Very close to where I would put it.. I might add a System Upgrade slot as they were at least as advanced as a B-Wing, and I would give it a Cannon slot, as they were quite often equipped with Ion Cannons.

I don't think it would be over the top if it was.. EPS (on some pilots), System Upgrade, Cannon, 2x Missile. You would rarely use all of the slots but it would give it options.

I agree that these upgrades make sense thematically, but I worry that the cannon upgrades would be game breaking. Autoblaster and HLC are balanced on a B-Wing by its lack of maneuverability/speed. Putting them on an Interceptor dial becomes troublesome. Is there a way to allow only an Ion Cannon upgrade?

System Upgrade should of course be included, that was an error on my part.

The Rebels wouldn't get a ship similar to the Defender because none exists. The Defender is far and away the most advanced starfighter ever made. OP's original stats were not arbitrary, contrary to what some here like to claim. They were derived, quite clearly and linearly, from the original TIE Fighter (video game) stats. The Defender was designed to break the game. It was so bad, that later versions, expansions, and sequels toned down the stats. That's why OP was talking about their inconsistencies. (At one point I think the Defender was unplayable, and if you tried, you got a message like Dream on Rookie, this ship is too powerful for you, or some such).

The problem isn't the Defender's stats, it's the game engine here. With all due respect to FFG, this was not a well-designed game. Tabletop game, that is. It's a board game (with some fantastic playing pieces). It was designed to keep the math hidden and use a narrow range of values, and add diversity via special-case rules (the same problem that plagues GW offerings, BTW). It does a good enough job for what it's meant to do. But because of that, any legitimate version of the Defender is going to break the game. It should have stats higher than anything else, it should cost a ton of points, and in a 100pt game, it very well could be the only model on the table that that player gets. Per the sources, it's faster than anything, more maneuverable than anything, and more heavily armed than anything, and has heavier shields than anything. It's a munchkin ship. It is never going to fit right in this game.

I think you make a strong point, but it seems that your argument is backwards. It is not FFG that has a poorly designed game, but rather TIE Fighter. As you say, the Defender broke the game. What FFG does is give us representative stats that allow us to use certain fighters in their intended roles, rather that debating about mega-joules and relative laser/shield/engine power.

Squints are designed to fly fast, hit hard, and duck return fire. 3/3/3/0 with their dial gives us a dogfighter that does precisely that.

X-Wings are meant to be a bit slower, swapping their maneuverability for durability. 3/2/3/0 gives us that.

B-Wings are tanks and Eyeballs zerg, etc...

Defenders are meant to be tough, fast, and hard hitting. Something like the 3/3/3/3 that I have proposed gives them all of these traits. Is it double an X-Wings power? No. Does it mean that the lasers aren't actually twice as powerful? No. 3 attack die gives them a decent chance to one or two shot most enemy fighters; especially if they have missile or cannon upgrades. Regardless of how powerful your lasers are, ships still have a lot of hull. Maybe the Defenders lasers chew straight through a X-Wing's wings instead of just scorching them, but as long as the wing is out of commission we can scratch off a hull point. That's the great strength of the engine as presented by FFG. It can simulate the general effect of a dogfight, while we can fill in the blanks mentally. The Defender can be the best fighter in the game without needing to take on entire enemy fleets on its own.

I have to disagree. When you give it attack 3, equal to an X-wing, and follow it up by asking,

Does it mean that the lasers aren't actually twice as powerful? No...

Well, yes, that's exactly what it means. No amount of debating meta-game translations is going to change that. 3 dice are 3 dice, regardless of how you roll them.

The video game may have been poorly designed in creating such an overly powerful unit. Shouldn't the blame go to the story developer? The one who decided that putting an F-14 Tomcat up against WW2 Zeros was a good idea? The game play reflected that. Now we're left dealing with the fallout.

This probably sounds un-related. To me, it's all about game design. Early decisions have far-ranging consequences.

