but ships that are exceptional for one reason or another as these take less work to push into the top tables.

Back to the topic of Defender+Firespray, what are people's thoughts on this?

91 points

Rexler

-HLC

-Predator

-TIE Mk II

Kath

-mangler cannon

-gunner

I'm having a bit of trouble figuring out the last 9 points. After guidance chips come out I'm probably going to ditch the cannon for missiles and torpedoes, but I'm not sure until then.

Id start with EU and tactician for the synergy. Or see below for some other ideas.

Since I'm on my firespray kick too lately I took this for a spin today:

Boba- Slave 1, VI, tactician, EM, cluster missiles, proton bombs, PRS

Vess- tie/D, ruthlessness, ion cannon, extra shield.

It was very fun and did.. ok although it started out excellent. The combo of /D white K and cluster tactician is ridiculous but overall this list is not the place for vess, IMO. Bonus pts for Ruthlessness putting 1 damage on each of wedge and jake before vess went down though which was cool. From there it was downhill. LRS I'm torn on. Fett needs the action but without boost once they close in its hard to acquire a lock meaning his dice are unmodified the rest of the game.

Now I'm thinking about trying this for funsies based on Vulf mentioning agent Kallus which I'd never considered..

Boba Rex- "none the fatter"

Back to the topic of Defender+Firespray, what are people's thoughts on this?

91 points

Rexler

-HLC

-Predator

-TIE Mk II

Kath

-mangler cannon

-gunner

I'm having a bit of trouble figuring out the last 9 points. After guidance chips come out I'm probably going to ditch the cannon for missiles and torpedoes, but I'm not sure until then.

Switch gunner to Tactician or rebel captive. Toss EU on, then you could probably get away with PTL, VI, juke, or a EPT of your choice. Could toss on slave 1, EM and some proxi mines with it.

Back to the topic of Defender+Firespray, what are people's thoughts on this?

91 points

Rexler

-HLC

-Predator

-TIE Mk II

Kath

-mangler cannon

-gunner

I'm having a bit of trouble figuring out the last 9 points. After guidance chips come out I'm probably going to ditch the cannon for missiles and torpedoes, but I'm not sure until then.

I've run a similar Rexler and he's a monster if he doesn't get focussed down immediately. I used PtL and stapled on a Proton Rocket too (PtL TL+F to a 5-dice attack with Brath's ability was a huge deal before they revealed the TIE/D title). I think Ion TIE/D is going to be the way to go moving forward, but I stand by the PtL/MkII combo on Brath since it gives him action economy and a nice suite of manoeuvres every round. He's no Fel but I didn't want him to be; I want Brath to hit like two cement trucks lashed together, and that's what he delivers. TL for modifying your attack (if you didn't bring Fleet Officer or Jonus) and save the Focus to proc his ability when you can.

As for the 'Spray, I still have trouble putting too many points into those things. They dissolve pretty quickly against concentrated fire or a manoeuvrable Ace that beats them on PS. I brought ScumKath to a Regionals tourney last year and she would eat IG-88 without a second thought...unless they had VI. Skipping to PS8 turned the tables in a pretty significant way, and I've sworn off Firesprays under PS8 in two-ship lists since. VI Kath is solid, Imps or Scum, and Scum Boba can make use of a great number of combos with or without VI, but I think if you're running Imperial your best bet is still the humble Bounty Hunter. I'm a huge (HUGE) fan of the RecSpec Bounty Hunter, and I look forward to slapping Slave I and Long Range Scanners on one when Imperial Veterans drops, but there's plenty of merit in using Tactician or Agent Kallus too. I feel Krassis Trelix with Kallus and a Mangler (and eventually Slave I + LRS) is a solid budget build that has a lot of staying power and a lot of action-independent damage for only nine points over a naked Bounty Hunter. Plus you automatically beat TLTs on PS, for the most part, and that's going to be pretty useful moving forward, especially when you're hoping to staple some crits on those Y- or K-Wings.

Trelix and Brath can leave juuust enough room for everyone's favourite little scamp, Wampa!

As soon as Defender and Firespray start working well enough to begin with xD