FFG designed a game that is not meant to be expanded. I know, a lot of you think I'm crazy for saying that. Doesn't change that it's still true. What you see as flexibility, I see as incredibly limiting. Much of the flavor comes from pre-defined pilots with a minimum of overlap, no skill advancement, and not allowing multiple skills. This is exactly how you make a game inflexible. That, and by having a multi-die system with a maximum of 3 dice.

What it does is give FFG a very clear path to releasing expansion sets. I have no problem with this.

From a game design standpoint, the most flexible solution would have been a single rulebook with pilot design rules. Have a master table of all pilot abilities, with differing costs for each ability, ways to advance them (overall PS plus gaining multiple abilities over time), etc. Then you create your own pilots and go.

This doesn't preclude pre-gen pilot cards. In fact, it enhances it. You make the named pilots (Vader, Wedge, et al.) cost a little less than they would were you to design them from scratch. They're a better value. That's part of what makes them legends.

Instead, we have a system that's not designed to be expanded. There's a small number of stats. The dice values are small. Abilities are frequently about negating some basic effect, or initiating some basic effect. There's not a lot of options here. My bet is that we'll start seeing special case scenarios, more errata, more FAQs and the game will get more complicated.

Look at the way a game like (Classic) Battletech is designed vs. any mainstream GW game. The former has been around for almost 30 years and has a minimal amount of power creep. The latter has said power creep as one of the major complaints against it. Yet FFG followed the latter path in both game design and how products are released.

If you feel that 3/3/3/3 is a good statline for the Defender, then I hope you and yours enjoy playing that. I won't, because it doesn't match what I see, plain and simple.

What you are talking about would've resulted in this game selling a fraction of what it does currently. When working in an established world like Star Wars, there is more desire to recreate the world, than to make your own thing. This is not an RPG, and it doesn't need RPG elements. In fact, they are designing with an eye toward a competitive environment. You cannot design a game with a tournament setting in mind with the kind of open ended customization you seem to want. This is something Attack Wing, which has more customization, seems to be realizing.

As much as I love FFG, there is no denying that they use tricks to make you want to by the new hotness. New X-wing stuff with the transport, upgrades that fit other ships better than the one that includes it. I will gladly give them the money, because the game is worth it, imo.

And in the end, we don't know what FFG's interior guidelines for the ships are. Could they do a 4 Atk ship? Sure. We don't know what it would cost though.

With respect, you have no basis for making any of those claims. First, you have no idea what sales figures would be if they went a different route. I would argue the exact opposite. My belief is that this game will be a memory in 5 years. The way it's designed, it does not have staying power. Games based on pre-gen units always result in flavor-of-the-month and they always fall by the wayside. Being collectible is not why the WoTC version is a distant memory.

I specifically stated that they still could go with the pre-gen characters route, which does, in fact, mean they could go with tournaments. Only official stuff allowed, very simple. Even if they didn't want to limit it that way, yes, you could design an open-ended system that works in tournament play. It might require more effort, but it could be done. Or does M:TG not have a strong tournament presence? For 20 years? I assume you would want to debate how M:TG goes about that and that it's specific implementation is different that what we're talking about here? Maybe. What's the end result: A very open system that's been around for two decades and thrives in tournaments.

Nothing I said is RPG-related. Maybe you're not familiar with what RPGs are? If I was talking about non-starfighter combat scenarios, narratives, characters who aren't pilots, etc., then you would have a point. That is not what I was discussing. Putting in a mechanism in to allow going from PS5 to PS8 does not make it an RPG. I also find it amusing that after all the people claiming that it's not a competitive game, that it's meant for casual play, you're citing tournament play as a major design goal.

Thank you for ceding that they could do 4 Atk ships (and that we just wouldn't know the cost.) That was one of the first things I said: Stat it appropriately, cost it appropriately. My argument was that, even doing that, the unit does not fit into the current design.

Let's be clear: I am not advocating changes. The game is what it is. FFG is clearly proud of it. Many people enjoy it. These are good things. There were two questions (because the "What do you want to see?" thread is closely related), and I answered them. At no point did I say that I would not play if FFG didn't do what I want, at no point did I threaten to boycott, at no point did I say anything derogatory. I answered the questions based on years of experience and personal desires.

Maybe I'm immune to wanting to buy the new hotness. I see no point in having more than one X1, more than one Falcon, more than one Slave I, more than I Lambda, or any HWK-290s. I'm happy for both you and FFG that you feel otherwise. As I said, fun 1st, 2nd and 5th. (3rd is coolness. 4th is classified. It's above your pay grade. And mine. Sorry, I don't make the rules.)

With respect, you have no basis for making any of those claims. First, you have no idea what sales figures would be if they went a different route. I would argue the exact opposite. My belief is that this game will be a memory in 5 years. The way it's designed, it does not have staying power. Games based on pre-gen units always result in flavor-of-the-month and they always fall by the wayside. Being collectible is not why the WoTC version is a distant memory.

So you're saying that a game MUST grow in power to stay playable for years? I guess games like Risk, Monopoly, and Battleship must have died out decades ago; oh wait, you can still buy all of those in their original forms and they play just as well today as they did way back when they were fresh. Although its modular nature may not match up with those games X-Wing could easily become a "staple" game for its style of play.

I'm also wondering why you're bringing up the "WotC version" and unclear what exactly that refers to. If you're talking about Starship Battles the reason that tanked is because it was HORRIBLE to play and highly unbalanced right from the beginning. The way it played was almost the opposite of how this FFG starship game plays despite having similarities as well. With a better ruleset SSB would have done much better but some people still play it with many adapting the War at Sea rules to fit SSB. There are things I'd much rather use my SSB minis for than my FFG minis.

As for the "crazy" stats I seem to recall you supporting for a TIE Defender my take is they'd never fly for fighter. To get those stats the base ships is going to be priced so high you couldn't field more than two of them and tricked out you couldn't field more than one. Now maybe ships like the Falcon and Slave 1 can be seen as "one of" purchases but they also have a higher price tag to match. Without throwing in a number of "must have" upgrades the "broken" TIE Defender could also become a "one of" ship.

The TIE Defender of the TIE Fighter game may have been so over the top because of poor game design so that is really a poor reason to keep that into the modern era. I mean the Defender wasn't in X-Wing vs. TIE Fighter and even in it's limited use in X-Wing Alliance its stats are so much better than everything else.

And games wher you can "RPG" and build your characters/ships as you go last how long. I can't think of a single one that is still going and is mainstream. OK Robotech but that has not been mainstream in years, I walk into my LGS and not a single miniature line is doing it.

The TIE Defender of the TIE Fighter game may have been so over the top because of poor game design so that is really a poor reason to keep that into the modern era. I mean the Defender wasn't in X-Wing vs. TIE Fighter and even in it's limited use in X-Wing Alliance its stats are so much better than everything else.

The thing is no game since TIE Fighter have used those stats for the defender, every game since has toned them down. Also reading Wookiepedia, it's not the uber fighter you are talking about. Yes it's better than any other TIE. But it's not horribly out of their league.

It's got a hull similar to a TIE, so I doubt that would be much higher. It's slightly more maneuverable than an Interceptor, so an A-Wing Dial. It's running quad lazers so Attack 3, but with the option to take an Ion Cannon in the last 2 gun slot. It had better software sensors, so System Upgrades, and Target Lock in the Abilities. It had better shields than a lot of Rebel Fighters with a rating double that of an X-Wing.. so Shield 4 (also as it has no projectile shielding I wouldn't want to take it higher than that).

So that gives us

3 Attack

3 Agility

3 Hull

4 Shield

Target Lock, Focus, Barrel Roll, Boost, Evade - OK quite a few, but it can only use 1 or 2 a turn so not awful.

System Upgrade, Cannon Upgrade, Missile ... It's load out missile-wise is less an A-Wing that only has one Missile slot

A-Wing Dial

And that's going through the Wookiepedia a section at a time looking at the stats it gives for the Defender and comparing to other fighters.

That's how I would put it. Any more shields and there would have to be some kind of drawback about the lack of particleyness and that could get pretty confusing. 3/3/3/4 sounds accurate. Something would have to differentiate it from the A-wing dial though; maybe give it a white 5 K-turn?

Respectfully, Rodent, Steven), et al,

using Wookieepedia as a reference:

TIE Defender: 144 MGLT, 4220 G acceleration, 1680kph in atmosphere

TIE Interceptor: 111 MGLT, 4240 G acceleration, 1250kph in atmosphere

A-Wing: 120 MGLT, 5100 G acceleration, 1300kph in atmosphere

So, The Defender's top speed (in space, which is where our game is played... usually... and in an atmosphere) IS faster than the Interceptor or A-Wing. However, the A-wing accelerates faster than either the Defender or Interceptor, which are pretty closely matched (I have no idea how to translate this into game terms).

Wookieepedia goes on to list the maneuverability of some starfighters in terms of DPF (whatever that means):

TIE Defender: 110 DPF

TIE Avenger: 150 DPF

Unfortunately no maneuverability stats are given for either the TIE Interceptor or the A-Wing, so we cannot make a direct comparisson here. There is mention of the use of "maneuvering thrusters... making it the most maneuverable ship in the Imperial inventory..." So, the Defender should have either an Evade rating superior to the Interceptor (3) or a Maneuver dial somewhere between the TIE/In and the A-Wing dial or both.

Personally, I would not advocate using the A-wing dial (currently the best in the game) for two reasons: a) there is nothing to support that it is better than or superior in maneuverability to the A-wing plus, it is a large, heavy fighter (almost the polar opposite of the svelte, light-weight A-wing); b) that still leaves room for the TIE Avenger (which is listed as having less firepower and shields than the Defender but has a higher DPF rating, implying that it is more maneuverable than the Defender (despite the fact that this would contradict the note about the Defender being more maneuverable than anything else in the Imperial inventory).

Both the TIE Interceptor and A-Wing have the Boost action so the Defender pretty much has to have it, as there is currently no move template longer than "5".

Offensively, Wookieepedia lists the defender as having 4 lasers and two Ion Cannons as well as carrying missiles. 4 lasers is comperable to the X-Wing's so it should probably have an Attack factor of "3" with an optional "Heavy Weapon" secondary weapon(alternately, this could be built into the ship design itself) plus a "Missile" and/or "Torpedo" slot, which also implies that it should have the "Target Lock" action available. There is also

Defensively, the basic hull is pretty much the same as any other TIE, so a Hull of "3". Shields are rated at 100 SBD which is more than the Y-Wing (75 SBD) but less than the B-Wing (125 SBD), so a Shield Factor between "3" and "5", let's split the difference and say "4". There is also mention in Wookieepedia of an optional Tractor Beam (see discussion of this topic elsewhere on this forum) so some sort of "System" or "Upgrade" slot as well (or, again, it could be built into the basic design).

So we are looking at "3" Attack, "3" Evade, "3" Hull, "4" Hull; "Focus", "Evade", "Target Lock", "Barrel Roll" and "Boost" actions; "Missile" and or "Torpedo" options, "Heavy Weapon" (ex. Ion Cannon) slot, "System" option (ex. Tractor Beam) as well as "Upgrade" options. It should also have "Elite Pilot Tallent" available along with average-plus Pilot Skill as only the Empire's best and most elite pilots were assigned to the few TIE Defenders built. Cost, accordingly, should be high, perhaps a base model costing around 30 points (plus Pilot Skill).

With respect, you have no basis for making any of those claims. First, you have no idea what sales figures would be if they went a different route. I would argue the exact opposite. My belief is that this game will be a memory in 5 years. The way it's designed, it does not have staying power. Games based on pre-gen units always result in flavor-of-the-month and they always fall by the wayside. Being collectible is not why the WoTC version is a distant memory.

So you're saying that a game MUST grow in power to stay playable for years? I guess games like Risk, Monopoly, and Battleship must have died out decades ago; oh wait, you can still buy all of those in their original forms and they play just as well today as they did way back when they were fresh. Although its modular nature may not match up with those games X-Wing could easily become a "staple" game for its style of play.

I'm also wondering why you're bringing up the "WotC version" and unclear what exactly that refers to. If you're talking about Starship Battles the reason that tanked is because it was HORRIBLE to play and highly unbalanced right from the beginning. The way it played was almost the opposite of how this FFG starship game plays despite having similarities as well. With a better ruleset SSB would have done much better but some people still play it with many adapting the War at Sea rules to fit SSB. There are things I'd much rather use my SSB minis for than my FFG minis.

As for the "crazy" stats I seem to recall you supporting for a TIE Defender my take is they'd never fly for fighter. To get those stats the base ships is going to be priced so high you couldn't field more than two of them and tricked out you couldn't field more than one. Now maybe ships like the Falcon and Slave 1 can be seen as "one of" purchases but they also have a higher price tag to match. Without throwing in a number of "must have" upgrades the "broken" TIE Defender could also become a "one of" ship.

The TIE Defender of the TIE Fighter game may have been so over the top because of poor game design so that is really a poor reason to keep that into the modern era. I mean the Defender wasn't in X-Wing vs. TIE Fighter and even in it's limited use in X-Wing Alliance its stats are so much better than everything else.

I agree, power creep and ships of the month aren't all that X-wing has going for it. Having played (and still enjoying for the record) games like Star Fleet Battles, Babylon 5 Wars, Hard Vacuum, and more.. X-wing has a major edge in accessibility and playability. It's simple enough to grasp quickly, and runs smooth and fast and fun, and that's something that 30 years of Star Fleet Battles expansion module rules have the worst time keeping up with. It's a near herculean effort to find an opponent for Federation Commander, but getting people to jump in on an X-wing game isn't nearly so much of a challenge. I think the accessibility of the game will be enough to keep it going.

As for the "crazy" stats I seem to recall you supporting for a TIE Defender my take is they'd never fly for fighter. To get those stats the base ships is going to be priced so high you couldn't field more than two of them and tricked out you couldn't field more than one. Now maybe ships like the Falcon and Slave 1 can be seen as "one of" purchases but they also have a higher price tag to match. Without throwing in a number of "must have" upgrades the "broken" TIE Defender could also become a "one of" ship.

Well as he points out, it's still a fighter, not a Larger Patrol ship with huge shield generators and think layers of plating, it should not really be anywhere as tough as the Firespray which 3 hull and 8 shields would be pushing it towards.

3 hull, 4 shield keeps it in the general bracket of being a fighter in this game not a patrol ship.

Unfortunately no maneuverability stats are given for either the TIE Interceptor or the A-Wing, so we cannot make a direct comparisson here. There is mention of the use of "maneuvering thrusters... making it the most maneuverable ship in the Imperial inventory..." So, the Defender should have either an Evade rating superior to the Interceptor (3) or a Maneuver dial somewhere between the TIE/In and the A-Wing dial or both.

The only difference between the Interceptor and A-Wing dial the 5 straight maneuver going green. Seeing as the Defender has the highest top speed out of any of them it makes sense it would be the happiest performing a 5 straight. Which was why I suggested a Int dial with the 5 straight made green (which coincidentally is the A-Wing dial)

Rodent,

my "bad". I didn't have a set of maneuver dials in front of me when I wrote that last night. If the only difference between the TIE/In and the A-Wing dial is a Green "5" vs a White "5", then... yeah... I'm down with that. But as the end "speed" is the same, I was thinking of saving the A-Wing dial for the TIE Avenger (a little lighter, should be a bit more responsive- hence higher DPF?- without being faster). But yeah, either dial should work if there is no difference in turns and banks.

So, thinking ahead, how do we differentiate the TIE Defender from the similar TIE Avenger?

The Weapons fit is different (4 Laser + 2 Ion + Torp/Missile + optional Tractor Beam vs 4 Laser + Missile + optional Tractor Beam). The Defender has more powerful Shields than the Avenger ("4" vs "3"). Top speeds are very similar, with the advantage going to the TIE DEfender. The Avenger IS listed as having a higher DPF which has something to do with maneuverability but the Defender is listed as being the "most maneuverable" Imperial fighter, so it must translate as something other than maneuver dial... How about the Avenger has the "Evade" action, whereas the Defender does not? That, or the Avenger has a higher "Evade" rating (which I do not like)? Or, we could argue that the differences are small and cannot be directly modeled in this game, so the only "real" differences are the weapons and shields and maybe the maneuver dials.

Chris

Rodent,

my "bad". I didn't have a set of maneuver dials in front of me when I wrote that last night. If the only difference between the TIE/In and the A-Wing dial is a Green "5" vs a White "5", then... yeah... I'm down with that. But as the end "speed" is the same, I was thinking of saving the A-Wing dial for the TIE Avenger (a little lighter, should be a bit more responsive- hence higher DPF?- without being faster). But yeah, either dial should work if there is no difference in turns and banks.

Well you give the Avenger an Interceptor Dial but give it greens on the tight 1 turns.. That means that the Avenger is far more maneuverable in tight turns. where the Defender is far better moving in straight lines..

Someone has been changing (nerfing) the shield value on the TIE-Defender wikia page recently. The shield rating was 200 SBD when I checked a few days ago, it is now listed as 100 SBD. The correct rating according to the TIE fighter game (which it cites as reference) is 200 SBD, not 100 SBD. Note: the the TIE Avenger page still correctly states that the TIE Avenger has 100 SBD, which is half of the TIE Defender, which means the Defender would have 200 SBD.

The likely explanation is that someone wants to see the TIE Defender with 100 SBD, so they went and modified the wikia page. I didn't see a history page so I can't tell who the culprit is.

Coinciding with the trend of improved quality in Imperial starfighters, the Avenger was equipped with deflector shields . In 3 ABY , it's shields were equivalent to the Assault Gunboat and twice that of the T-65 X-wing starfighter , though half the strength of the TIE Defender 's. ^[1]

Like earlier TIE series fighters, the Avenger's great speed and agility coupled with its small size made it a difficult target. In a similar precedent, the Avenger's armor plating was marginal, affording only as much protection as the TIE Interceptor. However, the inclusion of deflector shields meant that the Avenger would not fall prey to stray debris or laser fire that claimed unshielded TIEs, and with its shields at full power the Avenger was exceptionally difficult to destroy. The succeeding Defender, while still remarkably fast and agile as the Avenger, relied more heavily on shields because its triple wing design gave opponents a larger profile. ^[1]

Note: just because the ship had 200 SBD in the game doesn't mean it has to have 8 shields, but it did have more shields than the Avenger so realistically that should be reflected. The last line of that wikia page could also be used to argue for a 2 agility not three, especially if you went ahead with the full 8 shields.

The likely explanation is that someone wants to see the TIE Defender with 100 SBD, so they went and modified the wikia page. I didn't see a history page so I can't tell who the culprit is.

For some reason, seems that certain people are truly frightened of the defender making act of presence in the game.

If someone truly did this in a childlish attempt to 'sabotage' the blueprints for the defender.... I don't know what to say, honestly... but I'll try with:

1. It's inevitable for the defender to appear in the game. It's one of the most iconic EU ships. Not to mention it is beautiful. Not to mention it was created by the very same (now extinct) LUCASARTS for their computer game.

2. I'm quite confident in that FFG simply doesn't design the in-game ships just by reading the wookipedia stats. And I'm pretty sure that several developers are also StarWars fans. You can't simply 'cheat' them by meddling into some webpage stats.

Well, they've stated, that while they love Wookieepedia, they get a lot of their info from LFL.

Someone has been changing (nerfing) the shield value on the TIE-Defender wikia page recently. The shield rating was 200 SBD when I checked a few days ago, it is now listed as 100 SBD. The correct rating according to the TIE fighter game (which it cites as reference) is 200 SBD, not 100 SBD. Note: the the TIE Avenger page still correctly states that the TIE Avenger has 100 SBD, which is half of the TIE Defender, which means the Defender would have 200 SBD.

The likely explanation is that someone wants to see the TIE Defender with 100 SBD, so they went and modified the wikia page. I didn't see a history page so I can't tell who the culprit is.

Coinciding with the trend of improved quality in Imperial starfighters, the Avenger was equipped with deflector shields . In 3 ABY , it's shields were equivalent to the Assault Gunboat and twice that of the T-65 X-wing starfighter , though half the strength of the TIE Defender 's. ^[1]

Like earlier TIE series fighters, the Avenger's great speed and agility coupled with its small size made it a difficult target. In a similar precedent, the Avenger's armor plating was marginal, affording only as much protection as the TIE Interceptor. However, the inclusion of deflector shields meant that the Avenger would not fall prey to stray debris or laser fire that claimed unshielded TIEs, and with its shields at full power the Avenger was exceptionally difficult to destroy. The succeeding Defender, while still remarkably fast and agile as the Avenger, relied more heavily on shields because its triple wing design gave opponents a larger profile. ^[1]

Note: just because the ship had 200 SBD in the game doesn't mean it has to have 8 shields, but it did have more shields than the Avenger so realistically that should be reflected. The last line of that wikia page could also be used to argue for a 2 agility not three, especially if you went ahead with the full 8 shields.

It would then be more accurate to say that in TIE Fighter it had 200 SBD, and in X-Wing Alliance it had 100 SBD. The TIE-Avenger page likewise should be updated to reflect that it's shields relative to the Defender depended on which incarnation it took.

Also, the wikia reference is confusing, as it cites v1.00 through 1.17 of the Strategy Guide. Were there 18 different versions of the strategy guide, or was v1.00-v1.17 supposed to refer to the TIE Fighter game itself? Neither makes sense, since there weren't 18 different printings of the Guide, and the game used 200 SBD.

Edit: likewise with the rest of the stats. Speed / maneuverability of 155 / 175 is what I remembered from playing the TIE Fighter game, not the later nerfed 144/110. The latter stats (speed, maneuverability, shields) would make the Defender merely equal to or inferior to the TIE-Avenger in every respect. If these stats were true, the TIE-Defender never would have been created in the first place.

Also, the wikia reference is confusing, as it cites v1.00 through 1.17 of the Strategy Guide. Were there 18 different versions of the strategy guide, or was v1.00-v1.17 supposed to refer to the TIE Fighter game itself?

Those 1.00-1.17 numbers reference the article, not versions of the strategy guide. within the article there are 18 references that cite source number 1, and clicking on any of those numbers will link you to the place that citation is used.

As for DPF values, do we necessarily know that the bigger the number, the better it is? I can't really find a definition for DPF anywhere, and none of the OT ships I've looked up have one. It could just as easily be like turning radius, where a smaller number indicates better maneuverability.

As for your edit, that's addressed in the avenger page quite a bit. The Defender had Ion cannons, a larger warhead load, was still just as fast (1 MGLT difference), had a better hyperdrive, and was more maneuverable. The best pilots still liked the avenger better, since it's low profile design was harder to hit, but the Defender could tackle any mission where the avenger needed support craft with ion cannons to disable mission critical targets. The defender was much more versatile all around.

As for DPF values, do we necessarily know that the bigger the number, the better it is? It could just as easily be like turning radius, where a smaller number indicates better maneuverability.

Yes, the bigger the number the better. No, smaller numbers are not better. In the TIE Fighter game, speed (linear distance traveled) was directly proportional to MGLT, and angular turning rate was directly proportional to DPF. DPF was the sole criteria for determining how maneuverable a ship was. A ship with twice the DPF could therefore turn at twice the rate and was twice as maneuverable. For reference, the TIE Interceptor is listed as having 104 DPF, and an X-Wing was 75 DPF. Out of nostalgia I might reinstall the old TIE Fighter game because it was so awesome; if I do I'll take some measurements and get the exact coefficients, but I am virtually certain that they do scale linearly.

Compare the difference between the TIE Avenger and Defender in TIE Fighter vs. X-Wing Alliance:

TIE Fighter

Tie-Avenger: 150 DPF, 100 SBD

TIE-Defender: 175 DPF, 200 SBD

The TIE Defender can turn 17% faster than the TIE Avenger, and has twice the shields. Despite having a slightly larger profile and being easier to hit, it was still a better space superiority fighter than the TIE-Avenger.

X-Wing Alliance

Tie-Avenger: 150 DPF, 100 SBD

TIE-Defender: 110 DPF, 100 SBD

The TIE Defender turns 27% slower than the TIE Avenger, has the same shields, and is still easier to hit because of it's profile (and more so now because of it's lower maneuverability). The TIE Defender with these stats would lose hands down to the TIE Avenger in a 1v1 fight every time. The TIE Defender's only advantage is in a more versatile payload, so it's essentially an pimped out bomber or super buffed X-Wing, but with these stats it is clearly NOT the predominant space superiority fighter.

So, who knows what FFG will do, and what ships they will release? If they released the Assault Gunboat + TIE-Avenger, then that combination would render the XWA version of the TIE-Defender completely obsolete. On the other hand, the TIE Fighter version of the TIE-Defender was a munchkin ship. They have done a very good job so far of balancing things while still introducing new dynamics, so I have faith that whatever they release will be done very well and will be fun to play.

Edit: the quote system on this site is absolutely terrible.

While this belongs in a different department, the TIE Defender does make an appearance in FFG's Age of Rebellion Beta version of their Star Wars Roleplaying game. Since it is a Beta, the stats are certainly not carved in stone, and there's even been a correction already to the X-wing within the context of the game.

In the RPG the Defender is described as a "Multirole" Starfighter. It has the same "Silhouette" (relative size) of all other fighters, but is listed at being slower (speed 4) than either the A-wing or the Interceptor (each speed 6) or even the TIE Fighter (speed 5). It is more maneuverable than the X-wing (+2 vs +1), but less so than the interceptor or fighter. On the other hand, it it tougher and more durable than the the faster counterparts.

I suspect these stats to be revised somewhat for the RPG, but I would say that if one sees the Defender in the context of the game, you're going to be looking at a 3/3/3/3 stat line at best. Doing a straight conversion of what you see in FFG's book the Defender would be 3/2/3/2 with missile upgrade, cannon upgrade. The action bar would have target lock, evade, barrel roll, focus, and possibly even boost. I would give this ship the maneuver dial similar to a TIE Advanced, and then costed appropriately.

3/3/3/4 just sounds good to me.

with actions: TL, evade, focus, BR

abd upgrades: missile upgrade, cannon upgrade, system upgrade

this craft would be at 36 points with ps 1

and this is the point. You should be able to field at least 3 standard un-upgraded crafts at 100 points.

Which you couldn't do if it was 36 points a pop.

That's part of why I initially had the shields at just 3. (That and 3 shields + 3 hull + 3 evade is tougher than just about anything we've seen yet).

Either way, I think this is the right model. A strong space-superiority fighter that can compete, but that doesn't automatically cake walk over opponents. Game breaking ships are not good for the game.

Without inventing new attack dice or anything, I'm going with 3/3/3/2 for the Defender, with a couple of appropriate upgrade slots. It'd probably have a maneuver dial nearly identical to the X-Wing's, with a short Koiogran turn. If I had to guess at the high-PS pilot abilities, I'd expect to see something like the ability to absorb damage from a nearby friendly ship.

Perhaps a "compromise" between those of us wanting stats close to what ships currently have and those who want a Defender to blow everything else out of the skies would be to include a title card with it that works to bridge that gap. I mean we should expect the starting TIE Defender to come in costing at least 26 (Interceptor value + two Shield upgrades) but if it really needs broken stats perhaps some title can be added to push the functionality (and cost) through the roof.

As for the Defender being similar to the Avenger I can certainly see where their BASE stats may be very similar but the difference would come in the available upgrades. Although there is a point of defense difference and some shield difference consider the X-Wing to the B-Wing which can both be similar yet are still very different.

a ship like this would do well to have a agility of three and just use one of the new dice as part of that three that i was talking about in my new die idea thread.

so the tie defender would get two basic agility die and 1 of the new evade die with two evades on one of the faces. this way with three dice you can still roll 4 evades and not have to creep up on the stat line.